Talk:Kosovo/Archive 18

Purpose of article
If there's only this article, and not separate articles for Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (geopolitical region), this artice has to do a lot. It has to describe Kosovo, while fairly treating both the claims of the Republic of Kosovo and Serbia. Currently, it doesn't even come close to doing that. Despite promises above to the contrary, there are no dual-infoboxes or anything of the sort. The first paragraph is entirely about Kosovo and the article generally follows that theme.

The article either needs to be modified to address thoroughly the Serbian claims to Kosovo, or we need to redo the split with this becoming Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo describing the region.

Ignoring the Serbian view is not an option. Superm401 - Talk 03:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Republic of Kosovo has to have its own article because of the fact it has been recognized by so many countries. Wikipedia has never before not had an article on a state which has been recognized as independent by any number of countries, let alone 35 and, in particular, countries such as the United States, Japan, and most of the EU countries. It's quite possible Macedonia and Montenegro will end up recognizing and we might even see a surprise from Slovakia and Greece. The Republic of Kosovo is a partially recognized state and has been recognized by a large number of nations so there should be an article on the Republic of Kosovo, but it has to be under that title, not under the title of Kosovo.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I obviously agree with you. But I just made a major edit that takes one step towards making this the article for Kosovo (the region), the Republic of Kosovo, and the province.  I still think it favors the RoK viewpoint, and isn't going to work.  Superm401 - Talk 04:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a problem because I see so many people write "I think" or "I believe". What we need to do is see what the published encyclopedias, dictionaries, almanacs, atlases do about Kosovo.  Wikipedia follows their lead. Azalea pomp (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right and also the English WP would be the only major WP that would not give infos about the newly born country when typing in "Kosovo", so let us merge and not split. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * the English WP is also often the only WP with the resources to tackle dedicated nationalist trolling. Other projects will follow suit once we carve out a neutral solution here. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mister Bachmann, I think user Azalea is not a nationalist troll as much as I think you are not a racist troll and therefore you should excuse yourself for insulting others. --Tubesship (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not mention or refer to Azalea. This article has been protected because of significant activity of nationalist trolls, usually using throwaway  accounts, but some of them also posing as naive but bona fide editors. We will implement a neutral coverage of the topic per Wikipedia core policy regardless of such activity, it will just require some effort, and probably indefinite article semiprotection. No problem, Wikipedia has lots of articles on disputed topics. How, did you think, did we arrive at a decent coverage on the Arab-Israeli conflict? By just asking people to be reasonable and nice to one another? The Kosovo dispute is just a ripple compared to that torrent of dispute. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant what "published encyclopedias" do (as if Wikipedia weren't published). They don't have the same policies as us. Superm401 - Talk 10:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is absolutely not irrelevant, because if you contradict ALL of them, please make a reality check. Immiately, please! --Tubesship (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is important to realise that there is only one Kosovo, with one Government, under the ultimate authority of UNMIK. The recent declaration of independence does not change this. The only dispute is whether Kosovo is a province of Serbia, or a Sovereign state. (Serbia does accept that under UNSC 1244, it has no power over Kosovo, as the executive and legislative power of Kosovo is vested in the Special Representative and the institutions created by him, ie Government of Kosovo and the Assembly of Kosovo. The only right Serbia can claim over Kosovo is the right for the president of Serbia to be the head of state of Kosovo.

The reason why you need two articles for China is that, de facto, there are two Chinas, the Republic of China in Taiwan and the Chinese Peoples Republic, situated in the mainland. Certainly there is only one article for Northern Cyprus which Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is redirected to. Likewise Transnistria and South Ossetia have only one article, and these three countries have no international recognition, or recognition by only one state

To say that Kosovo, which the majority of European countries together with a majority of the members of the United Nations Security Council, recognize needs two articles, when the above three do not is absurd.

It is alos ridiculous to have two infoboxes, with the only difference the name of the name of Kosovo. 2007apm (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * this is the pro-independence point of view. It is one of two notable positions in a territorial dispute. Understand that Wikipedia cannot take sides in such a dispute due to its core policy. We can report your point of view, but we cannot treat it as WP:TRUTH. There is obviously only one Kosovo region, but there are two opinions as to its governance, one of them being the Republic of Kosovo (declared 2008). The RoK is an entity declared in February. Kosovo is a piece of land in the Balkans. Two different items, two articles. This talkpage may need a FAQ subpage explaining WP fundamentals, along the lines of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. dab (𒁳) 10:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mister Bachmann, stop instructing others in an inapproptiate manner but think why people like you are in a minority position. --Tubesship (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * NPOV is not subject to vote. Superm401 - Talk 10:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Telling the facts is neither against NPOV. Ask Jimbo if you do not believe me. --Tubesship (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't mean "the facts", because government legitimacy is opinion, not fact. You mean The Truth, i.e your views, which you think are universal.  Superm401 - Talk 11:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am disturbed that before the split people said things like "Two infoboxes, i don't care 400 infoboxes is FINE." (Beamathan) and "Merging together with Kosovo (geopolitical region) would be even better, it would make the article more informative." (Tubesship). They were saying it should be about region, province, and state; now, those who were against the split want Kosovo to be about only the state.  Dbachmann said, "What we need is precisely one central article which explains the dispute without taking sides. This is Kosovo (region) at present, but obviously it should reside at Kosovo."


 * I don't see what is changed. If we're only having a single article (Kosovo) it has to be about everything, not just the Republic (as Dbachmann argued in his revert).


 * 2007apm, if the only difference is the name, why do Kosovars not like it being called "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". Obviously, it's a big difference, not just a name. Superm401 - Talk 10:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not about what Kosovars like but what kind of info the readers of WP are expecting when they type in "Kosovo" or "Kosova". --Tubesship (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't have a "Reader Expect" policy. We have WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability policy.  The readers will catch on; they're not as stupid as you pretend. Superm401 - Talk 11:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Again you are distorting facts as it is a fact that WP is made not for editors but for readers, this is the raison d'etre of WP, please think about it. This is not a world outside the world nor outside the reality. And accept, that the reality is not like you want it to be but it is like it is. --Tubesship (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me re-quote myself: One thing we should understand when making this article: This is not a typical case of secession, because it is not conducted by a supreme legal body for the territory in question. There are two realities that have been created in Kosovo. One, rendering it a part of Serbia, representing the UNMIK, and another, the PISG, considering it an independent state.

The Provisional Institutions of Self-Government have, violating their own Constitutional Framework ("semi-constitution"), according to which (1.4 point) they are subjected to the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and according to which Kosovo is a part of Serbia, self-declared independence unilaterally. The justification given for this unconstitutional act was that the 'semi-Constitution of Kosovo' wasn't legitimized from the people of Kosovo. The UNMIK has not accepted the decision, because it would violate UNSCR 1244. However, it also hasn't abolished it upon the call of the Serbian authorities, creating "two worlds" and leaving to the international community, as per the Chancellor stated, to decided alone - a part of which has so far recognized independence of Kosovo. On the other hand, UNSCR 1244 continues to remain valid.

But now a little observation into the future. The Constitution of Kosovo is being worked by the Pristina provisional authorities which will oversee their transformation into state organs, in order to replace the already-broken Constitutional Framework. But such an act will not be valid for Kosovo until passed by the UNMIK - or will the the division onto "two planes" further continue? Let us also recall the Declaration of Independence of Kosova, according to which the basis for the creation of a State in Kosovo will be the Ahtisaari plan. The Serbs have returned into Kosovan institutions. If this plan and its interpretations thereof are followed by the book, this means that the Serbs could - effectively - block its adoption within the provisional institutions themselves, because it will present Kosovo as an independent country, and not a part of Serbia.

..regarding this matter. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Pax, but I don't quite follow your argument. UNMIK, the unquestioned authority in Kosovo per UNSCR 1244, did not make a determination on the validity or legality of the Kosovo Assembly's declaration of independence. UNMIK determined that their 1244 mandate did not oblige them to pass judgment on such a matter. If UNMIK had declared the declaration illegal (something arguably within its competencies to do), I can guarantee that Kosovo's independence would not have enjoyed such widespread and quick support from so many countries, especially in Europe and other places with a historic dedication to upholding international law. The reality is that neither UNMIK, nor the UN Secretariat, nor the UN General Assembly, nor the Security Council (the UN's highest body in charge of peace and security) has determined that Kosovo's independence was a violation of 1244 or general principles of international law. Either way, however, I'm still not convinced how any particular argument about the legality of Kosovo's declaration of independence justifies splitting the article into all these various forks. I just visited the South Ossetia article and noticed that there is only one article, not two (i.e., one to reflect the Georgian "reality" and another to reflect the Ossetians' "reality"). The Republic of Kosovo exists -- some recognize it as an independent state, some believe it an illegitimate or "illegal" creation. I don't understand why a single article cannot accurately and faithfully address this dispute, including a thumbnail sketch of the various legal arguments that reliable sources are presenting in favor or against Kosovo's independence. Furthermore, I'd note that I have problems with the basic idea of a "region" called Kosovo. You don't have to go back for into history to see that the place now called "Kosovo," defined in its current borders, has not always been identified as a region with those same borders. Various Ottoman vilayet boundaries overlaped and criss-crossed in Kosovo, Metohija/Dukagini was often treated as a separate region and the three northern Kosovo municipalities were only attached to the region of Kosovo in the mid-20th century. Someone would have to do a better job explaining what the "region" of Kosovo is, since it is not a very neat historic category. Envoy202 (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's precise what I said - it pertained neutral. It decided neither to legalize the decision - nor did it abolish it - but left to UN Member States to decide on their own. Similar to the EU.
 * But the main point is that UNSCR 1244 is still in act. Which means that "legally" Kosovo is still a part of Serbia, according to Kosovo itself (the UNMIK). The European Union has drawn European Integrations plan for Kosovo - defining it as "Kosovo under UNSCR 1244". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 1244 is still in effect. But it is a giant, controversial leap to say that the fact 1244 is still on the books means anything about status. Don't take my word for it -- note that the legal departments of dozens of countries have apparently determined that 1244 did not present a barrier to their countries' recognition of Kosovo's independence. To argue otherwise, is to argue that these states, including some known for their exceptional adherence to international law (e.g., Belgium, Canada) have committed a mass and coordinated violation of international law. That's exactly what Belgrade alleges, but it's just not compelling. As for the EU, the EU also does not have a position on Kosovo's status -- it's another giant leap to say that this means the EU as an organization regards Kosovo is part of Serbia. Bottom line: the assertion that 1244 means Kosovo is "'legally' part of Serbia" is a minority opinion. Decisions on the article should not be based on one person's legal research, especially if that opinion is obviously contested and controversial. Envoy202 (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The articel must have a same stuctur like the articel about Serbia. All other article must be putit like a article History of Serbia or other States. The history of Kosovo it startit with proclamed Republik in 1992, since thate time it was the war to be regotased from the UN members. The time from 1992 to 1999 is a time of Okuption.

You can write here wout you wount, but you are going to write about the Kosovo state like you write about Serbian state. And wenn you start to write the history of Kosovo, then you must take the time in witch the name Kosovo cames out as entrity (Kosovo Vilaet). The rest is not history of Kosovo, but the Parahistory (Pre-History of Kosovo) and this is meaning the history of the teritory. The rest is history of somthing els but not Kosovo (Iliry, Dardania, Rome, Bisantyn, Rashka, Sllav ortodox states, bullgariens, ortodox serbs and till new time SCS-Kindom, or what I know ).--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
This talk page is over 400 KB long. Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving of threads over 14 days old? Superm401 - Talk 11:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some discussions take longer, perhaps it would be best to archive manually --Cra del 11:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice if it archived threads where the last post, the last activity in the thread was more than 2 weeks old, not the thread itself. Don't know if that's how the bot is set up. Hobartimus (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Archive of article talk pages are ignored by bots. I would suggest to take discussions that are resolved and just archive manually. Also, removing commentary will also help take down the size of this page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Archive everything that hasn't been replied to in 3 hours, let's start over. Beam (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hobartimus, that is how the bot works (14 days from the newest time). I want to use User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo, specifically:




 * Manually archiving would work in theory, but in practice it's not being done often enough. Superm401 - Talk 03:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as the 14 days is from the last post, I'm cool with that. Beam (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For the serbs
You can not help your country if you traing to protect samthing what you can not protect. The only think what you can do, is to protect thate what yu can protect. Beliv me, Im specing from 100 years experianc of albanias. Belive the time. --Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum, keep that in mind. --Tone 22:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag Discussion Regarding the intro: PLEASE give your opinion
I have removed the POV Tag from the article and sent Pax the following message:

Pax. I'm going to revert your addition of the POV tag regarding the intro. I'm going to start a topic in the Talk, and propose the POV tag. Hopefully we can discuss and change the intro (or depending on consensus not) and if it goes horribley wrong, than we'll decide to add the POV tag. It just takes away from the article too much for there not to be a dedicated discussion regarding changing it. I'm not trying to be an ass, come discuss it or hit up my talk page. We can do this, let me and you work together.

Ok so here's the deal. By removing this tag, I am not saying that the intro is Neutral or not filled with POV. On the contrary I am, in removing it, not representing an opinion on the intro. I removed so that we, we the editors, can discuss it.

What do you want changed from the Intro if you think it needs a POV Tag? What do you want added, taken away, or left alone? People who think the intro is just dandy please speak up as well. I want everyone who cares to give their 2 cents regarding the Intro. But PLEASE do not just say "I don't like it" or "It's not neutral." If you want something changed, added, or taken away, post an example of what change you are suggesting.

I say that if in a day or two we can't agree on the Intro, using facts and sources and civil discussion, than the POV/Neutrality tag should be put back on. But I believe that we can do this together people. Let us at least get the intro done between us. Also, please don't just put the tag back. Give the editors a day or two, than slap it on if we can't get anywhere with it.

It should have been discussed first anyway before a tag was added. Let's discuss it together than make a decision together. Beam (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The intro I created/amended we had just before the page was locked seemed pretty nice to me (far from perfect, but at least much better than this one). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll go copy it and paste it here if you don't. That will be a great place to start our discussion, and check your talk page! Beam (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The intro section has just been marked POV. I will not go into what may be wrong with what it currently says but in what it does not say. All the intro is about reactions to independence. The intros of articles about countries or regions usually say more. I seriously think that we need to cut this part and rewrite it in a manner like: Kosovo is a (region probably) in the Balkans in Europe, this big, with this many people. Ethnicaly, there are ?% of Albanians, ?% Serbs and ?% others. The region has been settled since then, after that part of the Roman empire, Serb state, Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia, Serbia, since 1999 under UNMIK control and then in 2008 declared independence as Republic of Kosovo. This move was recognized by ? countries (as of now) while some other countries, including Serbia, object and still regard Kosovo as KosMet province.  Naming countries that recognized/opposed independence in the very intro is nonproductive, that's why links are for. So, any opinions on the first scratch? Trying to be NPOV and trying to sound like an intro. --Tone 22:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it important that we put at least a rough tally of the countries opposed and supporting the split. But, this doesn't have to be in the intro. What after the intro? Also, if it is in the intro I say we don't name any countries, just give the number (if anything). I'd feel it better if it said (in place of This move was recognized by ? countries (as of now) while some other countries, including Serbia, object and still regard Kosovo as KosMet province. )

''This move was International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence objected to by Serbia. ''

Than, it really frees up the intro for other stuff. If the user is all about knowing what countries do what at that exact moment, they click the link. If they can wait until the next paragraph (or lower) we can give a brief summary stating something like

The declaration was opposed by Serbia, Russia, China, and many other nations, while being supported by The United States, Britain, and Canada among a total of ## countries.

Of course that can be reworded or whatever, but if we want a NPOV article I think we should spend as LITTLE time on the riff raff associated with the Declaration as possible. I think that's a good way to help us come to an agreeable article. Just stick to the facts, be as brief as we can, while providing a summary of what the reader would be looking for. Add links to further detailed articles regarding the declaration where applicable. Beam (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What about This move received a mixed reaction from international community and was strongly opposed by Serbia. So we cover everything. Serbia should be mentioned here, of course. In fact, if we apply this summarizing approach to the whole article, we can in fact move closer to a NPOV article titeled Kosovo and covering everything. --Tone 23:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tone, I like it. I got a couple small suggestions, how about The declaration received varied reactions from the international community and was strongly opposed by Serbia.? And man, I am so happy to hear that you think we cooperatively as a group can make this article feature quality. Beam (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Better indeed. Wording variations can still be made but at least we started anew. About feature quality, I have already expressed an opinion that this article is one of the tests for WP efficiency. We can make this article good, but on of the FA criteria is stability that is not applicable here the moment the protection is lifted. Anyway, let's try to do our best. What do you think about the beginning of my intro? I followed the pattern of some other articles. --Tone 00:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but you need to go get that information that you just represented with "this big" etc. And let's work on it from there, ok?Beam (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the sake of comparison, I looked at how the Britannica Online encyclopedia handled the Kosovo article introduction. They wrote: "[Kosovo is a] self-declared independent country in the Balkans region of Europe. Although the United States and several members of the European Union (EU) recognize Kosovo's independence, Serbia, Russia, and a number of other countries, including some in the EU, do not."  I found that very interesting.  Envoy202 (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think our intro will end up better. That's a good intro for an article on the actual declaration but not for an article on Kosovo. We're going to mention the declaration but it shouldn't be the whole intro. There is an article on the declaration, which we will summarize after the intro, and link to it as well.Beam (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

At firs we are here in Wikipedia and not Britanica, i you have forgotit Secend, the neutalety betwen editors and the readers (realty). With many compromises you have lost realty. And you are going so far, that you are presenting the reader 0,7=1. In Britanica and als were they have there rouls of presenting realty. Other ways we cane make a copy from other sorches and put here (with your logic). 3. They dident refresh they sides, or they have a same problem like english wikipedia with serbian propagander (mony).-- Your INTRO with insider POV is nothing without POV of all Wikipedia. This is meanig Serbian and Kosovo articles most be editit paralel.Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the first paragraph of this section. Than edit your post, and make a suggestion with example or comment on the suggestions made, or how the intro is right now. Otherwise, you're not being helpful.Beam (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't remove a POV tag during an active dispute. I still believe this article (including the intro) should be about the region, not just RoK.  The best thing to do is redo the split.  It's been reverted, but no better solution has been provided.  However, if we're only to have this article, it needs to cover everything (RoK, the province, the actual region).  This is important because people are trying to delete (Kosovo (region). Superm401 - Talk 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree and think Beam had his good reason to do like he did. There is no POV in the article but you admitted that the article itself is your problem, not the info in it, otherwise you could point out what exactly is POV in it. As long as you do not do this, the POV tag should be removed. --Tubesship (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Superm, we're on the same page. One article about everything. It's a summary about the country/region. I say we link as much as possible to the more defined articles on declaration, political strafe, etc. Ok? Beam (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oks, let's have this done. So, what we have now as a proposition is approx this: Kosovo is a region in the Balkans in Europe, size of 10,908 km², with population 1,900,000. Ethnicaly, there are 92% of Albanians, 4% Serbs and some Bosniaks, Goranis, Turks and Roma. The region has been settled since Neolithic, after that part of the Roman empire, Serb state, Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia, Serbia, since 1999 under UNMIK control and then in 2008 declared independence as Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës, Serbian: Република Косово). The declaration received varied reactions from the international community and was strongly opposed by Serbia. This needs polishing but first, let's see if everything we should have in the intro is included. --Tone''' 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Recommend updating to the most recent population estimate: 2,100,000. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What about two templates? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I took 1,900,000 from the infobox but 2100000 is fine as well. The two templates are probably the hardest part of the whole thing, if you mean infobox country and province of Serbia template. I think both should be included somehow, if we want to have one article on Kosovo. Maybe lower down in the text? Anyway, let's focus on the intro first, one step at a time (hope this works...) --Tone 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Envoy202's idea of following Britannica, and reiterate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKosovo&diff=201615237&oldid=201607982 Fut. Perf.'s great proposal] of eliminating the infobox, at least for now, so the oversimplification all infoboxes represent doesn't stand in the way of writting the actual text. - Ev (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How about: Kosovo is a region in the Balkans in Europe, the size of 10,908 km², with a population of 2100000. Ethnicaly, there are 92% of Albanians, 4% Serbs, and the remaining 4$ is made up of Bosniaks, Goranis, Turks and Roma. The region has been settled since the Neolithic era. Since then it has been a part of the Roman empire, Serb state, Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia, Serbia, since 1999 under UNMIK control and then in 2008 declared independence as Republic of Kosovo (Serbian: Република Косово, Albanian: Republika e Kosovës). This declaration received varied reactions from the international community and is strongly opposed by Serbia.' ?????!?!?!?!? Also, two infoboxes isn't a bad idea.Beam (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When you start mentioning "being part of" go in sequential order, you jumped from Roman empire to Serb than you go back to Ottoman than Yugoslavia. Since '99 it has been under UN control not UNMIK control. Also why don't we kill the Serbian/Albanian translation..why should the Serbian one come first or vice versus? Also just say that the DOI has received varied reactions and kill it there. If the viewer wants to know what "varied reactions" means than when they go to "INT reaction to 2008..." they will read about Serbia and Russia's opposition. That's my 2 cents Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't we mention what Kosovo has been a part of in history? Also, we list both ways of translation, who cares about order? I changed it on a whim. It can be changed back, but why? Does it bother you THAT much? Beam (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why talk about ethnic make-up? Also, probably Kingdom of Serbia or something like that rather than Serb state would be better.  Balkan Fever  03:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is Kkngdom of Serbia the generally accepted term?Beam (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On further inspection, it's been part of pretty much all these Serbian . Maybe just part of historical Serbia. "Serb state" doesn't make much sense.  Balkan Fever  03:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Beam, I did not say we shouldn't mention in what country/territory/kindom/or state it has been but I said state it in logical order, from oldest to newest.You said: "Since then it has been a part of the Roman empire, Serb state, Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia, Serbia, since 1999 under UNMIK control and then in 2008"
 * I propose:"Since then it has been part of the Roman empire, Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Serbia, than from '99 to '08 under the direct control of UN through Resolution 1244."
 * Did I mention anywhere that translation bothers me? You are jumping to conclusions, don't make assumptions just because my name is "Kosova2008". Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't make assumptions about my assumptions. Seriously. If you have no problem with the translation than can we leave it there? Also, why not "UNMIK Control" instead of "direct control of (the) UN through Resolution 1244."? Beam (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My suggestion:

Kosovo is a region in Southeastern Europe, covering 10,908 km², with a population of 2,100,000. The region has been settled since the Neolithic era, and has been part of the Roman empire, historical Serbia, the Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia (as part of Serbia) and since 1999 under UNMIK control. In 2008 it declared independence as the Republic of Kosovo (Република Косово; Republika e Kosovës). This declaration received varied reactions from the international community and is strongly opposed by Serbia.

It borders Central Serbia to the north and east, Montenegro to the northwest, Albania to the west and the Republic of Macedonia to the south. The capital is Pristina, and other cities in the region include Peć, Prizren and Mitrovica.

 Balkan Fever  04:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

why are we discussing the intro of Kosovo (region) on this talkpage? I thought we were clear that this article discusses the Republic of Kosovo, as made plain by the infobox. You want to discuss the history of Kosovo, edit History of Kosovo. You want to discuss the region in context, edit Kosovo (region). dab (𒁳) 09:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What, you mean the article that will soon be deleted or merged into this one?  Balkan Fever  09:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * DBACHMAN (dab),we're probably going to have two infoboxes for this all encompassing article. But first we work out the intro. Any suggestions that you'd like to share DBACHMAN? Beam (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So are we good with BalkanFever's version for now? Beam (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added our intro. It is of course still up for further editing. I have started a new section in this Talk Page to deal with the next part of the article, which in my opinion is the info boxes. CONGRATULATIONS GUYS! We have proven the doubters that we can do this. Awesome! Beam (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Area of Kosova
Up until recently it said 10887km2, but recently everyone is reporting that it is 10,908km2. Now the best source for this would be the Statistical Office of Kosova  or USAID. We all know that the territory is disputed which is why there are demarcations with Rep of Macedonia about an area of 25-50km2. I think this article should reflect on the new information. Also I can't change the area in miles or the position in size right now it's 166th I think. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't there some land dispute, of about 10+-KM, that makes the difference between the numbers? Beam (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * SOK says 10,908km2, the 10887 info came from SOK, you are right and the dispute is for 35-50km2 of land. Until that is disputed WP should

reflect on what is current which is 10,908km2. Kosova2008 (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Three projekts
We can go together with three projects as preventive task force. Other ways the Kosovo and Serbia article are not stable. The Serbs clean there propaganda at Serbian Wikipedia, the Albanians at Albanian Wikipedia. The first move is chancing the intro to both states and adopt to three projects. This it will take one week, if we have lock.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ups! For the begin they cane use for they propaganda the section of history or demography. (This candy of people are ill we can not late them without Wikipedia)--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist. Beam (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For this we need technical help to be protected only one section.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly have no idea what you're saying. "The first move is chancing the intro to both states and adopt to three projects."  Huh?  A certain degree of English fluency is necessary for productive contributions on the English Wikipedia.  Superm401 - Talk 04:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Three projects is referring to the SQ Wiki the Serbian WK and the EN Wiki. The SErbian WIki is 90% propaganda, the Albanian is more pro-Kosovar and the EN WIKI is at complete war. Kosova2008 (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the Serbo-Croatian WP (Kosovo i Metohija) also need to be checked for POV statements? (Stefan2 (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC))
 * No, it seems NPOV. And so does Croatian. The Bosnian is pro-Albanian. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't worry about what other projects do to articles unrelated to Kosovo. Only we can worry about our own house and our own affairs. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You have right. But you are forgetting that this is project is not "your" house, but a room in our house WikiMedia, in witch is burning.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The German wikipedia has more or leas neutral intro. They use the words with double meaning, witch sims that is "cooling people", But my personal meaning is : They say to Serbs you have right, and to Albanians you have right and is far from realty. --Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Recognition by Taiwan?
I know this is a strong attempt to destroy the Republic of Kosovo. What a website this is...They added Taiwan..How about Japan, Canada?

Sorry, but Republic of Kosovo recognizes only one China. PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sooner or later, I think we will cut down on the countries mentioned in here, since it will be too large to maintain. We have a separate article of what nation recognized Kosovo as a state. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We should do this now. It is significant that the USA and some EU bigshots recognize it, and it is important to state the number of countries recognizing it, but it is pointless to give a full list here. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a Kosovo article not Taiwan. You can open a souch section when Kosovo wount to be member of the UN.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rapes in Kosowo
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/fry/

"In total, Human Rights Watch found credible accounts of ninety-six cases of sexual assault by Yugoslav soldiers, Serbian police, or paramilitaries during the period of NATO bombing, and the actual number is probably much higher. "

"Much higher" surely does not mean 20.000 rapes. Sorry, but the claim of 20 thousand rapes simply does not hold the water. The disgusting part is that those rapes were committed by both paramilitaries as well as police and soldiers, which speaks badly about Serbian discipline. Szopen (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we can leave that out of the article, however there are a BUNCH of more detailed articles about the NATO bombing, which we will link from the article. I mean, maybe a line like "Atrocities were committed, see LINK for more information." Or however we can word it. Beam (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For souch things is article Kosovo War--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Move
ok, a lot of confusion and antagonistic noise comes from the fact that this is the article on the Republic of Kosovo residing at Kosovo. This has of course historical reasons, since it was the Kosovo article that became edited in order to reflect the declaration of independence in February. Things have cooled down a bit and we need to get the article scopes and titles straight. We first need to move this article to Republic of Kosovo. We can then decide where Kosovo should redirect to. There are three possibilities: While option 1. is clearly the most neutral, I suppose all three are arguable. Arguments on which option we should favour need to be based on WP:DAB and WP:NC. Please give your opinion on which option best complies with policy (not just "your opinion" uninformed by WP policy). dab (𒁳) 11:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Kosovo (disambiguation)
 * 2) Kosovo (region)
 * 3) Republic of Kosovo


 * Is this supposed to be a kind of a running gag as you ask every few days for the same thing? Again, no, no, no. Read this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Oppose_split.2C_move.2C_rename_and_variants and read this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Proposal_to_merge_from_Kosovo_.28geopolitical_region.29 and now please stop it, nobody can laugh anymore about this kind of joke. --Tubesship (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ts, we had a strawpoll, and the constructive comments were quite clear cut. Yes this page is being trolled, what else is new. I explicitly asked for comments informed by policy and MoS, which would seem to rule you out. thanks, dab (𒁳) 13:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my english is not perfect, so what do you mean with MoS and what with outruling? --Tubesship (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on WP:COMMONNAME, I think Kosovo should redirect to Republic of Kosovo.  Balkan Fever  13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Does "Germany" redirect to "Federal Republic of Germany"? No. Was this answer clear enough? --Tubesship (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? This article is on Kosovo. Kosovo has declared independence as the RoK. That's it. That's all that needs to be said. I think Republic of Kosovo should redirect to Kosovo. For now. Beam (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly ,*sigh* -Cra del 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Every week we have a "proprosal" to raname this article as RoK. It is getting rediculous! Of course, Kosovo, should be about the Republic of Kosovo. 2007apm (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

NO. You don't get it. This article is about Kosovo, which has recently unilaterally declared independence as the RoK. Get it? Beam (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not get it. So is wikipedia not able to catch up, is that what you are trying to say. We were writing about Kosovo and suddenly ups they declared independance but what the heck we will just ignore it and continue writing our article about Kosovo, the region. What is this ' kindergarden? Jawohl (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Corrections removed by User:Shanticm
User:Shanticm decided to remove my spelling/style corrections (diff) on 31 March, 2008. I have no idea as for why this would be necessary. Whereas he has contributed material (diff) it doesn't lead to him owning these sections of the article. (Shanticm isn't a vandal account, see for example this) Plus, a second point, saying "probably vast mineral deposits" isn't accurate, if some porcelain clay and low-grade coal are the major minerals. --Vuo (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well... i do not like your "spelling/style corrections". And it is my right to dislike it... I will not undo it because i am less stubborn than you are. Have a nice day and please contribute to this article with some original content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanticm (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A native speaker of English could re-check the style. Meanwhile, it would be helpful to show what exactly is not an improvement. Main corrections: clarifying specialist terms, separating mining since mining is not in the energy sector, un-capitalised common nouns (chromium, etc.) If these corrections introduce a factual inaccuracy, then it should be immediately corrected. ---Vuo (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why Neutrality is impossible without a split
Right now the Republic of Kosovo is the only partially-recognized state which does not have its own article. If this article is made to be about the region of Kosovo and all information of the Republic of Kosovo is kept here it slants against independence because it puts Kosovo beneath other partially-recognized states implying that somehow the "state" of Kosovo is not equal to other partially-recognized and even some unrecognized states including the 1990's Republic of Kosova abolished in 2000. However, if this article titled Kosovo is made into the article on the Republic of Kosovo it will not be neutral because it will act as though Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo are the same thing when many do not consider the Republic of Kosovo to be the same as Kosovo, including some Kosovars.

So what we have is a clear conflict which can not be reconciled simply by changing the content of this article. Renaming this article to Republic of Kosovo would resolve part of the problem but leave another. If Kosovo simply redirects to Republic of Kosovo it will still treat the Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo as though they are the same thing, even though this is not recognized by most of the international community.

In other words something else has to be put under the title Kosovo to provide an effective middle ground, something which will not imply Kosovo as either a province or country, but instead as a disputed region. That means either a disambiguation page or a page on the region of Kosovo.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're very wrong, and this didn't need its own section. As I've stated repeatedly, the article is about Kosovo. Just recently they declared independence. That's it. What is so hard to understand about that? I don't see how people can't understand it. However, as a group, we will prevail and create a great article that is NPOV. I hope you decide to help us. Beam (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It does need its own section because what has to be understood is exactly why there is a need for a separate article as there hasn't been an argument clear enough to point out how neutrality is impossible with only a single article. You don't even seem to be understanding the problem. Either we have no article specifically for the Republic of Kosovo degrading its status considerably in comparison to other partially-recognized states and even unrecognized states who mostly have their own articles, including the unrecognized Republic of Kosova which ceased to exist in 2000 or we make this the article and push a pro-independence POV against those who consider Kosovo to be a province of Serbia under temporary UN control, which happens to be the majority world opinion. If there is no separate article those are the only two possibilities for this article, neither are NPOV.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points, DevilsAdvocate, but I disagree with your conclusion. First, I'd note that the Republic of Kosovo exists. Some people may think it's an illegal creation, others consider it an independent state -- but it clearly does exist! It has a government, letterhead, a flag, leaders, and soon will have a constitution. To create various article forks representing different "realities" seems odd and inconsistent with Wikipedia practice. Note that Wikipedia has only single articles for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two self-proclaimed states that have nowhere near the legitimacy and international recognition as Kosovo. For of those places, "South Ossetia" and "Abkhazia" both display the flags and anthems of the self-declared independent governments, even as they report accurately the fierce arguments about the legality and legitimacy of their independence claims. In the interests of consistency, I don't see why we would treat Kosovo differently. I recognize, DevilsAdvocate, your good-faith effort to split the difference on this one. But I'd argue that in addition to being bad editing practice, splitting the article actually leans us way far toward an anti-West/pro-Serb POV (think of the whole Kostunica argument that the Republic of Kosovo is a "phony state."). I trust the collective wisdom of Wikipedia editors to edit and characterize accurately the Republic of Kosovo's contested status. Envoy202 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not recognized by any country, while Kosovo is recognized by 36. Only Western Sahara is recognized by more countries and if you look the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic does have its own article. Northern Cyprus which is recognized only by Turkey also has an article for it as a partially-recognized state, not as a region. All other partially-recognized states have an article for them as a partially-recognized state and so do most unrecognized states. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are the exception and most likely for the same reason this article hasn't been split, overwhelming nationalist bias.
 * Obviously articles on present conventions of Kosovo can all deal with the disputed status of Kosovo and in a neutral manner nothing will prevent that, but the question here is one of the scope and subject of the article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Western Sahara analogy is false -- the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is a government-in-exile. As such, its current existence is not tied to the territory of Western Sahara.  It's simply a different "thing" and therefore merits its own article.  Envoy202 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Western Sahara is recognized as an independent state by more countries than Kosovo and the government recognized by all of those countries is the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. It's not like the Central Tibetan Administration or Republic of Ichkeria which do not have any actual control over their claimed territory or recognition. It's only really considered to be in exile because its de-facto seat is in Algeria. Love how you and everyone else however ignore the glaring contradiction of the unrecognized Republic of Kosova having its own article while the Republic of Kosovo, recognized by 36 countries, does not.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is only one article for Northern Cyprus which Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is redirected to. Likewise Transnistria and South Ossetia have only one article, and these three countries have no international recognition, or recognition by only one state. Therefore we need only one article for Kosovo. 2007apm (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That argument makes no sense because those governments being recognized by less or no countries would actually have less claim to their own independent articles. Also Northern Cyprus is an article on the partially-recognized state, not the region.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell facts aren't POV. We present the facts. That's it. Beam (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Facts are not POV but how the facts are presented can be POV. The question is not simply what the facts are but the context and subject of an article. The proposals for having all info on the Republic of Kosovo in one article as a region when put in context of all of Wikipedia implies the Republic of Kosovo is not as legitimate as Northern Cyprus or Western Sahara. Having it about the Republic of Kosovo implies the Republic of Kosovo and the territory of Kosovo are the same, when that is actually hotly disputed among many countries.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should get away from debating respective POVs and instead just one big step back and ask ourselves, "Does it make sense to create two articles to describe the same place?" You know, in the voluminous debate above someone asked a simple question, "When people type in 'Kosovo' to Wikipedia, what are they expecting to find?" I don't think they expect to find an article about a "region," as if that category could somehow be separated out from the historical and political realities of today. Furthermore, it wouldn't be nice to ask our hypothetical reader to click to another article just to find out basic information about Kosovo's governance and (contested) status. I think Abkhazia and South Ossetia are great precedents for just having one article to describe one place. Both of those articles talk about the history of the areas and the conflicts surrounding their current status. Heck, President Putin, who has always tried to link these conflicts to Kosovo, would be pleased if we used the same model! So, DevilsAdvocate, would you argue on those pages to create two forks -- one representing the Georgian POV and one representing the POV of the Ossetians or Abkhaz? I'm making this article totally independent of any POV and I do recognize that you're trying hard to find a good compromise. Nevertheless, I'd think that a Serbian nationalist and an Albanian nationalist could both agree that it's a bit wacky to have multiple articles for the same place. Envoy202 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, this nonsense POV fork bullshit is really pissing me off. A POV fork is an article which is essentially a reiteration of another article modified to push a positive or negative viewpoint towards the subject. How is having an article on Republic of Kosovo in the same vein as articles on Republic of China, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and, of course, Republic of Kosova pushing a POV?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the "Proposal to Merge" section of Talk for why you are wrong regarding those articles you list. Please, think about it. We can do this. If we list facts, we can do this. We are going to work together, please work with us, or don't impede us. Thank you. Beam (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offense. I just don't think those examples you cite are valid. Republic of China is not comparable: you're talking about a separate government with a defined territory over which its governance extends (versus its territorial pretensions). Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is also different, especially since, as you noted, its de facto capital is not even in the country it purports to represent. I think that Abkhazia and South Ossetia represent the best parallels: single articles describing a single territory (even if its sovereignty is disputed). As for the "Republic of Kosova" having its own article, I'd argue that since that entity is no longer extant, then, yes, it does deserve its own article -- it's a historical artifact, not a government in existence today. I agree with Beamathan that instead of trying to create all these separate articles, we should just create one article for Kosovo. I'd like to restart discussion above on a suitable intro for that article. Envoy202 (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia???? What is this??? This is a article about Kosovo recotnased as State from english spoket countries. For more "Abkhazia, South Ossetia" and other rusian point of view (opinion) go to the Russian Wikipedia ther you can finde "Kosovo i Metohia Pokraina" ;"Republik Akazia" etc. You are in wrong Wikipedia. In Russian Wikipedia the time is stopit yoi cann finde there thate what you are lokin for--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Constitution of Kosovo
All related to this subject, please head over to Talk:Constitution of Kosovo. There is an ongoing controversy over the article (Getoar has been introducing historically unrelated [at least to my opinion] info, and I have finally made him discuss). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence
The article says that Kosova declared independence from Serbia, which is something that has been echoed by the media. Could someone point to me where in the DOI of Kosova it says that "we are declaring independence from Serbia"? In the contrary Kosova declared independence from Yugoslavia which is why the DOI reads:
 * "Observing that Kosovo is a special case arising from Yugoslavia's non-consensual breakup and is not a precedent for any other situation,"
 * " We hereby undertake the international obligations of Kosovo, including those concluded on our behalf by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and treaty and other obligations of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to which we are bound as a former constituent part, including the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations. We shall cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. We intend to seek membership in international organisations, in which Kosovo shall seek to contribute to the pursuit of international peace and stability. "
 * "Kosovo declares its commitment to peace and stability in our region of southeast Europe. Our independence brings to an end the process of Yugoslavia's violent dissolution. While this process has been a painful one, we shall work tirelessly to contribute to a reconciliation that would allow southeast Europe to move beyond the conflicts of our past and forge new links of regional cooperation. We shall therefore work together with our neighbours to advance a common European future."

The reason why the media has got this information wrong is because the DOI is based on the Ahtisaari Plan which speaks of "supervised independence from Serbia". The Assembly of Kosova based their actions on the Ahtisaari Plan but they declared independence from Yugoslavia, Kosova is the end of the chapter of the brutal breakup of Yugoslavia. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for removing this article, completely!
I have been using intensively Wikipedia in last three years for my educational purposes, to get informed about things that I am interested in, even for fun… English part of Wikipedia is very important, since English is most important language in the world (this is just my opinion).

I read this article recently and started myself to add comments in a discussion, because I was/am unhappy how some events are described.

This article about Kosovo looks like articles about other countries that are recognized and members of UN (f.ex.Bulgaria).. It is applied the same format - layout. Very often in the discussion is emphasized: number of the countries that have recognized Kosovo (KosovA – however you want). Now that number is 36 and that is one of the crucial arguments that we should have article about Kosovo (Kosova) arranged as an article for an independent state.

In Kosovo’s article ca. 4413 words were used (roughly calculate by MS Word word-count tool) to describe Kosovo as an independent state recognized by 36 courtiers. Similar articles about f.ex. Slovenia or Latvia (kind of the same size countries) has ca. 4110 and 3388 words, respectively. Discussion provoked by Kosovo article has arisen to ca. 73101 words (over 16x larger then article itself) while for the other two mentioned ca 10000 and ca 4000, respectively.

Now we have in a top header invitation to merge Kosovo (geopolitical_region) into this article or section based on some thoughts of user bogdan, and again huge, good for nothing discussion about that. Maybe to propose the other way around action - merging Kosovo article with Kosovo (geopolitical_region) ? Kosovo (geopolitical_region) is obviously less problematic just ca 2000 word in the discussion section.and let's create more and more discussion. Do we want that?

Keeping such a problematic article as it is and in the same time proposing activities like merging away less problematic article with this one is nothing else but thoughtless creation of more and more useless discussion.

Here is one, quite logical proposal. Let’s remove this article and wait until situation become clear. I think, we can agree based on which criteria we can define a situation as clear: Is it Kosovo(a)'s membership in UN, recognition of at least half of the world (counting number of the countries or counting population), or you give suggestion...

Be smart and remove this article. Be patient and wait for the final solution of Kosovo status. Then make an article about Republic of Kosovo or UNMIK Kosovo, Kosovo-Albania or Kosovo and Metohia or whatever will be. There is absolutly no need for all this torturing and wasting time. NB! I will not defend or comment any of the comments either from proalbanian or proserbian editors, commentators, web-warriors... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.91.24 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry, but that's out of the question. We have articles on all sorts of territorial disputes. We need to be neutral, but we cannot just decide to not cover a topic. You may want to register and contribute towards fixing the problems though. dab (𒁳) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with 129.241.91.24. This is pretty ridiculous. I had thought that we could do it, but people are so very biased and unhappy in general that maybe not. Beam (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * let me get this straight, you "actually agree" with the anon that we should have no article on Kosovo, at all? Of course we agree this talkpage is ridiculous. This is a case five bona fide editors could bring to a satisfactory conclusion within half an hour. But this is Wikipedia, we take the long route... dab (𒁳) 19:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I truly hope you don't think of yourself as a bonafide editor. Truly, you couldn't. Could you? You think you're part of the solution? You are maybe the #1 reason I feel like giving up on this article. You've argued the same crap over and over, and it's been refuted. How many more times will you bring up China? How many more times does it have to be explained that you're wrong and that this is different? Your insulting towards other people, including me, and then claim that 5 bona fide editors could do this? Not with you around they couldn't.Beam (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think as I have mentioned before is that Wikipedia needs to follow what other encyclopedias and almanacs have done. For example, Rhodesia had a UDI back in the 1960s and 1970s.  Few countries recognized Rhodesia and it was not in the UN.  It still had an article in every encyclopedia and almanac as the Republic of Rhodesia (at least after 1970).  Its flag was shown with the other countries' flags.  Rhodesia did not have recognition, but it had sovereignty.  A case for Kosovo is even stronger than Rhodesia as it has much more recognition.  The problem is that there is so much nationalism that a neutral article cannot seem to stabilize.  How about everyone wait and see what the published well-known and sourced books do about Kosovo. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You pointed to an interesting point as you mentioned the souveranity. I already agreed that we might use a second info box showing Serbian POV but as Serbia has no more sovereignty over Kosova this should be accentuated. And of course I do not believe that Beam will really delete this article but this should seem as a cry for help. Especially against admin dab as he is really disruptive and should be banned, honestly. He as an admin even deleted my writings on my own talk page, he is an abusive admin and his admin status should be revoked at least, if he is not banned. --Tubesship (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you please stop insulting people around (me, dab, etcetera), claiming they should be banned (especially while defending a banned troll yourself)?
 * Yeah, 36 countries recognize Kosovo. But you know what? 157. Kosovo's provisional institutions consider themselves legitimate bodies of an independent country, while Serbia denies it - which has the "counterweight"? Especially since UNSCR 1244 as for now still remains - as per act by which the UNMIK - the supreme Kosovar body rather than the transitional PISG - a part of the Republic of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you want to tell us with the number 157? Do you want to connote, that 157 countries opposes Kosovas independence? To prove you wrong here what I wrote at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_unrecognized_countries#Changing_the_heading : "Croatia for example is not recognized by Namibia, Burundi, Liberia and so on...". The answer I got was: "That a country like Bhutan hasn't gotten around to recognizing Croatia, in the greater scheme of things, doesn't matter too much. However, if they refused to recognize Croatia because, say, they recognize (hypothetically) Serbia's claim over the region, THAT would make it worthy...". The same counts for Kosova. Fact is, most countries are still undecided but that does not mean, they oppose Kosovas independence. Fact is furthermore that there are less countries actively opposing than acively supporting Kosovas independence. Get over it, please. --Tubesship (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)BTW, not 36 but 37.


 * I agree with Tubeshhip 100%. An encyclopedic article for a country is not written based on the % of countries which recognize or not recognize a country's UDI.  When do encyclopedias and atlases come out?  I hope we don't have to wait a whole year for the new ones to come out...  Azalea pomp (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you even read the text? His point is to compare the status of partially recognized political entities to fully internationally-recognized countries. And if such a thing is applied here, we should also apply it to other secessionist political entities. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please stop comparing Kosovo to Croatia? Croatia is recognized by practically everyone, its independence isn't disputed by anyone, and it's a sovereign internationally-recognized country. I already told you this. Also, the point in here is your continuous incivility.
 * Opposing or supporting Kosovo independence is irrelevant. Recognition and non-recognition is that which is. Oh and the number of countries opposing Kosovo's UDI outnumbers the one opposing it, yeah. And no, 36 - not 37. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am used to having blatant pov-pushing accounts rant against me and calling for my being banned for about, oh, three years now. It means I must be doing something right. You can't defend neutrality and be everybody's darling. dab (𒁳) 07:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 3 years now? I guess it is almost high noon. Do not be too proud of being so contested but be more reflective, please. --Tubesship (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do take criticism seriously. When it comes from veteran editors who know the game and whom I respect. Criticism from single-topic pov-pushing accounts is irrelevant, or indeed shows I am helping the project. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You said this about my name, and I'm telling you not to assume thing. I picked this name because I liked it. 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs)

Merge with Kosova
Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) should be merged with Kosova. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * why? it's a historical entity. We don't merge Ottoman Kosovo, do we. Try to be reasonable. dab (𒁳) 14:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mister Bachmann, I am reasonable and therefore I will tell you the difference: Ottoman Kosovo is not the same when you look at the map, but Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) is located at the very same spot. And by the way, as administrator Husond already said: "dab will you please stop making such ludicrous accusations? The way you are contesting everyone is hardly worthy of an admin.", here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kosovo_%28geopolitical_region%29 Please do what he said and restrain from saying I am not reasonable. This is not good for the atmosphere here.--Tubesship (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do support its merger, Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) isn't properly cited also, maybe deletion? --TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 15:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * the Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) never got any recognition from anyone. if its notability is disputed, it could arguably be put on AfD, although I predict the outcome will not be delete but merge. But there are more pertinent articles for merging it into than this one. Either 20th century history of Kosovo, or Kosovo War. dab (𒁳) 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I support Tubesship idea of a merge. I'm assuming you meant Republic of Kosova (1990-2000) with kosovo. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

we can discuss the merge suggestion at Talk:Republic of Kosova (1990–2000). Clearly, if there is a merge, it needs to be merged into the most pertinent super-topic. dab (𒁳) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Insert Picture
Some vandal deleted this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:VeshjeKombetare.JPG and the section about culture in the other article before merging. Please reinsert. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To Some of Those who stood by me in making this Merge happen:
What are you doing? What happened to NPOV? Did you only want this merge to allow your own POV to occur?

We need to work together. This will not work out to your own personal bias. Many of the things I suggested, and BASED my argument for merge on are now seemingly forgotten. I fought very hard believing that this article would be more neutral. That it didn't' make sense to have an article on Kosovo be split. After all it is just one country and we're talking it about in one time line. This whole RoK thing happened within the last year. Yes I know that independence has been pursued for years. I get it. This is a summary of Kosovo. If this whole article is on Kosovo, how much needs to be on the RoK? Beam (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. one article (merge), multiple infoboxes ("Abkhazia" style)
 * per above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough of this, the community is giving a clear position at Articles for deletion/Kosovo (geopolitical region). Bringing up the same discussion is stubbornly useless and denotes ontempt for anti-split users. Hús  ö  nd  14:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and enough of this polling. How many times to you want us to repeat ourselves? --Tubesship (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * we can do this. This approach is the most reasonable. --Tone 17:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So after the merge is done you switch your opinions? The only person who didn't out of those above is tone. I'm sorry to go on about this, but I'm almost disgusted. Beam (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The merger should be done by the AfD's closing admin. The article I discovered this morning has nothing to do with the NPOV article I defend. Hús  ö  nd  16:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * any "npov" revision you can point to? Article merges aren't done at afd, I am appalled you can be an admin without even a basic grasp of Wikipedia procedure. The issue was with WP:CFORK. There is nothing at WP:DEL that would remotely justify deletion of an article on the Kosovo region. We decide to merge things, fine, nothing to do with AfD. We don't delete forks, we merge them. Can you at least WP:AGF and recognize that I doing my best in helping maintain NPOV in the face of adversity? I have no idea why you keep suggesting the RoK is "more notable" than UNMIK. Both sides of the dispute have comparable notability, and you would be hard put to establish that one is more "important" or "correct" than the other. dab (𒁳) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can easily assume good faith and recognize that you're doing your best in helping maintain NPOV, but frankly I don't think you're helping at all. Accusing me of not knowing procedures and be an unworthy admin won't help either. In my view, we simply disagree. Accusing an admin of not knowing the basics because of different opinions probably tells more about you than about me. As for the comparable notability of the two sides, I also disagree. The Republic of Kosovo is more relevant because it's the only de facto entity, whereas the Serbian province only has partial de jure recognition. It is the republic that has actual control over the territory and therefore its infobox should be at the top. The Serbian province one is nothing more than a political dispute. It should by all means be there, but I don't think that it has more importance than the Republic of Kosovo's. Hús  ö  nd  16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait a second, dab was comparing RoK with UNMIK not with the Serbian province. UNMIK is very much a "de facto" entity, actually a good deal more than the RoK. But that said, I agree that we ought to be dealing with this in a spirit of mutual AGF. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Husond is right, especially as Kosova has now been granted similar status like Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia, they are all officially recognised as potential candidates for an EU accession.  --Tubesship (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, one has to recheck the European Commission for Enlargement documents. While Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey are called by their respective names (except "FYROM" for RoM), Kosovo is called specifically "Kosovo under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244" always. This clearly separates it from the other European integration processes, as UNSCR 1244 makes Kosovo a part of the Republic of Serbia. And regarding how the EU interprets the resolution and the acts, see the Kosovo under UNSCR 1244 entry on its website and its political profile, where it's clearly defined as a part of Serbia. Yet another thing we should have on our mind is the Stabilization and Association Process treaty that has been initiated with Serbia, which also includes that Serbia's southern province [Kosovo] is under UNMIK administration, so that it doesn't directly refer to it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Pax, I'd urge caution. You repeated two statements above that are both demonstrably POV. First, you said, "UNSCR 1244 makes Kosovo a part of the Republic of Serbia." As you know and we can observe from current events, this is nowhere near a universally accepted proposition! Furthermore, you implied that the EU, through its SAA process, was somehow expressing an opinion on Kosovo's status. If you'll recall, on February 18 EU Foreign Ministers issued a statement saying explicitly that responding to Kosovo's declaration of independence was a matter for member states; now that nearly 3/4 of the EU has recognized, it's pretty clear that there is no "EU position" that can be cited in this discussion. Envoy202 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No understatement necessary, after nearly 3/4 of the EU has recognized one can say that the EU position is rather pro than contra independence. So the claiming of an contra position of the EU is quite ridiculous and this interpretation is far from reality. --Tubesship (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's precisely what I mean. The EU left the decision to its member states. As an international program for European Integrations, it doesn't observe Kosovo as an independent country from Serbia - because no compromise has been reached on that issue. Yes, majority of EU member states recognize Kosovo - but that still doesn't change the fact that EU does not deal with such matters, that's for the UN. Don't get me wrong (either of you two), but if you find something wrong, go and write to the European Commission for Enlargement so that they change it. ;)
 * Envoy202, please let me quote article 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia:

[..]Cloning of Human Beings is Banned.
 * ..now you don't expect that some scientist could clone a man and then claim that there is no universally accepted proposition in the Serbian state, so that he cannot be really blamed for that which he did.
 * But even this is irrelevant. Like I wrote to the up, I knew someone could come and claim something like that, so I supplemented the links which evidently depict the interpretation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 by the European Commission for Enlargement, in regards to the "Kosovo under UNSCR 1244" entity which is a potential candidate for European integrations. In the end, I'd also like to add that European Integrations have started even before 2005, of Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo separately, as a compromise of then's authorities of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro - so a separate process from that of Serbia's actually relates to this, and not the recent actions (Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence, or even Montenegro's secession). In the end I'd also like to remind that the SAP treaty initiated with Serbia relates to Kosovo as a part of it (though under UNMIK administration). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with Husond on one part, the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government [that consider the Republic of Kosovo an independent country] aren't the true "controller" of Kosovo, but the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo is [which considers it a part of the Republic of Serbia]. This makes the situation clearly separate from those of Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossettia or North Cyprus, because those separatist entities have control and fulfill de fact sovereignty and independence over their claimed territory. The situation of Kosovo is far more similar to the one East Timor was under a very similar international UN-mandated governing. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the deletion discussion as a merge, since the consensus seemed to have been moving towards this option and the merge was in fact completed today. IMO, the article looks much better now but we should not give hands up. The most constructive way to work on this article is to have all the comments here, not on various afd pages. Great work, everyone. --Tone 20:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam, while you do seem to be neutral on this subject I think you are rather naive as well. Me and several other editors said ultimately that many editors wanted a merge just so they could push their POV. Several of the editors against a split made clear their desires and intention for a merged article, namely that it should be about Kosovo as a country. I can only assume they don't support a separate article on the partially-recognized state because they feel it de-legitimizes Kosovo's independence, no matter whether such an article is consistent with Wikipedia practice and neutral. All these splits and unilateral actions have simply been the actions of editors to try and find some middle ground where there can be an article on Kosovo as a region or territory free of any dispute over POV and another on it as a partially-recognized state that neutrally described exactly what the Republic of Kosovo was, not accommodate an Albanian or Serbian POV. Before this split another split was carried out with this article about the region and another about the Republic of Kosovo. Ultimately what happened was exactly the same as pro-Kosovo editors put it up for AfD and ultimately it was redirected back to the article on Kosovo. It's pure and blatant obstructionism.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The way I presented the Merge, and the way it gained consensus was NPOV. These people who deceived just to get a merge are so biased, it's scary. The right way to do this article is merged, about Kosovo. As I say repeatedly the RoK's several months does not need to dominate an article about the whole Kosovo. A merged article is the correct way to do it. Bias must not ruin it. NPOV will prevail. Beam (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for removing this article, completely!
I have been using intensively Wikipedia in last three years for my educational purposes, to get informed about things that I am interested in, even for fun… English part of Wikipedia is very important, since English is most important language in the world (this is just my opinion).

I read this article recently and started myself to add comments in a discussion, because I was/am unhappy how some events are described.

This article about Kosovo looks like articles about other countries that are recognized and members of UN (f.ex.Bulgaria).. It is applied the same format - layout. Very often in the discussion is emphasized: number of the countries that have recognized Kosovo (KosovA – however you want). Now that number is 36 and that is one of the crucial arguments that we should have article about Kosovo (Kosova) arranged as an article for an independent state.

In Kosovo’s article ca. 4413 words were used (roughly calculate by MS Word word-count tool) to describe Kosovo as an independent state recognized by 36 courtiers. Similar articles about f.ex. Slovenia or Latvia (kind of the same size countries) has ca. 4110 and 3388 words, respectively. Discussion provoked by Kosovo article has arisen to ca. 73101 words (over 16x larger then article itself) while for the other two mentioned ca 10000 and ca 4000, respectively.

Now we have in a top header invitation to merge Kosovo (geopolitical_region) into this article or section based on some thoughts of user bogdan, and again huge, good for nothing discussion about that. Maybe to propose the other way around action - merging Kosovo article with Kosovo (geopolitical_region) ? Kosovo (geopolitical_region) is obviously less problematic just ca 2000 word in the discussion section.and let's create more and more discussion. Do we want that?

Keeping such a problematic article as it is and in the same time proposing activities like merging away less problematic article with this one is nothing else but thoughtless creation of more and more useless discussion.

Here is one, quite logical proposal. Let’s remove this article and wait until situation become clear. I think, we can agree based on which criteria we can define a situation as clear: Is it Kosovo(a)'s membership in UN, recognition of at least half of the world (counting number of the countries or counting population), or you give suggestion...

Be smart and remove this article. Be patient and wait for the final solution of Kosovo status. Then make an article about Republic of Kosovo or UNMIK Kosovo, Kosovo-Albania or Kosovo and Metohia or whatever will be. There is absolutly no need for all this torturing and wasting time. NB! I will not defend or comment any of the comments either from proalbanian or proserbian editors, commentators, web-warriors... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.91.24 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry, but that's out of the question. We have articles on all sorts of territorial disputes. We need to be neutral, but we cannot just decide to not cover a topic. You may want to register and contribute towards fixing the problems though. dab (𒁳) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with 129.241.91.24. This is pretty ridiculous. I had thought that we could do it, but people are so very biased and unhappy in general that maybe not. Beam (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * let me get this straight, you "actually agree" with the anon that we should have no article on Kosovo, at all? Of course we agree this talkpage is ridiculous. This is a case five bona fide editors could bring to a satisfactory conclusion within half an hour. But this is Wikipedia, we take the long route... dab (𒁳) 19:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I truly hope you don't think of yourself as a bonafide editor. Truly, you couldn't. Could you? You think you're part of the solution? You are maybe the #1 reason I feel like giving up on this article. You've argued the same crap over and over, and it's been refuted. How many more times will you bring up China? How many more times does it have to be explained that you're wrong and that this is different? Your insulting towards other people, including me, and then claim that 5 bona fide editors could do this? Not with you around they couldn't.Beam (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think as I have mentioned before is that Wikipedia needs to follow what other encyclopedias and almanacs have done. For example, Rhodesia had a UDI back in the 1960s and 1970s.  Few countries recognized Rhodesia and it was not in the UN.  It still had an article in every encyclopedia and almanac as the Republic of Rhodesia (at least after 1970).  Its flag was shown with the other countries' flags.  Rhodesia did not have recognition, but it had sovereignty.  A case for Kosovo is even stronger than Rhodesia as it has much more recognition.  The problem is that there is so much nationalism that a neutral article cannot seem to stabilize.  How about everyone wait and see what the published well-known and sourced books do about Kosovo. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You pointed to an interesting point as you mentioned the souveranity. I already agreed that we might use a second info box showing Serbian POV but as Serbia has no more sovereignty over Kosova this should be accentuated. And of course I do not believe that Beam will really delete this article but this should seem as a cry for help. Especially against admin dab as he is really disruptive and should be banned, honestly. He as an admin even deleted my writings on my own talk page, he is an abusive admin and his admin status should be revoked at least, if he is not banned. --Tubesship (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you please stop insulting people around (me, dab, etcetera), claiming they should be banned (especially while defending a banned troll yourself)?
 * Yeah, 36 countries recognize Kosovo. But you know what? 157. Kosovo's provisional institutions consider themselves legitimate bodies of an independent country, while Serbia denies it - which has the "counterweight"? Especially since UNSCR 1244 as for now still remains - as per act by which the UNMIK - the supreme Kosovar body rather than the transitional PISG - a part of the Republic of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you want to tell us with the number 157? Do you want to connote, that 157 countries opposes Kosovas independence? To prove you wrong here what I wrote at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_unrecognized_countries#Changing_the_heading : "Croatia for example is not recognized by Namibia, Burundi, Liberia and so on...". The answer I got was: "That a country like Bhutan hasn't gotten around to recognizing Croatia, in the greater scheme of things, doesn't matter too much. However, if they refused to recognize Croatia because, say, they recognize (hypothetically) Serbia's claim over the region, THAT would make it worthy...". The same counts for Kosova. Fact is, most countries are still undecided but that does not mean, they oppose Kosovas independence. Fact is furthermore that there are less countries actively opposing than acively supporting Kosovas independence. Get over it, please. --Tubesship (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)BTW, not 36 but 37.


 * I agree with Tubeshhip 100%. An encyclopedic article for a country is not written based on the % of countries which recognize or not recognize a country's UDI.  When do encyclopedias and atlases come out?  I hope we don't have to wait a whole year for the new ones to come out...  Azalea pomp (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you even read the text? His point is to compare the status of partially recognized political entities to fully internationally-recognized countries. And if such a thing is applied here, we should also apply it to other secessionist political entities. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please stop comparing Kosovo to Croatia? Croatia is recognized by practically everyone, its independence isn't disputed by anyone, and it's a sovereign internationally-recognized country. I already told you this. Also, the point in here is your continuous incivility.
 * Opposing or supporting Kosovo independence is irrelevant. Recognition and non-recognition is that which is. Oh and the number of countries opposing Kosovo's UDI outnumbers the one opposing it, yeah. And no, 36 - not 37. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am used to having blatant pov-pushing accounts rant against me and calling for my being banned for about, oh, three years now. It means I must be doing something right. You can't defend neutrality and be everybody's darling. dab (𒁳) 07:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 3 years now? I guess it is almost high noon. Do not be too proud of being so contested but be more reflective, please. --Tubesship (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do take criticism seriously. When it comes from veteran editors who know the game and whom I respect. Criticism from single-topic pov-pushing accounts is irrelevant, or indeed shows I am helping the project. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You said this about my name, and I'm telling you not to assume thing. I picked this name because I liked it. 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs)

Serbian conservatives
...Serbian Radical Party, Democratic Party of Serbia, New Serbia, Socialist Party of Serbia, Party of United Pensioners of Serbia and United Serbia are leading at all polls. They will likely win on 11 May and form a new government. This will be an end to all the democratic regimes that governed since 2000 and reached an utter failure, as it will include forces who governed under Slobodan Milosevic.

Kosovo is "instilling them" with power. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pax, do you want to write an article solely on the RoK and the Declaration with me?Beam (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, is there a consensus on it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ha... consensus is a fleeting idea around these parts. The way I framed the merge included such an article, however apparently editors like Tube and others only agreed to it to get the merge done, allowing them to shove their biased POV down our throats. I was so naive. But if we ever get this article back on track I think an RoK article is necessary. Beam (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive
Let's archive most of this talk page to preserve some usefulness. Hobartimus (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be a lot easier if people didn't keep inserting new sections at the top, messing up the age of the posts. That chunk still leaves the page gigantic but someone else should go through one and one and archive sections. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you add a section to the archive? I'd like to clean this crap up. Beam (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure
The flag and the infobox should be on top like in every other article about countries. --Tubesship (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, put it back. Kosovo is not Abkhazia. --Camptown (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * After the threats I recieved from the admins dab and Fut.Perf. I decided to restrain myself but informed a Steward to care about this case. Let us wait and see. --Tubesship (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this! Structure is fine just text is too long now… over 6000 words! Kosovo is not that important to be granted with such a giant text. I’ll give soon my suggestions about removing some pathetic parts.

sovereignty and recognition of Kosovo’s unilateral declared independence is still a problem. I don’t see why somebody who wants to be informed about Kosovo should see the first flag and the infobox about something that is not worldwide recognized and supported. I understand Albanian users like Tubesship, but you will have to wait till Kosova become like every other country, if become. To user Camptown: this is not place where you can put your thoughts “what is” or “what is not” without supporting with any reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IGøR (talk • contribs) 10:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The recent edits are illogical and dishonest. It talks about a region - which declared its independence (I thought the Republic of Kosov had done so). It messes the republic's infobox with the UN rep etc etc. It is not even consistent with Abkhazia, and Dab knows that, but he is obviously too influenced by Serbian nationalistic propaganda to act accordingly. --Camptown (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, editing this article takes too much energy right now. So I leave it for other editors to "play" with. And if you think that WP recognizes nations - Fine! However, infoboxes should not come in templates. --Camptown (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

what the hell? You just clamored for merging, and merging we did. If you want an article on the Republic of Kosovo, your position is splitting. Place a split template in the section "Republic of Kosovo", and if you can gain consensus for this, we can branch out a Republic of Kosovo article with its own infobox. That is the solution I have been advocating all along, getting ranted at by Albanian nationalists for it. Can you decide what you want soon? No, you cannot get a single "Kosovo" article that is in fact about the "Republic of Kosovo". That's of course what you would like to happen, but that's something that needs to happen in the real world first (majority or universal recognition), and only then on Wikipedia. This article as it stands is about the Kosovo region as a whole. The "Republic of Kosovo" and the "Republic of Serbia" are two entities claiming the territory. Both entities need to be treated even-handedly in this article. You want an article focusing on the entity "Republic of Kosovo" specifically? Then you are advocating a split. Now stop blaming me for a de facto international dispute, thank you very much. I have nothing against the RoK at all. As soon as it becomes a full UN member, or is recognized by >150 or so nations, I'll be happy to treat it as a sovereign country like any other. dab (𒁳) 11:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)#


 * No, we will for sure not wait till over 150 countries will recognize or till the UN will do so, because remember that even Germany was not an UN member until 1973 and that already now 70 percent of the world GDP producing countries recognized Kosova. And about the other countries not recognizing Kosova I had a dispute here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_unrecognized_countries#Changing_the_heading and I wrote there: "Croatia for example is not recognized by Namibia, Burundi, Liberia and so on...". The answer I got was: "That a country like Bhutan hasn't gotten around to recognizing Croatia, in the greater scheme of things, doesn't matter too much. However, if they refused to recognize Croatia because, say, they recognize (hypothetically) Serbia's claim over the region, THAT would make it worthy...". The same counts for Kosova. Fact is, most countries are still undecided but that does not mean, they oppose Kosovas independence. Fact is furthermore that there are less countries actively opposing than acively supporting Kosovas independence. --Tubesship (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Treating this article as just a normal country-style article with an undisputed normal country box at the top is absolutely out of the question. Tubeship, forget it. Your insistence at this point is pure disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said it is undisputed. You can write this in the article. Nevertheless there are much more disputed countries that are treated in a country-style way with country box and flag at the top, like for example Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic or like Transnistria with no country recognizing them and no UN seat or like Northern Cyprus also with no UN seat and with only one country recognizing them. So is not there a double standard? Or what else is the reason for this inequality in handling this cases? --Tubesship (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is that "out of question" - when was that consensus reached? --Camptown (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * back in 2000, when the foundational principles of Wikimedia were laid down. NPOV is not a "consensus", it's what you agree to before you even begin editing here. --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, as you never need to agree to anything before you start to edit... --Camptown (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tubesship, you have two options: have an article about the Republic of Kosovo ostensibly. This is what I supported and what you ranted against. Or an article about Kosovo in general, for which the 2008 declaration of independence is just a minor recentism. Choose, but be aware that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Choose an article's scope, and then stick to that scope. dab (𒁳) 12:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not tell me what I have to do, please. Especially after being so disruptive about this article. I would prefer if you would stay far away from ethnical related articles. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been asked that before. Unfailingly by nationalist trolls, who would like to turn this into Armeno-pedia, Assyro-pedia, Hindutva-pedia, or, as it happens, Albano-pedia. Sorry, wrong project. Incidentially, this isn't even an "ethnical related article" at all. dab (𒁳) 13:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And I not only "would prefer" you, Tubesship, to stay away, but I'm getting ever closer to the point where I definitely will get you to stay away. You are aware of the article probation as well as WP:MOSMAC, right? I have a feeling a topic ban for a couple of weeks is waiting around the corner. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You know there are 2 different spots on earth called Macedonia, one inside Greece and one called FYROM? --Tubesship (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think that's somehow relevant to the point, you apparently haven't understood anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We had this discussion before and everybody agreed that Macedonia cannot be compared to Kosova and that is why we decided not to use a disambiguation page in Kosova like in Macedonia. --Tubesship (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * D'oh, sorry, I meant ARBMAC, not MOSMAC... Read that one. Wasn't meant to be a point about content, but a rather blunt hint with the cluetrout. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Content is what counts. And what is a cluetrout? Not even Oxfords dictionary knows... --Tubesship (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:TROUT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * D'oh, sorry, I meant... never mind, Douglas Adams would say: Thanks For All the Fish. --Tubesship (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This layout seems good. I wondered why Abkhazian model wasn't used before. It shows all sides without favoring any (some suggested to include only republic or just geographic calling it the only relevant respecitvely but that's POV taking and shouldn't be considered).--Avala (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Kosova
Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) should be merged with Kosova. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * why? it's a historical entity. We don't merge Ottoman Kosovo, do we. Try to be reasonable. dab (𒁳) 14:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mister Bachmann, I am reasonable and therefore I will tell you the difference: Ottoman Kosovo is not the same when you look at the map, but Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) is located at the very same spot. And by the way, as administrator Husond already said: "dab will you please stop making such ludicrous accusations? The way you are contesting everyone is hardly worthy of an admin.", here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kosovo_%28geopolitical_region%29 Please do what he said and restrain from saying I am not reasonable. This is not good for the atmosphere here.--Tubesship (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do support its merger, Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) isn't properly cited also, maybe deletion? --TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 15:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * the Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) never got any recognition from anyone. if its notability is disputed, it could arguably be put on AfD, although I predict the outcome will not be delete but merge. But there are more pertinent articles for merging it into than this one. Either 20th century history of Kosovo, or Kosovo War. dab (𒁳) 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I support Tubesship idea of a merge. I'm assuming you meant Republic of Kosova (1990-2000) with kosovo. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

we can discuss the merge suggestion at Talk:Republic of Kosova (1990–2000). Clearly, if there is a merge, it needs to be merged into the most pertinent super-topic. dab (𒁳) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Insert Picture
Some vandal deleted this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:VeshjeKombetare.JPG and the section about culture in the other article before merging. Please reinsert. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To Some of Those who stood by me in making this Merge happen:
What are you doing? What happened to NPOV? Did you only want this merge to allow your own POV to occur?

We need to work together. This will not work out to your own personal bias. Many of the things I suggested, and BASED my argument for merge on are now seemingly forgotten. I fought very hard believing that this article would be more neutral. That it didn't' make sense to have an article on Kosovo be split. After all it is just one country and we're talking it about in one time line. This whole RoK thing happened within the last year. Yes I know that independence has been pursued for years. I get it. This is a summary of Kosovo. If this whole article is on Kosovo, how much needs to be on the RoK? Beam (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. one article (merge), multiple infoboxes ("Abkhazia" style)
 * per above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough of this, the community is giving a clear position at Articles for deletion/Kosovo (geopolitical region). Bringing up the same discussion is stubbornly useless and denotes ontempt for anti-split users. Hús  ö  nd  14:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and enough of this polling. How many times to you want us to repeat ourselves? --Tubesship (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * we can do this. This approach is the most reasonable. --Tone 17:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So after the merge is done you switch your opinions? The only person who didn't out of those above is tone. I'm sorry to go on about this, but I'm almost disgusted. Beam (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The merger should be done by the AfD's closing admin. The article I discovered this morning has nothing to do with the NPOV article I defend. Hús  ö  nd  16:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * any "npov" revision you can point to? Article merges aren't done at afd, I am appalled you can be an admin without even a basic grasp of Wikipedia procedure. The issue was with WP:CFORK. There is nothing at WP:DEL that would remotely justify deletion of an article on the Kosovo region. We decide to merge things, fine, nothing to do with AfD. We don't delete forks, we merge them. Can you at least WP:AGF and recognize that I doing my best in helping maintain NPOV in the face of adversity? I have no idea why you keep suggesting the RoK is "more notable" than UNMIK. Both sides of the dispute have comparable notability, and you would be hard put to establish that one is more "important" or "correct" than the other. dab (𒁳) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can easily assume good faith and recognize that you're doing your best in helping maintain NPOV, but frankly I don't think you're helping at all. Accusing me of not knowing procedures and be an unworthy admin won't help either. In my view, we simply disagree. Accusing an admin of not knowing the basics because of different opinions probably tells more about you than about me. As for the comparable notability of the two sides, I also disagree. The Republic of Kosovo is more relevant because it's the only de facto entity, whereas the Serbian province only has partial de jure recognition. It is the republic that has actual control over the territory and therefore its infobox should be at the top. The Serbian province one is nothing more than a political dispute. It should by all means be there, but I don't think that it has more importance than the Republic of Kosovo's. Hús  ö  nd  16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait a second, dab was comparing RoK with UNMIK not with the Serbian province. UNMIK is very much a "de facto" entity, actually a good deal more than the RoK. But that said, I agree that we ought to be dealing with this in a spirit of mutual AGF. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Husond is right, especially as Kosova has now been granted similar status like Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia, they are all officially recognised as potential candidates for an EU accession.  --Tubesship (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, one has to recheck the European Commission for Enlargement documents. While Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey are called by their respective names (except "FYROM" for RoM), Kosovo is called specifically "Kosovo under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244" always. This clearly separates it from the other European integration processes, as UNSCR 1244 makes Kosovo a part of the Republic of Serbia. And regarding how the EU interprets the resolution and the acts, see the Kosovo under UNSCR 1244 entry on its website and its political profile, where it's clearly defined as a part of Serbia. Yet another thing we should have on our mind is the Stabilization and Association Process treaty that has been initiated with Serbia, which also includes that Serbia's southern province [Kosovo] is under UNMIK administration, so that it doesn't directly refer to it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Pax, I'd urge caution. You repeated two statements above that are both demonstrably POV. First, you said, "UNSCR 1244 makes Kosovo a part of the Republic of Serbia." As you know and we can observe from current events, this is nowhere near a universally accepted proposition! Furthermore, you implied that the EU, through its SAA process, was somehow expressing an opinion on Kosovo's status. If you'll recall, on February 18 EU Foreign Ministers issued a statement saying explicitly that responding to Kosovo's declaration of independence was a matter for member states; now that nearly 3/4 of the EU has recognized, it's pretty clear that there is no "EU position" that can be cited in this discussion. Envoy202 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No understatement necessary, after nearly 3/4 of the EU has recognized one can say that the EU position is rather pro than contra independence. So the claiming of an contra position of the EU is quite ridiculous and this interpretation is far from reality. --Tubesship (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's precisely what I mean. The EU left the decision to its member states. As an international program for European Integrations, it doesn't observe Kosovo as an independent country from Serbia - because no compromise has been reached on that issue. Yes, majority of EU member states recognize Kosovo - but that still doesn't change the fact that EU does not deal with such matters, that's for the UN. Don't get me wrong (either of you two), but if you find something wrong, go and write to the European Commission for Enlargement so that they change it. ;)
 * Envoy202, please let me quote article 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia:

[..]Cloning of Human Beings is Banned.
 * ..now you don't expect that some scientist could clone a man and then claim that there is no universally accepted proposition in the Serbian state, so that he cannot be really blamed for that which he did.
 * But even this is irrelevant. Like I wrote to the up, I knew someone could come and claim something like that, so I supplemented the links which evidently depict the interpretation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 by the European Commission for Enlargement, in regards to the "Kosovo under UNSCR 1244" entity which is a potential candidate for European integrations. In the end, I'd also like to add that European Integrations have started even before 2005, of Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo separately, as a compromise of then's authorities of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro - so a separate process from that of Serbia's actually relates to this, and not the recent actions (Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence, or even Montenegro's secession). In the end I'd also like to remind that the SAP treaty initiated with Serbia relates to Kosovo as a part of it (though under UNMIK administration). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with Husond on one part, the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government [that consider the Republic of Kosovo an independent country] aren't the true "controller" of Kosovo, but the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo is [which considers it a part of the Republic of Serbia]. This makes the situation clearly separate from those of Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossettia or North Cyprus, because those separatist entities have control and fulfill de fact sovereignty and independence over their claimed territory. The situation of Kosovo is far more similar to the one East Timor was under a very similar international UN-mandated governing. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the deletion discussion as a merge, since the consensus seemed to have been moving towards this option and the merge was in fact completed today. IMO, the article looks much better now but we should not give hands up. The most constructive way to work on this article is to have all the comments here, not on various afd pages. Great work, everyone. --Tone 20:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam, while you do seem to be neutral on this subject I think you are rather naive as well. Me and several other editors said ultimately that many editors wanted a merge just so they could push their POV. Several of the editors against a split made clear their desires and intention for a merged article, namely that it should be about Kosovo as a country. I can only assume they don't support a separate article on the partially-recognized state because they feel it de-legitimizes Kosovo's independence, no matter whether such an article is consistent with Wikipedia practice and neutral. All these splits and unilateral actions have simply been the actions of editors to try and find some middle ground where there can be an article on Kosovo as a region or territory free of any dispute over POV and another on it as a partially-recognized state that neutrally described exactly what the Republic of Kosovo was, not accommodate an Albanian or Serbian POV. Before this split another split was carried out with this article about the region and another about the Republic of Kosovo. Ultimately what happened was exactly the same as pro-Kosovo editors put it up for AfD and ultimately it was redirected back to the article on Kosovo. It's pure and blatant obstructionism.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The way I presented the Merge, and the way it gained consensus was NPOV. These people who deceived just to get a merge are so biased, it's scary. The right way to do this article is merged, about Kosovo. As I say repeatedly the RoK's several months does not need to dominate an article about the whole Kosovo. A merged article is the correct way to do it. Bias must not ruin it. NPOV will prevail. Beam (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Intro - What happened?
The intro as of right now is horrible and does not portray an NPOV. As the merge approached, a merge I fought for, we had formed the following intro:

Kosovo is a region in Southeastern Europe, covering 10,908 km², with a population of 2,100,000. The region has been settled since the Neolithic era, and has been part of the Roman empire, historical Serbia, the Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia (as part of Serbia) and since 1999 under UNMIK control. In 2008 it declared independence as the Republic of Kosovo (Република Косово; Republika e Kosovës). This declaration received varied reactions from the international community and is strongly opposed by Serbia.

It borders Central Serbia to the north and east, Montenegro to the northwest, Albania to the west and the Republic of Macedonia to the south. The capital is Pristina, and other cities in the region include Peć, Prizren and Mitrovica.

I have reinstated it TWICE now only to have reverted, and eventually what I would call "raped." I do not want to get into an edit war, but this intro agreed upon by people with varying backgrounds is so very NPOV... why remove it? Did those with a pro-albanian view only agree with me on this intro to get it merged, and then abandon NPOV for their own twisted and biased POV? What's happened? I again propose that this be the intro. I will reiterate once again that '''this article is about Kosovo, not solely the RoK. The RoK is but a small part of Kosovo as a whole.''' Beam (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)




 * I endorse adding NATO (that is, KFOR) to the intro. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam you seem to have a hard time understanding the fact that Republic of Kosova is commonly referred as "kosovo". When you go to American article (USA) you read about the United States of America, at the beginning the political stuff than you get into history and whatnot --- not the other way around. Also "geopolitical", I'm not sure what that word has to do with the intro. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I just read the current intro and it's not too bad. Doesn't seem to go either Serbian or Kosovar POV. But I think that we should get rid of the first infobox and put its data on both remaining infoboxes. Hús ö  nd  22:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is something that needs to be done, together with the correct placing of the flag like in other articles about countries. --Tubesship (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about this:

The Republic of Kosovo is a region in Southeastern Europe, covering 10,908 km², with a population of 2,100,000. The region has been settled since the Neolithic era, and has been part of the Roman empire, historical Serbia, the Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia (as part of Serbia) and since 1999 under UNMIK control. In 2008 Kosovo declared independence as the Republic of Kosovo (Република Косово; Republika e Kosovës). This declaration received varied reactions from the international community and is strongly opposed by Serbia.

It borders Central Serbia to the north and east, Montenegro to the northwest, Albania to the west and the Republic of Macedonia to the south. The capital is Pristina, and other cities in the region include Peć, Prizren and Mitrovica.

Or no? Beam (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Add UNMIK and KFOR to that, and I'll support. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest getting rid of "has been settled since the Neolithic era". That (as the first bit of information about the whole region, no less!) adds no encyclopedic value whatsoever. What regions of Europe have not been settled since the Neolithic? (except the mountain tops and the far north perhaps). And are you really sure it wasn't also settled in the Palaeolithic? Why was this added in the first place - as an attempt to neutralise the who-was-there-first issue of how far back to go with previous states, by reductio ad absurdum? Nice try, but I don't think it really makes much sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not bad. The into is a bit clunky but seems to maneuver a solid middle ground. I'm not quite sure what "UNMIK control" mean, but it's probably not bad to fuzz that particular issue. I agree strongly with FuturePerfect on the Neolithic point -- it looks pretty goofy in there. I'd also suggest changing the major city names to reflect the dual-language policy (i.e., "Pec/Peja").Envoy202 (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so change it so it's the way you guys like it, if no one objects, post it. Beam (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Beam I actually agree with you. It sounds nice except for the "it's been settled" it doesn't flow well. Also why did you round up the population? You could have used the exact number, "..is a region with as of [insert year) (ex) 2007 it has 2,138,509". I think that's more factually valuable. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because:
 * a) that is just a population estimate
 * b) it's highly inappropriate to put detailed and not rounded up numbers in countries direct data (especially the intro), unless explicitly demanded by the article's content, there are infoboxed and other templates for that. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

it's fair enough as it stands. FutPerf is right that the Neolithic sticks out a bit: it's correct, but doesn't belong in the lead (Kosovo was settled in the Neolithic, along with the entire continent, no big deal). What I absolutely have to object to is the phrasing "The Republic of Kosovo is a region". No. "Kosovo" is a region. The "Republic of Kosovo" is only the latest political entity that has (partial) governance over the region. The legal status of the Republic of Kosovo is disputed. While the existence of Kosovo (the region) is of course a straightforward fact. It is absolutely necessary to begin this article by characterizing Kosovo as a region with such and such properties, and then state that it is disputed territory, under (at least, partial) governance of the RoK since February. dab (𒁳) 08:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the territory itself is not disputed but the state, so we should write state instead of territory. And the region of Kosova is also not the same as it was in Ottoman empire for example, so I do not see, why we should take the serbian POV regarding the region. Nowadays the region is the same as the state, but in former times it was not, it was much bigger, just have a look at the Ottoman maps. --Tubesship (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ..and KFOR? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * true. we should mention all of UNMIK, KFOR and EULEX: these are the entities administrating Kosovo de facto. Which means that Kosovo is at this point in time under de facto governance of the UN, the NATO and the EU. These institutions collaborate and overlap with the RoK government, but they are in theory deployed based on UNSCR 1244. This is just a minor tweak to the present intro, I don't see the point of this proposal, since its main change seems to be the messing up of the terms "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo". It is essential that we remain clear on the distinction. dab (𒁳) 09:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * However - EULEX is only deploying and there is so far no direct statement that UNMIK will hand it over to EULEX so far. For now, EULEX should not be in the intro. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, yes, at present EULEX isn't all that important. dab (𒁳) 10:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When the Serbs fail on the battle fields, they take their struggle to Wikipeida. And this article is a mess - compare to Northern Cyprus which has only been recognized by ONE country - the occupier. --Camptown (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * At whom is your first sentence aimed? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like how this article is redirected from everything. There should be a split since we can't decide with two articles, article of "kosovo" and article of "Rep. of Kosova". Either "kosovo"/"kosova" should lead to the category page where a person may pick which article he/she wants to read. Kosova2008 (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the answer to my question. ;))) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No split pushing, please. I also dislike the intro but we can work on that. What I dislike at the intro is that it writes: "In February 2008, the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, an assembly under UNMIK, declared the territory's independence". It should be noted that a democratically elected parliament did so. --Tubesship (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not, under the name of NPOV editors are trying to turn what is actual on the ground (Rep. of Kosova) into a region which was conquered blah and blah.I just never knew that to get the words "Rep. of Kosova is ...." in a wikipedia article you needed UN membership. Kosova has been recognized by the world's most powerful economies (70%)..whether you like it or not the ISG (international steering group) will make sure Kosova joins international organizations including UN. If the support of all these powerful allies doesn't make you a country than Idk what does. Kosova2008 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Because todays Kosova is the Republic of Kosova, this is a matter of fact. So no split, please, but improving this article, there is enough to be done. --Tubesship (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of noting in the intro that it was democratically elected parliament, that'd be like POV support of its actions and then we'll start over again the dispute of the UDI itself. Besides, where else are such things pointed out? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You missed the point as it is written: "...the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government". What Institutions? It was the parliament, like in every other democratic country, too. --Tubesship (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the Declaration of Independence became valid when it was signed by the three PISG leaders - President, Premier and Speaker; it was previously adopted by the Government and then the Parliament. So yes, "all" of it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As an example look at the Zimbabwe article. It doesn't talk of the current government until paragraph 5. Please take note. Beam (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, but Zimbabwe is nothing like Kosovo (internationally-recognized, sovereign control) - better check United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was using it as an example of how a country article should be. Beam (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know - but that is not really for this article is it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at Zimbabwe and at East Timor and what I saw were flags and info boxes right at the beginning. So why not in this article, too? There are countries that are much more disputed than Kosova, nevertheless all of them have their info box and flag at the top. And besides the placing the Kosova infobox does not have the infos it ought to have. --Tubesship (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have read this section you'd see that it's about the intro. As I've always stated there should be two infoboxes. But that's for the discussion on infoboxes. Beam 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

the article is pretty much fine as it is. yes, the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government were democratically elected. Yes, there is notable recognition of the RoK. No the RoK doesn't have de facto governance over the entire region. No, we cannot treat the RoK as just another country, certainly not as long as the UN Security Council is split right across the middle. It's ok. Give it a year or two and the RoK will begin to look more and more like just another country. At present, it's still sad mess barely held together by UN and NATO. dab (𒁳) 21:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

While that's true, I think the non-biased elements of this talk-page can agree that an article about Kosovo should not focus on the RoK. Beam (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

When you need relevant data to Kosovo oand Serbia
''Discussion removed per the talk page guidelines. Wikipedia is not a forum. The original text is here. - Ev (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)''

The NAME
According to the Wikipedia naming rules on articles related to Kosovo, Prishtina and all the other places will be changed based on these rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles). We've all agreed on this but no admin or such person of power has corrected any names (i.e. (S)Priština → (A)Prishtina). The MoS even says, "On the principle that self-identifying entities are named primarily according to the term that they use for themselves, and since anglicised equivalents do not exist for Kosovo placenames, local official placenames are to be used. In practice this means using Albanian names for Albanian-governed localities and Serbian names for Serbian-governed localities. In each case, articles must start with the predominant local placename followed by the equivalent name in the other language." --Kosova2008 (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, "Pristina" is an exception. In English, there is a well-established useage of "Pristina." Virtually all English-language sources use neither the Serbian "Priština" nor the Albanian "Prishtina." As for other names, I think the dual-use (e.g., "Ferizaj/Urosevac") is also pretty well established and should be followed. Envoy202 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Envoy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Still I would prefer to see "Pristina" changed to "Prishtina" because "Prishtina" is not unknown in English speaking countries and it is the official name, here you see it on the governmental homepage: http://www.prishtina-komuna.org/ --Tubesship (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The only times I've ever in my life seen the usage "Prishtina" have been in Albanian-produced documents, such as the Kosovo government page you cite. Newspapers, web articles, maps, etc. have very consistently used the English place name "Pristina." While there might be an exception here or there, I think "Pristina" is pretty well-established English language usage. It might be a little murkier with other cities (e.g., Pec/Peja or for that matter Obilic/Obiliq), but "Pristina" is different. Envoy202 (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Kosova2008, that is a proposed policy. I don't think we need an official policy in Wikipedia for each disputed region. We have a general rule to stick at the most used terms in English language. We should apply this rule for Kosovo also. In Albanian or Serbian Wikipedia should be used the names most used in those languages. BTW, the independentist government of Kosovo recognized both Albanian and Serbian as official languages.--MariusM (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as in all laws will be made available in 3 languages not city names. Republic of Kosova only recognizes the names which it has given city/towns under UNMIK, this would explain why all Kosovar Government only recognize GJAKOVA AND PRISHTINA, not "dakovica" or "djakovica" or "djakovica metohija". Kosova2008 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Preeešhteeenah" or "Prištinë" or "Prišhtinë"? It would be a term that pro-Prishtinë and pro-Priština supporters could agree upon being completely wrong! Think of it as a compromise that satisfies no one - resembling the trend in the resolution of edit disputes. I opt for the first variant. Gkmx (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is Reachable
First, I have edited the article. I have not changed the Subject of the article, which until the merge is FINALLY done, remains RoK. I left the first sentence which leads off with "The Republic of Kosovo (Republika e Kosovës, Република Косово), commonly referred to as Kosovo (Kosova" the rest of the intro is now much more NPOV. I also did not touch anything else such as the actual line that states " This article is about the partially recognized Republic declared in February 2008. See Kosovo (region) for the region. " With that out of the way let me BRIEFLY lay out how I see this article becoming NPOV and about Kosovo as a whole, which benefits the reader most.

I will make an analogy, bare with me please. I'd like to think of Kosovo as a timeline. The purpose of an article about Kosovo would be a brief summarization of this timeline along with pertinent details that tell the reader about Kosvo. This most recent Declaration of Independence is but a small part of this timeline. If we treat this article as such we can do it in a NPOV manner. This article if made NPOV and encompassing the topic of Kosovo will not resemble the ideal solution to either proserb or proalbanian editors whom are biased. To me it is simple, there is a place called Kosovo. This article is about that place. If this place has a history of thousands of years than why would an article about this place have to heavily focus on the RoK or the declaration? It doesn't. I say we present the facts, and present them in a NPOV context. We can link to further articles regarding the RoK, and if there isn't one yet, than we can make one. The RoK should not dominate this article if we want it about Kosovo. If having two infoboxes is the best way to be NPOV, than we should do it. After the intro and info boxes I don't see that many obstacles for this article. Thank you for reading, and baring with my timeline analogy.Beam (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have finally seen that the idea to merge is approaching consensus, and that Kosovo (geopolitical region) is up for deletion -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo_%28geopolitical_region%29#ATTENTION If this is the case than this makes my ideas including the intro and infoboxes practical and the right course to take. After such a merge is completed we would remove the first line and start with just "Kosovo." We could then address the infoboxes. Note: I tried to create Republic_of_Kosovo as a stub after I noticed that Kosovo (geopolitical region) is up for deletion. I am in discussions with an administrator. Beam (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted the stub as a review show a mess of arguments and no real consensus. I suggest waiting until the direction of the geographic region article is settled and then move on.  However, if others agree with the splits, go ahead.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

since there seems to be emerging consensus for an "Abkhazia" solution, I suggest we can do the merge now. If consensus should shift towards a split again, we can still split Republic of Kosovo as a WP:SS sub-article at some later point in time. dab (𒁳) 06:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have completed a merge towards the "Abkhazia" solution. We have three infoboxes now, which clutter the article a little bit, and they should probably be editied as to avoid redundancy (we don't need three infoboxes repeating uncontroversial information like capital, area or population). dab (𒁳) 07:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Expansion of the article is needed now to fit the infoboxes properly. That, or we get rid of the UNMIK infobox.  Balkan Fever  07:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * why the UNMIK one and not the Republic one? The Merging scenario entails multiple infoboxes by necessity. This was why I was uncomfortable with it. You want to get rid of multiple infoboxes? Seek consensus for a split into one article per political entity. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What of the Afd that was ongoing? Should that be closed? Hobartimus (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. It was never valid to begin with. Let somebody who cares about protocol do the honours. dab (𒁳) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still do not understand you Beam?. What is bothering you about the fact that Kosovo is a recognized Republic and as such it deserves to start with that fact. I fully disagree to have an article about the region of Kosovo, one about Kosovo and Metohija and then one about Kosovo but not really Kosovo. this article should be named Republic of Kosovo and the other one which describes the 1991-200o republic should be deleted. Jesus, this place is a mess. This is not a political arena to try and reach compromises. This is suposed to be an enclyclopedia based on facts, wether one likes them or not. Jawohl (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox UNMIK
I guess it's a mistake, that Nexhat Daci is listed as the President of Kosovo in the UNMIK Infobox, is it? Gugganij (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Jawohl (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it. Gugganij (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Update on Constitution
Yesterday a draft for a Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo has been passed. Serbia will lodge an official protest. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To whom will they protest? Beam 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The UN. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The UNMIK? *LOL* --Tubesship (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the UN. But I guess Ban Ki Mun won't do a thing about it, since he's neutral in the conflict. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Ban Ki Mun may of course say himself he is neutral but as a matter of fact he is the General-Secretary of the UN and the UN is responsible for UNMIK. It makes neither sense to delink UN from UNMIK nor to delink Ban Ki Mun from the UN. So as little as the UN is neutral (due to UNMIK), as little is Ban Ki Mun. Therefore let us wait and see if Serbias protest at the UN has any effect. If there will be any effective outcome, we can include this into the article. --Tubesship (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it won't, the point was to update in the Constitution-matter. :-) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, update the article about this Constitution-matter, you have my support. --Tubesship (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh Tube your incessant foolishness entertains us all. Beam 00:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You still seem to suffer badly. --Tubesship (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * C'mon, stop it you two. Observe WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Hús  ö  nd  21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Dardania, Ancient Kosovo
If wikipedia can go that far, how come it ommitts an important fact that Kosovo was an Independent country in the ancient times known as Kingdom of Dardania? Serbs have no history in Kosovo. Make sure you also use some non-biased facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with this one. The first paragraph needs to mention the ancient Independent country of Kosovo, Kingdom of Dardania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichealSanders (talk • contribs) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Source? If it's factual I have no problem including it in the list. Beam (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * relevance? This is the article on the RoK. You want to discuss Dardania, go and edit Dardania (Europe). dab (𒁳) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dbachmann above, Dardania is irrelevant to this article.Osli73 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosovar Albanians are Shqipetar/pelasg/Illyrian but not Albanian. Albania was called so during the middle ages, after the principality of John/George Kastriot who became dominant and reigned over other remaining not occupied Illyrian land and principalities at the time.

Principality that was descendants of Albanoi tribe and inhabiting the same land. When some of the Principalities unitied they called them selves Arber, but were called by Venice/Pope and the Turks as Albanian first and the rest were referring to them in the same name, because they were ruled by the Albanian King. There are a lot of other Illyrian tribes in what you call Albania and Albanians call Shqiperia. Look at the Illyrian tribes map. Kosovar 'Albanians' are the Descendants of Dardanians not Albanians, although the same race and language. They were part of the Dardanian Tribe and Kingdom that stretched as far as in to Asia Minor.

That's why, I think should be taken under consideration and mention something in the article.

Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.11.216 (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment
I'm sorry but,..

Although a lot of issues were resolved in this article there are still some not addressed. Could some body please tell me why and based on what it's stated here that 37 thousand Serbian Families left Kosovo during the Ottoman Empire occupation of the region and Albanians had a baby boom or moved in. As far as I know these are Serbian claims only, not facts. The facts i posses actually tell a different story about ethnic cleansing by Serbs.

I have data obtained by historians from the Archive of the Federal Secretariat for Foreign Affairs in Belgrade, in the Political unit (Politicko Odelenje) where the General consul was provided with details on the expulsion of Kosovars to Turkey via the port of Thessaloniki in Greece. Based on document 1246 of 12 April 1914, [I am emphasizing the year 1914, when Milosevic was not alive!] the following numbers were provided:

November 1912, 8866 Albanians were expelled, December 1912 11.493 Albanians were expelled During January 1913 12.087 Albanians were expelled During February 1913, 1.288 Albanians were expelled, March, 7.553 Albanians were expelled, During April 1.913, 6725 Albanians were expelled, During May, 12.813 Albanians were expelled June 1913, 9386 Albanians were expelled, July 1913, 21.045 Albanians were expelled, August 1913, 29.312 Albanians were expelled, September 1913,13,380 Albanians were expelled, October, 14.764 Albanians were expelled, November 1913 17.313 Albanians were expelled, December 15.502 Albanians were expelled, During January of 1914, 10.182 Albanians were expelled to Turkey, February 1914, 25.060 Albanians were expelled, March 1914,12.346 Albanians were expelled The list goes on and on. Interestingly, this data was published by the Serb Academy for Science, the section for Scientific History ("Dokumenta o spolnjoj politici Kraljevine serbije”, K.VII Sv.1 Beograd 1980.f.617-618). According to the Ministry of the Interior of the Serb Kingdom (1912-1915) the plan was to colonize 20.000 Serbs in the zone occupied by the Serbs and an additional 5000 Montenegrins in the regions occupied by the Montenegrins!

I went back that far just to illustrate why Kosova could no longer be part of Serbia and to show when the Serb imperialism in 20 century started. In addition, concerning the lies, please read this

Quote from "Deobe"(Divisions)1961.Volume I,page 135: "A lie,trait of our patriotism" “We lie to deceive ourselves, to console others, we lie for mercy, we lie to fight fear, to encourage ourselves, to hide our and somebody else’s misery. We lie for love and honesty. We lie because of freedom. Lying is a trait of our patriotism and the proof of our innate intelligence. We lie creatively, imaginatively and inventively."

This is a quotation by Dobrica Cosic, former president of Serbia and chairman of the Serb Academy of Science

If anyone wishes, I could continue the list of people expelled in that period and later on during the Socialist regime!

[[Media:http://www.hic.cr/]]

Source: http://www.hic.hr Accessed 06 May 1999 Translation by the Croatian Information Centre PRESS CUT - Croatian Press News in English April 27, 1999 * KOSOVO CRISIS Zeljko Kruselj, ‘Etnicko Ciscenje Kosova sesti je val zlocina Srba nad Albancima u stotinu godina’ Vecernji list, April 27, 1999, p. 17. ETHNIC CLEANSING OF KOSOVO IS SIXTH WAVE OF CRIME AGAINST ALBANIANS IN 100 YEARS ZAGREB - As much as people do not like to hear it, the worst victims of NATO attacks against FRY are the Kosovo Albanians. The reason for this is that Milosevic is taking advantage of a state of war to finish the plan of ethnically cleansing Kosovo of Albanians, as was planned by ‘Greater Serbian’ ideologists a long time ago. Close to 600 thousand Albanians have already fled Kosovo over the last month, while tens of thousands are still hiding in the mountains of Kosovo in search of safer routes toward the southern border. Though the Belgrade regime probably realises it will, in the end, lose the war and that it will have to unconditionally agree to the return of refugees, as well as a probable international protectorate in Kosovo, it still has the goal of preventing at least some of the Albanians from returning to Kosovo. That is how the Kosovo myth about the region being the ‘birthplace of Serbism’ - although it stopped being just that after the failed uprising against the Turks at the end of the 17th century - continues to be a source of inspiration in the present day. Generations of Serbian politicians and intellectuals have created plans for the final solution to this problem, not hiding their hegemonism and aggressive chauvinism based on religious, cultural and even racist prejudices. Experts who deal with the history of Kosovo have no doubts that the genocidal policies toward Kosovo Albanians have been obvious since 1878, when Serbia and Montenegro were internationally formally recognised, in spite of their defeat from the Turks and thanks to Russian diplomacy and the Berlin Conference.

‘DENSE ALBANIAN VILLAGES’ CONQUERED ONE BY ONE Seeing as the Albanians used to live in present day southern Serbia, the direct consequence of that fact was their brutal expulsion from the wider vicinities of Nis, Pirot, Palanka, Leskovac and Vranje. Serbian historians attempted to portray that exodus as voluntary moving, to spite some other later writers who wrote of the authorities after 1878 secretly torching villages and Albanian quarters in cities. It is difficult to talk about any precise numbers, primarily due to the fact the Serbian authorities back failed to conduct a census, but it is presumed that no less than 30,000 Albanians were expelled from Serbia. Some of them moved to Kosovo, which was not under Serbian rule at the time, while others settled in Asia Minor and other areas of the Ottoman Empire. What was actually happening at that time can be seen through a text by Vasa Cubrilovic - a participant in the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian heir to the throne, Franjo Ferdinand, in Sarajevo - who later became an ideologist of genocide against the Albanians. Here is a quote from Cubrilovic from Ljubica Stefan’s book ‘Serbs and Albanians’ (three volumes), which had to be published in Ljubljana without an author’s name, due to the political psychosis in 1989. "The moment the first Serbian units began their penetration toward Kursumlija, Prokuplje and Leskovac, they came across densely grouped Albanian villages that refused to surrender. They will be the central point of Serbian battles. Village by village had to be taken. The Albanians retreated toward the south, hiding in refugee camps and continued to fight. When the Serbian Army would approach refugee camps, they would retreat toward the South Morava Valleys, Veternica, Medvedje, Pusta Reka and Laba, then further on to Kosovo… After 1878, Serbia had to colonise the regions abandoned by the Albanians and Turks. The border with Kosovo had to be settled with nationally loyal residents in order for the border with the Albanians to be secure."

RESPONSIBILITY FOR ‘SERBIAN MISFORTUNE’ A new wave of crimes against the Albanians, this time in Kosovo and in western regions of Macedonia, began in the first of the Balkan wars, when the Serbs and Montenegrins - assisted by the Bulgarians and Greeks - expelled Turkey from the Balkans. In an analysis of the Serbian press of the period, Ljubica Stefan noticed the leader of the murders and expulsions of Albanians was the Serbian Orthodox Church, that sent Serbian soldiers to battle with the slogan "avenge Kosovo!" That is how Albanians ended up bearing the burden of blame for the "Serbian misfortune" on religious grounds, though they were also rebelling against the Sultan for their own independence. Serbs and Montenegrins at the time were not too interested in Kosovo, rather in the northern part of Albania, especially the regions surrounding Skadar and Drac. Belgrade and Cetinja reached their goal, but had to leave those regions due to the pressure of the world powers of the time. At the 1913 London Conference an independent Albania was created with borders almost identical to the ones existing today. The total figures for Serbian and Montenegrin army crimes, who’s countries divided Kosovo between themselves, were never published. Judging by individual reports from the field, which was often written by the leader of the Serbian Social Democratic Party, Dimitrije Tucovic, tens of thousands of Albanians were massacred, in addition to masses of displaced persons.

"WHOEVER SURVIVES TO NIGHTFALL…" A Tucovic text, with an indicative title - ‘Blood Revenge for Wild Soldiers’ - includes descriptions such as the following: "The ghost of death hung over the heads of Pec, Djakovica and Prizren Albanians day and night. Whoever survived to nightfall was not sure to see the next sunrise… With the fall of Kumanovo, the entire Albanian population, which was being pushed by the Serbian Army coming in from the north, flocked to Skopje in hope of finding sanctuary. Most found death instead." At the time there were also a lot of forceful baptisms of Muslim Albanians to the Serbian Orthodox faith and the Catholic priest from Djakovica warned his bishop that the Montenegrin authorities are forcing both Albanians and Catholics to embrace the Orthodox religion. When the world powers demanded the Belgrade authorities recognize basic civil and religious rights for Albanians, Nikola Pasic angrily replied, "Serbia cannot agree to that demand because it is in opposition to the right to state sovereignty." It is interesting that the Milosevic regime today is using the same arguments to camouflage their crimes. After the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (SHS) was created, the Albanian position did not get any better and that was the time when the actual colonization of Kosovo began. The first cycle of colonization of Serbian ‘Salonikans’ and Montenegrin was staged between 1922 and 1929, and the other was between 1933 and 1938. Belgrade sources admit the arrival of 12 thousand colonial families to Kosovo, which could mean some 60 thousand people. It is presumed that some of those people shared their land or there was no official record of any other new arrivals because in the end there were "34,528 agricultural units with land." They received land confiscated through the agricultural reforms, as well as the majority of municipal land and private property that was owned primarily by expelled Albanians. The confiscation of parts or all Albanian land, according to post-war revisions of the communist authorities, 6,342 Albanian families suffered damages. The methods implemented in the colonization in the field between the two world wars, is best testified by one Serbian colonist from the Prizren area: "There were many cases where Serbs were given land, orchards or fields, owned by Albanians, outside of a limited complex, from the authorities. The Albanians received no compensation in money or land. Every Serb with less than 10 hectares could receive an additional 10 hectares from the authorities. All that had to be done was to go to the authorities and say: "I want you to give me this or that orchard that belongs to this or that Albanian because I have less than 10 hectares," and the authorities would give it to the Serb requesting it." OTHER METHODS: FINES, ARRESTS, TAXES…

It has been estimated that only up to 1921 some 40 thousand Kosovo Albanians fled to Albania because of state terror. However, in the period between the wars, the population in Kosovo was still 66 percent in favour of Albanians, as opposed to Serbs and Montenegrin who could only ‘muster up’ 22 percent. Not even the drastic methods of political and economic pressures did not satisfy Belgrade political and intellectual circles. The Serbian Cultural Circle, the brain of ‘Greater Serbianism’ of that time, organized on March 7, 1937, a debate on the Kosovo question. The officer in charge was the respected historian Vasa Cubrilovic and the topic of the debate was ‘Eviction of Albanians’. The point of his deliberation was to motivate a complete cleansing of Albanians from Kosovo, using all possible methods ranging from the agreement with the Turks on accepting emigrants to the most brutal methods of terrorism and crime: "The other method would be pressure on the state authorities. They should use the laws to their limits in order to make the survival of Albanians in our land very bitter: fines, arrests, merciless implementation of all police regulations… merciless tax collection and all public and private debts, confiscation of state grazing pastures… The Albanians are the most sensitive concerning religion, hence they should be touched where they hurt the most. This can be achieved by harassing their clergy, clearing cemeteries, forbidding polygamy… The displacement of villages has to be a priority, as well as in the cities. The villages are more stable, hence are more dangerous. After that, we should not make the mistake of only expelling the poor." The development of Cubrilovic’s theories was entrusted to Ivo Andric in 1939, who was the Yugoslav deputy foreign minister at that time. He put the displacement of Albanians in an international context, which was to be used in further talks with Turkey, while the most important Yugoslav goal was to divide Albania with Mussolini, in order for the Kosovo Albanians to be assimilated more easily. Cubrilovic joined the communist authorities in 1944 as a minister, but did not relinquish his theories, which he reiterated, but this time in the form of fear that the Albanian element, "which was opposed to the old Yugoslavia, will also be opposed to the new one." That document was kept under lock and key for decades in the Belgrade military archive. In the final battles to liberate Yugoslavia, tens of thousands of young Albanians were forcefully drafted for military service and used as cannon fodder on the Srijem (Sirmium) Front. An example was recorded and was mentioned by Aleksandar Rankovic in 1945, when an Albanian killed his superior (Serbian) officer. 300 novice soldiers (Albanians) were immediately massacred. In the mid-sixties, just before the fall of Rankovic, every third employee in Kosovo was a Montenegrin, every fourth was a Serb and every seventeenth was an Albanian. When Milosevic canceled Kosovo autonomy in 1989, in a very short period some 150,000 Albanians were dismissed from work. Only "honest Albanians" - i.e. Serb obedient Albanians - were able to keep their public and national company jobs. In the post war period, the pressures to evict Albanians continued, especially through economic measures, as well as political and legal persecution, in principle, against the "Albanian irredenta." In the eighties, 3,340 Albanians were jailed for alleged political crimes, while another 10,000 were prosecuted and convicted of criminal acts. The former were sentenced to over seven years, or a total of 23,400 years imprisonment in total for all of those sentenced. The latter, mostly younger people, were sentenced to a total of 25,000 years imprisonment. According to those figures, the former Yugoslav federation was the record holder in Europe. Furthermore, up to the beginning of the open conflict in Kosovo, 223 Albanians were killed during police operations.

Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.11.216 (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[Italy], [Brazil], [France], [Germany] all have one thing in common, in their intro they all say the name of the country in english than in the paranthesis is the name in their language (German in Germany, France in French, etc). Why does Kosova has it in English, Albanian, and Serb? It is logically flawed. Also the intro should reflect the territory such as "latitude X and something Y". Kosova2008 (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is Kosova? --  G OD OF  J USTICE 07:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just type it in and you will see. --Tubesship (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kosova is the Albanian way of calling Kosovo. I supported the redirect as it makes sense that someone would search for Kosova and want to be brought to an article about Kosovo. However, at that point I was naive regarding the intentions of some editors. Regardless I still think it's a good redirect. Beam (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Infoboxes
I thought the Infoboxes are here to evade a pro-Albanian POV (one pro-one side and the other pro-another) but instead, they both depict it... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking about that a while ago. None seems to present Kosovo as a Serbian province. Maybe we should insert that infobox we had prior to the declaration of independence. Hús  ö  nd  00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP HUSOND! That was the plan all along man. That was one of the conditions for the merge i fought VERY HARD for. Two infoboxes. I'd say three, one common, and the two with differences between Serb and Albanian POVs but I guess two makes sense. Beam (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, good we agree after all, but I don't think that the current result was satisfactory for everybody. In my opinion would suffice 2 infoboxes with common data (such as population, area, etc) although with different data for political aspects. Because a separate POV-free region infobox having most of the data will cause a dispute among editors who would regard the Republic of Kosovo's infobox as incomplete in comparison with the ones in other articles of independent states, meaning that Kosovo would not be worthy of an independent state infobox. Hús  ö  nd  01:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait what? We've discussed this for almost a month. 2 Info Boxes is the way to go. 100% of the people might not agree, and this isn't a democracy anyway, but it's NPOV. A Kosovo and those countries that agree infobox, and a Serbia and those countries that agree with them infobox. It's a disputed region, present the reality which is two infoboxes. It's so simple, that I love it. Don't you? Yeah you do. :) Beam


 * I've suggested the 2 POV-userbox solution a long time ago. Always something in the way, like the POV fork, preventing this solution to be properly discussed and eventually implemented. Hús  ö  nd  03:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The only people who disagree, as far as I can tell, are horribly biased. Beam 03:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can put the infobox of Al Jazera or Zimbabwe for all I care as long as the first words of the article read Republic of Kosova that's all that matters. I agree with Husond that the article looks ridiculous and editors will refuse to put official infoboxes. Kosova2008 (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You want the article to start with "Republic of Kosova"? But that's POV. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why two infoboxes with the same data? That's nothing but a waste of valuable screen space. Our readers are not stupid enough to want that, hopefully. "Being worthy of a standard infobox" or not is not a reasonable criterion to follow. Infoboxes, as their name implies, are for packaging information, not for use as a magic badge of recognition. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why with the same data? The Serbian one would show Kosova as their state with Serbian government info in it. And I agree it is not a magic badge for recognition, so let us put it where it belongs to, at the top like in every other article about countries, which are even more disputed. --Tubesship (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC) BTW: Of course I would prefer the "one info box solution" containing the flag and the info about the factual Republic and of course if there have to be 2 the one of the factual RoK should be at the top. It is a matter of fact, you see. Nothing magic about it. --Tubesship (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

country infoboxes are intended for political entities. For some reason we don't have an article on the Republic of Kosovo. We just have an article on Kosovo, where we mention the RoK as one of several parties in a dispute. If you want an article graced with an RoK infobox, you need to seek consensus for a split, so that we will have an article dedicated to the Republic of Kosovo. Our resident nationalists want to have their cake and eat it. Unsurprisingly, they want to pretend there is no dispute. This isn't worth one minute of debate. Sure, that's their position. Nothing to do with Wikipedia, who is bound to give neutral coverage. There is really nothing to debate here, and I am not sure why we allow the pov-pushers to spam this talkpage without making any constructive contribution. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dab we're way over that. Kosovo is the only legitimate article about the "Republic of Kosovo", as e.g. Portugal is the only legitimate article of the "Portuguese Republic" and so on. Therefore, it should have an independent country infobox just like all other independent countries. However, Kosovo is also the legitimate article about the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija. Therefore, province userbox should go along. It's neutral, uncomplicated, win-win, compromise. Hús  ö  nd  12:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since when does an encyclopedia base itself on compromise. We should stick to the facts. Fact is that Kosovo declared supervised independence and this has been recognized by 37 countries so far. Therefor Kosovo deserves only one infobox. Everything else can and should be part of the article. UNMIK has its own article on WP and that is another reason why the article on Republic of Kosovo should have only its own infobox.  Jawohl (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And then there's a problem over what the infobox will depict...
 * BTW, don't you mean 36? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He can count. Can you? And the info box will depict the Republic as a matter of fact. Time to wake up and realize the reality. --Tubesship (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I can - and I see 36 Countries.
 * Well we have to first agree on what is that reality. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then recount: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tubesship#Recognition_of_Kosova And the reality is that there is a newborn state in Europe called Kosova and that Serbia lost its province which it never really possessed, because it is the child inside, not the cradle that counts. --Tubesship (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, you have also counted Taiwan.
 * And the reality is that there is a newborn state in Europe called Kosova and that Serbia lost its province which it never really possessed. looks like some off-topic chit-chat that is unrelated to reality (do you know history BTW?). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know history. And I know the Serbs claiming to be the first inhabitants of Kosova. But you know what? As children we used to scream: "AMIS RAUS AUS USA - WINNETOU IST WIEDER DA!" Do you really still scream that? Winnetou can not come back and throw the white people out of USA just because his tribe were the first inhabitants. So much to your history argument. It is history, get over it, please. --Tubesship (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No they don't claim such nonsense. The first inhabitants were Neolithic settlers originating in Asia. Your argument is that Serbia lost something it "never really possessed". From that I insinuated that you do not know history. If this is driven out of context and doesn't mean what it seems to, please clarify. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Now if people like Kosova2k8 don't like the two info box idea, than we may have the right answer for sure. Put two info boxes. Beam 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Beam, I have noticed that you need to have your way or nothing, so be it, do as you please. Pax, Kosova was recognized by 37 countries. 69.179.180.146 (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because you also include either North Cyprus or Taiwan. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You go and tell Taiwanese that they aren't a country. Just because they aren't a UN member doesn't mean they aren't a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.180.146 (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean that they are not a country, but that they are not (as) relevant. We keep a "key": 36/193. The Vatican City isn't a UN member, but it's internationally recognized. Anyways, if you count that way - then it's 38/200+. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, sounds like we have consensus, let's do it! Beam 14:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A consensus that a full infobox with the RoK flag should be the first one and on top of all? Ok, go ahead! :-) --Tubesship (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rep of Kosova flag first infobox. Kosova2008 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What's this mess about infoboxes again? Just leave them as they are at the moment, this is so far the best solution. Talking about 36 or 37 is pretty much irrelevant (do we need to put the number in the intro at all?). Anyway, the UNMIK box has some problems. It says Nexhat Daci is the president, however, the article about him doesn't mention this fact. And Ruckner needs a link to his article. --Tone 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why mess? According to Beam we have a consensus. --Tubesship (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mess, because this debate is clearly far from any consensus for a change. Correct me if I'm wrong but Beam's comment was sarcastic. Instead of endless debates on infoboxes, how about improving another paragraph of the article? Maybe geography, it should certainly be expanded (rivers, lakes, mountains, ore...). --Tone 16:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate this talk page... Let's try to focus on the infobox topic only, with no attacks. It seems that two userboxes reflecting the two political statuses of Kosovo would be NPOV. Do we have an agreement on that? Opposers please provide specific arguments on why do you disagree. No drama and no attacks please. Hús ö  nd  18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is neither a magic badge nor POV. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support! Winnetou will not come back, so will not the Serbian state. --Tubesship (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem with me, as long as information isn't redundantly presented in both. I disagree with Husond on that one. I find duplicating information exceedingly silly, that's why my proposal has been – and still is – to keep whatever information is in fact common to both separate in a third box, and have that on top. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, we'll discuss that detail later. Step by step, it's good to see that consensus builds. Hús  ö  nd  19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree to having multiple infoboxes, at least as a temporary (as in "months or a few years") solution to allow for normal editing to resume. I also agree to having three infoboxes: a small geographical one on top, and two small political ones later on. - Regards, Ev (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok for now - For the sake of Wikipedia's neutrality on the issue, having both would be good. Now I was trying to get both of them be side-by-side, to make it look better, but I was unable to do so. I was using the script of {| align=right
 * } Does anybody know other way of doing this? It would make the article better looking if they were side-by-sde IMO. Chaldean (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * } Does anybody know other way of doing this? It would make the article better looking if they were side-by-sde IMO. Chaldean (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * } Does anybody know other way of doing this? It would make the article better looking if they were side-by-sde IMO. Chaldean (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond, it's not an attack to point to obvious bias. We can't be held hostage by bias, and fear pointing out because we'd be "attacking" someone. Tube repeatedly forgoes NPOV for his/her own POV. Kosova does some of that as well, however if you point out enough facts Kosova2k8 is at least willing to discuss it, tube not so much. I'm not attacking, but for several weeks I have been discussing this whole article with people. I don't honestly blame these people who are biased, they feel very emotionally about it and in a different instance their patriotism should be commended. Not in this instance, this is about an NPOV article. I have experienced liars, deceivers, and those who are ultimately just purely biased over these past weeks. I have presented viable ways to do this NPOV. We should have two infoboxes, the fact is the RoK isn't officially a country yet, also Serbia claims the territory and is backed by superpowers and numerous countries as is the doi. We present them both, for NPOV sake. I honestly proclaim myself neutral. And I am striving for an NPOV article, which at one time I wholeheartedly believed was possible. I'm now not sure that it is, but I know that I won't stop trying. Beam 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

--

What about this solution that includes a general infobox and then one infobox for the Republic of Kosovo and another for the Serbian Autonomous Province:

This model is used for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In both these cases there are two rival administrations claiming to be the true government for that region, one pro independence (RoK) and anti-independence (APKM - Serbian Assembly). I have created a basic article relating to the serbian atructures in kosovo (Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1999-) where i have placed the third infobox. similar articles exist for both rival positions of Abkhazia. I dont think a box for the UNMIK position is needed on this article as it exists on the UNMIK article. Dn9ahx (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, what's the source for official languages? The Serbian infobox should also include a map depicting Kosovo a part of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on detail of proposed boxes above: I don't see much use in a second locator map in the Republic box - the first, common infobox has one already, and anyway that particular map is of such a poorly chosen size one can hardly see Kosovo in it. Pax may have a point that it would be good to have another map that shows the geographical relation with the rest of Serbia; that could well go in the Serbian province box. Finally, the flag and coat of arms currently shown in the Serbian-province box are those of Serbia, not of Kosovo-as-a-province-of-Serbia. As such, they are not really pertinent encyclopedic information about Kosovo itself. Does it have something like a CoA of its own, qua province? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there no special flag and CoA for Kosmet? Vojvodina has both. Is there any reference for Kosovska Mitrovica being de facto capital? And why is a geographical map in the upper infobox? I think it is more appropriate for geography section (just added it there) and that we should use one of the locator maps there. Image:Europe location KOS.png seems ok since it would be used in a geographical infobox and not in a political one. --Tone 10:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, no, the province never had symbols of its own. That infobox shouldn't display any. - Ev (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

fantastic. so we have a consensus for "option 5". I am sorry, but I really don't see why everyone couldn't just have voted for that from the beginning and save everyone a lot of time, drama and nerves, it's not like anything like a new idea has been presented for, oh, about two weeks. dab (𒁳) 14:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure: You agree that the info box about the state should be on top? --Tubesship (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, definitely the neutral, common geography/demography region infobox should be on top. Firstly because it contains the logically prior information (geo location etc.), secondly because the symbolism of having the state flag/CoA right at the top would be an unnecessary POV provocation to the other side (however lame that consideration may be). Now, I know that exactly this satisfaction of having that little lame POV triumph over the other side is all you really want, that's why I'm saying: Forget it. No way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Even the WPs of the countries that strongly oppose Kosovas Independece like the Russian WP has this country info box on top. You really think not having it on top is a sign of NPOV? I think the other way round and all WPs support my view. Are they all dominated by pro Albanian nationalistic trolls? Is that what you want to say? Or is it rather you who is wrong in this case? Please think through it as I am not the only one on this talk page insiting on having this infobox on top but rather you are the minority, even if you are an administator who easily can block a lot of us. I hope you will not misuse this power given to you. --Tubesship (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, this seems to (at least partially) please everyone and that's a huge step for us to may finally resume normal life and get away from this insanely problematic page for a while. Serbian province infobox could have a map though. Hús ö  nd  21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

RoK deserves its own infobos and the autonomy article can be part of the Serbian state if that is what they like. Jawohl (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but as soon as kosovo gets majority recognition this must change to one infobox --Cra del 15:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

On using the locator maps
Again, can we use one of the locator maps, such as Image:Europe location KOS.png in the first infobox? The purpose of the map is to show where Kosovo is and it is hard to see it from the small map in the top right corner. This map is more appropriate for section about geography since it has cities, rivers and other features. And maybe it would be time to stop pointless discussion about splitting the article at least for a couple of months. We've reached a state that is quite agreeable, let us not destroy it straight ahead. --Tone 16:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * the "Kosovo without Serbia" locator map belongs in the RoK infobox, the "Kosovo with Serbia" one in the UNMIK infobox. Let's make a point of being very neutral here. The only thing I've ever asked on this talkpage is compliance with WP:NPOV. The more disputed a topic is, the more imporatant it will be to fanatically adhere to our neutrality policy. dab (𒁳) 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My only idea was that suddenly we have too many maps of the same place and that the one of top is not really the best. Well, until we find a better npov image, this can stay... probably...--Tone 19:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Where can we find a superior NPOV map Tone? Beam 22:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

some suggestions
I recently registered myself as a user, provoked by this article. I’m serbian user. I would like to contribute more in making this article “better” but i simply don’t have enough time like some other users and editors. Anyway, here are some suggestions:

1.	The first paragraph. Kosovo is de facto state ( I saw that you have consensus there, so what to do, what to do…) .Second sentence should explain Kosovo borders (e.g. put second paragraph here) like in the other articles. Then, I think the third sentence should start like : The region of Kosovo has historically been part of the Roman empire, Byzantine empire, medieval Serbia, ect ect…Because, if I would have been some uninformed reader of this article, based on “it has histrorically…” I would conclude that ‘once upon a time’ there was some state Kosovo, that was “ …part of the Roman empire, ect.” Further more, editors like so much terms “ de facto” and “de jure-iure”, so in the last sentence in the first paragraph you can say that “…but is strongly opposed by the Republic of Serbia which consider it as de-jure (reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1244 ) an autonomous province.(maybe link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Serbia#Administrative_subdivisions instead bold letters Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.)

2.	There is no need for writing in info boxes and bodytext “Serbian: Република Косово“ i.e. in cyrillic letters Republic of Kosovo). Nobody use that term among Serbs, especially politicians. For us there is no such a republic and we are not writing in cyrillic letters name of that province like that. You can just delete that, even though Serbian is “an official language” there.

3.	Chapter “Name”! Last sentence should be deleted part“…and the region as a whole is called "Kosovo" (Albanian: Kosova; Serbian: Косово, Kosovo).” I see no reason for that.. Sorry to say but whole chapter sounds stupid ---. In English name is Kosovo and that’s it. this is enWiki. Maybe you can mention Serbian(Slavic) origin of the name “Kosovo”, but I saw that there is separate article… I don’t know maybe this is not that important

4.	Chapter “History”… Everywhere should be changed instead “Kosovo” to “region of Kosovo”…e.g. instead “Kosovo was part of the Ottoman Empire from 1455 to 1912” should be “The region of Kosovo was part...ect. “ … This article is about Kosovo and in the first sentence is written that it is de facto state so if someone keeps in mind that information from beginning then he/she can get to conclusion that Kosovo state was part of e.g. Ottoman Empire… which is not true., because whole Serbia including its part Kosovo was part of the Ottoman Empire from 1455 to 1912. Kosovo is de facto state from 2008…

5.	Chapter “History” – “Kosovo in Yugoslavia” “The ethnic balance of Kosovo tilted as the number of Albanians tripled, rising from almost 75%”- here right number is 68%, so almost 70% not 75 (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Kosovo#World_War_II-1968) to over 90%, and further “but the number of Serbs barely increased, dropping from 15%( 24% same ref:) to 8% of the total population. Even though Kosovo was the least developed area of the former Yugoslavia, the living and economic prospects and freedoms were far greater than under the totalitarian Hoxha regime in Albania”. Those two sentences sound bad together. Probably this is result of some deleting action, after some tough discussion in talk page. You can maybe say reasons for such huge change of the ethnic balance, if you want. Reasons for this could be e.g. ethnical harassment and discrimination (like it is explained in “In one Yugoslav province, Serbs fear the ethnic Albanians “… New York Times from April 28, 1986). Second sentence should be written “The totalitarian Hoxha regime in Albania, created migrations of Albanians from Albania mainly to Yugoslavia (i.e. Serbia and Macedonia, particularly Kosovo) where living and economic prospects and freedoms were far greater. … I’ll come back to this whole subchapter with, hopefully better, more concrete suggestions (need to find “neutral” references). Also, events in 1981 are described very poor/incorrect…

6.	Chapter “History” - 1st declaration of independence I already commented this sentence “Soon thereafter Kosovo Albanians organized a non-violent separatist movement, employing widespread civil disobedience, with the ultimate goal of achieving the independence of Kosovo” .If you don’t have reference for this it is better to delete it. In my opinion Milosevic build up his popularity as a “fighter” against Albanian separatist movement that existed in Kosovo for many years. Before Milosevic, Albanian separatists worked on project “Kosovo republic” – de jure republic because they had de facto republic - which would be easily separated from Yugoslavia ( Yugoslavia's republics i.e. nations of Yugoslavia (six of them) had right to become independent based on Constitution from 1974- http://sr.wikisource.org/sr-el/%D0%A3%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B5_%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B5_%D0%88%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B5_%281974%29#.D0.9E.D0.A1.D0.9D.D0.9E.D0.92.D0.9D.D0.90_.D0.9D.D0.90.D0.A7.D0.95.D0.9B.D0.90 unfortunately this link is in serbian but it is easy to translate part that I refer to). To conclude; “Soon thereafter Kosovo Albanians ect” just insinuates that idea of Kosovo independence and movement among Albanians was born with Milosevic and his speech?!? I think even Albanians disagree with this. So please, put reference or just to delete it if there is not enough evidence for this statement.

7.	Chapter “History” - The Kosovo War “The Serbs then began to escalate the conflict, using military and paramilitary forces in another ethnic cleansing campaign this time against (against –delete this word it’s written twice ) the Kosovar Albanians. An estimated 300,000 refugees were displaced during the winter of 1998, many left without adequate food or shelter, precipitating a humanitarian crisis and calls for intervention by the international community.” Reference please… Like for all other numbers. Who did estimation, based on what??? Also “another ethnic cleansing” is totally unacceptable. If there was ethnic cleansing, probably somebody proofed that so put reference that guide to that evidence and if there were other ethnic cleansings at Kosovo, before that time please name it when, who, how… and also reference.

8.	Chapter “History” - The UN administration period Delete this sentence because it is irrelevant “A declaration of independence by Kosovar Albanian leaders was postponed until the end of the Serbian presidential elections (4 February 2008). Most EU members and the US had feared that a premature declaration could boost support in Serbia for the ultra-nationalist candidate, Tomislav Nikolić” …I really don’t understand why this is important to be mentioned, is it true at all....?!?

9.	Chapter “History” - 2nd declaration of Independence “Over the following days, several countries (the United States, Turkey, Albania, Austria, Germany, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Republic of China (Taiwan)[38], Australia and others) announced their recognition, despite protests by Serbia in the UN Security Council” The order of the “several countries” is strange : Why don’t you follow the order (time line approach) that is shown here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#UN_member_states) and start with Afghanistan ? Same subchapter: “Croatia, Bulgaria and Hungary, all neighbours of Serbia, announced in a joint statement that they would also recognise the declaration.[40]” What is wrong with Romania the biggest country in the region and Serbia’s neighbour too? What about Bosnia, also neighbour of Serbia. You should add sentence about Romanian statement that Kosovo independence is illegal action (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7265249.stm - if bbc is acceptable reference)

And besides these comments I think that article is too big, especially due to chapter Politics. Really no need to mention all those politicians and parties… Article has almost 6000 words, I am not sure that Kosovo is that important… I still think that it would have been better with two articles Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo and Metohija -Serbian Province, so when somebody search for Kosovo (Kosova) gets a chance to choose between two links. Though, I read that you have consensus to write just one article, but think again about that if you have time.

If you read all this text then, thanks a lot for your attention. :ø) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IGøR (talk • contribs) 12:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for joining Wikipedia, IGøR. You should probably read and get accustomed to our policy WP:NPOV, as some of your suggestions are pretty much what we would consider unbalanced Serbian point of view. Our article must state "Република Косово" because regardless of whether most Serbians like it or not, or use it or not, Serbian is one of the official languages of the newly created republic. Furthermore, on Wikipedia we always mention the names of regions in their local languages, thus the "(Albanian: Kosova; Serbian: Косово, Kosovo)" that you find stupid. The first paragraph doesn't just say that Kosovo is a de facto state, it says that it is also a disputed territory. Therefore the history of Kosovo naturally implies the history of that region. In no way the reader is mislead into believing that there used to be another Republic of Kosovo in the distant past, like you suggest. In fact, the history of Kosovo is quite clear. You do raise some other points that are worth discussing though. However, you last comment saying that the article is too big, Kosovo is not that important, should be split according to points of view, etc - don't go that way. We've discussed that ad nauseam and there was consensus for keeping everything at this article. Other articles may be carved from sections that are too big, but the idea of having two articles for Kosovo has been rejected by the community. Hús  ö  nd  17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind response. Yes, i will mind my language. I see that my statement that “…and the region as a whole is called "Kosovo”” sounds stupid, is misunderstood. I wanted to say that is not logical to finish that sentence/chapter like that. Anyway please accept my excuse. Also I will forget idea of two articles, since that discussion is finished. I read article that you recommended but I will appreciate a lot if you can/have a time to give very brief explanation which of my suggestions are pretty much what you would consider unbalanced Serbian point of view. Thanks in advance.--84.202.248.31 (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Hm, some mistake ... I wanted to sing message but it came out my IP --IGøR (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Serbian point of view and Republic of Kosovo point of view, are antagonistic views on Kosovo. Saying e.g. that "Република Косово" should not be mentioned because Serbs don't use the Serbian name of the Republic of Kosovo is Serbian point of view and does not reflect a general, neutral view. What I mean is, when editing this highly controversial article, users (particularly Serbian and Albanian ones) should try to forget their personal feelings on Kosovo, and instead focus on presenting facts, especially sourced ones. Some Serbian users have been dropping by, trying to limit or downplay the expression of the independence of Kosovo on this article, whereas on the other hand some Albanian users have been trying to limit references to the Serbian rejection of it. In the end, none can win. The article is to present both sides in a very factual, neutral way. Hús  ö  nd  19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is now a state
It is not a disputed territory like Kashmir. Whether you recognize it or not, it's up to you, it doesn't change the fact that it is now a sovereign state.
 * It IS disputed... it has nothing to do with being sovereign... it's still disputed. Chandler talk 05:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * sigh, it is the sovereignity that is disputed. What you mean is that the RoK has partial governance. How far exactly this governance does extend will only become visible once NATO and UN troops are withdrawn. dab (𒁳) 11:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You know there are also NATO and US troops stationed in Germany? Shall we wait till they withdraw their troops, too? http://www.heidelberg.army.mil/sites/local/ --Tubesship (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

RoK government does not extend its authority thruought it whole territory but it is nonetheless a recognized government within those borders. It does not control specifically the serbian enclaves in the central and southern Kosovo as well as the northern Kosovo. But serbs also do not control the north as this article suggests since if that was the case they would have access to the courthouse and other institutions. Furthermore serbs in the north do not have any government, they have political alliances and committees but no government. There were no central or local elections organized in the north for the north. There is no north Kosovar president or parliament. The North of Kosovo is under KFOR control with a very limited presence of KPS patrols. Jawohl (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to make things clear. I am not requesting a split but a proper article on RoK. An article on region of Kosovo is serbian POV because they consider Kosovo as their region. Does wikipedia also consider that? I don't think so, yet this is what the article implies. If Serbia considers Kosovo as their region they can have it on their Serb wikipedia, but here the article should be about the RoK. Jawohl (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jawohl, have you read the article? At all? Please read it now before you continue your activity on this talkpage. The RoK government is recognized partially, by 36 nations including the US and part of the EU. It is not recognized by the majority of countries, including Russia and China (which are important because they can veto the UN Security Council). The article reflects this state of affairs. Kosovo-as-Republic is just as biased as Kosovo-as-Serbian-Province. Neither view is "correct", and we do not report the "WP:TRUTH" anyway, we just report on the two positions in the dispute. We do not treat the RoK position any better or any worse than the Serbian position. This is not negotiable, and if you want to negotiate it regardless, kindly do it somewhere else. dab (𒁳) 08:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Who says I want to negotiate?, What is with you people always asking from the others to leave as soon as something that you disagree with pop up. I want to have this article as an article on RoK, with all the facts that you mentioned inside it in sections. And not as it is now: an article on a region. Jawohl (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Things to be done with our Kosovo article
I see that there are sections for RoK and Serbian Province. This is awesome, and I'm actually pretty happy with the article as it stands. Congrats and all that. There is of course the glaring issue of the Infoboxes, but heck I think those are even "ok" as of now. So I say to you all, what do you think needs to be done to the article? I'm not talking RoK stuff, please leave it be. I'm talking the actual meat of the article on Kosovo. What suggestions do you have? Beam 00:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC) To say again, just for sake of clarity, there is no need for ANY sort of "split" as long as there are sections, which are currently present, for the RoK and Serb Province. It's finally all in place, and after the infoboxes are either accepted as is or remedied to two boxes, there is little to do as far as basic article needs. We can now go on our way towards a Featured Article Beam 00:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Protocol
We need to work together, it's as simple as that, and I think I have few ideas to help with the progression of growth. I think we should all take a consensus on what I'm about to propose; I believe they will pave the way for unity.

1. The only official concesus need to be based on these 2 rules:
 * Needs opinion/position of at least 10 users (no unsigned/IP) to be valid
 * Must be open for at least 48 hours

2. We need to have discussion mainly in the article "Kosovo" since all other articles may/will or possibly be merged/split or deleted. There is no need to have multiple consensus.

3. We also need to have the same admins to watch over the articles for a while. Lately we've had different admins coming and reverting the decisions of the previous, and it's causing trouble.

4. We must and absolutely must agree on the purpose of this article, does it relate to Kosovo as in Republic of Kosova or Kosovo as the region of Kosova?

5. We must archive or delete the discussion pages at least every 4 days. It is so cluttered and so confusing.

I hope this post does not fall on deaf ears. We must have certain protocols to move forward. I await your criticsm, support, and suggestions openly. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the purpose of this article must be related to the Republic of Kosova. Therefore it is necessary not to marginalize the Republic of Kosova but to put the info box and the flag on top. --Tubesship (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why did you agree to the merge proposal I made? Where I clearly stated that we would minimize RoK for the sake of NPOV? Beam 11:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I never ever advocated minimizing RoK but always said clearly, that Kosova should related to the RoK like in every other Wikipedia all around the world. This was always and will always be my standpoint. --Tubesship (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

RoK will be the meat of this article. I do not understand the reason of having an article on the region of Kosovo. Can someone explain it to me? If you keep this article as one on the region of Kosovo you will be contradicting everything in it. This article should be just like any other article for different countries/states and include the current issues and problems. You may want to give it a rest, but it is there and no one here will make it go away by ignoring it. Serbian Province needs to be in the article on serbia and not here. It should be mentioned here as a dispute. The administrative regions in the region of Kosovo (this sounds very funny) are also not correct because they represent the old regions in region of Kosovo which do not exist as such in the current administration. Wether UNMIK nor RoK. Jawohl (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * this article does relate to the "region of Kosova". What you are advocating is a splitsection, and the creation of a summary-style sub-article dedicated to the Republic of Kosovo. That's a valid suggestion, but it would help if you would realize what your suggestion amounts to. Please be clear on what you suggest and do the suggestion properly, using the splitsection tag. dab (𒁳) 07:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Dab, no, you are distorting his adovcacy. He is advocating that this article should relate to the Republic of Kosova and you are the one advocating splitting. To cite another administrator: "you guys moved an article, a split for the geopolitical, an AFD which looks like it's coming back, and now another split the other way all in the course of a week.", see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beamathan&diff=202726971&oldid=202714435 Again, it is not NPOV that this article relates to the "region" instead to the "Republic" like in every other Wikipedia all around the world. It is POV. And that is what we are trying to change. And again, no, not by splitting. --Tubesship (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously it is a confusing article. Please tell me what does it refer to then? Jawohl (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * how about you read the intro? It's about a region in the Balkans known as Kosovo, at present the subject of a territorial dispute between the "Republic of Serbia" and the "Republic of Kosovo". 07:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)dab (𒁳)
 * Well I must say it is a very funny "region" with a government recognized by 36+1 countries (or are they maybe also regions?). Implying that the region is disputed is false since the existence of the state is disputed. The region of Kosovo never existed as such even not in former YU. It had different levels of administration rights at different times. Wikipedia explains very well what "a region" is and that explanation does not satisfy this article. Sandjak is a region, Nord Brabant is a region but Kosovo is a state with quite some problems I might add. Republic of Kosovo is the region you are talking about. Jawohl (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One can dispute the right of a government to administer a region but not a region itself since region is more of a geographical term. And this is not Kashmir we are talking about. Serbia disputes the existence of RoK, while RoK disputes the right of Serbia to administer what it considers the RoK within those borders. If we are talking about territorial claims then there are usually at least to countries involved. So is RoK a "Second Life" government having claims to a region/territory? Jawohl (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, dab is contradicting himself. And if you look through the history of this article it was him advocating a splitting, renaming, moving, whatsoever, only do prevent this article to be about the Republic. And yes, it is also known that others who have this agenda are trying to disguise it by imputing that for example I myself was advocating a split or a marginalization of the Republic within this article and so on. So I repeat myself: No, no splitting but relating this article to the Republic like it is done in every other WP all around the world (with exception of the Serbian WP). This was always and will always be my standpoint. --Tubesship (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * see WP:NPOV. If you refuse to comply with that policy, you are free to leave the project. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Dab, again you are distoring facts, when you say I am not NPOV. I am NPOV. Again, are all other Wikipedias about Kosova not NPOV but POV? Honestly? --Tubesship (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * indeed, Jawohl, the RoK is a political entity of disputed legal status. May I again politely request you do everyone a favour and read the article first? dab (𒁳) 08:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Dab. This is your previous statement "It's about a region in the Balkans known as Kosovo", so which one is it going to be:  political etnity or about a region in the Balkans known as Kosovo. As you can see this is quite confusing. And asking people to leave because you do not agree with their POV (no matter wether it is neutral or not) is very unproductive. Jawohl (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not ask you to leave because I do not agree with you, but because you appear to reject Policy. If you don't accept policy, all you are doing here is wasting other people's time. Please pay attention: we do not have an article on the Republic of Kosovo at present. That's because there was a consensus to merge the article on the region with that on the Republic. If you would like to create an article on the Republic of Kosovo, please suggest a split, using splitsection. I will support the suggestion to create an article on the RoK. dab (𒁳) 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Dab, please imagine a map with countries in which their WP relating Kosova to the Republic. The English one would be the only one together with the Serbian one that has not the article of Kosova related to the Republic. How can you declare us this fact with your NPOV? Do you really insist that all other WPs are POV but the Serbian and the english one? Please not. You would insulting our sense of reality by doing so. --Tubesship (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * this is the WP:OTHERCRAP argument. In short: don't use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. If your position is entirely based on the status quo on other Wikipedia projects (which, we can reasonably expect, experience a similar amout of trolling and pov-pushing), you have still not understood the project's fundamentals. dab (𒁳) 09:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Dab, no, it is based on how other people ruling all other WPs see the reality and how you see it. Do you really think all others are POV-pushing trolls but you? This is an honest and important question. --Tubesship (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Dab, you did not answer my question. As you can see this article is confusing. What do other wikipedia articles use as a source? Or are we in a loop. As such wikipedia would not exist. All I am asking for is a good article on RoK and that includes its history, disputes and current issues. If that is POV than it is just your POV regarding my POV. Using the word "POV" as an argument won't help to further improve the article. I want facts, not accusations. Jawohl (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Dab, So according to you there should be a article about the mountains and rivers in the region of Kosovo, which by accident has a partially recognized government and there should be an article about the RoK which is partially recognized and btw has some mountains and rivers which are mentioned in the article about the region. What should this resolve or explain?. That Wikipedia is trying to keep everyone happy by ignoring certain facts. You are contradicting yourself just as the article is doing it. The fact that Kosovo (Republic of Kosovo) is not recognized by some 160 countries does not mean that is a region. Having an article on the region which has the same borders as the RoK itself is a contradiction in itself. Again, give me arguments like: this region existed with this very name in Roman times and with this exact borders, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawohl (talk • contribs) 09:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not ignoring any facts. If you can try to think clearly for a moment, read again what I just said. Yes, I think we should have an article on the Republic of Kosovo. No, we cannot equate the Republic of Kosovo with the Kosovo region, any more than we can equate Palestine with the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), sorry. Two items, two articles. Unless we have no separate article on the RoK, it will just have to linger as an item among others mentioned in this article. You want to create an article on the RoK, the same way the PNA has its own article? Great, you have my support. Now learn how to implement this suggestion following the approach laid out at WP:CONSENSUS, I'm not going to do that for you, I am just saying that I support your doing it. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. This article is ignoring the fact that northern Kosovo does not govern itself. If that was the case they would have an access to the courthouse for one. I have already explained who is governing the north. It is KFOR with a very limited presence of KPS. Yet you claim that the article does not ignore facts. Sorry it does. That was only one example.
 * 2. If I create an article on RoK, will then this article on the region contain the same information about politics, economy and current state of affairs as well as disputes, same as the article on RoK. Cause if it does then we have two article on the same thing. If RoK was to contain all the above mentioned articles then what is left for the article on the region: mountains and rivers? Again, first you claimed that this is an article on the region, then that it was on the political entity and now again you say it should be on the region. Don't you see how confused you are? Jawohl (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. - what does that have to do with anything? The article states "North Kosovo remains under de facto governance of Serbia". If that is incorrect, add a fact tag or just correct the statement.
 * 2. - it the article is split, WP:SS will come into effect. The RoK article may contain short summaries of material treated in greater detail elsewhere. Such summaries will be tagged with a main template. Thus, if you want to discuss the mountains and rivers of Kosovo (please feel free to do that), do it at Geography of Kosovo. Other articles will at most contain a brief summary of the content in that article. If I appear confused to you that's because you don't listen. Try to pay attention if you're already imposing on other people's time.
 * dab (𒁳) 10:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reading actually. It is somehow more convenient. And this is what I read at the Geography of Kosovo discussion page. It is your comment: '''At present, Kosovo is in fact about the Republic of Kosovo (although there seems to be some confusion on this point). For this reason, the article should not be merged. What could or should be done instead is moving Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo to reflect its actual scope, and then (possibly, pending consensus) move this article to Kosovo (alternatively, redirect Kosovo to Kosovo (disambiguation) to be on the safe side npov-wise). dab (𒁳) 13:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)'''
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawohl (talk • contribs) 11:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That was before the merge. Now the Kosovo article is about Kosovo. Oh and this section is pretty much useless. We already figured all of this out. Why keep pushing your own POV? I get it, your all Albanian sympathizers. That's fine. But if you notice, I just started a section that is meant to move forward on the article. Not go back a month. Beam 11:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you guys want to have a separate article on RoK then this one will turn into a very small one. And then maybe Portugal, Germany and other countries should have additional articles about them as regions. You are pushing this article just to deny the existence of RoK and all you can give as argument is that we are Albanian supporters pushing our own POV. Ridiculous. Jawohl (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And stop patronizing with your suggestions, i find them just as useless. Jawohl (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * then you perhaps could consider to stop generating pointless noise on an already busy talkpage. dab (𒁳) 12:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I am truly amazed at the level of cooperation over here. I am generating a pointless noise by pointing out to something which, in my opinion needs to be addressed. Very civic. I will generate other pointless noises as soon as this one is rendered as a quite noise. Now, if you have any suggestion to my question? I mean pointless suggestions which would fulfill my need for noise, please go ahead otherwise, do not bother to leave noiseless comments. Jawohl (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

'''No one read my sugestions but for some odd reason you went at words with each other. I really believe that my suggestion to have concensus for at least 48 hours and require at least 10 users to be valid was a great suggestion.''' Kosova2008 (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that. I do agree with your proposal. Jawohl (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So this is where you vote about the future votes? Make it at least 1 week then, I mean the time it needs to stay open.Hobartimus (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about Kosova2k8s intention and I must also admit that Hobartimus is right about what he says, because 48 hours seems to be too little time to gather 10 people. --Tubesship (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)PS: Sorry, I just read you wrote at least 48 hours. So I am fine with that, because it has no time limit.
 * It has to be at least 48 hours because we need the community to vote. I have seen plenty of consensus where 4 people voted than they change the article and 4 other users come and ask why it was changed and a few say "we had a consensus" which didn't cover everyone. I also think we can't take votes from IP users, if you wish to contribute you need a user name so that we can record the voting correctly. Another issue has been that we've been doing these consensus-es everywhere, we need to only have 1 at a time. Let's change these articles slowly but correctly, we need a framework and move forwards with the implementation of new information or refurbishing of old information. Please everyone go up top and read my suggestions and give feedback. Thank you, Ari Kosova2008 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Change Request: US Embassy in Pristina
As of 7 March 2008, the United States Office in Pristina has been officially converted into the Embassy of the United States in Kosovo. The change should be noted in the list of countries maintaining embassies in Pristina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.47.126 (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Info Boxes - The next step in our Kosovo Article - PLEASE give your opinion
Ok guys, great job on the intro. If you have further suggestions regarding the intro please see the section that deals with it.

This section is about the infobox. I propose, along with DBACHMAN, and many others that we use two info boxes. One infobox for the RoK and one for Kosovo as part of Serbia. We are well on our way to the goal of a NPOV article on Kosovo. I'm very proud!Beam (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of people would support this but first the discussions about the split, merge, rename etc should be resolved. Hobartimus (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is solved with a consensus against the split, merge, rename, etc. --Tubesship (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I really and truly believe that a merge is the correct action to take. I will just briefly say this about the merge: Kosovo is a place. An article about a place, a single place, should not be split because some serbians and albanians are whiney about "pov". I believe in the power of random people, and our abillity to create a NPOV article. If we stick to the facts, and present them in a way that a reader seeks, I know we can achieve NPOV. And if that is the case and I am right, than there is no need for a split article. Please also note that there was never a consensus for a split in the first place. It was all very recent. Those changes should have never happened. It appeared to be done out of desperation caused by the inability to achieve NPOV. We, together, can now achieve that with hard work. I believe that the Intro we are using is good, and encourage anyone who doesn't think so to please give their suggestion for improvement. My theory on the whole RoK is to say it happened, and then link to the article that specifically discusses the Declaration of Independence. This article on Kosovo is not supposed to be a minute by minute account of Kosovo. It's supposed to be a summary of the country, and provide the basic information one would expect. If we are brief and concise regarding the facts of the declaration, and link to where a reader can read about it, than I know we can do it NPOV. The intro mentions it, and and links to where the reader can find out more. If it was ok with everyone, I would leave it at that and never mention the RoK again in the article. But we'll see. Beam (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the good work you are doing. Thank you very much, dear Beam! :-) --Tubesship (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems you just don't get it. Verifiability is irrelevant to neutrality. It is certainly possible to have a neutral infobox, a neutral description of independence, and so forth, but in the end it doesn't address the key problem, this article can not be the article for the Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo as a region at the same time and maintain its neutrality. It's not a matter of cooperation or "quitting" but a simple matter of standards. What message do you think it sends when the "Republic of Kosova" which was never recognized by any country has its own article and yet no article exists on the "Republic of Kosovo" recognized by 36 countries and the only article where it's brought up the subject is buried in the article? More countries are going to recognize Kosovo, I can guarantee it. The Czech Republic, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Lithuania are all likely to recognize Kosovo. Beyond that it's possible Slovakia and Greece will ultimately decide to recognize Kosovo. What happens if it starts gaining steam? What if Indonesia, East Timor, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Colombia, Bangladesh, and Armenia recognize Kosovo? If over 50 countries recognize Kosovo can this article still conceal the Republic of Kosovo as though we're trying to hide a crime? The more countries that recognize Kosovo the more this article will be pressured to change into an article on the RoK. It's not going to be fixed just by wishing it wasn't true. I also suggest you don't make such racist implications like only Serbs and Albanians would oppose a split, actually as far as I can tell most Albanians are against it because they want this article to be on the RoK.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Devil, there is no difference between "Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo" as there is no difference between "Federal Republic of Germany" and "Germany", so please stop trolling as you repeat yourself the whole time. We got it. And you are not gonna change our minds by trolling. Got it? --Tubesship (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If and when there is a real world consensus we will address it then. For now the solution I present is NPOV and if based on facts, and linking to main articles when applicable, will work out nicely. Also, it is VERY important to realize that we aren't making a determination of the declaration being right/wrong/superfantastic, we will present brief and concise facts as neccessary and link to the main article on RoK, Declaration etc. This will provide the greatest chance for NPOV. Beam (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no main article on the Republic of Kosovo. I can't help but wonder how it is possible that you don't get how that's a problem. In 1991 the Republic of Kosova was proclaimed, but wasn't recognized and it did not control nearly as much territory yet it has its own article. The Republic of Kosovo is declared in 2008, currently recognized by 36 countries and you're suggesting we should hardly pay it mind.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, Mr. Devil, there is no difference between "Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo" like there is no difference between "Federal Republic of Germany" and "Germany", so please stop trolling as you repeat yourself the whole time. We got it. And you are not gonna change our minds by trolling. Got it? So just stop it. Now. --Tubesship (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you support what Beam wants to do? He said he wants to cut down mentions of the Republic of Kosovo and hardly deal with it in the article. Surely you don't want that. Like it or not the only way to have a comprehensive article on the Republic of Kosovo as a partially-recognized country without violating neutrality policy is to have a separate article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again and again and again, Mr. Devil, there is no difference between "Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo" like there is no difference between "Federal Republic of Germany" and "Germany", therefore all your sayings is so sensless, so useless. Please just stop it. Now. Immediately. --Tubesship (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tubesship, you may not have followed international news recently, but you may be interested to learn that there are no territorial disputes surrounding Germany since 1945. dab (𒁳) 09:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I live in Germany and I am aware of this disputes. Germany was not recognized by the UN until 1973 and there was the unification in 1989 as the wall in Berlin came down and still there are the "Vertriebenenverbände" claiming their real estates in Poland and so on... Every country has its shadows. --Tubesship (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * fine, not 1945, I grant you. Still, last time I checked, Germany was a full member of the UN. dab (𒁳) 21:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, my examples were all after 1945 and here is another one: In 1950 the island Helgoland was even occupied by to protesting students, hissing flags there causing a broad discussion in Germany resulting in a parliament resolution in 1951, in which Germany demanded the island back from England: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helgoland#Nach_dem_Zweiten_Weltkrieg --Tubesship (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So I'd like to address the info box, which has been an item of conflict for this article, and probably was a issue that lead to thoughts of splitting. I say we have a split info box that provides the common information shared by the Serbian Kosovo and RoK, as well as the differences in a neutral way, simply facts. Or if you can't do that in one infobox, than we have have two. I think that's the best way to do this, and have spoken with DBACHMAN (dab) and he gave his support. Tubbe, I believe, agrees. And I have seen others mention it, but not pursue it recently. What do you guys think? Beam (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold up, where is this concensus? I wanna see who was for it and against it. DAB you took an article which was for Republic of Kosova and turned it into something completely else and I want to know where the great minds of WP came and agreed to completely destroy the article. The only reason why people would ever search "kosova" or "Republic of Kosova" is because they want to see ROK not this. Kosova2008 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let it be there a second info box somewhere below in the text with the Serbian POV claiming this state still as their region. Everybody reading this would realize how ridiculous this Serbian denying of the reality is. --Tubesship (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * uh-huh. I am sorry, but I am not aware of any precedent using two country infoboxes in the same article. We can try a "neutral" infobox as seen at Western Sahara. If the articles are merged, there is no way the RoK flag will grace it in the lead, since that would clearly violate NPOV. We did a strawpoll, see above. Out of 11 votes, only one supported a merge. And that was without explanation. I am sorry, but consensus is clearly against merging the RoK article with that on the Kosovo region. I submit, for obvious reasons: The RoK is perfectly notable and deserves its own article, but it isn't possible to equate Kosovo with the RoK, for reasons of NPOV. Beamathan and Tubesship, if you support "two infoboxes", which was option nr. 5. above, why didn't you vote for it? If you belatedly add your votes, it will still be 3 to 9 against this option. I can see a "two infoboxes" as a preliminary dirty hack at best. The people at WikiProject Countries may want to have a say in this, I do not think they  will be pleased to have their system messed up just because some people are skulking over a territorial dispute. dab (𒁳) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo_%28geopolitical_region%29 there you wrote: "two infoboxes? I have suggested that option". Why do you distort fact? Ain't you instead supposed to be a "role model" as an administrator? There were polls against renaming, moving, splitting and variants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Oppose_split.2C_move.2C_rename_and_variants but there was a consensus about merging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Proposal_to_merge_from_Kosovo_.28geopolitical_region.29Honestly, are you trolling? As an admin? Why are you asking every few days the same question if you do not want to hear the answer? --Tubesship (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you must be hysterical, please try to pay some attention at least. I have suggested a "two infoboxes" solution, as option 5 in the strawpoll. It has received 1 out of 11 votes. The current consensus is for one RoK article and one Kosovo region article. We are now discussing questions of titling. Either contribute to this informedly and constructively or go away and write a blog. dab (𒁳) 09:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously, why would anybody care what the wikiproject's "system" is with that infobox? The whole reason why we are debating here is that Kosovo, whatever it is, is clearly not just another country like all the others. So why would we expect that a standard infobox template would fit it? The whole infobox issue has been given far too much importance. Infoboxes are bad. Infoboxes give no room for NPOV, because anything that's in an infobox is easily understood as asserted in Wikipedia's own voice rather than attributed. Especially the use of symbols like flags in an infobox is highly problematic, because it can be read as what it clearly shouldn't be, a badge of recognition by Wikipedia. Therefore, I keep saying: take stuff out of boxes, and split boxes up. Not simply "two infoboxes" competing, but divided up neatly: one box containing only the neutral bits of information (like uncontested geographical info), one box containing only the info related to the political institution of the RoK, possibly another with the info related to the Serbian province, if there is a need for such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there is no consensus for removing flag and infobox. Neither flag and infobox are POV nor is reality POV. --Tubesship (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * the point is that the "pro-independence" crowd wants to see a RoK flag at the top of an article called "Kosovo". I understand the sentiment, but it violates NPOV. We can consider a "neutral" infobox (no flags) on the "Kosovo" article (as in Western Sahara) and then do a separate Republic of Kosovo article (as in Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic). This is option 2 above. The one that got the most support. I really don't know why we are still discussing this, long after the possible options have been laid out and people have been able to state their preference. Option 2 is the most sensible. Anything else is puerile hysteria by our current pov-pushing "editor cloud". I know this is silly. Pissing contests involving flags always are. Unless we get some ballsy admin enforcing probation and clamping down on the hysterical pov-pushing, we'll still have to deal with the silliness. I seriously see no point in merging two article if that means we'll have to do some complicated "neat" division within the merged article. dab (𒁳) 09:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The independence of Kosova is a fact. Telling facts is never POV. Learn to live with it or... --Tubesship (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry dab, but that "consensus" for two separate articles, I simply don't see it. I don't know why your straw poll found so little echo (I wasn't around to vote at the time it was opened, unfortunately), but insisting on its results now doesn't seem very constructive to me. And I definitely don't accept the logic that concerns about infobox complications should count as an argument for or against merging. Infoboxes musn't dictate our article structure. First comes the article structure, then the box. – Oh, and yes, Tubesship, stop pushing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why we need an infobox at all. If it's causing controversy, get rid of it and incorporate the material in the infobox into the article. Moreschi (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Trouble is, it's a double-bind. With the symbolic significance this infobox issue has been loaded with, the problem is, having the infobox will be perceived as endorsing the Albanian POV, but conversely: not having the box will be perceived by the other side as explicitly denying the Albanian POV, and thus as equally strongly "taking sides". Silly, but that's how it's currently working, Wikipedia is a slave to its own editorial conventions. That's why I think custom-made tweaked boxes may be the most useful way out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FuturePerfect -- Kosovo probably deserves a sui generis solution. I think we can be guided by non-controversial precedents in other articles: for example, articles on Abkhazia, Taiwan, South Ossetia all have their own infoboxes and display the flag of the region -- as we've said before, all of those regions enjoy far less legitimacy and recognition for their statehood than Kosovo. For that matter, France, Switzerland and San Marino (states with virtually unquestioned legitimacy) also all have their own infoboxes with flags. So, theoretically, even the "pro" and the "anti" camps can agree on this one. Regarding the flag itself, it's a non-POV point of fact that a flag of Kosovo exists (again, with some seeing it as the symbol of an "illegal" entity and others seeing it as the flag of a sovereign state). It strikes me as odd to not have the flag, especially since possessing a flag is not a defining criteria of statehood -- lots of sub-state and non-state entities have their own flags. Not having the flag up front is an unreasonable accommodation of the Serb POV crowd, all of whom would prefer that Kosovo fly proudly the flag of the Republic of Serbia... Envoy202 (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

look, there are several possible solutions. Yes, the strawpoll got buried in the ethnic trolling, don't blame me. Some admin should enforce order here, or sane debate is impossible. The five options are all possibilities I can make out. No viable alternative has been suggested. We may need a sui generis solution, but which one? We need to be informed by precedents. Look through Category:Disputed territories. So, if the consensus currently tends towards option 5 (multiple infoboxes), so be it: I agreed this is one option from the beginning. This would mean a South Ossetia type of solution, with a "neutral" infobox at the top. It's ok, that's a possibility. If you think this has most support at present, why not do another strawpoll like a reasonable Wikipedian. You will note that South Ossetian Republic redirects to South Ossetia, and corresponds to a h2 section there. I would argue that the notability of the Republic of Kosovo is greater than that of the Republic of South Ossetia, and that because of that, there can be a separate Republic of Kosovo article instead of just a h2 section dedicated to it. That would again be option 2 / the China solution. So the question at present appears to be: do we want Both are arguable, but I am exasperated that the pro-independence pov-pushers rally for the latter, which would actually give the RoK lesser profile than the former. dab (𒁳) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Western Sahara -- has an infobox without flags (option 2)
 * Abkhazia has a "multiple infoboxes" solution (option 5)
 * Taiwan is on the island qua island. It has Infobox Islands, not Infobox Country, option 2.
 * South Ossetia also has a "multiple infobox" solution.
 * China has no infobox (option 2, with separate articles on Republic of China and People's Republic of China).
 * 1) a China/Western Sahara type solution (separate Republic of Kosovo article with its own infobox)
 * 2) a South Ossetia/Abkhazia type (one single article, "Republic of Kosovo" is a h2 section)
 * I guess the motivation of the pro-independence editors, which to a degree I can understand, is not so much the iconicity of having "more profile" of the Republic through it being in its own article, but the iconicity of having coverage of the Republic inseparable from that of its territory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and thanks for the links to the Ossetia/Abkhazia cases, I hadn't seen those. Just what I had in mind. That would work perfectly for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * well, fine, I'll say again, I have no objection to merging (Abkhazia/South Ossetia style). "Republic of Kosovo" will then be a h2 section of the Kosovo article. No doubt, as this article will grow, the "RoK" h2-section will grow very long, and then we'll branch out a main article per WP:SS, and that will be us back where we started ("China" style solution). If the pov boys really force us to take the long route, so be it, but I expect you see the futility. dab (𒁳) 13:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why it would have to become overly long. Most potential bloat sections (history, demographics, etc.) would be common to the whole article and hence not under that section; and the big bloaters about the current political issues ("international reaction to independence" etc.) are already factored out anyway. Only "politics", "government", "constitution" etc., and if those get too long, they can be factored out individually as is done with other states. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * you are right. As I said, I do think both options are arguable. After all, both options have precedents. dab (𒁳) 14:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

new strawpoll
ok, since the former strawpoll appears to have been ignored as too complicated by some people, let us make this easy. We have two basic options. Please see the discussion immediately above. Now, which option to you prefer? Please sign at the appropriate place, giving a short reasoning. dab (𒁳) 13:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that this poll is effectively doubling the current AfD at Articles for deletion/Kosovo (geopolitical region). One might disagree that that was the most suitable venue for such a decision, but now it's been run, and its question was essentially the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * it was a deletion discussion and as such fundamentally flawed. But of course, if there is a consensus to merge, we will merge, per Abkhazia/South Ossetia. dab (𒁳) 14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. one article (merge), multiple infoboxes ("Abkhazia" style)
 * per above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough of this, the community is giving a clear position at Articles for deletion/Kosovo (geopolitical region). Bringing up the same discussion is stubbornly useless and denotes ontempt for anti-split users. Hús  ö  nd  14:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and enough of this polling. How many times to you want us to repeat ourselves? --Tubesship (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * we can do this. This approach is the most reasonable. --Tone 17:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the AfD: I think that one single, comprehensive article would be the option most beneficial to our readership. If having two [multiple expletives consored] infoboxes (or none at all) clears the way forward, I'm all for it. - Ev (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 2. multiple articles (split), one infobox each ("China" style)
 * Kosovo should redirect to Kosovo (region), and cover geography, history, demography, etc. Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija should deal with institutions, and not duplicate the majority of the material in the Kosovo article. Both of those articles should be clearly linked in the lead of the article Kosovo. --Soman (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 3. one article per entity (split) and one infobox.

Clearly, in Abkhazia, the official government (which controls some of the terrority, has different people from the rebel government, therefore, two infoboxes are required. With Kosovo, there is no pro Serbian government, and ever if Kosovo wasn't inependent, its government (established under the Special Representative) would be identical to to the government of independent Kosovo.  What info would you put in teh infobox for the "Province of K&M".  2007apm (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One article, one infobox. There is just one country which has a government for Kosovo. Kosovo and Metohija has no Serbian leadership, because it exists just on the paper of the constitution of Serbia. It makes no more sense than to add a Norwegian infobox on Antarctica because they claim a part of it. bogdan (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * this is not arguable. Wikipedia cannot endorse either point of view in this territorial dispute, no way, see WP:NPOV. The second infobox is not for "Serbia" anyway, but for "UNMIK", which does have significant presence in the region. dab (𒁳) 06:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I support Bogdan. One article, one infobox is the best solution. --Tubesship (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * per bogdan --<font family="Times new Roman" color="gray">Cra <font family="Times new Roman" color="gray">del 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Somaliland" style is the "multiple articles" solution above. You will note that Somaliland redirects to Republic of Somaliland. the other articles are Puntland and Maakhir. This would correspond to three articles, Republic of Kosovo, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (UNMIK) and Kosovo region, the very solution I have been preferring all along. Kosovo would need to redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation) for neutrality. You continue to ignore the UN/Serbian position as if it were non-existent. It is alright for you to support Kosovar independence, but you cannot on Wikipedia treat it as if it was undisputed. dab (𒁳) 11:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm removing it but see that Somaliland doesn't redirect to Somaliland (disambiguation) but Republic of Somaliland, so if there would be three articles on Kosovo but Kosovo woulredirect to Republic of Kosovo, I would support that.--<font family="Times new Roman" color="gray">Cra <font family="Times new Roman" color="gray">del 11:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * you will note, if you will, that unlike the "Kosovo" case, there is no region known as Somaliland. Just historical entities, plus one contemporary entity. dab (𒁳) 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually if you see the articles Puntland and Maakhir, you will see that these articles aren't about Somaliland but about a region that borders somaliland seeking autonomy and an autonomus region inside Somaliland, so unlike your multiple article solution this is not the same case like in Kosovo where those three articles would all be about the same thing only in different points of view (WP:POVFORK).So the Somaliland style is actually a one article, one infobox "solution" not a "multiple articles" solution --<font family="Times new Roman" color="gray">Cra <font family="Times new Roman" color="gray">del  18:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, same as above. People want to read about Republic of Kosova. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree strongly. An article on RoK is what Wiki misses therefore needs. The article on Kosovo is classified as a geography article. RoK should deal with politics, economy, education etc. Jawohl (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)