Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 22 October 2013

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.

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. Unrecognized countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Unrecognized countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesTemplate:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesUnrecognized countries Template:V0.5

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Kosovo. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Kosovo at the Reference desk.

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.

According to CIA Factbook, Population

Ethnic groups: Albanians 92%, other (Serb, Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian) 8% (2008) --12:45, 27 November 2011

RfC: Serbian register vs Serbo-Croatian language on Kosovo?

Am herewith proposing that references to the Serbian register of the Serbo-Croatian language ("Serbian") be replaced with references to Serbo-Croatian in general. As per numerous sources listed in the aforementioned article and indeed, in the Serbian article itself: "Serbian is a standardized register of the Serbo-Croatian language". (I sincerely hope no one wishes to challenge this fact (again)? But if so, abundant high-quality refs can of course be provided.. again.)

I submit that it is inaccurate and detrimental to the understanding of the reader to restrict references to this language only to its Serbian standard, where the implications of that restriction are unnecessary and misleading (and on such a controversial article - also biased by omission). A couple examples:

• In the lede we have "(Serbian: Косово or Косово и Метохија or Космет, Kosovo or Kosovo i Metohija or Kosmet)". - Those are names accurate not only in the Serbian standard of Serbo-Croatian, but also in the other three (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin).
• In the "Name" section we have this: "Kosovo is the Serbian neuter possessive adjective of kos (кос) "blackbird", an ellipsis for Kosovo Polje, 'blackbird field'" - here too the statement is completely accurate for all four standardized registers of Serbo-Croatian, not just Serbian.

I therefore hold it would be manifestly beneficial to present the reader with the information that the quoted names and terms are accurate for the entire language, as opposed to (as is inescapably implied) - only its Serbian standard. I.e that they are just as accurate in Bosnia, Croatia, and Montenegro, as in Serbia. -- Director (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I am not here proposing this change be applied to other articles. Where the standards are used they are used on the pretext that the relevant state entities are enforcing them. I am simply arguing that this article is not associated with any particular state entity, and that therefore its just one of the many articles where we have no reason to avoid using the language. I'm saying its the same as with, say, the Yugoslavia article. SC is the term used on a great many articles, and thus far - no armageddon. -- Director (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: While I might be sympathetic to this proposal in principle, I doubt this particular article (with all its additional ideological baggage) is the best place to hack it out. What is our practice on other Serbo-Croatian-related articles, geographical or biographical? It's been my impression that in most articles that are related predominantly or exclusively to one of the Serbo-Croatian-speaking nations, we have mostly been using that particular synonym of the language name. In articles that are related to several or all of them, I've often seen a full enumeration of "Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian". I certainly don't think this latter affectation is a good solution, but this ought to be clarified centrally, don't you think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I honestly had (and still don't have) no intention to duke anything out. I came here to write about how Kosovo is named after blackbirds, only to find out the subject is already covered excellently - with one exception. I saw the Name section and said to myself "well that's not right, I too call a blackbird 'kos', and I don't use Serbian standard.. and the same is true for three countries and millions of people". I certainly don't intend to start some revolution of replacing all "Serbian:" and "Croatian:" etc. entries with "Serbo-Croatian" (not least because I live in Croatia and do not wish to be lynched :)) - I just think this article is one of those where "Serbo-Croatian" is the more appropriate term, such as Yugoslavia, e.g., as its not associated specifically with any state entity (that enforces one of the four standards). -- Director (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Mild support - while sharing both the sympathy and doubt of Future Perfect, pretty much verbatim with all above, I think BSC is largely a language-teaching usage, and Serbo-Croatian is useful neutral and perhaps also indicates more use of Latinica in Kosovo than in Serbia. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a place to ask for general use in Misplaced Pages. You may try to use it in this article, but not in general by this RfC. Anyway, as before, i Oppose that, as we do have sources for Serbian standard also, and other languages are irrelevant in this article. Also, Bosnian and Croatian do not use only Serbian Cyrilic script, so it would be misleading to add that. Also oppose per numerous reasons i already stated before. --WhiteWriter 09:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Languages and scripts are two entirely different matters. Serbo-Croatian would be Serbo-Croatian in Cyrillic as well as in Arabic script. It is commonly written in Latin as well as in Cyrillic, just like the official Serbian standard proscribed by the Republic of Serbia. The argument re Cyrillic really makes no sense. And it has been clearly and repeatedly shown (by much more knowledgeable users than myself) that the scientific consensus does not regard Serbian, Croatian, etc. as different "languages". The sources are demonstrably not on your side, whatever you may claim. For the rest please see the Comment below. -- Director (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. As I said, I am not here proposing "Serbo-Croatian" replace "Serbian" or "Croatian" everywhere. That would be a significant improvement in my opinion, but such a move would require much consensus-building. And this is certainly, as has been pointed out, not to place to start.

My argument, however, is that this article is disassociated (by design one might say) from any state entities that enforce one or more of the four standards. Hence that argument by which these standards are used on many articles in loo of SC in general - is inapplicable. This article, it is argued, is the same as many others where "Serbo-Croatian" is used. In other words, not even the flimsy excuses by which Serbo-Croatian is avoided on some articles apply here - I can see no argument not to use the proper language term here. -- Director (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Idea to replace Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin/.... languages with Serbo Croatian language should be discussed more centrally in more appropriate place. Insisting to remove only Serbian language in articles with controversial topics put on probation by The Arbitration Committee is not constructive. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This proposal concerns this article, and this article alone. Some articles still use the standards in place of the actual language, on the basis that the authorities, wherein lies the scope of the article, use the standard and proscribe it as a "language" - I do not propose to modify them. I would leave them alone. However, the aforementioned argument used on those articles does not apply here, and this article should not be forced to wait for improvements on an imaginary date which (as I'm sure you know full well) may never come at all. In other words, it should imo be counted among the many articles where "Serbo-Croatian" is the term in use, i.e where political bias has not been allowed to influence content in this matter. The controversy surrounding this article seems to me all the more reason to go through with this. -- Director (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if we could take some of the ideological urgency out of this debate if we all resolved to look at names like "Serbian" and "Croatian" not as implying a status as separate languages, but simply as alternate names, i.e. contextually used synonyms, referring to the same language? Just like few people appear to have a problem with calling the same language "Indonesian" when applied to an Indonesian context and "Malay" when applied to a Malaysian context. For Kosovo, no matter which way we want to see its present political status, its connection to the Serbian sphere is obviously closer than that to any of the other ethnic focal points, so I really don't see a whole big lot of a problem with calling the language Serbian in this context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

More than a few international organizations are doing just that, in fact that's the origin of the "BCMS" name. However, Misplaced Pages does not unfortunately treat the terms "Serbian" and "Croatian" as synonyms redirecting to the Serbo-Croatian article. Rather "Serbian" takes us to the expansive Serbian language article where the reader finds out its a "standardized register" of a "language", not just a synonym (and also not really a "language" as the title confusingly states). And really, apart from the first sentence the article just treats it as a language (i.e a seperate language) and not even a standard. I mean we can't just pretend they're just synonyms for the same language without actually treating them as such, can we? -- Director (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: The problem with the above proposal is that both the constitution of Serbia and the consitution of the self-declared Republic of Kosovo state that Serbian is the official language (alongside Albanian in Kosovo's case). See: The BBC , the CIA and numerous other sources list Serbian as being one of the official languages of Kosovo. 23 editor (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What a shock, every Serbian user opposes the motion.. does that mean Albanian users will agree? :) -- Director (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Not sure were I stand. Definitely so that the registers of Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian are all Serbo-Croat linguistically but this is probably the worst article to launch the radical amendment. I see from talk page activity on Kosovar topics that there some editors are stuggling hard enough against Kosovo Albanians and their sympathisers in maintaining neutrality where the language and status quo are concerned. This might hammer a nail into the coffin of Serbian influence on Kosovo articles, not that it should dominate of course, but an Albanian/Serbian joint perspective needs to take precedence over all else. beztraga (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, I say again: I am not attempting to launch anything. Where standards are used they are used on the pretext that the relevant state entities are enforcing them. I am simply arguing that this article is not associated with any particular state entity, and that therefore its just one of the many articles where we have no reason to avoid using the language. I'm saying its the same as with, say, the Yugoslavia article. SC is used on a great many articles, and thus far - no armageddon. (I'll try to make this clear in the proposal.) -- Director (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not you are attempting to launch the overall discussion, Misplaced Pages is a single project, so consensus in one article is generally used in other articles, unless there's a specific reason for it to not apply. We appreciate your intent, but unfortunately, you cannot constrain this discussion to only this page. Whatever consensus is reached here will affect all usage across Misplaced Pages unless there's a clear reason to limit the scope. Arathald (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Good idea, keep politics out of articles where there is no need to be specific. The Big Hoof! (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Firstly, like I mentioned above, whether or not you're trying to discuss this as it applies across articles, this discussion inherently applies to other articles, so this is not the correct forum in which to discuss it. Secondly, your wording of the RFC is not neutral -- it proposes a specific position. RFCs must be neutrally worded with no bias (e.g. "Should this article use the term 'Croatian' or 'Serbo-Croatian' when describing the language in question?"). Finally, while I see your argument, you likely want to make it differently. Just because a word is common across Serbo-Croatian doesn't make it incorrect to talk about the word in Croatian. Maybe it makes it imprecise, but not incorrect. All that said, this is a geopolitical issue that I'm not familiar enough with to make a suggestion. In this case, it would be interesting to know what people native to Kosovo would refer to their language as. If approached from that angle, we might be able to restrict the scope of this discussion to only this article, though an attempt to do so may be misguided, due to the reasons I explained above. Arathald (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and above comments, with understanding of comments. Official languages are not necessarily the only languages that should be taken into consideration, anyhow. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I think DIREKTOR should consider adding "Serbo-Croatian" in the opening paragraph for the Croatia article and see what other users think. Just a thought. 23 editor (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. 23 editor is doubly wrong; firstly, we don't base these decisions on what nationalists have put in constitutions (for instance the constitution of Turkey pretends that Kurds don't exist), and secondly as far as the Serbian constitution is concerned, Kosovo never became part of Serbia. A shift to Serbo-croat would hopefully relieve just a little of the constant nationalist infighting... bobrayner (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• And in any case, certain Serbian editors made it quite clear that this article is about the geographical region, whilst anything related to the Republic of Kosovo belongs in that POV fork; I'm surprised that constitutional matters are now being brought to bear on this article. Only when it suits one side of the argument... bobrayner (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Bob, if you want to talk about geographical regions, then please go ahead and add Serbo-Croatian to Slavonia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, etc. Otherwise, quit being a hypocrite. 23 editor (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Those are non-sequiteurs. This is Talk:Kosovo. Where's the hypocrisy? bobrayner (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Paging 23 editor... those examples are non-sequiteurs. This is Talk:Kosovo. Where's the hypocrisy? bobrayner (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

23 editor is doubly wrong; firstly, we don't base these decisions on what nationalists have put in constitutions (for instance the constitution of Turkey pretends that Kurds don't exist), and secondly as far as the Serbian constitution is concerned, Kosovo never became part of Serbia. But these problems are when challenged, all we get is personal attacks, angry non-sequiteurs, and no attempt to support the point. Why is this so common? bobrayner (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a matter non-natives rarely acquire a full understanding for, while natives of the region commonly slant it to advance their conflicting views. There is no definite truth here since the issue can be equally well-described from either base; linguistic or socio-cultural alike. Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia historically constitute three distinct and separate entities, and apart from a few exceptions, have not employed a common name for their language up to the mid-19th century. The brief period of shallow political and cultural unity under the Yugoslav banner was more of an exception than a rule, and its subsequent breakdown certainly attributable in part to chauvinistic nationalism, but equally to unbridgeable differences of culture and heritage. These differences must not simply be dismissed as "nationalism" but are in fact valid characteristics upon which different nations rest. Purely linguistically, however, the three languages are indeed one and the same language, dubbed "Serbo-Croatian" in the 19th century. While proponents of "Serbo-Croatian" frequently accuse their opponents of "nationalism" they for the most part have an equal share of vested interest not much nobler in the matter, and are without any reservation to gloss over the distinct and separate heritages of the peoples in the region. The Kosovo-article is surely not a proper place to hash out such linguistics as the socio-cultural aspect definitely trumps the former in my opinion. Kosovo, and the Slavic language historically spoken in the region, distinctly belongs to the Serbian sphere (as opposed to the Croatian or "Serbo-Croatian"): in this regard, indicating "Serbo-Croatian" makes little sense since it diminishes and subordinates region's relation to Serbia in favor of a linguistic term coined in the 19th century. The same principle should apply to all geographical and historiographic pieces apart from those directly related to the former Yugoslavia. The point DIRECTOR makes by pointing out that the individual language articles have indeed been limited to their standardized registers is not a definition I would agree on to begin with, but this has somehow been voted through by the persistent efforts of a few editors who shall remain nameless. Moreover, the current Serbo-Croatian article simply chooses to ignore the purely terminological character of "Serbo-Croatian"; i.e. the language which "Serbo-Croatian" intends to denote is certainly one and the same language, but "Serbo-Croatian" as such is not a language since there is no "Serbo-Croatian" people. Anyways, these are just thoughts on a side-note. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 01:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support A lot of time and effort was spent trying to strip this page of politics and funnel it off to other articles. Given that, it seems to follow that the political definitions of the languages should be funnelled elsewhere as well. CMD (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support I really like this proposal. Less politics in article less nationalism and conflict.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

O, cool, we should replace Croatian language with SH on Croatia article then also. Would you agree to that too, Sokac? --WhiteWriter 16:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

User:23 editor and User:WhiteWriter here we talk about Kosovo. Talk about Kosovo. Thanks!--Sokac121 (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Croatia is a country article, with a legal language name. I thought this wasn't a country article? CMD (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't, that's the whole point. -- Director (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Anti-Serbism: You clearly want to erase thraces of Serbian culture and history from Kosovo. Serbian language, history and culture is more than 1000 years old in Kosovo and more than 1000 years older than the so called Serbo-Croatian language you are trying to inplant here. If Croatian editors are so pecictent to brotherly Albanize Kosovo, we can change language of Croats in vojvodina to Serbo-Croatian aswell, or mabye better to Serbian. Its an irony that editors like Shokac mention satisfaction over non-nationalism, coz thats the biggest nationalist obssesed with haterede towards serbs i have ever seen here... wherever there are discussions like this, he will always be (if not the only one) to back up any ideas that would be against proposals of Serbian editors. Pathetics... Serbian editors we can not be foolish enough to let "goody two shoes acting-dušmani" change and rewrite our history.. this maybe only wikipedia, but thats how it starts. (Правичност (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

This is not the first time you blatantly violate WP:NPA. Since you have already been warned for such activities I expect first un-involved administrator to impose sanctions to you. I think that what you wrote in edit line of this edit can serve as a reason for indefinite ban. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

looks fine for me, atleast that "ustashi lover" can continue on with his internet wars. (Правичност (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

You're too late, Правичност, my plan is already too far gone. Soon the Serbian identity will be erased forever *evil laugh* :). Well, at least you're honest that resisting perceived "de-serbianization" of Kosovo is behind your opposition.. -- Director (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, well i got better things to do than concern my self over your evil plans aimed against Serbian articles on wikipedia... i beleive everybody is already calmed with the fact that croatian editors concern themselves more with Serbian articles, than with Croatian ones. :) (Правичност (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

Comment: All allegations of evil, far-reaching conspiracies aside, I want to point out that there are virtually no "Serbo-Croatian" speakers in Kosovo. Serbs declare their language to be the Serbian one, Bosniaks declare their's to be the Bosnian one, etc. See: 2011 Census Data page 64-65. Adding "Serbo-Croatian" is bizarre as it not only doesn't reflect the language spoken by the people who form the majority of the population in Kosovo (Albanians), but it also doesn't reflect what Bosniaks, Croats, Serbs and Montenegrins declare their language to be. 23 editor (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of evil conspiracy of Croatian editors are unfounded because related discussion at WikiProject Yugoslavia talkpage (link) shows that members of this project do not support replacing Serbian and Croatian languages with Serbo-Croatian. I think that, based on this discussions, it can be concluded that group of editors who try to push their position on multiple talkpages should either try to reach consensus for their position centrally or refrain from pushing their position on individual articles.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Good to hear.. i agree (Правичност (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC))

That wasn't the point of my comment. I was trying to point out how few inhabitants of Kosovo speak "Serbo-Croat". You must have missed that bit. 23 editor (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I replied to Правичносt.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@23 editor. I fear you're operating on a false assumption, 23. In fact, a great many inhabitants of Kosovo do most certainly speak the Serbo-Croatian language, following its Serbian standardized register to be exact (please see the Serbian article). They don't call it "Serbo-Croatian", but then practically nobody does since the wars. Nevertheless, as can be expected, linguistic science is practically unanimous that the language did not disappear as a consequence of its speakers despising each-other. -- Director (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, its been a while. I count 7 support and 4 oppose, and those opposing are mostly just Serbian users defending "Serbian" as a language. More importantly I myself see no truly valid argument for continuing on with this confusing state of affairs. I propose to proceed with the edit? -- Director (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the lede

Why does every paragraph of the lede go out of its way to frame Kosovo in terms of Serbia? Kosovo is not Serbia. Can't we have a more balanced lede which mostly focusses on Kosovo instead of Serbia? This is supposed to be an article about Kosovo. bobrayner (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Bobrayner. An example of nonsense: Prizren infobox: Country: Kosovo → Kosovo sometimes referred to as Kosovo and Metohija is a region in southeastern Europe.??? What is with Republic of Kosovo.--Sokac121 (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcomed to propose something here on talk, Bob. For Sokac. Please, read Frequently Asked Questions on this page, and you will get your answer. --WhiteWriter 14:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've partly reinstated some of the material recently inserted by Bobrayner, which was blanket-reverted by WhiteWriter . While I can see why WhiteWriter was not happy with some of the rewordings, there is valid material in what Bobrayner added, and I've tried to combine the wording of both versions .

At the same time, I warn WhiteWriter against violating the article restrictions. Accusing another editor of breaking the restriction while at the same time making a blanket, undiscussed revert, as WhiteWriter did, is unacceptable. The restrictions do not say that anybody making new edits is required to discuss in advance; what they do say is that anybody who makes reverts must explain them on the talkpage. The person who broke the restrictions here was WhiteWriter, and this will not be tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No, unacceptable is to remove one POV and replace it with other POV, as Bobrayner did. Your edit is by far better, and i would never react that Bob did that. Also, your deep involvement in this subject does not give you right to decide what is good and what is not. All users are obliged to use talk page, and your comment just stoped me in explanation, so i will use this section for it, while other user didn't comment anything, while removed important data and sources. You should try to see situation as it is. --WhiteWriter 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I just want to state that current situation may be misleading, as i was actually writing the question about this during FPS comment. As far as i see now, current situation is ok, as that was actually the idea, both version of any question. I was just very tired of user Bob constant POV pushing all over Misplaced Pages, so this was just one of the articles where question should be raised. Current version is ok, i will just add one link... --WhiteWriter 14:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, i will also say that i find very strange that only reverts need to be commented per restriction. Some of the worst problems are not actually in reverts, that can be easily stopped, but in content changes, that can drive the article away from NPOV, while using sources. I think that agreement would be needed for any bigger edit on this page actually... --WhiteWriter 14:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Whitewriter, your constant accusations of POV-pushing are quite tiresome. Please stop. Sooner or later we will get articles which reflect what sources say, and the more you hit the revert button, the longer that date is postponed. bobrayner (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

North Kosovo

I made a change to what said North Kosovo was controlled by Republic of Serbia. It may seem that way but Belgrade authorities are excluded from the region and may not enforce anything there. What you actually have is the local non-Albanian population administering the region and they by their own choosing observe the institutions of the Republic of Serbia (eg. use of dinars, Serbian passport/identity card, vehicle registration plates, etc.). The Big Hoof! (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Three articles when there should be one

If the situation is not enough confusional in Kosovo, there are in wikipedia three articles for the same thing:

• Kosovo
• Republic of Kosovo
• Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija

Right now the first and the third have Serbian stamp, the second (kind of) Albanian.

Wouldn't it make sense to merge Kosovo into Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, so that from three we go to two? --LinditaBukuroshja (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times before, e.g. at Talk:Kosovo/Archive 27 and Talk:Kosovo/Archive 28. In the past there have constantly been highly disputed changes, splits and mergers for all things related to Kosovo, so that even Misplaced Pages's arbitration committee had to deal with the matter. The trifold structure of Kosovo articles is a result of this mess and actually all three articles deal strictly with a different subject. This article, Kosovo, is about the greater geographical region regardless of all political definitions, while Republic of Kosovo deals with said republic (history, politics, society), and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija presents the official Serbian province. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes; we have dealt with this before.

There was no consensus to split; when repeated polls failed to deliver the right result, somebody went ahead and achieved it through edit-warring instead. This problem cannot be easily solved. Better to concentrate on other problems, for now. bobrayner (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I know this flies in the face of the indoctrination people are learning in schools and television over there, but it is disputed territory and Misplaced Pages should reflect this in an appropriate way. This is an appropriate way. Int21h (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2013 (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