This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 34 |
Hello. It appears that it is not possible to edit the article? Is it locked or something? ( Lilicneiu ( talk) 06:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC))
I propose changing it to "…is a state in southeastern Europe". Zoef1234 ( talk) 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
There is an attempt to replace Serbian language with Serbo-Croatian ( diff) although this long-term editing pattern of one editor has been rejected by other editors many times. In this case it is also a change of the referenced assertion so I will restore the stable version.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 07:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Why does every paragraph of the lede go out of its way to frame Kosovo in terms of Serbia? Kosovo is not Serbia. Can't we have a more balanced lede which mostly focusses on Kosovo instead of Serbia? This is supposed to be an article about Kosovo. bobrayner ( talk) 22:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with Bobrayner. An example of nonsense: Prizren infobox: Country: Kosovo → Kosovo sometimes referred to as Kosovo and Metohija is a region in southeastern Europe.??? What is with Republic of Kosovo.-- Sokac121 ( talk) 10:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I've partly reinstated some of the material recently inserted by Bobrayner, which was blanket-reverted by WhiteWriter [1]. While I can see why WhiteWriter was not happy with some of the rewordings, there is valid material in what Bobrayner added, and I've tried to combine the wording of both versions [2].
At the same time, I warn WhiteWriter against violating the article restrictions. Accusing another editor of breaking the restriction while at the same time making a blanket, undiscussed revert, as WhiteWriter did, is unacceptable. The restrictions do not say that anybody making new edits is required to discuss in advance; what they do say is that anybody who makes reverts must explain them on the talkpage. The person who broke the restrictions here was WhiteWriter, and this will not be tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I made a change to what said North Kosovo was controlled by Republic of Serbia. It may seem that way but Belgrade authorities are excluded from the region and may not enforce anything there. What you actually have is the local non-Albanian population administering the region and they by their own choosing observe the institutions of the Republic of Serbia (eg. use of dinars, Serbian passport/identity card, vehicle registration plates, etc.). The Big Hoof! ( talk) 19:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
If the situation is not enough confusional in Kosovo, there are in wikipedia three articles for the same thing:
Right now the first and the third have Serbian stamp, the second (kind of) Albanian.
Wouldn't it make sense to merge Kosovo into Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, so that from three we go to two? -- LinditaBukuroshja ( talk) 12:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article shows region Kosovo and Not Kosovo itself 46.19.227.193 ( talk) 03:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Am herewith proposing that references to the Serbian register of the Serbo-Croatian language ("Serbian") be replaced with references to Serbo-Croatian in general. As per numerous sources listed in the aforementioned article and indeed, in the Serbian article itself: " Serbian is a standardized register of the Serbo-Croatian language". (I sincerely hope no one wishes to challenge this fact (again)? But if so, abundant high-quality refs can of course be provided.. again.)
I submit that it is inaccurate and detrimental to the understanding of the reader to restrict references to this language only to its Serbian standard, where the implications of that restriction are unnecessary and misleading (and on such a controversial article - also biased by omission). A couple examples:
I therefore hold it would be manifestly beneficial to present the reader with the information that the quoted names and terms are accurate for the entire language, as opposed to (as is inescapably implied) - only its Serbian standard. I.e that they are just as accurate in Bosnia, Croatia, and Montenegro, as in Serbia. -- Director ( talk) 08:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment: All allegations of evil, far-reaching conspiracies aside, I want to point out that there are virtually no "Serbo-Croatian" speakers in Kosovo. Serbs declare their language to be the Serbian one, Bosniaks declare their's to be the Bosnian one, etc. See: 2011 Census Data page 64-65. Adding "Serbo-Croatian" is bizarre as it not only doesn't reflect the language spoken by the people who form the majority of the population in Kosovo (Albanians), but it also doesn't reflect what Bosniaks, Croats, Serbs and Montenegrins declare their language to be. 23 editor ( talk) 22:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, its been a while. I count 7 support and 4 oppose, and those opposing are mostly just Serbian users defending "Serbian" as a language. More importantly I myself see no truly valid argument for continuing on with this confusing state of affairs. I propose to proceed with the edit? -- Director ( talk) 22:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The ArbCom-imposed "article probation" on Kosovo-related articles was superseded in 2011 by the "standard discretionary sanctions" in the Macedonia case (sanctions which, as everyone hopefully remembers, are applicable to "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted"). The header subpage for Kosovo-related talk pages should be updated accordingly. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Culture of Kosovo
For centuries, the social system known as extensive families, containing 70 to 100 members into the so-called “Fis”, was the way of living for ethnic Albanians. Nowadays, these extensive families are still present in the rural areas and trying to keep the loyalty and devotion towards tradition, which is different from major cities. They had started advancements headed for modernization since the end of World War II. Some traditional rules which somehow are considered as laws, such as personal honor and the word honor called “Besa” leading to unbreakable trust, and equality for every person. At this modern time, the Kosovar traditions are vanishing, as a result of the western world influence. People are more educated, therefore they are adopting to the westernized lifestyle. Nevertheless, the older generation is still trying to keep the traditions of Kosovo alive. Clothes Traditional clothes in Kosovo change, depending on the village, and they also have a similarity with the Albanian traditional clothes. The common clothes for every rural area was first, the “Plis” for men, and the headdress for women. Second, woolen pants for men and the skirts for men. And third, “Opengat” the shoes for men and wooden clogs for women. Nowadays, Kosovo fashion is same as any Westernized country. Art l Music l Theater The Music in Kosovo is intensely westernized and combined with many music genres of the western countries, but traditional Albanian music is still very popular in the Kosovo region. Kosovo has many music artists. One of the traditional instruments used in both Albanian countries Albania and Kosovo, is the “Ciftelia” and the mandolin. The traditional music of the Kosovar culture is folk music which is represented by the folk group Shota. Shota as well is a traditional dance style of the Kosovar and Albanian culture named after the remarkable figure, Shote Galica. The dance requires a high tempo with quick steps and it is danced and played in many traditional Kosovar ceremonies.
Kosovar film-making is not as frequent as it is in other countries, the problem is the very high needed budget to have success in this industry. There are only a few movies that have been produced and the most of them deal with the concerns of the war.” Kukumi” for example by Isa Qosja is, to this date, the most famous film made in Kosovo in 1999. The film won a jury prize at the Sarajevo Film Festival. None the less, Kosovo shows interest in film-making and have proved it through their hosting of film festivals. For example “The Doku Film Festival” which is held in Prizren every year at the end of summer, and has grown slowly to become well-known in Europe. As for theaters, there are many all-around Kosovo: some for children, others for the use of jazz music or any type of live bands in general. The main theater is the Kosovo National Theater located in the heart of Prishtina where you can enjoy theater pieces performed regularly. There are also held the special theater weeks which usually have visitors coming from outside of Kosovo to watch. In Kosovo’s National Theater you can among other artistic shows, enjoy also ballet pieces, created by Kosovo’s National Ballet Group. The first troupe of the Kosovo Ballet was formed in 1972. Ballet dancers from this generation were educated in the Secondary School of Ballet in Skopje, under the leadership of director Tatjana Petkovska. Today’s Ballet Troupe of Kosovo is one of the youngest in the Balkan region with talented and dedicated dancers and is ranked alongside European troupes for their quality. The Kosovo Ballet has participated in many International Festivals such as: Festival of Ohrid - "I do not hear Gong" (07/08/2005), twice in the International Festival of Modern Dance and Theatre in Durres - "I do not hear Gong" (09/04/2006) and "Performance" (14/04/2000), Apollonia International Festival in Apollonia-Fier - "Contrast" (29/08/2006), International Festival "Dance Fest" in Skopje – “Performance (10/04/2009), "Scampa Dance Competition, Creativity and Interpretation" in Elbasan – “Performance” (10/09/2009) won first prize as best choreography, "Kosova International Theatre Festival" in Pristina - "Performance" (05/11/2009)
References Beinkosovo. "Kosovo Culture." Be In Kosovo. Ed. Beinkosovo. beepromarketing,
n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. < http://beinkosovo.com/en/kosovo-culture>.
Ditamorina (
talk) 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Due to the possibly controversial nature of this change and and topic, please acquire a consensus before requesting an edit here. Thank you.
Technical 13 (
talk) 04:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)There were a couple of requests for admin attention generated by the RM above, all of them I think now archived. It would be good to link to the archived discussions, to try to reduce the amount of time we spend reinventing the wheel next time around. I'll do it when I find time, or feel free to beat me to it. Andrewa ( talk) 16:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm closing this per a WP:ANRFC request.
Numerically, a few more editors oppose the proposal than support it. That would amount to no consensus. After, however, discounting the opinions that appear to be motivated by personal opinions about the underlying political situation rather than by Wikipedia policy (my favorite is the "only ignorant foreigners" one), as well as the one in which everything is underlined because it is visually painful to read, I must conclude that consensus as informed by Wikipedia policy and practice is in support of the proposal.
Quite a number of the opinions opposed to the move do not or only superficially address the "most common name" or "consistency" arguments advanced in favor of the move, but instead focus on comparisons with other difficult cases like "Macedonia", or on the political history and recognition status of the country, which isn't very on point. Some opinions are also barely comprehensible to me. Finally, there are credible and not seriously contested allegations of canvassing among people that can be expected to be mostly opposed to the proposal, which also cause me to give the "oppose" side less weight.
Consequently, the articles are moved as proposed. Sandstein 20:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
– As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONSISTENCY. The term "Kosovo" in our language generally refers to the country located roughly in the region of Kosovo, just as the word "Cuba" usually refers to the country that occupies the island of Cuba, which is why Cuba gets you the country and if you want to find out about the region it covers, you need to go to Geography of Cuba (where Cuba (island) redirects to). There are definite historic usages of the term to refer to the region, and even some current usages, just as a marine biologist might really not care about Castro but care deeply about a rare fish found near Cuba, the island; clearly Geography of Cuba should exist, but the country has clear primary topic. In truth, Kosovo is no different. This is not a situation like at Ireland, where one fixed region with a long history is now currently divided into two countries, each very notable even though the southern one is significantly more important. This is not Georgia, where two completely different states (and several other entities) share a name by historical accidents and neither one has gained primary topic. This is not even Macedonia, where a historic region only vaguely corresponds to the country that claims its name. There is no reason whatsoever to give primary topic to an area of land while excluding the only government that actually runs it. Again, look at Google News. Most of the results I got dealt specifically with the Republic and not the region; this is the totality of the first page of results I got. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] They all deal with the independent republic that governs Kosovo. Point of clarification: most of the information here should be merged back into the Republic of Kosovo article. Just like at Canada or even Serbia, the article containing the information on the government of the country needs to be at the main article for the country, and barring a profoundly good reason to ignore our strong desire for consistency in article titles, that should be at the base title, which is "Kosovo" in this case. We follow English-language use in reliable sources, and the country--not some abstract idea of a region apart from its government--is what people typically refer to when they use the word "Kosovo" in English. Red Slash 05:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Actualy, that news speack about territory, and not republic. Just read everything, its about territory history, look "Kosovo, an impoverished land" -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 14:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
"General" context is much bigger than the "countries" context. Outside of the context of "countries", "Kosovo" is not the common name of the state ("Republic of Kosovo"), but the common name of the "region" in "general" context. In universal naming standards, the "GENERAL" context is much bigger than and far overrides the "COUNTRIES" context. In universal naming standards, the bigger entity always takes the name. The entity "region of Kosovo" (with thousands of years of history) is much bigger than the entity "Republic of Kosovo" (with in the baby-hood years).
Alexyflemming (
talk) 13:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"Ireland" is the "island" in general context and the common name of the island (for THOUSANDS years!). When the context is the context of countries, "Republic of Ireland" may be shorthened/abbreviated as "Ireland". As long as the context mentioned and covered is clear to make a separation between the "island" and the "country(Ireland)"; for the things related with "Republic of Ireland", "Irish/Ireland" may be used to refer the country.
"General" context is much bigger than the "countries" context. Outside of the context of "countries", "Ireland" is not the common name of the state ("Republic of Ireland"), but the common name of the "island" in "general" context. In universal naming standards, the "GENERAL" context is much bigger than and far overrides the "COUNTRIES" context. In universal naming standards, the bigger entity always takes the name. The entity "island of Ireland" (with thousands of years of history) is much bigger than the entity "Republic of Ireland" (with (1922-2014)years old). Look and see the beauty of the coverage of
Ireland, and take it as a sample model for "Kosovo"!!!
"Kosovo" is the common name of the "region" (the "region" and the "country (Republic of Kosovo)" are not coterminous):
"Kosovo" is NOT the common name of the "country (Republic of Kosovo)" in "general" context: |
---|
A. History: B. Art: C. Culture: D. Geography: E. People: |
I would point out that the sudden influx of Oppose voters was recruited by a sockpuppet here. It's not the first time that Serbian Wikipedia editors have been canvassed in order to maintain a serb-nationalist position on other wikipedias. bobrayner ( talk) 12:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I want to protest against that remark in the end of your post (even if I agree that canvassing is problematic for the debate). Opposition to the POV-pushing for giving the Republic of Kosovo undue weight, and a "serb-nationalist position" is not the same thing. Sometimes they come together, and sometimes not. Further, if we use associative arguments, there are some things to say about your conduct as well. In a recent move debate for Anti-Serb riots/pogrom in Sarajevo, your only input was this:
This ill-mannered loaded question, you wrote, despite that User:Antidiskriminator (creator of the article) had multiple and diverse sources which described the 1914 persecutions as pogroms, and it was your only input to the debate. Then you came with a variant of the same loaded question against me, when I critisized your conduct. (Try to CTRL-F and write "bobrayner" in that talk page and see the approach to the debate, there's only provocational conduct, where are the debates about the source material?)
With all this being said, I want to make the participants in this move debate aware about that there are two "bad" forces that may influence the debate: Serbian nationalism and Anti-Serb sentiment (I'm taking myself the freedom to interpret the "pogrom" example as an indicator of possible bias against Serbs) - Anonimski ( talk) 20:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm keeping this page in my watchlist since 200x. -- Bojan Talk 02:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Could any1 be so kind to put a Template:Serbia topics at the end of the article, since i cnt coz locked :(...tnx..-- Ivan VA ( talk) 20:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Frankly, after the RM, I don't see much purpose in this article. (Not that I've seen purpose in splitting articles in the first place). Let's go section by section:
In sum, all the information here exists in other places, and a lot of it is exact duplicate. I don't see how is the reader served by two largely parallel articles. We already explain the delicate political situation about the status in Kosovo article, but for all intents and purposes, {History, Economy, Geography, Architecture, Demographics} of the region of Kosovo is identical to that of disputed state of Kosovo. No such user ( talk) 11:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Eine eigenständige albanische Kultur gab es nicht. Es empfiehlt sich deshalb, Anstelle von Albanien den Terminus "albanischer Raum" einzuführen, der keine Assoziationen mit einem politischen Gebilde oder einer besonderen Kultur aufkommen lässt, sondern darauf hinweist, das "Albanien" im Mittelalter ein geographicer Begriff ist.
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |nopp=
, |doi-inactive-date=
, |month=
, and |chapterurl=
(
help)It seems that we have a consensus. I'd like to gradually compare and merge the content elsewhere in the following weeks, and then redirect this article to Kosovo. Before that, I'd ask Fut.Perf. to swap or merge page histories with Kosovo, or whichever magic is required. No such user ( talk) 06:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, procedural note: I have swapped article locations, so that the page with the full history of the original unified article from before the split is now back from Kosovo (region) to Kosovo, and the split-off article about the republic is back from Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo but has been redirected here. To start implementing the merge, I have first wholesale copied over the current latest version of Republic of Kosovo into the Kosovo article. Further merging can now proceed step by step by recovering material on geography/history etc. from the previous version [13] (the version shown at Kosovo (region) before today). Per IaR, I trust that such edits will not count as a breach of the 1rv/wk limitation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Somebod recently marked the claim that Kosovo's climate is "continental" as dubious, but didn't point to any discussion here. Any views? I don't know a thing about climate classification. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Chipmunkdavis:: we edit-conflicted, so I just copied my version over yours. Just a few words on the Geography/Climate coverage: since Kosovo is a small country without that much regional variation, I feel that a climate chart for the capital would be more informative than the precipitation map, but I don't insist. In country articles, climate is commonly, but not universally, a separate section within Geography. For example, Germany has it and Bulgaria doesn't. I'm not sure what are layout guidelines of WP:COUNTRIES, or wherever that page is hidden in the forest of MOS. No such user ( talk) 14:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we should trim it down a bit, the current history section alone is 59,368 bytes. This is an article on Kosovo, not an article on the history of Kosovo. We should just be introducing the history briefly to our readers/ audience, if they find it interesting and want to read more, then they can go to the main article(s) which focus on the relevant historical periods. I think we should limit ourselves to two paragraphs each (instead of 5-6 paragraphs) for the following periods: Early Kosovo, Medieval Serbian Period, Ottoman Period, Kingdom of Serbia, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, WW2, FRY Yugoslavia, Kosovo War, UNMIK, 2008 to Present. It'll still be a very long history section, but much shorter than it is at present. Does this seem reasonable? Your thoughts? IJA ( talk) 22:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I often follow discussions here but as my wiki time recently has been limited because of personal obligations, I choosed not to participate as often participating in this discussions implicates many hours/days/weeks/months of repeated discussions and argumets and I haven´t had the time to dedicate myself to them.
However, there is one crutial aspect of the article that strikes into my eyes. The aspect of state/country partially recognised. I find it wrong. It implies as if the territory/state is recognised in some aspects and others not. It misses to adress one real and simple issue: Kosovo is considered by some sovereign countries as fully recognised as sovereign, and by others not recognised at all and considered as Serbian province. The current wording fails completelly to adress that. FkpCascais ( talk) 15:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed that @ Red Slash: chose to partially revert the wording of the lead sentences with a barely informative edit summary of "accuracy". Since this is now supposed to be again a merged article about both the current Republic and the entire history of the region, I felt that the more comprehensive wording "Kosovo [...] is a disputed territory and a partially recognised state in Southeastern Europe" expressed the scope of the article rather well. What is more "accurate" about Red Slash's version of "The Republic of Kosovo [...] is a country in Southeastern Europe"?
About IJA's prior edit [15], it's mostly a matter of taste, but I would still somewhat prefer the prior version. The connector "As ..." in "As the Republic of Kosovo it declared..." serves to make clear that the topic of the previous sentence (plain "Kosovo") and the subject of the next ("it", under the name of "Republic of Kosovo") are at least in some sense the same thing, which is what justifies treating them in the same article. As for the "however", I find it somewhat redundant and stylistically slightly inferior to simply having two main clauses juxtaposed, but as I said, that's really a matter of taste.
On a more general note, I have the feeling that in this situation, where there will evidently be some need for more active editing to complete the merge than during routine maintenance of the article, the current 1rv/week revert limitation may be something of an obstacle. It unduly slows down legitimate constructive tinkering. Would people agree if we asked for at least a temporary relaxation to a more standard 1rv/day or so? The 1rv/week thing has been in force since 2009; it's quite unique as far as I'm aware, and I've always found it to be not really very helpful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Kosovo is a country. It has borders that everyone agrees on (did you miss how Serbia accepted the borders of Kosovo?). It has a government that exercises sovereign control over the land within those borders. By any possible definition of a "country", Kosovo is one. Is it partially recognized? Sure thing. If the USA, the UK and friends suddenly decided not to recognize Russia any more, that would not somehow make Russia less of a country. And don't overestimate the importance of the merger. Cuba deals with both the island and the country, but look at that first sentence. Look at the first sentence of partially-recognized Taiwan. Come on, Kosovo is a country and that should be in the very first sentence like it is with basically every country on Wikipedia. Red Slash 04:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Are people happy with User:Danlaycock's change to "...is a partially recognised state in Southeastern Europe which unilaterally..."? It is no longer unqualified, yet does convey that the country exists. CMD ( talk) 12:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No such user ( talk) 15:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)While dozens of countries, including the United States, Germany, France and Britain, have recognized Kosovo as a sovereign nation, the United Nations, which confers legitimacy, has not.
One of the things I have learned as I have researched is that Kosovo was not reeeeeally sovereign upon declaring independence. Instead, it was still basically puppy-guarded by the U.S., NATO and friends (the International Steering Group) until September of 2012. Therefore, most reliable sources would not have considered the country to be truly sovereign prior to 2012. In September of 2012, the ISG gave over full and sovereign control of the country to Kosovo's government, which was then de facto begrudgingly acknowledged in the Brussels agreements. From then on, the Pristina-based government has in fact enjoyed sovereign control of the country.
You want sources, I'm sure, and I am glad to provide in response to such a reasonable request. Most (not all) of these postdate the transference of sovereignty but predate the Brussels Agreements. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] ... I can absolutely get more if you'd like. I apologize for the delay; I should have better analyzed your arguments to be able to better answer them sooner. Red Slash 17:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Can we cut it short? Whoever wants to claim that RoK is sovereign need to post sources stating that. WP is not the place to make OR. Silvio1973 ( talk) 07:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Per this AN discussion, and effective immediately, this article's sanctions have been reduced from 1RR/week to 1RR/day, in light of the merge effort going on. However, the original 1RR/week should be restored if this seems to be problematic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
In the opening section it says that this country is called (in bold) The Republic of Kosovo. So, since the Kosovo region is not what is being discussed, and Kosovo (region) has an entry of its own, IMHO it should be moved to 'The Republic of Kosovo'. The Kosovo page should IMHO lead to this page, and then the neutral disambiguation will be clear. A very small change will be needed to the opening sentences of the article, which are currently totally unclear.
I take no side in current politics there, and have nothing to do with the region, besides learning of the fate of my fellow Jews there in WWI and WWII, and the leftover tiny community there today. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 11:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
As WP:INFOBOXFLAG uses this article as an example of where the infobox should not have a flag, I've removed it. Obviously it should not be replaced without an agreed change to our guidance. Dougweller ( talk) 09:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
flagicon|Kosovo}}
which is not included in the infobox, nor is any flagicon template.
IJA (
talk) 10:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)I would like to know why there is no tourism subheading.I have gathered pictures of many places around Kosovo attracting tourists and have information regarding them,and there is no availability to edit that section.I acknowledge the fact that people could write inappropriate things,but some who are trusted should have the chance to enhance the article. -- Nixious6 ( talk) 19:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Surely you mean either Socialist or Soviet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.130.163.10 ( talk) 09:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't know enough about the country and its history to fix this, nor do I have the time, but the chronology in the "history" section keeps jumping back and forth in time, making it really hard to understand. If someone can fix this, please do. Albertoeda ( talk) 17:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/world/news/19150/ http://www.srbija.gov.rs/kosovo-metohija/index.php?change_lang=en&pf=1&url=%2Fkosovo-metohija%2Findex.php%3Fpf%3D1%26change_lang%3Den. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Psychonaut ( talk) 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The article does not mention the religious distribution of the population. A source for that needs to be found and included.-- Michael ( talk) 20:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not done per the discussion below. IJA ( talk) 18:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Kosovo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The national hymn of kosovo should direct reader to this page: http://kosova.org/post/Himni-i-Ri-Shteteror-i-Republikes-se-Kosoves instead of b92 which is a serbian radical newspaper. Regarding the declaration of independecy reader should be directed to this page: http://kosovothanksyou.com/ You can read stats that Kosovo is known by more then half of the world. The Capital Name should be changed to Prishtina. Pristina is just a latin change from Priština, since you dont have the letter š in latin. But š is pronounced as SH in albanian Prishtina. Therefor you should have Prishtina or Pristhinë/Priština.
You keep referreing to B92 wich is not acceptable since it only transmit Serbian view on a state with a albanian mayority. You write that Nato ended the war but you should write that Miloševic/Miloshevic started it by killing and chasing away albanian inhabitants.
Under the time of Tito, Kosovo and Vojvodina was de facto Rebublic with the same power as Croatia or Slovenia in the Federal Yugosllavia. You can also mention that Serbian minority have minimum of 8% percent of the Parlament in Kosovo no matter how many votes they get, 8% other percent goes to the other minorities in Kosovo. If any group get more then 8% of the votes, the minority will then have more then 16% combined votes in parlamanet. The albanian parties can never get more then 74% of the votes no matter how many votes they get in the election. They will also have to get over the 5% block to get in to the parlament, something that does not apply to the minority due to them being a minority and not being able to reach more then 5 % combined.
Nothing in the constitution can be changed without 66% of the minorities votes, so to change anything in the constitution you will need both the albanian parties, serbian parties and the other minorities.
In 1912 the albians declared themself independet from the turkish empire, those borders of the albanian state included Kosovo, from Sandzak, to Presevo, through out albanian parts in Macedonia including Skopje and northern Greece, also albanian parts in Montenegro. But being a weak state and not having a real army to deffend itself the albanian got devided. Albania itself only got to exist since Italy didnt want to have it as a part of it own nation but sent a ruling King to Albania. So techincally no albanian people had the power to rule over themself. Until today where you have free election in Albania, and free election in Kosovo. The first time ever where albanian rule over themself.
You can also mention that Kosovo have been fully entered in the International Olypmic Organisation and as a result it is being entered in other federation that are members of IOC. It will have its own telephone code next year and while you can travel where you want from Serbia or Albania without visas, you can not do it from Kosovo. Even if you posses Serbian passport in Kosovo. Kosovo is also re-applying for Fifa/Uefa membership and is in everyway a independet country. If any of you travel down there you will see this. So this page should upgraded to fully to read Kosovo as a State, in all ways except as a member of UN. But not even Switzerland was a part of UN until very late due to neutral status.
Best Regards to all of you Ruotria ( talk) 15:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
If you like to have alternatives sources instead of Kosovo States one. You could use Kosovo based newspaper as telegrafi.com instead of Serbian state ones, as B92. Reason for this is Serbian newspaper try to rise tension between ethnic people on balkan and you are welcome to read the serbian section with google translate.
But as long as you only base the page on Serbian information Wikipedia can not be called a free Encyclopedia but a Propaganda Machine by those who have been in a ruling state longer, which is the case with the serbian people and serbian politican on balkan.
And Pristina is not a neutral choice between Prishtina/Priština because Prishtina is the neutral choice between Prishtinë/Priština.
But good luck basing Kosovo pages based on serbian information. I will not be a part of a serbian-western propaganda machine.
This
edit request to
Kosovo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Irongosts ( talk) 08:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
the prime minister of kosovo is no longer hashim thaci but now is isa mustafa and i saw this half an hour ago and i'm albanian in kosovo so i'm 100% sure of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksguy ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Can I please get a consensus on what is the reasoning behind listing a country as partially recognised in the preamble of the article, cause either it does not belong there, or it is missing from other articles like those of the Peoples Republic of China and North and South Korea which are also not recognised by every UN state. What is the number of states needed for a state to be considered a recognised state, for if it is all UN members then the statement must start off those articles as well, otherwise who decides how many states are needed?-- DSBennie ( talk) 19:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
My question is what is the cuttoff, 10% (22) of the UN member states do not recognise the people's republic as an existing state, who determines what percentage of UN state recognition is required for a state to exist as a recognised state? This is not a debate about if the country exists or not, it is a debate on what constitutes a partially recognised country and who decides how many states recognition constitutes the loss of the partial recognition statement, Cypress is not recognised by Turkey, North Korea by South Korea and Japan, Armenia is not recognised by Pakistan, Israel is not recognised by 32 states. -- DSBennie ( talk) 12:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no simple answer, since the assumptions on which the question is based are wrong. To put it shortly: nobody says there is a cuttoff percentage. It's only a matter of putting it as much neutral as possible. For example some argue that Kosovo is not a souvereign state at all. We have to please all of those points of view, so the current consensus is to phrase it like it is now. --biblbroks (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it currently makes sense, I just want to a) establish what conditions should be met for it to be removed, and b) consider how it affects other pages, the reason I have started this on this talk page is as this is the only state page I have found that proceeds to do this so this is the page that sets the precedent. Before we can take it to the Talk:China page, we need to set out all the criteria on why it is on this page, what requirements lets it be stated on this page and what requirements must be met to have it removed. That way a standard can be applied to other state pages -- DSBennie ( talk) 20:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-12-11/kosovo-cant-get-recognition-un-it-can-get-it-facebook Maybe info that should be inserted in the Recognition section or elsewhere? Pretty unique and very modern diplomacy effort "Kosovo is turning to digital diplomacy instead, led by Petrit Selimi. He’s Kosovo’s deputy minister of foreign affairs and the author of a forthcoming book on digital diplomacy" Legacypac ( talk) 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I hate convoluted definitions, and I find this one: Kosovo's remaining border to the north and east is seen by supporters of Kosovo's independence as a state border with Serbia whilst opponents of Kosovo's independence see it as a provincial border with Central Serbia. absurdly complex. What is wrong or non-neutral with simple Kosovo borders Central Serbia.? It is a simple geographic reference which states that the two territories are adjacent. Readers already know that Serbia disputes Kosovo independence, so it's only natural that Kosovo used to be a part of Serbia, ergo it borders the rest of it somehow. The verb "borders" does not state whether this border is internal or international, and Central Serbia is a well-defined territory, and the term does not even have a political connotation. No such user ( talk) 12:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"Proper" is an established geopolitical term; it doesn't imply impropriety at all. "uncontested Serbia", on the other hand, would worsen the very problem that I think you're trying to avoid - it tells readers that Kosovo is, deep down, just a contested bit of Serbia. bobrayner ( talk) 23:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's an entirely different take on it that we might consider: "North of Kosovo are the regions of Šumadija and Western Serbia and Southern and Eastern Serbia." Jonathunder ( talk) 16:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Kosovo is part of Serbia since the formation of the Serbian state. After the Balkan wars of Kosovo again becomes an integral part of Serbia. After the First World War, Kosovo is part of Serbia, but did not have the status of provinces. The Yugoslav communists formed the province of Kosovo. Kosovo has never been albansko.Albanija was formed as a state after the First World War.--
Dima73 (
talk) 22:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The northern border of Kosovo is extended session after the Yugoslav Communists in 1974. The entire north and Kosovo was part of the so-called Central Serbia.--
Dima73 (
talk) 22:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
If you read
Felix Philipp Kanitz -Srbija country and people -, you will see that from the border with the remnants of the Ottoman Empire coincides with part of liberated Serbia. The limit is established at the Congress of Berlin. Then the boundaries drawn by the river basins. At that time, the Albanians fought on the side of the Turks and nobody cared about their national identity.--
Dima73 (
talk) 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Kosovo and Metohia is the real name of the area .Albanci not use this name, because Metohija means church land.--
Dima73 (
talk) 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
See any geographic map of Yugoslavia from 1970-1980, and you will see that it says Kosovo and Metohija--
Dima73 (
talk) 22:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
What's up with the Weasel wording? "Uncontested territory". Nobody disputes the independence of Serbia, it is a sovereign state and everyone should respect that. But when people say "uncontested territory" they are blatantly steering into the past-fantasy that Kosovo still somehow belongs to Serbia. The country has been recognized by the vast majority of world states and has been 100% sovereign since 2012. Bottom line, Kosovo borders Serbia. Does the government of Serbia control a single spec of Kosovo? Does Kosovo use the dinar? Do they drive with Serb number plates in Kosovo? Do they learn Serbian in the schools of Ferizaj, Peja or Gjilan? And what's more, when did a reliable media source ever call the border "Kosovo-Serb uncontested territory". The plainly call it the "Kosovo-Serbian border" and that is it, it's really quite simple. @Dima73, this is not 1970-1080 any more. It is 2015 and Kosovo has been independent since 2008, learn your present facts, leave the fantasy of the past, pull your head in and move on. -- Let's keep it neutral ( talk) 13:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
User tryed to remove source from this article, but its restored back. with neutral words. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this entire discussion mixing up two rather different topics? The one is since when Serbia's acquisition of Kosovo was internationally recognized by the other powers; the other is since when Serbia internally treated Kosovo as a regular part of its own territory according to its own constitutional order. These two questions are entirely independent of each other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This article primarily deals with the land which is currently known as Kosovo, as like with most places which aren't islands, borders change over time for various reasons but this article deals with its current boarders primarily. So present day Kosovo was split between Mont and Serbia in 1913. IJA ( talk) 16:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
IJA, I'm back for a short while. In light of the disputes and the fact that we are talking about the current borders, I consider the change objective in that it doesn't suggest one thing over another. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 11:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
To everyone else, I am finding it difficult to believe we are still discussing whether or not Kosovo became part of the Kingdom of Serbia, and I see this argument being driven by its absence from the short source on the London Treaty. To establish what was and what was not stated in the treaty, one needs the actual full text. But if it is minor citations from reliable sources people want then there is an acknowledgement here of the Treaty of London 1913. Even so, the proper place to discuss these things is in the article. Furthermore, claiming that the territory was occupied on the strength of the Kingdom of Serbia's constitution is insanely weak. All statutes are ceremonial, so much so that a number of countries do not even have constitutions. The question is one of recognition. By sealing both the Ottoman Empire's new borders and establishing Albania where it remains (and don't forget, Ottoman Empire and Serbia were both signatory to the treaty), the only outstanding dispute was the bulk of the Macedonia region. Note that this did not include Skopje or Tetovo as these were part of Serbia's gain from the Kosovan annexation, but it did include important cities such as Bitola, Thessaloniki and Blagoevgrad. The new war placed Greece and Serbia against Bulgaria and the treaty of Bucharest divided the region three ways. So this moves us forward a few years to Yugoslavia. For any editor here to suggest that there is evidence of Kosovo having been incorporated into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes but not the previous Serbian kingdom, I suggest he or she establish the facts on the creation of Yugoslavia: first Serbia absorbed Montenegro's kingdom, then after World War I it took the Vojvodina region over a period of days, then it formally united with the previously unrecnognised first incarnation of Yugoslavia, the State of Croats, Serbs and Slovenes all by the end of 1918. Therefore, if Kosovo had been occupied territory in the first place, then it wasn't Serbia's to take with it into the new state. History only records the expanded Serbian kingdom merging with the State of CSS. Plus, back to the constitution argument, if Skopje was occupied, so too would Bitola and Prilep have been since these were part of the Second Balkan War gains, and subsequently Serbia would have entered into a new state with its entire south from Novi Pazar to Gevgelija subject to "occupation" with nobody in the world laying claim to those lands, not even Bulgaria. It is a conspiracy theory with far-reaching implications (people don't always realise how vast Kosovo was and how Macedonia tumbled onto it within months) and I highly recommend we drop it. In the meantime, this is a one-revert page which means behaviour here is monitored and sensitive. Can I ask the rest of you stop picking holes into each other, and accusations of "nationalism" are never a healthy thing. Stick to content! Thanks! Regards to all. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 11:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The official Serbian name is Republika Kosova (yes, with "a"). See indisputable primary source. Let's keep it neutral ( talk) 11:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
A small portion of the lede seems a bit conflicting. As a novice to the subject I'd appreciate a little more clarity when it comes to describing the ongoing tension. I propose a change from:
Serbia does recognise the Republic's governance of the territory and continues to claim it as its own Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.
to:
Serbia does recognise the Republic's governance of the territory yet continues to claim it as its own Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.
or even:
While Serbia does recognise the Republic's governance of the territory it continues to claim it as its own Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.
Would either of these be a more apt way to describe the current state of the situation? sudo people 21:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Under the section Constitution this line appears: " although (as noted previously) North Kosovo" Should the "as noted previously" be changed? I see no purpose for that section. Hifear267 ( talk) 12:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Kosovo's third official language is English. On the page only Albanian and Serbian is shown as official language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memedhe ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Kosovo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Author-editor recommends addition to sources of internationally recognized balanced work with translated essays from all sides.
Tarzan155 (
talk) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
03:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Somebody just tried to add that boilerplate Kosovo-note to the article. People, I'm sure we've discussed this before, that template is obviously only for other articles that deal with Kosovo in passing, not this main article. Everything that note does is already said right at the top of the article lead. Besides, it wasn't even used properly; there was no "status" text anchor that linked to it, so it was technically quite useless too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I was doing some research for my job, which included learning more about the history of Kosovo from the breakup of Yugoslavia to present. I found this article to be quite well-written and informative. I just wanted to congratulate those you who have worked hard on the article, including resolving disputes, and to tell you that your sustained efforts are appreciated. Good job! -- Mark D Worthen PsyD 21:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Ethnic groups: Albanians 92%, other (Serb, Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian) 8% (2008) [40] --12:45, 27 November 2011
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 34 |
Hello. It appears that it is not possible to edit the article? Is it locked or something? ( Lilicneiu ( talk) 06:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC))
I propose changing it to "…is a state in southeastern Europe". Zoef1234 ( talk) 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
There is an attempt to replace Serbian language with Serbo-Croatian ( diff) although this long-term editing pattern of one editor has been rejected by other editors many times. In this case it is also a change of the referenced assertion so I will restore the stable version.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 07:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Why does every paragraph of the lede go out of its way to frame Kosovo in terms of Serbia? Kosovo is not Serbia. Can't we have a more balanced lede which mostly focusses on Kosovo instead of Serbia? This is supposed to be an article about Kosovo. bobrayner ( talk) 22:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with Bobrayner. An example of nonsense: Prizren infobox: Country: Kosovo → Kosovo sometimes referred to as Kosovo and Metohija is a region in southeastern Europe.??? What is with Republic of Kosovo.-- Sokac121 ( talk) 10:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I've partly reinstated some of the material recently inserted by Bobrayner, which was blanket-reverted by WhiteWriter [1]. While I can see why WhiteWriter was not happy with some of the rewordings, there is valid material in what Bobrayner added, and I've tried to combine the wording of both versions [2].
At the same time, I warn WhiteWriter against violating the article restrictions. Accusing another editor of breaking the restriction while at the same time making a blanket, undiscussed revert, as WhiteWriter did, is unacceptable. The restrictions do not say that anybody making new edits is required to discuss in advance; what they do say is that anybody who makes reverts must explain them on the talkpage. The person who broke the restrictions here was WhiteWriter, and this will not be tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I made a change to what said North Kosovo was controlled by Republic of Serbia. It may seem that way but Belgrade authorities are excluded from the region and may not enforce anything there. What you actually have is the local non-Albanian population administering the region and they by their own choosing observe the institutions of the Republic of Serbia (eg. use of dinars, Serbian passport/identity card, vehicle registration plates, etc.). The Big Hoof! ( talk) 19:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
If the situation is not enough confusional in Kosovo, there are in wikipedia three articles for the same thing:
Right now the first and the third have Serbian stamp, the second (kind of) Albanian.
Wouldn't it make sense to merge Kosovo into Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, so that from three we go to two? -- LinditaBukuroshja ( talk) 12:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article shows region Kosovo and Not Kosovo itself 46.19.227.193 ( talk) 03:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Am herewith proposing that references to the Serbian register of the Serbo-Croatian language ("Serbian") be replaced with references to Serbo-Croatian in general. As per numerous sources listed in the aforementioned article and indeed, in the Serbian article itself: " Serbian is a standardized register of the Serbo-Croatian language". (I sincerely hope no one wishes to challenge this fact (again)? But if so, abundant high-quality refs can of course be provided.. again.)
I submit that it is inaccurate and detrimental to the understanding of the reader to restrict references to this language only to its Serbian standard, where the implications of that restriction are unnecessary and misleading (and on such a controversial article - also biased by omission). A couple examples:
I therefore hold it would be manifestly beneficial to present the reader with the information that the quoted names and terms are accurate for the entire language, as opposed to (as is inescapably implied) - only its Serbian standard. I.e that they are just as accurate in Bosnia, Croatia, and Montenegro, as in Serbia. -- Director ( talk) 08:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment: All allegations of evil, far-reaching conspiracies aside, I want to point out that there are virtually no "Serbo-Croatian" speakers in Kosovo. Serbs declare their language to be the Serbian one, Bosniaks declare their's to be the Bosnian one, etc. See: 2011 Census Data page 64-65. Adding "Serbo-Croatian" is bizarre as it not only doesn't reflect the language spoken by the people who form the majority of the population in Kosovo (Albanians), but it also doesn't reflect what Bosniaks, Croats, Serbs and Montenegrins declare their language to be. 23 editor ( talk) 22:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, its been a while. I count 7 support and 4 oppose, and those opposing are mostly just Serbian users defending "Serbian" as a language. More importantly I myself see no truly valid argument for continuing on with this confusing state of affairs. I propose to proceed with the edit? -- Director ( talk) 22:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The ArbCom-imposed "article probation" on Kosovo-related articles was superseded in 2011 by the "standard discretionary sanctions" in the Macedonia case (sanctions which, as everyone hopefully remembers, are applicable to "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted"). The header subpage for Kosovo-related talk pages should be updated accordingly. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Culture of Kosovo
For centuries, the social system known as extensive families, containing 70 to 100 members into the so-called “Fis”, was the way of living for ethnic Albanians. Nowadays, these extensive families are still present in the rural areas and trying to keep the loyalty and devotion towards tradition, which is different from major cities. They had started advancements headed for modernization since the end of World War II. Some traditional rules which somehow are considered as laws, such as personal honor and the word honor called “Besa” leading to unbreakable trust, and equality for every person. At this modern time, the Kosovar traditions are vanishing, as a result of the western world influence. People are more educated, therefore they are adopting to the westernized lifestyle. Nevertheless, the older generation is still trying to keep the traditions of Kosovo alive. Clothes Traditional clothes in Kosovo change, depending on the village, and they also have a similarity with the Albanian traditional clothes. The common clothes for every rural area was first, the “Plis” for men, and the headdress for women. Second, woolen pants for men and the skirts for men. And third, “Opengat” the shoes for men and wooden clogs for women. Nowadays, Kosovo fashion is same as any Westernized country. Art l Music l Theater The Music in Kosovo is intensely westernized and combined with many music genres of the western countries, but traditional Albanian music is still very popular in the Kosovo region. Kosovo has many music artists. One of the traditional instruments used in both Albanian countries Albania and Kosovo, is the “Ciftelia” and the mandolin. The traditional music of the Kosovar culture is folk music which is represented by the folk group Shota. Shota as well is a traditional dance style of the Kosovar and Albanian culture named after the remarkable figure, Shote Galica. The dance requires a high tempo with quick steps and it is danced and played in many traditional Kosovar ceremonies.
Kosovar film-making is not as frequent as it is in other countries, the problem is the very high needed budget to have success in this industry. There are only a few movies that have been produced and the most of them deal with the concerns of the war.” Kukumi” for example by Isa Qosja is, to this date, the most famous film made in Kosovo in 1999. The film won a jury prize at the Sarajevo Film Festival. None the less, Kosovo shows interest in film-making and have proved it through their hosting of film festivals. For example “The Doku Film Festival” which is held in Prizren every year at the end of summer, and has grown slowly to become well-known in Europe. As for theaters, there are many all-around Kosovo: some for children, others for the use of jazz music or any type of live bands in general. The main theater is the Kosovo National Theater located in the heart of Prishtina where you can enjoy theater pieces performed regularly. There are also held the special theater weeks which usually have visitors coming from outside of Kosovo to watch. In Kosovo’s National Theater you can among other artistic shows, enjoy also ballet pieces, created by Kosovo’s National Ballet Group. The first troupe of the Kosovo Ballet was formed in 1972. Ballet dancers from this generation were educated in the Secondary School of Ballet in Skopje, under the leadership of director Tatjana Petkovska. Today’s Ballet Troupe of Kosovo is one of the youngest in the Balkan region with talented and dedicated dancers and is ranked alongside European troupes for their quality. The Kosovo Ballet has participated in many International Festivals such as: Festival of Ohrid - "I do not hear Gong" (07/08/2005), twice in the International Festival of Modern Dance and Theatre in Durres - "I do not hear Gong" (09/04/2006) and "Performance" (14/04/2000), Apollonia International Festival in Apollonia-Fier - "Contrast" (29/08/2006), International Festival "Dance Fest" in Skopje – “Performance (10/04/2009), "Scampa Dance Competition, Creativity and Interpretation" in Elbasan – “Performance” (10/09/2009) won first prize as best choreography, "Kosova International Theatre Festival" in Pristina - "Performance" (05/11/2009)
References Beinkosovo. "Kosovo Culture." Be In Kosovo. Ed. Beinkosovo. beepromarketing,
n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. < http://beinkosovo.com/en/kosovo-culture>.
Ditamorina (
talk) 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Due to the possibly controversial nature of this change and and topic, please acquire a consensus before requesting an edit here. Thank you.
Technical 13 (
talk) 04:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)There were a couple of requests for admin attention generated by the RM above, all of them I think now archived. It would be good to link to the archived discussions, to try to reduce the amount of time we spend reinventing the wheel next time around. I'll do it when I find time, or feel free to beat me to it. Andrewa ( talk) 16:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm closing this per a WP:ANRFC request.
Numerically, a few more editors oppose the proposal than support it. That would amount to no consensus. After, however, discounting the opinions that appear to be motivated by personal opinions about the underlying political situation rather than by Wikipedia policy (my favorite is the "only ignorant foreigners" one), as well as the one in which everything is underlined because it is visually painful to read, I must conclude that consensus as informed by Wikipedia policy and practice is in support of the proposal.
Quite a number of the opinions opposed to the move do not or only superficially address the "most common name" or "consistency" arguments advanced in favor of the move, but instead focus on comparisons with other difficult cases like "Macedonia", or on the political history and recognition status of the country, which isn't very on point. Some opinions are also barely comprehensible to me. Finally, there are credible and not seriously contested allegations of canvassing among people that can be expected to be mostly opposed to the proposal, which also cause me to give the "oppose" side less weight.
Consequently, the articles are moved as proposed. Sandstein 20:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
– As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONSISTENCY. The term "Kosovo" in our language generally refers to the country located roughly in the region of Kosovo, just as the word "Cuba" usually refers to the country that occupies the island of Cuba, which is why Cuba gets you the country and if you want to find out about the region it covers, you need to go to Geography of Cuba (where Cuba (island) redirects to). There are definite historic usages of the term to refer to the region, and even some current usages, just as a marine biologist might really not care about Castro but care deeply about a rare fish found near Cuba, the island; clearly Geography of Cuba should exist, but the country has clear primary topic. In truth, Kosovo is no different. This is not a situation like at Ireland, where one fixed region with a long history is now currently divided into two countries, each very notable even though the southern one is significantly more important. This is not Georgia, where two completely different states (and several other entities) share a name by historical accidents and neither one has gained primary topic. This is not even Macedonia, where a historic region only vaguely corresponds to the country that claims its name. There is no reason whatsoever to give primary topic to an area of land while excluding the only government that actually runs it. Again, look at Google News. Most of the results I got dealt specifically with the Republic and not the region; this is the totality of the first page of results I got. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] They all deal with the independent republic that governs Kosovo. Point of clarification: most of the information here should be merged back into the Republic of Kosovo article. Just like at Canada or even Serbia, the article containing the information on the government of the country needs to be at the main article for the country, and barring a profoundly good reason to ignore our strong desire for consistency in article titles, that should be at the base title, which is "Kosovo" in this case. We follow English-language use in reliable sources, and the country--not some abstract idea of a region apart from its government--is what people typically refer to when they use the word "Kosovo" in English. Red Slash 05:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Actualy, that news speack about territory, and not republic. Just read everything, its about territory history, look "Kosovo, an impoverished land" -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 14:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
"General" context is much bigger than the "countries" context. Outside of the context of "countries", "Kosovo" is not the common name of the state ("Republic of Kosovo"), but the common name of the "region" in "general" context. In universal naming standards, the "GENERAL" context is much bigger than and far overrides the "COUNTRIES" context. In universal naming standards, the bigger entity always takes the name. The entity "region of Kosovo" (with thousands of years of history) is much bigger than the entity "Republic of Kosovo" (with in the baby-hood years).
Alexyflemming (
talk) 13:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"Ireland" is the "island" in general context and the common name of the island (for THOUSANDS years!). When the context is the context of countries, "Republic of Ireland" may be shorthened/abbreviated as "Ireland". As long as the context mentioned and covered is clear to make a separation between the "island" and the "country(Ireland)"; for the things related with "Republic of Ireland", "Irish/Ireland" may be used to refer the country.
"General" context is much bigger than the "countries" context. Outside of the context of "countries", "Ireland" is not the common name of the state ("Republic of Ireland"), but the common name of the "island" in "general" context. In universal naming standards, the "GENERAL" context is much bigger than and far overrides the "COUNTRIES" context. In universal naming standards, the bigger entity always takes the name. The entity "island of Ireland" (with thousands of years of history) is much bigger than the entity "Republic of Ireland" (with (1922-2014)years old). Look and see the beauty of the coverage of
Ireland, and take it as a sample model for "Kosovo"!!!
"Kosovo" is the common name of the "region" (the "region" and the "country (Republic of Kosovo)" are not coterminous):
"Kosovo" is NOT the common name of the "country (Republic of Kosovo)" in "general" context: |
---|
A. History: B. Art: C. Culture: D. Geography: E. People: |
I would point out that the sudden influx of Oppose voters was recruited by a sockpuppet here. It's not the first time that Serbian Wikipedia editors have been canvassed in order to maintain a serb-nationalist position on other wikipedias. bobrayner ( talk) 12:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I want to protest against that remark in the end of your post (even if I agree that canvassing is problematic for the debate). Opposition to the POV-pushing for giving the Republic of Kosovo undue weight, and a "serb-nationalist position" is not the same thing. Sometimes they come together, and sometimes not. Further, if we use associative arguments, there are some things to say about your conduct as well. In a recent move debate for Anti-Serb riots/pogrom in Sarajevo, your only input was this:
This ill-mannered loaded question, you wrote, despite that User:Antidiskriminator (creator of the article) had multiple and diverse sources which described the 1914 persecutions as pogroms, and it was your only input to the debate. Then you came with a variant of the same loaded question against me, when I critisized your conduct. (Try to CTRL-F and write "bobrayner" in that talk page and see the approach to the debate, there's only provocational conduct, where are the debates about the source material?)
With all this being said, I want to make the participants in this move debate aware about that there are two "bad" forces that may influence the debate: Serbian nationalism and Anti-Serb sentiment (I'm taking myself the freedom to interpret the "pogrom" example as an indicator of possible bias against Serbs) - Anonimski ( talk) 20:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm keeping this page in my watchlist since 200x. -- Bojan Talk 02:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Could any1 be so kind to put a Template:Serbia topics at the end of the article, since i cnt coz locked :(...tnx..-- Ivan VA ( talk) 20:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Frankly, after the RM, I don't see much purpose in this article. (Not that I've seen purpose in splitting articles in the first place). Let's go section by section:
In sum, all the information here exists in other places, and a lot of it is exact duplicate. I don't see how is the reader served by two largely parallel articles. We already explain the delicate political situation about the status in Kosovo article, but for all intents and purposes, {History, Economy, Geography, Architecture, Demographics} of the region of Kosovo is identical to that of disputed state of Kosovo. No such user ( talk) 11:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Eine eigenständige albanische Kultur gab es nicht. Es empfiehlt sich deshalb, Anstelle von Albanien den Terminus "albanischer Raum" einzuführen, der keine Assoziationen mit einem politischen Gebilde oder einer besonderen Kultur aufkommen lässt, sondern darauf hinweist, das "Albanien" im Mittelalter ein geographicer Begriff ist.
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |nopp=
, |doi-inactive-date=
, |month=
, and |chapterurl=
(
help)It seems that we have a consensus. I'd like to gradually compare and merge the content elsewhere in the following weeks, and then redirect this article to Kosovo. Before that, I'd ask Fut.Perf. to swap or merge page histories with Kosovo, or whichever magic is required. No such user ( talk) 06:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, procedural note: I have swapped article locations, so that the page with the full history of the original unified article from before the split is now back from Kosovo (region) to Kosovo, and the split-off article about the republic is back from Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo but has been redirected here. To start implementing the merge, I have first wholesale copied over the current latest version of Republic of Kosovo into the Kosovo article. Further merging can now proceed step by step by recovering material on geography/history etc. from the previous version [13] (the version shown at Kosovo (region) before today). Per IaR, I trust that such edits will not count as a breach of the 1rv/wk limitation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Somebod recently marked the claim that Kosovo's climate is "continental" as dubious, but didn't point to any discussion here. Any views? I don't know a thing about climate classification. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Chipmunkdavis:: we edit-conflicted, so I just copied my version over yours. Just a few words on the Geography/Climate coverage: since Kosovo is a small country without that much regional variation, I feel that a climate chart for the capital would be more informative than the precipitation map, but I don't insist. In country articles, climate is commonly, but not universally, a separate section within Geography. For example, Germany has it and Bulgaria doesn't. I'm not sure what are layout guidelines of WP:COUNTRIES, or wherever that page is hidden in the forest of MOS. No such user ( talk) 14:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we should trim it down a bit, the current history section alone is 59,368 bytes. This is an article on Kosovo, not an article on the history of Kosovo. We should just be introducing the history briefly to our readers/ audience, if they find it interesting and want to read more, then they can go to the main article(s) which focus on the relevant historical periods. I think we should limit ourselves to two paragraphs each (instead of 5-6 paragraphs) for the following periods: Early Kosovo, Medieval Serbian Period, Ottoman Period, Kingdom of Serbia, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, WW2, FRY Yugoslavia, Kosovo War, UNMIK, 2008 to Present. It'll still be a very long history section, but much shorter than it is at present. Does this seem reasonable? Your thoughts? IJA ( talk) 22:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I often follow discussions here but as my wiki time recently has been limited because of personal obligations, I choosed not to participate as often participating in this discussions implicates many hours/days/weeks/months of repeated discussions and argumets and I haven´t had the time to dedicate myself to them.
However, there is one crutial aspect of the article that strikes into my eyes. The aspect of state/country partially recognised. I find it wrong. It implies as if the territory/state is recognised in some aspects and others not. It misses to adress one real and simple issue: Kosovo is considered by some sovereign countries as fully recognised as sovereign, and by others not recognised at all and considered as Serbian province. The current wording fails completelly to adress that. FkpCascais ( talk) 15:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed that @ Red Slash: chose to partially revert the wording of the lead sentences with a barely informative edit summary of "accuracy". Since this is now supposed to be again a merged article about both the current Republic and the entire history of the region, I felt that the more comprehensive wording "Kosovo [...] is a disputed territory and a partially recognised state in Southeastern Europe" expressed the scope of the article rather well. What is more "accurate" about Red Slash's version of "The Republic of Kosovo [...] is a country in Southeastern Europe"?
About IJA's prior edit [15], it's mostly a matter of taste, but I would still somewhat prefer the prior version. The connector "As ..." in "As the Republic of Kosovo it declared..." serves to make clear that the topic of the previous sentence (plain "Kosovo") and the subject of the next ("it", under the name of "Republic of Kosovo") are at least in some sense the same thing, which is what justifies treating them in the same article. As for the "however", I find it somewhat redundant and stylistically slightly inferior to simply having two main clauses juxtaposed, but as I said, that's really a matter of taste.
On a more general note, I have the feeling that in this situation, where there will evidently be some need for more active editing to complete the merge than during routine maintenance of the article, the current 1rv/week revert limitation may be something of an obstacle. It unduly slows down legitimate constructive tinkering. Would people agree if we asked for at least a temporary relaxation to a more standard 1rv/day or so? The 1rv/week thing has been in force since 2009; it's quite unique as far as I'm aware, and I've always found it to be not really very helpful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Kosovo is a country. It has borders that everyone agrees on (did you miss how Serbia accepted the borders of Kosovo?). It has a government that exercises sovereign control over the land within those borders. By any possible definition of a "country", Kosovo is one. Is it partially recognized? Sure thing. If the USA, the UK and friends suddenly decided not to recognize Russia any more, that would not somehow make Russia less of a country. And don't overestimate the importance of the merger. Cuba deals with both the island and the country, but look at that first sentence. Look at the first sentence of partially-recognized Taiwan. Come on, Kosovo is a country and that should be in the very first sentence like it is with basically every country on Wikipedia. Red Slash 04:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Are people happy with User:Danlaycock's change to "...is a partially recognised state in Southeastern Europe which unilaterally..."? It is no longer unqualified, yet does convey that the country exists. CMD ( talk) 12:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No such user ( talk) 15:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)While dozens of countries, including the United States, Germany, France and Britain, have recognized Kosovo as a sovereign nation, the United Nations, which confers legitimacy, has not.
One of the things I have learned as I have researched is that Kosovo was not reeeeeally sovereign upon declaring independence. Instead, it was still basically puppy-guarded by the U.S., NATO and friends (the International Steering Group) until September of 2012. Therefore, most reliable sources would not have considered the country to be truly sovereign prior to 2012. In September of 2012, the ISG gave over full and sovereign control of the country to Kosovo's government, which was then de facto begrudgingly acknowledged in the Brussels agreements. From then on, the Pristina-based government has in fact enjoyed sovereign control of the country.
You want sources, I'm sure, and I am glad to provide in response to such a reasonable request. Most (not all) of these postdate the transference of sovereignty but predate the Brussels Agreements. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] ... I can absolutely get more if you'd like. I apologize for the delay; I should have better analyzed your arguments to be able to better answer them sooner. Red Slash 17:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Can we cut it short? Whoever wants to claim that RoK is sovereign need to post sources stating that. WP is not the place to make OR. Silvio1973 ( talk) 07:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Per this AN discussion, and effective immediately, this article's sanctions have been reduced from 1RR/week to 1RR/day, in light of the merge effort going on. However, the original 1RR/week should be restored if this seems to be problematic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
In the opening section it says that this country is called (in bold) The Republic of Kosovo. So, since the Kosovo region is not what is being discussed, and Kosovo (region) has an entry of its own, IMHO it should be moved to 'The Republic of Kosovo'. The Kosovo page should IMHO lead to this page, and then the neutral disambiguation will be clear. A very small change will be needed to the opening sentences of the article, which are currently totally unclear.
I take no side in current politics there, and have nothing to do with the region, besides learning of the fate of my fellow Jews there in WWI and WWII, and the leftover tiny community there today. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 11:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
As WP:INFOBOXFLAG uses this article as an example of where the infobox should not have a flag, I've removed it. Obviously it should not be replaced without an agreed change to our guidance. Dougweller ( talk) 09:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
flagicon|Kosovo}}
which is not included in the infobox, nor is any flagicon template.
IJA (
talk) 10:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)I would like to know why there is no tourism subheading.I have gathered pictures of many places around Kosovo attracting tourists and have information regarding them,and there is no availability to edit that section.I acknowledge the fact that people could write inappropriate things,but some who are trusted should have the chance to enhance the article. -- Nixious6 ( talk) 19:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Surely you mean either Socialist or Soviet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.130.163.10 ( talk) 09:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't know enough about the country and its history to fix this, nor do I have the time, but the chronology in the "history" section keeps jumping back and forth in time, making it really hard to understand. If someone can fix this, please do. Albertoeda ( talk) 17:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/world/news/19150/ http://www.srbija.gov.rs/kosovo-metohija/index.php?change_lang=en&pf=1&url=%2Fkosovo-metohija%2Findex.php%3Fpf%3D1%26change_lang%3Den. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Psychonaut ( talk) 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The article does not mention the religious distribution of the population. A source for that needs to be found and included.-- Michael ( talk) 20:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not done per the discussion below. IJA ( talk) 18:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Kosovo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The national hymn of kosovo should direct reader to this page: http://kosova.org/post/Himni-i-Ri-Shteteror-i-Republikes-se-Kosoves instead of b92 which is a serbian radical newspaper. Regarding the declaration of independecy reader should be directed to this page: http://kosovothanksyou.com/ You can read stats that Kosovo is known by more then half of the world. The Capital Name should be changed to Prishtina. Pristina is just a latin change from Priština, since you dont have the letter š in latin. But š is pronounced as SH in albanian Prishtina. Therefor you should have Prishtina or Pristhinë/Priština.
You keep referreing to B92 wich is not acceptable since it only transmit Serbian view on a state with a albanian mayority. You write that Nato ended the war but you should write that Miloševic/Miloshevic started it by killing and chasing away albanian inhabitants.
Under the time of Tito, Kosovo and Vojvodina was de facto Rebublic with the same power as Croatia or Slovenia in the Federal Yugosllavia. You can also mention that Serbian minority have minimum of 8% percent of the Parlament in Kosovo no matter how many votes they get, 8% other percent goes to the other minorities in Kosovo. If any group get more then 8% of the votes, the minority will then have more then 16% combined votes in parlamanet. The albanian parties can never get more then 74% of the votes no matter how many votes they get in the election. They will also have to get over the 5% block to get in to the parlament, something that does not apply to the minority due to them being a minority and not being able to reach more then 5 % combined.
Nothing in the constitution can be changed without 66% of the minorities votes, so to change anything in the constitution you will need both the albanian parties, serbian parties and the other minorities.
In 1912 the albians declared themself independet from the turkish empire, those borders of the albanian state included Kosovo, from Sandzak, to Presevo, through out albanian parts in Macedonia including Skopje and northern Greece, also albanian parts in Montenegro. But being a weak state and not having a real army to deffend itself the albanian got devided. Albania itself only got to exist since Italy didnt want to have it as a part of it own nation but sent a ruling King to Albania. So techincally no albanian people had the power to rule over themself. Until today where you have free election in Albania, and free election in Kosovo. The first time ever where albanian rule over themself.
You can also mention that Kosovo have been fully entered in the International Olypmic Organisation and as a result it is being entered in other federation that are members of IOC. It will have its own telephone code next year and while you can travel where you want from Serbia or Albania without visas, you can not do it from Kosovo. Even if you posses Serbian passport in Kosovo. Kosovo is also re-applying for Fifa/Uefa membership and is in everyway a independet country. If any of you travel down there you will see this. So this page should upgraded to fully to read Kosovo as a State, in all ways except as a member of UN. But not even Switzerland was a part of UN until very late due to neutral status.
Best Regards to all of you Ruotria ( talk) 15:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
If you like to have alternatives sources instead of Kosovo States one. You could use Kosovo based newspaper as telegrafi.com instead of Serbian state ones, as B92. Reason for this is Serbian newspaper try to rise tension between ethnic people on balkan and you are welcome to read the serbian section with google translate.
But as long as you only base the page on Serbian information Wikipedia can not be called a free Encyclopedia but a Propaganda Machine by those who have been in a ruling state longer, which is the case with the serbian people and serbian politican on balkan.
And Pristina is not a neutral choice between Prishtina/Priština because Prishtina is the neutral choice between Prishtinë/Priština.
But good luck basing Kosovo pages based on serbian information. I will not be a part of a serbian-western propaganda machine.
This
edit request to
Kosovo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Irongosts ( talk) 08:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
the prime minister of kosovo is no longer hashim thaci but now is isa mustafa and i saw this half an hour ago and i'm albanian in kosovo so i'm 100% sure of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksguy ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Can I please get a consensus on what is the reasoning behind listing a country as partially recognised in the preamble of the article, cause either it does not belong there, or it is missing from other articles like those of the Peoples Republic of China and North and South Korea which are also not recognised by every UN state. What is the number of states needed for a state to be considered a recognised state, for if it is all UN members then the statement must start off those articles as well, otherwise who decides how many states are needed?-- DSBennie ( talk) 19:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
My question is what is the cuttoff, 10% (22) of the UN member states do not recognise the people's republic as an existing state, who determines what percentage of UN state recognition is required for a state to exist as a recognised state? This is not a debate about if the country exists or not, it is a debate on what constitutes a partially recognised country and who decides how many states recognition constitutes the loss of the partial recognition statement, Cypress is not recognised by Turkey, North Korea by South Korea and Japan, Armenia is not recognised by Pakistan, Israel is not recognised by 32 states. -- DSBennie ( talk) 12:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no simple answer, since the assumptions on which the question is based are wrong. To put it shortly: nobody says there is a cuttoff percentage. It's only a matter of putting it as much neutral as possible. For example some argue that Kosovo is not a souvereign state at all. We have to please all of those points of view, so the current consensus is to phrase it like it is now. --biblbroks (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it currently makes sense, I just want to a) establish what conditions should be met for it to be removed, and b) consider how it affects other pages, the reason I have started this on this talk page is as this is the only state page I have found that proceeds to do this so this is the page that sets the precedent. Before we can take it to the Talk:China page, we need to set out all the criteria on why it is on this page, what requirements lets it be stated on this page and what requirements must be met to have it removed. That way a standard can be applied to other state pages -- DSBennie ( talk) 20:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-12-11/kosovo-cant-get-recognition-un-it-can-get-it-facebook Maybe info that should be inserted in the Recognition section or elsewhere? Pretty unique and very modern diplomacy effort "Kosovo is turning to digital diplomacy instead, led by Petrit Selimi. He’s Kosovo’s deputy minister of foreign affairs and the author of a forthcoming book on digital diplomacy" Legacypac ( talk) 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I hate convoluted definitions, and I find this one: Kosovo's remaining border to the north and east is seen by supporters of Kosovo's independence as a state border with Serbia whilst opponents of Kosovo's independence see it as a provincial border with Central Serbia. absurdly complex. What is wrong or non-neutral with simple Kosovo borders Central Serbia.? It is a simple geographic reference which states that the two territories are adjacent. Readers already know that Serbia disputes Kosovo independence, so it's only natural that Kosovo used to be a part of Serbia, ergo it borders the rest of it somehow. The verb "borders" does not state whether this border is internal or international, and Central Serbia is a well-defined territory, and the term does not even have a political connotation. No such user ( talk) 12:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"Proper" is an established geopolitical term; it doesn't imply impropriety at all. "uncontested Serbia", on the other hand, would worsen the very problem that I think you're trying to avoid - it tells readers that Kosovo is, deep down, just a contested bit of Serbia. bobrayner ( talk) 23:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's an entirely different take on it that we might consider: "North of Kosovo are the regions of Šumadija and Western Serbia and Southern and Eastern Serbia." Jonathunder ( talk) 16:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Kosovo is part of Serbia since the formation of the Serbian state. After the Balkan wars of Kosovo again becomes an integral part of Serbia. After the First World War, Kosovo is part of Serbia, but did not have the status of provinces. The Yugoslav communists formed the province of Kosovo. Kosovo has never been albansko.Albanija was formed as a state after the First World War.--
Dima73 (
talk) 22:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The northern border of Kosovo is extended session after the Yugoslav Communists in 1974. The entire north and Kosovo was part of the so-called Central Serbia.--
Dima73 (
talk) 22:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
If you read
Felix Philipp Kanitz -Srbija country and people -, you will see that from the border with the remnants of the Ottoman Empire coincides with part of liberated Serbia. The limit is established at the Congress of Berlin. Then the boundaries drawn by the river basins. At that time, the Albanians fought on the side of the Turks and nobody cared about their national identity.--
Dima73 (
talk) 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Kosovo and Metohia is the real name of the area .Albanci not use this name, because Metohija means church land.--
Dima73 (
talk) 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
See any geographic map of Yugoslavia from 1970-1980, and you will see that it says Kosovo and Metohija--
Dima73 (
talk) 22:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
What's up with the Weasel wording? "Uncontested territory". Nobody disputes the independence of Serbia, it is a sovereign state and everyone should respect that. But when people say "uncontested territory" they are blatantly steering into the past-fantasy that Kosovo still somehow belongs to Serbia. The country has been recognized by the vast majority of world states and has been 100% sovereign since 2012. Bottom line, Kosovo borders Serbia. Does the government of Serbia control a single spec of Kosovo? Does Kosovo use the dinar? Do they drive with Serb number plates in Kosovo? Do they learn Serbian in the schools of Ferizaj, Peja or Gjilan? And what's more, when did a reliable media source ever call the border "Kosovo-Serb uncontested territory". The plainly call it the "Kosovo-Serbian border" and that is it, it's really quite simple. @Dima73, this is not 1970-1080 any more. It is 2015 and Kosovo has been independent since 2008, learn your present facts, leave the fantasy of the past, pull your head in and move on. -- Let's keep it neutral ( talk) 13:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
User tryed to remove source from this article, but its restored back. with neutral words. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this entire discussion mixing up two rather different topics? The one is since when Serbia's acquisition of Kosovo was internationally recognized by the other powers; the other is since when Serbia internally treated Kosovo as a regular part of its own territory according to its own constitutional order. These two questions are entirely independent of each other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This article primarily deals with the land which is currently known as Kosovo, as like with most places which aren't islands, borders change over time for various reasons but this article deals with its current boarders primarily. So present day Kosovo was split between Mont and Serbia in 1913. IJA ( talk) 16:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
IJA, I'm back for a short while. In light of the disputes and the fact that we are talking about the current borders, I consider the change objective in that it doesn't suggest one thing over another. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 11:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
To everyone else, I am finding it difficult to believe we are still discussing whether or not Kosovo became part of the Kingdom of Serbia, and I see this argument being driven by its absence from the short source on the London Treaty. To establish what was and what was not stated in the treaty, one needs the actual full text. But if it is minor citations from reliable sources people want then there is an acknowledgement here of the Treaty of London 1913. Even so, the proper place to discuss these things is in the article. Furthermore, claiming that the territory was occupied on the strength of the Kingdom of Serbia's constitution is insanely weak. All statutes are ceremonial, so much so that a number of countries do not even have constitutions. The question is one of recognition. By sealing both the Ottoman Empire's new borders and establishing Albania where it remains (and don't forget, Ottoman Empire and Serbia were both signatory to the treaty), the only outstanding dispute was the bulk of the Macedonia region. Note that this did not include Skopje or Tetovo as these were part of Serbia's gain from the Kosovan annexation, but it did include important cities such as Bitola, Thessaloniki and Blagoevgrad. The new war placed Greece and Serbia against Bulgaria and the treaty of Bucharest divided the region three ways. So this moves us forward a few years to Yugoslavia. For any editor here to suggest that there is evidence of Kosovo having been incorporated into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes but not the previous Serbian kingdom, I suggest he or she establish the facts on the creation of Yugoslavia: first Serbia absorbed Montenegro's kingdom, then after World War I it took the Vojvodina region over a period of days, then it formally united with the previously unrecnognised first incarnation of Yugoslavia, the State of Croats, Serbs and Slovenes all by the end of 1918. Therefore, if Kosovo had been occupied territory in the first place, then it wasn't Serbia's to take with it into the new state. History only records the expanded Serbian kingdom merging with the State of CSS. Plus, back to the constitution argument, if Skopje was occupied, so too would Bitola and Prilep have been since these were part of the Second Balkan War gains, and subsequently Serbia would have entered into a new state with its entire south from Novi Pazar to Gevgelija subject to "occupation" with nobody in the world laying claim to those lands, not even Bulgaria. It is a conspiracy theory with far-reaching implications (people don't always realise how vast Kosovo was and how Macedonia tumbled onto it within months) and I highly recommend we drop it. In the meantime, this is a one-revert page which means behaviour here is monitored and sensitive. Can I ask the rest of you stop picking holes into each other, and accusations of "nationalism" are never a healthy thing. Stick to content! Thanks! Regards to all. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 11:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The official Serbian name is Republika Kosova (yes, with "a"). See indisputable primary source. Let's keep it neutral ( talk) 11:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
A small portion of the lede seems a bit conflicting. As a novice to the subject I'd appreciate a little more clarity when it comes to describing the ongoing tension. I propose a change from:
Serbia does recognise the Republic's governance of the territory and continues to claim it as its own Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.
to:
Serbia does recognise the Republic's governance of the territory yet continues to claim it as its own Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.
or even:
While Serbia does recognise the Republic's governance of the territory it continues to claim it as its own Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.
Would either of these be a more apt way to describe the current state of the situation? sudo people 21:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Under the section Constitution this line appears: " although (as noted previously) North Kosovo" Should the "as noted previously" be changed? I see no purpose for that section. Hifear267 ( talk) 12:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Kosovo's third official language is English. On the page only Albanian and Serbian is shown as official language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memedhe ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Kosovo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Author-editor recommends addition to sources of internationally recognized balanced work with translated essays from all sides.
Tarzan155 (
talk) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
03:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Somebody just tried to add that boilerplate Kosovo-note to the article. People, I'm sure we've discussed this before, that template is obviously only for other articles that deal with Kosovo in passing, not this main article. Everything that note does is already said right at the top of the article lead. Besides, it wasn't even used properly; there was no "status" text anchor that linked to it, so it was technically quite useless too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I was doing some research for my job, which included learning more about the history of Kosovo from the breakup of Yugoslavia to present. I found this article to be quite well-written and informative. I just wanted to congratulate those you who have worked hard on the article, including resolving disputes, and to tell you that your sustained efforts are appreciated. Good job! -- Mark D Worthen PsyD 21:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Ethnic groups: Albanians 92%, other (Serb, Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian) 8% (2008) [40] --12:45, 27 November 2011