Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:11, 27 July 2010

This article and other articles related to Kosovo are subject to article probation in the Kosovo arbitration case. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

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.

This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Serbia This template 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 Kosovo Politics of the Republic of 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 Politics This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics

image

there is no reason to use a disputed flag on this template. note that the "image" slot isn't necessarily intended to display a flag at all. You will note that {{Politics of Canada}} shows no flag, and that's not on grounds of Canada's independence being doubted by anyone. dab (𒁳) 11:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is intended for the official state coat of arms or emblem. Right?!! --Camptown (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

that's at least a possibility. In the present case, this is disputed, vs. . I suppose if you want to see a coat of arms, you'll need to create an image that shows these two side by side. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But if the problem is that the coat of arms of Kosovo is disputed, you should raise that issue on the talkpage related to Kosovo (or possibly Coat of arms of Kosovo); for the template Politics fo Kosovo should - for different reasons - conform with the main article about the country. And that article does not come with two disputed emblems side by side...--Camptown (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

name

this should be renamed 'Politics of the Republic of Kosovo', to separate itself from the geographical region as such. Note that only 36 countries so far (out of 190+) has given recognition to the republic. --Soman (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Request to remove the flag

Template:Politbox |align=left| Political status of Kosovo

• Declaration of independence
  • Diplomatic response
• UNSC Resolution 1244
• Kosovo status process
• Standards for Kosovo

• UNMIK · EULEX · KFOR
• International Steering Group
  • International Civilian Rep.
    • Pieter Feith
• Military of Kosovo
• Kosovo Protection Corps
• Kosovo Police Service

• Anthem of Kosovo "Europe"
• Constitution
• Provisional Institutions
  • President
    • Fatmir Sejdiu
  • Government / Prime Minister
    • Hashim Thaçi
  • Assembly / Chair
    • Jakup Krasniqi
• Foreign relations
• Political parties
• Kosovan passport
• Elections:
  • Parliamentary: 2001, 2004, 2007
  • Local: 2008
• Subdivisions of Kosovo
  • Districts
  • Municipalities

|-

| style="border-top:1px solid;font-size:80%;"| See also Portal:Politics   

• v
• t
• e

|- |} The flag of the Republic of Kosovo is not a universal flag used for Kosovo. It is the flag of a government that has unilaterally declared independence and a majority of the world has not recognized it. Either put the UN flag (since it is under UN administration), or no flag at all. --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The image on the template is not a flag, it's a coat of arms, and the section at the top of the page (with the title "image") already gives an answer to your concerns. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the difference is? Ok, let me rephrase GOD OF JUSTICE's statement: the insignia of the Republic of Kosovo is not universal insignia used for Kosovo. I know it looks good, people, but its simply not NPOV. --DIREKTOR 20:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand you saying that the COA is POV, therefore I suggest there should be a template for Politics of the Republic of Kosovo which can have the COA. However replacing the COA with that image of Kosovo with dotted boarders next to Serbia is also POV because it suggests that Kosovo is a Serbian province. The answer to this problem is a map or image of Kosovo without any other country or boarders. It should just be an image of just the territory/ region of Kosovo. Ijanderson (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. I did actually (unsuccessfully) search for such an image, and I also feel that a Politics of the Republic of Kosovo template would be ok to use the CoA. --DIREKTOR 11:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I modified the map so that it shows only the border of Kosovo, see File:Kosovo outline.svg. — Emil J. 13:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That works a lot better as far as I'm concerned... gj --DIREKTOR 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

*scratches head* hum, all european templates use a coat of arms (which is not an insignia even if you call it like that)(*). That includes Turkey, who doesn't even have an official coat, see Unofficial emblem of Turkey. There is no requirement anywhere that the coat has to be recognized universally. It's just the current coat of arms, guys, it's just like all the other templates, some people give too much importance to this stuff :P

(*) except for Template:Politics of the Isle of Man and Template:Politics of Northern Ireland (because they don't have any coat at all) and Template:Politics_of_Liechtenstein because there is not a free image of the coat. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not a matter of recognition, nor is it strict "policy" to use a CoA. The independence of Kosovo is fiercely disputed, both on Misplaced Pages and in the "real" world. What you have here is not just a CoA: its a symbol of the independence of Kosovo, in that it is a symbol of the (independent) Republic of Kosovo. I can't agree that we absolutely MUST use some kind of CoA in the template no matter how POV it makes the whole thing, especially since Kosovo is in many ways a special case (least of all in this small issue). --DIREKTOR 11:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The coat is not a "symbol" of anything, it's the current coat of arms of this country as declared by its own government, period.

Every other politics template uses the coat, and I'm opposed to startY making exceptions just because someone might find a certain coat POV, so find a real reason for not simply using the current coat or I'll just restore it so it's in line with the other templates. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right: "it's the current coat of arms of this country as declared by its own government, period.", unfortunately that country's independence (i.e. its existence) is in serious and widespread dispute. The United Nations and cca. 75% of the world's governments do not recognize it, or its symbols (by association).

In addition, the Kosovo region includes both the Republic of Kosovo and the Serbian enclaves that are not under its control in any way (no valid international legal claim, no de facto control). The symbols of the Republic of Kosovo are simply not representative of the entire region.

"...because someone might find a certain coat POV" There's nothing to "find", it is unquestionably POV as per the objective reasons I'm starting to get tired of repeating. Please read the arguments and answer them, its the only way to lead a proper discussion on the subject. --DIREKTOR 12:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not 75% but 69% of countries did not announce recognition of Kosovo and this number is constantly decreasing. Therefore not a valid reason to remove signs of statehood. And not announcing recognition does by far not mean they do not recognize as like New Zealands Prime Minister said: "We will neither recognise nor not recognise." At the ICJ more countries support Kosovo than Serbia, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo#Double_as_much_supporters_for_Kosovo_at_the_ICJ So your argumentation turns against you. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the CoA. The new replacement is scarcely a replacement: a) It's smaller b) It's low-quality c) It doesn't represent anything other than some lines that resemble borders. No offense to the creator, but that's hardly a good-looking and informative piece of work. The CoA should come back. --alchaemia (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Alchemia, the quality of the image is hardly an issue here. And something tells me WP:NPOV supersedes "good looks".

IP: those are irrelevant details (75% or 70%). Also, diplomatic recognition does not work the way you think. If you're not recognized, you don't exist as far as that country is concerned. Read the article. You cannot actively "not recognize" a country: you either recognize it, or you don't, simple as that. Though I applaud the PM of New Zeeland for his creativity.

DaQuirin, nobody is talking about the template itself, just about the image. See the reasons below.

As I keep saying:

• The CoA and flag of the Republic of Kosovo are NOT symbols of the entire region, as the Republic of Kosovo does not control all of Kosovo (regardless of its desired territorial extent). To use it is to ignore Kosovar Serbs in their enclaves altogether.
• The CoA and flag of the (independent) Republic of Kosovo obviously symbolize Kosovo's independence. To use them would be using images representing the independence (Albanian) POV, completely ignoring any other POV there might be on the matter. And we all know how widely and fiercely disputed Kosovo's independence is... This is textbook violation of WP:NPOV.

--DIREKTOR 12:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Again you fail to admit that the number is neither 75% nor 70% but less like you fail to admit that more countries are supporting Kosovo at the ICJ than serbia. And it is very important as this turns your reasoning against you when you claim that more countries oppose Kosovos independence. You may applaud New Zealands Prime Minister but you also have to admit he is right as the numbers of supporters at the ICJ proves what he said: No announcing of recognition means NOT no recognition. They just don't announce if they recognize or not. So please stop lying about numbers and facts or discussion with you makes no sense. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason not to use the correct template for the politics of the Republic of Kosovo. It does not imply the international recognition of Kosovo but only reflects the topic to be dealt with. You reverted it three times without finding or even trying to find a consensus. ---DaQuirin (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The series of articles this template serves concerns all of Kosovo, not just the Albanian Republic of Kosovo. So I'll also ask you to "please stop now!" (I can't make out whether that was a request or an order :P). Nice try, though. --DIREKTOR 12:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There may be "Serb republics of Serbia" or "Croatian republics of Croatia", this is just your nationalist viewpoint. By the way, the coat of arms of Kosovo explicitly affirms the ethnic diversity of the country. Frankly speaking, your repeated reverting (introducing your POV version) is a textbook form of vandalism. You want to discuss the recognition issue but there are lots of other forums to do it. --DaQuirin (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why or how the Republic of Kosovo chose to create its Coat of Arms is irrelevant here. It suffices that it is the CoA of the Republic of Kosovo. I also do not appreciate being labeled by some kind of ridiculous "nationalism standard" you may have. I am obviously not a Serb nationalist since I'm NOT EVEN SERBIAN. If you must know, my interest here is primarily due to the illegality of the secession. My arguments are based on the geopolitical situation and Misplaced Pages policy, they are listed and repeated many times above for your consideration, and noone's even tried to prove me wrong in the main reasons I've listed for the image swap. I hope you'll "comment on content, not the contributor", preferably answering actual arguments. --DIREKTOR 12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a suggestion (see above) to name the template 'Politics of the Republic of Kosovo'. Maybe this may help your concerns. Irrelevant is only your ongoing bickering here. --DaQuirin (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Bickering"? only because I constantly repeat myself with noone really talking about the issue at hand. If you'd like to create a new template linking only the articles that concern the politics of the Republic of Kosovo, be my guest. In its current state the template does not link only to articles which concern the "Republic", but also the entire region of Kosovo. Another nice try, not bad. --DIREKTOR 12:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

my interest here is primarily due to the illegality of the secession. Your starting point is a classical POV, because as everybody knows the question is open for debate. But this is not the forum to discuss the interesting topic. --DaQuirin (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

oh ffs, let me rephrase: "my interest here is primarily due to what I perceive as illegality of the secession", NOT nationalism. Good enough for ya? Also, you should probably realize that just about everyone here likely has an opinion (or Point Of View) on the Kosovo issue. The real question is whether or not the edits themselves are "POV", i.e. whether or not the edits are based on opinion or policy and fact. Because of my POV, I'm pushing towards the Serbian side. In other words, I'm trying to make a pro-independence template more neutral. If were trying to make a neutral article pro-Serbian, then you could say the edits were POV. --DIREKTOR 12:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I take notice of that. But anyway you should at least try to find consensus here. Don't forget that in many Serbia-related articles Kosovo is still considered as being part of the country. There is no final "justice" to be found here. A personal remark: it is truly sad that the Balkans with its fantastic people cannot leave the shadows of history. --DaQuirin (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is no justice. I'm not looking for some "ultimate solution", I'm trying to take this matter outside of it all by not representing any side in any way. Concerning your personal remark, I find it quite the cliche. There is no way to "leave out the shadows of history" when it is history that makes countries what they are. For example, if Germany was to completely "leave out the shadows of history", it would make fascist parties legal again. After all, if we put the "historical shadows" out of the way, there is no reason to deny people freedom of political expression, is there? The same could be applied to the Ustaše and Chetniks. --DIREKTOR 13:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

At least Germany after WWII tried to mend fences, taking some form of historic responsibility, establishing friendship with former "arch enemies", accepting new borders, starting a completely new design, based on law and compromise, today called the "European Union" ;) But it takes time, as you could add, to accept what has come out of history (and could only changed by another war). --DaQuirin (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Establishing? Accepting? :) The FRG and DDR were brutally beaten into a mold their creators desired, they had no real say in the process. Yugoslavia never had any such complete and ultimate closure. But I digress... --DIREKTOR 13:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How much of Kosovo is nowadays inside the Republic of Kosovo? 90%? 95%? Shall we remove also the coat of arms of the templates of Catalonia, Turkey, France, etc because their current territories are smaller than years or centuries ago and some population was left out? What if some of its territory historically belonged to other countries? Shall we also remove those coats for POV reasons? No, no exceptions for perceived POV, we are being neutral by using the same criteria in all templates: current coat of arms (or use the flag if there is no coat). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Direktor is right about three things:

1. As far as I'm aware of, there's no requirement to use any image at all in these navigation templates. They are pretty, not indispensable. (If I'm wrong on this, I would like to read the guideline describing how a "correct template" should be).
2. An image is more than an adornment. It's part of the information we convey. As such, it must comply with our content policies (including the need to present information from a neutral point of view).
3. A coat of arms is a symbol of a state. Thus, to avoid bias, using the coat of arms of the Republic of Kosovo is only adequate for topics related exclusively to the Republic of Kosovo itself (the political institutions), and not to Kosovo in general, in all its aspects.

However, in the specific case of this navigation template, I see no problem in using the coat of arms. Although it is titled "Politics and government of Kosovo" (for consistency with our "Politics of Kosovo" entry), it is dedicated to articles related the Republic of Kosovo, the subject of many of which Serbia considers illegal. The few links to entries dealing with the issue of sovereignity, necessary to provide a proper context to the topic as a whole, do not -in my opinion- change the basic nature of the template. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but then it ought to be renamed (Template:Politics of the Republic of Kosovo) and maybe even edited to make sure it covers only the subjects related to the Republic of Kosovo. In my opinion its far simpler and, yes, neutral to just replace the lead image. We're talking about renaming and rewriting as one option, and a minor cosmetic change as the other (a change that would make it more acceptable to all sides). Of course, I'm okay with it either way... --DIREKTOR 08:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But is it really necessary? We have the same - why not say correct - templates (with coat of arms) all over, we have Template:Politics of Transnistria, Template:Politics of Northern Cyprus or Template:Politics of Abkhazia and so on. It is quite a non-issue, it seems. Nobody claims that recognition issues are linked to that. Ok, we have Template:Politics of the Republic of Macedonia... Maybe you could explain for which article the template seems not fitting in your opinion. Afterwards, the question could be discussed at the relevant talkpage. --DaQuirin (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

why not say correct ? It may be just semantics, but in the absence of a clear context -reference to a clear set of parameters- different people tend to use surprisingly different criteria to define correctness. In my experience, taking special care in the use of such words tends to simplify discussions in the talk pages of articles related to the Balkans, Eastern Europe, etc. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The "precedents" again... As I've stated several times earlier, Kosovo is a very special case. I don't see any "precedents" argument overruling policy. And anyway, I'm not against using CoA if the thing you're trying to represent with it corresponds. The essence of this issue is that there is no real coat of arms of the whole of Kosovo, and that there is no symbol that represents that region/territory/whatever in a non-biased manner. --DIREKTOR 12:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Direktor, to be honest, I don't care much about what image is used on these templates, and I would be perfectly happy using a map or no image at all. — Allow me to commend your interest for avoiding bias in this template.

There would be no real need to rename the actual template. Instead, it would be a simple matter of changing the very first link from ] to ]. The other links included deal with the Republic of Kosovo and its gestation & context. I don't see a need to remove any. — Which one(s) would you remove under those circumstances ? - Best, Ev (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that change of the first link. I'm not overenjoyed by it it, but it would be a good first step to clear the situation. Direktor, are you ok with that change? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Direktor convinced me of removing the coat of arms altoghether, at least in the standard template (a second template with the coat of arms could be used in certain cases). See bellow. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Request to remove the flag

Its a very bad solution in my view. It is tough to draw the line and it'll likely turn into a matter of much debate. Not only that, but a new template for Kosovo as a whole would have to be created: all because of the image. The one's I'd remove are: Political status of Kosovo (concerns Kosovo as a whole), United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (concerns Kosovo as a whole), Kosovo status process (concerns Kosovo as a whole), Standards for Kosovo (concern Kosovo as a whole), UNMIK (concerns Kosovo as a whole), EULEX (concerns Kosovo as a whole), KFOR.

I'd like to stress again 1) that this is an inelegant solution I wouldn't object to but do not support (I would much rather simply have the image swapped), and 2) that while all these links I nominated do indeed concern the Republic of Kosovo, they also concern the Kosovar Serbian enclaves, and are therefore not a subject solely related to the Republic of Kosovo. A politics template only on the Republic should be devoid of general information about the region, as the two are not one and the same. Anything less is POV.

Also, thank you for your commendation Ev. Your support caries much weight and will certainly get us through the "you're a nationalist troll!!" phase of the discussion much faster. I noticed the templates when browsing through the history articles on Kosovo (such as SAP Kosovo) where Serbs continuously remove the "History of Kosovo" template and replace it with "History of Serbia". The proper template would certainly be the one on Kosovo, but with that CoA in place conflicts were bound to arise if I now suddenly replaced "Serbia" with "Kosovo". --DIREKTOR 13:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"when browsing through the articles". I needed that, Direktor: it made me look at the template in the articles themselves, instead of just here.

I see your points. Although I regard the current version (with CoA) as a valid navigational template for "politics of the Republic of Kosovo", this convoluted topic can be more easily & neutrally navigated with a more comprehensive (although perhaps unorthodox) "politics of Kosovo in general" template (necessarily CoA-less). That is, the current one without the coat of arms. :-)

However, to keep everybody happy, we could consider using this CoA-less template as the standard one, and create an exact duplicate (but with CoA) to be used in some Republic of Kosovo-specific articles only (Anthem, Constitution, President, Foreign relations, post-February 2008 elections, etc).

Regarding "History of Kosovo", you're right, as I mentioned at that talk page. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

An excellent idea! That's exactly the kind of custom approach these sort of articles need. (I can't believe I hadn't thought of it :) --DIREKTOR 20:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently User:Enric Naval would have us wait a while (articles have been blocked). I am finding it extremely hard to believe someone can get away with this kind of "discussion". --DIREKTOR 22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BRD and WP:DEADLINE --Enric Naval (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Enric & Carnildo meant well. When we reach an agrement, I can lift the protection myself. - Ev (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of maiming the links at the expense of actual content, I suggest we employ either Ev's or dab's ideas. I don't much like the concept of removing links when changing an aesthetic detail is an alternate solution. Its inelegant, and does not serve the encyclopedia. --DIREKTOR 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The constant attempts to create a pro-independence prejudice of associating the RoK coat of arms with the term "Kosovo" has got to stop. Either use the coat of arms and state "Republic of Kosovo" explicitly, or, if you state "Kosovo" avoid using the flag or CoA. It is very simple. The CoA represents the Republic of Kosovo. Whether the "Republic of Kosovo" is equivalent to "Kosovo" is a matter of international dispute on which Misplaced Pages cannot take any position.

It is also obvious that as long as a merely decorative icon on a navigation template is disputed, the default course of action is simply removing the offending image. We have better things to do than quibble over decorative icons and thumbnails that do not contribute to encyclopedic content. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 13:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also obvious that a simple move of the template to Template:Politics of the Republic of Kosovo, as suggested above, can easily solve the issue. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

sure. the icon is still just decorative, and adds clutter. If in doubt, these templates should not include images. --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't politics of Kosovo refer to politics of the Republic of Kosovo? There isn't really anything to do with politics of Serbia on it. All points on that template are to do with the Republic of Kosovo therefore I see no harm in keeping the CoA/ Fag of Kosovo on it. It is not POV. Also i can't see why it could be classed as clutter. IJA (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

if "Politics of the Republic of Kosovo" is intended, it would be a good idea to actually name the template accordingly. Most of the "Politics of Kosovo" at present is in fact concerned with the question of whether there is a Republic of Kosovo de jure. Using "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo" as synonyms is in fact a violation of NPOV (it is taking the secessionist position).

My position is one of extreme neutrality in treating the Kosovo topics. It helps that I actually do not have any stakes in the matter, and personally really do not care either way. I just wish that everyone would make up their minds on how to draw borders in the Balkans and then move to more important matters such as fighting corruption and organized crime.

From this position of neutrality, I keep suggesting that we simply insist on clean distinction of "Republic of Kosovo" (the state) and "Kosovo" (the territory). But there is considerable resistance to such an agnostic, above-the-table approach. The temptation is too great to create prejudices in implying that the Republic is the territory. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think IJA is essentially correct in stating that the template is really describing the Republic of Kosovo. For some political purposes Kosovo still functions as a province of Serbia - for instance, in Serbian national elections (although the elections are essentially ineffective in RoK-governed parts of Kosovo). But those parallel structures and functions don't seem to be the thrust of this particular template (and I'm not sure they should be combined with an RoK politics template anyway). Moreover, the KSF, the anthem, constitution, president, prime minister and so on are all RoK institutions. We haven't provided a disclaimer on this template that these are just the "alleged/self-declared/de facto" president, prime minister etc, and I don't think we should. The template is just giving a structured summary of interesting links related to the politics of the Republic of Kosovo - and in that circumstance, putting the coat of arms on is entirely natural. Or to put it another way: if we take off the coat of arms, because it is considered non-neutral, we should also remove references to prime minister, president, and national anthem - because describing them as such is exactly as non-neutral! This should be absolutely blindingly obvious in the case of the national anthem, perhaps a little less clear-cut for some of the other aspects. But all the things listed in this template at present - even institutions and personnel who may deem themselves "status neutral" - have an impact on the politics of RoK, so belong in the template.

However, I completely agree with dab that we should aim to distinguish clearly between Kosovo the location, Kosovo the political entity (and accompanying institutions) that functions as a province of Serbia. and Kosovo the independent republic (and accompanying institutions). If this was a template primarily concerning the physical geography of the location, then it should not be identified primarily with either RoK or Serbia. But it seems to me there is nothing wrong with having a template about the politics of RoK, particularly if that template links to pages describing the nature of the RoK/Serbia dispute, so long as it is explicitly labelled as concening the "Republic of Kosovo". So I would argue that we re-theme this as "Politics of the Republic of Kosovo", in which case the coat of arms should be restored. I'm not primarily arguing this because I want to see the pretty picture by the way: I just think it would be better to be explicitly clear that this is a RoK-themed template, and not leaving the vaguer "Kosovo" in a wider sense, since that tends to conflate the idea/location of Kosovo with the independent republic that bears the name (as dab quite correctly pointed out). TheGrappler (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Muzakaj, what are you doing? It's clear that the majority of editors think that including the emblem is biased. This is hardly surprising considering that many of the articles the template links to (UNMIK, EULEX, KFOR) relate to institutions that recognise neither Kosovan independence nor that emblem. It's only neutral to leave the emblem out for now.--Ptolion (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

But the template is absent from articles that deal with those that recognize Kosovo, and to remove it from those links is also biased, that is, biased against Kosovo. Why should we remove the template from articles that deal with Kosovo's recognition just because there are also links to KFOR, UNMIK, etc? By the way, only states recognize other states. Organizations do not have that capacity as they're not sovereign entities. --alchaemia (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Its simple. The emblem represents the "Republic of Kosovo", not "Kosovo". --DIREKTOR 16:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, especially considering that the ROK doesn't control all Kosovo.--Ptolion (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Which part of Kosovo does the ROK NOT control??? --Muzakaj (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

North Kosovo.--Ptolion (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Nice joke, but really this is an encyclopedia not a cafe in the middle of Belgrade, so let's be serious. --Muzakaj (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We're deadly serious. There is nothing at all to debate here. The word "Kosovo" does not mean "Republic of Kosovo", this is at least how the Misplaced Pages community has handled the matter. So don't use the terms as synonymous. I take it both you guys are Albanians? :) --DIREKTOR 16:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This template is not isolated. I just had a quick browse through the templates at Category:Kosovo templates. An effort appears to have been made to present the issue of ROK recognition in a biased way via these templates. Its simple:

• Templates that deal with Kosovo as a whole should not have any emblems of the Republic of Kosovo.
• Templates that deal with the Republic of Kosovo, such as Template:Foreign relations of Kosovo, should not use the term "Kosovo" as synonymous with "Republic of Kosovo". They should be renamed with "Republic of Kosovo" replacing "Kosovo" (e.g. Template:Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo) --DIREKTOR 16:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your need to insure the NPOV of the Kosovo issue, but the Misplaced Pages precedent is against it. Templates referring to South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, and other territories whose status is under dispute, ALL show a national coat of arms for the government that controls (or claims to control, take your pick), said territory as an independent state. I would strongly suggest that one of the following courses of action be taken

a) put the Kosovo CoA back on all Kosovo templates.

b) add "Republic of" to all Kosovo templates (as they apply, History of Kosovo, for example, could stay as is), and put the CoA back.

c) remove the CoAs from ALL templates that cover territories whose political status is disputed. --Astrofreak92 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A superficial view, that. The examples you brought forth plainly have no bearing on this issue whatsoever. This has little to do with Kosovo's recognition, and more with the fact that the term "Kosovo" is not synonymous with "Republic of Kosovo". This is not my opinion, but is the view expressed by the Kosovo article, reflecting the stance of the Misplaced Pages community. The "Republic of Kosovo" does not span the entirety of "Kosovo", the issue is more similar to "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland", than South Ossetia. This is a misunderstanding, I think. --DIREKTOR 00:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In terms of international politics, such as on the International recognition of Kosovo page, that is exclusively to do with the Republic of Kosovo and the coat of arms should be dispayed. It is not Kosovo the region that is being recognised, which would be silly, but the Republic of Kosovo - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said:

• if the template deals with the Republic of Kosovo alone then the CoA is ok, but it should be renamed to disambiguate between "Kosovo" and the "Republic of Kosovo" (e.g. Template:Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo).
• if it deals with the whole of Kosovo (including the RoK), then it shouldn't use the insignia of the Republic of Kosovo.

This template covers the politics of both the Republic of Kosovo and the parts of Kosovo not within the Republic of Kosovo. --DIREKTOR 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Parts not within the Republic of Kosovo? What like Brazil? IJA (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny. Are you kidding? Or do you really not know? --DIREKTOR 19:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Fellas, this is not getting you anywhere. If you think you can edit-war people into submission you are sorely mistaken. The bottom line is that "Kosovo" is not synonymous with "Republic of Kosovo" (this is mostly because of North Kosovo). Please see the Kosovo article for details ("Kosovo is a disputed territory in the Balkans."). Standards of NPOV established there will not be circumvented by utilizing the obscurity of these templates. --DIREKTOR 01:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

needs link to Politics of Kosovo never mind

The template is used at the article of the same name, but the article is not listed at the template for some reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is? In Politics and government of Kosovo, at the top... Tadija (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you are right. Why isn't it called simply "Politics of Kosovo"..... --Enric Naval (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont know... :) Tadija (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I found the edit that changed the wording. It's the wording used by Template:Politicsbox. There were some complaints back in 2006 about the wording. Dunno if I should go and protest.... --Enric Naval (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, i think that it will be OK to protest! Do you think so? :) If you need someone, i am here. Tadija (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I started writing a message, but first I made a few checks. Turns out that there several countries that their "goverment" article is just a redirect to their "politics" article, like Armenia and Egypt. So it's unlikely that the template is changed :( --Enric Naval (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Enric Naval, see above, this article is a bit questionable, so, it may be better to leave it for now... As those are not politics of whole Kosovo, it's just for the self proclaimed Republic of Kosovo. Tadija (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection

This template is protected, yet again. Please, if you have a problem with the template, discuss it here rather than entering into an edit war.

I don't need to remind you that pages related to Kosovo are subject to article probation. As it says at the top of this page, If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. In theory, given that edit warring is disruptive editing, I or any other admin could ban any of the edit-warring editors. I don't want to do that, and it would be an extreme measure. Consider this a yellow card caution, and - as I said above - discuss, don't edit-war. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a group that, due to an apparent lack of arguments(?), seems to be trying to simply force the coat of arms of the Republic of Kosovo on this template by edit-warring over it. This is something like using the coat of arms of the Republic of Ireland to represent the island of Ireland, as you can see here (this template has links that cover the politics of the entire region of Kosovo, i.e. the whole of the "island of Ireland", if you will :). The relative obscurity of this template is the main reason why this problem exists at all - such POV would be immediately discarded on the main Kosovo article, I imagine. I've kept making appeals for a shift to the talkpage, but with little result thus far. --DIREKTOR 23:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this protection (which is a fairly long one - three months) will encourage them to discuss any changes here. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This template should be updated...

...since the recent ICJ decision which had take place in The Hague regarding Kosovo independence, and also to bring the infobox in line with other governments which are even less-recognized internationally than Kosovo (like South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria and Northern Cyprus):

Template:Start sidebar pageTemplate:Politbox |align=left| Political status of Kosovo

• Declaration of independence
  • Diplomatic response
• UNSC Resolution 1244
• Kosovo status process
• Standards for Kosovo

• UNMIK · EULEX · KFOR
• International Steering Group
  • International Civilian Rep.
    • Pieter Feith
• Kosovo Protection Corps
• Kosovo Police
• Kosovo Security Force

• Anthem of Kosovo "Europe"
• Constitution
• President
  • Fatmir Sejdiu
• Government
  • Prime Minister
    • Hashim Thaçi
• Assembly
  • Chairman
    • Jakup Krasniqi
• Foreign relations
• Political parties
• Kosovan passport
• Elections:
  • Parliamentary: 2001, 2004, 2007
  • Local: 2007, 2008, 2009
• Provisional Institutions
• Subdivisions of Kosovo
  • Districts
  • Municipalities

|-

| style="border-top:1px solid;font-size:80%;"| See also Portal:Politics   

• v
• t
• e

|- |} Template:End sidebar page

I agree that the template should be updated to restore Kosovo's coat of arms. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...since the recent ICJ decision was only non binding advisory opinion, coat of arms should not be inserted as this template deals with politics of ALL kosovo, not just self-proclaimed Republic. Provisional Institutions, Elections since 2001, UNMIK... It will be quite a failure to inserted it, and we have consensus here not to add Kosovo CoA in this kind of templates. --Tadija 10:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Canadian Bobby, the template should show Kosovos flag and coat of arms. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. I already explained here how the coat-less template is out of line with all the other country templates. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why in the world should the ICJ decision have any say in Misplaced Pages? But regardless, as always there are two options. The template can either cover Kosovo as a whole or the Republic of Kosovo.

• If it covers the Republic of Kosovo it can sport the RoK coat of arms etc, but it has to be clearly defined as a template on the "Politics of the Republic of Kosovo".
• If it covers Kosovo as a whole it cannot sport the coat of arms of the Republic of Kosovo, but its definition as a template covering the "Politics of Kosovo" remains valid.

Anything else of course means equating the Republic of Kosovo with Kosovo, which is contrary to Misplaced Pages's definition and establsihed long-term consensus on the issue. ("Kosovo is a disputed territory in the Balkans. The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo, a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory.") It would be like equating China with the People's Republic of China, or Ireland with the Republic of Ireland (see e.g. Politics of the Republic of Ireland). It seems necessary to put a stop to the incessant Albanian "lobbying" on this issue. --DIREKTOR 12:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Template-Class Serbia pages
• NA-importance Serbia pages
• WikiProject Serbia articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Template-Class Kosovo pages
• NA-importance Kosovo pages
• WikiProject Kosovo articles
• Template-Class politics pages
• NA-importance politics pages
• WikiProject Politics articles