Revision as of 10:45, 14 September 2009 editDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 edits →Borders with...← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:14, 15 September 2009 edit undoSulmues (talk | contribs)22,787 edits →There is a standard on wikipediaNext edit → | ||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
:::::I agree with Canadian Bobby here, there should be consistency between partially recognised countries on Misplaced Pages. It is unfair to represent Kosovo in one way and represent all other partially recognised states in another more superior ways ] (]) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | :::::I agree with Canadian Bobby here, there should be consistency between partially recognised countries on Misplaced Pages. It is unfair to represent Kosovo in one way and represent all other partially recognised states in another more superior ways ] (]) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::::Ok, I am summarizing the above agreement to put flag and COA on top of the infobox as follows: | |||
{{agree}}] ] | |||
{{disagree}}]] | |||
{{agree}}] ] | |||
{{agree}}] ] | |||
{{agree}}] ] | |||
{{agree}}] ] | |||
{{agree}}] ] | |||
{{agree}}] | |||
It seems like a broad agreement 7-1 (seven to one). Any others who would disagree? I'll wait for some days and then I'll make the change, or if someone feels that there is broad agreement, please feel free to put COA and flag of Kosovo on top of the first infobox. ] ]-- 13:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Culture? == | == Culture? == |
Revision as of 13:14, 15 September 2009
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kosovo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
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:
|
Useful information for 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Second Pillar of Misplaced Pages
When I joined Misplaced Pages I was told there are certain values we need to uphold. I see no neutrality in this article, it needs a complete lockdown and rewrite to emphasize neutrality, especially on a sensitive topic like this. It is far too pro-secession to be anywhere near impartial. Fix it or delete it, but it can't stay like this. Jenga3 (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BOLD also good luck IJA (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a standard on wikipedia
for all states that FLAG and Coat of Arms are in TOP the flag have to be in top then the map --Lontech (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
check
http://en.wikipedia.org/United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/France
http://en.wikipedia.org/Italy
http://en.wikipedia.org/Germany
same standard for flag --Lontech (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Those countries are formally recognized by practically every country in the world. J.delanoyadds 21:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
...--Lontech (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Israel is also recognized by nearly all countries in the world. Kosovo is not recognized by at least two permanent members of the UN Security Council, besides a good number of other countries. J.delanoyadds 22:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then check out TRNC, it has no UN-seat and it is only recognized by 1(ONE!) country, nevertheless it has it's countrybox on top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.24.97 (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Recognition is a mere satisfaction of the statehood, establishment of security, and active a more an ability to cohabit with with those you desire rather those you need to. In the case of Kosovo, which fulfills the criteria of a state, enjoys its sovereignity in its very definition. Switzerland did not care about what Security of Council of some organization did not join until 2002 really had to say or decide. One of the permanent members, PR China defacto recognizes Kosovo passports, their Vienna and other Embassies issue visas on diplomatic and citizens on the Passport of the Republic of Kosovo. China's liaison office in the Republic of Kosovo, suggests citizens that obtaining visa, they must go to Consulate of PRC Embassy in Vienna, Austria. --SpanishBoy2006 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
@J.delanoy at Least are three USA, UK, and France that recognized KOSOVO also its only first year for Some of the Yugoslav republics took up to 4 years to get the first recognition Kosovo is very succesfull with recognitions only within a year took about 60 recognition
about 40 states dont recognize ISRAEL LOL is there a LIMIT to put STATES on wikipedia you will put limit for kosovo untill kosovo reaches for example that number LOL
being a state doesnt mean to be recognized by everyone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lontech (talk • contribs) 00:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
If u dont put flag on top i think this would be PURE discrimination —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lontech (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
So, Kosova or Kosovo isn't a state because UN says so? What if the UN disbands tomorrow? Is UK a STATE, what about Italy, Spain or Mexico? The POV pushers seem to be pushing different "standards" to fit their interests. As a commenter stated Swiss was not a UN member until 1992. China isn't recognized by 21 countries. Taiwan, etc. Again, I thought WP had WP rules & guidelines not those of United Nations. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Check Scotland. It isn't recognized by ANY other country and it still 1) is a COUNTRY in Misplaced Pages; 2) has FLAG and Coat of Arms on TOP. Stop contraddicting Wiki rules at Serbian pleasure. --66.65.213.82 (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I changed from "state" to "country". If Scotland is a country, so is Kosovo.sulmues (talk-- 01:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is NOT a forum! --Cinéma C 02:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why doesn't Kosovo just have a standard country flag,map, state page - If South Ossetia can have it i dont see why Kosovo can't. Also England, USA and many other english speaking countries (that use english wikipedia) recognise it ? (Neostinker (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC))
- Anyone is against putting the Flag and Coat of Arms on top? Please let me know, I'm trying to build a consensus that Flag and Coat of Arms stay on top as Misplaced Pages standard requires. Agree or disagree?Sulmues (talk 18:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've wondered the same thing. Why does Kosovo have all of these provisoes, stars and extra notes when South Ossetia and Abkhazia are treated like normal countries? I'm asking this in good faith and would like a straightforward answer. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone is against putting the Flag and Coat of Arms on top? Please let me know, I'm trying to build a consensus that Flag and Coat of Arms stay on top as Misplaced Pages standard requires. Agree or disagree?Sulmues (talk 18:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Canadian Bobby here, there should be consistency between partially recognised countries on Misplaced Pages. It is unfair to represent Kosovo in one way and represent all other partially recognised states in another more superior ways IJA (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I am summarizing the above agreement to put flag and COA on top of the infobox as follows:
AgreeLontech talk DisagreeJ.delanoy AgreeUser:SpanishBoy2006 talk AgreeAri d'Kosova talk Agreesulmues talk AgreeNeostinker talk Agreetalk talk AgreeIJA It seems like a broad agreement 7-1 (seven to one). Any others who would disagree? I'll wait for some days and then I'll make the change, or if someone feels that there is broad agreement, please feel free to put COA and flag of Kosovo on top of the first infobox. sulmues talk-- 13:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Culture?
Why isn't there no sub or any reference concerning the culture in Kosovo. Like its fine arts,its cuisine and the folklore of Kosovo. Almost half of this article is focused around the political status of Kosovo.
I also think that the history section is too long and needs to be trimmed down. 91.179.159.212 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is Misplaced Pages - the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Feel free to add referenced text about Kosovo's culture. --Cinéma C 22:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Demographics
Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and don't know how to change things. I just noticed that something is wrong in the table on the right side of the article. If the population of Kosovo is 2,100,000 and the area is 10,908 square kilometers, I don't see how the population density can be 220 per square km.
2,100,000 divided by 10,908 makes 192,5.
Please correct me if I'm wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.219.134 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- 2,100,000 is a rough estimate. The population estimates range from whom you ask between 1,800,000 to 2,100,000. At the time when that info was added (provided by me) the land area was also disputed between Kosova & Macedonia; land dispute was 10,882km2 to 10,908km. Hopefully this clarifies your question. SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Infobox
I find it POV that articles such as the unrecognized Somaliland have their infoboxes upfront, yet a country with substantial recognition does not. Fonda4ever (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the infobox is upfront. Jarkeld (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Two more issues
I agree with what was raised earlier about History of Kosovo being very long. It should be trimmed down to really basic points. Furthermore, Pjetër Bogdani was a really important figure in Kosovo's struggle against Otoman Empire. So the claim that only Serbs fought against Otoman Rule is fallacious. AnnaFabiano (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody has claimed that Serbs fought alone against the Ottomans. All of the sources concerning the handover of power from Ottomans to Serbs ratified at London in 1913 refer to the Balkan League alliance in which the Kingdom of Serbia fought alongside three allies. Kosovo so to speak did not struggle against anybody, Kosovo was simply the name of a region within which ethnic Albanians and Serbs lived. Quite naturally, each nation served its own interest and Albanians too certainly played their part in ousting the Turks through their period of uprising which I believe began in 1911 - prior to the First Balkan War. To mention Albanian heroes would certainly make interesting reading, but it does not sit well with your original suggestion in that the history section should be reduced: if you wish to add Bogdani's contributions you will have to expand it. Kosovo's history is so diverse that it is impossible to give an overview to every important chapter and keep it short at the same time. And since Ottoman Kosovo passed directly to Serbia/Montenegro, this too cannot be ignored. Evlekis (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is what the text says: "The Serb population never accepted Ottoman rule and often rose against the foreign regimen" VS. "Albanians had little cause of unrest" ...you can read the whole thing, more focused on "Ottoman Kosovo (1455–1912)". Not considering Pjetër Bogdani who lead a rebellion against Otoman occupation, there was a really huge group of organised Albanians who fought against Turks (], Bajram Curri, Hasan Prishtina). I could expand the text in this direction (especially for the period after 1878).
- Also, in a number of occasions the term Kosovo and Metohija is used. It is agreed upon that it is not politically correct to use that term. AnnaFabiano (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed the last thing. AnnaFabiano (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Borders with...
I started a corresponding thread on Serbia's discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Serbia#Borders_with... Please chime in. July 2009 developments cited here : Serbia has agreed to set up a full operational border and custom control with its southern neighbor, the Republic of Kosovo. Serbia's interior minister during a press conference emphasized that Serbia has agreed to set up a border and custom control with Kosovo as one of the requirements by the European Union commission. clearly suggest that claiming in our article that Kosovo borders with Central Serbia is POVization. If there is an international border agreed to here, clearly border control is taking place, and Kosovo borders on Serbia and Serbia on Kosovo. Thoughts? --Mareklug 11:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, it's completely POV pushing to say that it borders Central Serbia instead of Serbia. <sarcasm>It's unfair for other neighboring countries, when the article says: "Kosovo is landlocked and bordered by the Republic of Macedonia to the south, Albania to the west, the region of Central Serbia to the north and east, and Montenegro to the Northwest.", it doesn't point out with which parts of these countries Kosovo borders.</sarcasm> I Agree that Serbia in this case should be treated as the other bordering countries. Thank you. kedadial 15:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would advise a concensus here before any alterations, otherwise we may have similar edit disputes like the ones recently witnessed. I fear that any reference to Serbia as a whole being outside of Kosovo - which is what is being implied - will result in further disturbances on Kosovo status related issues. The vast majority of articles which mention Kosovo contain an immediate footnote explaining the situation of Kosovo. To state that Kosovo borders Serbia would not require this message; therefore you could even amend the opening sentence to replace "disputed territory" with "country". I see a pattern emerging here. Supporters of Kosovan independence will rally behind "borders Serbia" and opponents will reject it. I think the problem here is too many people are getting carried away with the fact that Belgrade's parliament has commissioned border transits along the Kosovo frontier. Although pressured into taking such measure from outside, it doesn't change the fact that police and customs control had been in place on Kosovo's exits ever since the 1999 handover to the UN. Serbia however continues to recognise its central region as bordering one of its premises administered by UNMIK. So the recognition is of UNMIK - rather like the Ottoman Empire observing the Austro-Hungarian occupation and administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1878 and 1908 after which the Habsburgs decided to make it theirs. Either way, the Ottomans didn't recognise an independent Bosnia. Evlekis (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's still refereed to as an administrative border. Recent changes towards that only reflect upon the upcoming visa liberation for citizens of Serbia starting 1st January 2010 and increased security measures and people control on the administrative line due to high crime/drug/human trafficking and other political problems in Kosovo. wexy (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would advise a concensus here before any alterations, otherwise we may have similar edit disputes like the ones recently witnessed. I fear that any reference to Serbia as a whole being outside of Kosovo - which is what is being implied - will result in further disturbances on Kosovo status related issues. The vast majority of articles which mention Kosovo contain an immediate footnote explaining the situation of Kosovo. To state that Kosovo borders Serbia would not require this message; therefore you could even amend the opening sentence to replace "disputed territory" with "country". I see a pattern emerging here. Supporters of Kosovan independence will rally behind "borders Serbia" and opponents will reject it. I think the problem here is too many people are getting carried away with the fact that Belgrade's parliament has commissioned border transits along the Kosovo frontier. Although pressured into taking such measure from outside, it doesn't change the fact that police and customs control had been in place on Kosovo's exits ever since the 1999 handover to the UN. Serbia however continues to recognise its central region as bordering one of its premises administered by UNMIK. So the recognition is of UNMIK - rather like the Ottoman Empire observing the Austro-Hungarian occupation and administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1878 and 1908 after which the Habsburgs decided to make it theirs. Either way, the Ottomans didn't recognise an independent Bosnia. Evlekis (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
last time I checked it was disputed whether Kosovo was part of Serbia. If that's still the case, you can hardly logically claim that Kosovo borders on Serbia without the qualification that this is the view of one side in a dispute. We also do not claim in Misplaced Pages's voice that Kashmir borders on Pakistan, for example. --dab (𒁳) 14:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I recommend that for the moment, we stall on this topic. Try to avoid it, if we can. It may be unfair to suggest that Kosovo borders Central Serbia, so we can find a better way of rephrasing it. For instance: Kosovo is disupted by Serbia, the territory otherwise borders Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia - all of whom recognise Kosovo. This way you can avoid mention of Serbia bordering and cut out references to Central Serbia at the same time. Evlekis (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'v been observing this discussion for a while (without taking part) and this last idea from Evlekis seems pretty neutral! —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Evlekis and Anna. --Cinéma C 18:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks both of you. I've made one attempt to rephrase the text at this stage. I must admit that giving the full picture using as few words as possible is difficult. In addition, nobody wishes to prolong all this discussion that Serbia disputes Kosovo yet it is equally misleading to disclude it on important issues. The whole situation is ugly to say the least. By stating that Kosovo forms a continuous land with Serbia, I am not suggesting that Kosovo is or is not part of Serbia. It is just to indicate that the land is attached. If this were an island group (such as the Comoros), the breakaway territory may have been an entire island (such as Anjouan); equally this island's independence was disputed by the Comoros (before retaking it) but it could never have been said that Anjouan bordered the Comoros - only through a maritime boundry. I accept that this revision of mine may need work, so feel free to poke at it. Evlekis (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree too, but I would like to note that the statement that Kosovo borders on Serbia proper is simply a geographic fact and holds true regardless of whether you accept Kosovo's independence. This is another instance of the perpetual confusion of the state with its territory. The status of the Republic of Kosovo is disputed by the Republic of Serbia. It is not "Kosovo, the territory" that is disputed by "Serbia, the territory". These are pieces of land that may be the object, but not the agent in a dispute. If you squat a room in my house, it is not the living room that disputes the attic, it is my claim to the attic vs. your claim to the attic. The attic will still be located above the living room no matter whose claim has more merit. --dab (𒁳) 06:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- That is a very scientific example. Your point is clear. I suppose that Serbia minus Vojvodina and Kosovo had always been classed as Serbia-proper all be it unofficial. To be honest, even Central Serbia is wholly unofficial in any context. This is rather like England within the United Kingdom - the other home nations all having some form of self-rule but you have no purely English parliament or authority. But the question is, how do we present this scenario in such a way that we respect both the Serbian continued claim on the land as well as the opposing claim of independence? This is more about choosing careful words and avoiding the assertive attitudes upon which we acted on previous issues. Evlekis (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose "Serbia proper" is a bit like "England proper", but then Kosovo would be a bit like a hypothetical Cornwall with the Cornish-speaking population having risen to 90% claiming they are not part of England any longer but a separate Celtic nation. We would then have "England proper" being "England sans the Cornish-majority bits of Cornwall". --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- That is a very scientific example. Your point is clear. I suppose that Serbia minus Vojvodina and Kosovo had always been classed as Serbia-proper all be it unofficial. To be honest, even Central Serbia is wholly unofficial in any context. This is rather like England within the United Kingdom - the other home nations all having some form of self-rule but you have no purely English parliament or authority. But the question is, how do we present this scenario in such a way that we respect both the Serbian continued claim on the land as well as the opposing claim of independence? This is more about choosing careful words and avoiding the assertive attitudes upon which we acted on previous issues. Evlekis (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree too, but I would like to note that the statement that Kosovo borders on Serbia proper is simply a geographic fact and holds true regardless of whether you accept Kosovo's independence. This is another instance of the perpetual confusion of the state with its territory. The status of the Republic of Kosovo is disputed by the Republic of Serbia. It is not "Kosovo, the territory" that is disputed by "Serbia, the territory". These are pieces of land that may be the object, but not the agent in a dispute. If you squat a room in my house, it is not the living room that disputes the attic, it is my claim to the attic vs. your claim to the attic. The attic will still be located above the living room no matter whose claim has more merit. --dab (𒁳) 06:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks both of you. I've made one attempt to rephrase the text at this stage. I must admit that giving the full picture using as few words as possible is difficult. In addition, nobody wishes to prolong all this discussion that Serbia disputes Kosovo yet it is equally misleading to disclude it on important issues. The whole situation is ugly to say the least. By stating that Kosovo forms a continuous land with Serbia, I am not suggesting that Kosovo is or is not part of Serbia. It is just to indicate that the land is attached. If this were an island group (such as the Comoros), the breakaway territory may have been an entire island (such as Anjouan); equally this island's independence was disputed by the Comoros (before retaking it) but it could never have been said that Anjouan bordered the Comoros - only through a maritime boundry. I accept that this revision of mine may need work, so feel free to poke at it. Evlekis (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class Kosovo articles
- Top-importance Kosovo articles
- WikiProject Kosovo articles
- B-Class Serbia articles
- Top-importance Serbia articles
- WikiProject Serbia articles
- B-Class Europe articles
- High-importance Europe articles
- WikiProject Europe articles