Talk:Kosovo/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Unfair...

It is unfair to almost always put only the Albanian name of the places/things. I think that there should be the original name, in Serbian too... I invite all of you, Wikipedia users, to reflect on the fact that Kosovo is historically "the heart of Serbia"… Bruno Romanin (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree because Kosovo has not historically been the heart of Serbia. Durraz0 (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023

147.91.215.146 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo* is not a state but a separatist entity that is not recognized by 90 percent of the world's population

 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. Cannolis (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Dardanians

It goes without saying that the Dardanians formed an integral and crucial part of Kosovo's history. Removing the map as Azoral did with an extremely POV-pushing edit summary is disruptive. Nishjan (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, the history of the Dardanians is undeniably important for Kosovo, and the inclusion of the map is essential to provide a comprehensive view of the region's historical context. Removing this information, as Azoral did with a biased and senseless edit summary, disrupts the accurate representation of Kosovo's ancient history. Iaof2017 (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, seems like someone mistakenly put it in the Name section which led me into thinking it was a disruptive edit. I moved the historical picture to the correct section now. Have a nice day. --Azor (talk). 19:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@AzorzaI: I reverted the last edit you placed about Malcom being "often criticized for being "anti-Serbian"". It is WP:OFFTOPIC to engage in such criticism in main country articles, but more importantly it doesn't reflect the source itself and it falls under WP:BLP to engage in WP:POV criticism written in this manner. Noel Malcolm is a Senior Research Fellow at All Souls College and his work can't be discussed in such terms.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber If editors wish to have his name explicitly mentioned in the article, the readers should be aware of his reputation to lack engagement to use a wider range of sources. His work has been criticized by countless publicists, such as from Oxford University. The wording can be discussed, but mentioning the wide-known reputation of someone, who's already explicitly mentioned, does not breach any Wikipedia guidelines. Right now, you are only giving me your personal opinion. --Azor (talk). 21:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

No, you are not allowed to add opinions about a living academic every here and there. Such content is under the scope of WP:BLP. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you @Maleschreiber provide the direct citation from the guideline, in which reputation is neglected to discuss? --Azor (talk). 22:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Your wording of content is not bringing any benefit to the article. Better propose here any change you want to make so others take a look. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The edit doesn't reflect the source itself or a manner of discussing an author's work based on NPOV principles and it's off-topic. WP:BLP: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and project pages. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

This quote does, in fact, go against the idea of using Noel Malcom as the only source on that statement. As a publicist who has, in countless occasions by the international community, been accused of cherry picking archives, I think it's safe to consider this secondary source to lack neutrality. --Azor (talk). 22:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If you believe so, you can file a discussion at WP:RSN. I don't think that the chances are high about a positive outcome for your request. Noel Malcolm is a Senior Research Fellow at All Souls College and one of the scholars with the most citations about Kosovo-related topics.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that will be considered. As for now, do you know of any other sources to back that statement of him? Or is that supposedly unique to his work? --Azor (talk). 22:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:JDL. Botushali (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Sentence about Battle of Kosovo

I've rewritten the sentence about the Battle of Kosovo, which after Maleschreiber's recent edit [1] ran like this: As the Ottoman Empire expanded northwards through the Balkans, the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, between a Christian coalition led Moravian Serbia under Lazar of Serbia which besides Serbia consisted of Albanian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Vlach and Hungarian lords and Ottoman forces. Both sides led heavy losses …

That was a bit too garbled – the sentence lacked a verb; the first "led" lacked its "by", the second "led" was completely wrong, and the enumeration of participants sounded as if the "Ottoman forces" were part of the coalition along with the Vlach and Hungarian lords. In my rewrite I left out that list – sorry if that's a contentious issue for some, so feel free to reinstate it if you must, but it didn't really feel very significant to me. What's at issue here is the overall geopolitical effect of the battle, and for that it's not really of top importance who exactly took part in it. To my taste, cramming the Albanians and other ethnicities into the sentence sounds too much like an effect of everybody's ideological pet concern on this page, of reducing every single historical issue to a matter of Serb-vs-Albanian point scoring. Seriously, folks, "what role did Serbs play in it?" and "what role did Albanians play in it?" is not the one and only question we need to ask about every single historical situation here. – That said, by the way, were there ever a lot of battles in the medieval Balkans were armies were not composed of contingents from multiple ethnicities? That's not really something special about this battle, is it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The "special" thing about that battle is that it is one of very rare cases where some academics make sure to note that the side led by Lazar was composed of Serbs, Albanians, Bulgarians and others. Such elaboration has been made in scholarship (Malcolm, di Lellio or whoever wrote the relevant chapter in her book, Madgearu etc) because some nationalists claim it to have been an Ottoman vs Serbs battle and that non-Serbs (especially Albanians) were not present or sided with Ottomans. That narrative is still quite strong and was one of Milosevic' propaganda trademarks. I am not dying to add or remove anything about the battle, but yeah it is a "special" case. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: From this article Battle of Kosovo, take a look at the infobox of the current version vs. this older version. The older version is the work of particular editors who got their will through edit warring, such as Ktrimi991. Luckily, I managed to fix a lot (but not all) of these misleading edits through a big discussion at TP. As you implied yourself, "ethnic homogenous" medieval battles rarely existed, so the attempts to exaggerate the Albanian participation in that battle has only been pure desperation. Thanks for pinpointing this on-going issue. --Azor (talk). 21:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

South Slavic

Since who named Kosovo is impossible to know and the etymology exists in all South Slavic languages, I think that the current wording is the one which should stay. Durraz0 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You mean Serbo-Croatian, not "South Slavic". --Azor (talk). 21:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's exactly the same in Bulgarian and Macedonian.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. "Kos" is certainly the same in multiple Slavic languages, but the whole phrase, the compound "blackbird field" formed with the genitive plural in -ovo, does seem specifically Serbo-Croatian, doesn't it? Bulgarian/Macedonian wouldn't even have a genitive form in the first place, not having case inflection. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

There are nine settlements in Bulgaria and North Macedonia named Kosovo, see Kosovo (disambiguation). Vanjagenije (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. I couldn't find any RS on Bulgarian/North Macedonian etymology regarding the use of "Kosovo" so it might have been borrowed from Serbo-Croatian, but writing 'South Slavic' would probably be the most neutral wording. --Azor (talk). 11:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not genitive plural, it's possessive adjective – the same one as in hundreds of South Slavic toponyms ending in -ovo/-evo. No such user (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I really don't know why it stuck in my mind that I thought I'd seen it described as a genitive plural in the article - looking at it again now I see it was described as an adjective all along. (Only, incidentally, the link to possessive adjective goes to a page about a different thing.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Images

The images in country articles should showcase the article. They should also be neutral, tasteful, and not gruesome. I removed the image with the dead bodies and gruesome and needlessly inflammatory. I have not found similar images in any other country articles, be it Germany, Turkey, Poland, or any other Balkan countries. Images should also not spill over into adjacent section. I also question the inclusion of the image of the Port of Durres, as the latter is not in Kosovo. Khirurg (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Why are images which refer to ethnic cleansing against Albanians in Kosovo biased? These events are documented and accepted as such internationally. Only in Serbia it is considered "biased" to mention them. They should not be removed because someone does not consider them neutral or "tasteful". The New York Times headline has been in the article at least since August as far as I can tell and it was not objected. At the same time, while you do not consider "neutral" and "tasteful" images which refer to ethnic cleansing against Albanians, you have no such concerns about images which refer to crimes against Serbs[2]. I support inclusion of every event and neutrality in wikipedia means that we treat all events equally without any reservations. Durraz0 (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The article was perfectly fine until the New York Times headline and photo of the five executed Albanians were added. The images have created a significant break within the text as no thought was put into how to fit the images into the article. If we are to include an image for every event then the map of Southeastern Europe in 1265 needs the be reinstated, photos of the 1981 protests in Kosovo and 2004 unrest in Kosovo need to be added too. However, I am more for the status quo being applied. Although the New York Times headline is linked to the text, the photo of the five executed Albanians adds no value to the page, given that it doesn't relate to any events discussed in the text and appears to be randomly added to bring attention to the article - WP:IMGCONTENT. ElderZamzam (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree, not to mention that image was a) added without any kind of consensus, b) is gruesome and unaesthetic, and c) seems to be added only to promote a particular POV. treating all events equally and without any reservations sure sounds nice, but that would require posting similar pictures of crimes by Albanians against Serbs, which I don't see anywhere. Khirurg (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The picture of the execution of Albanians has no place in this article. More digging and I bet we could find countless pictures of crimes committed towards Serbs throughout history in the region, but is that really the standard we wish the adhere to? It violate neutrality, reflects the content only to an insignificant degree and sets a harmful standard. As for the New York times one, I think it can stay, at least for now. --Azor (talk). 06:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You actually cannot find countless pictures. Serbian forces undeniably committed many, many more war crimes against Albanian civilians than Albanian forces towards Serb civilians. Many claims made by Serbian media regarding war crimes and the like are false and heinous and are used to propagate the Kosovo myth and make themselves appear to be the victims when they have historically worked to eradicate and oppress Albanian populations.

Sure, neutrality matters, but historical reality and ultimately proportionality also matter. If one party is responsible for the vast and overwhelming majority of war crimes/human rights violations, then we do not need to have an even balance of photographs/evidence/content for both parties as it paints the picture that it was an even two-way situation when statistics clearly indicate that it was not. NPOV is very important, but it should not be used as a scapegoat to subconsciously push a certain POV that draws away from the fact that the vast majority of war crimes and human rights abuses were committed by Yugoslav/Serbian authorities and paramilitary forces prior to and during the Kosovo War. Botushali (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, Botus. History is history. But adding this picture doesn't help explaining the history of Kosovo in a neutral way. Throughout the history of the Ottoman Empire, Turks and muslim Albanians have committed numerous campaigns of ethnic cleansing against Serbs. The ethnic hatred during the Balkan Wars is a direct consequence of those times. By allowing that picture of dead Albanians to stand on the article then you are automatically in solidifying only one side of the story on an unfit article. Remember this is an article about Kosovo, which makes this undue weight. --Azor (talk). 09:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali I respect the work that you have done on Wikipedia and the great contributions you have made, however comments like the vast majority of war crimes and human rights abuses were committed by Yugoslav/Serbian authorities and paramilitary forces prior to and during the Kosovo War aren't productive as it goes against WP:NPOV. We are in no position to measure suffering, this isn't a competition on who can acquire more points for suffering and thus, have a monopoly on what content should be added. Wikipedia doesn't filter images, but for such a grotesque photo to be added, there needs to be a very valid reason for it, given the high traffic on this page. The source of the image doesn't give any background, were they executed as part of a judicial process, were they executed as part of a murderous campaign? For comparison, Turkey, Bangladesh and East Timor do not have a single grotesque image on their pages, despite the aforementioned countries bearing witness to violence, genocide and conflict. I am not sure why Kosovo should be an exception. ElderZamzam (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not state whether I agree with the inclusion of the picture or not, I was simply commenting on the statements made above which are trying to invoke WP:NPOV. NPOV is neutral point of view, but there is no point of view when it comes to facts and statistics. My statement on the vast majority of crimes against humanities being committed by Yugoslav and later Serbian authorities is true and supported very heavily by numbers and reports.

I agree, we shouldn’t compare suffering, and for that very reason editors should refrain from equating the treatment of Albanians to the treatment of Serbs in Kosovo. Albanians were persecuted against ever since Kosovo was partitioned to the Yugoslavs up until the end of the Kosovo War, the Serbs weren’t.

Also, Azor, the root of the conflict between Albanians and Serbs is over a millennium ago. They’ve been at conflict with each other for so long now - it’s deeper than the Ottoman Period. Botushali (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Restored status quo as the addition is clearly disputed. Pls be aware of......

Moxy- 12:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

Under 'Kosovo War', sentence: 'In May 1992, Ibrahim Rugova was elected its president in an election in which only Kosovo Albanians participated.[107]'.

Reference '[107]' does support this statement. Nowhere in the reference does it state that "only Kosovo Albanians participated" in said presidential election.

Recommend changing: 'In May 1992, Ibrahim Rugova was elected its president in an election in which only Kosovo Albanians participated.' to 'In May 1992, Ibrahim Rugova was elected its president.' 108.14.246.38 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've hesitantly made this edit, as the source indeed does not appear to support the statement about who could participate in the election. However, I would not object if someone reinstates the language with an additional source that does support it. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2023

Spelling Error (caling -> calling) in paragraph 3 of the subsection Communist Yugoslavia in the History section.

Change:

"Albanians resented these conditions and protested against them in the late 1960s, caling the actions taken by authorities in Kosovo colonialist, and demanding that Kosovo be made a republic, or declaring support for Albania."

To:

"Albanians resented these conditions and protested against them in the late 1960s, calling the actions taken by authorities in Kosovo colonialist, and demanding that Kosovo be made a republic, or declaring support for Albania." Irie612 (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Already done The change has been implemented in this edit. Liu1126 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Visa recruitment in schengen area

According to the page right now, Kosovans no longer need a visa to travel within the schengen area, but this is not correct. Certain schengen states such as Spain do not recognize Kosovo, and therefore require visas to be issued before entry. 2001:B07:5D33:7792:90EF:49FA:F0F6:EEAD (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

As per this article, Kosovan passport holders do not need to apply for a Schengen visa to enter any European country in the Schengen Zone, starting from January 1, 2024. Боки ^{Write to me!} 07:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

We should use form "from Kosovo" for Category names

There seems to be disagreements as to the proper way to refer to people from Kosovo by demonym and as to weather such demonyms are ethnic identifiers or identifiers of all residents, nationals or subjects of Kosovo. I believe we should rename the Category to "People from Kodovo", and use names like "Writers from Kosovo" and "Scientists from Kosovo" for sub-cats. Some may say "but we do not do that for current countries". We do in the case of "People from Georgia (country)" and its sub-cats, and I have never seen anyone actually explain why we are not for the dozen plus other current countries we cannot form an actual demonym for, like Dominican Republic people, New Zealand people and Federated States of Micronesia people, yet we do for People from the Russian Empire and People from the Ottoman Empire. It is certainly not because "Russian Empire people" would not be discernable as to meaning, but "Dominican Republic people" is. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Georgia (country) has the same name and demonym as Georgia (U.S. state).

As examples of disagreement, this article uses Kosovar exclusively, whereas Kosovo Albanians uses Kosovo for the article topic name and Kosovar' everywhere else, and Kosovan Turks and the articles about elections in Kosovo overwhelmingly use Kosovan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I have an RfC prepared, but am seeking more discussion before posting it. The outcome may affect Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_20#Category:Kosovo_people, which concerns merging two pairs of duplicate categories using different adjectives for Kosovo. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Having received no further response, I created the RfC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Adjective and demonym for Kosovo

In articles and in category names, should we primarily use Kosovo, Kosovan, Kosovar, or prepositional phrases (e.g. from Kosovo) as the adjectival and demonymic form of Kosovo's name? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I like "Kosovo" appearing in category names because it's unambiguously about the country and not a slightly different topic. English speakers do not encounter any Kosovo-related demonym on a regular basis and categories have little opportunity to give context for themselves.

Quick searches on google n-gram and social media show nobody actually using the phrase "Kosovan Turk" except WP. The Albanian demonym is Kosovar[5] and the Turkish demonym is Kosova,[6] so the Turks just say "Kosovo Turkish". And indeed there are many n-gram hits for "Kosovo Turkish" but none for "Kosovar Turkish".

"Kosovan" does exist but seems to just be a rare Anglicization.

So "Kosovo" is a good default, but articles, sections or paragraphs discussing people identifying with both Kosovo and Albania may say "Kosovar Albanian" and hopefully people shouldn't fight too much over it. Wizmut (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Kosovar is used most broadly - Nature, New York Times, Britannica... SportingFlyer T·C 20:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

False

This is of course nothing but false history, the Great Migration of Serbs 1690 never occurred see here: https://academic.oup.com/book/37426/chapter-abstract/331513844?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Kosovo was Albanian prior to these events , most of the refugees did not come from Kosovo also . The people that revolted in 1690 were Albanians, we have texts that prove that from that time, we have demographic descriptions , we have registers from the 16th century and 17th century, also it's not even what the sources that have been quoted say. TheCreatorOne (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The facts have been manipulated and different parts from different books have been taken. For example Malcolm says most of the refugees in 1690 did not come from Kosovo, he also says the people that revolted were Albanians which is also what sources say, how come his book has been quoted and misinterpreted ? Western and Central Kosovo and the Llapi region in North-East Kosovo had an Albanian majority prior to these events also the towns were mainly Albanian such as Prishtina, Peja, Prizren , Vushtrri etc The people that revolted were Albanians, and there was a large drop of the populations in these towns also as noted by Malcolm ... he says many Serbs moved into Kosovo also which is what the evidence shows and which is why Kosovo did not gain an Albanian majority until the 19th century after expulsion of Albanians: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Albanians,_1877%E2%80%931878 , it's interesting how you have taken different parts from different books to manipulate the facts, for example the quote from Anscombe says that after 1690 Albanians might of taken their place but this is very unlikely considering Western and Central parts and the towns had already been Albanian and also the Llapi region in North-East Kosovo as noted by Anscombe and the entire region it did not gain an Albanian majority until the 19th century which is also what Malcolm says that emptying of it's Slav population and replacement by Albanians is very unlikely ... This is nothing but manipulation of facts that have been done here, taken different parts from different books, which is not even what the authors say ... it's interesting how many important things have been left out .... a lot things here should be removed, I added different parts from different books. TheCreatorOne (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Here I quote from Malcolm:

"This essay examines both the historical facts concerning the migration of Serbs from Kosovo in 1690, and the claims made about that migration by subsequent historians—claims which, at their most extreme, suggested that hundreds of thousands of Serbs departed, with huge effects on the ethnic composition of the region. This essay demonstrates that there was no large-scale organized exodus of Serbs under the Serbian Orthodox Patriarch, Arsenije Crnojević: his departure from Kosovo in early 1690 was extremely hasty, and he had not, in any case, been leading organized resistance to the Ottomans. A large number of Serbs did move with the Patriarch to Hungarian territory later in that year; he himself gave their numbers as 30,000 or 40,000. But they had gathered, from many areas, in the Belgrade region, and only a small proportion were from Kosovo itself. One unsupported claim was made many years later, by a Serbian monk, that the Patriarch had brought 37,000 families to Hungary; and in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries many Serb writers interpreted that figure maximally, while also assuming that all those people had come from Kosovo. This essay analyses the ideological influences (operating primarily on Serbs within the Habsburg territories in the nineteenth century) that helped to shape that interpretation; it also criticizes excessive claims made by modern Albanian and Turkish historians."

Not only this, but many Serbs actually moved into Kosovo after 1690 which was also noted by Malcolm and not only this but the people that revolted were in fact Albanians, The western and Central Kosovo and the llapi region in Kosovo and the towns had already been Albanian prior to these events, if there had supposedly been a massive depopulation of Serbs and replacement with Albanians then it would of had an Albanian majority already then but as noted by Malcolm, it did not acquire an Albanian majority until the 19th century or so after expulsion of Albanians, see here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Albanians,_1877%E2%80%931878

Therefore , Albanians supposedly taken the place of Serbs is very unlikely, not only this, but there were only few tribes that revolted against the Ottomans that were settled in Kosovo to make up for some of the population losses, some of these had been Albanian areas too for example, the wars affected all categories of the population . what you're telling is nothing but some false version of history and I am going to remove it. There is no evidence of any great migration of Serbs , in fact many Serbs moved into Kosovo after these events TheCreatorOne (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello

The people that revolted in Kosovo in 1690 were Albanians, read Malcolm or any sources from that time, there is no mention of any Serbian revolt nor any Great Migration of Serbs, it's nothing but nationalistic nonsense and what you are telling is nonsense. You should be banned from wikipedia. Kosovo did not gain an Albanian majority until the late 19th century after expulsion of Albanians from the Toplica area, not 18th century which you have falsely quoted, most of the things you have quoted should be removed. There is no historical evidence for what you claim. This is also because many Serbs moved into Kosovo during those periods. Nowhere does Anscombe say what you quoted , he also specifically quotes Evliya Celebi of the 17th that included the Western and Central parts and the Llapi region as part of Albania. We also got Austrian sources that describe it as inhabited by Albanians, we got registers from 16th century. Therre is literally nothing that supports your version of history. Northern Albania was also Catholic until at least the 18th century and they took part in the revolt, Islamization sped up after the revolt. Since they revolted few of these tribes were expelled into Kosovo.

Albanians in Kosovo were Christians for hundreds of years, mainly the towns that became Islamised early, Islamization sped up in the 17th century there but even Muslims revolted. You should be banned from this place, even more nonsense how you have taken parts of Malcolm books that do not even claim what they say when he specifically says the people that revolted were Albanians

I have never in my life seen such false history, once you start telling the true history of this place, you start seeing this place isn't as Serb as these Serbian nationalists like to believe, it's mostly nationalistic invented fairytales in the 19th-20th century as also pointed out by Malcolm in various of his books. TheCreatorOne (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Kosovo is a country witch has a lot of controversy because of the overwhelming support for Serbia, although a lot of people still support Kosovo because they believe that the people of Kosovo are Albanians and deserve the right to independence. The importance of Kosovo being a country is small as Kosovo would ra ther be a part of Albania but cant because of an agreement they made — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.67.177.199 (talk • contribs)

We should avoid calling Kosovo "a country"

Since Kosovo is not internationally recognized as a country, just by some countries, we should avoid using the term "country". Otherwise, we should use the term country for more other areas of the world which act as countries, like Taiwan (which is not a country), Abkhazia (also not a country), Transnistria etc. Maybe we should use "self-governing region"? The law of Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No. Iaof2017 (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Being an Albanian with territorial claims on 4 countries (all your neighbours), I understand your position. Remember that Wikipedia SHOULD BE NEUTRAL, and therefore, stop calling Kosovo a country untill is decided what it is. For the moment, at the UN is recognized as Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and therefore is not a country. The law of Knowledge (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@The law of Knowledge: It is your obligation to WP:Assume good faith. Remember that! Vanjagenije (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Like I said in the previous replies (that were removed), Wikipedia SHOULD BE NEUTRAL. At the moment Kosovo isn't recognized as a country only on USA sphere, and by that, one of Wikipedia's policies is broken. The law of Knowledge (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

We are neutral. Taiwan begins "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia." in case you hadn't noticed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're ironic, kudos!

Taiwan is recognized as a country the same way Crimea is recognized as Russian, or Chagos Archipelago as British The law of Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be a little different. Your position appears to be extreme, not neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

What is different?

in both situations (Kosovo and Crimea), we're talking about about the territorial sovereignity of a country The law of Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Kosovo looks like a country, acts like a country and behaves like a country. Serbia indirectly recognises it by even dealing with it diplomatically, accepting Kosovo license plates etc etc. I suggest you visit Kosovo and see how independent it really is. The Serbian government has minimal power in Kosovo, and most of the western world recognises its independence. Botushali (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Like any autonomous region. Kosovo is lucky to have the support of USA because the Serbs and Americans don't get along.

Sorry, but Kosovo is poor and unsafe and I don't want to go there. I have some Serbian friends and they told me that Kosovo was (and still is) the poorest region in Serbia and for Serbia, Kosovo is not an asset, but a burden.

Serbia don't recognize Kosovo. They are just forced to do it because they want to join EU and the west don't let them join without accepting Kosovo-related stuff.

Of course western society recognizes Kosovo as a country, since they were the country's creator. The law of Knowledge (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The mask slips. For what it's worth, I'm in Kosovo now as a tourist and it's perfectly safe, people are welcoming and there's plenty to do and see. Seems no less poor on the face of it than Serbia did when I went there in November. Recommend actually visiting rather than just snobbily writing it off because your Serbian mates said it was a shithole. 178.211.221.236 (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Its interesting how they claim Albanians became a majority in this territory by being settled when there is not a single evidence for this, in fact, Albanians became the majority after they expelled Albanians from other areas north-east of Kosovo: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Albanians,_1877%E2%80%931878 , interesting how that is not mentioned in the article but fantasises about Muslims from dubious sources supposedly being encouraged to settle of course this is nothing but propaganda, mainly few tribes that revolted against the Ottomans and were expelled into the region, some of these areas already had been Albanian such as the Llapi area where the Gashi tribe were expelled to. just like the whole great migration of serbs is a propaganda that has no evidence and should be removed. It's an invented fairytale where they basically claim all the refugees had come from Kosovo when in fact they didn't . Also in 1690 most of the people that supported the Austrians in Kosovo were Albanians such as the 20,000 people mentioned as noted also by Malcolm, not to mention many Serbs moved into Kosovo after 1690 from areas like Montenegro , Serbia yet they claim Serbs were constantly pushed out which is nonsense and Albanians are people who constantly moved in supposedly and it supposedly acquired an Albanian majority when this is not even remotely true. TheCreatorOne (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes... In the first we're talking about Kosovo's territorial sovereignty and in the second we're talking about Ukraine's. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No, no, no. We're talking about Ukranian territorial sovereignity and Serbian territorial sovereignity. The law of Knowledge (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

And when do we get to talk about Kosovo's territorial sovereignty? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

How about that? After we talk about Serbian territorial sovereignity, we can talk about Kosovo (which at the UN is still recognized as an autonoumous region in Serbia). The law of Knowledge (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The UN doesn't determine either territory or sovereignty, it leaves that to the peoples of the world under the concept of self determination. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So, in this case, you agree with Crimea to be Russian and not Ukranian, since the majority of people living in Crimea are Russians? The law of Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What ethnicity they are has no bearing on self determination and to the best of my knowledge the Crimean people have never participated in a free and fair electoral process to decide their future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If reliable sources call it a country, we call it a country. FYI, other encyclopedias use similar wording to that used here. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with calling it a country and you cannot compare Kosovo with Crimea, just look at the number of counties that recognise each and the number of International Organisations that have accepted each as a member. Kosovo is much more like Taiwan in the recognition stakes and it is called a country. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, Crimea was annexed to Russia, and Kosovo was declared independent, since Albania is not that powerful to annex that poor region.

International Organisations accepted Crimea thru Russia, and since Kosovo wasn't absorbed into Albania, was accepted separately.

Taiwan is not a country. Is a region in China. That's the reason it's called "Republic of China". If your goona look, they will tell you that they own the mainland China, but is occupied. And the same way China says that Taiwan is at the moment occupied. They are still in a civil war. The only reason the Chinese civil didn't ended was because Americans sticked their nose there like everywhere The law of Knowledge (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"If your goona look, they will tell you that they own the mainland China, but is occupied" that hasn't been the Taiwanese position since the 1980s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

They got back to this position in 2016, when Kuomintang lost the elections. Kuomintang wanted to unify again all China and Kuomintang and Communist Party of China started to reach some agreements. After DPP won the elections, they got back to demanding the mainland The law of Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The KMT abandoned that position in the 1980s, it has never taken it back up. I think you're confusing the 1992 consensus with something else. The DPP has never demanded the "mainland" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The DPP has never "demanded the mainland," and this article is unrelated to Taiwan's situation in any case, except both countries have limited recognition. Butterdiplomat (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

On that encyclopedia, Kosovo is called a "self-declared country", and not a country. Also, Britannica isn't a totally trustable source. It's not a neutral encyclopedia, as it should be. The law of Knowledge (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t get why we’re humouring someone who doesn’t seem to be editing Wikipedia for the right reasons… Botushali (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

In you bio is written: "I try to contribute to any ALBANIAN articles I can by updating articles, adding sourced info or removing biased/unsourced/unreliable info.".

Your position is not neutral. You, Albanians, were pro-bombing of Serbia during Yugoslav wars and the death of innocent people.

No Albanian and no Serb should be allowed to discuss this matter. None of you would have a neutral aproach. The law of Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of rubbish being written here, stick to the facts and to precedents. On Wikipedia Taiwan it says...... Taiwan,[II][k] officially the Republic of China (ROC),[I][l] is a country[27] in East Asia. ...... Kosovo says...... Kosovo,[a] officially the Republic of Kosovo,[b] is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition. Both are perfectly fine by me. Because both issue recognised passports, both have diplomatic embassies in many countries, both have been recognised as countries by many other countries ..... both have entered into many international agreements..... both have stable governments...... both have stable currencies...... they both need to be treated the same in Wikipedia...... Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Your comments on this page clearly show that you are not neutral on this matter, nor are you neutral as regards other subjects. Some of your comments are made to look like facts but are, in my opinion, plainly wrong. You should refrain from making generalisations about contributors opinions based on where they live. Wikipedia is available for everyone, with the content based on facts and consensus.

You have made your point, so sit back and wait a few weeks to see what other people think, to see if you have any support. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. Quite funny how "The law of Knowledge" expects everybody and everything to be neutral, but: You, Albanians, were pro-bombing of Serbia during Yugoslav wars and the death of innocent people.

Btw, wasn't that every human with at least some empathy after observing Srebrenica and Meja? User has been blocked permanently, even after 3 requests for overturning. AlexBachmann (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The intro of the article has been decided via RfC in 2023: Talk:Kosovo/Archive 33#RFC. New editors who may want to propose changes should be aware that the intro is the result of a broad discussion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed minor edit to geo info in intro

Intro lists the Accursed Mountains and Sharr Mountains as 'southeast and southwest respectively' - unless I'm mistaken, that should be northwest and southwest. 178.211.221.236 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Mention of Partial Recognition in the lede.

This seems to be undue for the lede and too deferential to a strong anti-legitimist position in what is clearly a politicized conversation around the international status of Kosovo.

Other articles surrounding countries do not lede with this information, and instead relegate these items to their appropriate sections in the body. Proposing we do the same here, and otherwise request neutral arguments as to why this element should be preserved. Mistamystery (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

All articles of countries in a similar position include recognition information in the lead, as it is a defining element of their contested statehood. CMD (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

in the info box of kosovo where it says the ethnic groups its inaccruate according to the latest census Ressa14457 (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2024 (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. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

We should use the term "partially recognized country"

In a short description, Kosovo is claimed as a country. Having in mind its non resolved international status, I propose that we use the term "partially recognized country", or "country under international dispute", instead of just "country in Southeast Europe". 194.24.248.216 (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it’s not recognized by China, Russia, or India. China and India alone account for the majority of the world’s population. Outright calling it a country is disingenuous and biased. I’m neither Serb or Albanian just an American calling it as I see it. 76.219.122.229 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Country#Statehood....no guesswork pls...we regurgitate sources that follow international law. Moxy- 04:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a good point, but this edit won't be made, but this won't be done, since encyclopedia is influenced by US politics, and at the moment, US recognizes Kosovo as a country. Alven192 (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

So, if 70% of the world's population doesn't recognize Kosovo as a country, why have you noted "Country" instead of "Territory" or something similar? 212.200.181.124 (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan and Kosovo / "partial diplomatic recognition"

Kosovo has more UN member states (104) than Taiwan (12) that recognize it, yet Taiwan's article simply states it as a "country", while Kosovo's states it as a "country with partial diplomatic recognition". This seems biased to me. Is there any specific reason why Kosovo has this bit while Taiwan doesn't? Game2Winter (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

They're very different situations. Regarding this article specifically, Kosovo's partial diplomatic recognition has been a key aspect of its international engagement since it declared statehood. Kosovo leverages its partial recognition to gain further international presence, see eg. recent COE vote. CMD (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying that recognition of Taiwan doesn't matter? Game2Winter (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan isn't partially recognised in the same way, it's a rump state that emerged from a civil war rather than a breakaway state. It doesn't really have recognition as its own separate independent state in the way Kosovo does. CMD (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

So according to you, Taiwan has even less recognition than Kosovo. If that is the case, why should Taiwan's description be "a country" with no addons, while Kosovo's description has "partial diplomatic recognition" in it? Game2Winter (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Kosovo is simple to describe. Taiwan has the largest paragraph of its lead as an add-on, plus an entire body section devoted to the subject. CMD (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about biased, but I also don't think we need to be saying it in the lead... Looking though the talk history I can't actually find a consensus for that specific language (if someone can that would be helpful, I assume its in there somewhere). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

There has been a bit of discussion in and among the window-dressing discussions of country vs state. Regarding history, the language has been in the lead in some form since the declaration of statehood (early eg.), and continues to form a notable aspect of the country's international personality. CMD (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

We do not generally note notable aspects of a country's international personality in the first sentence of the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

They're not generally in question. CMD (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

They aren't in question here, or at least not that I am aware of. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The amount of formal recognition is not a judgement of how a country is more eligible to be defined as an independent state, which is a unilateral political act by a government based on their political interests for the admission to a country’s statehood. That depends on the hard power of a nation to project its influence in the global arena against what they deemed a subject as “disputed regimes”.

In this case, Kosovo receives more formal recognition, not because they are more important or legitimate than one another, which is only because Serbia as a small power does not have the same influence to prevent other states from establishing international relations with Kosovo as Chinese government did, and it's proved that the NATO nations have the full capability to intervene since the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. If Serbia is a nuclear country or a permanent member in the UN systems, or one of five most ranked economic or military powers of the world, then we can compare them in an equal basis. Sheherherhers (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you tell me what, specifically, gives Taiwan legitimacy that Kosovo does’t have? Game2Winter (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan as a sovereign state inherited from the former Chinese Republic, As a nation in its own right that is existed long before the establishment of communist China (PRC) and the island was never placed under the PRC rule in history, therefore no one would actually consider Taiwan as a PRC province or a breakaway state seceded from the PRC, despite being asserted by the communist regime as such. The ROC on Taiwan was also a former UN member state between 1945 and 1971. In this aspect, it’s different course in comparison with the formation of Kosovo, which was already an autonomous province ruled by Belgrade during the former Yugoslavian era.

The cross-strait relations are basically two rival states vying for their legitimacy of "China", so it's in fact more similar to the current situation of Two Koreas, in which both Koreas are regarded as "countries" as well, and simultaneously they have been claiming the legitimacy over entire Korean peninsula in their respective constitution that is similar to the cross-strait relations. This circumstance would not affect the way we have viewed them as two sovereign countries exercise sovereignty in their each actual-controlled territories, rather than seeing them as “One Korea” with two governments, same criteria applies to the ROC and PRC. Sheherherhers (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So, according to you, the Gaddafi loyalist holdouts in Libya should have such considerations too, as they were never controlled by the current Libyan government? Game2Winter (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You should read thoroughly what criterian in regards to a national authority that can be considered a sovereign state, before keep giving me uncomparable answers. #Country#Statehood

Or you may enlight me how many permanent population, and how much defined territories the Gaddafi loyalists have currently hold?? or where exactly the Gaddafi loyalist government located? Its statehood and authority based on what law basis? Or how many foreign countries have engaged formal relations with the Gaddafi loyalists, including any foreign diplomatic missions? Answering those to me before we talk. Sheherherhers (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying the Gaddafi loyalists qualify to be called a state. I'm just saying that the virtue of having controlled the country in the past/never having territory being controlled by foreign powers is a very poor way to assess eligibility for statehood. Game2Winter (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You're just cherry-picking my points to rebut and avoiding some of the most significant reasons about the issue, even some other editors have pointed out that before my response. It's your problem to neglect it.

1. Taiwan/ROC is never a breakaway state as Kosovo, which did not secede from the communist China, they were two rival states vying for their legitimacy of "China", so it's more similar to present-day North/south Korea relations, despite competing each other in overlapping territorial claims, they're generally two states co-existed.

2. Taiwan have satisfied all the criterian of four pillar elements that constitute a sovereign state, not to mention that it used to attend as a full member state in the UN. The declarative theory outlined in the 1933 Montevideo Convention describes a state in Article 1 as:

1. Having a permanent population
2. Having a defined territory
3. Having a government
4. Having the ability to enter into relations with foreign states

These whole Kosovo-Taiwan debate, to be frankly, are virtually based on a false analogy to deliberately confuse Taiwan (ROC) with other breakaway states, which means you tend to use the partial-recognized feature in order to categorise them all together and disregard their historical context that emerged from, while making your own judgement regarding the use of "country" in Taiwan topic as an unfair treatment upon other states also with lesser universal recognition.

Last but not least, the creation and continuity of a state is only a factual issue, not a legal question. Declarations and recognition by other states cannot have any impact on their existence. According to the declaratory theory of recognition, the act of recognition signifies no more than the acceptance of an already-existing factual situation— i.e., conformity with the criteria of statehood, the recognition of third states is not a requirement for being a state. Most of the cited declarations by politicians from other states are not legal statements but solely political intents.

citing reference: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/declaratory-and-constitutive-theories-of-state.php

Sheherherhers (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

1) A "rival state" does not deserve classification as a country. For example, the Houthis in Yemen, even though they control the majority of the Yemeni population, are not considered a country by anybody.
2) The Montevideo Convention's criteria are not enough for a state to be considered a "country". For example, Somaliland fulfills all the criteria, yet it is not considered a country. Besides, even if it was, Kosovo already fulfills all the criteria, so there is no need to treat it differently than Taiwan.
3) Whether a state is a "rival government" or a "breakaway state" does not matter, as there is no practical difference between the two. In all reality, they function the same.
4) If that is the case, that would apply to all unrecognized states. Why does Taiwan get special treatment?
Game2Winter (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Transportation section update

The current description of the highways refers to the Macedonian border, but that country is now called Northern Macedonia. 98.51.241.186 (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you! Typical Albanian (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2024

Please remove this sentence:

The official conventional long name of the state is Republic of Kosovo, as defined by the Constitution of Kosovo, and is used to represent Kosovo internationally.

and replace it with this one:

The Constitution of Kosovo defines the state's official conventional long name to be Republic of Kosovo.  It is used to represent Kosovo internationally.

The active voice is probably better, and the "and is" element sounds a little ungrammatical. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Question: why not The official conventional long name, as defined by the Constitution, is Republic of Kosovo? The part about being used to represent Kosovo internationally seems self-evident. M.Bitton (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I like your wording better than mine, and I agree with your reasoning. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing as part of "Operation Horseshoe"

@Typical Albanian: You're engaging in WP:OR & personal opinion rather than following the encyclopedia's guideline of neutrality with your edit here. The Operation Horseshoe article itself states that there is doubt as to whether the plan existed and whether that specific plan was carried out when Albanians were expelled during the Kosovo War.

Besides the German minister Loquai who stated that it was not authentic, I'll add Wolfgram from the European Journal of Communication here:

As to the actual existence of such a plan or its contents, no credible evidence has yet surfaced, although the German Defense Ministry claimed on 19 April 1999 to have delivered such evidence to chief prosecutor Louise Arbour in the Hague. None of this material has seen the light of day at the trial, and the entire Operation Horseshoe story failed to materialize in the prosecution’s case against Milošević, although such evidence, if it existed, should have been critical to their case.

And there are other RS/scholars who doubt it. For example, Professor Raju G. C. Thomas of Marquette University who writes in Yugoslavia Unraveled: Sovereignty, Self-determination, Intervention that: "[the political scientist] Kelly Greenhill points out in her chapter in this book, there is no evidence that such a "Horseshoe Plan" existed." (p.17); "Daalder and O'Hanlon claim that Milosevic set out to put Operation Horseshoe into effect in November 1998 and that the coordinated attack (was to) involve a broad swath of territory, in the shape of a horseshoe, moving from the northeast down to the west and back to the southeast of Kosovo... However this depiction of Serb intentions is wholly at odds with the actual pattern of outflows during the crisis.." (p.228)

Therefore, at best we can say the fleeing and expulsion was an alleged ethnic cleansing plan codenamed "Operation Horseshoe" but that this has been questioned. However, attributing the expulsions to Operation Horseshoe is unnecessary altogether when it is sufficient to simply describe the events plainly as they were. --Griboski (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence

@Horse Eye's Back: The lead sentence was established as a result of a March 2023 RFC: Talk:Kosovo/Archive_33#RFC.

You state the RFC's scope only extended to the use of the word country. But this is not true.

As can be seen from the discussion, the initiator proposed: "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition."

The closer stated: "Based on all of this, the consensus seems to be that the opening sentence of the article should read as laid out in the proposal "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition."

That is the consensus and stable version that's been there ever since. If you want to change it, you should seek consensus and/or file an RFC. Unilaterally removing it is unproductive.--Griboski (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That is a blatant misrepresentation... In context it is clearly only provided as an example "Should the lead sentence of this article on Kosovo describe Kosovo using the specific word "country"? For example: Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition. ?" The RfC is about a specific word and nothing else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The results of the RFC are plainly obvious, regardless of how you want to twist it. I'm just letting you know that you need a new consensus to override the existing one. --Griboski (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you are denying the existance of the words "For example" or are you disputing their meaning? To most the meaning of "For example" is obvious, but if you think it isn't then explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring the closer's conclusion and the consensus/stable version stemming from the RFC result that's been there for the past 14 months?

Kosovo's recognition has been an important aspect since its declaration of independence. Major countries like Brazil, China, Greece, India and Russia do not recognize it. It is reasonable to note this status in the lead, as it always has been in some form. Perhaps it should be tweaked, but this should be done via consensus building.

This article is a controversial topic with divergent views. Outright removal without consensus won't get you what you want. --Griboski (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything, a consenus/conclusion only exists in its given context... It can't be disconnected from that context. Unless I'm missing something nobody is proposing that we don't cover it in the lead, what has been challenged is covering it in the very first sentence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The RfC close literally states Based on all of this, the consensus seems to be that the opening sentence of the article should read as laid out in the proposal "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition." Khirurg (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

What is laid out in the proposal is an example... The only part of the sentence in question was the word "country" so there is no way to interpret the close as being a consensus on the entire sentence. The close literally could not be what you say it is, the closer did not have that power in this context (they can't make a supervote and only three editors of thirty eight editors even mentioned the "partial diplomatic recognition" part). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a great point. The way the RfC was formulated did not state explicitly that the opening sentence should include "partial diplomatic recognition". Botushali (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Prior to the RFC, the opening sentence was "Kosovo... is a landlocked partially recognised state in Southeast Europe".[7] The RFC replaced the word "state" with "country" and the part about partial diplomatic recognition was shifted, according to the initiator's example. A part that by default had been there for some time. So even if you are right, there's no agreement to remove that part completely as you did. --Griboski (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thats not how it works... Its those who want to keep it who need to get consensus to do so. Again I did not remove it completely, it is still noted in the lead of the post-edit version. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it suffices to add a footnote at the end of the sentence to mention that some states do not formally/diplomatically recognize kosovo. recognition is fleshed out in more detail further below Aferditaa (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Footnotes are clunky and the RfC close was quite explicit. Khirurg (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

i'm not sure that your opinion about footnotes being 'clunky' - despite the fact that it is literally a letter as opposed to a number (in the case of a citation) - should be a determining factor here. i think this seems like a perfect place to put a footnote, following wikipedia guidelines Aferditaa (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

We've already been over the RfC close, in context it explicitly does not do that... The close can not exceed the discussion in scope, opinion, or detail and this one does not do that barring an assumption of bad faith on the part of the closer (if they did what you say then they supervoted, which they're not allowed to do... So either you're wrong or you're wrong...). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC in Terminology to Reflect the Albanian Language

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm taking the step as a bot-summoned respondent to procedurally close this discussion temporarily, pending necessary first steps in discussion and necessary changes in approach that will need to take place for the discussion to proceed. Unfortunately, I think to leave the discussion up in it's current format would only pull more and more volunteers into a confusing procedural loggerhead, and a lot of non-productive corss-talk arising out of issues with how the RfC has been initially approached. Since this I am temporary shutting down the RfC with this action, I will provide a fulsome account of my reasoning:

• To begin with, there is an WP:RFCBEFORE issue here. I think that element of the RFC procedure gets tossed around very arbitrarily and problematically in recent years, bureaucratically stalling useful RfCs for little practical reason. The issue has gotten to the point where literally almost every RfC will have someone invoke RFCBEFORE to try to shut down the discussion, whether it is a valid objection or not. Nevertheless, in this case, I think it is justified. There's no previous talk page discussion on this issue as far as I can tell, and while linguistic disputes on articles which touch upon ethnically controversial issues can generally be expected to need broader community involvement to resolve eventually, in this case (since there are other reasons to pause and/or restart the RfC), it makes sense to take a pause to have some initial discussion.

• Secondly, the RfC prompt is in no way neutral, rather arguing very strongly for the OP's interpretation of the editorial issue, in flagrant violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The reality is that IJA is correct that neither the Serbian nor Albanian terms are per se the terms we would use in an encyclopedic context / in Wikivoice. What matters is what the most commonly utilized (and thus most easy to identify) common nouns would be, for an English-speaking readership. The purpose of an en.Wikipedia article is to educate an English-speaking reader on the articles subject, using the most accessible language and terminology possible--not to validate the linguistic preferences of one group over another, whatever the numbers involved. Numerous policies converge on this principle of neutrality--see, for example, WP:ENGLISH, WP:CRITERIA, and WP:COMMONNAME-- and the OP may wish not to proceed with this discussion once aware of those policies. However, even if the OP is not convinced after discussing those policies and still wants to have an RfC involving community third parties, the RFCNEUTRAL issue remains, and the opening prompt will need to be reworked into very different wording. No minor tweaks to keep the RfC open would suffice in this case. Arguments for one approach over another should be saved for individual !votes.

• Lastly, meaning no disrespect to the two respondents who suggested this matter needs to be handled through an RM request, but that is not in fact the correct course of action to resolve the OP's inquiry. Even if there were agreement to relocate the two relevant articles for the mountain ranges themselves, as well as any other landmarks that might get referenced in this article, that doesn't really directly impact the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue that the OP is raising, concerning this article. The articles for those landmarks could be located at namespaces that reflect the common Serbian toponyms, the Albanian variants, or a third option altogether, and none of those options would directly mandate that we use the same term in the context of this article, and the OP's inquiry would still stand as needing addressing.

TLDR: Discussion paused and RfC tag removed, pending a determination that an RfC is necessary; if the OP wishes to proceed with a second go at the RfC after said discussion, a new and more neutral prompt must be developed for the second listing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

---

---

This RfC proposes to change references in the article from Serbian terms such as "Metohija" and "Šar Mountains" to their Albanian equivalents, "Dukagjin" and "Sharr Mountains", respectively. The article currently utilizes Serbian terminology that may not reflect the linguistic preferences of the majority of Kosovo's citizens, who predominantly speak Albanian. Over 90% of the population in Kosovo identifies as Albanian, making it imperative that the language used in the article accurately represents the voices and perspectives of the majority of its people.

Using terms that resonate with the local population aligns with Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. The NPOV guideline emphasizes that articles should represent significant viewpoints fairly and proportionately. Since the Albanian language is the primary language spoken by the majority in Kosovo, adopting Albanian terminology helps to present an accurate portrayal of the region’s cultural and linguistic identity.

In conclusion, I propose to change the following terms in the article:

• Metohija → Dukagjin
• Šar Mountains → Sharr Mountains. Iaof2017 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• English Wikipedia uses the common name in the English language, not what the local population call something. Neither of them terms are the common name in the English language. IJA (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Wrong venue, this needs to be taken up as WP:RMs on the specific pages. CMD (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• It looks like this RfC may have jumped the gun a little. An RfC is appropriate after discussion with involved parties on the talk page WP:RFCBEFORE. You might be able to achieve consensus without requesting additional input. Pathawi (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Procedural close , Start an RM and publicise accordingly. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2024 (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.

Snow Rise, your closure is incorrect regarding the RMs. Per WP:UEGN, we should refer to places by their article title except when discussing historical periods. The article title does directly mandate changes in article text, and there is no local consensus for this article, which follows the global guideline. To change use on this article, the best way is a successful RM. CMD (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunkdavis. That's all correct, and you may even be right that an RM would be the path of least resistance for the change the OP wants to effect (though I think not, insofar as I don't believe the variants of the toponyms they wish to introduce are the English common names, so I doubt that the RM process will avail them). Nevertheless, my point is that these are actually two separate processes, procedurally speaking. Even if the OP chooses not to attempt RMs (or attempts them and fails to gain consensus for the moves), they are still permitted to make an argument here for variances in the terminology (either along the lines of one of the considerations built into UEGN itself, or a separate IAR argument). And when we're talking about an article with as much multi-ethnic complexity and controversy as exists for this article, we can't write off the possibility of such an outcome entirely (though I still think the OP would have a very uphill climb in making that argument, which I attempted to emphasize for them in the close).

All of which is to say, a separate local consensus discussion here is not foreclosed, and this is a potentially appropriate venue for it, regardless of UEGN (or indeed, partly because of it, since it does contemplate variations over time, if nothing else) and regardless of what does or does not happen with any prospective RM. However, as I also emphasized in my close, an RfC on such a proposal should only take place after further discussion, and would need a neutral prompt if it is ultimately undertaken again. That said, your caveat contains useful information the OP should be aware of, and they should definitely read through UEGN before deciding whether to pursue their argument further. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone could try to argue IAR, but in the meantime, it is in correct as the close says that "none of those options would directly mandate that we use the same term in the context of this article", and that "the OP's inquiry would still stand as needing addressing", as if the RM was made and successful, it would unless someone wants to do an uphill climb lead to a change here, and would address the OP's inquiry. CMD (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2024

I propose to add that countries and organizations that have not recognized the institutions of the Republic of Kosovo often call them Provisional Institutions of Self-Government in Kosovo. Bagyblazha (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2024

Kosovo is a recognized nation throughout the world. It’s not partially recognized, it’s recognized by more than 50% of the all nations around the world, that’s a majority of recognition, not partial. Also recognized by America and the U.K. 75.214.233.224 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2024 (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. At any rate, a majority is partial. CMD (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)