Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:58, 27 February 2011

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. 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

Template:FAOL

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) Republic of Kosovo

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Topic change

Proposal to change the topic of Kosovo article. 7 different options presented. Currently the topic covers both RoK and APKiM and also there is no Republic of Kosovo article on Misplaced Pages. Feel free to add 8th if you have another idea. Description follows. Please respond below. Alinor (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments before RFC template posted

Following the unsuccessful RFC above I tried to restore the status quo with minimum changes (so that improvements of unrelated texts are not affected) .

As the status quo has many flaws (see above discussions) I assume that nobody is content with it. Below I will try to present all available options going forward:

1. no change to status quo. Kosovo topic is RoK+APKiM.
2. Kosovo to become a redirect to Republic of Kosovo; Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
3. Kosovo to become a redirect to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–); Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
4. Kosovo to become a redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation); Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
5. Kosovo to become a redirect to Kosovo (region) (different variants for what content to get into this region article - see above discussions); Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
6. Kosovo topic to be changed to RoK
7. Kosovo topic to be changed to some of the variants for Kosovo (region) discussed above; Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
8. Kosovo (disambiguation) to be moved to Kosovo; Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) to be established. (inspired by 08:16, 27 February 2011 comment of another user after the RFC ended)
9. other ideas?

I am for option4 (this is good also for a temporary arrangement during a WP:COMMONNAME or other discussion), but also I will not oppose the other redirect/region options. IMHO any WP:COMMONNAME arguments may apply only to the redirect destination, but the Kosovo itself should be a disambiguation or a redirect (or in the worst case a "general overview") - so that future POV-wars do not affect content of either RoK or APKiM articles. Alinor (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Alinor if nobody was content with this version of the article this consensus wouldn't exist and your revert isn't the status quo but an outdated pre-ICJ decision version.--— ZjarriRrethues —  08:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

See above. WP:CONSENSUS changes. Alinor (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The RFC shown that there is no consensus for the changes you want implemented (regardless of previous discussions). Please use the above section for this consensus-no consensus procedural issues, so that we can discuss here the content changes. Alinor (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Zjarri, drop the stick! Thanks. --WhiteWriter 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Whats the horse carcass in this case, the suggestion to split? Hobartimus (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha, you are good! That also, with few other things. Although Alinor asks question about that above. The main horse is pov pushing without REAL community consensus. --WhiteWriter

I support option 5, with the region article having a general overview of the entire history with links to the relevant specific articles for each era. For recent history a simple paragraph stating that Kosovo is the subject of a dispute between Serbia and the partially recognized ROK (see individual articles for details) would seem to be sufficient. --Khajidha (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that I'm going to ask for admin assistance, because you simply cannot change consensus by revert-warring.--— ZjarriRrethues —  16:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever really had a consensus that could be changed. --Khajidha (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend Zjarri to reread the discussion from above, and he/she will understand that Khajidha is right. All edits after this status quo was done WITHOUT consensus, as it was (very clearly) explained above. Also, it would be also wise to call it for a day, as people, (and i also) will soon go to new years eve celebrations. --WhiteWriter 16:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

the consensus and its implementation. The one infobox version has been the consensus since July and if you want the 3 infobox versions to become the consensus version again you should follow the same course as when you wanted to split the article.--— ZjarriRrethues —  17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

TWO infoboxes into a single one out of 3. IJA removed 2, leaved only 1 without consensus, which was mislead per that edit. As i told you, first reread discussion above, and then dictate new rules. As all of us finds this status quo situation logical and normal, it is hardly problem in all of us, don't be offended, i am just telling you the facts. If you don't think that status quo was right, you suppose to tell us that earlier, and not now, after more then month after proposition was presented on talk page. You are welcome to ask for some solution, but this time, we will ALL participate, and not just pov fighters. Also, use indentation, it is useful, and good wiki practice. I am gone now! All best! Happy New Year!!!! --WhiteWriter 17:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer no change - but I would like if the content was more balanced (e.g. the way the separatist flag appears in the info box but the Serbian flag does not etc). Still, even if it looks like a joke (as it does now), it's better that the whole story is told in one place. All the best. 109.76.250.133 (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I generally prefer no change. This article tells more or less of everything; and to be honest, its opening paragraphs lean more towards the republic than anything else. Even if we did activate a "Republic of" page, we'd still have to begin by calling it a "disputed territory" or "de facto country" or something along those lines, otherwise other Kosovo-related pages would contradict the state article; they rather would contradict each other, "ROK is a country" on one article, "APKaM is a province" on another. Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with what you say Evlekis. Its true indeed that the article "leans" one way rather than being impartial. But, I agree, its much better for the whole story to be told in the one place. All the best. 109.77.84.45 (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If we did activate a "Republic of" page - we will start with "Republic of Kosovo is a partially recognized country located ..." - not with "Kosovo is a disputed territory between RoK/APKiM/UNMIK located ..." (as the current lead).

"ROK is a country" on one article, "APKaM is a province" on another. This is not a contradiction. These are just facts - as per the founding/legal documents of both RoK and APKiM. A contradiction will be if both articles claim that the respective entity has control over the same territory (this is obviously impossible). Both RoK and APKiM can claim the same territory (as they do) and they can control different parts of it (here it gets more murkier if they do - as we don't have answers to these questions) - there is no contradiction in this. This is the common situation in all disputed territory cases.

"the whole story to be told in the one place." - there is no "whole story" - RoK and APKiM are unrelated. They are "competing" and have conflicting claims over the same territory, but there is no story between them. An article that deals with both RoK and APKiM inevitably becomes a Kosovo (region) or History of Kosovo (these are the "whole story" topics). Such mixed topic article can't be the article describing RoK itself or APKiM itself. These two entities have their own governance structures, etc. - that are unrelated to each other.

Currently in Misplaced Pages there is no article about RoK - and I find it very strange that RoK supporters are content with such situation. The only explanation is that they hope to somehow "get rid" of APKiM references from the current Kosovo (region) (by content) article located at Kosovo (by Misplaced Pages article name) and transform it into Republic of Kosovo (by content). Alinor (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This is exactly what I've been trying to say. --Khajidha (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Bullseye, Alinor. Right in the center of question. Now, what can we do about that? Any propositions? --WhiteWriter

I think we should select one of the options for topic mentioned in this section. As for procedure - if the fight over restoring the status quo is over - maybe a RFC should be opened about the topic change (but if the fight is not over there is no point in opening such RFC because nobody knows at what "status quo" uninvolved editors will arrive - and this obviously will influence their opinion about "changing the status quo" - in the WP:1RR there was something about 1 week - maybe the RFC should be opened if after 1 week the three infoboxes are still present). After the RFC - its consensus will be implemented - or if there is no consensus - maybe another venue should be utilized - such as mediation or arbitration. Alinor (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They wholly contradict each other. It can be a country or province of another; whatever one says it is, the opponent disputes. This is more complicated by the de facto status which is shambolic: the proposed government controls most of the land/population, has limited control of another section - whose population do not recognise it - but this section in any case isolated from what it believes to be its remaining sovereignty. Kosovo is a mess! Not a country and not a province. But this is my POV. Evlekis (Евлекис) 15:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

it is possible to be a country or province and a giant mess at the same time, Evlekis. I don't think it is disputed that Kosovo is a giant mess, but that's not the question, as we are hardly going to start the article with "Kosovo has been a hopeless mess in the Balkans for the best part of 20 years". --dab (𒁳) 15:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

your comment is very inappropriate and you have for at least 3 years been posting offensive, etno-centric comments about Kosovo.

this has literally been discussed for years. The discussion goes in circles not because it cannot be resolved, but because most people involved in it are simply stalling, not trying to resolve it. I am not surprised the RoK supporters are against dedicating an article to the RoK. In their view, it would be like splitting Federal Republic of Germany off Germany. What surprises me is that they are getting away with this. It is true that Abkhazia vs. Republic of Abkhazia suffers from exactly the same problem, but imo this is just a reason to try and fix both rather than using one as the excuse for the other. --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Evlekis, Kosovo may be a mess, but this doesn't mean that the Kosovo article should have a messy topic. Many of the 7 options above solve the issue (in fact, only option1, the status quo is a mess) - and you are free to provide additional options.

Also, the mess (or rather - our lack of information) in Kosovo is the RoK-UNMIK-APKiM/Serbia relations/institutional triangle. The issue with competing territorial claims and lack of full control over all claimed territory is common enough around the world and can't be described as "mess" (but the other cases are much more clear-cut, even Palestine situation is much more clear) and is pretty easy to describe - and this is done in Misplaced Pages for the other similar cases. Alinor (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Germany analogy would be correct if the Germany article topic was not "FRG" as it is, but some mixed topic as FRG+WhateverTheCompetingAuthorityIs. Anyway, I agree that their reasoning seems to be along these lines. Alinor (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I know what you're saying. Kosovo has several articles as it is, they all deal with the region according to period in history. If we can have an article saying "it's a province" and another saying "it's a country", see how we'll fare by trying this out on the existing article: opener - Kosovo (Albanain: Kosova) is a country in Europe which is also a province of Serbia. Since logic has it that if one status is disputed then so too is the other, we would be compelled to continue using the term "disputed". Yes we can do this on two separate articles but this is where we need to ask - do we need the space? Autonomous province post 1999 has nothing to say for itself. Republic of has a few things to say about its post 2008 progress, but the rest of the articles will be mirror images: settlements, demographics, education, history, culture, trivia, legend, etc.. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, bot entities, RoK and APKiM have a lot "to say" in their articles! Tons of things happened, and more is still to come. And only images may be the same, everything else is different. History of RoK started just now, while ARKiM is older, but history of Kosovo is very different. Therefore, proposition 7 is the best one! That Kosovo article will always have the same history and all other, and will be the most important article, same as now, while both other APKiM and RoK will have their own articles for their history (and future), their education systems, laws, municipalities, culture... All of those are completely different, and never can be mirror to each other! --WhiteWriter 16:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well then WhiteWriter, all I can say is that Kosovo will for ever lead a double-existence! It stands alone but means one thing to one population and another thing to another. Europe has its own Ivory Coast!:) Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually Alinor, I suggested this almost three years ago after independence was declared. These were the arguments against me at the time. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Kosovo is a country in Europe which is also a province of Serbia." - no. As pointed out by dab in the below section - we should be careful with the term "Kosovo" and it's better to use a full name - because: Republic of Kosovo is a country. APKiM is a province of Serbia. They are entirely separate. Both RoK and Serbia/APKiM claim that the territory referred to as "Kosovo" is theirs. The problem is that we don't have information about the different degrees of control over different parts of the territory that these two (and the third - UNMIK/KFOR) have. Anyway, this doesn't mean that we should mix RoK and APKiM topics in a single article. Alinor (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would find fair that "Kosovo" links to Kosovo (region), thus not giving any side the priviledge of linking it to their "favourite" one. Obviously, the Kosovo (Region) article should have easily avaliable links to RoK and APKaM with a short explanation with it, just at top of the article. Perhaps there are better solutions, but this at least sounds somehow fair. FkpCascais (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So, you support option5, right?

Others, if your opinion includes something else than those 8 options - please formulate it accordingly and add it as option9, 10, etc. - so that we can easily refer to each variant with a number.

I will also add a RFC template. Alinor (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposals 4 and 5 sound both fair (neutral). If there is going to be an article about Kosovo (region) than 5, if not, well it should be a disambiguation page, as proposed in 4, right? FkpCascais (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Alinor (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolving this issue in WP is practically impossible as it is a mess in reality as well. The current article should be changed in quality, but POV should remain. We should remove 3 boxes leave only one. But state that Kosovo has this and that problem as a country. It is no recognized by Serbia yet. And all that. This discussion goes forever. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what option do you prefer. It seems to be either 1 or 6. Would you specify?

About removal of infoboxes - this problem arises only if you select option1. In case the consensus is to use option1 - then we can continue the below infobox discussion. Alinor (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My option is 8: no change is needed. This article is already about RoK, and it isn't much different in substance or structure from other country articles like Spain, France or Germany (all of them have sections in geography and history). Other disputed countries use the same solution, as I explained in my comments. The claim that this is still the APKiM is a minoritary Serbian view that should be mentioned in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is not only about RoK, and Serbian view is majority, as only 74 countries recognize Kosovo as independent, while the rest of the world still finds it officially as part of Serbia. -- User:WhiteWriter

Enric Naval, this article is not "already about RoK". It can become such - if there is consensus for that. Or it can become something else. Or it can remain as it is currently - about both RoK+APKiM (with three or more infoboxes, etc.)

It was explained multiple times - an article about RoK would not start with "Kosovo is disputed territory", but with "Republic of Kosovo is a partially recognized country", an article about RoK would not have three infoboxes, but only one RoK infobox, etc.

From your comment I understand that you are for option6 or option1. Would you specify? Alinor (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, don't put words in my mouth. You can see easily in my comment that I don't agree with any of the options you put forward. That wording was put there as a compromise because there wasn't enough sources to sustain the, ah, "correct" wording against all the nationalistic backslash. I expect that the article will change as the real world changes. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you readed option6 and option1? Because they seem very much like your words. Option1 is like the first sentence of your 09:43, 29 January 2011 comment. Option6 is like the second sentence. The problem is that these are two different options. We can't implement both at the same time. There is no way to take your opinion into account unless you specify what you prefer or define an new 8th option.

"I expect that the article will change as the real world changes." - I don't know what will change when, but what is sure is that the current setup of the article is unacceptable and we can't wait for the world to resolve the Kosovo dispute in order to make a sensible article with sensible topic. Alinor (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Option 1 implies that this article covers two different topics when it covers only "Kosovo", option 6 implies that changes are needed. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"it covers only "Kosovo" - yes, it covers Kosovo, the disputed territory - including the separate administrations - Kosovo (the independent Republic) and Kosovo (the Serbian province under UN administration). That's the problem - we don't have any article whose topic is only the Republic of Kosovo. This was explained multiple times already. Alinor (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments after RFC template posted

Well, i am firstly for opinion 7 (like in other numerous disputed countries examples that was presented, like China example, etc... Kosovo is not specific in any way, it is disputed between two parties), and i think that we will also have very neutral and encyclopedic ground with 5th proposition. If 7 is not possible to agree with, then 5 really should be! --WhiteWriter 11:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, yes, I agree about option5. And now I support it. Also, I think that if an option other than 1/5/7 is selected a Kosovo (region) article should be established in addition. Alinor (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC Summary

The RFC period ends soon. As we have numbered options it would be pretty easy to compare/count how much support each of the options will get. Please, feel free to do this below. Alinor (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So, let's see who supports which options (correct me if I'm wrong); last update - 27Feb2011

• option1: IP, Bobrayner, Hobartimus, Fut.Perf., maybe Evlekis, Enric Naval, ZjarriRrethues; see also note below
• option2: nobody
• option3: nobody
• option4: FkpCascais, Alinor, Adrian
• option5: Khajidha, FkpCascais, Alinor, WhiteWriter, DeCausa, Alexmilt, UrbanVillager and Athenean, maybe Watch For Storm Surge
• option6: see note below
• option7: WhiteWriter, Alinor, BokicaK
• note: Anna Comnena and Enric Naval made statements that look like support of either option1 or option6. Enric Naval explicitly stated that it's neither, but this makes his position unclear

So, it seems that we should implement option5. Alinor (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the status quo is better (sorry; I have terrible taste in music). ZjarriRrethues appeared to prefer the status quo, too. You may wish to interpret those as option 1 though my stance is similar to Enric Naval: No change is needed (I'm not sure why you would choose to call that stance unclear). bobrayner (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Alinor Polling is not a substitute for discussion and I think that the status quo is better at the moment.--— ZjarriRrethues —  12:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not polling, this is the result of the great discussion that was on this page. Status quo is not the improvement of the article, and as you didn't comment any of those 7 options, your attitude is just sabotage of the good process. As we, who participated know that you didn't want even this status quo also, you now wholeheartedly defend. There for, it looks like you just search for the best way to defend your pov, and keeping in as much as possible to your side. Either participate in finding solution, or don't. And dont attack Alinor with false accusations, user is great in dealing the horrors and POVs from this page, without even slightly tending to take any side. As (now) we have equal number of users that vastly support only 2 propositions, (1 and 5), now we should agree which of those 2 only should be implemented for some period of time. For example. :) Or someone have better solution? But as none supported few propositions, those should be discarded. And just to remind that we alredy mentioned earlier:

"Subject of Kosovo article can't and shouldn't be both Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija."--WhiteWriter 13:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You might put it that way; but others would take a different stance, as you should surely have realised after so many epic debates and proposals and votes on this page. bobrayner (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, waiting instead of participating is not a substitute for discussion. Who speaks about polling/voting? I just summarized the results of the RFC showing what option is supported by whom, without any counts, etc. and stated what seems as the conclusion of the RFC. Having in mind all of your comments I would think that you support option6, but sometimes you make statements that seem like support for option1. I ask for the n-th time - what of the options do you support?

bobrayner, Enric Naval has clearly stated that he supports neither option1 nor option6, that's why I'm confused what his position is. You say that you support option1, but are you sure that you don't prefer option6? Because option1 (status-quo topic) means that the article will get many more APKiM mentions and content than currently.

bobrayner, ZjarriRrethues, we have the above discussion (later transformed into a 30 day RFC) since more than a month. You didn't state your opinion during that time, but waited for it to end and now want to sabotage any progress (as small as it is) in reaching consensus for improvement.

bobrayner, you mention "epic debates and proposals and votes", but were there a single debate including all possible options before this latest RFC? What I have seen are only partial debates about "Kosovo article split" and other proposals were people said yes or no, because of different reasons. The existence of all these debates shows that the RoK+APKiM topic is misleading for the readers and unsustainable. What the mixed topic achieves is to invite POV supporters to try to "evict" the opposite POV from the Kosovo article name that they want to "usurp" for their POV. Until recently the RoK POV has almost achieved this.

I haven't seen any explanation why we should continue with option1. It's an awkward combination topic of mutually exclusive concepts. In addition I think that the Republic of Kosovo is notable enough to have an article in Misplaced Pages about it (currently there is no article, whose topic is only about RoK). Alinor (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith: People who disagree with you are not saboteurs. I had merely kept quiet before because the frequent high-volume debates are a massive time-sink (you responded the last time I mentioned this). I, and others, prefer the status quo; "no change" is a fairly simple concept, but I'm not wholly happy with the way the options have been presented. Since you asked for votes and got lengthy responses, I'm surprised that you now want to reject option 1 for lack of explanation.

A quick look through the talkpage history will show several attempts to forge a consensus by the simple expedient of inventing some new rule to disqualify, rearrange, or ignore comments by people who disagree. I'm sure we'll have more in future. And that is one of the main reasons I find this talkpage frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, if you didn't like something in the way of presenting the options for topic change, you should have told so at the beginning. Anyway, what don't you like?

"no change" is not simple concept here, as you can see by the discussion I had with Enric Naval. ZjarriRrethues also doesn't answer whether he selects 1 or 6. Also, what we discuss here is "no change in topic", but regardless what option is selected there will be changes in content. Because the current content does not match the current topic entirely (e.g. APKiM is represented only in the lead and partially in the infoboxes).

I don't ignore anything, I just ask - what is the benefit in option1? Why do you select it over all the other options? Alinor (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I support option 1 as well. "but regardless what option is selected there will be changes in content. Because the current content does not match the current topic entirely" That's actually fine concept. I even agree that APAIK could be represented a bit more than it currently is. There should be 2 infoboxes one given to RoK and one to APAIK. Hobartimus (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And can anybody give some reason WHY should we keep the RoK+APKiM topic? We have given plenty reasons why we shouldn't. Alinor (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I can give you one. To the the uninvolved general reader from outside the Balkans, the two topics are inextricably linked. Isn't the Republic of Kosovo covering most of the territory which the Serbs call APKiM? How would you split up the article? Most people are not going to be looking for different articles on both. Most people are not aware of the difference or that they are different entities. I don't really see the point in splitting it and would just create a lot of duplication - although there could be a few more references to APKIM. Seems to me status quo is basically ok and this discusion is mostly about local rivalries. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, DeCausa. You give us the reason FOR the split. People outside the Balkans dont know that they are different entities, but those ARE two different, and even opposing sides, and those should be separated, and then people may start to understand this complicated political situation. Therefor, wiki article, as up to date encyclopedia, should follow real life situation, and not to feed POV's or follow questionable crude wiki guidelines. There cannot be duplication in spliting, as CONTENT WILL NOT BE THE SAME. Those will be two different articles! APKIM almost does not exist in this article. How then this can be good? This article cannot stay like this, as it is not what is should be per this agreement. --WhiteWriter 00:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind in this - I don't care that much; I'm just giving you a "non-Balkan" perspective. If you want the wider world to know about APKIM you are better off putting more in this article because most passers-by aren't going to be bothered to look up a separate article on something called "APKIM". They just want to know about "Kosovo" in the broadest sense. Anyway, it's your problem...if you think you will be raising the profile of APKIM, you'll be making a mistake and the APKIM article will just be a backwater. DeCausa (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(I think that it would be fine to expand Kosovo#Disintegration_of_Yugoslavia with more info on APKM). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, Kosovo should remain as broadest sense article, but TWO articles, one with Republic of Kosovo, and other for APKIM should be created. In that way, we will have all that you mention, and still have neutral, non partisan view. --WhiteWriter 12:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Enric Naval, no, if status quo topic remains (RoK+APKiM) more APKiM info is not needed in the history section, but will be added to "Government and Politics", "Administrative regions" and other sections that look like sections of a RoK-only article.

DeCausa, I agree with WhiteWriter. Kosovo (region) should be one article, but RoK, APKiM and UNMIK should have their own articles. These are totally separate-from-each-other entities and there is no reason to mix them together. Alinor (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with the two article solution on this one. The article as it is now is far too cluttered trying to cover the historical geographic region of Kosovo and it's history, the Serbian province, and the disputed republic in one article. The latter has given birth to an entire family of subarticles covering the issue. Kosovo (region) should be removed from the chaos. I think the article on the disputed political entity should simply be Kosovo, per Misplaced Pages practice of leaving off "Republic of" or similar designations from country articles. Not that there aren't exceptions, Macedonia for example. The two article solution for a disputed territory has a precedent on Misplaced Pages, btw. Western Sahara and Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic are two seperate articles (as are of course Palestine and its constituent parts, but that's a whole different can of worms). I find it amusing that the status of the Misplaced Pages article on Kosovo is just as disputed as its subject. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 02:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, but I don't think it's a good solution to use RoK topic for Kosovo (and nobody supported that option). This will cause POV troubles and edit-wars. I think it's better to redirect Kosovo to disambiguation or region page or even to Republic of Kosovo. In that way discussions and edit-wars about "who gets the Kosovo article" will remain on Talk:Kosovo and Kosovo and editors focusing on improving the actual content of the RoK article (and all other Kosovo-related articles) can work on the respective talk pages and articles without being pestered with the "who gets the Kosovo article" POVish edit-wars. Alinor (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Having re-read the article, I've changed my mind on this. The article is a bit of a mess at the moment. So long as 'Kosovo' takes you in the first instance to an overview article of the history and general situation, it probably then does make sense to fork to RoK and APKM articles. I think the approach for Korea is a precedent. DeCausa (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Korea can`t be compared since on that peninsula lives one ethnic group that has intentions to unite one day(both republics intention), it is just a matter of political orientation (democratic republic or communism - which will prevail). As such , the solution for Korea is all right, but that has nothing to do with this subject here. Adrian (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You've misundestood. I'm not interested whether Korea is or isn't politically similar to Kosovo. The politics is irrelevant. I'm solely talking about how it is treated as a set of Misplaced Pages articles. Kosovo can follow the pattern set by the Korea articles. DeCausa (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There's something about the objection Adrian raises that has always bothered me, but I've only just realized what it is. Every time someone points out that such and such disputed territory has split articles, someone objects that such and such differs from Kosovo so that that solution does not apply. They then say that we should leave the article unsplit. The problem is that the unsplit article format was developed to deal with undisputed territories which are even less like the situation in Kosovo. --Khajidha (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If it`t not to late, I would support option 4 if that helps because we have the period while a part of Yugoslavia, autonomy and now as unrecognized republic. Best to separate these articles and to choose as per POI since it is a controversial issue. Greetings Adrian (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I updated the list of editors supporting each option. IMHO it's clear that supporters of the status quo RoK+APKiM mixed topic are a minority. I would suggest that Republic of Kosovo article is re-established and the Kosovo article redirected to Kosovo (region) or Kosovo (disambiguation). But I assume the status quo supporters will oppose this. Such obstruction of any improvement and progress is unfortunate, but I don't expect that these will change their mind. I don't know what does policy say for such situation (after RFC) - maybe a MEDCOM/MEDCAB is in order (and if that fails - ARBCOM). I have no intention to implement the required changes and go into edit-war here or to participate in MEDCAB/MEDCOM/ARBCOM - I would suggest to involved editors to solve this issue. Alinor (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the "maybe" against my name on option 5. DeCausa (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Those who are trying to split the article belong to the pro-Serb team here at Misplaced Pages that for many years now have tried to push anti-Kosovo propaganda. After failing at ICJ, now it's time for revisionism through Misplaced Pages. The split would be very unnatural and would just contribute with confusion. Many people have problems with Kosovo independence and that's OK but pleas do not try to change the article at Misplaced Pages based on your subjective, religious, personal thoughts. About 99 % of all those who know some about Kosovo associate it with Republic of Kosovo. The fact is that Serbia has no control over the territory of Kosovo and therefore their opinion on Kosovo should be treated the same way we treat Arab opinion on Israel. Many Arab countries do not recognize Israel but that does not mean that Misplaced Pages has 5 articles about Israel. NOAH (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahahaha. Pro-Serb team, time for revisionism, those who know some about Kosovo... This nationalistic, off topic post should be deleted. --WhiteWriter 21:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew I was pro-Serb! I could have sworn I was pro-independence. --Khajidha (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

NOAH, the only anti-RoK option is the status quo, where RoK doesn't have an article in Misplaced Pages at all and APKiM has 2 articles. Have you looked at the list of options or you just seen some "Kosovo split" somewhere and got offended? And split here doesn't mean "split slices of territory that is controlled by RoK and give these to Serbia", but means "change the topic of an article in online encyclopedia from RoK+APKiM into something meaningful".

NOAH, if the topic isn't changed and the status quo RoK+APKiM topic remains, then to the sections about Politics, Government, Administrative divisions, etc. will be added information about APKiM. The article will lose the remaining elements of its "RoK-only-like" view so that it matches its topic of RoK+APKiM. This obviously isn't pro-RoK, so people supporting the status quo are anti-RoK.

What of the 7-8 options given above do you support? Alinor (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Alinor. I am having difficulties to understand how a split would help. Splitting Kosovo in several articles will just create confusion, as if there weren't enough confusion already. I think information about APKiM is already included in the article and any major expansion is not in compliance with "due weight" I believe. NOAH (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is speaking about "split" - in practice most of the options would be implemented as "rename".

Information about APKiM is currently only included in the lead - defining the topic. Then we have the enormous "history" section, where APKiM is mentioned of course. But then, the rest of the sections deal only with RoK - thus the content doesn't match the topic. And the APKiM-UNMIK-RoK triangle isn't explained at all (see here for UNMIK-RoK. APKiM-UNMIK questions are about the practical issues of Serbia relations with UNMIK, about whether Serbia government works with the Serb Kosovo assembly/council/etc. or only supports these "unofficially", etc.)

The current topic of RoK+APKiM makes an insensible mix - both don't recognize each other and they simply don't belong together. Of course an APKiM page should include small note about the dispute and referencing to a RoK article - just as a RoK article should include such note and reference to an APKiM article.

Anyway, the article dealing with these APKiM-UNMIK-RoK issues should not be the Republic of Kosovo article, because the other two of that group have their own articles, but RoK doesn't. I think Kosovo (region) should took over "history" and "triangle" issues and Republic of Kosovo should focus on the RoK topic itself. Alinor (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

user:NOAH - Better to refrain our-selfs from nonconstructive accusations like pro-Serb or something else. If you think of accusing anybody here for not respecting the WP:NPOV please be ready to support it with evidence, don`t accuse people for nothing just like that, just because they don`t agree with you WP:ABF. I am also kind-a confused about your user page, you have 2 barn-stars for NPOV awarded to you by yourself? We are talking about a controversial issue and we should be careful with this kind of statements. Kosovo can`t be compared with Israel for the obvious reasons therefore it can`t have same status on Misplaced Pages. I am rather interested if there is a possibility of a consensus here? Maybe we should have a simple vote again to see what`s the situation? Adrian (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How many times do I have to explain that I have NOT given myself barn-stars. I just store them there so I know where I can find the code when I want to award someone. If your read in my user page, you will see that I have mentioned it. Maybe you soon receive a barn-star from me...NOAH (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, did`t mean to offend you in any way, I was curious about it(just asking) and you must admit it looks a little bit strange. I just took a short look at your page, I did`t analyze it. I understand it now. Adrian (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NOAH.

The fact is that the pro-Serbo-nationalist and/or pro-Serb Orthodox Church editors here want to dominate this article and bend the text to suit its propagandist views. We know they HATE to see the flag of the Republic of Kosovo in the article about the Holy Land of Kosovo (“Serb Jerusalem”, Milos Obilic, Orthodox identity, Serb Epic Poetry and and blah, blah, blah…), so they are in a long effort (I’ve been watching this article for years, believe me) to split the Kosovo article into Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo i Metohija (“Lands of the Church”? ha, ha, ha…) in the same way that pro-Japanese-nationalist editors always wanted to move Hirohito to “Showa Emperor”. But wait! Hirohito’s Japan and Milosevic’s Serbia have something in common: both lost wars to the United States armed forces.--186.220.202.126 (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting nationalist labels on editors is going to entrench positions, making it harder to solve problems on this article. Please treat editors as individuals, rather than as members of a bloc. bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of counterproductive commentary going on here. The simple fact is that this is such a complex and layered topic that one article simply cannot suffice. The disputed political entity must have its own page, regardless of what you call it. Republic of Kosovo is fine. To those concerned, the existence of an article by this name DOES NOT mean Misplaced Pages endorses it as an independent state (it doesn't mean Misplaced Pages endorses anything). See Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic for precedent. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 19:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So, should we implement option5? Alinor (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No way. This is like moving Spain to Spain (region). Someone suggested that you add more APKM detail to the article, why aren't you doing that instead? It would advance the state of the article, and we would see things clearer then. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said before comparing a disputed territory to an undisputed one makes no sense. There is no disconnect between Spain the region and Spain the country because there is no Spain the province of another country to confuse things with. There is a disconnect between Kosovo the region and Kosovo the country. --Khajidha (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Then see my comments about Cyprus and Macedonia back in November . When Alinor was proposing the same split that he is proposing now. And this was already proposed in August by Tadija, and someone already compared to the cases of Cabinda, Sahara and Palestine and I already explained why it didn't apply .

And so, proposing the same split again and again, drowning the counter-arguments in exceedlingly long discussions. No way. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You realize that that you just reinforced my point. If all these disputed territories cannot serve as proper guidelines for how to handle another disputed territory because the situations are different, how much less appropriate is it to model the treatment of this disputed territory after that of undisputed territories? --Khajidha (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that you should read my comments, and make your own arguments about why this specific article needs to be split (like, are people reaching the information they are looking for when searching for "kosovo"? My answer: yes, because the most common use of "Kosovo" is to refer to the new country, it's a more common usage than using it for the historic region, for the APKM, or for any Serbian or musulman territory in the same zone). See? A Kosovo-specific argument that is also relevant to WP:COMMONNAME. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if they reach the right information, it is harder to find because it is mixed in with contradictory information relevant only to APKIM. --Khajidha (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not contradictory, it's is a notable claim from Serbia that is relevant to understanding Kosovo's situation. We are supposed to report it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Khajidha. And Nobody is proposing "split". What I'm proposing is to use a sensible topic. RoK+APKiM is not a sensible topic and if the discussion above shows anything - that's it. Even you haven't said "I support option1". The other people that support option1 do it not because they like the topic, but because they want RoK to be as close as possible to the Kosovo article name - and they are even willing to accept some non-sensible topic such as RoK+APKiM and deprive RoK of its own article. But Misplaced Pages articles should have sensible topics. Alinor (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I no longer know if we are in disagreement, or if we are simply using different words to name the same things. Anyways, write me down for option 1. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see it as a common name question. Each article in an encyclopedia should cover one "thing". ROK and APKIM are different things. Each is commonly known as Kosovo and which is more commonly called Kosovo is a matter of dispute. I support a separate article for each of them under full names with a Kosovo (region) article to cover all the shared history, probably up to the founding of Yugoslavia. From that point the region was incorporated into a formal subdivision (unless it was formalized later, then use that as the end point). Each governing body from that point would have its own article. I fluctuate between whether the undisambiguated Kosovo should direct to the region page or the disambig page and wouldn't dispute either. --Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going for Option 1. I do not view ROK and APKIM as different things, rather as different flavours of the same thing. Bazonka (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What is this "same" thing? And RoK/APKiM are not "flavours", these are political/administrative entities. These are not names of a territory. And RoK is entirely separate from APKiM. They have nothing in common. Each of them doesn't recognize the other. They claim the same territory, so they are naturally mutually exclusive. Alinor (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In any case RoK is notable enough on its own and it should have its own article. Alinor (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Its article should, per WP:COMMON, be at Kosovo. A quick google news search reveals 5510 uses of the word kosovo - the vast majority being for what you call "RoK". Adjusting the search to look for "Republic of Kosovo", only twelve unique news articles, of which eleven give the simple term "Kosovo" equal or greater prominence. I would like the article to reflect what sources say; the sources put the label "Kosovo" on what you label "RoK". bobrayner (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I was discounting WP:COMMON in hopes that it would make it easier to get an actual (Republic of) Kosovo article at all. Surely what the article is called is less important than whether it exists. As things stand there is no article for (the Republic of) Kosovo itself, only this strange hodgepodge. --Khajidha (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Khajidha. In addition - so, bobrayner, it seems you don't support option1, because it doesn't give Kosovo to RoK, but to APKiM+RoK. Have you looked at option2 and 6? Yes, I know it is easier to push for the status quo, but actually in this case the status quo CAN NOT remain, because it doesn't have a well defined topic/its topic is so badly chosen that makes no sense.

Also, WP:COMMONNAME result in this case is debatable itself, but anyway - I don't think you will get ANY google hits for an awful non-sensible topic mix of APKiM+RoK.

"what you call RoK" - this sounds as if you disagree with me. The official name of the political entity, according to the declaration and constitution adopted by the people that established it is "Republic of Kosovo". You can call it "Kosovo" - in a context that makes a clear distinction between RoK and all other Kosovo (disambiguation) things. In our discussion here the context is not such, because other "Kosovo"-named things are involved - mostly APKiM and Kosovo (region). So, in order for us to communicate and discuss we should make clear what of these we refer to. That's why we have to be specific in our comments and don't use the bare "Kosovo" word without further clarification. The same is in the article - in an article with topic RoK (described in the lead) you can use "Kosovo" afterwards, because it's clear that it refers to the article topic. In the status quo article (if its topic isn't changed) - we should aways use a long form name, because the topic is about both APKiM and RoK.

A good solution to the topic-non-sensible problem is to make Kosovo a redirect to Republic of Kosovo. In that way we decouple "who gets the Kosovo article name" issue from real content issues (such as this and others). People wishing to discuss and edit-war over the first issue will not get into the way of people wishing to improve RoK article content and vice-versa. And what is more important - the article will have a sensible topic (RoK) instead of the current non-topic (APKiM+RoK). In addition - Misplaced Pages will get an article about RoK (currently RoK is the only state without an article on Misplaced Pages). Alinor (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

@Alinor, Kosovo is first and foremost a place - that is the "thing" to which I referred. This place has two competing governances - I called them "flavours", you can call them something else if you wish. They may be mutually exclusive, but as you say yourself, they claim the same territory, i.e. the place called Kosovo. They are both intrinsically related to the subject matter of this article. This is why I favour Option 1. Bazonka (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The place/thing is Kosovo (region). The governances/flavours/political entities are Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) (under UNMIK administration). Option1/Status quo of non-sensible topic APKiM+RoK isn't a well defined topic - or if you want the topic to be Kosovo (region) then APKiM and RoK content there should be much less than in the status quo. APKiM and RoK are related to Kosovo (region), yes, but they aren't related to each other. In any case each of these topics is notable enough to have its own article (especially RoK that doesn't have any article - unlike the other topics). Alinor (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the following proposal for Republic of Kosovo. Content could be further re-shuffled with Kosovo (region), but I tried to make these with minimal changes. Alinor (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I support option 5. This option is corresponding with the political and historical situation in this moment. For recent history a simple paragraph should explain a dispute between Serbia and the partially recognized ROK. Alexmilt (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, this is one chaotic discussion. I'll try nevertheless to give my opinion too: (a) Ideally everything should remain in a single article. The current article is in fact a decently written, well-balanced treatment. Concerns appear to be mostly about symbolic superficialities such as flag icons and infoboxes. (b) If subarticles are factored out, it must be done strictly within a summary-article-with-subarticles framework, without unnecessary duplication of content. This means that a Republic of Kosovo article must treat only the current political situation and post-1990s history but cannot have a duplicated history section, which should remain in the overview article only. (c) The infoboxes should finally be collapsed into a single, specially taylored one, with only the neutral geographical facts on top and any political symbols further down in dedicated sections. (d) Any editor whose motivation in editing these articles is primarily that of gaining symbolic political recognition of this or that political perspective through the placement of infoboxes, flags etcetera, rather than making the presentation of factual information more efficient for an outside disinterested reader, is a disruptive element and simply needs to be banned. This goes for a large number of the long-term participants in this debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., the articles are not "main article" and "subarticles", these are separate topics. The situations is the following:

• Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) - topic APKiM (province of Serbia), one of the political entities claiming the Kosovo region
• Republic of Kosovo - topic RoK (independent state), one of the political entities claiming the Kosovo region
• Kosovo (region) - topic the Kosovo region itself, a piece of land that is subject to two opposing claims by different political entities
• Kosovo (disambiguation) - includes links to the above, plus links to historical predecessors of the above, plus many other not so notable uses of the word "Kosovo"
• Kosovo - topic APKiM+RoK mix, the article is subject to and result of edit-warring and POV pushing

a) We can't combine APKiM, RoK and Kosovo region in a single article - if there were no competing claims APKiM+Kosovo region and RoK+Kosovo region would be possible, but since we have a "third party" it gets impossible to combine all three in one article. The only common thing between APKiM and RoK is that they both claim the Kosovo region. We can not combine unrelated (and opposing) political entities into a single article (and I don't see anywhere else in Misplaced Pages such combination) - this is like merging USSR and USA articles into the Cold War article.

I agree that text in these related articles can/should be amended similarly to your comment (see here).

b) Republic of Kosovo should have a brief summary of pre-1990 history (and link to Kosovo (region) including the bulk of it) and should concentrate on post-1990 events and even more on post-1999 events and especially on post-2008 events

c) each article gets its infobox (only one per article) - no need to do merging/collapsing

IMHO the most sensible arrangement is to redirect Kosovo to Kosovo (region) or Kosovo (disambiguation) or to move Kosovo (disambiguation) to Kosovo. Also, content re-shuffling as described above is a good idea, yes. Alinor (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Split started

Alinor has started creating splits in Kosovo (region) and Republic of Kosovo via copy/paste moves. I have undone them, since he is still trying to get consensus for them. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Alinor and WhiteWriter when was there reached a consensus for you to start redirecting the articles to your preferred versions?--— ZjarriRrethues —  20:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you follow this page? :) Up, at "rfc summary" you have 7 (or possibly 8 :) people agreeing, so therefore, we have consensus for the majority of users. --WhiteWriter 20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WhiteWriter read WP:CONSENSUS and btw decisions on wikipedia aren't based on polls.--— ZjarriRrethues —  20:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It will be better for you to read it. This is not pooling, all of those have arguments for that opinions. As we now have 8 others that support split, and as per WP:CONSENSUS that is consensus, you are welcome to revert your edits on Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) pages, or i will ask for administrators help, as i dont want anymore to have "discussions" where you revert without any agreement and reason, and just quit discussion after we point you that your edits are not ok. That is not a way to consensus, but to trolling. --WhiteWriter 21:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS(which doesn't mean polling). Btw why half of the users, who support the split are Serbs and have the same WP:COI?--— ZjarriRrethues —  21:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Always with the bad faith assumptions and ethnic profiling, and way off the mark as usual. Athenean (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Half of the users that support the split are Serbs, so the verdict is on that and anyone can draw his own conclusions.--— ZjarriRrethues —  21:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Persistently bringing up the ethnic background of users as a way of discrediting them is bad faith. Knock it off. Athenean (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We didn't use pooling here... And i really cannot be responsible for peoples nationality, while it is also quite far from truth that half are Serbs anyway... Not even near. Therefor, please, respond in a proper way to my questions, or just revert your self. --WhiteWriter 21:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WhiteWriter this process is polling and btw as Enric said you can't override common name.--— ZjarriRrethues —  23:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, nobody has changed the topic or text of Kosovo. They remain APKiM+RoK. If consensus here is that this is OK, then so be it. About common name - I don't think that the APKiM+RoK topic has any common name, but anyway, this "who gets Kosovo article name" discussion can continue forever. Also, please do not confuse WP:COMMONNAME with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. IMHO, status quo topic APKiM+RoK is a non-sensible mix, has no common name and is not a primary topic associated with "Kosovo". If we look the other way around - "Kosovo" is common name for APKiM, RoK and the physical region that they both claim. The question is what of these three topics is the primary topic associated with "Kosovo" (e.g. what of these three topics will "get Kosovo article name"). I think it's the general notion about the physical region and its past wars/current status dispute/etc. But since there can be multiple topics associated with the same term (as in this case) there is no straightforward way to determine who is the primary. That's what disambiguation pages are for. So, we can redirect Kosovo to Kosovo (region) or Kosovo (disambiguation) or to Republic of Kosovo if there is consensus that this is the primary topic associated with "Kosovo". Or, we can leave Kosovo with the topic of APKiM+RoK - per status quo - if we don't reach consensus for any of the other options.

In any case all three topics - APKiM, RoK, Kosovo region - are notable themselves and should have their own articles. Alinor (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Deciding whether or not to split or merge has nothing to do with notability. That's a red herring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So, the status quo article dealing with the APKiM+RoK mixed issues topic will remain until there is no agreement to change it. That is unrelated to the APKiM topic, RoK topic, Kosovo region topic - these should be covered at their own articles. Alinor (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No split and no moves

No split is started and no moves of content are made. I created two articles with topics that are notable - Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) (by copying, not moving). The current article here could remain or be changed or redirected or whatever (see above discussion - all options are viable, only option1 is not, because status quo doesn't have a well defined sensible topic), but the independent state Republic of Kosovo deserves its own article and I don't think anyone questions its notability. The dispute over Kosovo makes a Kosovo region article notable too. Alinor (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I will restore the two articles one more time (and open discussions at their talk pages), but if Enric Naval reverts these again you can see the articles at Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region). Alinor (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You are starting a split (which will end up in a rename when you finally make a disambiguation page in Kosovo, like you clearly want to do) after failing to obtain consensus in Talk:Kosovo. If you persist I will simply report you to WP:AE. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Republic of Kosovo#Notability of the Republic of Kosovo and Talk:Kosovo_(region)#Notability of Kosovo as a region. And please don't make interpretations about what I "clearly want to do".

I'm not starting any split. If discussion here reaches conclusion that the status quo non-sensible mixed topic of APKiM+RoK is notable - then the article will remain as it is. If the discussion reaches conclusion to redirect Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo - then fine. But I don't intend to participate heavily in a discussion about "who gets Kosovo article name" and where it redirects (if it redirects at all) and I certainly don't intend on redirecting it to Kosovo (disambiguation) or elsewhere myself. Alinor (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No interpretations done: you said yourself that you were for option 4. A month ago you were arguing about how RoK had to be split from Kosovo (you say yourself that all of your options would eventually have to lead to a split), and discussing several ways to carry it on . --Enric Naval (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking, all of us changed their opinions, that is the way to gain consensus and community agreement. With some compromise, some understanding, we will find solution. Why are you attacking him now. You should better write your opinion on this and this page. --WhiteWriter 11:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Enric Naval, in all my statements (including these that you cite) I don't speak about "split", but about correcting the non-sensible topic of the status quo version. And by interpretations I refer to your interpretation that I will redirect Kosovo somewhere before consensus is reached. Regardless if it's to Kosovo (disambiguation), Kosovo (region), Republic of Kosovo or somewhere else. I haven't done such thing so far, so please don't make such interpretations.

I am for any option that makes article topic sensible (of course I prefer option4 and 5, but that's besides the point). The only option that doesn't do this is option1/status quo. Alinor (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Alinor didn't do absolutely anything disruptive. This is just normal line of discussion and conclusions. We will see what will be the final best solution, as for now, everything is just in order. Now, just peaceful discussion should follow, as we accomplished a long useful discussion on the improving Kosovo subject articles. And mostly thanks to the User:Alinor fantastic arguments. --WhiteWriter 11:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good job Alinor, finally we have hope that there will be peace in regards to this article! You have my full support. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that mean that you also support option 5? Can i write your name at the RfC summary list? --WhiteWriter 20:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Put me down for option 5. I think it's the only way we will achieve some sort of peace and quiet around here. Otherwise this will remain a perpetual battleground. The infobox dispute is a case in point. Athenean (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, put me down for option 5 as well. Thanks! --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

#5 (and all other versions involving "Kosovo" becoming a redirect to "Kosovo (XYZ)") make little sense in terms of naming policy. A simple, common name should never be a redirect to a disambiguated version of itself. Either there is a "primary topic", then that primary meaning should be at "Kosovo" itself, or there is none, then "Kosovo" should be a disambiguation page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think all these pages of discussion show that we can't agree on a primary topic. And you are correct about disambiguation. I will add your proposal as option8: Kosovo (disambiguation) to be moved to Kosovo; Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) to be established. Alinor (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is a primary topic. The primary topic of "Kosovo" is Kosovo. It's a single place, with a single history, a single location on the map. There are competing opinions about what its political status is, but there is most definitely no disagreement over which geographical entity the name "Kosovo" refers to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"primary topic of "Kosovo" is Kosovo." - unhelpful - what do you mean by "Kosovo"? The Kosovo (region) or one of the two political entities that stake claims over it? If you mean Kosovo (region) then you are for option7. If you mean one of the political entities - the Republic of Kosovo then you are for option6. If you mean the other political entity - the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) then you are for a modified option3 (I will add it as option9). None of these is the status quo topic APKiM+RoK (option1).

Then your comment continues about the "geographical entity", so I assume that you refer to Kosovo (region) and thus option7 (change the topic of Kosovo to Kosovo region; APKiM and RoK to be described at their own separate articles). Alinor (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo (region) (without region in brackets) should exist without two info boxes at the beginig. Articles on AP Kosovo and Metohija and Republic of Kosovo should also exist. Why re-inventing the wheel if everybody can be equally (un)satisfied. -- Bojan  Talk  04:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

IJA recently made this edit with the explanation "removed the useless extra infobox, all that information is included in other info boxes. No point repeating it". These edits of a template infobox are also related. I was already blocked because of this page, so I will not revert it, but I want to point this out here.

The version with three infoboxes (as of July 2010 and before the recent IJA change) is arranged in the following way:

1. common Kosovo infobox - Kosovo (region)
2. Template:Republic of Kosovo infobox
3. UNMIK infobox

IJA removed the first infobox (yes most of its content was already duplicated in the other), but in this way it places RoK infobox on top (and as the UNMIK infobox is with smaller width and doesn't mention Serbia/APKiM, has not such flag, etc. - all this consolidates the wrong impression that the article is about RoK only).

The problem with the infoboxes content is related to our lack of answers to these questions, especially A] the relation between institutions of RoK and UNMIK/PISG and B] the position of Serbia government over KiM serb-led Council and Assembly - and how this position correlates with the official Serbia position of adherence to UNSCR1244 (and thus to support UNMIK). Anyway, I have the following general suggestions about the infobox arrangement in the article until there is no separate RoK article and until it has a mixed RoK+APKiM:

1. The first infobox to include some section about "competing claims/authorities/etc." listing APKiM, UNMIK and RoK (ordered by dates of establishment)
2. The second/third infobox to be a pure RoK infobox - representing one part of the mixed topic of the article
3. The third/second infobox to be a UNMIK infobox - but with some more references to UNSCR1244 Serbia sovereignty acknowledgement and "UNMIK is interim administration of APKiM" - representing the other part of the mixed topic of the article

• APKiM supporters may want a pure APKiM infobox, but I don't think we should add such until we have some clear answer over the question of the degree of official support the KiM Council/Assembly have (e.g. does Serbia recognize UNMIK or these new structures as the APKiM authorities?)

In any case the IJA arrangment is leaning to the RoK POV and is not representing the current article topic. Alinor (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I will revert his removal. He will need to gain such a consensus for that, that wikipedia never saw consensus like that before! No more pov edits!! Only discussion, and nothing more will prevail here! --WhiteWriter 13:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why did i hade to edit this article? People be calm and reasonable. What is problem with status quo? It is just a beginning! Now we should discus it, and find the best way for article's future.

This is not the final version of this article. It will be improved.

We will find the best solution. Stop blind reverts. With them, it is clear that those are just a way to salvage questionable POV edits. It is no question that this subject is disputed. All of us must act in accordance with that. In section "Topic change" we must find some solution. Zjarri, IJA, all other, start talking with us!! Propose! Say something! That is only way to have something. Without your (flexible) comments, we will never agree! And, please, just keep it calm, and peaceful. All of us are here for the same purpose, people. --WhiteWriter 13:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I must agree. The presence of multiple infoboxes is a direct consequence of the irregular conflation of separate topics in one article. The infoboxes can be distributed among the pertinent articles the moment this conflation is solved by an article split. As long as the article isn't split, it will just need to put up with its multiple infoboxes. --dab (𒁳) 15:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The infobox at the top is ridiculous, it is just repeating information which already exists in other infoboxes; there is no new information in them. In fact the UNMIK infobox doesn't add any new information it just has a UN flag on it for some reason. What is the point in that? Do you lot even know what infoboxes are for? They're boxes which contain information, why do you insist on repeating it twice? Not to mention it increases the size in kbs for the article, making it harder and longer for people with dial up internet. Also Alinor I'm not being POV, I'm just being practical and sensible unlike you who wants to repeat things for the sake of it; and with doing so increasing the size of the article. Full on ridiculous to be fair! IJA (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Having a History section this big that duplicates History of Kosovo article doesn't bother you, but a couple of infoboxes "increase KB size" does. The article (and most websites) is too big for dial-up Internet regardless of the number of infoboxes.

It's not clear whether the first infobox duplicates information from the second or vice versa, but this is a moot point anyway.

OK, maybe you removed one of the infoboxes no with POV-pushing intentions, but the result was POVish. The whole article is too RoK-focused (but still failing to explain RoK-UNMIK relations) and putting RoK infobox on top by removing the Kosovo (region) infobox is skewing the article further in the RoK direction.

Regarding flags, information, etc. - what do you think of the proposals for some changes that I made in the opening comment of this section? Alinor (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I would like to point out there was NO CONSENSUS to have three infoboxes. IJA (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but the article has the three infoboxes at least since May 2008 - I assume that following the Feb2008 declaration of independence there were some edit-warrings/discussions that settled into 3 infobox version, that continued until the 23 July 2010 flawed removal that was recently restored.

And actually the maps in the May2008 version seem better than the current maps - Kosovo (region) is represented by a geographical map of Kosovo only (map1), UNMIK/UNSCR1244 is represented by map of Kosovo-inside-Serbia without Europe/neighboring states (map3). If we use these two and change the RoK infobox map into a map of RoK-inside-Europe (and bordering Serbia, not part of it) such as map2. Alinor (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And there was a consensus to have one infobox which you lot have ignored. You need to get a consensus before making such edits. Here is the consensus to have one infobox . No new consensus has been made to have three infoboxes. A consensus is vital for the sake of the article. IJA (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

One more time, did you even read my explanation of that process and false "consensus" in the section above "Kosovo article split"? --WhiteWriter 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone agreed to one infobox, there was no opposition. That is a consensus. You're really struggling to argue that it isn't a consensus because you now later on don't agree with what has already been agreed. IJA (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

IJA, if you refer to this discussion WhiteWriter is right that it was already explained multiple times why it isn't a real consensus. Also, there are disagreement statements even at this discussion (but after the 26 hours when the other infoboxes were deleted). Anyway, the most recent discussion (a 30 day RFC) above shows that there is no consensus for these deletions (that's why the infoboxes got restored).

If you want only one infobox I suggest that you support some of the options for article with only one topic in the section above about topic change. Until the article has mixed topic RoK+APKiM it should have multiple infoboxes. Alinor (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks Alinor. --WhiteWriter 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I added information to the infoboxes (per the initial comment of this section) without re-arranging . Alinor (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A consensus to have a single infobox was reached last summer ]. Stop adding multiple infoboxes to the article. Alinor, this edit of yours is against consensus reached--Mr Eckerslay (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the section "Kosovo article split" first. Alinor's edit is totally valid. --WhiteWriter 19:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Liar source :)

This is part from the lede:

Although we have one source, it is quite clear that it is wrong. Kosovo was not part of the earliest Principality of Serbia, but later (as you may see from Serbia in the Middle Ages and Serbian Empire articles), Kosovo is in the "heart" of the Serbian state. This sentence should be removed, as it is clearly false. --WhiteWriter 14:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back up your side of the argument? Without evidence, there is nothing "clear" about your assertion. Bazonka (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For example, see image on the right? You see where is Kosovo? --WhiteWriter 15:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not an especially detailed map - it proves nothing. Note that I'm not taking sides here, because my knowledge is not strong in this area, I just have concerns with you saying that something is "clear" when you have no (or unclear) evidence to back it up. Bazonka (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, but did you see articles about Serbian empire?? From Belgrade to Greece! Kosovo is in the middle! There are no way to escape it. Saying that kosovo was never part of that empire is geographical nonsense!

Few images

Serbian Empire

Based on German map from Tzar Dušan time

Serbian Empire 1355

Emperor Dusan's Serbia

Do i really need to post all the written sources here? You have it in those two articles i mentioned above. I am sorry, but it is completely clear that Kosovo became part of Serbia then. --WhiteWriter 17:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so Kosovo was part of the Serbian empire in medieval times. But that is not what the sentence to which you object says. It says that Serbian culture etc did not emanate from Kosovo. Showing maps with Kosovo as part of Serbia is irrelevant. It's like me showing you a map of the British Empire to prove that England's culture came from India. Not proof. Bazonka (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OMG, man, why dont you tell me!? I didn't saw the sentence well! "...medieval Serbia did not evolve from Kosovo..." I was convinced that it was "didn't include Kosovo"... I am sorry, but that was obvious, nothing else! :) :) :) One big apology! I should wear spectacles! :) --WhiteWriter 19:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Organ theft allegations

I added a short summary on the recent Marty report. I think the case is sufficiently notable that a brief mention here is in order. In fact, I'm surprised this wasn't done already. Athenean (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "Organ theft Allegations" section and added a see also link it through to it in the Kosovo War section. We don't have a section on the article Serbia about "Alleged War Crimes" why have a section on Kosovo about them? It seems rather POV to have a full section for them, explicitly drawing attention to it. Remember this article is about "Kosovo" the place, alleged organ theft isn't and shouldn't be a major topic for this article. One sentence maximum should be more than enough. If we were to have a section on the Serbia article called "Alleged War Crimes" many people here would complain. The same applies here. IJA (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sheer nonsense. The organ theft allegations are big news I'll have you know, and recent. Every major media outlet has covered them. The Council of Europe just endorsed Marty's report and the investigation is ongoing. Don't you think that's pretty significant? What seems POV is to remove the section completely, especially when every sentence is sourced. We have a section on the recent economic crisis in Greece, I don't see why we shouldn't have a brief mention of the organ theft allegations here, unless it is to "defend" Kosovo's "honor". Athenean (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the one talking nonsense. You're right this is news, recent news and this isn't wikinews; it is wikipedia aka an encyclopaedia. This encyclopaedic article is about Kosovo, it gives general information about Kosovo in an article; it is an overview on Kosovo. What is so important about Kosovo as a whole that the "organ theft allegations" are so important? Please tell me. This additional information is about news as you have stated, I agree it is news however this isn't Wikinews it is Misplaced Pages. Also you say brief mention, you have made a complete new section on it, a full paragraph. If you were to meet someone who knew nothing about Kosovo and they wanted a quick overview on Kosovo, you wouldn't give a lecture on the organ theft allegations. The Organ theft allegations are not important when it comes to an entire article on Kosovo. If the article was on the Kosovo War, war crimes in Kosovo, of the KLA etc I could see your point; but when it comes to a brief overview on Kosovo which this article is about, what makes the organ theft allegations so important? Specifically having a full paragraph on Kosovo and explicitly telling the audience about these allegation is POV. We don't have a full section about Serbian war crimes on ethnic-Albanians in this article. Why? Because alleged War Crimes are not important or essential when it comes to giving an overview on a place. Tell me, would you oppose or revert if I were to add alleged Serbian Serbian War crimes section to this article or to the article "Serbia"? I ask you to remove these controversial edits until you can get a consensus for their necessity to the article and explain why the average person who wants a brief overview on Kosovo should read a full paragraph on the alleged organ trade. Remember it is POV to explicitly mention certain things. General overviews shouldn't include controversial topics, ok have a link and/or a brief sentence but don't give it a full section/ paragraph. You're explicitly drawing the audiences attentional to such an controversial and alleged subject when there is no reason to. Ok on other articles more related to the subject I agree there should be something about it, however not on an article such as this when it doesn't have much to do with it, you just seem to want it there to give s bad impression of Albanians, Thaci and Kosovo. Please remove this for the reasons I have stated or I will take to a higher level for the reasons I have stated. Please gain a consensus before making such very controversial edits. IJA (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, calm down and stop accusing me of trying to guess my motives. My additions are only 5 sentences long, which is tiny compared to the overall length of the article. According to your line of reasoning, we shouldn't have a "Law and Order" section either, yet we do. Tell me, according to you, shouldn't we also remove the Law and Order section for the reasons you give above? Doesn't it also "give a bad impression of Albanians and Kosovo"? Isn't it true that other countries don't have sections like that? As for the "this isn't wikinews" argument, articles about the organ allegations have been continuously appearing in the news since December, when Marty's report came out. And they will continue to do so in the future (there will be investigations, court cases, etc..). This is isn't some trivial one-off incident that will go away. The organ theft allegations are also extremely important in that they affect perceptions of Kosovo's legitimacy: If they had surfaced before the declaration of independence, perhaps a lot of countries would have refrained from recognizing kosovo (and maybe some will retract their recognitions now). Furthermore, the organ theft was well-known to Western intelligence agencies, who chose to keep quiet for the sake of foreign-policy objective in the Balkan region. Don't you think that is extremely important and should be mentioned? Thus, my point is that this isn't some trivial non-event, but goes to the heart of the independence debate. Lastly, you claim that on other articles more related to the subject I agree there should be something about it, but if this article isn't related to the subject, then what is? While I agree with you that there should be a consensus for my additions, but how can this consensus be achieved if you remove them? Feel free to take it to whatever "higher level" you want (you could start with an RfC for one), however, I have a feeling that you will be disappointed. Athenean (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stick to the sanctions of this article and discuss any content reversions on the talk page. and BRD. Btw I tried to make a compromise edit between the two versions. --— ZjarriRrethues —  09:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt it needs to be mentioned. IJA: these are major allegations endorsed by the Council of Europe involving the Prime Minister. It can't be a serious proposition to have no mention. However, Athenian's edit is way over the top in length and language used - the level of detail, particularly as they are allegations, is not yet warranted. On the other hand, ZjarriRrethues's compromise proposal is too oblique and assumes the reader knows what it is all about. I suggest add ing to Rule of Law this sentence: "The Council of Europe has endorsed a report by Swiss MP Dick Marty and called for a full investigation into its allegations that a criminal network tied to the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Prime Minister, Hashim Thaci, executed prisoners and harvested their kidneys for organ transplantation." with this source added. I'm going to introduce it unless there is striong objection. DeCausa (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No objection from me, though I would break it up into two sentences: I would the first sentence from my additions, and add your after it. Athenean (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry just done it (with tweak) before seeing your post. See what you think. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My main concern is that it is still a little oblique, requiring the reader to know the back story. I would propose something along the lines of: "In 2010 a report by Swiss MP Dick Marty claimed to have found evidence that a criminal network tied to the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Prime Minister, Hashim Thaci, executed prisoners and harvested their kidneys for organ trafficking. On Jaunary 25 2010, the Council of Europe endorsed the report and called for a full and seriouss investigation into its content". Athenean (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, done. DeCausa (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it should read "uncovered evidence" or "found evidence", and "trafficking" instead of "transplantation. The organs were sold and flown for transplantation in Istanbul according to the source, otherwise it's good. Athenean (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make the changes, go ahead I don't object - but I don't think they're necessary. It says they 'harvested them for...' not that they carried out the transplant. Your other change is purely stylistic - I don't care. DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please hold off on creating redirects

Hi folks,

I was making some minor edits to this article earlier when I found myself tripped up by articles that have been redirected here, such as Republic of Kosovo. I can see that there is a lot of heat generated on this page on the matter of these articles, and I would like to encourage everyone to continue these discussions in a civil manner. The redirecting may seem like a reasonable response to an editor creating said articles, however, these redirects only add to the confusion. Please leave the articles alone for the mean time, and if necessary please take the dispute through the proper channels. If it would be helpful, I can also protect the affected articles for the short term upon request. To that end, I am stepping back from editing this, or the other "Kosovo" articles while you sort things out. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2011 (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 Albania articles
• Top-importance Albania articles
• WikiProject Albania articles