Talk:Kosovo/Archive 33

RV
@No such user since we are required to discuss any content revisions can you explain why you undid my addition in more detail here? Durraz0 (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Iaof2017 pinging iaof2017 who took part in the edit sequence Durraz0 (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * From the article body, bold mine: The advisory opinion, which is not binding over decisions by states to recognise or not recognise Kosovo, was rendered on 22 July 2010, holding that Kosovo's declaration of independence was not in violation either of general principles of international law, which do not prohibit unilateral declarations of independence, nor of specific international law – in particular UNSCR 1244 – which did not define the final status process nor reserve the outcome to a decision of the Security Council. In other words, the ruling was not binding, can be summarized as "not illegal", did not change any country's decision and it is not summarized in the lead section, so I do not see why it's so important to be in the infobox, which is supposed to only record most important info in a succinct manner. It only crams the infobox and moves more pertaining information out of the reader's view. No such user (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Got to agree with No such user on this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the best solution for this dispute would be to change the entire status to resemble that off other unrecognized or partially recognized countries like Abkhazia, Transnistria and South Ossetia. Durraz0 (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you have in mind? No such user (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * if UN resolution 1244 is mentioned then the 22. July 2010 ruling should be, however if the infobox being crammed is the issue then something like this would be best: Partially recognized state claimed by Serbia as an autonomous province. Durraz0 (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yellow house rumors
There have been multiple investigations about the "yellow house" rumors which have been mainly spread via tabloid media. None of them have revealed any information that it actually existed. I don't think that a sensationalist rumor which distracted public attention from real war crimes perpetrated by high-ranking public figures should take up space in the main article about Kosovo and I removed it. End of the road for Kosovo organ claims?(BBC): --Maleschreiber (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit saying "Kosovo and Metohija is a developing province"
I have reverted a recent edit to this article which changed "Kosovo is a developing country" to "Kosovo and Metohija is a developing province". I did this because I believe the current consensus for this article is to call Kosovo a "partially recognized state" and a "country", rather than continue to refer it as a province of Serbia. If people disagree and want to reinstate the edit in question, I will not be offended and promise not to engage in an edit war. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a revert was appropriate. Feel free to retain it. PtolemyXV (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2021 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Kompleksi i shtëpive të familjes Jashari ne Prekaz 10.jpg

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&#39;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)

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)

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

Typo
Under the culture section, on the topic of food, one mention of Fila is misspelled as Flia. I do not have an account to fix this. 2600:8805:3002:1700:3540:F9EC:4A2E:6DE8 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be spelled Flia, according to its article. No such user (talk) 16:01, 12 March 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)
 * ✅ 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)
 * please immediately retract your characterization of me as an "opportunistic troll" per WP:NPA. Horse Eye&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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 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 separatists, 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 here, here, and 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 states 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 "the 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, Lugansk 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)
 * If the nation has been established and achieved its independence then they're nationalists... Kosovo has done both. The Serbian claims are in fact irredentist, they no longer have sovereignty over Kosovo. "If you ask me, proponents of Kosovo independence have a damn good deal with the current arrangement." is exactly the sort of battleground POV pushing I have asked you to abstain from. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Kosovo is not Serbian irredentism because it has never recognised the breakaway of this region, and as such, Serbia's claim over Kosovo extends beyond nationalists to the whole of ethnic Serb society. It would be no different to me saying the LPR and the DPR are subjects of Ukrainian irredentism when in fact Ukraine still claims them as their own. When you say, Serbia "no longer has sovereignty over Kosovo", you invoke the dispute itself. What you mean is that Serbia no longer has any control over Kosovo and that is correct, much as Ukraine has no control over the LPR and the DPR (nor Crimea), and Syria does not control all of its claimed lands either. so according to your argument, Kosovo is only as sovereign as ISIS had been at times it had control of its claimed territory in whole or in part. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If the LPR and DPR were sovereign then you would have a point, but they aren't... They're puppet states. A better analogy is Taiwan which is also sovereign yet claimed by its neighbor. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The LRP and DPR declared independence from Ukraine, and Kosovo declared independence from Serbia. Nobody is interested in your unauthenticated appraisal of what is a "puppet state" and what you decree to be "sovereign", and while you are unable to corroborate any form of "puppetry" outside of your Russophobic mainstream media, everybody that knows Kosovo, famous for Camp Bonsteel, knows that it is nothing more than a western outstation. Its streets and squares shamefully honour contemporary US political figures in a way not even known in the US, and where the Kosovo "flag" flies, so too does the US flag. Taiwan most definitely does not compare to Kosovo in any way. Taiwan represents the Republic of China, and you have just betrayed your own ignorance as before you made the last comment, you evidently had never heard of the One China Policy, and as such, I am certain you have never heard of the Cross-Strait relations either. There are, and have been some examples on the world stage which compare to China-Taiwan (such as before 2001, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan v Islamic State of Afghanistan). Those the examples which most closely approximate to Kosovo are the LPR, DPR, Islamic State, Somaliland, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Kosovo has no trump card over any of those I mentioned. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just FYI the primary topic I edit is Taiwan. Except for Somaliland those are not sovereign states. Also just FYI that mainstream media is in general WP:RS, you can't dismiss them. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Two things. First, I have already read this whole thread and you've had RS explained to you three times by another editor. You don't get to appropriate this policy to violate delicate NPOV matters. That would firstly be in breach of WP:PARITY and of WP:GAME. And besides, you haven't yet shown a "reliable source" which suggests Kosovo is not disputed and that it is recognised by most of the world's states, which is the type of source you need for your proposals. Second, editing Taiwanese article ands comprehending the political situation are two different things, and you - it would appear - are supremely ignorant of the One China Policy if you think any aspect of the Kosovo situation compares with Taiwan. You say "Taiwan is claimed by its neighbour". Such a comment not only betrays ignorance on your part but is a loaded statement as well since it operates on the presupposition that its neighbour is "wrong" and that Taiwan's "sovereignty" is cut and dried. Sure the PRC (Beijing) claims Taiwan and Pingu Islands. And do they (Taiwan + islands) not also claim mainland China for themselves? --Coldtrack (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That editor was wrong about WP:RS and has since been indeffed for disruptive editing... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * He was correct about RS. Read his examples about loaded language which you have so far conveniently ignored. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * He was wrong about WP:RS, if you'd like to go ask about that at the help desk you may. I can't find any contemporay sources which don't treat it as the Serbia-Kosovo border for example "Serbia and Kosovo have reached an agreement to end a standoff at their shared border which was rooted in a dispute over vehicle licence plates, a European Union mediator has announced." . If you have sources which use your preferred language please present them. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No he was correct about RS. It seems that his mistake, and mind for rushing in quickly, was citing PARITY. There is no FRINGE issue here. I believe the matter at hand that needs to be considered is WP:WEIGHT and I will point it out to him. The contemporary sources will unsparingly cite "Kosovo-Serbia border" as a consequence of their pre-existing advocacy which is to treat Kosovo as legitimate. Al Jazeera did not waste time here as within three days of the declaration of independence, they put out a report titled "Europe's Newest Country", filled with the usual vexed anti-Serbian rhetoric. To be honest, you are starting off in the wrong place if your intention is to eliminate the treatment of Kosovo as a disputed territory and instead treat it on the same level as regular countries. While dealing with disputed territories, we have to be careful over how we write about them, and the same goes for the country to dispute it: we cannot just say that Serbia borders Albania willy-nilly but there needs a mention of the surrounding case. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV we go with what the contemporary sources say, including Al Jazeera. WP:WEIGHT does not allow us to disregard the most significant view published in WP:RS like that. If you wish to establish that all of our WP:RS are unusable as a "consequence of their pre-existing advocacy which is to treat Kosovo as legitimate" then we will need to go to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, thats not a policy that can overridden by a local consensus. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No. You have had this explained to you a gazillion times now. NPOV is about reflecting conflicting viewpoints. You need to know what RS is and is not. RS is about choosing which of two diametrically opposed claims to treat as factual (e.g. round earth, supported by science vs flat earth, supported by pseudo-science). RS is not a trump card to oust NPOV. If it were, then there would be no such policy as NPOV. So tell me, in light of Serbia's claim over Kosovo being recognised by (just over) half the globe, what is your proposal for dealing with how we present Kosovo across the project? --Coldtrack (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't present any view which doesn't appear in a WP:RS, diametrically opposed or otherwise. NPOV only applies to the views presented in reliable published sources ("All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."), it does not apply to populations or countries. What sources do you have which treat the border between Serbia and Kosovo as something other than the border between two countries? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Answer the question please. We've heard your RS claim enough times and it was dealt with back in 2015 with the initial discussion. For the final time: in light of Serbia's claim over Kosovo being recognised by (just over) half the globe, what is your proposal for dealing with how we present Kosovo across the project? --Coldtrack (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would that impact how we present Kosovo? Unless its been published by a reliable source it does not exist for us. As you yourself said "The contemporary sources will unsparingly cite "Kosovo-Serbia border"" so thats exactly what we should be doing as well. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am asking you what do you propose in the grand scheme of things: 1) Kosovo is an occupied province of Serbia that borders Central Serbia? 2) Kosovo is a country which borders Serbia? 3) Kosovo is the subject of dispute and its northern border is seen as the Kosovo-Serbia border by Kosovo's authority and as an internal contour within Serbia by Serbia's authority? --Coldtrack (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My own opinion is irrelevant as is yours. Contemporary reliable sources appear to overwhelmingly treat Kosovo as a country which borders Serbia. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you wish to dodge questions then this conversation is finished. For explanations on RS, I refer you to Edin balgarin's explanations and to the discussion in 2015 which he has linked you. Apart from that, you have not introduced a new argument that would make the community reconsider the presentation, and you failed failed lock, stock and barrel to address how we should deal with the NPOV matter. You are basically saying "RS says this so we should discard NPOV". That is appropriating one policy to conceal the elephant in the room, which is not how this project works. Any more WEIGHT violations to the article and sidestepping of longstanding consensus, and you will be reported. Bye. --Coldtrack (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just clearly answered your question. Based on the sources Kosovo is a country which borders Serbia (option 2). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Change to lead
please get consensus for your desired addition to the lead per WP:BURDEN. It does not appear to be appropriate to push a dated POV in the lead and I see no closed discussions in the archives which are relevant. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - I did not add anything new to the lead recently (I did reorder two sentences, but you seem to take issue with ). It was you who removed the long-standing and neutral formulation "borders the uncontested territory of Serbia". It is POV to suggest that it "borders Serbia", disregarding that Serbia claims Kosovo as its integral part. Consensus for "uncontested" wording was last affirmed in /Archive_30 in 2015, among a dozen involved editors, and has been present in the lead almost continuously since. The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate support for your version. No such user (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS doesn't apply here, onus is "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also there is no clear consensus in that link, the conversation ends without consensus ever being achieved. A number of editors seem to have made significant errors, such as treating countries as WP:RS... WP:NEUTRAL has nothing to do with the opinions of countries. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, change it to what it originally said, Kosovo borders Central Serbia. Problem solved. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Central Serbia is not a country, what we are trying to do here is list the bordering countries not parts of those countries. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And the majority of countries in the world say that Kosovo is not a country either. So where do we go from here? --Coldtrack (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? Countries aren't WP:RS, their opinions don't matter to us here at wikipedia. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Since you like Wikilawyering, WP:TALKDONTREVERT states that If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. I did object to your change, pointing you to a rather explicit previous consensus (despite your handwaving to the contrary), and you failed to explain why you think your removal improves the article. Now, what's your substantial point? No such user (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please withdraw the accusation of wikilawyering, pointing our a basic mistake is not wikilawyering. Multiple editors have objected to the change, there is no explicit consensus... One of the involved even says "I won't call it consensus yet." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No cookie for you. I asked, "what's your substantial point" and you continued wikilayering. At this point, I must conclude you have no substantial point. No such user (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You know what my substantial point is... that "the uncontested part of the territory of" has no place in the lead. Also again unfounded accusation of wikilawyering may be treated as WP:PA. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your proposed "Kosovo borders Serbia" wording implies that Kosovo is not a part of Serbia, a proposition that half the world disputes. How is that compatible with WP:NPOV? No such user (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * NPOV is about reliable sources, it has nothing to do with how many people believe something. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Why would half of the world disputing it matter here on wikipedia? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)*

I have just spotted this discussion. I reverted HEB before seeing that a discussion is taking place here. For the record, I participated in the 2015 talks (since which nothing has changed in real terms) using my original account User:Oranges Juicy. From what I can tell, this is one editor vs consensus, and the same editor vs the sources to disagree with his one-sided viewpoint. The only argument I am seeing is "reliable sources" despite the fact that NPOV and RS can often conflict. This debate on a point of information is not about which of two contrasting realities to report, but how we should word the delicate diplomatic status of the most evenly sliced standoff there has ever been. A clear 50-50 split down the globe, including the English-speaking world (Five Eyes states + Ireland recognise Kosovo; India and South Africa does not). Apart from the fact that using reliable sources to push aside NPOV is a form of gaming the system (see WP:GAME), it seems that even the reliable sources do not support the notion that Kosovo is not a disputed territory, which is the type of source needed to say "Kosovo borders Serbia", because if we can say this, then we might as well call Kosovo an outright "country" and remove it from List of disputed territories. Another reason the "Kosovo borders Serbia" claim cannot rest on reliable sources alone is because the pro-Serbian claim of Kosovo bordering Central Serbia attracts google results with profusion and some of the post-2008 publications are indeed in the "reliable" bucket. Likewise, you can find some sources which say that Kosovo borders Serbia proper which is practically the same thing. Incidentally, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion (WP:ONUS), and here is an example of a "reliable source" that mentions Ukraine bordering Crimea (CNN). In the end of the day, saying "Kosovo-Serbia border" or "Somalia-Somaliland border" or "Ukraine border with Crimea" is not some scientific analysis but merely articulated in facile passing. So no it is not a licence for pushing a POV that you couldn't push any harder at the expense of well-known and documented intricacies. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That source is from 2013. I haven't been able to find any contemporary sources which say that and I will note that Coldtrack is actually in full agreement of that fact "The contemporary sources will unsparingly cite "Kosovo-Serbia border" as a consequence of their pre-existing advocacy which is to treat Kosovo as legitimate." they just choose to disregard "mainstream" WP:RS in the context of Kosovo in favor of invoking some vague global opinion (as you do with the irrelevant "50-50 split"). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't care what Coldtrack is in agreement with and I didn't ask. Your statement does not deal with one single point from the post I drafted which destroyed your hitherto apologia. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to participate in the RfC below, please keep it civil and focus on arguments not editors. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well thank you. And you too are very welcome to participate in the RfC below, provided of coourse it be civil and focused on arguments and not editors. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I already did. Didn't you notice that when you read through the section before commenting? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Status of Kosovo
Following on from the B Option above which has overwhelmingly achieved widespread consensus, I feel it is time to move on. Should the first line of the article Kosovo say:
 * A: Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo "is a country" - per the independent reliable sources before we later talk about the partially recognised state status.
 * B: Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo "is a partially recognised state" which is now out of date for usage on the first line and satisfies the pro-Serb POV.


 * A per independent reliable sources, the facts on the ground, and consistency with all peers (eg. Spain, Slovenia, Taiwan, Israel and others). --Thelostranger (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a valid RfC statement. Please remove it and start this anew with a properly neutral RfC statement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Future Perfect at Sunrise is probably right that this should be rephrased. I suggest dropping "per the independent reliable sources before we later talk about the partially recognised state status." and "which is now out of  date for usage on the first line and satisfies the pro-Serb POV." you might also want to consider removing "Following on from the B Option above which has overwhelmingly achieved widespread consensus, I feel it is time to move on." to leave it short and sweet (you can always expand your own argument in your vote). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2022
I wanted to add some other photos at tourism section to promote our country better. I also would add some new information on electrical energy as a vital sector of the economy. Typical Albanian (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Toponymic suggestions
I have rephrased the edit originally added by and removed by. The broad point supported by authoritative sources can be added in the article without going into details which may be a matter of debate and also can't really be explored adequately in the main article about Kosovo.--Truthseeker2006 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Nice edit. The omission of examples in this case seems to be a pretty suitable decision. Botushali (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

did you remove my edit? I don't understand what you've done. --Truthseeker2006 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, you must be really confused with my series of edits. I thought that it was removed when I saw the edit and the talkpage section so I added it back...but nobody had removed it, so I reverted myself. Then I thought that it was really removed but again it wasn't removed. I don't know what's wrong with my cache but it still looks like it's removed, I'll clear my cache and check again. Sorry about the confusion. Uniacademic (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Totaliarian era sources
This source is from the totalitarian Hoxha-era and should not be used anywhere on wikipedia, much less for bold demographic claims. Khirurg (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not even strictly that the source is from that time period per se. It's the state of academia in Hoxha-era Albania that sets off a bunch of red flags. Academic freedom, in the Western sense, was non-existent. Scholars had to toe the party line, which emphasized a very particular view of Albanian history that appealed to Hoxha personally, which makes the case of Albania so different from that of other authoritarian and Eastern Bloc countries. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. The source should not be used at all for the reasons mentioned. Khirurg (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

how is albanians living in Kosovo a bold claim,you are just being POVTruthseeker2006 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. The POV pushing by Amanuensis in the Republic of Kosovo page and Albanians in Serbia is obvious POV as I and Alltan have mentioned for Jirecek. Surix321 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You have taken one claim that is implied in the paragraph and extrapolated it to the whole thing. There are quite a few bold claims in there, not just that "Albanians lived in Kosovo". Each one needs multiple reliable sources to back it up, English ones published by university publishing houses, not ones from Hoxha-era authors or organizations with an agenda like "Ali Hadri". Claims to the contrary are filibustering. It is quite rich to hear that my removal of WP:FRINGE sources is POV in your opinion when the sources in themselves are so laughably problematic that I am astounded anyone would dedicate any time and energy on a Saturday to argue in their defense. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when is it FRINGE that Albanians lived in Dukagjini?
 * The scholar Fredrick F. Anscombe shows that Prizren and Vushtrri (Vulçitrin) had no Serbian population in early 17th century. Prizren was inhabited by a mix of Catholic and Muslim Albanians, while Vushtrri had a mix of Albanian and Turkish speakers, followed by a tiny Serbian minority. Gjakova was founded by Albanians in the 16th century, and Peja (İpek) had a continuous presence of the Albanian Kelmendi tribe. Central Kosovo was mixed, but large parts of the Drenica Valley were ethnically Albanian. Central Kosovo, as well as the cities of Prizren, Gjakova, and the region of Has regularly supplied the Ottoman forces with levies and mercenaries.
 * In 17th century parts of the Western Kosovo region seem to of been Albanian speaking while the eastern region was Slavic speaking.
 * Catholic bishop Pjetër Mazreku noted in 1624 that the Catholics of Prizren were 200, the Serbs (Orthodox) 600, and Muslims, almost all of whom were Albanians, numbered 12,000 In his 1662 work, Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi noted that the residents of Vushtrri were mostly Albanians. According to Evliya Celebi western and central Kosovo was Albanian inhabited
 * As you can see, there are English sources about Albanians inhabiting Kosovo in the Medieval and After Medieval period, where places were already Majority. Surix321 (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is saying Albanians didn't exist in the Medieval period. That is your straw man. You really are expending a lot of time and energy on this. I'm sure it isn't getting you worked up at all and causing you to write some fairly ridiculous, contradictory things. In one paragraph you say it's proven there were no Serbs in Prizren in the early 16th century, in another you say there were Serbs in Prizren in the early 16th century. Which is it? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read it clearly? Fredrick said Vushtrri has no Serbs, and he didnt say that serbs didnt exist in Prizren but said that it was mixed of Catholic and Muslim Albanians Which Pjeter Mazreku kind of affirmed by showing the composition, point being Serbs were the absolute minority in Prizren. Also you removed the text so yes you basically are implying that they didnt live there, if the source was FRINGE then you would keep the text and not the source. Surix321 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't my job to keep text you agree with in articles for you. You do realize that? This is all a big distraction to keep us from discussing why dubious sources such as the ones we discussed earlier are being used to back up contentious claims. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not the one who added the source, But now you are ignoring what I said which you first tried to heckle, Iljaz Rexha made his works before this supposed aggression on the Decani Monastery, can you prove he participated in these efforts against Serbs? Surix321 (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many other sources which say the same thing. Pulaha, a main source for such subjects, is utilised because he goes into detail. I don't see the problem and have no idea why this is being blown up in the way it is. Botushali (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because in recent days he has been creating issues and removing Albanian sources which we obviously know his reason for why. Surix321 (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment At Naissus, some relevant sources are used:
 * Curtis 2012
 * Vermeer 1992
 * The section could be possibly trimmed as this is the main Kosovo article. Curtis (2012) and Vermeer (1992) can be used to support specific statements. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Finally, some constructive proposals. Thank you, . Using high-quality academic sources like this should really go without saying, especially for state-level articles. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment As per Maleschreiber's suggestions above, I have shortened the paragraph; of note is that Curtis is already utilised in the Middle Ages section, and can be incorporated again if need be, but Vermeer has not yet been used (although he should be used in the same section as Curtis). Furthermore, it is important to note that was is being discussed by Pulaha is already supported by previous academic insertions used in the article; Anscombe, Ducellier state that western Kosovo was inhabited by an Albanian majority before and during the Ottoman period - Ducellier even states that Albanians were expanding from a nucleus in the Gjakova and Prizren areas (western Kosovo) since before the Slavic expansions of the Middle Ages. The citations from Curtis and Prendergast also assert that Albanian was spoken in the region prior to Slavic settlement. Clearly, Pulaha's work fits with this factual interpretation of the demographics of western Kosovo during these time periods. Botushali (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

helpful resources on Ukrainian refugees
--> https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/kosovo-parliament-passes-resolution-on-ukraine-will-accept-5000-refugees/ ..... and --> https://euronews.al/en/kosovo/2022/03/07/kosovo-agrees-to-take-in-5-000-ukrainian-refugees/  50.111.8.86 (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Kosovo-Serbia border
Should the lead of the article Kosovo say:
 * A: Kosovo "is bordered by the uncontested part of the territory of Serbia to the north and east ..."
 * B: Kosovo "is bordered by Serbia to the north and east ..."
 * C: Kosovo "is bordered by Central Serbia to the north and east ..."
 * D: Kosovo "is bordered by (the rest of) Serbia to the north and east ..."

RFC posted 19:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC). Options C and D added by LongLivePortugal (talk), at 22:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B (RFC initiator), for several reasons:
 * B appears widely used by RS, for example:
 * "A landlocked country, Kosovo is bordered by Serbia to the north and east ..." - Britannica 2022
 * "Kosovo is a small country in southeastern Europe that borders Serbia ..." - SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society 2019
 * "Kosovo borders Serbia" - Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2018
 * "Landlocked Kosovo borders Serbia to the north and east ..." - Gale World Economic Factbook 2013
 * "... where Kosovo borders Serbia ..." - |A71786583&v=2.1&it=r&sid=ebsco The Times (London) 2001
 * A does not appear to be used by any RS. Specifically, the phrase "uncontested part of the territory of Serbia" apparently has no hits on Google Scholar or Google News . Even without quotes, I am not finding similar phraseology (a statement that Kosovo borders the "uncontested" part of Serbia) in widespread use:,.
 * B is more readable; it's shorter, it flows better, and is easier to understand for our target audience.
 * A is confusing. It begs the question, "What is the uncontested part of the territory of Serbia?", and whether "Serbia", "the territory of Serbia", and "the uncontested part of the territory of Serbia" are one thing or three different things.
 * B is not confusing. Readers will understand that Serbia is northeast of Kosovo, and that "Serbia" in this context means the uncontested part of Serbia and not the contested part of Serbia, because obviously Kosovo does not border itself. There are no countries to the northeast of Kosovo other than Serbia, and that's the key thing to communicate here, and that's what I think our average reader will understand from Option B (but not from Option A).
 * The fact that Kosovo is a disputed territory is already stated in the lead; there is no need to emphasize that multiple times, and in fact, doing so violates WP:NPOV, because the reliable sources do not emphasize it in this way, e.g. by using phraseology like "borders the uncontested part" of Serbia. Levivich 19:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hate to add to my already-long !vote, but I want to make a comment about NPOV. Some editors are making a fundamental mistake about NPOV: they're arguing that there are two POVs, Kosovo's and Serbia's, and NPOV is about striking a neutral balance between them. That is not what WP:NPOV is about. WP:NPOV is not about the POV of the countries, or the article subject, it's about the POV of the sources. WP:NPOV doesn't say we need to strike a neutral balance between Kosovo's POV and Serbia's POV (that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE), it says we need to neutrally present all the major POVs of the sources. To show "Kosovo borders Serbia" isn't a neutral summary of the major POVs of the sources, one must present a significant number of sources that use different phrasing when describing Kosovo's borders (e.g., "Kosovo borders the uncontested part of Serbia" or something like that). Arguing about Kosovo's POV and Serbia's POV is a dead end. Levivich 17:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose C and D because both are original research and/or fringe viewpoints. I ran each of the following phrases:
 * "Kosovo is bordered by Central Serbia"
 * "Kosovo borders Central Serbia"
 * "Kosovo is bordered by (the rest of) Serbia"
 * "Kosovo borders (the rest of) Serbia"
 * ... through the following search engines:
 * The Wikipedia Library
 * Google Scholar
 * Google NGrams
 * Google News
 * ...with and without quotes... and I came up with a grand total of one source that uses anything like that phrasing: ("Kosovo borders Central Serbia in the north", p. 762). If only one source says "borders Central Serbia", then that's fringe (specifically, it's an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views in its particular field). If no sources say "the rest of" Serbia, then we can't say that, as it's original research (specifically, it's combining sources to come to a conclusion that no source explicitly states).
 * Bottom line: if editors think that the way sources describe it ("Kosovo borders Serbia") is not neutral, they can't just come up with some other phrasing that editors believe is more neutral--that's original research.
 * Any option that is not supported by the consensus of reliable sources is a non-starter, per the global consensus documented at WP:NPOV. We must summarize the sources, not the positions of governments, and of course not our own feelings about the matter. Levivich 18:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW I also strongly oppose removing the sentence entirely and not describing the borders of Kosovo and listing its neighbors in the lead. That is the worst of all options, as it deprives our reader of important information that they would expect because it is standard in the lead of any article about a country or disputed territory (on Wikipedia or anywhere else). Levivich 18:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * RS is a tired argument and if it is the one and only response you have for every challenge made to it, then you'd best go read WP:ONUS. In other words, you don't get to foreclose suggestions that frustrate your unrelenting standpoint by yammering the same old policy over and over. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * B per extensive arguments made in the above sections... A fails to conform to NPOV because it places emphasis on the irredentist claims of Serbia which is not done by contemporary WP:RS. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B not even sure what A is trying to say. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 23:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B is much clearer. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B, Both through RS use, and because "bordered by the uncontested part of the territory of Serbia" is awkward and labored English. It's also not neutral, as it carries with it the implication that there is another "part of the territory of Serbia" besides the "uncontested" part. If there is an "uncontested part of the territory of Serbia", there must therefore be a "contested part of the territory of Serbia". As far as anyone recognizing the independence of Kosovo is concerned, there are no "other parts" of Serbia. Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * With new options added, I strongly oppose both C and D. Both new options are even worse than A. The problem with D is the problem with A, only moreso. D takes the implication that Kosovo is part of Serbia and makes it explicit. "Kosovo is bordered by the rest of Serbia" only makes sense if Kosovo is part of Serbia, and those parentheses are basically just a fig leaf. The way it reads is clear. The problem with C is twofold and more subtle. Firstly, "A borders region of B" is simply not consistent with how we do things. Slovenia borders Italy, not Friuli Venezia Giulia; Belize borders Mexico, not Quintana Roo. Additionally, according to the page on Central Serbia, it isn't even an official region of Serbia: Central Serbia is a term of convenience, not an administrative division of Serbia as such, and does not have any form of separate administration. (emphasis mine) Secondly, the only way to know what "Central Serbia" is is to go to the article, and that article does not look very neutral at all, the biggest giveaway being that all the maps there are irridentist ones that treat Kosovo as just another part of Serbia. Option C is less clear whether you follow the link or not, and also not neutral at all if you do. Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your feedback. Please allow me to clarify that, even though we don't normally write that countries border regions, I thought it was reasonable to open an exception in this case to allow for phrasing that would be true regardless of whether the reader takes the Serbian or the Kosovar perspective, thus being more neutral. But I would like to ask you two questions: 1) Do you not see Option B as being non-neutral in the opposite direction, given that it quite clearly states that Serbia is entirely outside Kosovo?; and 2) What would you think about a fifth option similar to the phrasing I found yesterday on Wikitravel, which would be something like: "Kosovo borders Serbia (from its perspective) to the north and east [...]"? Or — a sixth idea I've had just now — what about explaining the issue, with a new sentence like: "To the north and east, Kosovo's limits are regarded by Kosovo as an external border with Serbia, and by Serbia as an internal border within the country."? Do you think these options could finally yield a consensual phrasing which would neither push the sentence to one side nor sound awkward to the reader? LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * B. Seems like I once participated in an earlier discussion that came up with the present wording or something similar, but I have to say Levivich's arguments above are convincing, and we shouldn't really need to sacrifice simplicity just for the sake of accommodating POV hyper-sensitivities any more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fut.Per. Good argument. Keep the simplicity and unaccommodate POV hyper-sensitivies the other way then and suggest "Kosovo borders Central Serbia". --Coldtrack (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * B per nominator. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Due to the addition of option C, I will be changing my support option. B is also correct and more clear, although C is more precise. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B Option A is unnecessary, excessively verbose and violates WP:NPOV. I see no reason to switch from option B, which is currently maintained, to option A, especially when the former is backed up by a large amount of reliable sources while the latter is much more infrequent and smells like original research. -- KingErikII  ( Talk page ) 10:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Violates NPOV does it? Whose POV does A represent? According to supporters of Serbian territorial integrity, Serbia borders Albania and the "Kosovo border" constitutionally represents an arbitrary internal contour between Central Serbia and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Meanwhile, how does "Kosovo borders Serbia" resolve the NPOV "violation", and how different might it be presented if someone wanted to expound a pro-independent Kosovo POV? --Coldtrack (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia adheres to what reliable sources say; in this case, B is the preferred option based on said sources. Even if option A does not violate NPOV, it is still unnecessary as Kosovo's status as disputed territory is made clear throughout the lede, which means we should not constantly repeat it.-- KingErikII  ( Talk page ) 06:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So in other words, no the other options do not violate NPOV while you can do no more that parrot the "RS" mantra. There is something called WP:ONUS and if simplistic "RS" references were all that mattered then we wouldn't even need to be having an RfC, never mind the fact that a stable version (albeit one that did not satisfy the narratives of pro-Kosovo independence narratives) was on display for seven years. The fact that it is state elsewhere on the article that Kosovo is disputed does not greenlight biased editors to covertly erect an Aunt Sally that is contrived to deliberately afford primacy to their POV under the auspices of how it gets written in "reliable" sources. Besides, many alternatives have been introduced which also have RS backing. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the ONUS argument, WP:ONUS says "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." but you're trying to use ONUS as an argument *for* including disputed content which is something I've never seen before. The content you wish to add also does not appear to pass WP:V, so why would ONUS apply at all? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . Here is why. If you care to examine the iVotes, I have not selected an option, but have merely suggested one or two other solutions among many possible. Although we can argue with each other until the cows come home which courses should be reliable and which are unreliable, I say that even within the orbit of the current bundle of reliable sources, this is a stellar example of them being incorrectly applied. We all know that "Kosovo borders Serbia" is an Aunt Sally to give certain people a handle on raising Kosovo's profile. Though ask yourself a question: what is the inverse here? That would be to claim that everything except B is "unsourced". How do you prove it is unsourced? By finding a reliable source that states Kosovo is not disputed by Serbia, and by extension, anyone at all. Of course that would be a tall order since we're not tasked with proving negatives (e.g. You don't need a source to negate that Friday does not follow directly from Wednesday). So if of course you can find a source that claims "Serbia recognises Kosovo, did so on such-and-such date", then the field is yours. No more resistance from me or probably anyone. To be honest, I am easy. This is about wording, and I only object to two types of presentation: something that tacitly affirms Kosovo is independent of Serbia, and the opposite where something tacitly affirms Kosovo being part of Serbia. And for the record, NPOV is about disagreement on the ground, not disagreement between Rupert Murdoch and Jason Kilar. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment.A stable wording sits unchallenged for seven years. One editor makes a bold amendment, is reverted, and then Horse Eye's Back leads the charge in an edit-warring campaign against multiple editors. There is such thing as WP:BRD. Nothing prevented either of the editors making an RfC from the get-go, and the Kosovo article is one of a raft of Balkan region articles where discretionary sanctions apply. I reported him, and expected to see something ranging from a severe warning from a most lenient perspective to an indefinite ban. Instead, an administrator greenlighted the revision that no fewer than three editors (me excluded) reverted, and attenuated the content dispute as mere "RfC".
 * If there is to be a credible RfC, it needs to be written by someone like me who objects to the current wording, and in doing so, I would have built a damn stronger case that the loaded overture. Following reliable sources is important, but it is totally disingenuous to pretend reliable sources are the be-all-and-end-all of how a community addresses burning issues. This is an NPOV matter, and if RS was the only thing to come into play, we wouldn't need WP:NPOV to exist, needless to say WP:WEIGHT which is the real linchpin to this debate.
 * Juicy Oranges explained the situation clearer than anybody else to date. If policies have any teeth, the singular claim of "RS, RS, RS" is destroyed by WP:ONUS. He also stated above that "Kosovo-Serbia border" is a simplistic generalisation and not some authenticated forensic analysis. Even so-called "unreliable" sources refer to the "Kosovo-Serbian" border such as RT, just as reliable sources (when commenting on the frontier itself rather than acknowledging it in passing) will invariably cite its controversial status.
 * There are a plethora of sites to have reported on Belgrade-Pristina relations since the declaration of independence in 2008 who have referred to it as a "disputed border", or "disputed border crossings". See France 24, Irish times, BBC, Fayetteville Observer, Radio Free Europe, ResearchGate.
 * The fact of the matter is that the above "choice" is a false dilemma fallacy since a true RfC should be open-ended. What is singularly missing from the "selection" is what is written here (not MIRROR despite appearance) and here among other sources - Kosovo bordering Central Serbia. Kosovo bordering Central Serbia reads just as well and as easily as "Kosovo borders Serbia" and should be listed. Anybody who believes that such wording would violate NPOV has the burden of explaining how "Kosovo borders Serbia" does not do the same, and "what sources say" has been shown to be WP:CHERRYPICKING for one, and ruptured by WP:ONUS for another. And moreover, if "Kosovo borders Serbia" does not demonstrate a pro-Kosovo independence POV, I would like to know how would a presentation appear if it were pro-Kosovo independence.
 * "Uncontested territory" may be confusing, but it is there for a reason. It is flat out mendacious to pretend that dealing with "confusing wording" is remedied by satisfying one of two POVs. If the wording is problematic, then help find better wording. "Uncontested territory" was pieced together as an NPOV alternative, and therefore this RfC is nothing more than a binary between a pro-Kosovo independence viewpoint and a 100% neutral viewpoint.
 * I suggest scrap this section and allow me to rewrite the overture more comprehensively and without such restricted options. --Coldtrack (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with this RfC? It has a brief, neutral statement of what the two options under discussion are. Nobody has suggested any third option so far, so I don't see any problem with that. If somebody wishes to propose a third option, they can still do so, and participants will surely react to that. The lengthy argumentative section below it is not part of the RfC statement, but is clearly marked as part of the first !vote statement (which happens to be from the person who also posted the RfC itself.) Nothing stops you from adding your own, equally lengthy, arguments in your own !vote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , what is wrong with this RFC is that this is not an either/or choice, and presenting it as such violates the requirement that RFCs be presented neutrally. At the very least, every RFC survey that presents multiple options needs to include an "Other" option to allow respondents to !vote for something other than what has been under discussion. Sure respondents can add their own different options, but the burden is on the requester to present it as such, otherwise respondents are lulled into the thinking that two, in this case, two choices are the only possibilities that exist and it must be one or the other. And, not adding options until after many editors have already !voted causes casts doubt onto the outcome (if few or none of them return to the RFC, then how can it be known if and how many would have !voted differently should all the options have been listed from the beginning?). This is why the best practice is to discuss the wording of an RFC and for all sides to agree to the wording and the options before starting it, and this IS the de facto standard in heavy battleground topic areas where RFCs are started all the time at various articles. So, I say this RFC should be procedural closed and a new RFC be drafted. And my !vote for the lede wording is neither A nor B. Instead use something like "shares a contested/disputed border with Serbia to the north. I am sure we have handled similar cases in like manner. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:2DCD:561D:66FC:6177 (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing preventing any RfC respondent from proposing alternatives. As for that one however, saying the border is contested is a bit misleading, given it has existed since the Second World War and neither side is contesting its path. CMD (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * B - Kosovo's status as disputed is made very clear throughout the lede and the article, we don't need to cram it in every single sentence. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B is clearer P1221 (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On second thought, after the introduction of the new options, I believe C is more precise and neutral, as it doesn't take a stance on the legitimacy of Kosovo's independence. P1221 (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Per Coldtrack - Option 3. Kosovo borders Central Serbia. If one POV is fine and people are overall happy to dispense with a NPOV wording for the sake of "less confusing terminology" and "not cramming the disputed status into every sentence", then it might as well be the POV of the majority. Including all non-UN members, the number of polities to recognise Kosovo as a Serbian province outnumbers those who recognise Kosovo's independence. That goes for the world's population too. Most live in a country that does not recognise Kosovo. Kosovo's recognition figure is propped up by the inconsequential micro-states. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B per PraiseVivec Happy Editing-- IAm  Chaos  04:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B or C - (back after ping) Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  23:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I also refuse to !vote in rigged RfC such as this one. What I have to say is that I'm deeply disappointed how the matter was handled:
 * an editor with battleground behavior edit-wars to include their preferred wording despite good-faith concerns by several editors
 * instead of sanctioning the uncollegial behavior, an administrator forbids the 7-year old consensus version, preferring the disputed one, and orders a RfC as an unilateral ARCA action
 * instead of RfC question being prepared and agreed by several involved editors, it is hastily crafted by the offending editor and hastily voted on (not even sure what A is trying to say – well maybe you could if you spend more than 5 seconds on it) (quoting 2600:1702 from above) Sure respondents can add their own different options, but the burden is on the requester to present it as such, otherwise respondents are lulled into the thinking that two, in this case, two choices are the only possibilities that exist and it must be one or the other.
 * several respondents fail to address the NPOV arguments and repeat the "reliable sources" mantra. There is no disagreement among either sources or editors about facts of the issue (there's a border between Kosovo and [rest of] Serbia), but on the neutral wording.
 * I acknowledge that consensus can change, and I can accept the arguments such as we don't need to cram [Kosovo status] in every single sentence. On the other hand, this is the lead section of a major article, also displayed in Google's "knowledge panel" (infobox) and a lot of other places outside Wikipedia. Sure we can afford some time and calm discussion to get things impeccably right, rather than rush this through a majority vote? No such user (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not "the offending editor" and I'll ask you to correct your comment. Also, I really don't tolerate being bullied. The next person in this thread to accuse me of misconduct for starting this RfC, or call me names, or otherwise be uncivil, gets a trip to a noticeboard. Behave yourselves. Levivich 12:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologize and I'm striking that; I thought the RfC was opened by Horse Eye's Back (whom I do perceive to be the offending editor), since initial indenting is rather confusing and I misattributed your "(RFC initiator)" note. Anyway, I don't think it's a good idea to post the RfC question and a long support for one position in a single edit. However, the rest of my point still stands. No such user (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Option B per nomination. What we write on wiki should reflect reality as it is - first and foremost - not to follow "NPOV" defined as the middle point between two contrasting statements. It's not just that Kosovo considers itself independent, but Serbia doesn't recognize its independence. Kosovo is recognized by half the world and almost all countries of the European continent as independent, it is represented in almost all international organizations and despite the de jure position of Serbia for non-recognition someone who travels from Serbia to Kosovo by car will have to cross a hard border where they must have all necessary documentation to cross it - just like they would do if they had to cross any other border. Reality is the starting point of what we write. Option B reflects reality in the most functionally meaningful way.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B - per succinct and strong arguments made by many editors in favour of option B, which saves me time from adding my two cents on the matter.Resnjari (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Third option ("bordered by Central Serbia") (ideally) or option A (also good), or else procedural close and reopen:
 * My thoughts on each possibility are as follows:
 * It cannot be denied, in my opinion, that the phrasing "bordered by Serbia" (B) means "bordered by the whole of Serbia", which in turn means that Kosovo is outside Serbia; this, of course, is a phrasing that takes a side as to the controversial question of whether Serbia includes or excludes Kosovo, which violates WP:NPOV. It cannot be used.
 * Some editors (notably the initiator User:Levivich) have argued that it doesn't really violate the policy if the sources we find write about Kosovo's borders in this way. I don't think this is the case: yes, it is true that Wikipedia's observance of WP:NPOV is to follow proper WP:WEIGHT; but this rule applies to the facts we report, not to their phrasing. The fact which is disputed here is not really whether the border is with Serbia or with the rest of Serbia, but rather whether Kosovo is a part of Serbia or an independent country. That is what is disputed; the border phrasing is just a consequence of the real underlying issue of the independence of Kosovo. This implies that we have to follow the WP:WEIGHT according to which sources report about the primary issue here, which is whether Kosovo is independent; and, about that issue, we all seem to agree that Wikipedia has to be neutral and take neither side. Therefore, it follows that all the sentences which we have to form in order to tell something about Kosovo must take no side about the independence issue in the way that they are phrased. If most sources do the opposite and say something in a non-neutral way, we are not supposed to copy that phrasing — because, when they chose to phrase it in that way, they did not create a new fact which we have to report according to WP:WEIGHT; rather, they (perhaps mistakenly or simplistically) chose a non-neutral phrasing of a previous fact about which it has already been established that the rule WP:WEIGHT implies that we give equal weight to both sides. Thus, we should not copy their mistake and we should opt instead for a sentence on Kosovo's borders which is neutral in its implication about the issue of the independence of Kosovo.
 * A better option, but not ideal, is "bordered by the uncontested part of the territory of Serbia" (A). There have been three arguments against this option, only the last one of which I find reasonably convincing:
 * Some have said that to emphasise multiple times that Kosovo's independence is disputed goes against WP:NPOV. That doesn't make sense: avoiding a phrasing which implies that Serbia ends where Kosovo begins is not emphasising that Kosovo's status is disputed; it is remaining true to our duty of neutrality when describing Kosovo's status.
 * Another argument is that the sentence is unnecessarily long and confusing. Yes, it is long, but anyone reading it carefully will understand that it simply means that, to the north and east of Kosovo, lies territory which everyone agrees belongs to Serbia, but may or may not comprise all of Serbia depending on whom you ask. It was clear to me the first time I read it. Either way, truthfulness and neutrality should never be precluded in favour of textual simplicity.
 * The third argument (used by User:Egsan Bacon) has been that calling it "the uncontested part" of Serbia suggests that there is a contested one, which is itself non-neutral. This is not necessarily the case: rather, suggesting that the remaining part is contested allows precisely for the interpretation that it doesn't even belong to Serbia (because it is contested, meaning that it may or may not belong to Serbia). But I understand that this confusion may be generated. So, even though I don't agree that this phrasing breaks neutrality, I understand that it may feel like it does, so perhaps we can find something better.
 * The third option (which was raised by User:Coldtrack) seems clearly the best: "bordered by Central Serbia" avoids any neutrality issues (because it refers to an official region of Serbia whose existence and integrity no-one disputes, as it decisively excludes Kosovo) and maintains a succinct and clear phrasing. I haven't noticed any arguments against it. But, unfortunately, it wasn't presented in the opening of the RfC.
 * A fourth option, which no-one has raised yet but might be interesting to consider, would be: "bordered by (the rest of) Serbia". It is interesting because parentheses are often a succinct way of expressing that something may or may not form part of a sentence, which I regularly find in written texts. However, it suggests a textual ambiguity which may be considered inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, and perhaps it is prohibited by the Manual of Style (I don't know).
 * Thus, I find the third option to be clearly better. Option A is also good, but not ideal. I strongly oppose option B. My fourth option would require further consideration before I support it as well.
 * However, I am worried that the non-inclusion of the third option (as well as the fourth one) in the opening of the RfC may hinder their proper consideration. Earlier editors have suggested that this RfC be procedurally closed and reopened with more options. If this is something that is typically done on Wikipedia in situations like these (which I don't know if it is the case), I suggest that it be done before the final decision. LongLivePortugal (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The third and fourth options in my !vote have been inserted and renamed C and D (respectively) at this time, according to the conversation that followed. LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from adding options to this RfC. Levivich 19:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I wish it had looked like that from the outset. Without criticising Levivich here, he introduced a binary for two valid reasons: A) Those were the two competing phrases, and B) The admin who compelled the RfC from the noticeboard ruled it should be "one vs the other", and additionally decided that it needs to be the "included" part that needs discussion while the simple "Kosovo-Serbia border" be on display while it is being discussed. In reality, we shouldn't be iVoting but making suggestions. When the discussions happened in 2015, it was not version 1 vs version 2. It was "how about this" and "how about that". Many contributed, but only two have returned: FutPerf who has abandoned the neutral wording to accommodate pro-independence imperatives, and Juicy Oranges (originally Oranges Juicy) who you might say has also abandoned neutrality to accommodate a pro-Serbian integrity mindset. He says it was my idea but I only floated it as a suggestion to show the community that breaching neutrality can go two ways, not just one. In reality, the list of options are endless. It can be described as the de facto border between Kosovo and Serbia. It can be described as the administrative border between Kosovo and Serbia (see North Kosovo crisis (2011–2013)). Central Serbia is also known as Serbia proper and is listed on North Kosovo, but that might be edging towards a true pro-Serbian narrative, and I am not here to push that angle any more pro-Kosovo Albanian. Any pro-Serb battleground editor who wanted to present Kosovo as distinctly Serbian, and I will be as hard against them as I am here against those pushing pro-Kosovo Albanian preferences. Moving on, Serbia (represented by Belgrade) and Kosovo (by Pristina) are two polities without question. The frontier between them is by all accounts an LAC (Line of Actual Control). All these terms allow you to say Kosovo and Serbia loud and clear without upsetting either one's sensitivity. I am sure there are more alternatives. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining the story! Yes, of course we can find better alternatives. LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know I could do that! In that case, I will. Thank you! But, in any case, if options are added midway through the RfC, is it still considered valid (since earlier editors may not have reflected on them)? I ask because I do not know and have never seen this happen. LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Theoretically yes. The current revision isn't going anywhere, and meanwhile it is open season for discussing amendments not only for this tinderbox but any aspect of the article. RfC is about creating tags to invite the wider community for their thoughts. Many come, post, then leave without a trace, which is their right. When it comes to the straight choice between keeping and deleting articles, everybody makes his point, and in the end an admin will exert his powers to keep or delete based on his own judgments of the discussion. With RfC I don't think it is the case. I argued for months about the diametrically opposed appraisals on the White Helmets. Al Qaeda linked terrorists posing as rescuers? Or benign and benevolent cuddly band of non-dangerous fanatics? The so-called "reliable sources" claim the latter, while the rest of the world's media, state-owned and private, point to the former. I argued with scores of anti-Syrian government apologists for possibly more than a year on and off, and had to leave because it was like pissing in the wind. The discussion ultimately came down to what is and is not reliable, and I was a one-man gang representing radical changes to the whole of en.wiki. That was never to be on the cards. I don't know if we are dealing with the same category of mainstream gatekeepers here. There is a certain symmetry about the two: one version permanently on display, 1RR per day, and an army of editors on hand to "revert the reverting editor" so their preferred version stays for the best part of 24/7. But ultimately, no admin to come along and declare the debate finished with side 1 vctorious, etc. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @LongLivePortugal: It's not uncommon to ping the editors who participated before the new options were added (or even post a message to their talk page if you want to go that far), but oftentimes I find editors keep RFCs on their watchlists and will check them for major developments and come back and update their !vote as needed.
 * For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only editor who is looking for a list of sources for each option, and if a certain option has zero sources that use that phrasing, it's a non-starter for me. So, for anyone who doesn't think it should be "Kosovo borders Serbia" and wants to propose an alternative phrasing, I would recommend finding an alternative phrasing that is actually used by a lot of reliable sources, and posting that alternative phrasing and some of those sources, and then ping everyone, because that's what is most likely to convince others. You don't have to do that, it's just my $0.02. Levivich 18:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I will ping them in a minute. Thank you for the explanation! LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * C A precedent has been set with similar unrecognized non-UN member states such as Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, to which Kosovo is on equal footing. For Transnistria, the article states that it borders Bessarabia and not Moldova. For South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the border topic isn't even mentioned in the article. It is WP:NPOV to claim Kosovo borders Serbia (which implies that Kosovo is a country), when all similar cases do not follow suit and use neutral references or remove mention of a border at all. I would suggest removing any reference to a border to make the article neutral, in line with two of the aforementioned pages. ElderZamzam (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I only do not like the idea of removing the sentence because a mention of any territory's borders is common on Wikipedia and useful for readers to identify where it is located in relation to other territories (it could be argued that maps will do that job, but maps are always images that sometimes have trouble loading well and readers may be looking only at the text, which is what shows up the most in previews of articles...). Other than that, we seem to agree that, if the sentence is to be kept, it should be option C. LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't get it, NPOV appears to require us to characterize Kosovo as a country because as far as I can tell thats the position overwhelmingly presented as credible by WP:RS. Whats the problem with implying something that is true? Also just FYI wikipedia is not a precedent based project, its a consensus based project. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * B Yes, it takes a position on the question of whether Kosovo is part of Serbia. We also take a position on whether the United States is part of Canada. WP:NPOV is about taking a POV that balances between all reliable sources, not necessarily one that balances between all parties to the argument. If one side of the argument is clearly better sourced than we go with that side. What the A and C voters are arguing is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Loki (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. "We also take a position on whether the United States is part of Canada"? You'd be the only one doing that. It is all good and well saying "reliable sources call it the Serbian border" but that has two problems: A) it rides roughshod over the disputed status and moreover breaches the neutrality of the source in question since its editors have fostered a position of advocacy, and B) Saying "Kosovo's border with Serbia" - which is half right due to it being Kosovo's border however you dice it - is being erected as a wooden dummy to create the illusion that the community has chased the gigantic elephant out of the room. Tomorrow, "Well, we've agreed Kosovo borders Serbia, therefore we operate on the basis that Kosovo isn't a part of Serbia, and if it isn't a part of Serbia then what it is? It must be independent. So let's start calling it a country of the same standard as India and South Africa, and move "disputed territory" to line three, etc.", when  has already explained Kosovo here is being singled out for special treatment as other comparable examples are all worded differently. Not a morsel of FALSEBALANCE here as we are not promoting some minority viewpoint. we are discussing wording over what we know reliable sources say, which is that it is disputed. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We do all currently agree that Kosovo in't part of Serbia. Our sources seem to indicate that it is an independent country (something you are aware of, you specifically brought up thats how Al Jazeera describes them although you appear have meant that as a dig at Al Jazeera). You will find that sources generally reflect reality, sources aren't required to be neutral BTW. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you agree that. Many others share the position that Kosovo is occupied by local rebels and their western handlers such as those based at Bondsteel. There is no argument anywhere on this thread that places Kosovo above any other breakaway state to have unilaterally declared independence, even if "reliable" sources also claim their borders as being with the host nation. And I don't know where you get this "sources generally reflect reality" nonsense because remarks like that take this debate to a new level. Some editors hide behind "reliable sources" merely as a way of building a fortress around statements which are downright controversial at best, and flat out wrong at worst. I've had these discussions elsewhere. When the sources a challenging editor presents all come from publishers and other media with pre-existing "NON-RS" status, the gatekeepers of the controversial viewpoint have no other argument than to cling to RS which might then (as in my case once) send the challenging editor/s down the pathway to reviewing which sources really are and are not RS. After that? There is no more argument for anyone to claim that the current batches are what they say they are unless they are nakedly invoking circular fallacies. What happens next? As the "keep RS what it is" foot soldiers jump up and down and blow a gasket, some other "higher up" admin comes along and collapses the discussion with a "NOTAFORUM" tag. The reality in the case of Abkhazia is the same as Kosovo's. That too is controlled by locals who raise their own flag and represent themselves diplomatically. So your last clause about neutrality, which is correct, contravenes the preceding remark about them reflecting reality. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we don't take a position on whether the US is part of Canada. We report that the reliable sources say that it is an indisputable fact that they are different countries — whereas, in the case of Kosovo, reliable sources say that whether it belongs to Serbia or not is disputed. Therefore, we must report that it is disputed, not that Serbia decisively excludes Kosovo (which is what saying "Kosovo borders Serbia" would do); if some sources say it that way, they have clearly misphrased it for simplistic purposes — because, when read in context, such sources are found to explain that the status of Kosovo is disputed. Therefore, the charge of WP:FALSEBALANCE against a phrasing that explains Kosovo's disputed status makes no sense whatsoever, because it merely translates the fact that the sources say that Kosovo's status really is disputed. LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They say its disputed by Serbia, not by reliable sources. Our sources are clearly saying that Kosovo is no longer a part of Serbia, if you wish to contest that you're going to need WP:RS which say otherwise. Yes we will continue to mention that Serbia disputes Kosovo's independence but if you want to push the wp:fringe POV that Kosovo is not independent you're going to have to do better. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, what you are saying is changing the whole argument... Are you really trying to defend that the notion that Kosovo belongs to Serbia is actually a WP:FRINGE viewpoint?! I'm stunned! I apologise for this long reply, but I really think we need to clarify something important in order to proceed. Maybe I'm the one who is wrong here, but I've always seen the issue of Kosovo as a legitimately debatable one, not as a fringe theory (as though it were a conspiracy or pseudoscience or something like that...). Let's be clear on what is at stake: Kosovo is a breakaway state from Serbia, which refuses to recognise it as independent; meanwhile, about half of all UN countries recognise Kosovo's independence, while the remaining half does not. Is half of the UN defending a 'fringe' viewpoint? What sources are you using to defend that Kosovo is indisputably independent? Please note that there is good reason to defend that it does not make sense to recognise the independence of a separatist state such as Kosovo nowadays — otherwise, we might have to recognise others such as Transnistria, Abkhazia or Catalonia. In particular, Catalonia is the main reason why Spain (a country with which I feel a special bond as a Portuguese citizen) does not want to recognise Kosovo (which makes it one of the few Western countries which hasn't done so yet), as it would be hard to justify that Kosovo can become independent but not Catalonia (or other Spanish regions with separatist movements such as the Basque Country or Galicia). Actually, there is a whole Wikipedia article discussing precisely this problem! Personally, my inability to understand why Kosovo should be treated differently from Catalonia is the reason why I currently disagree with any recognition of Kosovo's independence — and yet, my country of Portugal has recognised Kosovo. This serves also as my response to your earlier comment that "We do all currently agree that Kosovo isn't part of Serbia" — no, we don't; at least, I do not. And yet, we can agree to disagree on this topic; however, if you believe that my viewpoint (which matches that of Serbia, but also that of Spain) is WP:FRINGE and should not be featured here, you will have to prove that carefully. So, I will repeat my question: which sources are you basing yourself on, in order to say that? LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @LongLivePortugal, on Wikipedia, we concern ourselves with the sources. They are our Bible, and we don't let personal opinions interfere. Our job is to write what the source says, and not add or detract our own bits to suit our nationalistic POVs. No matter how strongly we feel. Kosovo is a country and the question here is, which country does it border on its north and east? If you are claiming it is something other than Serbia, then you need sources. BTW Catalonia is not independent. It declared independence for a while and then it reintegrated itself back into Spain before anyone gave it a recognition. Abkhazia is a part of Georgia and Transnistria is a part of Moldova. They just happened to make unilateral declarations of independence. That in itself doesn't mean they should be treated as independent. That just makes them 'rebel-held lands'. Sovereignty means more, you have to have your own flag, your own national anthem, your own government, your own head of state, and you have to represent yourself internationally. From the sovereignty article:- Sovereignty is the supreme legitimate authority within a territory.[1] Sovereignty entails hierarchy within the state, as well as external autonomy for states.[2] In any state, sovereignty is assigned to the person, body, or institution that has the ultimate authority over other people in order to establish a law or change an existing law.. So Kosovo is sovereign while Abkhazia and Transnistria are not. --Thelostranger (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If WP:RS present those cases like they do Kosovo then yes we should, if those cases are presented differently in WP:RS then whats the point of bringing it up? And yes the idea that Kosovo is not an independent state whose sovereignty is disputed by Serbia but that its independence itself is questioned appears to be fringe, I can't find a single contemporary WP:RS which presents the issue as such and if you could provide some I would be very grateful and willing to consider changing my vote. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, my inability to understand why Kosovo should be treated differently from Catalonia is the reason why I currently disagree with any recognition of Kosovo's independence not the right place to discuss this as per WP:NOTFORUM, but in any case, Catalonia is the richest region of Spain with prosperity and human rights of the Western standards. Comparing living as a minority in Spain with living as a minority in Yugoslavia or Serbia is off-track. Even in 2021 the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia accused Serbia of ongoing ethnic cleansing of its Albanian minority in the Presevo valley. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * B. Per Horse Eye's Back. OK, Kosovo may be disputed by Serbia, but Kosovo is recognized by the majority of the UN and all of Europe except Romania, Spain, Cyprus, Greece & Slovak Republic, it is a reality on the ground, and the reliable sources themselves treat Kosovo as a fully fledged independent state. I propose the opening line should say Kosovo is a country just as Serbia is said to be one, and Mexico. We don't need to say it is a "disputed territory" or just a "partially recognized" territory because no reliable sources claim this. Anything suggesting 'disputed' is the blatantly offensive pro-Serbian claim. --Thelostranger (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Vote by block-evading sockpuppet struck. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your argument has been dealt with by all opponents of B. Meanwhile two other problems with your point. You are clearly confusing the "Europe" (whatever you mean by that) with the EU (regarding states that don't recognise). Why exactly a reader needs to concern himself with what he regimes of "Europe" have taken upon themselves to do has no bearing on this discussion. Much of Africa does not recognise Kosovo, and I don't know whether you know that Africa composes a far greater part of the wider English-speaking world than "Europe". --Coldtrack (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Coltrack, the sources say that the five countries I named are the only "European countries" not to recognize Kosovo, and you are somebody who clearly has an issue with the sources. I can't even see what your ivote is anyway except you don't want Option B. Did you say A? Did you say C? How am I supposed to know. All I can tell you is one thing, anything other than B is unsourced, so should not be used. And also, Kosovo is in Europe, not in Africa. That's why it is important that Wikipedia reflects the views of the European people here. --Thelostranger (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Just pinging earlier editors after new options —           I am pinging you, according to the suggestion of User:Levivich, because two new options have been added to the RfC and you haven't commented here ever since, which means the addition may have missed you. You may be willing to reconsider your !vote and change it, if you find that one of the new options suits your preference better.  Thank you for your attention! LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option B It is what the reliable sources say, it is shorter and simple. Option C is nationalistic POV pushing because it supports the idea that Kosovo is southern Serbia. The opposite POV is that Kosovo borders southern Serbia. The only NPOV sentence is "Kosovo borders Serbia" without taking position by specifying whether it is southern or central Serbia. Excine (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. Are you saying that C is "nationalistic" POV pushing because it implies that Kosovo is in southern Serbia, while B should be used because "reliable sources" say it, and it is "short and simple"? If so, would you mind telling me how one should propose a pro-Kosovo independence wording? Meanwhile I suggest go and read up on your facts. There is not one scintilla of "nationalism" behind suggestions that Kosovo is in Serbia (which incidentally is not implied by A, C, D and all other alternatives mentioned). Apart from more than half of the globe recognising Serbia's territorial integrity, this is the position of the entire Serbian society, from left-wing to right-wing, from moderate to extreme, from sectarian to secular, and from native to diaspora. There is no fifth column that calls for Kosovo's recognition in some fringe corner of Serbian society. If any opponent of B wanted to give primacy to the Serbian government perspective, there are more prominent ways of doing so, but nobody is suggesting one. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That "fifth column" (what a bizarrely nationalistic and offensive way to refer to people) would appear to be at least 7% in 2018. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Cut the histrionics. I never called anybody a fifth columnist. I said that there is no fifth column that calls for Kosovo independence. That survey did not reveal that there is a single non-Albanian from Serbia, let alone section of the population, who has in the last 14 years canvassed the Serbian government to recognise the Republic of Kosovo. There has been no demonstration in Belgrade led by Serbs that demand this from the president. All the survey shows is that there are some who are openly not bothered, or are happy enough to recognise it if it means Serbia joins the EU. If it happened that Serbia was locked into the EU and able to do so without having to recognise Kosovo, the chances of there being some Serbs/non-Albanians objecting to the non-recognition of Kosovo is less than nil. Meanwhile, it is not "nationalistic" (and whose anyway? I am Ukrainian) to deem a fifth columnist as a fifth columnist. One either is or is not.  --Coldtrack (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Note Interested editors could find opening an "Extended discussion" subsection helpful. That could avoid making the RfC messy. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Every rule regarding how to start RfC neutrally was broken. No admin action so far... How is that possible? I refuse to vote in a any RfC started like this. We had 10 votes for 1 option before other options were introduced. It's completely ridicilous and lack of NPOV (option B) and promotion of western-European/USA POV on obviously sensitive matter is one of the reasons why people leave Wikipedia more and more. Thx all. Вукан Ц (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Political discussions shouldn't take place at the RfC because they discourage participation from new editors by making the discussion TL;DR. Wikipedia is not the place to solve political disputes and establish WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia doesn't aim to be "neutral" for the sake of neutrality, it aims to reflect reality and pick specific wordings because reliable sources do so. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah the discussion has gone off topic in some areas and into personal political views. Rfc should be based on wiki policies and guidelines, in the context of reliable sources and so on, per topic at hand.Resnjari (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Option B. Any other option is tantamount to suggesting that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, which it isn't. North Korea is bordered by South Korea and vice versa, even though both claim each other's land. Kosovo exists in a specific hunk of landlocked land, and as such, has land borders with its neighbors. One of its neighbors is Serbia, and it shares a border with Serbia. Red   Slash  19:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask you two questions: 1) can you please explain exactly why you view Option C as suggesting that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, given that Central Serbia is a region of Serbia defined in such a way as to exclude Kosovo?; and 2) can you please explain exactly why you do not view Option B as suggesting the exact reverse (that Kosovo is not part of Serbia), given that it basically says that Serbia begins where Kosovo ends? Thank you! LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to! 1), "Central Serbia" is a synonym of "Serbia" because they are the exact same thing. There's no reason to use the longer synonym. 2), I certainly do believe that Option B suggests the exact reverse. It does say that Serbia ends where Kosovo begins, which, in addition to being true, is backed by the majority of reliable, independent sources. Red   Slash  18:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) According to the Central Serbia article on Wikipedia, "Central Serbia" is not the same thing as "Serbia"; rather it is a part of Serbia which is defined in such a way that it excludes Kosovo and also Vojvodina. You can understand this if you look at the map which is in that article. 2) Are you saying that the majority of reliable sources have already established that Kosovo is definitively independent and not included in Serbia? Can you show me which sources you are referring to? LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Option B per Levivich. Ultimately, the majority of RS use phrasing that favours option B. It must be noted that Option C is not neutral as some users have suggested; it implies that Kosovo is part of Serbia, hence it supposedly borders one of it's internal regions (Central Serbia), when this is not the case at all. Botushali (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How does the fact that a state borders an region of another country imply that it belongs to that country? Don't countries share borders with regions of other countries all the time? LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t make sense for a country to border the central region of another when it it is situated completely to the south of the state. If anything, it should be bordering southern Serbia, not central. Botushali (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Botushali. Well yay and nay at the same time. Ever since Kosovo and Vojvodina were formulated per their current outlines, the remaining region has been called "Central Serbia" locally the same way all of Russia east of the Urals is called Siberia. It definitely occupies to central spot but it not an accurate synopsis over what the central regions are. I don't really support "borders Central Serbia" as much as I suggested it to show how it might look if editors gravitate to the opposite end of a POV dispute. One or two have taken it on board as an iVote but I am more in favour of mildly extended wording. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is one thing I did not understand: which wording do you support? LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , sorry for late reply. To date I have only argued against B. I like D best. A and C I can settle for, but B is 100% non-negotiable. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Check the Central Serbia article on Wikipedia and you will find that it is not as you say. "Central Serbia" is just the name that was given to that region of Serbia which begins right where Kosovo ends. "Southern Serbia" doesn't exist, as far as I know. But a synonym for "Central Serbia" is "Serbia proper", as you can see in the article. Would the choice of "Serbia proper" instead of "Central Serbia" resolve the issue? Would you accept Option C in that case? LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Option B for all the points mentioned above, plus there really is a border with Serbia, with several checkpoint crossings along it. The dispute on whether the border is international or not is a different matter, but even Serbia recognizes the existence of the border itself. Çerçok (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B is really the only acceptable answer here. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * B The fact that a border exists between Serbia and Kosovo is just that -- a fact. Option D does not describe the reality experienced by people on the ground, because Kosovo is not governed by the government in Belgrade and has not been for what is, many of us, as long as we can remember. Option C requires introducing this nebulous concept of "Central Serbia"; this is downright bizarre if you aren't already familiar with it, since the area east of Kosovo seems quite like southern Serbia whether or not that also includes Kosovo (unless you are a person who thinks North Macedonia is part of Serbia...). Option A is dancing around it, trying and failing to sound "neutral", but doing so in a particularly clumsy way. Frankly, it is downright annoying to readers to have to go into acrobatics about this. If you find yourself at the border, it is just that -- a border. People who actually care about the details about Kosovo's status will surely be able to find them on this page or elsewhere, for they are ubiquitous. If someone reads this article and fails to comprehend that Kosovo's sovereignty is disputed, that's really on them. --Calthinus (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * . Your statement misses the point completely. The disputed status is observed on Albanian Wikipedia which says Kosovo borders Serbia, and it is also observed on Serbian Wikipedia where it is stated that Serbia borders Albania (thereby including Kosovo as within Serbia). By saying "Kosovo borders Serbia" in English is to stick two fingers up at the disputed status, pretty much saying, "yeah it is disputed, but as far as we are concerned, the pro-independence arguers are right". Note that Jerusalem is not indicated to be in Israel or in the State of Palestine. As for the argument, "Option D does not describe the reality experienced by people on the ground", that is merely a petition for having all disputed territories allocated to whoever controls them, which has at times included ISIS for areas of Syria and Iraq, but certainly Lugansk where you are concerned, and Somaliland among others. It is better to "dance around" than to deploy inconsistent reasoning for eliminating all other options just to conveniently arrive at a biased conclusion. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I somehow missed your ping but you are actually illustrating my point. "Pro-independence arguers"? No, Kosovo is independent, that is a literal fact on the ground. You or some other person might not like it, or they may love it, but it doesn't matter, it is a fact, just like the fact that the Taliban control Afghanistan despite much of the world regarding that fact as regrettable and illegitimate. (no I am not making any comparison to Afghanistan). Why did you have to bring up Jerusalem, is that bait? And also, if you are talking about international law as some thing, isn't a bit of a double standard to on one hand make this argument, and then use Lugansk? Hmm. --Calthinus (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Notice: I have requested closure of this discussion. With no new comments in one and a half months, I hope the need for closure is consensual... If anyone disagrees, please feel free to say something! LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended discussion
I am following User:Ktrimi991's suggestion to open a sub-section to "avoid making the RfC messy" (which it already is, unfortunately...).

You have claimed that "Our sources are clearly saying that Kosovo is no longer a part of Serbia" and, when I asked you what these sources were, you provided none and shifted the burden of proof to me by saying: "I can't find a single contemporary WP:RS which presents the issue as such [i.e., that Kosovo's independence itself is questionable] and if you could provide some I would be very grateful and willing to consider changing my vote." You furthermore labelled this viewpoint of questioning Kosovo's independence as WP:FRINGE, thus dismissing my claim that calling this controversial border a border with Serbia (rather than, say, with Central Serbia) would violate WP:NPOV by implicitly stating that Serbia excludes Kosovo.

First of all, it seems to me that the distinction you are trying to make — between saying that Serbia disputes Kosovo's independence (which we both agree the sources say) and that Kosovo's independence is disputed (which is our point of disagreement) — is rather artificial. Naturally, if Serbia disputes Kosovo's independence, then it follows that Kosovo's independence is disputed! It seems that we're just phrasing the same thing in two different ways, not saying two different things.

But I'll temporarily grant you that point, for the sake of the argument, and, even though you have inappropriately shifted the burden of proof to me, present a few sources (some of which have been mentioned here) that mention Kosovo's status as being disputed in general (implicitly or explicitly) or that call the border a border with Central Serbia:
 * The Conversation — "More than 20 years after the war – and a decade since the declaration – Kosovo’s statehood continues to divide politicians and the public alike."
 * Britannica — "Kosovo, self-declared independent country in the Balkans region of Europe." (Note that "self-declared independent" implies that its independence is derived only from its own declaration and is not yet settled; compare with other countries' entries on Britannica, which do not feature this introduction.)
 * BBC — The map displays Kosovo in dark yellow, 'Serbia minus Kosovo' in light yellow, and all other countries in white, with no solid line at the border, clearly illustrating its disputed status as 'possibly part of Serbia'.
 * Kosovo Country Study Guide — "Kosovo is a disputed region in the Balkans. Its majority is governed by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo [...]. Landlocked Kosovo is bordered by Central Serbia in the north and east [...]"
 * Google Maps — I can't think of anything clearer than this: open Google Maps, zoom in on Serbia and you'll find clearly a dashed line around Kosovo instead of a solid line, clearly signalling that the border is disputed and that Kosovo may be interpreted either as independent or as part of Serbia.

Furthermore, User:Coldtrack, in his first comment on this RfC, also argues that, even though there are sources which (for simplification purposes, in my opinion) describe this border as being between Kosovo and Serbia, many of them will be careful enough to refer to it as a 'disputed border' and has provided six examples. This implies that, even if we do choose to write that 'Kosovo borders Serbia', at least we should mention that this specific border is disputed (and not on equal footing with either of Kosovo's remaining borders) if we are to remain faithful to the sources.

Surely, though, even if option C is not liked by editors for some reason, we can still find better alternatives (which do not imply anything as to whether Kosovo is part of Serbia or not, as B does). It is worth mentioning that, in my research for sources, I happened to come across our sister project Wikitravel, whose article on Kosovo has come up with clever phrasing: "Kosovo borders [...] Serbia (from its perspective) to the north east; [this] frontier is viewed by Serbia as being an internal boundary separating Kosovo (as an internal province) with Central Serbia." How about this? Simple as adding that Kosovo's border "with Serbia" exists from Kosovo's perspective and not necessarily from anyone else's! Do we have to definitively take Kosovo's side on Wikipedia in the way we describe the border? Why?

Having said that, I return the burden of proof to you and I repeat my question: which sources say that Kosovo is independent? LongLivePortugal (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't shift the burden of proof in the wikipedia system, it lies permanently with those who wish to include content. Something being disputed isn't the same thing as something not being true, in America for instance many dispute the results of the 2020 United States presidential election but our page on Joe Biden does not refer to him as a "disputed President" or similar. Kosovo *is* independent and its independence *is* disputed, both are true statements. The jump you appear to be making is to "Kosovo is not independent" which is a fringe position without significant support from WP:RS. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not yet provided any reliable source claiming that Kosovo is independent, as you say (which is your entire basis for your defence of Option B), and I have asked you for it twice already. Does this mean your argument for Option B has been refuted? Need I ask a third time?
 * You wrote: "You can't shift the burden of proof in the wikipedia system, it lies permanently with those who wish to include content." What are you suggesting? That I am the one trying to include content?! How so? You are the one claiming that Kosovo borders Serbia because it is independent, which is something I do not remember this article saying before the edit war that has led us to this.
 * As for me, you have misinterpreted my position: although I personally believe that Kosovo is not independent, I know that defending its independence is a valid belief; therefore, I want Wikipedia to be written neutrally in this regard. (If I wanted a pro-Serbian phrasing, I would suggest "Kosovo borders the rest of Serbia", which I reject.) I liked Option A and believed it was good enough, but I have come to recognise its issue and have attempted to propose a reasonable alternative that would make everyone happy, which would be Option C, because saying that Kosovo borders Central Serbia (a region defined indisputably as excluding Kosovo) implies neither that Kosovo belongs in Serbia nor that it is independent. I have also suggested a fourth option (D) which no-one liked. And I have just now suggested a fifth possibility based on clever phrasing I found on Wikitravel. I am trying to get to a consensus phrasing.
 * You, on the other hand, with all due respect, seem to be the one insisting on one single option, having so far neither accepted any of the four alternatives (A, C, D or this latest fifth one) nor clearly explained, as far as I can remember, exactly what is the problem with any of them (notably C, the most preferred one right now by those who disagree with you). With all due respect, you don't seem to be helping build consensus here, but this is just my opinion and I hope I am mistaken. LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

LonglivePortugal:


 * 1) Academia
 * 2) Reuters
 * 3) WikiTravel
 * 4) France 24
 * 5) Jamestown Sun

All say the same thing, Kosovo is independent, Kosovo is independent. How many more sources do you want? --Thelostranger (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those sources don't say that at all! With the exception of Source 1, which is written in a language that I cannot understand (therefore, I invite you to quote and translate exactly what and where it is written there that Kosovo is independent), all the other sources merely say that someone says that Kosovo is independent, but not that Kosovo is independent. Sources 2 and 5 say that George W. Bush says that Kosovo is independent; but, of course, George W. Bush isn't the ultimate authority in deciding which countries are independent and which are not, so you can't use those sources to prove that Kosovo is really independent. Source 4 only states that Kosovo's Parliament has declared that Kosovo is independent; but, of course, independence is not something that exists when a Parliament declares it, but only when the country from which the would-be country wants to break away actually recognises the new country's independence (which didn't happen, as Source 4 also proves, by immediately afterwards stating that Serbia has rejected Kosovo's independence). Finally, Source 3 explicitly states that Kosovo is disputed territory and I can't find any place where it says that it is independent. So, all your Sources 2–5, so far, appear to me to have failed the test, and cannot be used to say that Kosovo is independent. Meanwhile, I have already provided earlier some sources which say that Kosovo is disputed. LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't need to respond LongLivePortugal as this one is over and you have long lost. --Thelostranger (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you responding so rudely to me? This is not over: on Wikipedia, an RfC only ends when someone closes it. And need I remind you that this is not a vote? You actually need to explain why you have your position, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. You have presented sources which, as I have explained, do not say that Kosovo is independent. Since the idea that Kosovo is independent is your rationale for defending Option B, then this means I have effectively argued against your defence of Option B, unless you respond with a better argument. LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * When something has been explained to you over and over we get into WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. Its hard to in good faith understand how you still don't realize that Kosovo is an independent country, you've been presented with so many sources that your refusal to concede the point just isn't credible. Your creation of imaginary standards like "independence is not something that exists when a Parliament declares it, but only when the country from which the would-be country wants to break away actually recognises the new country's independence" (this is complete and utter poppycock) when your previous standards are met and even exceeded is profoundly disappointing. Further disruption and failure to act in good faith will see an ANI case opened. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Complete and utter rubbish. "Kosovo is an independent country" is a point of opinion, has the same amount of credibility as Lugasnk, South Ossetia, Somaliland and even Islamic State any such time it has held territory, and like the rest in the list, it is not considered to be so by 50% of the world's functioning states (which can include Kosovo but it does not take you past 50%), and that also goes for the world's population and where they live. Furthermore, although this was never the topic of the discussion (is Kosovo a country or not?), many of us knew right from the onset that "Kosovo borders Serbia" was little more than a handle to compromise Wikipedia's integrity more than it is so you can eventually dispense with your headache of NPOV. You've got one argument, "sources, sources, sources". A thousand times you've had WP:VNOT explained to you, a policy which trumps the disingenuous "sources are the be all and end all" claptrap, and never once have you or your steadfast but short-lived ally Thelostranger (a definite sock, but I would bet my last penny not of Edin balgarin) provided an argument as to why the POV you push is beyond the shackles of VNOT, and nor have you provided a valid argument as to why any of the alternatives are not good, and what the problem would be for a non-partisan reader if one of the other options stood in place of B. I mean let's face it, how much more pro-Kosovo separatist is it podsible to be than B? Try thinking of a line that is both encyclopaedic and pro-Kosovo independence that would make B look neutral. Do that, and I'll make a deal with you: I'll congratulate you and quit Wikipedia for good. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Denial of objective reality is not within our remit as editors. If you think that relaying objective reality as reported by WP:RS will "compromise Wikipedia's integrity" you probably should quit before you're banned as WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The only person in denial is you. Two whole months you've regurgitated the same old argument, "sources, sources" and instead of man up to the challenges I and other editors have presented you with (both policy-based and topical), you demonstrate the actual ICANTHEARYOU of which you accuse another editor, an editor who I might add has blown you out of the water in terms of debate. Wikipedia's reputation lies in ruins whether you like it or not. But it is because of people like you that it is, and let's face it, your name is known off-Wiki. I made an offer to swallow my pride and quit, but you have to meet the criteria before I do that, and you know it's an impossible task because you really are not here to build an encyclopaedia. You're here to push pro-western narratives. Again, show me a time you have stood against the tide of the prevailing orthodoxy and I will humbly apologise and then walk away for good. Looking up and down this thread, the only denial of objective reality comes from the collective lobby supporting Option B, everyone of whom has two things in common: 1) They play down the sensitive nature of the situation, and 2) They pretend "sources" are the one-size-fits-all pretext for pushing POVs when that is not even the way to use sources as you've been explained a thousand times. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am appalled at your charge of WP:ICANTHEARYOU against me! That accusation is outrageous, not only because it implies disruptive editing to articles (which is blatantly false, as I haven't even edited this article to make it match my viewpoint), but also because it suggests that I am somehow doing anything that is violating achieved consensus (when the only thing I've done so far has been to legitimately argue in favour of my viewpoint)! I hereby clarify that I will accept any outcome of this RfC once it is closed, even if it is decided against my opinion. I have always been here in good faith, always attempting to reach a neutral solution that might be acceptable to us all (whether we believe in Kosovo's independence or not), wherefore I have already suggested a total of four alternative phrasing suggestions! As for the independence of Kosovo, you haven't really provided me with any sources yet, even though I have already asked you for them three times; all the sources another user so far has provided only report on the recognition of independence by entities which, ultimately, are not authoritative of their own in absolutely deciding which territories are independent and which ones are not. But, of course, we don't need to discuss here whether Kosovo is independent or not (we can safely agree to disagree on that); we only need to decide on nothing more than the best and most neutral phrasing to use to describe the border! Finally, I am astounded at how you conclude your comment by threatening to open an WP:ANI against me! Would you care to explain exactly what you will accuse me of, and how you will justify your charge? "Disruption and failure to act in good faith"? How so? By not agreeing that Kosovo is independent? How am I in any way disrupting Wikipedia by responding to this RfC to discuss this border issue on this talk page? If you do not want to continue the discussion, feel free to walk away, instead of getting angry at me and threatening me like that when I have done you no harm! Please withdraw your charge of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and your threat to open an WP:ANI, so that we can keep this discussion civilised and comfortable to us all. LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Restored info that was removed
I have restored some information that was removed on the grounds that it was unsourced, adding a source this time. Khirurg (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2022
Change 'Kosovo' To Kosovo and Metohija Oliver Delattre (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 6 September 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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Highway Kosovo - North Macedonia.jpg

Sourcing
why do you think we should be using an opinion piece in the infobox? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * My concerns are not related to the opinion piece in the infobox. My concerns are related to the removal of the opposing claim to the territory encompassing Kosovo. An edit war initially evolved over text referring to UNSC 1244. However, you went one step ahead and removed any reference to the opposing claims made by Serbia. Having the opposing view is in line with other similar contexts including: South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland and Transnistria. All those editors involved in the UNSC 1244 edit war should have reached a consensus on the talk page as it is a contentious statement, however it has now gone out of control. This is the reason why this page has a 1 revert per 24 hour rule. ElderZamzam (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why in the world would you restore the restore the opinion piece in the infobox? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Standardize demonym/adjectival to Kosovar
It seems like some places on WP are using Kosovan while others are using Kosovar, but in official contexts (e.g., US governmental contexts) and even according to popularity, Kosovar should be the canonical demonym/adjectival to mean "of or relating to Kosovo". Even this article itself lists Kosovar first. Does anyone have any thoughts or large opposition to this? If not, I will be changing it in a week's time to Kosovar across the board. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen "Kosovan" used anywhere so far, "Kosovar" is what I've seen being used. S.G ReDark (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you're welcome to use Kosovar instead of Kosovan. Therandas (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Number of recognitions
There was a discussion about the number of recognitions in the relevant talkpage and the main article should reflect those changes. Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In his initial edit, brought up an interesting point. He specifically claimed Not an improvement. Do not POV push with Twitter posts by Kosovo* representatives used as a source. I would like to add something regarding this claim. If we go to the page International recognition of Kosovo and look at the sources that the recognition of Kosovo's independence was withdrawn, we see that the countries in that list can be separated into 3 categories:
 * Category 1. Ghana: The deputy foreign minister of the country claimed that Ghana's decision to recognize Kosovo was premature and they reconsidered their position. Therefore, there is good credibility to the claim that Ghana has withdrawn its recognition of Kosovo's independence.
 * Category 2. Burundi, Lesotho, Comoros, Dominica, Grenada, Nauru. In all of these cases, Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dačić met with the representatives of those countries and afterwards claimed that they had agreed to suspend the recognition of Kosovo "until the conclusion of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue" and so on. In this case, even if we don't see the Serbian Foreign Minister as a credible source, the fact that he made the announcement with the representatives of those countries being present gives considerable credibility to his claims.
 * Category 3. Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Madagascar, Togo, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone. In all of these cases, Ivica Dačić claimed that recognition of Kosovo's independence has been withdrawn, but did not provide any verbal note, nor any other evidence. Therefore, these claims of derecognition are dubious at best. Dacic made similar evidenceless claims about Palau and Suriname, but recently Kosovo's President and Foreign Minister met the foreign ministers of said countries and discussed the deepening of bilateral relations. In light of these events, one wonders if countries in the third group should be in the list of "derecognizers" at all. The evidence that they recognized Kosovo is a verbal note, while the evidence that they derecognized Kosovo is a claim by Kosovo's rival in a dispute, with zero outside corroboration.
 * What calls Twitter posts by Kosovo* representatives fall in Category 2. They are indeed claims by the representatives of Kosovo, but there is evidence that these representatives had bilateral meetings with the representatives of the other countries, after which they made those claims (photos, mentioning said diplomats in their tweets). Counterevidence to that is just a claim by Serbia's Foreign Minister that these countries have withdrawn recognition (Category 3). So there is absolutely no doubt that Category 2 has primacy over Category 3. It simply has far more credibility. One important question is whether Category 3 should exist at all, or whether Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Madagascar, Togo, Central African Republic, and Sierra Leone should simply be returned to the list of recognizing countries. If we follow 's advice and remove one-sided, unprovable claims, then the number of recognitions of Kosovo's independence should be 106, not 100. That's something we can discuss in the future in International Recognition of Kosovo. -Uniacademic (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources which describe the diplomatic relations between Kosovo and other states are sufficient. ILBobby's comment sums up how sources should be used in this context .--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note that Ранко_Николић would also appear to be pushing a POV. Not very subtly either. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)I didn't notice
 * Thanks for the edits after my revert. There is a requirement that every revert is explained on the talkpage, but there is no explanation for any of the reverts by Ранко_Николић.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're thinking of WP:BRD which is an optional method of seeking consensus but is not in any way required. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Ранко_Николић is sabotaging the page with propaganda and actions should be taken so he/she won't keep reverting sourceful edits. Therandas (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2022
Remove the sentence "A significant portion of politicians in both the EU and the US had feared that a premature declaration could boost support in Serbia for the nationalist candidate, Tomislav Nikolić.[142]".

As much as I personally despise Nikolic, he was a center-right candidate running on a center-right platform. The article used as a source [142] makes no reference to him. In fact, it acknowledges that the election was won by a center-left, pro-EU candidate. 24.135.14.178 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * For the record, this sentence has been sitting around for more than 14 years – it was first inserted, with the same source, on 3 February 2008, i.e. just before the election in question and before the declaration of independence. However, the source page on BBC was edited and modified several times over the years, and it's no longer easy to find out what it was saying back then. The version you can see today, and also the one that was linked to when somebody added an archive link and and a "retrieved on" mark in July 2009, were from a later date, after the election. Unfortunately, webarchive didn't archive any snapshots of the source page around that time. The nearest ones I can find are one from 9 June 2007, archived on 24 October 2007, and one from 21 February 2008, archived on 7 March 2008. Neither of them mentions the concern about Nikolić, but it's quite possible that there was an intermediate version of the page that did mention it, from the time period between when the "postponement" would have been decided (supposedly after June 2007?) and the election itself (4 February) and declaration of independence (17 February). – So, difficult to decide what to do with this, for the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting... I personally suppose that, since the information cannot be verified, we should probably remove the sentence. Even if it was not added in bad faith and its mention of Nikolić really was there at a given time, but it was not archived and we cannot find it now, I think we should probably remove it. At the same time, it sounds like the sentence might easily be true... So, perhaps we can keep it for a while, but replace the source with a 'citation needed' tag whilst we seek an alternative source for it. If no-one can find it after some time, we then delete it. What do you think? LongLivePortugal (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Differing treatment between Kosovo and Taiwan
Why is it that Taiwan could be considered a "country" in the lead, but not Kosovo, being a "partially recognised" state? Kosovo, like Palestine, has much more global recognition than Taiwan, are they not? Kosovo is a part of multiple international organizations, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, (both of which Taiwan is not a part of) and the Council of Europe, and is recognized by more UN members (100) than Taiwan (13) does. Even Palestine has more recognition (138) than Taiwan (and Kosovo itself) and yet are not given a status of a "country". What makes Taiwan so special over Kosovo, or better yet, over other partially recognised nations with much more intentional recognition in multiple areas? 220.72.157.38 (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Why is Kosovo special enough to be considered a "state" when Taiwan is not? CMD (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to using the word state or country or better yet, state/country DominusVilicus (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I most definitely object to state or country because it rides roughshod over one half of the debate and places the other half on a pedestal. That said, the community has already crossed the rubicon on the "it borders Serbia" on the most bone-headed and gargabe argumentation I have ever read. In the current climate of the White Helmets being a benevolent force for good, Russia being Mr Bad Guy and Ukraine the innocent babe in the woods, and the concomitant factor that many decent editors have left the project leaving only the disciples of New World Order at the reins, I doubt that the opposition to "state" is going to achieve success due to might being right. But while the talk page allows us to discuss the article's content, I will continue to exercise this freedom. No there is no correlation between Taiwan and Kosovo. Just because they have parallels such as limited recognition and as a consequence, limited membership to international organisations, does not mean they share the same backstory. First, Taiwan is shorthand for Republic of China. Contrary to rife ignorance among armchair pundits in the west, Taiwan has never declared independence, and one of its biggest parties the Kuomintang does not even support such a move, preferring Cross-Strait relations per the One China Policy: i.e. to claim territorial integrity over all of China with the inclusion of Mongolia which it never allowed to go free. Its related co-examples include pre-2001 Afghanistan, contested between Emirate and State during those years. Korea is also similar with what we call "North" and "South" claiming single country in full. Kosovo is an example of a body which has declared independence from a bigger state, so its co-examples include Somaliland, Lugansk (2014-2022), Abkhazia, even ISIS for said periods that ISIS controlled its claimed territories. The State of Palestine was declared in 1988, has about two thirds recognition, and contains territory that is not claimed by any other competing state (e.g. Israel does not claim Gaza as its own). The refusal by about a third of states to recognise Palestine revolves mostly around wider poltical loyalty. The question of how many diplomatic recognitions Kosovo has over its real peers (ISIS, South Ossetia, etc.) demonstrates not so much how much of a country it is but how much success it has achieved in its goals. For FIFA to admit Kosovo but not Artsakh is not based on a survey as to how much you control, or how many recognise you, but who influences you. It is thereby a circular argument. So yes it will probably be the case that it becomes "country" with "disputed" status relegated to line two, but it will not be on any sound reasoning nor the fact that comparison with Taiwan should have merit. --OJ (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Less soapboxing, OJ, and more discussion of Reliable Sources to improve the article - your personal views are less than useless for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.216.187 (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no "soapboxing", and if you think that some reliable source claims there to exist a One-Serbia policy whereby a nation either recognises Priština or Belgrade as the legal authority over the whole of constitutional Serbia, then go ahead and entertain everybody with it. Failing that, my points stands, and you have no basis to compare Kosovo with the Republic of China, period. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead
I reverted an edit which add a description of Kosovo in the first sentence as a. Such edits require a broad consensus. I think that such a description by definition reflects a very specific WP:POV in comparison to the current lead.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Should have said disputed territory, linked with list of disputed territories. That's how it was originally, and to be honest, not much has remedied these past five years. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2022
Megatronkopili (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)File:Flag of Kosovo (yellow).svg
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. CMD (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Historical demographics
The edits by ElderZamzam introduced statements which contradict the rest of the section and they constitute a major change. Such edits require broad consensus building and shouldn't introduce any specific WP:POV.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Gracanica 1.jpg (discussion)
 * Manastir Visoki Dečani (Манастир Високи Дечани) - by Pudelek..jpg (discussion)

Ottoman rule
A bulk of the subsection Ottoman rule is solely devoted to the demographic history of Kosovo during that time period. I have added an undue tag under this section as there is significant undue weight to one view. Two opposing viewpoints are discussed in this subsection, that being a consensus on which ethnic group had a greater majority population. The subsection predominately discusses the viewpoints that Albanians formed a majority ethnic population of Kosovo during the Ottoman rule, there was little to no migration of Albanians to Kosovo and that the Great Serb migration was a myth. These points are supported by only three citations, Malcolm, Anscombe and Pulaha (a Hoxha era citation). As it stands, this section violates WP:CHERRYPICKING as there is little discussion on the opposing viewpoint which is in stark contrast to these arguments. In order for the tag to be removed, significant work would need to be done to discuss the opposing viewpoint and to introduce work from other authors. IMO, an ideal step would be to make only minor references to demographic history and focus on major events in this time period, given that other Wikipedia articles cover this topic. This would assist in navigating this minefield as I am aware such a rich history is difficult to dissect in a mere subsection. ElderZamzam (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Your personal opinion about the content of the section is no reason to tag it. Please discuss here what you believe is undue weight. Ahmet Q. (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Unitarianism or Unitarism?
In the history section, it says "Both countries joined Yugoslavia after World War I, and following a period of Yugoslav unitarianism in the Kingdom, the post-World War II Yugoslav constitution established the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija within the Yugoslav constituent republic of Serbia."

I think it means unitarism, which is a political construct, not unitarianism, which is the religious belief that God isn't a trinity. And the link leads to an article on political unitarism.

But I am not familiar with either the politics or the history of the region, so I don't want to unilaterally make the change. Can someone familiar with the subject check and see if it's in need of a correction? Whaledancer (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I fixed it.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation

 * 94 countries recognized Kosovo not 101 79.140.148.185 (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2023
Change "and has since gained diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state by 101 member states of the United Nations" to "and has since gained diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state by less than 100 countries members of the United Nations" 46.239.6.120 (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Updated source https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/15-countries-and-counting-revoke-recognition-of-kosovo-serbia-says/


 * ❌ The source states "According to Serbian representatives"; this is a statement by a biased source and needs confirmation from an independent unbiased reliable sources.  // Timothy :: talk  07:43, 10 February 2023 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * National Anthem of the Republic of Kosovo (Instrumental).ogg

Map
Why is there no map listing countries which recognize Kosovo as independent? I think it would be very informative to show exactly which countries recognize Kosovo and which ones do not. Of course the permanent UNSC countries (U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia, and China) would be colored differently. MightyArms (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is here: International recognition of Kosovo.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Footnote
Do you find that the footnote "The political status of Kosovo is disputed. Having unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in 2008, Kosovo is formally recognised as an independent state by 101 out of 193 (52.3%) UN member states (with another 13 recognising it at some point but then withdrawing their recognition), while Serbia continues to claim it as part of its own territory." (e. g. here) should be removed from articles that mention Kosovo?

AlexBachmann (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

1) The status of Kosovo is already explained in the article and therefore not needed to be described everywhere where Kosovo is mentioned (e. g. Pristina, Prizren, Albin Kurti)
 * Strong support (obviously) for following reasons:

2) Tsai Ing-wen (President of Taiwan) does not have the additional footnote. Additionally Jerusalem doesn't have a footnote when the State of Palestine is mentioned. Furthernmore, Ersin Tatar, the president of Northern Cyprus, also does not have this footnote.

3) The footnote also contains not verifiable information. It states "with another 13 recognising it at some point but then withdrawing their recognition" while this statement can not be upheld due to the conflicts that have arisen between Kosovo and Serbia about weither some coutries recognize it or do not. See Alleged withdrawal of recognitions and Other recognition withdrawal claims by Serbia for disputed content. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support – AlexBachmann's reasoning aligns with my own. In addition, the footnote is very long, contains an unwarranted amount of detail, and lacks citations. DecafPotato (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * At the very least, however, it shouldn't be as widespread as it is. For example, PEGI has no need for the footnote. DecafPotato (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend removing this RfC for now and re-drafting it according to WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I have to note that your arguments are bogus. You mention how Jerusalem doesn't have a footnote when the State of Palestine is mentioned. Yes, but in the Jerusalem article, Jerusalem is not defined as being located in Israel (nor being located in the State of Palestine). Instead, it is neutrally defined as "a city in Western Asia". If Pristina was defined as "a city in the Balkans", then we wouldn't need the note. But, obviously, the situation is different. Also, you mention Northern Cyprus, but again the situation is very different. For example, in the Kyrenia article, Kyrenia is defined as "a city on the northern coast of Cyprus, [...] under the de facto control of Northern Cyprus". If you think we should follow the Northern Cyprus example, then, are we going to say "Pristina is a city in Serbia under the de facto control of Kosovo"? I guess you would not support that. Then, why are you mentioning Northern Cyprus as an example to follow? As for your reason No. 3, it sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The numbers in the note are taken from the International recognition of Kosovo article. If you think the numbers are not correct, then you should discuss it at that article, not delete this note just because you don't agree with the numbers. Also, as an admin who often try to prevent edit warring, I have to warn the community that deleting this note will only make room for endless edit warring. The note was mostly successful in preventing large scale edit wars as it neutrally explains the political situation.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  16:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are not better.
 * The thing here is about inserting the footnote when Kosovo is mentioned. In Jerusalem, the State of Palestina does not have such a footnote. That simple.
 * For the second one, I provided the article that is about the President and not Kyrenia. You are right when you're saying that I'm not going to support "Pristina is a city in Serbia under the de facto control of Kosovo" because I did not provide this article but it was rather you than me. Also, the name of the island is Cyprus. The lead refers therefore to the island and not to the State of Cyprus.
 * As for the third one, I don't know who (but it happened recently) edited the footnote and pasted the whole thing with the 13 states that "derecognized" it. I would be fine if that would be removed. Since I am offering consensus, I have removed the RFC. AlexBachmann (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is one of Wikipedia's policies that should always be followed. You don't need to "offer" it. What I'm saying about Jerusalem is that in the lead section of the Jerusalem article, it is neutrally explained that "both Israel and Palestina claim Jerusalem ...". Thus, no note is needed - the situation is clear. On the other hand, in lead section of the Pristina article (same goes for other Kosovo cities), Serbia is not mentioned at all. Thus, this note is needed to explain the situation to the reader. As about the numbers, feel free to discuss them at Talk:International recognition of Kosovo. Currently, the numbers in the note correspond perfectly to the numbers in the article.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If that is so, what about Mahmoud Abbas (President of Palestine)? There are many more examples. Again, I'm not in favour of removing the footnote (anymore), however, the whole thing with the 13 states that have "withdrawn" should be removed. I think you, as a admin, can remove it. Please let me know if there are any further issues. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you would respond instead of disappearing, @Vanjagenije. AlexBachmann (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC
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." ?

Red  Slash  18:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

 * Strong support. There is no earthly reason why Taiwan should be listed as a country while Kosovo is listed as a "partially recognised state". Kosovo meets every criterion for being a country (although as country shows, that's not quite as clear-cut as you'd think), but more importantly, it is consistently described as being a country in books, the CIA factbook, the General Court of the European Union (the decision's explained here) and far more places. I imagine that this RfC will be flooded with vehement opposition, just like the requested move that got Kosovo the country to the base title all those years ago. I'm aware that Kosovo has a neighbor that pretends that it is still in charge (despite literally having signed a document recognizing Kosovo's sovereignty over its own territory), and that there are a few other countries that participate in the charade for their own political purposes... but guess what, that also applies to North Korea, and we have absolutely no issue with that article starting off with "North Korea is a country". Consistency, avoiding WP:UNDUE weight to its partial recognition, verifiability and WP:RS all demand we call a spade a spade and a country a country. Red   Slash  18:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "There is no earthly reason why Taiwan should be listed as a country while Kosovo is listed as a "partially recognised state".
 * We both know why. As much as Wikipedia prides itself in adhering to a WP:NPOV, it will always suffer from serious geographical, ideological and systemic biases. Taiwan itself wasn't called a country until about ~2019, which was during the same time frame when relations between China and the US (and its allies) significantly worsened. It's no coincidence. 126.220.4.157 (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I personally would argue that it's a sovereign state, but even that isn't necessary for it to be considered a "country". Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I would even go further and drop the "partial diplomatic recognition" part from the first sentence, and include it in a second sentence maybe. User:Red Slash already brought up many very strong points, including the example of Taiwan, and Serbia recognizing Kosovo's sovereignty over its own territory in 2013 (which, by the way, is not necessary for Kosovo to be considered a country), as I will argue below.
 * The current formulation of "partially recognized state" makes it look like Kosovo is less of a country than it actually is and is WP:POV. Kosovo is treated as a separate unit even by institutions that officially do not recognize it (such as WHO, UNDP, the European Commission, and even Serbia itself with accidental Freudian slips). What I want to say is, if Kosovo wasn't a country, why would it have its own reports, statistics, partnerships, and integration paths with institutions that officially do not recognize its independence? They all acknowledge its statehood, even if they do not officially recognize it for political reasons. Even Serbia does. And let's not talk about the countries that recognize Kosovo's independence, and institutions that Kosovo is a member of. For them, Kosovo is not a partial state, it is not a 1/2 state, nor a 3/4 state. It is a full state, like any other.
 * Another point that has to be brought up is that recognition by every single UN member state is not required for a country to be called a country on Wikipedia. Take Israel. There are 28 countries that do not recognize Israel and others that broke diplomatic ties and "unrecognized" Israel, but Israel's Wikipedia article nevertheless starts with "Israel (...) is a country in Western Asia" and not "Israel is a partially recognized state..." Partial recognition in the case of Israel is inconsequential, therefore it is not even mentioned in the first paragraph of the article, and is not a central theme in the article at all. The main difference between Kosovo's 117 recognitions and Israel's 165 recognitions (excluding withdrawals) is that Israel's UN integration was not blocked by the veto players China and Russia. However, such geopolitical interests should not influence the policy of Wikipedia.
 * To conclude, if Kosovo looks like a country, smells like a country, governs itself like a country, maintains diplomatic relations like a country, has its own EU integration path like a country, then it probably is a country. "Partially recognized state" does no justice to the reality on the ground, and I would argue even "country with partial diplomatic recognition" as a first line does not do full justice, but it is nevertheless a step in the right direction so I support it. Uniacademic (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment This RfC does not appear to be well-worded to address what seems to be the question it wants to ask. While the RfC title and explanation are only about the word "country", the example and first comment appear to instead be about the "partially recognized" prefix. These are totally different questions, which already appear mixed in one of the replies above. I would suggest withdrawing the RfC and creating a new discussion/RfC that is about the question that I think is being asked. The conflation between these separate semantic issues is a repeat of Talk:Kosovo/Archive 32. CMD (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the RfC is definitely about the word "country". I've tried for over a decade to get the word "country" in the lead sentence, to no avail, and I'm finally asking through the RfC process for a broad consensus. The example question is just an example. I am asking for a consensus on one point only: should we use the word "country" to describe Kosovo in the first sentence. I don't mean the exclusion of "partially recognized", although if a consensus does develop to remove that phrase from the lead sentence, I won't object. I am tired of the article on this country religiously avoiding the use of the word "country" in the lead sentence. That's the scope of the RfC, and that's what it's intended to be about. Red   Slash  16:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why not provide an example that just switches the word out and why include arguments like "avoiding WP:UNDUE weight to its partial recognition"? You are less likely to get the desired broad consensus if the question is muddied like it has been. CMD (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As well as Northern Cyprus, there is no point in calling Kosovo a "country". Also, there is a big difference between Taiwan and Palestine on the one hand and Kosovo on the other, given that the first two are non-permanent members of the UN, while Kosovo is recognized as part of the sovereign territory of Serbia. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why am I not seeing "country" in the Palestine article then? 126.220.4.157 (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I love the fact that you put  and then you ask why Palestine is not called a country but a state. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not on the IP; they are forced to do it that way because of decisions made by other editors at Wikipedia; if IP had coded it as, then you would've gotten a link to the disambig page, "Palestine". Mathglot (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm actually surprised to realise that we ordinarily use such a vague term as 'country', when USA and Wales are both 'countries' - with wholly different meanings (ie US is a Sovereign state, Wales a constituent country of a Hereditary monarchy - the UK). I don't disagree with Red Slash's broad analysis inc Kosovo has a neighbor that pretends that it is still in charge, but wonder if this proposal is the way forward. "Is country clearer?" rather than "is country deserved?" is my question. Pincrete (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We use the word country in the lead sentence and in most articles expand on sovereignty  and  government type in the second or third paragraph of the lead. Like Belarus. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The word "country" isn't really vague or unambiguous. Other than the UK just being weird, there's no confusion about the word normally; "a country" means Sovereign state in literally every other context. Red   Slash  20:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So why change 'state' in the case of Kosovo if country is a synonym of 'sovereign state'. How is it clearer? Pincrete (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You were smart in your OP not to say anything about either "sovereignty" or "recognition", and on that basis, I lean towards supporting your proposal. But your assertion here that country means "sovereign state" does not hold up. If you check the list of definitions from tertiary sources at  in the discussion section below, not one of the 19 sources currently in the list mentions recognition or sovereignty in the definition of "country". (You can either trust that I included every online and print dictionary I could get my hands on, and thus the list is not WP:CHERRYPICKED, or you can search for more tertiary sources and see for yourself.) Other than that, though, I tend to agree with you. Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as per comments above. Kosovo is a country, simply said. 126.220.4.157 (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well, it's obvious there is a difference between Kosovo and Serbia. I see the people of Kosovo have a different ethnicity and they even speak a different language (mostly) so yes, Kosovo should be listed as a country. --Pfarla (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No Support - We shouldn't use "country" in an unqualified manner b/c much of the world disagrees that it is a country. I'm not sure why we're calling it a "partially recognized state" instead of a "partially recognized country". I think either of those could be OK. NickCT (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So, when you say "no" you mean "yes"? What issue do you have with, say, "is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition"? Red   Slash  17:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * - Yes. That wording you just proposed could work. Not to lecture you on how to make RfC's, but next time it might be a good idea to highlight the exact wording that you're proposing. The way you've phrased the RfC, it seems like you're proposing calling Kosovo a "country" in an unqualified way. NickCT (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * NickCT, do you support the wording proposed by RedSlash? I mean the current wording which apparently was put there after previous your comments: "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition."
 * - Yes. To be clearer, when I said the wording "could work", I meant I support it. NickCT (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you NickCT for the clarification. To make things easier for the closing editor/admin, striking the "No" part in bold in your first comment above yould be helpful. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think I still prefer country "Kosovo, officially the Republuc of Kosovo, is a partially recognized country in Southeast Europe.", but the current wording could work. I think I'd misread Slash's proposal to begin with. NickCT (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support using "country" without qualifiers to describe "Kosovo" (but not removing "partial diplomatic recognition" entirely). Loki (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support using "country, simply as the way English sources refer to it, e.g. "a tiny landlocked country in Southeastern Europe located on the Balkan Peninsula". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is almost zero serious arguments presented so far and a lot of empty "support votes" which hold limited value. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, a constituent country, or a dependent territory. Kosovo is neither of these. It is - a disputed territory, with limited recognition. The current number of 101 UN member states which recognise Kosovo is debatable and it became higher after a number of accounts waged their editing war on International recognition of Kosovo with Twitter used as the main reference on several occasions. Around 2/3 of human population and territory considers Kosovo to be a part of Serbia and nothing else. I have no doubt that there will be a lot of votes of support and other "arguments" like CIA factbook. And for people interested in arguments - Kosovo has no full control on all of "its" territory. It has no army, for starters. There is no Kosovo*'s educational and health system in Northern Kosovo, Gora etc. where Serbian system works perfectly, considering the circumstances. You could see that during COVID; when vaccines were error 404 amongst Kosovo Albanians, Serbs were getting jabs provided by Serbia. Another serious point - Flawed RfCs like this one are primarily responsible for destroying Wikipedia's reputation on any subject which is even remotely controversial or political. Wikipedia should not reflect visions of people and governments from western-centric world, we need to be neutral, and Kosovo is not a country, it is not a state, it's somewhere between Palestine and Abkhazia, and not a country on its own. We shall see what happens in the future. Best regards. Ranko Nikolić (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Kosovo is consistently described in reliable sources as a sovereign state; in fact, the Brussels accords included a de facto recognition of Kosovo's sovereignty, as did Agreement on the path to normalisation between Kosovo and Serbia. In what possible world is Kosovo not sovereign? You've made lots of assertions here regarding that Kosovo doesn't perform the tasks of a sovereign state, but you have not supported them. (Its inability to fully control its breakaway regions makes it more akin to Moldova or Morocco than Abkhazia, lol.) Kosovo has an army, etc.
 * In addition, you raise arguments that are... not... good... like, "2/3 of human population and territory considers" - how the heck does territory consider anything?
 * Wikipedia, as you said, "should not reflect visions of people and governments from western-centric world". It should reflect reliable sources. When we include the word "country", it will. Red   Slash  22:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty please with cherry on top: stop confusing our editors with statements which contain half-thruths.


 * Agreement on the path to normalisation between Kosovo and Serbia was NOT signed by Serbia. Your argument is invalid.
 * Sources like CIA factbook, BBC and Al Jazeera will state that Kosovo is a sovereign state, not just a country. That does not mean their view is per facts and that the current NPOV lead should change.
 * Brussels accords include no such thing and neither did the Washington agreement.
 * I thought that I made my point clearly, sorry about that - 2/3 of humanity is not considering Kosovo to be a country. Is that clear enough or should we just... ignore that fact? Let that sink in, please.
 * Stating that Kosovo is a "country" will not make it "more independent". It's not a UN member-state. It will never be, unless Serbia says so. The past 15 years are my argument for that statement. Kosovo* is not a member of the majority of international institutions and organisations. Being a member of the World bank and MMF and /having the approval to kick a ball under your flag/ is really not that much for 15 years, after unilateral declaration of independence.
 * What will be next, Norther Cyprus and Western Sahara will become "countries"? I'm not surprised by this RfC considering the events in eastern Europe, but, still, it goes against everything Wikipedia stands for.
 * Kosovo has no proper army. I shall agree that it has its army de jure. The only de facto army on Kosovo* is that of NATO forces. Part of its police and other forces "became" an "army" for the public, because politicians claimed so. Ranko Nikolić (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. It was agreed to by Serbia's duly elected president. It only happened literally this past week, so no worries if you missed the news.
 * 2. ... so, your viewpoint is that independent news organizations are not reliable sources. Interesting.
 * 3. Of course, the Brussels agreement doesn't include Serbia officially using words like "country" to refer to Kosovo, correct. It includes Serbia: A) normalizing relations with Kosovo; B) paving the way for things like Kosovo getting its own telephone country code; C) agreeing not to impede Kosovo's accession to the EU (among other things). I'm not saying that the agreement was equivalent to Serbia saying Kosovo is a country. Instead, it proves that--whatever Serbia says--it treats Kosovo like a country. I doubt Spain will be agreeing not to block Cataluña's accession to the European Union, for instance. Again, not relevant one way or another; Kosovo should be called a country because reliable independent sources treat it as such.
 * 4. 2/3 of humanity? That's not sourced at all. Governments that rule over 2/3 of human population, I'll grant that. But we operate based on reliable sources, meaning WP:SECONDARY sources in most cases, because governments have a tendency to lie or shade the truth according to their preferred narrative. (Again, the USA fails to recognize North Korea as a country on an official level--yet, given that it and everyone else treats North Korea like a country, and that journalists across the world call it a country, are we going to remove the word "country" from its lead?)
 * 5. I don't see the relevance of this to the discussion. I'm... not trying to make Kosovo more independent?? What a weird suggestion. I'm an American six thousand miles away who has never been to Kosovo and probably never will. I'm not petitioning the UN for Kosovo to receive a spot at the table. I'm just trying to make Wikipedia treat Kosovo the same way it treats anything else.
 * 6. Once reliable sources from around the world casually use the word "country" to refer to Northern Cyprus, I'm sure we will. Following reliable sources is, in fact, what we stand for.
 * 7. I definitely don't think we need to get sidetracked on minor issues like an army; I shouldn't have even brought it up in the first place. It's firmly irrelevant, unless you think Costa Rica needs to be removed from the list of countries, that is. Red   Slash  15:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This statement is NPOV (just like the current lead): Kosovo, a partially recognized state, is a good case for estimating the economic cost of not being fully recognized as a country. Despite declaring independence in 2008, the country has yet to obtain recognition from some countries (bilateral recognition) or U.N. country membership (multilateral recognition). Note: only 2 more countries recognised Kosovo since 2017. And one did so thanks to Donald Trump and his team, not Pristina-led team.
 * It would another thing if you wanted the lead to state: partially recognised country. That is close to NPOV. But your RfC is very far from that, which you just confirmed when you stated something like "..Its inability to fully control its breakaway regions", that is just mind-boggling and extremely far from a neutral point of view and reality. Most of your responses are original research and POV creative interpretations of political deals and unfortunate misinterpretations of the points I clearly made, but I still fully assume that you had constructive ideas behind this one. Good luck with this. Ranko Nikolić (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * first off, WP:Original research specifically, explicitly says that we are supposed to use original research on talk pages. Second off, the fourth sentence of the article you just posted reads "Despite declaring independence in 2008, the country has yet to obtain recognition from some countries (bilateral recognition) or U.N. country membership (multilateral recognition)." Again, partial recognition doesn't detract from something being a country; reliable sources usually call it a country, and that's enough. "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition" is a perfectly fine lead sentence that firmly states the issues the country faces with regard to diplomatic recognition. "Partially recognized country" isn't bad, either, but IMO it unnecessarily puts a little more oomph on the qualifier than necessary. Red   Slash  01:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per the reasons given by User:Red Slash Chefs-kiss (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No Support. I looked up the relevant information, In February 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared "independence", which was recognized by the United States and some of its allies, but Serbia has always insisted that it has sovereignty over Kosovo, and about 90 countries such as China, Russia, India, and about 90 other countries do not recognize Kosovo's "independence". I do not think it is appropriate to use the word State to describe Kosovo when there are disagreements about national sovereignty. Especially when both permanent members of the UN refuse to recognize their sovereign states. Zhou Yuji1028 (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Kosovo is not a country, it is a partially recognised. The territory of Kosovo is part of Serbia according to international law and UN resolution 1244.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "Kosovo is not a country, it is a partially recognised." Do you support changing North Korea, Taiwan or Israel, as well? They're all described as "countries" despite being only partially recognized. "The territory of Kosovo is part of Serbia according to international law" - that's not what the ICJ said and, again, it's not what our sources describe. Red   Slash  01:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I was taught in Law school that country means - sovereign state. After reading the ongoing debate, it seems that the definition is vague. Regardless, Kosovo or Kosovo and Metohia if you like, is not a country, it is a province of Serbia and a disputed territory, 50% UN state members have a different perspective, including 5 EU members and BRISC members. Kosovo holds limited rule on the territory it is claiming. Its foreign policy is copy/paste of view promoted by USA and their allies. There are several intepretations of ICJ's decision (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1BGCo1apNE) and political deals are not an argument. This RfC is quite strange. I operated under the assumption that Wikipedia was neutral and a place for keybord justice warriors. Blagodarim vi. 109.245.229.168 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, then, why do we describe Wales, Greenland, and Basque Country – none of which are sovereign states – as countries? DecafPotato (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @DecafPotato We use the name Basque Country despite it not being a country as it's the legal english name of the Spanish autonomous community. FusionSub (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Wikipedia is an empire of rotten compromises voted by the incompetent and biased people. But in this case, it shouldn’t be an issue. A consensus that the term „country“ in the sense discussed here can be applied only to 193 UN members and Vatican would solve the problem. It wouldn’t matter who is recognized by whom. That goes for Taiwan, and Palestine, and Kosovo. If agenda that Kosovo is a country is accepted (at this moment) because Kosovo is recognized by the X and some of its buddies, what about Northern Cyprus, which is not recognized by the X, but is recognized by one of the X’s buddies? Or Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which are recognized by the Y and some of its buddies? What about Somaliland? A fully functional state for over 30 years, not recognized by anyone? Resolution 1244 is still valid; hence a country cannot be part of another country. Advisory opinion of the ICJ actually goes against Kosovo's declaration of independence - the point is that Kosovo, and nothing in Kosovo, is a subject of international law, therefore nothing declared in Kosovo can be against the international law as it is not part of international law (by the way, this wasn't the question; the court was asked one thing, but it answered another). A fact that part of the explanatory gymnastics by the court was used to give different vibe is for another discussion. Btw, the court even denigrated the Kosovo's political institutions, concluding that the authors of the declaration were just some bunch of individuals. So, Country = UN members + Vatican = one problem removed and one reason less for repetitive, exhausting, pointless, meaningless, needless, time-wasting discussions which, unfortunately, so many on Wikipedia like. PajaBG (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per extant comments. Main points of recent opposition center on a self-admitted nonexistent consensus; unclear assertions on sovereignty and policy independence without connection to how countries are known in English from an IP with only one prior edit; and partial international recognition, which has already been addressed by other editors. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 23:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per arguments by RedSlash. Wikipedia reflects reality on the ground as it is, we don't interpret arguments about the legality of sovereignty, nor do we construct our own narratives based on what we believe about the sovereignty of a country. The reality on the ground is that Kosovo is de jure recognized in many international institutions, it is de facto treated on all levels as a sovereign state, but more importantly there is a consensus in reliable sources about its description as a country regardless of other arguments.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as per arguments by RedSlash. Durraz0 (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The arguments used to support this proposed change are WP:CHERRYPICKING. Kosovo can not be compared to Taiwan as they have a completely different historical narrative. Taiwan never declared independence and they claim continuation of sovereignty over both the island of Taiwan and mainland China as the "Republic of China". Kosovo has no history of being a "country" prior to 2008, they do not claim continued sovereignty and they declared independence unilaterally. Kosovo's scenario is on par with other disputed territories such as South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland and Transnistria which unsurprisingly, do not refer to the respective disputed territories as countries. The listed international organizations that recognize Kosovo as a "country", can be challenged with the reality that there are other international organizations that do not recognize Kosovo as a country such as Interpol and UNESCO. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, arguments are being marshaled that have nothing to do with the issues. The majority of reliable English-language sources refer to Kosovo as a country, unlike the five you've listed here. Red   Slash  01:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The term "country" does not denote sovereignty any more or any less than "state" does, and the arguments presented here by proponents of changing the previous wording are frankly unconvincing. There is a reason that the current wording has been the status quo for so long. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * SupportI agree with the points made by RedSlash. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The against arguments have been definitely refuted. Kosovo is a country, regardless of the degree of the recognition of its independence from Serbia. The Country article says: A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. It may be a sovereign state or make up one part of a larger state. For example, the country of Japan is an independent, sovereign state, while the country of Wales is a component of a multi-part sovereign state, the United Kingdom. A country may be a historically sovereign area (such as Korea), a currently sovereign territory with a unified government (such as Senegal), or a non-sovereign geographic region associated with certain distinct political, ethnic, or cultural characteristics (such as the Basque Country). Alltan (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per lack of full sovereignty and recognition. The "support" votes seem to center around the argument that Kosovo is "fully sovereign", but that is highly debatable. The presence of foreign troops (KFOR), EU police force (EULEX), lack of membership in major international bodies, and outsize influence of foreign embassies on domestic politics (especially the US embassy) argue strongly against full sovereignty. Some sources describe the place as a "protectorate" of the EU and international community. Even the flag was designed by outsiders. So it's highly questionable that it's a fully sovereign country. I also see some clueless comments that cite the Wikipedia article for Country as some kind of proof of their position. This shows a lack of awareness of WP:CIRCULAR. Khirurg (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Much of this discussion has been of low quality and done by editors who have no clue what they are talking about. Only a few editors have made valuable comments on the issue. The biggest problem is that many editors here do not even know what "country" means. It has nothing to do with being an UN member or being an entirely independent entity. The Country article says: A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. It may be a sovereign state or make up one part of a larger state. For example, the country of Japan is an independent, sovereign state, while the country of Wales is a component of a multi-part sovereign state, the United Kingdom. A country may be a historically sovereign area (such as Korea), a currently sovereign territory with a unified government (such as Senegal), or a non-sovereign geographic region associated with certain distinct political, ethnic, or cultural characteristics (such as the Basque Country). Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Later in the discussion is my "Support" !vote. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose We should use heavy precaution on terms like "country" in cases such as the specific one. The arguments also presented in favor of changing the previous wording are not really convincing.Alexikoua (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong strong support as per arguments given by RedSlash! Iaof2017 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per the arguments of multiple editors above. Ultimately, no matter what anyone says, Kosovo is a sovereign state that enforces its law and legislature across the country. Sure, the influence of the USA and EU/NATO is very large, but on multiple occasions the current PM Albin Kurti has gone against their desires and made sovereign decisions for the people of Kosovo that weren't necessarily agreeable to the USA and others. A nation that is over 90% Albanian and not even 10% Serbian which separated from Serbia and has no Serbian governmental presence apart from the Serb minority enclaves cannot be considered a part of Serbia. Serbia has been increasingly forced into accepting Kosovo as a sovereign state in official dealings and treating them as country regardless of the statements they make; as Uniacademic said above if Kosovo looks like a country, smells like a country, governs itself like a country, maintains diplomatic relations like a country, has its own EU integration path like a country, then it probably is a country. It is time to accept reality, we mustn't allow our own political ideals to affect voting here. Botushali (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Red Slash. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral/Wrong venue In the case of Kosovo, I lean "support" based on the majority of reliabile sources I checked for definitions of "country" (see below), however, I !vote neutral, because Wikipedia is not WP:CONSISTENT  WP:NEUTRAL in how it handles the question of "what is a country", leading to inconsistent application of the term country in different articles, depending on differing political winds and who tends to show up for what Rfc on different articles. Therefore, that question should be decided first in a different, more general Rfc, and then this Rfc could resume with better guidance. Mathglot (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)  updated by Mathglot (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Kosovo is a partially recognised state --MareBG (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as per the numerous arguments in support of this above. As has already been presented, Kosovo is a sovereign state with a government of its own which is able to pass and enforce legislation and also engage in international diplomacy.Lezhjani1444 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Ultimately, per WP:NPOV and WP:V, and WP:OR, this issue must be determined by the WP:WEIGHT of the sources, not by syntehsis or other idiosynratic lines of reasoning regarding the various definitions for various types of polities and how they map to the relevant facts here.  No matter how well reasoned, rational, and factual we may personally find those arguments to be, that is just not how this project works: the sources dictate the nomenclature we employ, not our personals impressions.  On the balance, it seems to me that Kosovo is now regarded as a nation, albeit a nascent one, so that's what we are bound to go with, though the lead section should absolutely capture many of the nuances discussed above as well. SnowRise let's rap 03:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support As I mentioned in my earlier comment, much of the discussion has been of low quality. As the Country article and the numerous RS listed by User:Mathglot below make it clear, a country does not need to be sovereign or independent to be a country. It does not need to be part of the UN, or any other particular organisation. It does not matter how other Wikipedia articles describe Taiwan, Palestine or Abkhazia as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kosovo as an entity is certainly a country. This view is supported by so many reliable sources, as already mentioned by User:Red Slash referring to GoogleBooks results . So do other reputable sources such as Brittanica. Well-known online media outlets that are among the most important international sources of news and information on Kosovo refer to it as a "country". Among them are National Geographic, Al Jazeera, The New York Times, Politico. Until now all "Oppose" comments contain only personal opinions without any reference to a particular policy. Based on WP:RS and WP:OR, personal opinions should be discarded and reliable sources should decide what the article says. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral As long as the introduction refers to the fact that Kosovo is a partially recognised country either one could work without compromising on the factual integrity of the introduction. FusionSub (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As few people already mentioned, lack of criteria on Wikipedia is the main issue here - not status of Kosovo itself. Kosovo is just one of entities/states that is non a member of UN, but its territory is not controlled by country that is a member UN and de-jure still has legal claims. In my opinion term "country" should be used only for UN members. Term "partially recognised state" is appropriate for all entities/states that proclaimed independence and have full control over their territories, but they are not members of UN. These two very simple rules would be easy to follow everywhere and they would save us time from having discussions for every single case.Tresnjevo (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Kosovo has significant international recognition, not that "countries" need to be internationally recognized. We call Scotland, England and Wales countries despite no international recognition apart from the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it is significant that the lede for Taiwan reads Taiwan, officially the Republic of China is a country in East Asia. despite, it being much less internationally recognized. Furthermore, the lede for this article as currently written continues "Kosovo...is a partially recognised state...". In the circumstances, readers will be well aware of the limited recognition Kosovo has (101 of 198 UN States etc) and can easily read more if they wish by following the wikilink.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Apart from England, Scotland and Wales, entities that are described as a "country" in their own article include Greenland, Aruba, Curaçao, Siint Maarten and Bonaire. They are not sovereign and are not recognized as sovereign by any member of the UN. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, with a note that for all of those saying "Kosovo isn't sovereign!" or "Kosovo isn't a country its part of Serbia!" that you should also be against the current wording... The "state" in "partially recognised state" is sovereign state, all partially recognised states are sovereign states... Recognition is a qualification which distinguishes different sovereign states from each other not one which distinguishes the sovereign from the non-sovereign. But what do you expect when people let petty nationalism get in the way of the facts? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What is a country?
Imho, this Rfc should be put off until the underlying question of what Wikipedia views as a "country" can be decided, ideally in its own Rfc at a more general venue, which would have a higher level of consensus than this one; perhaps WP:WikiProject Countries, or MOS:, or Village pump. (Although I may have been bot-summoned too late for this argument to have an impact this late in the cycle.)

The majority of reliable sources I checked for definitions of "country" almost all mentioned three concepts in one form or another: territory, political unit/local government, and control/independence. Here are some:


 * "a political state or nation or its territory" —M-W
 * "an area of land that is controlled by its own government; a nation" —EB online
 * "an area of land that forms an independent political unit with its own government" —Cambridge
 * "A nation or state". — American Heritage.
 * "one of the political units which the world is divided into, covering a particular area of land." —Collins
 * "the most usual, neutral word for a geographical area that has or used to have its own government" —Oxford Learner's
 * "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory." —world.info
 * "The land of a person's birth, citizenship, residence, etc.; one's homeland." —OED, sense 1.
 * "The territory of a nation; a region constituting an independent state, or a region, province, etc., which was once independent and is still distinct in institutions, language, etc." —OED, sense 5.
 * "The territory of a nation, whether independent or not, that is distinct as to the name and the character, language, institutions, or historical memories of its people." Webster's New Int'l Unabridged 2nd ed. 1956, p. 609
 * "A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory" NOAD, p. 391
 * "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory." Oxford Languages
 * "an area of land that has its own government and official borders" —MacMillan
 * "A nation or state" —YourDictionary
 * "A country is a nation, a body of land with one government." —Vocabulary.com
 * "a state or nation." —WordReference
 * "The portion of the earth's surface occupied by an independent nation or people; or the inhabitants of such territory." —Black's Law Dict.
 * "A nation or state" —FreeDictionary

Distinctions between state, country, and nation, with some saying state and country are interchangeable, and nation is more fluid (in particular, nation doesn't need a physical border, and has more to do with ethnic, cultural, and linguistic identity issues). Note that the question of sovereignty is not mentioned in any of them (no cherrypicking; I grabbed everything I could find), and that is the aspect that usually causes the most strife, imho, when questions come up about a country. Confusion about sovereignty status leads to confusion about the total number of countries, which is why different "lists of countries" rarely agree.

Sometimes, there is a lot of variability among other countries in how they view country status for a political entity, and this variability is reflected in reliable sources. Take the case of French Polynesia, for example: it is called a "Non-Self-Governing Territory within France" by the UN GA; an "overseas country" (formerly, "overseas collectivity") by the French government; a "country" by the CIA World Factbook; "French Overseas Territory" or "Overseas Collective" by the UK government, "French overseas territory" or "autonomous overseas collectivity" by the Australian government, and an "overseas collectivity" by Wikipedia.

It's when the question of "country" gets wrapped up with the question of "sovereignty" and "recognition" that things start to get dicey and people split off into camps that aren't necessarily related either to common definitions of country, or to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as far as I can see. Kosovo has partial recognition in the UN, with about 100 (of 193) member countries recognizing it, putting it right in the middle of countries with less than full recognition. Compare that with other political entities which have less than 100% recognition by the 193 members of the U.N. General Assembly (per this Statista article ). Wikipedia handles these articles this way: (within parentheses are the number of UN member countries that recognize it, followed by the definition words in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article occurring right after "is a" in the first sentence of the article): Abkhazia (5 / "partially recognised state"), China (180 / "country"), Cyprus (192 / "island country"), Donetsk (1 / "oblast"), Israel (165 / "country"), North Korea (186 / "country"), Northern Cyprus (1 / "de facto state"), Palestine (138 / "state"), South Korea (192 / "country"), South Ossetia (5 / "partially recognised landlocked state"), Taiwan (13 / "country"), Western Sahara (45 / "disputed territory").

In my view, a higher level Rfc concentrating on the question of how we want to decide questions of "country" in a consistent manner from one country to another, might calm content disputes like this one a bit, and provide some guidance on how to decide it, which would hopefully improve the quality of arguments here, and reduce the IJLI / IJDLI-style comments, which don't help move the rfc closer to resolution. Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Mathglot, I see your point. But why should Wikipedia be consistent in all these cases (WP:CONSISTENT linked by you above refers to article names only, anyways)? IMO there is no need for a "central discussion" or a higher level RfC. Instead, every case should be treated on its own. Every case should be decided by what the majority of the reliable sources say as per WP:RS. For instance, if Taiwan is described by the majority of RS as a "country" and Abkhazia as a "state", then we do not need to be consistent and describe both as a "country" or both as a "state". In that case Taiwan should be described as a "country" and Abkhazia as a "state". Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're right about my use of the CONSISTENT link; I've struck it in my !vote above, and replaced it with NPOV. In any case, consistency (or lack thereof) was the effect, not the cause, in this case. The underlying cause, imho, is the lack of WP:NEUTRALITY in the articles due to passions aroused by certain individual political entities; this leads to inconsistency (as an effect), but as you point out, the sources should be the issue. I'm not trying to argue for a "foolish consistency" just for the sake of consistency, far from it; I'm saying that the core Wikipedia principle of WP:NPOV (which cannot be overruled by consensus at an Rfc–did you know that?) is absolutely key, here, and that editors in different topics are perhaps applying the policies of WP:V and use of WP:RS in an inconsistent manner. Talking about "what is a country" first, will tend to keep us focused on applying the sources in a neutral manner and not leave as much wiggle room for idiosyncratic interpretations of what the sources say, just because someone is pro- or anti-Duchy of Grand Fenwick, as far as whether it is, or isn't, a country. At least, that is the hope. Thanks for your comment. Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Straw tally
I was concerned by what appeared to be a number of !votes that lack any policy-based argumentation, so I decided to do a straw tally to see where we are, based on Closing discussions, which applied heavily in this case. What I came up with, is that as of 01:23 15 April, the "Support" votes are ahead by one or two to zero, or eight to zero, depending how you tally certain factors.

The raw tally shows 30 !votes, with 17 in support and 13 opposed (taking into account votes like "Yes", "No support", and other non-obvious wordings). Of these, most should be discarded as based on personal opinion only; few offered any policy argument at all, with the notable exception of the OP, and depending how you tally them, other users who essentially voted in support, saying "per OP" or equivalent.

Breaking down the support and oppose !votes, we have this:

SUPPORT: 17
 * Per P&G: 2 (RS w/ links=1: 18:05 16M; RS w/o links=1: 05:13 21M)
 * Per OP: 6 (00:14 14A; 01:16, 17M; 22:07 30M; 01:58 5A; 16:57 9A; 16:57 9A)
 * Per others' comments: 3 (00:52 19M; 23:12 27M; 16:57 9A)
 * Has sovereignty/recognition: 3 (22:51 16M; 19:18 30M; 20:41 14A)
 * IJLI/none: 2 (16:59 19M; 18:38 20M)
 * Because opponents have been refuted: 1 (17:14 7A)
 * Other: 0

OPPOSE: 13
 * Per P&G: 0
 * Lacks sovereignty/recognition: 10 (17:49 17Mar; 21:20 21M; 06:26 14A; 21:20 22M; 13:46 23M; 21:23 27M; 01:21 31M; 17:12 2A; 20:44 7A; 14:01 14A)
 * IJDLI/none: 1 (14:56 20M)
 * Because proponents fail to convince: 2 (17:12 2A; 04:59 9A)
 * Other: 0

There are some mirror-image arguments on both sides, and in particular, nearly half the !votes appeal to "sovereignty" or "recognition" either in support, or in opposition; however, neither view is policy-based, and it's notable that none of the tertiary sources listed above includes "sovereignty" or "recognition" in their definition of "country". I discarded all of those, leaving 13, of which only one (the OP) clearly had a policy-based argument (based on WP:RS, with links) and another based on RS with no links. Six or seven other supporters !voted "per OP" or similar, and no opponents offered a policy-based rationale, so I scored it 1–0 or 2–0, or 8–0, depending whether you count the "per OP" voters or not; by a strict reading of Closing discussions, I would score it 1–0 in favor of the "support" side. A consensus based on policy would be a better, and stronger precedent than one that is merely personal choice. Mathglot (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Fifteen years. Fifteen long years.
Twenty-two years ago, with this edit, a stub was written about a "state-like region" called Kosovo that was "probably still considered part of Yugoslavia, but it seems more likely destined for independence." By the next day, an article was written calling it a Serbian province that was being occupied and administered by the UN.

Fifteen years ago, the Republic of Kosovo declared independence. After a long and painful tussle about the fate of this page, the idea arose to have the article at Kosovo be about the region, and its government be exiled to Republic of Kosovo, whose article was started fourteen years ago. Serbia continued asserting the lack of independence of Kosovo, and since other autocratic states that keep an iron grip on separatist regions longing from freedom (Russia, the PRC, etc.) refused to recognize Kosovo diplomatically (either out of fear of hypocrisy... or just fear of losing their own separatist regions), Wikipedia didn't recognize it either. This continued even after the Brussels Agreement made it extremely clear that Serbia recognized (in the natural, non-diplomatic form of the word) that the Republic of Kosovo was indeed the actual governing government of (most of) the region of Kosovo.

Nine years ago, after the Brussels Agreement, I noticed that the post-declaration status still hadn't been changed in the preceding six years. I considered it absurd and biased that the article on Kosovo called it a "region" as if it weren't a country, as if it had no sovereign government. I proposed a move that switched the positions of the Kosovo article (about a region) and the Republic of Kosovo. The move was successful, featuring maybe the snarkiest close in Wikipedia history. The Republic of Kosovo's article lead read "The Republic of Kosovo is the Government and Civil authority administering all of the region of Kosovo in the Balkan Peninsula of Southeastern Europe and is recognised as a sovereign state by 114 UN member states, though its status is disputed" at the time of the move.

Shortly after the move, the article took shape, and I assumed we'd simply call Kosovo a country, because it was one. Alas, whenever I tried, I was reverted swiftly. By the time the two pages were merged and the history swapped later that year, the lead sentence read "Kosovo, officially known as the Republic of Kosovo, is a partially recognised state in the Balkan Peninsula of Southeastern Europe."

Nine long years passed. Kosovo continued being a country. It joined the Olympics later that year, the Council of Europe and UEFA two years later, and last year even filed for accession to the European Union--with Serbia's written guarantee that it would not interfere in the process (which, you know, seems like a totally normal thing to do if you think another country is sovereign and a very weird thing to do if you actually think it's part of your country). Every year or so, I'd pop in, try to update wording in the lead to call it a "country" and get reverted.

Finally, after getting tired of getting reverted too many times, I finally filed the RfC. After two months, it was finally closed. Last week, the edit I've been trying to make happen for eight years finally took place. I don't know what the future will hold for Kosovo; I'm pretty sure I'll never be able to visit Kosovo in my lifetime. But I am a big fan of the truth, and the truth is that Kosovo is a country, and has been a country for quite some time.

I'm not gonna lie; it's quite pleasing to see Wikipedia be a slightly truer place. Red  Slash  18:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Red Slash, thanks a lot for your work. I have seen it in various discussions and edits, and appreciate it. When I started to edit on Wiki, the Kosovo topic articles were a mess, but huge improvement has been done the last few years. I am sure the future will see even more improvement. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Red Slash I encourage you to delete this post as a talk page does not serve as a discussion forum, see WP:NOTFORUM. A healthy discussion and vote was put in place, leading to the aforementioned change which occurred. Your personal opinions and desire to celebrate this change goes against everything Wikipedia stands for and serves no purpose as the RFC was completed 10 days ago. There is no "celebration" or "defeat" in Wikipedia editing, content is modified and the work continues. ElderZamzam (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's important because there is a longstanding truth about Wikipedia--if there is a group of people with a deeply vested interest in making sure a change never happens, it's almost impossible to make that change happen. Corn is still a redirect. Perth took years to get fixed. America took over a decade. (And these are just title/redirect issues, not even article content issues, which are even harder!)
 * This RfC shows that change is, ultimately, still possible. It's a big deal and it's worth celebrating that, on occasion, verifiable facts from reliable sources can outweigh extremely interested parties (which is, to put it plainly, exactly what Wikipedia stands for). Red   Slash  21:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead wording tweaks
This recent edit of mine was reverted  without explanation (only "per the talkpage", but the reverter didn't actually follow their obligation to discuss here). I realize my edit was modifying the wording of the definition sentence that was only recently decided on by an RfC, but I believe it was a stylistic improvement and fully in keeping with the spirit of the RfC discussion, which had centered merely on the use of the term "country".

For the record, I'll give my reasons for the rewrite:

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To my mind, the phrasing "a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition" was grammatically awkward – if anything, the word order should be the other way round: "a country with partial diplomatic recognition in Southeast Europe" (i.e. having the more essential information – what kind of country – nearer to the head of the phrase than the more tangential one – where is that country).
 * The geographic and the political pieces of information were ordered in an odd way, with geographical items being split up into multiple places: "landlocked" ... "in Southeast Europe" ... "in the center of the Balkans" .... "it borders on ...". These should be reordered so that the political facts are provided together, and the geographical facts together.
 * "Landlocked" is not important enough to be given as the very first piece of information in the entire definition sentence.
 * The sentence "It lies in the centre of the Balkans" was too short and seemed isolated and out of context where it was.
 * The phrase "with partial diplomatic recognition" and the statement about having gained "recognition by X countries" are redundant to each other. In fact, saying "country with partial diplomatic recognition" makes it sound as if "partial diplomatic recognition" was somehow an established, well-defined concept of international politics. It isn't, at least not in the sense we're using it here. It's merely a Wikipedia-internal concept made up by editors to classify certain sets of Wikipedia-internal controversies. Instead of saying "... with partial diplomatic recognition" as if that meant something, it's better to say straightaway what we actually mean by it: "it has gained diplomatic recognition by [about half of the world's countries]" or however we want to word that.
 * By the way, in the present form after Ruach Chayim's and Vanjagenije's partial revert, we have two identical links to "International recognition of Kosovo in the two immediately subsequent sentences (one on "with partial diplomatic recognition" and one on "by 101 member states"). That's just silly. And the orphaned fragment "It lies in the centre of the Balkans" is also still there, duplicated below. Further below, there are also duplicate links to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija within the same paragraph of the lead, and confusing double links on "Yugoslav" (but to two different targets).There's a lot of WP:SEAOFBLUE in this article and especially in its lead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright so I gave it a shot. The crux of the issue is that we either mix the geography and the politics together ("partial recognition, in the Balkans, unilateral independence, hey look at these mountains"), or we do all of one and then all the other. Looking at all other country articles, the majority of them talk about geography first at least a little, so I opted for that in my recent edit; I'm very very open for discussion on this. The "unilateral declaration" is brought to the final paragraph, which is where it belongs chronologically. The lead sentence does still say the bit about partial recognition, of course, as per the RfC (and as per common sense) Red   Slash  18:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023
Change is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition to partially recognised state in Southeast Europe.

I believe that when it comes to partially recognized countries, they should be called the same. It should also be unequivocally noted in the article that Serbia currently does not officially recognize this. I'm currently a newbie to wiki editing, so I'd like some basic advice and feedback as well as a reply to this. Thank you. Bagyblazha (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Read above.  —  Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  04:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023
At the beginning of this text it is stated: "Kosovo is a country in Southeast Europe...". However it is very important to edit the line "country" with the "self-declared independent country". Mraleximer (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See above.  Heart  (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Alleged motto
I'm going to revert this edit inserting an alleged "national motto" into the infobox. That footnote is obviously not a reliable source. Without a reliable source confirming that this or some other motto has actually been adopted, officially, such an addition can't be made. It ought to be easy to find references to legislation or some other official act defining such a motto, if there is one. I didn't find any. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2023
Hi i would like to edit this part of the text as it is wrongly written. Please, edit it! Change this paragraph: “ Most of central Kosovo is dominated by the vast plains and fields of Metohija and the Kosovo field. The Accursed Mountains and Šar Mountains rise in the southwest and southeast, respectively. Its capital and largest city is Pristina.”

The field of Metohija is not anymore actual in Kosovo. Since Kosovo is an independent country this field is named as the “field of Dukagjin”.

Please update the paragraph above to this: “Most of central Kosovo is dominated by the vast plains and fields of Dukagjin and the Kosovo field. The Accursed Mountains and Shar Mountains rise in the southwest and southeast, respectively. Its capital and largest city is Pristina.”

It is really important to not to spread wrong informations and the actual page is not really updated! Thanks for your help! 193.171.242.156 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The relevant article is Metohija, which had a recent RM which closed as "not moved". CMD (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Rv
Recent changes have been made to this article, under the justification that content is either "not relevant", "clean up" or "creation of new sections". Within these edits, certain images have been removed including and image of the Visoki Dečani Monastery and a map of Southeastern Europe in 1265. I have reverted these edits as they remove historical information relevant to the page and also, are not constructive, given that they selectively remove images and rename subsections with POV wording, without a proper summary or TP discussion. Given that this article has very strict rules, it is thus important to discuss changes in the TP before making them on the main page, in order to ensure your work isn't perceived as POV pushing. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Restore the template regarding partial recognition!
The move that has recently been done is absolutely outrageous. Why was the tooltip deleted?! None of the other partially-recognized breakaway states had their tooltip templates deleted. It is a clear violation of the enforced neutrality of the article and the Arbcom rulings on the Balkans. As long as the state* is not clearly recognized by the majority of the countries and the UN (which it isn't) - the partially recognized template is to stay. 176.104.110.11 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you share links to the other tooltips you refer to? CMD (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "breakaway" ... Everything was achieved through consensus, so read this . Iaof2017 (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean "consensus", as derived from people who watch CNN too much. Most also seem to be new users and a few biased people. As much as you Western guys want Kosovo to be recognized completely, the situation isn't as clear as you think. --176.104.110.11 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Mention of Kosovo's statehood was deliberately removed from the opening in May following an RfC, so perhaps it's not all CNN-heads. Anyway, to ask again, what are the other tooltips you refer to? CMD (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I think I probably misused the term "tooltip". What I thought was the little note thing marked with a letter that would popup everywhere Kosovo* was mentioned. Mentioning UN Security council resolution 1244 yada yada. Either way, it makes no sense not to have it at the very least in the article itself if not everywhere else. The Serbian Wikipedia article still has that. --176.104.110.11 (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would we have it at all? It doesn't seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)