Talk:Geography of Kosovo

Map switch

I have switched the political map used here to the new CIA Factbook map for two reasons: 1) This new map has Serbia and Montenegro as separate nations 2) The new map also has the main cities in both Albanian and Serbian. - Thanks, Hoshie 05:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article title

I've moved this article to the common English name to avoid POV problems arising from using the name favoured by one side in the conflict. I've also amended the intro to describe the usage and context of both names, in a broadly similar fashion to the start of Macedonia (region), a comparable article. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Albanian" Culture

Albanian culture should begin in the medieval mentions of them in the region whatever they are.Illyrians,Thracians,Dacians are eligible for the origin of Albanians(see article) but nothing has been substantiated.Its not neutral at all for us to place the history of the region for Albanians at antiquity and the Serbs at medieval times.The Dardani can be mentioned briefly but 99% of the section should be the actual known Albanian presence in the region.Megistias (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This readdition was unneeded.

• [1]
• As explained above.Megistias (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone remove it again user changed the text.Megistias (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Change this pov back to normal."Albanians are autochthonous in the land of Kosovo. They are the direct descendants of the Illyrian tribe of Dardanian. They have since maintained Albanian_language, which is a Indo-European language, descendant from Illyrian, which is distinct from the languages of the other Balkan nationalities around them. The majority of the Albanians of Kosovo maintain association to the religion of Islam, due to the invasion of the country in the XVIth century by the Ottoman_empire."Megistias (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it isn't the last time we see idle harping on ancient Illyria on articles of interest to Albanian nationalists. The proper article to discuss the prehistoric Balkans is prehistoric Balkans. I expect it will be necessary to keep the Kosovo related articles semi-protected until further notice to maintain a semblance of sanity. 14:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Be more afraid of Serbian racists as they are the ones trying to disturb as it can be seen in the article Kosovo wich they try to sabotage by creating a fork like this article. I think, this article should be merged, no matter what Serbian racists say. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

At present, Kosovo is in fact about the Republic of Kosovo (although there seems to be some confusion on this point). For this reason, the article should not be merged. What could or should be done instead is moving Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo to reflect its actual scope, and then (possibly, pending consensus) move this article to Kosovo (alternatively, redirect Kosovo to Kosovo (disambiguation) to be on the safe side npov-wise). dab (𒁳) 13:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mister Bachmann, there is no difference between Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo, that is why it should be merged, Sir! And there is no consensus to your proposed moving, Sir! --Tubesship (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you in the army or something? :P BalkanFever 01:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it has to do with the fact that Mister Bachmann accused me of not being polite, so I try my best to keep him in good mood to avoid being banned or blocked as he is an administrator and we both disagree about the subject Kosova. Therefore I try to be as careful as I can be. --Tubesship (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Tubesship, mocking other users isn't a very civil behavior either. I am sure that you can explain your differences without resorting to unpleasant language. Please make an effort for that. Thank you. Húsönd 02:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I will stop calling him "Sir". *sigh* --Tubesship (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is important to realise that there is only one Kosovo, with one Government, under the ultimate authority of UNMIK. The recent declaration of independence does not change this. The only dispute is whether Kosovo is a province of Serbia, or a Sovereign state. (Serbia does accept that under UNSC 1244, it has no power over Kosovo, as the executive and legislative power of Kosovo is vested in the Special Representative and the institutions created by him, ie Government of Kosovo and the Assembly of Kosovo. The only right Serbia can claim over Kosovo is the right for the president of Serbia to be the head of state of Kosovo.

The reason why you need two articles for China is that, de facto, there are two Chinas, the Republic of China in Taiwan and the Chinese Peoples Republic, situated in the mainland. Certainly there is only one article for Northern Cyprus which Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is redirected to. Likewise Transnistria and South Ossetia have only one article, and these three countries have no international recognition, or recognition by only one state

To say that Kosovo, which the majority of European countries together with a majority of the members of the United Nations Security Council, recognize needs two articles, when the above three do not is absurd. Therefore, I think that this article should be deleted. 2007apm (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

7 of 15 Member States of the UNSC recognize Kosovo. That's not a majority, but a minority. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

He means the core countries like USA, UK, France, China and Russia. And he is right about these countries. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be deleted. Over at the Kosovo article we are finally making headway and I believe through cooperation we can make a great article that is NPOV.Beam (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Amen. Merge it, delete it, the sooner, the better. No tug-of-war needed any more. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge, also PAX the UNSC only has 5 members the other 10 are not permenant, and they change ever so often. 4 out of 5 UNSC members recognize Kosova thus the MAJORITY recognize the Rep of Kosova. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, merging is actually playing to the anti independence pov. Republic of Kosovo is a sub-article of this one. If we merge them, we deny the RoK has the notability required for a separate article. The country infobox will need to go, since the sovereignty of the RoK is disputed. Ok? If you are opposed to Kosovar independence, you will argue for a merge. However, 35 or so countries, including the USA, do recognize the RoK. From this it follows it is clearly notable enough to have its own article. There can be a single article on Kosovo that is neutral, but it will certainly not contain the RoK flag in the lead. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Look again, Mister Bachmann, merging is definitely not playing POV. Kosova is an article about the Republic as well as about the geopolitical region as both are the same spot on earth. Saw it? No? Then look again, where do you see the difference between Kosova as a state and Kosova as a geopolitical region? Why can the article Kosova not include both, the newest state in Europe called Kosova and at the same time discuss this region (which is now a state) geopolitically? We still do not see your problem. You still missed to tell us your reason of your opposition. --Tubesship (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Two infoboxes. Anyway, we'll decide that next, we're working on the intro. Beam (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

two infoboxes? I have suggested that option, and it got no support in the strawpoll over at Talk:Kosovo. Tubesship, you choose to ignore the argument. You are clearly pro-indepencene, being ethnic Albanian I suppose, and you consistently refuse to recognize that Kosovo is de facto disputed territory. There can be no constructive debate as long as you do not discard that position. You want to present the RoK as a fait accompli: not on Wikipedia, you won't. We report on disputes as disputes. dab (𒁳) 12:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you got my support now...?! Come help us do this. Beam (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also not against two infoboxes but against having none. You pre-announced at your talk page that you would delete the infoboxe about RoK in the article about Kosova, yes you, not me! And as much as I want to present the RoK as a matter of fact, you are trying to deny the reality. And only because I am ethnic Albanian should not make me a target for racist resentments. My ethnic background should be out of disput, please. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I put comment on Kosovo discussion page, so shortly want to add short comment here. Article Kosovo is the one that should be deleted. This article is much shorter but more accurate and much less political. Just look at the length of the discussion here. Article Kosovo emphasizing too much Kosovo independence through hysterically repeated “number of countries that have recognized Kosovo” and inducing huge good for nothing discussion there.

I will repeat the same mathematics. Article Kosovo exist mostly because 36 countries have recognized Kosovo independence. Those 36 countries = 1119073925 people = 17,6 % of World population. That is not good enough reason for having article about Kosovo as an independent country.

It is a pity ( and in my opinion shame) if you delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IGøR (talk • contribs) 21:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

... , You are kidding, right ? -Cradel 21:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it in another perspective 70% of the worlds GDP. Jawohl (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Factually Correct

I know the demographics in this page are reflected from SOK (Statist. Office of Kosova) but the info about area is not correct. An update is needed, area = 10,908km2 Kosova2008 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION

The intro to the Kosovo article is finnally up. It is not a final intro, but it does a very good job of covering "Kosovo." I propose that this article is merged/deleted immediately. If people are going to continue to work together at the Kosovo article, than there is no need for Kosovo (geopolitical region). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamathan (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do the deletion, I support you. --Tubesship (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

no way, Beamathan. Do you follow Talk:Kosovo, at all, or are you seeing some sort of parallel Wikipedia? dab (𒁳) 12:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

since there is now a civilized proposal for merging at Talk:Kosovo (the "Abkhazia" type approach), I suggest that unless there are urgent objections, we do implement the merger at this point. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging basically means DELETING, isn’t it? Why? Give the reasons for that? Please make clear statements! So far I see this suggestion as action for DELETING really not bad at all article just to please some users (f.ex bogdan, tubesship…). This is pure favouritism of one article far away from neutral approach that should be used. I am doing statistics about “contributions” that will include amount of text/comments of named and unnamed users and “editors”. I’ll try to comment quantity, frequency and try to do quality of their contribution ( like; is it just user that opposes all the time, or user that was giving new propositions, or user that use/not use references…)And, I will write very detailed e-mail to Arbitration Committee.

All this discussion here and in Kosovo article is far from any logic and good manners that should have educated people that tend to edit such an important media/source as it is Wikipedia (especially this English part that is in the same time International). I would not be surprised to see that some users and editors will undergo consequences, because of all this mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IGøR (talk • contribs) 07:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

merging does not mean deleting. See WP:DEL. dab (𒁳) 11:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject

this is now part of wikiproject kosovo James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo-note template

Hi Buttons,
Can you explain why you revert editors who remove an irrelevant political disclaimer, saying "You don't have the authority to make that decision on your own"? Do you own this article? bobrayner (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, here's why I think the note should go: the disclaimer about the status of Kosovo as a state is useful in a certain set of cases, of which this isn't one. The note is important as a disclaimer to avoid an implication that an article would otherwise convey. It is useful if and when (a) Kosovo has to be mentioned as the location where something is situated, and (b) that mentioning, through its context, carries an implication that this geographical reference is to an independent state. For example, in an article starting in the form "X is a city in Y...", the implication is that Y is an independent counry, because by convention that is the level of specificity that we usually employ as the first locator for cities. Likewise, in a statement of the form "country A borders on X, Y, and Z", the implication is again that X, Y and Z are also independent countries (not, say, administrative subdivisions or the like). In these instances, assuming that "Y" is Kosovo, having the disclaimer note can be useful.

In the present case, however, there is no such implication. Neither the fact that we have an article titled "geography of Kosovo", nor the lead sentence saying that "Kosovo is situated in the Balkans", carry any implication about the political status of Kosovo. Everythig we say about Kosovo in this article remains true independently of whether it's an independent country or part of another. There is no misunderstanding here that would be in need of being dispelled, hence no need for the disclaimer. If the disputed status of Kosovo becomes relevant for anything further down in the article, it can be mentioned there, with a simple link. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There are implications because Kosovo is mentioned as a 'country' in the first paragraph, as well as 'bordering Serbia' in the infobox. Until Kosovo stops being a territorial dispute, the Kosovo-note template should be used. That's what its there for, to inform the reader of the situation. As for my "authority" remark, we all know Kosovo articles are a hot potato and bobrayners bold edit/assumption that the note is "redundant" without seeking a consensus was supposed to convey that. Wrong choice of words. Buttons (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus to use the Kosovo-note template. bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Note that there is an essential mistake in the title; the name of this new state is Kosova and not Kosovo(this is the way it was labelled by slavish language when it was a region of ex-Yugoslavia) 141.98.141.178 (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geography of Kosovo. 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/20090326063813/http://www.kosovocaves.com/ to http://www.kosovocaves.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326063813/http://www.kosovocaves.com/ to http://www.kosovocaves.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)