Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 3 August 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kosovo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

In accordance with sanctions authorised for this article: All editors on this article are subject to 1RR per day and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see (subsequently modified by ).

Useful information for this article Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Misplaced Pages:Etiquette. This is not a forum for general discussion of Kosovo, or whether it is a 'country', 'state' or 'province'. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Kosovo at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Misplaced Pages policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. The opening paragraph to the article was decided upon, by consensus, following lengthy discussions. It is based on reliable sources, providing a neutral point of view. The first sentence, in particular, must call Kosovo a "country", reflecting the consensus found in the RfC held in the spring of 2023. This article is written in British English, which differs from American English in some ways. See American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Kosovo received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries Countries portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kosovo Top‑importance Kosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Albania Top‑importance Kosovo is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:V0.5

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

Former article talkpages (archived) Talk:Kosovo/ Republic of Kosovo Kosovo (geopolitical region)

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Jews in Kosovo? Jews from Kosovo?

Were there in Jews in Kosovo or from there? Till WWII? Now? (at least there were at some time, wait! that was Dobrovnik, here and here, where I finally got a full answer....)

I know Kossovsky, Kossov, Kazov and many other Jewish family names. Here's the story of the Holocaust of Kossov in Hebrew. Here's a link to the Synagogue of Rabbi Moshe of Kossov in Safed Israel... But these are probably of a city in the Ukraine named Kossov.

While writing the question I found the answer... See above. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Add Kosmet to introduction

Right now it only functions as a redirect to the article, but I noticed a good amount of such use for Kosovo by Radio Srbja of just that term in the English-language press of theirs. Thoughts? --Mareklug 21:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this term is used frequently enough to warrant a mention. Bazonka (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Added. --Mareklug 15:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

ICJ verdict

Events regarding this article are very likely to develop tomorrow. Can I ask for all regular contributors to keep an eye out on the article, watch out for vandalism and controversial edits. Also can I ask for everyone to keep NPOV in mind and to get a consensus before making certain edits to the article, which could possibly be controversial. Cheers IJA (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the UN says Kosovo independece is "not illegal". This does indeed change things. I have always said that a change in the current structure of the article will have to depend on a change in the real-world situation. This may be such a change, and we will have to review the infobox situation. I would suggest it is now fair to collapse the two infoboxes into a single one. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Which two of the three infoboxes have you got in mind? Anyway, I'm all for independent Kosovo, but I don't see how today's verdict changes the real-world situation. The ICJ has no authority over the status of Kosovo, it only issued a non-binding advisory opinion.—Emil J. 14:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental objection to Kosovo being presented as an independent country has been the ambiguity of its status and the questions surrounding its legitimacy as a state. The ICJ ruling has secured its legitimacy, if not its legal status, as a lawfully-formed polity. Kosovo has 69 recognitions. UN membership is not a prerequisite to being presented on Misplaced Pages as an independent state, as the articles for Vatican City and the Republic of China attest to, nor do the number of recognitions matter, as the latter also attests. These questions, I think, have for the most part been put to rest. We can continue to note Serbia's sovereignty claim, just as the PRC's sovereignty claim to Taiwan is noted in the ROC article. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully Agree. Cheers. — Kedadi 15:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully Agree. — --NOAH (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

well yes, it's a gradual process. Unless and until Kosovo joins the UN, there will always be room for debate. We just need to compare the situation here to that of the other partially recognized states. Kosovo is now probably the "best recognized partially recognized state not in the UN", excepting perhaps the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

I note that in the latter case, we keep one article on the state and another on the territory, SADR vs. Western Sahara. Perhaps based on this, it might now also be an option to separate Republic of Kosovo from Kosovo (region).

The verdict by no means changes everything overnight, but I think it is still an important step, forcing us to reconsider our stable consensus.

If we are going to treat the Republic of Kosovo like the Republic of China, as Canadian Bobby suggests, we will also have to opt for the two-article solution:

(Republic of China:Taiwan)=(Republic of Kosovo:Kosovo (region).

--dab (𒁳) 15:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Can we please have the consensus reaching process on the infobox separate from the consensus on the article split? It's kind of difficult to obtain consensus in one thing, let alone two. --Sulmues  18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

After the split, where should Kosovo point to, Republic of Kosovo or Kosovo (region)? Cheers. — Kedadi 15:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

probably Kosovo (region), or else Kosovo (disambiguation). --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be the least confusing to have it go to the disambiguation page. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

NO! There are 2 Chinas (different geography) but only one Kosovo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.84.236.47 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted. This template must be substituted.

I Agree with one Infoboxs and I  Disagree with Split

• People who have previously supported three or more Infobox now say that at least since we can not always keep at least 3 Infoboxes lets split it.-- LONTECH  Talk  15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I Agree with one Infobox and I Agree with Split, I've said all along that this article was trying to be too many things at once. --Khajidha (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote dab: "we will also have to opt for the two-article solution". I seem to remember this was tried before and promptly suppressed. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with having just one infobox but I'm not sure about the creation of the article ] as there are already too many articles about it. --— ZjarriRrethues —  18:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I Agree with the one Infobox proposal of dab and I  Disagree with Split

• However please make this consensus reaching process only with the infobox proposal and get the unique infobox on top first. After that let's start a separate discussion and consensus reaching process for a potential split. To me a split doesn't make any sense: The Kosovo region will bring lots of issues as far as the size is concerned: Are we talking about Kosovo today? The vilayet of Kosovo? What is Kosovo if not the entity of the Republic of Kosovo and its history? Furthermore, Kosovo has always been more of a political and administrative area, rather than a geographical region, and it just doesn't make sense to have a separate article.--Sulmues  19:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I Agree with one Infobox and I  Disagree with Split, since differently from the Republic of China — wich controls not only Taiwan but also Pescadores Islands and some other islands on the coast of continental China — Kosovo controls (completely in most of the country, and partially in the case of North Kosovo) all of the territory of the former Yugoslav Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo, and Pristina controls no territory beyond these borders that were set since the end of World War II in Yugoslavia.--BalkanWalker (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with one Infobox and I Agree with Split -- Al™ 01:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I Agree with one Infobox and I  Disagree with Split bobrayner (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, the so called "split" was rejected by the Misplaced Pages community at least 10-15 times during the years. There is no reason to bring it up again especially after the Court's decision. This is a very significant step in the process of full recognition, so Agree with one Infobox. Hobartimus (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I also believe that splitting the article is not the best possible idea and I fully Agree with having only one infobox. It generally seems that all editors engaged in this discussion agree on having one infobox, should we go on with the change? Cheers. — Kedadi 03:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You could do the change if you feel bold enough, but the article is under all sorts of parole and such so watch out for 1RR. Hobartimus (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone should do it now. I also Agree with one infobox and I  Disagree with split. --109.84.199.76 (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully Agree with one Infobx (the country-box) and I absolutely  Disagree with splitting, renaming, forking or whatsoever. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

sorry, this is not a vote, and a pile of Albanian patriot IP addresses saying "do it" doesn't really do anything. We need to have a coherent discussions of the pros and cons. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dieter Bachmann, why do you care about my race? --92.74.20.221 (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I also Agree with one infobox for the article and  Disagree with splitting the article as I believe everything should be included on the one article. IJA (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree with splitting of article. We don't have any Spain (region) or France (region), we place everything in the same article. No opinion on infobox. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We must have proper discussion about this, not just vote with 100000 albanian editors. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, so all of this votes are pointless. --Tadija 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you would like a more detailed discussion, nobody is stopping you.

However, complaints about "100000 albanian editors" are irrelevant hyperbole. Discarding the opinions of those who disagree with you, just because they have a different background, is not proper discussion. If you would like to raise more detailed points, I'm sure other editors would happily discuss them.

I would agree that wikipedia is not a democracy but it's interesting to see when people raise this point - usually when they realise that many others disagree with them. I would point out that you have participated in votes here before (and crossed out the votes of others you felt unqualified). It might be uncivil of me to suggest that your commitment to democracy depends on whether or not most people agree with you; perhaps you have simply changed your mind about democracy over time.

bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Νot all these users or even the majority are Albanians. There seems to be an agreement regarding at least the infobox by most users so like kedadi said should we go on with that change?--— ZjarriRrethues —  14:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Tadija, hang on a second, a proposal has been made to just have one infobox, now everyone has that they agree, this shouldn't be taken into account because everyone who agreed didn't write a dissertation to why they agree? If you agree with something you usually don't have to explain why you agree, you just simply say "yes, I agree with that". However if you were to say that you disagree with something, then you go on and say why. What we have here is editors saying that they agree with the proposal to have one infobox. Anyway I see no opposition to it, so what is the problem? IJA (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also most editors have explained with a sentence as to why the agree, making them not simple votes as Tadija has wrongly stated. Also we're not all Albanian. Hardly any of the people who have agreed are Albanian. IJA (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've merged the Infoboxes into one as agreed here. There was no opposition to doing so. Ive kept the map of Kosovo which shows that there is a dispute to maintain NPOV. There is also notes in the info box to show that independence has only been partially recognised. IJA (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a proponent of making small step-edits instead of wholesale revolutions. Accordingly, getting rid of multiple infoboxes in favor of one is the upper limit of that. Furthermore, Kosovo has one present tense -- it is the Republic of Kosovo. Other competing claims and descriptions are either in counterfactual space or in the past. We should make note of them, but they are not of the same weight (anymore). Furthermore, our model should be other countries in Europe, not Republic of China (Taiwan). We don't have Russia (region) or Spain (region), even though these could be said to be well-defined regions with shifting borders and polities over time. Let's collapse the infoboxes and keep the article (and redirects) largely the way it has been, while observing international developments. --Mareklug 15:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I support step by step changes. Essential changes like ( Introductory text ) should be modified because now the independent Kosovo is not only de facto State but also de jure.-- LONTECH  Talk  16:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And just to remember: this is not a vote, but a discussion where the arguments in favour of non-splitting and one infobox are winning. Anyway, it always seemed strange, even befor the ICJ ruling, that the articles about Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, governments that are far less-recognized worldwide, had only one infobox while Kosovo had... three! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.195.132 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that the ICJ was ruled that the declaring independence was legal, not neccessarily the independence itself. Technically it's a legal loophole and really hasn't changed the situation. Just some food for thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.72.16 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo is not member of UN. So technicly nothing is changed. --Alexmilt (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@Alexmilt, this is wikipedia not UNipedia. IJA (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

UN membership is irrelevant from the point of being a legitimate country, just think of the case of Switzerland and when that country became a full UN member. Hobartimus (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

IJA, wth is that supposed to mean? UN membership would hardly be irrelevant. If the RoK was in the UN, we would not be having this discussion. Sure, you can be recognized by everyone and still not be in the UN, as used to be the case for Switzerland, but this isn't the case for the RoK.

The ICJ vertict is an advisory opinion. It is important, but doesn't change anything in the de jure status of Kosovo. All it did was disappoint Serbia's hopes that it would get backup along legal lines. Now there is no probable scenario of how Serbia is ever going to regain control over Kosovo. They cannot act with military force as the international community would just dump a ton of bricks on them, and they cannot act legally, so their hands are really tied now. This will perhaps convince them that their best bet is to try and compromise and get at least control over those regions that are not loyal to the RoK, and in exchange forfeit the rest. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It has changed everything

Kosovo was not considered a state for reasons that its independence was illegal so in terms of de jure "concering international law" kosovo was not a state.Now in terms of de jure "concering international law" kosovo is a STATE. UN Court has given ksoovo legal right to extend its authority throughout Kosovo and has shown the world that Kosovo is same state as all other countries of the world Kosovo and Kosovo is an equal state with other states and should have all the international rights belong to any state ICJ has removed ambiguities regarding the statehood of Kosovo. To respect international law Kosovo should be recognized by those states that had some recognition dilemma and Belgrade's policy should come down from sky to earth to agree with its independence.If Serbia as a country respects international law should recognize Kosovo-- LONTECH  Talk  18:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ak71vie, 23 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} per bobrayner & BritishWatcher Jarkeld (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

change "Currency" from "Euro" to "no currency (with footnote)". The footnote should say that "The Euro is widely accepted" or similar; as Kosovo is NOT a member of the European monetary union. Ak71vie (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Membership of the "European Monetary Union" (hmmm) is not strictly necessary for a country or territory to use the euro as a currency; other places have adopted the Euro despite not being EU members.

The Euro is legal tender in Kosovo: - if that's what the central bank says, and if that's what people and organisations routinely use in transactions, then that's the currency - regardless of whether or not the government of Kosovo has signed some special agreement with a third party.

bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Euro belongs there and the note in the infobox explains it is not a formal member of the eurozone. Dont see any need for a change on this BritishWatcher (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, this is not a case of Dollarization, where the country's currency circulates along the foreign currency. It's a case where the central bank of that country doesn't issue any local currency and where all bank accounts are legally required to work in euros. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if a link could be made to Seigniorage, as the EU central bank is probably making a nice profit from the use of Euro banknotes in non-signatory countries. Incidentally, I heard on BBC Radio 4 that the ECB is firmly keen to stop any more non-EU countries from using the Euro as currency. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

An article on the subject from the Bank of Albania: http://www.bankofalbania.org/web/pub/M_SVETCHINE_1329_1.pdf Brutal Deluxe (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Request to add ccTLD in Infobox

We could add the ccTLD section in the Republic of Kosovo Infobox. We could put .ks and/or .ko and put a footnote stating that the ccTLD is still pending. --Gimelthedog (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Status of Kosovo

After the hearing by the International Court of Justice, should Kosovo be considered a country now?

Wai Hong (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please .. this is no place for us to speak of what "should" and should not be! We just report on what's going on. The new court ruling shall be reported here in all neutrality, along with the Serbian rejection and reaction. No need to make a point to anyone here in the Encyclopedia. Thanks, Maysara (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, don't speak, just do. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Trade and Commerce

This section states: "Kosovo has a reported foreign debt of 1,264 billion USD that is currently serviced by Serbia."

I believe it should read 1,264 million USD (or 1.3 billion) not 1,264 billion. Tiddy (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

“Kosovo is a disputed territory in the Balkans. The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo…”

Shouldn’t it be better in the first paragraph to replace the above with the simple sentence “Kosovo is a partially-recognized country in the Balkans”? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.197.116 (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't... :) --Tadija 21:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, It should be. Kosovo is not just a "territory". Only it's Indipendence is disputed by Serbia and its supporting allies, but no one disputes it as a territory. Piasoft (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, Kosovo is not a disputed territory. I think what's disputed and partly-recognized about Kosovo is it being a "sovereign" state. The article should simply say something like: "The sovereignty of Kosovo is disputed and partially-recognized by world states." Please be bold and make the necessary changes. :) Thanks you, Maysara (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right... settle down there, calm and quiet. No. Kosovo is not synonymous with the Albanian Republic of Kosovo. See North Kosovo for more info. --DIREKTOR 10:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But Kosovo is synonymous with the Republic of Kosovo, see info box. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For majority of the world Kosovo is still part of Serbia. "its supporting allies" is highly POV. --Tadija 11:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Of those countries that make up your "majority", how many have expressed disagreement with Kosovo's independence/support of Serbia's position and how many have simply not said anything (and possibly couldn't care less)?--Khajidha (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Only 44 countries expressed disagreement with Kosovos independence. This is less then the 70 countries (including Taiwan) that recognized Kosovos independence. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• User:Tadija please stop your provoking statements, and please remember that the Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation because of statements just as these you make here. Please try to be helpful. It doesn't matter what is your personal opinion about things. We are just reporting matters here in order to create a good encyclopedic article. Maysara (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Meeso, you are knowingly fostering conflict. This sort of edit-warmongering should be reported instead of tolerated in this manner. You are fully aware that the long-standing Misplaced Pages consensus (WP:CONS) on the issue of the Republic of Kosovo is that it is not synonymous with Kosovo, any more than the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and yet you are trying to have an IP newcomer who does not know this to do your dirty work for you and push your POV. You are knowingly trying to entice others into acting against consensus, incorrectly citing WP:BOLD in a thoroughly deceptive manner. Had this turned into anything more I would surely have brought this to the attention of those same admins you are threatening people with. --DIREKTOR 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• User:DIREKTOR, you are an impolite person, and you do not know what argument and civilized dialogue and deliberation are. Maysara (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the above threats and conflict provocation, you are not the one I am likely to learn that from... --DIREKTOR 21:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Although it's tempting to comment on other contributors rather than on the article (and I have succumbed to the temptation sometimes), I think you two are taking it a bit too far. Could I suggest that you try to focus on improving the article? Please?

bobrayner (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

have you really reached an agreement regarding the single country infobox instead of the previous 3?

nothing else to add, but, if you havent, Im pretty sure some serbian nationalists will revert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.88.227.175 (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem are not the serbian nationalists but rather admins that supported their doing. But luckily one of these admins ("dab" aka "Dieter Bachmann") seems to hold himself back. And as long as he does we need not to fear any serbian nationalists. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

can somebody block this returning troll please? We haven't reached "an agreement" on this because once again the discussion was disrupted by the patriot IPs. --dab (𒁳) 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping he would hold himself back. Maybe someone should hold him back? --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

no dab we have reached agreement even if it does not suits your opinion. Being admin does not give you the right to act as wikipedia is your personal property and just because you do not have someone to watch over your actions.-- LONTECH  Talk  19:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

who is "we", and where is the diff where I threaten administrative intervention? If you cannot provide evidence to back up your accusations kindly piss off, thank you. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not say "piss off", this is not polite. Even not as an administrator. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

user has zero edits to articles. This talkpage is degenerating into a sock circus. --dab (𒁳) 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm welcoming. And again, please do not say "piss off", even not as an admin. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

One infobox?

After removing all other infoboxes, i invite editors to respond this questions.

1. It is POV to have only one infobox, without information's about United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo
2. For majority of the world, Kosovo is still part of Serbia. Where is infobox about that?
3. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus claim only one part of some territory's. As you may see with Vojvodina article, Kosovo should have "Autonomous Province" infobox, under UNMIK regulation, as it is claimed as part of Serbia.
4. How intro can be neutral without all of this?

--Tadija 12:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

About point number 3, when did Kosovo claimed whole of serbia? It claimed only part of serbia. It is the other way round, serbia is claiming "Kosovo is serbia!" and not the Kosovars claiming "serbia is Kosovo!"--92.74.20.221 (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RoK is claiming entire Autonomous Province of Kosovo. --Tadija 12:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus do the same thing about their territory, so where is your point? They do not claim whole of Cyprus or Georgia or Moldova. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Another problem about point 3. Looking at Vojvodina#Legal_status, the region has not declared independence, it seems to consider itself an autonomous province, and seems to be regarded by all countries as an autonomous province. The situation is very different from Kosovo's situation. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one Infobox, that was the consensus, where this was discussed. Opening a new thread on the same thing, is a big no-no when the thread is still up here, you should have posted in that thread (titled ICJ verdict). Hobartimus (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We can keep the article as is, but then it would probably be a good idea to move it to Republic of Kosovo to avoid confusion, and to point Kosovo to Kosovo (disambiguation). There could also be a separate Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article for Serbia's administrative entity, as in ru:Республика Косово vs. ru:Косово и Метохия. Frankly, I do not think there was consensus for the bold edit by IJA (talk · contribs). We had an ongoing discussion, but then that discussion was trolled by the returning German-IP trolls, and things got out of hand. This is not a basis for a change in consensus. Block the trolls first and then see how consensus stands. --dab (𒁳) 13:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No splitting, renaming, forking, moving or whatsoever. We disussed this over and over again, see history. So let me ask who the troll is that you mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Kosovo&diff=375544255&oldid=375540819 --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

wow, so you manage to say "we disussed this over and over again" and to pretend not to know what has gone on before? Nice one. We have indeed discussed this many times, and the outcome has always been "two infoboxes". The question now is exclusivel whether the ICJ verdict changes anything. For your information, there are also two articles for Abkhazia, one on the Republic of Abkhazia vs. one on the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. I think there will be no way around splitting this article one way or the other now, the question is just where to point Kosovo. The most neutral thing we can do is make it the disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 13:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you show us Abkhazia and want to convince us to a disambig page? Not so clever as there is no such a disambig page in the case you showed us. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a problem for the Abkhazia pages, there should at least be a disambiguation sentence at the top of those pages. The logical thing to do here is just what dab is suggesting. --Khajidha (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Republic of Abkhazia" is just a redirect to Abkhazia. "Abkhazia" has two governent spinouts due to size problems: Government of the Republic of Abkhazia and Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. I don't see any disambiguation page, and I don't see the need to disambiguate "Abkhazia" to each of the governments. Government of Abkhazia is a disambiguation page (by the way, I am going to add hatnotes to the two government articles). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion of Dbachman to follow the Russian Misplaced Pages example is enigmatic: why should the English Misplaced Pages follow the Russian example? And why shouldn't it be the other way around? The so called Autonomous Provice of Kosovo and Metohija rightly has a redirect to Kosovo and I don't see any reason why it should be a separate article. In addition, last year after 5 months of discussion that I made and a 10-2 voting for the single infobox, the only result I got was a block for disruption and a ban from Kosovo topics. Thank you for your attention. --Sulmues  13:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User Sulmues. We are not the problem. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dab is right. This is POV fork like this, and it cannot remain like this. Those two must be separated, as RoK is not equal to Kosovo! IP user is equal to sock puppet for me, as it have 0 edits other then here. I agree on split, and ask Dab for further actions in this direction. --Tadija 13:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The one info box is just for Kosovo in general, just like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc. Also I am strongly opposed to splitting the article. All that splitting the article would do is encourage Forking and each of the articles would be POV and that goes against all what Misplaced Pages stands for.. IJA (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't responded any of my questions above. If you are opposed to the forking and povs, then infoboxes should be returned. If it is for Kosovo in general, then remove flags and coat of arms. RoK is not equal to Kosovo, and never will be --Tadija 14:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A precedent has been set on WP to show Partially recognised countries like Kosovo, Abkhazia etc with one information box. Kosovo is de facto governed by the RoK just like Abkhazia is de facto governed by the RoA. Kosovo should be presented like all other partially recognised countries. The former APKiM and UNMIK do not administrate Kosovo. Also I do not see the point in having three infoboxes. Have the relevant information in one box. IJA (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Every other region, country, entity, territory etc on Misplaced Pages all have one infobox. It is rather bizarre to have three for this article. IJA (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)I too am strongly opposed to splitting the article because that would lead to fork articles. Tadija's arguments are personal deductions and not based on any policy.--— ZjarriRrethues —  14:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As others already pointed out, there are no policy-based reasons to split anything, and similar articles are not splitted. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the infobox to make it more NPOV. Under Government you can see that I have added Lamberto Zannier as UNMIK Special representative. I have added to events in the infobox, UNSCR 1244 10 June 1999 and EULEX 16 February 2008. Also Under government I have added UN administration. Please see my edit here. IJA (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done, but I guess even this will not be enough to convince admin dab and his friends not to split the article, therefore we should be vigilant. Again, thank you IJA! --92.74.20.221 (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also changed the conventional name of Kosovo at the top if infobox from "Republic of Kosovo" in English, Albanian and Serbian (c and l) to just plain Kosovo in all three languages. Please see my edit here This also makes the infobox NPOV as it just refers to Kosovo as Kosovo, it doesn't suggest if it is a country or a province, it just uses the same name as the title. IJA (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so can we now remove the split template in the article, please? --92.74.20.221 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, no formal split proposal was made, so I propose to remove the template that is currently appearing. --Sulmues  15:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the split template as the split suggestion was about the infobox. However I have since changed the infobox to be more status neutral and I have added relevant UNMIK information. So now we basically have what was in the three previous infoboxes all in one now. IJA (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the split tag was entered by Dab to reflect Tadija's words and also Dab's own proposal to split of the article itself between RoK and APKM, not of the infobox. However I believe that Tadija is not following any formal split proposals and neither is Dab, so his tagging at this point is inappropriate, unless Dab wants to make a less formal discussion on split. --Sulmues  16:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dab you are acting like this is your private article. Consensus was very clear where most of ediors oppose absurd split Kosovo now is not only de facto state but also de jure. Do you know what it means de jure.-- LONTECH  Talk  16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the splitting of the article and agree with the proposal to remove the split. It was fine the way it was and no consensus on this move was sought. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I too oppose a split.

It is unfortunate that dab keeps on complaining about troll IPs. They appear to have been relatively civil; their main offence seems to have been disagreeing with dab.

However, even if you don't count the IPs (which would be absurd), a majority of contributors opposed a split.

dab also said: "We have indeed discussed this many times, and the outcome has always been "two infoboxes"."; this surprises me, as the most recent poll clearly supported a single infobox and opposed a split. Furthermore, it was not disrupted by "troll IPs"; if anything derailed the discussion it was the people complaining about troll IPs; complaining that thorough discussion hadn't been held (but not actually putting forward a thorough argument of their own); complaining that wikipedia isn't a democracy, coincidentally after it became clear that a majority of contibutors did not agree with them; and so on.

I think we should stick to the point and find ways to improve the article, rather than looking for excuses to ignore a clear consensus if it doesn't suit our individual political beliefs.

bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the split. Despite occupying the same physical space, the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo are two very different things occupying very different conceptual spaces. They no more belong on a page together than do Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990-1999) and Republic of Kosova. --Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a new article called APKM that starts from 2006 or from 1946? I would personally support a good article rather than many weak articles, but I really want to know your thoughts. --Sulmues  16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting that every era in Kosovan history deserves its own good article. Eras with competing governmental claims deserve good articles for each claim. To me, having to try to satisfy the competing demands of the pro-Serb and pro-Albanian positions means that neither is covered very well. --Khajidha (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree every era in Kosovo's history does deserve an article however this article is about contemporary Kosovo therefore you have disassembled your own argument about splitting the article. IJA (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You missed the second part of my statement, "eras with competing governmental claims deserve good articles for each claim." --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good content on each part of Kosovo's history? I'm all for it. And of course linking to a detail article from here. But separate content to avoid the problem of competing claims? I would oppose that because I think it would worsen the problem rather than solving it - the same problem would reappear on several different articles. If we tried to create separate articles that showed one party's perspective, then each little component article (particle?) would still encounter difficulties in satisfying NPOV, reflecting the arguments of a variety of balanced sources, &c.

It is difficult to write any text that reconciles competing claims for pro-serb and pro-albanian positions; but if the alternative is to write separate texts or to ignore one of the claims in any given article for the sake of easier composition...

bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If separating competing claims is a bad thing, then why are Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990-1999) and Republic of Kosova separate from each other? When you can't even get a good infobox because half the items in it have two (or more) things that could be listed, each of which will upset large portions of the readership how can you get a good article? --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think both articles show the negative side of splitting. They should be merged with Kosovo, as it is part of the history. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

They are both historical articles.-- LONTECH  Talk  18:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems a trivial difference. If it can be admitted that people in the past experienced things differently depending on which government they considered themselves to be living under, then it follows that the same is true today. --Khajidha (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Both articles should be included in Kosovo history and should be deleted-- LONTECH  Talk  19:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it that the UN infobox was removed, I thought we were passed this sort of bias on this article. It seems constant persistent POV-pushing against consensus pays after all. There is really no question at all that an article dealing with both political entities (Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province) should have two infoboxes for both of them. I am still trying to understand under which excuse the United Nations infobox was wantonly deleted in the first place, and how such POV could've possibly escaped unopposed on a closely monitored article. The edit is virtual vandalism, destroying the objectivity and neutrality of the article, the sooner it is reverted the better.

If the article is to be split into Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, that would probably be the best solution. I would, however leave this article on as a summary article on the region of Kosovo itself. This would probably be the ideal situation, and we have ample precedent: there is Ireland with Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, not to mention China, etc. --DIREKTOR 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ireland is not geographically the same as Northern Ireland which is only a part of that island and the same goes to China as there are 2 geographically different Chinas, the continental one and the island called Taiwan. So how can you compare Ireland/Northern Ireland and China/Taiwan to Kosovo? Therefore no splitting, please. --109.84.213.75 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)PS: And the same goes to the also mentioned case of Cyprus/TRNC: Not the same geography as TRNC is only a part of Cyprus but RoK is Kosovo.

Both Chinas actually claim the entirety of the territory of China (mainland and island), they may not actively pursue these claims but they are incorporated into the structures of their governments. So, yes, we can compare Kosovo's situation to China's. --Khajidha (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you got it wrong as Kosovo does not claim the entirety of Serbia. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was comparing PROC/ROC to Autonomous Province/Republic of Kosovo, not Serbia/Kosovo. --Khajidha (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But PROC and ROC are not the same geography, one is a continental state, the ohter is the island state - Republic of Kosovo is the same spot as Kosovo! --92.74.20.221 (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Both states actually claim both the mainland and the islands, see One China Policy. --Khajidha (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is still not the same like PROC/ROC as serbia clamis Kosovo AND serbia but Kosovo claims only Kosovo and NOT serbia. --109.41.255.238 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I was comparing ROK and APKM. As this is the Kosovo page, those are the two polities that are relevant. BOTH of them contain the entire region of Kosovo. --Khajidha (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And I told you that there are 2 different places called China but there is only one Kosovo, therefore you cannot compare those cases. --109.84.218.200 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Both governments claim that there is only one place called China and that that place includes both the island and the mainland. The two governments are mostly identified with different subregions, PROC with the mainland and ROC with the island but both consider "China" to mean the combination of the two. So, by the definitions of the Chinese, there aren't two places called China.--Khajidha (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR, it wasn't removed it was merged into one infobox. Please tell me what information was in the UN infobox which isn't in the current infobox? IJA (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, nice. :) Funny how the merged infobox looks almost exactly like an infobox for the Republic of Kosovo would look like. Must be coincidence?

Do not try to present this as an issue of "presenting all the information". The issue is neutrality (WP:NPOV), equal representation in the article. I do not recall that being the flag and coat of arms of any Serbian autonomous province. --DIREKTOR 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR should be aware that the coat of arms was adopted after Kosovo declared independence - long after the musical chairs of provinces and sub-provinces within Yugoslavia. I do not understand why that point was raised. Of course, it would be a serious violation of WP:NPOV to simply reject any content which didn't imply that Kosovo belongs to Serbia.

I realise many people would like to pretend that the declaration of independence never happened; but it did, and the article must reflect that.

bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the whole text before you post coments there is a clear consensus about this. and revert will be considered vandalism-- LONTECH  Talk  19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you are perfectly free to "consider" any edits you disagree with as "vandalism". :) You should definitely report any such alleged "vandal-like" edits immediately instead of trying to use (very empty) threats on experienced wikipedians. I will however recommend that you read WP:VAN, and with care, so as to avoid embarrassing situations in the future. --DIREKTOR 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Director, don't you think it is rather silly to state three times that the capital of Kosovo is Pristina, state three times that Kosovo's common name is "Kosovo" and to have three maps of Kosovo etc. There was very little information in the UNMIK infobox and very little information in the Rep of Kosovo infobox. All the information has been merged into one infobox. I think you should have read this discussion before commenting, I shouldn't have to explain the same thing to every individual user who joins in the discussion. Also back to the question I asked you, what information that was in the UN infobox isn't in the current infobox? IJA (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, try to read all the comments and the consensus reached before throwing heavy punches on editors: there was a consensus on the light of the recent decision of the ICJ, which is the judiciary of the United Nations. Also please see changes that were made to the infobox from IJA, which include all the info necessary on UN administration. The Kosovo triple infobox case was unique in Misplaced Pages and it was finally solved. --Sulmues  19:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed to see an editor being so smug and arrogant. You are not the king of the article just yet, Director. We had a consensus and it was acted on. You can't metaphorically throw the table up and assault the rest of us with the broken pieces because you don't like the consensus. You can't demand neutrality with feigned outraged innocence while simultaneously, and not-so-surreptitiously, demanding changes over the objections of the majority of us to suit your own point of view. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The APKiM didn't have a flag, that is the only flag Kosovo claims to have and has ever claimed to have. Also I could use your same argument for TRNC, Abkhazia, Tawian etc IJA (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is not information redundancy, but neutrality (WP:NPOV). To use your own example, the fact that the Autonomous Province had no separate flag of its own does not mean we can now use the flag of the Republic of Kosovo to represent it.

Personalizing the issue as "my own POV" is quite an old ploy and not very effective. It is obvious to any non-involved observer that if two (hostile!) political entities are to be covered by this article, then the two cannot be represented by the same one infobox, sporting (among other things) the flag and insignia of just one "preferred" one. Furthermore, if one of those entities is not an independent country, how is it "neutral" to represent the one that is not as an independent country? "Elegance" should never override factuality, still less neutrality.

As for my perceived arrogance, it is instead rather mild outrage at the current state of the article. I do, however, invite all to ignore the tone of my post, as it can be deceptive, and concentrate on arguments. --DIREKTOR 21:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Then how come we use the Flag of Abkhazia to represent Abkhazia? Oh I forgot, that is ok because Abkhazia isn't Kosovo and we have separate rules and standards for Kosovo. Well that in itself is extremely POV. It is better than your idea of showing the "UN" flag in the UNMIK infobox. The UN flag is the flag of the UN not UNMIK. IJA (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems it is necessary, for the millionth time, to emphasize that Abkhazia is NOT an adequate comparison with Kosovo, for very many obvious reasons that were listed far too often for me to repeat them yet again to the same users.

In the end, I am sure it does not take a lot of argument or elaboration to show the inappropriateness of covering two countries with one infobox, even if that infobox did not look exactly as the infobox of just one of those countries, the one fervently supported by most of those who removed the second infobox. Now does the source of my outrage seem more obvious? --DIREKTOR 21:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo has an official flag. Removing Kosovo's flag is blatant POV pushing because it conveniently omits a key symbol of Kosovo's sovereignty. It is not neutral to remove it - that would be an explicit endorsement of Serbia's position. Only four countries recognize Abkhazia, but there seems to be no issue of showing its flag. Same with South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, etc. Nobody has displaced their flags. This is not an argument you will win, Direktor, because it's ridiculous and dilatory. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not showing two countries with one infobox, we are showing RoK and UNMIK Kosovo with one infobox. It is the only flag Kosovo has therefore it seems appropriate to use it. I could understand and sympathise with your argument if there was more than one flag for Kosovo. However since there isn't I can't see any credit in your argument. And thank you Canadian Bobby, finally someone with some sense. IJA (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So Kosovo is not independent because you or Serbia say so

No my friend KOSOVO now is independent because UN ICJ say so. This decision has closed every issue regarding KOSOVO statehood.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Then your problem is that this article also covers the Autonomous Province, go change that and come back. You know that, though, so I frankly have no idea what is the point of such "declarations of independence!". Except perhaps that they vividly display your bias in this issue? --DIREKTOR 21:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The infobox clearly covers that it is also for APKiM. So I don't see what you're on about now. IJA (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No. It most certainly does not. In response to a repeated statement all I can do is repeat: covering two countries with one infobox is highly inappropriate and very much unheard-of on enWikipedia, it would be inappropriate even if that infobox did not look exactly as the infobox of just one of those countries, the one fervently supported by most of those who removed the second infobox - which is exactly the case. It is very obvious, I think, to any objective observer that the neutrality of this article (such as it was) has been undoubtedly diminished. --DIREKTOR 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What two countries are you on about? Everything that was in the UN infobox has been added to the infobox and the UN apparently administrates APKiM. What information do you think is missing about the APKiM that should be added? State Secretary for Kosovo Oliver Ivanović? IJA (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am puzzled at the necessity to incessantly repeat the same responses. Again. Please do not try to pretend that the issue here (on one of the most controversial Misplaced Pages articles) is about information redundancy or efficiency, it is not. As I have said, this discussion is about a violation of Misplaced Pages's neutrality, about depicting the two entities covered in this article as objectively as possible - for which we need either a custom infobox or two ordinary ones. Exempli gratia, is the flag in the infobox the flag of the Autonomous Province? (the Autonomous Province does not have a separate flag, but that does by no means mean we can use one of a completely different entity) --DIREKTOR 23:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this objection is clutching at straws. If the historic entity had no flag, why is it POV to use the current flag of the current entity on an article?

Right now, on the main page, we have Belarus. It shows the current flag of Belarus. Previously, Belarus (or states with other names on the same territory) has had a variety of different flags over the years - but none of them are shown on the front page or indeed in the Belarus article. Where's the outrage?

Go look at the other articles on other countries, territories, and provinces around the world, and you'll find a similar pattern - including Serbia. Current flags are used because they are current.

bobrayner (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Um... there appears to be some misunderstanding. The entity is obviously not historic, but current in both the legal and territorial sense. It exists today simultaneously with the Republic of Kosovo (much to the apparent dislike and disapproval of the Albanians), and is covered in equal measure in this article. Hence we have an article that covers two very distinct and even hostile political entities - with one very biased, pro-RoK infobox. A situation which is I think quite unheard-of on enWiki.

Certainly it is utter nonsense to represent the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija with the flag of a completely different country, which is in addition also a rival and opposing entity. I'm still trying to understand how this could possibly be justified, still less described as "clutching at straws". It is fallacious and misleading in the most obvious way imaginable. --DIREKTOR 00:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The unified infobox already says that there are two different administrating entities for Kosovo. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, the article is still not NPOV, and quite glaringly so. Aside from the flag and coat of arms issues, have a brief look at this thread. To an objective uninformed reader, the appearance is that the Republic of Kosovo is synonymous with "Kosovo", which is of course equivalent with the complete recognition of the RoK's status in the Misplaced Pages community - and is contrary to established consensus. This is in obvious violation of both the said consensus and Misplaced Pages neutrality policy, and must be rectified in some way.

I for one can think of only three ways: 1) two infoboxes (as was the previous solution), 2) one custom infobox, if one infobox there must be, and 3) an article split into the Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo articles, with the Kosovo article remaining as a summary dealing with the region itself (mirroring the stndard Misplaced Pages approach to such issues, e.g. Ireland and China, among others). All are fine as far as I'm concerned, just as long as the error is corrected, though I personally think that an article split is the only long-term sollution to this mess. --DIREKTOR 01:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR: Sorry. I had read your comment about "Autonomous Province had no separate flag..." and hence I mistakenly thought you were talking about the very real historic examples of an autonomous province (ie, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1946–1974)

I did not realise that you were arguing that there are two countries in one territory. I'm sure we could all agree that there are two claims, but the position that there are actually two countries is... interesting. I thought Kosovo had declared independence. Who recognises this other "autonomous province"? Has it been recognised by the UN? When was the referendum? ;-)

Which consensus do you suggest the infobox violates? There was a poll recently which had a clear consensus in favour of one infobox, not two (or three).

bobrayner (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(Pardon the longer response.:) By default of recognizing the Republic of Serbia within its borders, every country that does not (yet) recognize the Republic of Kosovo of course "recognizes" the existence of Serbia's Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, which redirects here and is covered in this article alongside the Republic of Kosovo. The Autonomous Provice is still in existence in a territorial (de facto) sense in "North Kosovo", which is not within the Republic of Kosovo (though the latter claims it of course), and in a de jure sense it can certainly be said the Autonomous Provice holds more legality than the Republic, as far as international law is concerned (which of course is the cause of all RoK's recognition troubles).

All the above has caused the (admittedly unfavorable) situation of this article covering both simultaneously existing political entities by Misplaced Pages consensus. I do not like it but there it is, this is why the article had two or three infoboxes to begin with. Now the paradoxical situation is exasperated further with the idea that these two countries should be represented within one infobox, one that "surprisingly" looks very much like an infobox for the Republic of Kosovo would look.

It must be remembered that the long-term goal of the Albanian side of this dispute here on Misplaced Pages has always been this article covering only the Republic of Kosovo. Hence "Kosovo" would mean "Republic of Kosovo", much like "France" means "French Republic". This is why this side has continuously boycotted any attempts to split the silly two-entity article in two, a most disruptive stance diminishing greatly the quality of Misplaced Pages's coverage and turning this hybrid article into a perpetual battleground. It seems now that the United Nations infobox has been removed as well, that we are inching closer to a highly biased pro-Albanian view on this dispute - the idea that the Autonomous Province "does not exist" at all. I mean, here we have the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, strangely represented by the flag and coa of a completely different rival hostile country. I personally cannot imagine any neutral justification for it.--DIREKTOR 08:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So show me the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", when we travel to Kosovo, where are their institutions? You cannot? But I can show you the institutions of the RoK. So tell me, what does exist in reality and what does exist only in imagination? And thats all about Misplaced Pages, we are presenting the reality, not the hopes and wishes of Serbian nationalists still living in the year 1389. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait while I "show" you... :) What are you talking about? The Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is under United Nations administration. United Nations (UNMIK) institutions are very much in existence I assure you. Come back when the UNMIK becomes "imaginary". It would be a good idea to remember at this point that only 69 out of 192 (36%) United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo (and that only after noted significant lobbying by the United States). The remaining two thirds (and the United Nations Organization itself) do not recognize that entity, but rather the Republic of Serbia in its borders. --DIREKTOR 09:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How many times it should be repeated that there are 2 Chinas (1 continental and one island) and 2 Irelands (one of them is just a part of the whole island) but RoK is Kosovo, there are no 2 different Kosovos, therefore no split. --109.84.213.75 (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, "much to the apparent dislike and disapproval of the Albanians..." :) --DIREKTOR 08:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR is absolutely right. Although IJA did created some moves toward neutrality, it is pointless to transform RoK infobox into neutral one, as long as we have flag and coat of arms there. This article should be split, or other infoboxes reverted, per arguments presented very well by DIREKTOR. --Tadija 10:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything is said, we will keep the country box. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, how nice that you took the liberty to "decide" everything for us. :) I'm sure everyone here was waiting impatiently for IP 92.'s directive to solve the issue. However if you yourself have "said everything" as you stated, I reccomend you not waste time here anymore. --DIREKTOR 11:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, don't you realize that you are repeating yourself again and again? Everything is said, you say nothing new no more since a long time. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)To remove the flag would be an endorsement of a pov side so I'm strongly opposed to its removal.--— ZjarriRrethues —  11:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing the removal of the Republic of Kosovo flag and/or coat of arms. That is not what this thread is about at all. Merely that one infobox cannot be used in an article covering two countries. Especially when that infobox uses the flag and coa of just one of those countries, and especially of the two are rival entities. --DIREKTOR 11:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside view, and sorry if this repeats discussions that have been gone through before: first, I am totally against splitting the article. It's a single geographical entity; two articles could only be POV forks. Second, I am against having several distinct infoboxes, especially if they repeat redundant info (such as maps) merely for the sake of each POV side having the satisfaction of seeing "their" infobox complete. Third, I am also against monopolizing the article with just the R.o.K.-centered infobox with the Republic flag etc. on top. The obvious solution is a custom-made single infobox, which re-orders its elements in such a way that common/neutral parts of information are separated from politically specific ones. Thus, for instance: Title simply "Kosovo", followed by map, followed by geographic/demographic info. Then subheading "Republic of Kosovo", Republic's flag/CoA, info on government; and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And what about this? One article -Kosovo (region)- with regional and historic information's, and all locations on wiki can redirect there. Towns and everything else can be located in Kosovo (region) as it is. Even Kosovo note can stay. Two articles, RoK and APKiM, with all important data there, and that is it. When it is clear what it is about, there are no need for POV forking. Kosovo will be disambig. Fut.Perf? --Tadija 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When "points of view" materialize as separate institutions (governments) I do not think it is a pov fork to have one article on each. Of course people keep confusing the political entities with the territory, this is a common mistake, and this is not the only place on Misplaced Pages where the confusion leads to dodgy situations. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We need fewer articles, not more articles, and fewer infoboxes, not more infoboxes. It is a general error to think that POV disputes can be handled better by multiplying coverage across more and more pages. The whole perennial dispute is so intractable only because people remain fixated on the symbolisms of where in an infobox to have this or that flag symbol, or what terms to link where. If people just concentrated on article text, as they should, it would be the easiest thing of the world to treat everything together. – As for the China analogy, I don't believe we even would have separate articles, if it wasn't for the fact that the R.o.C. had its own Taiwan territory and is de facto today perceived as simply a separate state located in Taiwan (with the official claims to sovereignty over the whole of China being no more than an arcane piece of ideology). In the K. case, we already have North Kosovo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a mergist myself, but it wouldn't occur to me to propose a merger of, say, Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia with Abkhazia. I understand the Taiwan parallel is less than perfect, but so is any parallel to anything. Kosovo (region) would get an article as a historical region in any case, regardless of its administrative status, just like Swabia or Bohemia.

This article should mostly focus on the current situation of Kosovo (since the Kosovo War, including the declaration of independence and anything related to that). It is simply burdened down by excurses into ancient history and what have you. The first image on this page is File:Dardaian idol.jpg. This is absurd. An article about the Republic of Kosovo and its current affairs can very well stand on its own, detached from historiography of the Ottoman period or the Iron Age. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) @Fut.Perf.. I understand where you're coming from, I am all for displaying information in an organized, elegant manner. However the problem is that here we have these two conflicting political entities covered in one article, an unprecedented situation to my knowledge. In other words, the question is not "why split the article?" but rather "why cover two conflicting political entities in one article?". I myself have no idea how to answer that in light of the numerous precedents advocating otehr methods of covering this (China, Ireland, Taiwan, Cyprus,...), and when one considers the fact that this article has been turned into a perpetual battleground due to this strange situation.
The best solution would be to follow China's example, and turn this article into an article on the region of Kosovo in general and its culture, while the two political entities each get their article to embellish as they feel is necessary without the incessant arguments necessitated by the extremely fine line of neutrality in a hybrid article. I'm sure this would lessen the conflicts greatly.

That said, I would have no problem with any one of the three possible solutions. A custom infobox, either one that removes all flags, or one that features both the UN/Serbian and Kosovar Albanian flags, is a good temporary solution - but not one that will lessen the perpetual conflicts here in any way. Also if I may add, removing the RoK flag and coa from this article is likely to envoke resistance from the Albanian side of this dispute, the custom infobox will probably need two sets of insignia. --DIREKTOR 14:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

obviously, as long as Republic of Kosovo redirects here, the flag should be displayed. It should just be clear that "Republic of Kosovo" is a just a subtopic of the article (concerning the period 2008 to present), not the main article topic. If the Republic of Kosovo is considered notable enough for a standalone article, there should be a split. In fact we split out sub-articles just on grounds of length for much smaller topics, so the only reason this hasn't been split yet must be ideological, not based in Misplaced Pages guideliens. --dab (𒁳) 15:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There are already too many articles:

• History of Kosovo

• History of Ottoman Kosovo

• Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire

• United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo

• Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo

• Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999)

• Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1946–1974)

• Republic of Kosova

If there are concerns regarding the length of the article then shorten it and add main article templates to each section linking to any of these articles.--— ZjarriRrethues —  15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I really need to say those are history articles?? :) Every country on Wiki has a dozen on them. Completely unrealted to the issue at hand... The article is not too long, it just covers two completely different countries, something quite unheard-of on Misplaced Pages, and the root cause of all this incessant arguing here. --DIREKTOR 15:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Practical question: has a combined custom infobox ever been drafted? Is there an existing draft workspace or something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No. It is questionable whether we should go that way at all. Quite a lot of problems that way. --DIREKTOR 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If we had to spend less time bickering over the infobox, more time could go into improving the History of Kosovo articles. I do think that some of these articles could be merged, especially History of Ottoman Kosovo (scope 1455-1912) and Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire (scope 1864-1912). --dab (𒁳) 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The custom infobox is already on the article and you can revise it Template:Republic_of_Kosovo. Btw, it should be renamed simply Kosovo, as this will be the only infobox. --Sulmues  16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC) @dab: Those history articles are in dire need of cleanup, but experience tells me that until you have good wikipedians working on an article a not cleaned up article is better than no articles at all. --Sulmues  16:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with user Sulmues, the custom infobox is already on the article. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, persistence. There is absolutely no way the current infobox could possibly stay on with the RoK flags and Albanian spelling and all the rest. Calling it a "custom" infobox is certainly not about to deceive people. :) --DIREKTOR 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why can't it stay with the RoK flag? Why can't it stay with the Albanian spelling? What's "the rest"? What deception are you talking about? --Sulmues  18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija covered in this article? Is the flag of the RoK also the flag of the Autonomous Province, or the UN flag? Look I'm not going to repeat the whole argument here, read the thread. Its pretty obvious that the situation is highly inappropriate and biased and needs to be fixed, either by two infoboxes, one custom infobox, or by splitting the whole damn article. I think I'll be moving on to discussing the best solution rather than debating whether the sky is blue at noon on a sunny day... --DIREKTOR 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to expand on the APKM. The APKM is defunct by the way, it doesn't have any formal authority on the region. Please make sure to cover that. Hope this answers your first question. The flag of the RoK is not the flag of the Autonomous Province, because APKM doesn't have a flag and secondly is inexistant. If you strongly feel that you should have a separate Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija for a historical reason, please start it and then we'll reference from this article to the now defunct APKM. I hope you will have lots of things to say on it. Best of luck and I wish you a good DYK. --Sulmues  19:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not here to expand on the APKM, which I do indeed feel free to do at all times, rather I am here now to remove the representation of the APKM with the insignia of the RoK. Despite the best wishes of all Kosovar Albanians, and much to the relief of the beleaguered Kosovar Serbs, the UNMIK is as yet certainly not "defunct". But I will surely not waste my time with silly "arguments" of this sort, I can but direct you to have a look at the lead of this article. Come back when that is changed by Misplaced Pages consensus. In the meantime I would further advise you to cease posting provocative political "declarations" on enWiki, even if they are somewhat "disconnected". --DIREKTOR 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

UNMIK was a de facto dead in 2008.

Many of the editors here have argued that de jure UNMIK still exists for that reason we should keep

De jure death of UNMIK has been approved the UN Court itself.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It must be fun to write this sort of nonsense. Perhaps you should inform the UN? Be advised such further "declarations" will simply be ignored on my part, knowck yourself out. --DIREKTOR 21:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What "provocative declarations" are you referring to? The APKM as it existed until 1999 has no control over the territory and please let me know if you think otherwise. My knowledge of the area might be smaller than yours, so feel free to enlighten not only me but all the readers of enwiki with an expanded section of the APKM. It seems like you are confusing UNMIK with APKM. --Sulmues  21:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly the pro-Albanian point of view on these events. It is not supported by Misplaced Pages consensus nor displayed in the article. Hmm the source of this misunderstanding(?) is that the APKM was certainly not abolished in 1999, merely placed under the administration of UNMIK - and it legally remains a UN-adminiostered autonomous province of Serbia. The APKM is still legally in existence, as the RoK has no power to abolish it, and since the RoK is not in direct control of North Kosovo, that region is obviously territorially (de facto) a part of the UN-administered APKM (despite being claimed by the RoK of course). The idea that the APKM was somehow abolished in 1999 is quite incorrect on all counts I assure you. It is a political entity still very much in existence, despite being marginalized by the predominance of the RoK. Comparable perhaps to the Republic of China's marginalization by the People's Republic of China. --DIREKTOR 00:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So what are you proposing? Splitting the article? I think you should read the article UNMIK, do you propose that we should integrate more of that article into this one as UNMIK is still in affect to an extent? Perhaps we could include more of their role in the administration and governance of Kosovo? IJA (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to tell the regulars on this article that the situation here is bad, trench warfare comes to mind. :) The cause of this is very obviously the absurd unprecedented concept of this article as it is now - presenting two countries in one article. This creates a highly unstable "hybrid article" where neutrality is a very thin line, inevitably causing perpetual conflicts, an all-too-predictable situation.

I would propose the standard Misplaced Pages solution to such a battleground, as used in every case with the existence of two political entities with the same name - two different articles. Its not something I thought of, its already done on virtually all comparable issues (examples listed above). Instead of this unstable Kosovo article, we would have an article on the Republic of Kosovo and an article on the UNMIK-administered Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (possibly but not necessarily merged with the UNMIK article). The two would be on political structures, the entities themselves, while the Kosovo article (merged with Kosovo (region)) would cover the rich culture, joint history, and all matters of the region unrelated to the state (much like the China article).

Personally I do not understand how this "unholy abomination" of a hybrid could possibly come to be in the first place, still less how it could ever be expected to be free of incessant conflict, two countries in one article is quite unheard-of on Wiki to my knowledge. --DIREKTOR 14:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I interpret your richly worded post as a suggestion to rename UNMIK into APKM: am I correct? --Sulmues  14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

and to split the current article into Kosovo (region) vs. Republic of Kosovo. The split seems the most obvious approach. We would have Kosovo (region) besides UNMIK and Republic of Kosovo. I don't see any problem of WP:CFORK inherent in this approach, but of course all articles will have to be policed for (a) npov and (b) off topic material --dab (𒁳) 14:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK DIREKTOR, I'm willing to give your proposal a try; I'm a liberal man ready to compromise and try out new things for the reason of benefit.

• Kosovo/ Kosovo (region): region for History, Culture, Demographics, Geography, Economy and Society etc.
• Republic of Kosovo: for the de facto independent disputed country.
• APKiM/ UNMIK: for the partially UN administrated province which has a disputed claim by Serbia.
  

We must have clear redirect note at the top of each of the new articles so that people reading the articles can find the correct one they're looking for. Also each article must be neutral and they must not be used as a fork. However DIREKTOR before any of this is done, you need to propose a new split and get a community consensus. My I suggest that you and/or Dab properly arrange a split proposal please? IJA (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• If a split between Kosovo and Kosovo region occurs, it should be proposed to the community, but there was an overwhelming consensus two days ago for the contrary. Feel free to repropose it.
• A renaming of UNMIK to APKM needs to be proposed at the UNMIK talk page as a move request. --Sulmues  14:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To put it in IJA's words, the jist is this:

• Kosovo (merged with Kosovo (region)): history, culture, demographics, geography, economy and society etc. e.g. China
• Republic of Kosovo: for the de facto independent disputed country.
• Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija: for the UNMIK-administrated autonomous province claimed by Serbia. UNMIK is an article on a UN mission, it may or may not be merged into this article. It is an issue to be discussed, I myself couldn't say one way or the other.

Community consensus is, of course, very much necessary - no point otherwise. Its important to note that the number of articles covering this would actually not be increased in any way, so that there would not be any real alck of efficiency. --DIREKTOR 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree! Exactly that was my proposition. And this will be most peaceful proposition, as there will be almost no new material in those articles, we will just split existing, and merge few. I suppose that even vandalism will decrease. Great, i am for it! :) --Tadija 20:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems the proposal just might be agreeable to both sides. :) Quite astonishing when one considers that the two have been pretty much defining themselves as the polar opposite of the other. I am actually worried that Albanian users might not agree simply because Tadija agreed... :P --DIREKTOR 20:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There is clear consenus regarding this issue This repetition and this attempt to create a very new consensus only to satisfy the nationalist ambitions of the serbian editors can be considered as disruptive editing.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahaha, DIREKTOR was right, as you may see from above. :)) --Tadija 21:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@User:Lontech. Nationalist ambitions of what?? I'm not Serbian, I'm Croatian, if you recall we fought something of a war with Serbs a few years back, and a rather bigger one than the Kosovo War I might add. The very idea that I'm here to promote Serbian nationalism is utterly absurd. As for your fanciful ideas of "disruptive editing", I can only once again recommend you educate yourself as to what that actually is , while you're at it please look up WIKILAWYERING. I imagine a clean split might not be agreeable if one actually likes constantly having it out here with the Serbs. --DIREKTOR 22:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly would include this new article that isn't already included in any of the current Kosovo articles? As long as there is nothing different to write the article will be just a fork, but this is a decision that has to be made by the community not by a group of users so you should propose it in a RfC.--— ZjarriRrethues —  23:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that one benefit would be to stabilize the article and to lessen the incessant conflicts that constantly spring-up. There is also little doubt that without the restrictions brought on by the necessity of following a very thin line of neutrality on the hybrid article, we would see extenisve unhindered expansion. If the articles are more stable than this mess we would see far more unhindered work, that's actually the point of stabilizing articles. As things stand now everything one side does is usually opposed by the other, for the most part since they share the same article and wish to avoid it being overly lenient to the other side's POV. Without perpetual conflict the articles will be able to expand in any number of ways they cannot now. In short, instead of cramming two countries into one article, they'll each get theirs to expand more freely and in a less restrictive atmosphere.

Plus, with two article there's the added incentive of competetion - which side has the more extensive article? In short I really cannot see how this could be a bad idea in any way. As per the reccomendations I've received on this thread, I'll likely propose an RfC when I can find the time. :) --DIREKTOR 01:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the situation is very clear, this article will most probably not be moved to another title, because there is no consensus for it, and never was during a period of years. Meaning this article will stay at Kosovo, for the people who want to look up and read about Kosovo. But this does not mean that the Serbia article can't discuss this "APKM" entity in great detail. There it can be described that the Serbian position is that the APKM is real and the declaration of independence of Kosovo is illegal. We already have an article on Serbia so why not cover the Serbian views, such as the view that the APKM is part of Serbia? Hobartimus (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The article will certainly stay here for the people who want to look up and read about Kosovo. Its the two political entities covered in one place that I propose be moved to their own articles.

Making "proclamations" and flat statements is kind of an empty practice on Wiki, rather I recommend you put forward some sound argument against the split (having read the above first). --DIREKTOR 13:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What benefit? Well, as it is now virtually any statement you make about Kosovo must be immediately and directly qualified. In a split article the data relevant to each entity can be given with only a single note/section/disambig/whatever leading the reader to the other viewpoint. This will make the data more easily accessible. --Khajidha (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@Direktor we fought? what does that means. For Croatia have not fought only Croatians, albanians fought for croatia also ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Agim_%C3%87eku After the war the Croatian Army was reformed and President Franjo Tudjman named Çeku commanding officer of the Fifth District Region in Rijeka).-- LONTECH  Talk  17:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Albanian name of Kosovo is just Kosova, not Kosovë

There seems to be a misunderstanding in the Albanian naming. Indeed Kosovo is also called "Republika e Kosovës" in Albanian but you will never read just "Kosovë". --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovë is the Albanian name for Kosovo, while Kosova is the definitive form. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Try to convince the Albanians: http://sq.wikipedia.org/Kosova As you see it is only Kosova. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right, and it's a mistake. The indefinite form should be used per standard Albanian as Kedadi pointed out. Unfortunately the Albanian wikipedia is so poor that I have given up contributing there: even Albania is given in the definite form. Shame. Shqipëria--Sulmues  19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Estaurofila, 26 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change the following sentence: Kosovo (...) "is a disputed territory in the Balkans." to read as follows: Kosovo (...) is a disputed territory in the Balkans."

Also make a needed clarification concerning the term "minority". I deem necessary to specify that, since the status of Kosovo has not been truly defined (is still controversial), we have to consider that on one hand, for the government of Serbia, Serbians are the constituent nation of Serbia and, therefore, cannot be a minority in Kosovo (a serbian province according to the Serbian constitution), where the minority are the kosovar albanians; and that, on the other hand, for the self proclaimed Republic of Kosovo, Serbians are a minority in Kosovo and albanians an ethnic majority.

Therefore I strongly suggest to include a sentence that reads, more or less, as follows: "the official point of view of Belgrade is that the albanians in Kosovo adn Metohija belong to a minority in said province, while the official point of view of the government of Pristina is that Serbians are a minority in the partially recognized Republic of Kosovo."

If the proposal is accepted it will be necessary (when necessary) to make other (cosmetic) changes, v. gr., to use other words instead of minority ("Serb population" instead of "Serb minority".)

Estaurofila (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You should read UN ICJ verdict if you still think that status of Kosovo is not defined.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ICJ verdict is non binding advisory opinion. Kosovo status is still very much not defined. --Tadija 10:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the idea that from the Serb perspective, cannot be a minority in Kosovo. Could you explain? Maybe I have misread it. Although population statistics have historically been subject to nationalist distortions from all angles, who now seriously doubts that a numerical majority of the population are "Albanian"? (cue epic debate about what that label means).

Some extremist serbs did aim to change the population statistics in Kosovo to fit their ideals (presumably the reasoning went along the lines of: 1. This soil is serbian, ipse dixit. 2. Oh no! The people on the soil are not serbian. 3. Therefore the people must be killed or moved.) - however, these extremists did not succeed and hopefully few people now share their beliefs.

If "for the government of Serbia, Serbians are the constituent nation of Serbia" then why is Kosovo such a big deal? It has few serbs.

bobrayner (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what Estaurofila means by saying that from a Serb perspective Serbs "cannot be a minority in Kosovo" is that Kosovo's population is not considered separate from Serbia's. That there is no separate "population of Kosovo" within Serbia, the population of Serbia as a whole is all that counts. --Khajidha (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. AJCham 02:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cleary, not a simple non-controvertial edit request, so I have cancelled the {{editsemiprotected}} for now; please reinstate it if you can show a consensus, etc.  Chzz  ►  02:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that, with some differences here and there, as far as we know all of the territory of Kosovo is under the auspices of the Pristina government or its police, at least. The Serbian government in Belgrade in fact it has no direct political or military or policing or judicial power over any part of Kosovo, including Mitrovica.

So to describe Kosovo as primarily as a “disputed region” is not exact. Better to describe primarily as a partially-recognized nation claimed by Serbia as its autonomous southern autonomous province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.194.89 (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The description you provide fits perfectly the definition of a "disputed territory", IMO. I think the opening sentence is appropriate as it is; accurate and succinct. The following two sentences adequately offer a brief clarification of the dispute. AJCham 05:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The status of the RoK is very well known: it is disputed. That's the long and short of it, and our article already says so. Also, I don't see the point of complicating the "minority" thing. It is an objective fact that Serbians are a minority in Kosovo, regardless of whether Kosovo is considered a province of Serbia or not. Kosovo is currently "under the auspices" of an unholy alliance of the Pristina government, the UN, the EU and organized crime. It is misleading to say that the Pristina government has de facto governance. If the UN and EU forces would withdraw, the whole thing would probably just devolve into anarchy. It appears that about the only entity that does not have any governance is Serbia. --dab (𒁳) 13:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Organized crime? Anarchy? This clearly showes how biased admin dab is when it comes to Kosovo. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

is no admin watching this talkpage? can you block the socks please? This is getting out of hand. I am trying to have a coherent discussion here, and this guy keeps following me around with attacks. --dab (𒁳) 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

,,, just devolve into anarchy" This is not coherent discussion this is prophetic discussion. Although prophetic prediction it is wrong because kosovo has its own police and army-- LONTECH  Talk  23:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

At least I didn't attack it anyone now, did I, but stuck to discussing the topic. The point is that the RoK does not have de facto governance. As does no country which does not have one but two international organisations deploying police forces to uphold law and order. I wasn't suggesting we add hypothetical scenarios of what would happen after EULEX withdrawal. I think it is also very much possible that by 2020, the RoK will have de facto governance. But we'll have to see about that when the time comes around. I do think that the RoK is on a path towards full recognition, it will just take time. Basically, it is just down to Russia. As soon as Russia strikes some deal and drops its objections, the RoK will be home free. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying that RoK doesn't have de facto governance is a little far fetched. An army (Kosovo Security Force) has been established and a police force manages order (read Kosovo Police). Furthermore a Foreign policy is administered by RoK (see Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Kosovo) and Foreign relations of Kosovo), which is the typical example of a functioning de facto entity: it manages foreign policy. Kosovo is not even in personal union with any country. And... would you say the same thing for Iraq? The US Army is there, but no one is saying in Misplaced Pages that the Iraqis don't have de facto governance in their country. Neither do we say in WP that Germany and Italy weren't having de facto governance of their countries in 1946. --Sulmues  14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC) As far as your forecast on Russia's tardy reaction: you may know fully well that it is unlikely that Russia or China use their veto in the Security Council for Kosovo, because the United States, France, and GB might use theirs for deals that are more dear to Russia. Eulex will be around until 2012 which is sufficient time to have 100+ recognitions. --Sulmues  14:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's because the US Army recognizes the authority of the Iraqi government (why, they have even set it up), while UNMIK and EULEX do not recognize the authority of the RoK goverment and act independently.

I am not perfectly up to date on the situation. If there are recent (2010) references that state the situation is stabilizing, that would be progress. But as of last year, things were pretty much falling apart.

Regarding Russia, I agree completely. They are just using Kosovo as a bargaining chip. As soon as some deal comes around that they think is worth it, they will exchange recognition of the RoK for some other favour. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The UNMIK has already delegated to EULEX and both take orders from UN. But where does the UN take orders from? The top 5 bosses. What do these say? Let's see the recognitions, because we won't use the veto (almost never used). The situation is stable btw. --Sulmues  14:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument that" RoK does not have de facto governance As does no country which does not have one but two international organisations deploying police forces to uphold law and order - is in conflict with these here below

1. United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO)
2. United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT)
3. United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS)
4. United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI)
5. United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL)
6. United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti
7. United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus
8. United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon

So please stop.-- LONTECH  Talk  22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

“Kosovo is currently "under the auspices" of an unholy alliance of the Pristina government, the UN, the EU and organized crime.”

“Holy” or “unholy”, the hard fact on the ground is that all of the former territory of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo is completely outside the political, police or armed forces control of Belgrade. It is not this way because I want it that way. It because it is in reality. Pristina, with their armed forces and police, do control North Kosovo with the help of EULEX and NATO soldiers. And the rebel Serb politicians have no effective power in any part of Kosovo — including the north.

To classify Kosovo as a “disputed territory” first and a country later just because Serbia, and only Serbia, claims it as its territory, is POVing nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.200.214 (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

what is your point? It is undisputed that e.g. the government of Sudan does not have full governance over its entire territory. If you have UN troops in your country, it is a sure sign that something is wrong. But the point is that all other UN missions you list are present by agreement with the respective governments, while UNMIK does not recognize the RoK government. Kosovo is a disputed territory, it is disputed between the RoK and Serbia. Some states take the RoK side, other (essentially Russia and China) take the side of Serbia.

As for stability, it does not seem like much progress has been made. As of July 2010(!), the European Parliament feels compelled to state they are "extremely concerned by the widespread corruption, which remains one of the biggest problems in Kosovo together with organised crime". What I see on this talkpage is 99% wishful thinking of what people think Kosovo should become. But Misplaced Pages covers the situation as-is, not your dreams of a better future. --dab (𒁳) 07:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

These states are represented in wikipedia as states that have de facto control over their territory.

"all other UN missions you list are present by agreement with the respective governments" this is false because these missions are established from the Security Council resolutions without approval of these countries. ( e. serbia approval in case of Kosovo )

"while UNMIK does not recognize the RoK government". False again - How many times do i have to repeat that UNMIK or the UN does not recognize governments/states this is exclusive right of each country.

Crime, corruption and organized crime have no relation to Statehood these are prevalent in every country some more some less and this doesnt dispute their Statehood Bulgaria Romania and Greece EU member states are ranked 71 regarding Coruption .Montenegro is ranked higher than these EU members Transparency international: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table the high level of corruption doesnt dispute the statehood of these countries or disputes acording to you.-- LONTECH  Talk  15:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is not to define here if Kosovo is disputed by someone or not; in fact, Kosovo is, and maybe will be for a long time, contested by Serbia. The question is to define primarily Kosovo as a disputed territory instead of primarily as a country. There are cases in the world that entire countries have their own existence questioned as legitimate — take the case of Israel, a country that exists since 1948 but up until today is not recognized by many Arab/Muslim countries and political movements because they see Israel as “the illegitimate Zionist occupation of Palestine”. In the first paragraph of the article about Israel here in Misplaced Pages, it is primarily defined as nation-state which has its territory contested, not a disputed territory governed by a republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.198.223 (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Country Profile

It seems that the whole issue of "infobox/s" has been resolved.

id like to point your attention to the rest of the profile, it doesn't seen too good.

its too cluttered and doesnt have many pictures to make the profile seem nicer.

can we please take this into consideration when making future edits and have the Kosovo profile looking similar to that of other countries around the world.

please feel free to add your comments and i look forward to seeing new changes to the rest of the profile.

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.24.78 (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo, American project

What would be interesting is to write article on verdict on Serbia - Kosovo.

It is amazing that all judges who voted that Declaration was not against international law are from countries influenced by NATO allies USA. All countries that opposed, apart few disobedient European countries, are non-NATO countries. Not to mention that in legal gymnastics International court focused only on declaration not or real implications. Of course it had clear task to make things one way.

This should be compared with USA elections 2000. Then all judges appointed by Democrats voted one way and all those appointed by Republicans another. It is also amazing that even after one ruling (at least one) of republican judge turned to be scandalous and that person resigned, it did not had any effect and things stayed as they were. So Judge paid his "debt" to Republicans that did who him favor before to be nominated :-)

So today we clearly now, what has been known few days after elections, and …. Where is this best juridical world system to deliver the Justice?

This is brilliant example of Western "Democracy". I believe wise Athenians are laughing in their graves: Separation of judiciary, executive and legislative power  :-D

YES, SURE. WHO CAN DOUBT IT!

UN must be respected only when it suits USA. When not, then UN is something to avoid. It does not matter that majority of the world is against. Majority only matters when Americans have it. It is unique understanding of democracy that majority only matters when it favors certain things.

What would Canadian Bobby thing on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.101.45 (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to move this thread to Talk:International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence and please take a look at WP:NOT#ESSAY. As per judges, Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade and Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor voted in favor of Kosovo and they come from countries that do not recognize Kosovo. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I should also point out that the UN is separate from the ICJ. And, of course, American politics is irrelevant.

But more importantly, the case was brought to the ICJ by the government of Serbia, which wanted a decision on whether the independence declaration was a violation of international law. The ICJ answered that question. If 93.86.101.45 didn't like the answer, they have my sympathy, but random rhetoric won't help.

bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Separation

I propose separation into three articles, as proposed by DIREKTOR; me, and few others.

• Kosovo (merged with Kosovo (region)): history, culture, demographics, geography, economy and society etc. e.g. China
• Republic of Kosovo: for the de facto independent disputed country.
• Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija: for the UNMIK-administrated autonomous province claimed by Serbia. UNMIK is an article on a UN mission, it may or may not be merged into this article. It is an issue to be discussed, I myself couldn't say one way or the other.

There are no need to comment other votes for now, but if you want to do so, then use your own vote space for that. Post in your space your vote and your SHORT explanation, backed with ARGUMENTS. I will separate comments with lines, so it will be clean and understandable. IP votes and comments will be, naturally, removed, by me. Votes MUST have explanations, or those can be deleted also. This is way to important to allow meat and sock puppets to just agree, with no logical explanation. Vote with Agree or  Disagree templates. After this, we will go to the next step in reaching agreement. --Tadija 12:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your "next step"? Transparency is important.

Also, Bojan, Andrija, and Gedmara have not given reasons; they have failed to meet your criteria. Will you delete their votes?

The first two voted several hours ago. In previous votes you have been much quicker to remove votes of people you felt unqualified, although back then it merely the votes of people who disagreed with you. Now the situation is entirely different; two of those three agree with you. Will you delete, or will you give them a little extra time to meet your requirements?

bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't explained your apparent manipulation of the voting process.

Since then, gedmara added a (very brief) explanation for their vote. Which just leaves two other people who have broken your rules. You have previously been very quick to remove voters when you disagreed with them, but those "Agree" votes haven't been deleted; you deleted my questions instead. That looks like disruptive editing to me.

What is the "next step" that you repeatedly mention? Did you have any specific process in mind, or will the process be decided after the votes are in? If we knew in advance, that transparency would soothe any worries that you might be making up whatever rules will deliver the result you want.

I wonder how many potential voters have been deterred by this system - or how many potential voters gave up after the previous vote. It was very recent.

bobrayner (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree - In this way, i am sure that much or the distractions and vandalism will be stopped. Also, more important, those are two opposite and different entities, so it is wrong to have them all together in one article. Current infobox situation is also unacceptable. And Kosovo status is not comparable to any other regular UN state. Kosovo cannot be treated in the same way as all other country articles are treated. China is disputed by two entities, same as here, so that solution should be used. Separation is only logical way now. --Tadija 12:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree as in previous discussions.
I also strongly oppose your plan to remove other people's comments that don't fit your own interpretation of your arbitrary criteria (of course, your own comments are OK). Perhaps you feel that this strategy increases your chances of getting your way since previous discussions didn't return the result you wanted, but it is deeply unfair.
Only a few days ago you declared that "Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, so all of this votes are pointless". Perhaps it would be uncivil of me to call you a hypocrite; your newfound enthusiasm for democracy is, of course, totally unconnected to your new idea for ballot-stuffing. bobrayner (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tadija appeared on my talkpage complaining that I hadn't explained my vote; apparently the problem is that this page is TLDR and we should overcome that problem by repeating our previous comments. (Oddly, Bojan didn't get a complaint. Bojan voted Agree). Unfortunately tadija did not explain why yet another vote was being held or why these unfair rules must apply.

By way of explanation: I vote  Disagree because I think that only one core article is appropriate and necessary for Kosovo, in line with the vast majority of other country articles on Misplaced Pages - including many that are subject to serious disputes. I'm saddened at the idea that some details of Kosovo are "non-national" and can therefore be put in an article-about-kosovo-but-definitely-not-about-the-partially-recognised-country, whilst other details would be ghettoised. It will be very difficult to draw arbitrary borders across subjects. Which bits of culture, commerce, or communicaton are specific to the area rather than the country? Alas, we live in a nationalist world. If you wanted to read about France you'd find Sarkozy and the 5th Republic mentioned in the same article as the Loire, the Marseillaise, and the Tour de France.

I hope that this explanation satisfies Tadija. If there are any other requirements or disqualifications from voting, please let me know.

bobrayner (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree - per Tadija. Articles are split for far less important things then this. Kosovo subjects are specific, and should not be treatment the same way as other regular independent states, as Kosovo is internationally disputed. Separate governments should have separate articles. -- Bojan  Talk  13:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree - There was already a discussion on this (Talk:Kosovo#ICJ_verdict) and consensus was to not split: such consensus was barely 9 days ago. I also have to note that it is disturbing how Tadija invites to a non-discussion for an important decision, but only a vote count, still he, himself, made this edit to remind everybody that votes don't count, but only sound argumentation does. I really find this very inconsistant, disruptive, racist, and dishonest, and fully endorse Bobrayner's statement above on User:Tadija. I also find disturbing that he threatens to remove IP editors' comments and also he threatens to remove votes if there are no explanations. I invite him to fully correct his statement above, which goes against several Wiki policies, otherwise I will have to report him to AN. My explanation on why there should be no split is in my vote of 9 days ago . --Sulmues  13:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I will explain more thoroughly why I disagree to a split of the article. First of all the article’s name should stay as it is, and a proposal to split an article to three pieces is really a poor idea. If Tadija wants to have a Kosovo region article, then this is really not going to pass, because the region corresponds to the Republic of Kosovo borders. It's as if you are going to have two articles on Bulgaria and Bulgaria region, or Italy and Italy region, and so on. One article is enough: In it there will be sufficient explanations that in the past Kosovo (meaning Kosovo vilayet) used to be bigger and included Novi Pazar, Plava and Gucia and also the lands of Presevo, Bujanovc and Medvedja: As a matter of fact it included the town of Nis. This can all be explained in the article: in general a geopolitical entity can go smaller or bigger during its lifetime. The region as a geographical division will be extremely poor in nature, because its political relevance will be far more important than the geographical one. As far as having a separate article on APKM, nobody is forcing Tadija not to have one. I have nothing against starting an article for an entity that is now defunct. If Tadija thinks that APKM is around and kicking, he may feel free to point that out in the existing Kosovo article. --Sulmues  14:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree This corresponds much better to reality in this moment. There are different administrations on different parts. ---Alexmilt (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree - per Tadija. --Andrija (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree Comment:This isn't a vote and all users who have voted for a separation of the article so far are Serbs. Btw I strongly disagree with the proposal. --— ZjarriRrethues —  13:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree Tadija has stated my position quite well. Also, to ZjarriRrethues here's one non-Serb voting for separation. --Khajidha (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree per recent consensus at this page, being in line with how all other country articles are treated, and all the comments I have made in the last days. Sorry, but I have found the arguments pro-split to be far-fetched and full of flaws (I should know, I have spent several hours poking holes at them). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, of course, this "vote" has to take into account all the agreements and disagreements in Talk:Kosovo#ICJ_verdict. Otherwise, this is just running forward and hoping to bury all the disagreement under loads of arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree -- for same reasons as Sulmues -- Gedamara 16:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gedamara (talk • contribs)

 Disagree -- The question was already set in the Talk:Kosovo#ICJ_verdict, and there is no such as thing like France (region) or something like that.--BalkanWalker (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree -- As explained, the separation will 1) undoubtedly reduce conflicts in separating the two "warring" parties, 2) allow for more uninhibited expansion, 3) allow for a more detailed coverage of the subject matter. The point of the whole proposal is, however, that the current situation is absurd and untenable. Nowhere on Misplaced Pages will you find two countries covered in one article, much less two conflicting political entities. Its surprising that anyone actually thought this article could ever be stable in the long term. Once again, the near-perfect example of China presents itself as the standard and mutually-amiable solution. --DIREKTOR 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you feel China is a near-perfect example?

The RoC and PRoC articles both get over a thousand changes per year - with just the same nationalist and partisan bickering (and plenty of reverts) that we see here. The problem doesn't go away; the "warring parties" are still there, and the same conflicts - they're just spread over additional articles. Both the RoC and PRoC articles frequently have edit summaries like "Revert POV" and so on. The China articles have the same problems we see here (except that the split has been done; there is only a little bickering about that).

A split won't make wikipedians ignore their political differences.

I think your definition of "standard" may be different to mine, too, since the treatment of China is rather different to most other country articles in wikipedia; and the political situation with China is different to that in Kosovo. Your argument also appears to depend on the notion that there are two countries covered by this article - I think you'll find it very difficult to get consensus on that one!

bobrayner (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I will report you for this, You should explain your vote in few sentences, as per propositions of the vote. Only votes will be no useful. --Tadijaspeaks 14:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:BokicaK
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Alexmilt
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Andrija.b

and for disruptive editing also-- LONTECH  Talk  19:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

“Nowhere on Misplaced Pages will you find two countries covered in one article”

But the point is: THERE ARE NO TWO COUNTRIES GOVERNING KOSOVO. Serbia does not govern one square inch of the former Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo — even North Kosovo is not on Serbian hands. The ONLY country governing Kosovo now is the Pristina-based Republic of Kosovo. ALL other institutions, organizations and/or military forces in Kosovo are from international institutions, generally operating in coordination with the Pristina government and completely ignoring any other parallel institutions, including the separatist Serb-run ones. The Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija does not exist in reality — it is a Serbian political abstraction since the end of NATO strikes in 1999.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.206.22 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree strongly oppose --Sokac121 (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I oppose the view that Kosovo should be a simple redirect page. It is most commonly used as the name for the Republic. And therefore Misplaced Pages:COMMON should be used for the Republic. --Sokac121 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note to editors from an uninvolved editor. Whether you agree or oppose this proposal, could you please provide an explanation of your reasoning? Just saying "oppose" or "support" is not particularly informative and it doesn't help other editors to decide whether or not to back the proposal. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree I don't think that the creation of separate articles will stop edit-warring. It is not only the topic of Republic of Kosovo which creates conflicts. This topic is the last one in a long list. The areas of the conflict are historical, social, political and so on you can continue with every aspect of Kosovo topic. An example for other wikipedians. Just imagine an article Kosovo (merged with Kosovo (region)) which includes history, culture, demographics, geography, economy and society etc. You will have there POV conflicts in every field. History topic? Let's see ...Serbian POV Dardanians=Dacians, Albanian POV Dardanians=Illyrians, Serbian POV Serbs came first, Albanian POV Albanians were there before, Serbian POV Serbs migrated in 1690, Albanian POV Serb didn't migrate...and so on up to our days. Demographics? Serb POV Serb were always the majority up to 1690, Albanian POV Albanians were the majority before and after 1690, Serbian POV serbs were forced to migrate, Albanian POV Albanians were forced to migrate. Politics? Serbian POV Serbs liberated Kosovo in 1912, Albanian POV serbs occupied Kosovo in 1912, Serb POV serbs were maltreated by Albanians during Tito regime, Albanian POV Albanians were maltreated by Serbs during Tito regime.....and so on you can continue with other examples. While I see the summary of WP:FORKING explained In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Misplaced Pages does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. I read it that we should get a consensus on this talk page for Kosovo topics, not create separate articles. This proposal looks to me like a perfect example of forking. Aigest (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree The three proposed articles are really about different flavours of the same thing. All best presented together, where distinctions between them can be clearly presented (perhaps this article doesn't do that adequately yet, but that's not an argument for breaking it up). Having three separate articles will be less clear and more confusing to neutral readers, who may only see part of the full picture. It might increase the separation of the Albanian and Serb positions, which is hardly the sort of thing Misplaced Pages should be aiming for. Bazonka (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Well, the "Republic of Kosovo" is clearly not the same thing as the "Province of Kosovo and Metohija". The two article solution seems good. I've add some examples:

• Republic of Cabinda vs. Cabinda Province
• Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic vs. Western Sahara
• State of Palestine vs. Palestinian territories

These pairs all cover the same territory, but have separate articles, and it works good. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Tadija is not neutral about the conduction of this topic

As I saw in the voters’ talk pages and in this topic itself, he, as a Serb opposing the Kosovar independence, is contesting and directing the votes and opinion of the participants to make his POV prevalent here. Just check for yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.201.51 (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that any IP address which disagrees with the split, or which is favourable to Kosovo's declaration of independence, is automatically written off as a "sock" (see dab and tadija's previous edits).

However, I see no evidence that an SP investigation has ruled against this IP address. Therefore I restored the comment. Sorry if you feel uncomfortable reading comments that do not fit your own political position.

Tadija, may I make some simple requests?

• Please stop deleting the comments of people who disagree with you
• Please respect previous consensus
• Please stop wasting our time with a new vote under rules that you have carefully engineered. There is still no consensus for a split.

It is very difficult to assume good faith when you keep on acting like this.

bobrayner (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I brought him to WP:AE. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Tadija. --Sulmues  14:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• B-Class Kosovo articles
• Top-importance Kosovo articles
• WikiProject Kosovo articles
• B-Class Serbia articles
• Top-importance Serbia articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles
• B-Class Europe articles
• High-importance Europe articles
• WikiProject Europe articles
• B-Class Albania articles
• Top-importance Albania articles
• WikiProject Albania articles