Talk:Passport of Kosovo/Archive 2

Enter Serbia with a Kosovo stamp
I corrected the section about Serbia as Serbia does not deny entry to foreign nationals who have Kosovo stamps in their passports. I had two Kosovo stamps and there were zero problems on the border coming from Macedonia back into Serbia. They just stamp the Kosovo stamps invalid.

Would also be a very bad idea to deny EU citizens entry because Serbia wants to get on the Schengen white list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.237.158 (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Passport Note
Does anyone have or can anyone obtain the passport note text that is in Kosovar passports? Thanks! - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll quote the last page of the passport, but that's probably not what you are looking for:


 * Thank you.  kedadi al  19:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm looking for is the note from the issuing authority to the authorities of other countries. "The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kosovo hereby requests all whom it may concern..." that sort of thing. Thank you anyway, though.- Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I've got your point (British_passport) but it doesn't seem to be written anywhere in the RoK passport.  kedadi al  18:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Slow burn revert war re use of word citizen at lead
It makes no sense in my view to attempt to make a lone exception at this article by attempting to claim that these passports are issued to anyone other than citizens of the issuing entity. There are many disputed states, from Transnistria to Israel. Should the lead of all their passport articles be similarly qualified? The term citizen is used without prejudice to the status of the (very obviously disputed) entity in question. RashersTierney (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite right - it is not so a fruitful attempt to make this a lone exception. So, be constructive, please, and suggest where could this issue be discussed. Such place should be centralized for other parties involved to be able to express their opinion, too. Also, how can you be certain that the term citizen is used without prejudice? Not everywhere, that's for sure. If you state citizen, than you imply that there is citizenship and then you imply that there is statehood. That's my point. All the best. --Biblbroks 's talk 13:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point ( and have done from your first revert). I do not agree with it. A qualifying addition has already been made at the lead highlighting the issue of disputed sovereignty. I see no reason for further modification - certainly not the application of the legally meaningless term 'people'. If you feel a case for exceptional treatment at this article should be made over all other instances of disputed statehood, the onus is on you to do so. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with RashersTierney. The Republic of Kosovo, in its capacity as a country (legitimate or otherwise), has citizens - people who belong to this country. Only the RoK could issue Kosovo Passports, and they could only issue it to those people who they consider to be its citizens. Of course other countries dispute that Kosovo is a legitimate country, but it is not up to those countries to issue Kosovo passports, nor to define who Kosovo's citizens are - therefore their position is not relevant to this article. The use of the word "people" is not precise enough, because it includes those who RoK would not consider to be its citizens, namely foreign nationals residing in Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bazonka, your statement of Kosovo having citizens could be analogous with my statement that Biblbroksoville or Bazonkania, have citizens. Please, do not be offended by this example of imagined countries, it is merely so - an example. Also your point that RoK could issue Kosovan passports could be valid only if RoK existed (also, in your terms to be exact: RoK wouldn't be the one issuing but the government of the so called RoK). Wouldn't you agree that to some readers the Republic of Kosovo (and the government of RoK or of any disputed territory as such) could only be a term for something illegitimate - and thus nonexistent. If something is illegitimate to someone, she/he can ignore it, doesn't it. And the best way to do this is to treat it as nonexistent. Thus illegitimacy could and usually leads to nonexistence ... for some, and for those we must include one other Point of view. Therefore, you could also be very wrong about the exclusiveness to who/what is to issue Kosovan passports, and about who/what can or may define who is a Kosovo citizen.
 * As for the point that the term "people" in my wording could be considered as somewhat vague in such context, I see it and understand it but do not agree with it. However, since I perceive there are some that have such POV (as in plain "point of view", not necessarily as in "biased perspective"), I will try to include it in my next contribution to the article. Also, I'm not exactly sure that I agree with that that this article should have a special treatment over all other articles and instances of disputed statehood, but will try to do my best elsewhere, too, if needed. All the best. --Biblbroks 's talk 01:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See: Abkhazian passport, Republic of China passport, Palestinian Authority passport. Transnistrian passport.  kedadi al  01:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seen. Best, --Biblbroks 's talk 06:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Biblbroks, if I founded a pretend country / micronation then I would be perfectly entitled to grant citizenship to whomever I liked, and to issue them with passports. Of course, no other real country would recognise my country or its passports, but the fact remains that I would be issuing passports for my "country". It's exactly the same situation with Kosovo, which from a Serbian (and many other countries' point of view) doesn't legitimately exist; they can treat it as non-existent if they want and reject the passports. But RoK does have a functioning government (whether you like/recognise it or not), and it is issuing passports to the people that it's identified (rightly or wrongly) as its citizens. This article is not taking sides regarding the legitimacy of the passports or the rights of the "citizens" to receive them, it merely states that they exist and are being issued. Having said all that though, I do not particularly object to your latest edit. Bazonka (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bazonka, in your "hypothesised" case you would be issuing passports for your country - and probably your country and your citizens wouldn't exist. There's a slight semantic difference between issuing for and issuing to. Functioning government is also a matter of discussion. As for the phrases, I suggest we put your wording "is issuing passports to the people that it's identified (rightly or wrongly) as its citizens" as such or similar to the article. Best, --Biblbroks 's talk 10:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Biblbroks, whilst I did not much object to this edit that you made, I cannot say the same for this one. That's utterly, outrageously POV. You cannot say that Kosovo is the "southwestern part of Serbia" (nor, of course, can you say that it is an independent country); you must take the neutral stance and just say that it is a disputed territory. Bazonka (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bazonka, I utterly, completely and totally understand your concern. It was quite reckless of me with an edit such as that. The intention was to address Kidadi's comment that it isn't RoK that is disputed territory, but Kosovo and then to clarify more. I was merely trying to make a distinction between the two .... Kosovo being a region ... southwest to/of Serbia ... and that's where it went berserk. The way the syntagma was constructed was with something in that sense in mind, and it appearing biased and being such is truly a failure from my side. Giant oops - I really haven't meant that and I apologize for I have always tried to pursue The Neutrality in my contributions.
 * But on the other hand, Bazonka, I'm sincerely sincerely wondering about something. I cannot guess the cause for you not revealing why you objected to my edit before this "egregious" one. Was the reason that RoK couldn't be addressed as a disputed territory, as Kedadi mentioned? The "as a travel document" at the end? Or something else in the wording? Please elaborate.
 * All in all my suggestion now is "...is intended for the citizens of the disputed territory of Kosovo as a travel document." How 'bout that? Best to all, --Biblbroks 's talk 21:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Biblbroks, apology accepted! And, actually I didn't object to your earlier edit (not sure why you think I did) - I thought it was OK. And your latest suggestion is also OK. Bazonka (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Me very happy for the acceptance of apology. :-) And the reason why I thought you objected is because it haven't cross my mind that the phrase "not much" to object could also mean "nothing" to object. --Biblbroks 's talk 23:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there is something that you need to understand: "Kosovo is a subject of a territorial dispute between the Republic of Kosovo and the Republic of Serbia". Now, these passports are issued directly by the Republic of Kosovo and not by Kosovo as a territory. So, why should we clutter the article with things like "disputed territory of Kosovo" when this article has to do with RoK (something that is not disputed). So I disagree with your suggestion and support the intro of the article in it's current shape. Thank you.  kedadi al  23:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a need for clarification of what is a subject of dispute and between whom. Somehow it seems to me that everybody is aware of that. But, as you mention it yourself further in the discussion, Kosovo is a territory also, it's not merely a subject of dispute. I suppose that one of the main issues for your concern is this certain amount of ambiguity in the term Kosovo: is it just "the territory", or RoK, or both. Or what. Enough to say that there's a simple example of this ambiguity in Wikipedia: Republic of Kosovo links to the article Kosovo. And all because it's a matter of dispute.
 * Also I can't say that I agree to that the Republic of Kosovo isn't disputed - if one can state that it's existence is a disputed subject, than one can state that the entity itself is disputed (if not controversial). And that one could be right, right? But perhaps this concern could be addressed with the simple change from "...is intended for the citizens of the disputed territory of Kosovo..." to "...is intended for the citizens of the disputed territory Kosovo...". Kosovo is a territory, isn't it (as is RoK); disputed as it is - probably noone here can argue that; and finally the passport is intended for the citizens of Kosovo, right?
 * Any way if the current wording stays intact there definitely remains the matter of bias in the term "citizen". Best, --Biblbroks 's talk 12:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
This document is 'intended as a passport, a very specific form of 'travel document', issued by a state, albeit one who's legitimacy is contested. RashersTierney (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The "albeit one who's legitimacy is contested" is why I don't quite agree with your term "state". Put passport instead of travel document, it's fine with me. Or maybe, "as a travel document, i.e. specifically as a passport". Second could sound somewhat cumbersome, but might do better than the style of the first. Greets, --Biblbroks 's talk 00:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I genuinely have no idea what precise changes in wording you are proposing. Can you please give it as a full statement rather than breaking it up? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First you accuse me of POV and edit warring, when you haven't paid attention yourself, now you don't want to put a little more effort to decipher the ongoing discussion. Sorry for the harsh words, but you weren't so nice either in the edit summary.
 * Anyway, I suggested _you_ to put yourself (if you find it suitable) any of the two:
 * "is intended for the citizens of the disputed territory Kosovo as a passport"
 * "is intended for the citizens of the disputed territory Kosovo as a travel document, i.e. specifically as a passport"
 * I can't think of more for the moment. Best to you, too. --Biblbroks 's talk 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The difficulty is that it isn't intended as any of those things. It is intended (by the issuing authority) as a passport, like any other passport of a sovereign state. Whether it is accepted as such is the crux of the matter, and this is made clear at the lead regarding ROKs disputed sovereignty. RashersTierney (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But then rephrase it so that the "issued to citizens" does not imply statehood of Kosovo. Also partially recognised isn't neutral enough - as you said it : "disputed sovereignty" - disputed at the end does sound less biased. --Biblbroks 's talk  02:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to rephrase it. The edit before your revert was accurate and NPOV as far as I'm concerned. RashersTierney (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't accurate since passports aren't issued to citizens - from the world point of view - but to citizens from the Republic of Kosovo point of view (which is inherently biased since its statehood is a matter of dispute). I cannot believe you say it is NPOV when previously you stated: I understand your point ( and have done from your first revert). By this statement you acknowledge there is another point (mine) - which wasn't taken into account. So the edit before wasn't NPOV. Whatever non-neutrality I might have in my POV, for the article to be more neutral my point must be addressed. Which you fail to do by distancing and saying as far you are concerned. Therefore I must disagree with you and say that onus is on you, because your pointing to bias (travel document instead of passport - which is administrational issue) comparing to my pointing to bias (citizens implying statehood - which is political issue) is of less importance. --Biblbroks 's talk 04:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The world point of view is irrelevant - the world doesn't issue the passports! The Republic of Kosovo issues the passports to the people that they define as citizens. If you don't agree with their definition (or indeed with their right to issue passports in the first place), then that's not the fault of this article. It is entirely NPOV to say that RoK issues passports to its citizens, because that's what it does. Some clarification over Kosovo's disputed status is obviously needed to show that their legitimacy (and hence the legitimacy of their definition of citizens) is questionable, but we've got that already. I prefer the word "disputed" to "partially recognised", but otherwise RashersTierny's edit was fine. Leave it alone! Bazonka (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no strong preference between the terms 'disputed' and 'partially recognised'. Disputed reads a little more easily maybe. RashersTierney (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no strong preference between the terms 'disputed' and 'partially recognised'. Disputed reads a little more easily maybe. RashersTierney (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

@Bazonka: When and especially why did the change of your mind occur?! When once you said "actually I didn't object to your earlier edit" (which was my contribution to lessen the bias in issued to citizens), then come back writing this and in such a tone, I cannot but be sincerely surprised. But to read from you that the world point of view doesn't matter along with the words that the world doesn't issue the passports is what amazes me even more. What does that exactly mean? And even more astonishing is the implication of this "non-matterance" of the world point of view - what ever the context for such phrase was. Isn't this Wikipedia a neutral and _world's_ encyclopaedia which cherishes the __world point of view__ the most? Isn't the ___world point of view___ the same as the neutral point of view, or even better than it? And then again what does the WPOV have to do with some disputed territory issuing passports to or for its citizens. Many things, I would say. First of all where are those clarification of the Republic's of Kosovo legitimacy to define citizens, that you have mentioned? And what does somebody's right to issue things he calls passports have to do with this or anything? And when you say that the RoK issues passports to its citizens, do you have a neutral source on that? The one source which can truly be eligible enough to define when someone is a citizen or not, or to the least one source which can differ when some territory has valid statehood or not? The United Nations and it's final word, perhaps? But the UN couldn't have coped with the legitimacy of 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia nor its legal consequences. So my agreement or disagreement with someone's (RoK's) definition _has_ to do with this article, whether it is article's fault or not - as you put it. Why, since I represent one of the voices in the whole mankind, the voice which is to be given also, when no higher authority is in sight. Mankind's fault or not for nonexistance of such an authority. And my potential disagreement has much to do with you too since it is you and your fault telling me to leave it alone. Why should I? Am I holding anything? The main issue here, which I'm so desperately trying to point out, is that it mustn't be stated that RoK is issuing passports to its citizens but merely for its citizens. Semantics - slightly different in wording but enough in meaning. Greets, --Biblbroks 's talk 01:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I ever did change my mind. Firstly I did not object to your edit "The Kosovan passport is intended for the citizens of the disputed territory of Republic of Kosovo as a travel document", and secondly I haven't objected to the edit "The Kosovan passport is a travel document that is issued to the citizens of the disputed Republic of Kosovo". There's not a significant difference between those two sentences - I'm happy with either (although I have a mild preference for the latter). I can only assume that you have some aversion to "issued to" as opposed to "intended for", but I don't understand why. Please can you explain the nuance here? Why is for so much better than to?
 * And to address your world point of view concern, firstly I must point out that there is no consistent WPOV. Some parts of the world agree that RoK is legitimate, other parts don't. So to talk of a world point of view is largely nonsensical.
 * And secondly, we must consider who issues the passports. It's not the world, not the UN, it's not Serbia. They're issued by the government of the Republic of Kosovo, and you can't dispute that, whether you accept their legitimacy or not. So that's NPOV.
 * Thirdly, who are these passports issued to? Well that must be defined by the issuers, and they specify it to be for their citizens. If they so wanted, they could say that the Man in the Moon was a citizen of Kosovo and issue him with a passport. Of course you would reject this passport's legitimacy, but the fact would remain that they would have issued it to one of their citizens... by their definition, and it's this definition that matters because they're the issuing authority!
 * Of course, in order for this article to be NPOV we must make it clear that their legitimacy to define citizens and issue them with passports is questionable. And because we say that the Republic of Kosovo is disputed, this is implied. However, perhaps it can be made more explicit. Bazonka (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly to address the talking about world point of view being largely nonsensical. This kind of opinions could speak of someone's narrow-mindedness, or maybe malevolence. I hope the latter is not the case and I will try to improve my wikipedian skills to prevent my opinions being taken as malevolence. However, I wonder about one thing considering your mentioning parts of the world. Have you thought of the "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" principle when you were interpreting my use of "the world point of view" phrase?
 * Now for the article's issues. You are right if you mean that the issuers could define who the passports are intended for. But the issuers cannot do much more than that. The thing is that simply by issuing him a passport the issuers do not define that the Man in the Moon _is_ their citizen, because being someone's citizen requires that "that someone" is a state. Am I right? I think you are mixing issuing authority and issuing entity here. For example: besides RoK, Biblbroksonia and Bazonkaland could also both decide to issue Kosovan passports and then a problem would arise. Whose citizens would the people who receive all those passports be in that case? Issuing entity's definition of a citizen doesn't matter - that's my point. And this is why intended for is better and just maybe could pass as unbiased, since it doesn't necessarily mean that then there are any citizens.
 * I don't understand what you're driving at with your world point of view argument. Please can you explain how it is at all relevant, when there is no consistent point of view across the world. It is like having a WPOV over which is the best football team. There's no such thing as a WPOV here.
 * From RoK's point of view, Kosovo is a state, and because they're the issuer then this point of view is the most important. And as a "state", they have citizens, and these are whoever they define them to be (although this is all from RoK's point of view, and is obviously disputed by others). Nobody else is issuing Kosovan passports, so there is no problem with this. Of course the issuer's definition of citizen matters. This article should not blindly say that RoK's POV is the only POV, but for this subject matter it certainly has to be the most prominent. What do other people think? Bazonka (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that about sums it up! RashersTierney (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Explain this to me: "because they're the issuer then this point of view is the most important". By stating this I understand that you imply that simply by issuing some document called passport one entity has citizens. People with passports yes, but citizens? Really? Citizens of a state exist only if a state exists and vice versa, isn't it? Definition of a citizen is independent of some entity issuing things called passports. Am I right, or what is? Why, did you consider the hypothetical Biblbroksonia issuing Kosovan passports - would then there be dual citizens? The term citizens in this context I regard as subjects who make up a state, it's constituents, and not merely people who hold a passport or a citizenship for that matter. Because with hypothetical situation of a world with only two states and all the people in the world holding both of the two only citizenships and maybe it's passports too, you again have a problem of a definition of a state. Or even a crazier "hypotheticity" with three states and all people have all sorts of combinations of dual and triple citizenship. Doesn't this make all the stuff with issuing passports totally irrelevant compared to the definition of a citizen?
 * And the term "world point of view" has nothing to do with the matter anymore - it's now just a mix-up between two interpretations of one phrase. Forget it please I wrote about it. Greets, --Biblbroks 's talk 14:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition of a citizen is NOT independent of the entity issuing the passports. They are very much linked. And until you accept that, there is no point continuing this discussion. Bazonka (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Until you try considering my writing and responding to my questions, you will lack much insight into the subject, not to say basic etiquette. Citizens can exist without passports, you cannot deny that. Or can you? I regard your statement as void. You simply state it, without any arguments to back it up. I expected more of you. Greets, --Biblbroks 's talk 19:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, you appear not to able to grasp the crux of my argument (hint: it's point 1 below), so let me try to explain this one last time, answering each of your points. If you still don’t get it then I'm really not going to respond again – it's just a waste of time.
 * 1. Explain this to me: "because they're the issuer then this point of view is the most important". Perhaps I should have said "most relevant", rather than "most important". This article is about the Kosovan passport, which is issued by the Republic of Kosovo. There are different points of views around the validity of this, all of which must be expressed in the article. But because the subject matter is intrinsically linked to RoK, then RoK's point of view must be expressed first - it is of greater relevance than anyone else's POV. Alternative POVs (e.g. Serbia's) can follow as a counterpoint.
 * 2. You imply that simply by issuing some document called passport one entity has citizens. Yes, of course. You can't issue passports to anyone else. Having a passport is a mark of citizenship. But it is important to note that these are citizens from RoK's point of view, and they might not be viewed as Kosovo's citizens from another (e.g. Serbia's) POV. But, as stated under point 1, RoK's POV is of greater relevance, and we can say that RoK issues them to its citizens (as long as we clarify that others dispute this citizenship).
 * 3. Citizens of a state exist only if a state exists. Kosovo does exist as a state... from RoK's POV. Point 1 applies again.
 * 4. Definition of a citizen is independent of some entity issuing things called passports. No it isn't. The issuing entity defines who its citizens are (even if others dispute this definition, or their right to define). There's an intrinsic link.
 * 5. Why, did you consider the hypothetical Biblbroksonia issuing Kosovan passports - would then there be dual citizens? This argument is totally irrelevant because no other entity is issuing, or intends to issue, Kosovan passports. Your other arguments regarding duel/multiple citizenship are also not relevant. Serbia may issue Serbian passports to individuals who RoK also consider to be citizens, but so what?  Dual citizenship is not uncommon around the world, and it's not an issue.
 * 6. Citizens can exist without passports, you cannot deny that. They can indeed, but passports can't exist without citizens.
 * Look, if you really want to change the word "to" to "for" in the article then go ahead. I don't see the need for that at all, but if it makes you happy then do it. Bazonka (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps we have come to an understanding now. Since you have clearly described it in your point 6, I've come to grasp the crux of your argument, which you must agree, is influenced by your point of view. And this last one is biased, I reckon. Why, because you simply include citizens in your argument of passports' existence. Respond if something is wrong with my deduction of your point of view: existence of citizens is a prerequisite for existence of passports, existence of state is a prerequisite for existence of citizens, therefore existence of state is a prerequisite for existence of passports. Passports cannot exist without a state. But here is the catch: existence of state is disputable, since the statehood is disputed, and therefore existence of passports is even more disputable. From the point of view of this deduction and that is a POV of anyone who claims that passports cannot exist without citizens and that citizens cannot exist without a state. The latter is an assumption I took, since there is no term statizen in English language and citizens are clearly not just simple inhabitants but constituents of a state, aren't they? This point of view clearly exists - you have it, don't you? And if this perspective exists we must include it when writing the article. Also this perspective is biased towards Kosovan statehood, I would say, since it presumes existence of state if we talk about passports. Therefore I must finally conclude that we shouldn't be writing about Kosovan passport at all, but merely about "Kosovan travel document" (with potential addition "issued as a passport"). And not just that, but also I state that this article has a POV title - if we include your perspective of the subject, Bazonka. This should then apply to all articles about travel documents issued by disputed states. All the best, --Biblbroks 's talk 04:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I'm not going to respond to your arguments if you still can't understand where I'm coming from. Despite claiming "to grasp the crux" of my argument, you clearly don't. So I refuse to engage further in this pointless discussion. Bazonka (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sincerely sorry, Bazonka if I still don't grasp the crux of your argument. Maybe the language is the barrier, but I am somehow reluctant to accept this. Please respond to my claim that citizens cannot exist without a state because I intend to tag this article with pov-title. Am I right about this interpretation of the word citizen in this context? Because if citizens can exist without a state then the term passport is appropriate here (if we accept the assumption that the passports can be issued only to citizens). But if they cannot exist without a state then we have a situation where some entity can provide its statehood simply by issuing the passports to whom it claims its citizens are (again with the previous assumption of citizens' existence being a prerequisite for passports' existence). I think it finally comes to this: is the state's existence prerequisite for citizen's existence. If they are intrinsically linked to each other, it comes to the same conclusion: any mention of the term passport with the Kosovan in front is biased since it proclaims statehood of Kosovo. Why, from the Serbia's perspective Kosovan passports are simply Serbian passports since Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia, and Kosovan passports mentioned in the article are simply travel documents issued by some self-proclaimed government. --Biblbroks 's talk 20:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a long discussion to jump in, so I might not have read everything to the letter. The point to me seems to be whether it is "logic" to take the viewpoint of the RoK (which is the (disputed) legal authority) or the standpoint of the "outside world" (who might see a paradox: how can there be a citizen of a disputed state). Why not clearing up that here the viewpoint of the RoK is used by stating:

The Kosovan passport (Albanian: Pasaportë; Serbian: Пасош or Pasoš) is a travel document that is issued by the disputed Republic of Kosovo to those it recognizes [/regards] as its citizens. Let me know if you think this is a way forward. Just don't hope this article has to be tagged POV, basically for 1 word... L.tak 22:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it finally means we can move on from this issue, I would accept this compromise wording. Certainly agree that tagging as proposed is unnecessary. RashersTierney (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not bad wording indeed - the one I would have previously agreed to, if it weren't for the outside world's view now. Why, at least one person agrees (Bazonka) that there can't be no passports without citizens - there you have the outside's world (other person's) standpoint. Your proposal doesn't address that - it assumes that passports are documents which can exist without their holders. But their holders must be citizens. So there you have that paradox. Paradox is independent of some government' viewpoint and it must be avoided. This paradox shouldn't be regarded as the standpoint of the "outside world" since it must exist in the logic of RoK's government, too. It is comprised of humans who adhere to logic - therefore the "RoK's government's logic". This is only if you take the assumption of passports being dependent on their holders' (citizens') existence. But this assumption is valid IMO, since if passports would be just documents that facilitate travel, you would always have the question "to whom they facilitate". Recognized, regarded citizens? Hardly. Then you would have the chicken-egg problem. What existed first: (un)recognized government or (un)recognized citizens? Best regards, --Biblbroks 's talk 12:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the intro to this article. It doesn't need to change. The intro clearly states that Kosovo is disputed territory, thereby implying that the passports are not universally recognised. RashersTierney's suggested amendment is convoluted and unnecessary. @Biblbroks, yes I did say that passports can't exist without citizens, but that is irrelevant here - Kosovo does have citizens ... from Kosovo's point of view. I do not want to continually reiterate this, but read point 1 above. Stop complicating matters. Bazonka (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * +1 The intro doesn't need any change as it clearly points out Kosovo's status. Cheers.  kedadi al  17:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * edit conflict - :Just to clarify, the proposal is not mine, and I am not entirely satisfied with it. I assumed this would enable User Biblbroks to move on. Evidently I was wrong and his/her intention is to introduce pov by a thousand cuts. Support withdrawn. RashersTierney (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bazonka, It is relevant here because of the article's title. Article's titled from the RoK government's point of view - if passports can't exist without citizens. Implication that the passports are not universally recognized would follow only from the term for them - Kosovan travel documents issued by the government of RoK for example. Imagine just the Serbia government's point of view of the term for the aforementioned document: Kosovan passports are Serbian passports.
 * @Kedadi, the intro is not the question anymore, the title of the article is.
 * @RashersTierney, sorry but I haven't responded to your post. Formatting of paragraphs got in the way. My (I am a he) intention is to remove pov. I'm sorry you feel that I love to make "thousand cuts".
 * Cheers to all, --Biblbroks 's talk 18:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed that the lede, as it stands, could be considered so controversial or POV. Kosovo exists on the ground, and the current government issues passports. So what if the status of Kosovo as an independent country is disputed? That is made clear in the first sentence (currently), and if any reader curious about the issuer were to click on the RoK link, it's made clear in the first sentence there too. Meanwhile, the passport-issuer treats it as a passport like any other, the recipients treat it as a passport like any other, and even border officials will treat it like any other passport, with the exception of border officials in countries that do not recognise Kosovo - which has been argued at great length on the relevant pages (ie. not this one). Do we need endless caveats and wrangling over every little detail that happens in Kosovo, since the mere mention of "Kosovo" in any sentence where we could put the name of a more-widely-recognised state will be considered intrinsically POV? bobrayner (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So you think passports can exist without citizens? Issuers treating it as passports, recipients treating it as passports, border officials treating it as passports doesn't mean that they are passports. Same as it goes for the Kosovo being a state or not - someone treating it as a state doesn't mean it is a state. No need for desperation - it is a delicate matter, it needs delicate treatment. Don't you agree? All the best, --Biblbroks 's talk 20:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the issuer and the recipients (and many countries around the world) are concerned, they *are* citizens.
 * What other standard would you have for calling something a "passport"? It has the words written on it, it's used like a passport by the three parties concerned (issuer, holder, and many but not all third-party officials), it meets international standards for what a passport should be, and it even fits the description in the header of Passport.
 * The first sentence of this article states that Kosovo's status is disputed, as does the first sentence of the RoK article. There's even an entire section on "recognition" which dominates this article. How much more "delicate treatment" do you feel is necessary?
 * bobrayner (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. Exactly my point - I couldn't have put it better myself (believe me I've tried). Bazonka (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bobrayner, who do you mean when you say *are* citizens? Inhabitants of Kosovo having a document titled "...Državljanstvo Kosova" ("...Citizenship of Kosovo" in Serbian/Serbo-Croatian)? Having something like that doesn't mean they *are* citizens, does it? Which other standard do you think I mean is there? To keep you from struggling to think, I will tell you of which requirement I think should be fulfilled: passports' holders being citizens. That's the main reason for me saying it is a biased title for the article. As far as the three parties that use the document as a passport is concerned: those other third-party officials, who do not accept it, do exist, so discrepancy about document being really a passport applies here also. Finally the document fitting the description in the header of Passport - "issued by a *national* government" - is highly disputable. Kosovan government being a national government is what you say? Do you promote nationality of Kosovar also, apart from statehood? For the record: I am quite sure that I am not the one who exercises feelings here and now, so please refrain yourself from trying to quote me on necessity of delicate treatment. --Biblbroks 's talk 00:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the POV Title template that Biblbroks added to this article. There is absolutely no consensus to add this template, either here or on Talk:Kosovo where Biblbroks was in fact told not to add the template. I don't think that Biblbroks will have any support for this action. In my opinion, this article is neutrally titled, and any contentious issues are adequately dealt with in the article. Bazonka (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that the article is neutrally titled and I do not believe that a POV Title template is appropriate.
 * Biblbroks asked for a third opinion; I gave one. Biblbroks didn't like the third opinion and added the POV header anyway, saying "no new insight on the talk page for almost whole day", although others had asked Biblbroks not to. Maybe a third opinion is not what Biblbroks really wanted.
 * I'm wary of getting mired in endless logic-chopping about citizenship... and please let's not start an edit war. Is there anything else we can do to compromise or work towards an agreement?
 * bobrayner (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

@Bazonka, actually there is absolutely no consensus on the question whether passports exist without citizens. Why should there be a consensus for adding a template - one user adds it when he has enough reasons. It was just my carefulness that contributed to informing the community before tagging the article. There was no question asked whether to put it but an information for all the interested to join the discussion since you and I have come to a stalemate - as it appeared to me. Since then others did join but noone so far countered my reasons for putting the template, so my reasons are valid - I conclude. As far as the discussion at Talk:Kosovo on this subject - it wasn't quite appropriate to discuss the matter there: I specifically asked to discuss it here and also it is generally accepted that the discussion about the article should convey on it's talk page. That's why the talk pages were invented in the first place and continue to exist, isn't it Bazonka? Your opinion on article's title neutrality is already noted, and that several times, but in fact you haven't adequately responded to my arguments of the title being biased. You haven't given one good reason why is it neutral except your opinion, now. Contentious issue here is exactly the article's title: the syntagma Kosovan passport assumes Kosovan statehood. Why do you continuously refuse to address this issue? As for the discussion on the Kosovo talk page, I will quote it here in order to continue it *only* here. {{quote box|

Third opinion on Kosovan passport biased title
I am planning to put a pov-title template on the Kosovan passport article as per discussion on the talk page. The discussion appears to have come to a stalemate so I am asking for some other opinion before I tag the article. Please discuss at the Talk:Kosovan passport for the time being. The issue may be connected to similar articles (Abkhazian passport and others) and I am not sure where to post this request. Best regards, --Biblbroks 's talk 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't put a pov-title template until you get at least most of the commenters to agree with you. 68.114.198.186 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see what Biblbroks is complaining about. As Bazonka told him there, any entity claiming to be a state has citizens and may issue passports to them for those citizens to attempt to use for purposes of travel. Whether other states accept said documents is a separate question. The Republic of Kosovo exists, it claims statehood, and issues documents accordingly. Some states accept the passports, some don't. Some states accept the statehood of the RoK, some don't. Neither point affects the fact that the document in question is a Kosovan passport, just as the title states. 97.82.152.134 (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with you, and do not see why a big POV warning is necessary, but I think it would be best to use the Kosovo passport page when discussing fine details of Kosovo passports. :-) The discussion is long enough already; splitting it onto another talk page is just asking for trouble. But then again I went there to offer a third opinion rather than to get bogged down in epic debate... bobrayner (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

@User:97.82.152.134, as Bobrayner said it, please don't split the discussion. If an entity claims to be a state it doesn't necessarily have citizens. Only if it *is* a state - then it has citizens. And vice versa: if it has citizens it is a state. They are intrinsically connected. State without citizens is simply a territory without inhabitants, and not a state - it must have a constitution to be a state, and constitution presumes citizens. Also citizens without a state are simply inhabitants of some territory, and not citizens - again they ought to have a constitution to define a state. But simply having a constitution isn't enough - because other states may disagree with existence of a new state. Until they all agree that it is a state then it is a state. Perceive it as a club with restricted membership. Since there is no president of the club, all members must accept a new member. Also User:97.82.152.134, I am not complaining. Actually you are by questioning why am I complaining. Please discuss on the Talk:Kosovan passport in the future. For the reason of having a compact discussion I will copy this whole section to the Talk:Kosovan passport and expect the discussion to continue there. I will disregard all the future comments on the subject made here. Regards, --Biblbroks 's talk 22:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC) }} I responded to some more arguments against title being biased and as I said I expect to discuss them all exclusively here with a hope that we will finally resolve this issue. All the best, --Biblbroks 's talk 23:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bobrayner, you agree yet you don't respond to my arguments. It's not that I didn't like your opinion, I just countered it with arguments, which you failed to counter-argument. I wanted a third opinion and got the second opinion which I already knew of: that the article is neutrally titled. Respond please to this: Kosovan passport is Serbian passport from Serbia's viewpoint, since it assumes that Kosovo is integral part of Serbia. I'm sorry about your logic-chopping abilities to fail under constant pressure. Try to distant yourself from this issue, maybe it helps. As far as you can see (I hope) I am not edit warring - I continued the discussion which you have stopped previously. I am constantly trying to discuss the issue but you fail to discuss it with me. Please discuss. --Biblbroks 's talk 23:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By claiming to be a state, the RoK makes a claim that the people living in the territory it claims are its citizens. For its own purposes, they are citizens and it may thus issue passports to and for them. The perception of other states is irrelevant to the actions of the claimed state within its own territory. Whether they are ultimately irrelevant to the actions of the claimed state outside its borders is a different question. It is also one on which we disagree. You apparently believe that states exist only as other states perceive them, I believe that states exist as their citizens perceive them. When asking about your complaining, I was referring to your asking for a POV tag. 97.82.152.134 (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Biblbroks, you have asked for my argument that the article is not POV. I thought I'd done this earlier, but anyway I shall reiterate and expand.
 * The document in question is issued by the Republic of Kosovo, allows holders to travel internationally, and has the word "Passport" on the cover. These facts are true regardless of whether it is a legitimate passport or not. Your arguments seem to come from your Serbian POV which is that it was issued by an illegal/illegitimate entity, and therefore has no legal standing itself. This is a valid opinion, and is adequately documented in the article. However the fact remains that it is still a passport document from Kosovo. The title is appropriate.
 * Kosovan passport is Serbian passport from Serbia's viewpoint, since it assumes that Kosovo is integral part of Serbia. No, this is not the case. From Serbia's point of view, this is the Serbian passport, which is a completely different document. It can be issued to citizens of Kosovo, but it is not the Kosovan passport because Serbia is more than just Kosovo (like you would never describe the UK passport as a Scottish passport, or a US passport as a Florida passport). From Serbia's POV, the Kosovan passport is meaningless and illegitimate. However, the Serbian government does not deny the existence of these documents.
 * As for whether passports can exist without citizens, I think this is an irrelevant argument. Kosovo does have citizens, as defined by its government, which issues the passports. Of course other governments dispute RoK's legitimacy and its rights to define citizens and issue passports, but because this article is about a document issued by RoK, the RoK viewpoint is more relevant and must be expressed first and primarily. This is not to say that it is the correct or only point of view; the other side of the story must be given. It is; this is neutral. Bazonka (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @97.82.152.134, I am exactly pointing to the question whether the actions of the claimed stated are irrelevant outside its borders. This article must be written and titled according to this standpoint. So RoK's viewpoint secondary to the outside world's viewpoint. About your belief that states exist as their citizens perceive them this must be stated (again): citizens cannot exist without a state. You cannot have citizens who make a claim that a state exists, if it weren't for the state in the first place. When referring to my asking for a POV tag, it wasn't complaining (read the words again) and it wasn't asking for a POV tag but for a third opinion (on exactly one question), so that previously involved in the discussion wouldn't mind if I were to make actions as I have made now once. Exactly which question is it (I repeat) is this: whether passports can exist without citizens.
 * Bazonka, you indeed have give given arguments but I have counter-argumented them, without you responding to my counter-arguments again. As for the facts you have given about the document they're indeed true, but the requirement of the document being issued by a national government (as stated in the header of Passport) remains not entirely fulfilled. I am not talking about Serbia's valid standpoint being stated in the article, but in the title. Your arguments for claiming the title is appropriate seem to come from a "Kosovan statehood"'s POV, which is a valid option also, but not the only one. The only fact, I concur with, that remains is that the document is a travel document from Kosovo intended to be a passport. Not a passport document itself. The title is therefore inappropriate from my POV, and this must be documented in the _title_. Regards, --77.105.61.154 (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding anonymous comment was added by Biblbroks 's talk 18:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume that last post was from you, Biblbroks. The Kosovan passport is issued by a national government - as seen from RoK's side of things. As I mentioned above, this standpoint is the most relevant because it is they who issue the passport. You have yet to respond to this crucial part of my argument. Bazonka (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The cover of the document says "Republic of Kosovo Passport", therefore it is BY DEFINITION a Kosovan Passport. Therefore, the title is correct. The question of whether said passport is VALID, which seems to be Biblbroks' major problem with the title, is secondary to the facts. Also, if citizens cannot exist without a state and states cannot exist without other states' recognition then how did we ever get any states in the first place? The first state could not have any recognition and thus could not be a state. The second state could only be recognized by the first, which we have just established is not a state by your definition. And the process would continue. By your own definition, there are no possible states. 199.90.28.195 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (just pointing out that this is the same person as 97.82.152.134, I am also User: Khajidha but as I had not logged in at the beginning of the discussion I have not done so yet)


 * No POV at all .. it's all facts! The passport does exist in reality, we're only reporting and giving information here. The fact that Serbia does not recognize the passport is even mentioned in the article. Hey, if tomorrow one state says Serbia is non-sovereign and illegal and shall be annexed to Albania we would not go and put POV templates over all Serbian related articles! This is non of our business; we're just reporting on what exists and the context in which it does. We do not give our opinions here. Thanks, Maysara (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is NPOV and not in any violation of POV.. It is the passport from Kosovo, therefore we call it the "Kosovan Passport/ Kosovar Passport". It is clearly stated in the article that Kosovo's independence is disputed and that the passport is not accepted everywhere. Biblbroks is known for making repetitive controversial title proposals for the article "International recognition of Kosovo". He seems to be too personally involved with the Status of Kosovo. However I believe that this article as well as other articles related to Kosovo are NPOV and not in any violation of POV. IJA (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE don't post any more to this thread, or it'll never get archived. Its length is insane, and more posts only make it worse. Bazonka (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Adjective for Kosovo inhabitant
The correct and by far most used english adjective to refer a Kosovo inhabitant is Kosovar, not Kosovan. Search it on sources and on the web to clearify the question. Kosovar: 6,690,000 hits Kosovan: 94,900 hits Gogle test doesn't works with particular case like proper name of not so famous artist or historical people: in these particular cases it should be run a different and deeply analized web search. Altough for simple national adjective, like Kosovar/an it fit better: in this case a single google search showed how well-defined is the ratio, 70:1, seventy times more used Kosovar. Regards, --Theirrulez (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Aside from problems with Google tests, the comment is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. "Kosovan" in the title isn't referring to a person, but rather indicating that this passport is from Kosovo. In that usage, Kosovan is the usual term in English. As an example, you might say "He is a Kosovar" but you would say "That newspaper is Kosovan." In many other cases (such as German and Chinese) the two words are the same in English, but in this case there are two separate words. Hope this helps.--Khajidha (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Kosovar" refers to the people of Kosovo. "Kosovan" refers to something from Kosovo. Just like "Serb" and "Croat" refer to the people of Serbia and Croatia, whereas "Serbian" and "Croatian" refer to things from Serbia and Croatia. Let me give an example, "A Kosovar uses a Kosovan passport to travel". IJA (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Request piece
Does any one know the text of the "request" piece that usually forms part of passports...i.e. presumably something like "The Government of the Republic of Kosovo requests all whom it concerns to afford the bearer of this passport, a citizen of the Republic of Kosovo, all necessary assistance etc."? Would seem worth adding if this is know. Thanks! 84.203.78.178 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See the "Passport note" thread in Archive 2. Bazonka (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Slow burn revert war re use of word citizen at lead
It makes no sense in my view to attempt to make a lone exception at this article by attempting to claim that these passports are issued to anyone other than citizens of the issuing entity. There are many disputed states, from Transnistria to Israel. Should the lead of all their passport articles be similarly qualified? The term citizen is used without prejudice to the status of the (very obviously disputed) entity in question. RashersTierney (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite right - it is not so a fruitful attempt to make this a lone exception. So, be constructive, please, and suggest where could this issue be discussed. Such place should be centralized for other parties involved to be able to express their opinion, too. Also, how can you be certain that the term citizen is used without prejudice? Not everywhere, that's for sure. If you state citizen, than you imply that there is citizenship and then you imply that there is statehood. That's my point. All the best. --Biblbroks 's talk 13:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point ( and have done from your first revert). I do not agree with it. A qualifying addition has already been made at the lead highlighting the issue of disputed sovereignty. I see no reason for further modification - certainly not the application of the legally meaningless term 'people'. If you feel a case for exceptional treatment at this article should be made over all other instances of disputed statehood, the onus is on you to do so. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with RashersTierney. The Republic of Kosovo, in its capacity as a country (legitimate or otherwise), has citizens - people who belong to this country. Only the RoK could issue Kosovo Passports, and they could only issue it to those people who they consider to be its citizens. Of course other countries dispute that Kosovo is a legitimate country, but it is not up to those countries to issue Kosovo passports, nor to define who Kosovo's citizens are - therefore their position is not relevant to this article. The use of the word "people" is not precise enough, because it includes those who RoK would not consider to be its citizens, namely foreign nationals residing in Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bazonka, your statement of Kosovo having citizens could be analogous with my statement that Biblbroksoville or Bazonkania, have citizens. Please, do not be offended by this example of imagined countries, it is merely so - an example. Also your point that RoK could issue Kosovan passports could be valid only if RoK existed (also, in your terms to be exact: RoK wouldn't be the one issuing but the government of the so called RoK). Wouldn't you agree that to some readers the Republic of Kosovo (and the government of RoK or of any disputed territory as such) could only be a term for something illegitimate - and thus nonexistent. If something is illegitimate to someone, she/he can ignore it, doesn't it. And the best way to do this is to treat it as nonexistent. Thus illegitimacy could and usually leads to nonexistence ... for some, and for those we must include one other Point of view. Therefore, you could also be very wrong about the exclusiveness to who/what is to issue Kosovan passports, and about who/what can or may define who is a Kosovo citizen.
 * As for the point that the term "people" in my wording could be considered as somewhat vague in such context, I see it and understand it but do not agree with it. However, since I perceive there are some that have such POV (as in plain "point of view", not necessarily as in "biased perspective"), I will try to include it in my next contribution to the article. Also, I'm not exactly sure that I agree with that that this article should have a special treatment over all other articles and instances of disputed statehood, but will try to do my best elsewhere, too, if needed. All the best. --Biblbroks 's talk 01:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See: Abkhazian passport, Republic of China passport, Palestinian Authority passport. Transnistrian passport.  kedadi al  01:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seen. Best, --Biblbroks 's talk 06:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Biblbroks, if I founded a pretend country / micronation then I would be perfectly entitled to grant citizenship to whomever I liked, and to issue them with passports. Of course, no other real country would recognise my country or its passports, but the fact remains that I would be issuing passports for my "country". It's exactly the same situation with Kosovo, which from a Serbian (and many other countries' point of view) doesn't legitimately exist; they can treat it as non-existent if they want and reject the passports. But RoK does have a functioning government (whether you like/recognise it or not), and it is issuing passports to the people that it's identified (rightly or wrongly) as its citizens. This article is not taking sides regarding the legitimacy of the passports or the rights of the "citizens" to receive them, it merely states that they exist and are being issued. Having said all that though, I do not particularly object to your latest edit. Bazonka (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bazonka, in your "hypothesised" case you would be issuing passports for your country - and probably your country and your citizens wouldn't exist. There's a slight semantic difference between issuing for and issuing to. Functioning government is also a matter of discussion. As for the phrases, I suggest we put your wording "is issuing passports to the people that it's identified (rightly or wrongly) as its citizens" as such or similar to the article. Best, --Biblbroks 's talk 10:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Biblbroks, whilst I did not much object to this edit that you made, I cannot say the same for this one. That's utterly, outrageously POV. You cannot say that Kosovo is the "southwestern part of Serbia" (nor, of course, can you say that it is an independent country); you must take the neutral stance and just say that it is a disputed territory. Bazonka (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bazonka, I utterly, completely and totally understand your concern. It was quite reckless of me with an edit such as that. The intention was to address Kidadi's comment that it isn't RoK that is disputed territory, but Kosovo and then to clarify more. I was merely trying to make a distinction between the two .... Kosovo being a region ... southwest to/of Serbia ... and that's where it went berserk. The way the syntagma was constructed was with something in that sense in mind, and it appearing biased and being such is truly a failure from my side. Giant oops - I really haven't meant that and I apologize for I have always tried to pursue The Neutrality in my contributions.
 * But on the other hand, Bazonka, I'm sincerely sincerely wondering about something. I cannot guess the cause for you not revealing why you objected to my edit before this "egregious" one. Was the reason that RoK couldn't be addressed as a disputed territory, as Kedadi mentioned? The "as a travel document" at the end? Or something else in the wording? Please elaborate.
 * All in all my suggestion now is "...is intended for the citizens of the disputed territory of Kosovo as a travel document." How 'bout that? Best to all, --Biblbroks 's talk 21:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Biblbroks, apology accepted! And, actually I didn't object to your earlier edit (not sure why you think I did) - I thought it was OK. And your latest suggestion is also OK. Bazonka (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Me very happy for the acceptance of apology. :-) And the reason why I thought you objected is because it haven't cross my mind that the phrase "not much" to object could also mean "nothing" to object. --Biblbroks 's talk 23:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there is something that you need to understand: "Kosovo is a subject of a territorial dispute between the Republic of Kosovo and the Republic of Serbia". Now, these passports are issued directly by the Republic of Kosovo and not by Kosovo as a territory. So, why should we clutter the article with things like "disputed territory of Kosovo" when this article has to do with RoK (something that is not disputed). So I disagree with your suggestion and support the intro of the article in it's current shape. Thank you.  kedadi al  23:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a need for clarification of what is a subject of dispute and between whom. Somehow it seems to me that everybody is aware of that. But, as you mention it yourself further in the discussion, Kosovo is a territory also, it's not merely a subject of dispute. I suppose that one of the main issues for your concern is this certain amount of ambiguity in the term Kosovo: is it just "the territory", or RoK, or both. Or what. Enough to say that there's a simple example of this ambiguity in Wikipedia: Republic of Kosovo links to the article Kosovo. And all because it's a matter of dispute.
 * Also I can't say that I agree to that the Republic of Kosovo isn't disputed - if one can state that it's existence is a disputed subject, than one can state that the entity itself is disputed (if not controversial). And that one could be right, right? But perhaps this concern could be addressed with the simple change from "...is intended for the citizens of the disputed territory of Kosovo..." to "...is intended for the citizens of the disputed territory Kosovo...". Kosovo is a territory, isn't it (as is RoK); disputed as it is - probably noone here can argue that; and finally the passport is intended for the citizens of Kosovo, right?
 * Any way if the current wording stays intact there definitely remains the matter of bias in the term "citizen". Best, --Biblbroks 's talk 12:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: added to prevent the bot from archiving the discussion. --Biblbroks 's talk 12:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
This document is 'intended as a passport, a very specific form of 'travel document', issued by a state, albeit one who's legitimacy is contested. RashersTierney (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The "albeit one who's legitimacy is contested" is why I don't quite agree with your term "state". Put passport instead of travel document, it's fine with me. Or maybe, "as a travel document, i.e. specifically as a passport". Second could sound somewhat cumbersome, but might do better than the style of the first. Greets, --Biblbroks 's talk 00:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I genuinely have no idea what precise changes in wording you are proposing. Can you please give it as a full statement rather than breaking it up? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First you accuse me of POV and edit warring, when you haven't paid attention yourself, now you don't want to put a little more effort to decipher the ongoing discussion. Sorry for the harsh words, but you weren't so nice either in the edit summary.
 * Anyway, I suggested _you_ to put yourself (if you find it suitable) any of the two:
 * "is intended for the citizens of the disputed territory Kosovo as a passport"
 * "is intended for the citizens of the disputed territory Kosovo as a travel document, i.e. specifically as a passport"
 * I can't think of more for the moment. Best to you, too. --Biblbroks 's talk 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The difficulty is that it isn't intended as any of those things. It is intended (by the issuing authority) as a passport, like any other passport of a sovereign state. Whether it is accepted as such is the crux of the matter, and this is made clear at the lead regarding ROKs disputed sovereignty. RashersTierney (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But then rephrase it so that the "issued to citizens" does not imply statehood of Kosovo. Also partially recognised isn't neutral enough - as you said it : "disputed sovereignty" - disputed at the end does sound less biased. --Biblbroks 's talk  02:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to rephrase it. The edit before your revert was accurate and NPOV as far as I'm concerned. RashersTierney (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't accurate since passports aren't issued to citizens - from the world point of view - but to citizens from the Republic of Kosovo point of view (which is inherently biased since its statehood is a matter of dispute). I cannot believe you say it is NPOV when previously you stated: I understand your point ( and have done from your first revert). By this statement you acknowledge there is another point (mine) - which wasn't taken into account. So the edit before wasn't NPOV. Whatever non-neutrality I might have in my POV, for the article to be more neutral my point must be addressed. Which you fail to do by distancing and saying as far you are concerned. Therefore I must disagree with you and say that onus is on you, because your pointing to bias (travel document instead of passport - which is administrational issue) comparing to my pointing to bias (citizens implying statehood - which is political issue) is of less importance. --Biblbroks 's talk 04:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The world point of view is irrelevant - the world doesn't issue the passports! The Republic of Kosovo issues the passports to the people that they define as citizens. If you don't agree with their definition (or indeed with their right to issue passports in the first place), then that's not the fault of this article. It is entirely NPOV to say that RoK issues passports to its citizens, because that's what it does. Some clarification over Kosovo's disputed status is obviously needed to show that their legitimacy (and hence the legitimacy of their definition of citizens) is questionable, but we've got that already. I prefer the word "disputed" to "partially recognised", but otherwise RashersTierny's edit was fine. Leave it alone! Bazonka (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no strong preference between the terms 'disputed' and 'partially recognised'. Disputed reads a little more easily maybe. RashersTierney (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no strong preference between the terms 'disputed' and 'partially recognised'. Disputed reads a little more easily maybe. RashersTierney (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

@Bazonka: When and especially why did the change of your mind occur?! When once you said "actually I didn't object to your earlier edit" (which was my contribution to lessen the bias in issued to citizens), then come back writing this and in such a tone, I cannot but be sincerely surprised. But to read from you that the world point of view doesn't matter along with the words that the world doesn't issue the passports is what amazes me even more. What does that exactly mean? And even more astonishing is the implication of this "non-matterance" of the world point of view - what ever the context for such phrase was. Isn't this Wikipedia a neutral and _world's_ encyclopaedia which cherishes the __world point of view__ the most? Isn't the ___world point of view___ the same as the neutral point of view, or even better than it? And then again what does the WPOV have to do with some disputed territory issuing passports to or for its citizens. Many things, I would say. First of all where are those clarification of the Republic's of Kosovo legitimacy to define citizens, that you have mentioned? And what does somebody's right to issue things he calls passports have to do with this or anything? And when you say that the RoK issues passports to its citizens, do you have a neutral source on that? The one source which can truly be eligible enough to define when someone is a citizen or not, or to the least one source which can differ when some territory has valid statehood or not? The United Nations and it's final word, perhaps? But the UN couldn't have coped with the legitimacy of 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia nor its legal consequences. So my agreement or disagreement with someone's (RoK's) definition _has_ to do with this article, whether it is article's fault or not - as you put it. Why, since I represent one of the voices in the whole mankind, the voice which is to be given also, when no higher authority is in sight. Mankind's fault or not for nonexistance of such an authority. And my potential disagreement has much to do with you too since it is you and your fault telling me to leave it alone. Why should I? Am I holding anything? The main issue here, which I'm so desperately trying to point out, is that it mustn't be stated that RoK is issuing passports to its citizens but merely for its citizens. Semantics - slightly different in wording but enough in meaning. Greets, --Biblbroks 's talk 01:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I ever did change my mind. Firstly I did not object to your edit "The Kosovan passport is intended for the citizens of the disputed territory of Republic of Kosovo as a travel document", and secondly I haven't objected to the edit "The Kosovan passport is a travel document that is issued to the citizens of the disputed Republic of Kosovo". There's not a significant difference between those two sentences - I'm happy with either (although I have a mild preference for the latter). I can only assume that you have some aversion to "issued to" as opposed to "intended for", but I don't understand why. Please can you explain the nuance here? Why is for so much better than to?
 * And to address your world point of view concern, firstly I must point out that there is no consistent WPOV. Some parts of the world agree that RoK is legitimate, other parts don't. So to talk of a world point of view is largely nonsensical.
 * And secondly, we must consider who issues the passports. It's not the world, not the UN, it's not Serbia. They're issued by the government of the Republic of Kosovo, and you can't dispute that, whether you accept their legitimacy or not. So that's NPOV.
 * Thirdly, who are these passports issued to? Well that must be defined by the issuers, and they specify it to be for their citizens. If they so wanted, they could say that the Man in the Moon was a citizen of Kosovo and issue him with a passport. Of course you would reject this passport's legitimacy, but the fact would remain that they would have issued it to one of their citizens... by their definition, and it's this definition that matters because they're the issuing authority!
 * Of course, in order for this article to be NPOV we must make it clear that their legitimacy to define citizens and issue them with passports is questionable. And because we say that the Republic of Kosovo is disputed, this is implied. However, perhaps it can be made more explicit. Bazonka (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly to address the talking about world point of view being largely nonsensical. This kind of opinions could speak of someone's narrow-mindedness, or maybe malevolence. I hope the latter is not the case and I will try to improve my wikipedian skills to prevent my opinions being taken as malevolence. However, I wonder about one thing considering your mentioning parts of the world. Have you thought of the "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" principle when you were interpreting my use of "the world point of view" phrase?
 * Now for the article's issues. You are right if you mean that the issuers could define who the passports are intended for. But the issuers cannot do much more than that. The thing is that simply by issuing him a passport the issuers do not define that the Man in the Moon _is_ their citizen, because being someone's citizen requires that "that someone" is a state. Am I right? I think you are mixing issuing authority and issuing entity here. For example: besides RoK, Biblbroksonia and Bazonkaland could also both decide to issue Kosovan passports and then a problem would arise. Whose citizens would the people who receive all those passports be in that case? Issuing entity's definition of a citizen doesn't matter - that's my point. And this is why intended for is better and just maybe could pass as unbiased, since it doesn't necessarily mean that then there are any citizens.
 * I don't understand what you're driving at with your world point of view argument. Please can you explain how it is at all relevant, when there is no consistent point of view across the world. It is like having a WPOV over which is the best football team. There's no such thing as a WPOV here.
 * From RoK's point of view, Kosovo is a state, and because they're the issuer then this point of view is the most important. And as a "state", they have citizens, and these are whoever they define them to be (although this is all from RoK's point of view, and is obviously disputed by others). Nobody else is issuing Kosovan passports, so there is no problem with this. Of course the issuer's definition of citizen matters. This article should not blindly say that RoK's POV is the only POV, but for this subject matter it certainly has to be the most prominent. What do other people think? Bazonka (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that about sums it up! RashersTierney (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Explain this to me: "because they're the issuer then this point of view is the most important". By stating this I understand that you imply that simply by issuing some document called passport one entity has citizens. People with passports yes, but citizens? Really? Citizens of a state exist only if a state exists and vice versa, isn't it? Definition of a citizen is independent of some entity issuing things called passports. Am I right, or what is? Why, did you consider the hypothetical Biblbroksonia issuing Kosovan passports - would then there be dual citizens? The term citizens in this context I regard as subjects who make up a state, it's constituents, and not merely people who hold a passport or a citizenship for that matter. Because with hypothetical situation of a world with only two states and all the people in the world holding both of the two only citizenships and maybe it's passports too, you again have a problem of a definition of a state. Or even a crazier "hypotheticity" with three states and all people have all sorts of combinations of dual and triple citizenship. Doesn't this make all the stuff with issuing passports totally irrelevant compared to the definition of a citizen?
 * And the term "world point of view" has nothing to do with the matter anymore - it's now just a mix-up between two interpretations of one phrase. Forget it please I wrote about it. Greets, --Biblbroks 's talk 14:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition of a citizen is NOT independent of the entity issuing the passports. They are very much linked. And until you accept that, there is no point continuing this discussion. Bazonka (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Until you try considering my writing and responding to my questions, you will lack much insight into the subject, not to say basic etiquette. Citizens can exist without passports, you cannot deny that. Or can you? I regard your statement as void. You simply state it, without any arguments to back it up. I expected more of you. Greets, --Biblbroks 's talk 19:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, you appear not to able to grasp the crux of my argument (hint: it's point 1 below), so let me try to explain this one last time, answering each of your points. If you still don’t get it then I'm really not going to respond again – it's just a waste of time.
 * 1. Explain this to me: "because they're the issuer then this point of view is the most important". Perhaps I should have said "most relevant", rather than "most important". This article is about the Kosovan passport, which is issued by the Republic of Kosovo. There are different points of views around the validity of this, all of which must be expressed in the article. But because the subject matter is intrinsically linked to RoK, then RoK's point of view must be expressed first - it is of greater relevance than anyone else's POV. Alternative POVs (e.g. Serbia's) can follow as a counterpoint.
 * 2. You imply that simply by issuing some document called passport one entity has citizens. Yes, of course. You can't issue passports to anyone else. Having a passport is a mark of citizenship. But it is important to note that these are citizens from RoK's point of view, and they might not be viewed as Kosovo's citizens from another (e.g. Serbia's) POV. But, as stated under point 1, RoK's POV is of greater relevance, and we can say that RoK issues them to its citizens (as long as we clarify that others dispute this citizenship).
 * 3. Citizens of a state exist only if a state exists. Kosovo does exist as a state... from RoK's POV. Point 1 applies again.
 * 4. Definition of a citizen is independent of some entity issuing things called passports. No it isn't. The issuing entity defines who its citizens are (even if others dispute this definition, or their right to define). There's an intrinsic link.
 * 5. Why, did you consider the hypothetical Biblbroksonia issuing Kosovan passports - would then there be dual citizens? This argument is totally irrelevant because no other entity is issuing, or intends to issue, Kosovan passports. Your other arguments regarding duel/multiple citizenship are also not relevant. Serbia may issue Serbian passports to individuals who RoK also consider to be citizens, but so what?  Dual citizenship is not uncommon around the world, and it's not an issue.
 * 6. Citizens can exist without passports, you cannot deny that. They can indeed, but passports can't exist without citizens.
 * Look, if you really want to change the word "to" to "for" in the article then go ahead. I don't see the need for that at all, but if it makes you happy then do it. Bazonka (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps we have come to an understanding now. Since you have clearly described it in your point 6, I've come to grasp the crux of your argument, which you must agree, is influenced by your point of view. And this last one is biased, I reckon. Why, because you simply include citizens in your argument of passports' existence. Respond if something is wrong with my deduction of your point of view: existence of citizens is a prerequisite for existence of passports, existence of state is a prerequisite for existence of citizens, therefore existence of state is a prerequisite for existence of passports. Passports cannot exist without a state. But here is the catch: existence of state is disputable, since the statehood is disputed, and therefore existence of passports is even more disputable. From the point of view of this deduction and that is a POV of anyone who claims that passports cannot exist without citizens and that citizens cannot exist without a state. The latter is an assumption I took, since there is no term statizen in English language and citizens are clearly not just simple inhabitants but constituents of a state, aren't they? This point of view clearly exists - you have it, don't you? And if this perspective exists we must include it when writing the article. Also this perspective is biased towards Kosovan statehood, I would say, since it presumes existence of state if we talk about passports. Therefore I must finally conclude that we shouldn't be writing about Kosovan passport at all, but merely about "Kosovan travel document" (with potential addition "issued as a passport"). And not just that, but also I state that this article has a POV title - if we include your perspective of the subject, Bazonka. This should then apply to all articles about travel documents issued by disputed states. All the best, --Biblbroks 's talk 04:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I'm not going to respond to your arguments if you still can't understand where I'm coming from. Despite claiming "to grasp the crux" of my argument, you clearly don't. So I refuse to engage further in this pointless discussion. Bazonka (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sincerely sorry, Bazonka if I still don't grasp the crux of your argument. Maybe the language is the barrier, but I am somehow reluctant to accept this. Please respond to my claim that citizens cannot exist without a state because I intend to tag this article with pov-title. Am I right about this interpretation of the word citizen in this context? Because if citizens can exist without a state then the term passport is appropriate here (if we accept the assumption that the passports can be issued only to citizens). But if they cannot exist without a state then we have a situation where some entity can provide its statehood simply by issuing the passports to whom it claims its citizens are (again with the previous assumption of citizens' existence being a prerequisite for passports' existence). I think it finally comes to this: is the state's existence prerequisite for citizen's existence. If they are intrinsically linked to each other, it comes to the same conclusion: any mention of the term passport with the Kosovan in front is biased since it proclaims statehood of Kosovo. Why, from the Serbia's perspective Kosovan passports are simply Serbian passports since Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia, and Kosovan passports mentioned in the article are simply travel documents issued by some self-proclaimed government. --Biblbroks 's talk 20:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a long discussion to jump in, so I might not have read everything to the letter. The point to me seems to be whether it is "logic" to take the viewpoint of the RoK (which is the (disputed) legal authority) or the standpoint of the "outside world" (who might see a paradox: how can there be a citizen of a disputed state). Why not clearing up that here the viewpoint of the RoK is used by stating:

The Kosovan passport (Albanian: Pasaportë; Serbian: Пасош or Pasoš) is a travel document that is issued by the disputed Republic of Kosovo to those it recognizes [/regards] as its citizens. Let me know if you think this is a way forward. Just don't hope this article has to be tagged POV, basically for 1 word... L.tak 22:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it finally means we can move on from this issue, I would accept this compromise wording. Certainly agree that tagging as proposed is unnecessary. RashersTierney (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not bad wording indeed - the one I would have previously agreed to, if it weren't for the outside world's view now. Why, at least one person agrees (Bazonka) that there can't be no passports without citizens - there you have the outside's world (other person's) standpoint. Your proposal doesn't address that - it assumes that passports are documents which can exist without their holders. But their holders must be citizens. So there you have that paradox. Paradox is independent of some government' viewpoint and it must be avoided. This paradox shouldn't be regarded as the standpoint of the "outside world" since it must exist in the logic of RoK's government, too. It is comprised of humans who adhere to logic - therefore the "RoK's government's logic". This is only if you take the assumption of passports being dependent on their holders' (citizens') existence. But this assumption is valid IMO, since if passports would be just documents that facilitate travel, you would always have the question "to whom they facilitate". Recognized, regarded citizens? Hardly. Then you would have the chicken-egg problem. What existed first: (un)recognized government or (un)recognized citizens? Best regards, --Biblbroks 's talk 12:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the intro to this article. It doesn't need to change. The intro clearly states that Kosovo is disputed territory, thereby implying that the passports are not universally recognised. RashersTierney's suggested amendment is convoluted and unnecessary. @Biblbroks, yes I did say that passports can't exist without citizens, but that is irrelevant here - Kosovo does have citizens ... from Kosovo's point of view. I do not want to continually reiterate this, but read point 1 above. Stop complicating matters. Bazonka (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * +1 The intro doesn't need any change as it clearly points out Kosovo's status. Cheers.  kedadi al  17:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * edit conflict - :Just to clarify, the proposal is not mine, and I am not entirely satisfied with it. I assumed this would enable User Biblbroks to move on. Evidently I was wrong and his/her intention is to introduce pov by a thousand cuts. Support withdrawn. RashersTierney (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bazonka, It is relevant here because of the article's title. Article's titled from the RoK government's point of view - if passports can't exist without citizens. Implication that the passports are not universally recognized would follow only from the term for them - Kosovan travel documents issued by the government of RoK for example. Imagine just the Serbia government's point of view of the term for the aforementioned document: Kosovan passports are Serbian passports.
 * @Kedadi, the intro is not the question anymore, the title of the article is.
 * @RashersTierney, sorry but I haven't responded to your post. Formatting of paragraphs got in the way. My (I am a he) intention is to remove pov. I'm sorry you feel that I love to make "thousand cuts".
 * Cheers to all, --Biblbroks 's talk 18:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed that the lede, as it stands, could be considered so controversial or POV. Kosovo exists on the ground, and the current government issues passports. So what if the status of Kosovo as an independent country is disputed? That is made clear in the first sentence (currently), and if any reader curious about the issuer were to click on the RoK link, it's made clear in the first sentence there too. Meanwhile, the passport-issuer treats it as a passport like any other, the recipients treat it as a passport like any other, and even border officials will treat it like any other passport, with the exception of border officials in countries that do not recognise Kosovo - which has been argued at great length on the relevant pages (ie. not this one). Do we need endless caveats and wrangling over every little detail that happens in Kosovo, since the mere mention of "Kosovo" in any sentence where we could put the name of a more-widely-recognised state will be considered intrinsically POV? bobrayner (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So you think passports can exist without citizens? Issuers treating it as passports, recipients treating it as passports, border officials treating it as passports doesn't mean that they are passports. Same as it goes for the Kosovo being a state or not - someone treating it as a state doesn't mean it is a state. No need for desperation - it is a delicate matter, it needs delicate treatment. Don't you agree? All the best, --Biblbroks 's talk 20:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the issuer and the recipients (and many countries around the world) are concerned, they *are* citizens.
 * What other standard would you have for calling something a "passport"? It has the words written on it, it's used like a passport by the three parties concerned (issuer, holder, and many but not all third-party officials), it meets international standards for what a passport should be, and it even fits the description in the header of Passport.
 * The first sentence of this article states that Kosovo's status is disputed, as does the first sentence of the RoK article. There's even an entire section on "recognition" which dominates this article. How much more "delicate treatment" do you feel is necessary?
 * bobrayner (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. Exactly my point - I couldn't have put it better myself (believe me I've tried). Bazonka (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bobrayner, who do you mean when you say *are* citizens? Inhabitants of Kosovo having a document titled "...Državljanstvo Kosova" ("...Citizenship of Kosovo" in Serbian/Serbo-Croatian)? Having something like that doesn't mean they *are* citizens, does it? Which other standard do you think I mean is there? To keep you from struggling to think, I will tell you of which requirement I think should be fulfilled: passports' holders being citizens. That's the main reason for me saying it is a biased title for the article. As far as the three parties that use the document as a passport is concerned: those other third-party officials, who do not accept it, do exist, so discrepancy about document being really a passport applies here also. Finally the document fitting the description in the header of Passport - "issued by a *national* government" - is highly disputable. Kosovan government being a national government is what you say? Do you promote nationality of Kosovar also, apart from statehood? For the record: I am quite sure that I am not the one who exercises feelings here and now, so please refrain yourself from trying to quote me on necessity of delicate treatment. --Biblbroks 's talk 00:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the POV Title template that Biblbroks added to this article. There is absolutely no consensus to add this template, either here or on Talk:Kosovo where Biblbroks was in fact told not to add the template. I don't think that Biblbroks will have any support for this action. In my opinion, this article is neutrally titled, and any contentious issues are adequately dealt with in the article. Bazonka (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that the article is neutrally titled and I do not believe that a POV Title template is appropriate.
 * Biblbroks asked for a third opinion; I gave one. Biblbroks didn't like the third opinion and added the POV header anyway, saying "no new insight on the talk page for almost whole day", although others had asked Biblbroks not to. Maybe a third opinion is not what Biblbroks really wanted.
 * I'm wary of getting mired in endless logic-chopping about citizenship... and please let's not start an edit war. Is there anything else we can do to compromise or work towards an agreement?
 * bobrayner (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

@Bazonka, actually there is absolutely no consensus on the question whether passports exist without citizens. Why should there be a consensus for adding a template - one user adds it when he has enough reasons. It was just my carefulness that contributed to informing the community before tagging the article. There was no question asked whether to put it but an information for all the interested to join the discussion since you and I have come to a stalemate - as it appeared to me. Since then others did join but noone so far countered my reasons for putting the template, so my reasons are valid - I conclude. As far as the discussion at Talk:Kosovo on this subject - it wasn't quite appropriate to discuss the matter there: I specifically asked to discuss it here and also it is generally accepted that the discussion about the article should convey on it's talk page. That's why the talk pages were invented in the first place and continue to exist, isn't it Bazonka? Your opinion on article's title neutrality is already noted, and that several times, but in fact you haven't adequately responded to my arguments of the title being biased. You haven't given one good reason why is it neutral except your opinion, now. Contentious issue here is exactly the article's title: the syntagma Kosovan passport assumes Kosovan statehood. Why do you continuously refuse to address this issue? As for the discussion on the Kosovo talk page, I will quote it here in order to continue it *only* here. {{quote box|
 * Note: added to prevent the bot from archiving the discussion. --Biblbroks 's talk 12:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Biased title
As per request I made a new thread which is concerned with the same issue as the above and is explained in the title of the section: the title of this article is biased.

I would like to address the comments which were posted after my last comment in the chronological order.


 * @Bazonka: first of all you were right, I did make that comment which appeared to be from anonymous IP address. I failed to see that Wikipedia already logged me out, while I was finishing it. As for the argument that "RoK's ... standpoint is the most relevant because it is they who issue the passport" I must repeat, hopefully for the last time, RoK's viewpoint is secondary to the outside world's viewpoint. and this is regardless of the fact that their "government" is issuing these documents. Why, because outside world's (including RoK's) viewpoint is also the one that says that passports cannot exist without citizens. And this viewpoint leads to the conclusion that RoK is a state - as I explained before (if you use the term Kosovan passport) - so using this term is inappropriate since RoK couldn't simply be regarded as a state. To describe it with an example: you cannot make scissors which are inscribed with the word knife, then use these scissors as a knife and then expect the whole world to agree with you that this is a knife just because you have made it labeled with "knife" and also use it as a knife. Although scissors can be used as a knife, they simply aren't a knife. Same reasoning is here - which is false: "government" of RoK made a document entitled Kosovan passport and then some of the countries use it as a Kosovan passport, and so everyone should agree that it is a Kosovan passport. On the other hand Serbian passport is also issued to the people of Kosovo and it is also used as passport for these people. So you can't argue that a Serbian passport is also a Kosovan passport since it is issued to the people of Kosovo - Serbian passport can be regarded as Kosovan passport since it is issued to the Kosovan people. So then you have two different documents which are both used and regarded as Kosovan passports and this is simply wrong. The title of this article should be different to reflect this fact. Bazonka, if you succeed to address this fact then we can continue talking about this subject. Otherwise it will be just you repeating over and over again that RoK's viewpoint is most relevant when in fact it cannot be. Just by stating that it is, you are showing a bias towards statehood of Kosovo. The most relevant viewpoint is neutral viewpoint, which includes RoK's viewpoint but on the basis that it is part of a greater entity - world. And from the world's standpoint (and this is your standpoint also as I remember) passports cannot exist without citizens and if passports exist then citizens exist, but if citizens exist than a state exists. You must address that, and not repeat yourself. Please do so.


 * @Khajidha, the definition is not the same as the title. About your question of how did we ever get any states in the first place, I must point you to the history books and encyclopedias, if you don't know the answer to this. And you are wrong - I haven't given any definition of how the states are made. You made your own conclusions which obviously don't match reality sufficiently - since we have states.


 * @Meeso, if you point me to the travel document that this article describes and say it is a passport, I would say it is a travel document. And I will be right, and you wouldn't be necessarily. Just because this document is sometimes used as a passport it isn't definitely and necessarily a passport - my example about scissors and a knife describes this. About you explaining whose business is what - nobody is saying to you what is your business, so refrain yourself of giving everybody their roles. And for the context in which this travel document exists - the context is such that RoK is a disputed territory and must be treated as one - you can't call it a passport the same moment when you perceive it as such. My message to you is to check your perception first and then think of the consequences of actions you are about to take.


 * @IJA, check again what I have written. I haven't stated that the article is biased, but that it's title is biased. The document which _you_ call "Kosovan Passport/ Kosovar Passport" is merely used as a passport, and as I explained it already this is not enough. As you said it: the passport is not accepted everywhere - then there must be some problem with it. And the problem is exactly this - we can not simply call it a passport. As per your comment on me making controversial proposals and being too personally involved with anything - please keep it to yourself. I am not investigating the political correctness of your contributions, although I am sure there could be something worth describing controversial even by your standards. As for your observations of my personal involvement - give them at your classes of psychoanalysis, not here. This is after all encyclopedia, if you forgot. I must conclude that your beliefs about this article, or any other, being POV are less regarded when you are attempting to discredit other editors and obviously not addressing the issue in matter. Please concentrate on the subject of this discussion and not your personal beliefs or observations. Subject of this discussion is, I repeat, article's biased title.

Regards to all, --Biblbroks 's talk 18:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Old discussion
Please don't dredge up huge volumes of old discussion and add new comments to it out of order. This is difficult to read, and time-consuming for people who try to understand a debate before commenting.

If you have anything new to say, you could just say that, without also adding several screens of tedious old discussion.

bobrayner (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As for reinserting old threads I explained it in the summary fields - old parts are there exactly for the reasons of continuity and consistency. This way editors can read the whole discussion and understand every particular post and comment and their respective context.
 * New contributions to the discussion are in the section Biased title, so there's no need to worry about that. Instead of complaining about other people's difficulties with reading and consuming time with it, you are welcome to add your contribution to the discussion. --Biblbroks 's talk 14:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You asked for a third opinion; I provided one; you ignored it. Do you really want me to contribute further? I doubt it will make much difference.
 * (after requesting a third opinion, on that page you said "please don't split the discussion" and went ahead and split the discussion anyway, then made it clear you were having the last word, and then you pasted a copy of that split discussion here "for the reason of having a compact discussion". Clearly you have no problem with very long repetitive threads; however, other people do.)
 * The section called "biased title" (thanks for framing it neutrally!) is not at the bottom of this page. Hence the new comments that you wish to attract to the old thread will not be at the bottom of this page. This is perhaps not ideal for ease of reading. Would you like me to move it?
 * After creating this new section to repeat your old arguments, you subsequently restored the old sections anyway. I do not understand why you did this.
 * Consensus of editors was that the title of the article is NPOV. Do you have anything new to add? Are there any new sources that you would like to point out?
 * bobrayner (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. This 'new initiative' on the part of an editor who appears determined 'not to get the point' is tendentious. RashersTierney (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @bobrayner: I am sorry for the misunderstanding taken place. When I was asking for a third opinion it was for the question of possibility of existence of passports without citizens, since the answer to it is inherently connected to the neutrality of this article title. I want you to contribute further of course, since this can and will make a difference.
 * As for the splitting of the discussion I think I was clear enough when I stated that I want to keep the discussion here. In my opinion it is reasonable enough without me insisting on keeping the discussion here - at last it is this article's title that it is being discussed. I apologize for giving you a problem with following this discussion - my intention was to have a consistent discussion (not commpact - wrong word, sorry again). I apologize to anyone else, to that matter, though I believe I succeeded in having a consistent discussion.
 * I don't understand your comment about me framing the section's title neutrally. What do you mean by that? Anyway, maybe you are right about the continuity and order of threads. I will move the new section to the end.
 * As I explained it before, the previous sections were restored for reasons of consistency and continuity. So the people can follow which reply belongs to which post and to understand the context of every post. The only reason I did that - I will repeat - for the sake of consistency and continuity.
 * I don't see there is any consensus of editors. Some of them even missed the point of the discussion: that the article's title is in question not it's content. To all of the editors who posted I counter-argumented their comments and none of them replied to those counter-arguments yet. So there is no consensus yet. Your questions about having anything new to add and about pointing to the existence of new sources should be in fact addressed to you. You failed to address my points given, while I have contributed new material. Instead of being so opinionated to the question of article's title neutrality, read what I wrote and reply to that. Contribute or distance from the discussion.
 * @RashersTierney, your sarcasm is really out of place here. The new initiative, as you call it, you have misplaced with my intention to satisfy Bazonka's request not to post to the long thread of previous section. If you had only read my words this would be clear to you. Actually it isn't me who is being disruptive but you. It is you who appears determined to undermine the discussion and not to get the point, as you showed with your comment. I really don't understand the reason for it - you just made it to discredit yourself. Instead of tending to undermine and disrupt the discussion, be constructive, try reading my posts, and reading them first (you can do that, can't you) and then take the initiative to contribute to the discussion - as I did. Or distance yourself.
 * --Regards, Biblbroks 's talk 19:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Solomon Islands
Should the Solomon Islands be added to the list of countries that accept the Kosovan passport, based on the evidence in this government website? I think it used to mentioned in this article, but someone seems to have removed it - I don't know when. Bazonka (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't notice any reference as to what specific document fulfilled requirements of authorities of Solomon Islands. Without explicit ref to the Kosovan passport or reference to the RoK as the legitimate issuing authority, then I don't see how. RashersTierney (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note 1 at the top states that visitors "Must be in possession of a valid passport or other valid travel documents". So whilst it doesn't explicitly mention acceptance of the Kosovan passport, I think it's clear that that's what they mean. Perhaps this is borderline OR. Bazonka (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the wording is chosen deliberately to be ambiguous, as if a policy decision had not yet been taken. A case could equally be made that 'valid passport or other valid travel document' refers to a Serbian passport (or any other travel doc., for that matter). On an question as likely as this to be challenged, a more direct statement is necessary. RashersTierney (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Further addition of pov tag
Biblbroks, if you can't get other editors to agree with you on the talk page, I think your best options would be to either bring better arguments or forget about it. Simply applying the pov tag anyway will look like disruptive / tendentious editing, especially when you use a comment like "tagged with POV title as per discussion". Please don't reapply the tag until you can get consensus. bobrayner (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you need consensus for this, when I explained why I find it biased and given the arguments, but not one editor even discussed it, not to mention that noone brought any new light to it - except me. I removed the tag to discuss this matter. For the same reason I've put the tag - to discuss. Our best option would be to discuss. --Biblbroks 's talk 02:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like User:Kedadi was faster than me to remove the tag. --Biblbroks 's talk 02:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You say that "not one editor even discussed it, not to mention that noone brought any new light to it - except me." This looks like a clear-cut case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to me. There has been extensive discussion on the subject; you should know, as you started it, stoked it, and then brought a large volume of it back from the archive.
 * A lot of people didn't agree with the tag despite your lengthy advocacy. I suppose there are two possible conclusions to draw from that:
 * 1. Maybe adding the POV tag is a bad idea after all.
 * 2. Others didn't agree with what you feel is obviously right, so it wasn't really discussion, so you can add the tag anyway.
 * I believe that conclusion 1 would be better. You appear to have reached conclusion 2.
 * Please do not add the tag again unless you can give a good reason. (Good reasons do not include repeating large volumes of text where you failed to convince people the first time round). If most editors disagree with a change, I think you should try to discuss and reach consensus before imposing that change again. If your discussion still can't reach consensus, then maybe adding the tag is not your destiny after all.
 * bobrayner (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. As things stand, the addition of this tag would in itself be POV. Any controversial article can change in time but this tag should not be applied unilaterally and certainly not without some level of consensus for same. Please stop flogging this dead horse. RashersTierney (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was planning to stay out of the title debate, but as the fact that "no one editor discussed it" seemed to encourage placing the title-nNPOV thing, I will give my view. I have no idea if the republic of Kosovo exists/is legitimate or whether we can agree here if it does (it clearly exists to some, but whether that's enough?). We therefore can not establish if the document is a passport. No problem, that why it is called a travel document in the lede; in a (to me) neutral way! The point now is, even IF the document is not a passport, can we call it "Kosovan Passport". Looking at the other articles that have the word passport in the name, I see many, which are clearly not passports (pet passport, alien's passport, internal passport, camouflage passport). Therefore, by calling it "Kosovan passport", we are not assuming silently that it is a passport. It is simply referring to the name on the cover, which the issuer gave it, and most people refer to it as such. As I see no easily available, widely used less "charged" alternatives, I see "Kosovan Passport" as the best available name; and as such neutral... L.tak (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a Serbian government website which refers to the Kosovo passport: . Clearly they don't recognise its legitimacy, but they still call it a passport. End of argument, Biblbroks. Bazonka (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bazonka, your argument is convincing enough. End of discussion on my part. --Biblbroks 's talk 17:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Title of article
User:Fry1989 has recently attempted to move this page to Kosovar passport, claiming that the "proper demonym is Kosovar". This has been discussed here before and rejected - see here and here. My understanding is that, in common English-language usage, "Kosovan" is the adjective that refers to something from Kosovo (compare Spanish), whereas "Kosovar" is the demonym that refers to an inhabitant of Kosovo (compare Spaniard). Arguing about the correctness of the demonym is irrelevant - you'd never refer to a "Spaniard passport" for example. Bazonka (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That has been my understanding too. If there is to be a change of name on these lines, the case needs to be made here. RashersTierney (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do either of you have any solid proof that Kosovar is only for the people, like Spaniard? Because unless you do, I'm not gonna leave it this way based on false understandings and assumptions.  Fry1989  eh?   19:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In Albanian, Kosovar may be the preferred term, but certainly that's not the case in English. Just read any English-language media - there are exceptions, but mostly they use the term Kosovan. E.g. BBC Kosovan Serbs, Guardian Kosovan Albanian, CNN Kosovan independence. Plenty of other examples.
 * Do you have any solid proof for your assumption? Bazonka (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't notice, your first source contradicts your claim. If Kosovar is for the people, like Spaniard, then it should be Kosovar Serbs. It's clearly a case of preference and not fact  Fry1989  eh?   21:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you wouldn't say "Spaniard Catalans", you'd say "Spanish Catalans". (But you would say "A Catalan Spaniard" not "A Catalan Spanish".) Even if it is a case of preference, then the vast majority of the English-speaking world also shares that preference and the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME applies. Bazonka (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet there is precedent where a country has made a request for it's name to be spoken in their preferred language, and it has been respected. Look up the Ivory Coast - Cote dIvoire situation.  Fry1989  eh?   22:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Kosovar" refers to the people, "Kosovan" refers to something belonging to/ associated with Kosovo. To compare it with Croatia, "Croats" are the people and "Croatian" is something belonging to/ associated with Croatia. IJA (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)