Talk:Tourism in Kosovo

Kosovo and Metohija
@REVERTS, KOSOVO doesn't mean nothing, it's a figure of speech, or a part of the territory of Kosovo and Metohija. Or you say Kosovo* (with the asterix everywhere, as defined in the United Nations resoluton 1244) if you are referring to the fictive country of albanian illegal-immigrant-terrorists or you say Kosovo and Metohija as a Serbian province! There is no Kosovo all by it self, you can say Kosovo but have to exclude Metohija if you insist of excluding it form the name of this article! This is wikipedia, use the damn facts, stop using wrong definitions and false information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.228.241.194 (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Security council resolution 1244 refers to the territory as "Kosovo" with no asterisk.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverts
Per the same arguments already presented several times before, this article should follow agreed article names, and logical line of events. Also, first words in artice was Kosovo is a country. C'mon, please. That is very opposite of NPOV. Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. This is article about Kosovo, and not about Republic of Kosovo. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 17:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Promotional language
Can you provide any rationale for your reverts ? The version you are reverting to is obviously full of non-neutral terms. Every single word you reinstated is an example of either WP:CLICHE ("one of the monuments to see in Prizren"), or WP:PEACOCK ("Gjakova — a well known city", "The monastery is one of the most beautiful examples", ...). Some are plainly false ("Kosovo has always been considered as a country" - obviously not).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of changes were fine but some others weren't. Entering/leaving Serbia section has not sources. "Kosovo has always been considered as a country, where tolerance and coexistence in terms of religion and culture has been part of the society in the last centuries". This was deleted and this is WP:Undue. The traditions and values of the population must have one or two sentences in the lede. However we can replace this sentence with another if other editors see a problem with the actual sentence. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment about the "Entering/leaving Serbia section" because you didn't change the text of it. "Kosovo has always been considered..." is a pure example of WP:weasel words. Considered by whom? There are no sources foe such a claim.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I support Vanjagenije on this, as this version user Ktrimi is pushing is obviously wrong and not improvement foe this article. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  00:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Vanjagenije IP could have deleted "Kosovo has always been considered..." and replaced it with a few words on population's traditions and culture. "Entering/leaving Serbia section" was not reason I reverted. I noted this subsection has no sources because you are an old editor and administrator. You can find sources. Otherwise delete the section. Read correspondent articles for other countries in Europe. The do not have a "Issues affecting tourism" section.  Ąnαșταη  I did not support any version. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to comment again NOTHING was agreed on this page, so dont deceive other editors in your edit summaries. Restore info with sources. and expanded a bit. More to come. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  16:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The stable version will be brought back if we do not find an agreement. The sources do not specify entering and leaving Serbia is an issue affecting tourism. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the removal of section from this article
Should this sourced section about legal and technical difficulties around any entering and exiting Kosovo be in this article? -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  19:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. There should definitely be a section on difficulties of entering and exiting the country. It is completely relevant to the topic. But it should not be written like a guidebook. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it is well sourced and pertinent to the subject of the article. 23 editor (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Itsmejudith The sources do not link tourism in Kosovo with border issues with Serbia. Three sources Anastan presented state Kosovo and Serbia have visa and border issues and if someone visits both countries they may face some problems. Kosovo has visa and border issues with Serbia but if we do not have reliable sources which make a clear link between tourism and these issues this section is WP:OR. Most or all tourists who visit and will visit the country in the future may choose to travel by plane to Kosovo which omits visa issues. To omit WP:OR and WP:POV there must be at least one source that states visa and border disputes are a current obstacle to tourism and its growth in Kosovo, tourism in not growing to its potential in Kosovo because of visa and border problems with Serbia, tourists who visit Kosovo face such problems (sources do not state tourists in Kosovo face these problems but if someone would visit both countries. Tourists who visit Kosovo and who are mostly Kosovo Albanians who live in the West maybe do not visit both countries. Those people who visit both countries may not be tourists, they may be citizens who cross the border to go to their workplace.) and so on. Otherwise this section would transform article into a guidebook with advices for tourists. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Border issues are and will forever be linked to tourism. If tourists will inevitably have problems to enter then its super obvious that those are linked. You dont need source that sky is blue, as that is obvious. But having in mind that your actual argument is that "most visitors from the future will visit Kosovo by plane", i rest my case. :) :) -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  00:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If I accept that this section based on WP:OR should be added to article, in the same way this section would be relevant to Tourism in Serbia because the source discusses tourism in Serbia and its visa and border problems with their neighbour countries like Kosovo. Serbia does not recognise Kosovo and this is hurting Serbia's economy. However I do not accept this because that is based on WP:OR. I presented my arguments and they are not what you claim. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This should be in article Tourism in Serbia only if you regard Kosovo as integral part of Serbia. Which i doubt very much you do. Anyway, i already know your attitude, so we should not talk anymore, in order not to spam this conversation. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  16:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The source which you presented states that people who cross the border between Serbia and Kosovo may face problems. This is an actual issue regardless status of Kosovo. The source adds that people who cross the border between Serbia and other neighbours may face problems too. If you don't agree we can ask other parts (take to relevant forums) and see what others think. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's a lie. This problem exist exactly because of status of Kosovo, and not for any other reason or any other border. Please, stop commenting here, this RfC suppose to be for someone who is unrelated, and not for you and me. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  20:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You just added more WP:OR to this discussion. I trust what sources state. I am related and so I can comment and discuss. When you opened RfC you presented only one side of the discussion. You opened RfC and then you vote, how can't I comment here when I am related to this discussion? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can vote, same as I, but you cannot spam conversation just to push you POV. Is it possible for you to stop commenting the same thing over and over again? -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  21:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not spamming this discussion because I am referring to WP:Policies and guidelines. I can comment here and I will do it because this is the way how Wikipedia community finds solutions to problems. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes for content on this subject but no if it is going to be for the specific wording presented at the start of the RfC. I think it is very badly written. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , if you are interested at all, propose us here how would you write this down? It may help... -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  00:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How about (derived from the same sources as the suggested text) "Serbia considers Kosovo to be an integral part of its territory and thus does not consider the designated crossing points between Serbia and Kosovo to be international borders. Serbia does not apply entry or exit stamps to the passports of those using these crossings. Serbia also does not recognize the designated entry points between Kosovo (including Pristina airport) and third countries because they are not under the control of Serbian authorities. Foreign nationals have been denied entry to Serbia if they have Republic of Kosovo entry stamps in their passports. If a visit to Serbia is planned after visiting Kosovo, the initial entry to Kosovo must be via Serbia." Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * However, There is still some lack of clarity. If Kosovo applies entry stamps to those using the border with Serbia, the sourced text "Foreign nationals have been denied entry to Serbia if they have Republic of Kosovo entry stamps in their passports" appears incorrect since everyone visiting Kosovo, even via Serbia, would have such stamps. It is also not clear if such a denial of entry extends beyond travel between Kosovo and Serbia. Does anyone who has a Kosovo stamp in their passport risk future barring of entry to Serbia? Though that maybe is off topic - the article is about tourism in Kosovo, not Serbia.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is WP:OR. The sources do not state all that information you propose. The section is OR and editors who voted "Yes" have not explained how can three web pages be used as a source for something they do not state. If this OR stuff is relevant to this article then it is relevant to Tourism in Serbia too. This stuff at tourism in Serbia will cause massive edit warring and all this for some OR. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not OR, its just your POV. If you think something, other doesnt have to think the same way. And per obvious results of this RfC, they dont. And its not relevant to Serbia, as that country unlike Kosovo, can be entered and exited freely without any restriction or problems. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  20:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The section is OR and editors who voted "Yes" have not explained how can three web pages be used as a source for something they do not state. They were some votes with no explanation, arguments or participation in a discussion. The relevant policy says "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely". I read the source and it says for Serbia the same thing it says for Kosovo. It is relevant to Serbia if it is relevant to this article too. What will you do? Will you revert me after I add the same stuff at Tourism in Serbia? Will you open another discussion or RfC? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please repeat everything again, it looks like it you write down 10 times the same thing it will became the fact, so you have 3 more times. :) :) And i am sure that addition of the same material to the Tourism in Serbia is a great way to get blocked. As it looks like you dont understand what means to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, i will do it. Again, i hope that you will understand. Dont spam other editors (including me) with your arguments, and leave then to write down their opinion. We alreadz talked above, and on few other places. We do not need your opinion here again anymore then once. And mine also. We need someone else's. Not you'. Or mine. Stop. Leave it for now. Please stop. Thank you. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  21:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to thank me. It is my right to comment here and I will comment. I will repeat my arguments until someone of those who voted "Yes" will explain where the sources state what you claim they do. The addition of the stuff to Tourism in Serbia article is depended on result of this RfC. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just repeating "this is OR" without any specificity or reasoning is unhelpful. What exactly are you asserting is OR, and why? The only bit of the text that I proposed that is not directly derived from the sources is "Serbia considers Kosovo to be an integral part of its territory" - but are you seriously disputing that this is not correct and not supported by about every source that deals with the current status of Kosovo? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously believe what I dispute is that Serbia considers Kosovo as a part of its territory? I have already explained what I dispute. Since you think I have not presented my arguments you are just proving you have not read the article, sources, and this discussion itself. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not explained why you think it is OR. All I see is your assertion that limitations related to travel between Kosovo and Serbia has nothing to do with tourism. Which is like asserting a river have nothing to do with the sea. Of course access has implications on tourism, and tourists like linking destinations, and the sources are governmental websites containing information on how their citizens can visit Kosovo. If you are worried about real OR, why is this article little more that a selective list of places in Kosovo with the implication that these are tourist attractions? Your OR objection would be far more valid here: there are no sources presented that link tourism in Kosovo with these places. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not reject that limitations related to travel between Kosovo and Serbia is affecting tourism. It may be true. You have to present sources for that. The sources must not just say there are visa issues when someone wants to cross the border between two countries. They must state that these issues are affecting tourism. Sources which are appropriate for an encyclopedia must also have information on issues such as what is the cost of these border problems, which of two countries is most damaged, how many tourists cross the border and visit both countries each year and so on? If you are worried why "this article little more that a selective list of places in Kosovo with the implication that these are tourist attractions" you can visit relevant articles for other countries. You will see this is the way Tourism in X country articles are constructed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources giving the details about the border crossing restrictions are giving those details, along with other entry/exit requirements, as information for persons intending to visit Kosovo. All foreign tourists will also be visitors - so I think it is not OR to mention content related to visiting Kosovo in an article about what visitors do in Kosovo as tourists. The list of "sites" is largely OR because they are without sources mentioning that they are places visited by tourists, foreign or internal. I was not mentioning that as an argument to remove them, but to try to show that your opinion of the OR-ness of the border crossing content would also require the removal of these listed sites if your opinion was accepted. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article can not be a travel guide. Wikipedia is not the place to read some free travel advices. There are other places for that thing such as Tripadvisor. Wikipedia's purpose is to be a place where people can read free encyclopedic content. The sources don't state the border issues with Serbia are affecting tourism. Regardless of this you insist that since there are border issues then they are affecting tourism. Someone can say for example people who visit Kosovo do not cross the border with Serbia or people who cross the border actually do it for work purpose (that kind of visitors is not considered a tourist). Tourists in Kosovo are virtually all Kosovo Albanians who live and work in Western Europe. They know there are such problems and they may avoid them simply by avoiding border crossing between two countries. The list of sites is not problematic because it is based on the way how other Tourism in X country articles are constructed. This way of writing such articles was not initiated by me so it does not show that my "opinion of the OR-ness of the border crossing content would also require the removal of these listed sites if my opinion was accepted". Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In keeping with that "not a travel guide" argument, all mention of touristic sites (whether sourced or not) must also go, The what-other-articles-have is not a valid argument. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)