This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of Kosovo template. |
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The image in the template is the Coat of Arms of the unrecognized "Republic of Kosovo", an entity supported only by the Kosovar Albanians. The Republic of Serbia, i.e. the "Serbian side" of the dispute does not recognize the "Republic of Kosovo", and neither do the Kosovar Serbs. To my knowledge, Wikipedia supports a neutral point of view in this dispute, and does not favor either side. The CoA is a symbol of the Albanian entity, hence it is Albanian POV. It is not a "symbol of Kosovo" as the Serbian enclaves are within Kosovo as well, acknowledging only the government in Belgrade and the UN, which also does not recognize the "Republic of Kosovo" (or its symbols). -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, here we go... Kosovo is an independent case, not to be guided by precedents, only by policy (like
WP:NPOV, for example). But I'll humor you just to illustrate my point:
As for your other point: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a citizen of one of the countries interested in learning about the regional developments, would also expect to see symbols of the newborn state." That's a nice bit of baseless speculation, but I'm afraid its not really an argument (this is an encyclopedia!? no kidding?). The CoA is in violation of
WP:NPOV in that it is a symbol of only one side of the dispute. Concerning the last link in the template, it is completely pro-Albanian. The "Republic of Kosovo" is a disputed unrecognized political entity which, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, exists 'alongside' the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". How is calling the
Kosovo article "
Republic of Kosovo" neutral? Not only it it not neutral, but its incorrect and misleading.
Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't revert edits until discussion is over, as is standard practice in controversial topics. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 08:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Word games. The template quite clearly does not state Kosovo is a country, or a region, or an autonomous province or... anything, for that matter. I'm just trying to make the template as neutral as is required by the extremely controversial nature of the dispute. The Serbian minority does not recognize the insignia of the Republic of Kosovo as representative of anything, and neither does Serbia, or the UN for that matter. This CoA has never been used to represent the
region itself, only the Republic of Kosovo. To use it in that capacity on Wikipedia would be completely incorrect.
Look guys, I don't see your argument here. Both sides of the Kosovo dispute should be represented equally, even the
Kosovo article has two infoboxes ffs. I'm sorry, but I don't comprehend how using the Coat of Arms of the Republic of Kosovo, and calling today's
Kosovo the "Republic of Kosovo" is anywhere near neutrality. The template in its former state was exactly the way it would be if there was no highly volitile dispute raging everywhere, and Kosovo was a fully and indisputably independent state(!) Kosovo simply isn't there (yet), Wikipedia recognizes this. So should this template. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 12:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia recognizes this. Have a look at the Kosovo article and the Kosovo ARBCOM. Both sides are to be represented painfully equally. Zero favoritism either way.
"You are merely reverting and alterting this template to a version that is POV while twisting the actions of others to make it seem as though we are doing that." That's your opinion. While its generally nice to share opinions I hope your next post will address one of the arguments I've presented. And PLEASE stop edit-warring. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 12:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Argument 1:
Argument 2:
(It follows that a symbol of an incorrect term is equally as incorrect in depicting the topic.) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to answer your sentences one at a time.
Here's a way to avoid getting entangled in the ethnic dispute: we simply don't use the symbols of any side of the dispute. (Of course, there is no way that the Kosovo article will be linked by way of the " Republic of Kosovo" redirect. That's pure unhidden POV and pro-Albanian favoritism, I'll go all the way to ARBCOM on this.) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well we obviously can't have a link to the modern period under the "20th century" heading, so I assume you're referring to "Contemporary Kosovo". Do you have any suggestions then? I'm ok with anything that does not favor one side or the other. "Modern Kosovo"? "Recent history of Kosovo"? I basically want to remove the 'History of Serbia' templates from Kosovo history articles and replace them with this template. I can't do that unless we have an NPOV template. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike. As you can see, I don't support the secession of illegally created self-proclaimed states ;) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed it is not. It is here to depict information in the most detached way possible. That's why we have policies, like WP:NPOV (which I'm getting tired of quoting). That was an internal joke between Mike and I. I don't see how my above post or my mixed Slavic/Italian ethnicity reflect on the arguments I've stated above. If anything, it may show I am a person of legal principle. In either case, I believe both are quite irrelevant to the matter at hand. Please address the reasons I've listed above. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
To my knowledge, Wikipedia is not a democracy and does not function by vote. Every single valid point I have outlined above still stands, and is backed by policy. I've not edit-warred to introduce the map, but have introduced it after the only User who discussed the matter agreed that it should be introduced (see above).
Even if this image somehow "contradicts the established norms for these types of templates" (please provide a link to the WP article supporting this quite dubious claim), Kosovo is a special case in many ways, least of all this small matter. In short, your post in no way justifies the use of an image which quite clearly represents the independence of Kosovo, all the while ignoring the neutral approach that must be taken in serious disputes such as this. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
About the image, Direktor is right on three points:
So, using the coat of arms in this template should be entirely out of the question.
Regarding the last link of the template, using "Republic of Kosovo" (indicating political independence) is just as biased as using "Autonomous Province of Kosovo" (indicating Serbian sovereignty). Because "Kosovo" alone is rather terse for our purposes, Direktor's proposals of using either "Modern [[Kosovo]]" or "Contemporary [[Kosovo]]" -or something along those lines- should be adopted. - Best, Ev ( talk) 16:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, same reasons as Template_talk:Politics_of_Kosovo#Request_to_remove_the_flag, we use the current coat of arms in all this series of templates. The more neutral stance is using the exact same criteria as all the other templates. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, yes, I know. The matter is immensely complicated, even on the general level. As you say, the UNMIK created the Kosovar assembly. The UN controlled the region. That assembly, however, declared the new "Republic of Kosovo". This move excludes UN control by definition, and passes the power to the newly-created government. This move was in no way encouraged or endorsed by the United Nations. The UN did not recognize the declaration and the "Republic of Kosovo", thus maintaining that the region was still an autonomous province of Serbia under UN administration. The government of the Republic of Kosovo naturally rejects UN administration as it is an independent government not recognized by the UN. Hence, the Republic of Kosovo is not under UN administration. The only part of Kosovo still not rejecting UN administration are the Serbian enclaves.
"All of Kosovo is still nominally under UN administration, not just the Serbian enclaves."
Quite true, but its not that simple. All of Kosovo is "nominally" under UN administration, but you've not followed that correct assertion to its end. "Nominally" (but most of it not de facto), Kosovo is UN administered, it is "nominally" not an independent country. "Nominally", Kosovo is a UN administered autonomous province of Serbia. The situation on the ground, the de facto situation, is quite different (as you may conclude from the above paragraph). De facto, only the Serbian enclaves accept UN administration (as a part of Serbia). The Republic of Kosovo does not consider itself UN administered, and its independence from Serbia is not recognized by the United Nations.
These are the basics of the situation. I hope they'll provide an adequate insight, despite my not being a professional at politics and diplomacy.
Finally, for the 50th time: we are making an exception because the region of Kosovo has no damn coat of arms. This is becoming rather absurd, I must demand that you read my replies and research the matter more thoroughly, preferrably before you get deeply involved and lobby for a month-long full block of the template. I have to say I'm sick and tired of repeating the same sentences in different arrangement over and over again without them being properly addressed. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Comparing the region of Kosovo to fully recognized countries needs no comment. Your question is like asking "why is it not a problem" to have only one infobox in the United Kingdom article, as compared to Kosovo's three. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 23:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, this just isn't right. the article was edited a few times and it gets full protection for a month!?
I see that I've somehow earned
User:Enric Naval's "negative attention", since he requested the block. I must assert that this looks like a deliberate attempt to prevent an edit which was already established as required by policy. Blocking an article after three days of quiet for "persistent edit-warring" is against what I've come to believe Wikipedia stands for. I hope
User:Carnildo will grant my request and further elaborate this article block. I shan't stand by quietly at this appalling development, however.
User:Enric Naval has pushed the version he sees fit, avoided any proper discussion and then misleadingly petitioned for a block, thus "winning the argument" it would seem. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
"No-brainer"? Apparently the idea is absolutely incomprehensible. I find myself repeating and repeating the point over and over again from every conceivable point of view, and in every imaginable way. I think I'm getting CTS, all because of one image that is clearly and obviously against policy. :P -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 10:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me. Unless someone can provide some kind of strict policy or guideline "ordering" that an image must be used, I can't see any serious objections to this solution. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 15:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It was my original idea, anyway [1], but "aesthetic concerns" and accusations of "vandalism" on the part of some editors lead me to try and find an NPOV image to replace the seal. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 20:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a standard benchmark that we can defer to regarding nationhood? Is there a threshhold of recognition by other countries (50 or whatever) that means that a new country is considered legitimately independent? What criteria does the UN use for accepting new members? If the US or EU recognises you, does that catapult you to instant statehood? (Probably, yes). Regarding Kosovo, well, it is not for us to decide; we must of course defer to global authorities, probably using the above criteria, as to when it becomes a state. Regarding this present contretemps, I'd say DIREKTOR is in the right. Whether we like it or not, coats of arms for countries confer an aspect of legitimacy that Wikipedia really ought not to confer at this stage. Those that seek to put it up there are those that have an inherent pro-statehood POV, and I'd say we need to wait for outside confirmation on this. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 22:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
this is a dispute, there isn't a "correct" answer. But this is the "history of Kosovo" article (antiquity to present), not the "history of the Republic of Kosovo" one (2007 to present), hence the coat of arms is clearly misplaced. This flag-tagging on the part of the Kosovar editors is a childish pissing contest, and needs to be stopped by administrative action, under
WP:NPOV and under the arbcom probation placed on
Kosovo. --
dab
(𒁳) 09:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
the problem is indeed two sided. If we had Kosovar Albanians adding RoK flags, and Serbs adding Serbian flags, then the dispute would by symmetrical. Tellingly, nobody ever tried to slap a Serbian flag on the template, consider that. So, in this two-sided problem, we have one side trying to push through their side no matter what, while the other side is in the defensive, not so much trying to push their view but preventing the other side from giving theirs the air of the " WP:TRUTH". Needless to say, we as Wikipedians need to keep things neutral, endorse neither side, and if there is a problem with ornamenting templates with flag icons, the obvious solution will be to simply do without them. This isn't a flag gallery, it's a navigation template. I fail to see how the absence of flags in this template can be interpreted as a positive statement denying statehood to the Republic of Kosovo declared in 2007. Everyone seems to agree that Kosovo never had statehood between 160 BCE and 2007 CE. So even if statehood for the 2007 RoK is granted, a "sovereign Kosovo" only accounts for 0.1% of the period addressed by this template. -- dab (𒁳) 06:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
um, yes you can. It's a wiki. If you ask me, these coats of arms are clutter in any case, and they hardly serve any use even in the case of undisputedly sovereign states. -- dab (𒁳) 05:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
no problem, we can easily show some neolithic artefact as far as I am concerned, or, you know, simply sticking with no image is fine too. "not showing any coat of arms is biased anti-something" is, frankly, nonsense. There is no reason to plaster everything with coats of arms even if the nationhood in question is undisputed. I'll say that again: these tiny flags and coats of arms popping up in all possible and impossible places are clutter, and in cases of border disputes, worse than clutter. Just avoiding them whenever possible doesn't indicate any sort of bias, excepting possibly anti-clutter bias. -- dab (𒁳) 18:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a good bunch of Serbian editors removing the flag and Kosovar editors restoring it, but there are also other nationalities in both sides.
The coat in dispute was created in February 2008 by Kosovo's assembly.
In Template:History_of_Kosovo:
The case of Template:Politics of Kosovo is also muddy, with a few Serbian editors removing the flag/coat and a few Kosovar editors restoring it. Editors who are neither Serbian nor Kosovar would be
From 19 to 21 April 2009 there was an edit war that finished in a protection.
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Eric, don't you have anything productive to do with your time on Wikipedia? Such as improving our coverage on the history of Kosovo if that's your field of interest. This is a navigation template. Yes, {{ Country history}} has an "image" parameter, to be used preferably for some historical flag or coat of arms. If there is a problem or disagreement with the image, the parameter can just remain empty until there is some sort of consensus. Obviously, the 2008 coat of arms failed to get any consensus. If you are interested in pursuing this, how about you present us with a range of possible candidates of historical flags or coats of arms associated with Kosovo, so people will be able to state their preference, and can argue about which candidate would be most adequate. If you do not want to do this, feel free to also just drop the topic. -- dab (𒁳) 14:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
sure, if there is a dispute as to the appropriateness of the coat of arms shown there, it should be removed until there is a consensus. -- dab (𒁳) 05:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
the scope of the template is not the "history of the Republic of Kosovo" (2008 to present), it is the "history of Kosovo" (1389 to present). I don't see why navboxes need any image at all, most of the time they just clutter up an already busy page. -- dab (𒁳) 12:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of Kosovo template. |
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The image in the template is the Coat of Arms of the unrecognized "Republic of Kosovo", an entity supported only by the Kosovar Albanians. The Republic of Serbia, i.e. the "Serbian side" of the dispute does not recognize the "Republic of Kosovo", and neither do the Kosovar Serbs. To my knowledge, Wikipedia supports a neutral point of view in this dispute, and does not favor either side. The CoA is a symbol of the Albanian entity, hence it is Albanian POV. It is not a "symbol of Kosovo" as the Serbian enclaves are within Kosovo as well, acknowledging only the government in Belgrade and the UN, which also does not recognize the "Republic of Kosovo" (or its symbols). -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, here we go... Kosovo is an independent case, not to be guided by precedents, only by policy (like
WP:NPOV, for example). But I'll humor you just to illustrate my point:
As for your other point: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a citizen of one of the countries interested in learning about the regional developments, would also expect to see symbols of the newborn state." That's a nice bit of baseless speculation, but I'm afraid its not really an argument (this is an encyclopedia!? no kidding?). The CoA is in violation of
WP:NPOV in that it is a symbol of only one side of the dispute. Concerning the last link in the template, it is completely pro-Albanian. The "Republic of Kosovo" is a disputed unrecognized political entity which, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, exists 'alongside' the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". How is calling the
Kosovo article "
Republic of Kosovo" neutral? Not only it it not neutral, but its incorrect and misleading.
Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't revert edits until discussion is over, as is standard practice in controversial topics. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 08:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Word games. The template quite clearly does not state Kosovo is a country, or a region, or an autonomous province or... anything, for that matter. I'm just trying to make the template as neutral as is required by the extremely controversial nature of the dispute. The Serbian minority does not recognize the insignia of the Republic of Kosovo as representative of anything, and neither does Serbia, or the UN for that matter. This CoA has never been used to represent the
region itself, only the Republic of Kosovo. To use it in that capacity on Wikipedia would be completely incorrect.
Look guys, I don't see your argument here. Both sides of the Kosovo dispute should be represented equally, even the
Kosovo article has two infoboxes ffs. I'm sorry, but I don't comprehend how using the Coat of Arms of the Republic of Kosovo, and calling today's
Kosovo the "Republic of Kosovo" is anywhere near neutrality. The template in its former state was exactly the way it would be if there was no highly volitile dispute raging everywhere, and Kosovo was a fully and indisputably independent state(!) Kosovo simply isn't there (yet), Wikipedia recognizes this. So should this template. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 12:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia recognizes this. Have a look at the Kosovo article and the Kosovo ARBCOM. Both sides are to be represented painfully equally. Zero favoritism either way.
"You are merely reverting and alterting this template to a version that is POV while twisting the actions of others to make it seem as though we are doing that." That's your opinion. While its generally nice to share opinions I hope your next post will address one of the arguments I've presented. And PLEASE stop edit-warring. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 12:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Argument 1:
Argument 2:
(It follows that a symbol of an incorrect term is equally as incorrect in depicting the topic.) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to answer your sentences one at a time.
Here's a way to avoid getting entangled in the ethnic dispute: we simply don't use the symbols of any side of the dispute. (Of course, there is no way that the Kosovo article will be linked by way of the " Republic of Kosovo" redirect. That's pure unhidden POV and pro-Albanian favoritism, I'll go all the way to ARBCOM on this.) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well we obviously can't have a link to the modern period under the "20th century" heading, so I assume you're referring to "Contemporary Kosovo". Do you have any suggestions then? I'm ok with anything that does not favor one side or the other. "Modern Kosovo"? "Recent history of Kosovo"? I basically want to remove the 'History of Serbia' templates from Kosovo history articles and replace them with this template. I can't do that unless we have an NPOV template. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike. As you can see, I don't support the secession of illegally created self-proclaimed states ;) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed it is not. It is here to depict information in the most detached way possible. That's why we have policies, like WP:NPOV (which I'm getting tired of quoting). That was an internal joke between Mike and I. I don't see how my above post or my mixed Slavic/Italian ethnicity reflect on the arguments I've stated above. If anything, it may show I am a person of legal principle. In either case, I believe both are quite irrelevant to the matter at hand. Please address the reasons I've listed above. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
To my knowledge, Wikipedia is not a democracy and does not function by vote. Every single valid point I have outlined above still stands, and is backed by policy. I've not edit-warred to introduce the map, but have introduced it after the only User who discussed the matter agreed that it should be introduced (see above).
Even if this image somehow "contradicts the established norms for these types of templates" (please provide a link to the WP article supporting this quite dubious claim), Kosovo is a special case in many ways, least of all this small matter. In short, your post in no way justifies the use of an image which quite clearly represents the independence of Kosovo, all the while ignoring the neutral approach that must be taken in serious disputes such as this. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
About the image, Direktor is right on three points:
So, using the coat of arms in this template should be entirely out of the question.
Regarding the last link of the template, using "Republic of Kosovo" (indicating political independence) is just as biased as using "Autonomous Province of Kosovo" (indicating Serbian sovereignty). Because "Kosovo" alone is rather terse for our purposes, Direktor's proposals of using either "Modern [[Kosovo]]" or "Contemporary [[Kosovo]]" -or something along those lines- should be adopted. - Best, Ev ( talk) 16:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, same reasons as Template_talk:Politics_of_Kosovo#Request_to_remove_the_flag, we use the current coat of arms in all this series of templates. The more neutral stance is using the exact same criteria as all the other templates. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, yes, I know. The matter is immensely complicated, even on the general level. As you say, the UNMIK created the Kosovar assembly. The UN controlled the region. That assembly, however, declared the new "Republic of Kosovo". This move excludes UN control by definition, and passes the power to the newly-created government. This move was in no way encouraged or endorsed by the United Nations. The UN did not recognize the declaration and the "Republic of Kosovo", thus maintaining that the region was still an autonomous province of Serbia under UN administration. The government of the Republic of Kosovo naturally rejects UN administration as it is an independent government not recognized by the UN. Hence, the Republic of Kosovo is not under UN administration. The only part of Kosovo still not rejecting UN administration are the Serbian enclaves.
"All of Kosovo is still nominally under UN administration, not just the Serbian enclaves."
Quite true, but its not that simple. All of Kosovo is "nominally" under UN administration, but you've not followed that correct assertion to its end. "Nominally" (but most of it not de facto), Kosovo is UN administered, it is "nominally" not an independent country. "Nominally", Kosovo is a UN administered autonomous province of Serbia. The situation on the ground, the de facto situation, is quite different (as you may conclude from the above paragraph). De facto, only the Serbian enclaves accept UN administration (as a part of Serbia). The Republic of Kosovo does not consider itself UN administered, and its independence from Serbia is not recognized by the United Nations.
These are the basics of the situation. I hope they'll provide an adequate insight, despite my not being a professional at politics and diplomacy.
Finally, for the 50th time: we are making an exception because the region of Kosovo has no damn coat of arms. This is becoming rather absurd, I must demand that you read my replies and research the matter more thoroughly, preferrably before you get deeply involved and lobby for a month-long full block of the template. I have to say I'm sick and tired of repeating the same sentences in different arrangement over and over again without them being properly addressed. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Comparing the region of Kosovo to fully recognized countries needs no comment. Your question is like asking "why is it not a problem" to have only one infobox in the United Kingdom article, as compared to Kosovo's three. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 23:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, this just isn't right. the article was edited a few times and it gets full protection for a month!?
I see that I've somehow earned
User:Enric Naval's "negative attention", since he requested the block. I must assert that this looks like a deliberate attempt to prevent an edit which was already established as required by policy. Blocking an article after three days of quiet for "persistent edit-warring" is against what I've come to believe Wikipedia stands for. I hope
User:Carnildo will grant my request and further elaborate this article block. I shan't stand by quietly at this appalling development, however.
User:Enric Naval has pushed the version he sees fit, avoided any proper discussion and then misleadingly petitioned for a block, thus "winning the argument" it would seem. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
"No-brainer"? Apparently the idea is absolutely incomprehensible. I find myself repeating and repeating the point over and over again from every conceivable point of view, and in every imaginable way. I think I'm getting CTS, all because of one image that is clearly and obviously against policy. :P -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 10:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me. Unless someone can provide some kind of strict policy or guideline "ordering" that an image must be used, I can't see any serious objections to this solution. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 15:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It was my original idea, anyway [1], but "aesthetic concerns" and accusations of "vandalism" on the part of some editors lead me to try and find an NPOV image to replace the seal. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 20:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a standard benchmark that we can defer to regarding nationhood? Is there a threshhold of recognition by other countries (50 or whatever) that means that a new country is considered legitimately independent? What criteria does the UN use for accepting new members? If the US or EU recognises you, does that catapult you to instant statehood? (Probably, yes). Regarding Kosovo, well, it is not for us to decide; we must of course defer to global authorities, probably using the above criteria, as to when it becomes a state. Regarding this present contretemps, I'd say DIREKTOR is in the right. Whether we like it or not, coats of arms for countries confer an aspect of legitimacy that Wikipedia really ought not to confer at this stage. Those that seek to put it up there are those that have an inherent pro-statehood POV, and I'd say we need to wait for outside confirmation on this. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 22:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
this is a dispute, there isn't a "correct" answer. But this is the "history of Kosovo" article (antiquity to present), not the "history of the Republic of Kosovo" one (2007 to present), hence the coat of arms is clearly misplaced. This flag-tagging on the part of the Kosovar editors is a childish pissing contest, and needs to be stopped by administrative action, under
WP:NPOV and under the arbcom probation placed on
Kosovo. --
dab
(𒁳) 09:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
the problem is indeed two sided. If we had Kosovar Albanians adding RoK flags, and Serbs adding Serbian flags, then the dispute would by symmetrical. Tellingly, nobody ever tried to slap a Serbian flag on the template, consider that. So, in this two-sided problem, we have one side trying to push through their side no matter what, while the other side is in the defensive, not so much trying to push their view but preventing the other side from giving theirs the air of the " WP:TRUTH". Needless to say, we as Wikipedians need to keep things neutral, endorse neither side, and if there is a problem with ornamenting templates with flag icons, the obvious solution will be to simply do without them. This isn't a flag gallery, it's a navigation template. I fail to see how the absence of flags in this template can be interpreted as a positive statement denying statehood to the Republic of Kosovo declared in 2007. Everyone seems to agree that Kosovo never had statehood between 160 BCE and 2007 CE. So even if statehood for the 2007 RoK is granted, a "sovereign Kosovo" only accounts for 0.1% of the period addressed by this template. -- dab (𒁳) 06:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
um, yes you can. It's a wiki. If you ask me, these coats of arms are clutter in any case, and they hardly serve any use even in the case of undisputedly sovereign states. -- dab (𒁳) 05:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
no problem, we can easily show some neolithic artefact as far as I am concerned, or, you know, simply sticking with no image is fine too. "not showing any coat of arms is biased anti-something" is, frankly, nonsense. There is no reason to plaster everything with coats of arms even if the nationhood in question is undisputed. I'll say that again: these tiny flags and coats of arms popping up in all possible and impossible places are clutter, and in cases of border disputes, worse than clutter. Just avoiding them whenever possible doesn't indicate any sort of bias, excepting possibly anti-clutter bias. -- dab (𒁳) 18:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a good bunch of Serbian editors removing the flag and Kosovar editors restoring it, but there are also other nationalities in both sides.
The coat in dispute was created in February 2008 by Kosovo's assembly.
In Template:History_of_Kosovo:
The case of Template:Politics of Kosovo is also muddy, with a few Serbian editors removing the flag/coat and a few Kosovar editors restoring it. Editors who are neither Serbian nor Kosovar would be
From 19 to 21 April 2009 there was an edit war that finished in a protection.
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Eric, don't you have anything productive to do with your time on Wikipedia? Such as improving our coverage on the history of Kosovo if that's your field of interest. This is a navigation template. Yes, {{ Country history}} has an "image" parameter, to be used preferably for some historical flag or coat of arms. If there is a problem or disagreement with the image, the parameter can just remain empty until there is some sort of consensus. Obviously, the 2008 coat of arms failed to get any consensus. If you are interested in pursuing this, how about you present us with a range of possible candidates of historical flags or coats of arms associated with Kosovo, so people will be able to state their preference, and can argue about which candidate would be most adequate. If you do not want to do this, feel free to also just drop the topic. -- dab (𒁳) 14:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
sure, if there is a dispute as to the appropriateness of the coat of arms shown there, it should be removed until there is a consensus. -- dab (𒁳) 05:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
the scope of the template is not the "history of the Republic of Kosovo" (2008 to present), it is the "history of Kosovo" (1389 to present). I don't see why navboxes need any image at all, most of the time they just clutter up an already busy page. -- dab (𒁳) 12:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)