Talk:Kosovo

Lead

The lead of this article says that Kosovo is a "partially recognized" state. The closest comparison to Kosovo is probably Taiwan/ROC, which is also a de facto state with partial recognition. Its lead simply calls it a "country" which I think is more appropriate for that article and for this one. I fail to see the point of calling it "partially recognized" in the lead despite the fact that it is even more widely recognized than Taiwan/ROC. PtolemyXV (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I propose to change it from "partially recognised state" to "partially recognised country".94.65.254.187 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Should probably change to country per talk Red Slash 18:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that just "country" is the most appropriate, just drop "partially recognized" entirely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The consensus on this article has consistently been to describe Kosovo as a "partially recognized state" because the term "country" does not denote statehood and/or sovereignty. Scotland, for example, is a country. It's still under British sovereignty. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: State is far more accurate per current state of affairs. Secondly, de facto and "sovereign state" was added in the lead without any consensus and should be removed. Kosovo* is not a sovereign state and it is very much dependent on foreign political, military and financial aid, only irrational and badly informed individual would claim otherwise. God bless. Psalm 90: 1-9. Ничим неизазван (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that de facto should be removed, Kosovo is recognized by many countries, including 97 UN members. When it is recognized by half the UN, it doesn't make sense to claim that it is only a de facto state. Folohsor (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted to the "partially recognised state in Southeast Europe" wording. Further discussion is needed if this is to be changed. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kompleksi i shtëpive të familjes Jashari ne Prekaz 10.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

Introduction grammar request

Change:

… with a population of about 1.8 million; it is bordered by by the uncontested part …

To:

… with a population of about 1.8 million; it is bordered by the uncontested part … 2601:681:5680:9ED0:8CB4:4286:6ACB:D942 (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. I was manually reinserting something that had sat unchallenged for seven years less the occasional opportunistic troll's attempt at covert disruption. I'll be more careful next time. --Edin balgarin (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Edin balgarin: please immediately retract your characterization of me as an "opportunistic troll" per WP:NPA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I said "the occasional opportunistic troll" and I can see that about four people have done what I said in the passage. Nobody said your name, and I make no comment about you. What's to retract? I'll name the culprits if you want. --Edin balgarin (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I challenged it, you said that only "occasional opportunistic troll" intent on "covert disruption" had challenged it. Either you're wrong and should retract an untrue statement or thats a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a minute. Are you saying this is you? I ask because this editor bowed out shortly after Horse Eye Jack was created, and you two are the only ones to ride roughshod over WP:PARITY by trying to appropriate WP:RS for a issue where RS does not apply. See this. Does writing the comment "And what's more, when did a reliable media source ever call the border "Kosovo-Serb uncontested territory". " ring any bells? --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope thats not me, also RS apply to everything on the page. I would imagine that all editors would attempt to apply RS when adding content to a mainspace article, they are required to do so after all. Also just to be clear thats not a troll, thats an editor in good standing... If thats who you meant thats still a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a troll in no finer feather: I've seen this past half an hour that he had a history going back ten years doing the same old thing, using several accounts. No RS does NOT apply everywhere and I have already explained this. I can find reliable sources that refer to Muammar Gaddafi as an "evil tyrant" with casual abandon. You think you can go adding that to his page just because about six UK broadsheets used this term about him? --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that account is an unidentified sock? Its not tagged. WS doesn't apply everywhere (talk pages for example) but it does apply to content in mainspace articles (such as Kosovo)... We don't publish *anything* besides whats from WP:RS there. See WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"We don't publish *anything* besides whats from WP:RS" = attacking the straw man. I never said "use unreliable sources". I already gave you an example as to how "reliable sources" refer to unfavourable world leaders as "evil tyrants" and you still haven't edited the Vladimir Putin article to call him what the "analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors" are printing about him. I never for one moment said that account is an unidentified sock. I am saying he is an IDENT-ified sock. --Edin balgarin (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree you didn't say use unreliable sources, you said don't use sources *at all* aka "RS does not apply" "RS comes into play where two editors present diametrically opposing viewpoints. Where presentation is the bone of contention as is the case here, the quintessential factor is WP:PARITY." etc (WP:PARITY only comes into play when evaluating WP:FRINGE BTW). That is not a not a tagged/identified sock, see [User contributions for Let's keep it neutral etc. Regardless I am not that user nor a troll so I think you owe me an apology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry to have floated the suggestion that you are that person. It was not intended to cause you offence and I assure you never again to broach that topic. Just to get back to the issue of policies, note that WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY land elsewhere on the same project page. FRINGE goes straight to the head of the article, though PARITY migrates to its specific subsection. The discussion to have taken place in 2015 explored the matter of how to deal with wording over a subject that is not only hotly disputed, but polarises the entire world almost right down the middle. Since you said you have only "dipped slightly into the Balkans" (and your edits back up your honesty), I'll tell you what the opposite is (and indeed what was once displayed on the article). Just as an overture, I'll give you the backstory: the competing factions are proponents of Kosovan separatism (we'll say Group A), and proponents of Serbian territorial integrity (say Group B). Group A argue "Kosovo borders Serbia" based on a presupposition that Kosovo should be treated as an undisputed sovereign state. Group B argue that "Kosovo borders CENTRAL Serbia" based on Serbia's claim of sovereignty over Kosovo. Uncontested territory was a type of compromise. --Edin balgarin (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't they be nationalists on both sides at this point not separatists and integralists? The separation was successful after all and Kosovo is currently a sovereign state (albeit one with limited recognition). You would appear to be pushing a rather dated POV. I don't understand why you're invoking any part of WP:FRINGE at all because it doesn't seem to apply here. WP:RS applies everywhere WP:FRINGE applies and then some, such as here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I was correct the first time. It is separatists and proponents of Serbian territorial integrity (I didn't use the term integralist). Nationalism doesn't come into the picture. When nations base their claim on irredentism then that is nationalist. Ukraine's claim on Crimea and the Donbass (and maybe now everything east of the Dnieper) is based on its constitutional outline and not on a desire to take foreign lands. When it came to separating Kosovo from Serbia and Yugoslavia, the work was done by separatists and achieved by the powerful handlers of those separatists. But whose "nationalism" is it? Albanian nationalism does not advocate for Kosovo and Albania as independent of one another. Meanwhile with regards the opposite nationalism (Serbian or Pan-Yugoslav), it should be known that being Albanian did not determine where they stood since the VJ (Army of Yugoslavia) had Kosovo Albanians among its ranks, and a certain part of the ethnic Albanian population who supported the union with Serbs and Montenegrins. Then on top of that, Kosovo is home to ethnic Serbs, Montenegrins, Gorani (minor Slavic group), Bosniaks, Roma and Turks. Most Turks are said to have been separatosts, and the rest are firmly

against an independent Kosovo. Correct, FRINGE does not apply, and it is for that reason PARITY is essential given the near 50/50 global split. RS was explained to you four times: here, here, here so I am not repeating myself. You claim that I am pushing a dated POV, yet there have been no new developments between 2015 and 2022 in this ball park. Your appraisal of Kosovo being a "sovereign state" is based on some anecdotal interpretation. There are a list of state with limited recognition and nothing weeds out Kosovo from the rest of the catalogue. Transnistria declared independence from the Soviet Union before the country was officially recognised as dissolved, meaning Moldova has never exerted any leverage there. Despite this, it is not said Transnistria "borders Moldova", but rather the "he river Dniester and the Moldovan–Ukrainian border". On the Serbia article, it mentions bordering ALbania by way of the disputed Kosovo breakaway. What the Kosovo article does not call its border with Albania however is the "Serbia-Albania" border. If you ask me, proponents of Kosovo independence have a damn good deal with the current arrangement. Then you have the wider list, State of Palestine, Abkhazia, Liugansk People's Republic, Western Sahara, each with their own backstories. I assure you that there is nothing special about Kosovo that should split it from the rest on the limited recognition club, regardless of whether the claimed territory is controlled in whole, in part, or no part. Furthermore, this is not the only geographical article that addresses the Kosovo-Serbia issue. There is Serbia, North Kosovo, Outline of Kosovo (where I just reverted an unchecked POV breach), and Outline of Serbia (which explains the situation well). If there are to be any radical amendments, then it needs to be distributed across dozens of articles. --Edin balgarin (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Area

The area of Kosovo is 10,908 km2 not 10,887 km2 68.197.20.104 (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)