Talk:Controversy over Kosovo independence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kosovo Portal Controversy over Kosovo independence 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The controversy of this article is that there is no mentioning of the Kosovo War 98-99 and even the preceding events that happened in Kosovo. This "article" starts with UNSC Res 1244, as if nothing happened before that. People trying to elucidate the "Controversy over Kosovo independence" should be focused on how did this happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairplayalways (talk • contribs) 08:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV fork?

How is this not a POV fork of Kosovo declaration of independence 2008 article? Some of the content belongs there some of it to the international reaction article. What exactly is the reason for this article to exist with huge amounts of content forked out from elsewhere? Hobartimus (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This article should be removed. This is not a serious discussion of the issue by any stretch. It should start with a proper and full examination of the principles of self determination and territorial integrity in international affairs, and show that the right to self-determination is in fact very limited under international law. In fact, it applies only to cases of decolonisation, and at the point of decolonisation. The fact that it refers to a NATO report as its main source shows that this has not been written with any serious intent, but rather as an attempt to somehow justify independence. To suggest that Kosovo has generated a mixsed reaction, and imply that some states don't recognise it, is laughable. So far only 27 states of the 192 members of the UN have recognised Kosovo. Moreover, there is hardly a serious scholar of international politics who would argue that Kosovo's independence is legal. It may have been necessary for political reasons, but under international law, as currently constructed, it cannot be justified. In any case, the poor quality of the piece means that it should be removed. JL —Preceding unsigned comment added by JL (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont think this article should be removed because the controversy over Kosovo independence is top of the headline news these months.Kosovo is not a unique case as therer are many examples,so I think the article should exist.(202.161.76.219 (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

This Article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawohl (talk • contribs) 22:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys dont be so critical:There is already a lot of public criticism and controversy of the Kosovo independence,among them some countries dont recognise/refuse to recognise based on their own experiences with autonomous regions such as Romania Slovakia,China Russia Argentina to name a few and some countries who recognise it such as the USA like always.It definitely sets a very dangreous precedent and like what i wrote down we also have to make reference to recent events in Tibet-it is completely same thing.

[edit] Tibet recent events

I have been reading the Macedonian newspapers recently stating it in reference to Tibet events that Kosovo was a bomb that already explosed refering to the Tibet Autonomous Region.My question is can we include this somewhere in the article?(202.161.76.219 (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Whats is wrong with this paragraph

Because of this it theoretically come that the USA and its satellites violate international law. Russia, China, India, and Spain hold to international law.According to many politicians the political motives are something else. They even ask where would we end if we put the justification of political motives over the concept itself of international law.International law is what is holding this world together. It has undergone a crisis because of the political weakness of Russia in the 90ies, but things are coming back in order. USA will find it more difficult to play the petroleum game.Same thing goes with comparing the issue of Kosovo to the issues of other countries with potential political problem of same nature. Nevertheless, some models can be applied. For example, the Hong Kong autonomy model is best applicable to the Kosovo situation right now if international law had any weight. This model could bring active coexistence and balancing peace to the two confronted sides. But, not all sides are interested in coexistence and peace and not when profit motives are above human lives.It is breaking all the principles that we base modern society on. Part of a country's territory doesn't 'gain' independence when it suits someone.

According to many opinion polls and people around the world,the Kosovo case becomes more and more controversial and it looks like another Bay of Pigs.It was fine for the USA and Israel to fight for their independence, it's just wrong for everyone else to.For some reason Kosovo has been freed whereas Chechnya, Wales, Catalonia, Scotland, Basques, Palestine, Kashmir, South Ossetia, Tibet etc. etc. are just stuck with being ruled by oppressive foreigners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChRis (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Legality of independence" section

This whole section is very non-encyclopedic: no references, just a (fairly well-written) discussion of international law as applicable to Kosovo independence. A couple of hours ago I did some editing to make it slightly less negative with respect to Kosovo. Then User:ChRis added a couple of additional paragraphs, making the whole thing even less encyclopedic, which I reverted.

As an aside, I can mention that the prior version of this article was twice nominated for deletion. Both times I voted delete. The first result was keep, the second delete. The situation has changed dramatically since then (that was back before 17 Feb. 2008), and the article has also changed a lot, but I still doubt that this article belongs in an encyclopedia, even an encyclopedia that is very different and very up-to-date like Wikipedia. There is too much opinion, and not enough hard facts.

Anyway, I'd just like to add some comments in connection with my deletion of User:ChRis' added text. User:ChRis bases his/her arguments on (former) international law. My point is that international law, like everything else, changes. International law today is not the same as it was just 50 years ago, and is much, much different than it was a couple of hundred years ago. My claim is that, despite everything, we humans are slowly becoming less warlike and primitive, and more "civilized" (whatever that means). One can also take the pragmatic point of view that "international law" is whatever you see happening internationally, and from that point of view, Kosovo independence is international law. (Kosovo independence is, by now, a done deal - no matter what detractors say and do there is no going back.)

I could continue, but I really should be trying to get some work done. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While some of the edits made to the section have been biased and unreferenced the area dealing with the NATO report is sourced as it points to the External Links where a link to the report is given. Also some aspects are supported by the wikilinks as well. There's no need to source that the Helsinki Act notes respect for the inviolability of borders and the right of self-determination. As far as the article itself, the whole subject is controversy meaning people with conflict opinions discussing something. As such the article is legitimate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

One question:How can Kosovo be an international law,when the international law regarding Kosovo is broken by USA and its allies?Russia supports the international law and therefore they dont want this to be changed.Anyway,dont u guys agree if Kosovo is independent but it will never gain a seat in the UN,so therefore its declaration of independence is illegal.There are too many unrecognised states in the world who do not have a UN seats and they count and separistic and secessionist movements.We have to think about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contact Group

...its basis for the solution of the status of Kosovo from 2005 is missing. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SNSD link

Someone should relink the SNSD link in the "As a precedent for Republika Srpska" section, because now it redirects to the "Girls' Generation" page :D Örsvezér (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] scope?

It is unclear how the scope of this article differs from that of political status of Kosovo. It just appears to rehash the same topic in essay form. This is potentially problematic per WP:CFORK, and I suggest the article should be merged. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I find your comment confusing as while there is a reference to the status of Kosovo, this is a small part of the article and the article deals with much broader issues. Which bear no relation to Kosovo's status.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

I hope you know that original research is prohbited here at Wikipedia. Large parts of the article, especially sections on whether Kosovo is a "precedent" or not are based on original research. The best solution to merge with other articles on Kosovo's independence. --Noah30 (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mind pointing out where there's any original research? I would love to see it. I doubt you can point to any "large parts" of the article that are original research. Then again, given your pro-Albanian stances on several other articles, I think you have ulterior motives for objecting.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)