Talk:Kosovo: Difference between revisions
Chipmunkdavis (talk | contribs) →Ways to improve the history section of this article: Whether Kosovo existed at any point isn't that important |
|||
| Line 614: | Line 614: | ||
::::The difficulty is that Kosovo has nominally gone on and off the map several times over the centuries with one huge absence. Its capacity has also varied down the generations, vilayet? Ceremonial unit? Autonomous province? And this all comes before the lack of clarity from 1999 onward. Along with the name having bounced back and forth, so too have the borders. The Kosovo with which everyone associates dates back to 1946 in the [[FPR Yugoslavia]]. The last time the region was known was up to the [[First Balkan War]] when it was the [[Vilayet of Kosovo]]. For what it's worth, [[Mother Teresa]] was born in that entity: Skopje 1910 was the capital of that province. It is a little something if nothing else. [[User:Evlekis|Evlekis]] ('''Евлекис''') ([[User talk:Evlekis|argue]]) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
::::The difficulty is that Kosovo has nominally gone on and off the map several times over the centuries with one huge absence. Its capacity has also varied down the generations, vilayet? Ceremonial unit? Autonomous province? And this all comes before the lack of clarity from 1999 onward. Along with the name having bounced back and forth, so too have the borders. The Kosovo with which everyone associates dates back to 1946 in the [[FPR Yugoslavia]]. The last time the region was known was up to the [[First Balkan War]] when it was the [[Vilayet of Kosovo]]. For what it's worth, [[Mother Teresa]] was born in that entity: Skopje 1910 was the capital of that province. It is a little something if nothing else. [[User:Evlekis|Evlekis]] ('''Евлекис''') ([[User talk:Evlekis|argue]]) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::That's not much of a difficulty. History isn't created by names or boundaries. The History section should cover the area that is now Kosovo (although as it didn't exist in a vacuum, it doesn't have to rigidly follow modern borders). [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 06:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC) |
:::::That's not much of a difficulty. History isn't created by names or boundaries. The History section should cover the area that is now Kosovo (although as it didn't exist in a vacuum, it doesn't have to rigidly follow modern borders). [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 06:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
::The easiest thing then is to produce a small section on notable people from Kosovo's towns, you'll find those on the articles. But we just need to keep away from politics. A lot of footballers that represent foreign teams come from Kosovo. [[User:Evlekis|Evlekis]] ('''Евлекис''') ([[User talk:Evlekis|argue]]) 12:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:39, 27 July 2012
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
According to CIA Factbook, Population
Ethnic groups: Albanians 92%, other (Serb, Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian) 8% (2008) [1] --12:45, 27 November 2011
Merge with Republic of Kosovo?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was no consensus. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This [2] discussion makes a very good point. Having two articles about Kosovo one as a geographical region, one as a political region is a violation of WP:NPOV. I suggest to read it, as I said makes good points especially when it's compared to South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria. 76.112.213.78 (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - I fail to understand how this is a violation of NPOV - if anything, it's the opposite. Nobody disagrees that Kosovo is a place, but plenty of people disagree that it's an independent republic, and others disagree that it's a Serbian province. So, saying that the place is independent (or part of Serbia) is POV. So, this is intended to be a neutral article on the geography, population, ancient history, etc., and we have other articles covering the claimed political entities which complement this one whilst not giving the impression that the position of Wikipedia is that the Kosovo place is definitely independent or Serbian. The fact that other Wikipedia languages, or the Abkhazia etc. articles, handle this differently is irrelevant. Bazonka (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also per Bazonka's comment: there aren't just two articles about Kosovo (one about Kosovo as a geographical region, and one about Kosovo as a political region). Actually there are at least three: Kosovo, Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (if we weren't to count United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo). So this argument about existence of several different articles being POV is rather void, I'd say. Especially when compared to situation of having articles Taiwan and Republic of China - which, I think, is also a situation of having at least two articles about, somewhat, similar thing. --biblbroks (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support. We had lots of polls on whether to split Kosovo. Despite certain editors repeatedly gaming the system, polls kept on returning the same consensus; "no". Then somebody went ahead and split the article anyway, there was an editwar, the wrong version got protected, and now we're here; a fait accompli. I would support a merge so that we're back in line with both consensus and with neutrality. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- When the split was done, the voices against it eventually subsided - I suppose because the arguments were not on their side. I am sorry if this doesn't sound like my best faith on your behalf but I must say it anyway: I don't remember reading anything coming from you which would suggest you had something (substantial) against the split. Also if I understand the Wikipedia's consensus building process correctly, the polls aren't a stable way to build one consensus. Discussion would usually be a better way. I am more inclined to the opinion that the consensus is more in line with the current situation as neutrality surely is. --biblbroks (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The voices subsided because we got tired of being ignored by the edit warriors that kept the split alive. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- So even if it were how you describe it - that there was an edit war about this - the conclusion from your words remains the same: it wasn't that important to you. So I believe that there was consensus for the split after all. --biblbroks (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The voices subsided because we got tired of being ignored by the edit warriors that kept the split alive. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- When the split was done, the voices against it eventually subsided - I suppose because the arguments were not on their side. I am sorry if this doesn't sound like my best faith on your behalf but I must say it anyway: I don't remember reading anything coming from you which would suggest you had something (substantial) against the split. Also if I understand the Wikipedia's consensus building process correctly, the polls aren't a stable way to build one consensus. Discussion would usually be a better way. I am more inclined to the opinion that the consensus is more in line with the current situation as neutrality surely is. --biblbroks (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support. It's a violation of NPOV. "Nobody disagrees that Kosovo is a place, but plenty of people disagree that it's an independent republic, and others disagree that it's a Serbian province", means you're taking a side here, that of the people who disagree. So there's one article for the people who disagree with Kosovo's independence, and one article for the people who disagree with that being a Serbian province. PersonPaOpinion (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC) (User have 5 edits in article space. Sock... --WhiteWriter speaks 15:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC))
- If somebody disagrees with one position, that doesn't necessarily mean that it agrees with the position which is the opposite of the one with which he/she disagrees. This kind of reasoning is what I believe could be portrayed as black and white thinking. --biblbroks (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. I'm certainly not taking sides, and I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be disagreeing with. I was just pointing out the fact that if Wikipedia equates RoK or KiM with the geographical area of Kosovo, then that would be a POV position. The only neutral way to handle things is to treat both opinons as equal, and that can't easily be done in the main Kosovo artice - it's best to keep the different opinions separate. Saying that this approach is "a violation of NPOV" is bizarre and inexplicable. Bazonka (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- If somebody disagrees with one position, that doesn't necessarily mean that it agrees with the position which is the opposite of the one with which he/she disagrees. This kind of reasoning is what I believe could be portrayed as black and white thinking. --biblbroks (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per this arguments, per consensus reached below this archive link, per fact that this split was created by sock puppet IP also, and per fact that Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo --WhiteWriter speaks 15:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Duplicate pages and overlaping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Duplicate_articles#Rationale:
- Kosovo
- 1)Kosovo is landlocked and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the south, Albania to the west and Montenegro to the northwest. The remaining frontier belt is with the Central Serbian region which is the source of international dispute
- Republic of Kosovo
- 2)The largest city and the capital of Kosovo is Pristina (alternatively spelled Prishtina or Priština), while other cities include Peć (Albanian: Peja), Prizren, Đakovica (Gjakova), and Kosovska Mitrovica (Mitrovica).
- 3)After the Kosovo War and the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), most of whose roles were assumed by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008.[23] In February 2008 individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo (acting in personal capacity and not binding the Assembly itself) declared Kosovo's independence as the Republic of Kosovo. Its independence is recognised by 86 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan). On 8 October 2008, upon request of Serbia, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the issue of Kosovo's declaration of independence.[24] On 22 July 2010, the ICJ ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law, which its president said contains no "prohibitions on declarations of independence".
- 4)Names of Kosovo.
- 5)History of Kosovo starting from Disintegration of Yugoslavia to Declaration of independence. ALL 6 sections.
- Republic of Kosovo
- 1)Kosovo is landlocked and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the south, Albania to the west and Montenegro to the northwest; all of which recognise Kosovo. The remainder of Kosovo's frontier to the north and east is the subject of controversy and is with[clarification needed] the Central Serbian region
- 2)The largest city and the capital of Kosovo is Pristina (alternatively spelled Prishtina or Priština), while other cities include Peć (Albanian: Peja), Prizren, Đakovica (Gjakova), and Kosovska Mitrovica (Mitrovica).
- 3)After the Kosovo War and the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), most of whose roles were assumed by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008.[23] In February 2008 individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo (acting in personal capacity and not binding the Assembly itself) declared Kosovo's independence as the Republic of Kosovo. Its independence is recognised by 86 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan). On 8 October 2008, upon request of Serbia, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the issue of Kosovo's declaration of independence.[24] On 22 July 2010, the ICJ ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law, which its president said contains no "prohibitions on declarations of independence".
- 4) Names of Kosovo
- 5)History of Kosovo starting from Disintegration of Yugoslavia to Declaration of independence. ALL 6 sections.
- Repetitive information so MERGE.PersonPaOpinion (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is bound to be a certain degree of overlap in articles about similar topics - this is not necessarily a reason to merge, and of course there is scope for improvement. However, the main issue here is the principle, not the specifics. Bazonka (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- And those sentences are about it. Names are removed, as those should not be in RoK article. While EVERYTHING else is different, scope is different, article is not small, and not of minor subject, and therefor, WP:MERGE cannot be in use here. But i am sorry, but it is devastatingly obvious that we are dealing with sockpuppets here, and new users dont know how to cite the guideline and start merge idea on talk page. And i will ask for admin help in here. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is bound to be a certain degree of overlap in articles about similar topics - this is not necessarily a reason to merge, and of course there is scope for improvement. However, the main issue here is the principle, not the specifics. Bazonka (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Repetitive information so MERGE.PersonPaOpinion (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support We should report Kosovo as it is, giving the situation as it lies on the ground. Yes, we can have an article about both governments (obviously with both establishing how effective their actual control is), but to create an article on a geographical area (which is defined by its political boundaries) is not NPOV but Political Correctness. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, you support merging the two articles but suggest having articles about both governments. I don't understand how should this be achieved. NPOV in your opinion would be to have article Republic of Kosovo linking to Kosovo - but wouldn't then issues with flags, government, whole infobox problems reemerge? --biblbroks (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's quite simple to have a separate article on the Serbian administration. We have an Abkhazian version, Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. When Kosovo is discussed in English, it is for better or worse discussed as a (separatist) state. To create an article on an abstract geographical area doesn't fix NPOV. An article with decent text would. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The meaning and surely the usage of the term Kosovo was discussed earlier - during the discussion right after the split. And that, I would say, at large - with all that analysis and comparison of the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines i.e. policies. As well as the WP:GOOGLE how-to. I mean the subject of this article is geographical area, but an area that isn't so abstract after all. Especially if you regard only the history that comes with the term Kosovo. And with the Kosovo as such. For example, wasn't the term Kosovo used to describe this area before the 2008 declaration of independence also? Its meaning didn't abruptly change just because some people decided to declare some independence. Or whatever somebody did. Not just the meaning but also the usage of the term - even if it were just because the media currently uses this term to denote the state. If it were, but it isn't. Say, the term Kosovo in the syntagma North Kosovo doesn't simply equate with the term Kosovo for the state/republic. It corresponds moreover with the region/(abstract) geographical area/call it what you want. And that's just one example: I haven't even considered all the uses in all the media and/or publications. Not to mention if I were to focus some analysis on the usage of the term in the publications before the year 2008 only. Why, we should strive more for eventualism than for immediatism... if we should strive for anything, for that matter. Also, why do you think that the current text of this article is not neutral - I mean since you say that there is some POV which should be fixed. If you do say that. --biblbroks (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Things change as time passes, and as an electronic encyclopaedia we can keep up. There was a massive shift when the government decided to declare independence, and it led to the present situation. The history, geography, etc. of Kosovo we need to cover with all usages in mind is done through the main articles of those topics. I've never said the current text isn't neutral. What I feel is that the creation of this article was a solution to a nonexistent problem. 02:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- But what has changed? There were clashes at the border/administrative line in North Kosovo with several people wounded and dead and you suggest that situation changed? To what degree - that Kosovo has now somehow magically become the Republic of Kosovo? I mean all the "fuss" about the separation of these two articles was in part done to solve the problem of simultaneous existence of several infoboxes in the article. The infoboxes for which one editor, who is now voicing support for remerging and who states he/she has always been against the split, stated they must burn in hell anyway. I assure you that this was no abstract problem. --biblbroks (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- A lot changed, most especially in the perception of Kosovo. Southern Sudan magically became South Sudan last year, and we reflected that. As for infoboxes, I think that an infobox for Serbia, which controls a very small amount of Kosovo, would not be appropriate. I'd assume however it'd be extremely clear from the beginning Kosovo was disputed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Situation with South Sudan is different: for one thing it is a member of United Nations, magically or not, and, to the best of my knowledge, there was and there is no dispute about its sovereignity. Whereas there is about Kosovo/Republic of Kosovo/Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Also the smallness or greatness of the territory controlled by the Serbs of North Kosovo should not be used as a parameter since we aren't here to determine this smallness (greatness) and act upon it. Since you said it yourself - Kosovo was disputed - I must ask: why do you think it isn't anymore? --biblbroks (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it isn't disputed, I just disagree that a dispute means we need to create a new page to avoid politics. Kosovo is Kosovo. While it can be argued what it is, it definitely isn't two different things, which necessitate different pages. In reality, it functions as an independent state with a small area it doesn't control, rather similar to Serbia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Similar could be said for Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija: in reality it functions as part of Serbia with some area it doesn't control. Yet I wouldn't simply agree with either position. While ago there was an edit dispute (let me call it thus) about the "de facto control of Republic of Kosovo over the most of its territory" and "control of North Kosovo by the Republic of Serbia" in the first paragraph of this article. One editor agreed that it is poorly worded, since international institutions have more control over the territory than it is described in the article or acknowledged for that matter. Perhaps this stuff in the article still needs some work. Anyway I'd say that the matter isn't so simple as it is usually perceived. Also you posit that Kosovo isn't two different things, yet you say Kosovo is Kosovo - what do you mean by the term Kosovo itself when you say it like that? Republic of Kosovo? Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija? Or disputed region? Whatever you mean by the term, there might be different opinions, don't you agree? The usual point of meeting is that Kosovo is a disputed region and this article deals with this subject. I think that quite many editors in previous discussions agreed that this is most neutral. --biblbroks (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I know the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija hasn't had effective control since the beginning of the UN mission. That being said, I don't know the full details of how North Kosovo functions, although from what I know it seems to organise itself. When I talk about Kosovo I'm definitely not talking about the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", and I doubt anyone really does, if only because by its own definition it covers more than what it considers Kosovo. Am I talking about the Republic or the disputed region? I'd say I'm talking about both, since they're the same thing. The only reason it is disputed is because of the republic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is true that Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija had none or almost none control over its claimed territory since 1999, but if you take having effective control as a parameter then it would at be least fair to consider whether Republic of Kosovo always had enough effective control over its claimed territory so as to talk about Republic of Kosovo and disputed region at the same time always when you use the term Kosovo. It sure can't be that Republic of Kosovo and the disputed region are that simply the same thing since Republic of Kosovo is a state, i.e. a republic (and that would be a state by its definition, if I am correct), while disputed region is well... disputed region. Right? Same as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is autonomous province. Only when you dive into the subject i.e. read the rest of the article (I am talking about a non-knowledgeable person who encounters this article and/or wants to learn more) you find that there is a dispute over the sovereignty of Republic of Kosovo, or Republic of Serbia for that matter. And all that goes with this. Also, you are wrong: "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" covers the same as what you consider region of Kosovo, but it also covers the same as what itself often considers Kosovo: since in Serbian the term Kosovo is often used as a short for Kosovo and Metohija, or region of Kosovo in English. --biblbroks (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think there's toying with semantics there. We don't have two different topics. If one just wants to focus on say, constitutional apparatus, then yes, you can write articles on clearly different topics; however, discussing it as a whole, as both pages do, doesn't allow for such specificity. I assume that any decent article on Kosovo, even in the current form, would note somehow that there was a dispute from the very beginning (like Northern Cyprus, which opens straight away with "self-declared state").
- I know that "Kosovo and Metohija" refers to the same area as what I call Kosovo (being an English speaker), but within that definition Kosovo is only a smaller part. I highly doubt that Kosovo is often used as a shortform when discussing that state apparatus today, after over a decade of redundancy. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is no toying - look at the articles and their history. You will find that they deal with different topics. There sure is still much room for improvement: for example in this article there should be some information excluded from the infobox as I was explaining in previous discussions regarding a proposal to make this a disambiguation page. And surely there is much more to improve in the Republic of Kosovo article, but to say that there is toying with semantics while on the other hand basing an argument on the claim that in Serbia's definition of "Kosovo", "Kosovo" is a smaller part of "Kosovo and Metohija" that is very unconvincing. I assure you "Kosovo" is a shortform for "Kosovo and Metohija" in Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin language, or may I say Serbo-Croatian. A very well established shortform. And that is regardless of some state apparatus's efforts. I mean we are talking about language here - no state apparatus can control it that easily as some naive person might expect.
- These two articles, Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo, exist mostly to satisfy the distinction between the state and the region and by that to accomplish neutrality over treatment of Kosovo - as a state or as a disputed region. To say that there are no different topics regarding treatment of Kosovo and treatment Republic of Kosovo is also biased. It comes from the perspective that Kosovo is a state and that perspective is by itself not sufficiently founded in reality and/or sources as well as it isn't neutral. You said that we don't have two different topics, but I think you should allow yourself to think that we should have if we don't. You say we can write a decent article but rest assured that problems will arise very soon as how to treat Kosovo - as a state or as a disputed region - since it is very hard if not impossible to present both in one article. Especially when it comes to inclusion of infoboxes. Case of the Northern Cyprus article is much easier since there are no disputes over its sovereignty as far as I know. In the case of Kosovo situation is different: with all the "effective control" either of Republic of Kosovo or of Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Or should I say Northern Kosovo. And here it is one part of the problem, right away since I mentioned the existing terms: "North Kosovo" and "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". Now same goes for the Kosovo itself - whether it is a self-governed state or not, and how to present this. --biblbroks (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- At the moment, they are both incomplete articles. One would expect demographics, geography, etc. to be present on each, and they would be identical if both were perfect. As for the shortform in Serbocroat, I have no reason to doubt that, but whether it carries on to English, and whether that carrying on applies in the present day, is different. The simple solution to this is to treat Kosovo as what it is; a disputed state, something quite solidly founded in reality and sources. Northern Cyprus is entirely claimed by Cyprus, so there's a massive dispute over its sovereignty. I thought we'd established the autonomous province had no effective control? Names in English can be confusing, but that's why we have article text to explain them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is true that Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija had none or almost none control over its claimed territory since 1999, but if you take having effective control as a parameter then it would at be least fair to consider whether Republic of Kosovo always had enough effective control over its claimed territory so as to talk about Republic of Kosovo and disputed region at the same time always when you use the term Kosovo. It sure can't be that Republic of Kosovo and the disputed region are that simply the same thing since Republic of Kosovo is a state, i.e. a republic (and that would be a state by its definition, if I am correct), while disputed region is well... disputed region. Right? Same as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is autonomous province. Only when you dive into the subject i.e. read the rest of the article (I am talking about a non-knowledgeable person who encounters this article and/or wants to learn more) you find that there is a dispute over the sovereignty of Republic of Kosovo, or Republic of Serbia for that matter. And all that goes with this. Also, you are wrong: "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" covers the same as what you consider region of Kosovo, but it also covers the same as what itself often considers Kosovo: since in Serbian the term Kosovo is often used as a short for Kosovo and Metohija, or region of Kosovo in English. --biblbroks (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I know the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija hasn't had effective control since the beginning of the UN mission. That being said, I don't know the full details of how North Kosovo functions, although from what I know it seems to organise itself. When I talk about Kosovo I'm definitely not talking about the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", and I doubt anyone really does, if only because by its own definition it covers more than what it considers Kosovo. Am I talking about the Republic or the disputed region? I'd say I'm talking about both, since they're the same thing. The only reason it is disputed is because of the republic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Similar could be said for Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija: in reality it functions as part of Serbia with some area it doesn't control. Yet I wouldn't simply agree with either position. While ago there was an edit dispute (let me call it thus) about the "de facto control of Republic of Kosovo over the most of its territory" and "control of North Kosovo by the Republic of Serbia" in the first paragraph of this article. One editor agreed that it is poorly worded, since international institutions have more control over the territory than it is described in the article or acknowledged for that matter. Perhaps this stuff in the article still needs some work. Anyway I'd say that the matter isn't so simple as it is usually perceived. Also you posit that Kosovo isn't two different things, yet you say Kosovo is Kosovo - what do you mean by the term Kosovo itself when you say it like that? Republic of Kosovo? Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija? Or disputed region? Whatever you mean by the term, there might be different opinions, don't you agree? The usual point of meeting is that Kosovo is a disputed region and this article deals with this subject. I think that quite many editors in previous discussions agreed that this is most neutral. --biblbroks (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it isn't disputed, I just disagree that a dispute means we need to create a new page to avoid politics. Kosovo is Kosovo. While it can be argued what it is, it definitely isn't two different things, which necessitate different pages. In reality, it functions as an independent state with a small area it doesn't control, rather similar to Serbia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Situation with South Sudan is different: for one thing it is a member of United Nations, magically or not, and, to the best of my knowledge, there was and there is no dispute about its sovereignity. Whereas there is about Kosovo/Republic of Kosovo/Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Also the smallness or greatness of the territory controlled by the Serbs of North Kosovo should not be used as a parameter since we aren't here to determine this smallness (greatness) and act upon it. Since you said it yourself - Kosovo was disputed - I must ask: why do you think it isn't anymore? --biblbroks (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- A lot changed, most especially in the perception of Kosovo. Southern Sudan magically became South Sudan last year, and we reflected that. As for infoboxes, I think that an infobox for Serbia, which controls a very small amount of Kosovo, would not be appropriate. I'd assume however it'd be extremely clear from the beginning Kosovo was disputed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- But what has changed? There were clashes at the border/administrative line in North Kosovo with several people wounded and dead and you suggest that situation changed? To what degree - that Kosovo has now somehow magically become the Republic of Kosovo? I mean all the "fuss" about the separation of these two articles was in part done to solve the problem of simultaneous existence of several infoboxes in the article. The infoboxes for which one editor, who is now voicing support for remerging and who states he/she has always been against the split, stated they must burn in hell anyway. I assure you that this was no abstract problem. --biblbroks (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Things change as time passes, and as an electronic encyclopaedia we can keep up. There was a massive shift when the government decided to declare independence, and it led to the present situation. The history, geography, etc. of Kosovo we need to cover with all usages in mind is done through the main articles of those topics. I've never said the current text isn't neutral. What I feel is that the creation of this article was a solution to a nonexistent problem. 02:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The meaning and surely the usage of the term Kosovo was discussed earlier - during the discussion right after the split. And that, I would say, at large - with all that analysis and comparison of the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines i.e. policies. As well as the WP:GOOGLE how-to. I mean the subject of this article is geographical area, but an area that isn't so abstract after all. Especially if you regard only the history that comes with the term Kosovo. And with the Kosovo as such. For example, wasn't the term Kosovo used to describe this area before the 2008 declaration of independence also? Its meaning didn't abruptly change just because some people decided to declare some independence. Or whatever somebody did. Not just the meaning but also the usage of the term - even if it were just because the media currently uses this term to denote the state. If it were, but it isn't. Say, the term Kosovo in the syntagma North Kosovo doesn't simply equate with the term Kosovo for the state/republic. It corresponds moreover with the region/(abstract) geographical area/call it what you want. And that's just one example: I haven't even considered all the uses in all the media and/or publications. Not to mention if I were to focus some analysis on the usage of the term in the publications before the year 2008 only. Why, we should strive more for eventualism than for immediatism... if we should strive for anything, for that matter. Also, why do you think that the current text of this article is not neutral - I mean since you say that there is some POV which should be fixed. If you do say that. --biblbroks (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's quite simple to have a separate article on the Serbian administration. We have an Abkhazian version, Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. When Kosovo is discussed in English, it is for better or worse discussed as a (separatist) state. To create an article on an abstract geographical area doesn't fix NPOV. An article with decent text would. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, you support merging the two articles but suggest having articles about both governments. I don't understand how should this be achieved. NPOV in your opinion would be to have article Republic of Kosovo linking to Kosovo - but wouldn't then issues with flags, government, whole infobox problems reemerge? --biblbroks (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge because its a duplicate content, leave as part of the information the fact that is a partially recognized and there are two governments acting on it: the goveremt of the Republic of Kosovo in the whole region beside the Northern tip not recognized by by countries that support Serbia, the Serbian government on the Northern tip, not recognized by countries that support Kosovo: 2 governments. What's here about not to understand?PersonPaOpinion (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- What's not to understand is why some people think that the current approach is POV. Sure, it might not be perfect, but there's no pro-Serb or pro-Albanian bias. Bazonka (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge because its a duplicate content, leave as part of the information the fact that is a partially recognized and there are two governments acting on it: the goveremt of the Republic of Kosovo in the whole region beside the Northern tip not recognized by by countries that support Serbia, the Serbian government on the Northern tip, not recognized by countries that support Kosovo: 2 governments. What's here about not to understand?PersonPaOpinion (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support For the same reasons we don't split Republic of France from France, Kingdom of Spain from Spain, etc. The modern political entity covers all the geographical area that bears the same name. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- France and Spain are utterly different; they're not in any way disputed. Please, think about what you're suggesting - equating Kosovo the place with the very-much disputed RoK is like disturbing a nest of POV hornets. Things have been so much more stable, with less arguments since the articles were split. Let's not go back there. Bazonka (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Republic of France is recognised by every entity in the world, undisputed ruler of territory of France, which is claimed by none other, while Republic of Kosovo rule only part of territory of Kosovo, it is widely unrecognized by majority of the world, and its entire territory is claimed by other, undisputed and politically older entity. Those two cannot be compared in any way, as they are 1000000 miles apart, both physically, politically and historically. Repetition of questionable and seriously faulty POVs, and empty ip s's and sockpuppets supports, not backed in arguments will not disturb cement consensus we gained on this page. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- France and Spain are utterly different; they're not in any way disputed. Please, think about what you're suggesting - equating Kosovo the place with the very-much disputed RoK is like disturbing a nest of POV hornets. Things have been so much more stable, with less arguments since the articles were split. Let's not go back there. Bazonka (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support largely per PersonPaOpinion. The articles represent two Ps oV for one place (unlike, for example, Cyprus and North Cyprus). Jd2718 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support re-merge. I've always been opposed to the split, and I'm not convinced there ever was a valid consensus for it, outside the persistent pushing by editors with obvious national agendas. Far too much content overlap between the two articles; conceptual split goes counter to common English usage, and nothing in the inherent POV problems is grave enough to make treatment in a single page impossible. NPOV is better served in fewer articles, not in more articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- But you will not gain NPOV with this merge, you will only gain ultra-nationalistic article about Republic of Kosovo. As this POV proposition dont mention merger of Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article, but only Republic of Kosovo. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Why we need two or more info boxes and mention all parallel institutions in one article. Situation is now clear. If content overlap is problem, then delete sections on history, geography from articles on Republic of Kosovo and AP KiM. -- Bojan Talk 12:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose It's better to have three neutral articles, one about the region and the two about political entities, than to have one article that will be the scene of constant edit wars. If we put all information into one article, each party will try to remove content which relates to the political entity of the other side. Finally, we will get a POV article, that will be only about one political entity. That's why I can't support this merge proposal.--В и к и T 12:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose This is the case similar to Cyprus (disambiguation). So there are 2 separate entities, with separate institutions. --Alexmilt (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Cyprus is both about the island and the most recognized country. This is an argument in favor of merging. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Enric Naval. Also, it seems somewhat fishy that the Serbian editors gather at the same time to meatpuppet a decision (and not just this one, but others too).--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Many of users of serbian wiki have this article in whatch list. For example I sow now that, so I came here --Јованвб (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Kosovo is disputed teritory. So, that can't be same as Republic of Kosovo. This is obvious that there we have POV pushing and troling proposition. --Јованвб (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support, and block anyone that disagrees :) Wouldn't that make this a nicer place to edit. Obviously you cannot reasonably justify separating the articles about a region and its government, even if the governance is disputed. Prodego talk 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- But did you really read the justification? And this place already is nice place to edit, since article was split. 0% of vandalism and POV pushing. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is not the only example for existence of separate articles about region and political entity. See, Taiwan and Republic of China.--В и к и T 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Taiwan and ROC articles cover different areas. Taiwan focuses only on the single island, the ROC article covers quite a few other islands as well, similar to Pulau Ujong and Singapore. The two Kosovo articles cover the same area. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why would Repuvlic of Kosovo would have advantage over AP KiM? What if we want to merge AP KIM and Kosovo? Having three non- ambiguous articles is the best, NPOV solution. -- Bojan Talk 01:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Taiwan and ROC articles cover different areas. Taiwan focuses only on the single island, the ROC article covers quite a few other islands as well, similar to Pulau Ujong and Singapore. The two Kosovo articles cover the same area. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is not the only example for existence of separate articles about region and political entity. See, Taiwan and Republic of China.--В и к и T 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- But did you really read the justification? And this place already is nice place to edit, since article was split. 0% of vandalism and POV pushing. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- And what about Western Sahara? It is disputed territory between Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Southern Provinces. Same as here. Note that self proclaimed RoK doesn't control North Kosovo. RoK claims sovereignty over the entire territory of Kosovo, but don't have control over the some territories..--В и к и T 00:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- You presume that those are acceptable. Other stuff is wrong too. Prodego talk 05:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh linking to Other stuff exists, favorite argument of those who don't have arguments. I used it many times :)В и к и T 09:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- You presume that those are acceptable. Other stuff is wrong too. Prodego talk 05:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose- the rational solution, as with the 'Cypress' articles. Nevard (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus are the same article. There is no separate article for Cyprus (island), despite the existence of Northern Cyprus. You are actually supporting the merge. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, that's interesting. Good to know that the Northern Cyprus article doesn't exist. I was hallucinating that it did for a bit. Nevard (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- North Kosovo also exists..... --Enric Naval (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- And you support destroying the content left in this article related to the historical Kosovo with some stuff about this 'Republic of Kosovo', why? Nevard (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- What on heavens are you talking about?? Why would this merge destroy any information?? I suggest you look at Spain, France or Germany, they are perfectly able to contain the history of the historic region. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support merge. Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija or any other relevant info from other related articles, can be included here although they may stand as separate. I see some here cite Cyprus case. I don't think they are similar, unless you want to delete Kosovo article and have Serbia/Serbia(Kosovo) dab page which is extremely pov. Someone rightly feared that this merge might bring edit wars, however I think we have the tools of fighting it. We are speaking about scientific principles of encyclopedia articles here. We can not deform them because some hot headed persons might react. Aigest (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support, wikipedia only reflects the common use of terms. There's no possible source that uses another term for Kosovo and another one for the Republic of Kosovo, just as no source uses the term France or Germany without referring to the state entity.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia also tries to maintain neutrality. Equating the territory of Kosovo with the disputed Republic of Kosovo is taking sides, especially if you bear in mind that the territory of RoK is smaller than that of Kosovo the place. In my opinion, WP:NPOV is more important than WP:COMMONNAME. Bazonka (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, I think it's very wrong to say that there is no single source that uses a different term for region of Kosovo and a different term for Republic of Kosovo since this oversimplifies the matter. The term for Republic of Kosovo would be exactly the term "Republic of Kosovo". And that differs from the term Kosovo. This may seem banal but true nevertheless. And right to the point I think. --biblbroks (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- And Germany differs from Federal Republic of Germany, yet they are the same article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- But does the meaning of Germany and the meaning of Federal Republic of Germany differ that much as does the meaning of Kosovo and the meaning of Republic of Kosovo? The term Germany is almost always if not always used to denote one sovereign state, while the term Kosovo is surely very often regarded as a term to denote one disputed region and sometimes a term to denote one state... where the term "sometimes" is hard to decipher especially should the term "sovereign" be used in front of the term "state". At least for that this distinction should be taken into account very carefully, if not for maintaining neutrality, which of course should also be maintained, despite the fact that some think that this is of secondary importance in this case. --biblbroks (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia also tries to maintain neutrality. Equating the territory of Kosovo with the disputed Republic of Kosovo is taking sides, especially if you bear in mind that the territory of RoK is smaller than that of Kosovo the place. In my opinion, WP:NPOV is more important than WP:COMMONNAME. Bazonka (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose-It's not the same thing. Kosovo is autonomic region of Serbia, and Republic of Kosovo is partially recognized country. Wile E. Coyote (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I am actually not strongly opposed to it, apart from some minor concerns - how will the history of the region of Kosovo be included in the new Republic ? Given that the former has existed since 40 kYA, and the latter only in recent years Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- It would just be written in the history section, similar to articles on any place in wikipedia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Those are to conflicting entities, that is the reason for concern. Those two should not be represented together, as they are not. --WhiteWriter speaks 14:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't this "similar to articles on any place in wikipedia" a referral to Kosovo the region and not the state/republic/entity? Or is this me toying with semantics? --biblbroks (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not many places have multiple general articles about them. There's only one history of Kosovo. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- In one place Kosovo is called an abstract geographical area, here it's called a place. Above it is again said it to be a disputed state - which would allegedly be solidly founded in reality and sources. I think this is quite confusing: what is Kosovo in the end? I mean in English language? --biblbroks (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you're looking for a short and simple definition or title, your search is pointless. If we were to go by the point of your statement, through reductio ad absurdum, we'd have an article on Kosovo the abstract geographical area, an article on Kosovo the place, an article on Kosovo the disputed state, etc. It's untenable and ridiculous. Obviously no-one is advocating this huge number of articles, but the point is the current set-up tries to cover the same thing in two different ways, trying to separate the state from the area it governs. It'd be like creating a Serbia article and a Republic of Serbia article (with Serbia covering the region), because the Serbian government doesn't control a part of this Serbia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- And what would be the difference between the articles on "Kosovo the place" and "Kosovo the abstract geographical area"? Also worth noting: if a sound proposal to create two different articles one called Serbia and one called Republic of Serbia would have been made, I would surely consider it, but I most seriously doubt that you could make one such proposal. But hey, you can try. If you want, I can give you a hint. --biblbroks (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have no clue what the difference would be, which was the whole point. The current setup faces exactly the same issues as that. As for Serbia, I would oppose that split, just as I support undoing this split. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, user Chipmunkdavis was the one who referred to Kosovo when he/she used the phrase "abstract geographical area", not me. And therefore I don't see a point of reducing my point to reductio ad absurdum. Also I am aware that someone would oppose the hypothetical split which I described and that perhaps even ferociously - especially since that someone said he/she would oppose something he/she haven't even been informed of. I won't comment on his/her reasons for such a stance, but maybe he/she could. --biblbroks (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have no clue what the difference would be, which was the whole point. The current setup faces exactly the same issues as that. As for Serbia, I would oppose that split, just as I support undoing this split. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- And what would be the difference between the articles on "Kosovo the place" and "Kosovo the abstract geographical area"? Also worth noting: if a sound proposal to create two different articles one called Serbia and one called Republic of Serbia would have been made, I would surely consider it, but I most seriously doubt that you could make one such proposal. But hey, you can try. If you want, I can give you a hint. --biblbroks (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you're looking for a short and simple definition or title, your search is pointless. If we were to go by the point of your statement, through reductio ad absurdum, we'd have an article on Kosovo the abstract geographical area, an article on Kosovo the place, an article on Kosovo the disputed state, etc. It's untenable and ridiculous. Obviously no-one is advocating this huge number of articles, but the point is the current set-up tries to cover the same thing in two different ways, trying to separate the state from the area it governs. It'd be like creating a Serbia article and a Republic of Serbia article (with Serbia covering the region), because the Serbian government doesn't control a part of this Serbia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- In one place Kosovo is called an abstract geographical area, here it's called a place. Above it is again said it to be a disputed state - which would allegedly be solidly founded in reality and sources. I think this is quite confusing: what is Kosovo in the end? I mean in English language? --biblbroks (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not many places have multiple general articles about them. There's only one history of Kosovo. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't this "similar to articles on any place in wikipedia" a referral to Kosovo the region and not the state/republic/entity? Or is this me toying with semantics? --biblbroks (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Those are to conflicting entities, that is the reason for concern. Those two should not be represented together, as they are not. --WhiteWriter speaks 14:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- It would just be written in the history section, similar to articles on any place in wikipedia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose How this can be same, Republic of Kosovo is not even UN member, not recognized by 2/3 of UN members, and Kosovo is still by every international law autonomous province in Serbia, so this would be just another political decision by some users, and far from neutral point.--Obelixus (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment for closing admin User:WhiteWriter has canvassed in the Serbian wikipedia[3]. Google translation:
==En wiki / Kosovo==
IP address of the proposed merger as Article Article Kosovo Republic of Kosovo, no article on the autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija. Participants and lutci already blocked some users.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Merge_with_Republic_of_Kosovo.3F Talk: Kosovo # Merge with Republic of Kosovo]
Give your suggestion, comment, or attitude. - A word BeliPisac 12:53,
9 January 2012. (CET)
- Wile_E._Coyote had not edited the English wikipedia since August, so he probably saw that notice. All other users seem to be regular editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- This translation is almost meaningless, btw... This is NOT CANVASSING, per WP:CANVAS. This post was limited, Neutral, Nonpartisan and open, all propositions used in Appropriate notification guideline. And i asked for more opinions, i dont see whats wrong in it. It is the same here and there, wiki is not voting, if arguments are not useful, then we cannot use it. Also, you are cross wiki hounding me? That is not permitted, as opposed to the first thing mentioned. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why would someone seeking non-partisan views leave such a message on a board of Serbian wikipedia, when this is an issue of the English wikipedia? Checking(I was possibly the first to find out about your posts) and making known activities that possibly involve gaming the system isn't wikihounding in any way. Gaius earlier pointed out that most of the oppose come from certain users, so your messages on sr.wiki verify the demographic tendencies of the discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that we should be overly concerned that most of the opposers are pro-Serb. The proposal here is to move from a neutral format to a pro-Albanian format, so it is inevitable that the Serbs are going to be the most vocal in opposition to it. As long as they are not counter-proposing a pro-Serb format, then they have an entirely valid position. (Note that I am opposed, but am neither pro-Serb nor pro-Albanian.) Bazonka (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ethnic profiling of users wont help us here, Zjarri, and that is forbidden per WP:NPA. Arguments will. Exactly as Bazonka told you, this proposition is so POV, and i didnt say anything wrong regarding that. I just told "Give your proposition, comment or attitude". That can hardly be non neutral sentence... --WhiteWriter speaks 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't mean to profile, but most of the Support votes come from non-Albanians and most of the Oppose votes come from Serbs. There is nothing wrong with that, but meatpuppetry and canvassing is an inappropriate way to block the merge. As per the categories set up on WP:Canvassing, the message sent out is biased, the audience is probably partisan (despite obvious objections), and the transparency is secret (since it was posted in another language wiki) and since it satisfies at least 2/4 categories (perhaps 3/4), it is inappropriate and Enric Naval's point is worth noting.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bump in but it would be an edit conflict and I wanted to comment a previous post. What exactly is the bias of the message? "Audience is probably partisan" - isn't this profiling an entire contributing population of sr.wikipedia.org? "Transparency is secret since it was posted in another language wiki" - and the filing party for this case of alleged canvassing used a Google translator? Does the previous comment support the view that this was canvassing or...? I really don't understand this comment especially when one user commented previously that "Gaius earlier pointed out that most of the oppose come from certain users". And yet in the previous comment it is claimed that it wasn't meant to profile. And that right before the claim where do the Support votes mostly come from and from what ethnicity do Oppose votes mostly come from. I find this comment utterly peculiar if not contradictory. --biblbroks (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)- I retract my comment, since after reconsidering the message I realized that it is biased: "Učestvuju i lutci nekih već blokiranih korisnika." is an opinion. --biblbroks (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't mean to profile, but most of the Support votes come from non-Albanians and most of the Oppose votes come from Serbs. There is nothing wrong with that, but meatpuppetry and canvassing is an inappropriate way to block the merge. As per the categories set up on WP:Canvassing, the message sent out is biased, the audience is probably partisan (despite obvious objections), and the transparency is secret (since it was posted in another language wiki) and since it satisfies at least 2/4 categories (perhaps 3/4), it is inappropriate and Enric Naval's point is worth noting.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ethnic profiling of users wont help us here, Zjarri, and that is forbidden per WP:NPA. Arguments will. Exactly as Bazonka told you, this proposition is so POV, and i didnt say anything wrong regarding that. I just told "Give your proposition, comment or attitude". That can hardly be non neutral sentence... --WhiteWriter speaks 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that we should be overly concerned that most of the opposers are pro-Serb. The proposal here is to move from a neutral format to a pro-Albanian format, so it is inevitable that the Serbs are going to be the most vocal in opposition to it. As long as they are not counter-proposing a pro-Serb format, then they have an entirely valid position. (Note that I am opposed, but am neither pro-Serb nor pro-Albanian.) Bazonka (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why would someone seeking non-partisan views leave such a message on a board of Serbian wikipedia, when this is an issue of the English wikipedia? Checking(I was possibly the first to find out about your posts) and making known activities that possibly involve gaming the system isn't wikihounding in any way. Gaius earlier pointed out that most of the oppose come from certain users, so your messages on sr.wiki verify the demographic tendencies of the discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- This translation is almost meaningless, btw... This is NOT CANVASSING, per WP:CANVAS. This post was limited, Neutral, Nonpartisan and open, all propositions used in Appropriate notification guideline. And i asked for more opinions, i dont see whats wrong in it. It is the same here and there, wiki is not voting, if arguments are not useful, then we cannot use it. Also, you are cross wiki hounding me? That is not permitted, as opposed to the first thing mentioned. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it is somewhat apparent from the state of affirs that it might be premature to homogenize everything into an article titled Republic of Kosovo when it is not actually a recognized country yet. And there is merit in what certain editors who state that the two are not the same. This article is about a region in Southeastern Europe which has existed for hundreds- thousands years, the other is a newly created, and according to some view points, illegally created state. As messy as it might be, two separate articles might be warranted until international/ UN status moves to a more a recognizable/ unanimous position. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Canvassing: Let's be honest; there has been canvassing to attract editors from the Serb side. (Or maybe just a few emails reminding people to !vote, eh? I'm under no allusion; most canvassing is done in less public ways). It's happened with previous polls on this subject on this talkpage; when those polls did not deliver the desired result, somebody just went ahead and split the article anyway. Establishing, and acting on, a fair consensus takes second place to serb nationalism. It's a shame that such controversial matters can't be decided fairly. bobrayner (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Serb nationalism? What a pompous rhetoric. Resorting to appeal to morality by claiming something is shameful while disregarding previous replies about this? I'd say a weak attempt to avoid the issue. Casting suspicion on previous polls by profiling editors who participated? I think we established profiling is inappropriate and that polls are not a good way to build consensus, yet these arguments keep on repeating. --biblbroks (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The status of Kosovo is disputed. And if you didn't know, North Kosovo is a current event (referendum in February). --Zoupan (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - for all the reasons so well stated by User:Bazonka. We HAD an article that combined the region and the Republic, at the same time we had a separate article for the Autonomous Province (which article the proposer seems to forget). This inequality of presentation and the fact that even the simplest things had to be qualified so many different ways meant that the article was always a wishy-washy, self-contradictory mess. Far from being POV, this current setup seems the most NPOV to me. --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. See status of Kosovo and North Kosovo. Int21h (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ah Kosovo... All Serbian users will vote against this and all Albanian users will invariably vote for it, but objectively, If China isn't merged with People's Republic of China, the disputed RoK shouldn't be merged with Kosovo. This is a far more complex issue than is apparently understood in the move proposal. -- Director (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- China has been merged with the PRC, but I still think that we should keep Kosovo and ROK separate.--Khajidha (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, so it has. Either way the RoK is hardly the People's Republic of China, I agree. -- Director (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- China has been merged with the PRC, but I still think that we should keep Kosovo and ROK separate.--Khajidha (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't agree with rationale provided for this merging (Having two articles about Kosovo one as a geographical region, one as a political region is a violation of WP:NPOV.) Having two separate articles about region of Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo doesn't have to do anything with NPOV. Both topics are notable (Wikipedia:Notability) and described in very large articles (Wikipedia:Article size). We would have problem with NPOV only after merging of those two articles, regardless of the recognition issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: For what it's worth, I came to here looking for info on Kosovo as a political, rather than a merely geographic entity. Wouldn't a disambiguation page be useful under the Kosovo name? LukeSurl t
- Oppose - The so called Republic of Kosovo is not even recognised by the United Nations. The move would be inappropriate and could not command consensus support. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC) User has made 2 edits prior to this comment. Most probably a single purpose account. --biblbroks (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Does the Republic of Kosovo have actual control over North Kosovo? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe it does. Bazonka (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is North Kosovo part of Kosovo? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now isn't this a great question? I believe that some might say that the answer depends on the context - what exactly is meant by the term Kosovo in "of Kosovo". --biblbroks (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The same problem pops up with every single place that a country claims but doesn't control.. From Northern Ireland to Northern Cyprus.. Are they part of Ireland and Cyprus respectively? What if Kosovo is defined as a geographical region rather than a reference to a country? Is North Kosovo part of Kosovo? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well again, now it depends on how you define Kosovo as a geographical region. I'd say North Kosovo is part of Kosovo.. when using the term Kosovo as in the syntagma Kosovo War. But some might object to the very notion of Kosovo being considered as a geographical region. So there you have it. --biblbroks (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The same problem pops up with every single place that a country claims but doesn't control.. From Northern Ireland to Northern Cyprus.. Are they part of Ireland and Cyprus respectively? What if Kosovo is defined as a geographical region rather than a reference to a country? Is North Kosovo part of Kosovo? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now isn't this a great question? I believe that some might say that the answer depends on the context - what exactly is meant by the term Kosovo in "of Kosovo". --biblbroks (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is North Kosovo part of Kosovo? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe it does. Bazonka (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Bazonka on top. This issue seems to were part of BIG discussions you can see in the archives of this and related pages. The result of these discussions is: Kosovo article is about the geographic region. Republic of Kosovo is about the independent state. Another article is for the Serbian region. In any case these three topics should be at different articles and that is the result of all discussions. Whether Kosovo is a disambiguation page, a redirect to Republic of Kosovo or article about the republic - in those cases the current content of this article should be moved to Kosovo (region) or something like that. But that's not what the previous discussions reached as conclusion. The examples with russia-supported separatist regions are one thing, but we have also Palestine (about the region) and State of Palestine. Japinderum (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Japinderum and Bazonka. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
*Support Merge. Honestly I see no reason why to let politics and racism rule in Wikipedia. The serbian editors should get over their racism and not let it cloud their judgment. Whether or not they, or anyone else for that matter, accepts the political will of the people of Kosovo to be free and independent should not impact our judgment when it comes to encyclopedias or history books. If we follow the logic of having two to three articles on Kosovo just because there is a political dispute going on, then I believe we should also have another article on Serbia based on the disputes that Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Kosovo have with this country and government. Nevertheless if we followed this logic I doubt there will be one single country that is not in one way or another disputed by another country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.175.0.76 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC) stricken out by --biblbroks (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC) per WP:NPA
- Support. A descriptive article would tell us what Kosovo is--that is, the Republic of Kosovo--and not what others want Kosovo to be--a province of Serbia (the article could, of course, tell us of Serbia's position on Kosovo). With this said, I announce my renewed retirement from Wikipedia precisely because of political tensions that continue to hinder the content quality and fairness of the encyclopedia. Thank you,--Getoar TX (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- So we should consider this claim of Kosovo being the Republic of Kosovo based on what arguments? --biblbroks (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Getoar TX, you're saying we should have this article tell us what you want Kosovo to be? :) That's just it - Kosovo isn't the Republic of Kosovo, both legally to a great extent and de facto. An entire segment of it is outside the RoK, and Serbia has a legal claim on its old province. Kosovo is both the Republic of Kosovo and the AP Kosovo and Metohija, and this article represents that excellently. I had nothing to do with the introduction of this state of affairs, but as far as I know I actually suggested it a long time ago as an NPOV solution to a complex problem. And that it is imo. -- Director (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Since my earlier comment was stricken through due to the lack of a Wikipedia account, I hope that this re-post will not face the same unfair silencing of an honest expression of free and professional thought regarding the topic. I believe the articles should be merged. Honestly I see no reason why to let politics and racism rule in Wikipedia. The serbian editors should get over their racism and not let it cloud their judgment. Whether or not they, or anyone else for that matter, accepts the political will of the people of Kosovo to be free and independent should not impact our judgment when it comes to encyclopedias or history books. If we follow the logic of having two to three articles on Kosovo just because there is a political dispute going on, then I believe we should also have another article on Serbia based on the disputes that Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Kosovo have with this country and government. Nevertheless if we followed this logic I doubt there will be one single country that is not in one way or another disputed by another country. I also agree with Getoar TX, and to respond to Biblbroks's question on arguments I would like to ask her the same question regarding any other country in the globe. From my own experience and education (I studied Law with a focus on Int'l Law) I haven't found a single case where independence is measured by the rate of foreign recognition or by the opinion of individuals. Independence is a fact, you see it in the field. The formal declaration of independence just re-affirms the factual state in the field which cannot be denied by anyone. Please biblbroks, tell me, if Kosovo is part of Serbia, then why does Serbia have no say in any matters besides the topic of rights for the serbian minority in Kosovo? Just in case you intend to mention the illegal parallel structures in northern Kosovo please be aware that they are considered illegal by the whole international community including Serbia (re-affirmed by the recent arrest of Zvonko Veselinovic) and that sovereignty and independence is not related to the extent of control over your territory, as long as you have full control over a core area. Sentonkacaniku (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- The aforementioned comment was stricken out because it contained personal attacks on a whole group of editors, and not because of some arbitrary fact that the user giving it was lacking some arbitrary Wikipedia account. This reason, the reason for striking out that previous controversial comment, was properly noted later on within the note of the signator - the editor, who was striking out the very comment. Also, in the edit summary of that striking out it was merely suggested to the editor giving the comment in question to register an account so as to not arouse any suspicion about things like Gaming the system. I repeat: it was merely suggested, and not conditionalized. Perhaps the reason for giving such a suggestion may not be self-evident since the very act of giving such a suggestion could be perceived as a case of having bad faith, but if one accounts the content of the comment which was stricken out I think that many would agree that the suggestion could have been received with much more good faith. And the comment surely wasn't silenced since it was stricken through and therefore it could still be read. Any such statements about censorship are not just ridiculous but very very disturbing and even very harmful. Therefore I note that any further reiterations of opinions of alleged unfair treatment of this commentator will be regarded as a grave breach of one of Wikipedia's core guidelines about behaviour assuming good faith. As for racism remarks, I strongly suggest the commentator to be escorted to the one of Wikipedia's core policies No personal attacks. Until the comments given here are eradicated of any personal attacks, they will be disregarded and stricken out even in the future so that any future commentators on this page learn some Wikipedian manners before posting within this highly controversial and, as such, highly inflammable topic. I surely had my own share of such treatment here and learned many lessons in this very article and discussion page, so as to my word have some weight regarding the issue of how Wikipedians are to conduct on this discussion page. As one such editor, and with explanations given, I honestly believe that this can only better any further dialogue. Although I am very sorry as I am the one who is making this probably controversial actions, and even more sorry that such actions are to be made in one such situation where previously this comment was already stricken out once, I most strongly think that this is utmost necessary. Therefore, I am striking out the whole previous comment... again. --biblbroks (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- In the interest of not breaking 1RR (it's not quite clear if it applies only to edits in the article or also here on its talkpage), I have refrained from reverting your striking out another time, and am instead giving you a chance to self-revert. This is a final warning: stop messing with other editors' postings, no matter how offensive you find them. If you don't self-revert, I'll take this to WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with your ultimatum, FPS! This user created account just for participation in "Vote" where politically driven votes are not needed. User violate NPA! Biblbroks didn't removed it, he just stricken it. Per consensus, two users agree that comment should be strikened, per violations of several crucial wiki rules! This user must not participate in this, as kosovo page article is on probation! I cannot find a single reason why we should leave it like this! TLDR, NPA, SPA, most probably SOCK, GAME, how may reasons and violations should be list here? Instead of blind AE, tell us why we should leave this comment here? Agreement is gold, AE is poor... --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- In the interest of not breaking 1RR (it's not quite clear if it applies only to edits in the article or also here on its talkpage), I have refrained from reverting your striking out another time, and am instead giving you a chance to self-revert. This is a final warning: stop messing with other editors' postings, no matter how offensive you find them. If you don't self-revert, I'll take this to WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- The aforementioned comment was stricken out because it contained personal attacks on a whole group of editors, and not because of some arbitrary fact that the user giving it was lacking some arbitrary Wikipedia account. This reason, the reason for striking out that previous controversial comment, was properly noted later on within the note of the signator - the editor, who was striking out the very comment. Also, in the edit summary of that striking out it was merely suggested to the editor giving the comment in question to register an account so as to not arouse any suspicion about things like Gaming the system. I repeat: it was merely suggested, and not conditionalized. Perhaps the reason for giving such a suggestion may not be self-evident since the very act of giving such a suggestion could be perceived as a case of having bad faith, but if one accounts the content of the comment which was stricken out I think that many would agree that the suggestion could have been received with much more good faith. And the comment surely wasn't silenced since it was stricken through and therefore it could still be read. Any such statements about censorship are not just ridiculous but very very disturbing and even very harmful. Therefore I note that any further reiterations of opinions of alleged unfair treatment of this commentator will be regarded as a grave breach of one of Wikipedia's core guidelines about behaviour assuming good faith. As for racism remarks, I strongly suggest the commentator to be escorted to the one of Wikipedia's core policies No personal attacks. Until the comments given here are eradicated of any personal attacks, they will be disregarded and stricken out even in the future so that any future commentators on this page learn some Wikipedian manners before posting within this highly controversial and, as such, highly inflammable topic. I surely had my own share of such treatment here and learned many lessons in this very article and discussion page, so as to my word have some weight regarding the issue of how Wikipedians are to conduct on this discussion page. As one such editor, and with explanations given, I honestly believe that this can only better any further dialogue. Although I am very sorry as I am the one who is making this probably controversial actions, and even more sorry that such actions are to be made in one such situation where previously this comment was already stricken out once, I most strongly think that this is utmost necessary. Therefore, I am striking out the whole previous comment... again. --biblbroks (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- SPA, 0 other edits prior the voting, user was obviously invited here to vote, or came as sockpuppet. --WhiteWriterspeaks 03:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry but not only that I don't understand but I don't believe: the
threatwarning was given on the grounds that comments containing personal attacks, and that to a whole group of editors, should remain as they are because?Isn't this a grave case of wikilawyering? I mean, if this "stop messing with other editors' postings, no matter how offensive you find them" isn't wikilawyering, I don't know what is.Should we condone personal attacks and that on the very discussion page of the article which is under General sanctions? Personal attacks are sometimes even *deleted* on much less controversial pages than this is. And we are to keep them here untouched? In the interest of preserving this discussion page a place for civilized discussions and not turning it into another battleground I will leave the previous comments stricken out. If somebody thinks that this is then for WP:AE, ok, see you there. My conscience is clear. --biblbroks (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry but not only that I don't understand but I don't believe: the
- Don't strike other people's comments, unless it's a proven sockpuppet. Leave it to the closing administrator to determine how much weight to give this opinion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Imo there is simply no consensus for the proposed merge, and its coming up on two months since this thread was started. Everyone's expressed their opinion once and now we're starting to see socks arrive - I take that as a sign its about time to close-up shop. -- Director (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, i tried that, but Fut. Perf. pushed this even longer then needed... I will ask from someone to close this charade... --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. First of all the Republic of Kosovo is partially recognized. Second of all in combination with it being partially recognized, it is a disputed territory due to a history of strong animosity, hatred, and war between Albanians and Serbs; the North that does not recognize the Republic of Kosovo. Third of all, in combination with the first two points - how is merging this article about the history of Kosovo as a whole into the Republic of Kosovo article going to improve anything here? Everyone knows it will start a vicious edit war between Albanian and Serb editors. No one should expect a neutral discussion to occur between Albanian and Serb users here over the status of Kosovo - that's like asking Israeli and Palestinian users to agree on the status of East Jerusalem; these people have had long history of animosity and bloodshed - an administrator should be brought in to arbitrate this.--R-41 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Do to the extremely controversial nature of this topic and the strong ethnic divide between users on this topic, I have requested informal mediation from an outside user to act as mediator, I have made the request here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/12 March 2012/.--R-41 (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. The point is that whenever anyone in the world of academia or even in everyday conversation speaks about 'Kosovo,' they are undoubtedly referring to the modern day Republic of Kosovo (whether or not its legitimacy is recognised is a separate issues). Having an article such as this is pointless and clearly reflects a political point of view which is not what wikipedia is supposed to be about. Ottomanist (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Attempts to present this case as closed by archiving it are rather tendentious and in bad spirit. Any non-nationalists in here? Ottomanist (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This thread has been closed! I have replaced the closure code and struck out all text added since the closure. Please read the text immediately above: Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. Bazonka (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you an administrator? How comes it's archived when I made a comment? Please inform me under whose authority this thread is being archived? Ottomanist (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- User:WhiteWriter closed this discussion under WP:NAC. If you wish to continue the discussion, please do so in a new thread. Bazonka (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:NAC, specifically the 'avoid pitfalls' part. Many thanks, this discussion is very useful and is leading to some constructive comments. Ottomanist (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ottomanist, kindly drop the mallet and back slowly away from the horse carcass. After four months the whole envisioned scene is starting to get rather unsettling. -- Director (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Judging by the comments above, the debate is being hijacked by a group of editors who are doing their best to present the debate as settled. This hardly seems to be the case, and I don't see why all the non nationalist editors should be held hostage to a group of saboteurs. Let the debate continue, the arguments clearly seem to be more logical in favour of a merger...maybe that's why some are trying to end the discussion. Ottomanist (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you uncovered the conspiracy. People are hijacking this thread and trying to close the WP:RM - because this discussion was over since early March. Ottomanist, this article is under a 1RR limit, and should you attempt to continue this farce you may find yourself reported. -- Director (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ottomanist: I'm personally rather frustrated too about the way this process has gone, but it's better to let it go for now. Even if this were to be kept open longer, it is almost inconceivable at this point that anything could come of it that outside administrators would read as a consensus to merge. It's still true that the process was (predictably) highjacked by known national interest groups, and I would have preferred to see it formally closed by somebody from the outside, but there's little that can be done about that at this point. BTW, you said on my talkpage that you are a "returning" user. I would strongly recommend disclosing what your previous accounts were, or people will treat you as a likely sanction-evading sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and, by the way, Director, since you made a non-admin closure here as somebody who took part in the debate himself, I think it would be fair to clarify the closing summary as "no consensus". It was numerically somewhere near 18:14 against the merge, and that includes a substantial number of obviously canvassed votes, so it would certainly not be appropriate to let this stand as if it implied a legitimate "consensus against". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, I amended the comment. I will add that canvassed votes can certainly be found on both sides. In fact, such is probably the case with every major discussion on this talkpage (I've fixed my comment above, its seems I've started forgetting words in my old age). -- Director (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please do go ahead and 'report me' (?) Thanks for your input Fut.Perf, but I don't think that we should be held hostage to such tendentious editing. This is not the place to play out nationalist/political policies. It is a place to cooperate on the construction of useful information for general use. Ottomanist (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- So you wouldn't say your talkpage edit-war here in any way conforms to the definition of WP:TE? :) Ottomanist, are you aware that you just reverted an admin closure? [4] As for me reporting, let me assure you that this would already be on ANI had Future not arrived on the scene. -- Director (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks again for your response. I would like to resolve this issue, I don't see why we should be held hostage here to a group of nationalist editors. Ottomanist (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- If that analogy is at all appropriate, I would say its only applicable to your actions - in holding this thread "hostage". The issue is not only resolved, it was resolved months ago. The "nationalist editor" here appears to be you, reverting admin closure of a finished RM because it did not turn out in your favor. In my view you should be sanctioned for this talkpage edit-war. -- Director (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- The evidence is above for all to see. Ottomanist (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia policy says that polls are not mandatory and should be used with caution, Wikipedia is about reliable sources and consensus relies on discussion and ability to support such views with reliable sources. The sad fact is that there will likely be no consensus between Albanian and Serb users here on the status of Kosovo - these two peoples have a long history of xenophobia and violent conflict between each other. This proposition was unacceptable because it is just like throwing open a poll on whether East Jerusalem should be recognized on Wikipedia as part of Israel or the Palestinian National Authority and watching Zionist Jews and nationalist Arabs fight it out on the talk page, and the only thing that would decide it is which side would be able to muster the most votes. Like the East Jerusalem issue, the status of Kosovo is extremely controversial. This vote was polarizing and in no way would have achieved consensus, it would have only been decided by whether the pro-Albanian or pro-Serb camp would be able to muster the most votes. When I saw it I thought an administrator should be brought in to arbitrate a solution, because it was too polarizing. It is all for the best that this poll is shut down.--R-41 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- This really isn't just an Albanian vs. Serbian bunfight. There are neutral editors here too, and they don't always agree. (For example, I was opposed to the merge and User:Chipmunkdavis supported it.) Even if the "nationalists" are taken out of the equation, we'd probably still not reach consensus. This thread really should be re-closed and left alone. Bazonka (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm also neither Serbian nor Albanian. -- Director (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- This really isn't just an Albanian vs. Serbian bunfight. There are neutral editors here too, and they don't always agree. (For example, I was opposed to the merge and User:Chipmunkdavis supported it.) Even if the "nationalists" are taken out of the equation, we'd probably still not reach consensus. This thread really should be re-closed and left alone. Bazonka (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia policy says that polls are not mandatory and should be used with caution, Wikipedia is about reliable sources and consensus relies on discussion and ability to support such views with reliable sources. The sad fact is that there will likely be no consensus between Albanian and Serb users here on the status of Kosovo - these two peoples have a long history of xenophobia and violent conflict between each other. This proposition was unacceptable because it is just like throwing open a poll on whether East Jerusalem should be recognized on Wikipedia as part of Israel or the Palestinian National Authority and watching Zionist Jews and nationalist Arabs fight it out on the talk page, and the only thing that would decide it is which side would be able to muster the most votes. Like the East Jerusalem issue, the status of Kosovo is extremely controversial. This vote was polarizing and in no way would have achieved consensus, it would have only been decided by whether the pro-Albanian or pro-Serb camp would be able to muster the most votes. When I saw it I thought an administrator should be brought in to arbitrate a solution, because it was too polarizing. It is all for the best that this poll is shut down.--R-41 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- The evidence is above for all to see. Ottomanist (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- If that analogy is at all appropriate, I would say its only applicable to your actions - in holding this thread "hostage". The issue is not only resolved, it was resolved months ago. The "nationalist editor" here appears to be you, reverting admin closure of a finished RM because it did not turn out in your favor. In my view you should be sanctioned for this talkpage edit-war. -- Director (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks again for your response. I would like to resolve this issue, I don't see why we should be held hostage here to a group of nationalist editors. Ottomanist (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- So you wouldn't say your talkpage edit-war here in any way conforms to the definition of WP:TE? :) Ottomanist, are you aware that you just reverted an admin closure? [4] As for me reporting, let me assure you that this would already be on ANI had Future not arrived on the scene. -- Director (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please do go ahead and 'report me' (?) Thanks for your input Fut.Perf, but I don't think that we should be held hostage to such tendentious editing. This is not the place to play out nationalist/political policies. It is a place to cooperate on the construction of useful information for general use. Ottomanist (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, I amended the comment. I will add that canvassed votes can certainly be found on both sides. In fact, such is probably the case with every major discussion on this talkpage (I've fixed my comment above, its seems I've started forgetting words in my old age). -- Director (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Judging by the comments above, the debate is being hijacked by a group of editors who are doing their best to present the debate as settled. This hardly seems to be the case, and I don't see why all the non nationalist editors should be held hostage to a group of saboteurs. Let the debate continue, the arguments clearly seem to be more logical in favour of a merger...maybe that's why some are trying to end the discussion. Ottomanist (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I think we should get away from such orientalist stereotypes which seek to present people from southeast europe as plagued by 'old ethnic hatreds' . We need outside administrators to look at the arguments, I think this debate has exhausted some editors here. Ottomanist (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Um.. what? "Exhausted"?! Nobody's debated anything here for two months. And you're the one constantly referring to "nationalist editors", "groups of saboteurs", "nationalist/political policies", etc. It seems that only when your own terms are applied to yourself that you choose to accuse others of "stereotyping". You disagree with the result of this RM, and so you decided to keep it open as you believe it might somehow still turn out in your favor. Kindly rephrain from all this empty demagoguery.
- An admin has closed this thread, you reverted him [5]. The consensus on this talkpage is for closing the thread (five users thus far, against you). Reinstating closure once again - for the final time. -- Director (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a court room, nor is it (wikipedia) a democratic experiment. It's a talk page-- let's get some other admins on here. Ottomanist (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Not a court room"? Please cut it out with these empty phrases. This is a talkpage, yes, and threads like this get closed by admins on talkpages. Not by twenty-three admins coming here (and joining the five other users trying to close this thread), but by one admin. That will have to satisfy you, as I think you should realize people are not bound to acquiesce to your demands. You're done bullying people here. -- Director (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, the evidence is above for all to see - I particularly like this comment
- WSupport. We had lots of polls on whether to split Kosovo. Despite certain editors repeatedly gaming the system, polls kept on returning the same consensus; "no". Then somebody went ahead and split the article anyway, there was an editwar, the wrong version got protected, and now we're here; a fait accompli. I would support a merge so that we're back in line with both consensus and with neutrality. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 January 2012
Ottomanist (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Evidence"? Evidence for what? That you support the merge? I'm sure you're "100% certain" that it should be moved, and there are a dozen others that agree with you, so you can stop copy-pasting these nonsense quotes. There are others that disagree however, and you will have to accept that. If you wish to continue pushing for a merge, do so in a new RM. -- Director (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Name
Change name to Kosovo and Metohija! It's real name, Kosovo only is name of north part of this province. — Лазар (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Not done. Its WP:COMMONNAME in the English language is just Kosovo. Also, the longer name has WP:POV connotations. Bazonka (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Similarly Bosnia and Herzegovina is commonly shortened to Bosnia. But you would not dare to call someone in Herzegovina as Bosnian, especially if he is Croatian or Serbian. They very insist of being Herzegovinas. Simialrly Kosovo and Metohija was shortedened to Kosovo. The reason why metohija was not popular among Albanian population was origin of the word metoch - in Greek means church land. So it related to orthodox tradition of the area in time between 8 and 15 century when Ottoman conquests happened. Albanians being Muslims have been "preached" to dislike it. Unfortuantelly if we led religion to guide a science then I am afraid Galileo will find no place on this WIKI-Idiocy. Btw words like Kosovo or Bosnia are words of Slavic origin. Herzegovina has Germanic origin with Slavic spice. Talking about this as "offensive" is political not scientific statement. Mr Bazonka point is that WIKI should be stripped of politics and loaded with science regardless you or all planet finds it "offensive". Greek word saying church land in no way should be "BANNED" by YOU not any other self proclaimed "AUTHORITY" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC) 80.61.205.20 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. In English, we don't often use the terms "Metohija" and "Herzegovina" and WOULD most often call a Metohijan a "Kosovan" (or possibly "Kosovar") and a Herzegovinian a "Bosnian". This page is written in English and follows that usage. --
- Similarly Bosnia and Herzegovina is commonly shortened to Bosnia. But you would not dare to call someone in Herzegovina as Bosnian, especially if he is Croatian or Serbian. They very insist of being Herzegovinas. Simialrly Kosovo and Metohija was shortedened to Kosovo. The reason why metohija was not popular among Albanian population was origin of the word metoch - in Greek means church land. So it related to orthodox tradition of the area in time between 8 and 15 century when Ottoman conquests happened. Albanians being Muslims have been "preached" to dislike it. Unfortuantelly if we led religion to guide a science then I am afraid Galileo will find no place on this WIKI-Idiocy. Btw words like Kosovo or Bosnia are words of Slavic origin. Herzegovina has Germanic origin with Slavic spice. Talking about this as "offensive" is political not scientific statement. Mr Bazonka point is that WIKI should be stripped of politics and loaded with science regardless you or all planet finds it "offensive". Greek word saying church land in no way should be "BANNED" by YOU not any other self proclaimed "AUTHORITY" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC) 80.61.205.20 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Serbian not Serbo-Croatian
You can't write for southern Serbian province in Serbo-Croatian, but official Serbian language! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.109.75 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the language is referred to as Serbo-Croatian (and Bosnian in some cases) with different dialects ekavian, ikavian etc., etc., Ottomanist (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ekavian, Ikavian, and Ijekavian are the three accents of the Serbo-Croatian language, which predominantly uses only one dialect - Shtokavian (there are others, Kajkavian and Chakavian, but they are rather marginal). Serbo-Croatian is a pluricentric language with four official standards: Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin, all of them based on the same Shtokavian dialect. As its article states, sources consider "Serbian" one of the four standards of the Serbo-Croatian language. As you know, the area recently suffered war and ethnic strife. As a result, the governments in the Balkans do not recognize the fact that they use a single language for political reasons, and nationalists in all these countries tend to claim that they each speak a "separate" language. Linguists disagree, however, and that's that matters on this project. -- Director (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Some linguists. There is no scientific consensus on it. Wikipedia should not be (mis)used to push any particular POV. Until scientific consensus is reached wikipedia should not merge Serbian and Croatian and.... to "Serbo-Croatian". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. I also disagree with merger, as there is no real need nor consensus on wiki for that. --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there is a consensus. Both in the scientific community (i.e. linguists), and enWiki itself. This was discussed at enormous length at the appropriate talkpage. It has been conclusively established, many times, that the position of the vast majority of linguists is as outlined above. This is not up for discussion. I was merely explaining to User:Ottomanist what the current WP:CONSENSUS is on this issue. Consensus on this project can only be based on sources, as I'm sure you know, and the bare opposition by users does not affect it in the slightest. This is not a democracy.
- Exactly my point. I also disagree with merger, as there is no real need nor consensus on wiki for that. --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Some linguists. There is no scientific consensus on it. Wikipedia should not be (mis)used to push any particular POV. Until scientific consensus is reached wikipedia should not merge Serbian and Croatian and.... to "Serbo-Croatian". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ekavian, Ikavian, and Ijekavian are the three accents of the Serbo-Croatian language, which predominantly uses only one dialect - Shtokavian (there are others, Kajkavian and Chakavian, but they are rather marginal). Serbo-Croatian is a pluricentric language with four official standards: Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin, all of them based on the same Shtokavian dialect. As its article states, sources consider "Serbian" one of the four standards of the Serbo-Croatian language. As you know, the area recently suffered war and ethnic strife. As a result, the governments in the Balkans do not recognize the fact that they use a single language for political reasons, and nationalists in all these countries tend to claim that they each speak a "separate" language. Linguists disagree, however, and that's that matters on this project. -- Director (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you wish to contest it, please go to Talk:Serbo-Croatian. When you change it in accordance with your beliefs, you are free to pursue that goal elsewhere (though you are far more likely to just get shot down immediately by users who are actually familiar with the subject matter). Otherwise It seems very much inappropriate for you to attempt to ignore both the scholarly sources and Wikipedia consensus on fringe articles like this one, simply because noone's here to enforce them actively. -- Director (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- You yourself confirmed there is a dispute between "a single language" or "separate languages" point of view. You obviously support "single language" point of view and you refer to other party as "nationalistic vast minority" supported by "politically motivated Balkans governments". You are, of course, entitled to have your own point of view but please dont (mis)use wikipedia to support it. Speaking of being shot down, if you really believe there is a consensus on wikipedia that all "separate" languages should be merged into a "single language" please prove the existence of such consensus by changing Croatian language to Serbo-Croatian in the first sentence of Croatia article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're confusing a political dispute in the Balkans, which is irrelevant for our considerations, and a scientific dispute. There is no scientific dispute. Look like I said, it has been established over and over and over again that practically all sources agree on this issue, and unambiguously support the above. That is the current WP:CONSENSUS. And if you don't believe me, go to the Croatian language, Serbian language, etc articles and see for yourself. If you would like to change said consensus, you're welcome to try and do so at Talk:Serbo-Croatian. When you do, come back here. This is not the place to discuss this issue - but it is a place where sources and consensuses should be applied, according to Wikipedia policy.
- You yourself confirmed there is a dispute between "a single language" or "separate languages" point of view. You obviously support "single language" point of view and you refer to other party as "nationalistic vast minority" supported by "politically motivated Balkans governments". You are, of course, entitled to have your own point of view but please dont (mis)use wikipedia to support it. Speaking of being shot down, if you really believe there is a consensus on wikipedia that all "separate" languages should be merged into a "single language" please prove the existence of such consensus by changing Croatian language to Serbo-Croatian in the first sentence of Croatia article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you wish to contest it, please go to Talk:Serbo-Croatian. When you change it in accordance with your beliefs, you are free to pursue that goal elsewhere (though you are far more likely to just get shot down immediately by users who are actually familiar with the subject matter). Otherwise It seems very much inappropriate for you to attempt to ignore both the scholarly sources and Wikipedia consensus on fringe articles like this one, simply because noone's here to enforce them actively. -- Director (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- As for your "challenge", I don't think we will playing games like that :). The Croatia article does not really matter, since the Croatian language article abides by consensus. See for example the disclaimer here on Talk:Croatian language if you like. -- Director (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Croatia article does not really matter, but House of Flowers does matter? How come? Majority of users should decide what does and what does not matter, and not single user. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if you ask me, the Croatia and Serbia articles too should have sh up in the lede. I just don't have the time or the nerves to explain all the above 50 times a day to people who don't care anyway and are ruled by their life-long misconceptions. Like I told you, WW, I don't intend to go on a campaign to replace all the four languages with sh. A reader can see what e.g. "Serbian" really is when they click on the wikilink - it is only when the lede is cluttered by three or four seperate entries for the same language that I try to do something about it. Here too I don't particularly care if sr is replaced with sh (as it should), I was just explaining the current WP:CONSENSUS to User:Ottomanist.
- Croatia article does not really matter, but House of Flowers does matter? How come? Majority of users should decide what does and what does not matter, and not single user. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- As for your "challenge", I don't think we will playing games like that :). The Croatia article does not really matter, since the Croatian language article abides by consensus. See for example the disclaimer here on Talk:Croatian language if you like. -- Director (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- @"Majority of users should decide what does and what does not matter, and not single user." Heh, no. Neither "single user", nor the majority. Sources. The majority of the sources. -- Director (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Direktor, Wikipedia policy itself says that Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia policy says that polls are not mandatory and should be used with caution, Wikipedia is about reliable sources and consensus relies on ability to support such views with reliable sources.--R-41 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- @"Majority of users should decide what does and what does not matter, and not single user." Heh, no. Neither "single user", nor the majority. Sources. The majority of the sources. -- Director (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- As promised if this issue came up again for the 1,435th time, I have, in fact, "jumped out the window." (thankfully it was on the first floor. :-P) I think NATO should drop leaflets all over former Yugoslav territories explaining Serbo-Croatian, footnoted with highly reputable academic sources. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Or like armored cars with megaphones patrolling the streets. That could work too.
- "Attention uncivilized peasants! You do not each have your own language. You may think you do, but really - you don't. Nobody outside your tiny country gives a damn about what you want or what your government proclaims. Acknowledge or be destroyed. Yours with love, NATO"
- -- Director (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Standard-issue NATO linguistic-enforcement megaphone. Used as last resort for the very hard-headed. ---------------------->
i am trying to sign. Pls do not undo till I finish need 10 minutes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Biased article NATO publication
Statement: " Its independence is recognised by 90 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan). "
Should be replaced by
Majority of countries does not recognize Kosovo as independent country naming countries and since you are menitiong Taiwan then you can also mention that Kosovo is not recognized by Tranzistria, Nagorno Carabah, Abhazia, Ossetia... etc.. The you can state that Kosovo is recognized by 90 countries and Taiwan(China).
What is also missing is fact that USA lead effort inserting pressure on many countries (using and abusing) its power in order to excel Kosovo recognition throughout the world. There are various testimonies and could be easily found on internet. Even US diplomacy did not hide it. One of the pressure was on Serbia itself where Serbian future accession talks to EU where conditioned on its approach to Kosovo issues e.g. Serbia would not be able to join EU if it sued NATO for de facto and de jure illegal military intervention not approved by UN madate which as results has amputation of Serbian territory (no UN mandate(braking international law), no declaration of war by US congress(breaking US law - constitution). Some examples you can even find in speeches of Ron Paul, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parentti, Russian and Chinese diplomacy (announcements, protests...) There are vast records on all of this.
It is also known fact that many countries surrounding Serbia did recognized Kosovo as consequence of NATO and EU pressure namely FYROM, Bulgaria, Monte Negro as well as some countries in central Europe like Czeck Republic, Slovakia and Poland. Some officials even did not kide it and on announcement of Kosovo recognition they argued openly that this was tactical decision for greated cause e.g. EU or NATO membership etc...
But nothing of it is mentioned. Instead only number stating number of states that recognized Kosovo independace is sited as intention was to create imagery of some wide consensus.
Facts are facts, emotions are justifications are something completely different — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- As a non-American, you may not realized that Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky are what are known here in the States as "kooks" - and their views are basically fringe, and not representative of the American public. You can't base changing the article on what they claim. Also, you are using your own emotions as justification for pushing a particular POV for the article - which you just decried as being wrong. ??? HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Representative opinion of American public is not known in the world of non-americans for being outstanding in terms of quality but is rather subject of mocking. Noam Chomsky is considered broadly as one of leading intellectuals and scholars in the world. It is funny that you find yourself qualified to comment on his qualities. Regardless you missed completely the point of criticism. Facts are that majority of the world does not recognize the Kosovo independence and number of those countries is not stated as I suggested above and is pure fact regardless of Chomsky. It is UN fact. Second point you missed, again regardless of Chomsky, is that US imposed diplomatic pressure on many countries to acknowledge independence of Kosovo under using NATO and EU umbrella. They have never hide it, but where very open on it, again regarless of what Chomsky thinks about it. This article was least about Chomsky. Thanks God or better saying Karl Marx, Darvin, Ainstain etc., I am European!80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The existing statement is pure fact. What you're suggesting is POV-pushing. Bazonka (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- The statement is fact but incomplete fact. How can what I say be POV if I asked that number of states that do not recognize Kosovo should be stated too and first because there is more of them. You see this is the fact that you do not like, but it is the fact too. Avoiding to name it looks as you are trying to hide something.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The solution is to say that "Kosovo is recognized as an independent state by (number) states, and is not recognized by (number) states."--R-41 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- That "solution" rests on the assumption that everyone agrees on the statehood of the recognizers themselves, which clearly isn't the case. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Solution is simple. State number of countries that do not recognize Kosovo independence. Then state number of countries that do recognize. Then state there was milder or stronger US pressure on some on them to recognize Kosovo indepedence and state mechanisms and examples (NATO and US harmonization, EU accession talks, economic pressure, internal instabilities like in case of FYROM, where majority of the people expressed strong opposition on streets of Skopje etc). You can also quote US diplomats and leaders.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- That solution rests on the assumption that everyone agrees on the statehood of the recognizers themselves, which clearly isn't the case. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to understand where do we disagree. Yes many countries where forced to recognize independence of Kosovo under pressure of US diplomacy and NATO and EU aspirations. This is why I stated that after quoting number that is fact this condition should be stated. If you are trying to say that majority of people oppose Kosovo independence in Czech Rep. I agree, but fact is that Czech government did recognize it. What is then problem for you there?80.61.205.20 (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- We disagree that, apart from Kosovo, everyone agrees what constitutes a country. Kosovo isn't the only political entity with a disputed claim to statehood, so saying that a certain number of states recognize Kosovo's statehood is itself disputed. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it will not be the first time principles are broken. But fact is that USA considers Kosovo as country and behaves in that way. So this is fact and count goes one up. Now if I understand your point problem is that USA does not follow its on principle on the matter. But US has not following its own principle in many other issues yet they are going on with it. We cannot deny Viethnam even though it was against US principle. Even some laws are very seemingly unconstitutional. However, laws are there, Kosovo has US embassy in it so that is countable fact. Unfortunately there is no mathematics and honesty in this. Anyhow, I think we will disagree again. I am not denying anything you say, but what I suggest is we are still better then what is currently there if we do the way I suggested. Your idea will take lot of battle, not with me of course, to win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- We disagree that, apart from Kosovo, everyone agrees what constitutes a country. Kosovo isn't the only political entity with a disputed claim to statehood, so saying that a certain number of states recognize Kosovo's statehood is itself disputed. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to understand where do we disagree. Yes many countries where forced to recognize independence of Kosovo under pressure of US diplomacy and NATO and EU aspirations. This is why I stated that after quoting number that is fact this condition should be stated. If you are trying to say that majority of people oppose Kosovo independence in Czech Rep. I agree, but fact is that Czech government did recognize it. What is then problem for you there?80.61.205.20 (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- That solution rests on the assumption that everyone agrees on the statehood of the recognizers themselves, which clearly isn't the case. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Solution is simple. State number of countries that do not recognize Kosovo independence. Then state number of countries that do recognize. Then state there was milder or stronger US pressure on some on them to recognize Kosovo indepedence and state mechanisms and examples (NATO and US harmonization, EU accession talks, economic pressure, internal instabilities like in case of FYROM, where majority of the people expressed strong opposition on streets of Skopje etc). You can also quote US diplomats and leaders.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- That "solution" rests on the assumption that everyone agrees on the statehood of the recognizers themselves, which clearly isn't the case. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The solution is to say that "Kosovo is recognized as an independent state by (number) states, and is not recognized by (number) states."--R-41 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
This is all POV pushing origional research which has no place in an encyclopedia. As another poster says, Chomsky and fellow traveller Perenti are fringe, genocide-denying kooks and their works on the Balkans been thouroughly discredited. Thannad (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Could you read carefully what is bold and see what problem you may have with that. It has nothing to do with Chomsky and you can check it easily. Your statements on Chomsky you can place on Chomsky article and see will they be valid. In no way he is subject here and I am willing to delete his name from my statements if you want.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I do not udnerstand this opsession with Chomsky. Point is that you are not stating the fact about total number of countries that do not recognize the Kosovo and fact that many countries that do did that under pressure of USA. USA government openly and without hiding "urges" countries to recognize Kosovo independence after war it waged over Serbia. This war, factually, did not have UN mandate and was unilateral action, even NATO does not denies but justifies it, so it is also fact regardless of what Chomsky you dislike so badly thinks.But to your horror even BBC shows more interest in Kooks liek Chomsky that main stream Americans like Bill O'Raily. Not to mention what universities think about those two. But, again, this is not story about Chomsky but about facts that are publicly KNOWN!80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Strange that our own article on Chomsky doesn't mention his genocide-denying kookiness. One would also expect that if he was such an unreliable source, he wouldn't be cited so widely on Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- On the Balkans, he is hardly ever cited, except by Srebrenica denialists and Serb apologists (and there are quite alot in this site, especially on articles relating to Kosova). Wikipedia does not like criticism sections, and that is why our own article on Chomsky fails to mention these views. Thannad (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC
- Ah, that must be it. Those genocide denialists and Serb apologists are really insidious, aren't they? I've often heard it said here that Wikipedia would be a much better place if they were all rooted out and run off the site for good. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct.Thannad (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- So Mate, are we moving further or you are still not convinced. Have we agreed that some countries can LOVE independent Kosovo but till you do not do paper work in UN you DE FACTO and DE JURE they do not recognize it'Bold text'. Are we going to wait for pigeons with "messages of desperately waited Independence" to come or we are going to write facts as they are and do some serious business. I see your stance is very NATO colored. You like chopping countries NATO stile, from Iraq to Serbia. Lets close this case and move on to counting how many countries will recognize independence of Scotland, after queen jubilee is over. Seams she will be the "Last Emperor of Scotland". What do you think?80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- You helped us understand Albanian democracy. NATO invented democracy for NATO invented country80.61.205.20 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct.Thannad (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that must be it. Those genocide denialists and Serb apologists are really insidious, aren't they? I've often heard it said here that Wikipedia would be a much better place if they were all rooted out and run off the site for good. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- On the Balkans, he is hardly ever cited, except by Srebrenica denialists and Serb apologists (and there are quite alot in this site, especially on articles relating to Kosova). Wikipedia does not like criticism sections, and that is why our own article on Chomsky fails to mention these views. Thannad (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC
Why entering even this discussion here. Chomsky is least issue here. Facts stated has nothing to do with his opinion. It is pure UN count and loudly spoken US foreign policy. Chomsky is frequently guest of universities, public philosophical debates. Its pointless to discuss his qualities expressed by those who are only (un)invited to Wiki(NATO)pedia. This is not forum and not about Chomsky.
To help to all. Facts are in bold have nothing to do with Chomsky. Please stick to them. The only reason I mendionted those people is fact that for US to go to war according to US consititution it needs to be approved by congress. It has never been. Regardless of that it is not subject of Kosovo. It was only mentioned as additional hint. If you do not like it delete it. But deal first with facts in BOLD for God sake80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Calm down please. Perhaps instead of saying "Its independence is recognised by x UN member states", we should say "Its independence is recognised by x out of 193 UN member states". We don't need to explicitly state the number of non-recognisers - anyone with half a brain can do simple mathematics to work this out. Bazonka (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I assume everyone with half brain will understand this formulation either: Its independence is NOT RECOGNIZED by x UN member states out of 193" Since you are very honest guy you will for sure see this formulation equally right and will not have problem to do it this way. Unlike you who came with that suggestion I see difference and for me then second option looks better. I offered you strait statement, but then you appeal on other people brains so lets do it then second way stating how many countries DO NOT RECOGNIZE Kosovo Independence out of 193 since anyhow it takes BALLS for those countries NOT TO Recognize Kosovo Independence considering pressure of "World Policeman" allias USA and pressure it mounts to other governments.80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I
Agree with Bazonka. Its independence is recognised by XX UN member states out of 193. Simple inclusion, more information's, more NPOV. --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I thought we are talking serious things here not voting. Science is not election. I also fail to understand your argument why my formulation is so disagreeable to you. It should be more about arguments and less about emotions and friendships. Could you explain why is way he suggest so much "agreeable" then mine? Why it is so hard to write that there are countries that do not recognize Kosovo independence and so easy that there are those that "recognize it". I undersatnd reasons CNN does not like to state that, it has its propaganda effect. Especially when they state number then accept it and then only mention over and over again that "Serbia and its powerful ally Russia deny it". There one can clearly see propaganda effect it aims to create leaving viewer with feeling that there are broad international consensus and some boring Serbs and Russians who do oppose it.I thought aim of science/encyclopedia is not to create sentiments but report facts with least possible ambiguity. Would you agree? How on earth it is POV to you? 80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- If we give the total number of UN states, then we are stating how many countries don't recognise. Of course recognition and non-recognition are not as black-and-white as they may seem - there are different shades of non-recognition, from the Serbia-style "will never recognise" to countries like Cape Verde or Equatorial Guinea, which practically do recognise, but just haven't done so diplomatically. But explicitly talking about non-recognisers, we are giving the false impression that they're all the same. Bazonka (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is the same when we say for those that recognize it, because many of those countries are doing it under open pressure of USA and clear disapproval of population. Thus you can avoid also statement of recognizer countries. This is why facts should be stated as they are and then in text you can explain that there are some cases like Cape Verde, but also other types like FYROM, Czech Rep, Poland, Bulgaria, Monte-Negro etc where there is clear public opposition to Kosovo Independence. Some of governments of those countries justified clearly their decision based on ambitions to comply with EU and NATO agenda and not to step on US toes. Regardless of reasons facts are facts and that should be stated. Your reasoning works more against your statement because everyone knows that it was American push that made countries go that road rather then their free will. It was almost commanded from Washington and chronology of events clearly shows it. It is also very clear that many governments who opposed Kosovo independence faced open pressure for US to do so and we all know how much balls and convictions it takes to DO THAT. So please, write the facts. We can put those preceptions, conditions and limitations later on. Not to mention that without UN mandate thus DE FACTO and DE JURE US invaded Serbia (then FRJ) and amputated part of its territory. They justified it with humanitarian reasons but never denied it was not in accordance with UN carta. Unlike them Russians did have UN mandate in Georgia (which arguably is used or abused, but they still had it). NATO never had any mandate and act completely unilaterally. It itself explains determination of US and NATO in pushing this agenda and challenges poor and small countries face to take their stand. Thus, judging honestly, there is much more integrity in using NOT RECOGNIZE countries and mentioning number then RECONGIZE countries and mentioning number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is fact to say how many countries have recognised. It is subjective, and possibly WP:OR, to say why they recognised. Bazonka (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is also FACT to say how many countries DID NOT RECOGNIZE IT. It is pure fact verifiable in UNITED NATIONS. Technical problems of tiny island is ridiculous excuse not to do it. Nothing is subjective in statements of American Secretary of states that urges countries to recognize Kosovo, mounts pressure on that. Nothing is subjective in fact that in majority Czech people oppose Kosovo independence, nor when officials from FYROM and MonteNegro state that Kosovo independence is recognized as gesture of NATO/EU solidarity in their own language which I do paraphrase here. Nothing is subjective in American open policy of pressure and lobbying for Kosovo Independence using diplomatic, economic and what not pressure. It is astonishing that your subjectivity can rule in WIKI(NATO)pedia, based on comical example of Cape Verde or Equatorial Guinea, like Russia, China, India, Argentina, Brasil .... do not mater. But this is true example of NATO BIAS in this WIKIPEDIA. Most of articles more then 95% are sourced in NATO countries sources and even such an obivuous facts easily verifiable by UN data cannot be stated as FACTS based on comical excuse.80.61.205.20 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I just did a quick count on the International recognition of Kosovo page and found 94 UN member states that have made statements against recognizing Kosovo. Adding this to the 91 that have recognized Kosovo gives us 185. However, there are 193 UN member states. You are assuming that those for whom we have no statement have actually not made a statement of recognition that has not been found and that the lack of a statement of recognition is the same as a statement of non-recognition. I don't see how anything resting on these assumptions can be considered an easily verifiable fact. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Brilliant. You just formlated it right. So here we go: "102 countries do not recognize Kosovo independace and 91 do recognize it. Out of 102 that do not recognized it 94 have made statements against Independace of Kosovo. Other 8 do not have strong stance or do not oppose it but due to tech and what not reasons did not officially recognize it. Among those 91 who did recognized Kosovo independence, some did it under pressure of USA or did it to comply with NATO and EU majority stand or to enhance their integration into those structures. So what on earth would be wrong with this Khajidha. It look like clear fact easily verifiable. Finally some sense!80.61.205.20 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- What is wrong is that you are STILL assuming that those 8 have not recognized. It is quite possible that some have, but the news has not reached us. Also, you are making POV assertions that some of the recognizers did so under pressure from the US. This is possible, but you have not provided evidence. Also, you are assuming that the non-recognizers were not pressured to take that position by Russia or some other state. Your statements are thus full of opinions, not verifiable facts. The ONLY verifiable fact there is the number of countries that have explicitly recognized (either through a statement of recognition or through opening relations), which is what is already in the article and is what you are arguing against.--Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- qoute 1: "What is wrong is that you are STILL assuming that those 8 have not recognized. It is quite possible that some have, but the news has not reached us." then you tell me :"Also, you are assuming that the non-recognizers were not pressured to take that position by Russia or some other state.". That is joke of a day. First you speculate to the level of comedy then accuse me of speculation. Listen no one stops you to change counts when "the news come" like pigeon is still flying over Atlantic :-). Till news do not come to UN it is FACT they do not recognize it. Do you understand the difference of political article and scientific fact. Same fact is that there is no Kosovo seat in UN. Is it because some countries do not want it, or because they do not care, or because they care but they are lazy ... that does not matter because DE FACTO and DE JURE they do not recognize it. I am fighting (exposing nonsense) for hours to get basic fact in place and you want me to prove you something way more sophisticated. Look there is plenty of material on Internet about it. Russia does not have more then 5% of NATO GDP nor NATO reach nor its power, neither they bombed anyone on Balkans so yes there is possibility Russia influence some countries but way way less so even common sense is enough to see that coming. Just little bit of digging on internet and you will find many interesting things.80.61.205.20 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- What is wrong is that you are STILL assuming that those 8 have not recognized. It is quite possible that some have, but the news has not reached us. Also, you are making POV assertions that some of the recognizers did so under pressure from the US. This is possible, but you have not provided evidence. Also, you are assuming that the non-recognizers were not pressured to take that position by Russia or some other state. Your statements are thus full of opinions, not verifiable facts. The ONLY verifiable fact there is the number of countries that have explicitly recognized (either through a statement of recognition or through opening relations), which is what is already in the article and is what you are arguing against.--Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Brilliant. You just formlated it right. So here we go: "102 countries do not recognize Kosovo independace and 91 do recognize it. Out of 102 that do not recognized it 94 have made statements against Independace of Kosovo. Other 8 do not have strong stance or do not oppose it but due to tech and what not reasons did not officially recognize it. Among those 91 who did recognized Kosovo independence, some did it under pressure of USA or did it to comply with NATO and EU majority stand or to enhance their integration into those structures. So what on earth would be wrong with this Khajidha. It look like clear fact easily verifiable. Finally some sense!80.61.205.20 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I just did a quick count on the International recognition of Kosovo page and found 94 UN member states that have made statements against recognizing Kosovo. Adding this to the 91 that have recognized Kosovo gives us 185. However, there are 193 UN member states. You are assuming that those for whom we have no statement have actually not made a statement of recognition that has not been found and that the lack of a statement of recognition is the same as a statement of non-recognition. I don't see how anything resting on these assumptions can be considered an easily verifiable fact. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is also FACT to say how many countries DID NOT RECOGNIZE IT. It is pure fact verifiable in UNITED NATIONS. Technical problems of tiny island is ridiculous excuse not to do it. Nothing is subjective in statements of American Secretary of states that urges countries to recognize Kosovo, mounts pressure on that. Nothing is subjective in fact that in majority Czech people oppose Kosovo independence, nor when officials from FYROM and MonteNegro state that Kosovo independence is recognized as gesture of NATO/EU solidarity in their own language which I do paraphrase here. Nothing is subjective in American open policy of pressure and lobbying for Kosovo Independence using diplomatic, economic and what not pressure. It is astonishing that your subjectivity can rule in WIKI(NATO)pedia, based on comical example of Cape Verde or Equatorial Guinea, like Russia, China, India, Argentina, Brasil .... do not mater. But this is true example of NATO BIAS in this WIKIPEDIA. Most of articles more then 95% are sourced in NATO countries sources and even such an obivuous facts easily verifiable by UN data cannot be stated as FACTS based on comical excuse.80.61.205.20 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is fact to say how many countries have recognised. It is subjective, and possibly WP:OR, to say why they recognised. Bazonka (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is the same when we say for those that recognize it, because many of those countries are doing it under open pressure of USA and clear disapproval of population. Thus you can avoid also statement of recognizer countries. This is why facts should be stated as they are and then in text you can explain that there are some cases like Cape Verde, but also other types like FYROM, Czech Rep, Poland, Bulgaria, Monte-Negro etc where there is clear public opposition to Kosovo Independence. Some of governments of those countries justified clearly their decision based on ambitions to comply with EU and NATO agenda and not to step on US toes. Regardless of reasons facts are facts and that should be stated. Your reasoning works more against your statement because everyone knows that it was American push that made countries go that road rather then their free will. It was almost commanded from Washington and chronology of events clearly shows it. It is also very clear that many governments who opposed Kosovo independence faced open pressure for US to do so and we all know how much balls and convictions it takes to DO THAT. So please, write the facts. We can put those preceptions, conditions and limitations later on. Not to mention that without UN mandate thus DE FACTO and DE JURE US invaded Serbia (then FRJ) and amputated part of its territory. They justified it with humanitarian reasons but never denied it was not in accordance with UN carta. Unlike them Russians did have UN mandate in Georgia (which arguably is used or abused, but they still had it). NATO never had any mandate and act completely unilaterally. It itself explains determination of US and NATO in pushing this agenda and challenges poor and small countries face to take their stand. Thus, judging honestly, there is much more integrity in using NOT RECOGNIZE countries and mentioning number then RECONGIZE countries and mentioning number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- If we give the total number of UN states, then we are stating how many countries don't recognise. Of course recognition and non-recognition are not as black-and-white as they may seem - there are different shades of non-recognition, from the Serbia-style "will never recognise" to countries like Cape Verde or Equatorial Guinea, which practically do recognise, but just haven't done so diplomatically. But explicitly talking about non-recognisers, we are giving the false impression that they're all the same. Bazonka (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I thought we are talking serious things here not voting. Science is not election. I also fail to understand your argument why my formulation is so disagreeable to you. It should be more about arguments and less about emotions and friendships. Could you explain why is way he suggest so much "agreeable" then mine? Why it is so hard to write that there are countries that do not recognize Kosovo independence and so easy that there are those that "recognize it". I undersatnd reasons CNN does not like to state that, it has its propaganda effect. Especially when they state number then accept it and then only mention over and over again that "Serbia and its powerful ally Russia deny it". There one can clearly see propaganda effect it aims to create leaving viewer with feeling that there are broad international consensus and some boring Serbs and Russians who do oppose it.I thought aim of science/encyclopedia is not to create sentiments but report facts with least possible ambiguity. Would you agree? How on earth it is POV to you? 80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Who's the arbiter of what constitutes a country? That needs to be established before one can make any statement as to how many countries have recognized Kosovo. Thankfully your recent edit does make such an establishment, referring not to "countries" but to "UN member states". —Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not all of the non-recognising countries have issued statements opposed to recognition. Some have just said stuff like "We're thinking about it," which isn't exactly taking the pro-Serbia side. Whilst recognition shows that the country is definitely taking a side (diplomatically at least), not recognising covers the the pro-Serbia stance, but also the don't care and the about-to-recognise stances. Bazonka (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is not about taking pro-Serbian side. It is about facts. They can think about it, they can pray on it, but till they do not recognize it they DE FACTO do not recognize it. Similarly some countries that recognize it have strong feeling of reconsidering it. Some where even warned by US not to do it. But it does not matter because they DE FACTO recognize Kosovo independence. I cannot believe I had to expalain this over and over again. WIKIPE-dia si COME-dia.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how that's the slightest bit relevant to the objection I raised. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's because it was a response to Khajidha. Sorry if the paragraphs have got muddled. Bazonka (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- So Mate, are we moving further or you are still not convinced. Have we agreed that some countries can LOVE independent Kosovo but till you do not do paper work in UN you DE FACTO and DE JURE they do not recognize it'Bold text'. Are we going to wait for pigeons with "messages of desperately waited Independence" to come or we are going to write facts as they are and do some serious business. I see your stance is very NATO colored. You like chopping countries NATO stile, from Iraq to Serbia. Lets close this case and move on to counting how many countries will recognize independence of Scotland, after queen jubilee is over. Seams she will be the "Last Emperor of Scotland". What do you think?80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's because it was a response to Khajidha. Sorry if the paragraphs have got muddled. Bazonka (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not all of the non-recognising countries have issued statements opposed to recognition. Some have just said stuff like "We're thinking about it," which isn't exactly taking the pro-Serbia side. Whilst recognition shows that the country is definitely taking a side (diplomatically at least), not recognising covers the the pro-Serbia stance, but also the don't care and the about-to-recognise stances. Bazonka (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Who's the arbiter of what constitutes a country? That needs to be established before one can make any statement as to how many countries have recognized Kosovo. Thankfully your recent edit does make such an establishment, referring not to "countries" but to "UN member states". —Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The anonymous user named 80.61.205.20 has to immediately stop her/his uncivil and combative language towards other users including the use of bolding and caps lock for shouting at other users. Such behaviour is in direct violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. In addition the user cannot legitimately accuse other users of pro-NATO opinions when the user herself/himself clearly has anti-NATO opinions, promoting either stance is in violation of POV. The user has to directly indicate exactly what specific sentences in the article are biased and present reliable sources for discussion to make the article less biased. Unsubstantiated accusations of NATO POV in the article in combination with clearly anti-NATO rhetoric here, alongside uncivil behaviour towards users will not resolve the issues here, and will likely end up in administrative action needing to be taken.--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The anon IP from the Netherlands is a bit confused - the queen would be an empress, not an emperor. Also note that the United Nations has nowhere near the military and economic strength of the NATO alliance - if NATO considers Kosovo an independent state, then by every measure that matters, it will be one! As long as the NATO military backs a gov't in Kosovo, "de facto" is the proper term to use. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Lead: Serbian name for Republic of Kosovo
The official Serbian-language name for Republic of Kosovo, as used in the Constitution, legislation, government letterheads, and signs outside all government offices, is "Republika Kosova" (using the genitive of "Kosovo"), not "Republika Kosovo" as in the Article. I know this is different from usual Slavic naming conventions, but Wikipedia Policy on Names says that where an official name exists other than in the title, it should be given early on in the article. The name Serbs in Serbia give the region is stated in the article; I see no reason to change the name Serb Ministers in the Government of Kosovo use. --Markd999 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, no, its not. Translation is "Republika Kosovo" and official name also. Do you have any reference for that? --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Lead: the end of the war
The article currently reads: "Following the Kosovo War, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) relinquished governance of this territory, whose governance was taken over by the United Nations" This sounds like a generous unilateral act, which is not a NPOV, and is factually incorrect (hostilities did not end until the FRY had accepted, under the Ahtisaari/Chernomyrdin agreement, that it would give up the exercise of sovereignty - pending a final status settlement, of course). I propose to edit this to "The Kosovo War ended with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia accepting that it would give up the exercise of its sovereignty pending a final status settlement. Under UNSCR 1244, governance passed to the United Nations"
--Markd999 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is fine by me. Small change... --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Lead: North Kosovo
Current article reads: ".. while North Kosovo, the largest Kosovo Serb enclave, is under the control of institutions of the Republic of Serbia".
Not entirely factual. The Kosovo Police Service are present in the North, while police in Serbian uniforms are not (even if Serb officers in the KPS may not in fact be carrying out orders from Pristina); the Kosovo Customs Service controls the border crossings in joint management with the Serbian Customs; KFOR is a factor in "control"; and while openly Serbian institutions are present (electricity, telephones, etc) unofficial parallel structures are also a potent factor (usually subsidised by Belgrade, loyal to the idea of being part of Serbia, but not necessarily subservient to the Serbian Government at any particular time).
I propose to edit this (a change accepted in the article "Republic of Kosovo" to:
"..although North Kosovo, the largest Serb enclave, is largely under the control of institutions of the Republic of Serbia or parallel structures subsidised by Serbia"
--Markd999 (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Lead: control
Current version has the Kosovo Governemnt having "de facto control over most of its territory". I propose to delete the words "de facto". In the subsequent mention of North Kosovo there is no mention about whether control is de facto or de jure, and there is no reason for the words here. --Markd999 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. Kosovo government is still mostly in the de facto region, while Serbia is still de jure dominant. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The article is supposed to be from a NPOV. Your argument here accepts that the phrase "de facto" implies that the Kosovo Government is not "de jure" in control of most of its territory, and is not therefore neutral terminology. I accept that Serbia, and quite a lot of other countries, believe this to be the case. But their point of view is already included in the article. I shall therefore go ahead with the edit on the basis that you agree with me that the words are not neutral, albeit that they are in accordance with your own point of view over the dispute over status. --Markd999 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, i have to ask for your revert. RoK control over territory is really only de facto by now, as they are not UN members, and the rest of the territory is not in their control, neither de jure nor de facto. This is very clear info that is not problematic. As article is under ARBMAC and under various restrictions, please, revert your self, as we didnt agreed yet on this. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think I have to refuse your request. The main controversy in this article, as among the international community, is over whether Kosovo is de jure or merely de facto independent. Presumably all the states which have recognised it think it is de jure independent; as do many international lawyers. Regardless of my or your views on this controversy, under Wikipedia principles we need to use language which is neutral both explicitly, and, so far as possible, implicitly. You seem to agree with me that the use of the words "de facto" is in contrast with "de jure"; in other words that it is not neutral over the controversy. If they are interpreted purely neutrally, then they are redundant; and since most edits tend to lengthen the entry, one which cuts, even by two words, should be welcomed. Even if I entirely agreed with your view of whether Kosovo's independence was de jure or de facto, I would still propose this change.
You are, I am afraid, wrong about membership of the UN being a requirement of statehood. Even today, the Holy See, accepted by the UN as a state, is not a member. There are many examples in the past of countries generally accepted as states not being members of the UN, either of their own volition (Switzerland for most of the period since the foundation of the UN), or because they faced veto by a member of the Security Council (for example, Ireland until 1955, the People's Republic of China until Nixon's U-turn, or both Koreas until the 1990s). --Markd999 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, would you be happy if the article were to refer to control of the North being "de facto but not de jure"? I would not consider this particularly neutral. But I have never understood how Serbia constantly referred to alleged breaches of UNSCR 1244 while still claiming to exercise powers of sovereignty over the North which were specifically transferred to UNMIK under UNSCR 1244. --Markd999 (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Background: "Frontier belt"
There is no, or very little, dispute over where the line of demarcation runs. The dispute is over whether this is an international border or an administrative boundary within Serbia, or whether this should be changed.
I propose editing to the following, already accepted in the article "Republic of Koodvo":
"The remaining line of demarcation is the subject of controversy - seen by proponents of Kosovan independence as the Kosovo-Serbia border and seen by opponents of the independence as the boundary between Central Serbia and an autonomous Kosovo all within Serbia".
--Markd999 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Meh, it is not quite important to say... Dont know, why do you think that this line is necessary? It is obvious, mostly... --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it is necessary for two reasons. First, the current version grammatically means that it is Western Serbia whose status is a matter of controversy, which is of course not the case. Secondly, the phrase "frontier belt" implies that there is dispute or uncertainty about where the line of demarcation runs, which is also not the case.
Thirdly, you have accepted this line (not, incidentally, proposed by me but as a response to a proposal by me) in the article "Republic of Kosovo" and you do not seem to disagree with it here. On this basis I shall make the edit.--Markd999 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Background: EULEX
Current version reads:
"the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), most of whose roles were assumed by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008."
Is this true, or is it neutral? I think neither.
As for the truth, EULEX has the power to arrest and prosecute people, as well as to assist the development of the Kosovo police, prosecutors and judiciary. These were all powers of UNMIK. But UNMIK also had the powers to legislate by itself; to inspect and if necessary amend (or even veto) laws passed by the Kosovo Assembly; to take most economic decisions even against Kosovo Government decisions; to refer prosecutions to courts composed solely of international judges; to run the Customs Service, which it did to the last; to directly run elections, although in practice it gave this up in 2004; etc etc etc.
It can be seen even from this brief and partial list that "most" powers of UNMIK were not transferred to EULEX (although I think that most Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo would agree that EULEX would have been important if it had done its job properly).
As for neutrality, I can quite see that Serbians would prefer EULEX (whose role Serbia recognises) to be mentioned rather than the International Community Office (whose role they do not). But more of UNMIK's powers passed to the ICO (under the Ahtisaari Plan, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) than passed to EULEX. And some, of course, lapsed altogether (or, if you take the view of a non-recognising state, became unenforceable).
I would therefore propose to edit as follows:
"Some of UNMIK's powers in the area of rule of law were transferred to the European Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008. In the Declaration of Independence of February 2008, and in its Constitution, Kosovo accepted a general supervisory role with important specific powers, proposed in the Ahtisaari Plan, exercised by the International Community Office (ICO). The International Steering Group has decided that, since Kosovo has passed legislation envisaged in and has implemented the Ahtisaari Plan, there is no reason for the ICO to continue to exist beyond September 2012" --Markd999 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- That looks reasonable to me. Good work! bobrayner (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- But, you must use good neutral source for this. Without it, please, dont add this info. --WhiteWriterspeaks 07:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, you are confused. There is EULEX, as an EU institution, which is composed of 27 EU countries. Then there is the ICO/ICR/ISG/Ahtisaari Plan, which is composed of (for example) only 20 EU countries. Distinct, but overlapping, entities.
- As you mentioned, some institutions Serbia recognizes as legitimate, others it does not. The International Steering Group (ISG) was created by the Ahtisaari Plan which is closely linked with the independent Republic (being explicitly referenced in its Declaration of Independence for example). Anything related to either should not be referred to as some universally accepted fact; it is a partisan institution. The ISG made the ICO/ICR.
- UNMIK powers were not (AFAIK) passed to the ICO/ICR/ISG/Ahtisaari Plan. The powers of EULEX were recognized by the PISG, which was recognized by the UNMIK which was recognized by the UNSC which was recognized by the UN Chart which was recognized by Serbia. (PHEW!) But I cannot prove this! I think the PISG became the Republic but I cannot really find "the sauce"; everyone has stopped talking about the PISG, which is still recognized by UNMIK regulations AFAIK. And then again, everyone stopped talking about the UNMIK too, who seems to have abandoned his post after the Declaration of Independence (or at least stopped updateing his website)...
- TLDR: No, you assume too much. When you can fill in the gaps in the Government of Kosovo article, then maybe something can be said. Int21h (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also note the weak link between UNMIK and EULEX. The only reliable source I could find was 1 (literally, 1) BBC article, wherein it does not give details. No UNMIK regulations online even mention EULEX. Many other, in my opinion, unreliable sources also repeated this, also without any references given and likely themselves internally citing the BBC article. Int21h (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Lead: Inter-ethnic tensions
Current article reads:
"Long-term severe ethnic tensions between Kosovo's Albanian and Serb populations have left Kosovo ethnically divided, resulting in inter-ethnic violence, including the Kosovo War of 1999."
I do not dispute that, as in most regions where two or more ethnic/linguistic/religious groups co-exist, there have been tensions which presumably go back a very long way. But this sentence suggests that it was Italic textonlyItalic text these tensions which resulted in conflict, rather than policies from Belgrade (particularly from 1989, but going back further) or for that matter Pristina between 1974 and 1989.
I find it difficult to generalise about inter-ethnic tensions in Kosovo. If one looks to Kamenica, one finds that it was virtually untouched by the conflict of 1999, the damage done by the riots of March 2004 was a couple of windows broken, the green market is (and was virtually without interruption) multi-ethnic, and the brick factory had both Serbs and Albanians in management and wotking positions again without (or almost without) interruption. If one looks to Prizren, the communities there seem to have rubbed along reasonably happily until 1999 and the destruction of Serb areas of the city seem to have been the work of people from the surrounding villages which were almost all destroyed in 1999, and did not share the pride of people from Prizren itself in the city's traditions. Other tensions arose, not surprisingly, in areas where Kosovo Albanian property was confiscated and given to Serbian colonists; and the converse may have happened at an earlier stage (for example, in the two villages of Babuš/Babush, one is called Srpski Babuš (Serbian Babush) and the other, officially, Babush i Muxharreve (Babush of the Refugees, the Refugees in question being Albanians from the Nis region of Serbia, expelled in 1878). One would have to be astonishingly well-informed about local history to make real sense of this mosaic.
I do not despair of finding a short description which is neutral, but ignoring the fact that the Milosevic regime suspended Kosovo's autonomy, introducing "extraordinary measures" which resulted in 70% of Kosovo's employees losing their jobs, etc etc, does not seem to me a NPOV. --Markd999 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Background: ICJ advisory opinion
I propose editing this to "..did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence': nor did the declaration of independence violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244, since this did not describe Kosovo's final status, nor had the Security Council reserved for itself the decision on final status".
This edit has been accepted in the separate articles on the Advisory Opinion and on the Republic of Kosovo. Two points here: it might not have violated general international law but still have violated international law because of a binding (Chapter VII) resolution of the UNSCR, and what the current version has as the president of the court's description, as if it was his personal opinion, in fact comes from the majority decision of the court.
--Markd999 (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
UN Administration Period
Current version has 2 sections: one titled as above, the second entitled UN Administration 1999-Present. The second title is neither neutral nor correct: even if one believes that under UNSCR 1244 UNMIK ought to be administering Kosovo, it does not claim to be doing so in fact. The first title is quite neutral and if one thinks that UN Administration exists legally today (even if not in fact) it still applies. The first paragraph of the second section is pure duplication and I propose to delete it. The second paragraph has information not elsewhere in the article, and I propose to retain it with the following minor amendments:
"Under the Constitutional Framework, Kosovo had a 120-member Kosovo Assembly. The Assembly includes twenty reserved seats: ten for Kosovo Serbs and ten for non-Serb and non-Albanian nations (e.g. Bosniaks, Roma, etc.). The Kosovo Assembly was responsible for electing the President, Prime Minister, and Government of Kosovo, and for passing legislation which was vetted and promulgated by UNMIK."
(This proposed edit already accepted in the article on the Republic of Kosovo. --Markd999 (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, from what I can tell UNMIK christian-ed the PISG, which from what I can tell became the Republic, then abandoned the post. ("Hey UNMIK I was wondering what happened to this PISG enti-- Hey, where did UNMIK go?") Int21h (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Background: Border
It's not mentioned in Noel Malcolm, but I think that in 1953 or thereabouts there were bigger revisions to the border: that the three Presevo municipalities went over to Serbia from Kosovo (after municipal referendums) and the three municipalities of Zvečan, Lepkosavič, and Zubin Potok went over to Kosovo from Serbia (again, after municipal referendums). There were also revisions to the southern border: Đeneral Jankovič/ Hani i Elezit transferred from Macedonia to Kosovo (not that Macedonia would want it back: no statues, and more Albanians).
Zoupan (or someone) please tell me whether this is right or wrong. In one way I would prefer to be wrong; personally I dislike the idea of borders being delimited on ethnic lines, and would not want a historical argument for the transfer of territories in this way. But then, of course, I am not a Serb living in Zubin Potok or an Albanian living in the Presevo Valley. But if facts are facts we should include them. --79.126.148.120 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting, I'm going to look it up, we need sources. You would prefer to be wrong? Don't mix nationalistic partition with Yugoslav geo-administrative reforms.--Zoupan 21:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Lead: declaration of independence
Current article reads:
"Under UNSCR 1244, governance passed to the United Nations. The partially recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo), a self-declared independent state, has control over most of the territory..."
All this is perfectly true, but it reads oddly. There is no sense of chronological development, although of course this is given in the body of the article. I propose to edit to:
"Under UNSCR 1244, governance passed to the United Nations in 1999. The partially recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo)declared itself an independent state in 2008, and has control over most of the territory...." --Markd999 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Box: telephones
Under "calling code" there is currently a footnote which reads:
"Officially +381; some mobile phone providers use +377 (Monaco) or +386 (Slovenia) instead."
Not a NPOV and not strictly true. +381 (Serbia) is the calling code for fixed lines. The only two mobile operators licenced under applicable law in Kosovo, both of them under UNMIK authority under UNSCR 1244 so Serbians cannot dispute their legality, use the Monaco or Slovenian calling codes as part of their licence.
I propose to edit to "+381 (Serbia) for fixed lines; mobile phone providers in Kosovo use +377 (Monaco) +386 (Slovenia)" and to put this in the text instead of as a footnote. --Markd999 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- There's nothing "NPOV" about a telephone exchange; just say it needs correcting. There's far too much Serb-Kosovar antagonism on the talk pages, this is complete over-exaggeration. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Help! I don't know why it has come out as it has! And I don't seem able to undo it --Markd999 (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed.--Zoupan 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Kosovo War
I propose to edit the section on war crimes, beginning "Stojilkovic killed himself...." with the following, already accepted in the article "Republic of Kosovo", with the citations found there:
"Stojiljković killed himself while at large in 2002 and Milošević died in custody during the trial in 2006. In 2009 Milutinovic was acquitted by the Trial Chamber; five defendants were found guilty (three sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, and two to 22 years; and in 2011 the remaining defendant, who had been in hiding when the main trial started, was found guilty and sentenced to 27 years. The verdicts are under appeal. The indictment against the nine alleged that they directed, encouraged or supported a campaign of terror and violence directed at Kosovo Albanian civilians and aimed at the expulsion of a substantial portion of them from Kosovo. It has been alleged that about 800,000 Albanians were expelled as a result. In particular, in the indictment of June 2006, the accused were charged with murder of 919 identified Kosovo Albanian civilians aged from one to 93, both male and female.
In addition, the Office of the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor has secured final judgements involving the conviction of 7 persons, sentenced to a total of 136 years imprisonment for war crimes in Kosovo involving 89 Albanian victims. As of June 2012, a trial of 12 defendants for an alleged massacre of 44 Albanian victims in Čuška (Alb: Qyshk) is ongoing."
This updates the trial situations and gives credit to the Republic of Serbia War Crimes Prosecutor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, again quite valid update. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I don't understand why nobody else comment in here except two of us... ? --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Everyone else is asleep :-)
- Usually we have epic disagreements on this talkpage. When somebody proposes something reasonable and uncontroversial, this is a serious break from tradition, and we don't know how to respond! bobrayner (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I don't understand why nobody else comment in here except two of us... ? --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Hvala! Faleminderit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Early History
Current text reads:
"During the 13th and 14th centuries, Kosovo became a political and spiritual centre of the Serbian Kingdom. In the late 13th century, the seat of the Serbian Archbishopric was moved to Pec, and rulers centred themselves between Prizren and Skopje,[1] during which time thousands of Christian monasteries and feudal-style forts and castles were erected."
No problem with most of this, but "thousands" of Christian monasteries and etc etc were erected? Quite impossible. Any idea of how many hectares it took to endow a monastery, even with only a few monks? Or how much labour it took to build a castle, which also required large amounts of land to maintain a garrison? Where are the remains of these "thousands" of monasteries, etc? Just remember that in the early middle ages it could take over a thousand sheep to supply the parchment for one single manuscript copy of the New Testament.
I propose just a short edit. "Msny" instead of "thousands of". But it strikes me as shocking that anyone could look at the denity of monasteries, castles, etc in Europe, most of it always richer then Kosovo, and then suggest that "thousands" of these institutions could conceivably maintained. --Markd999 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with you. Instead of using term "many" it would be better to present as precise number of churches and monasteries as possible. Huge number of churches and monasteries is one of the reasons why some people consider Kosovo as "Holy land". "Many" is concealing this important fact. I was surprised to see google hits for thousands because it really sounds impossible. To my surprise, there are numerous sources about more than thousand churches and monasteries. In that case, together with "feudal-style forts and castles" thousands don't look so impossible. Maybe some user who is more acquainted with this issue could help to determine most precise number? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Searching for a single number would be futile; over the centuries there will have been various new churches built, old ones abandoned, merges, splits &c. and the historical record is not perfect.
- It should be more straightforward to get an accurate number if we focus more closely; for instance, there should be some good papers on Google Scholar based on Nemanjid chrysobulls. (New churches or monastic foundation would typically get a grant of land or other feudal resources in order to support its ongoing operation; the grant documents tended to be preserved, for obvious reasons; and now they're a good source for all kinds of history, not just the history of church foundations).
- However, Malcolm (Medieval Kosovo: 850s-1390s, p50) says "...Kosovo was not the main focus of the church-building activities of most of these rulers". bobrayner (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- True, the 'heart' of the medieval Serbian Kingdom was Raska, not Kosovo. A precise number say, of the most important churches, would be much better than ambiguous 'thousands' which is impossible. There are not a thousand mosques in Kosovo, and that's for a population almost 90% Muslim... - Ottomanist (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Christianity is older than Islam in Kosovo. When searching, "thousands" have been built, "hundreds" have been destroyed. --Zoupan 08:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- True, the 'heart' of the medieval Serbian Kingdom was Raska, not Kosovo. A precise number say, of the most important churches, would be much better than ambiguous 'thousands' which is impossible. There are not a thousand mosques in Kosovo, and that's for a population almost 90% Muslim... - Ottomanist (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
If the population of Kosovo is likely to have been 350,000 in the seventeenth century (and it can hardly have been higher in the early fourteenth) it is quite impossible that it can have supported "thousands" of churches, monasteries, forts and castles. Each of these required, and still require, specialist personnel who require upkeep from others - despite the monastic aim of poverty and working for the monastery - and as for the costs and time of building, these were huge by modern standards. If you look at Velika Hoca, by Rasovec, for example, there are a number of Serbian churches - 12 I think - which are offshoots of bigger monasteries and are there because those monasteries gained much of their income from producing wine from their holdings there). There may be sources which talk of "thousands"of these establishments, but then medieval and early modern sources almost everywhere in Europe tend to use exaggerated numbers to mean "a lot".
The Serbian Orthodox Church produced a book (in, I think, around 2000, called, I think, "The Crucifixion of Kosovo"), detailing destruction or damage to churches and monasteries in Kosovo. Although it tries to disguise it (or possibly the attitudes in the Balkans to "restoration", as demonstrated for example in Macedonia, are different from those in Western Europe), many or most of these are 1990s "restorations" of churches, often quite small, that had been destroyed or collapsed over seven centuries. For example, the Monastery of the Archangels in Prizren can be seen in an early 1990s photograph to be visible only to the foundations.
It is evident from this source that the number of "restored" churches was relatively small; the policy of "restoration" applied to churches that were never particularly significant except to a small number of people who worshiped there, so it is extremely unlikely that more significant monasteries were not restored or recorded.
I don't think it will be possible to reach a definitive number at the present time, and with present political controversies, but "many" instead of "thousands" seems to me to be generous. If you compare with the density of archeological church, monastic, and military settlements which existed in northern Europe (simply because higher rainfall levels supported more people, the real description would be "few". I don't think this is sensible in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Lede
I think the UNESCO World Heritage sites and the 1389 Battle of Kosovo are sufficiently important to mention in the lede. I really do not understand edit summaries such as these [6]. Athenean (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Not that important", wow. It should stay in the intro, without a doubt.--Zoupan 08:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I half-agree. Whether the 1389 Battle of Kosovo Polje was really hugely important at the time or whether its importance is a matter of later mythologising seems to me irrelevant. Whatever, its importance in Serbian ideas of their history means it should be in the lead.
The World Heritage Sites are another matter (even though I find Visoki Decani magnificent and exuding spiritual peace, which I cannot say for Gracanica or the Patriarchate). Every country, or "country" if you prefer, has World Heritage Sites. It is very unusual for them to be mentioned in the leads to Wikipedia articles, and if they are mentioned it usually means that there is nothing more recent that might interest the reader.--Markd999 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Serb exodus 1999-2000
Current text reads:
"Some 200,000–280,000, representing the majority of the Serb population, left when the Serbian forces left. There was also some looting of Serb properties and even violence against some of those Serbs and Roma who remained.[110] The current number of internally displaced persons is disputed,[111][112][113][114] with estimates ranging from 65,000[115] to 250,000.[116][117][118] Many displaced Serbs are afraid to return to their homes, even with UNMIK protection. Around 120,000–150,000 Serbs remain in Kosovo, but are subject to ongoing harassment and discrimination due to physical threats for their safety.[119]"
Not NPOV, internally inconsistent, and difficult to support from facts. The 1991 census recorded 194,000 Serbs living in Kosovo. It is difficult to see how this could have risen by 1999 to a range of 320,000-430,000 (those who left and those who remain according to this passage). "internally displaced persons" implies a view of Kosovo's status as part of Serbia, as "refugees" would imply a view of Kosovo's status as independent: "displaced persons" would be neutral. Serbian claims of 250,000 people displaced to Serbia from Kosovo may include Roma and - who knows? - even public servants, police, and army personnel deployed in Kosovo temporarily before 1999.
I suggest the following passage as a NPOV replacement, based on the article "Republic of Kosovo" and accepted there as NPOV (with citations):
"Many Serbs (and Roma) left with the Serb forces, or as a result of revenge attacks and occupation of Serb properties in the aftermath of the conflict. Estimates of the number of Serbs thus displaced range from 65,000 to 250,000. Given that the 1991 census recorded only 194,000 Serbs living in Kosovo, the higher estimates, if based on fact, must include Roma, Serbs displaced within Kosovo, and perhaps other elements. It is generally agreed by both Serbs and Albanians that the number of Serbs remaining in Kosovo is in the range of 100,000-120,000, although in most urban centres other than North Mitrovica and Kamenica the Serb population is now negligeable. Although, since 2004, the Kosovo Government has been the largest funder of returns projects for displaced persons, the number of such returns remains relatively low, partly due to continued fears of possible violence or harrassment"
--Markd999 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- We have numerous sources for this. I strongly disagree with your unsourced suggestion. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
WhiteWriter, you have accepted an almost identical text in the "Republic of Kosovo" article. Of course there are numerous sources for the highest figures of displaced persons. There are also sources for the lowest figures of displaced Serbs, which are in fact cited in the current text. The point is that the text should not present as fact the highest figures, and then say that there are much lower estimates. Nor, if the Republic of Serbia (because the 1991 census was carried out by them, after Kosovo autonomy was ended) could record only 194,000 Serbs living in Kosovo, should one say without explanation that a much greater number of Serbs than existed in Kosovo in 1991 left in 1999, while at the same time two-thirds of the numbers of Serbs living in Kosovo in 1991 stayed. (Do not think that I underestimate the level of violence or fear of violence that Serbs, whether they left or stayed, had to go through).
If you propose amendments to my proposed edit, I would be happy to consider them. Otherwise I shall go ahead. --Markd999 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- There are not amendments, i disagree to remove sources, without strong and great ones that says opposite. And i didn't agree on anything on RoK page, as i told you, that was a marathon of edits, and i didnt even followed everything of those. Some of those "agreed" edits will be questioned. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
But I do not intend to remove any sources. The fact is that there are estimates from 65,000 to 250,000+, and of course these must be cited. But you cannot put as a statement of fact in the first sentence that the figure is 250,000+, and then put in later down that estimates vary from 65,000-250,000. And if you accept that the number of Serbs resident in Kosovo in 1991 was 194,000, and I see no reason to doubt that the Serbian Statistical Office carried out the census professionally, then the fact that the number of "Serbs" who left, plus those who stayed, requires some explanation - or at least needs to be noted. --Markd999 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Ways to improve the history section of this article
As a person of no Balkan descent, but who knows Balkan people and a significant understanding of 20th century history of the Balkans, I am disappointed with the way in which the history section is organized. It is almost completely dedicated to the rivalry and conflict between the Albanians and the Serbs without describing almost any other topics beyond the ethnic nationalist conflict perspective. For instance, it should describe what internationally-significant cultural and scientific achievements were made in Kosovo and/or by people from Kosovo. Again, by cultural I do not mean exclusively the Albanian and Serb culture, but am referring to cultural developments by individuals and groups who may reside in one ethnic group or another, but whose culture significantly influenced the world. Scientific advancements that were created in Kosovo or by people who came from Kosovo will also make this article better balanced in its historical coverage. That is my advice on how to get this article in better shape.--R-41 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to agree, but I fear that it is very difficult to do - not just because of Serbian-Albanian controversy, but because there are very few examples which one can give of people from Kosovo who have had "significantly influenced the world" except in terms of this ethnic conflict - even if, unlike some, I regard the ethnic conflict as having started relatively recently and because of influences outside Kosovo. The obvious exception might be Mother Theresa of Calcutta, both of whose parents may have come from Kosovo and who, undeniably, saw the vision which decided her on her religious vocation. But she was born in Skopje (Macedonia) and mostly brought up in Albania.
Kosovo people, Serbs or Albanians, are (most certainly) not less creative than others. But Kosovo has always been an inland area without navigable rivers; when until the late nineteenth century, trade (and therefore the economy) depended mainly on navigation. So you cannot expect Oxford, Cambridge, la Sorbonne, or Heidelburg in Kosovo's history. --Markd999 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Even including information on significant historic economic, industrial, environmental, and archaeological topics in Kosovo - whether they be internationally or locally significant, would be better than an article focused almost exclusively on the ethnic conflict between Albanians and Serbs.--R-41 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Like bobrayner (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agree too. There are no one important from there, but there must be something that was there before this conflict. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Rather ignorant statements above. Trade was done on camels, horseback and other means for centuries without the need for rivers. Places like Prizren were some of the most important centres of Ottoman Europe. Prishtina had Jewish refugees from the Christian reconquista in Spain and Mitrovica was mined since Roman times. Trade couldn't be conducted between the east and west of massive world empires without transversing Kosovo. Obviously there are massive achievements from the people inhabiting Kosovo, the Serb-Albanian 'ethnic' conflict is a recent phenomena. Good suggestion above. Ottomanist (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Granted that there was always trade. But until the invention of the railway it was always, and everywhere, even in the easiest terrain, cheaper to transport goods by water than by land, which meant that where there was only land transport available the goods had to be high value (say, gold from Novo Brdo, or crafts like silverwork from Prizren) and the customers relatively rich, whereas for England in the same period it was possible to export wool in bulk or import wine from Bordeaux or even Spain by sea. Most goods going from (say) Istanbul to the West went by sea, not transversing Kosovo or Macedonia. Kosovo did not end up being the poorest part of former Yugoslavia only because of Serbian or Yugoslav policies! But the article would, I certainly agree, benefit from some reminder that even in the middle ages Kosovo's urban centres were quite cosmopolitan, with Germans, Hungarians, and Jews; and its history is not all about just Serbs and Albanians (just as neither its present nor its future are). --Markd999 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd disagree on a trivial point; I'd argue that there's evidence of overland trade in less valuable goods across much of premodern Europe, and Kosovo is no exception. 15th century Kosovo's main exports were agricultural products and nonprecious metals. If you want to look at ties with other groups of people (not Ottomans, not Serbs) maybe it's worth looking at Ragusan businessmen, Saxon miners &c. And we have barely any coverage of the Byzantine era. bobrayner (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let's get back on the main topic, what material on Kosovo's history, beyond the Albanian-Serb ethnic conflict, should be mentioned on matters such as economic, industrial, environmental, and archaeological topics in Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- The difficulty is that Kosovo has nominally gone on and off the map several times over the centuries with one huge absence. Its capacity has also varied down the generations, vilayet? Ceremonial unit? Autonomous province? And this all comes before the lack of clarity from 1999 onward. Along with the name having bounced back and forth, so too have the borders. The Kosovo with which everyone associates dates back to 1946 in the FPR Yugoslavia. The last time the region was known was up to the First Balkan War when it was the Vilayet of Kosovo. For what it's worth, Mother Teresa was born in that entity: Skopje 1910 was the capital of that province. It is a little something if nothing else. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's not much of a difficulty. History isn't created by names or boundaries. The History section should cover the area that is now Kosovo (although as it didn't exist in a vacuum, it doesn't have to rigidly follow modern borders). CMD (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- The difficulty is that Kosovo has nominally gone on and off the map several times over the centuries with one huge absence. Its capacity has also varied down the generations, vilayet? Ceremonial unit? Autonomous province? And this all comes before the lack of clarity from 1999 onward. Along with the name having bounced back and forth, so too have the borders. The Kosovo with which everyone associates dates back to 1946 in the FPR Yugoslavia. The last time the region was known was up to the First Balkan War when it was the Vilayet of Kosovo. For what it's worth, Mother Teresa was born in that entity: Skopje 1910 was the capital of that province. It is a little something if nothing else. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- The easiest thing then is to produce a small section on notable people from Kosovo's towns, you'll find those on the articles. But we just need to keep away from politics. A lot of footballers that represent foreign teams come from Kosovo. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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. 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. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Template:V0.5
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. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. 
Unrecognized countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
According to CIA Factbook, Population
Ethnic groups: Albanians 92%, other (Serb, Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian) 8% (2008) [7] --12:45, 27 November 2011
Merge with Republic of Kosovo?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was no consensus. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This [8] discussion makes a very good point. Having two articles about Kosovo one as a geographical region, one as a political region is a violation of WP:NPOV. I suggest to read it, as I said makes good points especially when it's compared to South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria. 76.112.213.78 (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - I fail to understand how this is a violation of NPOV - if anything, it's the opposite. Nobody disagrees that Kosovo is a place, but plenty of people disagree that it's an independent republic, and others disagree that it's a Serbian province. So, saying that the place is independent (or part of Serbia) is POV. So, this is intended to be a neutral article on the geography, population, ancient history, etc., and we have other articles covering the claimed political entities which complement this one whilst not giving the impression that the position of Wikipedia is that the Kosovo place is definitely independent or Serbian. The fact that other Wikipedia languages, or the Abkhazia etc. articles, handle this differently is irrelevant. Bazonka (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also per Bazonka's comment: there aren't just two articles about Kosovo (one about Kosovo as a geographical region, and one about Kosovo as a political region). Actually there are at least three: Kosovo, Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (if we weren't to count United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo). So this argument about existence of several different articles being POV is rather void, I'd say. Especially when compared to situation of having articles Taiwan and Republic of China - which, I think, is also a situation of having at least two articles about, somewhat, similar thing. --biblbroks (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support. We had lots of polls on whether to split Kosovo. Despite certain editors repeatedly gaming the system, polls kept on returning the same consensus; "no". Then somebody went ahead and split the article anyway, there was an editwar, the wrong version got protected, and now we're here; a fait accompli. I would support a merge so that we're back in line with both consensus and with neutrality. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- When the split was done, the voices against it eventually subsided - I suppose because the arguments were not on their side. I am sorry if this doesn't sound like my best faith on your behalf but I must say it anyway: I don't remember reading anything coming from you which would suggest you had something (substantial) against the split. Also if I understand the Wikipedia's consensus building process correctly, the polls aren't a stable way to build one consensus. Discussion would usually be a better way. I am more inclined to the opinion that the consensus is more in line with the current situation as neutrality surely is. --biblbroks (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The voices subsided because we got tired of being ignored by the edit warriors that kept the split alive. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- So even if it were how you describe it - that there was an edit war about this - the conclusion from your words remains the same: it wasn't that important to you. So I believe that there was consensus for the split after all. --biblbroks (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The voices subsided because we got tired of being ignored by the edit warriors that kept the split alive. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- When the split was done, the voices against it eventually subsided - I suppose because the arguments were not on their side. I am sorry if this doesn't sound like my best faith on your behalf but I must say it anyway: I don't remember reading anything coming from you which would suggest you had something (substantial) against the split. Also if I understand the Wikipedia's consensus building process correctly, the polls aren't a stable way to build one consensus. Discussion would usually be a better way. I am more inclined to the opinion that the consensus is more in line with the current situation as neutrality surely is. --biblbroks (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support. It's a violation of NPOV. "Nobody disagrees that Kosovo is a place, but plenty of people disagree that it's an independent republic, and others disagree that it's a Serbian province", means you're taking a side here, that of the people who disagree. So there's one article for the people who disagree with Kosovo's independence, and one article for the people who disagree with that being a Serbian province. PersonPaOpinion (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC) (User have 5 edits in article space. Sock... --WhiteWriter speaks 15:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC))
- If somebody disagrees with one position, that doesn't necessarily mean that it agrees with the position which is the opposite of the one with which he/she disagrees. This kind of reasoning is what I believe could be portrayed as black and white thinking. --biblbroks (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. I'm certainly not taking sides, and I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be disagreeing with. I was just pointing out the fact that if Wikipedia equates RoK or KiM with the geographical area of Kosovo, then that would be a POV position. The only neutral way to handle things is to treat both opinons as equal, and that can't easily be done in the main Kosovo artice - it's best to keep the different opinions separate. Saying that this approach is "a violation of NPOV" is bizarre and inexplicable. Bazonka (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- If somebody disagrees with one position, that doesn't necessarily mean that it agrees with the position which is the opposite of the one with which he/she disagrees. This kind of reasoning is what I believe could be portrayed as black and white thinking. --biblbroks (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per this arguments, per consensus reached below this archive link, per fact that this split was created by sock puppet IP also, and per fact that Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo --WhiteWriter speaks 15:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Duplicate pages and overlaping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Duplicate_articles#Rationale:
- Kosovo
- 1)Kosovo is landlocked and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the south, Albania to the west and Montenegro to the northwest. The remaining frontier belt is with the Central Serbian region which is the source of international dispute
- Republic of Kosovo
- 2)The largest city and the capital of Kosovo is Pristina (alternatively spelled Prishtina or Priština), while other cities include Peć (Albanian: Peja), Prizren, Đakovica (Gjakova), and Kosovska Mitrovica (Mitrovica).
- 3)After the Kosovo War and the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), most of whose roles were assumed by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008.[23] In February 2008 individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo (acting in personal capacity and not binding the Assembly itself) declared Kosovo's independence as the Republic of Kosovo. Its independence is recognised by 86 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan). On 8 October 2008, upon request of Serbia, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the issue of Kosovo's declaration of independence.[24] On 22 July 2010, the ICJ ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law, which its president said contains no "prohibitions on declarations of independence".
- 4)Names of Kosovo.
- 5)History of Kosovo starting from Disintegration of Yugoslavia to Declaration of independence. ALL 6 sections.
- Republic of Kosovo
- 1)Kosovo is landlocked and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the south, Albania to the west and Montenegro to the northwest; all of which recognise Kosovo. The remainder of Kosovo's frontier to the north and east is the subject of controversy and is with[clarification needed] the Central Serbian region
- 2)The largest city and the capital of Kosovo is Pristina (alternatively spelled Prishtina or Priština), while other cities include Peć (Albanian: Peja), Prizren, Đakovica (Gjakova), and Kosovska Mitrovica (Mitrovica).
- 3)After the Kosovo War and the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), most of whose roles were assumed by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008.[23] In February 2008 individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo (acting in personal capacity and not binding the Assembly itself) declared Kosovo's independence as the Republic of Kosovo. Its independence is recognised by 86 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan). On 8 October 2008, upon request of Serbia, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the issue of Kosovo's declaration of independence.[24] On 22 July 2010, the ICJ ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law, which its president said contains no "prohibitions on declarations of independence".
- 4) Names of Kosovo
- 5)History of Kosovo starting from Disintegration of Yugoslavia to Declaration of independence. ALL 6 sections.
- Repetitive information so MERGE.PersonPaOpinion (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is bound to be a certain degree of overlap in articles about similar topics - this is not necessarily a reason to merge, and of course there is scope for improvement. However, the main issue here is the principle, not the specifics. Bazonka (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- And those sentences are about it. Names are removed, as those should not be in RoK article. While EVERYTHING else is different, scope is different, article is not small, and not of minor subject, and therefor, WP:MERGE cannot be in use here. But i am sorry, but it is devastatingly obvious that we are dealing with sockpuppets here, and new users dont know how to cite the guideline and start merge idea on talk page. And i will ask for admin help in here. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is bound to be a certain degree of overlap in articles about similar topics - this is not necessarily a reason to merge, and of course there is scope for improvement. However, the main issue here is the principle, not the specifics. Bazonka (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Repetitive information so MERGE.PersonPaOpinion (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support We should report Kosovo as it is, giving the situation as it lies on the ground. Yes, we can have an article about both governments (obviously with both establishing how effective their actual control is), but to create an article on a geographical area (which is defined by its political boundaries) is not NPOV but Political Correctness. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, you support merging the two articles but suggest having articles about both governments. I don't understand how should this be achieved. NPOV in your opinion would be to have article Republic of Kosovo linking to Kosovo - but wouldn't then issues with flags, government, whole infobox problems reemerge? --biblbroks (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's quite simple to have a separate article on the Serbian administration. We have an Abkhazian version, Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. When Kosovo is discussed in English, it is for better or worse discussed as a (separatist) state. To create an article on an abstract geographical area doesn't fix NPOV. An article with decent text would. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The meaning and surely the usage of the term Kosovo was discussed earlier - during the discussion right after the split. And that, I would say, at large - with all that analysis and comparison of the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines i.e. policies. As well as the WP:GOOGLE how-to. I mean the subject of this article is geographical area, but an area that isn't so abstract after all. Especially if you regard only the history that comes with the term Kosovo. And with the Kosovo as such. For example, wasn't the term Kosovo used to describe this area before the 2008 declaration of independence also? Its meaning didn't abruptly change just because some people decided to declare some independence. Or whatever somebody did. Not just the meaning but also the usage of the term - even if it were just because the media currently uses this term to denote the state. If it were, but it isn't. Say, the term Kosovo in the syntagma North Kosovo doesn't simply equate with the term Kosovo for the state/republic. It corresponds moreover with the region/(abstract) geographical area/call it what you want. And that's just one example: I haven't even considered all the uses in all the media and/or publications. Not to mention if I were to focus some analysis on the usage of the term in the publications before the year 2008 only. Why, we should strive more for eventualism than for immediatism... if we should strive for anything, for that matter. Also, why do you think that the current text of this article is not neutral - I mean since you say that there is some POV which should be fixed. If you do say that. --biblbroks (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Things change as time passes, and as an electronic encyclopaedia we can keep up. There was a massive shift when the government decided to declare independence, and it led to the present situation. The history, geography, etc. of Kosovo we need to cover with all usages in mind is done through the main articles of those topics. I've never said the current text isn't neutral. What I feel is that the creation of this article was a solution to a nonexistent problem. 02:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- But what has changed? There were clashes at the border/administrative line in North Kosovo with several people wounded and dead and you suggest that situation changed? To what degree - that Kosovo has now somehow magically become the Republic of Kosovo? I mean all the "fuss" about the separation of these two articles was in part done to solve the problem of simultaneous existence of several infoboxes in the article. The infoboxes for which one editor, who is now voicing support for remerging and who states he/she has always been against the split, stated they must burn in hell anyway. I assure you that this was no abstract problem. --biblbroks (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- A lot changed, most especially in the perception of Kosovo. Southern Sudan magically became South Sudan last year, and we reflected that. As for infoboxes, I think that an infobox for Serbia, which controls a very small amount of Kosovo, would not be appropriate. I'd assume however it'd be extremely clear from the beginning Kosovo was disputed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Situation with South Sudan is different: for one thing it is a member of United Nations, magically or not, and, to the best of my knowledge, there was and there is no dispute about its sovereignity. Whereas there is about Kosovo/Republic of Kosovo/Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Also the smallness or greatness of the territory controlled by the Serbs of North Kosovo should not be used as a parameter since we aren't here to determine this smallness (greatness) and act upon it. Since you said it yourself - Kosovo was disputed - I must ask: why do you think it isn't anymore? --biblbroks (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it isn't disputed, I just disagree that a dispute means we need to create a new page to avoid politics. Kosovo is Kosovo. While it can be argued what it is, it definitely isn't two different things, which necessitate different pages. In reality, it functions as an independent state with a small area it doesn't control, rather similar to Serbia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Similar could be said for Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija: in reality it functions as part of Serbia with some area it doesn't control. Yet I wouldn't simply agree with either position. While ago there was an edit dispute (let me call it thus) about the "de facto control of Republic of Kosovo over the most of its territory" and "control of North Kosovo by the Republic of Serbia" in the first paragraph of this article. One editor agreed that it is poorly worded, since international institutions have more control over the territory than it is described in the article or acknowledged for that matter. Perhaps this stuff in the article still needs some work. Anyway I'd say that the matter isn't so simple as it is usually perceived. Also you posit that Kosovo isn't two different things, yet you say Kosovo is Kosovo - what do you mean by the term Kosovo itself when you say it like that? Republic of Kosovo? Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija? Or disputed region? Whatever you mean by the term, there might be different opinions, don't you agree? The usual point of meeting is that Kosovo is a disputed region and this article deals with this subject. I think that quite many editors in previous discussions agreed that this is most neutral. --biblbroks (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I know the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija hasn't had effective control since the beginning of the UN mission. That being said, I don't know the full details of how North Kosovo functions, although from what I know it seems to organise itself. When I talk about Kosovo I'm definitely not talking about the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", and I doubt anyone really does, if only because by its own definition it covers more than what it considers Kosovo. Am I talking about the Republic or the disputed region? I'd say I'm talking about both, since they're the same thing. The only reason it is disputed is because of the republic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is true that Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija had none or almost none control over its claimed territory since 1999, but if you take having effective control as a parameter then it would at be least fair to consider whether Republic of Kosovo always had enough effective control over its claimed territory so as to talk about Republic of Kosovo and disputed region at the same time always when you use the term Kosovo. It sure can't be that Republic of Kosovo and the disputed region are that simply the same thing since Republic of Kosovo is a state, i.e. a republic (and that would be a state by its definition, if I am correct), while disputed region is well... disputed region. Right? Same as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is autonomous province. Only when you dive into the subject i.e. read the rest of the article (I am talking about a non-knowledgeable person who encounters this article and/or wants to learn more) you find that there is a dispute over the sovereignty of Republic of Kosovo, or Republic of Serbia for that matter. And all that goes with this. Also, you are wrong: "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" covers the same as what you consider region of Kosovo, but it also covers the same as what itself often considers Kosovo: since in Serbian the term Kosovo is often used as a short for Kosovo and Metohija, or region of Kosovo in English. --biblbroks (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think there's toying with semantics there. We don't have two different topics. If one just wants to focus on say, constitutional apparatus, then yes, you can write articles on clearly different topics; however, discussing it as a whole, as both pages do, doesn't allow for such specificity. I assume that any decent article on Kosovo, even in the current form, would note somehow that there was a dispute from the very beginning (like Northern Cyprus, which opens straight away with "self-declared state").
- I know that "Kosovo and Metohija" refers to the same area as what I call Kosovo (being an English speaker), but within that definition Kosovo is only a smaller part. I highly doubt that Kosovo is often used as a shortform when discussing that state apparatus today, after over a decade of redundancy. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is no toying - look at the articles and their history. You will find that they deal with different topics. There sure is still much room for improvement: for example in this article there should be some information excluded from the infobox as I was explaining in previous discussions regarding a proposal to make this a disambiguation page. And surely there is much more to improve in the Republic of Kosovo article, but to say that there is toying with semantics while on the other hand basing an argument on the claim that in Serbia's definition of "Kosovo", "Kosovo" is a smaller part of "Kosovo and Metohija" that is very unconvincing. I assure you "Kosovo" is a shortform for "Kosovo and Metohija" in Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin language, or may I say Serbo-Croatian. A very well established shortform. And that is regardless of some state apparatus's efforts. I mean we are talking about language here - no state apparatus can control it that easily as some naive person might expect.
- These two articles, Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo, exist mostly to satisfy the distinction between the state and the region and by that to accomplish neutrality over treatment of Kosovo - as a state or as a disputed region. To say that there are no different topics regarding treatment of Kosovo and treatment Republic of Kosovo is also biased. It comes from the perspective that Kosovo is a state and that perspective is by itself not sufficiently founded in reality and/or sources as well as it isn't neutral. You said that we don't have two different topics, but I think you should allow yourself to think that we should have if we don't. You say we can write a decent article but rest assured that problems will arise very soon as how to treat Kosovo - as a state or as a disputed region - since it is very hard if not impossible to present both in one article. Especially when it comes to inclusion of infoboxes. Case of the Northern Cyprus article is much easier since there are no disputes over its sovereignty as far as I know. In the case of Kosovo situation is different: with all the "effective control" either of Republic of Kosovo or of Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Or should I say Northern Kosovo. And here it is one part of the problem, right away since I mentioned the existing terms: "North Kosovo" and "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". Now same goes for the Kosovo itself - whether it is a self-governed state or not, and how to present this. --biblbroks (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- At the moment, they are both incomplete articles. One would expect demographics, geography, etc. to be present on each, and they would be identical if both were perfect. As for the shortform in Serbocroat, I have no reason to doubt that, but whether it carries on to English, and whether that carrying on applies in the present day, is different. The simple solution to this is to treat Kosovo as what it is; a disputed state, something quite solidly founded in reality and sources. Northern Cyprus is entirely claimed by Cyprus, so there's a massive dispute over its sovereignty. I thought we'd established the autonomous province had no effective control? Names in English can be confusing, but that's why we have article text to explain them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is true that Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija had none or almost none control over its claimed territory since 1999, but if you take having effective control as a parameter then it would at be least fair to consider whether Republic of Kosovo always had enough effective control over its claimed territory so as to talk about Republic of Kosovo and disputed region at the same time always when you use the term Kosovo. It sure can't be that Republic of Kosovo and the disputed region are that simply the same thing since Republic of Kosovo is a state, i.e. a republic (and that would be a state by its definition, if I am correct), while disputed region is well... disputed region. Right? Same as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is autonomous province. Only when you dive into the subject i.e. read the rest of the article (I am talking about a non-knowledgeable person who encounters this article and/or wants to learn more) you find that there is a dispute over the sovereignty of Republic of Kosovo, or Republic of Serbia for that matter. And all that goes with this. Also, you are wrong: "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" covers the same as what you consider region of Kosovo, but it also covers the same as what itself often considers Kosovo: since in Serbian the term Kosovo is often used as a short for Kosovo and Metohija, or region of Kosovo in English. --biblbroks (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I know the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija hasn't had effective control since the beginning of the UN mission. That being said, I don't know the full details of how North Kosovo functions, although from what I know it seems to organise itself. When I talk about Kosovo I'm definitely not talking about the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", and I doubt anyone really does, if only because by its own definition it covers more than what it considers Kosovo. Am I talking about the Republic or the disputed region? I'd say I'm talking about both, since they're the same thing. The only reason it is disputed is because of the republic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Similar could be said for Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija: in reality it functions as part of Serbia with some area it doesn't control. Yet I wouldn't simply agree with either position. While ago there was an edit dispute (let me call it thus) about the "de facto control of Republic of Kosovo over the most of its territory" and "control of North Kosovo by the Republic of Serbia" in the first paragraph of this article. One editor agreed that it is poorly worded, since international institutions have more control over the territory than it is described in the article or acknowledged for that matter. Perhaps this stuff in the article still needs some work. Anyway I'd say that the matter isn't so simple as it is usually perceived. Also you posit that Kosovo isn't two different things, yet you say Kosovo is Kosovo - what do you mean by the term Kosovo itself when you say it like that? Republic of Kosovo? Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija? Or disputed region? Whatever you mean by the term, there might be different opinions, don't you agree? The usual point of meeting is that Kosovo is a disputed region and this article deals with this subject. I think that quite many editors in previous discussions agreed that this is most neutral. --biblbroks (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it isn't disputed, I just disagree that a dispute means we need to create a new page to avoid politics. Kosovo is Kosovo. While it can be argued what it is, it definitely isn't two different things, which necessitate different pages. In reality, it functions as an independent state with a small area it doesn't control, rather similar to Serbia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Situation with South Sudan is different: for one thing it is a member of United Nations, magically or not, and, to the best of my knowledge, there was and there is no dispute about its sovereignity. Whereas there is about Kosovo/Republic of Kosovo/Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Also the smallness or greatness of the territory controlled by the Serbs of North Kosovo should not be used as a parameter since we aren't here to determine this smallness (greatness) and act upon it. Since you said it yourself - Kosovo was disputed - I must ask: why do you think it isn't anymore? --biblbroks (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- A lot changed, most especially in the perception of Kosovo. Southern Sudan magically became South Sudan last year, and we reflected that. As for infoboxes, I think that an infobox for Serbia, which controls a very small amount of Kosovo, would not be appropriate. I'd assume however it'd be extremely clear from the beginning Kosovo was disputed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- But what has changed? There were clashes at the border/administrative line in North Kosovo with several people wounded and dead and you suggest that situation changed? To what degree - that Kosovo has now somehow magically become the Republic of Kosovo? I mean all the "fuss" about the separation of these two articles was in part done to solve the problem of simultaneous existence of several infoboxes in the article. The infoboxes for which one editor, who is now voicing support for remerging and who states he/she has always been against the split, stated they must burn in hell anyway. I assure you that this was no abstract problem. --biblbroks (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Things change as time passes, and as an electronic encyclopaedia we can keep up. There was a massive shift when the government decided to declare independence, and it led to the present situation. The history, geography, etc. of Kosovo we need to cover with all usages in mind is done through the main articles of those topics. I've never said the current text isn't neutral. What I feel is that the creation of this article was a solution to a nonexistent problem. 02:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The meaning and surely the usage of the term Kosovo was discussed earlier - during the discussion right after the split. And that, I would say, at large - with all that analysis and comparison of the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines i.e. policies. As well as the WP:GOOGLE how-to. I mean the subject of this article is geographical area, but an area that isn't so abstract after all. Especially if you regard only the history that comes with the term Kosovo. And with the Kosovo as such. For example, wasn't the term Kosovo used to describe this area before the 2008 declaration of independence also? Its meaning didn't abruptly change just because some people decided to declare some independence. Or whatever somebody did. Not just the meaning but also the usage of the term - even if it were just because the media currently uses this term to denote the state. If it were, but it isn't. Say, the term Kosovo in the syntagma North Kosovo doesn't simply equate with the term Kosovo for the state/republic. It corresponds moreover with the region/(abstract) geographical area/call it what you want. And that's just one example: I haven't even considered all the uses in all the media and/or publications. Not to mention if I were to focus some analysis on the usage of the term in the publications before the year 2008 only. Why, we should strive more for eventualism than for immediatism... if we should strive for anything, for that matter. Also, why do you think that the current text of this article is not neutral - I mean since you say that there is some POV which should be fixed. If you do say that. --biblbroks (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's quite simple to have a separate article on the Serbian administration. We have an Abkhazian version, Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. When Kosovo is discussed in English, it is for better or worse discussed as a (separatist) state. To create an article on an abstract geographical area doesn't fix NPOV. An article with decent text would. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, you support merging the two articles but suggest having articles about both governments. I don't understand how should this be achieved. NPOV in your opinion would be to have article Republic of Kosovo linking to Kosovo - but wouldn't then issues with flags, government, whole infobox problems reemerge? --biblbroks (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge because its a duplicate content, leave as part of the information the fact that is a partially recognized and there are two governments acting on it: the goveremt of the Republic of Kosovo in the whole region beside the Northern tip not recognized by by countries that support Serbia, the Serbian government on the Northern tip, not recognized by countries that support Kosovo: 2 governments. What's here about not to understand?PersonPaOpinion (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- What's not to understand is why some people think that the current approach is POV. Sure, it might not be perfect, but there's no pro-Serb or pro-Albanian bias. Bazonka (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge because its a duplicate content, leave as part of the information the fact that is a partially recognized and there are two governments acting on it: the goveremt of the Republic of Kosovo in the whole region beside the Northern tip not recognized by by countries that support Serbia, the Serbian government on the Northern tip, not recognized by countries that support Kosovo: 2 governments. What's here about not to understand?PersonPaOpinion (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support For the same reasons we don't split Republic of France from France, Kingdom of Spain from Spain, etc. The modern political entity covers all the geographical area that bears the same name. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- France and Spain are utterly different; they're not in any way disputed. Please, think about what you're suggesting - equating Kosovo the place with the very-much disputed RoK is like disturbing a nest of POV hornets. Things have been so much more stable, with less arguments since the articles were split. Let's not go back there. Bazonka (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Republic of France is recognised by every entity in the world, undisputed ruler of territory of France, which is claimed by none other, while Republic of Kosovo rule only part of territory of Kosovo, it is widely unrecognized by majority of the world, and its entire territory is claimed by other, undisputed and politically older entity. Those two cannot be compared in any way, as they are 1000000 miles apart, both physically, politically and historically. Repetition of questionable and seriously faulty POVs, and empty ip s's and sockpuppets supports, not backed in arguments will not disturb cement consensus we gained on this page. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- France and Spain are utterly different; they're not in any way disputed. Please, think about what you're suggesting - equating Kosovo the place with the very-much disputed RoK is like disturbing a nest of POV hornets. Things have been so much more stable, with less arguments since the articles were split. Let's not go back there. Bazonka (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support largely per PersonPaOpinion. The articles represent two Ps oV for one place (unlike, for example, Cyprus and North Cyprus). Jd2718 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support re-merge. I've always been opposed to the split, and I'm not convinced there ever was a valid consensus for it, outside the persistent pushing by editors with obvious national agendas. Far too much content overlap between the two articles; conceptual split goes counter to common English usage, and nothing in the inherent POV problems is grave enough to make treatment in a single page impossible. NPOV is better served in fewer articles, not in more articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- But you will not gain NPOV with this merge, you will only gain ultra-nationalistic article about Republic of Kosovo. As this POV proposition dont mention merger of Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article, but only Republic of Kosovo. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Why we need two or more info boxes and mention all parallel institutions in one article. Situation is now clear. If content overlap is problem, then delete sections on history, geography from articles on Republic of Kosovo and AP KiM. -- Bojan Talk 12:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose It's better to have three neutral articles, one about the region and the two about political entities, than to have one article that will be the scene of constant edit wars. If we put all information into one article, each party will try to remove content which relates to the political entity of the other side. Finally, we will get a POV article, that will be only about one political entity. That's why I can't support this merge proposal.--В и к и T 12:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose This is the case similar to Cyprus (disambiguation). So there are 2 separate entities, with separate institutions. --Alexmilt (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Cyprus is both about the island and the most recognized country. This is an argument in favor of merging. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Enric Naval. Also, it seems somewhat fishy that the Serbian editors gather at the same time to meatpuppet a decision (and not just this one, but others too).--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Many of users of serbian wiki have this article in whatch list. For example I sow now that, so I came here --Јованвб (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Kosovo is disputed teritory. So, that can't be same as Republic of Kosovo. This is obvious that there we have POV pushing and troling proposition. --Јованвб (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support, and block anyone that disagrees :) Wouldn't that make this a nicer place to edit. Obviously you cannot reasonably justify separating the articles about a region and its government, even if the governance is disputed. Prodego talk 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- But did you really read the justification? And this place already is nice place to edit, since article was split. 0% of vandalism and POV pushing. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is not the only example for existence of separate articles about region and political entity. See, Taiwan and Republic of China.--В и к и T 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Taiwan and ROC articles cover different areas. Taiwan focuses only on the single island, the ROC article covers quite a few other islands as well, similar to Pulau Ujong and Singapore. The two Kosovo articles cover the same area. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why would Repuvlic of Kosovo would have advantage over AP KiM? What if we want to merge AP KIM and Kosovo? Having three non- ambiguous articles is the best, NPOV solution. -- Bojan Talk 01:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Taiwan and ROC articles cover different areas. Taiwan focuses only on the single island, the ROC article covers quite a few other islands as well, similar to Pulau Ujong and Singapore. The two Kosovo articles cover the same area. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is not the only example for existence of separate articles about region and political entity. See, Taiwan and Republic of China.--В и к и T 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- But did you really read the justification? And this place already is nice place to edit, since article was split. 0% of vandalism and POV pushing. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- And what about Western Sahara? It is disputed territory between Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Southern Provinces. Same as here. Note that self proclaimed RoK doesn't control North Kosovo. RoK claims sovereignty over the entire territory of Kosovo, but don't have control over the some territories..--В и к и T 00:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- You presume that those are acceptable. Other stuff is wrong too. Prodego talk 05:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh linking to Other stuff exists, favorite argument of those who don't have arguments. I used it many times :)В и к и T 09:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- You presume that those are acceptable. Other stuff is wrong too. Prodego talk 05:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose- the rational solution, as with the 'Cypress' articles. Nevard (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus are the same article. There is no separate article for Cyprus (island), despite the existence of Northern Cyprus. You are actually supporting the merge. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, that's interesting. Good to know that the Northern Cyprus article doesn't exist. I was hallucinating that it did for a bit. Nevard (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- North Kosovo also exists..... --Enric Naval (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- And you support destroying the content left in this article related to the historical Kosovo with some stuff about this 'Republic of Kosovo', why? Nevard (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- What on heavens are you talking about?? Why would this merge destroy any information?? I suggest you look at Spain, France or Germany, they are perfectly able to contain the history of the historic region. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support merge. Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija or any other relevant info from other related articles, can be included here although they may stand as separate. I see some here cite Cyprus case. I don't think they are similar, unless you want to delete Kosovo article and have Serbia/Serbia(Kosovo) dab page which is extremely pov. Someone rightly feared that this merge might bring edit wars, however I think we have the tools of fighting it. We are speaking about scientific principles of encyclopedia articles here. We can not deform them because some hot headed persons might react. Aigest (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support, wikipedia only reflects the common use of terms. There's no possible source that uses another term for Kosovo and another one for the Republic of Kosovo, just as no source uses the term France or Germany without referring to the state entity.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia also tries to maintain neutrality. Equating the territory of Kosovo with the disputed Republic of Kosovo is taking sides, especially if you bear in mind that the territory of RoK is smaller than that of Kosovo the place. In my opinion, WP:NPOV is more important than WP:COMMONNAME. Bazonka (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, I think it's very wrong to say that there is no single source that uses a different term for region of Kosovo and a different term for Republic of Kosovo since this oversimplifies the matter. The term for Republic of Kosovo would be exactly the term "Republic of Kosovo". And that differs from the term Kosovo. This may seem banal but true nevertheless. And right to the point I think. --biblbroks (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- And Germany differs from Federal Republic of Germany, yet they are the same article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- But does the meaning of Germany and the meaning of Federal Republic of Germany differ that much as does the meaning of Kosovo and the meaning of Republic of Kosovo? The term Germany is almost always if not always used to denote one sovereign state, while the term Kosovo is surely very often regarded as a term to denote one disputed region and sometimes a term to denote one state... where the term "sometimes" is hard to decipher especially should the term "sovereign" be used in front of the term "state". At least for that this distinction should be taken into account very carefully, if not for maintaining neutrality, which of course should also be maintained, despite the fact that some think that this is of secondary importance in this case. --biblbroks (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia also tries to maintain neutrality. Equating the territory of Kosovo with the disputed Republic of Kosovo is taking sides, especially if you bear in mind that the territory of RoK is smaller than that of Kosovo the place. In my opinion, WP:NPOV is more important than WP:COMMONNAME. Bazonka (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose-It's not the same thing. Kosovo is autonomic region of Serbia, and Republic of Kosovo is partially recognized country. Wile E. Coyote (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I am actually not strongly opposed to it, apart from some minor concerns - how will the history of the region of Kosovo be included in the new Republic ? Given that the former has existed since 40 kYA, and the latter only in recent years Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- It would just be written in the history section, similar to articles on any place in wikipedia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Those are to conflicting entities, that is the reason for concern. Those two should not be represented together, as they are not. --WhiteWriter speaks 14:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't this "similar to articles on any place in wikipedia" a referral to Kosovo the region and not the state/republic/entity? Or is this me toying with semantics? --biblbroks (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not many places have multiple general articles about them. There's only one history of Kosovo. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- In one place Kosovo is called an abstract geographical area, here it's called a place. Above it is again said it to be a disputed state - which would allegedly be solidly founded in reality and sources. I think this is quite confusing: what is Kosovo in the end? I mean in English language? --biblbroks (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you're looking for a short and simple definition or title, your search is pointless. If we were to go by the point of your statement, through reductio ad absurdum, we'd have an article on Kosovo the abstract geographical area, an article on Kosovo the place, an article on Kosovo the disputed state, etc. It's untenable and ridiculous. Obviously no-one is advocating this huge number of articles, but the point is the current set-up tries to cover the same thing in two different ways, trying to separate the state from the area it governs. It'd be like creating a Serbia article and a Republic of Serbia article (with Serbia covering the region), because the Serbian government doesn't control a part of this Serbia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- And what would be the difference between the articles on "Kosovo the place" and "Kosovo the abstract geographical area"? Also worth noting: if a sound proposal to create two different articles one called Serbia and one called Republic of Serbia would have been made, I would surely consider it, but I most seriously doubt that you could make one such proposal. But hey, you can try. If you want, I can give you a hint. --biblbroks (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have no clue what the difference would be, which was the whole point. The current setup faces exactly the same issues as that. As for Serbia, I would oppose that split, just as I support undoing this split. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, user Chipmunkdavis was the one who referred to Kosovo when he/she used the phrase "abstract geographical area", not me. And therefore I don't see a point of reducing my point to reductio ad absurdum. Also I am aware that someone would oppose the hypothetical split which I described and that perhaps even ferociously - especially since that someone said he/she would oppose something he/she haven't even been informed of. I won't comment on his/her reasons for such a stance, but maybe he/she could. --biblbroks (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have no clue what the difference would be, which was the whole point. The current setup faces exactly the same issues as that. As for Serbia, I would oppose that split, just as I support undoing this split. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- And what would be the difference between the articles on "Kosovo the place" and "Kosovo the abstract geographical area"? Also worth noting: if a sound proposal to create two different articles one called Serbia and one called Republic of Serbia would have been made, I would surely consider it, but I most seriously doubt that you could make one such proposal. But hey, you can try. If you want, I can give you a hint. --biblbroks (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you're looking for a short and simple definition or title, your search is pointless. If we were to go by the point of your statement, through reductio ad absurdum, we'd have an article on Kosovo the abstract geographical area, an article on Kosovo the place, an article on Kosovo the disputed state, etc. It's untenable and ridiculous. Obviously no-one is advocating this huge number of articles, but the point is the current set-up tries to cover the same thing in two different ways, trying to separate the state from the area it governs. It'd be like creating a Serbia article and a Republic of Serbia article (with Serbia covering the region), because the Serbian government doesn't control a part of this Serbia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- In one place Kosovo is called an abstract geographical area, here it's called a place. Above it is again said it to be a disputed state - which would allegedly be solidly founded in reality and sources. I think this is quite confusing: what is Kosovo in the end? I mean in English language? --biblbroks (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not many places have multiple general articles about them. There's only one history of Kosovo. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't this "similar to articles on any place in wikipedia" a referral to Kosovo the region and not the state/republic/entity? Or is this me toying with semantics? --biblbroks (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Those are to conflicting entities, that is the reason for concern. Those two should not be represented together, as they are not. --WhiteWriter speaks 14:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- It would just be written in the history section, similar to articles on any place in wikipedia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose How this can be same, Republic of Kosovo is not even UN member, not recognized by 2/3 of UN members, and Kosovo is still by every international law autonomous province in Serbia, so this would be just another political decision by some users, and far from neutral point.--Obelixus (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment for closing admin User:WhiteWriter has canvassed in the Serbian wikipedia[9]. Google translation:
==En wiki / Kosovo==
IP address of the proposed merger as Article Article Kosovo Republic of Kosovo, no article on the autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija. Participants and lutci already blocked some users.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Merge_with_Republic_of_Kosovo.3F Talk: Kosovo # Merge with Republic of Kosovo]
Give your suggestion, comment, or attitude. - A word BeliPisac 12:53,
9 January 2012. (CET)
- Wile_E._Coyote had not edited the English wikipedia since August, so he probably saw that notice. All other users seem to be regular editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- This translation is almost meaningless, btw... This is NOT CANVASSING, per WP:CANVAS. This post was limited, Neutral, Nonpartisan and open, all propositions used in Appropriate notification guideline. And i asked for more opinions, i dont see whats wrong in it. It is the same here and there, wiki is not voting, if arguments are not useful, then we cannot use it. Also, you are cross wiki hounding me? That is not permitted, as opposed to the first thing mentioned. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why would someone seeking non-partisan views leave such a message on a board of Serbian wikipedia, when this is an issue of the English wikipedia? Checking(I was possibly the first to find out about your posts) and making known activities that possibly involve gaming the system isn't wikihounding in any way. Gaius earlier pointed out that most of the oppose come from certain users, so your messages on sr.wiki verify the demographic tendencies of the discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that we should be overly concerned that most of the opposers are pro-Serb. The proposal here is to move from a neutral format to a pro-Albanian format, so it is inevitable that the Serbs are going to be the most vocal in opposition to it. As long as they are not counter-proposing a pro-Serb format, then they have an entirely valid position. (Note that I am opposed, but am neither pro-Serb nor pro-Albanian.) Bazonka (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ethnic profiling of users wont help us here, Zjarri, and that is forbidden per WP:NPA. Arguments will. Exactly as Bazonka told you, this proposition is so POV, and i didnt say anything wrong regarding that. I just told "Give your proposition, comment or attitude". That can hardly be non neutral sentence... --WhiteWriter speaks 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't mean to profile, but most of the Support votes come from non-Albanians and most of the Oppose votes come from Serbs. There is nothing wrong with that, but meatpuppetry and canvassing is an inappropriate way to block the merge. As per the categories set up on WP:Canvassing, the message sent out is biased, the audience is probably partisan (despite obvious objections), and the transparency is secret (since it was posted in another language wiki) and since it satisfies at least 2/4 categories (perhaps 3/4), it is inappropriate and Enric Naval's point is worth noting.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bump in but it would be an edit conflict and I wanted to comment a previous post. What exactly is the bias of the message? "Audience is probably partisan" - isn't this profiling an entire contributing population of sr.wikipedia.org? "Transparency is secret since it was posted in another language wiki" - and the filing party for this case of alleged canvassing used a Google translator? Does the previous comment support the view that this was canvassing or...? I really don't understand this comment especially when one user commented previously that "Gaius earlier pointed out that most of the oppose come from certain users". And yet in the previous comment it is claimed that it wasn't meant to profile. And that right before the claim where do the Support votes mostly come from and from what ethnicity do Oppose votes mostly come from. I find this comment utterly peculiar if not contradictory. --biblbroks (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)- I retract my comment, since after reconsidering the message I realized that it is biased: "Učestvuju i lutci nekih već blokiranih korisnika." is an opinion. --biblbroks (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't mean to profile, but most of the Support votes come from non-Albanians and most of the Oppose votes come from Serbs. There is nothing wrong with that, but meatpuppetry and canvassing is an inappropriate way to block the merge. As per the categories set up on WP:Canvassing, the message sent out is biased, the audience is probably partisan (despite obvious objections), and the transparency is secret (since it was posted in another language wiki) and since it satisfies at least 2/4 categories (perhaps 3/4), it is inappropriate and Enric Naval's point is worth noting.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ethnic profiling of users wont help us here, Zjarri, and that is forbidden per WP:NPA. Arguments will. Exactly as Bazonka told you, this proposition is so POV, and i didnt say anything wrong regarding that. I just told "Give your proposition, comment or attitude". That can hardly be non neutral sentence... --WhiteWriter speaks 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that we should be overly concerned that most of the opposers are pro-Serb. The proposal here is to move from a neutral format to a pro-Albanian format, so it is inevitable that the Serbs are going to be the most vocal in opposition to it. As long as they are not counter-proposing a pro-Serb format, then they have an entirely valid position. (Note that I am opposed, but am neither pro-Serb nor pro-Albanian.) Bazonka (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why would someone seeking non-partisan views leave such a message on a board of Serbian wikipedia, when this is an issue of the English wikipedia? Checking(I was possibly the first to find out about your posts) and making known activities that possibly involve gaming the system isn't wikihounding in any way. Gaius earlier pointed out that most of the oppose come from certain users, so your messages on sr.wiki verify the demographic tendencies of the discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- This translation is almost meaningless, btw... This is NOT CANVASSING, per WP:CANVAS. This post was limited, Neutral, Nonpartisan and open, all propositions used in Appropriate notification guideline. And i asked for more opinions, i dont see whats wrong in it. It is the same here and there, wiki is not voting, if arguments are not useful, then we cannot use it. Also, you are cross wiki hounding me? That is not permitted, as opposed to the first thing mentioned. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it is somewhat apparent from the state of affirs that it might be premature to homogenize everything into an article titled Republic of Kosovo when it is not actually a recognized country yet. And there is merit in what certain editors who state that the two are not the same. This article is about a region in Southeastern Europe which has existed for hundreds- thousands years, the other is a newly created, and according to some view points, illegally created state. As messy as it might be, two separate articles might be warranted until international/ UN status moves to a more a recognizable/ unanimous position. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Canvassing: Let's be honest; there has been canvassing to attract editors from the Serb side. (Or maybe just a few emails reminding people to !vote, eh? I'm under no allusion; most canvassing is done in less public ways). It's happened with previous polls on this subject on this talkpage; when those polls did not deliver the desired result, somebody just went ahead and split the article anyway. Establishing, and acting on, a fair consensus takes second place to serb nationalism. It's a shame that such controversial matters can't be decided fairly. bobrayner (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Serb nationalism? What a pompous rhetoric. Resorting to appeal to morality by claiming something is shameful while disregarding previous replies about this? I'd say a weak attempt to avoid the issue. Casting suspicion on previous polls by profiling editors who participated? I think we established profiling is inappropriate and that polls are not a good way to build consensus, yet these arguments keep on repeating. --biblbroks (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The status of Kosovo is disputed. And if you didn't know, North Kosovo is a current event (referendum in February). --Zoupan (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - for all the reasons so well stated by User:Bazonka. We HAD an article that combined the region and the Republic, at the same time we had a separate article for the Autonomous Province (which article the proposer seems to forget). This inequality of presentation and the fact that even the simplest things had to be qualified so many different ways meant that the article was always a wishy-washy, self-contradictory mess. Far from being POV, this current setup seems the most NPOV to me. --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. See status of Kosovo and North Kosovo. Int21h (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ah Kosovo... All Serbian users will vote against this and all Albanian users will invariably vote for it, but objectively, If China isn't merged with People's Republic of China, the disputed RoK shouldn't be merged with Kosovo. This is a far more complex issue than is apparently understood in the move proposal. -- Director (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- China has been merged with the PRC, but I still think that we should keep Kosovo and ROK separate.--Khajidha (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, so it has. Either way the RoK is hardly the People's Republic of China, I agree. -- Director (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- China has been merged with the PRC, but I still think that we should keep Kosovo and ROK separate.--Khajidha (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't agree with rationale provided for this merging (Having two articles about Kosovo one as a geographical region, one as a political region is a violation of WP:NPOV.) Having two separate articles about region of Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo doesn't have to do anything with NPOV. Both topics are notable (Wikipedia:Notability) and described in very large articles (Wikipedia:Article size). We would have problem with NPOV only after merging of those two articles, regardless of the recognition issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: For what it's worth, I came to here looking for info on Kosovo as a political, rather than a merely geographic entity. Wouldn't a disambiguation page be useful under the Kosovo name? LukeSurl t
- Oppose - The so called Republic of Kosovo is not even recognised by the United Nations. The move would be inappropriate and could not command consensus support. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC) User has made 2 edits prior to this comment. Most probably a single purpose account. --biblbroks (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Does the Republic of Kosovo have actual control over North Kosovo? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe it does. Bazonka (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is North Kosovo part of Kosovo? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now isn't this a great question? I believe that some might say that the answer depends on the context - what exactly is meant by the term Kosovo in "of Kosovo". --biblbroks (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The same problem pops up with every single place that a country claims but doesn't control.. From Northern Ireland to Northern Cyprus.. Are they part of Ireland and Cyprus respectively? What if Kosovo is defined as a geographical region rather than a reference to a country? Is North Kosovo part of Kosovo? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well again, now it depends on how you define Kosovo as a geographical region. I'd say North Kosovo is part of Kosovo.. when using the term Kosovo as in the syntagma Kosovo War. But some might object to the very notion of Kosovo being considered as a geographical region. So there you have it. --biblbroks (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The same problem pops up with every single place that a country claims but doesn't control.. From Northern Ireland to Northern Cyprus.. Are they part of Ireland and Cyprus respectively? What if Kosovo is defined as a geographical region rather than a reference to a country? Is North Kosovo part of Kosovo? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now isn't this a great question? I believe that some might say that the answer depends on the context - what exactly is meant by the term Kosovo in "of Kosovo". --biblbroks (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is North Kosovo part of Kosovo? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe it does. Bazonka (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Bazonka on top. This issue seems to were part of BIG discussions you can see in the archives of this and related pages. The result of these discussions is: Kosovo article is about the geographic region. Republic of Kosovo is about the independent state. Another article is for the Serbian region. In any case these three topics should be at different articles and that is the result of all discussions. Whether Kosovo is a disambiguation page, a redirect to Republic of Kosovo or article about the republic - in those cases the current content of this article should be moved to Kosovo (region) or something like that. But that's not what the previous discussions reached as conclusion. The examples with russia-supported separatist regions are one thing, but we have also Palestine (about the region) and State of Palestine. Japinderum (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Japinderum and Bazonka. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
*Support Merge. Honestly I see no reason why to let politics and racism rule in Wikipedia. The serbian editors should get over their racism and not let it cloud their judgment. Whether or not they, or anyone else for that matter, accepts the political will of the people of Kosovo to be free and independent should not impact our judgment when it comes to encyclopedias or history books. If we follow the logic of having two to three articles on Kosovo just because there is a political dispute going on, then I believe we should also have another article on Serbia based on the disputes that Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Kosovo have with this country and government. Nevertheless if we followed this logic I doubt there will be one single country that is not in one way or another disputed by another country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.175.0.76 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)stricken out by --biblbroks (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC) per WP:NPA- Support. A descriptive article would tell us what Kosovo is--that is, the Republic of Kosovo--and not what others want Kosovo to be--a province of Serbia (the article could, of course, tell us of Serbia's position on Kosovo). With this said, I announce my renewed retirement from Wikipedia precisely because of political tensions that continue to hinder the content quality and fairness of the encyclopedia. Thank you,--Getoar TX (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- So we should consider this claim of Kosovo being the Republic of Kosovo based on what arguments? --biblbroks (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Getoar TX, you're saying we should have this article tell us what you want Kosovo to be? :) That's just it - Kosovo isn't the Republic of Kosovo, both legally to a great extent and de facto. An entire segment of it is outside the RoK, and Serbia has a legal claim on its old province. Kosovo is both the Republic of Kosovo and the AP Kosovo and Metohija, and this article represents that excellently. I had nothing to do with the introduction of this state of affairs, but as far as I know I actually suggested it a long time ago as an NPOV solution to a complex problem. And that it is imo. -- Director (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Since my earlier comment was stricken through due to the lack of a Wikipedia account, I hope that this re-post will not face the same unfair silencing of an honest expression of free and professional thought regarding the topic. I believe the articles should be merged. Honestly I see no reason why to let politics and racism rule in Wikipedia. The serbian editors should get over their racism and not let it cloud their judgment. Whether or not they, or anyone else for that matter, accepts the political will of the people of Kosovo to be free and independent should not impact our judgment when it comes to encyclopedias or history books. If we follow the logic of having two to three articles on Kosovo just because there is a political dispute going on, then I believe we should also have another article on Serbia based on the disputes that Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Kosovo have with this country and government. Nevertheless if we followed this logic I doubt there will be one single country that is not in one way or another disputed by another country. I also agree with Getoar TX, and to respond to Biblbroks's question on arguments I would like to ask her the same question regarding any other country in the globe. From my own experience and education (I studied Law with a focus on Int'l Law) I haven't found a single case where independence is measured by the rate of foreign recognition or by the opinion of individuals. Independence is a fact, you see it in the field. The formal declaration of independence just re-affirms the factual state in the field which cannot be denied by anyone. Please biblbroks, tell me, if Kosovo is part of Serbia, then why does Serbia have no say in any matters besides the topic of rights for the serbian minority in Kosovo? Just in case you intend to mention the illegal parallel structures in northern Kosovo please be aware that they are considered illegal by the whole international community including Serbia (re-affirmed by the recent arrest of Zvonko Veselinovic) and that sovereignty and independence is not related to the extent of control over your territory, as long as you have full control over a core area. Sentonkacaniku (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- The aforementioned comment was stricken out because it contained personal attacks on a whole group of editors, and not because of some arbitrary fact that the user giving it was lacking some arbitrary Wikipedia account. This reason, the reason for striking out that previous controversial comment, was properly noted later on within the note of the signator - the editor, who was striking out the very comment. Also, in the edit summary of that striking out it was merely suggested to the editor giving the comment in question to register an account so as to not arouse any suspicion about things like Gaming the system. I repeat: it was merely suggested, and not conditionalized. Perhaps the reason for giving such a suggestion may not be self-evident since the very act of giving such a suggestion could be perceived as a case of having bad faith, but if one accounts the content of the comment which was stricken out I think that many would agree that the suggestion could have been received with much more good faith. And the comment surely wasn't silenced since it was stricken through and therefore it could still be read. Any such statements about censorship are not just ridiculous but very very disturbing and even very harmful. Therefore I note that any further reiterations of opinions of alleged unfair treatment of this commentator will be regarded as a grave breach of one of Wikipedia's core guidelines about behaviour assuming good faith. As for racism remarks, I strongly suggest the commentator to be escorted to the one of Wikipedia's core policies No personal attacks. Until the comments given here are eradicated of any personal attacks, they will be disregarded and stricken out even in the future so that any future commentators on this page learn some Wikipedian manners before posting within this highly controversial and, as such, highly inflammable topic. I surely had my own share of such treatment here and learned many lessons in this very article and discussion page, so as to my word have some weight regarding the issue of how Wikipedians are to conduct on this discussion page. As one such editor, and with explanations given, I honestly believe that this can only better any further dialogue. Although I am very sorry as I am the one who is making this probably controversial actions, and even more sorry that such actions are to be made in one such situation where previously this comment was already stricken out once, I most strongly think that this is utmost necessary. Therefore, I am striking out the whole previous comment... again. --biblbroks (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- In the interest of not breaking 1RR (it's not quite clear if it applies only to edits in the article or also here on its talkpage), I have refrained from reverting your striking out another time, and am instead giving you a chance to self-revert. This is a final warning: stop messing with other editors' postings, no matter how offensive you find them. If you don't self-revert, I'll take this to WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with your ultimatum, FPS! This user created account just for participation in "Vote" where politically driven votes are not needed. User violate NPA! Biblbroks didn't removed it, he just stricken it. Per consensus, two users agree that comment should be strikened, per violations of several crucial wiki rules! This user must not participate in this, as kosovo page article is on probation! I cannot find a single reason why we should leave it like this! TLDR, NPA, SPA, most probably SOCK, GAME, how may reasons and violations should be list here? Instead of blind AE, tell us why we should leave this comment here? Agreement is gold, AE is poor... --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- In the interest of not breaking 1RR (it's not quite clear if it applies only to edits in the article or also here on its talkpage), I have refrained from reverting your striking out another time, and am instead giving you a chance to self-revert. This is a final warning: stop messing with other editors' postings, no matter how offensive you find them. If you don't self-revert, I'll take this to WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- The aforementioned comment was stricken out because it contained personal attacks on a whole group of editors, and not because of some arbitrary fact that the user giving it was lacking some arbitrary Wikipedia account. This reason, the reason for striking out that previous controversial comment, was properly noted later on within the note of the signator - the editor, who was striking out the very comment. Also, in the edit summary of that striking out it was merely suggested to the editor giving the comment in question to register an account so as to not arouse any suspicion about things like Gaming the system. I repeat: it was merely suggested, and not conditionalized. Perhaps the reason for giving such a suggestion may not be self-evident since the very act of giving such a suggestion could be perceived as a case of having bad faith, but if one accounts the content of the comment which was stricken out I think that many would agree that the suggestion could have been received with much more good faith. And the comment surely wasn't silenced since it was stricken through and therefore it could still be read. Any such statements about censorship are not just ridiculous but very very disturbing and even very harmful. Therefore I note that any further reiterations of opinions of alleged unfair treatment of this commentator will be regarded as a grave breach of one of Wikipedia's core guidelines about behaviour assuming good faith. As for racism remarks, I strongly suggest the commentator to be escorted to the one of Wikipedia's core policies No personal attacks. Until the comments given here are eradicated of any personal attacks, they will be disregarded and stricken out even in the future so that any future commentators on this page learn some Wikipedian manners before posting within this highly controversial and, as such, highly inflammable topic. I surely had my own share of such treatment here and learned many lessons in this very article and discussion page, so as to my word have some weight regarding the issue of how Wikipedians are to conduct on this discussion page. As one such editor, and with explanations given, I honestly believe that this can only better any further dialogue. Although I am very sorry as I am the one who is making this probably controversial actions, and even more sorry that such actions are to be made in one such situation where previously this comment was already stricken out once, I most strongly think that this is utmost necessary. Therefore, I am striking out the whole previous comment... again. --biblbroks (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- SPA, 0 other edits prior the voting, user was obviously invited here to vote, or came as sockpuppet. --WhiteWriterspeaks 03:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry but not only that I don't understand but I don't believe: the
threatwarning was given on the grounds that comments containing personal attacks, and that to a whole group of editors, should remain as they are because?Isn't this a grave case of wikilawyering? I mean, if this "stop messing with other editors' postings, no matter how offensive you find them" isn't wikilawyering, I don't know what is.Should we condone personal attacks and that on the very discussion page of the article which is under General sanctions? Personal attacks are sometimes even *deleted* on much less controversial pages than this is. And we are to keep them here untouched? In the interest of preserving this discussion page a place for civilized discussions and not turning it into another battleground I will leave the previous comments stricken out. If somebody thinks that this is then for WP:AE, ok, see you there. My conscience is clear. --biblbroks (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry but not only that I don't understand but I don't believe: the
- Don't strike other people's comments, unless it's a proven sockpuppet. Leave it to the closing administrator to determine how much weight to give this opinion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Imo there is simply no consensus for the proposed merge, and its coming up on two months since this thread was started. Everyone's expressed their opinion once and now we're starting to see socks arrive - I take that as a sign its about time to close-up shop. -- Director (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, i tried that, but Fut. Perf. pushed this even longer then needed... I will ask from someone to close this charade... --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. First of all the Republic of Kosovo is partially recognized. Second of all in combination with it being partially recognized, it is a disputed territory due to a history of strong animosity, hatred, and war between Albanians and Serbs; the North that does not recognize the Republic of Kosovo. Third of all, in combination with the first two points - how is merging this article about the history of Kosovo as a whole into the Republic of Kosovo article going to improve anything here? Everyone knows it will start a vicious edit war between Albanian and Serb editors. No one should expect a neutral discussion to occur between Albanian and Serb users here over the status of Kosovo - that's like asking Israeli and Palestinian users to agree on the status of East Jerusalem; these people have had long history of animosity and bloodshed - an administrator should be brought in to arbitrate this.--R-41 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Do to the extremely controversial nature of this topic and the strong ethnic divide between users on this topic, I have requested informal mediation from an outside user to act as mediator, I have made the request here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/12 March 2012/.--R-41 (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. The point is that whenever anyone in the world of academia or even in everyday conversation speaks about 'Kosovo,' they are undoubtedly referring to the modern day Republic of Kosovo (whether or not its legitimacy is recognised is a separate issues). Having an article such as this is pointless and clearly reflects a political point of view which is not what wikipedia is supposed to be about. Ottomanist (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Attempts to present this case as closed by archiving it are rather tendentious and in bad spirit. Any non-nationalists in here? Ottomanist (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This thread has been closed! I have replaced the closure code and struck out all text added since the closure. Please read the text immediately above: Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. Bazonka (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you an administrator? How comes it's archived when I made a comment? Please inform me under whose authority this thread is being archived? Ottomanist (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- User:WhiteWriter closed this discussion under WP:NAC. If you wish to continue the discussion, please do so in a new thread. Bazonka (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:NAC, specifically the 'avoid pitfalls' part. Many thanks, this discussion is very useful and is leading to some constructive comments. Ottomanist (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ottomanist, kindly drop the mallet and back slowly away from the horse carcass. After four months the whole envisioned scene is starting to get rather unsettling. -- Director (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Judging by the comments above, the debate is being hijacked by a group of editors who are doing their best to present the debate as settled. This hardly seems to be the case, and I don't see why all the non nationalist editors should be held hostage to a group of saboteurs. Let the debate continue, the arguments clearly seem to be more logical in favour of a merger...maybe that's why some are trying to end the discussion. Ottomanist (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you uncovered the conspiracy. People are hijacking this thread and trying to close the WP:RM - because this discussion was over since early March. Ottomanist, this article is under a 1RR limit, and should you attempt to continue this farce you may find yourself reported. -- Director (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ottomanist: I'm personally rather frustrated too about the way this process has gone, but it's better to let it go for now. Even if this were to be kept open longer, it is almost inconceivable at this point that anything could come of it that outside administrators would read as a consensus to merge. It's still true that the process was (predictably) highjacked by known national interest groups, and I would have preferred to see it formally closed by somebody from the outside, but there's little that can be done about that at this point. BTW, you said on my talkpage that you are a "returning" user. I would strongly recommend disclosing what your previous accounts were, or people will treat you as a likely sanction-evading sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and, by the way, Director, since you made a non-admin closure here as somebody who took part in the debate himself, I think it would be fair to clarify the closing summary as "no consensus". It was numerically somewhere near 18:14 against the merge, and that includes a substantial number of obviously canvassed votes, so it would certainly not be appropriate to let this stand as if it implied a legitimate "consensus against". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, I amended the comment. I will add that canvassed votes can certainly be found on both sides. In fact, such is probably the case with every major discussion on this talkpage (I've fixed my comment above, its seems I've started forgetting words in my old age). -- Director (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please do go ahead and 'report me' (?) Thanks for your input Fut.Perf, but I don't think that we should be held hostage to such tendentious editing. This is not the place to play out nationalist/political policies. It is a place to cooperate on the construction of useful information for general use. Ottomanist (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- So you wouldn't say your talkpage edit-war here in any way conforms to the definition of WP:TE? :) Ottomanist, are you aware that you just reverted an admin closure? [10] As for me reporting, let me assure you that this would already be on ANI had Future not arrived on the scene. -- Director (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks again for your response. I would like to resolve this issue, I don't see why we should be held hostage here to a group of nationalist editors. Ottomanist (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- If that analogy is at all appropriate, I would say its only applicable to your actions - in holding this thread "hostage". The issue is not only resolved, it was resolved months ago. The "nationalist editor" here appears to be you, reverting admin closure of a finished RM because it did not turn out in your favor. In my view you should be sanctioned for this talkpage edit-war. -- Director (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- The evidence is above for all to see. Ottomanist (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia policy says that polls are not mandatory and should be used with caution, Wikipedia is about reliable sources and consensus relies on discussion and ability to support such views with reliable sources. The sad fact is that there will likely be no consensus between Albanian and Serb users here on the status of Kosovo - these two peoples have a long history of xenophobia and violent conflict between each other. This proposition was unacceptable because it is just like throwing open a poll on whether East Jerusalem should be recognized on Wikipedia as part of Israel or the Palestinian National Authority and watching Zionist Jews and nationalist Arabs fight it out on the talk page, and the only thing that would decide it is which side would be able to muster the most votes. Like the East Jerusalem issue, the status of Kosovo is extremely controversial. This vote was polarizing and in no way would have achieved consensus, it would have only been decided by whether the pro-Albanian or pro-Serb camp would be able to muster the most votes. When I saw it I thought an administrator should be brought in to arbitrate a solution, because it was too polarizing. It is all for the best that this poll is shut down.--R-41 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- This really isn't just an Albanian vs. Serbian bunfight. There are neutral editors here too, and they don't always agree. (For example, I was opposed to the merge and User:Chipmunkdavis supported it.) Even if the "nationalists" are taken out of the equation, we'd probably still not reach consensus. This thread really should be re-closed and left alone. Bazonka (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm also neither Serbian nor Albanian. -- Director (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- This really isn't just an Albanian vs. Serbian bunfight. There are neutral editors here too, and they don't always agree. (For example, I was opposed to the merge and User:Chipmunkdavis supported it.) Even if the "nationalists" are taken out of the equation, we'd probably still not reach consensus. This thread really should be re-closed and left alone. Bazonka (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia policy says that polls are not mandatory and should be used with caution, Wikipedia is about reliable sources and consensus relies on discussion and ability to support such views with reliable sources. The sad fact is that there will likely be no consensus between Albanian and Serb users here on the status of Kosovo - these two peoples have a long history of xenophobia and violent conflict between each other. This proposition was unacceptable because it is just like throwing open a poll on whether East Jerusalem should be recognized on Wikipedia as part of Israel or the Palestinian National Authority and watching Zionist Jews and nationalist Arabs fight it out on the talk page, and the only thing that would decide it is which side would be able to muster the most votes. Like the East Jerusalem issue, the status of Kosovo is extremely controversial. This vote was polarizing and in no way would have achieved consensus, it would have only been decided by whether the pro-Albanian or pro-Serb camp would be able to muster the most votes. When I saw it I thought an administrator should be brought in to arbitrate a solution, because it was too polarizing. It is all for the best that this poll is shut down.--R-41 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- The evidence is above for all to see. Ottomanist (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- If that analogy is at all appropriate, I would say its only applicable to your actions - in holding this thread "hostage". The issue is not only resolved, it was resolved months ago. The "nationalist editor" here appears to be you, reverting admin closure of a finished RM because it did not turn out in your favor. In my view you should be sanctioned for this talkpage edit-war. -- Director (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks again for your response. I would like to resolve this issue, I don't see why we should be held hostage here to a group of nationalist editors. Ottomanist (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- So you wouldn't say your talkpage edit-war here in any way conforms to the definition of WP:TE? :) Ottomanist, are you aware that you just reverted an admin closure? [10] As for me reporting, let me assure you that this would already be on ANI had Future not arrived on the scene. -- Director (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please do go ahead and 'report me' (?) Thanks for your input Fut.Perf, but I don't think that we should be held hostage to such tendentious editing. This is not the place to play out nationalist/political policies. It is a place to cooperate on the construction of useful information for general use. Ottomanist (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, I amended the comment. I will add that canvassed votes can certainly be found on both sides. In fact, such is probably the case with every major discussion on this talkpage (I've fixed my comment above, its seems I've started forgetting words in my old age). -- Director (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Judging by the comments above, the debate is being hijacked by a group of editors who are doing their best to present the debate as settled. This hardly seems to be the case, and I don't see why all the non nationalist editors should be held hostage to a group of saboteurs. Let the debate continue, the arguments clearly seem to be more logical in favour of a merger...maybe that's why some are trying to end the discussion. Ottomanist (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I think we should get away from such orientalist stereotypes which seek to present people from southeast europe as plagued by 'old ethnic hatreds' . We need outside administrators to look at the arguments, I think this debate has exhausted some editors here. Ottomanist (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Um.. what? "Exhausted"?! Nobody's debated anything here for two months. And you're the one constantly referring to "nationalist editors", "groups of saboteurs", "nationalist/political policies", etc. It seems that only when your own terms are applied to yourself that you choose to accuse others of "stereotyping". You disagree with the result of this RM, and so you decided to keep it open as you believe it might somehow still turn out in your favor. Kindly rephrain from all this empty demagoguery.
- An admin has closed this thread, you reverted him [11]. The consensus on this talkpage is for closing the thread (five users thus far, against you). Reinstating closure once again - for the final time. -- Director (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a court room, nor is it (wikipedia) a democratic experiment. It's a talk page-- let's get some other admins on here. Ottomanist (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Not a court room"? Please cut it out with these empty phrases. This is a talkpage, yes, and threads like this get closed by admins on talkpages. Not by twenty-three admins coming here (and joining the five other users trying to close this thread), but by one admin. That will have to satisfy you, as I think you should realize people are not bound to acquiesce to your demands. You're done bullying people here. -- Director (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, the evidence is above for all to see - I particularly like this comment
- WSupport. We had lots of polls on whether to split Kosovo. Despite certain editors repeatedly gaming the system, polls kept on returning the same consensus; "no". Then somebody went ahead and split the article anyway, there was an editwar, the wrong version got protected, and now we're here; a fait accompli. I would support a merge so that we're back in line with both consensus and with neutrality. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 January 2012
Ottomanist (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Evidence"? Evidence for what? That you support the merge? I'm sure you're "100% certain" that it should be moved, and there are a dozen others that agree with you, so you can stop copy-pasting these nonsense quotes. There are others that disagree however, and you will have to accept that. If you wish to continue pushing for a merge, do so in a new RM. -- Director (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Name
Change name to Kosovo and Metohija! It's real name, Kosovo only is name of north part of this province. — Лазар (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not done. Its WP:COMMONNAME in the English language is just Kosovo. Also, the longer name has WP:POV connotations. Bazonka (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Similarly Bosnia and Herzegovina is commonly shortened to Bosnia. But you would not dare to call someone in Herzegovina as Bosnian, especially if he is Croatian or Serbian. They very insist of being Herzegovinas. Simialrly Kosovo and Metohija was shortedened to Kosovo. The reason why metohija was not popular among Albanian population was origin of the word metoch - in Greek means church land. So it related to orthodox tradition of the area in time between 8 and 15 century when Ottoman conquests happened. Albanians being Muslims have been "preached" to dislike it. Unfortuantelly if we led religion to guide a science then I am afraid Galileo will find no place on this WIKI-Idiocy. Btw words like Kosovo or Bosnia are words of Slavic origin. Herzegovina has Germanic origin with Slavic spice. Talking about this as "offensive" is political not scientific statement. Mr Bazonka point is that WIKI should be stripped of politics and loaded with science regardless you or all planet finds it "offensive". Greek word saying church land in no way should be "BANNED" by YOU not any other self proclaimed "AUTHORITY" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC) 80.61.205.20 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. In English, we don't often use the terms "Metohija" and "Herzegovina" and WOULD most often call a Metohijan a "Kosovan" (or possibly "Kosovar") and a Herzegovinian a "Bosnian". This page is written in English and follows that usage. --
- Similarly Bosnia and Herzegovina is commonly shortened to Bosnia. But you would not dare to call someone in Herzegovina as Bosnian, especially if he is Croatian or Serbian. They very insist of being Herzegovinas. Simialrly Kosovo and Metohija was shortedened to Kosovo. The reason why metohija was not popular among Albanian population was origin of the word metoch - in Greek means church land. So it related to orthodox tradition of the area in time between 8 and 15 century when Ottoman conquests happened. Albanians being Muslims have been "preached" to dislike it. Unfortuantelly if we led religion to guide a science then I am afraid Galileo will find no place on this WIKI-Idiocy. Btw words like Kosovo or Bosnia are words of Slavic origin. Herzegovina has Germanic origin with Slavic spice. Talking about this as "offensive" is political not scientific statement. Mr Bazonka point is that WIKI should be stripped of politics and loaded with science regardless you or all planet finds it "offensive". Greek word saying church land in no way should be "BANNED" by YOU not any other self proclaimed "AUTHORITY" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC) 80.61.205.20 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Serbian not Serbo-Croatian
You can't write for southern Serbian province in Serbo-Croatian, but official Serbian language! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.109.75 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the language is referred to as Serbo-Croatian (and Bosnian in some cases) with different dialects ekavian, ikavian etc., etc., Ottomanist (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ekavian, Ikavian, and Ijekavian are the three accents of the Serbo-Croatian language, which predominantly uses only one dialect - Shtokavian (there are others, Kajkavian and Chakavian, but they are rather marginal). Serbo-Croatian is a pluricentric language with four official standards: Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin, all of them based on the same Shtokavian dialect. As its article states, sources consider "Serbian" one of the four standards of the Serbo-Croatian language. As you know, the area recently suffered war and ethnic strife. As a result, the governments in the Balkans do not recognize the fact that they use a single language for political reasons, and nationalists in all these countries tend to claim that they each speak a "separate" language. Linguists disagree, however, and that's that matters on this project. -- Director (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Some linguists. There is no scientific consensus on it. Wikipedia should not be (mis)used to push any particular POV. Until scientific consensus is reached wikipedia should not merge Serbian and Croatian and.... to "Serbo-Croatian". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. I also disagree with merger, as there is no real need nor consensus on wiki for that. --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there is a consensus. Both in the scientific community (i.e. linguists), and enWiki itself. This was discussed at enormous length at the appropriate talkpage. It has been conclusively established, many times, that the position of the vast majority of linguists is as outlined above. This is not up for discussion. I was merely explaining to User:Ottomanist what the current WP:CONSENSUS is on this issue. Consensus on this project can only be based on sources, as I'm sure you know, and the bare opposition by users does not affect it in the slightest. This is not a democracy.
- Exactly my point. I also disagree with merger, as there is no real need nor consensus on wiki for that. --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Some linguists. There is no scientific consensus on it. Wikipedia should not be (mis)used to push any particular POV. Until scientific consensus is reached wikipedia should not merge Serbian and Croatian and.... to "Serbo-Croatian". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ekavian, Ikavian, and Ijekavian are the three accents of the Serbo-Croatian language, which predominantly uses only one dialect - Shtokavian (there are others, Kajkavian and Chakavian, but they are rather marginal). Serbo-Croatian is a pluricentric language with four official standards: Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin, all of them based on the same Shtokavian dialect. As its article states, sources consider "Serbian" one of the four standards of the Serbo-Croatian language. As you know, the area recently suffered war and ethnic strife. As a result, the governments in the Balkans do not recognize the fact that they use a single language for political reasons, and nationalists in all these countries tend to claim that they each speak a "separate" language. Linguists disagree, however, and that's that matters on this project. -- Director (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you wish to contest it, please go to Talk:Serbo-Croatian. When you change it in accordance with your beliefs, you are free to pursue that goal elsewhere (though you are far more likely to just get shot down immediately by users who are actually familiar with the subject matter). Otherwise It seems very much inappropriate for you to attempt to ignore both the scholarly sources and Wikipedia consensus on fringe articles like this one, simply because noone's here to enforce them actively. -- Director (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- You yourself confirmed there is a dispute between "a single language" or "separate languages" point of view. You obviously support "single language" point of view and you refer to other party as "nationalistic vast minority" supported by "politically motivated Balkans governments". You are, of course, entitled to have your own point of view but please dont (mis)use wikipedia to support it. Speaking of being shot down, if you really believe there is a consensus on wikipedia that all "separate" languages should be merged into a "single language" please prove the existence of such consensus by changing Croatian language to Serbo-Croatian in the first sentence of Croatia article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're confusing a political dispute in the Balkans, which is irrelevant for our considerations, and a scientific dispute. There is no scientific dispute. Look like I said, it has been established over and over and over again that practically all sources agree on this issue, and unambiguously support the above. That is the current WP:CONSENSUS. And if you don't believe me, go to the Croatian language, Serbian language, etc articles and see for yourself. If you would like to change said consensus, you're welcome to try and do so at Talk:Serbo-Croatian. When you do, come back here. This is not the place to discuss this issue - but it is a place where sources and consensuses should be applied, according to Wikipedia policy.
- You yourself confirmed there is a dispute between "a single language" or "separate languages" point of view. You obviously support "single language" point of view and you refer to other party as "nationalistic vast minority" supported by "politically motivated Balkans governments". You are, of course, entitled to have your own point of view but please dont (mis)use wikipedia to support it. Speaking of being shot down, if you really believe there is a consensus on wikipedia that all "separate" languages should be merged into a "single language" please prove the existence of such consensus by changing Croatian language to Serbo-Croatian in the first sentence of Croatia article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you wish to contest it, please go to Talk:Serbo-Croatian. When you change it in accordance with your beliefs, you are free to pursue that goal elsewhere (though you are far more likely to just get shot down immediately by users who are actually familiar with the subject matter). Otherwise It seems very much inappropriate for you to attempt to ignore both the scholarly sources and Wikipedia consensus on fringe articles like this one, simply because noone's here to enforce them actively. -- Director (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- As for your "challenge", I don't think we will playing games like that :). The Croatia article does not really matter, since the Croatian language article abides by consensus. See for example the disclaimer here on Talk:Croatian language if you like. -- Director (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Croatia article does not really matter, but House of Flowers does matter? How come? Majority of users should decide what does and what does not matter, and not single user. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if you ask me, the Croatia and Serbia articles too should have sh up in the lede. I just don't have the time or the nerves to explain all the above 50 times a day to people who don't care anyway and are ruled by their life-long misconceptions. Like I told you, WW, I don't intend to go on a campaign to replace all the four languages with sh. A reader can see what e.g. "Serbian" really is when they click on the wikilink - it is only when the lede is cluttered by three or four seperate entries for the same language that I try to do something about it. Here too I don't particularly care if sr is replaced with sh (as it should), I was just explaining the current WP:CONSENSUS to User:Ottomanist.
- Croatia article does not really matter, but House of Flowers does matter? How come? Majority of users should decide what does and what does not matter, and not single user. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- As for your "challenge", I don't think we will playing games like that :). The Croatia article does not really matter, since the Croatian language article abides by consensus. See for example the disclaimer here on Talk:Croatian language if you like. -- Director (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- @"Majority of users should decide what does and what does not matter, and not single user." Heh, no. Neither "single user", nor the majority. Sources. The majority of the sources. -- Director (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Direktor, Wikipedia policy itself says that Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia policy says that polls are not mandatory and should be used with caution, Wikipedia is about reliable sources and consensus relies on ability to support such views with reliable sources.--R-41 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- @"Majority of users should decide what does and what does not matter, and not single user." Heh, no. Neither "single user", nor the majority. Sources. The majority of the sources. -- Director (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- As promised if this issue came up again for the 1,435th time, I have, in fact, "jumped out the window." (thankfully it was on the first floor. :-P) I think NATO should drop leaflets all over former Yugoslav territories explaining Serbo-Croatian, footnoted with highly reputable academic sources. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Or like armored cars with megaphones patrolling the streets. That could work too.
- "Attention uncivilized peasants! You do not each have your own language. You may think you do, but really - you don't. Nobody outside your tiny country gives a damn about what you want or what your government proclaims. Acknowledge or be destroyed. Yours with love, NATO"
- -- Director (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Standard-issue NATO linguistic-enforcement megaphone. Used as last resort for the very hard-headed. ---------------------->
i am trying to sign. Pls do not undo till I finish need 10 minutes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Biased article NATO publication
Statement: " Its independence is recognised by 90 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan). "
Should be replaced by
Majority of countries does not recognize Kosovo as independent country naming countries and since you are menitiong Taiwan then you can also mention that Kosovo is not recognized by Tranzistria, Nagorno Carabah, Abhazia, Ossetia... etc.. The you can state that Kosovo is recognized by 90 countries and Taiwan(China).
What is also missing is fact that USA lead effort inserting pressure on many countries (using and abusing) its power in order to excel Kosovo recognition throughout the world. There are various testimonies and could be easily found on internet. Even US diplomacy did not hide it. One of the pressure was on Serbia itself where Serbian future accession talks to EU where conditioned on its approach to Kosovo issues e.g. Serbia would not be able to join EU if it sued NATO for de facto and de jure illegal military intervention not approved by UN madate which as results has amputation of Serbian territory (no UN mandate(braking international law), no declaration of war by US congress(breaking US law - constitution). Some examples you can even find in speeches of Ron Paul, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parentti, Russian and Chinese diplomacy (announcements, protests...) There are vast records on all of this.
It is also known fact that many countries surrounding Serbia did recognized Kosovo as consequence of NATO and EU pressure namely FYROM, Bulgaria, Monte Negro as well as some countries in central Europe like Czeck Republic, Slovakia and Poland. Some officials even did not kide it and on announcement of Kosovo recognition they argued openly that this was tactical decision for greated cause e.g. EU or NATO membership etc...
But nothing of it is mentioned. Instead only number stating number of states that recognized Kosovo independace is sited as intention was to create imagery of some wide consensus.
Facts are facts, emotions are justifications are something completely different — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- As a non-American, you may not realized that Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky are what are known here in the States as "kooks" - and their views are basically fringe, and not representative of the American public. You can't base changing the article on what they claim. Also, you are using your own emotions as justification for pushing a particular POV for the article - which you just decried as being wrong. ??? HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Representative opinion of American public is not known in the world of non-americans for being outstanding in terms of quality but is rather subject of mocking. Noam Chomsky is considered broadly as one of leading intellectuals and scholars in the world. It is funny that you find yourself qualified to comment on his qualities. Regardless you missed completely the point of criticism. Facts are that majority of the world does not recognize the Kosovo independence and number of those countries is not stated as I suggested above and is pure fact regardless of Chomsky. It is UN fact. Second point you missed, again regardless of Chomsky, is that US imposed diplomatic pressure on many countries to acknowledge independence of Kosovo under using NATO and EU umbrella. They have never hide it, but where very open on it, again regarless of what Chomsky thinks about it. This article was least about Chomsky. Thanks God or better saying Karl Marx, Darvin, Ainstain etc., I am European!80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The existing statement is pure fact. What you're suggesting is POV-pushing. Bazonka (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- The statement is fact but incomplete fact. How can what I say be POV if I asked that number of states that do not recognize Kosovo should be stated too and first because there is more of them. You see this is the fact that you do not like, but it is the fact too. Avoiding to name it looks as you are trying to hide something.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The solution is to say that "Kosovo is recognized as an independent state by (number) states, and is not recognized by (number) states."--R-41 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- That "solution" rests on the assumption that everyone agrees on the statehood of the recognizers themselves, which clearly isn't the case. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Solution is simple. State number of countries that do not recognize Kosovo independence. Then state number of countries that do recognize. Then state there was milder or stronger US pressure on some on them to recognize Kosovo indepedence and state mechanisms and examples (NATO and US harmonization, EU accession talks, economic pressure, internal instabilities like in case of FYROM, where majority of the people expressed strong opposition on streets of Skopje etc). You can also quote US diplomats and leaders.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- That solution rests on the assumption that everyone agrees on the statehood of the recognizers themselves, which clearly isn't the case. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to understand where do we disagree. Yes many countries where forced to recognize independence of Kosovo under pressure of US diplomacy and NATO and EU aspirations. This is why I stated that after quoting number that is fact this condition should be stated. If you are trying to say that majority of people oppose Kosovo independence in Czech Rep. I agree, but fact is that Czech government did recognize it. What is then problem for you there?80.61.205.20 (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- We disagree that, apart from Kosovo, everyone agrees what constitutes a country. Kosovo isn't the only political entity with a disputed claim to statehood, so saying that a certain number of states recognize Kosovo's statehood is itself disputed. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it will not be the first time principles are broken. But fact is that USA considers Kosovo as country and behaves in that way. So this is fact and count goes one up. Now if I understand your point problem is that USA does not follow its on principle on the matter. But US has not following its own principle in many other issues yet they are going on with it. We cannot deny Viethnam even though it was against US principle. Even some laws are very seemingly unconstitutional. However, laws are there, Kosovo has US embassy in it so that is countable fact. Unfortunately there is no mathematics and honesty in this. Anyhow, I think we will disagree again. I am not denying anything you say, but what I suggest is we are still better then what is currently there if we do the way I suggested. Your idea will take lot of battle, not with me of course, to win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- We disagree that, apart from Kosovo, everyone agrees what constitutes a country. Kosovo isn't the only political entity with a disputed claim to statehood, so saying that a certain number of states recognize Kosovo's statehood is itself disputed. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to understand where do we disagree. Yes many countries where forced to recognize independence of Kosovo under pressure of US diplomacy and NATO and EU aspirations. This is why I stated that after quoting number that is fact this condition should be stated. If you are trying to say that majority of people oppose Kosovo independence in Czech Rep. I agree, but fact is that Czech government did recognize it. What is then problem for you there?80.61.205.20 (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- That solution rests on the assumption that everyone agrees on the statehood of the recognizers themselves, which clearly isn't the case. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Solution is simple. State number of countries that do not recognize Kosovo independence. Then state number of countries that do recognize. Then state there was milder or stronger US pressure on some on them to recognize Kosovo indepedence and state mechanisms and examples (NATO and US harmonization, EU accession talks, economic pressure, internal instabilities like in case of FYROM, where majority of the people expressed strong opposition on streets of Skopje etc). You can also quote US diplomats and leaders.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- That "solution" rests on the assumption that everyone agrees on the statehood of the recognizers themselves, which clearly isn't the case. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The solution is to say that "Kosovo is recognized as an independent state by (number) states, and is not recognized by (number) states."--R-41 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
This is all POV pushing origional research which has no place in an encyclopedia. As another poster says, Chomsky and fellow traveller Perenti are fringe, genocide-denying kooks and their works on the Balkans been thouroughly discredited. Thannad (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)- Could you read carefully what is bold and see what problem you may have with that. It has nothing to do with Chomsky and you can check it easily. Your statements on Chomsky you can place on Chomsky article and see will they be valid. In no way he is subject here and I am willing to delete his name from my statements if you want.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I do not udnerstand this opsession with Chomsky. Point is that you are not stating the fact about total number of countries that do not recognize the Kosovo and fact that many countries that do did that under pressure of USA. USA government openly and without hiding "urges" countries to recognize Kosovo independence after war it waged over Serbia. This war, factually, did not have UN mandate and was unilateral action, even NATO does not denies but justifies it, so it is also fact regardless of what Chomsky you dislike so badly thinks.But to your horror even BBC shows more interest in Kooks liek Chomsky that main stream Americans like Bill O'Raily. Not to mention what universities think about those two. But, again, this is not story about Chomsky but about facts that are publicly KNOWN!80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Strange that our own article on Chomsky doesn't mention his genocide-denying kookiness. One would also expect that if he was such an unreliable source, he wouldn't be cited so widely on Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- On the Balkans, he is hardly ever cited, except by Srebrenica denialists and Serb apologists (and there are quite alot in this site, especially on articles relating to Kosova). Wikipedia does not like criticism sections, and that is why our own article on Chomsky fails to mention these views. Thannad (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC
- Ah, that must be it. Those genocide denialists and Serb apologists are really insidious, aren't they? I've often heard it said here that Wikipedia would be a much better place if they were all rooted out and run off the site for good. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct.Thannad (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- So Mate, are we moving further or you are still not convinced. Have we agreed that some countries can LOVE independent Kosovo but till you do not do paper work in UN you DE FACTO and DE JURE they do not recognize it'Bold text'. Are we going to wait for pigeons with "messages of desperately waited Independence" to come or we are going to write facts as they are and do some serious business. I see your stance is very NATO colored. You like chopping countries NATO stile, from Iraq to Serbia. Lets close this case and move on to counting how many countries will recognize independence of Scotland, after queen jubilee is over. Seams she will be the "Last Emperor of Scotland". What do you think?80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- You helped us understand Albanian democracy. NATO invented democracy for NATO invented country80.61.205.20 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct.Thannad (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that must be it. Those genocide denialists and Serb apologists are really insidious, aren't they? I've often heard it said here that Wikipedia would be a much better place if they were all rooted out and run off the site for good. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- On the Balkans, he is hardly ever cited, except by Srebrenica denialists and Serb apologists (and there are quite alot in this site, especially on articles relating to Kosova). Wikipedia does not like criticism sections, and that is why our own article on Chomsky fails to mention these views. Thannad (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC
Why entering even this discussion here. Chomsky is least issue here. Facts stated has nothing to do with his opinion. It is pure UN count and loudly spoken US foreign policy. Chomsky is frequently guest of universities, public philosophical debates. Its pointless to discuss his qualities expressed by those who are only (un)invited to Wiki(NATO)pedia. This is not forum and not about Chomsky.
To help to all. Facts are in bold have nothing to do with Chomsky. Please stick to them. The only reason I mendionted those people is fact that for US to go to war according to US consititution it needs to be approved by congress. It has never been. Regardless of that it is not subject of Kosovo. It was only mentioned as additional hint. If you do not like it delete it. But deal first with facts in BOLD for God sake80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Calm down please. Perhaps instead of saying "Its independence is recognised by x UN member states", we should say "Its independence is recognised by x out of 193 UN member states". We don't need to explicitly state the number of non-recognisers - anyone with half a brain can do simple mathematics to work this out. Bazonka (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I assume everyone with half brain will understand this formulation either: Its independence is NOT RECOGNIZED by x UN member states out of 193" Since you are very honest guy you will for sure see this formulation equally right and will not have problem to do it this way. Unlike you who came with that suggestion I see difference and for me then second option looks better. I offered you strait statement, but then you appeal on other people brains so lets do it then second way stating how many countries DO NOT RECOGNIZE Kosovo Independence out of 193 since anyhow it takes BALLS for those countries NOT TO Recognize Kosovo Independence considering pressure of "World Policeman" allias USA and pressure it mounts to other governments.80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I Agree with Bazonka. Its independence is recognised by XX UN member states out of 193. Simple inclusion, more information's, more NPOV. --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I thought we are talking serious things here not voting. Science is not election. I also fail to understand your argument why my formulation is so disagreeable to you. It should be more about arguments and less about emotions and friendships. Could you explain why is way he suggest so much "agreeable" then mine? Why it is so hard to write that there are countries that do not recognize Kosovo independence and so easy that there are those that "recognize it". I undersatnd reasons CNN does not like to state that, it has its propaganda effect. Especially when they state number then accept it and then only mention over and over again that "Serbia and its powerful ally Russia deny it". There one can clearly see propaganda effect it aims to create leaving viewer with feeling that there are broad international consensus and some boring Serbs and Russians who do oppose it.I thought aim of science/encyclopedia is not to create sentiments but report facts with least possible ambiguity. Would you agree? How on earth it is POV to you? 80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- If we give the total number of UN states, then we are stating how many countries don't recognise. Of course recognition and non-recognition are not as black-and-white as they may seem - there are different shades of non-recognition, from the Serbia-style "will never recognise" to countries like Cape Verde or Equatorial Guinea, which practically do recognise, but just haven't done so diplomatically. But explicitly talking about non-recognisers, we are giving the false impression that they're all the same. Bazonka (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is the same when we say for those that recognize it, because many of those countries are doing it under open pressure of USA and clear disapproval of population. Thus you can avoid also statement of recognizer countries. This is why facts should be stated as they are and then in text you can explain that there are some cases like Cape Verde, but also other types like FYROM, Czech Rep, Poland, Bulgaria, Monte-Negro etc where there is clear public opposition to Kosovo Independence. Some of governments of those countries justified clearly their decision based on ambitions to comply with EU and NATO agenda and not to step on US toes. Regardless of reasons facts are facts and that should be stated. Your reasoning works more against your statement because everyone knows that it was American push that made countries go that road rather then their free will. It was almost commanded from Washington and chronology of events clearly shows it. It is also very clear that many governments who opposed Kosovo independence faced open pressure for US to do so and we all know how much balls and convictions it takes to DO THAT. So please, write the facts. We can put those preceptions, conditions and limitations later on. Not to mention that without UN mandate thus DE FACTO and DE JURE US invaded Serbia (then FRJ) and amputated part of its territory. They justified it with humanitarian reasons but never denied it was not in accordance with UN carta. Unlike them Russians did have UN mandate in Georgia (which arguably is used or abused, but they still had it). NATO never had any mandate and act completely unilaterally. It itself explains determination of US and NATO in pushing this agenda and challenges poor and small countries face to take their stand. Thus, judging honestly, there is much more integrity in using NOT RECOGNIZE countries and mentioning number then RECONGIZE countries and mentioning number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is fact to say how many countries have recognised. It is subjective, and possibly WP:OR, to say why they recognised. Bazonka (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is also FACT to say how many countries DID NOT RECOGNIZE IT. It is pure fact verifiable in UNITED NATIONS. Technical problems of tiny island is ridiculous excuse not to do it. Nothing is subjective in statements of American Secretary of states that urges countries to recognize Kosovo, mounts pressure on that. Nothing is subjective in fact that in majority Czech people oppose Kosovo independence, nor when officials from FYROM and MonteNegro state that Kosovo independence is recognized as gesture of NATO/EU solidarity in their own language which I do paraphrase here. Nothing is subjective in American open policy of pressure and lobbying for Kosovo Independence using diplomatic, economic and what not pressure. It is astonishing that your subjectivity can rule in WIKI(NATO)pedia, based on comical example of Cape Verde or Equatorial Guinea, like Russia, China, India, Argentina, Brasil .... do not mater. But this is true example of NATO BIAS in this WIKIPEDIA. Most of articles more then 95% are sourced in NATO countries sources and even such an obivuous facts easily verifiable by UN data cannot be stated as FACTS based on comical excuse.80.61.205.20 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I just did a quick count on the International recognition of Kosovo page and found 94 UN member states that have made statements against recognizing Kosovo. Adding this to the 91 that have recognized Kosovo gives us 185. However, there are 193 UN member states. You are assuming that those for whom we have no statement have actually not made a statement of recognition that has not been found and that the lack of a statement of recognition is the same as a statement of non-recognition. I don't see how anything resting on these assumptions can be considered an easily verifiable fact. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Brilliant. You just formlated it right. So here we go: "102 countries do not recognize Kosovo independace and 91 do recognize it. Out of 102 that do not recognized it 94 have made statements against Independace of Kosovo. Other 8 do not have strong stance or do not oppose it but due to tech and what not reasons did not officially recognize it. Among those 91 who did recognized Kosovo independence, some did it under pressure of USA or did it to comply with NATO and EU majority stand or to enhance their integration into those structures. So what on earth would be wrong with this Khajidha. It look like clear fact easily verifiable. Finally some sense!80.61.205.20 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- What is wrong is that you are STILL assuming that those 8 have not recognized. It is quite possible that some have, but the news has not reached us. Also, you are making POV assertions that some of the recognizers did so under pressure from the US. This is possible, but you have not provided evidence. Also, you are assuming that the non-recognizers were not pressured to take that position by Russia or some other state. Your statements are thus full of opinions, not verifiable facts. The ONLY verifiable fact there is the number of countries that have explicitly recognized (either through a statement of recognition or through opening relations), which is what is already in the article and is what you are arguing against.--Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- qoute 1: "What is wrong is that you are STILL assuming that those 8 have not recognized. It is quite possible that some have, but the news has not reached us." then you tell me :"Also, you are assuming that the non-recognizers were not pressured to take that position by Russia or some other state.". That is joke of a day. First you speculate to the level of comedy then accuse me of speculation. Listen no one stops you to change counts when "the news come" like pigeon is still flying over Atlantic :-). Till news do not come to UN it is FACT they do not recognize it. Do you understand the difference of political article and scientific fact. Same fact is that there is no Kosovo seat in UN. Is it because some countries do not want it, or because they do not care, or because they care but they are lazy ... that does not matter because DE FACTO and DE JURE they do not recognize it. I am fighting (exposing nonsense) for hours to get basic fact in place and you want me to prove you something way more sophisticated. Look there is plenty of material on Internet about it. Russia does not have more then 5% of NATO GDP nor NATO reach nor its power, neither they bombed anyone on Balkans so yes there is possibility Russia influence some countries but way way less so even common sense is enough to see that coming. Just little bit of digging on internet and you will find many interesting things.80.61.205.20 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- What is wrong is that you are STILL assuming that those 8 have not recognized. It is quite possible that some have, but the news has not reached us. Also, you are making POV assertions that some of the recognizers did so under pressure from the US. This is possible, but you have not provided evidence. Also, you are assuming that the non-recognizers were not pressured to take that position by Russia or some other state. Your statements are thus full of opinions, not verifiable facts. The ONLY verifiable fact there is the number of countries that have explicitly recognized (either through a statement of recognition or through opening relations), which is what is already in the article and is what you are arguing against.--Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Brilliant. You just formlated it right. So here we go: "102 countries do not recognize Kosovo independace and 91 do recognize it. Out of 102 that do not recognized it 94 have made statements against Independace of Kosovo. Other 8 do not have strong stance or do not oppose it but due to tech and what not reasons did not officially recognize it. Among those 91 who did recognized Kosovo independence, some did it under pressure of USA or did it to comply with NATO and EU majority stand or to enhance their integration into those structures. So what on earth would be wrong with this Khajidha. It look like clear fact easily verifiable. Finally some sense!80.61.205.20 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I just did a quick count on the International recognition of Kosovo page and found 94 UN member states that have made statements against recognizing Kosovo. Adding this to the 91 that have recognized Kosovo gives us 185. However, there are 193 UN member states. You are assuming that those for whom we have no statement have actually not made a statement of recognition that has not been found and that the lack of a statement of recognition is the same as a statement of non-recognition. I don't see how anything resting on these assumptions can be considered an easily verifiable fact. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is also FACT to say how many countries DID NOT RECOGNIZE IT. It is pure fact verifiable in UNITED NATIONS. Technical problems of tiny island is ridiculous excuse not to do it. Nothing is subjective in statements of American Secretary of states that urges countries to recognize Kosovo, mounts pressure on that. Nothing is subjective in fact that in majority Czech people oppose Kosovo independence, nor when officials from FYROM and MonteNegro state that Kosovo independence is recognized as gesture of NATO/EU solidarity in their own language which I do paraphrase here. Nothing is subjective in American open policy of pressure and lobbying for Kosovo Independence using diplomatic, economic and what not pressure. It is astonishing that your subjectivity can rule in WIKI(NATO)pedia, based on comical example of Cape Verde or Equatorial Guinea, like Russia, China, India, Argentina, Brasil .... do not mater. But this is true example of NATO BIAS in this WIKIPEDIA. Most of articles more then 95% are sourced in NATO countries sources and even such an obivuous facts easily verifiable by UN data cannot be stated as FACTS based on comical excuse.80.61.205.20 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is fact to say how many countries have recognised. It is subjective, and possibly WP:OR, to say why they recognised. Bazonka (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is the same when we say for those that recognize it, because many of those countries are doing it under open pressure of USA and clear disapproval of population. Thus you can avoid also statement of recognizer countries. This is why facts should be stated as they are and then in text you can explain that there are some cases like Cape Verde, but also other types like FYROM, Czech Rep, Poland, Bulgaria, Monte-Negro etc where there is clear public opposition to Kosovo Independence. Some of governments of those countries justified clearly their decision based on ambitions to comply with EU and NATO agenda and not to step on US toes. Regardless of reasons facts are facts and that should be stated. Your reasoning works more against your statement because everyone knows that it was American push that made countries go that road rather then their free will. It was almost commanded from Washington and chronology of events clearly shows it. It is also very clear that many governments who opposed Kosovo independence faced open pressure for US to do so and we all know how much balls and convictions it takes to DO THAT. So please, write the facts. We can put those preceptions, conditions and limitations later on. Not to mention that without UN mandate thus DE FACTO and DE JURE US invaded Serbia (then FRJ) and amputated part of its territory. They justified it with humanitarian reasons but never denied it was not in accordance with UN carta. Unlike them Russians did have UN mandate in Georgia (which arguably is used or abused, but they still had it). NATO never had any mandate and act completely unilaterally. It itself explains determination of US and NATO in pushing this agenda and challenges poor and small countries face to take their stand. Thus, judging honestly, there is much more integrity in using NOT RECOGNIZE countries and mentioning number then RECONGIZE countries and mentioning number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- If we give the total number of UN states, then we are stating how many countries don't recognise. Of course recognition and non-recognition are not as black-and-white as they may seem - there are different shades of non-recognition, from the Serbia-style "will never recognise" to countries like Cape Verde or Equatorial Guinea, which practically do recognise, but just haven't done so diplomatically. But explicitly talking about non-recognisers, we are giving the false impression that they're all the same. Bazonka (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I thought we are talking serious things here not voting. Science is not election. I also fail to understand your argument why my formulation is so disagreeable to you. It should be more about arguments and less about emotions and friendships. Could you explain why is way he suggest so much "agreeable" then mine? Why it is so hard to write that there are countries that do not recognize Kosovo independence and so easy that there are those that "recognize it". I undersatnd reasons CNN does not like to state that, it has its propaganda effect. Especially when they state number then accept it and then only mention over and over again that "Serbia and its powerful ally Russia deny it". There one can clearly see propaganda effect it aims to create leaving viewer with feeling that there are broad international consensus and some boring Serbs and Russians who do oppose it.I thought aim of science/encyclopedia is not to create sentiments but report facts with least possible ambiguity. Would you agree? How on earth it is POV to you? 80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Who's the arbiter of what constitutes a country? That needs to be established before one can make any statement as to how many countries have recognized Kosovo. Thankfully your recent edit does make such an establishment, referring not to "countries" but to "UN member states". —Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not all of the non-recognising countries have issued statements opposed to recognition. Some have just said stuff like "We're thinking about it," which isn't exactly taking the pro-Serbia side. Whilst recognition shows that the country is definitely taking a side (diplomatically at least), not recognising covers the the pro-Serbia stance, but also the don't care and the about-to-recognise stances. Bazonka (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is not about taking pro-Serbian side. It is about facts. They can think about it, they can pray on it, but till they do not recognize it they DE FACTO do not recognize it. Similarly some countries that recognize it have strong feeling of reconsidering it. Some where even warned by US not to do it. But it does not matter because they DE FACTO recognize Kosovo independence. I cannot believe I had to expalain this over and over again. WIKIPE-dia si COME-dia.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how that's the slightest bit relevant to the objection I raised. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's because it was a response to Khajidha. Sorry if the paragraphs have got muddled. Bazonka (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- So Mate, are we moving further or you are still not convinced. Have we agreed that some countries can LOVE independent Kosovo but till you do not do paper work in UN you DE FACTO and DE JURE they do not recognize it'Bold text'. Are we going to wait for pigeons with "messages of desperately waited Independence" to come or we are going to write facts as they are and do some serious business. I see your stance is very NATO colored. You like chopping countries NATO stile, from Iraq to Serbia. Lets close this case and move on to counting how many countries will recognize independence of Scotland, after queen jubilee is over. Seams she will be the "Last Emperor of Scotland". What do you think?80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's because it was a response to Khajidha. Sorry if the paragraphs have got muddled. Bazonka (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not all of the non-recognising countries have issued statements opposed to recognition. Some have just said stuff like "We're thinking about it," which isn't exactly taking the pro-Serbia side. Whilst recognition shows that the country is definitely taking a side (diplomatically at least), not recognising covers the the pro-Serbia stance, but also the don't care and the about-to-recognise stances. Bazonka (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Who's the arbiter of what constitutes a country? That needs to be established before one can make any statement as to how many countries have recognized Kosovo. Thankfully your recent edit does make such an establishment, referring not to "countries" but to "UN member states". —Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The anonymous user named 80.61.205.20 has to immediately stop her/his uncivil and combative language towards other users including the use of bolding and caps lock for shouting at other users. Such behaviour is in direct violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. In addition the user cannot legitimately accuse other users of pro-NATO opinions when the user herself/himself clearly has anti-NATO opinions, promoting either stance is in violation of POV. The user has to directly indicate exactly what specific sentences in the article are biased and present reliable sources for discussion to make the article less biased. Unsubstantiated accusations of NATO POV in the article in combination with clearly anti-NATO rhetoric here, alongside uncivil behaviour towards users will not resolve the issues here, and will likely end up in administrative action needing to be taken.--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The anon IP from the Netherlands is a bit confused - the queen would be an empress, not an emperor. Also note that the United Nations has nowhere near the military and economic strength of the NATO alliance - if NATO considers Kosovo an independent state, then by every measure that matters, it will be one! As long as the NATO military backs a gov't in Kosovo, "de facto" is the proper term to use. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Lead: Serbian name for Republic of Kosovo
The official Serbian-language name for Republic of Kosovo, as used in the Constitution, legislation, government letterheads, and signs outside all government offices, is "Republika Kosova" (using the genitive of "Kosovo"), not "Republika Kosovo" as in the Article. I know this is different from usual Slavic naming conventions, but Wikipedia Policy on Names says that where an official name exists other than in the title, it should be given early on in the article. The name Serbs in Serbia give the region is stated in the article; I see no reason to change the name Serb Ministers in the Government of Kosovo use. --Markd999 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, no, its not. Translation is "Republika Kosovo" and official name also. Do you have any reference for that? --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Lead: the end of the war
The article currently reads: "Following the Kosovo War, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) relinquished governance of this territory, whose governance was taken over by the United Nations" This sounds like a generous unilateral act, which is not a NPOV, and is factually incorrect (hostilities did not end until the FRY had accepted, under the Ahtisaari/Chernomyrdin agreement, that it would give up the exercise of sovereignty - pending a final status settlement, of course). I propose to edit this to "The Kosovo War ended with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia accepting that it would give up the exercise of its sovereignty pending a final status settlement. Under UNSCR 1244, governance passed to the United Nations"
--Markd999 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is fine by me. Small change... --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Lead: North Kosovo
Current article reads: ".. while North Kosovo, the largest Kosovo Serb enclave, is under the control of institutions of the Republic of Serbia".
Not entirely factual. The Kosovo Police Service are present in the North, while police in Serbian uniforms are not (even if Serb officers in the KPS may not in fact be carrying out orders from Pristina); the Kosovo Customs Service controls the border crossings in joint management with the Serbian Customs; KFOR is a factor in "control"; and while openly Serbian institutions are present (electricity, telephones, etc) unofficial parallel structures are also a potent factor (usually subsidised by Belgrade, loyal to the idea of being part of Serbia, but not necessarily subservient to the Serbian Government at any particular time).
I propose to edit this (a change accepted in the article "Republic of Kosovo" to:
"..although North Kosovo, the largest Serb enclave, is largely under the control of institutions of the Republic of Serbia or parallel structures subsidised by Serbia"
--Markd999 (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Lead: control
Current version has the Kosovo Governemnt having "de facto control over most of its territory". I propose to delete the words "de facto". In the subsequent mention of North Kosovo there is no mention about whether control is de facto or de jure, and there is no reason for the words here. --Markd999 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. Kosovo government is still mostly in the de facto region, while Serbia is still de jure dominant. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The article is supposed to be from a NPOV. Your argument here accepts that the phrase "de facto" implies that the Kosovo Government is not "de jure" in control of most of its territory, and is not therefore neutral terminology. I accept that Serbia, and quite a lot of other countries, believe this to be the case. But their point of view is already included in the article. I shall therefore go ahead with the edit on the basis that you agree with me that the words are not neutral, albeit that they are in accordance with your own point of view over the dispute over status. --Markd999 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, i have to ask for your revert. RoK control over territory is really only de facto by now, as they are not UN members, and the rest of the territory is not in their control, neither de jure nor de facto. This is very clear info that is not problematic. As article is under ARBMAC and under various restrictions, please, revert your self, as we didnt agreed yet on this. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think I have to refuse your request. The main controversy in this article, as among the international community, is over whether Kosovo is de jure or merely de facto independent. Presumably all the states which have recognised it think it is de jure independent; as do many international lawyers. Regardless of my or your views on this controversy, under Wikipedia principles we need to use language which is neutral both explicitly, and, so far as possible, implicitly. You seem to agree with me that the use of the words "de facto" is in contrast with "de jure"; in other words that it is not neutral over the controversy. If they are interpreted purely neutrally, then they are redundant; and since most edits tend to lengthen the entry, one which cuts, even by two words, should be welcomed. Even if I entirely agreed with your view of whether Kosovo's independence was de jure or de facto, I would still propose this change.
You are, I am afraid, wrong about membership of the UN being a requirement of statehood. Even today, the Holy See, accepted by the UN as a state, is not a member. There are many examples in the past of countries generally accepted as states not being members of the UN, either of their own volition (Switzerland for most of the period since the foundation of the UN), or because they faced veto by a member of the Security Council (for example, Ireland until 1955, the People's Republic of China until Nixon's U-turn, or both Koreas until the 1990s). --Markd999 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, would you be happy if the article were to refer to control of the North being "de facto but not de jure"? I would not consider this particularly neutral. But I have never understood how Serbia constantly referred to alleged breaches of UNSCR 1244 while still claiming to exercise powers of sovereignty over the North which were specifically transferred to UNMIK under UNSCR 1244. --Markd999 (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Background: "Frontier belt"
There is no, or very little, dispute over where the line of demarcation runs. The dispute is over whether this is an international border or an administrative boundary within Serbia, or whether this should be changed.
I propose editing to the following, already accepted in the article "Republic of Koodvo":
"The remaining line of demarcation is the subject of controversy - seen by proponents of Kosovan independence as the Kosovo-Serbia border and seen by opponents of the independence as the boundary between Central Serbia and an autonomous Kosovo all within Serbia".
--Markd999 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Meh, it is not quite important to say... Dont know, why do you think that this line is necessary? It is obvious, mostly... --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it is necessary for two reasons. First, the current version grammatically means that it is Western Serbia whose status is a matter of controversy, which is of course not the case. Secondly, the phrase "frontier belt" implies that there is dispute or uncertainty about where the line of demarcation runs, which is also not the case.
Thirdly, you have accepted this line (not, incidentally, proposed by me but as a response to a proposal by me) in the article "Republic of Kosovo" and you do not seem to disagree with it here. On this basis I shall make the edit.--Markd999 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Background: EULEX
Current version reads:
"the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), most of whose roles were assumed by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008."
Is this true, or is it neutral? I think neither.
As for the truth, EULEX has the power to arrest and prosecute people, as well as to assist the development of the Kosovo police, prosecutors and judiciary. These were all powers of UNMIK. But UNMIK also had the powers to legislate by itself; to inspect and if necessary amend (or even veto) laws passed by the Kosovo Assembly; to take most economic decisions even against Kosovo Government decisions; to refer prosecutions to courts composed solely of international judges; to run the Customs Service, which it did to the last; to directly run elections, although in practice it gave this up in 2004; etc etc etc.
It can be seen even from this brief and partial list that "most" powers of UNMIK were not transferred to EULEX (although I think that most Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo would agree that EULEX would have been important if it had done its job properly).
As for neutrality, I can quite see that Serbians would prefer EULEX (whose role Serbia recognises) to be mentioned rather than the International Community Office (whose role they do not). But more of UNMIK's powers passed to the ICO (under the Ahtisaari Plan, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) than passed to EULEX. And some, of course, lapsed altogether (or, if you take the view of a non-recognising state, became unenforceable).
I would therefore propose to edit as follows:
"Some of UNMIK's powers in the area of rule of law were transferred to the European Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008. In the Declaration of Independence of February 2008, and in its Constitution, Kosovo accepted a general supervisory role with important specific powers, proposed in the Ahtisaari Plan, exercised by the International Community Office (ICO). The International Steering Group has decided that, since Kosovo has passed legislation envisaged in and has implemented the Ahtisaari Plan, there is no reason for the ICO to continue to exist beyond September 2012" --Markd999 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- That looks reasonable to me. Good work! bobrayner (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- But, you must use good neutral source for this. Without it, please, dont add this info. --WhiteWriterspeaks 07:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, you are confused. There is EULEX, as an EU institution, which is composed of 27 EU countries. Then there is the ICO/ICR/ISG/Ahtisaari Plan, which is composed of (for example) only 20 EU countries. Distinct, but overlapping, entities.
- As you mentioned, some institutions Serbia recognizes as legitimate, others it does not. The International Steering Group (ISG) was created by the Ahtisaari Plan which is closely linked with the independent Republic (being explicitly referenced in its Declaration of Independence for example). Anything related to either should not be referred to as some universally accepted fact; it is a partisan institution. The ISG made the ICO/ICR.
- UNMIK powers were not (AFAIK) passed to the ICO/ICR/ISG/Ahtisaari Plan. The powers of EULEX were recognized by the PISG, which was recognized by the UNMIK which was recognized by the UNSC which was recognized by the UN Chart which was recognized by Serbia. (PHEW!) But I cannot prove this! I think the PISG became the Republic but I cannot really find "the sauce"; everyone has stopped talking about the PISG, which is still recognized by UNMIK regulations AFAIK. And then again, everyone stopped talking about the UNMIK too, who seems to have abandoned his post after the Declaration of Independence (or at least stopped updateing his website)...
- TLDR: No, you assume too much. When you can fill in the gaps in the Government of Kosovo article, then maybe something can be said. Int21h (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also note the weak link between UNMIK and EULEX. The only reliable source I could find was 1 (literally, 1) BBC article, wherein it does not give details. No UNMIK regulations online even mention EULEX. Many other, in my opinion, unreliable sources also repeated this, also without any references given and likely themselves internally citing the BBC article. Int21h (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Lead: Inter-ethnic tensions
Current article reads:
"Long-term severe ethnic tensions between Kosovo's Albanian and Serb populations have left Kosovo ethnically divided, resulting in inter-ethnic violence, including the Kosovo War of 1999."
I do not dispute that, as in most regions where two or more ethnic/linguistic/religious groups co-exist, there have been tensions which presumably go back a very long way. But this sentence suggests that it was Italic textonlyItalic text these tensions which resulted in conflict, rather than policies from Belgrade (particularly from 1989, but going back further) or for that matter Pristina between 1974 and 1989.
I find it difficult to generalise about inter-ethnic tensions in Kosovo. If one looks to Kamenica, one finds that it was virtually untouched by the conflict of 1999, the damage done by the riots of March 2004 was a couple of windows broken, the green market is (and was virtually without interruption) multi-ethnic, and the brick factory had both Serbs and Albanians in management and wotking positions again without (or almost without) interruption. If one looks to Prizren, the communities there seem to have rubbed along reasonably happily until 1999 and the destruction of Serb areas of the city seem to have been the work of people from the surrounding villages which were almost all destroyed in 1999, and did not share the pride of people from Prizren itself in the city's traditions. Other tensions arose, not surprisingly, in areas where Kosovo Albanian property was confiscated and given to Serbian colonists; and the converse may have happened at an earlier stage (for example, in the two villages of Babuš/Babush, one is called Srpski Babuš (Serbian Babush) and the other, officially, Babush i Muxharreve (Babush of the Refugees, the Refugees in question being Albanians from the Nis region of Serbia, expelled in 1878). One would have to be astonishingly well-informed about local history to make real sense of this mosaic.
I do not despair of finding a short description which is neutral, but ignoring the fact that the Milosevic regime suspended Kosovo's autonomy, introducing "extraordinary measures" which resulted in 70% of Kosovo's employees losing their jobs, etc etc, does not seem to me a NPOV. --Markd999 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Background: ICJ advisory opinion
I propose editing this to "..did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence': nor did the declaration of independence violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244, since this did not describe Kosovo's final status, nor had the Security Council reserved for itself the decision on final status".
This edit has been accepted in the separate articles on the Advisory Opinion and on the Republic of Kosovo. Two points here: it might not have violated general international law but still have violated international law because of a binding (Chapter VII) resolution of the UNSCR, and what the current version has as the president of the court's description, as if it was his personal opinion, in fact comes from the majority decision of the court.
--Markd999 (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
UN Administration Period
Current version has 2 sections: one titled as above, the second entitled UN Administration 1999-Present. The second title is neither neutral nor correct: even if one believes that under UNSCR 1244 UNMIK ought to be administering Kosovo, it does not claim to be doing so in fact. The first title is quite neutral and if one thinks that UN Administration exists legally today (even if not in fact) it still applies. The first paragraph of the second section is pure duplication and I propose to delete it. The second paragraph has information not elsewhere in the article, and I propose to retain it with the following minor amendments:
"Under the Constitutional Framework, Kosovo had a 120-member Kosovo Assembly. The Assembly includes twenty reserved seats: ten for Kosovo Serbs and ten for non-Serb and non-Albanian nations (e.g. Bosniaks, Roma, etc.). The Kosovo Assembly was responsible for electing the President, Prime Minister, and Government of Kosovo, and for passing legislation which was vetted and promulgated by UNMIK."
(This proposed edit already accepted in the article on the Republic of Kosovo. --Markd999 (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, from what I can tell UNMIK christian-ed the PISG, which from what I can tell became the Republic, then abandoned the post. ("Hey UNMIK I was wondering what happened to this PISG enti-- Hey, where did UNMIK go?") Int21h (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Background: Border
It's not mentioned in Noel Malcolm, but I think that in 1953 or thereabouts there were bigger revisions to the border: that the three Presevo municipalities went over to Serbia from Kosovo (after municipal referendums) and the three municipalities of Zvečan, Lepkosavič, and Zubin Potok went over to Kosovo from Serbia (again, after municipal referendums). There were also revisions to the southern border: Đeneral Jankovič/ Hani i Elezit transferred from Macedonia to Kosovo (not that Macedonia would want it back: no statues, and more Albanians).
Zoupan (or someone) please tell me whether this is right or wrong. In one way I would prefer to be wrong; personally I dislike the idea of borders being delimited on ethnic lines, and would not want a historical argument for the transfer of territories in this way. But then, of course, I am not a Serb living in Zubin Potok or an Albanian living in the Presevo Valley. But if facts are facts we should include them. --79.126.148.120 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting, I'm going to look it up, we need sources. You would prefer to be wrong? Don't mix nationalistic partition with Yugoslav geo-administrative reforms.--Zoupan 21:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Lead: declaration of independence
Current article reads:
"Under UNSCR 1244, governance passed to the United Nations. The partially recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo), a self-declared independent state, has control over most of the territory..."
All this is perfectly true, but it reads oddly. There is no sense of chronological development, although of course this is given in the body of the article. I propose to edit to:
"Under UNSCR 1244, governance passed to the United Nations in 1999. The partially recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo)declared itself an independent state in 2008, and has control over most of the territory...." --Markd999 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Box: telephones
Under "calling code" there is currently a footnote which reads:
"Officially +381; some mobile phone providers use +377 (Monaco) or +386 (Slovenia) instead."
Not a NPOV and not strictly true. +381 (Serbia) is the calling code for fixed lines. The only two mobile operators licenced under applicable law in Kosovo, both of them under UNMIK authority under UNSCR 1244 so Serbians cannot dispute their legality, use the Monaco or Slovenian calling codes as part of their licence.
I propose to edit to "+381 (Serbia) for fixed lines; mobile phone providers in Kosovo use +377 (Monaco) +386 (Slovenia)" and to put this in the text instead of as a footnote. --Markd999 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- There's nothing "NPOV" about a telephone exchange; just say it needs correcting. There's far too much Serb-Kosovar antagonism on the talk pages, this is complete over-exaggeration. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Help! I don't know why it has come out as it has! And I don't seem able to undo it --Markd999 (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed.--Zoupan 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Kosovo War
I propose to edit the section on war crimes, beginning "Stojilkovic killed himself...." with the following, already accepted in the article "Republic of Kosovo", with the citations found there:
"Stojiljković killed himself while at large in 2002 and Milošević died in custody during the trial in 2006. In 2009 Milutinovic was acquitted by the Trial Chamber; five defendants were found guilty (three sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, and two to 22 years; and in 2011 the remaining defendant, who had been in hiding when the main trial started, was found guilty and sentenced to 27 years. The verdicts are under appeal. The indictment against the nine alleged that they directed, encouraged or supported a campaign of terror and violence directed at Kosovo Albanian civilians and aimed at the expulsion of a substantial portion of them from Kosovo. It has been alleged that about 800,000 Albanians were expelled as a result. In particular, in the indictment of June 2006, the accused were charged with murder of 919 identified Kosovo Albanian civilians aged from one to 93, both male and female.
In addition, the Office of the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor has secured final judgements involving the conviction of 7 persons, sentenced to a total of 136 years imprisonment for war crimes in Kosovo involving 89 Albanian victims. As of June 2012, a trial of 12 defendants for an alleged massacre of 44 Albanian victims in Čuška (Alb: Qyshk) is ongoing."
This updates the trial situations and gives credit to the Republic of Serbia War Crimes Prosecutor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, again quite valid update. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I don't understand why nobody else comment in here except two of us... ? --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Everyone else is asleep :-)
- Usually we have epic disagreements on this talkpage. When somebody proposes something reasonable and uncontroversial, this is a serious break from tradition, and we don't know how to respond! bobrayner (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I don't understand why nobody else comment in here except two of us... ? --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Hvala! Faleminderit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Early History
Current text reads:
"During the 13th and 14th centuries, Kosovo became a political and spiritual centre of the Serbian Kingdom. In the late 13th century, the seat of the Serbian Archbishopric was moved to Pec, and rulers centred themselves between Prizren and Skopje,[2] during which time thousands of Christian monasteries and feudal-style forts and castles were erected."
No problem with most of this, but "thousands" of Christian monasteries and etc etc were erected? Quite impossible. Any idea of how many hectares it took to endow a monastery, even with only a few monks? Or how much labour it took to build a castle, which also required large amounts of land to maintain a garrison? Where are the remains of these "thousands" of monasteries, etc? Just remember that in the early middle ages it could take over a thousand sheep to supply the parchment for one single manuscript copy of the New Testament.
I propose just a short edit. "Msny" instead of "thousands of". But it strikes me as shocking that anyone could look at the denity of monasteries, castles, etc in Europe, most of it always richer then Kosovo, and then suggest that "thousands" of these institutions could conceivably maintained. --Markd999 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with you. Instead of using term "many" it would be better to present as precise number of churches and monasteries as possible. Huge number of churches and monasteries is one of the reasons why some people consider Kosovo as "Holy land". "Many" is concealing this important fact. I was surprised to see google hits for thousands because it really sounds impossible. To my surprise, there are numerous sources about more than thousand churches and monasteries. In that case, together with "feudal-style forts and castles" thousands don't look so impossible. Maybe some user who is more acquainted with this issue could help to determine most precise number? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Searching for a single number would be futile; over the centuries there will have been various new churches built, old ones abandoned, merges, splits &c. and the historical record is not perfect.
- It should be more straightforward to get an accurate number if we focus more closely; for instance, there should be some good papers on Google Scholar based on Nemanjid chrysobulls. (New churches or monastic foundation would typically get a grant of land or other feudal resources in order to support its ongoing operation; the grant documents tended to be preserved, for obvious reasons; and now they're a good source for all kinds of history, not just the history of church foundations).
- However, Malcolm (Medieval Kosovo: 850s-1390s, p50) says "...Kosovo was not the main focus of the church-building activities of most of these rulers". bobrayner (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- True, the 'heart' of the medieval Serbian Kingdom was Raska, not Kosovo. A precise number say, of the most important churches, would be much better than ambiguous 'thousands' which is impossible. There are not a thousand mosques in Kosovo, and that's for a population almost 90% Muslim... - Ottomanist (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Christianity is older than Islam in Kosovo. When searching, "thousands" have been built, "hundreds" have been destroyed. --Zoupan 08:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- True, the 'heart' of the medieval Serbian Kingdom was Raska, not Kosovo. A precise number say, of the most important churches, would be much better than ambiguous 'thousands' which is impossible. There are not a thousand mosques in Kosovo, and that's for a population almost 90% Muslim... - Ottomanist (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
If the population of Kosovo is likely to have been 350,000 in the seventeenth century (and it can hardly have been higher in the early fourteenth) it is quite impossible that it can have supported "thousands" of churches, monasteries, forts and castles. Each of these required, and still require, specialist personnel who require upkeep from others - despite the monastic aim of poverty and working for the monastery - and as for the costs and time of building, these were huge by modern standards. If you look at Velika Hoca, by Rasovec, for example, there are a number of Serbian churches - 12 I think - which are offshoots of bigger monasteries and are there because those monasteries gained much of their income from producing wine from their holdings there). There may be sources which talk of "thousands"of these establishments, but then medieval and early modern sources almost everywhere in Europe tend to use exaggerated numbers to mean "a lot".
The Serbian Orthodox Church produced a book (in, I think, around 2000, called, I think, "The Crucifixion of Kosovo"), detailing destruction or damage to churches and monasteries in Kosovo. Although it tries to disguise it (or possibly the attitudes in the Balkans to "restoration", as demonstrated for example in Macedonia, are different from those in Western Europe), many or most of these are 1990s "restorations" of churches, often quite small, that had been destroyed or collapsed over seven centuries. For example, the Monastery of the Archangels in Prizren can be seen in an early 1990s photograph to be visible only to the foundations.
It is evident from this source that the number of "restored" churches was relatively small; the policy of "restoration" applied to churches that were never particularly significant except to a small number of people who worshiped there, so it is extremely unlikely that more significant monasteries were not restored or recorded.
I don't think it will be possible to reach a definitive number at the present time, and with present political controversies, but "many" instead of "thousands" seems to me to be generous. If you compare with the density of archeological church, monastic, and military settlements which existed in northern Europe (simply because higher rainfall levels supported more people, the real description would be "few". I don't think this is sensible in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Lede
I think the UNESCO World Heritage sites and the 1389 Battle of Kosovo are sufficiently important to mention in the lede. I really do not understand edit summaries such as these [12]. Athenean (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Not that important", wow. It should stay in the intro, without a doubt.--Zoupan 08:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I half-agree. Whether the 1389 Battle of Kosovo Polje was really hugely important at the time or whether its importance is a matter of later mythologising seems to me irrelevant. Whatever, its importance in Serbian ideas of their history means it should be in the lead.
The World Heritage Sites are another matter (even though I find Visoki Decani magnificent and exuding spiritual peace, which I cannot say for Gracanica or the Patriarchate). Every country, or "country" if you prefer, has World Heritage Sites. It is very unusual for them to be mentioned in the leads to Wikipedia articles, and if they are mentioned it usually means that there is nothing more recent that might interest the reader.--Markd999 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Serb exodus 1999-2000
Current text reads:
"Some 200,000–280,000, representing the majority of the Serb population, left when the Serbian forces left. There was also some looting of Serb properties and even violence against some of those Serbs and Roma who remained.[110] The current number of internally displaced persons is disputed,[111][112][113][114] with estimates ranging from 65,000[115] to 250,000.[116][117][118] Many displaced Serbs are afraid to return to their homes, even with UNMIK protection. Around 120,000–150,000 Serbs remain in Kosovo, but are subject to ongoing harassment and discrimination due to physical threats for their safety.[119]"
Not NPOV, internally inconsistent, and difficult to support from facts. The 1991 census recorded 194,000 Serbs living in Kosovo. It is difficult to see how this could have risen by 1999 to a range of 320,000-430,000 (those who left and those who remain according to this passage). "internally displaced persons" implies a view of Kosovo's status as part of Serbia, as "refugees" would imply a view of Kosovo's status as independent: "displaced persons" would be neutral. Serbian claims of 250,000 people displaced to Serbia from Kosovo may include Roma and - who knows? - even public servants, police, and army personnel deployed in Kosovo temporarily before 1999.
I suggest the following passage as a NPOV replacement, based on the article "Republic of Kosovo" and accepted there as NPOV (with citations):
"Many Serbs (and Roma) left with the Serb forces, or as a result of revenge attacks and occupation of Serb properties in the aftermath of the conflict. Estimates of the number of Serbs thus displaced range from 65,000 to 250,000. Given that the 1991 census recorded only 194,000 Serbs living in Kosovo, the higher estimates, if based on fact, must include Roma, Serbs displaced within Kosovo, and perhaps other elements. It is generally agreed by both Serbs and Albanians that the number of Serbs remaining in Kosovo is in the range of 100,000-120,000, although in most urban centres other than North Mitrovica and Kamenica the Serb population is now negligeable. Although, since 2004, the Kosovo Government has been the largest funder of returns projects for displaced persons, the number of such returns remains relatively low, partly due to continued fears of possible violence or harrassment"
--Markd999 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- We have numerous sources for this. I strongly disagree with your unsourced suggestion. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
WhiteWriter, you have accepted an almost identical text in the "Republic of Kosovo" article. Of course there are numerous sources for the highest figures of displaced persons. There are also sources for the lowest figures of displaced Serbs, which are in fact cited in the current text. The point is that the text should not present as fact the highest figures, and then say that there are much lower estimates. Nor, if the Republic of Serbia (because the 1991 census was carried out by them, after Kosovo autonomy was ended) could record only 194,000 Serbs living in Kosovo, should one say without explanation that a much greater number of Serbs than existed in Kosovo in 1991 left in 1999, while at the same time two-thirds of the numbers of Serbs living in Kosovo in 1991 stayed. (Do not think that I underestimate the level of violence or fear of violence that Serbs, whether they left or stayed, had to go through).
If you propose amendments to my proposed edit, I would be happy to consider them. Otherwise I shall go ahead. --Markd999 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- There are not amendments, i disagree to remove sources, without strong and great ones that says opposite. And i didn't agree on anything on RoK page, as i told you, that was a marathon of edits, and i didnt even followed everything of those. Some of those "agreed" edits will be questioned. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
But I do not intend to remove any sources. The fact is that there are estimates from 65,000 to 250,000+, and of course these must be cited. But you cannot put as a statement of fact in the first sentence that the figure is 250,000+, and then put in later down that estimates vary from 65,000-250,000. And if you accept that the number of Serbs resident in Kosovo in 1991 was 194,000, and I see no reason to doubt that the Serbian Statistical Office carried out the census professionally, then the fact that the number of "Serbs" who left, plus those who stayed, requires some explanation - or at least needs to be noted. --Markd999 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Ways to improve the history section of this article
As a person of no Balkan descent, but who knows Balkan people and a significant understanding of 20th century history of the Balkans, I am disappointed with the way in which the history section is organized. It is almost completely dedicated to the rivalry and conflict between the Albanians and the Serbs without describing almost any other topics beyond the ethnic nationalist conflict perspective. For instance, it should describe what internationally-significant cultural and scientific achievements were made in Kosovo and/or by people from Kosovo. Again, by cultural I do not mean exclusively the Albanian and Serb culture, but am referring to cultural developments by individuals and groups who may reside in one ethnic group or another, but whose culture significantly influenced the world. Scientific advancements that were created in Kosovo or by people who came from Kosovo will also make this article better balanced in its historical coverage. That is my advice on how to get this article in better shape.--R-41 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to agree, but I fear that it is very difficult to do - not just because of Serbian-Albanian controversy, but because there are very few examples which one can give of people from Kosovo who have had "significantly influenced the world" except in terms of this ethnic conflict - even if, unlike some, I regard the ethnic conflict as having started relatively recently and because of influences outside Kosovo. The obvious exception might be Mother Theresa of Calcutta, both of whose parents may have come from Kosovo and who, undeniably, saw the vision which decided her on her religious vocation. But she was born in Skopje (Macedonia) and mostly brought up in Albania.
Kosovo people, Serbs or Albanians, are (most certainly) not less creative than others. But Kosovo has always been an inland area without navigable rivers; when until the late nineteenth century, trade (and therefore the economy) depended mainly on navigation. So you cannot expect Oxford, Cambridge, la Sorbonne, or Heidelburg in Kosovo's history. --Markd999 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Even including information on significant historic economic, industrial, environmental, and archaeological topics in Kosovo - whether they be internationally or locally significant, would be better than an article focused almost exclusively on the ethnic conflict between Albanians and Serbs.--R-41 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Like bobrayner (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agree too. There are no one important from there, but there must be something that was there before this conflict. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Rather ignorant statements above. Trade was done on camels, horseback and other means for centuries without the need for rivers. Places like Prizren were some of the most important centres of Ottoman Europe. Prishtina had Jewish refugees from the Christian reconquista in Spain and Mitrovica was mined since Roman times. Trade couldn't be conducted between the east and west of massive world empires without transversing Kosovo. Obviously there are massive achievements from the people inhabiting Kosovo, the Serb-Albanian 'ethnic' conflict is a recent phenomena. Good suggestion above. Ottomanist (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Granted that there was always trade. But until the invention of the railway it was always, and everywhere, even in the easiest terrain, cheaper to transport goods by water than by land, which meant that where there was only land transport available the goods had to be high value (say, gold from Novo Brdo, or crafts like silverwork from Prizren) and the customers relatively rich, whereas for England in the same period it was possible to export wool in bulk or import wine from Bordeaux or even Spain by sea. Most goods going from (say) Istanbul to the West went by sea, not transversing Kosovo or Macedonia. Kosovo did not end up being the poorest part of former Yugoslavia only because of Serbian or Yugoslav policies! But the article would, I certainly agree, benefit from some reminder that even in the middle ages Kosovo's urban centres were quite cosmopolitan, with Germans, Hungarians, and Jews; and its history is not all about just Serbs and Albanians (just as neither its present nor its future are). --Markd999 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd disagree on a trivial point; I'd argue that there's evidence of overland trade in less valuable goods across much of premodern Europe, and Kosovo is no exception. 15th century Kosovo's main exports were agricultural products and nonprecious metals. If you want to look at ties with other groups of people (not Ottomans, not Serbs) maybe it's worth looking at Ragusan businessmen, Saxon miners &c. And we have barely any coverage of the Byzantine era. bobrayner (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let's get back on the main topic, what material on Kosovo's history, beyond the Albanian-Serb ethnic conflict, should be mentioned on matters such as economic, industrial, environmental, and archaeological topics in Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- The difficulty is that Kosovo has nominally gone on and off the map several times over the centuries with one huge absence. Its capacity has also varied down the generations, vilayet? Ceremonial unit? Autonomous province? And this all comes before the lack of clarity from 1999 onward. Along with the name having bounced back and forth, so too have the borders. The Kosovo with which everyone associates dates back to 1946 in the FPR Yugoslavia. The last time the region was known was up to the First Balkan War when it was the Vilayet of Kosovo. For what it's worth, Mother Teresa was born in that entity: Skopje 1910 was the capital of that province. It is a little something if nothing else. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's not much of a difficulty. History isn't created by names or boundaries. The History section should cover the area that is now Kosovo (although as it didn't exist in a vacuum, it doesn't have to rigidly follow modern borders). CMD (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- The difficulty is that Kosovo has nominally gone on and off the map several times over the centuries with one huge absence. Its capacity has also varied down the generations, vilayet? Ceremonial unit? Autonomous province? And this all comes before the lack of clarity from 1999 onward. Along with the name having bounced back and forth, so too have the borders. The Kosovo with which everyone associates dates back to 1946 in the FPR Yugoslavia. The last time the region was known was up to the First Balkan War when it was the Vilayet of Kosovo. For what it's worth, Mother Teresa was born in that entity: Skopje 1910 was the capital of that province. It is a little something if nothing else. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- The easiest thing then is to produce a small section on notable people from Kosovo's towns, you'll find those on the articles. But we just need to keep away from politics. A lot of footballers that represent foreign teams come from Kosovo. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let's get back on the main topic, what material on Kosovo's history, beyond the Albanian-Serb ethnic conflict, should be mentioned on matters such as economic, industrial, environmental, and archaeological topics in Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Let's get back on the main topic, what material on Kosovo's history, beyond the Albanian-Serb ethnic conflict, should be mentioned on matters such as economic, industrial, environmental, and archaeological topics in Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)