Template talk:History of Kosovo

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} ^{T • ៛} 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. --

TALK) 00:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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, Wikipedia is the only place I see images being labeled as neutral...--A B X ^{T • ៛} 01:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia :) --

TALK) 08:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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. --

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)[reply]

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

Are there any more objections? --

TALK) 13:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It would be, if "Kosovo" was just a short/common name for the Republic of Kosovo. It is not. The consensus on Wikipedia is that

TALK) 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

"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)[reply

]

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

• Yes, "Kosovo" is very clearly 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. --

TALK) 05:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

If you look at my comment, I provide examples where we are not using the coat of the region but the coat of the modern state of the same name. I want to know why using those coats is not a problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

When it comes to Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia or Montenegro, using the coat of arms is perfectly fine, simply because in those cases asserting statehood does not infringe our neutral point of view policy, because their statehood is not disputed by any serious party. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 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.

this admin action wasn't very well advised. Arbcom probation on

dab (𒁳) 09:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

That's good for me. It's certainly better than placing a blank map as the image :P --Enric Naval (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. --

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)[reply]

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

(And let's not forget that the flag-tagging problem is two-sided, we have Serbian editors insisting in removing Kosovo flags. @Alasdair, by that rationale those who seek to remove would be having an inherent anti-statehood POV ....) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 "

This argument is flawed because we have templates of territories that never had statehood, and also new coats that were created in the last years or the last century, and we use all those coats with no problem at all. See

Template:History_of_Nagorno-Karabakh) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, then, I'll remove them and make a RfC to see which image would be better for each one (three RfCs, one in each template). I will have to investigate each one a bit to see what alternative images can be used in each case. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, Enric: considering the current state of Wikipedia, regarding any apparent exception with suspicion is a perfectly reasonable attitude. :-) However, in the cases of these entities, we cannot automatically apply the same standards used with regular countries.

The situation is similar to that discussed at Talk:Šar Mountains#Serbia and Kosovo:

• Using the coat of arms is biased towards independence, because it makes an unequivocal assertion of statehood.
• Not using the coat of arms is not biased against independence, because silence does not equal negating independence: it simply means that we leave it up to our readership to decide what they consider those troubling places to be.

Having the Abkhaz & Ossetian coat of arms in similar templates would be equally inadequate; I'm not sure about Karabakh.

In my experience, the search for alternative, non-partisan images & symbols in the Balkans tends to go Neolithic (cf. Kosovo contest for state symbols , BBC), or at least Ancient (cf. the images displayed on the reverse of current Bosnian banknotes). - Best, Ev (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. --

I would be perfectly happy without any image at all. - Ev (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

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:

• first added in 19 February 2008 added by a Kosovar User:Arpagjiki[2],
• removed in 3 March 2008 by a Serbian IP [3],
• it stayed without image until 20 June 2008 when pro-Kosovo Albanian User:ABXDataLogic (who could be Kosovar or not) re-added it [4],
• removed in 3 August 2008 by Serbian User:Avala [5]
• reverted the same day by pro-Kosovo Albanian [6],
• removed by Croatian Direktor in 4 November 2008 [7],
• restored in 7 January 2009 by British User:The_Quill while upgrading to "Infobox country"[8],
• removed by Serbo-Croatian User:Pokrajac in 4 March 2009 [9],
• restored by British The_Quill in 12 March 2009 [10],
• and then Croatian Direktor removed invoking NPOV [11], starting an edit war and crossed accusations of POV between British and Serbian [12][13][14][15].
• In 19 April 2009 the pro-Kosovo Albanian adds it again "as per the rest of templates" [16],
• Croatian Direktor removes it saying not to restore until the discussion is finished, which IMO goes against
  WP:BRD[17]
  ,
• the same day the British Quill reverts to "Correct version"[18],
• Croatian Direktor removes insisting that we wait until discussion is finished[19],
• and British Quill reverts and tells not to revert while discussion is underway [20],
• then, still in the same day Croatian Direktor replaces the coat with a map [21],
• who gets reverted by User:Hobartimus (an Hungarian?) [22],
• the map is restored by Serbian User:Tocino invoking NPOV [23],
• Croatian Direktor updates with a more neutral map[24],
• then Spanish User:Enric Naval (myself) restores the coat citing BRD [25].
• At this point
  Template:Politics of Kosovo) due to edit warring, so I ask him to protect the page request full discussion protection
  ,
• and
  User:Dbachmann (of unknown nationality) unprotects, removes the image, and warns about editing without consensus [26]

• (unknown)
  User:Dbachmann replaces twice the coat with a map [27][28]
  .
• Czech User:EmilJ wanting to use a map [29],
• Spanish User:Enric_Naval (myself) undoing an good faith edit that made the coat smaller that the coats in the other templates (lol) [30],
• British
  User:Ijanderson977 restoring the coat [31]
  ,
• US User:ChrisO restoring the coat[32],
• German User:DaQuirin restoring [33].
• Croatian Direktor removing coat [34][35][36][37]

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)[reply]

Pure nonsense, most of it. You've not properly checked half the nationalities. Your lack of prior research shows itself again. I've looked at this for five seconds and I've already noticed blatant errors: I for example, am certainly not Serbian, and DaQuirin is German, not British. In fact, I'm from a nation that was recently at war with Serbs. You've no way to confirm the nationality of a large number of these Users and IPs.

I also don't see the purpose of all this. Are you trying to prove that there is no two-sided dispute? What relevance does all this have? The history of this article is fine & dandy in comparison to most Kosovo-related articles. Do we full-protect them all for months at a time? Pure nonsense...

Furthermore, don't flatter yourself. The perpetual long-term edit-warring on this article did not "end" when you pushed for your block, it was relatively quiet for days. And it would certainly not have ended even if you had your way with the ridiculously long block, nor will it probably end even when the whole Kosovo issue is finally resolved. --

TALK) 13:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

(I don't know why the admin chose a one month long protection, I didnt' ask for any specific length) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in either case, they're supposed to block edit-warring users (like me :), not articles on Kosovo probation. --

TALK) 16:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Removing only Kosovo's coat and asking for some representative image to replace it implies a POV statement about the legitimacy of the country's independence. See my comment on the section above, would you agree to remove the images at

Template:History_of_Nagorno-Karabakh so that we are neutrally using the same criteria for all "history of X" templates? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

See above, I'll remove and make a RfC simultaneously. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there is no reasonable argument here in Wikipedia to keep the image of the template as a mere map. I know the vision of the Coat of Arms of the Kosovar Republic can be very offensive to some devout Orthodox Serbs, but hey — Wikipedia is not here to respect religions, otherwise the Muhammad Cartoons would not be here, for example.

The non-use of the Kosovar Coat of Arms is unjustifiable under any circumstance. In the infoboxes of all European countries, including the non-recognized or partially-recognized ones, features the Coat of Arms. So why not Kosovo?

Kosovo cannot be compared with the examples of

Tigers

in the region ran away and went extinct…

So, in the name of the reason, I will put back the Coat of Arms again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.200.214 (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. --