Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:36, 24 April 2009

This article and other articles related to Kosovo are subject to article probation in the Kosovo arbitration case. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Serbia This template is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Kosovo History of Kosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo

Coat of Arms of the "Republic of Kosovo"

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, Misplaced Pages 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 16:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

C.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:History_of_Abkhazia or http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:History_of_Vojvodina Also, Misplaced Pages 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. Let's say that Putin decides to pay a visit to encyclopedias to learn something new. Wouldn't he be interested in seeing how the Kosovar coat of the arms looks like? Let alone Hu of China...--_{A B X} 07:50, 19 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:

• You mentioned Abkhazia? Abkhazia is not a political entity in any way unless we consider it independent. If we do not consider it independent, it doesn't politically exist. Therefore the only "Abkhazia" there is would be the one represented by that symbol. Kosovo, if we do not consider it independent, is an autonomous province within Serbia. The "Kosovo" represented by that CoA (i.e. the Republic of Kosovo) is not the only "Kosovo" there is: there is also the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Both have to be observed if Misplaced Pages is to remain neutral.
• Why did you link Vojvodina's history template? Vojvodina is an autonomous province within Serbia with a history template, its not disputed...

As for your other point: "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 08:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is a partially recognized country asuch to deny that some people decree it to be a country is itself a POV. The COA of Kosovo is the symbol of the region as well as the politicial entity. The Quill (talk) 11:28, 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 Misplaced Pages 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), Misplaced Pages recognizes this. So should this template. --DIREKTOR 12:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages recognizes this." excuse me but where is your evidence for this? 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. The Quill (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages 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 12:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll counter an argument when you give me one. And when I asked for links I was hoping for them. The Quill (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Argument 1:

• Kosovo can be called by two names. Cca. 75% of the world and the United Nations Organization call Kosovo "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", cca. 25% of the world calls it "Republic of Kosovo". Both views (or none) must be observed if Misplaced Pages policy WP:NPOV is to be adhered to. Using the CoA of the Republic of Kosovo and calling modern Kosovo "Republic of Kosovo" is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy.

Argument 2:

• The Kosovo region is larger than the "Republic of Kosovo", since the "Republic of Kosovo" does not control Serbian enclaves within the Kosovo region (regardless of its desired territorial extent). To use the term "Republic of Kosovo" to describe the modern Kosovo is not only a violation of WP:NPOV, but is also stating geographically incorrect and misleading information.

(It follows that a symbol of an incorrect term is equally as incorrect in depicting the topic.) --DIREKTOR 12:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Actually 100% of the world can refer to the Kosovo you are talking about as "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" in reference of the area that Serbia claims to be part of its soverign territory. Using the term Republic of Kosovo is in no way against violation of Misplaced Pages policy it is reffering to the region that those in Kosovo who claim independace call it, to not mention this would be point of view. The Republic of Kosovo can not be smaller than the region of Kosovo as they claim to own the whole to that region, if we get into matter of De Jure and De Facto rule of a region then obviously there will be disputes but really its all variable depending on where you come from. The Quill (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to answer your sentences one at a time.

• "Actually 100% of the world can refer to the Kosovo you are talking about as 'Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija' in reference of the area that Serbia claims to be part of its soverign territory."

Incorrect. If we follow the logic above the region of Kosovo is not "100%" in the hands of either the Serbs or the Albanians. The enclaves are the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", the rest is the Republic of Kosovo.

• "Using the term 'Republic of Kosovo' is in no way against violation of Misplaced Pages policy it is reffering to the region that those in Kosovo who claim independace call it, to not mention this would be point of view."

You're not making sense. I suspect your English is bad or you're writing in haste. It is unquestionably a violation of Misplaced Pages policy to call the whole of Kosovo "Republic of Kosovo", as those who claim independence call it that way, and they are only one side of the dispute. Hence, only their point of view (POV) is represented -> therefore WP:NPOV is not adhered to. This is simple logic.

• "...its all variable depending on where you come from."

Exactly. This is why we are forbidden by policy to represent only the point of view of those who come from Albania or Serbia. A blank image and a neutral heading such as "modern Kosovo" point neither way. To claim a blank image is "POV" is absurd in itself. To claim an image representing only one side of the dispute is somehow neutral is also quite nonsensical. --DIREKTOR 14:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed template image

Template:Country history 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 14:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can agree on the image change but I dont no about the other changes. The Quill (talk) 16:18, 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 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with DIREKTOR on this one. Guys realise that Kosovo is seen as a Serbian province according to majority of the world. Lets keep this NPOV by recognising this point of view which seems to be ignored all the time.Mike Babic (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike. As you can see, I don't support the secession of illegally created self-proclaimed states ;) --DIREKTOR 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the image change - Misplaced Pages is not here to satisfy the partial recognizers or the Slavic anti-secessionists. I will call in for an arbitration help.--_{A B X} 21:17, 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 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, as it is expected in cases when human beings are in a high emotional rather than rational state. I did not imply any racist expression when mentioning the Slavic adjective. As a matter of fact, I want all people to live in peace with each other, rather than hate each other, despite the Serbian nationalism (in an occupied territory. So, buddy, chill out, enjoy life (go get some beer) and don't worry about politics - your blood pressure might increase, in which case I would advise some Turkish coffee... --_{A B X} 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I normally adore Turkish cuisine, but coffee is bad for high blood pressure (it doesn't increase it in the long run, but it can cause heart problems when coupled with some high blood pressure). How should I interpret that statement? :) Well you mentioned my ethnicity in a context which suggests it may be used as a label. I did not take offense, however, nor did I suggest you did not want all "peace on earth and good to all man kind". I assure you, I did not enter into an "emotional state". I merely pointed out that labels and ethnicities have no baring on the issue. --DIREKTOR 00:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol to 'How should I interpret that statement?'. In fact, when I express my desire for peace, I am not doing that for political correctness, but because I have come to learn the anti-values of war. Take a look at this page - we have used 1000+ words just for the Kosovar coat of the arms - isn't that ironical? Even more so is the proposal of a 'neutral' image. In my life, Misplaced Pages is the only place I see images being labeled as neutral...--_{A B X} 01:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was kidding, hence the smiley (":)"). As for the "neutrality of images", well, I don't see how you find it strange. Images convey thoughts, just like words and letters, these thoughts conveyed by the image can be very much "biased" or "neutral" (what would you say of the swastika, for example? its banned in very many countries). When the independence of Kosovo is disputed, an image representing the independence of Kosovo represents one side of the dispute. Therefore it cannot be neutral, and neutrality is required of us on Misplaced Pages :) --DIREKTOR 08:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

oppose proposal, also please do not edit war to insert the controversial "proposed template image" which was just outlined above a few hours ago. There is no reason to edit war the proposal in, before it was even properly discussed. The proposal also contradicts the established norms for these types of templates. Hobartimus (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Misplaced Pages 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 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

support' proposal for a neutral image to accompany the template. Use of the images of the ethnic-Albanian Republic of Kosovo is likely offensive to many and also legally questionable (the UN does not recognise Kosovo). A neutral image is obviously the way forward. 90.193.97.175 (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

About the image, Direktor is right on three points:

1. As far as I'm aware of, there's no requirement to use any image at all in these navigation templates. They are pretty, not indispensable. (If I'm wrong on this, I would like to read the guideline describing how a "correct template" should be).
2. An image is more than an adornment. It's part of the information we convey. As such, it must comply with our content policies (including the need to present information from a neutral point of view).
3. A coat of arms is a symbol of a state. Thus, to avoid bias, using the coat of arms of the Republic of Kosovo is only adequate for topics related exclusively to the Republic of Kosovo itself (the political institutions), and not to Kosovo in general, in all its aspects.

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 ]" or "Contemporary ]" -or something along those lines- should be adopted. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there any more objections? --DIREKTOR 13:30, 23 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)

It would be, if "Kosovo" was just a short/common name for the Republic of Kosovo. It is not. The consensus on Misplaced Pages is that Kosovo is a "disputed region". The coat of arms represents one of the entities within the borders of that region. These are two seperate things. --DIREKTOR 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Kosovo" is very clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in English language for "Republic of Kosovo", in the exact same way as "Spain" is for "Kingdom of Spain" and "Germany" is for "Federal Republic of Germany". The coat was chosen by the government of that country as representing the whole country. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is confirmed. You don't understand the problem at hand.

• Yes, "Kosovo" is very clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in English language for "Republic of Kosovo", but this template is not only about the Republic of Kosovo, but about the entire damn region. Here it is again: the Republic of Kosovo (WP:COMMONNAME: "Kosovo") is NOT the same thing as Kosovo region. You fail to realize that the government of the country called Republic of Kosovo (with the WP:COMMONNAME: "Kosovo"), does NOT by no means represent the whole of the Kosovo region.
• "The coat was chosen by the government of that country as representing the whole country."

For the millionth time: by WP consensus, Kosovo is NOT a country. It is a region. The Republic of Kosovo is one of two entities that exist within that region. Hence the ridiculous three infoboxes in the article.

All this is not some kind of "invention" of mine I just introduced here a few days ago, it is, in fact, the basic situation on Kosovo which you should have fully understood before even getting involved in this kind of dispute. --DIREKTOR 05:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Truth is, looking at Ev's arguments, I'm almost convinced to go on and agree. The problem that stops me from doing that is that we are applying a special exception for this template for reasons that also apply to other templates, so we would be taking a POV about the legality of the Republic of Kosovo.

You see, I see similar problems with the coats in other templates from the same region. Nobody has a problem with Template:History of Croatia using the coat of the medieval kingdom. Template:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina has a similar problem, and looking at Coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina I see that it has had several coats and we are only using the last one. In Template:History_of_Serbia, looking at Coat of arms of Serbia it's using a coat from 1882, and the template links to articles like Duklja and Principality of Zeta, which were not in Serbia, and are currently part of modern Montenegro. Template:History of Montenegro uses a coat from 2004, see Coat of arms of Montenegro and List of coats of arms of Montenegro.

Also, the current frontiers of all those territories don't fit with their historical frontiers, and nobody pays attention at the disagreement of serbian/croats/bosnian/whatever villages who got stuck in the "wrong" country, never mind all those refugees. Then again, why are we making a special exception only for Kosovo? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

About "two entities". If I'm not mistaken, the Assembly of Kosovo was created by the UN itself, and that assembly then declared independency. The serbian enclaves rejected that government, but they are not a separate entity of their own under UN administration because all of Kosovo is still nominally under UN administration, not just the serbian enclaves. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 24 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 14:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Persistent edit-warring?

Ok, this just isn't right. the article was edited a few times and it gets full protection for a month!?

• I come to this article with what I honestly perceive as strong arguments pointing towards a violation of WP:NPOV and standing Misplaced Pages consensus on the status of Kosovo.
• I list the reasons on the page.
• No users discuss them, the policy violation concerns remain unanswered.
• In agreement with the users that do engage in proper discussion, I edit the article and introduce the map.
• User:Enric Naval proclaims (with no explanation) essentially that he "saw through my game" and that he is "not convinced" by my arguments.
• The next thing I know, the article is blocked for ONE MONTH, even though noone edit-warred there for three days (17:29, 20 April 2009 User:Tocino reverted the edit by User:Hobartimus, the article was blocked for "persistent edit-warring" on 20:48, 23 April 2009)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

this admin action wasn't very well advised. Arbcom probation on Kosovo means that admins should block accounts (not articles) at the first sign of edit-warring. Blocking all edit-warring accounts will effectively clear the air for bona fide editors. Fwiiw, there is no way the coat of arms can stay on this template within our npov policy, that's really a no-brainer. --dab (𒁳) 09:44, 24 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 10:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

guys, here is what we are going to do. Clearly this template isn't about the image. The image is a decorative extra, yes? We will remove the image. That's the default. Then you are required to use this talkpage to decide whether there should be an image, and if so, which one. After there is a consensus, the image will be included. Here is what I am going to do. I will lift the protection, and remove the image. Apart from that, I will not touch the template. Once you have a consensus image-wise, the image will be included. Anyone editing the template without consensus will be blocked under {{User article ban arb}} per Talk:Kosovo.

Is this a deal? I sincerely believe that templates intended for navigating between articles should not be locked down because some pathetic quibble over which decorative icon it should be graced by. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Benchmark

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Template-Class Serbia pages
• NA-importance Serbia pages
• WikiProject Serbia articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Template-Class Kosovo pages
• NA-importance Kosovo pages
• WikiProject Kosovo articles