Revision as of 22:00, 9 March 2022 editHorse Eye's Back (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users52,021 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:22, 9 March 2022 edit undoEdin balgarin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,071 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022Next edit → | ||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
::::::::::It's a troll in no finer feather: I've seen this past half an hour that he had a history going back ten years doing the same old thing, using several accounts. No RS does NOT apply everywhere and I have already explained this. I can find reliable sources that refer to Muammar Gaddafi as an "evil tyrant" with casual abandon. You think you can go adding that to his page just because about six UK broadsheets used this term about him? --] (]) 21:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC) | ::::::::::It's a troll in no finer feather: I've seen this past half an hour that he had a history going back ten years doing the same old thing, using several accounts. No RS does NOT apply everywhere and I have already explained this. I can find reliable sources that refer to Muammar Gaddafi as an "evil tyrant" with casual abandon. You think you can go adding that to his page just because about six UK broadsheets used this term about him? --] (]) 21:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::::Are you saying that account is an unidentified sock? Its not tagged. WS doesn't apply everywhere (talk pages for example) but it does apply to content in mainspace articles (such as ])... We don't publish *anything* besides whats from WP:RS there. See ] "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. '''This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.'''" ] (]) 22:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC) | :::::::::::Are you saying that account is an unidentified sock? Its not tagged. WS doesn't apply everywhere (talk pages for example) but it does apply to content in mainspace articles (such as ])... We don't publish *anything* besides whats from WP:RS there. See ] "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. '''This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.'''" ] (]) 22:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC) | ||
{{outdent}}"e don't publish *anything* besides whats from WP:RS" = ]. I never said "use unreliable sources". I already gave you an example as to how "reliable sources" refer to unfavourable world leaders as "evil tyrants" and you still haven't edited the ] article to call him what the "''analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors''" are printing about him. I never for one moment said that account is an unidentified sock. I am saying he is an IDENT-ified sock. --] (]) 22:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:22, 9 March 2022
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kosovo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
In accordance with sanctions authorised for this article:
|
Useful information for this article
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 17, 2015, February 17, 2016, February 17, 2017, February 17, 2018, and February 17, 2019. |
Archives |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The contents of the Republic of Kosovo page were merged into Kosovo on 23 May 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Reverted edit saying "Kosovo and Metohija is a developing province"
I have reverted a recent edit to this article which changed "Kosovo is a developing country" to "Kosovo and Metohija is a developing province". I did this because I believe the current consensus for this article is to call Kosovo a "partially recognized state" and a "country", rather than continue to refer it as a province of Serbia. If people disagree and want to reinstate the edit in question, I will not be offended and promise not to engage in an edit war. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that a revert was appropriate. Feel free to retain it. PtolemyXV (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Yellow house rumors
There have been multiple investigations about the "yellow house" rumors which have been mainly spread via tabloid media. None of them have revealed any information that it actually existed. I don't think that a sensationalist rumor which distracted public attention from real war crimes perpetrated by high-ranking public figures should take up space in the main article about Kosovo and I removed it. End of the road for Kosovo organ claims?(BBC): For years rumours have circulated about Serbs abducted and killed for their organs in the months following the Kosovo war. (..) Three parallel international investigations, by war crimes investigators from Serbia, the European Union, and the Council of Europe, have failed to uncover any evidence that the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) trafficked the organs of captives, according to sources close to each investigation. "The fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever in this case," said Matti Raatikainen, head of the war crimes unit of Eulex, the European Law and Justice Mission in Kosovo. (..) Even the Serbian authorities, who have propagated the tale of the yellow house most consistently, have their doubts today. "I still believe something happened there," said a Belgrade source, close to the war crimes court, "but nothing on the scale of what has been suggested... and possibly not even connected to the KLA". (..) The end of the "fairy-tale" of organ-trafficking, as one Eulex prosecutor calls it, would still leave war crimes investigators with plenty to do
--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Lead
The lead of this article says that Kosovo is a "partially recognized" state. The closest comparison to Kosovo is probably Taiwan/ROC, which is also a de facto state with partial recognition. Its lead simply calls it a "country" which I think is more appropriate for that article and for this one. I fail to see the point of calling it "partially recognized" in the lead despite the fact that it is even more widely recognized than Taiwan/ROC. PtolemyXV (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I propose to change it from "partially recognised state" to "partially recognised country".94.65.254.187 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Should probably change to country per talk Red Slash 18:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that just "country" is the most appropriate, just drop "partially recognized" entirely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The consensus on this article has consistently been to describe Kosovo as a "partially recognized state" because the term "country" does not denote statehood and/or sovereignty. Scotland, for example, is a country. It's still under British sovereignty. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment: State is far more accurate per current state of affairs. Secondly, de facto and "sovereign state" was added in the lead without any consensus and should be removed. Kosovo* is not a sovereign state and it is very much dependent on foreign political, military and financial aid, only irrational and badly informed individual would claim otherwise. God bless. Psalm 90: 1-9. Ничим неизазван (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that de facto should be removed, Kosovo is recognized by many countries, including 97 UN members. When it is recognized by half the UN, it doesn't make sense to claim that it is only a de facto state. Folohsor (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've reverted to the "partially recognised state in Southeast Europe" wording. Further discussion is needed if this is to be changed. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Introduction grammar request
Change:
… with a population of about 1.8 million; it is bordered by by the uncontested part …
To:
… with a population of about 1.8 million; it is bordered by the uncontested part … 2601:681:5680:9ED0:8CB4:4286:6ACB:D942 (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- My mistake. I was manually reinserting something that had sat unchallenged for seven years less the occasional opportunistic troll's attempt at covert disruption. I'll be more careful next time. --Edin balgarin (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Edin balgarin: please immediately retract your characterization of me as an "opportunistic troll" per WP:NPA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I said "the occasional opportunistic troll" and I can see that about four people have done what I said in the passage. Nobody said your name, and I make no comment about you. What's to retract? I'll name the culprits if you want. --Edin balgarin (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I challenged it, you said that only "occasional opportunistic troll" intent on "covert disruption" had challenged it. Either you're wrong and should retract an untrue statement or thats a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Just a minute. Are you saying this is you? I ask because this editor bowed out shortly after Horse Eye Jack was created, and you two are the only ones to ride roughshod over WP:PARITY by trying to appropriate WP:RS for a issue where RS does not apply. See this. Does writing the comment "And what's more, when did a reliable media source ever call the border "Kosovo-Serb uncontested territory". " ring any bells? --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nope thats not me, also RS apply to everything on the page. I would imagine that all editors would attempt to apply RS when adding content to a mainspace article, they are required to do so after all. Also just to be clear thats not a troll, thats an editor in good standing... If thats who you meant thats still a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's a troll in no finer feather: I've seen this past half an hour that he had a history going back ten years doing the same old thing, using several accounts. No RS does NOT apply everywhere and I have already explained this. I can find reliable sources that refer to Muammar Gaddafi as an "evil tyrant" with casual abandon. You think you can go adding that to his page just because about six UK broadsheets used this term about him? --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are you saying that account is an unidentified sock? Its not tagged. WS doesn't apply everywhere (talk pages for example) but it does apply to content in mainspace articles (such as Kosovo)... We don't publish *anything* besides whats from WP:RS there. See WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's a troll in no finer feather: I've seen this past half an hour that he had a history going back ten years doing the same old thing, using several accounts. No RS does NOT apply everywhere and I have already explained this. I can find reliable sources that refer to Muammar Gaddafi as an "evil tyrant" with casual abandon. You think you can go adding that to his page just because about six UK broadsheets used this term about him? --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nope thats not me, also RS apply to everything on the page. I would imagine that all editors would attempt to apply RS when adding content to a mainspace article, they are required to do so after all. Also just to be clear thats not a troll, thats an editor in good standing... If thats who you meant thats still a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Just a minute. Are you saying this is you? I ask because this editor bowed out shortly after Horse Eye Jack was created, and you two are the only ones to ride roughshod over WP:PARITY by trying to appropriate WP:RS for a issue where RS does not apply. See this. Does writing the comment "And what's more, when did a reliable media source ever call the border "Kosovo-Serb uncontested territory". " ring any bells? --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I challenged it, you said that only "occasional opportunistic troll" intent on "covert disruption" had challenged it. Either you're wrong and should retract an untrue statement or thats a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I said "the occasional opportunistic troll" and I can see that about four people have done what I said in the passage. Nobody said your name, and I make no comment about you. What's to retract? I'll name the culprits if you want. --Edin balgarin (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Edin balgarin: please immediately retract your characterization of me as an "opportunistic troll" per WP:NPA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- My mistake. I was manually reinserting something that had sat unchallenged for seven years less the occasional opportunistic troll's attempt at covert disruption. I'll be more careful next time. --Edin balgarin (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"e don't publish *anything* besides whats from WP:RS" = attacking the straw man. I never said "use unreliable sources". I already gave you an example as to how "reliable sources" refer to unfavourable world leaders as "evil tyrants" and you still haven't edited the Vladimir Putin article to call him what the "analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors" are printing about him. I never for one moment said that account is an unidentified sock. I am saying he is an IDENT-ified sock. --Edin balgarin (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Kosovo articles
- Top-importance Kosovo articles
- WikiProject Kosovo articles
- B-Class Serbia articles
- Top-importance Serbia articles
- WikiProject Serbia articles
- B-Class Albania articles
- Top-importance Albania articles
- WikiProject Albania articles
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class Europe articles
- Unknown-importance Europe articles
- WikiProject Europe articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Limited recognition articles
- High-importance Limited recognition articles
- WikiProject Limited recognition articles
- Selected anniversaries (February 2015)
- Selected anniversaries (February 2016)
- Selected anniversaries (February 2017)
- Selected anniversaries (February 2018)
- Selected anniversaries (February 2019)