Talk:Passport of Kosovo/Archive 1

I'm a Kosovar...

I'm a Kosovar and I have never had a "Kosovar Passport". Kosova's passport haven't been issued yet. Currently the people are using either UNMIK Travel Document or Yugoslavia's paassports.

I will tag this article as original research. It has no references and a short google search gave mostly reports on scams regarding the passport. All the best. --Biblbroks's talk 10:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

South Korea

Please note that Koha Ditore has made a mistake and reported that Kosovo citizens do not need a visa. The news has been verified that visas ARE required. Embassies in Paris, Bern and Oslo offer confirmation: http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/news/?p=546 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.77.76 (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Slovakia

Slovakia will not recognise Kosovar passports. [1] Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Egypt will also refuse Kosovo passports [2]. --Avala (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

THE MAP IS INCORRECT -- not all countries which recognize Kosovo have recognized Kosovo passports (yet) -- the new passports were presented by Kosovo government only end of July and many countries have not yet decided on admitting them for technical reasons(this could take several weeks/months) -- currently you can only travel to Albanian, Macedonia and Montenegro (no visa) and Germany, Switzerland and US (visa required) -- cuurently you cannot get a Schengen visa in a Kosovo passport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.5 (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You know...

...for a page of the Kosovan passport, there's an awful lot of irrelevant information about Serbia. --alchaemia (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Map

I can make a map of only the countries which have recognised the passports, but I need a list, anyone know where I can find that? -- CD 09:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You will have to search the archives of the Kosovar Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is located here. [3] While you're making that map, you could also try to make a map about visa-free travel as well. If you have the time, of course. --alchaemia (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've created a map with the same style as Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png, here it is, but I will need another source to include the visa-free countries -- CD 14:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, visa-free right now includes Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Turkey. It possibly includes several African and Oceanic states, but there's no source for that. --alchaemia (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This map includes Greece in the countries recognising Kosovan passports, which is not the case. Change it please. When and if it's included again be more cautious and put Crete in green also.--Zakronian (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

CD, I think we should color Greece and Romania (and possibly Slovakia if things get clearer) in light green, confirming that holders of those passports can travel to those countries with a specific visa process, as confirmed by our sources. I would do it, but I don't have the technical know-how. Perhaps you could show me? Thanks. --alchaemia (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing the image is quite easy, you just need a software like GIMP, after you've opened the image with it you select "fuzzy selection" to select something you want to colour in the map (the countries in this case), and you colour it :), as simple as that, then you just click "Upload a new version of this image" in the image page on The commons and you're done, cheers -- CD 10:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks CD, I'll try it. :) --alchaemia (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What would light green denote exactly in a map with such a title ? Semirecognition ? Is there any reliable and neutral source for that ? The reader is already informed about the possibility of travelling in those two countries right above in detail.--Zakronian (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you were the one who kept insisting that the only reliable source is the Greek MFA. Here we have the Greek MFA confirming that a holder of a Kosovan passport can travel to Greece and you still seem to be claiming that the source is "unreliable." Do you ever give up or do you do this for fun? --alchaemia (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Using a source which states clearly that Kosovan passports are not recognized to add the country in a recognition map isn't a fight for the obvious you know.--Zakronian (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested that the color be light green, to differentiate between Greece which allows travel with it through a specific process, and, for example, the US which outright recognizes it. But reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit, I noticed. --alchaemia (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not consider your comments part of a conversation to agree to something, if you are not willing to discuss without personal attacks find someone else to do it for you, cause it's necessary if you really want your changes to be kept.--Zakronian (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It was me who significantly overhauled this article and re-wrote most of it, and as you can see, my changes have kept. Now you're free to either contribute something objectively or to cease commenting on issues for which you seem to have very little understanding. --alchaemia (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Who cares, arguments come first, you haven't answered a very simple question, what would light green denote in a map about recognition of passports ? Semirecognition ? Does the MFA source say anything about a partial recognition or something ? It only says that Kosovan citizens (who are not in possesion of a Serbian or a UN passport) can travel in Greece with a special travelling document supposedly along with their Kosovan passports as a primary identity source, a visa not being stamped in the passport itself. Can you find a reliable and independent source intepreting that as some kind of recognition ? The more established similar case of the RoM passport shows the other way. If the proposed change is for informing i already answered that this fact is specifically mentioned above the map. If it's for the reader to get a general idea of the geographical extent to which the passports can be used then it has too be accurate, and that's difficult without avoiding false impressions and original research. You certaintly cannot use light green, if these countries are to be added the title must change and a more distinguishable colour (like blue or orange) should be used. But even then it would be POV-ish, and the funny thing is that we can't even deside what POV it would promote the most like that. Cause we can't really explain the governments' intentions not recognizing the passports but allowing travel with one way or another without commiting OR, do you really want me to go on about what we can speculate ? That's why my position is that we should leave the map as clear as possible with mixed cases limited to the text. I gave you an answer about content with my arguments, i won't continue the discussion if your answer contains the slightest mention of your personal negative opinion of me. A game of mixing arguments with personal attacks is not going to force me to leave.--Zakronian (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your "arguments" do not concern this article. If a country allows a holder of a Kosovan passport to travel through with a specific process, it merits being mentioned and its territory separated from 1) Those that officially recognize the passport and stamps visas on it 2) Those that do not recognize it yet or outright reject it. Greece and Romania are neither of these two, and that merits a re-coloring of their respective territory using a neutral color. As for my opinion of you - I have none. It is what you contribute here that concerns me, and what concerns me about it is that your contributions are slim to none. Take that as you will. --alchaemia (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerns the neutrality and accuracy of this article. You didin't answered to my questions neither proposed something else. "If a country allows a holder of a Kosovan passport to travel through with a specific process, it merits being mentioned and its territory separated from 1) Those that officially recognize the passport and stamps visas on it 2) Those that do not recognize it yet or outright reject it. Greece and Romania are neither of these two, and that merits a re-coloring of their respective territory using a neutral color.", where did you find this definition from exactly ? and to which of my arguments is it supposed to answer ? or why does it make them "irrelevant" ? --Zakronian (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And let me be more specific for everyone who's not arbitrarily rejecting my arguments. A proposed solution to include the mixed cases should contain an answer :1) to the necessary change of title, 2)the colour used to distinguish the countries, 3) what will the necessary map legend contain (denotion of each colour, a general comment for the purpose of the map etc) exactly.--Zakronian (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any of those famous 'arguments' you mention, so there's no need for me to answer them. I propose that Greece, Romania and possibly Slovakia (pending further fact-checking) be colored on the map. I'm not saying that the color should be the color we're using right now for those that recognize the passport; I've repeatedly said that the color should be light green, to denote their special circumstances in that they don't belong with either the recognizing and stamping visas camp nor the rejecting them completely camp. The legend of the map would, of course, explain the difference. --alchaemia (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Light blue or whatever colour with a connotational "acceptance" you prefer other then light green of course which is out of the question. I'm expecting a title proposal without the word "recognition"(that is if we don't want to end up with a title which is too long, either way, whatever you propose be specific), the exact denoting phrases for each colour and whatever comment the legend can contain.--Zakronian (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Which is out of the question", "I'm expecting..." - it seems you're giving yourself way too much importance here, Zakronian. You can only "expect" things from yourself, not me. Now go on, I got better things to do than waste my time with you. --alchaemia (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

lol, thanks for reconsidering.--Zakronian (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Finland

[4]Finland accepts Kosovo passports. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverting all edits

It seems that User:Alchaemia feels that he "owns" this article just because he wrote about it. Allow me to tell you that comments to me such as "I have nothing to "explain" to you" is against the rules and regulations of Wikipedia that demand users to explain why they do stuff when asked. If you believe that me saying something in the sense that Kosovo is not a UN member state and not officially recognized by the UN, is POV, I think you need to read up on what POV is. These are simple facts and you know it. Hiding something that is true, but hurtful to your views, is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the opening section of this article has been the subject of some dispute, I've had a look at it. I don't believe that it's necessary to go over the Kosovo political dispute in the opening sentences. However, the lead paragraphs do not mention the issue of recognition, which is an important component of the article. I've rectified this by adding a line to the lead about the recognition issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

GOD OF JUSTICE, before you go spouting lies around about myself, please take the time to read my edits and what they pertain. At no point did I saw I "own" the article, nor did I say anything about ownership or anything else. Also, whether Kosovo is a member of the UN or not is irrelevant to a page about passports; there are states which are not UN member states but have their own passports which work just fine. So, stop polluting the page with your POV and stop accusing me of senseless things. --alchaemia (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Czhek Republic recognizes the Kosovan passport

Reference here [5]. Please update the map. Thank you. --alchaemia (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Which map are you talking about? The only map I can see in the article has included Czech Republic all the time. — Emil J. 10:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. I overlooked that. Sincere apologies. --alchaemia (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia recognizes Kosovar Passports

http://www.mpb-ks.org/?page=1,46,111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Zakronian

He erase the Kosovan passport change, erasing the map and flag ot the ultimate recognitions or possibilities to traveling of kosovar people, the problem it's with Greece and Slovakia both countries with not recognition of the Kosovo republic but recognized the Kosovo Passport, watch this page http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/passports/, Regards --Aeolopluton (talk) 7:351, 27 January 2009 (GMT)

Greece does not the recognize the passport, period, we had a long discussion some months ago. There's a section above the list already explaining the situation. Now for the map, in brief, if you want to add the countries that allow travel without recognizing the passport use light blue or a more distinct colour, read the "Map" discussion above. --Zakronian (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Greece does indeed recognize the passport, regardless of the unfortunate wording of the spokesperson of the foreign ministry. Regardless, holders of the Kosovan passport can travel to Greece, and they use their passport to do so. We need to show that, and period. --alchaemia (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please make a new map?

Can someone please create a new map with the new information available? Ideally, we would need to split the map into two: official and non-official recognition (in other words, Kosovans can enter these countries with the new passport even though there hasn't been an official communique of recognition). We should split the two in different shades; official recognition in dark green, and de facto in light green or any variation thereof. I would do it, but I only know how to work with SVG maps and this one is PNG. Thanks. --alchaemia (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Greece

It would seem that Greece has recognised the passport. See [6] (unreliable source, but no reason to doubt it here) and [7] (in Albanian). Bazonka (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Croatia to remove visa requirement

Kosovo MFA is reporting that Croatia is to remove the visa requirement for Kosovo diplomatic and official passports. See [8]
The Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, via the Croatian Embassy in Prishtina has informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kosovo, as of tomorrow May 21, 2009, Croatia has removed visas for diplomatic and official passports of the Republic of Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Croatia has now cancelled visas for all diplomatic and official passports from Kosovo. [9] Bazonka (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

The passport recognition lists need a cleanup. Many of the refs provided are not reliable sources or do not have the purported information in them. I would propose two sections :

• 1) List of counries that officially recognize Kosovo. A recognition of the passport is implicite in such a recognition unless

it is explicitly stated otherwise.

• 2) A list of all countries that have officially confirmed that they accept Kosovo passports, despite not recognizing Kosovo. These have to be much better sourced than at the moment. Emails from free-mail web accounts are not really all that reliable as anyone can produce them. In addition an office clerk may not always be aware of the intricacies of dimplomatic recognition problems, and even if genuine such an email is not necessarily a reflection of offical policy.
• 3) Kosovo passorts accepted "de facto" - this list should be removed alltogether. The fact that someone reports that he/she was able to travel on a Kosovo passprot is not verifiable and thus WP:OR. Camouflage passports have also been accepted in the past, and various people on the internet boast that they have been able to sneak past immigration using such passports. However these incidents have no legal basis and what may be possible for one person, may well not be for the next. Thus it does not seem very encylopedic to include one-off freak incidents here. If on the other hand it can be established that Kosovo passports are accepted on a regular de-facto basis, then this infomation could be included, but we'd need much better soures to reference this than the article has currently. Passportguy (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Since no-one objected, I am going to re-sort the page as outlined above. Passportguy (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not understanding a couple of things here. If there's a visa on a passport, then that means that the holder has been granted entry into a country with that passport and visa attached to it. It is not a "freak" incident, nor do we necessarily need more proof than a visa stamp on a passport. Not many TV reports about someone being able to travel to Morocco, for example. Also, those e-mail addresses are official e-mail addresses of the embassies in question, and that can be verified easily.[10]. Other than that, the list is good. --alchaemia (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that these incidents are not widely reported in reliable sources. They are based by emails of users with pictures of passport and stamps which could very easily be photoshopped. If you do a search for "World passport" you will find that quite a number of people have slipped through various immigration checks with fake and bogus passports as well, however that has no bearing on the actual (even semi-official) acceptance of these passports. Comapre it to this : if I manange to find a way to get distract the employee and get around the turnstalls at an underground station that does not mean that that underground travel in that city is free.

Therefore these should really only be included if there is widespread documentation of acceptance. Passportguy (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to be a master of Photoshop to fake something like this [11]. I understand your argument about widespread reporting being MIA at this point in time, but I don't think we can simply ignore those things. I think we should shade the map with a different color for those countries and express our reservation until further reports in the media or elsewhere. --alchaemia (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, refer to my arguement about this having no legal basis. See sites such as http://www.worldservice.org/visas.html?s=1 which shows that slipping though immigration happends from time to time and this clearly has no legal standing and/or encylopedic significance re the acceptance of a passport. Countries should only be listed/mapped if the have a frequent and reliable policy of accepting passports.

The page above also shows quite a number of e.g. Schengen countries stamping these passports - something I sincerly doubt is really true, especially with stringent immigraton controls and visa regulations - again this is an indication of how easy these pictures are to fake. Passportguy (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your argument is a bit of a philosophical nature, as not everyone who goes through immigration with a Kosovo passport has an interest in faking it so that later he could send it to KosovaThanksYou.com for whatever purpose. Also, what do you mean by this not having any "legal basis"? Countries routinely accepting passports from countries they don't recognize has no legal basis? Well, what of the Taiwanese passport then? It seems a bit strange to refuse to take into account reports of travel just because someone somewhere has "faked" a stamp. I really don't know how getting a visa from an embassy, with a stamp and a signature from an agent there, can be perceived to be faked.[12] In any case, these countries will, more than likely, not publish anything about accepting this or that passport but will routinely process and accept the Kosovan passport as a valid travel document. To leave that seems a bit arbitrary, but, you know, whatever. --alchaemia (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The key here is "routinely". If there are sources that show the routine acceptance (as with the Taiwense passport), then this should be added. Such sources do not have to be offical government publications, reliable travel sites such as timatic or even Kosovo government advisories would be acceptable. Another good source might visa application guideliens rom neighbouring coluntries which (as Kosovans need a visa almost everywhere) would usually indicate whether a Kosovan passport is acceptable or not.

One-off "slip-throughs" should not be added. As for the fakes : it is very easy to photoshop a passport stamp from another passport onto a blank passport page scan. I am not saying that this has happend with the photos in this case, I am just saying that such as scan is not realiable evidence as it's source cannot be traced or verified. Passportguy (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Now we have Egypt [13], Vietnam[14], and Cambodia[15]. Seems to me that we need to rethink the whole thing as this many countries can't just be flukes or coincidences. --alchaemia (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Republic of China (Taiwan)

According to International recognition of Kosovo, the ROC (Taiwan) has recognized Kosovo. Although it is not a UN member state, it's still a matter of practical interest whether they accept the Kosovo passport since they do have controls over at least Taiwanese borders. So far Taiwan doesn't seem to be shaded on the map nor is its recognition (or acceptance of Kosovo passports there) mentioned in the text. TheGrappler (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Demonym

Who came up with "Kosovan"? I've always heard the people of Kosovo referred to as "Kosovars." I would move to change the article's name to "Kosovar passport." - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

UK English I guess, IIRC bbc referes to Kosovars as Kosovans.--kedadi (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The people are Kosovars, the adjective is Kosovan. Compare Spaniards and Spanish. Bazonka (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Listing Kosovo as "Kosovo, Serbia" on Gallery of Passports Page

I thought you all might be interested in knowing that an editor on the Gallery of passports page insists on listing Kosovo as "Kosovo, Serbia" with a link to this article. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted that unilateral renaming, but Avala, the vigilant pro-Serb editor that he is has been reverting my edit. It seems that Avala thinks that consensus = him and a certain Hexagon agreeing with each other. Bobby, could you go to that template talk page and make your opinion known? Thanks. --alchaemia (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus to which you refer was reached at Template talk:Passports by a good number of editors, not just Avala and myself. It does not refer to the gallery of passports page, it refers solely to {{Passports}}, and the page now reflects that reality. —what a crazy random happenstance 10:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That template seems fairly NPOV to me. Bazonka (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the consensus reached was to adhere to the UN geoscheme. The consensus by no means referred to other pages, and it most certainly didn't say anything about listing Kosovo as "Kosovo, Serbia". —what a crazy random happenstance 05:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

States that officially recognise Kosovo and the Kosovan passport vs. States that have offcially stated that they accept the Kosovan passport

Mybe it's because my english is too bad to understand this - but what is the difference between "officially recognise" and "offcially stated"? I mean in both case you can travel with a passport from kosovo... --188.60.17.29 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In the first category, the countries officially treat Kosovo as an independent country (they have recognised its independence) - therefore also accepting its passports as valid. In the second category, the countries do not recognise Kosovo's independence (so at a diplomatic level they recognise Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo), however they do accept Kosovo's pasport. Bazonka (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

At a diplomatic level they recognize Resolution 1244, not Serbia's sovereignty. Those are two distinct things. --alchaemia (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)