Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Gračanica monastery

Gračanica monastery


17 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved

Dispute overview

A user is trying to push Kosovo as a state party of UNESCO WHS, despite the official reference in UNESCO. As a compromise, i added a location, but users are reverting back state party in order to completely remove mentions of Serbia as state part from article. As Kosovo is disputed territory between Republic of Kosovo and Serbia, we should not deal with Kosovo as with other normal recognised states, like France or Germany. Also, Kosovo is NOT member of UNESCO, so adding that would be obvious misrepresentation. When (if) Kosovo become UN member, and UNESCO recognise and change that on their own site, we should do that here. Kosovo article and related ones are subject of WP:ARBMAC restrictions, and must not be edited in non-neutral manner.

I would just state that all other disputed entities on Wikipedia have state party as it is referenced by UNESCO official website, as THE one authority about WHS. Also, other whs sites in Kosovo have Serbia, as sources say, with mentions of direct location. We already have strong consensus on this manner, and it is Republic of Kosovo ≠ Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Again. Kosovo is disputed region, location of those monuments. Serbia is state party that nominated then, and that still maintain them, as those are part of Serbian Orthodox Church where after years of terror small Serbian population lives in a enclosed fortress-like territories.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Big talk page conversation, and a thread on Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site, in order to fix "Country" into "State party", in order to solve disputed locations problem like this one.

How do you think we can help?

We would need uninvolved editors to respond to this question:

Should we ignore UNESCO reference, fact that Kosovo is not member of UN and UNESCO, and fact that Kosovo is disputed entity, unrecognised by half of the world, and remove mentions of Serbia, despite consensus, official references, and fact that we already have location added in this article, or not?

Also, help would be to fix "Country" into "State party" on Infobox World Heritage Site.

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
 * Opening comments by Dirifer


 * Opening comments by Antidiskriminator

This dispute is not about Gračanica monastery but about Template:Infobox World Heritage Site which (naturally) uses UNESCO state classification which says that state party in case of World Heritage Sites on Kosovo is Serbia. I think that the template should be changed to include additional clarification which would follow the existing consensus to use Kosovo territory with a note. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In infobox should specify the actual situation. Serbia does not have any influence on Kosovo. These areas are managed by the Kosovo police, on the border between Serbia and Kosovo is the border police. Serbian President Nikolic said: "Serbia will never lose Kosovo, but I am not the president in Priština. This is what hurts and what, unfortunately, is already difficult to change," We also have some neutral sources that explain the situation :1 Judah. The Serbs. Yale University Press. p. 355. ISBN 978-0-300-15826-7., 2 Peace at Any Price: How the World Failed Kosovo. p. 12., 3 http://www.inyourpocket.com/kosovo/pristina/Gracanica-Monastery_72048f. Most readers would gain the impression that the monastery is actually in Serbia rather than Kosovo. In article several times mentions Kosovo (is a region in southeastern Europe.) and not mentions the Republic of Kosovo is very biased.Sokac121 (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opening comments by Sokac121

Gračanica monastery discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello, I volunteer here at DRN. This doesn't give me any special powers or authority over the article or editors but I'll try my best to be an impartial mediator for the dispute. Once all parties have contributed their opening statements we can proceed. Until then, I'll ask that any further discussion remains on the relevant talk pages. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am a volunteer here at DRN. , it would be most appreciated if you could write a little bit about how you see the dispute here so we can get started on resolving it :) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 22:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, since we've waited a week since this was filed and one party doesn't appear to have had any on-wiki contribs since then I'll just go ahead and open this discussion. As far as I can tell, UNESCO doesn't recognise the Republic of Kosovo and lists the location of this monastery in Serbia. Depending on who you talk to (i.e. whether they recognise the Republic of Kosovo or not) this is either right or wrong. I'm assuming there is no dispute that the area of Kosovo is different from the Republic of Kosovo in such a way that you could claim that Kosovo is a territory within either the Republic of Kosovo or Serbia depending on who you talk to. Now, UNESCO are the final authority on what is a UNESCO WH site, they list the monastery as being in Serbia, this should be reflected in the Infobox. However, reading it as black and white when a shade of grey is required is not really suitable. As such, I think a solution that uses the UNESCO location listing but also mentions that it is in a disputed region by the Republic of Kosovo can be considered. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your proposed solution. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * , what do you think about the proposed resolution? Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with proposed solution, that in infobox writes both Serbia and Republik of Kosovo.--Sokac121 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not proposed solution. What is proposed is
 * "a solution that uses the UNESCO location listing " - not both
 * "but also mentions that it is in a disputed region by the Republic of Kosovo" - mentions, like within a note.
 * Is it correct Steven Zhang? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That was the intention of my original proposal. The current version of the page is an example of this. It mentions that it is in Serbia as defined by UNESCO and the location is described as Kosovo. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with it until UNESCO classification changes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides sources UNESCO, we have another source that gives the real situation. I'm against that, Republic of Kosovo is mentioned at the bottom of article. It's pathetic and biased. --Sokac121 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * UNESCO is the final authority on UNESCO World Heritage sites, it's their thing. As much as we may know it's not as simple as just saying Serbia or Republic of Kosovo, the UNESCO listing states Serbia so we use that. We can add a note (like the version I linked yesterday) which shows that it is in the region of Kosovo. If we start saying this like "They said X but they actually mean Y, we know it" then we're getting close to WP:SYNTH. Now there's nothing stopping the article going into a little detail about Serbia/RoK but for the UNESCO Infobox, Serbia should be listed. Thoughts? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. UNESCO is the final authority on UNESCO World Heritage sites. Maybe their classification is indeed "pathetic and biased" but until they change it Serbia should be listed as a state with clarification that site in question (Gračanica) is in the region of Kosovo with added note about its disputed status by RoK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newsletter of UNESCO and Republic of Serbia. here is well written Talk:Gračanica_monastery ''Serbia may well be the "state party", but in the article that displays as "country". Most readers will interpret that to mean location. Whilst it is technically accurate that Serbia is the state party, that is deeply misleading to readers as most would gain the impression that the monastery is actually in Serbia rather than Kosovo.''. We need to have accurate information, like this we give wrong information to readers and it is not a rule of Wikipedia--Sokac121 (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, "it is technically accurate that Serbia is the state party". The comment about misleading of the readers was written when previous version of this article did not clarify Kosovo dispute. The clarification about Kosovo being disputed by RoK is enough to prevent any misleading.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And, Sokac, lets play honest. Your agenda here was not to fix possible misleading, but to push pro-Albanian propaganda about Republic of Kosovo. I would just mention for other users that we should not invent some new clarifications about Kosovo status, but we should use kosovo-note for that, as we are doing it in current version of article, and in other thousands of articles. If you ask me, this is closed question. Other users disbanded the discussion, and i will send evidences that Dirifer is DE sockupuppet by master puppeteer. Therefor, his attitude should be ignored anyway... But i think he will not pop up anymore, after recognition. Anyway, this is not question for this venue. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I again repeat: We need to have accurate information, like this we give wrong information to readers and it is not a rule of Wikipedia. If I go to visit monastery of Gračanica monastery, I go to the Republic of Kosovo, I cross state border between Serbia and R. Kosovo, there patrolling Kosovo police no Serbian police. Wikipedia reader from Brazil, Canada, Japan who does not know clear situation on the Balkans will have the wrong information. WhiteWriter about your problem with Dirifer discuss to other pages thanks.--Sokac121 (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Last time I was there Gracanica was patrolled by Swedish UN troops, and the Kosovo police was not welcome there. It does not matter though.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Around Swedish UN troops is Kosovo police :)--Sokac121 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So where are we on this? earlier I proposed using the UNESCO listing and noting the disputed territory. Am I correct in saying it is only Sokac121 that disagrees with this proposal? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe so.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside, it's obvious that some editors have a personal connection with the Serbia/Kosovo dispute, I'd suggest all editors take a read of WP:TIGER, it's a great essay and pertinant to a lot of disputes on Wikipedia Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied the current appearance article.--Sokac121 (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The current appearance does not resolve this issue. It does not mention state party. How can you agree with it although you said that you support the solution that " in infobox writes both Serbia and Republik of Kosovo"? Have you actually read WP:TIGER?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Antid addition. That would be it, if you ask me... I also added other designation of this object, as in other articles... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 12:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this dispute still active? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Cabe6403 you can conclude this discussion. I'm pleased appearance article, but I'm not satisfied with these actions during a debate in DNR they edit article. Thanks for your help in the discussion!--Sokac121 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While it's polite not to edit the article during an active DRN dispute it's not manditory as this is a voluntary process. If everyone is happy, I'll close the dispute. If I don't here within 48 hours I'll assume everyone is and close it Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 06:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)