Talk:Kosovo independence precedent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The controversy of this article is that there is no mentioning of the Kosovo War 98-99 and even the preceding events that happened in Kosovo. This "article" starts with UNSC Res 1244, as if nothing happened before that. People trying to elucidate the "Controversy over Kosovo independence" should be focused on how did this happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairplayalways (talk • contribs) 08:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork?[edit]

How is this not a POV fork of Kosovo declaration of independence 2008 article? Some of the content belongs there some of it to the international reaction article. What exactly is the reason for this article to exist with huge amounts of content forked out from elsewhere? Hobartimus (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be removed. This is not a serious discussion of the issue by any stretch. It should start with a proper and full examination of the principles of self determination and territorial integrity in international affairs, and show that the right to self-determination is in fact very limited under international law. In fact, it applies only to cases of decolonisation, and at the point of decolonisation. The fact that it refers to a NATO report as its main source shows that this has not been written with any serious intent, but rather as an attempt to somehow justify independence. To suggest that Kosovo has generated a mixsed reaction, and imply that some states don't recognise it, is laughable. So far only 27 states of the 192 members of the UN have recognised Kosovo. Moreover, there is hardly a serious scholar of international politics who would argue that Kosovo's independence is legal. It may have been necessary for political reasons, but under international law, as currently constructed, it cannot be justified. In any case, the poor quality of the piece means that it should be removed. JL —Preceding unsigned comment added by JL (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this article should be removed because the controversy over Kosovo independence is top of the headline news these months.Kosovo is not a unique case as therer are many examples,so I think the article should exist.(202.161.76.219 (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This Article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawohl (talk • contribs) 22:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys dont be so critical:There is already a lot of public criticism and controversy of the Kosovo independence,among them some countries dont recognise/refuse to recognise based on their own experiences with autonomous regions such as Romania Slovakia,China Russia Argentina to name a few and some countries who recognise it such as the USA like always.It definitely sets a very dangreous precedent and like what i wrote down we also have to make reference to recent events in Tibet-it is completely same thing.

Tibet recent events[edit]

I have been reading the Macedonian newspapers recently stating it in reference to Tibet events that Kosovo was a bomb that already explosed refering to the Tibet Autonomous Region.My question is can we include this somewhere in the article?(202.161.76.219 (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Whats is wrong with this paragraph[edit]

Because of this it theoretically come that the USA and its satellites violate international law. Russia, China, India, and Spain hold to international law.According to many politicians the political motives are something else. They even ask where would we end if we put the justification of political motives over the concept itself of international law.International law is what is holding this world together. It has undergone a crisis because of the political weakness of Russia in the 90ies, but things are coming back in order. USA will find it more difficult to play the petroleum game.Same thing goes with comparing the issue of Kosovo to the issues of other countries with potential political problem of same nature. Nevertheless, some models can be applied. For example, the Hong Kong autonomy model is best applicable to the Kosovo situation right now if international law had any weight. This model could bring active coexistence and balancing peace to the two confronted sides. But, not all sides are interested in coexistence and peace and not when profit motives are above human lives.It is breaking all the principles that we base modern society on. Part of a country's territory doesn't 'gain' independence when it suits someone.

According to many opinion polls and people around the world,the Kosovo case becomes more and more controversial and it looks like another Bay of Pigs.It was fine for the USA and Israel to fight for their independence, it's just wrong for everyone else to.For some reason Kosovo has been freed whereas Chechnya, Wales, Catalonia, Scotland, Basques, Palestine, Kashmir, South Ossetia, Tibet etc. etc. are just stuck with being ruled by oppressive foreigners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChRis (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant POVfork[edit]

As was pointed out above, this article is a POVfork. It handles only one side of the legal argument related to Kosovo independence and is basically an assembly of only the negative responses to that. FOARP (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Kosovo independence precedent is notable topic which received significant coverage by reliable sources. No article - no problem position would not be the right way to deal with eventual neutrality issue of this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Legality of independence" section[edit]

This whole section is very non-encyclopedic: no references, just a (fairly well-written) discussion of international law as applicable to Kosovo independence. A couple of hours ago I did some editing to make it slightly less negative with respect to Kosovo. Then User:ChRis added a couple of additional paragraphs, making the whole thing even less encyclopedic, which I reverted.

As an aside, I can mention that the prior version of this article was twice nominated for deletion. Both times I voted delete. The first result was keep, the second delete. The situation has changed dramatically since then (that was back before 17 Feb. 2008), and the article has also changed a lot, but I still doubt that this article belongs in an encyclopedia, even an encyclopedia that is very different and very up-to-date like Wikipedia. There is too much opinion, and not enough hard facts.

Anyway, I'd just like to add some comments in connection with my deletion of User:ChRis' added text. User:ChRis bases his/her arguments on (former) international law. My point is that international law, like everything else, changes. International law today is not the same as it was just 50 years ago, and is much, much different than it was a couple of hundred years ago. My claim is that, despite everything, we humans are slowly becoming less warlike and primitive, and more "civilized" (whatever that means). One can also take the pragmatic point of view that "international law" is whatever you see happening internationally, and from that point of view, Kosovo independence is international law. (Kosovo independence is, by now, a done deal - no matter what detractors say and do there is no going back.)

I could continue, but I really should be trying to get some work done. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While some of the edits made to the section have been biased and unreferenced the area dealing with the NATO report is sourced as it points to the External Links where a link to the report is given. Also some aspects are supported by the wikilinks as well. There's no need to source that the Helsinki Act notes respect for the inviolability of borders and the right of self-determination. As far as the article itself, the whole subject is controversy meaning people with conflict opinions discussing something. As such the article is legitimate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One question:How can Kosovo be an international law,when the international law regarding Kosovo is broken by USA and its allies?Russia supports the international law and therefore they dont want this to be changed.Anyway,dont u guys agree if Kosovo is independent but it will never gain a seat in the UN,so therefore its declaration of independence is illegal.There are too many unrecognised states in the world who do not have a UN seats and they count and separistic and secessionist movements.We have to think about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this questionging where it is encyclopaedic should be put to rest tonight (although, god forbid if the arguement will be)Lihaas (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Group[edit]

...its basis for the solution of the status of Kosovo from 2005 is missing. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SNSD link[edit]

Someone should relink the SNSD link in the "As a precedent for Republika Srpska" section, because now it redirects to the "Girls' Generation" page :D Örsvezér (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

scope?[edit]

It is unclear how the scope of this article differs from that of political status of Kosovo. It just appears to rehash the same topic in essay form. This is potentially problematic per WP:CFORK, and I suggest the article should be merged. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comment confusing as while there is a reference to the status of Kosovo, this is a small part of the article and the article deals with much broader issues. Which bear no relation to Kosovo's status.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

I hope you know that original research is prohbited here at Wikipedia. Large parts of the article, especially sections on whether Kosovo is a "precedent" or not are based on original research. The best solution to merge with other articles on Kosovo's independence. --Noah30 (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind pointing out where there's any original research? I would love to see it. I doubt you can point to any "large parts" of the article that are original research. Then again, given your pro-Albanian stances on several other articles, I think you have ulterior motives for objecting.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your nick says it all.. just kidding. I will sleep now but will come back with an answer. If I don't, please if you can remind me. Was it you who started the article? I see you have developed a kind of "I-own-the-article" menatlity. Nice summer --NOAH (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I found an interesting article,and I dont know if that one can be either mentioned as a controversy. Can someone please read this link,because its kind of weird,but it still gives some Kosovo facts: http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=/content/analysis/a09.incl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also please take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=052WjpCYYTU There is translation available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should at least mention something about the Islamic fundamentalism that was present in Kosovo during Kosovo war,and how controversial was that.That above link confirmes that Al qaeda had training camps in Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balkanpeace is a Serbian propaganda website. No more to say about that. --NOAH (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i found more links claiming this: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BEH502A.html American council for Kosovo: http://www.savekosovo.org/default.asp?p=4&leader=0&sp=209 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChRis (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balkanpeace.org is as “trustable” as is the old World Peace Council… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.216.113 (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WTF does this have to do with the Kosovo independence precedent? Nil Einne (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it reads very Serbian-written and represents a POV-fork.[edit]

I just discovered this article, and to my dismay, almost gave up, when I saw its content. Then I read the discussion, and got really angry. Editors essentially kept on piling a very Serbian POV, ignoring the sage observations in talk, dating from March (see top comment on this page).

Clearly, controversy over Kosovo != controversy over the 2008 UDI.

Titling the article with the former, only to then proceed to write the latter, start the clock, as it were, on the UDI and suffering from amnesia about events that led to the UDI over the years, is spinning just the Serbian grievances. Such activity is of debatable benefit to the cause of verified, neutral scholarship and exposition. Better to chuck the whole thing.

But, I tried just now to expand the lead for the historic content, mentioning grievances of both sides. Nonetheless, the situation is not symmetrical. There have been committed historic wrongs here, as the criminal prosecutions in the Hague bear out. And I did but a sketch. Clearly, for one thing, the lead now requires a follow-up and inserting sources, preferably solid historical, scientific texts and political science literature from journals.

But do we have the good will and the necessary distanced, neutral point of view, to do a good job of it? The history of edits says no, we don't!

I half expect my work (the intro, "The conflict" section) to be reverted. Hey, if we cannot agree on *the facts of who has officially stated they have not recognized Kosovo* in the article international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, which is a far better-attended piece of Wikipedia, treating a far narrower footprint, what makes anyone hopeful that the vaster, trickier subject matter will engender consensus building?

Sadly, wWhat we have in this article so far merits by and large a {{prod}}, as hopelessly biased in one direction. My additions were meant to redress this imbalance and nudge the article towards living up to its title.

Plus, the UN GA vote and its map here constitutes a THIRD repetition so far of the same exact content in as many articles. That's crazy, irresponsible editing. It makes me question, why this replications is being perpetrated. User:Bazonka said as much on the talk page of the international reaction article. It was his remark that drew me here.

And after several hours here, editing in the intro/The conflict, I really am not hopeful. I do think this article needs to be scrapped. --Mareklug talk 11:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've removed much of the duplicated information about the UN GA vote, and added a link to International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo#International Court of Justice advisory opinion proceedings which seems to be the most sensible place for it. There's certainly no justification for having it 3 times. It wasn't even well presented here as parts of it were clearly written before the vote even took place. Bazonka (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of April 2009 Version Disputed[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate about the neutrality of this article. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in new sections on this page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Following a major overhaul in early April,2009, this article now discusses only the debate over whether Kosovo sets a precedent for other independence movements, presenting a sample of the different (and contradictory) viewpoints that have been expressed by various political leaders.

User:Alchaemia has added a {{POV}} tag to the page, challenging the neutrality of the revised article. Please add comments below. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • -

Since no comments were received, including none from the nominator, the result was remove {{POV}} tag. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ICJ ruling[edit]

The respective section at Kosovo status process / 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence may be useful here if somoene wants to add it.Lihaas (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pljevlja[edit]

Pljevlja section should be removed, it is laughable, realy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.50.5 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is a very silly section. If it's real it is a micronation and not comparable to the other entities. Zazaban (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. It is totally irrelevant, as it was just an instant reaction to Montenegro recognition of Kosovo independence. Rarely anybody would consider this as real option. Requiem mn (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication[edit]

Do we really need such detailed discussion of conflicts in other countries? That is likely to be a magnet for controversy, editors with various national POVs &c. I think some sections should be trimmed down to 2-3 sentences about the relevance of Kosovo, and a wikilink to the main article for each conflict. Comments? bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of ARGUEMENTS section disputed[edit]

I came across this article and just couldn't get away without noticing that the arguements section(in the article page) is clearly non neutral. It just starts by saying though this is seen by many to be an unrealistic and fallacious argument in the KOSOVO does not establish a precedent section. NOW, let me explain something to whoever wrote that section: The very idea that there are more than one arguements on a topic implies that there are many people who see one arguement or the other to be unrealistic and fallacious, we don't need you to explain that part to us in wikipedia. And besides... if you really care enough of explaining something that obvious, please, make sure you explain it even in the remaining two arguements because you know... in the first arguement YOU CITE MANY PEOPLE AGAINST THE OTHER TWO... And besides... I don't see the point of writing three arguements, above all if you start with KOSOVO does not establish a precedent, the next arguement should be KOSOVO does establish a precedent... you know, saying the very same thing in two different manners does neither value what you are saying, nor does it help what you really support among those arguements. ps. Because of what just stated I didn't finish the article as I consider Wikipedia to be a knowledge temple and not a political or national journal of any kind. Thank you for making Wikipedia so attracting to me... and I guess to many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flladi (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming[edit]

If nobody present valid argument against renaming I will rename the article to Kosovo precedent.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't fix the actual problem with the article, which is that it's a POV fork. You just reverted an editor who fixed that, without addressing the POV-fork problem. Various other people have pointed out the POV-fork problem on this talkpage. Tweaking the title is not a solution. bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there has been some confusion. Unilateral means one editor. It does not mean "all the editors who disagree with Antidiskriminator". bobrayner (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unilateral does not refer to one editor but to the one position which failed to gain consensus, bot local and on a wider scale. More than hundred editors contributed to this article. During last AfD there is consensus reached that it should be not be deleted but kept. Please do not violate above mentioned wikipedia policies and this consensus. If you believe the consensus has been changed feel free to start another AfD.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spain and the Basque independence movement[edit]

Right now, the issues in Spain are not included in this article.

Here's some material to start with, if anyone has time to take on the task:

  • spiegel.de article in English (2008): [1]
  • "Kosovo: A Precedent?" by James Summers [2]

- Anonimski (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

One more thing... I looked at the ongoing title dispute, and it seems that "Kosovo precedent" is a much more widely used term.

Google doesn't have a perfect implementation of statistics tools for their indexing and categorizing scripts, so here's how I approached it:

  • 1. Kosovo precedent: "Circa 761 pages" at first, but "152 pages" when I scroll to the last page
  • 2. Kosovo independence precedent: "Circa 42 pages" at first, but "27 pages" at the end.

A reasonable estimate can thus be made about the distributions: around 85% to 95% for the first alternative, vs. 5% to 15% for the second one. Since these intervals are so far away from the 50% mark, the article should definitively be moved.

- Anonimski (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. It's a pity that there were not more contributions to the discussion section, where one editor set out a few complicating factors, such as the existence of other topics known as the "Kosovo precedent" in addition to the independence precedent. The result is no consensus on how to proceed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kosovo independence precedent → Kosovo precedent – Per WP:COMMONNAME.

Vote struck per instructions at WP:RMCM. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RMCM says "nominators may nevertheless add a separate bullet point to support their nomination, but should add "as nominator" (for example, * Rename, as nominator: ..." so I unstruck the vote.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support its clear what is it about if it is about this, and also, check sources, most are just about precedent itslef, without word independence. This way be the [[WP:COMMONNAME] for sure. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support - seems clear enough Red Slash 05:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support more common --Երևանցի talk 22:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I've never been a great fan of Google hits as an indicator of common usage and this example appears to demonstrate the problem particularly when that test is poorly done. A number of these results are from before Kosovo's independence. Sometimes well before, e.g. 2000.

While there may have been some discussion of the possibility of a precedent from before the declaration which is even reflected in our article, looking at these results make it clear many of them are talking about the precedent set by NATO intervention in the Kosovo War (possibly other things but I didn't see this from a quick look). Even the stuff from 2007 seemed to generally be talking about the existing precedent from the intervention, not the possibile precedent by independence.

A better search would be limiting it to after the declaration. This may miss some talking about the possible precedent from independence, but would likely also include others which aren't talking about the same thing our article is [3]. (For example while I don't know precisely where the term is used in "Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction", there's a fair chance it relates to NATO's intervention not the independence. And who knows what "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture" is talking about?) You could also try include the word independence or similar stuff outside the phrase to try and exclude ones which are refering to something besides the independence.

But I don't think this is a big deal. Since there are apparently no books besides ones that just include wikipedia articles (the 2 results cited above seem to be books just copying wikipedia or at least the ones that show up for me are), that use the term "Kosovo independence precedent", it's trivial to establish that there are more books that show up on Google Books search that use the term Kosovo precedent to refer to the same thing our article refers to.

So it may still seem Kosovo precedent has greater usage. (Although the number actually using it that show up in a Google Book Search isn't so great to make it a slam dunk common usage case IMO.)

On the other hand, there is an open question about whether we should cover the other Kosovo precedents and if we do, how we handle the articles. It seems turning Kosovo precedent in to a disambig may be a valid option, particularly if we have some other article talking about any claimed precedent from the intervention (we don't need a full fledged article, just an article which mentions it).

Some may suggest a hatnote here instead. However, although it does (from a very quick glance) look like most of the recent references to "Kosovo precedent" that show up in Google Books are referring to the independence, given how recent this is I think we have to be careful about drawing conclusions from that.

It's also worth noting that many of these results are simple usage in text. If someone is referring to the "Kosovo precedent" relating to recognising South Ossetia or whatever, it's fairly obvious what precedent they're referring to an there's no need for a disambiguator. Similarly if someone is referring to the "Kosovo precedent" in relation to intervening in Syria or Crimea or whatever to protect civilians, a disambiguator isn't needed. And this may apply to references to the Kosovo precedent in many of our article. But it doesn't directly apply to this article title.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we need a specific example: this book has two chapters which explicitly use the term "Kosovo precedent" in their titles (and the chapters are by different authors as well): link - Anonimski (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment @Nil Einne:. It is highly appreciated. Your observation that Kosovo precedent has greater usage then only about independence is completely correct. There are two choices:
  1. either to create disambiguation page with list of all Kosovo precedents - in this case the existing title should remain
  2. or to leave all Kosovo precedents within one article which scope would cover all of them - in this case the existing title should be changed to Kosovo precedent, as proposed with this RM nomination.
Don't you agree? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kosovo independence precedent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kosovo independence precedent. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kosovo independence precedent. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Kosovo independence precedent. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea Declaration of Independence[edit]

May 12, 2022, 11:04 - «‎Ukraine and Crimea: Removing information from unreliable fringe source that republished information from RT, a Russian propaganda outlet»

@Arctic Circle System: The removal wasn't justified. I propose to revert it back. The cited declaration in fact has took place, regardless of the source it was made public by. It's fine to use the source you have removed per WP:RSCONTEXT for the given statement. See also: Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Crimea. Further, checkout the following more reliable sources here:[4][5][6] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo_independence_precedent&oldid=1195156186"