Talk:Republic of Kosovo/Archive 1

Split off Kosovo
I have tentatively created this article on the RoK proper, per Talk:Kosovo. This is intended as a "China / Republic of China" type solution to address NPOV concerns. This article being on the Republic per se, the country infobox is evidently warranted, while the Kosovo article can be about the region regardless of its status (like Italian peninsula vs. Republic of Italy). dab (𒁳) 13:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect
I'v redirected this article to Kosovo, in accordance with the concensus on Talk:Kosovo. 2007apm (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The redirect doesn't work. Gugganij (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no such consensus. Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Kosovo. Superm401 - Talk 16:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro
How about a rewrite of the intro, since the article has been moved?  Balkan Fever  04:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. More work is obviously still needed.  Superm401 - Talk 04:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy
Please help summarize the history/culture/demographic information, so we can focus this article on the self-declared partially recognized state, and the legal and administrative structure thereof. If I remove something that isn't anywhere else, it's still in the history. Just copy it to the summary page (e.g Geography of Kosovo). Superm401 - Talk 04:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Future Perfect at Sunrise suggested completely removing the history section from here, in favor of having it only at Kosovo. This is an option worth considering, though I would prefer to have a brief summary here if possible. If we do remove the history from here, it may make sense to remove other sections.  Superm401 - Talk 08:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Culture section
Zscout370 significantly expanded the culture section. I disagree with this. Most culture information should remain at Kosovo, because it is related to the region, not the declared state. The Republic of Kosovo obviously didn't organize the culture. To avoid redundancy, most such information shouldn't be here, so I've undone this edit. Superm401 - Talk 07:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is what I do not get. What is the difference between the culture of this state than of Kosovo, the region? They share the same history, same background, so why not cover it here? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija also has the culture of Kosovo. Both groups agree Kosovo is a region, so we cover the "regional" (not specific to state or province) info there. Superm401 - Talk 08:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But if we want to make this article comprehensive about the state, which I know people will wish to look up, we need to have a longer section about culture. I'll try and see what I can do to this article similar to how I brought Belarus up to the featured standard, but I honestly do not know what I can do. No offense to you Superm, but this is frustrating to deal with. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it's frustrating, but I think this is the best solution. What we want to do is send people interested in culture, etc. to Kosovo, and send people interested in governance here. Superm401 - Talk 08:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is frustrating because you care not about consensus. Do you want to say that the Republic of Kosova has no culture? All this has been deleted by you. --Tubesship (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said anything of the sort. I didn't remove the health section like you claimed before (that was Zscout370), and I didn't remove the culture either.  I shortened it; as I said, I prefer we keep brief summaries here, and refer people to Kosovo and the subarticles for more info.  Superm401 - Talk 08:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But why to you make this distincion between Kosovo and the region? Kosovo is the region! It is not like Macedonia (Greece) and FYROM! --Tubesship (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The distinction is between the declared state and region, not Kosovo and the region. Superm401 - Talk 09:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is hard to assume good faith in Superm, even if he is an admin, after he breached consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Split_completed --Tubesship (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC) BTW: I tried to put back some stuff but got this message: "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits." What does that mean? --Tubesship (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not unanimity. Regarding, "The edit could not be undone", you can still access the history and get old text manually. Superm401 - Talk 08:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What's going on here?
Why isn't there an article here? The "Kosovo" article IS NOT about the RoK. I would like to link from the Kosovo article to here, if the reader wants more info on the RoK. And then after there is an article here, we can put the summary in the "Kosvo" article. Beam 02:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply because it was a content fork (WP:FORK). Regards, -- Asterion talk 10:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Logic has lost out to an Edit Warring editor
I have lost patience with Husonds incessant ignorance and POV pushing.

It's actually disgusting. I've presented the facts, but to no avail. I make this section in a last ditch effort for someone, anyone, who has the patience to deal with a POV Pushing type to do so. I just can't anymore. Beam 17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability of the Republic of Kosovo
The issue is related to this discussion.

Enric Naval removed RoK content and deprived the newest independent state, the Republic of Kosovo, of an article in Wikipedia. I don't agree with this and I think that RoK is a notable subject, that should be covered in Wikipedia in its own article, like any other sovereign state, including these that are with limited recognition. Alinor (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, that is actually in line with conclusions made on Talk:Kosovo. -- WhiteWriter speaks 10:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article on the republic is in Koaovo. This is just a copy/paste move. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Kosovo status quo topic is APKiM+RoK - not RoK. This here is not a move, but a copy (with some modifications, because the topic is different). Kosovo article is not going to be split if there isn't consensus for this, but will remain with its status quo topic - as you wish. But this doesn't make Republic of Kosovo less notable subject. Alinor (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, APKiM has its separate own article in addition to the Kosovo APKiM+RoK article - RoK is as notable as APKiM and should have its own page. Alinor (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the RoK continues to be treated in the main Kosovo article, then having a separate article in parallel is a POV fork. Don't start wikilawyering about it. The only way a separate article is legitimate is within a clearly defined "summary article with subarticles" framework, but then the subarticle would need to be slimmed down very considerably, to contain only that content that it doesn't share with the other sections of the main article (i.e. no separate history section etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * APKiM also continues to be part of the Kosovo article topic - and it also has a separate article.
 * WP:CONTENTFORK. Republic of Kosovo is not a "content fork" - "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." - Kosovo status quo APKiM+RoK topic is not a sensible topic in the first place, this is a topic like "fire+water". And the subject RoK is not the same as the subject APKiM+RoK. APKiM+RoK topic covers the shared aspects of these two entities, if any. RoK topic covers the Republic of Kosovo itself.
 * Republic of Kosovo is not "POV fork" either - "a point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view". Describing RoK in a separate article from APKiM is not in order to avoid NPOV, its status dispute is still elaborated in the article, etc. These two are simply unrelated, they are even opposing sides in a dispute. An article about the Political status of Kosovo should present both RoK POV and APKiM POV regarding their dispute. But each of these political entities should have its own article. APKiM has such at Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) and RoK has such at Republic of Kosovo.
 * I agree that text in the related articles can/should be amended, but the articles are not "main article" and "subarticles" - these are articles with different topics (see 09:20, 27 February 2011 comment). Yes, there is some similarity with the main-subarticles framework and similar principles for content arrangement can/should be applied (regarding no duplication of shared content, etc.) Alinor (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am at a loss as to how to move this debate beyond the "is not!" – "is too!" stage at this point, since you WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT don't appear to be listening. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alinor, please stop this disruptive editing. There was no consensus for this action despite the many long debates on Talk:Kosovo and the various attempts to interpret and manipulate other people's votes. bobrayner (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no "votes", just opinions, and any interpretations of these were made only when the user hasn't stated clearly the number of the option he supports. If you think that you don't support option1 (your name is shown next to it currently) - just move your name to the option you support (if have an idea that isn't any one of the 9 options currently listed - you can add it as 10th).
 * I don't disrupt anything - Kosovo remains as it is, with its status quo topic of APKiM+RoK mixed issues (option1). Its further improvement or change or whatever can be discussed at Talk:Kosovo.
 * What I did is that I established article about the Republic of Kosovo, a notable subject that so far didn't have an article devoted to it. Alinor (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I said I preferred the "status quo" in your carefully-crafted poll, as did others. That is not the same as "please start a POV fork"; I don't think any other user requested that. Stop misrepresenting people to further your POV war.
 * The article about Kosovo belongs at Kosovo, not Republic of Kosovo, in line with both consensus and policy. bobrayner (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "The article about Kosovo belongs at Kosovo" - what do you mean by "Kosovo" - APKiM, RoK, Kosovo region, some combination of these or something else?
 * No POV fork is started - Republic of Kosovo article deals with the topic homonymous to its name. If another article somewhere in Wikipedia also has something to say about RoK (in relation to APKiM or to something else, etc.) - then so be it. But RoK is notable enough to have its own article. That's not related to different topics such as APKiM, APKiM+RoK, UNMIK or whatever. For example - APKiM has its own article in addition to the APKiM+RoK topic at Kosovo and I don't think that RoK is less notable than APKiM. Alinor (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fut.Perf., I don't say that content should be repeated or that each article should have 3 infoboxes - on the contrary, I agree with you that such things should be avoided. I agree to re-shuffle content and avoid duplication. What I wanted to say is that each article should have a sensible topic. Alinor (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you need to start doing the work and show how it can be done. If this article is to survive it needs to be rewritten and very substantially slimmed down. Right now it still is a POV fork, and your saying a million times that it isn't one won't change that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * POV fork of what? Republic of Kosovo topic is no POV fork - the subject of this article is the independent sovereign state unilaterally declared in 2008 and so far recognized by over 70 states. If you think that some slimming down of the history section is order (as I do) - you can do it, or somebody else can do it, I don't object that. Alinor (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1,000,001. Still not truer. You wanted this new article, so you do the work. If it's not changed substantially by tomorrow I will redirect it back. And the "region" article can be redirected back right away, because you yourself said you didn't really want it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is "not truer"? And you still haven't explained your POV fork accusations - Republic of Kosovo is POV fork of what?
 * It's not just me who want these articles - you can see in the RFC discussion that there are many others. And it doesn't matter who wants it - what matters is if it is notable and appropriate.
 * About Kosovo (region) I said that its topic can be used for the Kosovo article. But because it isn't currently (the topic there is an APKiM+RoK mix instead) - that's why we need a separate article for the Kosovo region (see Talk:Kosovo (region).
 * Please refrain from blanking/redirecting valid articles. There is no consensus to delete Republic of Kosovo or Kosovo (region). Alinor (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can see above and here the following users support keeping the Republic of Kosovo article: FkpCascais, Alinor, Adrian, Khajidha, WhiteWriter, DeCausa, Alexmilt, UrbanVillager, Athenean, BokicaK, Biblbroks and maybe Watch For Storm Surge. Only the following users want to redirect it: IP, Bobrayner, Hobartimus, Fut.Perf., maybe Evlekis, Enric Naval, ZjarriRrethues. Alinor (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And if we all talk like a adult wiki editors, this Republic of Kosovo article is quite ok like it is. Other articles should be fixed! Kosovo and Kosovo (region). Only then this article will stop being fork. And first in a row, Kosovo article. Also, majority of users are argumentatively for keeping separate articles. Redirecting them will be against will of the majority. -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not redirect this page
Just a heads up to everyone that this page should not be redirected to Kosovo at the moment, as it is confusing a number of links actively used in discussions threads and disambiguation. Please allow that larger discussion to take place in an orderly manner. I am not giving this page any kind of endorsement (an authority I do not have), but rather asking that the larger discussion be allowed to progress in a civil manner. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see this request before I made my revert earlier today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. I agree that the onus is on Alinor to improve this article within a reasonable time frame before reverting back to the redirect. For the purpose of bringing everyone back into the discussion constructively, let's give Alinor, and all others, a week to focus this article's scope. At the end of the week, if the article remains unfocused, then it will again redirect to Kosovo. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to all editors "if the article remains unfocused" does not mean if the article is a mess because of edit warring after one week that we will revert it. Instead, the difs will be reviewed to take into account the impact of edit warring. Please also remember that the restrictions which apply to the main Kosovo article also apply here. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These are not "mine" articles - everybody can improve them. And I don't consider it constructive to issue ultimatums such as "you have one week". And the "improvement" required is pretty simple - put one 'main article: ...' template link and trim the history section a bit. Everybody can do that and I prefer if it's done by some editor involved with the subject, not by me, who got involved in the whole Kosovo debate, only because the topic at Kosovo was (and still is) a non-sensible APKiM+RoK mix. Alinor (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If we agree that the improvement described right above is all what's needed - and nobody else wants to do it himself - I can do it, no problem. Alinor (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The main problem around these articles is that agreement is very difficult to achieve. You have already taken the initiative, so I've asked you to do the initial trimming in order to complete the process. Everyone is still welcome to edit here, of course. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I could do that, if involved editors give advice on what to trim. I don't want to shorten the history section only to be attacked afterwards by somebody shouting "you deprived my proud country of its history. the XXXX period is the cradle of Kosovar identity and your deletion of this section should be immediately reversed! you are a pro-Serbian POV pusher". That's why I suggest that this is done by involved editors, naturally, over time. We should not try to do everything at once. Alinor (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In a sense, the scope should be defined by the name of the article, as well as the complimentary existence of the two related articles. To that end, trim anything out of this article not about the contemporary Republic of Kosovo, and include links to the other two articles as needed. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The process of course needs time, and we should have a chance to borrow it, even if the circumstances change: dialog between Приштина and Beogradi starts or smth else happens before. As for my advice on what to shorten or expand, use your conscience, Alinor - since witnessing your sangfroid under heavy comments, I have faith in both. Remember don't despair: "Wikipedia articles eventually reach neutrality because warring parties push their POV, not in spite of it. Wikipedia therefore depends on POV warriors." --Biblbroks (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as Serbia and Republic of Serbia are the same, Kosovo should be the same as Republic of Kosovo. Splitting these two articles is Serb POV pushing. Alinor is creating a mess in wikipedia: Do ARBMAC sanctions get enforced only to Albanians by any chance? --Napoletanamente (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By what standard/rule/algorithm do you equate Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo? How do you explain then that China and Republic of China aren't the same? Please discuss and explain your revert more elaborately. For now I've reverted back. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Biblbroks. Also, the topic of Serbia is Republic of Serbia - in contrast to the status quo topic of Kosovo that is APKiM+RoK mix instead of Republic of Kosovo (see option6). Alinor (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Biblbroks. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the most common usage of "China" is for the whole Chinese civilization, so that would be the main artilcle (discussed here, one person even explains how "Kosovo" is compliant with WP:COMMONAME because it covers the republic). Identically, for "Kosovo" the most common usage is for the Republic of kosovo, so the republic should be the main article at "Kosovo".


 * This has been pointed out several times at Talk:Kosovo in threads where Alinor has posted, and Alinor has replied to most of those comments, even shouting , in a lenghty discussion Talk:Kosovo/Archive_26. But Alinor has dismissed WP:COMMONNAME, because he prefers his personal solution of redirecting "Kosovo" to an article splitted from Kosovo . In practice, Alinor's solution involves moving Kosovo to a different name and leaving a redirect in place. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, don't confuse WP:COMMONNAME with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (see 08:27, 27 February 2011 comment).
 * The current topic at Kosovo is APKiM+RoK that has no common name and is not the primary topic associated with "Kosovo". If we look the other way around - "Kosovo" is common name for APKiM, RoK and the physical region that they both claim. The question is what of these three topics is the primary topic associated with "Kosovo" (e.g. what of these three topics will "get Kosovo article name"). This is disputed and seems unresolvable in practice - and that's what disambiguation pages are for. But because at the same time some editors reject disambiguation and all other options for Kosovo topic and insist on APKiM+RoK mix, this remains its topic and so the other topics remain at their own articles - APKiM, RoK, Kosovo region.
 * I don't move "Kosovo" anywhere. I place APKiM at APKiM, RoK at RoK, Kosovo region at Kosovo (region). If by "Kosovo" you mean "APKiM+RoK mix" - it remains at Kosovo per status quo, nobody touches it (option1). If by "Kosovo" you mean one of the other topics - then you refer to implementation of options6/7/9 of the RFC - and so far you haven't said that you agree with any of those. Alinor (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The most common usage of "Kosovo" is the Republic of Kosovo, as you have been already told by people who have searched both "kosovo" and "republic of kosovo" in google news. You have provided no proof that this is not correct, and you have provided no examples where "kosovo" had a different most common usage. Thus, the article for the Republic of Kosovo is Kosovo, per WP:COMMONNAME. WP:NPOV says to use the most common name in English sources, even if the name looks biased or POV to editors. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says to use the term that they are most likely to be searching for, when people look for "Kosovo" they expect to find the Republic of Kosovo, not the APKIM and not an article about the region that doesn't talk about the Republic. Address the arguments instead of repeating again the same arguments that are not based in any policy or guideline. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A single term can be a common name for multiple topics. And this is the case here - "Kosovo" is commonname for each of Kosovo region, RoK and APKiM. So, your reference to some discussion pointing that "Kosovo" is commonname for RoK doesn't help us here, because nobody disputes that. But it is also a commonname for Kosovo region and APKiM.
 * You argue that primary topic associated with "Kosovo" is RoK, but I'm not so sure and other editors disagree (what are your arguments for this?). So, IMHO, it should be a DAB page.
 * And even if RoK is the primary topic of "Kosovo" and "Kosovo" is a commonname for RoK - this would support option6 and wouldn't support your claim that Kosovo topic should remain the status quo "APKiM+RoK" mix. "APKiM+RoK" is neither primary topic of "Kosovo" nor has a commonname. Alinor (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Enric Naval, as per your comment about most common usage of "China" it states in the article's lede that China is seen variously as an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and/or a multinational entity. ... That is three concepts if I interpreted and counted correctly. Also in the discussion you have pointed to, a user states that:
 * "But the Kosovo article uses the common name for the country/renegade province/whatever, and the article is about the current political entity (de facto about the partially recognized country). The use of the two names ('China' and 'Taiwan') is 99% of the problem. 'China' should be an article about the PRC (the current country). 'Taiwan' should be about the ROC (the current country). Relevant issues should be explained inside of the two articles, simple as that. ..."
 * and how I see it this is not the case now with any of the article's mentioned. Neither is Kosovo _only_ about the "the partially recognized country", neither are articles China nor Taiwan about countries/states People's Republic of China and Republic of China respectively. Also further in the discussion it is given that:
 * "...Comparing South and North Korea, West Germany and East Germany, with China and Taiwan is simply unwise as the meaning of the names of the first two couples is widely understood in the English language. If you ask an educated English-speaker about "Korea" he will ask you: "Which one?". The same happened with East Germany and West Germany 19 years ago. However if you ask him about "China" he will speak about the current country (official name being People's Republic of China). The same thing happens with "Taiwan", he will speak about the island-country (official name being Republic of China). ..."
 * and also:
 * "If you say Congo, I (and other ppl who r unfamilar w/ African politic) wouldn't ask you whether it is Democratic Republic of the Congo or Republic of the Congo, simply becoz there are people who am not familar with the African politic . The same with China, there are people who are not familar with Asian politic who wouldn't care the difference between ROC and PRC. It is important for wikipeida's address facts with accuracy, not base on the simple popularity that you cited. As I said, popular isn't mean being correct. So we can't equte China to PRC or ROC."
 * Now, I am not drawing any conclusions from this except pointing out to the fact that the articles Republic of China and China aren't the same, neither are "Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo" the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblbroks (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 March 2011

Kosovo is the most common name for the Republic, so WP:COMMONNAME says that we should use "Kosovo". When reliable sources use "Kosovo", they use it most commonly to refer to the republic by a wide margin, so, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC also says that we should use "Kosovo".

(I already said that "China" is most commonly used for the Chinese civilization, so it fits WP:COMMONNAME. There are many places called "Congo", for example Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo the first version of "Congo" already listed them, Congo doesn't have a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because there is not an usage of "Congo" that is much more common that all the other uses put together. Taiwan has been discussed many times, see here. Ireland was moved after long discussions, see here, here and here, I haven't read those discussions)

@Bilblbroks, WP:COMMONNAME is not about "popularity", it's about usage in English language reliable sources, which in turn is based on WP:V, which is one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia. Please, feel free to go to Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles and propose that WP:COMMONNAME is demoted because it's based on "popularity".

Anyways, I have explained my arguments and the reliable sources supporting my arguments in Talk:Kosovo. Provide specific examples of most common usage of "Kosovo" in English language reliable sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Which of the discussions have you read and which you haven't? I don't understand what should be found there. Please, explain why do you think Verifiability is in question here. Have I provided some information that isn't verifiable? While, I understand that some of my words (not given here) could be interpreted as "I have provided reliable sources", I haven't stated that actually. Also I am not sure that you have explained "...the reliable sources supporting [your] arguments". I'd also like to quote the most mentioned page here, WP:COMMONNAME, which contains this text:

"In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals, and a search engine may help to collect this data. When using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". (Also exclude inauthor:"Books, LLC" when searching Google Books.)[4] Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice in the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and will therefore be familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change. The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. For example, tsunami is preferred over the arguably more typical, but less accurate tidal wave."


 * I think I have addressed also the popularity issue here. And since this text mentions the page Search engine test, I would also like to quote some text from that source, too. I admit I haven't bothered to read the whole of the aforementioned page, I think to cast some doubt on reliability of sources "revealed" with "A quick google news search" (which is what I think, Enric Naval, you are referring to with "Anyways, I have explained my arguments and the reliable sources supporting my arguments in Talk:Kosovo."), it might be illustrative to quote the top of the aforementioned "Wikipedia:Search engine test" page:

""Wikipedia:Google" redirects here. For the Google WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Google. For the templates providing Google links, see Template:Google templates.

This page is a how-to guide detailing a practice or process on the English Wikipedia. Shortcuts: WP:SET WP:GOOG WP:GOOGLE WP:GOOGLETEST

This page in a nutshell: Measuring is easy. What's hard is knowing what it is you're measuring and what your measurement shows. Or put simply: Search engines are sophisticated research tools, but often have bias and results that need to be interpreted. It can be worked around, but you need to know what you're doing. On Wikipedia, neutrality trumps popularity."

Such verbosity and potential annoyance of readers because of verbosity requires explanation, or at least apology. Why was I so verbose - well, I prefer the quoted text speaking for itself, than doing the work myself. Hmph, call me lazy. Also, I provide only the apology for verbosity - for apology for potential annoyance try looking at hmph. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Biblbroks is correct. Also, Enric Naval, I agree with you that Kosovo is the most common name for the Republic. The problem is that it's also the most common name for the Region and for the Province. And in such case we have to either agree on a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or use a disambiguation page. I think the primary topic is neither of the political entities, but the region in general. Alinor (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Biblbroks. WP:V is a core content policy that applies to all wikipedia articles, including its titles. In WP:Article_titles, WP:V is cited in the first paragraph, and it says at several places that the names should be the ones found in sources.


 * Anyways, the point is:


 * When reliable sources say only "Kosovo", how often they are referring to the republic, how often to the region, and how often to the province?


 * can we agree that the answer to this question will help determine the name of the article? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Enric Naval, I still don't understand why do you emphasize the importance of WP:V here. The way I see it, no one challenged the frequency of the term Kosovo (in reliable sources) to refer to the region of Kosovo but you. Do correct me if I'm wrong. Also, which meaning is more frequent for Kosovo - republic of Kosovo, region of Kosovo, province of Kosovo - that I don't know, but it appeared as if you thought you knew. And that's one of the reasons why I regard your tone (in parts of your comments) as somewhat condescending. But, yes, I agree with you that the answer to the question you posted will help determine the name of the article. And that the article Kosovo. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Enric Naval, i advise you to better help us in fixing this article, then fighting pointless battles about article name. None questions that Kosovo is right name, and most common name, therefor, we have Kosovo article, but as Kosovo is common name for all entities we need here, not just RoK, we have also Republic of Kosovo aticle. I am sorry, but, man, i am very tired of same, absolutely the same explanations, all of us explained you numerous times. Why do you post this question here, instead helping us in fixing this article. You think that Republic of Kosovo is not good name for this subject? -- WhiteWriter speaks 17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's a "good" or a "bad" name, I think that it's a name that doesn't reflect what sources call the country.


 * In order to answer that question, I think that it's necessary to provide specific examples of usage in sources, do you agree? (I will post the examples in Talk:Kosovo, so you can keep working in this article without interruption) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, nobody is disputing that "Kosovo" is the common name of RoK. But it's also the common name of APKiM and the common name of Kosovo region. So, in order to answer that question it's necessary to decide what of these three topics is the primary topic associated with the term "Kosovo". The primary topic should be at the Kosovo article and the other topics should go in two other articles. If no agreement can be reached on who of these three is the primary topic, then Kosovo should become a disambiguation page linking to these three (and other) uses of the term. Alinor (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What an earth is this?
Another diabolic mess from Alinor, from first glance. Why is this split from Kosovo? Was there an consensus for this? I also now see two articles on the same thing: Kosovo and Kosovo (region)... What's the deal?

If there is a consensus here to distinguish state from country, this certianly affects similar cases like Abkhazia, etcetera. It hardly seems fair to treat Kosovo differently. From a purely objective perspective, however, Kosovo is currently the Republic of Kosovo. It seems a bit POVish to suggest otherwise. And then there's WP:COMMONNAME to consider... Am I bringing up old issues?  Night w   11:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Night w, could you refrain from personal comments?
 * "Kosovo is currently the Republic of Kosovo" - maybe (see WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC comment above), but the status quo topic of Kosovo is not RoK. And nobody supported changing it to RoK in the RFC for topic change where this is listed as option6.
 * If something is a mess this is the article with three infoboxes and non-sensible topic that mixes different things (e.g. Kosovo with topic APKiM+RoK mix). IMHO this mess is result of the clash between Serbian and Kosovar POVs. And such mess should not spread to other articles. Alinor (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

General Warning
This is a general warning that everyone please refrain from personal insults. I gave Alinor a week to carry out the edits he believes should be made, that being to trim this specific article down so that it only covers the Republic of Kosovo. Anyone else is free to help in this effort as well. So far, there has been little more than arguing on this talk page, and no constructive editing of the article. Please, if you intend to argue on this page, I urge you to step back, take a few deep breaths, and let the process play out for itself. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Belgrade-Pristina negotiations
Is there an article for them? If not I propose the creation of such an article. IJA (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there is nothing for that. Yes, that may be quite an interesting article. Belgrade-Pristina negotiations. -- WhiteWriter speaks 18:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

GDP PPP
According to this article, the Per Capita is $2,965 ($5.352 bn / 1,804,838) ... that's GDP nominal divided by population size. This is a little outdate, here is a new link to Kosovo's GDP nominal total |here

The GDP Per Capita would then be $6.113 bn / 1,804,838 = $ 3,387

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.253.231 (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, is this GDP per capita or total? I dont see that separation. And source we have is quite good now... -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the GDP Nominal (total)...and the new GDP PPP is $3,387...it needs to be updated from $2,965...since I used the same sources I don't see a conflict since this is a factual update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.209.42 (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Section. Lets fix this article.
Well, lets first agree which sections should be in this article.

The rest should be in the other articles. So, what do you say? Also, please dont give us pointless deadline. On talk:Kosovo we have majority of users that argumentatively want this separation. If only one or two users constantly blindly repeat their POV, that does not mean that we dont have consensus. Just dont rush with reverts, and dont make big deal out of this subject. Nothing will happen if we keep this page for a bit longer that a week. Only then we will make it good. -- WhiteWriter speaks 13:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with the above. IMHO: History should be very very brief for pre-1990, brief for the 1990-1999 and more detailed for 1999-2008. Economy - maybe some brief historical background for pre-2008 is in order. Other sections not mentioned above: Name - some small part of it can be blended in the History section. Ideally - Geography, Demographics and Society should remain, but more focused on RoK issues. Alinor (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont have time now, but i will create these, if none other other do that before, until monday. -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles in countries always include all the past history of its geographical region, even at times when that country didn't exist. See for example Colombia, Spain, Italy or Polland, Republic_of_the_Congo, etc.


 * The only exceptions (that I know of) are China and Taiwan, and only because both have a claim to History of China, see discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Only those examples are relevant, where two or more entities (states or whatever) are related to the same geographical region. And in this case we have Kosovo region and History of Kosovo both covering the older periods, so there is no need to have all of that information in Republic of Kosovo. But of course a brief summary is in order, IMHO. Alinor (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we use the same exception and those two... And i will create that summary, which is not in the article now, Enric, dont worry. It is still under construction. I will do as we agreed in the table above. What do you say, Enric, regarding the rest? -- WhiteWriter speaks 14:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First, the natural point of cut would be 2008, when RoK declares independence, not an arbitrary point at the start of the century. Second, all those sections of demography, society, etc, will be duplications of Kosovo, since both the article on the region and the article on the country are supposed to reflect the current state of them (and that's why the article about the country and the article about the region are the one and the same, just like Spain, Germany or Azerbaijan). The situation in China is not the situation in Kosovo, you can't just go and happily apply the same solution. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the situation in Kosovo is not like the situation in China, it is even less like the situation in Spain. An approach that works well for a stable country with no major territorial disputes is highly inappropriate for one whose entire territory is disputed with another country. The production of individual articles for each of the current disputants and almost complete removal of political/governmental information from the Kosovo article is the most logical and best organized solution to the problem. --Khajidha (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Other changes
Hiberniantears recently made some bold edits - deleted the Kosovo (region) article and changed the navigation template on Kosovo to something like "this article is about the geographical region, for political entities see RoK and APKiM, for other - see DAB." Enric Naval then reworded it a bit to be more fluent, but I think at least the "individual" word from his redaction should be removed (see User_talk:Hiberniantears).

Additional changes needed, if this arrangement is going to remain (e.g. Kosovo region at Kosovo, RoK and APKiM at their own articles):
 * Kosovo - sections duplicated in RoK to be substantially trimmed/removed (per WhiteWriter proposal table at Talk:Kosovo (region) that was unfortunately deleted). Lead can also be tweaked a little. Only the first infobox (for Kosovo region) should remain.
 * Kosovo (region) to be created as redirect to Kosovo (and if the old talk page can be restored - even better) - it's already linked from too many articles . Since restoring the talk page can't be made by regular users (and reverting recently deleted article, even as redirect may be seen as overruling Hiberniantears decision) - maybe we should ask Hiberniantears to do this.
 * at Kosovo (disambiguation) the bullet Kosovo should be removed. In addition - the link above it to Kosovo region may be changed to be linking directly to Kosovo - as "Kosovo region" or "Kosovo region".
 * at Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (DAB page) the bullet Kosovo should be removed.
 * the following redirects should be pointed to Republic of Kosovo: Independent Kosovo, Independent Republic of Kosovo, Kosova State, Kosovo State, Republic of Kosovo (2008), Republika e Kosoves, Republika e Kosovës, State of Kosova, The Republic of Kosovo, .ks.
 * the following redirects may be pointed to Republic of Kosovo, depending on how the sections are arranged between Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo region: Communications in Kosovo, Crime in Kosovo and maybe Languages of Kosovo, Culture of KV, Culture of Kosovo.
 * the Talk:Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija seems sensible and may be implemented.
 * the RoK country infobox Template:Republic of Kosovo should be copied into Republic of Kosovo (the only article that will use it) and deleted from template namespace.
 * Serbian National Council article at first glance seems to me as RoK-biased: "is a Parallel Governing structure of Kosovo that seeks to destabilize and undermine the power of the Kosovar government in Prishtina" - maybe some additional viewpoints should be added there.
 * finally all links to Kosovo should be checked and those that don't refer to Kosovo-as-a-region, but refer to APKiM, UNMIK or RoK should be pointed to the corresponding article. (this is a very time consuming task to be done gradually over time by all who stumble upon such links)
 * of course work should continue on RoK-UNMIK relations and relations between Serbia and structures of Serbs of Kosovo/Kosovo Serb enclaves/North Kosovo/APKiM/Assembly of the Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija/Serbian National Council, as well as Serbia-UNMIK, Serbia-EULEX, EULEX-UNMIK relations - but all of these require WP:RS and WP:V that we currently seem to lack. Alinor (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I created redirect out of Kosovo (region). That redirect existed for a loooong time, and that is not controversial. Also, i will fix few redirects, and for the rest of the serious business, we will see. :) Well, as far as i see, the most important thing is to create good and representative Republic of Kosovo article, for example, i found that RoK is member of CEFTA and World Bank Group. Is there anything else? We should find all membership links, and all relevant political data to insert here, that wasn't in Kosovo article when it was about both entities. Once more, i need some help in fixing this. But in few days, we will have some interesting article. -- WhiteWriter speaks 14:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, RoK is member only of the WBG and IMF, but CEFTA and other memberships are of UNMIK (see here) - and that's one of the main questions I ask here - how do RoK and UNMIK cooperate in regards to representation at such organizations? Alinor (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Woow, i really dont know that... We should find out somehow... -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: Alinor, I strongly encourage you to stay away from this and related Talk pages for the duration of your topic ban. That said, you identify a number of valid tasks that need to be carried out. Likewise, I have copied the table from the deleted talk page, and pasted it below:
 * The bold font to be removed from "Republic of Kosovo" and "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" in the lead at Kosovo.
 * "individual" to be removed from "For individual articles about the entities disputing its sovereignty, see ..." Alinor (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My advice to everyone is not to overly complicate an already complicated topic. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WhiteWrite - Thank you for turning Kosovo (region) into a redirect. That was the correct course of action, as my delete left too many redlinks. I have added protection to that page indefinitely. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem! :) And this table should actually then be introduced on Kosovo page. As Kosovo page is now the former Kosovo (region), this table should be implemented in Kosovo page, and the rest of related RoK and APKiM data should be removed. -- WhiteWriter speaks 16:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hiberniantears, I asked at the AE page multiple times whether the ban includes talk pages or not, said that I assume it doesn't, nobody responded. Nevertheless I may limit my participation there too.
 * Copying the table here is fine, but would you copy also the subsequent comments/replies, maybe in a section at Talk:Kosovo. Alinor (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of this I would not have on this page. This page should deal only with things that are solely part of the ROK. Things that pertain solely to APKIM should be on that article and things that belong to both equally (preindependence history, demographics, geographical features) should be covered on the Kosovo region article. Very brief (1-2 short sentences) statements to provide context for the dedicated information should remain and a prominent link in the lede to the competing claim should be present. Basically these articles should be expanded sections of the region article focusing on each polity. Conversely those sections that are pulled out to these articles (government for example) should be treated only in terms of the interactions between the different parties (ROK, APKIM, EULEX, UNMIK) on the Kosovo region page. --Khajidha (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)On second read thru, it seems that that is what you are already proposing. Carry on. --Khajidha (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, i will remove those two sections then. -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been more than a week already
So, are all fixes finished? Can we start discussing the article as it stands, and decide if it looks better or worse than the previous un-split article? --Enric Naval (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we still need to finds some solution to the iwiki question, and to fix history sections in all 3 articles, that is not done yet. There are also some minor things to be done... But if you have any proposition, it will only help, that is out of question... :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 13:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Budget
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/newsbriefs/2011/03/14/nb-11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.82.7 (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:KOS
Template:KOS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bazonka (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Borders
If this is the Republic of Kosovo article then it does not border the "Central Serbia" region, but the separate country of Serbia. Yes, that ignores Serbian perspective because Serbian perspective is irrelevant to an entity that they do not even recognize. --Khajidha (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Constitution and PISG
OK, so the UNMIK authorized the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG) per UNMIK Regulation 2001/9 of 15 May 2001. It explicitly provides that "laws, once promulgated, are binding legislative acts of a general nature", "the President shall sign each law adopted by the Assembly and forward it to the SRSG for promulgation" and "laws shall become effective on the day of their promulgation by the SRSG, unless otherwise specified." (The SRSG is the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Kosovo which actually issues these regulations and for which UNMIK functions.) Section 1.5 creates the Assembly and all the other institutions of the PISG, which did not exist prior to that, correct?

It was this PISG Assembly that adopted this Constitution of Kosovo of 9 April 2008? If regulation 2001/9 was still in effect, wouldn't the SRSG have promulgated this act? Does anyone have verification the 2008 Constitution was promulgated by the SRSG? Int21h (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion regarding these questions started on Talk:Kosovo. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The forking of the Kosovo article in English language Wikipedia — and what (and who) is behind it
Well, it seems like the Kosovo article has been split, according to the desire of some very prolific editors… but when we navigate trough the other editions of Wikipedia, including the ones with large number of articles and reasonable and credibility (like the German, the French, and the Spanish editions), we see the following pages in the gallery below (all screenshots are from the same june 7, 2011):

We see that these countries, though less recognized internationally than Kosovo, receive a better treatment in this Wikipedia, being treated as more legitimate than Kosovo itself, with the right to their governments’ flags and coat of armas at the top of their pages. And the articles haven’t been forked into thing ilke "Abkhazia (region)" or "Transnistria (region)".

Yes, what I want to say is that based on these evidences the article about Kosovo in the English edition of Wikipedia has been hijacked by a minority of Serb and Russian editors that want to use the most -accessed edition of Wikipedia as a way to make pro-Serb-nationalist and pro-Russian-nationalist propaganda. And this is not NPOV. And this is not right.--BalkanWalker (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion should be continued on one place to stop forking: Talk:Kosovo -- WhiteWriter speaks 11:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo je Srbija. Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your point regarding the article? Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Further above, Balkanwalker said "the article about Kosovo in the English edition of Wikipedia has been hijacked by a minority of Serb and Russian editors that want to use the most -accessed edition of Wikipedia as a way to make pro-Serb-nationalist and pro-Russian-nationalist propaganda. And this is not NPOV. And this is not right". I don't really see the problem with this. It's not a minority of pro-Serb and pro-Russians but it represents the view of the majority or the world. If you look at those lovely maps showing the countries which have recognized Kosovo as independent then you will see that a) a majority of the countries in the world don't recognize independence and b) a majority of the world's population don't recognize independence. Its independence is basically only recognized by western and central Europe (and not even all of that) because of pro-US sentiment and to spite Serbia, North America (for obvious reasons), some countries in the middle east and western Asian (mostly Muslim countries with close relations) and a few other puppet states of the USA. As for me, I support Kosovar independence and I have visited the country a few times but it shouldn't be described as an independent country when it isn't recognized as such, isn't under its own sovereignty (OK so neither is BiH) and still depends on other countries to survive. --109.113.213.46 (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it is more complicated than than. Republic of Kosovo is an existing entity, to what degree this is so is disputed. At the moment, fewer than half the world's states recognised Kosovo but that could change in a matter of months. Countries are doing this gradually, one by one. Of course, as with Western Sahara, this may be a floating issue for ever as states recognise and unrecognise Kosovo. The Czechs for example can withdraw if power goes into different hands, whilst Spain may very well recognise Kosovo when the socialists are pushed out and the conservatives returned as is looking likely at the time of writing. Population of the world is irrelevant, it is not the people that recognise a state but the government itself. Kosovo being recognised by as many lands as it is means that it has full diplomatic relations concerning its republic status and so this warrants an article. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Almost everyone tried to avoid this forking was blocked by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann --89.204.136.53 (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)PS: This guy has even an article about himself: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Bachmann
 * See this  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.213.78 (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

no info about refugees.
why is that? how many albanians left kosovo during nato bombing? how many returned? how many serbs left kosovo since 1950's, since 2000, since 2008? How many returned? 188.2.162.145 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Kumanovo Treaty
I would like to move the above article from Kumanovo Treaty to Kumanovo Agreement. This is because while the "International Security Force" is not an international organisation or capable of signing treaties etc. It's never been registere with the UN either (for that reason). Any way, I wanted to move it but got this message:

"Source and destination titles are the same; can't move a page over itself. Please check that you didn't enter the destination title into the "reason" field instead of the "new title" field."

If there is an interested editor or two who could help me out on the technical aspects to moving the page that would be great. Thanks. NelsonSudan (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

State Religion in the Republic of Kosovo
With accordance to Kosovo's constitution I added that the Republic of Kosovo is a secular state with no state religion whatsoever in the overview of the article, partly because there is no header named "Religion". Later however a certain user named "WhiteWriter" reverted all my edits without justification to do so. I will re-type my former edits with hope that there won't be any further interferences with important facts like these.

Epicurus B. (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Islam the predominant religion? Why no mention of religion or Islam, that seems to be the major reason for splitting off on its own 131.107.0.89 (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The only verifiable information is that the great majority of Kosovo's inhabitants are from Muslim family backgrounds. This may or may not mean that they have any religious views of their own. It is perfectly obvious from a walk around Pristina or most other large cities that the predominant culture is firmly secular. You occasionally come across someone in identifiably Islamic dress (headscarf or even burqa for women, "Islamic" beards or short trousers for men), but a lot less often than among Albanians in Macedonia - or, come to think of it, walking down Oxford Street in London. As far as I can see, Islam had nearly zero influence for Kosovo "splitting off on its own". I would have thought that having one's autonomous status revoked and having 70% of people employed having to leave their jobs might account for this! The 1991 Declaration of Independence specifically mentioned Kosovo's right to rejoin a reconstituted Yugoslavia (i.e. one not dominated by Serbia).--Markd999 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

just "Kosovo" with a star (*) and a footnote
I suppose this article should be renamed to "Kosovo", since both parties agreed to rename it like that. I don't know how you will add the star (*) and the footnote, but I suppose212.178.229.102 (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC) that should be added as well.

They haven't agreed to rename it; they keep their positions on what it is called; they have agreed only on how it should be designated in certain regional organisations - rather like the "provisional designation" to be used by Macedonia while its name dispute with Greece continues.--Markd999 (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

INTRO
Undue weight in the introduction seems to be given to its history and status. A sentence or two should suffice, not a whole paragraph. This seems to be influenced more by politics than consideration for the maintenance of wikipedia norms. Ottomanist (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If nobody is going to discuss this, then I'll go ahead an edit. Ottomanist (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about political creation, and not historical one. For history, you may see article Kosovo. Also, i dont understand your proposition here, you have edited entire section, without any special meaning to me. What exectlx is your problem with this lede? Also, this article is under 1rr per week, per WP:ARBMAC. Please, revert your second revert, or your may be reported for violation about that. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No your missing the point here- the lead was useless and read more like a law essay about the status of the (self-proclaimed) Republic. I care nothing about the politics of the region- I edited the lead so it better reflects the standard of other Wikipedia articles about countries/states- whatever you wish to call it. Any editor who values good editing will be pleased with the new lead. It is all well-sourced. Ottomanist (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, without trying to be rude, your standard of English is very poor- maybe that's why you misunderstood what I wrote. Ottomanist (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have violated 1RR per week sancion imposed on this article. Please, revert your self, as you have just breached wiki rules. It is not important what have you edited, this article must not be reverted more than once in a week. You have been also warned on your talk page about ARBMAC restriction. Please, revert, and then come back here to talk and agree. Anyway, sorry about my english. I will give my best. :) -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood, there was no contention about my editing of the lead, and no one contested it on here. The new lead changes nothing that wasn't in the lead before. This conversation is over, if you have any queries, see my [|Talk Page]Ottomanist (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A "standard" can hardly be "poor", User:Ottomanist. I think you mean "low". My standard of English is rather "wealthy", however, and I'm also having trouble making sense of your edit - so it seems that's all besides the point.


 * The bottom line here, Ottomanist, is that your edit is opposed. Achieve consensus on the talkpage and stop edit-warring for once. -- Director  ( talk )  19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Also this article is under 1RR protection, you are not allowed to revert more than once or you will be blocked immediatly-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  19:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You guys are getting really, really boring with this now. And yes it can be 'poor' but you wouldn't know that because your not a native speaker. Cheers, have a nice day! Ottomanist (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Your"? I think you mean "you're", Ottomanist. I share Future Perfect's amazement with the fact that you've still not been sanctioned . To add to all your previous disruption on Talk:Kosovo, you've now breached 1RR on this article that's under WP:ARBCOM probation . What's worse, you've breached it pushing non-consensus deletion of sourced data.


 * @WhiteWriter, you may find this interesting. Apparently we're a "group". -- Director  ( talk )  19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahahaha, you and me? Never! :) :) :) Just to let you know, i moved this to AN/I... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Serbian Name
I shall change this to "Republika Kosova", unless anyone objects: the genitive of "Kosovo" in Serbian is "Kosova", and this is the form used within Kosovo.--Markd999 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Markd99. You are right that the genetive form of Kosovo produces Kosova, however when it comes to naming convention in the Slavic languages, it is not phrase by phrase the same between English and the Slavic language. There is no sense of the word "of" when saying Republic of something in Serbian. As such you have: Republika Srbija, Republika Hrvatska and Republika Crna Gora - never Republika Crne Gore or Hrvatske or Srbije. It is as if they are all saying, "the republic CROATIA" or "the republic SLOVENIA" - or maybe "the republic THAT IS Macedonia = Republika Makedonija". Make sense now? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but the point is that the Serb-language version of the Constitution is "Republika Kosova"; and the Serb-language heading on Kosovo government papers (including letters from Serb Ministers) is "Republika Kosova". It is not as if anyone in Serbia for the foreseeable future is going to refer to "Republika Kosovo", so we do not have to judge whether to use Serbian-Serb usage or [official] Kosovo-Serb usage. However the difference with normal Slavic language conventions came about (my bet is simply incompetence on the part of government translators) it is here to stay. It is, after all, a lot less and less absurd than some of the neologisms in Bosnia or Croatia, or even now in Crna Gora, to distinguish their languages from Serbian: think of the absurd name they have invented in Croatia instead of "kravat" ("tie") when the origins of kravat were anyway Croatian ("hrvat"). --Markd999 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I doubt faulty government translations has anything to do with it. Obviously if any Serbian language source is referring to the constitution or any other property pertaining to the republic, it may be doing so in its own way but this doesn't mean "Republika Kosova" is the Serbian way of saying Republic of Kosovo. This is a politically-fuelled topic and the majority of ordinary Serbian people can barely utter the words, whilst the national institutions don't recognise the entity therefore to what degree it even needs to be included is open to debate. Obviously the architects of Kosovan independence have themselves declared Serbian an official language and likewise they publish documentation in that language among others. But this is certainly a controversial area where linguistic factors meet political sentiments. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going to refer you to Wikipedia guidelines on Official Names, and argue the point again, but checked someone's Kosovo passport and there is "Republika Kosovo" in Cyrillic. So there are two forms in official usage within Kosovo, and it would be silly to insist that both forms should be referred to in the article, or that the less natural one should be used.--79.126.147.231 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an unclear area. No guideline dictates whether we should or shouldn't use the Serbian name and much of it is down to local custom. If Kosovo were peacefully led to independence by a joint Albanian-Serbian committee who had planned to make the new entity a federation with two equal language per ethnic groups (despite demographic disproportion, just focusing on key areas), and they did this with Belgrade's authorities present at the inaugural ceremony, then we would have a Swiss-style territory so could easily give two languages for everything pertaining to the state. Because of the actual controversy surrounding the full picture, nobody knows what should be included and what not. For instance, the Serbian title was never included in the Western Outlands as it was felt this could be an insult - but an insult as nothing to the one which would be generated if use of Serbian appeared to endorse Kosovan independence. But nevertheless, anything in Serbian or Croatian following Republika does not take the genetive form but the nominative, this is why we have Republika Bosna i Hercegovina - never Bosne i Hercegovine, as I said - there is no sense of the word "of" so no grammatical call for genetive case. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply, "Republika Kosova" is grammatical nonsense. In Serbo-Croatian the name of this state is "Republika Kosovo" ("Kosovo" of course meaning "of the nightingale" or simply "nightingale's" in SC). -- Director  ( talk )  18:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: frontier
"The remainder of Kosovo's frontier to the north and east is the subject of controversy and is with the Central Serbian region."

This can surely be put more factually and strictly neutrally. Serbs will presumably object to the term "frontier" or "border". But "boundary" is neutral. There is no controversy over where this boundary lies. There is obviously controversy over whether this boundary is a border between states, over the future of this boundary (i.e. whether it should be changed), etc. But the boundaries of Kosovo as they are at present are surely not questioned by either Serbia or Kosovo.

I propose: "the remainder of Kosovo's boundaries to the north and east are with the Central Serbian region" --Markd999 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully agree - go ahead with that one. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting around it has been hard. Given this is about the republic, I suppose we can circumvent controversy by stating something like this:
 * ...borders Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania; the remainder is the republic's border with Serbia - however from the other side, it is seen as such: explanation.

But it will be long. Cannot avoid that. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: the North
The lead contains the phrase: "while North Kosovo, the largest Kosovo Serb enclave, is under the control of institutions of the Republic of Serbia".

I think this oversimplifies. In the first place, the Kosovo Police Service operates in the North, although its Serb police officers may act more under the orders of Belgrade than Pristina (or just operate on the basis that they want a quiet life). In the second place, the Kosovo Customs Service does now control the border crossings jointly with the Serbian Customs. In the third place, there is also KFOR, which from time to time exercises some degree of control (as we saw over the clashes with Serbs over the border crossings. And in the fourth place, although some institutions of the Republic of Serbia operate openly (electricity, telephones, courts) there are also parallel structures which may be funded by Belgrade but cannot be claimed to be "institutions of the Republic of Serbia"

Underneath the appearance of a monolithic political unity, the reality is quite complex. If you are a criminal who is arrested in the North, the officer who arrested you is in a Kosovo uniform, you will be sentenced in a Kosovo court, and you will serve your sentence in a Kosovo prison. If you are transferring property, you may register the transfer in a Serbian court but you are also likely to register it in a Kosovo one.

I therefore propose to edit this to "although North Kosovo, the largest Kosovo Serb enclave, is largely under the control of institutions of the Republic of Serbia or parallel structures funded by Serbia". Seven extra words, I am afraid, but it gives a bit more idea of the complexities in the North.

--79.126.145.19 (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The topic is subject to a lot of confusion and misinterpretation. Situation: Belgrade relinquished all de facto power within the territory of Kosovo in 1999 when it agreed to remove its security forces as part of the Kumanovo meeting which saw an end to the NATO bombing campaign. Resolution 1244 was drafted to keep Kosovo a part of Serbia's (then Yugoslavia) sovereignty, administered locally with an international U.N. presence supervising operations. An ethnic Serbian majority in four of the municipalities enables the nation to run its affairs free of Priština's central influence, and the location of three municipalities - which adjoin Central Serbia - further facilitates the concerted effort between Belgrade and its representation within the all-crucial Kosovan territory. However, although the Serbs from the enclaves can keep Kosovar influence at arm's length, they are not directly controlled by Belgrade. The desire to remain united with the rest of Serbia is inherent; the use of Dinars and observation of Serbian law is also part of the uniform, but if Kosovar Serb authorities were to fall out with Belgrade as happened in the 1990s involving the Serb rebel states in Bosnia and Croatia, Belgrade's government has nothing within its powers to amend things in Kosovo. So essentially, Kosovo both pre- and post-declaration of independence has functioned as two de facto independent states. I don't think that an arrest in Zubin Potok will result in a trial in Priština because the two entities recognise different laws, and the border arrangement is mutual in how it operates - what exactly this means I don't know. But just to clarify, there is no official Belgrade representation anywhere in Kosovo - no freedom of movement for security forces. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis - I think the Kumanovo Agreement is a red herring. Politically it did not matter that much. The rather quick sequence of events was a political agreement brokered by Ahtisaari/Chernomyrdin, the Kumanovo Agreement (properly known as the Military-Technical Agreement- MTA) to get Serbian Security Forces out of Kosovo as quickly as logistically possible, and then UNSCR 1244. Obviously it is UNSCR 1244 which is binding in international law. The significance for the Serbians of the MTA is of course that it envisages that at some future date a KFOR Commander might authorise limited numbers of Serbian forces to guard Serbian cultural sites and the border. Obviously (I think) this is never going to happen, nor did either side expect it happen.

I think that an arrest in Zubin Potok will indeed result in a trial, not in Pristina, but in a Kosovo court in Zubin Potok or Mitrovica -in any case before a Serb judge: and there is a Kosovo-administered prison in North Mitrovica (known, not perhaps surprisngly, for the number of escapes).

So "control" is, I agree with you, whether it be from Belgrade or Pristina, a dubious factor applied to the North. But as for the centre and south (two-thirds of Serbs in Kosovo) it is a different matter. In any case, I would suggest that we need to be clear that there is a lack of clarity. North Kosovo is not like North Cyprud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I only mentioned Kumanovo because it transformed the status quo. I know 1244 to be the most significant factor - though its legality is also questionable but that's another story not worth exploring here - and as you say, that is not the issue when explaining North Kosovo. Firstly for Serbs living inside the Albanian-dominated municipalities, yes these are fully subjeted to Priština. It's their choice to continue living and working in those areas and they know the de facto governance and are bound by it. Don't forget, a Serb majority in the northern municipalities does not mean that there are no Albanians there - there are some indeed and likewise, where you live is how you are governed. Kosovo is administered capriciously it would seem. Cyprus is not comparable because North Cyprus claims to be independent, North Kosovo doesn't! So the forumla is such: Priština governs with its law, trans-Ibar Kosovska Mitrovica governs with its law! Everything is done locally and Belgrade plays no part, not even indirect. One entity - two systems, but one is committed to its parent organisation it sees over a boundary. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

War crimes
Present text reads: "Since May 1999, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has prosecuted crimes committed during the Kosovo War. Nine Serbian and Yugoslavian commanders have been indicted so far for crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in Kosovo in 1999: Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milošević, Serbian President Milan Milutinović, Yugoslavian Deputy Prime Minister Nikola Šainović, Yugoslavian Chief of the General Staff Gen. Dragoljub Ojdanić, Serbian Interior Minister Vlajko Stojiljković, Gen. Nebojša Pavković, Gen. Vladimir Lazarević, Deputy Interior Minister of Serbia Vlastimir Đorđević and Chief of the Interior for Kosovo Sreten Lukić. Stojiljković killed himself while at large in 2002 and Milošević died in custody during the trial in 2006. No final judgement concerning the other defendants has been produced so far. The indictment against the nine has alleged that they directed, encouraged or supported a campaign of terror and violence directed at Kosovo Albanian civilians and aimed at the expulsion of a substantial portion of them from Kosovo. It has been alleged that about 800,000 Albanians were expelled as a result. In particular, in the last indictment as of June 2006, the accused were charged with murder of 919 identified Kosovo Albanian civilians aged from one to 93, both male and female.[28][29][30][31]"

The Trial Chamber of ICTY acquitted President Milutinovic in 2009, but found the other defendants in that trial guilty and sentenced them to between 15 years (two defendants) and 22 years (three defendants). Djordjevic was separately found guilty in September 2011 and sentenced by the Trial Chamber to 27 years imprisonment.

While it is true that no final sentence has been given (assuming that they have all appealed) this is also true in the Haradinaj case in the same section (also out of date). If trial chamber judgments are referred to in the case of one side of combatants, trial chamber judgments should be referred to in the case of the other side.

I intend (unless there is strong disagreement) to edit to reflect these judgments. Some reference needs also, perhaps at a later stage, to be made to war crimes prosecutions undertaken in the Kosovo and Serbian jurisdictions.

I expect that it would not be considered neutral if I referred to the outstanding indictment by the "District Court of Pristina in exile at Nis" of Bernard Kouchner, Agim Ceku, and (I think) Hashim Thaci for genocide.

--79.126.141.251 (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - it logged me out for some reason. Entry posted by --Markd999 (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I propose to add that the Republic of Serbia War Crimes Prosecutor has indicted a number of Serbian (and Albanian) defendants for war crimes within Kosovo, of which perhaps the most significant so far is the alleged massacre of 44 civilian males at Čuška/Qusk on 18 May 1999. ICTY has never had sole jurisdiction over war crimes, and is now not able to launch new prosecutions.--79.126.145.104 (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For what you have sources, you are free to add without consulting the talk pages. These are more for achieving consensus where disputes emerge, in your case I doubt any editor will take exception. By the way, you don't seem to log on very often do you! I know who you are but most of your contributions are as an IP!! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the compliment! I will try to deserve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis: You will see that the University of Belgrade (supposedly) does not seem to take your view that no editor will take exception to cited facts.--Markd999 (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Whitewriter: I find it odd that someone from the University of Belgrade undoes an edit which refers to the results achieved by The Republic of Serbia Office of the War Crines Prosecutor, and cited under the Office's web-page. I had already, on the talk-page, said that I intended to put in something on the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor's results. I give 24 hours for comments/disagreement. Next time I report you for vandalism.--Markd999 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't get too heavily involved on that issue because it's not something I've explored in detail. I did say you can use sourced information but I didn't realise your edit involved removing extant sources. Where sources contradict each other then yes, it requires discussion. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Whitewriter/Evlekis: you are, I think right, on the removal of sourced material. Sorry and thank you. The reason why I removed the last sentence was that I did not believe that a June 2006 indictment could be the "last" one in a trial which lasted to 2009 (given the frequency with which ICTY indictments have been amended). But this is more easily fixed than by my thoughtless removal of the sentence; just amend it to "according to the indictment as of June 2006".

Would you both be happy with this change and my addition on the Republic of Serbia war crimes' prosecutions? --Markd999 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

UN administration period
There is an unnecessary duplication involved in having two sections, one headed "UN administration period" and one headed "UN administration 1999-present". The second paragraph of the second heading is worth keeping; the first paragraph is pure duplication. I propose to edit to remove the duplication, and keep the heading of the first section. (Even if, unlike pro-independence people or the ICJ, one thinks that Kosovo should still legally be under UN administration, not even UNMIK claim that it is de facto; and the heading of the first section implies no claims either way) --Markd999 (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Whitewriter - Nice to meet you. You have undone my edit, and suggested that I put it on the talk page first. I had already put it on the talk page, above, and am surprised that you had not noticed this (?!). I am happy to put all proposed edits on the talk page and give 24 hours for any comment. I will not now report you for vandalism, but if this goes on.... --Markd999 (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, you removed sourced data that you Didnt adreess here first. That one removal is/was explained, but what with the rest of the edits? :) -- WhiteWriterspeaks 08:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not remove sourced material in this section which I did not address here first. I made one grammatical change, changed the election of "Prime Minister" to "Government" (because under the Constitutional Framework the Assembly did elect the Government, of which of course the Prtime Minister is a part, and described the Parliament's legislative role (under the supervision of UNMIK). If you object to any of this, please let me know why. --Markd999 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But what about www.icty.org ref? And the rest? Please, see your edits, you have removed few sources from article... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 15:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter - please see my last comment on "war crimes" where I propose one small change to the sentence where the www.icty.org references are (leaving the references untouched)--Markd999 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)