Talk:Republic of Kosova/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Phantom country
it was a phantom country,literally it didn't exist,ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.32.95 (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
POV
This entity was not a state - it didn't really exist (no control exerted). It was only claimed by its bodies. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the request was: no consensus to merge --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I think this article should be merged with the article about Kosovo. 
Agree --Tubesship (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree If anywhere, to 20th century history of Kosovo#The 1990s, since this is part of the 1990s history of Kosovo. Depends on how notable this "Republic" was. I tend to agree it should be merged pending the citation of better references establishing its notability. Armed Forces of the Republic of Kosova would also be an arguable merge target, since this is apparently a phantom state postulated in this self-designation of a guerilla group. dab (𒁳) 15:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagree-- It's a notable historical entity. It did not control the entirety of Kosovo and was more or less just a parallel government. In that sense it should be considered in the context of other historical parallel governments such as the Chinese Soviet Republic and the Irish Republic.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree because the new DOI is proclaimed under the name "Republic of Kosova" and thus this article needs to be updated. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree - This article has room to be a lenthy one, considering everything that happen during that ten year period. Chaldean (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you that this article should be a more lengthy one and I hope this very crucial 10 years will get much more consideration, but the problem is, the more different articles there are, the less likely everybody will notice all of them. If there are only few articles containing as much as possible, it is more likely it will be read. I for example found this article incidentally and not because I knew it did exist. So merging would increase the chance that this important time will be realized and appreciated by as much readers as possible. --Tubesship (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Tube, perhaps then it can be connected with other articls by adding it to the template of History of Kosovo. The article is pretty short thou, I agree dab. Chaldean (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, this could be done together with the merging. --Tubesship (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Don't turn this into a bigger deal than necessary. Sure, there could be a lengthy article about this "shadow goverment". Until somebody sits down and writes it, we can also merge it. I don't see the problem. dab (𒁳) 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- It should not be merged, plain and simple.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Don't turn this into a bigger deal than necessary. Sure, there could be a lengthy article about this "shadow goverment". Until somebody sits down and writes it, we can also merge it. I don't see the problem. dab (𒁳) 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, this could be done together with the merging. --Tubesship (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Tube, perhaps then it can be connected with other articls by adding it to the template of History of Kosovo. The article is pretty short thou, I agree dab. Chaldean (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you that this article should be a more lengthy one and I hope this very crucial 10 years will get much more consideration, but the problem is, the more different articles there are, the less likely everybody will notice all of them. If there are only few articles containing as much as possible, it is more likely it will be read. I for example found this article incidentally and not because I knew it did exist. So merging would increase the chance that this important time will be realized and appreciated by as much readers as possible. --Tubesship (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree. If the Kosovo article itself will ever be NPOV we will need pages like this to link to from that article. Beam (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree because there are no need for separate article of this. 89.216.196.107 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agree , no need for creation on POV battleground, as Republic of Kosova was just small parallel institution. Merge with Kosovo article. --Tadija (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree , Per Tadija 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: a summary could be written on the history section of Kosovo but it's probably best having it's own article, I don't see a POV battleground here, just write down plain facts like: this many people were there, the decided this, the next day ... -- CD 02:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree, the current article is better kept separate - as it describes one of the List of historical unrecognized states
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
disbanded from who?
"The Republic of Kosova was formally disbanded in 2000 when its institutions were replaced by the Joint Interim Administrative Structure "
This statement is hilarious. I clearly remember there was a war against FRJ, not just a phantomatic "Republic of Kosova". Its institutions couldn't be absolutely disbanded or replaced cause there were no institutions so far, right or wrong the matter was. 87.3.223.123 (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Partially Recognized, NOT Unrecognized
I think we should change the category "Unrecognized" to "Partially Recognized," because the most powerful freedom-loving nations have already recognized Albanian Kosovo as an independent Albanian State in Europe. Serbia does not have any sovereignity over Albanian Kosovo. 24.82.182.47 (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- '...because the most powerful freedom-loving nations have already recognized Albanian Kosovo...' - this comment is beyond good taste, at best.
- Also, whole article is heavily biased (even here, on discussion page) and should be cleared from unsourced parts. In addition I suggest merging with some other Kosovo and Metohija article.
- Petkowsky (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I am pretty sure that Republic of Kosovo was unrecognized and that even albania did not recognized them as a state... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.112.45 (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- You should change "freedom-loving" to "NATO-allied". Nobody else is even dreaming of recognizing Kosovo, unless US attacks or pressures the rest of UN into doing it like they did those poor NATO nations. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
And just about this entire conversation is confusing the historic Republic of Kosovo with the current Kosovo. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Its importance was why it was created and why it was disbanded.
If you feel that the replacement is okay, please say so. If you feel it should be merged (I think it should) with the main article on Kosovo, Kosova, Kosovë, and that this topic should be deleted, please say so.Mdwrz (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 16:52, 9 August 2009
- I agree, please merge it. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)