Talk:Czech Republic–Kosovo relations

Deletion of this article

In my humble opinion, this article should be deleted. This goes too deep into the situation about recognition of Kosovo. Only the Czech Republic has this special article in "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" article. Why? I think this could be mentioned in the way, how it is mentioned by the countries which do not recognize Kosovo - I mean some short description. But as a matter of fact, I think that this article is irrelevant and even a short description in the article "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" is not necessary (just like it is not necessary by any of the 43 states which recognize Kosovo). I support the opinion of the user "Kosovar" taken from the discussion page of the main article ("International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence"): "The formal recognition overwrites all other views held. There's always people who have different opinions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.117.103 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't just document the opposition... it documents the support and the process the Czech Republic went through before they recognized. Notes for countries which recognize aren't allowed on the "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" so someone else recommended to write an article about it instead and that was done. --Tocino 17:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please note that the creator of this detailed article is the same user who has proposed is deletion. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What? I started this article and I have not proposed that it be deleted. --Tocino 04:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Tocino started this and I proposed the deletion. 85.70.117.103 (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, if you're OK with that, I'll erase this first section since I have expressed all my ideas in the following section. 85.70.117.103 (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson977, if you're OK with that, I'll erase this first section since your comment is not correct and thus I think it could be removed. 85.70.117.103 (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I support deleting the article. While its contents is correct, sourced and neutral it IMHO does not belong to general purpose encyclopedia. Recognition of Kosovo is not a major political topic in the politics of the Czech Republic. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Ya, we have this why? hell most of it is negative to the declaration, and it is importnat, how? When tocino replie,s it'll probly be "well, the seperatist supporting goverment supports kosovo, but most of the people don't* Well, how DO WE KNOW, did the goverment go to every single person in the country to get that 58% mentione,d or was it a sample of a sportion, i doubt that 58% of the 10,403,136 population was really against, so any of those "percentage" are just some of them, not all.--Jakezing (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You really need to calm down and get rid of your grudge against me. Everything in here is sourced. It is balanced, quotes from Vaclav Klass, the opposition parties, Karel Schwarzenberg and Alexandr Vondra. --Tocino 17:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But why does the czech and no other country have a special page for this? and your "poll of 58% of czechs not likeing the recognition, did this poll acctuly go to every single one of the countries inhabitants and ask them? no, so therfor, your source is misleading as it isn't the entire country they polled, just a sample, like ALL polls--Jakezing (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbia has its own special article, link here = [1], and feel free, if there is enough information avaliable, to start an article about another nation's reaction. And yeah the poll listed on this article is like every other poll. Last time I checked telling about poll results isn't against the rules. If it was then we better go to the George W. Bush article and remove all talk about his approval ratings. --Tocino 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ya but your using it like its importnat that 58% of a sample population represents the whole population.--Jakezing (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, as regards the article, you have done great work. In my opinion, it's written in the NPOW and it summarizes the main facts. However, I still consider it going a little deep. 85.70.117.103 (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This article IS neutral

I suggest removing that "The neutrality of this article is disputed" thing. I went through the whole article to improve it a little, I also checked the references and where necessary I put new references. I admit the article may seem a bit mess, but in my opinion, it is written from the NPOW. The poll percentages are NOT false. And I think it is not "Biased towards the Anti Kosovo POV". Therefore, if you are comfortable with this, I will remove this flag in the near future. If not, send a comment please. 85.70.117.103 (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody needs to explain, with concrete answers, why this article is not neutral. --Tocino 06:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets see, the article is almost entirly about how a "58%" of the population is agaisnt it, almsot nowhere does it mentio n any support, its jsut a way to say "czecks hate it.--Jakezing (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are the only person objecting and you keep saying the same thing over and over again, that somehow we can't have two different opinion polls listed here even though they take up less than 5% of the article. --Tocino 18:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is absolutely neutral. Some people just like adding NPOV tag to every article they don't like, since the wikipedia policy states that if there is a discussion whether is an article neutral then it is not neutral, which is nonsense IMO.83.240.41.206 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as I usually disagree with Tocino, this article seems neutral to me, and I do not see a need for a POV tag. The bickering about poll results is just ridiculous, any reader of average intelligence knows the difference between a poll and a referendum, and can interpret the information correctly. Just to mention it explicitly, the polls in question were not any kind of amateurish reader opinion surveys as sometimes occur in newspapers, but serious reliable polls conducted by one of the most reputable Czech public opinion research companies (CVVM), thus one can safely assume it has a margin of error in the order of 1%. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Alchemia's revert

"I want you to tell us how a mere MP can de-recognize and what "Frankfurt daily" he told this to." - Alchemia. First of all, have you read the text? Nowhere is it mentioned that an MP can de-recognize Kosovo by himself. Also, please don't use the phrasing "mere MP", unless you hold a higher position in any type of government, but even then it's quite politically incorrect. If you really don't like the proposal that the MP offers, that's fine, there's a lot of stuff I don't like that I have to accept. But to keep presenting legitimate references, which happen to disagree with your point of view, as propaganda is very unfair and does not adhere to WP:AGF, because you simply discredit every single Serbian source as not good enough for Wikipedia, while many Albanian sources, that may have less relevance than a government ministry in Serbia or one of the largest News Agencies in the Balkans, are surely regarded as sufficient. There is no point in trying to hide something that you don't agree with. People read Wikipedia to form their own opinion about a topic, not to hear only one viewpoint. --Cinéma C 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Czech Republic–Kosovo relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722032952/http://www.neurope.eu/articles/86713.php to http://www.neurope.eu/articles/86713.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410170612/http://www.b92.net:80/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=04&dd=04&nav_id=49109 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=04&dd=04&nav_id=49109
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513210114/http://www.b92.net:80/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=05&dd=13&nav_id=50208 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=05&dd=13&nav_id=50208
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080628074839/http://www.praguepost.com:80/articles/2008/06/25/kosovo-autonomy-dispute-rages.php to http://www.praguepost.com/articles/2008/06/25/kosovo-autonomy-dispute-rages.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 04:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)