![]() |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
Sections older than 2 months may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
RFC: Kosovo-Serbia border
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead of the article Kosovo say:
- A: Kosovo "is bordered by the uncontested part of the territory of Serbia to the north and east ..."
- B: Kosovo "is bordered by Serbia to the north and east ..."
- C: Kosovo "is bordered by Central Serbia to the north and east ..."
- D: Kosovo "is bordered by (the rest of) Serbia to the north and east ..."
RFC posted 19:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC). Options C and D added by LongLivePortugal (talk), at 22:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- B (RFC initiator), for several reasons:
- B appears widely used by RS, for example:
- "A landlocked country, Kosovo is bordered by Serbia to the north and east ..." - Britannica 2022
- "Kosovo is a small country in southeastern Europe that borders Serbia ..." - SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society 2019
- "Kosovo borders Serbia" - Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2018
- "Landlocked Kosovo borders Serbia to the north and east ..." - Gale World Economic Factbook 2013
- "... where Kosovo borders Serbia ..." - The Times (London) 2001
- A does not appear to be used by any RS. Specifically, the phrase "uncontested part of the territory of Serbia" apparently has no hits on Google Scholar [3] or Google News [4]. Even without quotes, I am not finding similar phraseology (a statement that Kosovo borders the "uncontested" part of Serbia) in widespread use: [5], [6].
- B is more readable; it's shorter, it flows better, and is easier to understand for our target audience.
- A is confusing. It begs the question, "What is the uncontested part of the territory of Serbia?", and whether "Serbia", "the territory of Serbia", and "the uncontested part of the territory of Serbia" are one thing or three different things.
- B is not confusing. Readers will understand that Serbia is northeast of Kosovo, and that "Serbia" in this context means the uncontested part of Serbia and not the contested part of Serbia, because obviously Kosovo does not border itself. There are no countries to the northeast of Kosovo other than Serbia, and that's the key thing to communicate here, and that's what I think our average reader will understand from Option B (but not from Option A).
- The fact that Kosovo is a disputed territory is already stated in the lead; there is no need to emphasize that multiple times, and in fact, doing so violates WP:NPOV, because the reliable sources do not emphasize it in this way, e.g. by using phraseology like "borders the uncontested part" of Serbia. Levivich 19:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hate to add to my already-long !vote, but I want to make a comment about NPOV. Some editors are making a fundamental mistake about NPOV: they're arguing that there are two POVs, Kosovo's and Serbia's, and NPOV is about striking a neutral balance between them. That is not what WP:NPOV is about. WP:NPOV is not about the POV of the countries, or the article subject, it's about the POV of the sources. WP:NPOV doesn't say we need to strike a neutral balance between Kosovo's POV and Serbia's POV (that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE), it says we need to neutrally present all the major POVs of the sources. To show "Kosovo borders Serbia" isn't a neutral summary of the major POVs of the sources, one must present a significant number of sources that use different phrasing when describing Kosovo's borders (e.g., "Kosovo borders the uncontested part of Serbia" or something like that). Arguing about Kosovo's POV and Serbia's POV is a dead end. Levivich 17:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose C and D because both are original research and/or fringe viewpoints. I ran each of the following phrases:
"Kosovo is bordered by Central Serbia"
"Kosovo borders Central Serbia"
"Kosovo is bordered by (the rest of) Serbia"
"Kosovo borders (the rest of) Serbia"
- ... through the following search engines:
- The Wikipedia Library
- Google Scholar
- Google NGrams
- Google News
- ...with and without quotes... and I came up with a grand total of one source that uses anything like that phrasing: [7] ("Kosovo borders Central Serbia in the north", p. 762). If only one source says "borders Central Serbia", then that's fringe (specifically, it's an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views in its particular field). If no sources say "the rest of" Serbia, then we can't say that, as it's original research (specifically, it's combining sources to come to a conclusion that no source explicitly states).
- Bottom line: if editors think that the way sources describe it ("Kosovo borders Serbia") is not neutral, they can't just come up with some other phrasing that editors believe is more neutral--that's original research.
- Any option that is not supported by the consensus of reliable sources is a non-starter, per the global consensus documented at WP:NPOV. We must summarize the sources, not the positions of governments, and of course not our own feelings about the matter. Levivich 18:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- BTW I also strongly oppose removing the sentence entirely and not describing the borders of Kosovo and listing its neighbors in the lead. That is the worst of all options, as it deprives our reader of important information that they would expect because it is standard in the lead of any article about a country or disputed territory (on Wikipedia or anywhere else). Levivich 18:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose C and D because both are original research and/or fringe viewpoints. I ran each of the following phrases:
- B appears widely used by RS, for example:
- 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)
- With new options added, I strongly oppose both C and D. Both new options are even worse than A. The problem with D is the problem with A, only moreso. D takes the implication that Kosovo is part of Serbia and makes it explicit. "Kosovo is bordered by the rest of Serbia" only makes sense if Kosovo is part of Serbia, and those parentheses are basically just a fig leaf. The way it reads is clear. The problem with C is twofold and more subtle. Firstly, "A borders region of B" is simply not consistent with how we do things. Slovenia borders Italy, not Friuli Venezia Giulia; Belize borders Mexico, not Quintana Roo. Additionally, according to the page on Central Serbia, it isn't even an official region of Serbia:
Central Serbia is a term of convenience, not an administrative division of Serbia as such, and does not have any form of separate administration.
(emphasis mine) Secondly, the only way to know what "Central Serbia" is is to go to the article, and that article does not look very neutral at all, the biggest giveaway being that all the maps there are irridentist ones that treat Kosovo as just another part of Serbia. Option C is less clear whether you follow the link or not, and also not neutral at all if you do. Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)- @Egsan Bacon: I appreciate your feedback. Please allow me to clarify that, even though we don't normally write that countries border regions, I thought it was reasonable to open an exception in this case to allow for phrasing that would be true regardless of whether the reader takes the Serbian or the Kosovar perspective, thus being more neutral. But I would like to ask you two questions: 1) Do you not see Option B as being non-neutral in the opposite direction, given that it quite clearly states that Serbia is entirely outside Kosovo?; and 2) What would you think about a fifth option similar to the phrasing I found yesterday on Wikitravel, which would be something like: "Kosovo borders Serbia (from its perspective) to the north and east [...]"? Or — a sixth idea I've had just now — what about explaining the issue, with a new sentence like: "To the north and east, Kosovo's limits are regarded by Kosovo as an external border with Serbia, and by Serbia as an internal border within the country."? Do you think these options could finally yield a consensual phrasing which would neither push the sentence to one side nor sound awkward to the reader? LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- With new options added, I strongly oppose both C and D. Both new options are even worse than A. The problem with D is the problem with A, only moreso. D takes the implication that Kosovo is part of Serbia and makes it explicit. "Kosovo is bordered by the rest of Serbia" only makes sense if Kosovo is part of Serbia, and those parentheses are basically just a fig leaf. The way it reads is clear. The problem with C is twofold and more subtle. Firstly, "A borders region of B" is simply not consistent with how we do things. Slovenia borders Italy, not Friuli Venezia Giulia; Belize borders Mexico, not Quintana Roo. Additionally, according to the page on Central Serbia, it isn't even an official region of Serbia:
- 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)
B per nominator.--Vacant0 (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)- B Option A is unnecessary, excessively verbose and violates WP:NPOV. I see no reason to switch from option B, which is currently maintained, to option A, especially when the former is backed up by a large amount of reliable sources while the latter is much more infrequent and smells like original research. --KingErikII (Talk page) 10:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Violates NPOV does it? Whose POV does A represent? According to supporters of Serbian territorial integrity, Serbia borders Albania and the "Kosovo border" constitutionally represents an arbitrary internal contour between Central Serbia and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Meanwhile, how does "Kosovo borders Serbia" resolve the NPOV "violation", and how different might it be presented if someone wanted to expound a pro-independent Kosovo POV? --Coldtrack (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia adheres to what reliable sources say; in this case, B is the preferred option based on said sources. Even if option A does not violate NPOV, it is still unnecessary as Kosovo's status as disputed territory is made clear throughout the lede, which means we should not constantly repeat it.--KingErikII (Talk page) 06:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- So in other words, no the other options do not violate NPOV while you can do no more that parrot the "RS" mantra. There is something called WP:ONUS and if simplistic "RS" references were all that mattered then we wouldn't even need to be having an RfC, never mind the fact that a stable version (albeit one that did not satisfy the narratives of pro-Kosovo independence narratives) was on display for seven years. The fact that it is state elsewhere on the article that Kosovo is disputed does not greenlight biased editors to covertly erect an Aunt Sally that is contrived to deliberately afford primacy to their POV under the auspices of how it gets written in "reliable" sources. Besides, many alternatives have been introduced which also have RS backing. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand the ONUS argument, WP:ONUS says "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." but you're trying to use ONUS as an argument *for* including disputed content which is something I've never seen before. The content you wish to add also does not appear to pass WP:V, so why would ONUS apply at all? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Horse Eye's Back. Here is why. If you care to examine the iVotes, I have not selected an option, but have merely suggested one or two other solutions among many possible. Although we can argue with each other until the cows come home which courses should be reliable and which are unreliable, I say that even within the orbit of the current bundle of reliable sources, this is a stellar example of them being incorrectly applied. We all know that "Kosovo borders Serbia" is an Aunt Sally to give certain people a handle on raising Kosovo's profile. Though ask yourself a question: what is the inverse here? That would be to claim that everything except B is "unsourced". How do you prove it is unsourced? By finding a reliable source that states Kosovo is not disputed by Serbia, and by extension, anyone at all. Of course that would be a tall order since we're not tasked with proving negatives (e.g. You don't need a source to negate that Friday does not follow directly from Wednesday). So if of course you can find a source that claims "Serbia recognises Kosovo, did so on such-and-such date", then the field is yours. No more resistance from me or probably anyone. To be honest, I am easy. This is about wording, and I only object to two types of presentation: something that tacitly affirms Kosovo is independent of Serbia, and the opposite where something tacitly affirms Kosovo being part of Serbia. And for the record, NPOV is about disagreement on the ground, not disagreement between Rupert Murdoch and Jason Kilar. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand the ONUS argument, WP:ONUS says "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." but you're trying to use ONUS as an argument *for* including disputed content which is something I've never seen before. The content you wish to add also does not appear to pass WP:V, so why would ONUS apply at all? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 22 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)
- Wikipedia adheres to what reliable sources say; in this case, B is the preferred option based on said sources. Even if option A does not violate NPOV, it is still unnecessary as Kosovo's status as disputed territory is made clear throughout the lede, which means we should not constantly repeat it.--KingErikII (Talk page) 06:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Comment.A stable wording sits unchallenged for seven years. One editor makes a bold amendment, is reverted, and then Horse Eye's Back leads the charge in an edit-warring campaign against multiple editors. There is such thing as WP:BRD. Nothing prevented either of the editors making an RfC from the get-go, and the Kosovo article is one of a raft of Balkan region articles where discretionary sanctions apply. I reported him, and expected to see something ranging from a severe warning from a most lenient perspective to an indefinite ban. Instead, an administrator greenlighted the revision that no fewer than three editors (me excluded) reverted, and attenuated the content dispute as mere "RfC".
- If there is to be a credible RfC, it needs to be written by someone like me who objects to the current wording, and in doing so, I would have built a damn stronger case that the loaded overture. Following reliable sources is important, but it is totally disingenuous to pretend reliable sources are the be-all-and-end-all of how a community addresses burning issues. This is an NPOV matter, and if RS was the only thing to come into play, we wouldn't need WP:NPOV to exist, needless to say WP:WEIGHT which is the real linchpin to this debate.
- Juicy Oranges explained the situation clearer than anybody else to date. If policies have any teeth, the singular claim of "RS, RS, RS" is destroyed by WP:ONUS. He also stated above that "Kosovo-Serbia border" is a simplistic generalisation and not some authenticated forensic analysis. Even so-called "unreliable" sources refer to the "Kosovo-Serbian" border such as RT, just as reliable sources (when commenting on the frontier itself rather than acknowledging it in passing) will invariably cite its controversial status.
- There are a plethora of sites to have reported on Belgrade-Pristina relations since the declaration of independence in 2008 who have referred to it as a "disputed border", or "disputed border crossings". See France 24, Irish times, BBC, Fayetteville Observer, Radio Free Europe, ResearchGate.
- The fact of the matter is that the above "choice" is a false dilemma fallacy since a true RfC should be open-ended. What is singularly missing from the "selection" is what is written here (not MIRROR despite appearance) and here among other sources - Kosovo bordering Central Serbia. Kosovo bordering Central Serbia reads just as well and as easily as "Kosovo borders Serbia" and should be listed. Anybody who believes that such wording would violate NPOV has the burden of explaining how "Kosovo borders Serbia" does not do the same, and "what sources say" has been shown to be WP:CHERRYPICKING for one, and ruptured by WP:ONUS for another. And moreover, if "Kosovo borders Serbia" does not demonstrate a pro-Kosovo independence POV, I would like to know how would a presentation appear if it were pro-Kosovo independence.
- "Uncontested territory" may be confusing, but it is there for a reason. It is flat out mendacious to pretend that dealing with "confusing wording" is remedied by satisfying one of two POVs. If the wording is problematic, then help find better wording. "Uncontested territory" was pieced together as an NPOV alternative, and therefore this RfC is nothing more than a binary between a pro-Kosovo independence viewpoint and a 100% neutral viewpoint.
- I suggest scrap this section and allow me to rewrite the overture more comprehensively and without such restricted options. --Coldtrack (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- What's wrong with this RfC? It has a brief, neutral statement of what the two options under discussion are. Nobody has suggested any third option so far, so I don't see any problem with that. If somebody wishes to propose a third option, they can still do so, and participants will surely react to that. The lengthy argumentative section below it is not part of the RfC statement, but is clearly marked as part of the first !vote statement (which happens to be from the person who also posted the RfC itself.) Nothing stops you from adding your own, equally lengthy, arguments in your own !vote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 clearerP1221 (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)
- 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 editorand hastily voted on (not even sure what A is trying to say
– well maybe you could if you spend more than 5 seconds on it) (quoting 2600:1702 from above)Sure respondents can add their own different options, but the burden is on the requester to present it as such, otherwise respondents are lulled into the thinking that two, in this case, two choices are the only possibilities that exist and it must be one or the other.
- several respondents fail to address the NPOV arguments and repeat the "reliable sources" mantra. There is no disagreement among either sources or editors about facts of the issue (there's a border between Kosovo and [rest of] Serbia), but on the neutral wording.
- I acknowledge that consensus can change, and I can accept the arguments such as
we don't need to cram [Kosovo status] in every single sentence
. On the other hand, this is the lead section of a major article, also displayed in Google's "knowledge panel" (infobox) and a lot of other places outside Wikipedia. Sure we can afford some time and calm discussion to get things impeccably right, rather than rush this through a majority vote? No such user (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)- 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)
- 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)
- Option B per nomination. What we write on wiki should reflect reality as it is - first and foremost - not to follow "NPOV" defined as the middle point between two contrasting statements. It's not just that Kosovo considers itself independent, but Serbia doesn't recognize its independence. Kosovo is recognized by half the world and almost all countries of the European continent as independent, it is represented in almost all international organizations and despite the de jure position of Serbia for non-recognition someone who travels from Serbia to Kosovo by car will have to cross a hard border where they must have all necessary documentation to cross it - just like they would do if they had to cross any other border. Reality is the starting point of what we write. Option B reflects reality in the most functionally meaningful way.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- B - per succinct and strong arguments made by many editors in favour of option B, which saves me time from adding my two cents on the matter.Resnjari (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Third option ("bordered by Central Serbia") (ideally) or option A (also good), or else procedural close and reopen:
- My thoughts on each possibility are as follows:
- It cannot be denied, in my opinion, that the phrasing "bordered by Serbia" (B) means "bordered by the whole of Serbia", which in turn means that Kosovo is outside Serbia; this, of course, is a phrasing that takes a side as to the controversial question of whether Serbia includes or excludes Kosovo, which violates WP:NPOV. It cannot be used.
- Some editors (notably the initiator User:Levivich) have argued that it doesn't really violate the policy if the sources we find write about Kosovo's borders in this way. I don't think this is the case: yes, it is true that Wikipedia's observance of WP:NPOV is to follow proper WP:WEIGHT; but this rule applies to the facts we report, not to their phrasing. The fact which is disputed here is not really whether the border is with Serbia or with the rest of Serbia, but rather whether Kosovo is a part of Serbia or an independent country. That is what is disputed; the border phrasing is just a consequence of the real underlying issue of the independence of Kosovo. This implies that we have to follow the WP:WEIGHT according to which sources report about the primary issue here, which is whether Kosovo is independent; and, about that issue, we all seem to agree that Wikipedia has to be neutral and take neither side. Therefore, it follows that all the sentences which we have to form in order to tell something about Kosovo must take no side about the independence issue in the way that they are phrased. If most sources do the opposite and say something in a non-neutral way, we are not supposed to copy that phrasing — because, when they chose to phrase it in that way, they did not create a new fact which we have to report according to WP:WEIGHT; rather, they (perhaps mistakenly or simplistically) chose a non-neutral phrasing of a previous fact about which it has already been established that the rule WP:WEIGHT implies that we give equal weight to both sides. Thus, we should not copy their mistake and we should opt instead for a sentence on Kosovo's borders which is neutral in its implication about the issue of the independence of Kosovo.
- A better option, but not ideal, is "bordered by the uncontested part of the territory of Serbia" (A). There have been three arguments against this option, only the last one of which I find reasonably convincing:
- Some have said that to emphasise multiple times that Kosovo's independence is disputed goes against WP:NPOV. That doesn't make sense: avoiding a phrasing which implies that Serbia ends where Kosovo begins is not emphasising that Kosovo's status is disputed; it is remaining true to our duty of neutrality when describing Kosovo's status.
- Another argument is that the sentence is unnecessarily long and confusing. Yes, it is long, but anyone reading it carefully will understand that it simply means that, to the north and east of Kosovo, lies territory which everyone agrees belongs to Serbia, but may or may not comprise all of Serbia depending on whom you ask. It was clear to me the first time I read it. Either way, truthfulness and neutrality should never be precluded in favour of textual simplicity.
- The third argument (used by User:Egsan Bacon) has been that calling it "the uncontested part" of Serbia suggests that there is a contested one, which is itself non-neutral. This is not necessarily the case: rather, suggesting that the remaining part is contested allows precisely for the interpretation that it doesn't even belong to Serbia (because it is contested, meaning that it may or may not belong to Serbia). But I understand that this confusion may be generated. So, even though I don't agree that this phrasing breaks neutrality, I understand that it may feel like it does, so perhaps we can find something better.
- The third option (which was raised by User:Coldtrack) seems clearly the best: "bordered by Central Serbia" avoids any neutrality issues (because it refers to an official region of Serbia whose existence and integrity no-one disputes, as it decisively excludes Kosovo) and maintains a succinct and clear phrasing. I haven't noticed any arguments against it. But, unfortunately, it wasn't presented in the opening of the RfC.
- A fourth option, which no-one has raised yet but might be interesting to consider, would be: "bordered by (the rest of) Serbia". It is interesting because parentheses are often a succinct way of expressing that something may or may not form part of a sentence, which I regularly find in written texts. However, it suggests a textual ambiguity which may be considered inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, and perhaps it is prohibited by the Manual of Style (I don't know).
- 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.
- Thus, I find the third option to be clearly better. Option A is also good, but not ideal. I strongly oppose option B. My fourth option would require further consideration before I support it as well.
- However, I am worried that the non-inclusion of the third option (as well as the fourth one) in the opening of the RfC may hinder their proper consideration. Earlier editors have suggested that this RfC be procedurally closed and reopened with more options. If this is something that is typically done on Wikipedia in situations like these (which I don't know if it is the case), I suggest that it be done before the final decision. LongLivePortugal (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- NOTE: The third and fourth options in my !vote have been inserted and renamed C and D (respectively) at this time, according to the conversation that followed. LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from adding options to this RfC. Levivich 19:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you 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)
- OK, I will ping them in a minute. Thank you for the explanation!
- 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)
- There is nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from adding options to this RfC. Levivich 19:48, 17 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 Wikipedia and useful for readers to identify where it is located in relation to other territories (it could be argued that maps will do that job, but maps are always images that sometimes have trouble loading well and readers may be looking only at the text, which is what shows up the most in previews of articles...). Other than that, we seem to agree that, if the sentence is to be kept, it should be option C. LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't get it, NPOV appears to require us to characterize Kosovo as a country because as far as I can tell thats the position overwhelmingly presented as credible by WP:RS. Whats the problem with implying something that is true? Also just FYI wikipedia is not a precedent based project, its a consensus based project. Horse Eye'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)
- No, you agree that. Many others share the position that Kosovo is occupied by local rebels and their western handlers such as those based at Bondsteel. There is no argument anywhere on this thread that places Kosovo above any other breakaway state to have unilaterally declared independence, even if "reliable" sources also claim their borders as being with the host nation. And I don't know where you get this "sources generally reflect reality" nonsense because remarks like that take this debate to a new level. Some editors hide behind "reliable sources" merely as a way of building a fortress around statements which are downright controversial at best, and flat out wrong at worst. I've had these discussions elsewhere. When the sources a challenging editor presents all come from publishers and other media with pre-existing "NON-RS" status, the gatekeepers of the controversial viewpoint have no other argument than to cling to RS which might then (as in my case once) send the challenging editor/s down the pathway to reviewing which sources really are and are not RS. After that? There is no more argument for anyone to claim that the current batches are what they say they are unless they are nakedly invoking circular fallacies. What happens next? As the "keep RS what it is" foot soldiers jump up and down and blow a gasket, some other "higher up" admin comes along and collapses the discussion with a "NOTAFORUM" tag. The reality in the case of Abkhazia is the same as Kosovo's. That too is controlled by locals who raise their own flag and represent themselves diplomatically. So your last clause about neutrality, which is correct, contravenes the preceding remark about them reflecting reality. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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 Wikipedia article discussing precisely this problem! Personally, my inability to understand why Kosovo should be treated differently from Catalonia is the reason why I currently disagree with any recognition of Kosovo's independence — and yet, my country of Portugal has recognised Kosovo. This serves also as my response to your earlier comment that "We do all currently agree that Kosovo isn't part of Serbia" — no, we don't; at least, I do not. And yet, we can agree to disagree on this topic; however, if you believe that my viewpoint (which matches that of Serbia, but also that of Spain) is WP:FRINGE and should not be featured here, you will have to prove that carefully. So, I will repeat my question: which sources are you basing yourself on, in order to say that? LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- @LongLivePortugal, on Wikipedia, we concern ourselves with the sources. They are our Bible, and we don't let personal opinions interfere. Our job is to write what the source says, and not add or detract our own bits to suit our nationalistic POVs. No matter how strongly we feel. Kosovo is a country and the question here is, which country does it border on its north and east? If you are claiming it is something other than Serbia, then you need sources. BTW Catalonia is not independent. It declared independence for a while and then it reintegrated itself back into Spain before anyone gave it a recognition. Abkhazia is a part of Georgia and Transnistria is a part of Moldova. They just happened to make unilateral declarations of independence. That in itself doesn't mean they should be treated as independent. That just makes them 'rebel-held lands'. Sovereignty means more, you have to have your own flag, your own national anthem, your own government, your own head of state, and you have to represent yourself internationally. From the sovereignty article:- Sovereignty is the supreme legitimate authority within a territory.[1] Sovereignty entails hierarchy within the state, as well as external autonomy for states.[2] In any state, sovereignty is assigned to the person, body, or institution that has the ultimate authority over other people in order to establish a law or change an existing law.. So Kosovo is sovereign while Abkhazia and Transnistria are not. --Thelostranger (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- If WP:RS present those cases like they do Kosovo then yes we should, if those cases are presented differently in WP:RS then whats the point of bringing it up? And yes the idea that Kosovo is not an independent state whose sovereignty is disputed by Serbia but that its independence itself is questioned appears to be fringe, I can't find a single contemporary WP:RS which presents the issue as such and if you could provide some I would be very grateful and willing to consider changing my vote. Horse Eye'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)
- 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)
B. Per Horse Eye's Back. OK, Kosovo may be disputed by Serbia, but Kosovo is recognized by the majority of the UN and all of Europe except Romania, Spain, Cyprus, Greece & Slovak Republic, it is a reality on the ground, and the reliable sources themselves treat Kosovo as a fully fledged independent state. I propose the opening line should say Kosovo is a country just as Serbia is said to be one, and Mexico. We don't need to say it is a "disputed territory" or just a "partially recognized" territory because no reliable sources claim this. Anything suggesting 'disputed' is the blatantly offensive pro-Serbian claim. --Thelostranger (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Vote by block-evading sockpuppet struck. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your argument has been dealt with by all opponents of B. Meanwhile two other problems with your point. You are clearly confusing the "Europe" (whatever you mean by that) with the EU (regarding states that don't recognise). Why exactly a reader needs to concern himself with what he regimes of "Europe" have taken upon themselves to do has no bearing on this discussion. Much of Africa does not recognise Kosovo, and I don't know whether you know that Africa composes a far greater part of the wider English-speaking world than "Europe". --Coldtrack (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Coltrack, the sources say that the five countries I named are the only "European countries" not to recognize Kosovo, and you are somebody who clearly has an issue with the sources. I can't even see what your ivote is anyway except you don't want Option B. Did you say A? Did you say C? How am I supposed to know. All I can tell you is one thing, anything other than B is unsourced, so should not be used. And also, Kosovo is in Europe, not in Africa. That's why it is important that Wikipedia reflects the views of the European people here. --Thelostranger (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Your argument has been dealt with by all opponents of B. Meanwhile two other problems with your point. You are clearly confusing the "Europe" (whatever you mean by that) with the EU (regarding states that don't recognise). Why exactly a reader needs to concern himself with what he regimes of "Europe" have taken upon themselves to do has no bearing on this discussion. Much of Africa does not recognise Kosovo, and I don't know whether you know that Africa composes a far greater part of the wider English-speaking world than "Europe". --Coldtrack (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Wait. Are you saying that C is "nationalistic" POV pushing because it implies that Kosovo is in southern Serbia, while B should be used because "reliable sources" say it, and it is "short and simple"? If so, would you mind telling me how one should propose a pro-Kosovo independence wording? Meanwhile I suggest go and read up on your facts. There is not one scintilla of "nationalism" behind suggestions that Kosovo is in Serbia (which incidentally is not implied by A, C, D and all other alternatives mentioned). Apart from more than half of the globe recognising Serbia's territorial integrity, this is the position of the entire Serbian society, from left-wing to right-wing, from moderate to extreme, from sectarian to secular, and from native to diaspora. There is no fifth column that calls for Kosovo's recognition in some fringe corner of Serbian society. If any opponent of B wanted to give primacy to the Serbian government perspective, there are more prominent ways of doing so, but nobody is suggesting one. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- That "fifth column" (what a bizarrely nationalistic and offensive way to refer to people) would appear to be at least 7% in 2018[8]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cut the histrionics. I never called anybody a fifth columnist. I said that there is no fifth column that calls for Kosovo independence. That survey did not reveal that there is a single non-Albanian from Serbia, let alone section of the population, who has in the last 14 years canvassed the Serbian government to recognise the Republic of Kosovo. There has been no demonstration in Belgrade led by Serbs that demand this from the president. All the survey shows is that there are some who are openly not bothered, or are happy enough to recognise it if it means Serbia joins the EU. If it happened that Serbia was locked into the EU and able to do so without having to recognise Kosovo, the chances of there being some Serbs/non-Albanians objecting to the non-recognition of Kosovo is less than nil. Meanwhile, it is not "nationalistic" (and whose anyway? I am Ukrainian) to deem a fifth columnist as a fifth columnist. One either is or is not. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- That "fifth column" (what a bizarrely nationalistic and offensive way to refer to people) would appear to be at least 7% in 2018[8]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wait. Are you saying that C is "nationalistic" POV pushing because it implies that Kosovo is in southern Serbia, while B should be used because "reliable sources" say it, and it is "short and simple"? If so, would you mind telling me how one should propose a pro-Kosovo independence wording? Meanwhile I suggest go and read up on your facts. There is not one scintilla of "nationalism" behind suggestions that Kosovo is in Serbia (which incidentally is not implied by A, C, D and all other alternatives mentioned). Apart from more than half of the globe recognising Serbia's territorial integrity, this is the position of the entire Serbian society, from left-wing to right-wing, from moderate to extreme, from sectarian to secular, and from native to diaspora. There is no fifth column that calls for Kosovo's recognition in some fringe corner of Serbian society. If any opponent of B wanted to give primacy to the Serbian government perspective, there are more prominent ways of doing so, but nobody is suggesting one. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note Interested editors could find opening an "Extended discussion" subsection helpful. That could avoid making the RfC messy. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Every rule regarding how to start RfC neutrally was broken. No admin action so far... How is that possible? I refuse to vote in a any RfC started like this. We had 10 votes for 1 option before other options were introduced. It's completely ridicilous and lack of NPOV (option B) and promotion of western-European/USA POV on obviously sensitive matter is one of the reasons why people leave Wikipedia more and more. Thx all. Вукан Ц (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Political discussions shouldn't take place at the RfC because they discourage participation from new editors by making the discussion TL;DR. Wikipedia is not the place to solve political disputes and establish WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia doesn't aim to be "neutral" for the sake of neutrality, it aims to reflect reality and pick specific wordings because reliable sources do so. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option B. Any other option is tantamount to suggesting that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, which it isn't. North Korea is bordered by South Korea and vice versa, even though both claim each other's land. Kosovo exists in a specific hunk of landlocked land, and as such, has land borders with its neighbors. One of its neighbors is Serbia, and it shares a border with Serbia. Red Slash 19:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Red Slash: I would like to ask you two questions: 1) can you please explain exactly why you view Option C as suggesting that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, given that Central Serbia is a region of Serbia defined in such a way as to exclude Kosovo?; and 2) can you please explain exactly why you do not view Option B as suggesting the exact reverse (that Kosovo is not part of Serbia), given that it basically says that Serbia begins where Kosovo ends? Thank you! LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Glad to! 1), "Central Serbia" is a synonym of "Serbia" because they are the exact same thing. There's no reason to use the longer synonym. 2), I certainly do believe that Option B suggests the exact reverse. It does say that Serbia ends where Kosovo begins, which, in addition to being true, is backed by the majority of reliable, independent sources. Red Slash 18:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Red Slash: 1) According to the Central Serbia article on Wikipedia, "Central Serbia" is not the same thing as "Serbia"; rather it is a part of Serbia which is defined in such a way that it excludes Kosovo and also Vojvodina. You can understand this if you look at the map which is in that article. 2) Are you saying that the majority of reliable sources have already established that Kosovo is definitively independent and not included in Serbia? Can you show me which sources you are referring to? LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Glad to! 1), "Central Serbia" is a synonym of "Serbia" because they are the exact same thing. There's no reason to use the longer synonym. 2), I certainly do believe that Option B suggests the exact reverse. It does say that Serbia ends where Kosovo begins, which, in addition to being true, is backed by the majority of reliable, independent sources. Red Slash 18:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Red Slash: I would like to ask you two questions: 1) can you please explain exactly why you view Option C as suggesting that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, given that Central Serbia is a region of Serbia defined in such a way as to exclude Kosovo?; and 2) can you please explain exactly why you do not view Option B as suggesting the exact reverse (that Kosovo is not part of Serbia), given that it basically says that Serbia begins where Kosovo ends? Thank you! LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option B per Levivich. Ultimately, the majority of RS use phrasing that favours option B. It must be noted that Option C is not neutral as some users have suggested; it implies that Kosovo is part of Serbia, hence it supposedly borders one of it's internal regions (Central Serbia), when this is not the case at all. Botushali (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Botushali: How does the fact that a state borders an region of another country imply that it belongs to that country? Don't countries share borders with regions of other countries all the time? LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn’t make sense for a country to border the central region of another when it it is situated completely to the south of the state. If anything, it should be bordering southern Serbia, not central. Botushali (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Botushali. Well yay and nay at the same time. Ever since Kosovo and Vojvodina were formulated per their current outlines, the remaining region has been called "Central Serbia" locally the same way all of Russia east of the Urals is called Siberia. It definitely occupies to central spot but it not an accurate synopsis over what the central regions are. I don't really support "borders Central Serbia" as much as I suggested it to show how it might look if editors gravitate to the opposite end of a POV dispute. One or two have taken it on board as an iVote but I am more in favour of mildly extended wording. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Coldtrack: There is one thing I did not understand: which wording do you support? LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @LongLivePortugal:, sorry for late reply. To date I have only argued against B. I like D best. A and C I can settle for, but B is 100% non-negotiable. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Coldtrack: There is one thing I did not understand: which wording do you support? LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Botushali: Check the Central Serbia article on Wikipedia and you will find that it is not as you say. "Central Serbia" is just the name that was given to that region of Serbia which begins right where Kosovo ends. "Southern Serbia" doesn't exist, as far as I know. But a synonym for "Central Serbia" is "Serbia proper", as you can see in the article. Would the choice of "Serbia proper" instead of "Central Serbia" resolve the issue? Would you accept Option C in that case? LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Botushali. Well yay and nay at the same time. Ever since Kosovo and Vojvodina were formulated per their current outlines, the remaining region has been called "Central Serbia" locally the same way all of Russia east of the Urals is called Siberia. It definitely occupies to central spot but it not an accurate synopsis over what the central regions are. I don't really support "borders Central Serbia" as much as I suggested it to show how it might look if editors gravitate to the opposite end of a POV dispute. One or two have taken it on board as an iVote but I am more in favour of mildly extended wording. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn’t make sense for a country to border the central region of another when it it is situated completely to the south of the state. If anything, it should be bordering southern Serbia, not central. Botushali (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Botushali: How does the fact that a state borders an region of another country imply that it belongs to that country? Don't countries share borders with regions of other countries all the time? LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option B for all the points mentioned above, plus there really is a border with Serbia, with several checkpoint crossings along it. The dispute on whether the border is international or not is a different matter, but even Serbia recognizes the existence of the border itself. Çerçok (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- B is really the only acceptable answer here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- B The fact that a border exists between Serbia and Kosovo is just that -- a fact. Option D does not describe the reality experienced by people on the ground, because Kosovo is not governed by the government in Belgrade and has not been for what is, many of us, as long as we can remember. Option C requires introducing this nebulous concept of "Central Serbia"; this is downright bizarre if you aren't already familiar with it, since the area east of Kosovo seems quite like southern Serbia whether or not that also includes Kosovo (unless you are a person who thinks North Macedonia is part of Serbia...). Option A is dancing around it, trying and failing to sound "neutral", but doing so in a particularly clumsy way. Frankly, it is downright annoying to readers to have to go into acrobatics about this. If you find yourself at the border, it is just that -- a border. People who actually care about the details about Kosovo's status will surely be able to find them on this page or elsewhere, for they are ubiquitous. If someone reads this article and fails to comprehend that Kosovo's sovereignty is disputed, that's really on them. --Calthinus (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Calthinus. Your statement misses the point completely. The disputed status is observed on Albanian Wikipedia which says Kosovo borders Serbia, and it is also observed on Serbian Wikipedia where it is stated that Serbia borders Albania (thereby including Kosovo as within Serbia). By saying "Kosovo borders Serbia" in English is to stick two fingers up at the disputed status, pretty much saying, "yeah it is disputed, but as far as we are concerned, the pro-independence arguers are right". Note that Jerusalem is not indicated to be in Israel or in the State of Palestine. As for the argument, "Option D does not describe the reality experienced by people on the ground", that is merely a petition for having all disputed territories allocated to whoever controls them, which has at times included ISIS for areas of Syria and Iraq, but certainly Lugansk where you are concerned, and Somaliland among others. It is better to "dance around" than to deploy inconsistent reasoning for eliminating all other options just to conveniently arrive at a biased conclusion. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I somehow missed your ping but you are actually illustrating my point. "Pro-independence arguers"? No, Kosovo is independent, that is a literal fact on the ground. You or some other person might not like it, or they may love it, but it doesn't matter, it is a fact, just like the fact that the Taliban control Afghanistan despite much of the world regarding that fact as regrettable and illegitimate. (no I am not making any comparison to Afghanistan). Why did you have to bring up Jerusalem, is that bait? And also, if you are talking about international law as some thing, isn't a bit of a double standard to on one hand make this argument, and then use Lugansk? Hmm. --Calthinus (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Calthinus. Your statement misses the point completely. The disputed status is observed on Albanian Wikipedia which says Kosovo borders Serbia, and it is also observed on Serbian Wikipedia where it is stated that Serbia borders Albania (thereby including Kosovo as within Serbia). By saying "Kosovo borders Serbia" in English is to stick two fingers up at the disputed status, pretty much saying, "yeah it is disputed, but as far as we are concerned, the pro-independence arguers are right". Note that Jerusalem is not indicated to be in Israel or in the State of Palestine. As for the argument, "Option D does not describe the reality experienced by people on the ground", that is merely a petition for having all disputed territories allocated to whoever controls them, which has at times included ISIS for areas of Syria and Iraq, but certainly Lugansk where you are concerned, and Somaliland among others. It is better to "dance around" than to deploy inconsistent reasoning for eliminating all other options just to conveniently arrive at a biased conclusion. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Notice: I have requested closure of this discussion. With no new comments in one and a half months, I hope the need for closure is consensual... If anyone disagrees, please feel free to say something! LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended discussion
I am following User:Ktrimi991's suggestion to open a sub-section to "avoid making the RfC messy" (which it already is, unfortunately...).
@Horse Eye's Back: You have claimed that "Our sources are clearly saying that Kosovo is no longer a part of Serbia" and, when I asked you what these sources were, you provided none and shifted the burden of proof to me by saying: "I can't find a single contemporary WP:RS which presents the issue as such [i.e., that Kosovo's independence itself is questionable] and if you could provide some I would be very grateful and willing to consider changing my vote." You furthermore labelled this viewpoint of questioning Kosovo's independence as WP:FRINGE, thus dismissing my claim that calling this controversial border a border with Serbia (rather than, say, with Central Serbia) would violate WP:NPOV by implicitly stating that Serbia excludes Kosovo.
First of all, it seems to me that the distinction you are trying to make — between saying that Serbia disputes Kosovo's independence (which we both agree the sources say) and that Kosovo's independence is disputed (which is our point of disagreement) — is rather artificial. Naturally, if Serbia disputes Kosovo's independence, then it follows that Kosovo's independence is disputed! It seems that we're just phrasing the same thing in two different ways, not saying two different things.
But I'll temporarily grant you that point, for the sake of the argument, and, even though you have inappropriately shifted the burden of proof to me, present a few sources (some of which have been mentioned here) that mention Kosovo's status as being disputed in general (implicitly or explicitly) or that call the border a border with Central Serbia:
- The Conversation — "More than 20 years after the war – and a decade since the declaration – Kosovo’s statehood continues to divide politicians and the public alike."
- Britannica — "Kosovo, self-declared independent country in the Balkans region of Europe." (Note that "self-declared independent" implies that its independence is derived only from its own declaration and is not yet settled; compare with other countries' entries on Britannica, which do not feature this introduction.)
- BBC — The map displays Kosovo in dark yellow, 'Serbia minus Kosovo' in light yellow, and all other countries in white, with no solid line at the border, clearly illustrating its disputed status as 'possibly part of Serbia'.
- Kosovo Country Study Guide — "Kosovo is a disputed region in the Balkans. Its majority is governed by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo [...]. Landlocked Kosovo is bordered by Central Serbia in the north and east [...]"
- Google Maps — I can't think of anything clearer than this: open Google Maps, zoom in on Serbia and you'll find clearly a dashed line around Kosovo instead of a solid line, clearly signalling that the border is disputed and that Kosovo may be interpreted either as independent or as part of Serbia.
Furthermore, User:Coldtrack, in his first comment on this RfC, also argues that, even though there are sources which (for simplification purposes, in my opinion) describe this border as being between Kosovo and Serbia, many of them will be careful enough to refer to it as a 'disputed border' and has provided six examples. This implies that, even if we do choose to write that 'Kosovo borders Serbia', at least we should mention that this specific border is disputed (and not on equal footing with either of Kosovo's remaining borders) if we are to remain faithful to the sources.
Surely, though, even if option C is not liked by editors for some reason, we can still find better alternatives (which do not imply anything as to whether Kosovo is part of Serbia or not, as B does). It is worth mentioning that, in my research for sources, I happened to come across our sister project Wikitravel, whose article on Kosovo has come up with clever phrasing: "Kosovo borders [...] Serbia (from its perspective) to the north east; [this] frontier is viewed by Serbia as being an internal boundary separating Kosovo (as an internal province) with Central Serbia." How about this? Simple as adding that Kosovo's border "with Serbia" exists from Kosovo's perspective and not necessarily from anyone else's! Do we have to definitively take Kosovo's side on Wikipedia in the way we describe the border? Why?
Having said that, I return the burden of proof to you and I repeat my question: which sources say that Kosovo is independent? LongLivePortugal (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- You can't shift the burden of proof in the wikipedia system, it lies permanently with those who wish to include content. Something being disputed isn't the same thing as something not being true, in America for instance many dispute the results of the 2020 United States presidential election but our page on Joe Biden does not refer to him as a "disputed President" or similar. Kosovo *is* independent and its independence *is* disputed, both are true statements. The jump you appear to be making is to "Kosovo is not independent" which is a fringe position without significant support from WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: You have not yet provided any reliable source claiming that Kosovo is independent, as you say (which is your entire basis for your defence of Option B), and I have asked you for it twice already. Does this mean your argument for Option B has been refuted? Need I ask a third time?
- You wrote: "You can't shift the burden of proof in the wikipedia system, it lies permanently with those who wish to include content." What are you suggesting? That I am the one trying to include content?! How so? You are the one claiming that Kosovo borders Serbia because it is independent, which is something I do not remember this article saying before the edit war that has led us to this.
- As for me, you have misinterpreted my position: although I personally believe that Kosovo is not independent, I know that defending its independence is a valid belief; therefore, I want Wikipedia to be written neutrally in this regard. (If I wanted a pro-Serbian phrasing, I would suggest "Kosovo borders the rest of Serbia", which I reject.) I liked Option A and believed it was good enough, but I have come to recognise its issue and have attempted to propose a reasonable alternative that would make everyone happy, which would be Option C, because saying that Kosovo borders Central Serbia (a region defined indisputably as excluding Kosovo) implies neither that Kosovo belongs in Serbia nor that it is independent. I have also suggested a fourth option (D) which no-one liked. And I have just now suggested a fifth possibility based on clever phrasing I found on Wikitravel. I am trying to get to a consensus phrasing.
- You, on the other hand, with all due respect, seem to be the one insisting on one single option, having so far neither accepted any of the four alternatives (A, C, D or this latest fifth one) nor clearly explained, as far as I can remember, exactly what is the problem with any of them (notably C, the most preferred one right now by those who disagree with you). With all due respect, you don't seem to be helping build consensus here, but this is just my opinion and I hope I am mistaken. LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
LonglivePortugal:
All say the same thing, Kosovo is independent, Kosovo is independent. How many more sources do you want? --Thelostranger (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Thelostranger: Those sources don't say that at all! With the exception of Source 1, which is written in a language that I cannot understand (therefore, I invite you to quote and translate exactly what and where it is written there that Kosovo is independent), all the other sources merely say that someone says that Kosovo is independent, but not that Kosovo is independent. Sources 2 and 5 say that George W. Bush says that Kosovo is independent; but, of course, George W. Bush isn't the ultimate authority in deciding which countries are independent and which are not, so you can't use those sources to prove that Kosovo is really independent. Source 4 only states that Kosovo's Parliament has declared that Kosovo is independent; but, of course, independence is not something that exists when a Parliament declares it, but only when the country from which the would-be country wants to break away actually recognises the new country's independence (which didn't happen, as Source 4 also proves, by immediately afterwards stating that Serbia has rejected Kosovo's independence). Finally, Source 3 explicitly states that Kosovo is disputed territory and I can't find any place where it says that it is independent. So, all your Sources 2–5, so far, appear to me to have failed the test, and cannot be used to say that Kosovo is independent. Meanwhile, I have already provided earlier some sources which say that Kosovo is disputed. LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't need to respond LongLivePortugal as this one is over and you have long lost. --Thelostranger (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Thelostranger: Why are you responding so rudely to me? This is not over: on Wikipedia, an RfC only ends when someone closes it. And need I remind you that this is not a vote? You actually need to explain why you have your position, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. You have presented sources which, as I have explained, do not say that Kosovo is independent. Since the idea that Kosovo is independent is your rationale for defending Option B, then this means I have effectively argued against your defence of Option B, unless you respond with a better argument. LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- When something has been explained to you over and over we get into WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. Its hard to in good faith understand how you still don't realize that Kosovo is an independent country, you've been presented with so many sources that your refusal to concede the point just isn't credible. Your creation of imaginary standards like "independence is not something that exists when a Parliament declares it, but only when the country from which the would-be country wants to break away actually recognises the new country's independence" (this is complete and utter poppycock) when your previous standards are met and even exceeded is profoundly disappointing. Further disruption and failure to act in good faith will see an ANI case opened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Complete and utter rubbish. "Kosovo is an independent country" is a point of opinion, has the same amount of credibility as Lugasnk, South Ossetia, Somaliland and even Islamic State any such time it has held territory, and like the rest in the list, it is not considered to be so by 50% of the world's functioning states (which can include Kosovo but it does not take you past 50%), and that also goes for the world's population and where they live. Furthermore, although this was never the topic of the discussion (is Kosovo a country or not?), many of us knew right from the onset that "Kosovo borders Serbia" was little more than a handle to compromise Wikipedia's integrity more than it is so you can eventually dispense with your headache of NPOV. You've got one argument, "sources, sources, sources". A thousand times you've had WP:VNOT explained to you, a policy which trumps the disingenuous "sources are the be all and end all" claptrap, and never once have you or your steadfast but short-lived ally Thelostranger (a definite sock, but I would bet my last penny not of Edin balgarin) provided an argument as to why the POV you push is beyond the shackles of VNOT, and nor have you provided a valid argument as to why any of the alternatives are not good, and what the problem would be for a non-partisan reader if one of the other options stood in place of B. I mean let's face it, how much more pro-Kosovo separatist is it podsible to be than B? Try thinking of a line that is both encyclopaedic and pro-Kosovo independence that would make B look neutral. Do that, and I'll make a deal with you: I'll congratulate you and quit Wikipedia for good. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Denial of objective reality is not within our remit as editors. If you think that relaying objective reality as reported by WP:RS will "compromise Wikipedia's integrity" you probably should quit before you're banned as WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- The only person in denial is you. Two whole months you've regurgitated the same old argument, "sources, sources" and instead of man up to the challenges I and other editors have presented you with (both policy-based and topical), you demonstrate the actual ICANTHEARYOU of which you accuse another editor, an editor who I might add has blown you out of the water in terms of debate. Wikipedia's reputation lies in ruins whether you like it or not. But it is because of people like you that it is, and let's face it, your name is known off-Wiki. I made an offer to swallow my pride and quit, but you have to meet the criteria before I do that, and you know it's an impossible task because you really are not here to build an encyclopaedia. You're here to push pro-western narratives. Again, show me a time you have stood against the tide of the prevailing orthodoxy and I will humbly apologise and then walk away for good. Looking up and down this thread, the only denial of objective reality comes from the collective lobby supporting Option B, everyone of whom has two things in common: 1) They play down the sensitive nature of the situation, and 2) They pretend "sources" are the one-size-fits-all pretext for pushing POVs when that is not even the way to use sources as you've been explained a thousand times. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Denial of objective reality is not within our remit as editors. If you think that relaying objective reality as reported by WP:RS will "compromise Wikipedia's integrity" you probably should quit before you're banned as WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Complete and utter rubbish. "Kosovo is an independent country" is a point of opinion, has the same amount of credibility as Lugasnk, South Ossetia, Somaliland and even Islamic State any such time it has held territory, and like the rest in the list, it is not considered to be so by 50% of the world's functioning states (which can include Kosovo but it does not take you past 50%), and that also goes for the world's population and where they live. Furthermore, although this was never the topic of the discussion (is Kosovo a country or not?), many of us knew right from the onset that "Kosovo borders Serbia" was little more than a handle to compromise Wikipedia's integrity more than it is so you can eventually dispense with your headache of NPOV. You've got one argument, "sources, sources, sources". A thousand times you've had WP:VNOT explained to you, a policy which trumps the disingenuous "sources are the be all and end all" claptrap, and never once have you or your steadfast but short-lived ally Thelostranger (a definite sock, but I would bet my last penny not of Edin balgarin) provided an argument as to why the POV you push is beyond the shackles of VNOT, and nor have you provided a valid argument as to why any of the alternatives are not good, and what the problem would be for a non-partisan reader if one of the other options stood in place of B. I mean let's face it, how much more pro-Kosovo separatist is it podsible to be than B? Try thinking of a line that is both encyclopaedic and pro-Kosovo independence that would make B look neutral. Do that, and I'll make a deal with you: I'll congratulate you and quit Wikipedia for good. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: I am appalled at your charge of WP:ICANTHEARYOU against me! That accusation is outrageous, not only because it implies disruptive editing to articles (which is blatantly false, as I haven't even edited this article to make it match my viewpoint), but also because it suggests that I am somehow doing anything that is violating achieved consensus (when the only thing I've done so far has been to legitimately argue in favour of my viewpoint)! I hereby clarify that I will accept any outcome of this RfC once it is closed, even if it is decided against my opinion. I have always been here in good faith, always attempting to reach a neutral solution that might be acceptable to us all (whether we believe in Kosovo's independence or not), wherefore I have already suggested a total of four alternative phrasing suggestions! As for the independence of Kosovo, you haven't really provided me with any sources yet, even though I have already asked you for them three times; all the sources another user so far has provided only report on the recognition of independence by entities which, ultimately, are not authoritative of their own in absolutely deciding which territories are independent and which ones are not. But, of course, we don't need to discuss here whether Kosovo is independent or not (we can safely agree to disagree on that); we only need to decide on nothing more than the best and most neutral phrasing to use to describe the border! Finally, I am astounded at how you conclude your comment by threatening to open an WP:ANI against me! Would you care to explain exactly what you will accuse me of, and how you will justify your charge? "Disruption and failure to act in good faith"? How so? By not agreeing that Kosovo is independent? How am I in any way disrupting Wikipedia by responding to this RfC to discuss this border issue on this talk page? If you do not want to continue the discussion, feel free to walk away, instead of getting angry at me and threatening me like that when I have done you no harm! Please withdraw your charge of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and your threat to open an WP:ANI, so that we can keep this discussion civilised and comfortable to us all. LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- When something has been explained to you over and over we get into WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. Its hard to in good faith understand how you still don't realize that Kosovo is an independent country, you've been presented with so many sources that your refusal to concede the point just isn't credible. Your creation of imaginary standards like "independence is not something that exists when a Parliament declares it, but only when the country from which the would-be country wants to break away actually recognises the new country's independence" (this is complete and utter poppycock) when your previous standards are met and even exceeded is profoundly disappointing. Further disruption and failure to act in good faith will see an ANI case opened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Thelostranger: Why are you responding so rudely to me? This is not over: on Wikipedia, an RfC only ends when someone closes it. And need I remind you that this is not a vote? You actually need to explain why you have your position, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. You have presented sources which, as I have explained, do not say that Kosovo is independent. Since the idea that Kosovo is independent is your rationale for defending Option B, then this means I have effectively argued against your defence of Option B, unless you respond with a better argument. LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't need to respond LongLivePortugal as this one is over and you have long lost. --Thelostranger (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Toponymic suggestions
I have rephrased the edit originally added by Botushali and removed by ElderZamzam. The broad point supported by authoritative sources can be added in the article without going into details which may be a matter of debate and also can't really be explored adequately in the main article about Kosovo.--Truthseeker2006 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nice edit. The omission of examples in this case seems to be a pretty suitable decision. Botushali (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@Uniacademic: did you remove my edit? [9] I don't understand what you've done. --Truthseeker2006 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
OK, you must be really confused with my series of edits. I thought that it was removed when I saw the edit and the talkpage section so I added it back...but nobody had removed it, so I reverted myself. Then I thought that it was really removed but again it wasn't removed. I don't know what's wrong with my cache but it still looks like it's removed, I'll clear my cache and check again. Sorry about the confusion. Uniacademic (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Totaliarian era sources
This source [10] is from the totalitarian Hoxha-era and should not be used anywhere on wikipedia, much less for bold demographic claims. Khirurg (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's not even strictly that the source is from that time period per se. It's the state of academia in Hoxha-era Albania that sets off a bunch of red flags. Academic freedom, in the Western sense, was non-existent. Scholars had to toe the party line, which emphasized a very particular view of Albanian history that appealed to Hoxha personally, which makes the case of Albania so different from that of other authoritarian and Eastern Bloc countries. [11] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
how is albanians living in Kosovo a bold claim,you are just being POVTruthseeker2006 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. The POV pushing by Amanuensis in the Republic of Kosovo page and Albanians in Serbia is obvious POV as I and Alltan have mentioned for Jirecek. Surix321 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- You have taken one claim that is implied in the paragraph and extrapolated it to the whole thing. There are quite a few bold claims in there, not just that "Albanians lived in Kosovo". Each one needs multiple reliable sources to back it up, English ones published by university publishing houses, not ones from Hoxha-era authors or organizations with an agenda like "Ali Hadri". Claims to the contrary are filibustering. It is quite rich to hear that my removal of WP:FRINGE sources is POV in your opinion when the sources in themselves are so laughably problematic that I am astounded anyone would dedicate any time and energy on a Saturday to argue in their defense. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since when is it FRINGE that Albanians lived in Dukagjini?
- The scholar Fredrick F. Anscombe shows that Prizren and Vushtrri (Vulçitrin) had no Serbian population in early 17th century. Prizren was inhabited by a mix of Catholic and Muslim Albanians, while Vushtrri had a mix of Albanian and Turkish speakers, followed by a tiny Serbian minority. Gjakova was founded by Albanians in the 16th century, and Peja (İpek) had a continuous presence of the Albanian Kelmendi tribe. Central Kosovo was mixed, but large parts of the Drenica Valley were ethnically Albanian. Central Kosovo, as well as the cities of Prizren, Gjakova, and the region of Has regularly supplied the Ottoman forces with levies and mercenaries. [1]
- In 17th century parts of the Western Kosovo region seem to of been Albanian speaking while the eastern region was Slavic speaking.[2][3]
- Catholic bishop Pjetër Mazreku noted in 1624 that the Catholics of Prizren were 200, the Serbs (Orthodox) 600, and Muslims, almost all of whom were Albanians, numbered 12,000[4] In his 1662 work, Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi noted that the residents of Vushtrri were mostly Albanians.[5] According to Evliya Celebi western and central Kosovo was Albanian inhabited[6]
- As you can see, there are English sources about Albanians inhabiting Kosovo in the Medieval and After Medieval period, where places were already Majority. Surix321 (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- No one is saying Albanians didn't exist in the Medieval period. That is your straw man. You really are expending a lot of time and energy on this. I'm sure it isn't getting you worked up at all and causing you to write some fairly ridiculous, contradictory things. In one paragraph you say it's proven there were no Serbs in Prizren in the early 16th century, in another you say there were Serbs in Prizren in the early 16th century. Which is it? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Did you read it clearly? Fredrick said Vushtrri has no Serbs, and he didnt say that serbs didnt exist in Prizren but said that it was mixed of Catholic and Muslim Albanians Which Pjeter Mazreku kind of affirmed by showing the composition, point being Serbs were the absolute minority in Prizren. Also you removed the text so yes you basically are implying that they didnt live there, if the source was FRINGE then you would keep the text and not the source. Surix321 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't my job to keep text you agree with in articles for you. You do realize that? This is all a big distraction to keep us from discussing why dubious sources such as the ones we discussed earlier are being used to back up contentious claims. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Did you read it clearly? Fredrick said Vushtrri has no Serbs, and he didnt say that serbs didnt exist in Prizren but said that it was mixed of Catholic and Muslim Albanians Which Pjeter Mazreku kind of affirmed by showing the composition, point being Serbs were the absolute minority in Prizren. Also you removed the text so yes you basically are implying that they didnt live there, if the source was FRINGE then you would keep the text and not the source. Surix321 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- No one is saying Albanians didn't exist in the Medieval period. That is your straw man. You really are expending a lot of time and energy on this. I'm sure it isn't getting you worked up at all and causing you to write some fairly ridiculous, contradictory things. In one paragraph you say it's proven there were no Serbs in Prizren in the early 16th century, in another you say there were Serbs in Prizren in the early 16th century. Which is it? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- You have taken one claim that is implied in the paragraph and extrapolated it to the whole thing. There are quite a few bold claims in there, not just that "Albanians lived in Kosovo". Each one needs multiple reliable sources to back it up, English ones published by university publishing houses, not ones from Hoxha-era authors or organizations with an agenda like "Ali Hadri". Claims to the contrary are filibustering. It is quite rich to hear that my removal of WP:FRINGE sources is POV in your opinion when the sources in themselves are so laughably problematic that I am astounded anyone would dedicate any time and energy on a Saturday to argue in their defense. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are many other sources which say the same thing. Pulaha, a main source for such subjects, is utilised because he goes into detail. I don't see the problem and have no idea why this is being blown up in the way it is. Botushali (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment At Naissus, some relevant sources are used:
- Curtis 2012
Toponymic evidence suggests that Albanian likely was spoken in Metohia and Kosovo before the Serbs’ settlement there, as Albanian historical phonology helps explain several place names in the area, such as Prizren and Prishtina, as well as Niš < Naissus somewhat further to the northeast (Çabej 1961, Stanišić 1995: 10).
- Vermeer 1992
The population which inhabited the territory in between the two Slavic dialect areas spoke partly (pre-)Albanian and partly the Latin dialect that was to develop into Romanian. The details of the evidence for this are rather technical, but the main lines are easy to grasp: (..) In what is now Serbia and Macedonia, several important classical place names that Slavic took over from the resident population were borrowed not, as one would expect from Latin or Greek, but from Albanian.
- The section could be possibly trimmed as this is the main Kosovo article. Curtis (2012) and Vermeer (1992) can be used to support specific statements. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Finally, some constructive proposals. Thank you, Maleschreiber. Using high-quality academic sources like this should really go without saying, especially for state-level articles. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment As per Maleschreiber's suggestions above, I have shortened the paragraph; of note is that Curtis is already utilised in the Middle Ages section, and can be incorporated again if need be, but Vermeer has not yet been used (although he should be used in the same section as Curtis). Furthermore, it is important to note that was is being discussed by Pulaha is already supported by previous academic insertions used in the article; Anscombe, Ducellier state that western Kosovo was inhabited by an Albanian majority before and during the Ottoman period - Ducellier even states that Albanians were expanding from a nucleus in the Gjakova and Prizren areas (western Kosovo) since before the Slavic expansions of the Middle Ages. The citations from Curtis and Prendergast also assert that Albanian was spoken in the region prior to Slavic settlement. Clearly, Pulaha's work fits with this factual interpretation of the demographics of western Kosovo during these time periods. Botushali (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Anscombe, Frederick F. (2006). "The Ottoman Empire in recent international politics – II: the case of Kosovo" Archived 14 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine, The International History Review 28 (4) 758–793.
- ^ Malcolm 1998, pp. 136–137.
- ^ Anscombe, Frederick F 2006 - http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/577/1/Binder2.pdf
- ^ Malcolm 2020 p . 136
- ^ Evliya Celebi p . 17
- ^ Anscombe, Frederick
helpful resources on Ukrainian refugees
--> https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/kosovo-parliament-passes-resolution-on-ukraine-will-accept-5000-refugees/ ..... and --> https://euronews.al/en/kosovo/2022/03/07/kosovo-agrees-to-take-in-5-000-ukrainian-refugees/ 50.111.8.86 (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Restored info that was removed
I have restored some information that was removed on the grounds that it was unsourced, adding a source this time [12]. Khirurg (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)