Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 97.82.155.14 (talk) at 21:38, 11 November 2008 (→Beside the point?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Article probation

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

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Kosovo. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Kosovo at the Reference desk.

Kosovo received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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) Kosova Republic of Kosovo Kosovo (geopolitical region)

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

• • It seems the main entry has been defaced. It must be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.200.200 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

UN 2/3 majority

Pardon my ignorance. From my brief glance through a few papers it looks like the UN General Assembly could grant Kosovo membership if 2/3 of the nations approve. Why then is this not stated anywhere in the sections relating to independence. My only explanation is that the 2/3 general assembly vote can be overturned by the UNSC which does not sound too reasonable to me. Can anyone offer insight on this in the event that I am wrong in my reasoning. If I am right, then why do we not add this info to the independence section. Thanks

From the wiki article on the general assembly: Voting in the General Assembly on important questions – recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; budgetary matters – is by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. Other questions are decided by majority vote XJeanLuc (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Because a couple of editors here have a strong bias and want to make the situation look as pessimistic for Kosovo as possible. Good find! --alchaemia (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a couple of days, there seems to be a debate at the UN General Assembly soon. If there is any development there, the article should be updated. --Tone 10:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that its a matter of pessimism for not including this data. I still don't know if this is or is not how the general assembly vote works. Like Tone suggested I'll wait for the articles that come out after the 8 October session of the UN when they discuss the legality of the situation. XJeanLuc (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The big question to be answered is: can an eventual Kosovo accession approval voting process in the UN General Assembly be blocked or vetoed by Russia… or not?--BalkanWalker (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo's not even close to a 2/3rds majority. Not even halfway there. UN has 192 members, 2/3rds would be 128. It's 51 at the moment, not even halfway there. In addition, both Russian and China (due to Tibet/Taiwan) will veto Kosovo on the security council. Furthermore Russia/China can veto any proposition to which Kosovo won't abstain, thus making Kosovo a de-facto non-entity in the UN. There is no way that Northern Kosovo where most of the Serbs live will go with Kosovo, just like the Kosovars, they too can secede. In addition the International Court of Justice is still to vote on Kosovo. With the Global Economy declining, the US's popularity's declining, and Kosovo's doing so as well. All of the above are facts; and the answer to your question BalkanWalker - is yes. Russia/China can either block it at admittance, or veto any proposition that Kosovo votes on. Moral of the story: Unilateral Declarations - not a great idea. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

50, not 51. And northern Kosovo cannot secede. They live in Serbia, why would they secede from Serbia? I support your "moral", but not the argument that economy or Russia/China ... The reason is the 143 countries (=192+Vatican-50), including EU and NATO members. Moral: they (Serbia, Kosovo, EU, US) were tired of negociations, so they wanted to end them and throw the problem to somebody else. Dc76\ 23:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. However it is 51, United Arab Emirates just recognized Kosovo. Also 2/3rds of 192 would be 128. If Vatican gets to vote, it would be 129. And if you don't think the economy has anything to do with it, you might want to see the reasons that Costa Rica, Liberia, Belize, Nauru, Burkina Faso, etc. recognized Kosovo. I somehow doubt that getting a sweet deal from the World Bank due to free lobbying by US lawyers on their behalf, did not impact Costa Rica's UN vote on Kosovo. Also, has to be 2/3rds overall, there is no -50. However, the thing is that when new governments come to power in the European countries, such as party switches, they may 'unrecognize' Kosovo as well. Hasn't happened yet, but I predict that some of the ones I listed may just do that within a year. And 51 to 141 is still not too high of a score. And EU's never tired of negotiations. US - Bush wanted to be successful at something, he has yet to achieve that. Serbia and Kosovo - you're probably right. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many countried recognise Kosovo. If a country applies to join the UN, they must be approved by the Security council BEFORE the general assembly will even vote on it. So without Russia or China's approval, the general assmebly will never come into play. In theory, 191 UN member states could recognise Kosovo, but one veto is all that's needed to stop them joining the UN.Guitar3000 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

ICJ case

Why not include it into the article? --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's do that. --GOD OF JUSTICE 16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ thing certainly does not belong in the introduction of the article; it simply isn't that important. At best, it belongs in the "International reaction..." subheading. --alchaemia (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very important and must be included in the intro. --Litany (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it mustn't. Beam 03:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec - you are splitting recognition by UN Members vs. non-UN Members, at the same time trying to ignore the ICJ, a UN entity? Double Standards much? "The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Include what? So far the ICJ has said nothing about the declaration of independence, what are you talking about? Colchicum (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=28492&Cr=Kosovo&Cr1= "UN World Court to give opinion on legality of Kosovo’s independence" 8 October 2008 – The General Assembly voted today to ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a non-binding advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia.

At UN Headquarters, 77 Member States voted in favour of the resolution – which was put forward by Serbia – and six voted against, with 74 abstentions. Today’s meeting heard from nearly two dozen speakers, including Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremić. Kosovo, which has been administered by the UN since Western forces drove out Yugoslav forces amid inter-ethnic fighting in 1999, declared its independence in February. At last month’s annual high-level General Debate, Serbian President Boris Tadić said that as a result of Kosovo’s “unilateral, illegal illegitimate” move, “the very nature of the international system has been called into question.” Cause if Serbia wins, Kosovo's cannot legally join the UN, period. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not an opinion on Kosovo's independence, it is merely an address to the ICJ, which doesn't merit inclusion in the intro. Wait a year or so, and then we will see. Colchicum (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Official UN Article Title (from UN News Centre):"UN World Court to give opinion on legality of Kosovo’s independence"

Colchium's response: "It is not an opinion on Kosovo's independence"

I'm confused! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well since no one wants to explain to me why the ICJ Case should not be included in the article - go ahead and include it. It's been well over 48 hours. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ has not yet produced any opinion. The ICJ has not yet produced any opinion. The ICJ has not yet produced any opinion. As of now there is nothing to write about. Wait a year or so. Colchicum (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ case is under review of the UN. The ICJ case is under review of the UN. The ICJ case is under review of the UN. 77 UN nations, more then recognized Kosovo, voted so. 77 UN nations, more then recognized Kosovo, voted so. 77 UN nations, more then recognized Kosovo, voted so. I don't see why that shouldn't be included. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in the introduction "Serbia, backed by..., has asked for an advisory opinion" is not factually correct. Serbia hasn't asked anything from ICJ. General Assembly of the United Nations has asked for an advisory opinion. True, this was adopted as a proposal from Serbia, but from the point of adoption, this is not Serbia's request, it is a request from the UN GA and Serbia has the same standing in this request as every other UN member. So I would suggest to change this to "Supporting a proposal from Serbia, the General Assembly of the United Nations has asked for an advisory opinion...", or something like that. --Dzordzm (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Posting it in the Article. Thank you for that helpful suggestion! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert that, and remove any mention of the ICJ from the intro. It does not belong there, an introduction is just that: an introduction to the article. Please further discuss any future placement of ICJ occurrences prior to inclusion. Thanks, I appreciate you being cool enough to discuss this prior to taking further action. Beam 04:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:

Likewise, Serbia, backed by over a third of the UN states, has asked the UN International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on "the legality of the declaration under international law".

Beam 04:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Beam how you took further action, prior to discussing this. And the vote was 77-6-74, which is a blowout, and you placing "backed by over a third of the UN" doesn't really show the gravity of the 77 to 6 situation. Furthermore, it should be in the intro, since it is Serbia's answer and UN's reaction to Kosovo's Unilateral Declaration of Independence. Or are pro-Kosovo editors now going to tell me it wasn't unilateral? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What blowout? What gravity? Listen, it is very simple. They haven't voted for or against Kosovo's independence, they decided whether they should ask the ICJ for an opinion on that matter. It is perfectly ok to recognize Kosovo and to ask the ICJ for an opinion at the same time, as Norway did. Note that even Norway hasn't revoked its recognition, let alone the abstaining states. Colchicum (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Colchium - stop edit-warring

If you have a problem with my edit discuss it here, don't type "not here" and undo it. We had an extended discussion on the edit that I did above, and you had a right to state your viewpoint, which you failed to do. Then you went in and undid my edit, which again everyone could have argued for or against here. You failed to do so, and undid my edit without warning. Please respond and state your actions and why you acted so. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not true that I have ever reverted you. I moved your information down (see here), because it wasn't appropriate for the introduction for the reasons discussed above. I am afraid this is not your pet project, and you will need to gain a consensus first. Colchicum (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he's right. It's not going there. Please remove this talk section, and continue the discussion above. I have removed that "stuff" from the intro altogether. It doesn't belong there at all. Beam 04:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Beam, saying "he's right" and "that stuff doesn't belong there at all" isn't in any way, shape or form acceptable on Misplaced Pages. You have to explain why, which you have failed to do. Even some of your previous comments "No, it mustn't" are not acceptable for a Misplaced Pages editor. You must explain why, otherwise those comments will rightfully be ignored. You are not my sovereign, and I won't simply obey your orders. Nor are your statements facts of law. This talk section stays, until either Colchium explains himself or undoes his edit. And if you want to participate, I recommend that you start explaining too, instead of just giving orders. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I explained it above, perhaps you should read before you post? I'll repeat it though: It's the introduction to the article. It should introduce the article. What you would like to appear in the introduction, does not belong. Perhaps somewhere in the body of the article, but not in the introduction. I see as it blatantly obvious it doesn't go there, as I'm sure many others do, and have stated as much. Beam 07:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that since the introduction mentions Kosovo's Declaration of Independence, it should also mention the ICJ case. It's called a logical chain of events. So either Kosovo's Declaration of Independence should not be mentioned in the article, or the response of the International Community should. You may love Unilateral Declarations and Unilaterals Actions, but there are quite a few who do not. I am still waiting for Colchium to respond here. You cannot, Beam, simply put A in the intro, and not put B, becuase you like A more then B, you either put both, or don't put both. And if you noticed, I qouted your post from before, ergo I had to read it, - perhaps you should comprehend posts before answering. Anyways, Colchium - I await your response. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As explained above, as of now there is no ICJ case, there is only a petition to open such a case. I am sorry if you fail to comprehend this. Colchicum (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are no responses with decent explanations, I will view that as a green light to undo the edits after 24 hours, I think that's more then fair. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to pay much attention to your personal attacks, at least as long as you misspell my username. Read the disclaimer very carefully:

"Please be very careful in editing the introduction of this article. The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. While this occurred in 2006, it was never lifted; thus, this page is still under probation. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. See the talk page for more information.

Please also note that the current delicate (and controversial) political situation of Kosovo makes the terms of article probation all the more important. DO NOT ENGAGE IN EDIT-WARRING ON THIS ARTICLE or any related articles. Edit-warring on this article will result in immediate blocking and application of additional sanctions under the terms of probation as administrators and/or the community deem appropriate. Thank you.

Prior to a change (other than minor edits), discussion NEEDS to take place. PRIOR TO not afterwards. Please address such controversial edits within the Talk Page first."

And this: In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Colchicum (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I ask you to explain the reasoning and you respond with a threat. Intriguing. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Any discussion prior to me making the change Colchicum or Beam? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

50 countries

50 countries recognized Kosovo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.95.210 (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

51, to be more precisely or do you consider Taiwan not a country? --80.152.236.156 (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is not an internationally recognized country, and not a member of UN. — Emil J. 10:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless it is a country. --80.152.236.156 (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It simply a government that claims to represent China.--Certh (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan has nothing to do with it. The total is 51 UN Member States, not including Taiwan, which would make it 52 if included in that list (See International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo).--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I may correct you, the number is 52 (Malayisa) and with Taiwan it would be 53. --84.56.253.128 (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, at the time this conversation took place Malaysia had not yet recognized, but you are right, the numbers have changed. The point, in response to the original comment, is that the "official" list of states used on the "International Reaction" page show UN-member states, and does not include Taiwan in the same category.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Recognition by Montenegro and Macedonia has demoralized Serbia or in other words, to Serbia it is like throwing the A Bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.205.64 (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

THis whole page needs to be updates because it has the whole history and status of Kosova (not Kosovo) under the point of view of Serbs. Also, i do not like the map of Kosova as a small reagionunder Serbia, as it is not it's historical map or present map. Please unlock this so that the 2008 updates get in place,a nd the History of Kosova is clarified and not "Serb"-nised. Also, please remove the double name on the cities. They are Albanian names and written and read in Albanian, and stay like that, they don't need translation in serbian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.74.170 (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The UN calls it Kosovo. Is the UN a tool of Serbian Propaganda? If it is, why did Kosovo's leadership support Resolution 1244? Is Thaci a tool of Serbian Propaganda too? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

“partially recognised region”

Well, countries around the world haven’t been recognizing Kosovo as a region, but as an independent country. The term “region” is non-precise, since Serbia, Russia do also recognize Kosovo as a region — a region of of Serbia.

So I think country would be a more precise term for describing Kosovo… or, at least, something like a region partially recognized as an independent country.--BalkanWalker (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that 'region' does not apply at all. A better term would be 'state' or 'country', as those states recognizing Kosovo do as as a state/country, not a region. I would say '...a partially-recognized state.' --alchaemia (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. BalkanWalker's proposal is reasonable. --Tone 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, two. --84.56.251.225 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Sounds logical--Lilonius (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I don't understand why it was changed in the first place... Emto (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and why does nobody change it now? What are we waiting for? --84.56.251.225 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is getting more and more POV, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are countries but not Kosovo? Emto (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is really a shame how some pro Serbian fanatics take this article for so long time as a hostage. Shame on them. Everybody trying to make this article more neutral is getting blocked/banned by this few pro Serbian administrators at Misplaced Pages. --Tubesship (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about: "region, partially recognized as a country". Sounds more precise and does not label the place one way or the other. Its best to be as clear as possible here. --DIREKTOR 10:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

sigh, can we just revert it back to the way it was? The thing is that Kosovo is a region, while the Republic of Kosovo is a partly-recognized recent institution. Using "Kosovo" as shorthand for "Republic of Kosovo" is misleading and implies the pro-recognition pov. Precisely because there is a dispute, it is imperative to consistently use "Republic of Kosovo" when the 2008 Republic is referred to. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out more clearly where "region, partially recognized as a country" is incorrect or POV towards either side of the dispute? --DIREKTOR 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I will point it out clearly: it is incorrect and pov due to the fact that other "partially recognized countries," having far less recognition than Kosovo, are labelled as such, using the standard terminology, while Kosovo is singled out for special terminology. The simple fact is, the phrase "partially recognized" already implies that not everyone considers it a "country," it is only partial, so it is neutral and non-pov. It is not saying Kosovo IS a country, it is saying it is partially recognized as such by some countries, which is true, and Kosovo is in de facto control over its territory, not Serbia. That does not mean it is technically wrong to call it a region or a provice, or that it is technically wrong to call it a "region partially recognized as a country," only that it is wrong to mutilate the common, widely used terminology that applies to all partially-recognized states, simply because a faction of people are offended that the word "country" appear anywhere near Kosovo, even if this is the accepted way of saying it in the case of other entities with less international recognition.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

By that rationale, every country is first a region, and only then a country/state. We should then use "Germany is a region" for the article about Germany, and then have a section about the Federal Republic of Germany. Needless to say, it is pointless and a bad idea. --alchaemia (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is not Germany. While a country is a country and a region is a region, Kosovo is considered to be a region by half of the world and a country by the other half. It is only natural that we mention this "duality" in the lead. --DIREKTOR 07:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And Germany is not South Africa. Your point? A country is a political project, not a final parameter of territory. Its size and shape can change, it can acquire or lose territory. It is, first and foremost, a region and only then a country, often times composed of several regions. The current definition is fine, for now. Should more recognitions follow, we can think about removing "partially-recognized" from the name completely. --alchaemia (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My point was that Germany is recognized as a country by 100% of the world's countries, while Kosovo is considered independent by circa 25% of the world's countries. Hence, the analogy with Germany, or South Africa for that matter, is incorrect. --DIREKTOR 06:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't partially-recognized be there unless it is completely recognised? Nikola (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be a decision based on consensus. I really can't figure out when it would be neutral enough to remove it. Is a majority of UN states recognizing enough ? Not all countries' recognitions have the same weight, say for instance that the number reaches 130, but Russia, China and India having not yet recognized. European countries play a more important role also i think, say if Europe becomes unanimous with the few states that don't recognize changing their position, it would not be a controversial issue anymore inside the EU and NATO, of course with Serbia still not recognizing problems will exist. These are just some factors, a more vague answer would be, when and if "partially recognized" becomes generally less notable. Meaning, the sources we use here to handle Kosovo's independence as something that doesn't raise so much controversy anymore, that will be the time...--Zakronian (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not until we have the same for the PRC, which is not recognized by 23 states. --alchaemia (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is childish. Please stop it, ok? You don't recognize a "region", you recognize a government as holding sovereignty over some specific region. It is idiotic to say a "region is partly recognized" as anything. Keep a clean difference between Kosovo the toponym (which doesn't need recognition by anyone, it simply sits there), and the Republic of Kosovo, the 2008 institution. There has been a huge debate on whether keep Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo separate to avoid exactly this sort of pointless debate, but the pro-independence crownd insisted the articles remain merged. I don't care if they do so, but as long as they do, be very sure to point out the difference between the two, right there in the lead. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The only childish thing here is your request to separate Kosovo, the region, from Kosovo, the country. They're one and all since Kosovo the country is exactly as big as Kosovo the region. You can make that request on something like Macedonia, for example, which is a region separated into three smaller regions with Macedonia, the state, claiming only a part of it. That's not the case with Kosovo, where Kosovo the country claims and has all of Kosovo under its direct or indirect control. --alchaemia (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

it is also blatantly incorrect that "Kosovo is de facto independent". This doesn't hold for all of Kosovo, since North Kosovo remains de facto part of Serbia (RoK has no real governance there). Ther rest of Kosovo also remains dependent on UN and EU presence to retain anything resembling rule of law. This is about as far from "de facto independence" as you can get. Kosovo has "partial de jure independence" to be sure, but that's hardly the same thing as "de facto independence". --dab (𒁳) 09:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If anything, "North Kosovo" (there's no such thing, by the way) remains under the direct control of NATO (via their K-FOR force) and not Serbia. Serbia is laying a claim on it, but the territory is firmly under the control of K-FOR troops, who are, by invitation of the Kosovan authorities since 17.02.2008, the only security force authorized to maintain external and internal security for all of Kosovo. --alchaemia (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish you cared as much about the Abkhazia and South Ossetia articles. Colchicum (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Serbia not independent by your definition? It doesn't control Kosovo which it claims as its territory, therefore by your definition it is NOT independent. Dieter Bachmann, please stop it as you already hit rock bottom. --84.56.255.114 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

care to review my edit history? I cannot fix all of Misplaced Pages. But I could certainly try to chime in at the articles you mention. In return, may I interest you in helping fix the "Syriac/Assyrian/Aramaean ethnic mess? --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That reference to Dieter Bachmann was not in the original post. I should know, I made the original reference to Serbia's sovereignty. I forgot to log in the time I made it. I have no problems with anyone's edits as of yet.Khajidha (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And this rest of Kosovo also remains dependent on UN and EU presence to retain anything resembling rule of law is original research of course, as well as many other claims. You haven't provided a single source to substantiate your claims and consider yourself in a position to teach others what is childish and what they should stop, while you are just another participant of the discussion. Funny. Colchicum (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

oh, wait, you aren't serious? Strike the above then. Did you even care to click on the North Kosovo link I shoved right under your nose? And spend 20 seconds reading it? As in "functions largely autonomously from the remainder of the ethnic-Albanian-majority state, instead operating as a de facto part of Serbia ." Then what is your point? Cleary, you must be amenable to the argument that we cannot claim that "Kosovo is de facto independent" at the Kosovo article, and at the same time that "North Kosovo is de facto part of Serbia" in the North Kosovo article? (a thing known to us scientists as "{{contradict}}ion") If you aren't, I am afraid you shouldn't try to follow any of this. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I certainly agree with your point about North Kosovo, but not with the rest of your claims. Colchicum (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

such as what? That the above debate is childish? Feel free to disagree then. My point is one of English usage, not 'fact' -- "partially recognized region" simply isn't good English. I also pointed out why not, because it isn't the region that is recognized (unless you talk pattren recognition or biochemistry), it is the Republic. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Republic is the region, since it, the Republic, is comprised of the entirety of the region and not just parts of it. This is elementary geography. --alchaemia (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"is a region located in the Balkans, and is considered by Serbia to be an autonomous province within its sovereign territory." Can it be more POV than that? This article is getting hopeless. 85.226.152.141 (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

@dab - You went ahead with your POV edit and got the article under semi-protection status. Bad, bad play. There was no consensus established, and your definition was entirely POV but also not very encyclopedic. Pretty bad behavior right there. Hope you're happy with your "result." --alchaemia (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless dab is banned or blocked there is no hope because this administrator does not care about consensus as you mentioned, therefore I ask to ban or block dab. --Tubesship (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

IF asking for dab to be banned wasn't all you did here, maybe everyone else would take you seriously. BalkanFever 11:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the other way round as I cannot do anything without getting blocked or banned by dab. He prevents to correct this article as he is clearly pro serbian and against Kosovars as many users here will tell you, if you don't believe me. --Tubesship (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo vs South Ossetia and Abkazia

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CORRECT THE KOSOVO PAGE TO LOOK LIKE THAT OF SOUTH OSSETIA AND ABKAZIA ( ie REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO)

OR AT LEAST MAKE THE OTHERS LOOK LIKE THAT OF KOSOVO ( ie PARTIALLY RECOGNIZED REPUBLIC)

THESE CHANGES ARE NEEDED AS I THINK THAT IT IS UNFAIR TO PORTRAY KOSOVO LIKE THIS SEEING AS SOUTH OSSETIA AND ABKAZIA ARE IN A WEAKER POSITION

IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF RECOGNITIONS THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED AND THEY ARE BOTH PORTRAYED AS SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artin gj (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Caps lock is not cool. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of Order

Why is Kosovo described as being only "de facto" independent? Kosovo has been de jure independent since 17 February. It receives ambassadors and is sending representatives abroad, hosts embassies and exercises sovereignty over its territory. It is tendentious to only list it as being "de facto" independent. The article should be amended to read that Kosovo is an independent state. You can posture about Serbia's claim on another page. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bobby, "de jure" maybe according to the Government of Canada, but "de jure" according to international law (UN Security Council Resolution 1244, UN Charter, Final Helsinki Act of the OSCE) Kosovo is part of Serbia, under UN administration. Also, it's not "de facto" independent at all - Pristina has no freedom to do anything, the UN is in control (soon EULEX). --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The UN (soon EULEX) is helping Prishtina with administration and Kosova is a democracy and there is no UN dictatorship suppressing Kosova. Prishtina has the freedom to act like a democratic country does. Your saying "Prishtina has no freedom" sounds like the dreams of a racist slavo-orthodox dictator, but not the reality, just nightmarish. --84.56.253.128 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to posture your personal thoughts on the many forums on the internet. We're all about facts here :-) --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this for an intro:

'Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova, Kosovë; Serbian: Косово и Метохија; Kosovo i Metohija) is a landlocked, region in the Balkans bordering Albania to the west, Central Serbia to the north and east, the Republic of Macedonia to the south, and Montenegro to the northwest. The majority of the territory is de facto governed by the partially recognized Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës), (declared independence February 2008) currently recognized by 52 UN member states. The Republic of Serbia does not recognize the 'secession' of the region itself, and considers it a self-governed entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Serbian: Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija).

Kosovo was a part of the lands of Thraco-Illyrian tribes, then of the Roman, Byzantine, Bulgarian, Serbian, and Ottoman empires and for a period by the Germans during WW2. In the 20th century it was part of the Kingdom of Serbia and its successor state Yugoslavia. NATO bombed Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War in 1999 to halt the killing of civilians. The territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations (UNMIK).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.100.249 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Kosovo and South Ossetia articles

1. Why Kosovo article currently has two infoboxes, while South Ossetia article contains just one?
2. Why main Kosovo first infobox map in the article suggest that it is still part of Serbia, while the main South Ossetia first infobox map in the article suggest the it is completley separated from Georgia?

It seems like die-hard Slavorthodox-Nationalist POVs runs very high here in Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.216.113 (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well first off Kosovo does not have De Facto control of Northern Kosovo, whereas South Ossetia and Abkhazia have full De Facto control of their regions. That's facts and not POV. Secondly, as a person who saw what was happening earlier in the "International Response to the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo" article, or something like that, I can tell you that initially it was pure Albanian and NATO POV; when India said for instance that they won't recognize Kosovo until Russia does so, this was interepreted as India possibly recognizing Kosovo. Now when Misplaced Pages is moving more towards the center, the pro-Albanian/NATO editors whine about pro-Serbian POV. Quite hilarious to watch actually. For instance in the Russia article, one editor actually argued that Russia wasn't a nuclear super power, I mean they only have enough nukes to radiate to death over 90% of the World's Population, not a superpower, nothing to see here, moving on. Thank you for providing the entertainment. Also do remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Thank you! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Kosovar Government believes they are a special case unrelated to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Doesn't that warrant special treatment on Misplaced Pages? Where's your Patriotism? Listen to Thaci I tell ya! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Kosovo has two infoboxes because it is officially a province in Serbia. South Ossetia is not province in Georgia: Georgian government annulated South Ossetian authonomy and divided the region between other provinces.--Certh (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not biased either way, but this article has problems. Kosovo is a partially recognized sovereign nation which had de jure and de facto control of most of the country. I strongly suggest a Republic of Kosovo page and have another page for the region, as the historic region of Kosovo has different borders than the republic. What we should do on wikipedia is follow the lead of other encyclopedias, de facto countries from the 1970s like Rhodesia had articles which followed the same format as other countries. It will not take Serbia's consent for Kosovo to be an independent nation and this page should not be bogged down by that. It is silly to consider number of recognitions or UN recognition to be a factor. Did it matter who recognized North Vietnam versus South Vietnam or that they recognized each other in the 1970s? Look how the encyclopedias treated those two countries. Azalea pomp (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But northern Kosovo is not occupied or controlled by Serb armed forces, either. All of Kosovo, from north to south and from east to west, is occupied by NATO troops which impede the effective creation of a nini-“Republika Srpska in Kosovo” and separation of the territory or annexation into Serbia.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia nowadays are fully-occupied too, by Russian troops which impede the effective Georgian rule over these regions.

So there is no reason to show the maps of South Ossetia and Kosovo under different shades of grey (showing Kosovo vinculated to Serbia and South Ossetia non-vinculated with Georgia).

That current first map is 100% Serb pro POV and it does need to be changed. The only map which needs to be shown is the map of Kosovo. Why hasn't this map been changed already? Azalea pomp (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It’s because around 5 minutes later, a pro-Slavorthodox-Nationalist-POV editor reverses it, accusing the last editor of “vandal”, “Serbophobic”, “Albanian-POVer” and/or “uneducated who first need to discuss the change before make it” — even when the issue has already been widely discussed on the talk page.

Why does the simple fact that Kosovo's independence is completely disputed seem utterly incomprehensible? Around 75% (150/200) of the world's governments have failed to recognize its independence. De jure, the government of Kosovo does not have the support of either the UN or the majority of the world states, the Kosovar Albanian declaration does not secure its legitimacy, de facto, northern Kosovo is not under the control of the Kosovo government (though everything is under NATO protection). In recognition of these quite serious issues, Misplaced Pages does not choose to treat the Kosovar Albanian government as, for example, the United Kingdom, or France. --DIREKTOR 17:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is that wikipedia needs to follow the example of other encyclopedias. The first map does not make any sense. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly does not. --DIREKTOR 21:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Direktor the question in the thread is, COMPARING Kosovo and South Ossetia. I see that you made no such comparsion above, do you believe that South Ossetia should be treated more like a country (with one infobox) in it's own article because it is more legitim, it is recognized by more states? Do you think that South Ossetia article should reflect it's statehood more so than the Kosovo article? The whole title of this thread is about comparsion between south ossetia article and the kosovo article. Hobartimus (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the thread, including the big black title above. Upon a closer examination, I'm sure you'll find I did indirectly refer to the issue by pointing out the fact that the Kosovar Albanian government does not control Kosovo (and Metohija) in its entirety, unlike South Ossetia. I also pointed out that circa 75% of the world's governments recognize Kosovo as represented by the second infobox, while no such infobox could be created for South Ossetia. --DIREKTOR 07:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Almost all countries of the world recognize South Ossetia as part of Georgia. How many countries recogize South Ossetia as an independent country? 1% of world governments? Do you claim that South Ossetia is recognized as independent by more countries than Kosovo? Hobartimus (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. What I meant was, with regard to the percentage, is that South Ossetia can't possibly have two infoboxes such as Kosovo, as the majority of the world (which does not recognize its independence) does not consider it as an autonomous political entity within Georgia. Therefore, the only "political entity infobox" that can be used for South Ossetia is that of it as an independent republic (even though it is even less internationally recognized than Kosovo). --DIREKTOR 07:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If they do not consider it autonomous then be some type of Georgia infobox is still possible. In any case I think there is something to the idea that we should strive to establish some type of standard in these cases. I don't know if this should be done editing here or there but the two articles really could be closer in their methodology. Hobartimus (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

While I fully appreciate what you're trying to accomplish, one can't standardize things of a different type. Kosovo and South Ossetia present two entirely different cases altogether, and must be dealt with separately. Sensitive matters such as these must be dealt with on a case-to-case basis, otherwise we risk sacrificing the accurate representation of information for the sake of "standardization". --DIREKTOR 09:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

All these talks about “north Kosovo is not controlled by Albanians, so Kosovo is less independent than South Ossetia” are nonsense. Northern part of Kosovo is not controlled by Albanians, but it is not controlled by Serbia either, and as far as I know Boris Tadic government even refuses to officially stablish official relations with the “Kosovo Serb Assembly”.

And we should note that South Ossetian independence is largely relative and many times rethorical, since all of its military is Russian, its main politicians are Russian, the Kokoity government talks about not true independence, but unification with Russia’s North Ossetia as a political goal. The Russian FSB border guards even control the Ossetian-Georgian border. And we cannot compare Russia with NATO or EU, since the first is a contry, and the secind are supra-national organizations with no centralized president or prime minister.

Abkhazia, also, had signed a treaty of friendship with Moscow which cedes a big part of the control of the control of the region, from the military to the currency — as the same way that South Ossetia, which also uses the Russian ruble.

Even Transnistria, which has its own currency but it is recognized by practically no one, has only a single infobox and is treated as more as an independent country than Kosovo. Why these different approaches? It seems like between Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Kosovo, only the last one is the big illegal, rogue, non-existent and illegitimate entity here.

Even Gagauzia has only a single infobox, too! It is really a shame how Kosova is treaten by serbian nationalists at Misplaced Pages! —Tubesship (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Um Gagauzia has the infobox of an autonomous province, like Vojvodina. Its really a shame you don't bother to read the article you're trying to present in support of your POV. --DIREKTOR 08:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Who do you try to fool? There is no difference, both are infoboxes with flag and coat of arms. Why not the same for Kosova? --84.56.212.2 (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd never dream of trying to "fool" you... The difference is quite simple, really, please read the following extremely carefully: The status of the Republic of Kosovo is completely disputed, the status of the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia is not disputed anywhere in the world. The Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia has absolutely nothing to do with Kosovo or the current issue we are discussing here. Nothing at all. It's like saying "Wisconsin has only one infobox, why can't Kosovo!?" --DIREKTOR 14:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

All your talks are nonsense.
"All these talks about 'north Kosovo is not controlled by Albanians, so Kosovo is less independent than South Ossetia' are nonsense."
Parts of northern Kosovo are undoubtedly not controlled by the Republic of Kosovo, both de facto and de jure (international law). Noone stated that "Kosovo is less independent than South Ossetia", that's your imagination. We are not here to "rate" the independence of Kosovo on some fictitious scale of yours. Furthermore, the eventual political goals of South Ossetia are completely irrelevant to these considerations, as are other meaningless facts you listed about several other partially recognized political entities.
"Northern part of Kosovo is not controlled by Albanians, but it is not controlled by Serbia either"
Irrelevant, as it is de jure a part of Serbia (UN administration), and is not under the de facto control of the Albanian government of the Republic of Kosovo. The Republic of Kosovo exists "de facto", where it does not "de facto" rule, it does not exist. It does not exist in northern Kosovo. --DIREKTOR 18:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, The northern part of Kosovo does not change anything about the status of Kosovo(just check out Cyprus). By looking at your comments and changes in the article (that you do without consulting us others), it is very clear that you are very pro-serbian. I think that makes you unfit to do any big changes in the article. Emto (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Emto, the changes I made were discussed above. I do indeed have a stance on many issues, including Kosovo. I doubt any of the users here involved have not formed their own opinions on the matter. The question that presents itself is: should I make that opinion clear or conceal it?, a question that is straightforwardly answered by the infobox on my userpage. HOWEVER, I strive to be as objective and "professional" as possible. This is Misplaced Pages, and the policies and conventions hereof are absolutely paramount. In short, I do not care whether or not you think I am "fit to edit this article", that borders on a personal attack: comment on content, not on the contributor. In any case, if having an opinion on this matter makes one "unfit to edit", that would rule out 99% of all involved users (including yourself, I deem).
"The northern part of Kosovo does not change anything about the status of Kosovo"
I was not talking about the "status of Kosovo" at all. I was talking about the infobox. The northern part of Kosovo is not under the de facto control of the Republic of Kosovo. Legally, i.e. by UN international law (UN Security Council Resolution 1244, UN Charter, Final Helsinki Act of the OSCE), all of Kosovo is part of Serbia. Therefore, the Republic of Kosovo does not encompass the entirety of th region/province of Kosovo. That part which it does not really control is not under the de facto control of either the Republic of Kosovo or Serbia, but it is de jure a part of Serbia. Naturally, this fact does not really effect the "status of the Republic of Kosovo", nor does it make it any more or less independent. --DIREKTOR 20:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Principality_of_Sealand It is getting more and more ridiculous, even Sealand has an infobox on top, so why not Kosova? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right, this incessant "listing" is getting ridiculous. Comment on the two very good reasons that have already explained "why not Kosova", a million "examples" add nothing to your argument as they do not have the same situation as Kosovo. --DIREKTOR 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hell, where is the difference? Here claims Great Britain that this is his territory, there claims serbia the same, so where is the difference? And don't dare to say that Kosova has no influence over North Kosova, read this: http://www.imc-ko.org/index.php?id=358&l=e&p=7 --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OMFG, read the thread... --DIREKTOR 22:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The link ist interesting, it says: "IMC takes action against illegal television station in Mitrovica", so how can you say that the northern part is NOT under control of Kosova? Maybe YOU should read the link!? --Tubesship (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as we know, the conutries recognizing the Republic of Kosovo are recognizing it with the exact same borders of the former Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo. And about international law… well, it is not so monolithic and independent of interpretations, since we must remember that Dmitry Medvedev — in the same way that Hashim Thaci also did before — mentioned the Helsinki Final Act when the Russian government recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.--BalkanWalker (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but the northern parts of Kosovo under ethnic Serbian control (accepting UN administration) are at least "as legal" as the Republic of Kosovo. We're all still forgetting the fact that the rest of the world recognizes Kosovo as a UN-administered province. --DIREKTOR 17:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But differently from the Republic of Kosovo (or the Republika Srpska of Bosnia), no country and no international orgazination in the world recognizes the northern part of Kosovo as a separate ethnic Serb nation or even as a sub-national separate entity.--BalkanWalker (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that? The UN administration is not terminated, and is still in effect. The Serbs in northern Kosovo do not consider themselves a separate entity, but merely continue to consider themselves citizens of the Serbian UN-administered province of Kosovo. They certainly have no less legitimacy than the Kosovar Albanian government.

However, as I've said before, even if there were no Serbian enclaves in northern Kosovo, still the dual-infobox system would be necessary as circa 75% of the world's governments do not recognize Kosovo itself as the Republic of Kosovo, but as the UN administered Serbian province. --DIREKTOR 17:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

When South Ossetia and Abkhazia declared Independence, the Kosovo Government said that Kosovo was a special case, and it did not apply to Abkhazia/South Ossetia. Then certain editors here want it to apply to Abkhazia/South Ossetia. You cannot eat your cake and have it too. Are you a special case, or like Abkhazia/South Ossetia? Make up your minds please, because playing both sides, although rather hilarious, is silly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Incostistency

In the Albanian people article, the 2007 estimate is around 2,100,000 Albanians in Kosovo. In the Kosovo article, the 2007 estimate is that around 2,100,000 people live in Kosovo altogether. Now, do people just write whatever they like as an "estimate" or does somebody really not like the fact that there are over 100,000 Serbs that were not cleansed from Kosovo yet? --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably the latter. Go ahead and make the changes on the "estimates". Also, I doubt there will be anymore ethnic clensing, it's too televised now, and NATO has screwed up the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, so now they have an actual crisis to worry about. Plus there's the financial collapse, so NATO's kinda screwed. BTW, and if you can find censuses on it, or something similar, it'd be great too! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro to the article is decieving and does not paint a true picture of the realities.

By international law, it is a province within the sovereign territory of the Republic of Serbia.

This statement should atleast be followed by the words of Mr.ahtisaari's which state that well over 65% of the world's wealth has eccepted Kosovo's independence in order to give a more balanced picture of the true realities on the ground - (http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=10&dd=19&nav_id=54336) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmadrid123 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/stats.php#passport shows that the number has rosen to 70.9 % of world's total nominal GDP. --Tubesship (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is percentage of GDP of any relevance here? Nikola (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Following the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War, the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations (UNMIK).

This should be followed by to halt the killings of civillians, which is a format many neutral news corps around the world employ, such as: (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36267120081101) http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/Montenegro_deals_blow_to_Serbia_over_Kosovo.html?siteSect=143&sid=9828724&cKey=1223577452000&ty=ti (http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=198115) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmadrid123 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all your sayings, so please feel free to correct the article. --Tubesship (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And how do I do that sir, it's locked(yes, i am a newbie)

That's a problem we have with some pro serbian administrators keeping this article locked. The best would be to ban this pro serbian administrators from this article, otherwise this article will be locked forever. --Tubesship (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. I had a lot of experience with the administrators who are looking at this article. Most of them are pro-Albanian. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That, sir, is complete nonsense. You have failed to acknowledge the neutral point of view that NATO airstrikes during the kosovo war were intended to halt the killings of civillians. I REPEAT this is a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW eccepted by everyone apart from (a minority of ignorant) Serbian nationalists who, may I add, still consider slobodan millosovic, Arkan, Ratko Mladic and Karadzic as 'heroes' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmadrid123 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I suppose NATO killed no one. Haven't people learned that the reasons for war that the US tells everyone are usually not the REAL reasons (hint: Iraq). Also, your little "nationalists" comment can be translated to any nation in the Balkans, lots of Croatian nationalists still see Ante Pavelic (Fascist leader), Ante Gotovina (accused war criminal), and many others as "heroes", I'm sure you'd agree that those who were declared by the CIA in 1997 as "terrorist", Albanian nationalists see as heroes. So what? Some nationalists are extreme. What's your point? There are extreme nationalists in the US, Russia, anywhere you go... --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The CIA did not designate the KLA as 'terrorists', find me evidence then state your claim, Sir. Everything else you just said was/is not relevant. NATO stopped the killing of civilians. The U.N. admitted this when it sent ground troops in to prevent further murders. My point is proven, I will edit this article accordingly and if any one has any further objections please feel free to voice your opinion. Realmadrid123 (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You want to tell us earnestly that the term "region" instead of "state" or "country" is pro Albanian? You made my day. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You earnestly want to tell us that the term "country" would be neutral and not pro-Albanian considering the situation with the recognition and control over the region (or lack of it)? You guys are constantly trying to forget the simple, obvious, and undeniable fact that the "Republic" is miles from full recognition and sovereignty, even within its own supposed borders. --DIREKTOR 09:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Country or state or republic, all of them would be fine, but not region or province or even "entitiy" (yes, this was indeed in the article!), because whoever you ask about Kosova, everybody will say "country", recognized or not, but none will say "region". Try it, if you don't believe me. And how can you say that the northern part is NOT under control of Kosova after reading this: http://www.imc-ko.org/index.php?id=358&l=e&p=7 --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Off Topic: How do I merge two accounts into one? I do not now why sometimes I am logged in with my German Misplaced Pages account "Schwarzschachtel" on English Misplaced Pages, but I would prefer to merge both, my English Misplaced Pages account "Tubesship" and my German Misplaced Pages account "Schwarzschachtel". I am not quite familiar with this kind of stuff, any help is appreciated. You may answer at my talk page. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fabulous. I read your "source" before, the IMC is an "independent broadcast regulator" not a branch of the Kosovar Albanian government. And even if it is, if you think that the confiscation of some broadcasting equipment suddenly proves the northern Kosovar Serbian enclaves are under the control of the Republic of Kosovo, you are as objective as I thought. That's about all I'm willing to discuss this "source".

"Autonomous Province" is pro-Serbian. "Country" ("state" or "republic") is pro-Albanian. "Region" is neutral and NPOV.

"...whoever you ask about Kosova, everybody will say 'country', recognized or not, but none will say 'region'."

I'm sure you and your buddies appear to be an excellent source to you, but you should probably understand that your own personal statements are not really very relevant here. --DIREKTOR 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not get personal. If you have a problem with me or my buddies try other sources, look in the newspapers, everybody says "country", recognized or not, none says "region", that is a fact. Some even say "state" or "republic", recognized or not. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting personal, I'm merely pointing out how irrelevant your statement that "everybody will say 'country'" is. --DIREKTOR 10:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant as it is a fact and we say in German "Die normative Kraft des Faktischen", meaning that norms follows facts and not the other way round. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you I do speak German a little, but I do not see what all this proves. The "facts" are that the status of the Albanian Republic of Kosovo is totally disputed... --DIREKTOR 11:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you don't want to understand as everybody is speaking about a country named Kosovo, but they are all pro Albanians, and you are the only righteous one. Do you believe this earnestly? Again, no one says region, entity or territory except English Misplaced Pages. So the question may be allowed who is wrong? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Again more nonsense, address the actual arguments. Misplaced Pages is not a source, and if you think "everybody's doing it!" actually means anything in real discussion, that's an issue you'll have to deal with yourself. This page is not a forum, so I'll restrict my responses to serious posts. --DIREKTOR 12:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Direktor. First of all, it is not a fact that Kosovo is a country. To say that is like to say that it's a fact that George W. Bush was a bad President. Why? Well, because some are sure that he is, and some are sure that he isn't. Kosovo's status can't be defined as a fact, because it is perceived differently by different countries. Thus, we can choose 2 approaches: using the word that the majority of countries use when it comes to Kosovo (2/3 of UN states see it as "Province", together with UNSCR 1244, UN Charter and Final Helsinki Act), OR we can use a word that neither uses "Province", or "Country", and that is "Region" or "Territory" ("State" counts as "Country").. Of course, if you believe that this Misplaced Pages is the Misplaced Pages of the English-speaking people (and they probably mostly see Kosovo as a country) and not Misplaced Pages, an encyclopedia in English language, I can see how you'd not be too happy with "Region" or "Territory".. However, it's not up to you, Schwarz, to decide if Kosovo's secession was or wasn't OK (we'll see what the ICJ says) --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your distinction between an encyclopedia in the English language and an encyclopedia for the English-speaking nations. If one visits the German wikipedia (for example) one expects it to reflect the common consensus of knowledge in Germany, Austria, and other German speaking countries FIRST. Likewise, at the English wikipedia it would seem that the state of affairs in the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, and other English speaking coutries to be primary. Information and views are allowed and encouraged from outside this, but in cases of opinion and policy (which this is) the opinions of the native English speaking population would be expected to be the mainstream.Khajidha (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comparison really does not make sense. George Bush being a bad president is an opinion or a value judgment. Kosovo is a partially recognized country and it is a sovereign state. That is not an opinion or a value judgment; it is a fact. Kosovo is also claimed as a province by Serbia and that is a fact. The problem with the format of this page is that it does not follow the precedence which other encyclopedias and almanacs. The best example is Rhodesia. It declared its independence without the consent or approval of Great Britain. It was still treated as a country despite its status. This page needs to reflect this as well. Kosovo is a partially recognized sovereign state. The page should mention the conflict, but this page needs to follow the format of a sovereign state. Azalea pomp (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

< George Bush being a bad president isn't a value judgement, a good president's successor doesn't get creamed - paying attention to the news is a great thing, a truly wonderful thing. Over 7.5 million votes victory margin in an election calling a "referendum on George Bush" - yeah, clearly a value judgment by over 64 million Americans. Also - you cannot be a partially recognized Sovereign State. That's just hilarious. It's like a partially failing A+ paper. An oxymoron. Also, if Kosovo's a sovereign state, why doesn't Pristina government control Northern Kosovo? Do you fact check? Kosovo is NOT a sovereign state - calling Kosovo a sovereign state, now that's a value judgement, and a poor one at that. Kosovo is neither De Facto, nor De Jure Independent. Example: Serbia can invade Kosovo if NATO army leaves, and UN won't be able to do jack shit about it. Example #2: Russia can lose UN veto power if it invades Poland, regardless of what NATO does. See the difference? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Serbia not sovereign by your definition? It doesn't control Kosovo which it claims as its territory, therefore by your definition it is NOT sovereign. Just wanting clarification.199.90.28.194 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Azela, that's pro-Albanian POV pure and simple. Listen to yourself: "Kosovo is a partially recognized sovereign state." Sovereignty implies right, like that which one gets from international law and recognition. The comparison with Rhodesia is as off the marker as the one with old W. Could you please point out the South Rhodesian enclaves in Rhodesia? --DIREKTOR 07:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, you need to look at the precedence set by encyclopedias when handling partially recognized countries like North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Everyone needs to leave their personal opinions to themselves. Direktor, what do you mean by enclaves of Rhodesia? Azalea pomp (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not "need" to look at precedents". Kosovo is a particularly nasty, complicated and controversial case and thus requires a "custom" approach. What did I mean with Rhodesia? During the existence of the Republic of Rhodesia, exactly what part of its territory considered itself the British colony of South Rhodesia? --DIREKTOR 09:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Northern Rhodesia became Zambia while Nyasaland became Malawi. The white minority which was more substantial in Southern Rhodesia than it was in the other two colonies. The white minority did not want black majority rule, so they declared themselves independent as Rhodesia. Rhodesia was not recognized by any state (not that I can think of), yet even Rhodesia was treated as a country by all of the encyclopedias and almanacs. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for that wonderful lesson in Rhodesian history. You did not answer my question, however: where are the South Rhodesian enclaves within the Republic of Rhodesia that correspond with the Serbian enclaves in Kosovo? My question is rhetorical, of course, and was meant to illustrate the inadequacy of Rhodesia as an example. (Btw, Rhodesia was recognized by a number of states, though no significant ones.) --DIREKTOR 19:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, find the source with a number of states (pacific island nations?). I am not sure if English is not your first language as your questions are not clear. Are you talking about White owned land enclaves in Southern Rhodesia? "Southern Rhodesian" enclaves in the Republic of Rhodesia does not make any sense... Southern Rhodesia did become the Republic of Rhodesia (a republic being declared a few years after UDI). Rhodesia declares its independence and the almanacs and encyclopedias have Rhodesia listed as a country. Kosovo declares its independence and this it should have a country listing like any other. Kosovo has many more recognitions than Rhodesia did. It needs to follow the format as other countries. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Rhodesialand.png there you see the enclaves within Rhodesia as white spots. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless, they always seem to "find" an excuse not to list Kosovo as a country. Emto (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right, that's sad but true and that's why this pro serbian administrators should get banned for the articles sake. --84.56.237.136 (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone need an excuse not to list Kosovo as a country? Nikola (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo's status

Typical. People don't agree to the pro-Albanian POV and suddenly they're pro-Serbian and should be banned. And all of this for the sake of the article.

When will people realize that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that tells it how it is, not only how one side sees it?

The Kosovo government declared independence. This has been supported and recognized by a number of countries in the world. May I also add, a majority of countries (around 2/3) have NOT recognized Kosovo as an independent country. Kosovo can not be treated as a country just because some states treat it as a country. Of course, this should be listed, we should list how some states see it, and how others see it.

We all know that the Kosovo government is not really independent. If it was, it wouldn't have NATO as it's Army and it wouldn't be under foreign administration. Also, if it was sovereign, it would have full control over all it's territory. It doesn't. Serbs mostly control the North and other enclaves in Kosovo. They have their own Assembly and are effectively independent from Kosovo.

This is why you have a real mess when it comes to summing up the situation and status in ONE WORD. It's impossible to please everyone, and people have to accept it. Both sides seem to feel very strongly about this topic. "Country" or "State" is NOT acceptable for those who DON'T see Kosovo as a country or state. I see "Province" is not acceptable to those who don't see it as a province. What's the problem? "Region" or "Territory", despite how you feel about it, IS neutral and doesn't suggest Kosovo to be a country or province.

I'm surprised at the people who support the Western view of Kosovo. Your Western countries claim that Kosovo is a unique case and should be treated as such, and yet you keep wanting to compare it to other "similar" regions. The truth is that every case is unique, not just one. It's logical.

Kosovo's status has become a matter of opinion, despite the UN being quite clear on it. It's like global warming, all the scientists agree that it's man-made, but politics and media still shape our opinion on it... Don't let politics and media interfere with facts. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo IS a country and not only a region, territory or entity. I live in Germany, a few hundred meters away from an US military base. There are a lot of American military forces in Germany. Does that make Germany a no-country? And as shown here before, Kosova government has indeed control over the northern parts of the country as it closed the one and only television station in Mitrovica: http://www.imc-ko.org/index.php?id=358&l=e&p=7 And about the UN administration, they are helping to build a Kosovar administration, that's the reason they are there, not as suppressors, but as nation builders. Kosova is a democracy and is treaten as such by the UN administration. --84.56.255.114 (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard since I came to Misplaced Pages a few years ago. Of course an American base in Germany doesn't make Germany a "no-country". GERMANY HAS IT'S OWN ARMY! :P

Also, the way you write Kosovo (you write Kosova, which is the Albanian version, and not the official English version) also suggests that you're either Albanian or very pro-Albanian. I understand that this is a sensitive topic for you, but try to keep your emotions and bias for yourself. Write it "Kosovo" on English Misplaced Pages, but feel free to write "Kosova" on Albanian Misplaced Pages.

The Kosovo government has NO control over North Mitrovica and the rest of the North. Have you even been there? I was there last summer and I didn't see a single registration plate with the "KS" sign. All of them had the Serbian version - "KM". What's more, if anyone dares to have the "KS" registration plate (the official Kosovo government approved one), he or she can say "bye bye" to his or her car. That doesn't sound like "full control" to me. Also, I didn't see any Kosovo election banners or anything. On the contrary, I saw banners for Serbian elections, and indeed they did vote in Serbian elections, just like they're in Serbia, even for their local municipal government. Also, have you heard that Serbs working in KPS (Kosovo Police Service) left their jobs when Kosovo declared independence? There is no Kosovo government police control over North Kosovo. So, lets recap: No government institutions, no elections, no police control. Even KFOR is not too fond of going into those areas, since Serbs do see them as occupators.

And nice try with the politically correct story of UNMIK being there to help Kosovars. There are no friends in politics, only interests. The US has their interest in doing this, not because they really really like Albanians and want to help their leaders (who have suspicious connections to the drug/people/human organs trade). And Kosovo is NOT a democracy. Go speak in Serbian in Pristina, and you'll see what I mean. --GOD OF JUSTICE 18:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

US army is in Germany with Germany's permission. If Germany would decide it doesn't want it anymore, US army would leave it. Would KFOR leave Kosovo if PISG would request it? No, because they have UN mandate to be there. Nikola (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Serbia not sovereign by your definition? It doesn't control Kosovo which it claims as its territory, therefore by your definition it is NOT sovereign. Just wanting clarification. Khajidha (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't control all of Kosovo, Serbs control only a small part of it. However, Serbia, unlike the Albanian government in Kosovo, has this document that says that even though Serbia doesn't have administrative control over Kosovo, Kosovo is a part of Serbia. That document is called United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. I hope I clarified that :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 18:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

But the Kosovars have a document that says that they are not part of Serbia in the first place.Khajidha (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's called their Constitution. The Serbian Constitution says that Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia. What UN document does Kosovo have? --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The United Nations derives its existence from its constituent countries, therefore it really isn't important if Kosovo has a UN document. A population has the right to determine its own government, the Kosovars no longer want to live under Serbian rule and have founded a new nation. I fail to see how this is any different from any other country's founding.Khajidha (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Serbia is a member of the United Nations and as such can allow the United Nations to temporarily administer its province. Nikola (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, the UN is there because Serbia allowed the UN to administer its province. Honestly? --84.56.255.114 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Serbia (then FR Yugoslavia) did sign the Kumanovo agreement which allowed KFOR to run the province. Honestly. :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

They were forced to do so by military means, Belgrade was bombed and surrendered. Did you already forgot the war? This has nothing to do with "allowance". --84.56.255.114 (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, they did "allow" KFOR to enter Kosovo after being soundly beaten and their army destroyed. You know, just like Germany "allowed" the US and others to overtake after World War II by signing an "I surrender" document. It's laughable, GOD OF JUSTICE. Give it up. --alchaemia (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Serbian Army wasn't destroyed, that's why after 76 days of bombing NATO was considering a ground war, since they couldn't do much with bombing. Milosevic was ready to give administration before the bombing, but NATO wanted to occupy the entire territory of Yugoslavia (see Rambouillet Agreement) and when Milosevic refused, NATO bombed Serbia and Montenegro. In the end, Yugoslavia did NOT sign the R.A., but rather the Kumanovo Agreement. It's not a surrender if Yugoslavia got what it wanted - Kosovo a part of Serbia, the people of Kosovo under international protection. --GOD OF JUSTICE 22:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You may also note that German capitulation was signed with Allies in Berlin, but Kumanovo Agreement was signed before NATO entered Kosovo. Nikola (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo Army

Kosovo Armed Forces on January of 2009

The Republic of Kosovo is expected to have its first Armed Forces battalions in the beginning of January of 2009, reveals the commander of Kosovo Protection Forces, and a possible candidate for Chief of Kosovo Army, General Lieutenant Sylejman Selimi.

While Kosovo begins to build its first army battalions, Kosovo Protection Forces will start to dismember in December and gradually cease its activities as Kosovo Armed Forces take over the current military bases and other strategically important tasks.

The members of Kosovo Protection Forces who will not qualify to join in Kosovo Armed Forces will retire, join special police forces such as Border Police Patrol or other law enforcement activities, which currently it is being negotiated between the Government of the Republic of Kosovo and leadership of Kosovo Protection Forces.

In a recent visit, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said he backs the creation of Kosovo Armed Forces, which are to be formed after the dismembering of Kosovo’s Protection Forces.

“Along with other NATO ambassadors, I am very pleased with the security in Kosovo which continues to be stable,” he said.

In June, NATO defense ministers agreed to train Kosovo's army. Most of NATO members have agreed to give appropriate amount of donations destined to support Kosovo Armed Forces.

Since, the Republic of Kosovo has 16,000 deployed NATO soldiers whose task is maintaining peace and defense of Kosovo's sovereign territory, initially Kosovo Armed Forces are expected to have a limited number of soldiers and activity, with an open door to build up in the future as a crucial requirement for the Republic of Kosovo to become a member of NATO.

According to the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, initially the Kosovo Armed Forces are expected to have 3000 active troops and 2000 reservists. The Kosovo Armed Forces will be professional, which will reflect ethnic diversity of the people of the Republic of Kosovo and will be recruited from among the citizens of the Republic of Kosovo. The Kosovo Armed Forces will serve as a national security force for the Republic of Kosovo and may send its members abroad in full conformity with its international responsibilities.

The President of the Republic of Kosovo is the Commander-in-Chief of the Kosovo Armed Forces. The Commander of the Kosovo Armed Forces will be appointed by the President of the Republic of Kosovo upon the recommendation of the Government. Internal organization of the Kosovo Armed Forces will be determined by law.

The Republic of Kosovo, a sovereign country located in Southeastern Europe, declared its independence on February 17, 2008, completing the chapter of dissolution of Yugoslavia.

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200811061374/Society/Kosovo-Armed-Forces-on-January-of-2009.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.253.252 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah, and the New Kosova Report also said that Greece and Romania will recognize Kosovo :P How credible :P --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Greece and Romania will recognize Kosovo, maybe not tomorrow, but one day they will recognize, that's for sure. --84.56.225.79 (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

How poetic... are we here to discuss the actual present or are you rehearsing for a science fiction novel? --DIREKTOR 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, they never said they never recognize. They are not serbians with Инат behavior. --84.56.225.79 (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I should not be ad hominen, but...

The fact is that it seems like this article — and its talk page — has been "controlled" by Bože pravde, Nikola Smolenski and DIREKTOR. Two of them Serbs, two of them Yugo-nostalgic, all of them openly against the independence of Kosovo... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.84.40 (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could say that we represent how the majority of the world's countries and population see Kosovo. But it's not about us, it's about the article. And I respect that some people see Kosovo as independent, it is their choice to choose how to see regions (and the ICJ's job to see if it was legal or not), but Misplaced Pages has a duty to represent all views and be NEUTRAL. I know that that some think that saying Kosovo isn't a country isn't neutral, but can pro-Albanian users accept that SOME COUNTRIES AND PEOPLE DON'T SEE KOSOVO AS A COUNTRY?! Can you accept that fact? If so, we can work on a compromise, but not Albanian style compromise (Albanians get everything, Serbs get nothing) ;) Also, I don't know which two you were referring to, but I'm not a Serb. --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo has everything needed to be a country, so why not call it a country? Just because you don't like facts makes them not disappear. And no, the majority of the world is not against Kosovos independence but they are still indifferent. There are far less countries that expressed explicitly to refuse recognition even in the future than countries that already recognized Kosovo. That's fact and not what you want to make us believe. --84.56.225.79 (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo does not have anything needed to be a country. It does not have international recognition, it does not have sovereignity, it does not have territorial integrity. Nikola (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Its simple, to call Kosovo a "country" effectively settles the issue in favour of the Kosovar Albanian POV. Because it is in the lead, it makes all the detailed explanations that follow seem biased. To call the place a "country" is basically to pretend there is no dispute, and that is simply not neutral.
"Autonomous Province" is pro-Serbian, "Country" is pro-Albanian, "region" or "territory" is neutral. --DIREKTOR 12:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats not true as "partially recognized country" already implies there is a dispute. May I remind you at the German expression "Die normative Kraft des Faktischen"? Norms follow facts and not the other way round and it is a fact that Kosovo has already everything needed to be called a country, recognized or not. There are countries that have less recognition like Taiwan, nevertheless Taiwan is a country. --84.56.225.79 (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the term "partially recognized country" implies the following two things which make it completely inappropriate, I'll be as detailed in explaining my point as is possible, and I'm hoping my arguments will be answered with more than empty phrases:
1) The term implies that the geographic entity does not have an alternate status, in other words it implies that the place is either a "partially recognized country" or nothing ("nothing" = an ordinary part of some state's territory).
2) While leaving room for the possibility of a dispute, the term is biased in its approach as it does not allow the reader to form his own opinion as to whether or not he will consider the place a "country". It implies that the dispute concerns exclusively recognition, and not the many other factors involved in this unusually complex issue.
Concerning "Die normative Kraft des Faktischen" (which I already answered above), it is an empty phrase as the "facts" part may be interpreted in any way, especially since "de facto" northern Kosovo is not in Kosovar Albanian hands and does not answer to the Kosovar government. --DIREKTOR 14:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

All I ask you is to accept the facts. And even if the Kosovar government (still) has limited control over the northern parts of the country that makes the country not a "no-country". Again, the factual reality on the ground does not care about "disputes", things are like they are. You know what Unmik means? "United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo", that implies already the transition of power to the Kosovar government. The times they are changing, face the new reality. Todays Kosova is not Kosova of the year 2000, they declared independence, because norms follow facts. To say Kosova is not a country means to deny the reality. And that is not what Misplaced Pages should do. --84.56.225.79 (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"...limited control over the northern parts..."? Hehe, wishful thinking. The Kosovo government has NO control over northern parts and Serb / Roma enclaves. "..the factual reality on the ground does not care about "disputes"" - that's ridiculous, how do you know the factual reality on the ground all the way from Mannheim, Germany? I was in Kosovo this summer, and there is nothing independent about Kosovo (except that the Albanians claim and advertise that it is). The recognition of Kosovo's Albanian government's unilateral decision is a political issue, not one based on "factual reality", because the factual reality isn't that Kosovo is a country. If you have a different reality in mind, that's your reality, this is mine. If 50 countries have one reality, 140 have a different one. Do you want to ignore that? --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The one and only TV-Station in Northern Kosova was closed, because Prishtina decided so, would you call this "no control"? http://www.imc-ko.org/index.php?id=358&l=e&p=7

The Kosovo government can affect Serb-controlled parts of Kosovo, but it doesn't control it. For example, people in North Mitrovica don't have water all the time, since they depend on the "kindness" of South Mitrovica to let them have tap water. That doesn't mean that the GOVERNMENT controls North Mitrovica, but they do control some facilities that affect North Mitrovica, and might I add, in a very mean and, considered anywhere in the West, illegal way towards Serbs and other minorities (rarely do people in North Mitrovica have drinking water). If your Mannheim mayor cut's off sugar supplies to a village in Hungary, that doesn't mean that Germany has control over Hungary ;) Too bad Misplaced Pages is full of ridiculous arguments. ;) --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what PISG means? Nikola (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what happend to PISG at February, the 17th this year? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing? Nikola (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You're not asking me to "accept the facts". You're asking me to accept your own interpretation of the facts, though I must once again thank you for your helpfulness: I always thought they named it "UNMIK" because it sounds cool... Anyway, unless I am very much mistaken, the UN does NOT recognize the Kosovar Albanian government. That's all that matters, certainly not your own personal views on the UN mission's name. I also noticed that you did not actually respond to my post, but proceeded to preach your brand of "realism". --DIREKTOR 19:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course the UN recognizes the Kosovar government, they even collaborate with them and the aim is to transfer the power to the Kosovar government. They already transferred for example police tasks and the organisation of elections. How could the UNMIK do so if they don't recognize, like you said? --84.56.225.79 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So the Republic of Kosovo is recognized by the United Nations..? Could you clarify that? --DIREKTOR 20:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What more clarification do you need as the UNMIK represents the UN and the UNMIK collaborates with the Kosovar government as mentioned above? I cite a press release of UNMIK: "competencies previously carried out by UNMIK have been taken on by Kosovo authorities as, for example, in policing where the Kosovo Police Service has come to the forefront in serving the people of Kosovo, and in the management of elections, further solidifying democratic developments.", see here: http://www.unmikonline.org/DPI/PressRelease.nsf/0/5A1F17503E5BEB4CC12574C9003FB46C/$FILE/pr1738.pdf

I love how you ignored the real question and think like you got away with it ;) --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on, I gave you an official statement, read the PDF-File. What more do you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwarzschachtel (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See below. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about diplomatic recognition. --DIREKTOR 21:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you hint at the fact that Kosova is not an UN member please remember that Switzerland was also not an UN member until 2002! Was Switzerland not a country all the time before? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not "hinting" at anything. You shall find a complete explanation of my exact meaning in the blue link right above. --DIREKTOR 21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I cite: "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." and furthermore: "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." This is known as the declarative theory of statehood, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Montevideo_Convention --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And from the German Wiki about "diplomatic recognition": "Trotz fehlender diplomatischer Beziehungen kann ein Staat als solcher anerkannt sein. So hat die Bundesrepublik Deutschland bis Ende der 1960er Jahre diplomatische Beziehungen zu Ländern beendet oder nicht aufgenommen, die mit der früheren DDR diplomatische Beziehungen unterhielten (Ausnahme: Sowjetunion). Der Grund war die Hallstein-Doktrin." I try to translate: "Even if there is no diplomatic recognition a state can be recognized as such. West Germany had till the end of the sixties refused diplomatic recognition of countries that had diplomatically recognized East Germany. The reason was the Hallstein Doctrine". Same thing with China and Taiwan. There are 23 countries not recognizing China but Taiwan. Is China not a country? --84.56.225.79 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You appear unable to concentrate on the subject... this discussion is going in circles because of your inability to keep track of the issues presented. You said the UNMIK was formed to hand over the government to an independent Albanian state, I replied that that is your own personal interpretation and pointed out that the United Nations did not even recognize the Kosovar Albanian government. After a few hours, when you figured out that I was talking about diplomatic recognition, you switched the subject to the recognition itself and how it isn't really important... Now I'm supposed to once again point out that the Serbian enclaves do not answer to the Kosovar Albanians and that the "government" does not really control its declared territory. I'm also supposed to say that Misplaced Pages does not have a definition of what it considers a state and is completely "free" to determine whether or not it shall label it as such in the lead ("Misplaced Pages, The Free Encyclopedia"). If you would like to start an article called "Republic of Kosova" you may use the term "country" in the lead. However, unfortunately for you, the terms "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo" are NOT synonymous.
Finally, I'll have to say I'm sick of repeating myself. You appear so bent on perpetuating this pointless discussion you will post anything that comes to mind and disregard all rational arguments presented to you... The United Nations either recognize Kosovo as a country, or they do not. They do not. --DIREKTOR 07:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Reality check

1) A "state" cannot secede from another "state". After it secedes it may be considered a "state". Kosovo seceded from Serbia as a province.
2) Enclaves in the lead. The enclaves are a complex matter. They are effectively controlled by KFOR, yes, but they are de jure within UNMIK, i.e. Serbia. This must be fully explained or omitted from the lead, and I feel there is no need (or room!) to put all this in the second sentence of the article when it is covered much better in the remainder. --DIREKTOR 08:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

1. A state can secede from another state - the state of California can, for example, secede from the state known as the USA. Kosovo seceded from Serbia as an international protectorate - not as a province.

2. "de jure within UNMIK i.e. Serbia" ? What does that even mean? Now I know who wrote those illogical sentences in the intro ("self-governed territory", past tense for a current situation). There is no room? What is this, a paper encyclopedia? Ridiculous "arguments". --alchaemia (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Of course, I was not referring to a sub-national state. In any case, Kosovo did not secede from Serbia as a country, but as a Serbian province under UN administration. Word-play will get you nowhere.
2) "de jure within UNMIK i.e. Serbia" That means that ethnic Serbian enclaves do not acknowledge the Kosovar Albanian government, but are legally part of the UN administered Serbian province. The only thing "ridiculous" is your apparent suggestion to cram a full paragraph about the enclaves in the lead. The sentence you added cannot stand alone without a full explanation of the complex situation of the enclaves, something which I believe is covered quite sufficiently in the text below. (Also, the "History" page of the article is quite handy for finding out "who wrote those illogical sentences", for 'twas not me.) --DIREKTOR 09:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Kosovo seceded from Serbia as an international protectorate, and not as a province. A state can secede from a state if there is a union of states. The United States is a union of states, and not a union of sub-national states. This is basic political science, not to mention basic reading comprehension.

2. Whether they acknowledge it or not has no bearing on the situation; I may, for example, refuse to acknowledge the fact that you're a pro-Serbian editor with a strong POV (and a lame Kosovo infobox), but that doesn't mean that you're not one. A "full paragraph" requires more than a sentence, but that too may be something you need to work on. As for the History page, evidently you spend all day on Misplaced Pages as it is almost impossible to tell which is which among the 300 daily POV edits you make on this article. Say hello to Split for me. --alchaemia (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Abraham Lincoln would disagree, I'm afraid. The US is a union of sub-national states, perhaps you should rad the article (ever heard of the "Kentucky nation"?). You see, a state can be another word for a country, or it can mean "administrative division" (as is evident from Misplaced Pages articles). But no matter how you cut it, Kosovo was NOT a "state" when it seceded.
2) (I've just finished screaming "HELLO!" out my window.) Yes of course, you are right, the fact that they do not "acknowledge" it is irrelevant. However, the fact that the Republic of Kosovo is unable to exercise control over the entirety of its self-proclaimed territory is by no means irrelevant. Perhaps you should work on your powers of attention: I clearly pointed out that, while you did add a single sentence, it cannot stand alone because it is POV. It should be accompanied by many other sentences that explain the complex situation of the enclaves. In my humble opinion, the lead is no place for several sentences about the enclaves. --DIREKTOR 08:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How typical, you remove "province" because of your POV, even when it is commonly accepted that Kosovo was a province of Serbia when the Kosovar Albanian government (unilaterally) proclaimed independence, albeit under UN administration. At that time it was a province of Serbia under UN protectorate. The UN did not (and does not) dispute the status of Kosovo as a Serbian PROVINCE. --DIREKTOR 16:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"1) A "state" cannot secede from another "state". After it secedes it may be considered a "state". Kosovo seceded from Serbia as a province." --this seems like a circular argument. Obviously a political entity (province, region, department, or whatever) is not a sovereign state until after it secedes. Yes, and? What is your point?--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that Alchaemia insists on stating that "the state of Kosovo seceded from Serbia", in the lead no less... Obviously Serbia has no "states" and the sentence makes no sense, one can only secede, or try to secede, from Serbia as a province (autonomous or not). However, Alchamia wants to avoid that nasty word because he personally dislikes its use in any context when referring to Kosovo. Hence the word games...

Also Alchaemia, "territory" won't due either. While there is a dispute as to what Kosovo is today, before the unilateral declaration of independence Kosovo was undoubtedly a PROVINCE of Serbia. Not territory, state, country, region or canton, but PROVINCE. --DIREKTOR 19:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent change

The recent edit is a blatant attempt at using text arrangement to "hide" the Kosovo dispute, particularly visible in the rendering of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija in ordinary text. Both sides and both views should be emphasized equally, while the Albanian Republic of Kosovo should come first, that is not grounds for the removal of the other side's view. --DIREKTOR 11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is alredy emphasized that the independence is not unanonimously. Everything else belongs to the paragraph that deals with foreign relations: http://en.wikipedia.org/Kosovo#Foreign_relations --Tubesship (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Recognition belongs to foreign relations paragraph

This sentence regarding recognition belongs to foreign relations paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/Kosovo#Foreign_relations "The Republic of Serbia does not recognize the Republic of Kosovo nor the secession of the province itself. It considers Kosovo a self-governing entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Template:Lang-sr)." And please no edit warring but discussing. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What an excellent, stupendous idea! You edit, and then when someone contests it you accuse him of edit warring! Positively ingenious! ;) Though I suppose the concept of "editing after consensus" must go out the window... Seriously, I must ask that you restore the text to the version prior to your contested edit and await the conclusion of discussions on that particular issue.

Now to business: By George you're right! the information on diplomatic recognition does belong to the foreign relations paragraph. We'll have to remove that (minute) part of the sentence, here we go

"The Republic of Serbia does not recognize the secession of the province, but considers Kosovo a self-governing entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Template:Lang-sr)."

I'm glad we could clear that up, thank you :) --DIREKTOR 11:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional status

See WP:UNDUE, only 2 lines about RoK that is supported by 95 % of the people and some 30 lines about the Serb villages. This is NOT what an independent editor and reader would call objective. --NOAH (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to write objectively. --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert my edits. I just added a NPOV tag and invited to discussion. I also added Kosovo as the Serbian name and respect even though you may wish every single people in Serbia called Kosovo, KiM. --NOAH (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Beside the point?

Just wanted to start a discussion on something. Since this is English Language Misplaced Pages, and since all (I think) countries who use English as their primary language have recognised Kosovo as independent, and since therefore, the majority of English language sources refer to it as such; i.e. an independent country, and since Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect sources rather than original research, personal bias or whatever, shouldn't this article reflect the consensus of the body of English language references? All news media in English, all new Encyclopedias in English, etc, are now referring to Kosovo as an independent state - at least they are here in Ireland, and from what I can see, in England and America also.

Now I realise that it will not be possible to implement this fully in such a hotly contested article, but I just wondered about this and thought it might be food for thought. I may have misinterpreted the way Misplaced Pages is supposed to function, or it may be an overly-literal interpretation of a rule that's supposed to be more fluid, but I really do think it bears discussion, and from what I can see, people are getting too carried away with their own interpretations of International Law, (which is itself in a state of constant flux,) or whether the ICJ decision will have X or Y effect, or simply outright claims that Kosovo is Serbia or Kosova is independent. To my mind this would appear to be OR, motivated by (understandably) partisan sentiment on both sides.

There is enough raw information here to make a good article. As it stands it is a nightmare, a fragmentary hodgepodge of bits and pieces of sentences that have been ripped up and chewed over a thousand times. I don't know that my proposed solution is the best one, but given the fact that anyone searching for information on Kosovo is more likely than not to be directed to this page before anything else, it would be nice if it was at least readable. Davu.leon (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No. English Misplaced Pages does not care about majority of English language sources, or majority of sources overall, but about neutral point of view: what is the view of relevant sources, their language not being relevant.

To clarify a bit: if you would believe that English Misplaced Pages should use what "the majority of English language sources" claim, that would also mean that Russian or Serbian Misplaced Pages should not mention declaration of independence of Kosovo at all, given that Russian and Serbian speaking countries don't recognise it. Nikola (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But the Russian or Serbian Misplaced Pages WOULD take the position that Kosovo is a province of Serbia FIRST, giving the position that it is a separate country as the SECONDARY point of view. 97.82.155.14 (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/world/europe/09nations.html?ref=world
2. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE49780C20081008

• 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
• Old requests for peer review