Talk:Constitution of Kosovo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Constitution of Kosovo is part of the WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
|
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Khm...
I don't wanna be the first to say it, but this article isn't exactly neutral POV. Firstly, if you decide to put history in the article, start from the beginning. Kosovo existed, and thus had a status of some sorts even before the 1800's, and it wasn't ruled by Turks since the beginning of time. And this is where come to the good part: phrases like "Kosovo was militarily occupied and then ceded to Serbia with the decision of the Great Powers.", "Kosovo declared its righteous secession", and such are, well... You know. Let's just say that in the first case the Serbs would say that Kosovo was liberated, and in the other that Albanian separatists committed an unlawful act. Statements like those do not belong to Wikipedia, or any other encyclopedia for that matter. There are many places out there to express opinions, but this is not one of these. I understand that these are turbulent times, but Wikipedia, as you surely know, is not a soapbox. Zhelja (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Typo?
"A new Constitution of Kosovo has been drafter and is expected to be ratified soon."
Should this say "drafted" rather than "drafter"? mdkarazim (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Constitutional status
...Kosovo didn't receive before 1974. It especially didn't have in the 19th century, due to the fact that it was only formed in 1945. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I will consider an introduction to Kosovo's constitutional history more than necessary. Its intricate situation compels us to let the reader know how it came about that Kosovo ratified its own constitution and under what laws it was governed during its previous status as a province of the Ottoman Empire of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (split into three banovinas). Therefore, I am returning to the older version, which furthermore contains a source and I will add others.--Getoar (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with this subject. There is Kosovo, History of Kosovo, Kosovo status process, Constitutional status of Kosovo or other. Do we need to vote on this? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Version without Getoar's data:
- Support - it is totally unrelated to Kosovo's constitution and there are loads of other articles for the data, as presented to the up. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Support - Misleading, the article is called "Constitution of Kosovo" therefore it should specifically be only about the constitution, not history. If the user wishes to read the history of Kosova they may do so just by typing "Kosova" on WP search. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Version with Getoar's data:
- Support as the facts he mentioned are correct. I find this article informative and important. --Tubesship (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support per User:Getoar , it is definitely relevant and sourced (and neutral)--Cradel 19:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Constitution of Kosovo and Constitutional status of Kosovo are two completely different issues. Jawohl (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
a bit early for voting: try to carve out a compromise. For the time being, this article should be merged anyway, since it has practically no information. As soon as the new draft is out, of course, the article is going to be predominantly about that. dab (𒁳) 19:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of other constitutions which are missing and should be mentioned. This article should exist but include only the different constitutions under which its citizens were ruled. History should not be part of the article but one should start with the Roman Law (if there was one applied), the serb law, the ottoman law, the Kanun and then followed by the recent constitutions in the last 100 years (incl. the Kacanik one) up to the constitution which was signed today. Jawohl (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
@ Dab, nothing should be merged here. Jawohl (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Other constitutions
This article should not mention (except briefly in context) other constitutions, such as the 1974 or 1990 constitutions. If desired, separate articles can be created on those. Superm401 - Talk 02:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
