Talk:Kosovo/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Template 2 References 3 Incompletely reverted POV-pushing 4 Dated material 5 wikiproject europe - wikiproject serbia on kosovo cities articles 6 Cyrillic names of Kosovo cities 7 When 8 WikiProject Kosovo announcement 9 Flag and Anthem? 10 Position in templates 11 Maps 12 Article probation 13 Announcement of independence declaration time 14 Dealing with the declaration of independence 15 Talk page guidelines 15.1 I'm against censorship on this talk page 16 Name spelling 17 Declaration has been made 18 Kosovo declared independence 19 Map 20 PAGE PROTECTION NEEDED (?) 21 Intro 22 Independence 23 What the hell just happened? 24 Declaration of independence article

[edit] Template

Pease re-insert the template. Thanks, Vitaltrust

Is there a good reason why the article uses a hard-coded template instead of just having the code in the article itself? Green Giant (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jan 24 2008

The gallery part of this article is heavily biased toward Serbian graphics. The article admits that 90% of the population of Kosova is Sunni Muslim yet only one mosque is depicted! For a mere 4% Serbian population the graphic representation is overly biased. Is there a fear about admitting Kosovo as a Muslim state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.69.38 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

I placed a cleanup tag on the History section, indicating that we need more references. I'm especially concerned about the paragraph that begins "Historical sources suggest that medieval Kosovo had a Serbian character..." I don't know enough about the medieval history of Kosovo to know one way or the other. But in the current political climate, that statement needs to be strongly sourced to prevent edit-warring by nationalists from both sides. Dchall1 (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incompletely reverted POV-pushing

The following chunk of POV-pushing was never properly reverted.

[1]

Because of this chunk, there's now a huge, dislocated block of text right in the middle of the History section. Subsequent edits have simply gone on top of it, making it difficult to fix.

Can someone take a look at it? -- ran (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to the last good version. -- ran (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence shows that it not only POV, but also blatant vandalism. Thank you, for reverting.Bless sins (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dated material

This block at the end of "Kosovo Status Process" is dated and should probably be updated: "Despite Russian disapproval, the U.S., Britain, and France appear likely to recognize Kosovar independence[46] if it is declared after December 10, 2007, the date upon which the Contact Group will report on the Troika's efforts to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon[47]." 70.251.33.170 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

are yllirians precedents of albanians? or are tracks so? or are epirots so? well then u just have to see the history and find so. find one credible source who brings albanians from another place and u'd score high. u say that kosova was named Dardania. ok? what does Daradania mean? in what language has it a sense? does it mean "land of pears" in albanian. where is this name and other illyrian names, like Taulant, or Alban conserved? and if the serbs came to Kosovo at the 7-th century, who did live in Kosove before? is there no testimony? ask Saint Paul who converted them to christains? and write a little more history, correct one. u speak of a Kosovo as a serbian dominated territory? when was there more serbs than albanians at that territory?

Learn to spell "you" and you might have a chance at convincing someone.--12.119.210.194 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wikiproject europe - wikiproject serbia on kosovo cities articles

Beacause kosovo is only geographically part of serbia , and is actually administrated by UNMIK it cant be only on the scoope of wikiproject serbia ( especially now that kosovo is declaring independence (possibly this month) the wikiproject serbia will have to go. Since there isnt a wikiproject kosovo I'd suggest putting the wikiproject europe template on talk pages for kosovo cities , at least until there is a wikiproject kosovo--B.C. 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is geographically a part of the Balkans, and three geographic parts: Kosovo, Metohija and the Ibar's Frontier. Politically, it's a part of the Republic of Serbia. I'm not sure I understand your proposal. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean after it declares independence--B.C. 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bindicapriqi (B.C.), WikiProjects are just venues for collaboration among editors interested in the same topics. Having their templates in article talk pages does not imply any kind of "ownership" or "territorial claim": it just means that the article falls within the scope that a certain group of editors designated for its collaborative activities :-)

As I'm sure you understand, Kosovo has a special cultural significance to Serbia, one that would not be automatically extinguished by a declaration of independence. Therefore, in principle, Kosovo-related articles would continue to fall within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, even if a new WikiProject Kosovo is created.

In any case, before anyone starts a disruptive spree by removing, adding or restoring templates from hundreds of article talk pages, an agreement should be reached on the issue. Any proposal to somehow "reduce" the area of involvement of WikiProject Serbia by removing all Kosovo-related articles from its scope should be discussed in a centralized manner first (probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject). - Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Europe clearly has too wide a scope to be appropriate here - as its page says, it "concentrates primarily on matters of a pan-European nature", which Kosovo plainly isn't. WikiProject Serbia is also unquestionably relevant to Kosovo given the overlapping histories of the two regions (see for example Gibraltar, which is covered by both WikiProject Spain and WikiProject Gibraltar). However, we do plainly need a WikiProject Kosovo given the imminent independence of Kosovo, which (so I'm told) may happen as early as this week. I'll set one up along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar, which I created last March. We'll need to create a public watchlist like the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar/publicwatchlist so that edits to Kosovo-related articles can be monitored more easily - I'm sure there's likely to be a spate of vandalism from both sides when independence comes, so it will be essential to deal with that quickly. I'll add the articles I'm aware of to the watchlist; I'll need help from everyone else to make the list truly comprehensive. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is one problem - WikiProject Kosovo was created and deleted, and after recreated there was an RfD only weeks ago, and the consensus was deletion as per problematic and was deleted again. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because to be honest it wasn't that well set up - I've been reviewing the deleted versions. I intend to avoid those problems. When Xolox closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo, he did so on a "without prejudice" (in the legal sense) basis - "If revived in the future, it would be best to start fresh." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrillic names of Kosovo cities

The cyrillic names of kosovar cities are appearing first in the infoboxes.I'm not proposing to remove them but to put them on the end of the list (they also appear first in the introduction anyway). The cyrillic names of biggest serbian cities like Belgrade,Kragujevac etc. also appear last in the infobox , the same way as a lot of other cities arounf the world wich put their name in latin first .--B.C. 15:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When

Remembering the frenzies that happened with Montenegro or even the Australian elections I'm concerned, when do we change the article to say it is a country? After the declaration, US recognition, EU recognition or UN admittance? Will it be fully or semi locked for the first few hours/days? Ideas, thoughts on the execution of this? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 21:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you assume that we have to change it at all?

This is something I wanted to start discussion about: there are claims that Kosovo will declare independence soon, and it will probably be good if we could agree beforehand on how to change the lead of the article (and rest of the article, where it is necessary).

I suggest that if Kosovo declares independence, the lead is updated to say that "On <date>, Kosovo declared independence from Serbia.", perhaps as the last sentence in the lead. If, afterwards, some countries recognise Kosovo as an independent country, we could add "This Country, That Country, etc. recognised Kosovo as an independent country." after that sentence. If the number of the countries is relatively large and their list is too cumbersome for the lead, the list of countries could be put in the Kosovo status process section (with an anchor link from the lead). It would also be logical to somewhere mention countries that proclaimed that they will not recognise independent Kosovo (first of all Serbia, but also Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Romania, Russia etc). Nikola (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the date of independence declaration shoul be putt in the infobox , while it isnt very necessary to tell the countries wich recongnise it as that can be putt on kosovo status process --B.C. 22:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The first few countries to recognize it could be listed under a new 'Independence' section but you have no chance with your why-should-we-change it proposal. Not because of me, but because the second the article is unlocked people will modify it to read that Kosovo is a nation. And it will be, are you proposing that Wikipedia not recognise Kosovite independence? This would severely go against NPOV. Then again blatantly recognising it the second it goes free would also be a little POVish (though we may have no other choice) That's what I wanted to talk about here, how do we go about this? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that Wikipedia should not recognise Kosovo's independence. Wikipedia should only note if there are countries that recognise Kosovo independence, and nothing more than that. Nikola (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Given that Kosovo's diplomatic recognition is likely to be controversial, contested and limited at first, its situation isn't very much like that of Montenegro's declaration of independence, which nobody contested. I suggest that we should look at our articles on other disputed self-declared independent states to see how they are described. In particular, I'm thinking of Northern Cyprus. I would suggest a wording for Kosovo that was along the following lines, based on the first paragraph of Northern Cyprus:

The Republic of Kosovo, commonly called Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova or Kosovë), (Serbian: Косово и Метохија, Kosovo and Metohija; also Космет, Kosmet), is a de facto independent republic located in south-eastern Europe. Kosovo's Albanian-dominated parliament declared the republic's independence from Serbia in 2008, nine years after the Kosovo War ended 86 years of Serbian control. It remained under United Nations administration while international negotiations on its status took place. After the talks ended inconclusively with the Albanian and Serbian sides failing to reach an agreement, Kosovo declared independence unilaterally. The decision was strongly opposed by Serbia and Russia but the new state has been recognised by most European Union states, the United States and a number of other countries.

What do people think? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence remains yet to be seen, but the ended 86 years of Serbian control bit I don't think quite appropriate. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo will declare independence on February 17 (according to latest news) and some political analysts think that its status will be more-less similar to that of Taiwan (Republic of China), so, the best solution for first paragraph of the Kosovo article is example that we have in Republic of China article: "The Republic of China is a state in East Asia" (in our case: "Kosovo is a state in Southeastern Europe") or "Because of diplomatic pressure from the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China is commonly referred to as Chinese Taipe" in international organizations" (in our case: "Because of diplomatic pressure from Serbia and Russia, the Republic of Kosovo is not a full member of some international organizations") - or something like that anyway. 81.18.61.227 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I really like ChrisO's proposal! It's succinct, well-written and balanced. The only objection I'd have is the "86 years of Serbian control" bit -- that is a bit much and probably could be axed. Envoy202 (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah! ChrisO beat me to the punch. I've been working on User:The_Tom/Kosovo for a couple of days with an eye to walking that really narrow NPOV tightrope. Go ahead and edit it if you'd like, and thoughts there or here would be much-appreciated. The Tom (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I like ChrisO's proposal too, very much. Even the "86 years" part :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely support it too, it really indeed is almost perfect. The reason (why) I object that bit is because it's only a bit historically inaccurate. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Some changes to ChrisO's version :

Kosovo , from xx.xx.xxxx officially The Republic of Kosovo (albanian... serbian...) is a (de facto) independent republic/country in southeastern europe.After negotiations failed to reach a consensus Kosovos parliament (unilaterally) (we dont have to add "albanian-dominated")declared independence from serbia on xx.xx.xx , nine years after the kosovo war . This decision was strongly opposed by serbia and russia but the new state is recognized by the US , most of the EU etc. (after a lot of nations recognize it we could remove this sentence and add : ... by most of the international community) - Note:this version needs changes as well --B.C ^{say what ?} 21:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's (no offense) a bit worse than ChrisO's version. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it occurs to me that the "86 years" isn't strictly accurate - Serbia didn't control Kosovo during the two World Wars. There are a few other issues with the wording as well (I have to admit it was a fairly hasty effort on my part). I also like elements of The Tom's proposal. So I suggest this revised version, incorporating an amended version of my original text plus chunks of The Tom's text and stuff based on his version:

The Republic of Kosovo, commonly called Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova or Kosovë), (Serbian: Косово и Метохија, Kosovo and Metohija; also Космет, Kosmet), is a de facto independent republic located in south-eastern Europe. Kosovo's Albanian-dominated parliament declared the republic's independence from Serbia in February 2008, nine years after the 1999 Kosovo War. Following the war Kosovo remained under United Nations administration while international negotiations on its status took place. The talks ended inconclusively with the Albanian and Serbian sides failing to reach an agreement.

The republic's unilateral declaration of independence was strongly opposed by Serbia and Russia but the new state has been recognised by most European Union states, the United States and a number of other countries. The Serbian government continues to view the territory as an integral part of Serbia and regards its secession as illegal. The United Nations had previously affirmed Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, but Russian opposition has meant that the UN has not formally recognised Kosovo's independence.

Kosovo borders Central Serbia, Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. It has a population of just over two million people, the vast majority being ethnic Albanians. There are smaller populations of Serbs, Turks, Bosniaks, Roma and other ethnic groups. The largest cities are Priština, the capital and largest city, along with Kosovska Mitrovica, Peć and Prizren. With an area of just under 11,000 km², Kosovo is one of the smallest states in Europe and also one of the poorest. It remains heavily dependent on international aid, with NATO's Kosovo Force providing security and the European Union's EULEX mission taking over many areas of responsibility from an earlier United Nations mission.

A few points: I take Pax's point about the last sentence being "yet to be seen", but since reports out of Pristina say that around 100 countries have provisionally agreed to recognise Kosovo I think it's a fairly safe assumption that there more than just the EU and the US will recognise Kosovo. I would expect its other ex-YU neighbours to recognise it, for a start, Albania certainly will, and most of the former USSR probably will (with the obvious exceptions of Russia and Belarus). Also, when I said most EU states, that's in reference to the fact that Cyprus and Romania have already said they won't recognise Kosovo. In addition, I used the qualifier "de facto independent" to make it clear that the question of its de jure independence is uncertain (legally, it's not entirely clear as to what constitutes de jure independence, but UN recognition is usually held to be a sign of that status). I've also rewritten the following two paragraphs, as we will require an entirely new introduction when Kosovo gets its new status and the existing intro doesn't really summarise the article that well anyway.

There are some other important issues that need to be addressed in the next few days, affecting all articles on Kosovo. I'll raise them on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo, as the best place to coordinate editing on Kosovo-related articles. Speaking of which, if you haven't signed up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo (how's that for a subtle hint?), now's the time to do so! -- ChrisO (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, also in certain periods of Yugoslavia Serbia hardly controlled Kosovo. Aside from that, western Kosovo (Pec, Djakovica and Prizren) a.k.a. Metohija/Dukagjin was Montenegrin before the unification.

One proposal: considering that the last official statistical estimate is below two million, I suggest rephrasing "just over two million" to "almost two million". I also suggest, as per the numbers and territorial distribution, this phrasing to be used: "Serbs, Romas, Goranis, Bosniacs, Turks and other ethnic communities". The "communities" is just because it somehow seems "cooler" to me personally as a term. ;D

(Regarding the 100 countries) I know, I know, but as I said, that yet remains to truly occur. Some states might go very late with recognition of Kosovo, as it had occurred with other secessions in former Yugoslavia before. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that Kosovo#Demographics says "According to the Kosovo in Figures 2005 survey of the Statistical Office of Kosovo, Kosovo's total population is estimated between 1.9 and 2.2 million". So "around two million" is probably the best solution, as that covers all possibilities. I agree, "communities" is nicer, let's use that. :-) You're also correct to point out the uncertainty about the "100 countries" claim by Pristina. That's why I used the formulation "a number of countries" - again, that covers all possibilities. We'll need to be strategically vague during the early days of independence, as things are likely to be very changeable for a while. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And the Kosovo Statistical Office published that in 2007 Kosovo had a population of 1,900,000 which is, I believe, used in the article as the most accurate (it somehow also corresponds to the most recent election result, but that's irrelevant).

And your opinion on the minorities proposal? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of problems with this sentence: "The United Nations had previously affirmed Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, but Russian opposition has meant that the UN has not formally recognised Kosovo's independence." First, the U.S. and Europe will be arguing that any references to "sovereignty and territorial integrity" referred to the just-concluded interim phase of Kosovo's administration and therefore do not create legally-binding obligations. You can agree or disagree with that statement, but regardless it will be challenged. I don't think we need to get into the legal details of that issue and would leave it out. But, if the article does delve into it, then it at least needs to be more nuanced. Finally, the UN does not "recognize" the independence of states -- that's purely a national prerogative. You could say, however, "It is expected that Russia would block a Kosovo application to become a member of the United Nations." Envoy202 (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I take your point(s)... Looking again at UNSCR 1244, it actually says "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region." So in other words, it's a statement of the commitment of the member states, rather than the UN as a corporate body, and it doesn't specifically state the sovereignty of Serbia over Kosovo. Having said that, Serbia is recognised as the successor to the FRY, so the text is an implicit endorsement of its sovereignty (that in itself is a bit unusual). In addition, you're right in saying that the UN doesn't "recognise" a state as such, it merely admits it as a member (or not as the case may be). In view of that, how about something like: "The United Nations had previously reaffirmed its members' commitment to maintaining the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to which Serbia is the successor state, and it is expected that Russia would block an application from Kosovo to become a UN member state." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Referring to the period lasting until that precise moment in the future or not, it indeed does claim that, as well as point out that a future solution to the status of Kosovo is (or better, was) to be solved (next other factors, of course) upon the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

According to annalists in Kosovo , Kosovo is going to be a member of the UN about 1-2years after independence declaration , even with russian disapproval --B.C ^{say what ?} 12:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

BC: it's not possible for Kosovo to become a member of the UN unless Russia relents. To become a member of the UN, you must first get an affirmative recommendation from the UN Security Council and then a 2/3 vote of the UN General Assembly. Russia is certain to veto the affirmative recommendation in the UN Security Council so long as Serbia continues to reject Kosovo's independence. Fortunately, I've always felt that this period of new limbo for Kosovo is limited. After the disaster of letting in a divided Cyprus to the EU, I can't imagine that Europe would ever let in Kosovo and Serbia before they have finally resolved this issue. It might take 5-10 years, but eventually Serbia will acquiesce or accomodate itself in some way to Kosovo's independence. Envoy202 (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is the UN Security Council still based on the winners of the Second World War? Does that accurately reflect the balance of power nowadays? And whose bright idea was veto power? — Rickyrab | Talk 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dream on... Nikola (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris/Pax: I just would jump in with one point on 1244. Chris, aboeve you dropped off the last critical phrase in the 1244 language on sovereignty. The entire section reads, "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2." The last two conditions -- the HFA and annex 2 references -- are critical. The HFA is a complex document that has balances a number of important principles, including respect for territorial integrity, but also the rights of individuals, the maintenance of regional peace and security, etc. One of the the most important principles of the HFA is that all the principles must be taken into account considering all the other principles. But the reference in 1244's preamble to annex 2 is even more important. If you read that annex, it refers repeatedly to the interim phase of Kosovo's administration, i.e., the phase during which the UN was to ensure that Kosovo enjoyed substantial autonomy within the FRY (now Serbia). That interim phase is about to conclude. Critically, the resolution did not mandate whether the final status outcome would be within the context of FRY sovereignty or independence. In fact, the annex 2 reference to the Rambouillet Accords, which included the "will of the people" (referendum) as a factor in the determination of status, shoes that 1244 contemplated independence as a possible outcome. The United States and European countries on the Security Council would never have agreed to a Security Council resolution that did not leave open the door for independence. After all, what would be the point of having a UN-facilitated status process if the outcome was already predetermined? Again, one can agree or disagree with these points. The only reason I list them is to point out that the situation is not black and white and smart people can disagree about whether 1244 is a legal impediment to independence and what the Security Council actually meant in 1999. I'd therefore recommend leaving out a discussion of 1244 at the beginning of the article (perhaps a more nuanced explanation could appear later?) and simply state, "Due to Russian opposition, Kosovo is unlikely to become a member state of the United Nations for some time." Envoy202 (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation of international law is your own. It is of no relevance to Wikipedia. Nikola (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I find some problems with what seems to be the last proposal.

The Republic of Kosovo, commonly called Kosovo is a de facto independent republic located in south-eastern Europe.

Compare this with:

Transnistria, also known as Trans-Dniester, Transdniestria and Pridnestrovie (full name: Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic), is a breakaway republic[2][3] within the internationally recognised borders of Moldova.

So, I don't think that an official-sounding name should be the very first words of the article, and I do think that the fact that Kosovo is within the internationally recognised borders of Serbia should be mentioned.

Following the war Kosovo remained under United Nations administration

As if it was under UN administration before the war. I think that this should be changed to "was put under United Nations administration" or similar.

while international negotiations on its status took place.

This implies that the UN administration was scheduled to last only as long as the negotiations were underway. I don't have a better suggestion.

The talks ended inconclusively with the Albanian and Serbian sides failing to reach an agreement.

This implies that the Albanian and Serbian sided attempted to reach an agreement, but failed. Of course, Albanian side did not attempt to reach an agreement. Perhaps, failing to reach -> not reaching.

The republic's unilateral declaration of independence

Even if Kosovo could be considered a republic, it was certainly not a republic when it declared independence. This should be "The province's unilateral..." (or "Kosovo's unilateral", or simply "its unilateral")

was strongly opposed by Serbia and Russia but the new state has been recognised by most European Union states, the United States and a number of other countries.

A number of countries other than the Serbia and Russia oppose the independence, for example Greece, Cyprus, Romania, China etc; this should be mentioned.

The Serbian government continues to view the territory as an integral part of Serbia and regards its secession as illegal.

This implies that the secession is not in fact illegal. It would probably be better to say "...integral part of Serbia because its secession is illegal." or similar.

The United Nations had previously affirmed Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, but Russian opposition has meant that the UN has not formally recognised Kosovo's independence.

And this is the absolute worst of the lot. This would mean that the UN would recognise Kosovo's independence if not for Russia and its opposition, Resolution 1244, the UN Charter and everything else be damned. It would better be: "The United Nations had previously affirmed Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, and has not recognised Kosovo's independence." Also, formally recognised - is there an informal recognition? It should be simply "recognised".

It has a population of just over two million people

If there are disputes, what's wrong with sayng "around two million"?

Kosovo is one of the smallest states in Europe and also one of the poorest.

Please. Nikola (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We cant compare kosovo with transnistria because kosovo wont be a breakway republic within internationally recognized borders of serbia , instead most countries will recognize it as an independent republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.29 (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The more I read all the comments, the more convinced I am that ChrisO's original proposal was pretty darn good! I think the dicussion also demonstrated that different people will have different interpretations of international law -- Nikola expressed one version, I outlined another version, I'm sure there are lots of other approaches. Therefore, I think we should be extremely careful in how we refer to 1244 and what it did or did not preclude. If we go too far in offering an interpretation we'll have folks like Nikola (or his Albanian POV counterparts on the other side) jumping in and trying to "fix" the article to suit their approach. Therefore, I'd recommend just reporting the controversy, saying something like "The Serbian government continues to view the territory as an integral part of Serbia and regards its secession as illegal, contrary to UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and in violation of principles of international law." My other minor gripe with ChrisO's original is how the UN administration is characterized. The original was: "Following the war Kosovo remained under United Nations administration while international negotiations on its status took place." The UN administration was in place even before the status talks began in 2005. Therefore, I'd propose instead, "After the war, the UN Security Council suspended Belgrade's governance over Kosovo and placed the region under transitional UN administration. The UN later facilitated international negotiations on the issue of Kosovo's status." Envoy202 (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

hm , good idea , exept that last sentence isnt very nesesary --B.C ^{say what ?} 01:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to make a controversy where there is none. The sentence you are proposing is flawed in many ways:

The Serbian government continues to view the territory as an integral part of Serbia

This implies that only the Serbian governments continues to view it so, when in reality a number of governments (all that do not recognise independent Kosovo) will continue to view it so.

and regards its secession as illegal, contrary to UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and in violation of principles of international law."

And this implies that the secession is not illegal while it in fact is, and there is no one who claims otherwise. Nikola (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

---

We can fairly conclude that 1244 UNSCR does not bar independence as the Serbian side points out, but we also have to agree that it does bar a unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo, it most surely excludes it, just like it excludes a direct UN-sponsored reintegration of Kosovo directly into Serbian soil like Baranya, Western Syrmia and East Slavonia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nikola, I agree with you that more countries than just Serbia will assert that independence is illegal. I'd recommend, however, just mentioning Serbia's opposition to it in the opening section -- then, in a later part of the article, we can get into a more nuanced dicsussion, present the two points of view and specify more clearly who asserts independence is illegal and who asserts that it is legitimate. I disagree with Pax's point that we can accept as an unchallenged assertion the idea that 1244 bars Kosovo's declaration of independence. This is a highly debatable point. Within a week or so a number of countries -- including many known for their highest respect for international law, such as the Netherlands, Switzerland, France, etc. -- will almost certainly recognize Kosovo's independence and in doing so assert that its declaration of independence was legal and legitimate. Therefore, our article cannot accept as a "fact" the assertion that 1244 bars a declaration of independence. All we can write is that a number of countries (Serbia and Russia first among them) claim that 1244 does so. I tried to summarize the counter-argument above, just to show that there is a cogent legal argument in favor of Kosovo declaring its independence. Envoy202 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote. Unilateral. We can discuss through 1244 if you'd like, but from a lawyer's point of view I claim that indeed the resolution is based on negotiations and compromise. It most surely absolutely excludes the possibility that Kosovo directly (re)integrates into the territory of Serbia like Baranya, Western Syrmia and Eastern Slavonia into Croatia in 1997, because it draws on one or two points the will of the people. On the other hand, it also excludes most undoubtedly the other extreme, which is a unilateral declaration of Kosovo's independence, without respect to sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state which's it an official part.

Because these are the Balkans, the real events are to be seen. Most of Europe, yes, will probably recognize its independence, but not most of the other continents of the globe. I'd also like to point out, that even if a certain event is supported my a majority, it cannot assert the legalism of a certain matter, only legitimacy from a globalist side of view. In 2004 the Serbian parliament had adopted a new Flag, a new Coat of Arms and a new National Anthem. Despite that this proposal was supported by 100% (250 of 250) Serbian MPs, and that it had received truly no opposition from Serbia's intellectual elite, we must assert that such a move was clearly illegal. There is here, like everywhere, the controversy in the fact that after the 5th October 2000 Bulldozer Revolution laws from the 1990s "don't really count", but, as with this moment in here (which indeed does receive a handful amount of opposition), no one can deny the fact that it was indeed illegal.

The only thing which might happen, is if Serbia's request is accepted by the International Court of Justice. The ICJ might that rule out that independence of Kosovo is illegal, and then Serbia will have - by its own implication - too to recognize Kosovo's secession. Of course, even the ICJ has been proven either politicized (last several cases) or even irrelevant (US & Venezuela), as a factor waiting to pour further hot iron into the crack at the wall of the International Law, itself standing on loose legs... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to make the lead misleading when it is just as easy not to do so. Instead of "The Serbian government continues to view" it could say "Most governments continue to view" or if that bothers you even simply "Independence is recognised by five countries, while four asserted that they will not recognize it."

Even you yourself appear not to believe that the declaration of independence is legal (when you say "who asserts independence is illegal and who asserts that it is legitimate"). Do you know of any reliable source that establishes that the secession is not illegal? And I don't mean some political commentator who says "sure it is" but preferably someone who says "this article of that document actually allows for secession". Even if a number of countries "known for their highest respect for international law" recognize independent Kosovo, it won't make its independence any more legal; it will instead make these countries less known for their respect for international law.

If we can't reach a compromise over this, perhaps it's the best not to mention legality of independence in the lead at all. Nikola (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Nikola. The legality issues can best be addressed elsewhere. Heck, we could even have a separate article on just the legal argumentation back and forth. As a fallback, I'd support Pax's purely factual acocunting of "X number of countries have recognized Kosovo's independence, while X number of countries asserted they will not recognize it." My purpose in illustrating the legal arguments in favor of Kosovo declaring independence was not to score a debating point (as much fun as that can be!), but rather to show that there is not a single, universally-accepted opinion on the legality of Kosovo's imminent declaration of independence. It doesn't matter what I think (and I do have my opinions, but I'd rather not express them here) or what anyone else thinks -- what matters for Wikipedia are the facts reported by reliable sources. And, in this case, our reliable sources will soon be pointing to a good faith disagreement on the legal issues involved. As a final observation on this subject, I'd note that the complex interaction of international legal principles involved here means that we're not dealing with a black and white situation. The tragic circumstances of Yugoslavia's violent, non-consensual breakup have often created situations where the international community took extraordinary action that had international legal implications. Because of the murkiness involved, it's possible that neither the US/EU legal point of view nor the Russia/Serbia legal point of view will be entirely "true," whatever that means! Envoy202 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason why there is not a single universially-accepted opinion on on the legality of Kosovo's imminent declaration of independence (which stands on very loose legs) is because opponents of its independence draw upon Law - while its supporters do not, because it is not quite on their side. I do not understand how the international documents (from the UNSC Resolutions to the Contact Group conclusions which explicitly bar unilateral acts upon any side) cannot be used as a source of the Wikipedia. That's precisely what I meant, this is not black (reintegration of Kosovo into the Republic of Serbia against the will of its people) or white (unilateral self-declaration of Kosovo's independence). The EU still has yet to come to a common conclusion on the matter, and as I pointed out before, I think you're trying to say that International Law is repeatedly broken over and over again. It has become a dead word on a piece of paper. Still however, as I've said before, the repetitions of some act or the magnitude of its support (read my reference to the Serbian 2004 national symbols change), does not change the fact that such an act was illegal. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

---

According to bild (a german newspaper) [2] all members of the EU (except maybe cyprus ) will recognize kosovo . --Cradel 18:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The states which will recognize an independent Kosovo are France, Germany, Italy and Belgium (headed by France).

The states which will not recognize independence of Kosovo are headed by Cyprus, and also include Romania, Slovakia and Spain.

The other countries are not yet fully officially determined, but it is expected that Greece and Bulgaria won't recognize it, while the rest shall. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The states which are determined not to recognize it seem to be only cyprus , while the others (spain , romania , slovakia) might recognize it . As for greece and bulgaria , they might not recognize it at first but eventually they will --Cradel 19:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

These are official statements of the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it had received guarantees from these states (next to Russia) that they will not recognize independence of Kosovo. As for Romania, I see absolutely no incinuation at all that Romania might recognize it, it goes right after Cyprus in opposition. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the United States begin by unilaterally declaring independence? (That's the country I'm most familiar with, given that I live there.) Moreover, I feel that the status of Kosovo is actually that of an independent country in some people's eyes and that of a Serbian province in other people's eyes, and so both statuses ought to be recognized, especially if Kosovo formally declares independence and some countries recognize it. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, so did Serbia (re)begin by unilaterally declaring independence in 1804. :) But of course, nothing in the history should be watched through modern eyes - today there is the subject of formalized Law, which didn't exist back then. The status of Kosovo is not really an independent country at all, but that of a Serbian province so far. It has absolutely no status of an independent country - it has no national symbol (flag, coat of arms or anthem), it has no self-governing institution (legislative, executive and judicial bodies), it doesn't have sovereignty, it has no Constitution, it hasn't (yet) declared independence, nor is formally recognized as an independent country by any body whatsoever. And, it is (legally - both internationally & locally) a part of a country (Serbia). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with that assessment is that the country/province isn't really being run by Belgrade, it's kind of being run out of United Nations offices. So someone might say that it's a province of the United Nations! Anyhow, the US's declaration of independence, while unilateral, didn't occur in a vacuum. Law is only as good as those enforcing it, and there was a balance of relations between countries at the time (Spain was a major colonial power, France and Britain also had colonies, France and Britain had a rivalry going with spilled over into violence, but the US managed to succeed by getting help from France - in effect, the US had to win recognition of sorts from France in order to succeed at winning a war of independence.) tl;dr - International law is only as good as its enforcers. At what point does a country really become a country? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither are Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossettia, North Cyprus ran by Chişinău, Tbilisi, Nicosia.

Not really, because according to the United Nations itself, it's under the sovereignty of the Republic of Serbia.

Once again, the ages are totally different and completely unrelated. Big countries use force, international law is there to protect the little and weak countries.

At what point? When it fulfills all the criteria (a. declares independence; b. gets recognition of independence from global institutions; and c. creates a system of state governance in itself). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As Cyprus is considered a country, despite Turkish recognition of the TRNC, so Kosovo should be recognized in full despite Russian non-recognition. Russia is only one nation, and not a very important one for the English Wikipedia either. When the majority of the English-speaking world recognizes Kosovo, the English 'pedia should react. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Kosovo announcement

I thought you might like to know that I've (re)started Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo to help coordinate editing and facilitate monitoring of Kosovo-related articles. I will be sponsoring the project. If you have any queries about it, please ask me on my talk page or use Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo.

If you wish to become involved, please feel free to do so - simply leave your username at Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo#Participants. One feature that you may find particularly useful is the public watchlist. If you click here you can see all the recent changes to articles listed on the watchlist.

There is still a lot of work to be done on getting the project off the ground, so your help would be welcomed. In particular:

• The public watchlist needs to be populated with all Kosovo-related articles (and redirects), categories, images and templates. I've added as many as I've found so far but more need to be added.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo#Recognized content and Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo#Formerly ecognized content need to be populated.

-- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag and Anthem?

Any word about a flag and national anthem for Kosovo? Inkan1969 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know! — Rickyrab | Talk 21:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

three propositions have been selected for the flag . the one that seems more likely to be "the one" is the white map of kosovo in a blue field sourrounded by yellow stars --Cradel 21:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The National Symbols shall be known together with the moment of declaration. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

this seems most likely to be the future flag , as a local newspaper reports --Cradel 13:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This flag is better: So is the anthem "Hey Slavs" Campactdisque (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Position in templates

I am not sure whether this was addressed before. When Kosovo declares independence, where do we put it in the infoboxes? Under {{Countries of Europe}} or under Unrecognised republics, territories or regions section of {{Non-sovereign territories of Europe}}? Here's a little trick because the name of the template is Countries while the header says sovereign countries. Just two examples, Northern Cyprus is in the second one, although it was recognized by Turkey. Republic of China (Taiwan) is in {{Countries and territories of East Asia}} and not in {{Countries of Asia}}, though it is recognized by several countries. Is there actually a criteria for inclusion into countries template? UN membership? I guess we are late with this discussion but better late than too late... (if this was discussed already, please give me a link)--Tone 09:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Kosovo may declare independence but since UN will not recognize it, then it's nothing. --Косовска Митровица (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed a deleted comment by you said that the US wouldn't recognize it; however, news articles are saying that the US would recognize Kosovan independence and that Russia threatened to recognize breakaway republics of Georgia if other countries recognized Kosovo as a country. I don't see why recognition of secessionaries from Georgia would be a problem. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Is there actually a criteria for inclusion into countries template? UN membership?" -- The Vatican City State (a non-member of the UN) uses {{Infobox Country}} and {{Countries of Europe}}, in case that helps. (130.237.223.108 (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

The UN != everybody. If some countries consider Kosovo a country, then it might as well be called a country. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree , it should be in the countries template --Cradel 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But shouldn't then Transnistria and North Cyprus also be inserted? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Transnistria isnt recognized by anyone , northern cyprus only by turkey . While kosovo will be recognized by the USA , most of EU , Japan etc. , which are the main nations , it doesent really matter if serbia recognizes it or not , as long as these countries do it might as well be on the countries template --Cradel 22:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about Transnistria. So what shall then be the criteria (Kosovo and not North Cyprus)? So far a very clear and stable one was international recognition (the UN). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

East Timor provides a comparable recent example. It declared independence on May 20, 2002 under UN supervision. Many countries recognised it immediately or within a couple of months - including the EU, US, Australia and Indonesia - but it wasn't admitted to the UN until September 27, 2002. Our ex-Yugoslav editors will recall that Slovenia and Croatia were in a similar position (declaration of independence on June 25, 1991, widespread recognition thereafter, admission to the UN eleven months later on May 22, 1992). So were East Timor, Slovenia and Croatia not "countries" during the time between their declarations of independence and their UN accession? Quite simply, our definition of a country as being "a state recognised by the UN" isn't adequate. It ignores the fact that diplomatic recognition isn't for the UN to decide in the first place - UN membership is a separate issue from diplomatic status. (Ukraine and Belarus were founder members of the UN in 1945 with their own seats despite not being independent countries at the time.) The concept of a country is nebulous in any case (is the Basque Country a country? What about the UK's constituent countries, none of which are independent?). In short, the definition of a sovereign state under international law has nothing to do with the UN; see the Montevideo Convention, which pre-dates the UN by 12 years, and also Declarative theory of statehood, which defines what a state is in the first place.

Kosovo clearly won't be in the same category as unrecognised states such as Transnistria, as it will have major and probably quite widespread diplomatic recognition from the start - the Pristina government is talking about as many as 100 states being willing to recognise it. However, it also won't be in the same category as all the other countries in Europe, as it won't have universal recognition from its peers or be seated in the UN.

I suggest that the most equitable solution would be to add a new line to Template:Countries of Europe underneath the main list, titled "Partially recognised states of Europe". The criteria for inclusion in this category should be (1) full control of its claimed territory (i.e. not a virtual state); (2) a formal declaration of independence; (3) recognition by at least one UN member state. This would be a clear and stable set of criteria. Only Kosovo and Northern Cyprus would qualify, the latter on the basis of its recognition by Turkey. Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia etc. shouldn't be listed at all in this category, as nobody recognises them (and are the latter two counted as European anyway?). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a promising proposal. Just in case, are there any other countries in Europe that are not recognized by all other countries? Not that I would remember... And since Georgia is listed as European, its two republics can be as well, though geographically in Asia. Karabakh as well. Maybe the header of the template should be changed from Sovereign states of Europe to Countries of Europe to avoid controversy? --Tone 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest "Internationally recognised states of Europe" to be precise. Let's not forget that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (and also possibly the Basque Country) are conventionally termed "countries" but aren't listed and, of course, don't have international recognition. If international recognition is to be the key criterion, that should be stated up front in the header of the template. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of "Internationally recognized states" better. I'm afraid that the wording "Partially Recognized" would open a new door for edit-warring over Macedonia's status. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, since Macedonia is universally recognised (and seated at the UN) - the dispute is over its name, not its diplomatic status. But anyway, that's getting a bit off-topic; what do others think of this suggestion? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Do let me correct you ChrisO on several matters. The Republics of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were not widespread recognized or accepted into the UN before the official dissolution of their sovereign country. By the time they received seats in the UN, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had ceased to exist in every way (official & unofficial) imaginable. Next to that, secession of the Republic of Slovenia was absolutely perfectly legal.

This is wrong. The Constitutional Court of Yusoslavia recognised secession of Slovenia as unconstitutional. Nikola (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me also remind that the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially stated that it has received (as a response to that Thaci's statement) assurances likeways from more than 100 countries of the world that they won't recognize independence of Kosovo.

P.S. East Timor is very unrelated to Kosovo. After the Portuguese had retreated from it, it had self-declared independence. Knowing the standards practice (according to precedent law) and the general interpretation of the support of self-determination depicted in, among other acts, the UN Charter, as well as the conclusions thereof, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that Timor-Timor would not have been quickly internationally recognized as an independent country - as a former colony. The problem is that it was almost immediately invaded by the Republic of Indonesia (that is, in 1975). Kosovo was reconquered by Serbia in 1912 from the Ottoman Empire, an act supported and recognized by all parties of the world. While Indonesia had absolutely no historical claim for East Timor, Kosovo has a center of cultural and other heritage spanning 900 years. Kosovo was indeed integrated into the Serbian society, whereas the entire time period - the 1975-1999 Indonesian control of East Timor - was much like the abusive 1989-1999 Serbian control of Kosovo (a short time period). Next of all, at the Portuguese-Indonesian compromise in 1999, the eastern Timorians had refused to remain in Indonesia, which in turn withdrew its treatment of the region as its integral part. A United Nations interim administration mission was established in East Timor in 1999, on the basis of UNSCR 1264 which nowhere guarantees or affirms Indonesian sovereignty and territorial integrity. It leaves primarily to the people to decide the future of the state, which had occurred in 2002 when it became independent. On the other hand, UNSCR bases itself on Serbia's sovereignty and territorial integrity and leaves the foundations for a negotiated solution taking to granted both of these factors. 1. (as first and primary) Territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia, and 2. Will of the people of Kosovo. The situation is drastically different. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually Croatia and Slovenia were recognised by the European Community (as it was then) on 15 January 1992 and Bosnia on 6 April 1992 - significantly before the UN recognised the three states (in May 1992). I believe the US and quite a few other countries recognised all three ex-YU republics around the same time as the EC (some certainly recognised them earlier). As far as I know, East Timor's 1975 declaration of independence was never recognised by outside powers - significantly, even Portugal as the former colonial power didn't recognise it - but you're right to mention its status as a former colony. The UN's line was always that the Indonesian annexation was illegal as the people of East Timor had the right of self-determination, like other ex-colonies. Its situation isn't really comparable to Kosovo, as nobody recognised the original declaration of independence and only a handful of countries ever accepted Indonesia's claims to it - unlike Kosovo, which until now has almost universally been recognised as part of Serbia/Yugoslavia. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah, that's what I meant - majority of the world (if I recall good, even Europe) did not recognize before SFRY's sovereignty was extinguished (like Germany's, as you stated before), nor was it accepted into the UN (which was actually my main point). SFRY had factually seized to exist (even before).

Glad to hear that you agree. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have just realized a very strange thing. The United States supported Indonesia and blocked in the Security Council all sanctions against it. Today, Russia blocks Kosovo's recognition. When will these Greats leave the world to us little ones and stop with this bullying? :) The standard belief in former Yugoslavia is that true origins of all conflicts amongst minor states (including the Yugoslav wars) lies in foreign World Powers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I do agree. ;-) I don't believe the SFRY's sovereignty was ever actually extinguished, as there were successor states in the form of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other individual republics. Germany was an exceptional case in that the country remained intact while all self-government in all Germany territories was extinguished - a total extirpation at a national level. That sort of thing doesn't happen very often; states subjected to total occupations (CSA in 1865, Poland in 1939, Kuwait in 1990) are invariably annexed, rather than being kept intact as Germany was in 1945. Yugoslavia wasn't in that position in 1992. The unusual nature of the Yugoslav situation - the collapse of a country, rather than its extirpation - is why the Badinter Commission was established to sort out how the EC should deal with it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. A Federal state based on national equality of 6 nations and a dozen more national minorities is very different from a unitary nation-state that is firm, democratic and internationally represented. What I meant to say is that it already in 1991 lost any form of central government, and officially split in 1992 (before UN admission). Remember also that the Commission advised not to recognize immediately Croatia and Bosnia, but that occurred despite (it had approved Slovenia's). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

What about maps? Wikipedia is full of maps of Europe. Should the maps show Kosovo as being a part of Serbia, or as being an independent country? Historical maps are of course not affected, and maps of Serbia should probably include Kosovo (because of territorial claims). But what about other maps, such as Image:BlankMap-Europe.png? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

Good point. It's a tricky issue. I noticed that neither Northern Cyprus nor Transnistria are included on that map, so what criteria are we using for mapping? Presumably UN member states? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican City State is shown on all maps, despite the country not being a member of the UN. On the other hand, the Vatican City State has observer status in the UN, but on the other hand, so has the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and its territory (two houses in Rome) isn't displayed on maps. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

I'd say the standard is U.N. membership and/or universal recognition as a sovereign state. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, our criteria can't be UN membership, since Switzerland wasn't even a member of the UN until 2002; we surely wouldn't have excluded it from the map on that basis. I suggest that (for the sake of consistency with templates) we should adopt the same standard that I proposed above in #Position in templates, i.e. "internationally recognised states". We would thus have to show Kosovo and Northern Cyprus (the latter on the basis of its recognition by Turkey) but not Transnistria, as nobody recognises that state. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So if I get this right:

• Northern Cyprus should be added to lists of countries and all maps immediately (because of Turkey),
• The Republic of China should be listed as a country (and not as an area with ambiguous status), because of various countries, and
• Kosovo should be given the same treatment, once:
  • a) it has proclaimed independence, and
  • b) at least one UN member has recognised it.

Am I getting things right? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

UN recognition might be an issue in this particular case because the territory is still under the authority of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo and its administrator. I can't see any UN type of recognition in the nearby future. Furthermore when speaking about Northern Cyprus, I don't think recognition by one state is enough.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In order to fulfill conflicting approaches, imao there should be two kinds of countries on maps:

-"De jure countries": recognised by the UN or states whose territory is not claimed by neighbouring or other states eg. Vatican, Switzerland before 2002.

-"De facto countries": unrecognised by the UN, declared independent, self-controlled, whose territory is claimed by one or more states.

"De jure countries" will be seperated with thicker borders from each other. "De facto countries" should be included within the official thicker borders, but should be apparently separated with thinner borders from the country/-ies they officially belong to. In any case, we have a picture of both sides in this way.

Panos84 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that become a mess? TRBlom 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would become a mess. I don't think it's nessecary to show countries that lack recognition by the international community at all, with exeption of course when these countries are the subject at hand. About the Vatican and Switzerland: the fact that these countries aren't members of the UN doesn't imply that the UN doesn't "recognize" them. The UN is not a sovereign entity itself and is therefore stricktly not in the business of recognizing countries in the way that individual sovereign states do. Taiwan is a different matter altogether because, at this moment in time, it does not claim to be a seperate country.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I said "recognised by the UN or..." "A or B" means that it's possible that both A and B are true (by definition). So I didn't say whether the UN recognizes them or not; I am not aware of the exact status of recognition of such cases by the UN. I just tried to be as precise as possible in defining the criteria I mentioned.

What I do know is that including an unrecognised country that has declared independance wouldn't create any mess at all. There are only 9 such countries sofar only 5 of which are totally unrecognised (+ Occupied Palestinian Territories, special case, not declared independant sofar). After all, it's a matter of self-determination and including de facto situations. Somaliland, an unrecognised state, is a multi-party democracy, one of the most stable area in today's chaotic Somalia. I think it should be a part of Somalia in every map but should definitely be visible as an entity within it. Northern Cyprus is also a reality, that should be visible on maps as well under the same status. That's the right thing to do in my opinion, even when some people -me included as Greek!- feel uncomfortable with it. Panos84 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article probation

Link to the discussion in which the article was put on probation, please? I'd like to know why the article was put on probation. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. Numerous Albanian-side and several Serbian-side POV pushers were repeatedly sanctioned, because there was a nationalist Serbian-Albanian conflict over the article. That is what drew so much attention to this article in the first place. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that has been superseded by the more recent Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, for which the scope is "Topics related to the Balkans, broadly defined". Arguably it's also touched on by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren ("Topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined"). Both are under a general sanction, namely: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.". The original Kosovo article probation still stands but all of the articles in this series are now under the much wider sanction applied in the Macedonia case. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If the official status of a territory (or recognition thereof) changes, that mainly serves to set off the dispute again, because of the shift in the facts. That is what drew me to the topic right now. (I am neither Serb nor Albanian, I am American/Jewish, and if Kosovo weren't allegedly about to declare independence I wouldn't have been looking at this.) — Rickyrab | Talk 23:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And another thing. State has a different meaning politically in some parts of North America than it does in some parts of the Mediterranean area, because of the Constitution of the United States of America, the American Civil War, and other causes. "States" started out being more autonomous within the USA, but such things as territory disputes and quarrels about recognition made the old Articles of Confederation unworkable. The upshot was that states became subject to a federal government with a military and some central powers, including the power to accept or reject collusions between two or more states. In Europe, states remained entities with a greater degree of autonomy - in other words, the United States is a "nation-state" with 50 entities within it called "states", whereas European "states" are often nation-states themselves. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the formal position would be that the US states started out as mutually independent entities (i.e. subject to an overseas entity, not to each other) but voluntarily united to form a common entity. There are rough European equivalents - Germany is an obvious example, the United Kingdom is possibly another, and so arguably is the old Yugoslavia. It's not a phenomenon that's been confined to North America. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement of independence declaration time

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23227367-5012749,00.html 1 am Monday AEDT, which corresponds to 9 am Sunday in New Jersey (at the moment it is around 6:40 pm New Jersey time on Saturday). — Rickyrab | Talk 23:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

According to another source, that should be something like 2 pm UTC ("British time"). — Rickyrab | Talk 23:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the two times correlate with one another. Someone ought to be on edit watch at 2 pm UTC, or 9 am New Jersey time. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is also written about 14.00 GMT, however, it's also interesting if it'll be broadcasted somewhere on internet to see it live. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 11:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo declares independence in about 15 minutes. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It happened! Kosova is free! --Riwnodennyk ✉ 14:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mazel Tov! — Rickyrab | Talk 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with the declaration of independence

There will be a lot of news over the next few days and a need to put it somewhere, given the certainty that it will appear on the Main Page's "In the news" section for several days. Rather than swamping this article with independence-related stuff, I suggest the following plan of action:

• Put the details of the declaration of independence (terms, international recognition, controversy, reactions, international legal issues) in a dedicated article. I've created User:ChrisO/2008 Kosovo declaration of independence as a starting point - it needs to be expanded (I've provided a rough outline of what should be covered). Please feel free to edit it. When the declaration comes through, I'll move the new article into article space.

• Update the intro of this article as per the discussion in #When above.

• Rename Kosovo#Independence of Kosovo as Kosovo#International relations, summarising the declaration of independence, recognition and reactions, linking it to 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.

• Update Constitutional status of Kosovo with a summary of the post-independence status, linking it to 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.

There also will be a need to update Kosovo's summary description in many other articles (the bit that describes places as "in Kosovo, a province of Serbia under United Nations administration since the 1999 Kosovo War.") I'll address this in another section below. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good start. I suggest that the Wiki start putting the basics in first that no one would really contest and then we'll worry about the complexity of some issues that I have observed throughout this page. Then remember to put the sources in, especially an useful reliable list of countries that will have recognized Kosovo. And let's keep an eye on the article very closely in case some vandals or some sort of nationalists stirring up troubles and actions may be taken against them. Better be safe than sorry. Good luck and I'll look forward to seeing tomorrow how the article progresses. Pieuvre (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Another issue that will arise, if anyone watches the declaration (on BBC News 24), is that the name will almost certainly change to KOSOVA. The extraordinary meeting of the government that declares independence will also decide on (probably temporary) national symbols. The flag will probably be based on the Flag of Europe with a map of Kosova in the centre, and the anthem played will be Ode to Joy (this may not be the official anthem though). See Mark Mardell's euroblog. 81.155.125.119 (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page guidelines

I'd like to remind editors of the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Talk pages are a space to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. They are not meant to provide a platform for general discussion. There are going to be a lot of changes to discuss, so please stay focused on that, not on the rights and wrongs of the political issues. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see here are allowed only some points of view and I stress this: only some points of view'. --Косовска Митровица (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm against censorship on this talk page

If my text is not allowed here I will prepare a report and post it even on Jimbo's page if neccessary. It's unacceptable not to be able to present all the points of view here. When you say Kosovo you also say Serbia, I hope everybody acknowledge the connection. This is the last warning to Chris to let my text here.Косовска Митровица (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. There's no block on your point of view, but Wikipedia isn't the right forum for general discussion of political issues. Please keep your comments focused on improving this and related articles - that's what this page is for (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). If you want to talk about the rights and wrongs of the issues, please take that discussion to another website. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Косовска Митровица, ChrisO is absolutely right, and I'm prepared to block you if you continue posting political rants unrelated to the needs of editing. Anywhere on Wikipedia. This goes for everyone here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I echo that. There are enough legitimate debates over the content of this article that we really don't need its talk page filled up with political opinions which, however legitimate, have nothing to do with improving the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name spelling

The name of the country given in bold in the introduction should be the ENGLISH name. The name in ENGLISH is Kosovo, with an O not an A. Abc30 (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point. I'd like to remind everybody of WP:NCON. Please refer to that policy before discussing any change to the naming practices on this page and elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll put together a manual of style for Kosovo placenames along the lines of WP:MOSMAC. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the spelling difference between Kosovo and Kosova significant? Does Kosovo refer to the city and Kosova to the region? N1cholson (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any city called Kosovo or Kosova. Kosovo is the Serbian (and English) name for the country/region (whatever it is) and Kosova is the Albanian. But we must use English here on this wikipedia BalkanFever 08:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration has been made

Just for the record, it's 14:39 and they've just read out the declaration in the parliament. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, as I see it on CNN, he's just reading the draft of the declaration of independence, and they still need to vote about it. /AB-me (chit-chat) 14:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you might be right about that, actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Updating happens after the voting's finished. Also to be featured on ITN. The present formulation is: The assembly of Kosovo unilaterally declares independence, a move opposed by Serbia and Russia but supported by many western governments. Any comments? --Tone 14:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. /AB-me (chit-chat) 14:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

14:49 UTC and he has finished reading it. The declaration has taken place. Abc30 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Here we are. That was the vote". That's what BBC has just said. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Declaration signed, go ahead :-) Ev (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, somebody seems to have jumped the gun. /AB-me (chit-chat) 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, did anybody notice whether the vote was unanimous, or were there opposes? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

CNN missed it apparently, so I haven't seen the actual vote - but it would be unthinkable so see someone clapping at the draft one second and then voting against it the next. But it shouldn't be too hard to find a news source saying the vote was unanimous. /AB-me (chit-chat) 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is now informing that "Kosovo's parliament has unanimously endorsed a declaration of independence from Serbia". - Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo declared independence

It's done, article should be updated. Hobartimus (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Although people went ahead and updated it ages ago anyway... People are inherently impatient. Abc30 (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy birthday Kosovo! — Rickyrab | Talk 14:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article should be updated coordinately. No one has yet recognized this declaration of independence. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I recognize this declaration. So do the Kosovars. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess if Wikipedia recognizes the Banana Repulikë of Kosovë its official. Lulz at all of you.

w00t for yu0 — Rickyrab | Talk 16:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

As Kosovo now have proclaimed their independence, the map The_position_of_Kosovo_within_Serbia.PNG should be replaced with Europe_location_KOS.png.

Realismadder (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. No need to have Serbia on the map now. 81.155.125.119 (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Abc30 (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We have been discussing these details prior to the declaration of independence, such as map, first paragraph description, etc.. There was a consensus that here on Wikipedia we should refrain from an immediate shift to a Kosovo description as if it were a widely recognized independent country. We should wait until some countries recognize its independence and then progressively apply that recognition to the article. I do not recommend this map for the moment, but maybe it would be ok in a few days. Húsönd 15:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Admin please change the map. Abc30 (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There's the new map in the article now. Was there a consensus? --Tone 15:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. Yes the change I requested has been made. Abc30 (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Support changing the map. Hobartimus (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo has not been recognized yet, so it shouldn't be presented as a de jure state in the article. It's not even a de facto state, rather a EU/UN protectorate. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

that's quite correct. facts before politics. it's not recognized by anyone, so far.--Misha bb (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think that we should wait for it to get an UN recognition so Kosovo could be secluded from Serbia on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.194.142 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PAGE PROTECTION NEEDED (?)

This is getting vanadised left right an centre. Someone protect it so only reliable registered users can edit. Abc30 (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, those are the pangs of the moment. This is breaking news, things will settle down sooner or later. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected now for some time. Semi protection already took place and edit warring continued. Will lift the full protection in some time but let's keep it like this for now. --Tone 15:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat disappointed that this page has been protected. As this story develops, people will look to wikipedia for updated information, and they will find that we are behind the news. Screen stalker (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, I'm going to request that protection be lifted on account of the status of the Kosovo story as breaking news. Also, ABC30 should not have reverted my second edit, as the second edit was a revert of a "joke edit". — Rickyrab | Talk 15:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, edit warring wasn't really that bad, and this page is already under probation, meaning that specific editors can be swiftly blocked from editing this particular page. At least, that's how I understand it. However, Wikipedia should avoid recentism, but it would be nice to be able to add international reactions as they roll in. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's just left fully protected for say 30 mins then some of the vandals will go away and we can carry on with making good updates. Abc30 (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Two or three minutes is "some time"? — Rickyrab | Talk 15:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Woah! That was no time at all. Fully protect again and let us reccomend edits to the admins via the talk page. Abc30 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Immediately after you requested protection you wanted an edit made on your account. Wouldn't direct editing be a bit better? — Rickyrab | Talk 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi protected now, let's be optimistic that it stays stable... --Tone 15:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

ChrisO, I thought we agreed to "ethnic communities".

I also suggest rephrasing "of Serbs, Turks, Bosniaks, Romani people, and other ethnic groups." to "of Serbs, Romas, Gorani, Bosniaks, Turks and other ethnic communities." --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed as suggested. Thanks for the reminder! -- ChrisO (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Independence

Kosovo is now an Independent country, however the page still does not talk of Kosovo as one. The page surely must follow the same structure as other countries. Understandably only hours after the Declaration of Independence was announced, the page won't change immediately, but i urge the more advanced and experienced wiki's to support the fledgling country like most English speaking countries are doing and help Serbia's grasp of this country be let go here on WIkipedia, and praise that finally, Yugoslavia and the wrongs of such a dark time for the Balkan region, are slowly being made right. Congratulations Kosovo.

Since when is wikipedia taking orders from official US and UK policies? --Leladax (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It has not been recognized yet. --212.247.27.47 (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect what the outside world does. When international news media and organisations begin talking of Kosovo as simply an independent country like all others, then we should do the same. Until then, we should note its self-declared status and, apart from that, wait. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We have to keep the region of Kosovo and the self-proclaimed Republic of Kosovo, at least for now. If there is a major international recognition, such as a UN membership, then a merge would be possible. --Soman (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is highly unlikely that the UN will see Kosovo as an independent nation as Russia will most likely boycot it. So we need to have the same provisions as we have with Northern Cyprus. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't yet talk of Kosovo as an independent nation. Yes, it declared its independence, but it has not yet been recognized (that should come in time). As of now, it has the same statue as Northen Cyprus. So, for the time being, we need to keep the statue quo. Its an encyclopedia here, so we have to stay impartial. Fox334 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But we do need to talk of it as a self-declared or self-proclaimed independent nation. We can't ignore the fact that it has declared independence. Abc30 (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I suspect you meant status, not statue. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What the hell just happened?

Someone made huge changes to the intro without any discussion and I can't see the change in the history. Abc30 (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Folks, let's make discussion before editing. OK? And to the admins, please don't censor edits from the edit history. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Which edits have been "censored from the edit history" exactly? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rickyrab -- that's entirely impossible. There is no such thing as censoring edits from the history. Either they're in the history, or they're not in the article (deleted/oversighted). But only devs can oversight, and that also removes the information from the article. - Revolving Bugbear 00:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration of independence article

Please see 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Lots of help needed here! -- ChrisO (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Does that article need so much fork-like material duplicating what's already in other articles? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's early days - I'm working on it at the moment. Revisit it in a day or two and see if it looks like a fork then. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

By making the changes to the article, Wikipedia endorses the declaration of Independence. Such an act doesn-t become legitimate just by declaration of support. Changes made are premature. --89.44.43.83 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection does not constitute an endorsement. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)