Talk:Kosovo: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Director (talk | contribs)

3 user groups
58,716 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
84.56.251.225 (talk)
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
{{WikiProject Serbia|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Serbia|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Europe|Albania=yes|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Europe|Albania=yes|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Former Yugoslavia|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{V0.5|class=A|importance=Top|category=Geography|nested=yes}}
{{V0.5|class=A|importance=Top|category=Geography|nested=yes}}
}}
}}

Revision as of 15:31, 15 October 2008

Template:Article probation

Template:Notaforum


Revised Economic Data

According to a report by the UN Secretary General (S-2008-458), the IMF has informed the Secretary General and the Government of Kosovo that it has revised upwards the economic data. It says, and I quote:

An International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission visited Kosovo in April to assess the macroeconomic framework and fiscal policies. The IMF recently revised upwards the Kosovo gross domestic product (GDP) figures, which are now estimated at €3,343 million (€1,573 per capita) in 2007, and forecast a real GDP growth of about 5 per cent per annum over a five-year period.

I would like to update the infobox to reflect this new information as the current infobox table is outdated. You can find the report here [1] --alchaemia (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Interesting that the CIA Factbook page says it was updated in August, but still shows the old figures. If anyone feels that the CIA source is better, please feel free to request this be changed back. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. However, I see that you left the $ sign when the amount of 3,343 million refers to Euros, which comes out to about $4,743 million using todays exchange rate, or $2,231 GDP per capita. I think CIA is quoting older IMF or World Bank sources so there's a discrepancy there. Thanks again. --alchaemia (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, sorry about that. Fixing now. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{editprotected}} Thanks again. Fortunately :), I have more information that needs to be updated. I suggest we ditch the part about PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) as it is seriously outdated and in contradiction with the new information from IMF. Per the new IMF information, GDP per capita (in terms of USD) is $2,231, thus GDP PPP cannot logically be $1,800. Secondly, I think we should include a section in the infobox that talks about GDP growth year-to-year in percentages, as well as projected growth. I offer this (p. 5) IMF technical document as support for this request. [2] Significantly, IMF says that GDP growth in 2007 was 4.4%, while projecting that the GDP will grow by 6.7 this year, that is, 2008. I would be grateful if you would consider my request.
Nothing? --alchaemia (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, it's been at least a week since I've put in this legitimate and non-controversial request and no one has even bothered to do anything about it. Why is an article locked if even legitimate requests are not handled properly? --alchaemia (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the request, but I note that the page is now only semi-protected. Accordingly, I'm clearing the editprotected template. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN 2/3 majority

Pardon my ignorance. From my brief glance through a few papers it looks like the UN General Assembly could grant Kosovo membership if 2/3 of the nations approve. Why then is this not stated anywhere in the sections relating to independence. My only explanation is that the 2/3 general assembly vote can be overturned by the UNSC which does not sound too reasonable to me. Can anyone offer insight on this in the event that I am wrong in my reasoning. If I am right, then why do we not add this info to the independence section. Thanks

From the wiki article on the general assembly: Voting in the General Assembly on important questions – recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; budgetary matters – is by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. Other questions are decided by majority vote XJeanLuc (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because a couple of editors here have a strong bias and want to make the situation look as pessimistic for Kosovo as possible. Good find! --alchaemia (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a couple of days, there seems to be a debate at the UN General Assembly soon. If there is any development there, the article should be updated. --Tone 10:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that its a matter of pessimism for not including this data. I still don't know if this is or is not how the general assembly vote works. Like Tone suggested I'll wait for the articles that come out after the 8 October session of the UN when they discuss the legality of the situation. XJeanLuc (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The big question to be answered is: can an eventual Kosovo accession approval voting process in the UN General Assembly be blocked or vetoed by Russia… or not?--BalkanWalker (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map for the 2nd infobox

I propose this map for the second infobox, there is no point using the current one as the infobox map is supposed to be a locator map which is not what the current one is -- CD 13:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disintegration of Yugoslavia and Kosovo War

{{editprotected}} The second paragraph in this section begins:

Only after the Bosnian War, drawing considerable international attention, was ended with the Dayton Agreement in 1995, but the situation in Kosovo remained largely unaddressed by the international community, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an ethnic Albanian guerrilla group, by 1996 had started offering armed resistance to Serbian and Yugoslav security forces, resulting in early stages of the Kosovo War.

This sentence makes no sense as written and is very confusing in trying to determine what is trying to be said here. Might I suggest it be replaced with this sentence:

The situation in Kosovo drew little international attention during the Bosnian War. However, after the Dayton Agreement in 1995 settled the Bosnian conflict, the international community could once against turn its attentions on Kosovo. During this attention hiatus and by 1996, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an ethnic Albanian guerrilla group, had began offering armed resistance to Serbian and Yugoslav security forces, resulting in early stages of the Kosovo War.

The references remain the same, just reworded to a better understanding and clarification.--«JavierMC»|Talk 03:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

or

The situation in Kosovo drew little international attention during the Bosnian War. When the Dayton Agreement in 1995 settled the Bosnian conflict, but failed to make any mention of Kosovo, those Kosovars advocating peaceful resistance were discredited in the eyes of more hardline nationalists. By 1996, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an ethnic Albanian guerrilla group, had began offering armed resistance to Serbian and Yugoslav security forces, resulting in early stages of the Kosovo War.

?

At any rate I'm opposed to the term 'attention hiatus'. Not very encyclopaedic. Davu.leon (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't care how it is reworded, it just needs to be made clearer. As to "attention hiatus" not being very encyclopedic, is this just part of the meaningless objections of material added to this article that has plagued it for months? Read the definition of hiatus (an interruption in time or continuity) before objecting on a non-encyclopedic basis. One other point, was the Dayton Agreement expected to address Kosovo considering Kosovo was perceived as rather peaceful at the time? Anyway, do what you like or do nothing at all. The paragraph is just very confusing when read as it stands now.--JavierMC 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can rephrase. Attention Hiatus is grammatically incorrect. 'During this hiatus in attention' might be more acceptable, but frankly it's an awkward word to try to use in this context. Secondly, the Dayton conference was expected to deal with Kosovo, though largely only by Kosovo Albanians themselves - who had been led to this belief by Ibrahim Rugova, the leader of the LDK, (which played a major role in keeping Kosovo peaceful at the time). He had allowed the public to believe that they would be rewarded for their non-violence with international recognition of their declaration of independence. When this did not happen, it gave the KLA a major boost in credibility while simultaneously damaging his own. Davu.leon (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the request, but the page has been reduced to semi-protection. Clearing the editprotected template. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo vs. South Ossetia and Abkhazia

I believe the Kosovo page's infox should be organized similar to that of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They are all self-declared and partially recognized independent republics, and I see no difference in the status of the republics in question. - Realismadder (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed some inconsistency between this page and the pages of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It should be one way or the other. Personally, I would prefer one infobox with all the state symbols, rather than two or three different infoboxes that look both ugly and confusing. BanRay 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Just do it. --80.152.236.156 (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Kudzu1 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but why is it undone again? --84.56.234.35 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kudzu, could you do it again, please? --80.152.236.156 (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or someone else? TIA! --84.56.239.116 (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? Anybody out there?--84.56.251.21 (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are all afraid of being blocked/banned by some pro Serbian administrators who are holding this article as a hostage. --Tubesship (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again it was undone without any discussion, although there is a consensus: Wikipedian Realismadder and Banray and Kudzu1 and myself and none gave any contrary opinion. So why is it undone again? --84.56.251.225 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? Really? A couple of "let's change it" is far from consensus. --Tone 18:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple? There are all for change and none against it as there is no good reasoon to be against it after the example given with Abchasia and South Ossetia. --84.56.251.225 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative regions

According to Regulation No. 1999/14 On the Appointment of Regional and Municipal Administrators (21 October 1999) UNMIK divided Kosovo on 5 regions ( The Special Representative of the Secretary-General shall appoint, and may transfer or replace, a Regional Administrator for each of the five regions of Kosovo (Pristina, Pec, Mitrovica, Prizren and Gnjilane) to act on his behalf.), not for 7. So, you should change unsourced informotion about 7 regions in "Administrative regions" section. Aotearoa (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

I reduced the protection level to "permanent semiprotection". Keep in mind that this is under article probation. This is a reason not to protect the article: Editors may be blocked at the first sign of edit-warring against consensus. --dab (𒁳) 12:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source

This could be another neutral Western source for the history section.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jLfX1q3kJzgC&pg=RA1-PA366&lpg=RA1-PA366&dq=census+Macedonia+1921+population&source=web&ots=tdUUE3rgbK&sig=8Q0lnAaOp3pOLe963RBDePjgPTA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PRA1-PA364,M1

"Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe 

By Jan Piotr Eberhardt "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZvonimirIvanovic (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICJ case

Why not include it into the article? --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Let's do that. --GOD OF JUSTICE 16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ICJ thing certainly does not belong in the introduction of the article; it simply isn't that important. At best, it belongs in the "International reaction..." subheading. --alchaemia (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is very important and must be included in the intro. --Litany (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it mustn't. Beam 03:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

50 countries

50 countries recognized Kosovo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.95.210 (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

51, to be more precisely or do you consider Taiwan not a country? --80.152.236.156 (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan is not an internationally recognized country, and not a member of UN. — Emil J. 10:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless it is a country. --80.152.236.156 (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It simply a government that claims to represent China.--Certh (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition by Montenegro and Macedonia has demoralized Serbia or in other words, to Serbia it is like throwing the A Bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.205.64 (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Serbia versus Serbia

Regarding this edit summary, I must remind the user in question that "Central Serbia" was the consensus for months until this edit just a few hours ago. Perhaps the suggestion to "pay attention to the comment in code", which in any case pertains to the names of cities, not neighbouring countries, should be redirected accordingly. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I placed that comment there months ago, and the comment reads: <!-- Note: Below, the exact sentence with alternative city names was first discussed on the talk page, proposed, then inserted here as consensus. Please do not alter it without discussing it first on the talk page. Thank you. -->. I have no trouble comprehending "the exact sentence" part. Do you? Let's discuss it then, and offer consensus-grade persuasion, not forcibly revert away from the pristine :) form that was agreed upon once by consensus. --Mareklug talk 03:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why did the user behind this edit not discuss it first on the talk page? As for the essence of the dispute, how can you seriously contend that the statement "Kosovo borders Serbia" represents anything even remotely approaching WP:NPOV? Serbia and most other countries in the world consider Kosovo to be part of Serbia. Why should Wikipedia endorse your minority POV? The only neutral geographical statement possible in this case is "Kosovo borders Central Serbia", which is agnostic on the question of whether it belongs to Serbia or not. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to make a point of order, esp. to the admins overseeing this article. I asked ΚΕΚΡΩΨ to discuss, on two separate edit summary entries in 2 days, and yet he pretends to discuss, while continuing to, for lack of better word, edit war. That is, he forcibly returns the article to His Point of View, three times now, I beliewe. I will not risk another block of my editing by pursing this abuse, as I already got blocked for my good-faith efforts (my one an only block) when attempting to inject neutral content for Pristina spellings (that is, I tried to include all of them, without prejudice). I refuse to be used by someone who forces the issue. EOT for me. --Mareklug talk 04:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, unlike you, am actually discussing and defending my edits with arguments. You still haven't explained why Wikipedia should endorse the minority POV that "Kosovo borders Serbia". I don't understand what the problem with "Central Serbia" is anyway. Even those who recognize Kosovo as a separate country agree that it borders the region of Central Serbia geographically. As for your charge that I am "injecting forcibly peculiar inexactnesses that represent a cherished POV", isn't that exactly what you're doing? "Serbia" is inexact and POV; "Central Serbia" is quite the opposite. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosova borders to South Serbia. North Serbia ist Voivodina. Central Serbia ceased to exist after the factual breakaway of Kosova. Get in touch with reality, please. --84.56.251.21 (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serbians have not right to Kosova! Kosova it borders Serbia:

- *The only way and the only means to cope with them is the brute force of an organized state, in which we have always been superior to them....As we have already stressed, the mass removal of the Albanians from their triangle is the only effective coursefor us. To bring about the relocation of a whole population, then the first prerequisite is the creation of a suitable psychosis. It can be created in many ways.GREATER SERBIA from Ideology to Aggression Vaso Cubrilovic Expulsion of the Albanians (1937)http://www.hic.hr/books/greatserbia/cubrilovic.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.240.76 (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am not removing the comment but in what way does it contribute to the article? Sourced or not. --Tone 16:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the sence that Kosova CAN NOT border central Serbia because it is in not part of Serbia at all , for the reasons that source indicates and many other we border Serbia as indepedent state.Thank you !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.240.76 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tone, what he wants to tell us is the reason why this region is (or better to say "was") included into Serbia: It was done by forcing the Albanians to leave like the source tells us. --84.56.251.21 (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. The whole debate was whether to say Kosovo borders Serbia or Central Serbia. The latter is used due to a consensus since Kosovo actually borders Central Serbia (region). Saying just Serbia is POV since Serbia considers Kosovo a part of the country. We want to stay neutral, remember. --Tone 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it is POV if we say that borders Central Serbia assuming that it is still part of that country.Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.240.76 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assuming here. Central Serbia is a region that is next to Kosovo. This proved to be the best solution so far. --Tone 20:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosova as you said is not region and actualy the central Serbia is now South Serbia, so we may say that Kosova borders south Serbia without mention Serbia alone, would you agrea for a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.240.76 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say Kosovo borders South Serbia without mentioning Serbia? Anyway, I am not the only one who can agree to a consensus, all the users who edit this article should. --Tone 21:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, "South Serbia" is a fine compromise between "Serbia" and "Central Serbia", so change it from "Central Serbia" to "South Serbia", please. --84.56.251.225 (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anons, who are you to decide what is "South Serbia" and what isn't? The region is called "Central Serbia" and unless the most common English name used to refer to that region becomes "South Serbia", this is nothing more than original research. BalkanFever 10:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer Serbia instead of South Serbia? That's even better to me! --84.56.251.225 (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, POV would be "Kosovo doesn't border anything, it is a part of Serbia. Die, Albanians!!!!!11!!!!!111!one!!" THAT would be POV. Central Serbia was a perfect compromise - the region's name is Central Serbia. Saying Serbia is POV. Saying that it belongs to Serbia is POV. Saying South Serbia is idiotic. Okay?

“partially recognised region”

Well, countries around the world haven’t been recognizing Kosovo as a region, but as an independent country. The term “region” is non-precise, since Serbia, Russia do also recognize Kosovo as a region — a region of of Serbia.

So I think country would be a more precise term for describing Kosovo… or, at least, something like a region partially recognized as an independent country.--BalkanWalker (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that 'region' does not apply at all. A better term would be 'state' or 'country', as those states recognizing Kosovo do as as a state/country, not a region. I would say '...a partially-recognized state.' --alchaemia (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. BalkanWalker's proposal is reasonable. --Tone 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, two. --84.56.251.225 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Sounds logical--Lilonius (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I don't understand why it was changed in the first place... Emto (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and why does nobody change it now? What are we waiting for? --84.56.251.225 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is getting more and more POV, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are countries but not Kosovo? Emto (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is really a shame how some pro Serbian fanatics take this article for so long time as a hostage. Shame on them. Everybody trying to make this article more neutral is getting blocked/banned by this few pro Serbian administrators at Wikipedia. --Tubesship (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F245457867