Talk:Kosovo/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34

December 2015 edit war on category (Countries in Europe)

To the two parties who engaged in the edit-warring these past days, you may be interested in the following:

  • Talk:Kosovo/Archive 31 - just look at the very top section (Categorisation) and you'll find a lengthy debate on the subject of whether Kosovo belongs to Category:Countries in Europe (but the extremely long thread transforms at some stage into the wording of the lede).

I argued against the inclusion and removed it here, here, and also here. Then a few days later, I restored the category for reasons we discussed in the attached thread. I believe (not having checked thoroughly) that the category remained in place from that time until its removal these past days. So to avoid opening old wounds and provoking fresh debate on matters discussed time and time again, I am going to explain why I, an original opponent, reneged and replaced a category which I removed three times.

Briefly:
Proponents of the category argued that diplomatic recognition from every state was not a prerequisite to be deemed a "country" and to support this some mentioned Taiwan and Israel, that reliable sources were referring to Kosovo as a "country" (example), and since Kosovo had its own flag, anthem, constitution, etc., this meant it met the criteria for inclusion within the category. They cited a majority of countries recognising Kosovo's independence.

Opponents argued Israel and Taiwan were incommensurable since the former is not disputed with regards most of the land it claims and the latter contests the whole of China with its rival PRC, one of whom is recognised by everyone; they argued that widely disputed status is not silenced by acknowledgements from sources, and demonstrated this with unrecognised Somaliland (example); they argued all self-proclaimed states adopt a flag, anthem and the rest of the properties associated with independence. They argued that the then-80 or so countries not to recognise Kosovo called for parity in presentation.

My (current) position:
First of all, the idea that South Ossetia and others are "puppet states" is a matter of opinion, negligible, but moreover irrelevant. Furthermore, there are those who consider the Republic of Kosovo as a puppet to the western powers. The bottom line is that if this is so, they would not be alone, the same could be said of many of the Pacific microstates, and even bigger more established countries who find themselves subjected to another country's influence. For example, the Saudi campaign in Yemen is precisely to keep a regime within that country loyal to Saudi Arabia. In the jungle, the strongest survive, and sooner or later if peace cannot be achieved, one belligerent will eventually be conquered and the other will take the throne, but none of this puts question marks over Yemen's sovereignty or integrity.

With regards recognition, Kosovo (by my count) ranks second among disputed/partially recognised lands. I believe that State of Palestine comes first, while in third place is the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, all of which is claimed by Morocco. Both of these entities feature their respective Countries in category.

With regards Kosovo's own dispute, there exists the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article and this also contains the Category:Autonomous provinces of Serbia feature.

With regards South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and other lesser recognised states, I have no objections to those articles having their country category, but would prefer a "counter article" to exist to demonstrate how the region is seen in the eyes of the host to dispute its independence.

On these notes, I simply could not argue any further for the category's continued absence and therefore boldly restored it myself. I ask that it remain, and that the points I have given here be taken into consideration as I feel there is no other way to demonstrate impartiality and objectivity.

Thank you. --OJ (TALK) 08:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. The edit warring party shows up once a month and causes trouble. They'll be gone soon enough and be causing trouble on another article some time next month. This article is stable and peaceful. Lets not have a debate on something which isn't needed. We all know that Kosovo is partially recognised and that Serbia claims it, the article is very clear on this. I too agree that the category remains. Kind regards IJA (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, two warring parties, two reverts each but one breached the technicality whilst the other IMHO could be said to have WP:GAMEd the system by reporting the violation (to which he was party) and then restoring his revision. I took the "edit warring" past the limit at both Genocide Convention and Pomaks in Turkey these past months but upon realising my mistake, I self-reverted before anyone even counted my revisions let alone submit a report - and to this very day the revisions remain as the other parties preferred. All I was aiming to do was maintain that stability which you rightly mention, but if I am to be honest, I was reaching out more to the party that removed the category in the hope that he can see that I emphasise with his position and that the current version to include it is on balance more appropriate. Admins from what I can see on the other hand appear only to concern themselves with rules and policies and show no interest in right or wrong. I feel the less they are involved, the better, so this is why I feel it is best to sometimes mediate rather than jump to one side (i.e. "Revert POV, Western Sahara is a country and has its category despite being recognised by fewer, Kosovo has an autonomous province article"). I hope you see my point. --78.144.121.71 (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

--OJ (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC) (auto log-out, apologies)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kosovo. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 11:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic percentages in the infobox

Bad idea. This is a delicate and complex topic not suitable for the infobox. The CIA factbook is moreover an undesirable source as it states that "minorities such as Serbs may be underrepresented". Athenean (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed it yet again. Not only are such ethnic percentages in the infobox a bad idea, the source itself says it may be inaccurate. There is thus no way we should it for the infobox. Athenean (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Whats the problem? Almost all the other countries use infobox. So why cant there be the same in kosovo articel??? And it dosent say that they are still counting it already counted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadribistrica (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not "under counting", but "under-counted", meaning that the source itself states that numbers are not accurate: "these estimates may under-represent Serb, Roma, and some other ethnic minorities because they are based on the 2011 Kosovo national census, which excluded northern Kosovo (a largely Serb-inhabited region) and was partially boycotted by Serb and Roma communities in southern Kosovo". Even if it would be nice to have "ethnic groups" in the infobox, it is a bad idea to have numbers that are explicitly presented as unreliable. --T*U (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree with Athenean. The last population census conducted on all the population of Kosovo was the 1981 Yugoslav census (1991 and 2002 censuses were boycotted by Albanians, and 2011 census was boycotted by Serbs). But, the 1981 data is too outdated to be included, and we don't have any other accurate data. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Really unnecessary, it's not commonplace on other country/province infoboxes, and it's not as if the information is useful, as Kosovo is not that diverse as, say, Bosnia and Herzegovina. I'm going to go ahead and revert the edit. As well as this, as previously stated, the ethnic information may be incorrect. --User:LeoC12 (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2016

The Metohija should be removed as it is offensive word used from Serbia against 97% of the population (Albanians, Bosnian s, Turkish, Egyptians) that lives in Kosovo. 46.99.144.183 (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not really a reason to remove something that is used (even if only by 3% of the population). See WP:NOTCENSORED. Bazonka (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
On reflection, I wouldn't even go as far as to claim NOTCENSORED. The 46.99.144.183 account did not even specify what he meant by removing "the Metohija". At the time of this message, the cache gives me 20 citations of "Metohija" and all used in a way that you cannot remove them. For example in historiographical contexts such as the post-1946 period it forms a part of the name, and it is only in instances where it forms part of an official name that it is used. Nowhere on the article is something presented as being in the "Metohija" region. As such, I cannot find one place its removal would improve the article. Just a note that Metohija is known to Kosovo's Bosniak, Croat and Gorani population too. --OJ (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (a) No evidence is given that the word is offensive, and (b) We don't remove words just because they are offensive to someone. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresentaion

Someone added that Serbia recognises the Republic's governance of the territory. That is a lie. This news is not a good source for that statement, as it was made by Kosovo's foreign minister, so it is only Albanian political propaganda, and should not be in article at all. --Axiomus (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If Belgrade were to recognise Kosovo, it would make big headline news across the major networks and the world would be made aware. This is different from Taiwan recognising Kosovo. Also, if Belgrade should one day recognise, there won't be need for qualifiers such as de facto or scare quotes to wrap the word "recognise". In addition, Belgrade will not recognise Kosovo out of the blue. They would likely set a timetable, the public would be aware (and this will likely cause mass protests) and even then this is all likely to come on the back of negotiations whereby Serbia would reap certain benefits. The latest of these was the Brussels Agreement in 2013 which normalised things to the point they are today. It doesn't look as if Priština and Belgrade (or the west) seek anything mutually different at this point, things seem to be steady as they are. --OJ (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what is disputed now. After I reverted Axiomus, I tweaked the formulation and replace it with a better source [1]. OK now? No such user (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, not quite. Sentence "While Serbia recognises governance of the territory by Kosovo institutions" should be changed, or removed, as that is original research. Serbia does not recogise Republic of Kosovo, and i am not sure why this sentence say that... --Axiomus (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Serbia does recognise/ acknowledge/ accepts the Republic's governance of the territory, it is very clear in the Brussels agreement. We're not for one minute stating that Serbia recognises Kosovo as a country, Serbia still considers Kosovo to be province of Serbia. The article is very clear on that. Nowhere in the article does it say that Serbia recognises Kosovo as a country. IJA (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)From the source [2]: Under the terms of the agreement, Belgrade acknowledged that the government in Pristina exercises administrative authority over the territory of Kosovo -- and that it is prepared to deal with Pristina as a legitimate governing authority.. No such user (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, recognising governance is different from recognising sovereignty, sorry I didn't realise the source of the dispute at the top of this thread. --OJ (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, IJA and No such user, i didnt know that. It is just strange that they recognise government, and not country. If you ask me, those two are going together... Such a political crap. Thank you, after this, your edit is now better. --Axiomus (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is so difficult to phrase because this is a stand-alone situation. Where there are other breakaway republics not recognised by the country from whom they seceded, you don't have any similar instances; it is normally outright rejection. --OJ (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#Kosovo as a subentry to Serbia (and subentry layout in general) . Kosovo currently displayed as a subentry to Serbia. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This should've been asked at WP:KOSOVO & WP:SERBIA. But no worries, I've already contacted them :) GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Slavic name

@Yatzhek: You keep edit warring and inserting your version of the text without reaching consensus with other editors which is wrong. Would you explain here the reason of your addition? The fact that "Kosovo" is Serbian for "blackbird's" is already explained in the preceding paragraph, so you are duplicating information. Also, since the name is Serbian, it is obvious that it has no meaning in Albanian, we don't need to point that out. I'm totally puzzled why you think the meaning of the name in Polish language is important. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@ User:Vanjagenije - You accuse me of "edit-warring", while it's you who deleted SOURCED information, without any discussion about it. User:Thomas.W - don't you agree? Vanjagenije, you lie, as you intentionally make some false statements about the content I wanted to add. OK, so let me explain it to you:
The information I want to add are crucial and essential, mainly because the name Kosovo has a meaning not only in the Serbian language, but also in many other Slavic languages like Polish (mentioned Poland because it's quite far from Kosovo, and despite of that, the name Kosowo has nearly the same meaning in Polish! - "the area of blackbirds"), while neither "Kosovo" nor "Kosova" have no meaning in Albanian language at all. It's essential and it's a FACT! You accuse me of duplicating information, right? So please, tell me where exacltly in the article is an information about Kosovo being Slavic and having its origin from the Slavic languages? Yatzhek (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Please, calm down and do not resort to WP:personal attacks. Serbian is Slavic language, so it is obvious that words of Serbian origin are of Slavic origin. There are many words that are same or similar in different Slavic languages, but why is that important? Going in deep details just to explain that the name "Kosovo" has the same meaning in different Slavic languages seams to me as giving WP:UNDUE weight to that detail. You should not keep inserting your preferred text unless you reach consensus with other editors (See: WP:BRD, it is OK to revert other user's edit with arguments against it, and it is not OK to re-add the same edit without discussing it first.) Vanjagenije (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What the word Kosovo can be interpreted as in the Polish language is totally irrelevant in an article about Kosovo, a geographic area that has never had any connection to Poland. Thomas.W talk 18:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@ User:Vanjagenije - why didnt you answer my question?
@ [[User:Thomas.W - "No connection at all"? This is hilarious. No offense, but you don't know history.
Anyway - Dont you think it has to be said, that the name Kosovo has a meaning not only in Serbian, but in many other Slavic languages, while it does not have any meaning in the Albanian language at all and therefore its origin seem to be Slavic? Don't you find it important? You accuse me of duplicating data... So show me, where in the article there is such an information? Answer me!!! Yatzhek (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The article currently states "Kosovo (Serbian Cyrillic: Косово, [kôsoʋo]) is the Serbian neuter possessive adjective of kos (кос) "blackbird", [...]. So, of course it has no meaning in Albanian since it is a Serbian word. Explaining again (in detail) that is has no meaning in Albanian is redundant. And since it is Serbian word, it is of Slavic origin, as Serbian is a Slavic language. Again, it is redundant to explain that in detail, all with Polish name. This is an article about Kosovo as a territory not about linguistic aspects of it's name. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a Serbian name, and Serbian is a Slavic language, so it's no surprise (and totally irrelevant) that the name has a similar meaning in other Slavic languages, just like a name in any of the Germanic languages would have a similar meaning in the other Germanic languages. Thomas.W talk 19:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
... and since it is being discussed on two different pages I'd like to point out here too that "no connection" in this context means that Kosovo never has belonged to Poland or been under Polish political influence. Thomas.W talk 19:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Both of you totally lost the point and try to dishearten my will to talk. But that useless, as you skip facts. The meaningless, Albanian word "Kosova" isnt Serbian, is it? Tell me, why can't there be an information that there are many villages in other Slavic countries called Kosowo/Kosovo? Why can't there be an information that the word actually has no meaning in Albanian language, while it has a meaning not only in Serbian, but in other Slavic languages, and that therefore is it suggested it has pure Slavic origin? Linguists and historians in Poland and Serbia discuss that topic, but why can't it be here in the section "Name" in the Kosovo article? Are you prejudiced towards the "Slavic name" theory? Because you seem to be. In the answer to this question give me some reasonable argument. Yatzhek (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Because that is irrelevant. Those villages were not named after (this) Kosovo, nor they have any connection to (this) Kosovo except the name. And, I don't understand your comment that "Kosova" isnt Serbian. "Kosova" is just Albanian version of the name, but the title of this article is "Kosovo", which is Serbian name and that is already explained in the article. Since two of us "totally lost the point", I am sure there are many editors who did not loose their point and who will come here soon and agree with you. I'm waiting to see them. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Without prejudice. The information posted is factual, though not helpful to any reader since there is no serious dispute as to the origin of the word Kosovo. In other words, it is purely promotional in that it is contrived to tie the region closer to the Serbian nation and weaken its ties to the Albanian nation. I mean Turks also live in Kosovo, why not say "Kosovo means nothing in any Turkic language". I think the term is that if it isn't broken, you shouldn't try to mend it. But if there should be a genuine Albanian claim as to the origin of the name as is the came with Đakovica (Gjakova in Albanian), then the Serbian perspective will not be supported by the fact that the same word is found in Russian and Polish because the basis for the Albanian-origin argument would mean that the entire Slavic connection is irrelevant. --OJ (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"@ User:Vanjagenije - Irrelevant" is what most biased Wikipedians use to say when they lose their argumentation and still want to make their point of view as the only point of view in the article. I know that those villages were not named one after another, it's obvious! The name "Kosovo/Kosowo" present in Poland or Russia clearly shows the naming customs outside the Balkans as being extremely similar. This is important! So, why can't this information be there? Moreover, I can't see any information in the article, that the Albanian variant has no meaning in the Albanian language, while you said the article covers that matter. Stop lying please. The beginning of the article suggests that the name "Kosovo" is an English variant of the Albanian "Kosova", which is clearly a lie and it tries to push the false "Albanian roots" theory through. My suggestion can be put in just one, FULLY SOURCED sentence. Why are you so mad about it? It is fully sourced and perfectly in the topic! Admit to your views. @ User talk:Oranges Juicy - There is a very serious dispute of the origin on the name Kosovo. You clearly don't know what is happening in Poland, or Serbia among the historians and linguists. So what that Turks live in Kosovo? Everyone knows that since 20 years Albanians are the majority there and that they rule there now. Therefore, the name and its meaning in the language of the current "owners" is crucial, don't you think? Yatzhek (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Abkhazia infobox RfC

Due to a similarity in topics, editors here are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. CMD (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kosovo. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A "disputed territory" should be removed.

I understand that Serbian propaganda has taken over this Wikipedia page, as all of the editors are Serbs, however, within the article the Republic of Kosovo is

A) Mentioned as a Republic B) Mentioned as having a government and a ruling body which is not the Republic of Serbia.

All these statements contradict each other. I suggest remove "a disputed territory" as it is not true, not in the list of global disputed territories, and is used as constant Serbian propaganda. If there is any level of Editor professionalism within you, I hope you will find it and let nationalism go.

Thank You. - BananaWaffle (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Serbia is not the only country that considers Kosovo to be Serbian territory - about 85 UN members do. So its independence is undeniably disputed. By stating this, we are not taking sides - it is a plain fact backed up by numbers. Remember that Wikipedia must give a neutral point of view, so, whatever our personal views on the matter, it is important to give both sides of the story. But we do not say that Serbia's position is the correct one, and we do not say that Kosovo's position is the correct one. We just state facts, and say that some countries recognise Kosovo's independence and other countries don't. Don't let your own biases cloud your judgement of what is actually a very balanced article, which has had contributors from both sides of the fence, plus many who are neutrals. Bazonka (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The OP may be interested in List of territorial disputes. Maybe that would be the article to begin suggesting changes regarding Kosovo's status. --OJ (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
There are non-UN member States recognised by less UN members without disputed territory label. So, where is the neutral point of view? --Skyfall (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
You are right, Republic of Kosovo does not understand what neutral point of view is, and therefor, we must have that here, so readers can understand that Kosovo was established on political hodgepodge, and not international rights or historical exception. --Axiomus (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
So, is it the reason because states recognised by less UN members, as South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic don't have ‘’disputed territory’’ label? --Skyfall (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Asides the fact that this was heavily discussed by a multitude of editors in 2015 (check archives), the only valid reason to remove the item is that Kosovo is not subject to dispute (i.e. its sovereignty accepted the same way Belgium is with no other claimants). With regards the other articles, if they are in the list at List of territorial disputes then there can be no argument by any editor for their removal if someone wishes to add it to those articles. So if there are any NPOV problems, it is on those pages not this one. --OJ (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
That terminology is agreed by so many users as the best, and the biggest argument is that other self proclaimed territories are far less disputed, while Kosovo is just a political weapon unlike other states. --Axiomus (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
A political weapon by 108 states? What concept of democracy is this? Kosovo is reconized by 108 UN-members states, South Ossetia and Abkhazia by 6 states, so the NPOV problem is concerning that Serbian reasons have too many space bere. --Skyfall (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
About the ‘‘so readers can understand that Kosovo was established on political hodgepodge, and not international rights or historical exception‘‘, what are the international rights or historical exceptions of Northern Cyprus (recognised only by Turkey)? --Skyfall (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Its not weapon for 108 states. Most of those are some poor island or irrelevant nations that was ordered or paid millions to recognise. Its weapon of only several countries, first of all USA. But this is not the place for this kind of discussion. I dont see any problem at all. Kosovo is very, VERY disputed territory, and while is like that, this abbreviation should stay. Your other examples are also disputed, and should have the same explanation. --Axiomus (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
And one more thing. Kosovo is a disputed territory between two political entities called Republic of Kosovo and Republic of Serbia. Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is a republic, state proclaimed on the disputed territory. We should have distinction between those two. --Axiomus (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
To me, this is more an issue of styling and redundancy than of sourcing and semantics. If we say in first two sentences that Kosovo...is a partially recognised state ... that declared independence from Serbia; Serbia ... continues to claim it, it is pretty obvious that there is a "dispute" over its statehood, so the link to list of territorial disputes seems redundant. Granted, it is listed there, under #Disputes between UN-recognized states and others. Further, a "disputed territory" is in common parlance (and in our article territorial dispute, where it redirects) something that is concurrently claimed by two outside polities, not the very polity in question. But meh, I won't stand in a way of a good edit war... No such user (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
hehe, none is edit waring here, we are talking. :) Well, i beg to differ, and i will tell it in the easiest way. It is by far more neutral to say: "Something is disputed between that and that, while one think its this, and other think its that." Your proposition is like this: "Something is this. Someone thinks its that too, so its disputed what it is". As you can see, without this two words, we do not have NPOV, but POV with other opinions. Kosovo is disputed between two entities, while both entities think is something else. --Axiomus (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I cannot find a single argument why it should be removed. All I'm reading is why isn't it mentioned on other articles where there are fewer recognitions. If the latest pool of editors believe the article will be improved by the removal of this item from the first line then go ahead and do it. But just remember to add List of territorial disputes to the See also section. That should be a straightforward enough requirement for every self-proclaimed state including all those mentioned in this thread. --OJ (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
For uniformity, I've added "disputed territory" to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. --Skyfall (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Please stop adding this statement to all unrecognised state articles for "uniformity". The edit in Northern Cyprus had to be reverted for the second time, the first sentence there is the result of a consensus reached in a discussion back in 2011 - not to mention that I believe "disputed territory" is highly redundant for the case of Northern Cyprus (and each case is unique so aspiring for "uniformity" is not really a valid argument). For other states, please use relevant talk pages; the discussion here only binds this article at the moment. --GGT (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the best way to observe consensus everywhere and to achieve uniformity is for its outright removal from all articles including this one. I favour the inclusion of List of territorial disputes on each article on "See also". --OJ (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
You cannot find a single argument why it should be removed. But for other users "disputed territory" is highly redundant for the case of Northern Cyprus. And Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (it has been already removed). We'll wait Abkhazia and South Ossetia. --Skyfall (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes SKyfall, I meant what I said. You're combining a comment from me with one from someone else who supports keeping the term. I haven't altogether been hostile towards you and those wishing for its removal, it would be nice you could appreciate this. --OJ (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Another user has removed the disputed territory definition also to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, with the motivations Redundant to partially recognised state and Redundant to the subsequent descriptor. ---Skyfall (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
On another note. There is most definitely some realpolitik motive in some places within Wikipedia. Sadly too few articles are maintained and worked on by editors from two sides of a perennial dispute. There is none more tendentious than the moron who pretends he is neutral (no specific people in this thread alluded to). I support a code of uniformity whereby territories have this wording removed altogether except if it refers to a land that is not recognised by the objecting party. With Kosovo this is not the case, as the land per its proclaimed-independence-borders are recognised in the Constitution of Serbia as Kosovo of some kind. --OJ (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
So, do you consider a disputed territory also Abkhazia and Crimea? --Skyfall (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
No I consider Abkhazia independent and Crimea a part of Russia! :) That's if you ask me! But yes the lands you cited are examples of disputed territories in that they are claimed by two separate entities. So it should be mentioned somewhere in those articles. --OJ (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@OJ, Abkhazia independent... visiblement il faut vraiment de tout pour faire un monde. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Single-purpose account? You bring up the issue, and then disappear. Your account has no User Page or Talk Page. Besides the nonsense about "Serb editors" somehow "owning" the article, you seem to be abusing WP:SOAP instead of doing what is best by utilizing Reliable Sources for the betterment of the article. I'm not a Serb, or an Albanian, nor a supporter of either side whatsoever, but the sources are there to see that nationalist Serbs and their supporters dispute the validity of the state of Kosovo. Everyone must understand that Wiki is just a "hobby encyclopedia" and world opinion will not be formed here. NATO is militarily backing the independence of Kosovo, so it is a de facto state, and the will only change if NATO stops supporting it (which ain't gonna happen for a long, long, long, long time.) So what is the point of this POV tag when this dispute is sourced? Waste of kilobits. 68.19.6.187 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I see your points but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "sources are there to see that nationalist Serbs and their supporters dispute the validity of the state of Kosovo". I've never encountered any non-nationalist Serbs that affirm the "validity", and I do not know the connection between outside commentators to dispute Kosovo and "Serb nationalists". I know there about the ties between Russia and Serbia for example, but these are strong across the entire political landscape of both states. --OJ (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Strong sentence

I might lack of neutrality, but I must confess that seen the quite large recognition of Kosovo by the international community, the wording "Kosovo is a disputed territory and partially recognised state" is inappropriate. if we were to follow this logic the words "disputed territory" should be added also to Israel, Taiwan, Falkland Islands... Also it is somehow illogic that in this article the status of Kosovo is considered on the 26th July 2016 as more contentious than three years ago, even if in the meantime around 20 additional countries have recognized it. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is disputed, and it is partially recognized. What exactly is the problem with wording? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure it is disputed and partially recognized. Exactly as the other countries I listed above. I am just wondering why only Kosovo deserves to be characterized such as. And again, does it makes any sense that the wording classifies today the status of the country as even more disputed than 3 years ago, if we account that more countries have recognized it insofar? Silvio1973 (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Even the most ardent Serb nationalist knows, deep down, that as long as NATO stands (which is probably for at least the next century), Kosovo is an independent state, backed up by the invincible military might of NATO. Given time, this rubbish about it being 'disputed' will become as quaint as it has become for Israel, Taiwan, etc. Don't let the present lede spoil your day. 98.67.191.44 (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
So, by your logic IP98, you recognise you know "deep down" that Kosovo will be an inviable country for at least next century, needing NATO troops and being sort of UN protectorate? Anyway, your comment has no value because any serious encyclopedia applies WP:CRYSTAL. Cheers, FkpCascais (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "might of NATO" (which has singularly cowered in fear over Donbass and Georgia's breakaway provinces - likewise, we don't see NATO in Tibet where China has been accused of numerous grave atrocities over the past decades); perhaps the vulnerability of Serbia as a lone player in world affairs in the face of the concerted western bully may influence how and why Kosovo will never reintegrate into it. As for the remainder of the IP's assertion, South Ossetia enjoys the same privileges and independence from any other state that Kosovo does, as do others. The "rubbish" about being disputed will end either when Kosovo reverses its position, or when Serbia recognises it. Until one of these milestones occurs, the community can wait - let's hope the two don't happen simultaneously. With regards Taiwan and Israel, there is zero comparison between Kosovo and the two listed; the first claims to be the true Chinese state (making the other China equally disputed) whilst the second merely occupies territory claimed by another country - most of the land to constitute Israel is not disputed by anybody. This article is about a territory that declared independence from a country which does not recognise that independence and is otherwise powerless to control the land in question. The Falklands is not a breakaway state, it has been the subject of dispute by two countries. Kosovo's approximates are the likes of Somaliland and Abkhazia. --OJ (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes "bully". If one was to view it through that context then the region has had much in terms of bullies such as Russia in the 19th century who continuously encouraged some peoples of the Ottoman state to destabilize it instead of seeking to integrate themselves and be part of the process of reform. Russia repeatedly contested and violated Ottoman sovereignty that resulted in many millions of Muslims suffering as fatalities and being refugees. As for contemporary Albanian Kosovars, they found their opportunity to seek what they want and NATO/USA was that conduit, just as many other states in the region have done in the past through Russia of course. Its just how the region is. Each state in the region has their patron. It just depends whose patron is stronger at a moment in time for a particular local people to achieve their aims (i.e: independence). Today its the USA and for Balkan Muslims its also Turkey (or its return in the region) too. For the others of course its Russia. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I fear, Resnjari, you are grossly misled. First of all, I am aware of the Russo-Ottoman issues of the previous centuries and that many nations owe a debt of gratitude to Russia for extricating themselves from Ottoman rule. I accept totally that Albanians are not one of those nations. I do not know whether you are of Albanian origin (I haven't checked anything you have published) but as a subject of the former Yugoslavia who has lived in Britian for 16 years now, I will make one observation. Firstly, this is without prejudice. Where I live (North Somerset), the only ex-Yugoslavs I know are Kosovo Albanian. Together with those Kosovo Albanians and persons from Albania-proper, I have very good personal relations, and never find myself in debate with them and this despite all of us frequently discussing contemporary world affairs. But I say one thing to every one of them: don't be under any misapprehension that the western bully (I know what I mean) is actually your friend. It isn't. The west will help anyone out - but on their terms only. In 1912, an assembly representing the Albanian nation declared an independent principality which encompassed four Kosovo vilayets covering all lands to which Albanians are native. Three out of the four Balkan League allies (Kingdoms of Serbia, Montenegro and Greece) had other plans for those lands and for the integration of the locals. The failure by the Balkan League and the Albanian representatives to familiarise one another with each other's ideas meant that there was bloody fighting in the 1912-13 period between the Balkan League states who had entered the entire region and had hoped to annex it - and the Albanians who had taken control of Vlora. When in 1913 the Treaty of London was signed, it made way for an independent Albania - but why do you think this Albania was not the country its creators had wanted? Why were regions given to Greece and Serbia? Likewise, why do you think Albania was allowed to exist in the first place when it hadn't done in the previous centuries of Ottoman rule? I can assure you that it is not because of the west's "love for mankind". Turks nearly ended up stateless after World War I due to a western-sponsored treaty which would have seen Britain, France, Italy and others enjoy sovereignty from their chunks of Anatolia. The point is that those countries have always interfered in southeastern Europe, and have done everything to stop any one country becoming too big - and the best way for this has been to promote and maintain fantasies of the local people being so ideologically different to one another so as to hate each other while the west plays the great "peacekeeper". Bulgaria failed to become the large state it wanted to be in 1878, and the very emergence of a Macedonian national identity was itself boosted by funds and help from westwards. Think about it, with 19th century nationalism on the rise, and the confusion in this region whether the Slavs are Serb or Bulgarian, what better than to have a "third branch" who will go one step further and provoke the Greeks with their name and occasional claim of being non-Slavic. To look at the map of the Balkans, you can see the whole place has been divided and now ruled, with each puppet state moving with blinkers towards NATO and the EU, and all only too happy to surrender their foreign policies and their sovereignty to the centralised monster. And five minutes ago we were being told by those outsiders, "your people are too different to be part of the same state". There was never a movement for an independent Kosovo before the region became part of Yugoslavia/Serbia. The very flag with a blue background and yellow stars is merely a self-sacrificing gift to Kosovo's real architects: the west. "Here we are, take us, we are yours". And the outline of the flag? Well, Cyprus has its map in its flag but Cyprus is an island. Is Kosovo an island? No. The map was put there to stop anyone from inside dreaming up hopes that Kosovo may one day get bigger - such as in a southerly direction where Albania is. Had Kosovo been part of Albania after World War II, it is ludicrous to suggest it may have done day sought independence. So the independent narrative of this region will for ever preach a "damsel in distress" fairy story. This is not the natural way nations and countries are formed. I'd say today's leaders in the Balkans are bigger than puppets, they are actual agents that serve the neoconservative mercenaries. Please note, I am not a Serb, in 1993-1995 I fought against Bosnian Serbs (I'm from Herzegovina), and I am not an apologist for this nation's actions of the 1990s. But I am not a conditioned puppet either to entertain delusions that "west is the only way forward". If I were a Kosovo Albanian, sure I'd support independence, but only to be with my brethren as part of Albania, I would have no reason and there is no reason for Kosovo to be separate, other that to excite westerners who can gloat, "haha, look, southeastern Europe is carved into a hundred pieces". Why do they want that? Every neo-con knows that by the 1980s, Yugoslavia (which nearly came to include Albania before 1948) was self-sufficient and was managing its own GDP with a growing economy, and all outside of western influence. If only the peoples of southeastern Europe could work together again and rid themselves of the dirt that is the institutions of the west, then Angela Merkel knows that Germany would play second fiddle to this part of the world, and this has a knock-on effect and frightens everybody in western politics. The name of "Yugoslavia" is irrelevant. I'm happy enough to call the whole region "Albania", but the Clintons, Trumps and Bushes don't want that, nor do the Junckers or Donald Tusks (shame on the latter, he is Polish). --OJ (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not mislead. I am a realist and a pragmatist and am very well read on the history of the region (and i speak and understand Serbo-Croatian and can read it in both alphabets, Macedonian too and some Greek). Orthodox peoples in the Balkans had Russia (and almost most still do in some sense) as their patron who gave them independence, influence in the region etc. That independence was at a cost though and that price was the ethnic cleansing and often many massacres of Balkan Muslims of various ethno-linguistic backgrounds over the course of the 19th century and early 20th. There was no "misunderstandings". Each wanted their dreams to come true and did whatever it took. Of course having the region divided into small states is not an ideal solution, but everyone wanted their own space and many others did not recognise the other (even to exist at times even now). The first era of this Balkanisation was with the partition of the Ottoman state. Some local peoples sought Balkanized segregation instead of reform and integration within the Ottoman state. Had reforms gone through (it was scuttled time and again due to wars often with Russia) the potential to have been transformed into some kind of EU like state, a confederation etc. Yet today Albanians have been told by these local peoples who have established these subsequent states in the Balkans that they should re-integrate into them, especially in lieu of what has happened recently with little to no guarantees of their safety, yet alone assurances about equality and democratic representation. As i said before, Orthodox peoples did not want Ottoman integration due to their perceptions that even through reform the Ottoman state would be dominated by Muslims. As such in the same way one cannot expect that contemporary Balkan Muslim peoples in areas where they have managed to remain against the odds and are the majority to want to be part of these post-Ottoman states that have a somewhat imperial structure to it as was Yugoslavia, a state for Slavic peoples only. Pax Ottomanica or Pax Yugoslavica, in the end neither worked. All peoples have chosen their own path. Kosovo has chosen its path and its independence. There is little appetite also for Greater Albania in Kosovo, contrary to what the rhetoric is often touted about. Both Albania and Kosovo know they are Albanian majority states with a common language, culture, and so on that want to become integrated separately into the EU and Euro-Atlantic structures. As for my self i am of Albanian (Tosk) heritage from Macedonia. Resnjari (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, a lot of talk but no-one repied to my query. Why, opposely to Taiwan and Israel, Kosovo is described here as "disputed territory and partially recognised state"? And please stop comparing Abkhazia to Kosovo. The two situations are really very different. Abkhazia was not recognized by 100+ UN members. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Though i am going to sound cynical here, the difference is editors who edit Taiwan and Israel related articles are many and therefore have numbers to block such references as "disputed territory and partially recognised state" in their articles. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: Sorry about the long off-topic piece above (no point us having views if we cannot impart them from time to time). Your question is why is Kosovo a disputed territory and part-recognised state when Taiwan and Israel are not? Here is why:

  1. Israel's control of Tel-Aviv is not disputed. Israel's control of Golan Heights is disupted. Thus Israel per se is not a disputed territory.
  2. Since no country albeit in fruition or in exile lays claim to Tel-Aviv, this means (related to first point) that most of Israel's territory is uncontested by any other territory. The non-recognition by some states here implies a refusal to establish diplomatic relations rather than publishing a map where the lands are marked as belonging to another country. Kosovo's territory is recognised by all UN members states, but the 60-40 split (as things stand) concerns who has sovereign responsibility.
  3. Taiwan is an awkward case. It has never declared itself independent, and the reason we say Taiwan so unsparingly is because the article lies there, the article which in my eyes should be Republic of China. Collectively, Republic of China and the People's Republic of China control separate parts of one country called China. China in turn is recognised by every country, but again, there is a split over whose governance is recognised for the entire region. As such, there is bilateral dispute over who is the real authority, no actual territorial dispute. This is why Taiwan fits neither moniker. --OJ (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
A point of clarification: Israel is mainly recognised by Western countries. The majority of Muslim countries do not recognise Israel. See article: International recognition of Israel.Resnjari (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I know who does and doesn't recognise Israel. Here it is neither the number nor the locations and backgrounds of the states that matter. My point is that there is a difference between non-recognition in the sense of refusing to establish bilateral relations, and non-recognition because you recognise someone else's sovereignty. Thanks for the earlier post. Yes you are well versed it seems, and as you are from Macedonia, you and I could even speak in Macedonian since I lived there for some time. My Albanian is limited because in Bitola (Manastiri) where I was a volleyball coach, there were few Albanians. I'd like to point out one or two observations on your other post, and in particular how the rhetoric you use comes straight out of the Western Imperialist Manual (my term being employed here!!), but it is Saturday evening and my wife wants me to take her somewhere! So it will have to be tomorrow (Sunday). Regards Resnjari. Kënaqësia ime! --OJ (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
As for Israel the main difference is that its recognition was attained early when most of the world was still under colonial subjection and the UN members mainly came from the West (like i said most of the Muslim world still does not recognize it). When the vote for partition went ahead, who knows whether African and Asian states if independant would have voted for it. Israel's recognition was a fait accompli by the time most of the world rid itself of colonialism (the old school type of extract, resource exploitation etc). In the end its Israel's UN recognition is what makes it different from Kosovo and gives it worldwide legitimacy. Kosovo lacks this and will so for much into the future and thus earning labels such as "disputed territory" etc. Moreover my main point is that competing imperialisms and nationalisms is what got the Balkans screwed up in the first place. What has happened has happened. Anyway the region for some decades can get a measure of semblance only on economic grounds due to all that has happened. As for Bitola, my dad originates from one of the villages on the Greek-Maceodnian border, my mum's village is next to the town Resen on the other side of the Pelister mountains. My grandparents came out to Australia in the 1970s. Regards Oranges Juicy. Fala i dobar pat za nojkta.Resnjari (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

In Israel's case, it is the "part recognised" label which matters more. Its UN status is down to enough countries recognising of course, but other than the occupied territories it has annexed, Israel on the whole isn't a disputed land. Haifa for instance is not claimed by any other country. For the off-topic matter, please feel free to continue at my talk page where the "forum" atmosphere is slightly more relaxed!!!!! --OJ (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@OJ, thank you for the time taken to reply to my query. I do not contest the facts lying behind the statement "disputed territory and partially recognised state". Indeed, I actually share 90% of the content of your last two posts (and BTW you explained it very well). However, I disagree on the remaining 10%, i.e. the specific treatment currently reserved to Kosovo on WP. Take this way: what is the level of international recognition that would trigger the removal of the "partially recognized state" statement? 70% 80%? 90% Theoretically it might be claimed that even if it lacks the recognition from one single UN state the label "partially recognised stat" applies. Do you think this makes any sense? Silvio1973 (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
+1 --♦ Xarioti (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I too don't contest that Kosovo is a "disputed territory and partially recognised state". However my point was that what separates Kosovo and Israel is the UN factor. The UN in a post-1945 environment is seen as the ultimate marker of legitimacy in relation to sovereignty and its recognition. Israel is still a disputed territory for much of the Muslim world. However legitimacy of state sovereignty is recognised within institutions (like the UN) created in the West due to the power balance in the world being there and not from those countries who do not recognise Israel. Its why Kosovo more than ever wants to join Euro-Atlantic institutions so as to cement its fragile sovereignty. Anyway, this whole thread about the wording of the sentence about disputed territory has reached its natural end. Until Kosovo can get some kind of mass international recognition, UN membership or if ever a recognition from Serbia, its a waste of time for now discussing changes to that sentence. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
political opinions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Silvio, as I stated previously, and which has gotten under the skin of so many Serb and Russian nationalists here, "Even the most ardent Serb nationalist knows, deep down, that as long as NATO stands (which is probably for at least the next century), Kosovo is an independent state, backed up by the invincible military might of NATO. Given time, this rubbish about it being 'disputed' will become as quaint as it has become for Israel, Taiwan, etc. Don't let the present lede spoil your day." They're responding arguments were less than useless, they know with NATO standing guard, there is absolutely nothing they can do about Kosovo being a de facto independent state. 68.19.3.23 (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

:The responses which debunked the fallacious content of the remark you made were neither useless nor were they delivered by Serbian or Russian nationalists. In fact, the replies didn't come from a Serb or a Russian of any kind. --OJ (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

NATO is mightier than Russia and China and their allies put together, so Kosovo will remain an independent state.104.169.35.251 (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

::That's all right then. NATO can try its might to reclaim Crimea for its post-2014 Ukrainian regime, then restore Georgian sovereignty over Abkhazia and South Ossetia for its other ally. Failing that, we can safely say that these two countries will remain independent just as Crimea will not be returning to Ukraine. NATO is a very powerful force when the opposition is weak and limited. I've yet to see China bombed into submission on any matter disagreeable to your NATO. NATO dominance = chimera. --OJ (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Russia will always turn tail and run when NATO confronts it, so Kosovo will remain an independent state.104.169.35.251 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Very unnecessary statement in the introduction

Hello all. I am of the opinion that the following statement "The country is poor by European standards with high unemployment, still not having fully recovered from the past conflict" in the Introduction is highly subjective, and very unnecessary. Moldova, for example, has a smaller GDP per capita yet no such statement can be found on the page about Moldova. IMF clasiffies Kosovo as a "lower middle income country", so I suggest we use that or similar terminology ("developing country" works as well). Thoughts? Thanks. --alchaemia (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Provide Reliable Sources for your views, and I'm sure editors will go along splendidly. 98.67.191.44 (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources are already provided for these facts in the Economy section, and no other country has such a strong and direct statement in the Introduction, including much poorer Moldova. --alchaemia (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016


The country is majority Albanian,majority names rightfully the country, therefore Harrysmatic (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)the right name is Kosova,with a ,not Kosovo,with o Harrysmatic (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: While this may be true, it seems to me that the name "Kosovo" is, by far, the most widely accepted name for the country which makes it very difficult to justify changing it. Furthermore, this is addressed on the disambiguation page as well. Topher385 (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd take the above request with a pinch of salt. --OJ (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
More importantly, this is the English wiki, and in English, the name of the independent state of Kosovo is - Kosovo, not Kosova . . . 104.169.26.177 (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Serb-nationalist train stopped before entering Kosovo -

AP wire story: http://www.wral.com/serbia-sends-train-to-kosovo-north-despite-pristina-protest/16432379/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.26.177 (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

And what would you like for us to do about it? 23 editor (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Non-"retired" concerned editors will use the RS accordingly to improve the article.104.169.26.177 (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2017

Change 

{{multiple image
 |align = right
 |total_width =470 

 |image1 = ULPIANA foto Arben Llapashtica 2016.jpg
 |width1 = 940 |height1 =

 |image2 = Ulpiana_3.jpg
 |width2 =  800 |height2 =

 |image3= Ulpiana2.JPG
 |width3=  710 |height2 =

to 

{{multiple image
 |align = right
 |total_width =470 

 |image1 = ULPIANA foto Arben Llapashtica 2016.jpg
 |width1 = 940 |height1 =

 |image2 = Ulpiana_3.jpg
 |width2 =  800 |height2 =

 |image3= Ulpiana2.JPG
 |width3=  710 |height3 =

in other words, change the duplicate |height2= to |height3= 98.230.196.215 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Pointless since the parameter is not in use — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
unacceptable to keep a page in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls for no reason. 98.230.196.215 (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Done! Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Recognized by the majority

I think it would be better to add 'Kosovo is recognized by the most of the countries all over the world' because it's a more fitting describtion instead of 'partially recognized', as it's mentioned in the text.

Thanks! ZerOnine (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The details of the recognition are in the article. The fact the Kosovo is now an independent country is apparent, and as time goes by this silly denialism will die out on its own - Wiki is not the battleground to fight it out.

Is Kosovo under military occupation?

See discussion at Talk:List_of_military_occupations#Kosovo. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kosovo. 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) 01:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kosovo. 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) 18:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Expansion

I have expanded the article to have more inforamtions and to cover neutral point of view. --Axiomus (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kosovo. 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) 13:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kosovo. 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) 12:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Kosovo War Casualties

The Etymology contains, "As a result, the Kosovo War began in March 1998 until June 1999, where 13,548 civilians were killed including 90% of Kosovo-Albanians were displaced at that time." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#cite_ref-17

While the article for the Kosovo War states (in the... box thing) that "13,548 civilians and fighters dead overall (Albanians, Serbs, Bosniaks, Roma)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War#cite_ref-59

Does this statistic include both civilians and fighters? Also I'm not sure how that statistic might include "90% of Kosovo-Albanians were displaced at that time." It appears to be a grammatical error or I'm just reading it wrong. BulgingBuddy (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Hey, I'm new.

  • The Serbian Army expelled most of the ethnic Albanians from their homes, aiming at ethnically cleansing the region from Albanians. This is a well evidenced fact that just happened less than 20 years ago, an is documented in details. Whether the correct proportion of displaced is 89%, 91% or 95%, that is a matter of accounting.2A02:8108:91C0:87CC:ACD5:BEFD:A4EF:1D42 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Pec for Peje

In the article it is mentioned that Pec is one of the biggest cities in Kosovo. That is the Serbian cyrillic version of the city name Peja (in Albanian). I believe both versions should be included in the article, since that would confuse tourists who go there to visit.

Difficult to comment on. Historically and culturally it is known by both (Patriarch of Peć, League of Peja) and there has been no extensive coverage of the town since the Kosovo war ended in 1999. Those days they used the name as in Serbian. The article is still on Peć so that would be the place to begin requesting a move. Basically exonyms and endonyms do not have to match (e.g. Brussel, Bruxelle, and English Brussels). --OJ (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Definitely worth pursuing. When I lived there (5 or so years ago) it was almost universally referred to Peja (not to mention that that's the name the beer goes by). So it should be possible to find some reliable sources on it. Asasa64 (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2018

Yugoslavia section, Addition of Jewish Casualties during WWII:

Jewish deportations during WWII have been reported by Sir Noel Malcom. Marcupontheearth (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Kosovo MFA "hackathon"

It seems (see twitter) that the Kosovo foreign ministry is mobilising youth to modify Kosovo-related articles, possibly in view of the 10th anniversary of independence. This does not seem to be made in cooperation with Wikimedia. Please keep an eye open on eventual non-neutral changes in the coming weeks.--Dans (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This wouldn't be the first time. Unfortunately, a fair share of the contributions are written by people with a poor grasp of English and are thus incomprehensible. 23 editor (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, you can hardly expect them to do better than the man urging this action: "look forward to read", "pilla". --Khajidha (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Pacolli's tweet was in February and in relation to his visit to the Wikipedia academy. Most of those involved were at the Wikipedia academy in Kosovo for new editors during February to coincide with the independence anniversary. Their edits and new articles were done on Albanian Wikipedia when there was a huge spike in contributions on that wikiproject and not the English one. On English Wikipedia there are few editors who contribute to Kosovo related articles who are interested in Albanian related topics and or possibly come from an Albanian background. Few come from the Balkans and fewer still stick around with their edits not being ones to last long due to poor quality. Those who have stood the test of time are often from the diaspora and have not even set foot in Kosovo.Resnjari (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
It's truly a sad thing to see that thanks to the awful editing climate in this area, people like yourselves are speaking about a likely spike in participation in terms of only neutrality wars, rather than the improvements of coverage it will be much more associated with. The point of the "hackathon" is very likely not about biasing article's in Kosovo's favor; on the toher hand, much of the Balkans could improve greatly with increased topic coverage.--Calthinus (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
It was actually part of an official Wikipedia academy project in 2018 during February [3]. It got visits from Kosovo politicians during a meet and great with young people wanting to edit Wikipedia Shqip (Albanian). Wikipedia is viewed as a accessible medium for Albanians in the Balkans, as libraries are not as common as in Western countries, apart from big population centres. As editors some research is important to be done before bold pronouncements are given about something which is not the case. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Such visits from the politicians happen in many countries, Wikipedia is open to everyone. In the end, only some editors from Serbian Wikiacademy get blocked for breaking enwiki's rules and socking. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2018

State that this is partially recognized republiv 188.2.144.42 (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The opening sentence already says Kosovo is partially recognized, and this subject is discussed extensively in the article International recognition of Kosovo. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Outdated development indicators

Gini is only given for the year 2005/06, and HDI for 2013. I think these have to be updated. I only found data for 2015, so I did not do the edit myself, maybe somebody can find more up to date data.

Gini (2015): 26.4 [4] HDI (2015): 0.742 [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniacademic (talk • contribs) 09:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

OTRS edit request

This edit request comes from VRTS ticket # 2018052810000093, reproduced with permission. Please ping me if you need a reply from me specifically. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"According to international law, Kosovo's current official status is "partially recognized sovereign state" and not "partially recognized state and disputed territory" because the International Court of Justice found that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law, therefore Kosovo is not subject to a territorial dispute as there is no occupying power and Kosovo has taken a full control to its sovereignty (integrating its north) since Brussels Agreement (2013). Kosovo is disputed only by Serbia – not the rest of the world – therefore Serbia's sole position cannot form the legal status of another sovereign country. Such usage is a direct violation of the international law and it does also constitute a violation of peremptory norm (and/or jus cogens). While the disagreement between Kosovo and Serbia should be mentioned in the article, it can not be used as a reference point to define its legal status recognized by half of the world. Those purposely incorrect edits made by Serbian users must be removed because the current version of Kosovo's official status is legally incorrect, conflicting, confusing, and misleading. Quest for countries status in terms of sources should not be misdirected!"
— Gerwig - Ph.D. Comparative and International Law / EU

Kosovo is disputed only by Serbia – not the rest of the world - This is an obvious lie. There are currently 82 UN member states that consider Kosovo part of Serbia. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: Thanks for bringing the edit request here. As far as I can see from this talk page's history, the first sentence of this article has been a source of tension and discussions between editors. The current version is due to community consensus, and a change would need new discussions. The person who made the request, is a Wiki editor or only a reader? @Vanjagenije: Calm down, it is an ordinary edit request. No need for using terms like "obvious lie" directed to a person who probably does not know how Wikipedia works. In particular admins such as yourself should be neutral, though sometimes you seem to lose some of your self-control when Kosovo is concerned. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
No, actually, users (including admins) do not need to be neutral. Articles need to be neutral. Admins are entitled to their own opinion, like all other persons. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Admins should choose other words than "Obvious lie" directed to a person who probably does not know how Wikipedia works, and who might just want to give some little contribution to this article. The person who made the edit request might be considering creating an account and watching how their edit request is labeled as "obvious lie" by an admin might dishearten them from editing. Admins should also not change Kosovo articles with no consensus as you have done in the past. Anyway, the behaviour of editors is not the main focus of this talk page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Gerwig is unable to edit Wikipedia due to what I personally feel is a very odd work contract, hence the copy/paste. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac, much appreciated for placing here an interesting viewpoint by Gerwig based on their knowledge of international law. I agree with @Ktrimi that discussion and consensus would be needed for a change, and makes good points on behavior.Resnjari (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Somewhat off-topic discussion of the requester not the request
I agree with Vanja. Moreover, who is this "Gerwig, PhD"? I can't find any mention of her name online, let alone a published work attributed to her. Methinks it's a pseudonym. 23 editor (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
That's one of reasons why where having a discussion. Although 23 editor you do have a point, i did a google search on the net (which shed little) and came to the same conclusion, who is Gerwig PhD ? If any changes of the sort proposed by Gerwig are to be considered some referral to academia(sources?) would be good to go on. Otherwise its just an exercise of ???? and time wasting.Resnjari (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Based on the semi-hysterical tone of the message and the plethora of grammatical errors contained within, my guess is the person who wrote it does not carry a PhD, at least not from an accredited Western post-secondary institution. Just a hunch. I could be wrong. I would like more info from Primefac before making any further statements regarding Mme. Gerwig. 23 editor (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed.Resnjari (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I am going to read somewhat between the lines on their request, and the way they signed their emails, that they do not have a PhD but instead are working towards one. Based on their university affiliation I would hazard to say there's some ESL in there as well. However, I do not think the credentials of the individual making the request should necessarily impact the specifics of the request. Does it necessarily matter if someone has a PhD or are just a casual reader to be concerned that Wikipedia is accurate? I'm not necessarily advocating for this change to be made, more that we debate the request rather than the one making it. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clarifying. 23 editor (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Primefac.Resnjari (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The identity of the person who made the edit request attracted my attention as well, however, as @Primefac: very correctly said, is does not matter who the person is. The case of Kosovo is similar to almost the same with that of Macedonia. The status of relations between Kosovo and Serbia soon will change, and since that change is expected to happen within one or two years, it would be better for now to keep the current version of the article's first sentece, as an outcome of community concensus. When the right time comes, the first sentence of course will be changed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Yep, agreed.Resnjari (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The correspondent write that "Kosovo has taken a full control to its sovereignty (integrating its north) since Brussels Agreement (2013)", but the Brussels Agreement has apparently not yet been implemented. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Macedonia is incongruous where Kosovo is concerned. Different nature to dispute. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Fix paragraph if you know the references

There are conflicting/overlapping phrases about serbians and non-albanians leaving Kosovo after yugoslavs withdrew. References are also duplicated/averlapped. Please edit if you know the references.

"By June, Milošević agreed to a foreign military presence in Kosovo and the withdrawal of his troops. After the Yugoslav Army withdrew, over half of Kosovo's Serbs and other non-Albanians flew or were expelled and many of the remaining civilians were subjected to abuse.[125][125][126][127][128][129] During the Kosovo War, over 90,000 Serbian and other non-Albanian refugees fled the war-torn province. In the days after the Yugoslav Army withdrew, over 80,000 (almost half of 200,000 estimated to live in Kosovo) Serb and other non-Albanians civilians were expelled from Kosovo and many of the remaining civilians were victims of abuse.[130][131][132][133][129]"

131.161.152.211 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

What exactly should be edited? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2018

Please edit the end of the first paragraph - as translated from the same article in serbian language

Instead of 

     ...is a partially recognised state[13][14] and disputed territory[15][16] in Southeastern Europe that declared independence from Serbia in February 2008.

Here is a translation 

    The state is one-sidedly proclaimed as independed, which is contrary to the constitution of Serbia.

Also, there are some information missing (as translated from the same article in serbian) 

    According to the reports of international organizations, the rule of law on Kosovo is not in a good state, and the cases of human trafficking, drugs smuggling (up to 40% of Europe's heroine supplies) and human organs trafficking (during the war of imprisoned Serbs and after war of those who sold them) are present. 178.222.132.214 (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 Not done This edit request does not conform to WP:NPOV, goes against consensus, and is, furthermore, ungrammatical. Île flottante (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add this tag to the main page

Thanks. 205.189.94.17 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Why? I see only one bare URL, which can easily be fixed. Template is not needed. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
And have you fixed it yet?
Of course not.
205.189.94.17 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe make an account and make the edit yourself? Looking at your contributions, you’re obviously fairly active. Île flottante (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

If you had added the tag a week ago, when you were instructed to do so,
the issue would have been resolved a week ago,
by the other members of my team, as we have now been doing for a decade.
205.189.94.17 (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Post War Period

I have added a small blurb regarding the events of 2004 and other violent events targeted at the Serb community. This formed part of the history of the 2000-2008 period in Kosovo. However, my content has been removed as it was deemed POV. I have reinstated it with minor adjustments to make it appear more neutral. Any further removal will be considered biased as it is not a POV edit, rather factual documentation. If you feel it is POV, please feel free to edit it and do not remove it under the vague "POV" banner. Removing any mention of significant events like this is extremely biased and will be reported. (TryDeletingMe (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

@Ktrimi991: thank you for your revision. (TryDeletingMe (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC))
@TryDeletingMe: I modified the content and improved it in line with WP:NPOV. All issues of Albanians and Serbian people should be reflected on the article but it should be done in a careful way, by evaluating the sources and summarizing everything properly. In the past I wrote some content on the matter on other relevant articles, there info is more detailed as on this article. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

What is meant here?

" Kosovo is a member of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Regional Cooperation Council and has applied for membership in the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation as an observer and Interpol." The phrasing here makes Interpol seem like a subsidiary of the OIC. Is this supposed to say that 1) Kosovo has applied to both the OIC and Interpol for observer status or 2) that Kosovo has applied to Interpol for membership and to the OIC for observer status or 3) that Kosovo is a member of Interpol and has applied to the OIC for observer status? --Khajidha (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the text as it is leads to that misunderstanding. My understanding is that Kosovo has applied to join the OIC and Interpol, and that the application to join the OIC is with an objective of obtaining observer status. Île flottante (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
By the rules of English grammar "as an observer and Interpol" as a whole is a phrase that modifies the application to the OIC. --Khajidha (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

HISTORY

Hello, i think the history section may be too long for the length of the section, what do you think?--Lorik17 (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems fine. If anything, it is the subsections dealing with recent events that can be moved to other sections. FkpCascais (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Lorik: Can you elaborate why you removed the images of the Patriarchate of Pec and Viskoi Decani? These are UNESCO World Heritage sites, and the only ones in the country at that. I have restored them. Please do not remove again without a good reason. Khirurg (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

One of the statements

...Although with the Brussels Agreement of 2013, it has accepted the legitimacy of its institutions.

1) Is it entirely true? 2) Is this in accordance with Wikipedia postulate of neutral POV?

This part should be edited i.e. differently formulated.

Mm.srb (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

formation of a Kosovo state army

https://www.foxnews.com/world/tensions-soar-in-the-balkans-over-plans-for-kosovo-army — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.6.33 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Serbian reaction --> https://www.foxnews.com/world/serbian-pm-armed-intervention-in-kosovo-an-option 50.111.6.33 (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
more --> https://www.foxnews.com/world/serbia-warns-kosovo-army-will-substantially-worsen-tensions 50.111.61.54 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

No citation for statements on demographics

Given how sensitive discussion on Kosovo's demographics is, this sentences speaks with complete certainty re. the longevity of the Albanian majority yet has no citation to back it up:

"Albanians, steadily increasing in number, have constituted a majority in Kosovo since the 19th century, the earlier ethnic composition being disputed. "

It either needs a citation or needs to be moderated or removed.

--Abdul tom (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I will now remove this uncited assertion.

--Abdul tom (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Disputed territory, really?

Kosovo is not a disputed territory. Just because Serbia claims that Kosovo is not a country, this does not make it a disputed territory. I could now say USA belongs to me, would this make the US a disputed territory? Is South Korea a disputed territory? The North Korean government claims it. In other words, the disputed territory part should be removed from this article, Kosovo is a fully established country, and to be honest Serbia doesn't really claim Kosovo anymore, they're only claiming the north nowadays. Thus, the disputed territory part should be removed. The partially recognised part should remain, though, as it is a fact.

My suggestion is that the first sentence becomes: Kosovo (/ˈkɒsəvoʊ, ˈkoʊ-/; Albanian: Kosova pronounced [kɔˈsɔva] or Kosovë pronounced [kɔˈsɔvə]; Serbian Cyrillic: Косово pronounced [kôsoʋo]), officially the Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово/Republika Kosovo), is a partially recognised state and landlocked country in Southeastern Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniacademic (talk • contribs) 14:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Just wait for a treaty and then a stable wording of the sentence can be added. Anyway a treaty is coming sometime this year or the next where recognition will happen as both sides want EU membership.Resnjari (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Uniacademic: Agreed. Way more countries (a majority [albeit simple] of UN member states) recognize Kosovo than they do Taiwan, but Taiwan its not called a disputed territory in its article's lead section (or even in the main body text). Even partially-recognized (at least in the lead sentence) might be a bit problematic as what is the threshold for determining whether a state is partially-recognized? If one country out of all the nations of the world doesn't recognize a state, does that make it partially-recognized? Take Armenia, for example. Pakistan doesn't recognize Armenia, so does that make Armenia a partially-recognized state? Best, – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is still disputed. Taiwan is not a disputed territory because both PRC and ROC claim all of China is one country, it is a dispute over which government is the right one. Legacypac (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

See old threads. This topic has been discussed and reviewed more finely than any other on the site. Taiwan is non-comparable. There exists a One-China policy which means a country either recognises PRC (Beijing) or ROC (Taiwan). Taiwan/ROC still claims PRC and by the same premise does not recognise Mongolia because Taiwan - constitutionally - claims territorial integrity of Mongolia as it had been the PRC to allow its secession. Kosovo's comparable entities are regions such as South Ossetia, Somaliland, Transnistria, and to a certain extent, the Islamic State. In other words, a body from within each example given unilaterally declared statehood without recognition from its host country/countries. Taiwan on the other hand is merely the latest development of ROC existence since its inception in (I think) 1911. There is continuity in regime even if controlled land has altered. As regards Pakistan, no comment as I don't know the facts. However, the non-recognition is more than likely a refusal to establish diplomatic relations rather than the viewpoint that some other country legally rules over Armenia. The legal successor to the USSR is Russia, and Russia recognises (and has strong ties) with Armenia. So Armenia's statehood is not disputed. With that, "disputed territory" in January 2019 best describes Kosovo. But then we cannot be too "republic"-centric either. For example, Russia and some other countries recognise Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia, but the United States and others reject Serbia's position, so everybody disputes Kosovo's legal status - one way or the other. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

KOS recognitions

Hi, Vanja. As you know, a number of countries have withdrawn their recognition of Kosovo's independence over the past year, and this is accurately reflected in the International recognition of Kosovo article, but the recognition template used in the lead over at Kosovo still mentions 113 recognitions. How do we fix this? 23 editor (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@23 editor: The lead section of the "International recognition of Kosovo" article says 116 diplomatic recognitions. The lead section of the "Kosovo" article says 113 because UN non-members are not counted. So, both articles count withdrawn recognition. What makes you believe that one is "accurate" and the other is not? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't the the number of current recognitions take precedence over the number of recognitions that Pristina has ever received? 23 editor (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean by "a number of countries have withdrawn their recognition"? Withdrawal of recognition is impossible, imagine what would happen if countries started to withdraw recognition of each other, it would be chaos. It is by no accident that Article 6 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States states: "The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.". Uniacademic (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
China, Morocco, Georgia and Israel would disagree with you. Multiple countries have recognized Taiwan, the West Sahara, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Palestine, only to later withdraw recognition. 23 editor (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019

Kosovo has had another recognition revoked which brings the total amount of countries that recognise Kosovo to 98,there are numerous news organisations that have confirmed this

Please change item under FOREIGN RELATIONS AND MILITARY total Number of UN recognitions from 108 to 98 ( due to strong Serbian lobbying ) Miksyd (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 17:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I am happy to consider the requested edit provided the proposer (Miksyd) is sure this is what he wants. As the article stands, all I can see is that Kosovo has received 113 recognitions. I don't immediately notice the 108 figure. Either way it is true that Kosovo has "at some stage" been recognised by each entity and so 113 (or 108 for UN) does reflect a peculiar actuality. Seeing the number having become depleted especially in 2018, it may never have been this many at any one time, but it is true that this number "have" recognised it in total. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Serbian Wikipedia

STOP, PLEASE
Please, see WP:NOTFORUM. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Serbian Wikipedia article on Kosovo, which is labeled there are the region of Kosovo and Metohija due to Serbia's refusal to acknowledge the independence of the republic of Kosovo, mentions a post-WW2 mass migration of Albanians from Albania into the region, organized by Tito. No citation is given nor is there any scientific source available on the internet, the only thing I found is chauvinistic articles which likewise provide no sources.

The problem with that is that an entire generation of Serbs, who use Wikipedia in their native tongue, are being taught that the region was "liberated" by Serbia in 1912, then "stolen" from them just before the birth of their generation in the late 40s / early 50s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenDem (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Each to their own. Every language Wikipedia sets its own standards including reliable sources and regulations. The question is which party should dominate the project. In Serbia it is not difficult for those who view things from their own perspective to put their point across because there is little to no opposition from that language group. However, Croatian Wikipedia and Albanian Wikipedia go hand in hand in reporting things from the opposite angle. I don't know what the scarequotes on liberate are supposed to mean because Serbia did indeed liberate Kosovo in 1912 as before this, the region was held by the Ottomans. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I do agree on the sentiment about other Wikipedia projects. However a correction on other matters. For the Muslims of the Balkans and globally, Serbia did not "liberate" Kosovo in 1912. Ottoman lands was occupied by Orthodox Christian belligerent powers who undertook their own version of local imperialism, via ethnic cleansing and demographic manipulation. Of the Muslim peoples who survived the all those events they tried to achieve their human rights through various forms of self determination ever since. RS scholarship states the following: Blumi, 2011, p. 32 [6] "As state policy, post- Ottoman “nations” continue to sever most of their cultural, socioeconomic, and institutional links to the Ottoman period. At times, this requires denying a multicultural history, inevitably leading to orgies of cultural destruction (Kiel 1990; Riedlmayer 2002). As a result of this strategic removal of the Ottoman past—the expulsion of the “Turks” (i.e., Muslims); the destruction of buildings; the changing of names of towns, families, and monuments; and the “purification” of languages—many in the region have accepted the conclusion that the Ottoman cultural, political, and economic infrastructure was indeed an “occupying,” and thus foreign, entity (Jazexhi 2009). Such logic has powerful intuitive consequences on the way we write about the region’s history: If Ottoman Muslims were “Turks” and thus “foreigners” by default, it becomes necessary to differentiate the indigenous from the alien, a deadly calculation made in the twentieth century with terrifying consequences for millions."Resnjari (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah well in a sectarian society you can never please everyone, but the Balkan League victory over the Ottomans and the subsequent repelling of their territory to East Thrace is referred to widely as a liberation in that the entire population was free from Ottoman rule after so many centuries. Of course, one thing led to another and other wars broke out including the Second Balkan War. The important thing is not to get bogged down with selective societies and nations. An Albanian entity emerged at the same time and subsequently the Albanian population across the whole region favoured this state instead. In Serbia's case, their kingdom had hoped that Albanians would welcome them so it is not that they had intended to frustrate them. Naturally when Albanians had attempted to expedite a country in direct competition with the three other states hoping to claim the same lands, it resulted in atrocities being committed by the three sides. However, "occupation" if referring to lands where Muslims were present is a misnomer. Officially, all liberated lands were occupied until the treaties allocated precisely who would take what, followed by Ottoman eventual recognition. So within the calendar year of 1912, the Balkan League had occupied every land up to East Thrace while the territories seized by Albanian separatists (i.e. mainly Vlora) cannot be said to be occupied - since no Albanian country existed immediately prior - but can be said to be rebel-held. When in 1913 the London treaty ratified an Albanian entity, Kosovo was split between Montenegro and Serbia and therefore no longer was it occupied but neither was Albania a rebel-held state. Anyhow, I can't see that anyone was pushing to rename Serbian and Montenegrin acquirement of Kosovo (part of which is today in Macedonia) as having been liberated but don't be surprised if some non-Serbian publishers refer to it as such because it is not the remit of a writer to establish who lived at which address and who welcomed the new rulers for every country at every time in history. The simplicity of it is that one day the Ottomans were there, and months later, they weren't. I'm not saying the Ottomans were all Turkish, we know that isn't the case; but they who were Ottoman were pushed back in 1912-13 hence the reason it may be called a liberation. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
"Liberation" is a subjective term, not even some of the Orthodox population had those sentiments. Take Macedonia for example Orthodox VMRO rebels immediately made common cause with Albanian kachak rebels and fought the Serbian army during the large Ohrid–Debar uprising. This episode of Balkan history is little highlighted among Macedonians and Albanians today, but both died side by side no fighting each other but helping each other. It the only case where Albanians have done this with any neighbouring Balkan people through choice and not force or coercion. The Balkan Wars were not liberation for everyone. Sure some national or more precise nationalistic historical narratives like those in some Balkan countries until today present it that way, but its devoid of reality. The Balkan League launched a war to take territory recognised internationally as belonging to the Ottoman state. The war and subsequent treaties confirmed the acquisitions of the Balkan countries. Serbia's aim including Greece's was not to have Albania exist. It exists because two Great Powers intervened on some Albanian's behalf that had declared independence on a patch of soil that had not been taken by neither country. Anyway one does not need to use the term liberation. All they can say is that land changed hands and went from one sovereignty to another after a war. Its not hard.Resnjari (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your first and last sentences, and much of the rest of it. I was only pointing out that writers often use the term "liberate" in a comprehensive sense rather than a house-by-house survey. Where the term has been challenged by any source, it is usually a stealth petition for argumentum ad misericordiam whereby the writer proselytises for modern-day Kosovo independence. And as with all else, Greek, Serbian & Montenegrin proponents have their responses. As for some supposed bond between Macedonians and Albanians, I am sure that the writers you are quoting have either got their wires crossed or they are re-writing history. Slavs of Southern Serbia per today's borders, the Vardar region, northern Greece and western Bulgaria were at that time very fluid in how they saw themselves and the vast majority either declared Serb or Bulgarian. Macedonian identity was incipient at that time, and mainly tied to Bulgaria. As the kingdoms of Serbia and Bulgaria did indeed split - leading to the Second Balkan War - I am more inclined to believe that any Slavic force fighting alongside Albanians would have been Bulgarian-affiliated. After all, horizontally Bulgarian and Albanian irredentism probably don't have a great deal of overlap, and as was the case with Greece and Serbia, anything one originally wanted can likely be resolved peacefully between true allies. This is why Serbia and Greece did not need outsiders to adjudicate for them that Bitola would be in Serbia and Florina would be in Greece. But I abjure any notion that early 20th century activities happened for an independent Macedonian cause as their own regime likes to tout. The Kruševo Republic, for example, is equally claimed by Bulgarians as having been a short-lived Bulgarian liberation. Likewise Bulgarians celebrate Ilinden (2 August). But in truth, probably a good half of the town was Romanian (Vlas) and the city state if anything represented freedom for its locals rather than any micro Bulgarian, Macedonian or Serbian enclave. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes VMRO was during that time allied to a Bulgarian cause. On the subject of "liberation" as written above, I personally cannot comment on Albanian/Serb matters in Kosovo because as a Bulgarian it is not my place to do so. However, if anybody wishes to use this term in cases where a country is seeking to expand territory at the expense of another whilst the lands in question have a mixed population, it is best to use the term "national liberation" and that way the subjectivity of the event is highlighted. It's true that one man's liberation is not always that of his neighbour's. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
It was just a conversation. Nobody had proposed using liberation anywhere on the article. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason "liberated" was put in scarequote is because, generally, the term liberation has positive connotations, whereas if we were to use the term "conquered" the connotations would be negative, the term conquered, by the way, being more accurate as it was a violent militaristic campaign against a people unable to defend themselves. We might argue semantics all day, but I see little to gain from apologetics. ArdenDem (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"Conquered" is 100% inaccurate. Whereas liberation can be said to be seen from both sides, "conquest" is frankly speaking a joke, and one that is normally confined to western apologists (people for whom Kosovan independence is a concomitant feature). A military conquers its rival army indeed, so any loss by any army in any conflict is a form of conquest. However to apply the term exclusively to Albanian-populated territory for no other reason than those Albanians not welcoming Greek, Montenegrin and Serbian statehood as a replacement is preposterous. In real terms, it simply implied that the three kingdoms had miscalculated the Albanians' aspirations and therefore a greater effort was required to control those lands. Working from the inside outward, the areas that Albanians subdued had clear Albanian super-majorities. Kosovo however may have had an Albanian majority but it was by no means a super-majority. No reliable statistics exist but it is believed Albanians stood at just over 50%. But then again, Kosovo was more than it is now: it stretched from Sandžak on the Bosnia-Herzegovina border to parts of east Macedonia. For that matter, Albanians were mostly a heavy concentration in the middle of the Kosovo vilayet rather than an outright majority in all regions. The remaining population was made up predominantly by nationals to compose the Balkan League (mostly Bulgarians and Serbs, but others too), and Kosovo's inclusion into Serbia (meaning Bulgarians joining a Serb state) was not the bone of contention for Bulgarians against Serbia and Greece. These Balkan League affiliates lived at the time in every town and region of the Kosovo region despite constituting a lower percentage in Albanian-populated areas. So the form of conquest being claimed is both Albanian-centric (ignoring wider issues) and conceptionally handcrafted to suit the petitioner. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Conquest is the correct term. Academics being "western" has nothing to do with it, otherwise one can make a similar comment about Russian apologists and Serbia. Conquest is the term used for when the Ottomans first took the region and entrenched their sovereignty which was recognised internationally for some centuries thereafter until it was lost through wars and recognised as such through international treaties etc. Also Albanians in large part were in the Ottoman military as its generals, commanders and soldiers that fought against incoming Greek, Montenegrin, Serbian and Bulgarian armies. So saying that these armies did not conquer their "rival" is highly inaccurate. As i said earlier "liberation" for these events is the perspective often used in nationalist Balkan historiographies (yes, even the Albanian one too due to the communists which recycles Turkophobia and Islamophobia ad nauseum) and for mainly Orthodox people. For many Balkan Muslims, its not even seen as a conquest per se but the events of 1912-1913 were an "invasion" and the time from then until now is a prolonged century old "occupation" by Orthodox countries of Muslim populations and lands. But we don't write Wikipedia from POVish emotive or fringy type views (even if a large amount of people subscribe to it) for use as content that comes from such types. Otherwise words like "liberation" would be all over the place and so would "invasion" and "occupation" etc in inappropriate circumstances depending on an editor's perspective and edit wars would flare up everywhere. We use RS sources and academics so that minefield is not opened up.Resnjari (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The rationale above does not throw new light. Yes the Ottoman Empire was multi-ethnic and I believe that one of the Pashas behind the Armenian genocide was himself an ethnic Albanian. However, Albanian desire for statehood (which directly concerns Kosovo Albanians today) is something which would have conflicted with the Ottoman Empire, thereby the other Albanians who were pro-Ottoman. BTW you have built a little straw man. Nowhere does my previous comment state that - to you use your term - the "academics" had been western. The writers to proselytise for the western position, thereby Kosovan independence (one of its many increments), may be from anywhere in the world but it is only they who apply the term "conquest" for the reasons I specified. So yes it has all to do with the issue. To them, the importance of the Albanians of 1912 Kosovo has been inflated over and above the non-Albanians and subsequently, the additional strain in bringing these people into the Serbian kingdom is what is touted by them as a conquest. But can we really ignore the Kumanovo uprising a few years earlier? Kumanovo was as much in the Kosovo Vilayet as was Prizren, and in Kumanovo it had been grass roots locals rising up against Ottomans and welcoming a Serbian authority from the north. Also the comprehensive term Balkan Muslims has overshot the runway where western apologists are concerned. Ethnic Albanians, most of whom are Muslim, yes. But other Muslims? Not so. During this period, Slavic Muslims were using a variety of demonyms and this included "Serb" and "Croat", and it is well known that Serbia's army and population contained a large number of Muslims. The other factor at the time was the rise of Pan-Slavism and the possibility of a larger Slavic state, and to this ideology Slavic Muslims did feel integrated regardless of how they identified. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
No, academics was my word. Its academics in the West who have mostly put the case as "writers" (your word) for Kosovo, separate to the few politicians who were involved in the intervention of 1999 or journalists for that matter. As you brought up the Armenian Genocide, true one of the Pashas was half Albanian, half Turkish, the other Talat was a Pomak (Muslim Slav). You speak of the Kumanovo Uprising. At that same time Albanians further north who inhabited most of the Toplica valley compactly and a sizable chunk of the Morava valley resisted in their failed attempts to prevent Serbia gaining those lands in 1878 during the Eastern Crisis. What was the result of that war? Serbia expelling (modern terminology ethnically cleaning) most Albanians from there except for a few villages that remain today in Medveda municipality. Gone were the large presence of Albanians in Kurshumlija, Prokuplje, Leskovac, Vranje and of course the ancient metropolis Nish. Not all wanted "liberation". The League of Prizren was founded because of that event to prevent further encroachment. Anyway regarding Albanian statehood, during the Albanian national awakening, most of those involved did not want to become an independent state. It was unfeasible as they feared that it either would be a rump state (if it ever got created) and that all Albanian inhabited lands would be partitioned by Greece, Serbia, Montenegro and possibly Bulgaria. What happened in 1912-1913 more then proved their concerns as true. But back with the Ottomans, Albanians wanted majority populated Albanian lands united into one unitary autonomous Ottoman province that would be in union with the Ottoman state. They were not separatists and wanted to work within the system to reform it (something that the EU today pontificates to everyone in the region. Albanians were doing that back in the day before it became popular decades later, while others of the time in the region were into the separatism thing with Russian support). Many of those like the Frasheris who wanted socio-linguistic rights for Albanians also wanted that extended for other ethnicities as well in the empire. Albanians of Kosovo in the modern era managed to get the West involved because their situation was dire and in part because the West had guilt over Bosnia, the West as then and now was concerned with Russian influence in the region and Milosevic did not read the international situation well. And the rest is history and Kosovo is a country. What happened in the past cannot be undone, all one can do is hope to learn from it and not repeat its disasters. On Bosniaks they have been a separate ethnic group for some centuries now. Even the Ottomans referred to them as Boşnak. Its others in the region to have constantly targeted them trying to make them and remake them into one of "their own" and have refused to recognise their unique existence.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The west felt "guilt" over Bosnia and got involved because the situation was "dire". Sounds like you all too credulously swallow the narrative of the west's obeisant echo chamber in the mainstream media. In the first place, your precious "west" can take the blame for escalating the situation in Bosnia. Nobody to this day knows why Fikret Abdić received more parliamentary votes before the conflict arose but why Alija Izetbegović actually took the seat. The former was all for peace with Croatia and Serbia/remaining Yugoslavia. The west knew EXACTLY what it was doing when encouraging Izetbegović to pull the plug on the peace deal HE originally signed with Boban for the Croats and Karadžić for the Serbs. I don't deny that the Bosnian Serb forces committed unspeakable atrocities but in the end of the day, more fool them, they were swallowing the bait. Now 1992 time was one thing, but in 2019 for someone to still believe the narrative being peddled by the western mouthpieces from that time is pure gullible. We should believe that the dismantlement of the Eastern Bloc in Europe (often labelled as a "collapse") followed by a sudden shift from all directions towards the EU and NATO is a wild coincidence? We now KNOW that the CIA was heavily involved in bringing down those apparatuses. Bill Clinton even went public in 2014 that US forces were training Bosniak forces during the Bosnian War - a profound departure from the unapparent "peacemaker" Washington projected itself as being during that time. And you think that the US involvement in Kosovo was out of sympathy for human suffering? After the West even helped fund and arm the KLA? Perhaps you can enlighten me why the US stood silently by and allowed the Israeli-backed Guatemalan genocide to happen. The US felt guilt over Bosnia, yet to this very day the State Department recoils when pushed over its inactivity over the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66. But then supporters of communism aren't real people are they. And what about the tens of thousands of civilians that pre-existing NATO member France committed in the Algerian War in the 1950s and 1960s? And who cared about the Sabra and Shatila massacre? Who cares about the constant Israeli killings of Palestinians to this day? And you believe that NATO shed a tear over Kosovo's Albanians? Moreover, even those who were persecuted at the hands of the KLA or the FARK simply for remaining loyal to Belgrade? It is one big joke. The friendship between Milošević and Moscow was not a part-reason, it was the FULL reason. That friendship was a relic of the older order of things. Of course, your "compassionate" west were hoping for similar successes in Georgia and Ukraine, but both times realised they were sailing somewhat close to the wind. Milošević in the end of the day paid the price for Tito's split with Stalin in 1947. He inherited an unprotected state, which was basically a sitting duck with no protection. And we know the limits of the might of NATO - people like Assad, Saddam, Gadaffi, Milošević, and others too weak to stand up to the bully. I don't see Abkhazia returning to Georgia. I don't hear the threats for Russia to hand back Crimea. And Communist China single-handedly overturned an international conglomeration AT WAR going by the name "United Nations" in the Korean War. I have no comment to make on the "liberation of Kosovo" status in Ottoman times as this is not my area of knowledge, but when someone tries to convince me that there was some compassion from the west over 1998-99 Kosovo, I use the English expression, "pull the other one (it's got bells on)"! :))))) -Vrhunski (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Šar Mountains

As long as that's name of that article, that's what we should use in here and throughout wikipedia. Khirurg (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on June 19th 2019

In the area section please change 171nd to 171st. --QuiksilverStorm (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2019

216.8.128.32 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Serb "golden age" starts with Stefan Nemanja and the unification of Rascia and Zeta and the establishment of a Serbian National Church in 1219, independent from Byzantium. All of present-day Kosovo and more became part of Serbia.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

POV-pushing(?) regarding the status of Kosovo in certain articles

Information icon There is currently a discussion at WP:AN/I regarding [7]. The thread is Possible shared account/paid editing?.

194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Crimes in the lede

@Stevanpesic:, do not add that content to the lede again. Such details regarding a single aspect of the conflict do not belong there. See WP:Lede. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Albanian Alps ?

I havent noticed this termin yet, nor there are Alps in Kosovo. Too strong albanization by User talk:ArbDardh --PetarM (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@PetarM: the term Albanian alps is used for the Prokletije range that is in Albania. Kosovo Albanians also use it for their share of the mountain range. The local Albanian name of the mountain range is Bjeshkët e Namuna, however due to the negative connotations of the name (both Prokletije/Bjeshkët e Namuna mean "the accursed mountains") there has been a move toward using the name Alpet shqiptare (Albanian Alps) etc among Albanians alongside the traditional Albanian language name.Resnjari (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but anyway, we should keep consistency with the title of the corresponding article, so not to confuse readers. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Should the article call Kosovo a state? RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as no consensus. While Kosovo does qualify according to the Montevideo Convention, is more established than many other partially recognized states, and no other government has power over its land, Amanuensis Balkanicus says that most of the support rationales assume that the opening sentence in the Taiwan article is "the correct (and binding) state of affairs". Calthinus also says that this would raise questions over many other states that could be considered "partially recognized", such as Israel, Palestine, North and South Korea, China, Taiwan, etc. Pretty much, this RfC could become far bigger in scope than it is at the moment, potentially affecting articles related to other contentious topic areas, such as the Arab–Israeli conflict. With that being said, even if there were consensus, this discussion would need to be quite a bit larger for the consensus to be meaningful, due to the potential effect it could have on other contentious topic areas. (non-admin closure) InvalidOS (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Should this article call Kosovo a state, piped as state, in the first line without qualifications, just as Taiwan does? Red Slash 18:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Support

  • Support - Kosovo is a country by any reasonable definition. It has people living in a defined geographic area that are represented by a single government. There are no other governments that exercise power over the domain of Kosovo. It is recognized by over a hundred different countries. There is literally no criterion under which Taiwan could be considered a state that would not also call Kosovo a state. Red Slash 18:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Kosovo meets the four requirements for statehood set out in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, which is often referred to when discussing such disputed territories. In response to any potential opposition to this via Article 11, which states that military force cannot be used to gain said sovereignty, I would point out that conflict (i.e. the Kosovo War here) did not then mean necessarily independence. Instead, it meant NATO control, as is known; the path to statehood may compass part of it, but was much more than that by the 2008 declaration. ArbDardh (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)ArbDardh
  • Support - per arguments given by RedSlash. Sadsadas (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support From all states with limited recognition that are not UN members, Kosovo has the most established status. Taiwan is recognized by a small number of countries, and is in dispute with China. Palestine has very limited control over the territory it claims to have. The others are virtually not recognized. Kosovo controls the whole of territory it claims, and has been recognized by more than half of UN members. Of course, the dispute with Serbia, the latter's claims and the number of UN members that have recognized Kosovo should be mentioned in the lede, and they are already there. However, I think that the most preferred action for me would be to remove from the first sentence "with a disputed territory" rather than "partially recognized state". The first sentence is rather bloated, as both terms practically repeat each other. One of them should be removed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose The article already calls Kosovo "a partially recognized state" in the first sentence, and the exact wording has been used for as long as I remember, possibly some 10 years. I fail to see what changed in the meantime to justify the rewording. Per Calthinus's analysis below, every polity in a similar situation is a case in itself, but I find the current wording perfectly adequate, since it's been recognized by roughly half of the world's country. As per the discussion in /Archive 32#A "disputed territory" should be removed. I am amenable to removing the and a disputed territory wording as redundant and somewhat off-target, but some kind of qualification of "state" is helpful for the readers. No such user (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposal to reword the opening sentence for this article assumes that the wording present in Taiwan's opening sentence is the correct (and binding) state of affairs, which is flippant to say the least, given that the dispute over that article's wording has even been the subject of a recent BBC report . We have an obligation to remain neutral. If a self-proclaimed state is indeed partially recognized we should describe it as such, whether it be Palestine, Abkhazia, Taiwan or, for that matter, Kosovo. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current description is precise and per facts. There are no new reasons or arguments presented. Sadko (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Survey of relevant comparisons: mostly unrecognized entities -- i.e. Abkhazia, North Cyprus, Artsakh, Transnistria, Rhodesia, Azawad are described as states with qualifications, while more recognized ones include Taiwan as a "state", North Korea as a "country" with qualifications and later a "'self-reliant' socialist state" with further qualifications about its sham elections etc, interestingly South Korea as just a "country" (but wouldn't Korea be the country?), as is Israel (unrecognized by much of the Muslim world + some others) and Cyprus, Palestine (not universally recognized either and has more than one government administering its territory so state-ness is dubious) as a "de jure sovereign state" (in wikivoice).
    It does seem that aside from (a) the cases of little recognition, and (b) universally reviled N Korea, Wikipedia uses unqualified "state" or, in my opinion stronger, "country". What I'm not sure about is whether these descriptions in the lede of other places are actually ideal. Cyprus' lede also states in wikivoice that it has de jure sovereignty over the entire isle (certainly the majority viewpoint, but I'm not sure this is a fact of nature like it is being presented). Imo, this and the case of Palestine's de jure may be stretching NPOV (UN viewpoint == WP:TRUTH? Not always. Indeed the UN views Palestine as a state but in reality it is in fact two separate states administering the Gaza Strip and the West Bank).
    If we are to follow conventions elsewhere, that is indeed an argument for calling Kosovo a "state" as it is essentially the odd man out of state entities with recognition beyond one government and like two close allies of that gov't (i.e. South Ossetia etc). Kosovo's recognition is wider than Taiwan's, and its identity as a state is not nearly as assailable as Palestine's. What I'm not sure about is whether these other ledes are not things themselves that should be fixed in an ideal world (how, I don't pretend to have any idea). Taiwan too, is uncontroversially the isle of Formosa; more controversially, the article equates Taiwan to the Republic of China, but a huge chunk of the world, over a billion Chinese people, would likely not say they accept that equation.--Calthinus (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutral - Sooner or later both sides are going to have to come to the table and agree to something, otherwise no EU membership. Until that time, best left as it is for now.Resnjari (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to normalize

We use the term country in 99% of our related articles for the opening sentence. ...with "state" sometimes linked in the government overview section of the lead. Using the term country allows us in some cases to link Nordic country landlocked country, island country etc. Without having the first link be to an article that "states" nothing about the majority of countries...e.g Japan (FA), Bulgaria (FA), Germany (FA), Nauru (FA). Country is the preferred term so there's no confusion for Americans which still make up the majority of our readers and is a normalized term in English that all understand. It's why we have Category:Countries, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, Portal:Countries etc... If the point is to make it like others pages..... I propose the following... with "State" linked in the second sentence.--Moxy 🍁 02:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo (@$$÷# $#£) ...is a country in Southeastern Europe. The state is a disputed territory in the center of the Balkans bordered by the...

Moxy though not speaking from a Serbian point of view my self, I actually think this is more problematic than "state" as "country" often is used to mean "nation" in English, whereas a "state" just refers to the political apparatus ruling it.--Calthinus (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
State in English usage is less authoritative then country when it comes to the average person State of Palestine. It's a title used to lessen the appearance of Independence.--104.249.231.45 (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

.--104.249.231.45 (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"Country" to me is stronger than "state", and as such it would be preferred from my perspective. France, for instance, is referred to as a country in its first sentence. Red Slash 23:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: I understand your rationale, but given the complexity of the Kosovo-Serbia dispute, I think that "state" is more neutral and closer to reality, for now at least. Would you support the change proposed by Red Slash from "partially recognized state" to "state" only? Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Country

Is this place a country or a state in some other country?--2605:8D80:560:98F1:DC22:CCE3:37B7:C5AF (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


Yes. 88.84.2.117 (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2020

I know a lot of History of Kosovo and i think i could do smoe good work for this section, please , give me premision to edit this. KosovoJeSrbija1389 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I am skeptical about the permission. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Brexit update

The phrase: 

Within the European Union member states, it is recognised by 23 of 28 members

needs to be update to 

Within the European Union member states, it is recognised by 22 of 27 members

as UK, which recognises Kosovo, is not a member of the EU anymore. I just made this edit to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjarkikarlsson (talk • contribs) 15:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Crime in Kosovo

I came to this article to find out if the reporting on the Internet of Crime in Kosovo was a conspiracy theory or a real thing. This page paints a fairly rosy picture of the country. The other articles complain about crime and corruption. I think there is still a bit of the cold war Russia/US going on in reporting about Kosovo. I've never been there, I don't know. I remember feeling opposed to the bombing back in 1998 just because I don't think dropping bombs is a solution to anything. I don't really know much about the region though. It would be better if some people with experience could address this in the main article but I fear everyone is too biased to their own side? For example the article lists religious tolerance as very high but also the continuing existence of minority refugee camps? Hopefully less biased voices with knowledge do exist and can improve this? I wish peace and prosperity to all sides. Rusl (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Locator map

I intend to revert this recent change [8] to the locator maps in the infobox. Kosovo is far too small to be shown meaningfully on a world locator map. It's barely a single pixel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. ArbDardh (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Sport medals

I see the content as suitable for the article. Anyone seeking to remove it should discuss and seek consensus here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree, the table gives valuable information to the section and enriches the article. It should definitely stay. N.Hoxha (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Do other country main articles include this information? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I checked Croatia and France. They contain similar content. In any case, are other articles that important as far as this article is concerned? IMO, every article has its own structure, and its own context, so a practice used somewhere might be or not be used somewhere else. If you have a different idea about how the section can be kept informative, of course I am very open to discussing it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Neither of those articles has a table listing each Olympics and European Games the country has participated in. Of course articles can be context-specific, but I've not seen an argument made about why Kosovo is different here. I favour a brief text summary and leaving the tables to Sport in Kosovo. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Should be removed as redundant to the existing text while causing format problems. Should follow FA/GAarticles like Canada, Australia Japan etc. And let's be honest not like there is so many that we need a list.... in fact in this format it's a little embarrassing.--Moxy 🍁 00:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I am for removal and that we copy the current format to some other related article/s. Prose version would do much better for this page. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Cordless Larry and Moxy, if one of you is willing to write a short summary on the three events ("Kosovo participated at X and won Y"), I am not against having the table replaced. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I would still maintain the content, since it gives an aesthetically pleasing representation of the medals. And since Kosovo hasn't won that many medals, the table is not that big so that it doesn't disturb other content. In the near future, when Kosovo wins more medals and that the list becomes more invasive then it should be replaced, but it is not necessary at the moment. N.Hoxha (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added the medals from the European Games 2019 to the text. Now everything from the table is mentioned in the text. I think the tables should be moved to the article Sport in Kosovo. --T*U (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Now that the text is improved, I am not against removing the table. If N.Hoxha has nothing against, feel free to do the removal. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The content seems reasonable now, the table can be removed to the mentioned article as T*U suggested. N.Hoxha (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Pinging T*U. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
It is just aesthetics. I am not against, but it is definitelly not usually used in the main articles. FkpCascais (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Fashion

Most of the content of the fashion section has been removed because it allegedly objectifies women. I personally disagree with this statement, I think that the woman who participate in such beauty pageants aren't trying to be objectified but instead they are probably enjoying themselves and are eventually empowering themselves by winning more self-confidence. N.Hoxha (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with its removal. It's completely unsourced and includes unattributed editorialising comments such as "one of the most successful entrants". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with its removal. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

My recent edit

My recent edit was reverted. My intention is to show in a map how Kosovo had a centralized location within Serbian empire, at the time Serbian medieval state reached its peak. Furthermore, Prizren having been the capital during first half of 14th century deserves more proeminance, and I think the map with the mention in the thumb kind of solves that. I can´t see any negative aspect of my edit.

In my view, the images I replaced with the map should be removed, and instead, in the place where the map of Serbian despotate is placed in the Ottoman rule section, the image of the Kosovo maiden should be placed, not only because it is probably the most recognisable painting of the Kosovo Battle in general, but also because it provides the notion of Serbian defeat which perfectly allignes with the text in the article. The fresco depicting Nemanjic dinasty can be added since it is located in Visoki Dečani in Kosovo, but in my view, since we have limited space for images, may not be as important as some other I proposed.

The Russian miniature from an uncknown author seems more to be either intentional, or not, way to insert the derrogative link of Serbia to Russia that some Albanian nationalists make, so to take that doubt out maybe it is better to replace the immage with some other, for instance Sabor u Prizrenu pred Kosovsku bitku (roughly translated as the gathering of Serbian forces in Prizren before the battle) which, besides being related to Kosovo Battle, it happened in Prizren, Kosovo.

The main aspect here is that we are dealing with the main Kosovo article, and, as such, it should contain the most important maps and images. The others are obviously welcomed in other related articles, but here we should have a strict selection regarding importance. Kosovo as central within the peak of Serbian medieval state, Prizren being capital, and Kosovo maiden picture should have priority. Can we agree? FkpCascais (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the painting of the Kosovo maiden should be used, but I agree that the map of the Serbian despotate should be removed. In my opinion, since Kosovo has been the center of the Kosovo Vilayet for centuries under Ottoman rule, a map of the Ottoman Vilayet of Kosovo would be more appropriate in that section.
This is a highly subjective claim, the miniature just happens to be Russian and the author to be unknown. I just can't comprehend how any connection between Albanian nationalism and this 'derogative' link of Serbia and Russia could be made. This claim is POV-pushing in my opinion. Also, it is important to note that the Russian miniature was produced in the 16th century while the paintings you proposed are idealized and were produced in the late 19th and 20th century, which means that the miniature has more credibility in the regard that it was painted closer to the time the events happened.
Indeed it should contain the most important maps of Kosovo history and since Kosovo has been part of the Ottoman Empire for about five centuries, a map depicting that has probably priority, especially in the Ottoman section. I'm not sure what you mean by 'Kosovo being central in the peak of the Serbian Empire', in the article of the Serbian Empire no such claims can be found. Even in a geographical point of view, Macedonia seems to be more central to the Serbian empire than Kosovo. We should not forget that the capital of the empire was first Skopje before it became Prizren and also that the Empire only lasted for about 25 years. Those events were surely important but are just a glimpse of Kosovo millennia-long history. I also agree that other maps should be placed in other related articles, the map you proposed would be more appropriate in the article 'History of Serbia' for example. N.Hoxha (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you N.Hoxha for your response and I hope you don´t mind that I added indent to your paragraphs as usually is done at talk-pages. Regarding the issue, my idea by including the map of Serbian empire is to show how Kosovo indeed had a centralized location within it, and it is a reason why so many monasteries are located there. Indeed, with Stefan Dushan taking the southern borders as far as almost Athens, the center slighly shifted to nowadays Northern Macedonia, just as Prizren was replaced by Skopje as capital. But this events didn´t erased the notion of Kosovo having a centralized location. Britannica for instance says "... the Kosovo region became by the later Middle Ages the centre of the Serbian empire under the Nemanjić dynasty."
I would sugest perhaps filling the space between the sections right before the start of Ottoman rule of maps showing Kosovo around 1000, Kosovo within Serbian empire, Kosovo as in the other map progressivelly falling into Ottoman rule, and a map showing Kosovo clearly in center of Ottoman empire in its European part. Regarding the Russian miniature, as I said, I am clearly not accusing anyone of any bad faith, its just that knowing the usual provocation directed towards Serbs by linking them to Russians, avoiding adding it that way may be wise, since Russians had no relation whatsoever to the part of the history we are refering to there. It is a minature of an uncknown author, just one of many depictions of the battle with no special reason of that particular one to be included in the main article.
About Kosovo maiden instead. It is a much well known painting worldwide, who´s author is known, rather then uncknown as in Russian miniature case. It doesn´t glorify Serbia, instead its a rather sad painting sugesting a hard defeat of Serbs. It is directly related to Kosovo and confirms a narrative I believe you very much want to emphasize, how the battle made Serbs, not immediatelly, but progressivelly loose Kosovo since then. From my understanding, you oppose it as you believe it presents a romanticized view, right? Well, a realistic view of the outcome of the battle would receve a +18 adults only licence and would traumatize even the strongest. We have no Guernika style painting which would had been ideal, so... Romanticized paintings are inevitable, in French history you can´t escape the most famous revolutionary woman ever despite the fact that no one really believes that that was a real scene. In Kosovo maiden case I ovbiously don´t mind pointing out it is a romaticized painting. FkpCascais (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we need another map to show Kosovo being central in the Nemanijc dynasty when a fresco portraying its members is already present.
I wouldn't put additional maps or pictures, as the article is becoming oversaturated with images. I would personally just replace the current map of the Serbian despotate with a map of the Kosovo Vilayet, for the reasons I previously mentioned. The Russian miniature has special reasons to be included in the article, as I said, it has more credibility in the regard that it was painted closer to the time the events occurred and also since the author was apparently Russian, it is deprived of any possible bias. This miniature doesn't show any gruesome details of the war, which would avoid anyone to be traumatized. If you find other depictions or miniatures that where produced closer to the events and don't portray a clear bias or gruesome actions, then I wouldn't mind replacing it.
The painting of the Kosovo Maiden is produced five centuries after the events happened. It is quite comprehensive that the author of the miniature is unknown, since at that time it wasn't common for painters to sign their works. The author of the Kosovo Maiden seems to be Serbian, which could mean he could possibly have been biased. Especially since the early 20th century was fueled with nationalistic tendencies which led to the Balkan Wars for instance. You said that the author didn't idealize Serbia in the painting, but the Kosovo battle led to the defeat of the Serbs, so it's only normal that he didn't depict Serbia as victorious. What he rather did was to only empathize and centralize the suffering of the Serbian side. Serbs' allies and Ottoman troops also died in the battle, actually the Ottomans had the most casualties, so it wouldn't be fair to ostracize their suffering by only showing Serbs'. I think the argumentation you made about Delacroix' painting validates my point. The French revolution took place in 1789 and the painting was produced about 60 years later, rather close to the actual events. In the 19th century the dominant painting styles were neoclassicism and romanticism so of course Delacroix used those styles in his painting and not a painting style from the middle ages. If you look at featured articles on Wikipedia of other battles and wars that took place in the Middle ages (the crusades for example), you will see that paintings that were produced closer to the time the events happened have priority over other images. Idealized paintings are only used when ancient works aren't available, this isn't the case for the Kosovo battle.
It's is also important to notice that the painting of the Kosovo Maiden isn't even based on the actual battle of Kosovo, but on a mythological Serbian epic poem with the same name. So I don't think this painting should be placed on the Kosovo article, the article 'Kosovo Maiden' is more suitable for it. N.Hoxha (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not in for inclusion of Kosovo Maiden, it has more to do with Serbian art/Kosovo Myth/Serbian epic poetry. Comment on the line that an artistic work (painting) could be biased are ridicilous. Another thing - Serbs did not loose the Kosovo battle, it was a pyrrhic and de jure victory. As I previously said I would remove flag image - The flag of the Albanian Minority of Kosovo in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. A far better fit for the image is Kosovo Albanians, as it does not represent all ethnic groups. I would also like to fix this image description - The Kosovan Police (Policia e Kosovës) is the main law enforcement agency in Kosovo. Only English name would do fine. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Sadko very much for joining and pointing out your concerns. I am also very pleased with the way N.Hoxha is openly and honestly indicating his reasons for the opposition of my proposals. I believe what Hoxha is refering regarding the Kosovo maiden that is a painting is focused exclusivelly on the Serbian perspective of the battle, and as such he believes it is biased. I am able to understand his concerns but I think there are ways to fix it. It is truth, it is a romanticized painting focused on the Serbian sacrifice and suffering at the battle. However, all that can and should be mentioned.
What I do find extremelly important is to add both maps, Serbian empire, and Kosovo villayet. Kosovo, with Prizren as capital, experienced a period of high activity and importance during Nemanjic period. Its the time trade and minning brought wealth to locals and Kosovo along Morava and Vardar valleys became the commercial and cultural center. I understand that from an Albanian point of view this has no interess to be highlighted, but it shouldn´t be like that. For some time now I had given special atention to one extremelly interesting aspect, which is the absense of records of any conflicts between Serbs and Albanians at this period. Albanians lived incorporated giving their own contribution for the success of Nemanjic state, asking in exchange just for their costumes to be respected. Few Albanian leaders became part of local nobility and ammong the most loyals Stefan Dushan could rely at most difficult times. Skanderbeg later mobilized Albanians to fight Ottomans and defend the existing order, adopting a flag having the Double-headed eagle which was the Serbian and Bizantine symbol. The relation between Albanians and Serbs was totally different than nowadays and this article should not avoid and diminish the importance Kosovo had during Nemanjic period. I definitelly see as much better solution to add both maps, Serbian empire and Kosovo villayet, then N.Hoxha proposal of avoiding maps. FkpCascais (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
FkpCascais, I think you missed my point. I'm not trying to diminish the importance that the empire had, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's needed to add another map of the Nemanjic dynasty when the image of the fresco is already there. I'm not sure what the fact that Albanian nobles, such as Skanderbeg, adopting Byzantine symbols has to do in regard to this discussion. But I agree that the relations between Albanians and Serbs were much more convivial in those times and I hope that it may serve as an example for the new generations. What I would suggest as a possible solution would be to replace the image of the fresco with the map of the empire and to replace the map of the despotate with a map of the vilayet, and therefore avoiding the overuse of images. N.Hoxha (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I do not see that the article would benefit much from that change. As stated before, I am for removal of images representing only one ethnic group, such as Jashari guy and flag representing only Albanians. That is per basic European values and something normal in multicultural societies, and should be taken even more seriously when editing Balkan articles which are more or less controversial. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
My intention was to emphasize how Albanian nobles were part and allied with Nemanjic Serbia. I am saying this because you, N.Hoxha, mentioned adding Kosovo villayet map sounding in a tone as if one was opposite to the other. What I mean is that they are not opposite. While it is truth that Ottomans gave quite a privilaged status to Albanians, (specially compared to Serbs and other Christians, although applied more to converted Albanians to Islam) the thing is that medieval Serbia had mostly friendly relations and provided authonomy to Albanians as well. If others don´t have any objections I support your proposal of adding both maps. FkpCascais (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate sentence

@Sadko:, nothing not said on the article was deleted by @N.Hoxha:. Do not rush when reverting other editors. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Not for 100% and several RS got deleted. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Pageants

Unsourced information gets removed. That's policy. Even sourced, it probably fails WP:UNDUE by raising the profile of objectifying of women. Guy (help!) 09:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I have the feeling that Guy did not need to create a new section, as one discussing the same issue is above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Ktrimi991, pageants is separate from fashion. Related, but separate. Guy (help!) 09:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The edit being discussed seems to be the same. In any case, it is not a problem whether the two sections are discussing the same thing or different things. Editors involved in the dispute can solve it the way they find the best. I just made an observation of my own. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Fashion section should have a totally different focus. it should mention the main fashion events and local designers. Pageants can have a mention regarding the year Kosovo started participating and best result. FkpCascais (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree pageants are culturally problematic. But that's a personal POV. If sources judge then relevant that would be that. It seems they don't however...? --Calthinus (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of picture

This picture was repeatedly removed without an adequate discussion.

The picture is of high importance to the section, as it highlights one of the founders of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which had a crucial role in the Kosovo war. Therefore I'm opposed to its removal. N.Hoxha (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

1) Two or three users have so far removed it. 2) Yet, you are restoring the image and discussing afterwards, which is not a good practice. 3) There are numerous other pictures which could represent Kosovo war. 4) Many of those would not be controversial, as Jashari is. 4.1) Jashari and fighters from his organization have done many crimes towards minorities of modern-day disputed territory of Kosovo, not only Serbs but Roma, Gorani and a number of other Albanians who were not loyal enough in their book! That is indisputable. Live by the sword, die by the sword. 5) As I have previously stated - the removal is also per basic European values and something normal in multicultural societies, and should be taken even more seriously when editing Balkan articles which are more or less controversial and not just push pictures which are source of nationalistic pride of exclusively one ethnic group. 6) Ibrahim Rugova would be, for example, a far better fit for this article. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The discussions over the pics of Jashari, Kosovo Maiden, Alb minority's flag, the Battle of Kosovo and so on put aside, as I am not interested in them, why do not you people find a pic of Kosovo Albs, Serbs and people from other minorities staying together? It would be a better change to the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the image of Kurti, as he is no longer PM and the article needed an update. @N.Hoxha: please respond, as you have introduced the picture of Jashary to the article, even after 2 editors removed it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The image was once mistakely removed by an editor who reverted two edits in less than 24h, which on itself is a violation of the article sanctions. Other than that, you are the only one who has unjustly removed the image multiple times without seeking any kind of discussion, in clear violation of the article sanctions. The image is of high importance to the section as I already stated. ‘By European values’ is not an argument, it is a term that covers multiple subjects and absorbs complex social entities, those values differ even among European countries. Also, in case you didn’t know, the headquarters of Wikipedia are located in the United States and most imprtantly on Wikipedia we follow Wikipedia’s guidelines and we don’t make up rules.
Albin Kurti is still de facto prime minister of the country until the next elections. You, once again, violated the article sanctions by removing its picture before dicussing it. And you are clearly aware of the sanctions since an admin even explained them to you on your talk page. Please self-revert yourself and refrain from portraying such disruptive behavior, as most of the other users here want to contribute to the article in a constructive environment. N.Hoxha (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
No, it was not mistakenly removed. Only you seem to think that it is of high importance and there is no consensus that it should be included. Why ignore this? It absorbs nothing, but potraits a controversial figure which killed minority members and has been, at the time, presented as a terrorist group in European and American medias as well.[1] AK is not de facto PM, but de jure. Protesting over the removal of his photo, which I have posted on the TP at the same moment, makes very little sense as no article keeps a photo of acting PM, who got his 50 days in power. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Albin Kurti, as you mentioned, is thus still de jure Prime Minister of Kosovo, so of course his picture is of value to the section. This is the problem though, you don't discuss the revert "at the same time" you revert it but before. Please self-revert. N.Hoxha (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal of replacing the demography graphic

Hi, I wanted to propose to replace the graphic of the demographics of the country with the map depicting all the ethnicities:[9]. I have compared similar articles and the graphics are mostly used in the articles 'Demography of X country', while the ethnic maps are mostly included in the article of the country itself. I would like to hear your opinions. N.Hoxha (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose 2011 census was yet another controversial Balkan census (like the one in Montenegro, Albania and to less extent the one in Bosnia and Herzegovina) and it is not WP:RS. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
You quickly copied the comment you posted on another talk page [10] and pasted it here. It is interesting that you were so quick to oppose N.Hoxha's stance in both discussions with the same words. Anyways, this discussion better stays focused on topic. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
So what? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Repetitive Language in History

Hello all. This seems to be a contentious article. Anyhow, I came in for information, and I noticed that in the section labelled "After declaration of independence", the fact that some countries withdrew their recognition of Kosovo as a state is mentioned twice in 3 paragraphs. Indeed, of the 7 statements that make up the 1st and 3rd paragraphs, two of them are this fact. As an outside observer, I would recommend deleting at least one of these statements. 24.163.62.100 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You are right, one should be removed. N.Hoxha (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

It's Autonomus Province Kosovo, not Republic Kosovo. Inferno247 (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This article is about the partially recognized country. Information on Kosovo as claimed by Serbia is at Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. — MRD2014 (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee". fas.org. Retrieved 2020-03-29.

is recognized by 115 countries

the democratic republic of the congo recognizes kosovo. that the 15 states have withdrawn their recognition is only said by serbia, and kosovo says that serbia would do anything to suppress the state. See the german version :)

Kind regards AlexBachmann. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020

Kosovo is recognised by 114 states. That 15 states have withdrawn recognition is not official, is only said by Serbia. Kosovo says that Serbia would do everything to make Kosovo lose its independence. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @AlexBachmann, if you need any help finding references, you could ask at the reference desk. Seagull123 Φ 11:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Article name

I have restored article name on wikipedia. If someone want names different, then main articles should follow that. Thank you. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What article? Please be more specific what you're talking about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
O, its nothing, i have just send message here to mark. My recent edit in article, I have restored name Prokletije as per article name. Its nothing really to talk about... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Prokletije

Should be referred to as such, per the relevant article name. Khirurg (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It should be referred to as the Bjeshket e Nemuna or the Albanian Alps because these names are predominantly used in Albania and of course in Kosovo! Lorik17 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You've been slow edit-warring over this for years. If you do it again I will report you. Khirurg (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
You're also involved in the dispute. @Iaof2017: maybe a move request on that article would be a better step forwards.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Maleschreiber: thank you for the suggestion, I would truly support a moving request--Lorik17 (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup, size, expansion

  1. I've done some cleanup to bring the article more in line with the improvement which has occurred in Kosovo-related articles about the Middle Ages. I've removed use of the Alexiad per WP:PRIMARY - also I don't think that Anna Comnena ever put forward modern concepts about nationhood. The timeline was expanded - it was very confusing in its previous state as it was unclear when Byzantine rule ended and how the Bulgarian Empire was involved in Kosovo.
  2. Many articles about Kosovo have been improved and the article needs to be reworked to reflect those changes. Articles about the Neolithic sites in Kosovo have seen much expansion but the section of the article is poor.
  3. Which brings me to my last point. The size of the article stands at 200kb+. It doesn't allow much room for any expansion and even a minor cleanup results in size increase. In line with WP:SIZERULE: at > 100kb an article almost certainly should be divided - let alone at 200kb.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. I have removed Stipcevic (1977) and Curta (2001). They don't discuss Kosovo or Dardania in any context. In terms of size reduction, I will removed many of the citations on the WP:LEAD. They are repeated in the main article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the lede and body

Maleschreiber made some pretty major additions to the lede and body, which I have partially undone per WP:BRD. The edits were problematic in that:

  1. They removed the wording "disputed territory" which had been there for many years, and can thus not be removed without consensus. There was a recent discussion on whether to change that, but it ended inconclusively [11].
  2. They removed any mention of the Slavic invasions, which had a major effect on the area. No explanation was provided, but it seems this was intended to prevent the appearance of a "break" between antiquity and the medieval period.
  3. They removed mention of the Battle of Kosovo, which is a key event in the history of the region, and the fact that Kosovo was a core of the medieval Serbian realm.
  4. They added some major unsourced assertions about the Roman Emperor Justinian, written in such a way to imply certain things about Justinian. Justinian was born in a village called Tauresium, in what is now the Republic of North Macedonia [12]. Justinian is thus outside the scope of this article.

These edits are pretty major, amounting to basically a rewrite of the history of the region, with a heavy slant. They should not be reintroduced without discussion. Khirurg (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not required to be aware of archived discussions with very few participants at a time period, in which I wasn't even an editor on wikipedia. I don't think that it's a "major change". Khirurg's edit changed the sequence from partially-recognized state and disputed territory to disputed territory and partially-recognized state. The lead sentence can't start with a presentation of Kosovo as a "disputed territory" because de facto it's not "disputed" despite diplomatic recognition issues and it's not the WP:STABLE version. Khirurg didn't just revert me, they also added a very heavy POV.
I didn't remove any mention of "Slavic invasions" because there was no mention of "Slavic invasions" in the article before Khirurg introduced it:pre-edits revision. I wrote Byzantine administration was eroded by emerging Slavic states like the First Bulgarian Empire which Khirurg changed to Byzantine administration was eroded by Slavic invasions beginning in the 6th-7th century AD. Of course, there never was a "Slavic invasion" in Kosovo (a 19th century term produced in colonialist Britain - it has been abandoned in modern bibliography). Slavic polities expanded as fully formed states after they settled in the Balkans- the idea of an "invasion" is a heavy POV which I consciously avoided in the context of an WP:NPOV approach.
I didn't make any major assertion about Justinian: he was a native of Dardania and he refounded Ulpiana as Justiniana Secunda. These basic facts are well-cited in both articles and the sentence above the one which Khirurg removed: *Teichner, Felix (2015). "Ulpiana - Iustiniana secunda (Kosovo) : das urbane Zentrum des dardanischen Bergbaubezirks". Ephemeris Napocensis. 25.: Tatsächlich spricht Prokopius im Zusammenhang mit dem Aufbauprogramm des Kaisers Justinian (527–565) für den Zentralbalkan explizit von einem Wiederaufbau der durch ein Erdbeben und die Gotenkriege zerstörten Stadt Ulpiana, nun unter dem Namen Iustiniana Secunda
Now it's time for Khirurg to explain their reverts, specifically: where does Curta (2001) in p.189 or elsewhere mention Kosovo in relation to Archaeologically, the early Middle Ages represent a hiatus in the material record and where does Stipcevic (1977) in p.76 or elsewhere mention that whatever was left of the native provincial population fused into the Slavs I explained their removal because I could find no mention of Kosovo/Dardania in bibliography. In their revert Khirurg should have already specifically explained which pages and quotes verify the claims which Khirurg reintroduced.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem changing to "partially recognized state and disputed territory" - that was an oversight on my part. You should assume good faith before making angry accusations like added a very heavy POV. Of course, it may have to wait a bit, because if I do it now, we both now you will instantly go running to the admins and accuse me of violating the 1RR on the page. Regarding the Slavic invasions, it is a well-known fact the Balkans were overrun by Slavs in the 5th-6th centuries (except for parts of Greece). There is universal consensus for this, wild conspiracies by Balkan nationalists about 19th century British colonialism notwithstanding. It is very easy to find sources for this. And the Balkans includes Kosovo, so when sources say "the Balkans were overrun", that includes Kosovo. Asking for sources that specifically mention Kosovo in the 6th century is absurd and a form of intellectual dishonesty, since there was no "Kosovo" in the 6th century. Regarding Justinian, he was born in Tauresium, nowadays the Republic of North Macedonia, not Kosovo. Any mention of Justinian is a POV attempt at "appropriating" a famous figure of ancient history for the purpose nationalist historiography, a very common problem plaguing Balkan articles. Khirurg (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm against bureaucratic interpretations of policies, so I wouldn't report you. I think that measures exist for the protection of the integrity of the project, not as punitive tools against editors. And it's a self-revert, so there's no violation of 1RR at all.
The "Slavic invasion" is a 19th century construction that has been abandoned. Its use is criticized as a largely nationalist concept today. We'll get back to that once we finish the verification of Curta (2001) and Stipcevic (1977).
Tauresium was in Dardania, it's what we know for a fact in bibliography since the first time Procopius mentions this settlement as Justinian's birthplace. Justinian launched a major reconstruction project across Dardania from northwestern Macedonia to Kosovo and eastern Serbia. I added in the article the information that Justinian refounded Ulpiana as Justiniana Secunda and that he was a native of Dardania. Why do you disagree if the article mentions the refoundation of Ulpiana, a very important site in the central Balkans by an emperor who was a native of Dardania? You asked for sources and now you have access to them.
I have full access to Curta (2001) as opposed to a gbooks limited or snippet, preview - and I know for a fact that he doesn't mention Kosovo. The full quote from Curta (2001) in p.189 which supposedly supports that in Kosovo Archaeologically, the early Middle Ages represent a hiatus in the material record : But when did the system eventually collapse? The communis opinio is that as soon as Phocas’ rebellion broke out, the limes crumbled and the Slavic tide invaded the Balkans. This idea, however, does not stand against the archaeological evidence. The year 602 has no archaeological significance for the early Byzantine settlements in the northern Balkans. Most cities and forts along the Danube frontier had already suffered heavy destruction by fire at some point between Justinian’s and Maurice’s reigns, at least twenty years before Phocas’ rebellion. In many cases, destruction was followed by rebuilding. We have seen that the number of forts apparently abandoned without any signs of violence by far exceeds that of forts presumably sacked and destroyed by barbarians Curta refers to the northern Balkans and specifically the Danube frontier and not even in the context of an "archaeological hiatus". Also, can you spot how the "Slavic invasion" theory has been abandoned even when bibliography discusses the Danube frontier? So, why did you think that Curta (2001) mentioned Kosovo in any context? --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Curta I have full access too, so I'm not sure what you're bragging about. Kosovo is anyway in the northern Balkans, so you kind of conceded the point there. The Slavic invasions are a well-known event, for example John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. has a whole chapter in Early Medieval Balkans called..."Slavic invasions". If invasion is too strong for you, I can agree to "migration" or "settlement". And I do agree that the scale of such settlement was much smaller than previously thought, so we are more in agreement there than not. Unless you are claiming that somehow Kosovo was somehow magically untouched by the Slavic migrations, which would fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL and would require exceptional sources. As for Justinian, Dardania is not Kosovo, and Kosovo is not Dardania. Tauresium was in the Roman province of Macedonia, and there are even sources that place it in Epirus [13]. In any case, there is a separate article for Dardania (Roman province) for good reason. And Justiniana Prima is in southern Serbia. This article is strictly about Kosovo, not Dardania. Justinian is a favorite target of Albanian nationalists, who try to claim he was "Albanian" by virtue of his birth. I have seen this a lot. By this logic, Constantine the Great is also "Dardanian" since he was born in Naissus, then in the Roman province of Dardania. At some point, this nonsense needs to stop. Khirurg (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Btw, I meant to ask you, why did you remove the Battle of Kosovo and the fact the Kosovo was part of the core of the medieval Serbian realm from the lede? Were you just hoping no one would notice? Khirurg (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I removed them because they're not supported in bibliography. The significance of the battle of Kosovo has been revised - it's not even considered an Ottoman victory anymore and Kosovo as the "core of the medieval Serbian realm" is not a narrative present in contemporary Serbian historiography. The low quality citation mistakenly places Raška (region) - the core of the pre-1371 Serbian state - in Kosovo. We'll get to that again.
Kosovo is in the central Balkans, not in the northern Balkans - it's an WP:AGF mistake. The area of the northern Balkans that is specifically mentioned is the Danube frontier limes (Danube–Iller–Rhine Limes) - Kosovo is located 500-700km to the south of the Danube. The specific mention is This idea, however, does not stand against the archaeological evidence. The year 602 has no archaeological significance for the early Byzantine settlements in the northern Balkans. Most cities and forts along the Danube frontier had already suffered heavy destruction by fire at some point between Justinian’s and Maurice’s reigns, at least twenty years before Phocas’ rebellion. In many cases, destruction was followed by rebuilding. We have seen that the number of forts apparently abandoned without any signs of violence by far exceeds that of forts presumably sacked and destroyed by barbarians. Curta (2001) writes that in the stratigraphy ("archaeological evidence") in the excavations of the settlements of the Danube frontier there are no significant events in 602, thus the claim that "barbarians" sacked and destroyed the limes forts is debunked. The claim that Archaeologically, the early Middle Ages represent a hiatus in the material record is not something that Curta (2001) puts forward because he doesn't discuss that subject at all.
Now, there are three edits that I'll make: a)I'll remove Curta (2001) - he doesn't mention Kosovo or the content he's supposed to put forward in general and Stipcevic (1977) - he also doesn't mention Kosovo b)I'll reverse the order of the lead sentence to its WP:STABLE c)I'll add that Ulpiana - a very important settlement - was refounded in the 6th century by Justinian without a reference to his lineage - which influenced the decision for political reasons, not ethnic ones but other articles can discuss that subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. Although the devil will be in the details. Khirurg (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I made the edits we discussed about and I self-reverted a sentence which I removed by mistake.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
A comment about the next part of our discussion: Curta (2001), p.336: Nor does the idea of a “Slavic tide” covering the Balkans in the early 600s fit the existing archaeological data. South of the Danube river, no archaeological assemblage comparable to those found north of that river produced any clear evidence for a date earlier than c. 700 The Avar and Bulgar raids which included steppe Slavic groups are not the same population that later settled in the northern Balkans. The Slavs who first settled in northern Bosnia and gradually expanded southwards after they formed their own polities, were mainly farmers who in their original area of settlement did so under formal agreements with the Byzantines. They weren't invaders - when they acquired statehood, they increased their lands via war as all other states, but they weren't part of any "barbarian invasion".--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I will wait on this. But there was Slavic settlement in the area, and this must be mentioned. The Slavs didn't just magically appear out of nowhere in the Middle Ages. Khirurg (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
They didn't appear out of nowhere, but they also didn't appear in the 6th or 7th century as a people who migrated and settled in the Balkans. There are many articles on wikipedia about Slavic tribes in all corners of Macedonia at a date "traditionally" believed to be ca. 630 CE. But even Slavic settlement in Macedonia has been heavily revised; the consensus which has emerged in the last 30 years is that which is highlighted in Curta (2012), Were there any Slavs in 7th century Macedonia?: Judging from the archaeological evidence, no Slavs have settled in Macedonia during the seventh century Of course there were some outliers throughout the Balkans, but Slavic settlement almost everywhere in the western Balkans is the result of Bulgarian state expansion westwards throughout the 9th century and a later push of Slavic tribes from the coast to the hinterland. This expansion from two different directions is visible in the Slavic dialects of Kosovo. To the south and east they speak Torlakian, to the west and north they speak Shtokavian. What do you think about a change of The region was exposed to an increasing number of 'barbarian' raids from the 4th century AD onwards, culminating with the Slavic migrations of the 6th and 7th centuries. to The region was exposed to raids from populations north of the Danube since the early Byzantine era and Slavic expansion since the 9th century?--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Not sure about that. "Early Byzantine era" is very vague. The Avar raids are well documented in the late 6th century AD. As for the Slavs, I read the link to Curta, but is that enough to overturn consensus? The siege of Thessaloniki is well attested. The Principality of Serbia was established in the 8th century, and the Duchy of Croatia in the 7th century. Surely this implies Slavic presence before the 9th century. Khirurg (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Alain Ducellier

Here is a good article on Kosovo, and Serbs and Albanians there [14]. Edion Petriti (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Region of Kosovo

In the sentence "Most of central Kosovo is dominated by the vast plains and fields of Metohija and Kosovo," the second mention of Kosovo links to Kosovo (region), which just sends you back to this page. Is it referring to Kosovo field (Kosovo)? Or the eastern region of Kosovo, which doesn't seem to have it's own page? Or something else? Emmablowgun (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the Fushë Kosovë, the Field of Kosovo in the East; the other half, in the west, is Dukagjin. Edion Petriti (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know a lot about the subject so you'll have to bear with me. It's talking about the region of Kosovo, the entire east half of the country, not the smaller region of Kosovo Field? In that case, since I don't think it has an article, should we just remove the link? Linking back to the article doesn't do any good. Emmablowgun (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Done. Edion Petriti (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

POV tag

@WEBDuB: can't tag a section of a central article without making any edits which have been disputed or providing an argument as to why the section should be tagged. Do the edits and if a dispute arises, then if there is no dispute resolution, tag the article. Not the other way around. --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I will make changes, but there will be a lot of work. The section is terribly problematic.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The section can't cover every detail about Kosovo because it's the central article about Kosovo and it already exceeds WP:SIZERULE recommendations. Put forward your edits and if a dispute arises, then we can discuss about tags, but you can't just tag the central article about the region because you find it "terribly problematic".--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
You first have to demonstrate what you think that is POV about the section before tagging the article, you have been around long enough to at least know that. Ahmet Q. (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a minor article with 10 readers/day. Editors must be extremely careful and not place tags which are unnecessary. Nobody stopped WEBDuB from making any edit. POV tags require some dispute to exist, they can't be placed on articles with 4.7k readers/day just because an editor finds a section of the article to be "terribly problematic" because nobody has written about subtopics which he wants to be expanded.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Side comment: The medieval history section is a brief summary of medieval Kosovo. It should be obvious to all editors that a 208kb article can't mention everything that happened in medieval Kosovo. The culture section can cover parts about monuments, but most of that subtopic should be covered on History of Kosovo.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to remind everyone not to take part in the edit war, but to discuss politely on the talk page, respecting the opinions of other editors. The POV template can be moved after the consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard.
Furthermore, I've explained what the issue was. The section is not written in accordance with most mainstream reliable sources. This historical period in Kosovo is perhaps the most researched and documented. The importance of the rule of the Nemanjić family, their legacy and endowments (currently the only UNESCO World Heritage Site in Kosovo!), the establishment of the Serbian Patriarchate, the rise of mining and economy in Kosovo, the Kosovo battle-related events etc, cannot be concluded from the section. The currently version offers readers completely wrong and historically incorrect impressions about that period. (WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL). Many other less important subtopics are described in much more detail.
Also, in the last few weeks, many parts and images that have been standing for years have been removed. (WP:STABLE) Most of that is not agreed on the talk page. If we add to all this the nationalist rise on Balkan topics, which included the simultaneous removal of Serbian names and parts of history from Kosovo cities, as well as harassment of editors who are labeled as pro-Serbian, the situation is even more worrying and debatable. We really need to work together to improve the article, following Wikipedia's policies and respecting each other. Thank you.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It is really extremely worrying that you consider that the changes of the city names of Kosovo through consensuses are part of nationalistic rise on Balkan related topics. You have to understand that on Wikipedia, editors must not ignore WP:CONSENSUS and are supposed to work together in order to ameliorate the project for the benefit of all Wikipedia users. Labelling editors along ethnic or religious lines is really not the way to go. Ahmet Q. (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I never labeled any editor, that's exactly what I criticized. I have pointed out many times to the tense atmosphere on Balkan topics, as well as to stop the simultaneous pressures and openings of RfCs and RfM in which a reasonable exchange of arguments was not possible. Therefore, these unilateral major changes (without consensus) on the central article with a huge number of readers are very wrong. I add again, especially after a period of nationalist WP:POVPUSH and WP:CFORK, including harassment and insult to the editor. There are many witnesses that the admins ignored many of my reports of personal threats and disclosure of personal information. Therefore, it would be collegial to reduce tensions and not initiate such moves around sensitive articles that would lead to quarrels and misunderstandings. I would be immensely grateful to you.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@WEBDuB: do your edits, but don't add tags which don't reflect a consensus or a lack of consensus. You can't place a POV tag without there being an dispute. --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
If you have been harassed or threatened you should contact ArbCom. Again, labelling users' edits as nationalistic only because they don't meet your personal POV will not help ease the tensions in Balkan related articles. Respecting fellow editors is crucial for the development of a civil environment where everyone should be able to contribute without having to be insulted. Thanks. Ahmet Q. (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A number of images and edits on this and other articles have been made without any consensus. Like that Jashari guy. He is relevant in wich way exactly? Hero to one ethnic group, and what exactly is he to several other ethnic groups? How about that? Where was the consensus for that, for example? If proper concerns and arguments have been raised, and they have been, you can't just ignore other people's arguments and call it "tagbombing", because it is not, it's one tag which is placed in order to improve the article, like many times before on Wiki. Nobody has been insulted, a general comment and opinion can't/shouldn't insult anybody, unless... Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You just admitted that you reinserted the tag because of your concerns about an image which has nothing to do with the discussed subject. This is, yet again, a clear example of disruptive behavior from your behalf. A POV tag is placed when there are issues concerning the neutrality of a section and it is normally placed after a discussion takes place. WEBDuB didn't start a discussion nor did they demonstrate any neutrality issues about the actual content. The only concern they had was that the section didn't elaborate enough on subjects they deemed important. Those subjects, by the way, are entirely dealt with in the article "History of Kosovo". Sadko, you have to be more meticulous when editing articles that deal with controversial subjects such as Kosovo. And whatever you think WEBDuB has been insulted or not should be better discussed on their personal talk page. Thank you. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
No, the image and the tag are not connected per se, it is merely an example I used. Reasoning for the tag on that section is fine.
You have no comment about the image, huh? I suggest that we remove it and keep the tag and let WEBDuB work on the section.
I am meticulous and mine idea is to improve the article, which I have edited several times in the past few months or so. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I see that you are, yet again, trying to deflect from the subject that is being discussed. You have actually tried, on numerous occasions and without any discussion, to remove images that concerned "one ethnic group", as you say. (You just always ommit to clarify that that particular ethnic group represents around 90% of the country's population.) But you didn't remove pictures that concerned "another" ethnic group. As I previously mentioned Kosovo is a controversial subject and the editors that chose to edit this article should be able to portray civility. Sadko, please refrain from deflecting and engaging in disruptive behavior. Thanks. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
If something or somebody is causing a rift on one territory and the relations between ethnic group and he/she/it is tied to activities which led to people being killed (tip of the iceberg), then that is more then a valid reason to engage in such an activity.
Numbers are irrelevant. There are no other images of figures from recent history which are that disputed - and ignoring is not the way to go with it, neither was pushing the content in the first place and later on defending it with mere statistics, while accusing other editors of "disruptive behaviour", which means - not assuming good faith. I invite you to present other suggestions so that we jointly replace the image and improve the history sections as well. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Did you just seriously say that numbers are irrelevant? The images are completely valuable to the sections since those figures played a crucial role in that period of time in the History of Kosovo, I have already explained it to you even though you conveniently archived the discussion. You will have to provide better arguments than what you wrote above. By the way for someone that regularly edits the Republica Srpska article, which seems to be written in a favorable way to "one ethnic group", you don't question the images being used there (where really few images about "another" ethnic group are present). And finally, I will ask you a last time to refrain from deflecting from the subject being discussed, thanks. Ahmet Q. (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, because that is not the point to begin with. If you want to pull numbers you could also share the information that Serbs and Serbia still own half of land lots in the territory (or more). I am not sure what's currently the status as many of them were simply transferred to other people, on paper.
I see no arguments nor proposals, only bickering. That is rather dishonest, fellow editor Ahmet, because, on that article we have included a picture of massacres done by Bosnian Serb forces and pictures Bosnian Serb leaders who were convicted of war crimes. Everybody and everything was respected and taken into consideration. I do not see that being the case here.
I am also raising the question of that Jashari guy, you can't keep an image which is making a drift and diving the ethnic groups from the region, even more so considering that the leaders of the same organisation are currently facing trial for 100+ murders of mostly non-Albanians and "unloyal" Albanians. IF you feel more comofortable discussing this big issue in another separate topic - be my guest. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The tag is going to be removed because no explanation was ever given. You can't argue that because you disagree with a photo of Adem Jashari ... the medieval history section should be tagged as POV. @Sadko: any futher reference to the Račak massacre as "that Jashari guy" will require admin oversight.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Explanation was given. You can't ignore someone's opinion that the section is terribly problematic and pretend like it never happened.
Excuse me? The image includes only Jashari, in full battle uniform, in which he has coldblodedly killed several non-Albanians. How is that good for the article or important for the article? Please, englighten me,
I would also like to encourage admin oversight, so that we can see how and when that image was added, and how other editors and their concerns are bluntly ignored here, on such a sensitive topic!
I gave a constructive idea tp add Rugova, rather than Jashari. He is far more important than the other guy, wouldn't you agree?
If we are keeping that picture (and I am not for that), I could include a picture about 2004 unrest in Kosovo. That event is a far more important than a single person, who is primarily represented, and not the massacre, as you tried to imply (not okay). Thank you fellow editor. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The pics of the Patriarchate of Pec and Visoki Decani were sneakily removed by Maleschreiber (talk · contribs) under the guise of "cleanup" [15]. This in itself is very disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2020

{{Continent: Europe}} {{Country In Europe}} DavidWittas (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(Extrapolating from user's other edits) That is not a supported infobox parameter. Intro already says Europe. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspect typo

from User:Uziel302/Typos vegeation->vegetation? context: ~~~ ountains National Park]] are the most important regions of vegeation and biodiversity inside Kosovo. ~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uziel302 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo and Serbia economic normalization agreements (2020)

I feel like these agreements should be mentioned somewhere in the article: Kosovo and Serbia economic normalization agreements (2020) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrohullu (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Lede

I removed these [16] from the lede, on the grounds that they are unsourced or poorly sourced, and also WP:UNDUE for the lede. Khirurg (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I can see "No such user" removed the word unilateral from the lede stating "How can an independence be declared "bilaterally"?". In instances where this I believe the word unilaterally is used, Wikipedia even has a separate page for Unilateral Declarations of Independence. Countries like Singapore's independence have been declared bilaterally in joint statements. I think the word is a useful clarifier, but I don't want to change it back if there is disagreement. 49.255.235.225 (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)(edit) -ip belongs to my account Dauwenkust (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I was under an impression that "unilateral declaration" is basically a Serbian meme (along with e.g. "so-called Kosovo" or "temporary institutions"). I haven't seen the Kosovo declaration referred to as such in the international press. Now that you mention it, it seems that unilateral declaration of independence is indeed a thing, and it was formulation used even by ICJ in the ruling, so I agree that it could be returned back. No such user (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure it’s spelled ‘lead’

Lede - new account edits

I have removed edits by a new account which changed "partially recognized state" to "disputed territory". "Partially recognized state" corresponds much better to reality on the ground in comparison to "dispute territory".--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you! Lorik17 (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Alex Mili's edits

User:Alex Mili has been persistently adding a few different additions in the leading paragraph of the article since the start of April:

  • ” with the Republic of Serbia,” (3 April, 8 April twice),
  • ”Kosovo is in a territorial dispute with the Republic of Serbia” (10 April),
  • ” between Kosovo and Serbia” (11 April thrice, 12 April twice),
  • ” self-proclaimed and” (12 April),
  • ”Now is negotiating with Serbia over territory of Kosovo.” (13 April),
  • ”(Serbia does not recognize that border)” (13 April, 15 April).

The additions have not been accepted by other editors and should therefore be discussed on the talk page. To me the additions seem unnecessary, as the relationship between Serbia and Kosovo is already included in the third paragraph of the article. Can you please elaborate on what you are trying to achieve with these edits, so we can maybe reach a consensus? Please refrain from making similar new additions before discussing them here and reaching some sort of consensus on the changes. --ZeiP (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@ZeiP: the account made the same disputed edits. I have reverted them.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
My edit summary was cut off, but saying Kosovo is "disputed" is completely redundant to the preceding "partially recognised", explicitly in the presence of the word "partially", and implicitly in that recognition is mentioned at all. It is also further quite obvious from the rest of that lead paragraph. CMD (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

Change Chairman of assembly to Speak of assembly. It's wrong translation. 2A02:587:E215:D800:3842:D033:9F3A:28F6 (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also see Chairman of the Assembly of Kosovo, where the current consensus is to opt for "Chairman", though "Speaker" is mentioned as the literal translation. TGHL ↗ 🍁 16:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Serbia is a country

"and is bordered by the uncontested territory of Serbia to the north and east"

Pretty sure Serbia is a country, no?120.29.109.137 (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It is bordered by that area (or territory) of Serbia that is uncontested. Mr.Slade (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)



The Ottoman cadastral tax census (defter) of 1455 in the Branković lands (covering most of present-day Kosovo) recorded: 480 villages, and 13,693 adult males. Out of all names mentioned in this census, conducted by the Ottomans in 1455, covering areas of most of present-day Kosovo, 95.88% of all names were of Slavic origin, 1.90% of Roman origin, 1.56% of uncertain origin, 0.26% of Albanian origin, 0.25% of Greek origin, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.192.206 (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence bloat

About this [17] edit to the lead sentence: it's not about things being "controversial", but I do think having these foreign-language glosses in open parentheticals in the lead sentence is quite a burden, and the trick of hiding them in a footnote is a useful step – maybe not optimal, but certainly better than the version introduced here. This version was creating a row of no fewer than 13(!) variations of the word "Kosovo" (in IPA, several languages, transcriptions, with and without the "Republic of...", but all essentially the same word), for the reader to wade through before they even reached the thing the lead sentence is supposed to be all about – the definition that comes after the verb "is". Essentially boiling down to: Kosovo (Kosovo, Kosovo, Kosovo, Kosovo, Kosovo, Kosovo, Kosovo, Kosovo, Kosovo, Kosovo, Kosovo, Kosovo, Kosovo) is …. We really shouldn't be doing that. I know it's been done on other articles, a lot, but it's a bad habit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me with that 13 mentions of Kosovo part. Thanks for your comment. I'll let the notes in. Super Ψ Dro 19:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Kosovar language

User:Super Dromaeosaurus, at the moment the section on the Kosovar language is too short to justify separation into a new article. I respectfully oppose the proposal. BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the current section is too short to split it in a new article, my idea was to have it expanded before. Super Ψ Dro 06:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
OK, maybe take down the splitting proposal, expand the article and then put forward the proposal again? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Fine, sure. Super Ψ Dro 07:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The article stands way above WP:SIZERULE and we should reduce it. The Kosovar variant strategy didn't get any support and it was abandoned, so it didn't have any impact in the history of Kosovo and most people today don't even know that the Yugoslavs tried to promote a second Albanian variant in the late 1960s. I propose to move the section of the Yugoslav strategy to create a second variant of Albanian to Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo and keep a summary at the section Kosovo#Communist Yugoslavia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your proposal but still believe there might be potential for a new article. I can do it as it interests me. Super Ψ Dro 17:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if a separate article can be written, but I think that an even more interesting topic would be to discuss the attempt to form a Yugoslav Kosovar standard as part of a broader article about the creation of separate standards for minorities in different states as strategies employed by them to control these communities and strip them of ties with their ethnic groups in other states. A sort of comparative study about Moldovan, the Yugoslav Kosovar project and other similar cases.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

RV

@Agon Mustafa Kosovo is a partially recognized state meaning not every nation recognizes it as a sovereign state. Durraz0 (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead

I propose to remove the part in the lead which states with a population of c. 1.8 million because population is mentioned in the infobox which is right after the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:e238:e300:2d0e:4fd3:6256:f832 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The infobox does not replace the lead, and lead should specify the most important aspects of the topic and the population definitely belongs in the lead.RCatesby (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Country or Partially Recognized State?

Should Kosovo be mentioned as a country instead of partially recognised state? Uniacademic (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The article starts with the sentence “Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a partially recognised state in Southeastern Europe.” I think the term country should be used instead of partially recognised state. The reasons why I think this should be the case are the following:

1. The Kosovo Wikipedia Article covers politics, history, culture, people, and geography. The word state is incredibly reductive in this case since it describes only a single part of what makes a country. The state only refers to the institutions which govern a particular territory. The article talks about much more than that. Even if Kosovo’s statehood is not universally recognized, the other elements that make Kosovo a country aren't disputed. Therefore, the current first sentence is not precise. In terms of Wikipedia policies, it means that "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where" and it should be written in a way which doesn't overload it "by describing everything notable about the subject." Instead it should "be used to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." per MOS:LEADSENTENCE guidelines.

2. A disputed political status does not necessarily mean that a state cannot be a country. For example, Taiwan’s status as a state is disputed, but the Taiwan Wikipedia article starts with “Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a ‘’country’’ in East Asia.” Therefore, the status dispute should not disqualify Kosovo from being called a country, just like it does not disqualify Taiwan.

3. Institutions such as the World Bank[1], The International Monetary Fund[2], the CIA[3], refer to Kosovo as a country. Encyclopedia Britannica starts its Kosovo article with “Kosovo, self-declared independent country in the Balkans region of Europe”[4]. The Economist refers to Kosovo as a country in its “How did Kosovo become a country?” video[5].

Therefore, I see no reason to start the article with the incredibly reductive phrase “Kosovo is a partially recognized state”. Instead, partially recognized state should be dropped and replaced by country. Uniacademic (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/kosovo/overview
  2. ^ https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/KOS
  3. ^ https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/kosovo/
  4. ^ https://www.britannica.com/place/Kosovo
  5. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo8k44_WgGg
This argument contrasts a very specific definition of state with a very specific definition of country. Both words have a few different meanings with differing implications, and are in the case used here broadly interchangeable. That is a separate question to whether or not to use "partially recognised". On this, note the other Encyclopaedia you cite (Britannica) uses "self-declared", which runs along the same theme as "partially recognised", and I would say is again in this case somewhat interchangeable. CMD (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
We have been through this several times, last time at /Archive 32#Should the article call Kosovo a state? RfC in 2019, with the Taiwan argument also being espoused, and I don't see anything substantial changed since. "Incredibly reductive phrase" is needed because its status as an independent country is also "incredibly reduced" due to limited recognition and participation in many international organizations. No such user (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Query(Summoned by bot): Would the editors here be amenable to hybrid wording along the lines of "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country and partially recognized state in Southeastern Europe.”, including the pipes so that that the average reader who is not aware of the formalistic distinctions between the terms 'country' and 'state' can follow those links if so inclined, and get a sense for why these terms are being used in contrast here, increasing their understanding of exactly in what sense the polity/entity's status is disputed. I think it clear from the sources that they do in fact regard Kosovo as a country as a functional and pragmatic matter--it is the status of legitimacy of the state that is mostly in dispute, though of course the ultimate resolution of that question has massive implications for the future of the country as well. Using wording that presents the context of both terms may not just be useful to resolving/sidestepping the conflict of opinions here on which term is more salient, it also has the potential to enhance the relatively uniformed reader's understanding of the existential controversy surrounding Kosovo's status by making important distinctions obvious from the very start of the article. Thoughts? SnowRise let's rap 23:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
We don’t appear to list “partially recognized state” at all for most countries for which the label applies, for instance China makes no mention of it. I also think in that hybrid we would link to Partially recognized state instead of separating it out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
"We don’t appear to list “partially recognized state” at all for most countries for which the label applies" Granted, but it would seem that previous discussion on whether to remove that label in the lead for this article has previously stalled out as 'no consensus', with roughly equivalent !votes for and against the proposal. Assuming that the opinions between the two options are still roughly in the same proportion, I wonder if the hybrid approach may be able to bridge the gap and lead to a more nuanced option that better communicates the complexities involved here to the reader. "I also think in that hybrid we would link to Partially recognized state instead of separating it out." Good point: that would probably makes more sense as the target link, if the combination approach were to be adopted. SnowRise let's rap 02:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I think that reality on the ground is the best starting point for any discussion. Kosovo is a partially recognized state but its diplomatic status doesn't presuppose that it's not a country. States which don't formally recognize Kosovo's independence still maintain diplomatic relations with Kosovo and approach trade agreements with its government as they would with any other state. When entering Kosovo, regardless of diplomatic recognition, a citizen of Slovakia or Spain has to cross a border between Serbia and Kosovo and have valid passport id. Even a citizen of Serbia which is the main state which doesn't recognize Kosovo's independence has to get into Kosovo exactly like they would in another state. Kosovo is very different from other partially recognized states because it has representation in most international fora and events including the Olympic games(These 10 Countries Offer Six-Figure Payouts To Their Olympic Medalists). A link to Partially recognized state in the first sentence might not be a good choice because it often invokes imagery of diplomatic isolation. Kosovo is a member state of most international bodies except for the UN and its borders are not militarily disputed by any other state. It is not Abkhazia, Ossetia or Transnistria. @Uniacademic: can you add a support/oppose question to the RfC ( Should Kosovo be mentioned as a country in the starting sentence?)--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
This would be a poor prose, as it would be repeating the same information twice. The same context applies to both terms, and is applied as such by other sources (eg. the Britannica page mentioned). CMD (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree with the basic assumption there: while in every-day English vernacular many people may use them somewhat interchangeably, the reality (which this article necessarily will need to address, is that a country and a state are two very distinct concepts--which is, precisely why we have two separate articles for that phenomena which distinguish them along numerous criteria. Personally I think the language is reasonably elegant and fit for purpose, and certainly not in the least redundant, if one knows the technical difference between those two terms: either a given reader falls into the class of persons who know that distinction and the meaning is taken at once, or they are not, which is why we link the operative nouns, allowing those readers who never realized there was a technical difference between those terms to register the fact and then follow the links to understand the distinction better, if they are so inclined. Either way, it's not really possible to truly come to grips with the disputed status of Kosovo (the very thing creating the previously dichotomous dispute about which term to use) without understanding that distinction, so I see no reason not foreground that information at the front of the article, especially if it also helps to resolve a recurrent loggerheads over two other options, neither of which really summarizes Kosovo's status as an entity satisfactorily on its own.
It's just the name of the game on this project that we sometimes have to use technical terminology in their semantically appropriate forms, regardless of wide-spread idiomatic usage that conflates them outside the encyclopedia, explaining the nuances between them where we must. That's just a part of educating the reader sometimes. Not so many years ago, the average person used 'gender' as a straightforward synonym for 'sex' (many no doubt still do), and mostly only those in the biological sciences/some social sciences quibbled over the distinction. The difference between those terms has now come to the fore in very day usage due to cultural pressures, but as best I can recall seeing anywhere here, our articles always made the appropriate distinction, being based on reliable sources. The situation here with regard to how these terms are used in the literature of statecraft is perfectly analogous: yes, these words are used interchangeably in common parlance, but our job here requires us to find a path between the reader's intuitive semantic and idiomatic assumptions and a more detailed understanding of the actual reality of the subject of the article and any terminology necessary to understand it. Kosovo has all of the functional features of a country: the sources seem pretty uniform on that. As a state, Kosovo's legitimacy is acknowledged by only about half the nations on earth: the sources also support this. I see no reason why the reader should not be made aware of both dimensions, and if it means an approach that causes some readers to become aware of the fundamental differences between the terms for the first time, I call that a bonus, not a problem. Regardless, we are certainly in no way "repeating the same information twice" if we say it is both a country and a disputed state, regardless of the context.
There's also the additional factor that this solution could serve to settle this dispute once and for all, rather than just causing a re-evaluation of the issue every couple of years, by recognizing that, at least in some sense, Kosovo has a national identity embraced by a majority of its inhabitants, while also acknowledging that it's existence as a country is far from a fait accompli at this moment in time, but is rather a point of contention in the international community and amongst relevant experts. Getting both sides of that story into the lead sentence may be the only way to keep this from becoming subject of further no consensus RfCs down the line. And it turns out that the solution to that situation is one which allows us to present the controversy to the reader (as in fact policy directs us to do in such situations, that's a win-win, isn't it? SnowRise let's rap 01:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, anyway, that's my contribution to the discussion. The OP didn't designate specific proposed solutions, but personally if the situation were presented as a false choice between just describing Kosovo as a "country" or "disputed state", I'd be ambivalent about supporting either option. Whether its the wording proposed by myself above or something else, I think a more nuanced approach is called for here, and that the reason this situation keeps repeating is that the options presented are each more favourable in tone to the preferences of the ideological factionalism that surrounds the subject of the article. In my opinion, neither of the two approaches to describing the subject in the lead sentence that have been fought over here in the past serves the reader particularly well here, and the recurrent dispute doesn't serve us as those who have to maintain the content, so let's break that cycle. That said, I've already stated my perspective that there is need for a third approach at length here, and I'll leave it at that. If there are any further concrete proposals that come to an !vote, anyone can feel free to ping me back here. Short of that, I've been verbose enough already and leave it to the rest of you from here. SnowRise let's rap 01:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Is Partially recognized country not acceptable? Feels like the most obvious synthesis of options to me, as Kosovo is by all observable metrics a country, and is also only partially recognized. BSMRD (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, I'd say that's a less ideal phrasing: the country part is not the nexus of the dispute surrounding Kosovo's legitimacy--the sources seem to agree that, as a functional matter, Kosovo operates as a country: it's a political entity with a roughly defined geography and national identity amongst its inhabitants resulting in a substantial sense of cultural and political integrity. The big question as far as the sources (primary and secondary) seem to be concerned, is whether there is a sovereign state, with a legitimate government and mandate. The meanings of state and country blur at the edges, as regards what defines a polity in terms of both sovereignty and pragmatics. But generally speaking, the more formalistic "sovereign state" bar is the sticking point for disputed entities, whereas the "country" designation comes from more informal metrics. But because there is no one universal definition for either type of entity, it really comes down to a case-by-case analysis of what the sources say about a given situation. Here, a review of the sources seems to suggest much more support for calling Kosovo a country, but they describe a highly contentious situation regarding the existence of an established state. Ok, that's my last comment for real: just wanted to provide feedback on this line of inquiry. SnowRise let's rap 01:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Uniacademic: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Partially recognized state is fine. A country, state, nation and all those other similar words are slightly nebulous as far as what exactly is covered. That said my preference is pretty weak, as I don't think the wording between country, state, nation-state, nation or any of the similar words matters overmuch since they're functionally synonyms. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
  • Close call, but I'll go with "country". Looking at the list of who recognizes them, we have the US and the major powers in their part of the world (Europe). The list of countries that withdrew recognition is a bit of a joke, honestly. That's enough for me. But I don't feel particularly strongly. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, keep partially recognised state, since being a sovereign state, even if partially recognized, is a step up from being a country. Wales is described as a country, Kosovo is more sovereign than Wales.RCatesby (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • State may be more suitable per what RCastesby writes about the difference between country and state. Sea Ane (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021

Kosovo's official language is Albanian only, not Serbian. 185.67.177.108 (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are three sources in the demographics section which list Serbian as one of the official languages of Kosovo. DigitalChutney (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo/Archive_32&oldid=1142346802"