Talk:Republic of Kosovo

-

Update to include Pakistani recognition in the SVG
Please update to include the fact Pakistan recognises it in the SVG image showing recognition. Pakistan has recognized the independence of the self-proclaimed Republic of Kosovo, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry says. The Office noted the decision was taken in line with the aspirations of the people of Kosovo. Formerly an autonomous province in Yugoslavia, Kosovo became independent on February 17, 2008. Pakistan is the 98th UN state to recognize Kosovo as an independent country. http://rt.com/news/line/2012-12-24/#id42308

Requested move
I propose this page be moved to → Republic of Kosovo,

and Kosovo (region) be moved to → Kosovo.

Reason: 1) WP:NPOV Kosovo is a disputed territory, unilaterally declared as independent without consent of Serbian majority in the northern part of this region. English is not spoken only in countries that have recognised so-called "Republic of Kosovo", but in other countries in the world as well, including two countries with highest population (India and China), Russia (biggest country), and they view Kosovo as a part of Serbia. If we have article under name "Kosovo" about a geographical location, and not self declared not fully recognised "state", it is definitely more neutral, than to present only Albanian nationalistic side. Note: this is not pro-Serbian. Pro-Serbian would be if we had an article "Kosovo" that talks about Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. 2) Factual inaccuracy. Kosovo is only one part of a wider region called Kosovo and Metohija, Kosovo comprises western part and Metohija eastern part of that land. So displaying Kosovo as both Metohija and Kosovo is incorrect.  Alex discussion ★ 19:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources, and the consensus here, disagree with you. You know that.
 * This nonsense about the "Albanian nationalistic side" and APKIM can be safely ignored on en.wikipedia, even if it's accepted on sr.wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: This move request does not follow Requested moves and should be speedy closed. Nominator should be blocked for canvassing (i.e. diff and diff) --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Since when are China, Russia or even India PRIMARILY English speaking regions? Yes, people all over the world can speak/read English, but it is the usage of native speakers in primarily English speaking regions that set the standards. 2) In English, Kosovo has been used for years to mean the entire "Kosovo and Metohija" region. It is not incorrect, it is simply the standard usage in English. --Khajidha (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What reliable sources demonstrate that WP:COMMONNAME of "Kosovo" refers to the Republic of Kosovo?
I'm not sure if the move to this title was a good idea considering the disputed status of Kosovo, though there are the cases of Taiwan (the Republic of China) and China (the People's Republic of China) here. I'm not sure that the Republic of Kosovo has been around long enough to justify WP:COMMONNAME via reliable sources (i.e. scholarly, peer-reviewed material).

Therefore my question is what do reliable sources define "Kosovo" as? The Republic or the region or other explanations?--74.12.195.248 (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Historical Dictionary of Kosovo


 * Looking at Google Books, "Kosovo" is used for the historical region, for the successive political administrations, and for the current country. For example Liberating Kosovo: Coercive Diplomacy and U. S. Intervention, MIT Press, 2012 uses "Republic of Kosova" only when explaining the declaration of independence or when it's part of an official name.


 * Looking at Google News, "kosovo" has kosovo 33110 results - the vast majority seem to be about the republic. "Republic of Kosovo" has only 6 results. Of those six:
 * uses "Republic" only because it's part a quote. It calls the country "Kosovo"
 * uses "Republic" because it's part of an official title (last source mentions the country as "Kosovo")
 * uses "Republic" in one sentence, but uses "Kosovo" in the title and in other sentence


 * I made a similar check 3 years ago, and the results were very similar (5510 source using "Kosovo" to refer to the country, only 12 using "Republic of Kosovo". Of those 12, 11 gave prominence to "Kosovo" over "Republic of Kosovo"). --Enric Naval (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have ben in kosovo is the best plase in th wrold that i like but not so good but for me is good some plases have mountains some litle mountains,lakes,falls... like evry plase on earth some kids are wery talentided on sport an biology,astronomy,geography but more in sports more than english kid's.More than half of piple are in sports play football all the time from 3:00-7:00 of night but in winter they do ski.Is good to go there on holly days I beter see ther and more likly sport players like(messy,ronalo,nemar...)goodbay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.237.209 (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo: a country?
Yes, Kosovo is a country. Do we really, really need to source this? I mean, I will, but that'd be stupid. If Serbia or Russia or whoever "officially recognize" or "do not officially recognize" it, that doesn't even begin to change the fact that it is a sovereign state. It is. Period. Now, its limited international diplomatic recognition is notable--notable enough for the lead, even for the first paragraph. But not the first sentence. Red Slash 03:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not about sourcing, but about appropriate phrasing. Some sources will say it's a "country", others it's a "state", third "a breakaway province", fourth "a disputed territory" and so on. We should not cherry-pick ones which suit our individual POVs, but to find a suitable and neutral expression of its nature. An unqualified "country" is on one end of the spectrum; Kosovo's sovereignty is still pretty much disputed by quite relevant forces (the ones that prevent it to gain any kind of status in the UN or sports organizations, for example). So there is no "period"; at no point in the article's history there was an unqualified "country" classification, and all our country lists point some sort of special status of Kosovo. Other articles about states in similar situations do not use unqualified phrasing: Taiwan (whose sovereignty is hardly questionable) is a "state"; Transnistria, a "breakaway state" and "state with limited recognition"; Abkhazia, "a disputed territory and partially recognized state"; Somaliland, "self-declared de facto sovereign state".


 * And Serbia is not a "whoever" in this whole story: it is the country that Kosovo seceded from and still claims its whole territory, so it should be mentioned in the first paragraph as the most important side in the dispute. Kosovo did not suddenly emerge out of thin air. No such user (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph is fine and indeed I put it there. But the first sentence is undue weight. Kosovo is a country and does have sovereignty and the Brussels agreement recognized that. Serbia recognizes that the government located in Pristina has sovereignty over the territory claimed by the Republic of Kosovo. While it does not recognize Kosovo as a legitimate state (hence no diplomatic recognition) it does clearly recognize that Kosovo is sovereign. Obviously, by the way, Kosovo is sovereign. The only way to travel outside of Kosovo is to have a passport, and you can't get a Serbian one if you live in Kosovo (according to the article). But you can get a Kosovo one. Red Slash 05:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Kosovo-Serbia border may be crossed with the personal ID only, at least for residents of Kosovo and Serbia. Ref: (next-to-last sentence). As for "sovereignty", that definition is not so clearcut: see Sovereignty. Brussels agreement was carefully crafted to avoid any change of Serbian de jure position; I'd tend to agree that it affirmed de facto some aspects of Kosovo sovereignty. Finally, I personally agree that Kosovo has most traits of a sovereign state, but there is a variety of opinions across the board, and you cannot only take Western sources as the ultimate ones. Some disclaimer in that sense is necessary in the very lead, and I reject your "undue" claims. While sovereignty and international recognition of Kosovo did increase since 2008, our article has never had an unqualified "country" in the first sentence, and I don't think it's the time (yet). No such user (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I really haven't searched too deep for this: even BBC profile of Kosovo, from the country which recognized its independence, lists it under "European territories" header rather than "Country profiles". In the text, it avoids "country" label, instead using "land", "region" or "province". No such user (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course, Kosovo is a sovereign state. I have not raised the issue again but I will soon. Let's wait another dozen of states recognise it and then the position of Kosovo not being a state will be fringe. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

History
The paragraph of History seems like it has been entirely written by Serbian authors which do not reflect the opinion of most historians and certainly not the ethnic Albanian inhabitants. The perfect example is opening line "Kosovo's history dates back to the Paleolithic age, represented by the Vinča and Starčevo culture" which is a completely a false statement and does not represent the actual fact that our the whole area including Serbia was mostly inhabited by Illyrians. Everyone knows, and it is also stated in the this article that Slavic tribes started to inhabit the region in the 6th century (If Serbs consider themselves Slavs than it is clear they only started to immigrate to the this area round that period). On the other hand it is widely believed that Albanians are direct descendants of Illyrians and therefore should be clearly stated. In the History paragraph however, its completely ignored the link and you simply go on and continue to make links to the territory with Serbian origins - basically jumping from prehistorical cultures to 13th century. Moreover, only Serbian monuments are stated in this article which is again misguiding to the reader while in reality very often it is well proved that most of ancient Orthodox churches have been converted from existing catholic Churches which belonged to ethnic Albanian inhabitants way before the ethnic Serb arrived in the region

sources: Gracanica - It was built by the Serbian king Stefan Milutin in 1321 on the ruins of a 6th-century basilica, (Wikipedia reference)

Our Lady of Ljeviš - The construction of the church was commissioned in 1306–9 by Serbian King Stefan Milutin.[2] It was built on the site of the ruins of an earlier Byzantine church, whose original name Metera Eleousa was preserved in Slavic as Bogorodica Ljeviška

Patriarchate of Peć / Peja - The monastery is located at the edges of the old Roman and Byzantine Siperant

The paragraph only discusses the events of Serbian ethnic groups which represent less than 5% of the population today.I think the history paragraph in your web site, has to be either re-written entirely or corrected to professional standards as it has to be representative and balanced. S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.104.167 (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)