Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:11, 20 March 2022

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

In accordance with sanctions authorised for this article: All editors on this article are subject to 1RR per day and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see (subsequently modified by ).

Useful information for this article Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Misplaced Pages:Etiquette. This is not a forum for general discussion of Kosovo, or whether it is a 'country', 'state' or 'province'. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Kosovo at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Misplaced Pages policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. The opening paragraph to the article was decided upon, by consensus, following lengthy discussions. It is based on reliable sources, providing a neutral point of view. The first sentence, in particular, must call Kosovo a "country", reflecting the consensus found in the RfC held in the spring of 2023. This article is written in British English, which differs from American English in some ways. See American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Kosovo received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kosovo Top‑importance Kosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Albania Top‑importance Kosovo is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Limited recognition High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Misplaced Pages by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 17, 2015, February 17, 2016, February 17, 2017, February 17, 2018, and February 17, 2019.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The contents of the Republic of Kosovo page were merged into Kosovo on 23 May 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Introduction grammar request

Change:

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

To:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree you didn't say use unreliable sources, you said don't use sources *at all* aka "RS does not apply" "RS comes into play where two editors present diametrically opposing viewpoints. Where presentation is the bone of contention as is the case here, the quintessential factor is WP:PARITY." etc (WP:PARITY only comes into play when evaluating WP:FRINGE BTW). That is not a not a tagged/identified sock, see

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

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

I was correct the first time. It is separatists and proponents of Serbian territorial integrity (I didn't use the term integralist). Nationalism doesn't come into the picture. When nations base their claim on irredentism then that is nationalist. Ukraine's claim on Crimea and the Donbass (and maybe now everything east of the Dnieper) is based on its constitutional outline and not on a desire to take foreign lands. When it came to separating Kosovo from Serbia and Yugoslavia, the work was done by separatists and achieved by the powerful handlers of those separatists. But whose "nationalism" is it? Albanian nationalism does not advocate for Kosovo and Albania as independent of one another. Meanwhile with regards the opposite nationalism (Serbian or Pan-Yugoslav), it should be known that being Albanian did not determine where they stood since the VJ (Army of Yugoslavia) had Kosovo Albanians among its ranks, and a certain part of the ethnic Albanian population 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'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'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'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'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'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 Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, thats not a policy that can overridden by a local consensus. Horse Eye'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 Misplaced Pages 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'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'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'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's Back (talk) 07:55, 13 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)

Change to lead

@No such user: 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's Back (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: - 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#Northern border 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'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'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'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'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'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'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 Misplaced Pages 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'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 do 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'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'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's Back (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Kosovo-Serbia border

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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:
  1. 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 ..." - The Times (London) 2001
  2. 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: , .
  3. B is more readable; it's shorter, it flows better, and is easier to understand for our target audience.
  4. 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.
  5. 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).
  6. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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's Back (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• B not even sure what A is trying to say.Moxy- 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)
• 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)

Misplaced Pages 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)

• Comment. I have never in my life seen such a one-sided and flagrantly loaded misrepresentation of the matter at hand anywhere. 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)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, 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)
• 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 (Summoned by bot) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  B or C - (back after ping) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

No such user 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)

Levivich 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:

1. 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.
   1. 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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.
2. 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:
   1. 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.
   2. 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.
   3. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 LongLivePortugal. 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)

@Coldtrack: Thank you for explaining the story! Yes, of course we can find better alternatives. LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: 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)

• @ElderZamzam: I only do not like the idea of removing the sentence because a mention of any territory's borders is common on Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] is not a precedent based project, its a consensus based project. Horse Eye'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 ElderZamzam 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's Back (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• @LokiTheLiar: 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's Back (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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'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 @LongLivePortugal: 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)
• Just pinging earlier editors after new options — @Moxy: @Adoring nanny: @Egsan Bacon: @Future Perfect at Sunrise: @Kingerikthesecond: @PraiseVivec: @P1221: @IAmChaos: @No such user: @Maleschreiber: @Resnjari: 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)
• 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)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Kosovo articles
• Top-importance Kosovo articles
• WikiProject Kosovo articles
• B-Class Serbia articles
• Top-importance Serbia articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles
• B-Class Albania articles
• Top-importance Albania articles
• WikiProject Albania articles
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• B-Class Europe articles
• Unknown-importance Europe articles
• WikiProject Europe articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Limited recognition articles
• High-importance Limited recognition articles
• WikiProject Limited recognition articles
• Selected anniversaries (February 2015)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2016)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2017)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2018)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2019)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment