View source for Talk:Kosovo

{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
{{On this day|date1=2015-02-17|oldid1=647571644|date2=2016-02-17|oldid2=705065041|date3=2017-02-17|oldid3=765980915|date4=2018-02-17|oldid4=826174848|date5=2019-02-17|oldid5=883684771}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Kosovo|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Albania|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Countries}}
{{WikiProject Europe|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Limited recognition|importance=High}}
}}
{{Talk:Kosovo/Header}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 34
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Kosovo/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Kosovo/Archive index|mask=Talk:Kosovo/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
{{Archive box|search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=2 |units=months |auto=yes}}
{{merged-from|Republic of Kosovo|23 May 2014}}

__TOC__
== RfC in Terminology to Reflect the Albanian Language ==
{{Discussion top|I'm taking the step as a bot-summoned respondent to procedurally close this discussion temporarily, pending necessary first steps in discussion and necessary changes in approach that will need to take place for the discussion to proceed.   Unfortunately, I think to leave the discussion up in it's current format would only pull more and more volunteers into a confusing procedural loggerhead, and a lot of non-productive corss-talk arising out of issues with how the RfC has been initially approached.  Since this I am temporary shutting down the RfC with this action, I will provide a fulsome account of my reasoning: 
::*To begin with, there is an [[WP:RFCBEFORE]] issue here.  I think that element of the RFC procedure gets tossed around very arbitrarily and problematically in recent years, bureaucratically stalling useful RfCs for little practical reason. The issue has gotten to the point where literally almost every RfC will have someone invoke RFCBEFORE to try to shut down the discussion, whether it is a valid objection or not.  Nevertheless, in this case, I think it is justified.  There's no previous talk page discussion on this issue as far as I can tell, and while linguistic disputes on articles which touch upon ethnically controversial issues can generally be expected to need broader community involvement to resolve eventually, in this case (since there are other reasons to pause and/or restart the RfC), it makes sense to take a pause to have some initial discussion.

::*Secondly, the RfC prompt is in no way neutral, rather arguing very strongly for the OP's interpretation of the editorial issue, in flagrant violation of [[WP:RFCNEUTRAL]].  The reality is that {{u|IJA}} is correct that neither the Serbian nor Albanian terms are ''per se'' the terms we would use in an encyclopedic context / in Wikivoice. What matters is what the most commonly utilized (and thus most easy to identify) common nouns would be, for an English-speaking readership. The purpose of an en.Wikipedia article is to educate an English-speaking reader on the articles subject, using the most accessible language and terminology possible--not to validate the linguistic preferences of one group over another, whatever the numbers involved. Numerous policies converge on this principle of neutrality--see, for example, [[WP:ENGLISH]], [[WP:CRITERIA]], and [[WP:COMMONNAME]]-- and the OP may wish not to proceed with this discussion once aware of those policies.  However, even if the OP is not convinced after discussing those policies and still wants to have an RfC involving community third parties, the RFCNEUTRAL issue remains, and the opening prompt will need to be reworked into very different wording. No minor tweaks to keep the RfC open would suffice in this case.  Arguments for one approach over another should be saved for individual !votes.

::*Lastly, meaning no disrespect to the two respondents who suggested this matter needs to be handled through an RM request, but that is not in fact the correct course of action to resolve the OP's inquiry. Even if there were agreement to relocate the two relevant articles for the mountain ranges themselves, as well as any other landmarks that might get referenced in this article, that doesn't really directly impact the [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] issue that the OP is raising, concerning this article. The articles for those landmarks could be located at namespaces that reflect the common Serbian toponyms, the Albanian variants, or a third option altogether, and none of those options would directly mandate that we use the same term in the context of this article, and the OP's inquiry would still stand as needing addressing.  

::'''TLDR:''' Discussion paused and RfC tag removed, pending a determination that an RfC is necessary; if the OP wishes to proceed with a second go at the RfC after said discussion, a new and more neutral prompt must be developed for the second listing. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 23:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)}}

---------------------------------

This RfC proposes to change references in the article from Serbian terms such as '''"Metohija"''' and '''"Šar Mountains"''' to their Albanian equivalents, '''"Dukagjin"''' and '''"Sharr Mountains"''', respectively. The article currently utilizes Serbian terminology that may not reflect the linguistic preferences of the majority of Kosovo's citizens, who predominantly speak Albanian. Over 90% of the population in Kosovo identifies as Albanian, making it imperative that the language used in the article accurately represents the voices and perspectives of the majority of its people.

Using terms that resonate with the local population aligns with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] (NPOV) policy. The NPOV guideline emphasizes that articles should represent significant viewpoints fairly and proportionately. Since the Albanian language is the primary language spoken by the majority in Kosovo, adopting Albanian terminology helps to present an accurate portrayal of the region’s cultural and linguistic identity.

In conclusion, I propose to change the following terms in the article:
*'''Metohija → Dukagjin'''
*'''Šar Mountains → Sharr Mountains'''. [[User:Iaof2017|Iaof2017]] ([[User talk:Iaof2017|talk]]) 12:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

===Discussion===

* English Wikipedia uses the common name in the English language, not what the local population call something. Neither of them terms are the common name in the English language. [[User:IJA|IJA]] ([[User talk:IJA|talk]]) 16:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

* '''Wrong venue''', this needs to be taken up as [[WP:RM]]s on the specific pages. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

* It looks like this RfC may have jumped the gun a little. An RfC is appropriate after discussion with involved parties on the talk page [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]. You might be able to achieve consensus ''without'' requesting additional input. [[User:Pathawi|Pathawi]] ([[User talk:Pathawi|talk]]) 06:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

*{{Summoned by bot}} '''Procedural close''' , Start an RM and publicise accordingly. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 16:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}
:[[User:Snow Rise|Snow Rise]], your closure is incorrect regarding the RMs. Per [[WP:UEGN]], we should refer to places by their article title except when discussing historical periods. The article title does directly mandate changes in article text, and there is no local consensus for this article, which follows the global guideline. To change use on this article, the best way is a successful RM. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 10:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::Hi {{u|Chipmunkdavis}}.  That's all correct, and you may even be right that an RM would be the path of least resistance for the change the OP wants to effect (though I think not, insofar as I don't believe the variants of the toponyms they wish to introduce are the English common names, so I doubt that the RM process will avail them).  Nevertheless, my point is that these are actually two separate processes, procedurally speaking.  Even if the OP chooses not to attempt RMs (or attempts them and fails to gain consensus for the moves), they are still permitted to make an argument here for variances in the terminology (either along the lines of one of the considerations built into UEGN itself, or a separate IAR argument).  And when we're talking about an article with as much multi-ethnic complexity and controversy as exists for this article, we can't write off the possibility of such an outcome entirely (though I still think the OP would have a very uphill climb in making that argument, which I attempted to emphasize for them in the close). {{pb}}All of which is to say, a separate local consensus discussion here is not foreclosed, and this is a potentially appropriate venue for it, regardless of UEGN (or indeed, partly because of it, since it does contemplate variations over time, if nothing else) and regardless of what does or does not happen with any prospective RM.  However, as I also emphasized in my close, an RfC on such a proposal should only take place after further discussion, and would need a neutral prompt if it is ultimately undertaken again.  That said, your caveat contains useful information the OP should be aware of, and they should definitely read through UEGN before deciding whether to pursue their argument further. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Anyone could try to argue IAR, but in the meantime, it is in correct as the close says that "none of those options would directly mandate that we use the same term in the context of this article", and that "the OP's inquiry would still stand as needing addressing", as if the RM was made and successful, it would unless someone wants to do an uphill climb lead to a change here, and would address the OP's inquiry. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 07:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2024 ==

I propose to add that countries and organizations that have not recognized the institutions of the Republic of Kosovo often call them ''Provisional Institutions of Self-Government in Kosovo''.<ref>{{cite book | title= National Minorities in Inter-State Relations | editor1-first= Francesco | editor1-last= Palermo | editor2-first= Natalie | editor2-last= Sabanadze | chapter= A Reading of the Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement in light of the OSCE HCNM Bolzano/Bozen Recommendations on National Minorities in Inter-State Relations | first= Annelies | last= Verstichel | page= 189 | publisher= Martinus Nijhoff Publishers | year= 2011 | isbn= 978-90-04-17598-3 | chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=cDm-lw2nQ7IC&pg=PA189}}</ref> [[User:Bagyblazha|Bagyblazha]] ([[User talk:Bagyblazha|talk]]) 14:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2024 ==

{{Edit extended-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
Kosovo is a recognized nation throughout the world. It’s not partially recognized, it’s recognized by more than 50% of the all nations around the world, that’s a majority of recognition, not partial. Also recognized by America and the U.K. [[Special:Contributions/75.214.233.224|75.214.233.224]] ([[User talk:75.214.233.224|talk]]) 22:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> At any rate, a majority is partial. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

== NPOV ==

The first sentence of the subject is misleading. To make it sound less misleading it should be ''country with limited recognition in Southeastern Europe instead of ''country in Southeastern Europe with limited recognition. Stating ''country in Southeastern Europe with limited recognized'' might mislead the reader who is not familiar with the history of the area into reaching the conclusion that the subject is a country. Stating ''country with limited recognition in Southeastern Europe'' avoids that. Who agrees with my statement?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katharinabuchholz/2023/02/17/kosovo--beyond-where-the-un-disagrees-on-recognition-infographic/ [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:36D0:9B0:D914:CEF0:F24D:5D78|2600:1700:36D0:9B0:D914:CEF0:F24D:5D78]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:36D0:9B0:D914:CEF0:F24D:5D78|talk]]) 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I understand your statement enough to agree one way or another, a country with limited recognition is still a country. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::It is still a country. My question was about the first sentence of the subject.      It makes more sense to write the end of the sentence as         country with limited recognition in Southeastern Europe         rather than             country in Southeastern Europe with limited recognition. Is my question clearer? [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:36D0:9B0:6493:D35:2CE8:6F77|2600:1700:36D0:9B0:6493:D35:2CE8:6F77]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:36D0:9B0:6493:D35:2CE8:6F77|talk]]) 23:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)