Talk:Kosovo/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Categorisation

Reliable sources (example) say that Kosovo is a country in Europe. We shouldn't even need to worry about sourcing for such an obvious statement. Why, then, do some editors insist on removing Category:Countries in Europe? Eventually, articles on Kosovo will be brought in line with what reliable sources say, but FkpCascais' reverts make this a very slow and difficult process. bobrayner (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Kosovo is i) a country (government, territory, armed forces, institutions, etc ...) , ii) geographically located in Europe, ii) recognized as a country by 82% of the European Union countries and iii) recognized by 56% of UN countries . The lack of recognition by some countries does not undo the existence. Do China, Israel or Taiwan not exist, because some countries do not recognize them? Let us get serious. Bottom line: Kosovo exists as a country (by all criteria of the definition) and is a reality. 95.90.184.124 (talk)

• It seems like some people feel that being diplomatically recognised by every other country in the world is a prerequisite for being defined as a country, but it's not so. If it was neither the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China (Taiwan) or Israel would be countries. Kosovo is a sovereign state by all normal definitions of it, and thus a country, whether some people like it or not. So I strongly suggest FkpCascais, now blocked user Muffi and everyone else who is removing the category and all mention of Kosovo being a country stop their reverts. Thomas.W ^talk 20:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Build wider consensus first, threaten users later. I suggest that. FkpCascais (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Saying current Kosovo is sovereign is challenging per se (is there a consensus from the past to include the link sovereign state in the lead of this article that I missed?). Also, comparing Kosovo, which is considered independent roughly just by half countries of the world, and still territory of Serbia by other half, is far from being comparable to the mentioned cases of Israel, PR China or Taiwan. FkpCascais (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

We need to keep a NPOV on this subject. So basically, by this argumentation, would you gentleman oppose adding as well the Category:Statistical regions of Serbia, Category:Historical regions in Serbia and Category:Autonomous regions? Perhaps also Category:Autonomous provinces of Serbia? FkpCascais (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

And WP:NPOV starts by saying "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". I personally don't give a rat's arse about whether the country-category or other mention of Kosovo having the status as a country is in the article or not, but reliable sources regard Kosovo as a country, which is what matters. So since many reliable sources regard Kosovo as a country, and a large number of countries, particularly in Europe where Kosovo is situated, have recognised Kosovo as a sovereign country, you and the others cannot remove all mention of it, without violating WP:NPOV. Period. Thomas.W ^talk 22:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't give an arse about European countries neither your "period", understand sir? So while you don't show a willingness to fairly archive consensus, the clearly tendentious category will be removed. Period. FkpCascais (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are two sources saying it is a province: Until 2008 the province was administered by the UN (it finished the text also talking about the "province"), and we have In 2007, the UN issued the Ahtisaari Plan, which suggested "supervised independence" for the province. ... I can go on... There are clearly diffenrent views on this subject, so your agressivness is useless, cause this is a clear case where WP:UNDUE applies. So if you getleman want to include that much one point of view (of the independence), so some of the other categories I mentioned in my earlier comment should be added as well. It is up to you gentleman. FkpCascais (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Roughly half of world doesn't recognise the independence of Kosovo and still regards it as Serbian province under UN/interim administration, so in order to archive neutrality over this issue, we must either present both sides, or be careful and only present the undisputed facts. If the countries are European, I see no connection to it, I honestly didn't understand that argument. FkpCascais (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot of reliable sources say also that Kosovo is not a country in Europe. You cannot just ignore some sources that you dont like. Kosovo is disputed, its not even a UN member, and it must be treated like that. You must be neutral here, everyone. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

To everybody, there are numerous as yet unmentioned problems with the category for countries in Europe. I will address those specified in the summaries.

• One states in its first part: Regardless if a country is partially recognised or not, it is still a country. This is in tune to arguments posted above stating that Kosovo meets all the criteria to be sovereign regardless who does not recognise. I confess that to these points I cannot comment, however, if that is correct then the category should also include Lugansk People's Republic, Donetsk People's Republic, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, and if you define them as Europe, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
• Then the same summary mentions: for example Cyprus or Armenia which both lack recognition. I am sorry but there is absolutely no way in this world Kosovo can be considered similar to Cyprus or Armenia. I would question any editor's WP:COMPETENCE if he cannot distinguish between states that do not have diplomatic relations with others, and states whose sovereignty is disputed. No country refuses to recognise Armenia or Cyprus as a result of either being a breakaway from the state in question, they are merely examples of states involved in internal territorial disputes. If an entity exists with which we can realistically compare the Republic of Kosovo then this would be the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (which lacks a "countries in" listing). Kosovo has fewer diplomatic recognitions than the State of Palestine which stands at 135, yet this too has no "countries in" listing, and therefore Republic of Kosovo has no special status over any other unrecognised territory.
• Another summary is: can't we just follow the sources? http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/kosovo/overview. The World Bank is an institution that happens to recognise the Republic of Kosovo. It is not a paragon of irrefutable reference to what makes a country or not. Besides, the job of an editor is to identify neutral positions in disputes, and having any disputed territory in a "countries in" category violates WP:NPOV. Its absence is by no means an indication that it is recognised as being within the state to claim it. For what it is worth, the State of Palestine is eligible to become a member of the World Bank. Also, when the original editor added the category, he was not going by that source, so it is not a case of following the World Bank website.
• Kosovo is already listed in List of territorial disputes. I have checked several left-hand side entries and no other state has a "countries in" category and this includes Taiwan which is the article for Republic of China, itself having once stood on the UN Security Council. So unless I have missed something, I see no special reason Kosovo outranks the states listed in this post. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that Kosovo is a country in Europe; this article belongs in the "Countries in Europe" category; it's not rocket science. bobrayner (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Although if Oranges Juicy genuinely wants to be consistent, I would point out that other entries in List of territorial disputes generally don't have their own equivalent of {{Kosovo-note}} spammed across hundreds of pages. Oranges Juicy, will you get rid of that too? bobrayner (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Those entries are actually not presented in the artices as independent nations in the way your edits tend to be, and that was the reason in first pleace the note was established. However, I will be happy if we rid the Kosovo-note template and return to Serbia/Kosovo formula if you wish. FkpCascais (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm lost. What do you mean by {{Kosovo-note}} being "spammed" across hundreds of pages? If it is spam, shouldn't somebody WP:PROD it? If not then perhaps someone more experienced should tell me exactly where the note should and should not be used. Not very long ago I asked an admin but received no response. Anywhere it stands but does not belong I believe we are free to remove it (such as here), and yes I have found it in several places and have even added it, or repaired the link to it when its foundation was already in place such as here. If I am "spamming" I would like this to be explained to me. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. Although no note appears to exist for the other disputed territories, I see the matter is addressed in main space, for instance Ahmed Mohamed Mohamoud (Mohamoud is the current President of Somaliland, a self-declared republic that is internationally recognised as an autonomous region of Somalia.) and President of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (The President of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is the head of state of the self-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), an exile government based in the refugee camps of Tindouf, Algeria.) to give two examples. So even there editors need to be cautious. On that note I cannot see a way out of this one, either the irritating note has to be in place or we'll have to exercise our fingers and type more. Unless someone knows the solution! --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable sources say that Kosovo is a country in Europe; this article belongs in the "Countries in Europe" category; it's not rocket science. bobrayner (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable sources say that Kosovo is not a country in Europe; this article does not belongs in the "Countries in Europe" category; it is really that simple, i agree. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 14:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope that now you will understand that what you think is not a fact, but only your own opinion. We have sources for both thing. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 14:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Anastan, you have never provided any such source. If you want people to believe you, now would be a good time to provide a source that supports your claims. bobrayner (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Anastan, if you followed the thread then that last post to which you replied should have given you a sense of déjà vu. So let me make this response shorter and simpler. Reliable sources also say that it disputed, and disputed territories are treated differently throughout. Of course, if there is something that makes Republic of Kosovo different from Somaliland (see "reliable source"), then please share this with us. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Until there's no longer a dispute over Kosovo's status either way, it shouldn't be placed in the category-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is tendentious editing. Oranges Juicy cites a source which treats Somaliland as a country, yet somehow twists logic into arguing that the source means we can't categorise a different country. I look forward to uninvolved editors' comments. bobrayner (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Oranges Juicy hit the nail on the head with his first comment. You just keep repeating the same line that has already been addressed and even brought up the Kosovo-note which is entirely unrelated to this specific categorisation; if you want to discuss that, start a new discussion.

GoodDay provided an uninvolved editor's comment and now so have I. --Local hero ^talk 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

FTR. I very much doubt there is a source that bluntly states "Kosovo is not a country", but the same can be said of all of self-proclaimed states which takes us back to square 1. Concerning Somaliland, sorry if I did not make myself clear but I was not editing tendentiously, I was simply giving an example of how a reliable publisher can refer even to a territory that nobody recognises as a country. For what it's worth I am in no way implying that Somaliland be treated as a sovereign entity and anybody following my edits will have seen that I have even taken exception to its inclusion in a certain list because it has received no diplomatic recognition, ([1]). --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Oranges Juicy, please note that the questions you posed on that list's talk page could well be construed as WP:FORUMSHOPPING since you didn't provide this context for the question, and that the list has just gone through a spate of edit warring (again), including RM's in order to change the name with the objective of 'broadening' its scope (roughly translated as WP:OR). Bringing responses here is misleading WP:SYNTH. I will assume good faith, but you appear to be inadvertently spreading it thin. This discussion is taking place here, on this talk page. The list is proscribed to meeting criteria appropriate to that list alone. Bear in mind, also, that WP:WINARS applies to separate articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Iryna (this is separate from the message I wrote to you at my talk). I can assure you that the two issues are individual and I would have edited one the same way as the other regardless. With regards Somaliland (off topic here I know), I am fine with its self-proclaimed status and seeing it treated the same as Kosovo and Western Sahara but in having had no recognitions, I didn't believe it belonged on that article and therefore have proposed either the removal of states with no recognition, or switching article title for clarity. Obviously if that discussion should develop then I will happily cite this talk thread, so far I have found no need. I shall courteously alert involved editors to prove I am not intentionally forum-shaping. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Oranges Juicy. For the record, as a neutral party, I would like to note that I "!oppose" including Kosovo in the European countries category per WP:NPOV. While I realise that there are arguments on a case to case basis, for the sake of parity across the board, being designated implied sovereign status would demand a review of all break-away states being included in the same category. Unless there is an extraordinarily compelling case for being depicted as a recognised sovereign state, I don't see how we can cherry pick which states of limited recognition should be treated differently. Such decisions could only serve to encourage further subjective pushes, so are we actually following RS or OR? As an encyclopaedic resource, I'd suggest that it isn't up to editors/contributors to make calls that only tertiary sources can.

That being said, however, 100+ sovereign nation-states and a plethora of RS attesting to recognition of Kosovo as being a country in Europe are very compelling arguments therefore, per WP:NPOV I, personally, would be so reticent to remove it from the category that I'd find myself having to "!oppose" its removal. Evaluating the arguments on a case by case basis suggests that, in this case, 'limited recognition' does not apply as being as being as extremely limited as other parallel cases presented here. In that manner, distinguishing between borderline or truly limited recognition doesn't factor into the equation as other states with limited recognition can't even begin to aspire to compete with Kosovo. It would be WP:OR to proscribe is and isn't in such a manner. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If I could analyse the following comment: 100+ sovereign nation-states and a plethora of RS attesting to recognition of Kosovo as being a country in Europe are very compelling arguments. Well it is an argument, but not that compelling. Without doubt any entity to have recognised Kosovo will unquestionably call it a country, and this in turn will influence "reliable sources". As far as the remaining states are concerned, plus in their relevant media, Kosovo and Metohija is an autonomous Serbian province. The matter here is not the limited recognition but the disputed status, and not just disputed by one country but a good 50-60 who are likely never to recognise Kosovo unless Serbia does first. So this brings us back to the other unrecognised entities, and the one most deserving of any country status is Palestine. Unfortunately there is no middle road with these problems, either a subject does or does not appear on a category, and if it does, there is no way the all-important disputed status can be shown. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Oranges Juicy: Quite. I actually agree with your evaluation. While playing at devil's advocate in the second instance, I'm predisposed to the inclusion of Kosovo in the European countries cat as being OR as I don't see NPOV as actually being the brunt of the issue. My preference would probably be to hold an RfC with regards to the inclusion, but an RfC would bring in neutral, but uninformed, editors/contributors (i.e., POV opinion regardless of GF). As the category is representative of recognised European countries, I would prefer to err on the side of caution, with Kosovo as being a subcat of Serbia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Irina, you just said what I tried to say in a bit rudimental way in the beginning of this discussion. Since this is such a 50-50 case, representing one POV, which was bobrainers intention by wanting to add that cat, would make us necessarily have to represent the other POV as well. So we can chose going into two ways, one would be to be wise and cautious and only represent acknowledged undisputed facts, and the other would be to represent both views (meaning, adding "country in Europe" cat and "Serbian province" cats). I always defend the option of caution, but editors obviously well informed about the subject but pretending not to know the complexity of the issue make me kind of loose my good faith assumption and treat them like POV-pushers. FkpCascais (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

To feature them in both categories would satisfy NPOV but is blatantly self-contradictory and would create confusion for readers less knowledgeable that happen to stumble across the category pages first. The question of reliable sources calling Kosovo a country is at best clutching at straws to make the desperate point. Irina's argument that 100+ countries recognise is definitely a valid point. Obviously there is no threshold and everything works case by case. On this note she is right that we who have discussed here and at the noticeboard have largely exhausted our points and maybe the whole matter should be placed in the hands of a fresh set of contributors whose areas of interest lie outside Balkan politics. If WP policy should ever state that once recognition reaches the half-way mark with regards all declared states (even those unrecognised, as they still afford recognitions), it won't just be admitting Kosovo to Countries in Europe, but its rewording in the article opening line, its shift within lists to sovereign tables, and the likely removal of the note which features on a number of articles. All I would say here - to any onlooker - is that where Kosovo should go, it would be commendable and wise to take Western Sahara and State of Palestine down the same route. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais and Oranges Juicy: Well, we've now allowed for this discussion to sit around to the point of stagnation, and no other contributors/editors have joined in, nor has anything been established other than Kosovo still featuring at the top level of European countries. As this is ultimately a categories issue it really can't feature as a top level category and a subcat. This is a category issue which should be referred to the WP:CFD. If it is deemed to be NPOV to enter Kosovo as belonging to both categories, those who predominantly work on cats will end up removing a subcat as being superfluous unless they've actually been involved in the discussion and know what the issues are. It would also allow for fresh, neutral evaluation by experienced Wikipedians. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You know the procedure at this stage far better than I do, so by all means go ahead with the necessary arrangements. I will observe whatever the next set of editors decide. I just hope they read the entire discussion here and at the noticeboard, it is long and repetitive I know, but many interesting points are raised. Thanks Iryna. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both categories seem fair to me. IJA (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Putting it in both categories is not ideal, since it's a return to the bad old days where we present reality and nationalist fiction side-by-side even when they're mutually incompatible. However, I'm concerned about a couple of things:

• FkpCascais removed the category, pretending that it was just something that I personally wanted to add. That is not true; this article has been in the category since 2008.
• Anastan repeatedly claimed to have reliable sources saying that Kosovo isn't a country in Europe. Anastan has refused to provide those sources.

Reliable sources say that Kosovo is a country in Europe. I recognise that there are several active editors who hold political views which are incompatible with what reliable sources say; sooner or later they will stop reverting, and the rest of us can start repairing articles. bobrayner (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting how you consider everything related to assumed independence of Kosovo a reality and the other view as nationalist fiction. You said it all now regarding your inability to deal with this subject objectively. FkpCascais (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that Kosovo is a country in Europe. If your political beliefs are incompatible with what reliable sources say, you have my sympathies, but I would urge you to self-revert tendentious edits like this - removing a category that's been in the article since 2008, with the excuse that it's "under discussion". bobrayner (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh poor of me, I am some lunatic with crazy political beliefs... Recognising the complexity of this issue doesn't make me any of that. If Kosovo is a country in Europe (view shared by half world) then it is also a region of Serbia (view shared by other half of world). Not my fault half a world doesn't deal with Kosovo the wa you would like them to do. Category: Disputed territorial and partially recognized states is quite neutral and is already there. FkpCascais (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of this conversation is precisely because this is a deeper issue than "reliable sources say Kosovo is a country in Europe". In the first place those are not reliable sources, they are websites of institutions that recognise Kosovo. In the second place, a simple caption from a "reliable source" is in this case grossly WP:UNDUE and an attempt to WP:GAME the system by ignoring the fact that this is a disputed area. No matter even what real reliable sources report, this is about presentation and not the disputing of a fact, and presentation is down to consensus. If Kosovo sits outside of this category, one does not imply that this makes it a province or prefecture or oblast of some other country, not at all, the other categories and the article itself show that Kosovo is among a big group of self-proclaimed states and one that has achieved considerably more success than the vast majority. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the category has not featured since 2008, I have gone back as far as this revision which clearly shows the categories as given at the time, nothing remotely suggesting undisputed sovereignty. The category was added in September 2014 and has been the subject of debate since its first removal on 19 May 2015. Curiously, the editor to originally insert the segment had this to say on the matter when I courteously briefed him that I removed it. This is all a departure from the concept that the category was added because of what "reliable sources" are printing. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, this has become awkward, hasn't it. I'm now wary of taking it to CfD without referencing this discussion, but to do so would also be seen as FORUMSHOPPING as I'm now involved. Does anyone think this is worth taking to the WP:DRN and, if so, which editors would be willing to be involved? I'm not sure that I'm even uninvolved enough by this point to write up a decent submission, but would be willing to take a stab at it if there are enough editors with conflicting understandings of what the NPOV approach would be are willing to participate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The move request

We had a very drawn-out, noteworthy move request which brought the article Republic of Kosovo here. This article is about the country. Period. Kosovo is a "region" in the same way that Denmark is a "region", but Denmark's lead sentence doesn't include that word for the same reason that Kosovo's should not. Red Slash 03:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about WP:WINARS decisions (i.e., this is circular self-referencing as in one decision about WP:TITLE sets the momentum for the tone of the rest of the article). We also have an article which was moved from several other naming conventions in order to create Novorossiya (confederation). Please explain how that makes it realistic enough to impact on whether it is a sovereign country for the top level category or, worse yet, a candidate for the top level and a subcat for Serbia? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Red Slash. As you'll appreciate, I have no issues with number of articles and whether Kosovo as a region and as a republic should take separate articles. I assume that is more down to how much there is to say for one, how much for the other, and whether keeping them on one article really is long and bouncing between one topic and another throughout. All I need to point out is that even if this article's primary subject is the Republic, it would still need to be shown per NPOV that the status is disputed, therefore the mention of "disputed territory" early on and the exclusion of a countries category is consistent with all other self-proclaimed entities. The sovereignty of Denmark is not disputed by any nation. In my case, consistency is my main interest and not whether Kosovo should be treated as a subcat of Serbia. If consensus should be reached whereby the number of recognitions should rule Kosovo a top level entity then I am happy to observe that, but realising that this would apply to the State of Palestine, and possibly Western Sahara depending on the threshold. In addition, the lede would be reworded to be consistent with Denmark (a country), and the Kosovo entry would have to be shifted across numerous articles to reflect a top level presentation. I'd like to point out that despite the edits I made to the article, I truly have no opinion on the question of a threshold and if that figure should be 100 (to give an example), then fine, raise Kosovo and Palestine, leave out Western Sahara, and everything will be within a black and white framework. The one and only issue I would raise there is - now moving onto a new technicality - if or not recognition is limited to the UN. If so, we disclude Cook Islands, Taiwan and Sovereign Military Order, but if they should be included, then it should be realised that the remaining non-recognised states do not recognise Kosovo and this might on a new count bring the total number of potential recognitions slightly below the half-way mark. This is mere conjecture though on how others may wish to tackle the problem. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is about the province/country, as it is still disputed/unrecognized. The article lead clarifies the issue, bolding both "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo".--Zoupan 10:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

By all definitions of the word "country", Kosovo is a "country". It has i) a very large international recognition (majority of UN countries), ii) a freely elected government, iii) defined borders and authority over most of its territory (army + police), iv) an independent state apparatus (hospitals, schools, institutions), etc... Attempts to oppose the creation of the state of Kosovo by Russia, Serbia and their Allies (China, Greece, etc ...) have failed, therefore I believe it is time for folks still supporting a Serbian-occupied Kosovo to give up. Kosovo already exists as a country, so creating a virtual reality in Wikipedia, as if Kosovo is not a country, only further damages the reputation of this Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is already terribly biased against Kosovo, I do not see a note under every Israel-related article stating that the country is "partially recognized"! So let us leave the people of Kosovo freely choose their status for themselves and accept their free will. Colonialism and external interventions which deny sovereignty to other nations are a pre-18-th century style. 95.90.184.124 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well hello IP! Thanks for the observation. Yes Republic of Kosovo meets all the criteria for what defines sovereignty, and is included in List of sovereign states. The problem with going straight for top level listing is that this line of thought would admit every self-proclaimed entity into that list, and this includes Somaliland which has never been recognised by anybody. Per your description, they all have defined borders, many exercise authority over the entire proclaimed territory though all have control over part, and all have the parallel institutions. Though this could be said to have applied to Republic of Kosova in the 1990s. The matter of recognition is a stronger argument by all accounts and there is evidently no threshold, but there is a fundamental difference between Kosovo and Israel which goes beyond the number of countries to recognise Israel. Israel is unrecognised because some states refuse to establish diplomatic relations with her, not because Irsael is disputed by the entity from which she broke away. This was Mandatory Palestine which had been a British mandate. Although Palestinians originally felt they were entitled to the entire region, the State of Palestine only defines Gaza and the West Bank as its territory, so no entity in this world other than Israel lays claim to Tel Aviv, Netanya and Haifa. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Independence implicitly involves self-proclamation. This is a chicken-egg problem apparently, however many countries more or less self-proclaimed independence, often through painful liberation/indepence wars. Kosovo is special because happened the latest, nevertheless it is not a different country compared to others. 95.90.184.124 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly to every point raised. I'm just not sure about the relevance of Republic of Kosovo having been the latest example. There is one later than that and this is Crimea in 2014 but that as we know was short-lived, and transitional from the start: necessary to avoid the unlawful annexation of territory by one sovereign body from another. But I would have thought if anything that newcomers be placed at the back of the queue rather than be given special priority. That said I know this is not the issue. But on the subject of proclaimed independence, if Kosovo could be joined by at least Palestine and Western Sahara (not for Europe of course, but as Cat:countries-in-XXX) as well as any others (the more the merrier), then I would have no problem whatsoever with the category feature. I assure you of that. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There are two approaches: i) Using an instance to generalize over other cases (constructive), and ii) using other cases against an instance (devil's advocate). In that aspect, I believe using other non-identical examples against Kosovo is counter-productive. That being said, I believe a constructive editor can be motivated by principles and their generalization towards very similar cases. Personally, I would strongly support you on the addition of Palestine to the list of countries in the relevant categories. As for Western Sahara, I am not an expert on the case and prefer to not provide an opinion. 95.90.184.124 (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That's better than nothing of course. I intend to raise this conversation anyhow on other regional talk pages and I am sure that by the end, a more universal method will emerge. I have posted at Talk:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic#Western Asian countries but that is by the by since that isn't even a disputed territory, it has been added for some strange reason. Obviously everything in the world of self-proclaimed states is unique to one's own case, so probably no two examples are exactly the same, least of all the one I provided because that by its own actions became defunct within days (so the category would be obsolete there). Essentially, everybody wishes for recognition and the chance to participate within the international community. Where recognition is the importance factor, Kosovo without doubt ranks very highly among disputed territories, and that is the strongest argument for its listing. Once there is more input from uninvolved editors (as is likely to happen), I shall respect the outcome. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I definitely understand the need for a unified standard on categorizations, however I believe your criteria is not the right direction. Being self-proclaimed is perfectly fine, since most countries have a self-proclaimed independence (incl. USA). In that perspective I do not think self-proclamation constitute a reasonable criterion. The only practical criteria I see are i) the country exists, i.e. has sovereignty, government, territory, independence, institutions, etc ... and ii) international recognition. Kosovo fulfills both criteria strongly, therefore I personally think it should be included in all relevant categories of countries without much further discussions. 95.90.184.124 (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well this is why there is no consensus. Obviously with that line of thinking one automatically promotes other states alongside it. I don't think the first part ("sovereignty, government, territory, independence, institutions, etc") is relevant since parallel institutions are necessary in the first place to exist as part of any form of state. The question of how recognised must an entity be is one with no clear guidelines hence this debate. And to be honest, I haven't formed an opinion yet there. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment IP, however I'm sorry, but it isn't very constructive when one is building an encyclopaedia. We have to be neutral and go one what the references/ sources say and we have conflicting references/ sources. But back to the question at hand; I see no harm in having a category saying that Kosovo is a country in Europe (we have sources to back this up) and also there is no harm in having a category saying that Kosovo is a partially recognised state (we have sources to back this up too). Let's have both categories. Add a category saying that Kosovo is a disputed territory too if you want (we have sources to back this up as well). These are only fucking categories at the end of the day! IJA (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

IJA, your suggestions seem reasonable and reflect the truth. 1) Kosovo is a country and 2) It is partially recognized. I believe it should be included in all relevant lists of countries, given the right clarification of its status whenever necessary (necessary means not spamming the boiler-plate status note on every Kosovo-related article, including sports, food, etc ...). 95.90.184.124 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oranges Juicy, you've made some claims about categorisation which contradict what the article history says. They're not true. They're false. Would you like to redact them, or is this another line of argument that relies on fiction? bobrayner (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that we should make Category:partially recognized countries in Europe (or something similar) that will be included in Category:Counturies in Europe, so there will be no disputes and all sides will be satisfied. Јованвб (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

World Bank source

Hello again Red Slash. Thanks for the citation you added from World Bank. I'd just like to point out that nobody has denied Kosovo's wide recognition or its membership in institutions that accept its proclaimed statehood. Though when providing the source, you removed the disputed territory mention. Acknowledgement of Kosovan statehood from a recognising organisation is not evidence of a non-existent territorial dispute. In fact, it is necessary for a population to declare their region independent in the first place for a territorial dispute to even emerge. I still favour a joint inclusion at top and middle level provided Kosovo does not stand alone over all other partial or unrecognised states. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be in favour of Red Slash. I believe that implanting the term "disputed territory" on the "very first sentence" of this country's introduction has an unnecessarily negative tendency. Furthermore, it is completely redundant because the second sentence already states "While Serbia recognises the Republic's governance of the territory, it still continues to claim it as its own Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.". In addition, the introduction related to Kosovo is written in a politically-heated and unprofessional language. If one considers the first paragraph on pages of "Germany, USA, etc ..." the first paragraph tells the location, capital, weather, etc ... i.e. facts on the country that relate to general life aspects, not only politics. I recommend to remove any status related political words from the first paragraph, instead we should professionally write something real about the country. The status dispute is unnecessarily repeated in so many places of this article, that having it even on the first sentence suffocates the reader. 95.90.184.124 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that we should take your opinion as valid here at all, having in mind that you have 0 edits on wiki and day old editing history. Maybe you should go back to your original account... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 14:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@95.90.184.124. So far we have only discussed the category, though if I am to be realistic, should a wider consensus dictate that it becomes as you wish then indeed it would also change the opening line and how we treat Kosovo across other lists and articles. I see your point about wanting to downgrade the political connotations in order to bring the article to the same standard as Germany and the United States. The fact is however that Germany and the United States are not embroiled in any form of territorial dispute and if they had been, they too would have article ledes similar to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. By presenting a regular first paragraph and introducing all controversy in the second is not only contrary to the criteria of a standard lede but an editor will feel justified in merging it the minute he notices, and that takes you back to the square one. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wider consensus has already been reached by the 'majority' (108 or 56%) of UN nations and 82% of European Union states (the continent of this country). This case has not much similarity to the counter-case mentioned, which is recognized by ZERO UN countries. In case you infer consensus to mean 100% recognition by all other countries, I fear that this is not a must requirement, because, as said, neither China, nor Israel are recognized by 100% of other countries. Second, a vast number of other countries have territorial disputes (List of territorial disputes), so having a dispute is not an exclusion criterion neither. I personally see no objective argument against treating Kosovo's article like all other countries. 95.90.184.124 (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

95.90.184.124, I realise this thread is long but every point raised here has already been addressed adequately. By consensus I was referring to the wide scope of editors and not the international community. For what it's worth those statistics are out of proportion. I mean Kosovo has received (up to now) 111 diplomatic recognitions regardless of whether territory is claimed or how many are in the UN. The number of states including unrecognised I believe is 206, so a slight majority recognising Kosovo but even that is on the basis of governments representing people. So the "world consensus" which has achieved a majority can be largely attributed to the likes of Iceland, Luxembourg, San Marino, Andorra, Nauru, Monaco, Tuvalu, Brunei, Malta, Vanuatu, Tonga, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Dominica, Samoa and many others. When you consider that those not to recognise include People's Republic of China, India, Russia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Brazil and Bangladesh then these countries by themselves represent over a half of the world's population before adding the remainder. So I wouldn't base my argument on statistics if I were adamant to support the category. As I've now said on enough occasions, I have never implied that a state should have 100% recognition and I have repeatedly cited that there is no threshold to pass before proclaimed states reach the top level here, it is all down to editorial opinion. China is subject to a dispute between two rival entities PRC (Beijing) and ROC (Taiwan), and the entire world recognises one or the other. So China per se does have 100% recognition. As regards Israel, there is a huge difference between refusing to establish relations with a country and recognising 100% of its territory as belonging to another state. The State of Palestine claims the West Bank and Gaza, not Tel Aviv or Eilat, therefore no country not recognising Israel claims that those cities belong to another country. That is the issue that dictates not only this minor Kosovo-related matter but all others such as what is written in the lede. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, but your stance against Kosovo is totally ungrounded. Do you think Bangladesh (with all respect) is more "important" than Germany, France or England, because it has a bigger population? Basing your arguments on the sizes of populations if wrong and does not reflect current principles of international relations. Countries might have different populations but have all equal rights in the modern era. For me the situation is clear: Kosovo is a country by all definitional criteria, despite the fact that it is not recognized by 100% of countries (which is not a criterion). As said, territorial disputes are not a criterion to deny the existence of countries (see above list of territorial disputes). Your other example on Israel is superficially manipulated, you forgot that both countries claim the capital of each other (Jerusalem). So finally, I see no more points to discuss with you, because I see no objective reasons against Kosovo's inclusion. I would leave it to other impartial editors to further comment. (Naturally, impartial means not Serbian, ex-Yugoslavian, Greek or Russian, most of whom usually have an anti-Albanian vertigo). 95.90.184.124 (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Once more you fail the comprehend the basic factor. I am not for one minute implying that one country is more imporant than another, I am merely demonstrating how one technicality - in this particular case - of number of states to recognise exceeding 50%, can be easily trumped (for the time being) by the fact that over half the world's population lives somewhere that does not recognise Kosovo. With each new recognition that will start to remedy slightly, I am well aware. Well done on noticing Jerusalem which indeed is claimed by two entities. That makes Jerusalem the subject of a territorial dispute, it does not turn all of Israel into a land that some 80 countries recognise as belonging to another state. Now do you follow? --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Can't we just comply with WP:V? We have a reliable source saying that Kosovo is a country in Europe. Anastan countered that the category should be removed, claiming that there are many sources which say that Kosovo isn't a country in Europe; but Anastan has refused to provide these sources, and I can't find any. Eventually this article will follow what sources say, rather than Serb nationalist fantasy. bobrayner (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back! Much has been discussed in your absence. Yes by all means we can follow WP:V. These confirm that over one third of world countries that represent over half the population recognise the claimed territory as Serbia's territorial integrity in spite of certain publications from organisations affiliated to and composed of bodies to recognise Kosovo. The reliable sources in turn confirm that the region is the subject of a territorial dispute. The remaining arguments which focus on the usual criteria associated with statehood are shared with all other proclaimed states which are not recognised by the state from whom they endeavoured to break away. If you have any difficulties finding these please let me know and I'll gladly help. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Serbia itself does not dispute the territory. Who else is disputing it? And why do they matter? Red Slash 23:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The territory is disputed. Some countries recognise the Republic, others recognise it as an autonomous province of Serbia. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Red Slash.

Oranges Juicy, instead of irrelevant screeds about how a minority of countries "recognise the claimed territory as Serbia's territorial integrity", whatever that means, perhaps you could let us know how many of them say that Kosovo is not a country? If you could provide sources, that would be even better, since at the moment you're opposing the addition of very well sourced content. bobrayner (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

All of the other items at Category:Countries in Europe are sovereign entities whose lands are not disputed by the state from which they broke away. Therefore, country is clearly being used according to a certain definition. The rest of your argument attacks the straw man because I have never stated, "xxx does not call it a country". We have established countless times that Kosovo is very much a country insofar as it has all the emblems and properties of a state: much like Transnistria which is also in Europe and for which there is no source that says it is "not a country". As for the "minority" of states to not recognise Kosovo which represent well over one half of the world's population, perhaps someone can tell me how they can possibly acknowledge Kosovo's sovereignty and Serbia's claim at the same time. As for "perfectly well sourced", again this throws objects at the straw man because all you have provided is an acknowledgement from a recognising organisation which fails to identify the dispute. It is the disputed status which counters the idea that Kosovo should be placed at top level (thus opposing any "country" mention). It is clear that you and some other editors have gone to the extreme of denying the disputed status by demanding sources to that effect. Well, I am not Anastan and I am not going to provide any material, reliable or not. Instead I am going to make you, and all supporters of the category, a once in a lifetime offer. I will add the category myself to the article, once you have successfully nominated International recognition of Kosovo for deletion based on no sources of the dispute and the world's mixed reaction. Should be an easy task given there are "no sources". So when that is done, I will restore the category. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you please Red Slash source that statement that Serbian doesn't dispute the territory? Where did you come up with that? Please see Serbian Ministry of Interior official website. And stop edit-warring. FkpCascais (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@95.90.184.124: Please bear in mind that WP:CALC does not apply to decisions as to whether an entity is considered to be a sovereign country: it isn't a "first past the post" !vote. The burden of proof lies with those introducing any content to pass WP:V and WP:RS. RS tell us that Kosovo is most certainly not unilaterally recognised. The issue has absolutely nothing to do with any single editor's personal view over whether it's right or just. By the same token, we could also pretend that Crimea is not a de facto republic of the RF. Facts on the ground tell us otherwise. This is an encyclopaedic resource, not a wish list for a perfect world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidently none of the aforementioned opinions support that "Kosovo is not a country"? In order to rule Kosovo out, the editors above invent personal definitions on what a state is? There exist no rules such that "Every country must be recognized by Serbia.", or "No country should exist if some other country claims its territory.", or "A country must be recognized by at least X% of world states, and cases where X<56% are not countries." All those artifices are personal definitions of what a country is, aiming to eclipse the fact that Kosovo fulfills the scholarly and internationally accepted criteria for being defined as a Country, such as sovereignty, institutions, territorial control, armed forces, international recognition, etc ... @Irina: Are you not aware that Kosovo is a sovereign country, or do you have another personal definition of sovereignty conflicting the established criteria of the List of sovereign states, which are:

"The dominant customary international law standard of statehood is the declarative theory of statehood that defines the state as a person of international law if it "possess[es] the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) a capacity to enter into relations with the other states" so long as it was not "obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure". Debate exists on the degree to which recognition should be included as a criterion of statehood. The declarative theory of statehood, an example of which can be found in the Montevideo Convention, argues that statehood is purely objective and recognition of a state by other states is irrelevant. On the other end of the spectrum, the constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person under international law only if it is recognised as sovereign by other states. For the purposes of this list, included are all states that either: (a) consider themselves sovereign (through a declaration of independence or some other means) and are often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood, or (b) are recognised as a sovereign state by at least one UN member state". As you see Kosovo fulfills all the above-mentioned criteria. Since the contrary opinions stated in previous messages do not constitute internationally and scholarly defined criteria, but merely personal definitions, then I see no purpose in further arguing whether "Kosovo is not a country". 95.90.184.26 (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice of you to return after stating you had nothing more to discuss here. Nobody forced you away and your opinions are most welcome. Thank you also for those terms and conditions on statehood, so let's take everything one by one.

• Evidently none of the aforementioned opinions support that "Kosovo is not a country"
  • Correct. Nobody is basing their opposition to the category on the premise of that one remark. Anastan did produce that comment but has since revised his choice of words to argue that Kosovo is a disputed territory and that is what directly counters the "country" argument, rather than a blunt assertion that "Kosovo is not a country".
• In order to rule Kosovo out, the editors above invent personal definitions on what a state is?
  • Supporters of Kosovo's addition to the category have themselves ruled Kosovo out by failing to produce a reason why it should feature on a category to which all other items are not disputed territories while further failing to remark on why other disputed territories should continue to be excluded from their equivalent category. Meanwhile no disagreeing editor has offered "personal definitions" as to what a state is. The reasoning behind the opposition is not in any way based on what constitutes statehood.
• There exist no rules such that "Every country must be recognized by Serbia.", or "No country should exist if some other country claims its territory. ", or "A country must be recognized by at least X% of world states, and cases where X<56% are not countries. All those artifices are personal definitions of what a country is..."
  • Correct, those artifices are indeed personal definitions but nobody claimed any of that.
• ...aiming to eclipse the fact that Kosovo fulfills the scholarly and internationally accepted criteria for being defined as a Country, such as sovereignty, institutions, territorial control, armed forces, international recognition, etc
  • Nobody aims to eclipse anything - so for the record, please pay attention to this statement by me. Kosovo fulfills every one of the scholarly and internationally accepted criteria to qualify as a country and this means sovereignty, institutions, territorial control, armed forces, defined borders, international recognition, a flag, an anthem, a motto, a government, an agreed currency, a passport and many other things. Satisfied now? By the way, Abkhazia, Republic of China, South Ossetia and North Cyprus also have these things, as did Azawad in 2012. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody, I think, disputes that Kosovo is a sovereign state. And I appreciate your statement towards those ends, Oranges Juicy. No one disputes that there are those who do not recognize Kosovo's sovereignty, at least officially. I think the question is to what degree we should be spotlighting either of those two pieces of information. I intend to file an RfC to get a greater audience, since this doesn't seem to be bringing in a whole heck of a lot of people. Thoughts? Red Slash 07:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@OrangesJuicy: Quite the contrary, I enjoy debating with you. To perhaps re-phrase your last claim concisely, you 1) oppose Kosovo's addition to list of countries because its territory is disputed, and 2) You claim other disputed countries which fulfill the statehood criteria should be treated similarly in other respective lists. Regarding 1) Territory dispute is not a criterion for exclusion, and you seem to not be right when claiming "all other items [in the list] are not disputed territories", see Cyprus and Northern Cyprus. Furthermore you agreed that Kosovo fulfills all the statehood criteria. Coming to you next point 2) I fully agree with you, if they meet the criteria, other countries (e.g. Palestine, Taiwan (RoC), etc ...) should naturally be added to relevant lists.

@RedSlash: When asking for other opinions, one should be clear to first formally specify the accepted definition criteria of a country, then to check whether Kosovo fulfills them. I would propose we avoid that editors provide opinions on the territorial dispute of Kosovo (which is known and accepted), but to check whether academic sources state that "countries having a territorial dispute should enjoy a discriminated treatment".

In addition, I would propose to rewrite the first paragraphs on Kosovo: first paragraph provides a description of the country without political words, but its geography, climate, population, etc ..., The status dispute can be mentioned on the second or third paragraphs. Most readers visiting the Wiki want to learn something about Kosovo, they care less what some editors (incl. me) think on the dispute of its territory. So bottom-line: I propose to make the article more practical and less political. 95.90.184.26 (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Red Slash and 95.90.184.26. Briefly to Red Slash, it is not a case of me agreeing with or disagreeing with the sovereignty factor. That became a reality the day Kosovo declared independence. Who am I to argue? In fact if you look at List of sovereign states, you will see that Kosovo does indeed feature and rightly so. All part- or non-recognised entities feature there as well as the likes of Cook Islands and Niue both of which are special cases on a technical level concerning New Zealand and certain bilateral agreements.

To 95.90.184.26, sorry to ask you this but can you clarify what you meant with the remark, "you seem to not be right when claiming "all other items [in the list] are not disputed territories", see Cyprus and Northern Cyprus.", I don't get the point, so my apologies (nothing impertinent I promise you). Just tell me what you meant by what I said, and what you mean about the Cypriot entities. It will be easier to move forward once I get that. Thanks. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your hard drive, Oranges! I am curious why you've so far sought to put "disputed territory" prior to "state" in the lead sentence. Which fact is more important and relevant? Red Slash 23:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping for a reply from 95.90.184.26 by now so I could make sense of what I was being asked and reply adequately but I will have to wait until he or she becomes free (unless it is clear to you what the editor was saying about my point on Cyprus/North Cyrpus). On what you have asked, I cannot personally assign importance to which of two descriptions is the more important. In the case of every single proclaimed state that has not been recognised by the country from which it broke away, they all seem to report "disputed territory" before "state". Either that or "partially recognised" (or what is obviously not the case with Kosovo, "unrecognised"). It is probably because to say something is a country/state and then give all controversial material might look as if to be affording stronger weight to full independent status. You might think that placing disputed territory before "state" is the opposite and playing into the hands of the opponents to the independence, yet when you analyse this, you see it is neutral, and impossible to be more neutral. It is not as if Priština says "we are a country", and Belgrade replies, "no you are a disputed territory". What Belgrade actually replies (since 2013) is, "no, you are a self-governing autonomous province of Serbia", and before 2013 it was merely "rebel-held territory in contravention of UNSCR 1244". It is that disagreement which rules the territory "disputed", and the backing of a significant minority of world states that means this can never be WP:FRINGE. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Oranges, thank you. What we have to say first of all is what Kosovo is, according to reliable sources. It's then important to mention how everyone views Kosovo. I would suggest that a better comparison for Kosovo is Taiwan (although obviously it doesn't enjoy the level of recognition that Kosovo does), whose lead sentence states without apology, "Taiwan (Listeni/ˌtaɪˈwɑːn/ Chinese: 臺灣 or 台灣; pinyin: Táiwān; see below), officially the Republic of China (ROC; Chinese: 中華民國; pinyin: Zhōnghuá Mínguó), is a sovereign state in East Asia." Of course, it mentions the dispute and the battle for diplomatic recognition. But, statement of fact, both Taiwan and Kosovo are sovereign states. Red Slash 01:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I know what you're saying. I think we can lay this one to rest amicably. In all fairness, every proclaimed entity has its own special circumstance and sits in a very much unique position. The easy thing to forget is that we are editors and not international law drafters. When I changed my mind about this article, I thought it best to add the relevant category on three other articles one of which was Taiwan. Little did I realise it was already there, I guess when I first patrolled the limited recognition countries, I was immediately looking for "Countries in" and therefore didn't realise that some are worded differently, such as Category:Western Asian countries to which I added Palestine. Obviously once I discovered (or paid closer attention to) the article for the modern-day province and noted that it was included with Vojvodina on the provinces of Serbia category, it would have been (at that point) inappropriate of me to further resist the category. So there we are. If any other editor opposes it, I will gladly link him to this discussion and to the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article. Surely that should satisfy them. That way you and those who favoured the category shouldn't need to implicate yourselves again in the same debate. My last point concerns China. I'd say that the Chinese instance is different from Serbia/Kosovo, for more information I recommend reading One-China policy to get the full picture. The whole world recognises China but is split on which of two entities it recognises as legally governing the whole of China, most of the world recognises PRC, however ROC is not without merit, especially as it dates back to 1911 and was the original representative of China before the eventual takeover by the PRC. Then there is the question of Taiwan, if that went independent (by ROC choosing to transfer its institutions to make its uncontested region independent of the rest of the land it claims), that would upset the PRC who in turn favour the status quo of mutual agreement over who governs what in China. China's nearest equivalent is Korea, which is actually contested by North and South, the unclear division is an internationally recognised truce along with acceptance from the international community as two countries, both with separate seats in the UN General Assembly since 1991. In recent years Afghanistan was split in recognition between the Emirate and the current state, with three countries recognising the former before most of it was overrun after 2001. Over time there have been others too...but that's moving slowly away. Anyhow, glad you're happy Red Slash. Regards. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have restored sourced material. Its ok to mark this as country, as it is in some way, but in any way it is disputed territory. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Doesn't need special sources upon mention anyhow because it is included at the linked article List of territorial disputes, note that this has been added to the rival entity Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Link to wikivoyage

from the english website the link to wikivoyage at the and brings to an "y" site. The correct site is:

https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Kosovo

thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.195.248 (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sovereign state dispute

Well, I was happy. Someone decided to revert me, again. Listen. Taiwan has been called as a country (or sovereign state) in its lead sentence since forever ago. If FkpCascais and User:Anastan think Kosovo should not be listed as a country despite the fact that Taiwan enjoys far less recognition and yet is first called a country... we're going to have to sort things out here. Red Slash 18:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Red, its ok to mention that Kosovo is governed by country Republic of Kosovo, but it must be said that its disputed territory first. Taiwan is self standing, governing entire territory, while Republic of Kosovo does not govern entire territory. Its not the same. But we should and must say that country of Kosovo wants to govern entire territory, similar as the thing you already said. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 12:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo is controlled entirely by the internal assembly unlike before 2013. That in itself would not qualify as a reason to deny something being a "country". For example, Pakistan is a country despite having no control over its border areas with Afghanistan. Due to the circumstances of a significant minority not recognising Kosovo, "partially recognised sovereign state" best desribes the situation. Obviously there is no argument that can oppose the inclusion of disputed territories since Kosovo is on the list, and all other listings are treated in that manner. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not sure what world you live in where the Republic of Kosovo does not control the entirety of Kosovo. There's a reason the requested move didn't come forth until after the Brussels agreement. Red Slash 21:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Taiwan is a completely different kettle of fish from Kosovo. The confusion lies in the fact that Republic of China redirects to Taiwan despite the republic controlling more territory than Taiwan itself. For simplicity, we can refer to this as ROC as opposed to PRC (People's Republic of China). Collectively the ROC and PRC compose "China". China in turn is recognised by all countries, but the split is based on whether they recognise ROC or PRC, but whichever is recognised will be deemed by the recognising state to govern the whole of "China" (though probably in ROC's case, not including the areas which PRC released such as Mongolia, east Bhutan and other places - ROC would likely be recognised per PRC's recognised borders). Moving on, Taiwanese independence is a separate subject, just as ROC could not prevent the independence of Mongolia once it was confined to Taiwan, PRC does not have any control over Taiwan (where ROC is based) therefore it cannot prevent an independence movement in that entity, or the transformation by the ROC to an independent Taiwan. But what needs to be realised is that since ROC redirects to Taiwain, Taiwan is treated as the Republic of China which came to fruition in 1912 and was the original entity to occupy a seat in the UN. So there really is no comparison. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you; they have not at all had identical situations. Thanks for the information! I still see that no one disputes the actual, real-world control of Taiwan (land) by Taiwan (ROC, aka the government). Likewise, no one out in the world disputes that the Rep of Kosovo controls actually does control Kosovo the land. I think the ROC is foolish to only accept official diplomatic relations from countries that recognize the absurd "reality" that ROC controls all of China, but that's their choice, not mine. We're just editors, as you say. Anyway, unless I do not have your cooperation, I'll continue to first put that Kosovo is a country or state, which is the primary meaning of the word "Kosovo" Red Slash 21:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Red, you are pushing it now too much. You are not allowed to say "If you dont do this, i will do that". That is the best way to get blocked on this page. So stop with that now. Primary meaning of the word Kosovo is NOT only a country, so i propose to add that after or before one another... That is the way to build a stable version. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Primary meaning of Kosovo is territory in Europe that is roughly by half of world recognized as separate country, and by second half as part of Serbia that is rebelled against it. So you cant start article ignoring other points of view. That is called POV on wiki. --Јованвб (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. We had this discussion once, I suppose we'll have it again. Red Slash 06:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Late comment per request for close at Admins' Notceboard

Since the RfC developed into a heated discussion, an event for which I must share blame, I am inserting this comment into a new heading but this pertains to the above discussion. The RfC has been requested for closure so I will make the following remark. As is clear, I am not keen on a "sovereign state" mention. Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept the combination of all three suggestions. For semantic reasons sovereign state needs to follow partially recognised, but I have no preference for where disputed territory comes in - whether it be before: disputed territory and partially recognised sovereign state, or added after such as in partially recognised sovereign state. It is a disputed territory.... I'll leave the order to other editors so long as it is all there, and I am not being taken for an idiot with anyone thinking partially recognised and disputed territory should be concealed on the 19th paragraph or something similar. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if you do change your !vote to accept "sovereign state" it still doesn't appear we have a consensus to add that. By my count that would put us just into (very) slim majority territory (and, even then, that supposes the weight of opinions of SPAs and IP editors in a contentious topic area are given equal billing), but far from consensus. As far as I can tell, and I will defer to an uninvolved editor, the RfC has failed and the verbiage "Kosovo is a disputed territory and partially recognised state in Southeastern Europe" is now affirmed for this article in the absence of a significant change in the status quo and new RfC. LavaBaron (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There IS consensus. Except for you. Everybody has agreed that Kosovo is a sovereign country and should say so without pussyfooting or making willy-nilly changes to the first line. Kosovo being partially recognized is getting less and less all the time as more countries recognize the republic. Let's say for the time being, Kosovo is recognized by the overall majority. More countries recognize Kosovo than Taiwan and yet Taiwan is a sovereign state. I'd say because of the very few countries to dispute the territory and "partially recognize" Kosovo, those points should be made at earliest in the second paragraph and that is what the consensus is. Sovereign state first. Newquartermaster (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Newquartermaster - Ten editors have opined, 5 are opposed to the change. That is not a consensus, it is not even a majority. We're just waiting for an admin to close the RfC as no-consensus. This is just a bookkeeping operation now. LavaBaron (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron, despite your contradiction, there is a consensus by the majority of editors involved in this RfC that Kosovo fulfills the criteria of sovereignty.

• I agree with Oranges Juicy to 'neutrally' close the RfC following a consensus that i) Kosovo is a sovereign state, added with ii) factual remarks on its partial recognition and iii) a known territorial dispute by Serbia. We should respect all aspects of the truth, however we must elegantly phrase the first paragraph to have a neutral tone. Therefore I vote for "Kosovo is a sovereign state with partial international recognition located in the Balkan Peninsula." The territorial dispute is already specified clearly in the second sentence of the current leading paragraph, which details the position of Serbia. The third sentence is a redundant POV synthesis of the second sentence and must to be removed entirely. Optionally, I would also suggest adding something non-political as a second sentence, for instance geography, population, capital, etc ... 95.90.184.175 (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously waiting to close the RfC "following a consensus that i) Kosovo is a sovereign state" is not a neutral close. LavaBaron (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron. I didn't actually change my vote because it was originally all three. I admit that yes I am totally convinced by the arguments you put forward opposing sovereignty. In order for consensus to work, sometimes we have to give even though we believe things to be wrong. Whatever happens, "partially recognised" is a adjective to qualify "state", "country", or "sovereign state" and needs to be in the active, not passive (in other words in should precede the "state" mention). That is my personal opinion and that is what I stick to. Insert "disputed territory" on whichever side of the aforementioned chunk you feel it suits best, but make sure of course the two phrases are side by side. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

PS. In fact, looking at the article, I don't see any changes required. It says "state" but rolling the mouse over the word you see it pipes to "sovereign state". --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Restore consensus version. Newquartermaster is a "new" editor who is familiar with all Wikipedia guidelines, so i am sure that he already know that he can be banned for pov pushing edits. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anastan, why do you edit war over a reached consensus that "Kosovo is a sovereign state"`(read the RfC comments and votes). You (as part of the minor objecting side) have no right to keep pushing stances against the majority of editors. The numbers were clear, 7 editors (majority) indicated that Kosovo is a sovereign state. Please do all us a favor, save our time by respecting the consensus (even if you do not like it) and stop the edit war. 147.172.223.99 (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous IP Editor - First, it's 5-vs-5, which is not a majority. Second, a majority is not a consensus - see: WP:WHATISCONSENSUS. Third, an edit war requires more than a single revert; Anastan has not edit warred. LavaBaron (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I am one of the editors that agreed to "sovereign state" in principle, so I feel it only fair to explain the terms on which I agree to the usage. The first is that it is not presented in such as a way as to '"trump" the disputed or partially recognised status (e.g. is a sovereign state which is partially recognised etc.), it is the sovereignty itself which is the subject of dispute and the reason for why it is a partially recognised state. Not all partially recognised states are such because their entire territory is disputed. Additionally, my agreement that Kosovo is "sovereign" (putting aside the technicalities I discussed which I am not well versed in) is on the same principle that we would call Somaliland and the Lugansk People's Republic sovereign. All the arguments put forward by editors on this discussion - in favour of sovereignty - have based their arguments on the permanent population, the ability to deal with other sovereign states and the general properties of a state. These are not dependent upon recognition since not being recognised would not stand in the way of a de facto state's ability if it has control over all or part of its proclaimed territory. Obviously if one tries to combine the concept of control of land with number of recognitions then evidently that person is juggling with principles as a way of keeping X, Y and Z out. I haven't encountered that yet though. And finally, I wish to state that based on the disputed status and significant minority (actually representing over half the world's population) that keep Kosovo partially recognised, it is only as "sovereign" as it is an autonomous province. When I edited the article here, my aim was evidently to remove ideas of this entity being of greater importance than the proclaimed republic. In order that NPOV be delivered, rival entities need to be treated equally, such as Republic of China and People's Republic of China; Republic of Korea and People's Democratic Republic of Korea; or Abkhazia an Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (regardless of where these pages all redirect). So yes I approve of sovereignty but subject to the points as related by the other editors. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The nearest thing we have to consensus is:

• DT & PR SS

or

• PR SS & DT

Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• @OJ, while we achieved a consensus that Kosovo is sovereign, we did not achieve a consensus that the lede sentence should include DT and PR. Most editors opting for SS, either choose the SS option alone for the lede sentence, or clearly indicated that PR and DT should be added in the forthcoming paragraphs, not in the lede sentences. Since your opinion was against the majority of editors with respect to i) sovereignty as the primary aspect of the lede sentence and ii) the location of PR and DT in the article, I fear it is abnormal for you to dress as a RfC winner and dictate terms. In my opinion, the consensus is best achieved by the following formulation:

"Kosovo is a sovereign state located in the middle of the Balkan Peninsula in Southeastern Europe. The Republic of Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia in February 2008, even though the Republic of Serbia refuses to recognize Kosovo and disputes its sovereignty. To date, the Republic of Kosovo is recognized by 108 out of 193 (56%) United Nations member states."

The formulation above states all the SS, PR and DT aspects and is neutral wrt the facts. Further over-emphasis of Serbia's dispute that attempts to shadow the sovereignty characteristic agreed by the RfC should normally be seen as a negative attempt to push POV.95.90.184.80 (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous IP Editor - a "majority" does not equal a "consensus." At the present time there isn't even a majority, there is a 50/50 split as to whether we should change the status quo from "disputed territory and partially recognized state" to "sovereign state." To change the status quo, there needs to be a consensus. There is not a consensus if 10 editors have opined, and 5 are opposed. This is doubly true since 5 of the pro crowd are IP editors and new SPAs. LavaBaron (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on what divine power do you think that your opinion is more valuable than mine? Because you assign a username to your opinions and I assign them an IP? Personally, I will comment anonymously as long as Wiki provides me the right to do so! Regarding the matter, what you call the "status quo" is not "a historically accepted" status quo definition, or some other standard term coined for a long period. It is merely the version that Anastan, you etc... imposed based on your beliefs, supporting mostly Serbia's position on the debate. Therefore, the current form is simply the opinion of a minority of editors, achieved through aggressive edit warring. In this RfC, the consensus for Kosovo to be qualified as sovereign was evident, even though a respectable minority of editors opposed it (including you). I would recommend you respect the decision of the majority of the editors of this RfC and drop the stick on this matter. 95.90.184.80 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

" "Kosovo is a sovereign state located in the middle of the Balkan Peninsula in Southeastern Europe. The Republic of Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia in February 2008, even though the Republic of Serbia refuses to recognize Kosovo and disputes its sovereignty. To date, the Republic of Kosovo is recognized by 108 out of 193 (56%) United Nations member states." "

Utter nonsense that there is consensus for this cranky presentation. As for most editors choosing SS along or with additional details in forthcoming paragraphs, I think you need to recount. Either way, I specifically stated that "sovereign state" should not trump the inescapable facts, at that rate it would be hardly worth mentioning those things. There are enough votes that would prefer to avoid SS at all costs, and it is totally unfair to transform my suggestion to suit the SS-first-and-isolated voters. I've never put words into anybody's mouth and I accept you you, Newquartermaster, Gjirokastra (assuming good faith in that you are three different people) and others wish for SS over and above all else.

But tell me one thing, if the proposed paragraph at the start of this post is neutral, could you draft a text for how might a lede paragraph look if it were to include SS, PR and DT and be biased towards the pro-Kosovar Albanian position. I'd love to see this one. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I am categorically not Newquartermaster and Gjirokastra, please stop allegations on sock-puppets and accept the consensus of the majority of editors. As I said, being part of the minority side of the RfC you cannot dicate terms and should respect the majority. I am afraid this is going to far. Regarding your curiosity, I do not know exactly what a pro-Kosovar position would look like, but perhaps include something like "The Republic of Kosovo declared independence in February 2008, almost a decade after the Kosovo War which was ignited by the brutal violation of human rights from the Milosevic regime, resulting in the death of 13000 Albanian civilians and the ethnic cleansing displacement of 1.3 million Albanian Kosovars (90% of population) from their homes." This statement is similarly POV to the actual formulation, but way less neutral than the one I suggested. I insist that in my opinion the suggestion below is factual and neutral: " "Kosovo is a sovereign state located in the middle of the Balkan Peninsula in Southeastern Europe. The Republic of Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia in February 2008, even though the Republic of Serbia refuses to recognize Kosovo and disputes its sovereignty. To date, the Republic of Kosovo is recognized by 108 out of 193 (56%) United Nations member states." " 95.90.184.80 (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey hold your horses 95.90.184.80, this is still a civilised discussion you know. I have never made allegations of any sort. Obviously yours is one of several IP addresses on this discussion and for this you need to be reasonable with your interlocutors because none of us knows whether we are always talking to the same person, is it someone logged out or is it even the same person as another of the IPs. This means we don't even know whether you have read our previous comments. For the record, I accept that "you" are not one of the editors to have logged in, so let's not broach this subject again. I merely stated with regards to the votes, that I accept good faith in that all three of you are different people. Nothing dubious about that.

I will happily discuss content with you, but will engage in no further discussion as to whether yours is a "majority" and your opposition is a "minority", you have either miscounted, or have misinterpreted the suggestions related by some of the editors. Remember I too am willing to accept SS with its counterparts so my comments should not be taken out of proportion. But note how the layout of the RfC was devised such that SS gets two cracks of the whip. One option has it on its own and the other with PR. Naturally PR being an adjective needs a noun to qualify, so this can only be something to the effect of SS, "state" by itself, or "country", all of them surmise proclaimed independence without the need to mention it. So it is wrong to combine the number of SS votes to claim that it needs to stand alone, because it real terms, PR+SS is actually in contrast to SS per se, they do not complement one another.

Finally thank you for the attempt to produce a pro-Kosovo Albanian version of the lede. You only needed to present Kosovo along with its SS, PR and DT status in a way that both differs from your ostensibly neutral proposal and is pro-Kosovar Albanian. By introducing the political connotations, one can counter this with the Yugoslav perspective of the rebels having declared independence in 1991, and were waging war with state authorities with the backing of western powers who supplied them with arms while their own funds came courtesy of drug money and criminal activity, and that the independence was declared years after a time the Albanians knew they had nothing to fear whilst existing within the UNMIK framework to which FR Yugoslavia was party. Two sides to every story, yet nobody implies adding this anti-Albanian selection. But our concern is purely how we reflect parity with the options we have - not "what else should we add" - and there is no consensus/majority for SS to stand alone. There is prominent opposition to it however. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We are all familiar with the Serbian motto "West is evil, Albanians are sub-human Muslim criminals that deserve to live under occupation". Nevertheless, let us leave politics aside. Which of the aspects of SS, PR and DT do you not see in the following formulation: "Kosovo is a sovereign state located in the middle of the Balkan Peninsula in Southeastern Europe. The Republic of Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia in February 2008, even though the Republic of Serbia refuses to recognize Kosovo and disputes its sovereignty. To date, the Republic of Kosovo is recognized by 108 out of 193 (56%) United Nations member states." " 95.90.184.80 (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I see them all. Now then, which of the aspects of SS, PR and DT do you not see in the following formulation: "Kosovo is a disputed territory in the middle of the Balkan Peninsula in Southeastern Europe. Its status as a Serbian province is disputed by the self-proclaimed Republic of Kosovo which declared independence in February 2008 and is unrecognised by 44% of the United Nations member states accounting for over one half of the world's population". --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Or should we just cut the verbiage and open with "Kosovo is a disputed territory and partially recognised sovereign state". --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• In your proposal, I do not see the sovereignty trait emphasized by the majority of editors involved in this RfC as the driving characteristics of the lede sentence. Therefore, this article should not serve as a battleground for Serbian nationalism. Furthermore, the factual representation on recognition is the number of states which recognize an entity, not a synthesis on the remaining ones. See the articles on partially recognized countries. This formulation you propose is POV on all accounts and I think we do should not loose time with it. You cannot write on USA's article "USA is the country which Iran thinks is evil", or on Israel's article "Israel is the country which Pakistan does not recognize.", because the subjects of the articles are USA and Israel. For this reason, one reflects mostly the stance of the subject state, not what other states think about it. Similarly, here the subject is Kosovo and their sovereign state representing the will of most people of Kosovo, thus is not about Serbia, Russia, and/or other passionate editors. Since consensus was evident on the fact that Kosovo is sovereign, I see no reason why you keep trying to manipulate the outcome of the RfC. 95.90.184.80 (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Addressing each point. That frivolous version I presented was an asymmetrical presentation to your proposal which I believed worked in showing you how others would look at yours. Suffice it to say that what you suggest is not neutral in that you seek to promote sovereignty over associated statistics as though they are irrelevant, unfortunately the status of limited recognition and dispute of land are just too important to push away from the opening line. I do not agree that Kosovo is a disputed territory or partially recognised state, those statistics are there regardless of my opinion. By the same token, we do not have a task to build a consensus on the question of Kosovo being sovereign as stated in your last sentence, it either is or is not. Since I am not that well versed in the topic I have conceded that it should be included along with the other two inescapable facts.

• My question to you was (pasted): which of the aspects of SS, PR and DT do you not see in the following formulation: "Kosovo is a disputed territory in the middle of the Balkan Peninsula in Southeastern Europe. Its status as a Serbian province is disputed by the self-proclaimed Republic of Kosovo which declared independence in February 2008 and is unrecognised by 44% of the United Nations member states accounting for over one half of the world's population".
• You replied (pasted): I do not see the sovereignty trait emphasized by the majority of editors involved in this RfC as the driving characteristics of the lede sentence.
• My reply to you here is that six of you want it as the "driving characteristic" and six are split in that they either wish that it stand with its irrefutable statistics, or that "sovereignty" be dropped, either way all six believe in DT on the first line. Your version discards this. Thus there is no majority seeking all-out "sovereign full stop".
• You additionally commented, Therefore, this article should not serve as a battleground for Serbian nationalism., as well as This formulation you propose is POV on all accounts. Maybe I am slow here but I fail to make the connection between the proposal by one half of the editors (DT & PR SS) and the opposite-to-your suggestion which I did not seriously imply. I mean if you are that certain that PR and DT are POV rather than factual, it may be a good idea to propose Kosovo's removal from List of states with limited recognition and List of territorial disputes. If I had your confidence that is exactly what I would do, I mean it can hardly be factual on one article but POV on another.
• You stated, the factual representation on recognition is the number of states which recognize an entity, not a synthesis on the remaining ones.. This is in response to my proposal that mirrored yours. Well you are absolutely correct here and that is why I do not seriously forward that proposal. Though it should be said per WP:FRINGE that where a significant minority (here 80 states) view a scenario in contrast to the slim majority, the details should be presented fairly and proportionately and not worded as if to present the "first past the post" viewpoint as factual. Furthermore, the figure at 44% being UN members and representing more than one half of the world's population is not WP:SYNTHESIS because there is no original research and the two statements are side by side and not falsely linked.
• You stated, See the articles on partially recognized countries. That again? There are 16 entries in that list, that is Kosovo plus 15. There is no single approach to ledes here, as each is presented according to its sourced material. Perhaps you need to consider this rather than selecting "three of the most convenient" and pretending Kosovo is a member of this imaginary club.

So in your own words, I see no reason why you keep trying to manipulate the outcome of the RfC. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• OrangesJuices your stance was repeated previously and the recent post brings no novelty with respect to your multiple prior postings. What you persistently forget is the simple fact that most other editors did not agree to you, and your opinion is a minority. Therefore, I see no reason why you keep behaving as if you are a representative of the major side of the RfC. I would personally wait for an admin to take a position into the topic, since we cannot keep debating forever with a minority of editors who refuse to drop the stick. (P.s.: Such a behavior reminds me of kids playing football, when they refuse to accept the final whistle if they are losing the game.) 95.90.184.132 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Speak for yourself on matters of "losing the game". I never looked at it like that. No I am not a spokesperson for the major side of RfC but these past 24 hours I have only found myself discussing the topic with one other editor and you know who that is. I however maintain my right to comment on any content posted as may you. You continuously prate about representing the majority view and editors not agreeing with me, well I am prepared to challenge you here. First of all, from what I have seen where debate has flared, the final decision may not necessarily sit with the majority but where the admin - rightly or wrongly - believes the stronger arguments to be. The question was which should we use from SS, PR, and DT. Now for anybody choosing one or two, what is clear is that he is rejecting a minimum of one option. As such, on each occasion the onus is on that editor to explain exactly why he disagrees with that statistic. Of all the editors to vote SS-only, nobody has offered a single argument as to what is wrong with the other two. Meanwhile, one editor has ran away with himself and made the presumption that all of a sudden, a majority believes that SS is more important than its counterparts. It appears, "SS is good because a majority want it". This is not the same as, "DT and PR are not so good because of this reason" or "DT and PR should appear later for that reason". I can't help but think you are confusing this discussion with a forum somewhere because out of 12 editors (realising the 147. and 95. IPs geolocating to Germany are the same person), six have chosen to SS-over-all formulation: you, Red Slash, Gjirokaster, Khestwol, Newquatermaster, bobrayner. Who is the 7th? --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The math is provided below and clearly SS is the most voted option. It does not mean PR and/or DT are(not) valid; it simply means the editors involved in the RfC did not find them enough informative to be located in the lede sentence.(Analogy: Not every true sentence should be in the lede sentence/paragraph, e.g. "Kosovo produces sausages" is also true, but not enough informative.) Nevertheless, a large minority of editors indicated that DT and/or PR could be located in the later sections of the article, however not in the lede sentence. Finally, we should conclude the result of this RfC and we avoid further misreadings. My 'generous' suggestion is to allow DT and PR be present in the first paragraph, after the lede sentence containing the most voted option (SS alone). 147.172.223.99 (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• @OrangesJuicy, in my counting the results of the RfC are as follows:
  • Lede-A: SS : 6 votes, RedSlash, Khestwol, IP, NewquarterMaster, Gjirokastra15, bobrayner
  • Lede-B: DT+PR : 4 votes, LavaBaron, Zoupan, Anastan, Јованвб
  • Lede-C: SS+DT+PR : 3 votes, OrangesJuicy, IJA, EdinBalgarin

The most voted option is Lede-A, the next is Lede-B and the least recommended is Lede-C. Since the voting and the RfC is over, I invite one of the editors voting for Lede-A who has the best English skills to freely update the lede as the most voted option of the RfC. 147.172.223.99 (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)147.172.223.99 (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not the way consensus works. Seven disagree with Lede-A whilst all agreeing that DT+PR are necessary on first line. The way to consensus for you is to persuade the four editors from the middle list to accept SS and that way the voting will be 7-6. But then if they refuse, you cannot exactly say, "well Lede-A wins by default" since from an ideological perspective, the three Lede-C voters are actually down the middle favouring a balance. Like such:

• SS alone (6) ; combination (3) ; no SS (4).

Four oppose altogether but say DT and PR, and three agree with the four on those things. The trouble with your suggestion is that a plurality is being manipulated to deny a majority agreement based on the majority split on whether the thing you want (SS) is relevant, besides we cannot suddenly make DT and PR less important than they are. So:

• SS = 9/13
• PR = 7 / 13
• DT = 7 / 13
• No PR = 6 / 13
• No DT = 6 / 13
• No SS = 4 / 13

The vote is to feature all three listings. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, I see no other option either than respecting the outcome of the RfC, which indicated "Sovereign state" as the most voted option! Unfortunately, there is less sense in answering infinitely to your denialism and artificial synthesis of numbers, derived from merging concrete votes of different categories of opinions into synthetic super-categories. Under this level of denialism, I therefore demand an admin to verify the voting counts and point to the most voted result as the lede sentence.95.90.184.126 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Let me see if I have done my sums wrong here.

9 said "sovereign state". SS should therefore feature.

7 said "partially recognised". PR should therefore feature.

7 said "disputed territory". DT should therefore feature.

6 said "no disputed territory" and "no partially recognised". No majority.

Obviously the split among the 7 over whether to include SS cannot be deemed a licence for the removal of the options of DT/PR on which they as a majority agree.

Sorry, I see no other option either than respecting the outcome of the RfC, which indicated "partially recognised", "disputed territory" and "sovereign state" as the most voted options! Unfortunately, there is less sense in answering infinitely to your denialism and artificial synthesis of numbers, derived from discarding concrete votes of related categories of opinions into synthetic super-category. Under this level of denialism, I therefore demand an admin to verify the voting counts and point to the most voted results as the lede sentence. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry again, your synthesis is artificial and does not reflect the true voting results. The true votes are:
  • Lede-A: SS : 6 votes, RedSlash, Khestwol, IP, NewquarterMaster, Gjirokastra15, bobrayner
  • Lede-B: DT+PR : 4 votes, LavaBaron, Zoupan, Anastan, Јованвб
  • Lede-C: SS+DT+PR : 3 votes, OrangesJuicy, IJA, EdinBalgarin

Lede-B and Lede-C was voted on block, not on PR separately and DT separately. For instance, editors of Lede-B did not vote for PR alone without DT, therefore you cannot decompose those elements. The options are bound to concrete combinations under the scope of the RfC question, not to artificial synthesis over how votes might be interpreted. The only real and factual voting results are ones above. Consequently, the most voted real and factual option is Lede-A "Kosovo is a sovereign country". I sincerely wish you stop misreading the voting results. Let us wait for what an admin has to offer. 95.90.184.126 (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh that's all right, apology accepted again. You are wasted here you know, a person of your talents and aptitude for spin doctoring could easily oust Mario Draghi as President of the ECB. All right, let's look at what you are saying more closely.

• Q. Should the opening line state that Kosovo is a "sovereign state"?
• A. 9 say Yes, 4 say No.
• Result: Kosovo is a sovereign state.

• Q. Should it be stated in the opening line that Kosovo is a "partially recognised" sovereign state?
• A. 7 say Yes, 6 say No.
• Result: Kosovo is a partially recognised sovereign state.

• Q. Should the opening line add that Kosovo is a "disputed territory"?
• A. 7 say Yes, 6 Say No.
• Result: Kosovo is a disputed territory and partially-recognised sovereign state (or vice-versa)

So on what basis you seek to remove the points proposed by seven of the 13 participants is unclear. By your own admission you have said that PR and DT have their place in the article but you imply that this should be brushed away from the first line to project Kosovo like a state with full recognition and situated on a land that is not disputed. Nobody outside the nexus of Lede 1 has agreed that the issue can be resolved if the details presented by seven be relocated to paragraph 12. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The alleged "bloc" is irrelevant. For what it is worth, one could have suggested PR+DT in combined form since they go virtually hand in hand anyway and the score would still be 7-6. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

How do you know I am not Mario Draghi? Nevertheless, again your reasoning arises from imaginary questions and imaginary answers, not over what editors really voted. Editors were asked in a concrete RfC to choose a concrete combination of SS, DT, and PR for the lede sentence. The most voted option was SS, the second PR+DT and third SS+DT+PR. Now, to illustrate your reasoning, imagine asking people what they like to eat "1) Ice cream, 2) Banana, 3) Chocolate" and 6 say 1), 4 say 1)+2) and 3 say 1)+2)+3). Following your line of thought the most voted combination of food are all items together 1+2+3, even though 10/13 people did not choose to eat all the three at once. Needless to further elaborate why your counting is the wrong way to interpret multiple-choice voting. The most voted option here is Ice cream. Coming back to our case, with 6 votes the most voted lede is 'Kosovo is a sovereign state'.

Who among the editors opting for SS, asked that PR and DT be positioned in the 17-th paragraph? Or, is it a deduction using the same reasoning for interpreting the RfC votes? For me a second sentence indicating the dispute and a third one clarifying the international recognition is a neutral compromise. 95.90.184.126 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

First, if indeed you are the illustrious Mr Draghi then your intelligence in public has been kept well hidden :) !! Anyhow if I may return to the main subject. Dear IP, this isn't a polling station and we are not voting in a new cabinet for the national assembly. An RfC is precisely that, and not a referendum that is initiated to achieve some final status. The RfC was launched by one of the editors party to the debate and from what I have seen on subjects for discussion across the site where unanimity cannot be achieved, there is never a count to declare A the winner over B and C. Furthermore, the venture at most aims to determine what is the most popular line of thought, and no rules are in place to award automatic victory to self-diagnosed "winners". For example, I would be reticent to deny seven people banana (per your food synopsis) because a sweet six out of 13 chose not to have it. That type of result would only prove that more options need to be introduced and explored and further discussion needs to take place.

RfCs are discussions where opinion may be exchanged. They are not emergency plebiscites where all-out consensus is rendered a lost cause. Back to our main scenario. Six went for sovereign state, fine. Of the remaining seven, four chose partially recognised and disputed territory alone, and three more chose all three. Now just supposing all seven had suggested "disputed territory and partially recognised sovereign state". Here there would be no mathematical stunts supporters of Lede #1 would be able to attempt. However, an internal schism reveals that four disagree with "sovereignty" while the other three support it. But note that the seven are not bickering over whether "partially recognised" and "disputed territory" are essential. To this end, it is irrational to deal with this microscopic discrepancy by formally eliminating the statements with which those seven agree and keeping only the single statement they unanimously oppose. This isn't an ICJ ruling. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I read the wording of the RfC (a day before voting if being honest) and the author didn't ask for which of one over all others, there was no limit on choice and we were given the chance to select order in cases of more than one. I'll remind all editors that we are here to build an encyclopedia and mainspace editing allows us freedom to use space. I stand by my vote to feature the three options, and acknowledge that enough people choose to include #2 and #3 that these descriptions should take the first line. Note this doesn't mean "sovereign state which is partly recognized", but specifically "partly recognized sovereign state". I think there is enough argument/voting to strongly oppose "is a sovereign state" and this on reflection would not reflect neutrality in light of the number of states not to recognize Republic of Kosovo. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Edin, full recognition is not a criterion for sovereignty and that point was clarified in full length previously. Shortly: Sovereignty depends on a series of criteria and some degree of international recognition is one criterion. The scholar criteria specify that recognition for a sovereign state should be from at least one UN state, not from all UN states. Therefore, full recognition and sovereignty have no relation to each other. Again, the most voted option was Sovereign State with 6 votes, while the inclusion of all three options at once had only 3 votes. Clearly sovereignty was the most outspoken trait that the RfC editors indicated. A neutral compromise would be to have sovereignty as the first sentence, while the territorial dispute and partial recognition mentioned in the second and third sentence of the first paragraph.95.90.184.126 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you about sovereignty definition. But saying "sovereignty on first sentence, the rest on second" may just as well place #2 and #3 at the bottom of the article because it aspires to project sovereignty as focal as if to deny the feats related to the sovereignty and this is not what half of the voters selected. I fully understand you want to see "sovereign state" on the first line and so do I straight after "partly recognized", so no one is threatening that status. But the implication that this and "disputed territory" go on second line does not compenstate for what I don't even see to be a problem, which is how some opponents of #1 say 'sovereign' and some say 'not sovereign'. In real terms this should lead to a second round of discussion between the three of us to favour sovereign against the four to disagree with sovereign. I'm all in favour of that discussion and will happily participate. But for now, there is no disagreement from one half of the editors that "partly recognized" and "disputed territory" take the first line. Edin Balgarin (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Make that just over a half. The two IP ranges are for the same editor, so the total number to oppose PR and DT is 6/13. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph as been devoted now to the partially recognized and disputed territory. I see no cuase for complaint by any of the anti-Kosovo editors to oppose wording sovereign. @Edin Balgarin, there is nothning to discuss among the losing fraction, but atleast as per your vote too, Kosovo is sovereign state on first sentence. I ask now that an admin draw a line under this hot debate. Newquartermaster (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Newquartermaster, most editors indicated sovereignty as the primary trait of the Republic of Kosovo, therefore it deserves to be placed as lede sentence. The other two aspects are definitely important and should be placed in the first paragraph, arguably in the second and third sentences. Other formulations that try to equalize the sovereignty aspect with the territorial dispute are a misinterpretation of the voting results of this RfC, which indicated sovereignty as the most voted option. 9/13 editors agreed on sovereignty (6/13 being bold that they wanted only sovereignty), while only 7/13 wanted the territorial dispute be present in the first line. Clearly there sovereignty is the most voted option, therefore I see no alternative that doesn't start with "Kosovo is a sovereign state". Nevertheless, in order to reach a unanimous agreement I recommend that the territorial dispute be mentioned in the second sentence, in order to respect the editors voting for it. The partial recognition can be placed third, as a factual statement on the number of states recognizing the republic. 95.90.184.173 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you should read your last passage back to yourself.

• (6/13 being bold that they wanted only sovereignty), while only 7/13 wanted the territorial dispute be present in the first line.
  

So what do you suggest?

• 1. "I see no alternative that doesn't start with "Kosovo is a sovereign state"."
• 2. "in order to reach a unanimous agreement I recommend that the territorial dispute be mentioned in the second sentence"
• 3. "The partial recognition can be placed third, as a factual statement on the number of states recognizing the republic"

Very neutral!

As regards the remark, "9/13 editors agreed on sovereignty". They did indeed, six of them wanted it on its own, seven were specific that this should pertain to being "partially recognised". You are cooking the books here. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Since votes clearly indicate that vast majority (9/13) of editors would like sovereignty being mentioned in the lede (6 of whom wants it singularly alone, again the most voted combination with the second being partially recognized+disputed territory), there is less left to discuss. In addition, why did you and Anastan rollback the sovereignty aspect that Newquartermaster entered? What more do you need than a majority of RfC editors, especially knowing that editors clearly spoke on favor of sovereignty? Consensus means majority (hence sovereignty), it does not mean "what Oranges Juicy and Anastan like". The situation is extremely funny when considering that the current leading paragraph is totally POV stance written without any consensus. Therefore, you like it or not, most editors selected sovereignty as the main trait of the lede and your infinite comments will not make a difference to the votes (apart from wasting everyone's time). The current first paragraph is beyond POV, its first sentence indicates the territory is disputed and partially recognized (Serbia's POV) and a second sentence detailing how Serbia thinks Kosovo is its province (Serbia's POV). To understand the POV, it is sufficient to look how a segment of the pro-Serbian editors defend the current formulation, by calling it "the status-quo" (ironically they wrote the "status-quo" unilaterally themselves). As this makes no further sense to debate, we need an arbitrage to handle the dispute. I believe principles of NPOV demand the leading paragraph be rewritten from scratch, following the agreements of the RfC and the discussions in this talk page. As proposed before: sentence 1 - mention kosovo as a sovereign state, sentence 2 - mention the territorial dispute, sentence 3 - mention the partial recognition. In this way, all the opinions are covered and the minority of editors opposing sovereignty are respected. 95.90.184.96 (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the needle on your record is stuck Mr IP. First of all, if I were you I'd have a read of WP:NPOV because it is clear from your comments you are not versed in this policy. Furthermore, your comments make no sense. See for yourself:

• IP: "The current first paragraph is beyond POV, its first sentence indicates the territory is disputed and partially recognized (Serbia's POV)"
• Response: So what then is the Kosovo-Albanian POV? That Kosovo is not a disputed territory, and that Kosovo is fully recognised! The Serbian POV is that the region is legally its own province, not that it is disputed. The very fact that two nations disagree over the legal status of a region, e.g. Somaliland (self-proclaimed state and Somalia), that region becomes the subject of a territorial dispute. That is not one belligerent speaking, that is the voice of a third party. Imagine Georgia saying "Abkhazia is legally ours" while Russia argues, "no, we say Abkhazia is a disputed territory". That would defy logic! If Russia says it is disputed, that's because they are the ones disputing it, claiming it is something else (independent). By the same principle, "partially recognised" applies because such a label would be provided by the third party narrator, in this case WP:WIKIVOICE. As such these cannot be POV factors.
  • Furthermore, you have agreed to allow these listings from the second line onwards. If these are violations of NPOV then they do not deserve to be on the article in any place. Since they are not NPOV violations plus you have admitted them, your original statement is 'boomerang'.

• IP: and a second sentence detailing how Serbia thinks Kosovo is its province (Serbia's POV).
• Response: It is only in violation of NPOV if it is worded as factual, "Kosovo is Serbia's province". In fact with disputes, how one entity views the contested subject is exactly how it needs to be presented. We are only saying, "Serbia believes this" so there is no issue there. Furthermore, if that were absent then vital information would be omitted from the lede and readers would not know the nature of the dispute.

• IP: To understand the POV, it is sufficient to look how a segment of the pro-Serbian editors defend the current formulation, by calling it "the status-quo" (ironically they wrote the "status-quo" unilaterally themselves).
• Response: The status quo is precisely that Kosovo is respectively though by no means wholly recognised (i.e. partially recognised), and that the land is subject to the dispute between Kosovo Assembly and Belgrade government. Obviously you can try to argue that Kosovo is indeed fully recognised and not subject to a dispute, like Sweden, but for that you need sources. Therefore the fact that "anti-Serbian editors" (which I will call them if the others are "pro-Serbian" as you put it) deny the status quo does not make reference to it "unilateral".
  • I say again though, you have admitted these listings even if you wish to place them away from the the first sentence. Therefore I am puzzled as to why you even mentioned this.

--Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Analysing votes

As for !votes, if I were you I'd count again. Six chose "sovereignty only", and seven chose "partially recognised and disputed territory". --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

For god's sake, 7 editors did not choose PR+DT, only 4 choose it! The voting is 6 voted SS, 4 voted PR+DT, 3 voted SS+PR+DT. If you do not see how the complete omission of sovereignty from the lede (against the will of 9/13 editors) is POV, we have nothing to further argue. 95.90.184.138 (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

All right, explain yourself to me then:

Six editors choose 'sovereign state', forget the others for now.

•  Done. Sovereign it is, regardless of what comes with it. You don't need to defend use of "sovereign state" any more, let us now focus purely on omitting "partially recognised" and "disputed territory".

Seven have chose "partially recognised" and "disputed territory".

•  Question: Why should we not define the sovereign state as "partially recognised" and the land as a "disputed territory"?

Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• I fully agree with you: We should cover all the three aspects, because we should respect the facts. However, here the devil lies in the ordering details, as you are pushing for territorial dispute and partial recognition to be placed before sovereignty, clearly violating the outcome of the RfC. I insist we should respect the opinions of the majority of RfC votes, hence arrange the order of terms proportionally. As such, I see two options:
  • Option 1: Multiple sentences: Sentence 1 - sovereignty (9 votes), sentence 2 - partial recognition (7 votes), and sentence 3 - territorial dispute (7 votes)
  • Option 2: Single sentence: "Kosovo is a sovereign state (9 votes) with partial international recognition (7 votes), whose territory is disputed (7 votes) by Serbia".
  • Note: If we select option 2, then we should remove the current second sentence, otherwise the territorial dispute is emphasized over sovereignty (against the will of the RfC) in two consecutive sentences.

Personally, I vote for Option 1! (P.S.: I would eventually accept Option 2 if most other editors do not like Option 1). Let me express my firm belief that formulations that try to place the least voted options (territorial dispute and partial recognition) before the most voted one (sovereignty) are clearly POV. 147.172.223.99 (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear IP. Anyone following this discussion knows very well that you favour outright sovereignty to stand alone in the lede, and that the other two statistics should follow from the next sentence. Now you know very well that I personally do not agree to that proposal neither for reasons of how I interpret the voting nor for the logistical reasons as discussed in the earlier period. The debate itself is long finished and the sentiment is stale. All I am interested in at the moment is returning to the admins' noticeboard with a split proposal, mine and yours. To do this it is imperative that I do not misrepresent you. So I am going to ask you again, based on the fact that the four editors to disagree with the word "sovereign" have stepped to one side and will not dispute the inclusion, we no longer need to justify its presence on the first sentence. However, my question to you was, based on seven out of 13 choosing "partially recognised" and "disputed territory" on first line, chiefly to qualify the sovereign aspect, please tell me on what grounds do you believe that the items chosen by a majority should be omitted?. I await your reply. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I fear you did not fully read both options that I provided, which include all three options, ranked by the valence of the assigned votes. 95.90.184.153 (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"Ranked by the valence of the assigned votes".

All right IP, for the final time, let me see if I have got this right - and if I haven't just correct me but for now I need to reiterate your position.

Six chose SS alone, seven chose DT and PR but were otherwise split in that three agreed on SS within the phrase where-as four disagreed with it. As such SS alone should be chosen based on it being the biggest sole selection with six votes, folowed by four, then three. Yes or no? --Oranges Juicy (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo - a fully Serbian state. The name Kosovo is of Slavic origin. It was flooded by Albanians and disconnected from its motherland - Serbia, while the whole world was watching and supporting the American terror. Now, when the Crimea as disconnected itself from Ukraine, why the whole world is condemning it? 192.162.150.105 (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Cześć przyjacielu!! To się nazywa "polityka"!! :) --Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• My final proposal is:
  • 1): If we agree on multiple sentences: Sentence 1 - sovereignty (9 votes), sentence 2 - partial recognition (7 votes), and sentence 3 - territorial dispute (7 votes)
  • 2): If we get stuck with a single sentence: "Kosovo is a sovereign state (9 votes) with partial international recognition (7 votes), whose territory is disputed (7 votes) by Serbia".
  • Note: If we select option 2), then we should remove the current second sentence, otherwise the territorial dispute is emphasized over sovereignty (against the will of the RfC) in two consecutive sentences.OppositeGradient (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Territorial dispute is emphasized over sovereignty, and that is the way it should be, as that is not against the RfC will actually. You should not count votes, but read arguments. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 08:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The votes are not abstract numbers, on the contrary they are based on the detailed arguments by the respective editors (read RfC above), which recognized that the primary trait of the Republic of Kosovo is sovereignty (9 votes), rather than the territorial dispute (7 votes). (Note: Despite a confusion among editors between sovereignty and partial international recognition. Unfortunately, some editors thought Kosovo is not sovereign because certain countries do not recognize it, while for sovereignty a recognition by at least one UN state is sufficient, given that the other criteria are satisfied (and they were demonstrated).) To further conclude, that does not absolutely mean the territorial dispute should not be mentioned, I believe a neutral formulation should include all aspects. Regretfully though, the current formulation has the territorial dispute present in every sentence of the lede paragraph, therefore is biased in favor of opposing the sovereignty of Kosovo, meaning against the RfC's outcome. If you would like to see analogies, no other sovereign country with a territorial dispute (e.g.: Israel, Cyprus, South Korea, Taiwan, ... ) has the dispute over-emphasized in every sentence of the lede paragraph. To sum up, I demand the admin closing the case to demand a neutral formulation of the article's paragraph. (P.s.: In my honest opinion, the optimal (perhaps too optimal) alternative would be to not mention politics at all in the first paragraph and focus on simple facts on the country (as in Israel's case: geographical position, neighboring countries, capital, etc ...). Then political-debated aspects such as sovereignty, international recognition and territorial disputes can be placed on the second paragraph (as in Israel's case).) OppositeGradient (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo is not member of UN. That is massive problem, and it should never be regarded as sovereign while is not member of UN and does not control its entire territory. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 12:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think your questions have been already raised and addressed before. As you know - your already public - opinion was not backed up by 9/13 editors, while 4/13 shared your ideas. As previously stated, UN membership is not a criterion for sovereignty, see above the provided list of scholarly accepted sovereignty criteria in the RfC thread. In terms of international recognition a sovereign state needs recognition by only one other UN state, not by all of them and does not have to be a UN state. E.g. Kosovo, ROC (Taiwan) and Vatican are sovereign, but not UN states. OppositeGradient (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, Switzerland was very much a sovereign state even though it was not a UN member until 2002. --alchaemia (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@OppositeGradient. I believe that side of the discussion belonged to where we casted opinions. I think you know very well by now that Kosovo is not Taiwan, South Korea, Cyprus or Israel. Furthermore they are not the only places subject to territorial dispute either, the number of partially recognised countries is 16 including Kosovo (and not including ISIS) and the number of disputed territories is way past 100. I've waited patiently for days to submit a proposal onto the Admin's Noticeboard and all I needed from you was a "yes" or "no" over whether my interpretation of your count was correct. I will now assume that it is and will make the proposal.

@Alchaemia and OppositeGradient. Correct, Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002. The Vatican is still not a member today. Correct then that not being a member of the UN is not a sign of non-sovereignty. Nevertheless, the Vatican is eligible to join but prefers to keep out for its own reasons. Kosovo desires to become a member but is locked out for the very same reason South Ossetia cannot join, therefore any postulated parallel to Switzerland has as much merit as the false comparisons to Israel and Cyprus on the other matter.

Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Final Results of RfC on Lede

• Till now, the votes (in my counting) are Sovereign state (SS) 11 votes, Partially Recognized (PR) 10 votes and Disputed Territory (DT) 9 votes. Note: The score was 9/7/7, till the recent contributions: PR (Marcocapelle), PR+DT (Irina Harpy), SS+PR+DT (BMK) and SS (Roladi+).
• The current lede has only PR+DT, therefore the results of the RfC indicate a consensus against the status-quo, in terms of introducing the Sovereignty aspect of the state in addition to the partial recognition and territorial dispute.
• Therefore, to respect all opinions it seems the lede will have a mix formulation of the three aspects. I propose to have "Kosovo is a sovereign state (11 votes) with partial international recognition (10 votes) and a disputed territory (9 votes)", in order to incrementally respect the number of votes. OppositeGradient (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that you and I interpreted those results differently, I have since amended the comment at WP:ANRFC. Please read WP:NOTAVOTE to learn exactly what "!vote" signifies. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it was not like that OppositeGradient. Please, do not push anything against other users will. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 18:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

When did ducks get to close an RfC? Other than the fact that you are a DUCK, OppositeGradient, you are involved, ergo not even a neutral (although thoroughly experienced!) Wikipedian. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• The will of most editors was clarified in the RfC and the most voted option was Sovereign state (SS) 11 votes, Partially Recognized (PR) 10 votes and Disputed Territory (DT) 9 votes. I am proposing a combination of all the three terms, respecting the consensus and the will of all sides. @Anastan: there is nothing here being pushed against the will of editors, on the contrary I maximally respected all the opinions. @Iryna Harpy:, read about WP:PERSONAL and WP:NPA#WHATIS and stop your personal attacks. Editors here dedicate precious time to solve concrete issues, not to hear your emotional yelling. I feel sad to have to deal with such a low-level communication. OppositeGradient (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Low or High level, you are disturbing sock puppet anyway. It would be good to find out who is the main account. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 10:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Usual personal attacks, not worth a response. Hopefully, personal attacks dont aim at diverting the focus from the evident outcome of the RfC. So lets focus on the RfC, please. OppositeGradient (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Who the main account is is difficult to ascertain, Anastan. A number of the socks are easily sorted as they've been used only recently. Our Hanoverian friend does, however, have a few older socks leading back further which have been investigated in the past. Whoever s/he is, I'm going to submit a comprehensive report to the SPI once I've combed through the histories. It'll take a couple of days as I'll be busy, but in the meantime, OppositeGradient, you should brush up on WP:Multiple accounts. You're counting your own multiple !votes as if they were individuals. Stop trying to game the system. Bad form; very bad form indeed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You are making false accusation! For your knowledge, we already counted the votes of all the IPs above as a single vote, OrangesJuicy can confirm that. Even though, I absolutely have no means to independently verify whether all the IPs involved represent the same individual, neither I acknowledge that all the IPs involved represent me, or any of you. Anyway, my RfC closure proposal represents not only a consensus on the RfC question, but also on the way we agreed to count the votes. Nevertheless, if you wish re-count the votes on your own. For the record, I even included your vote, even though you were one of few editors that did not provide a single argument for their decisions. OppositeGradient ^Talk 12:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The concept behind the significance of votes and the way they are counted was explained to OppositeGradient here. For the record, when Opposite created his account he did admit immediately to editing from the IP addresses here so there is no need to treat that as a transgression. --OJ (TALK) 14:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Before creating my account, I started to edit anonymously as an external contributor, and of course my identity was an IP. However, there is nothing wrong with new people editing using an IP until they create an account. I have never acknowledged that all the IPs editing in this article are mine and I refuse all sortd of personal attackd toward me. As for the votes, most editors, including Oranges Juicy did already agree on the consensus of incorporating all three terms to the lede of the article. I believe what I proposed above that is the most neutral formulation. OppositeGradient ^Talk 16:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe what you proposed above to be the least neutral, as do others. Please do not transform my statements. I am not worried whether you edit logged in or out as I am not holding it against you. ----OJ (TALK) 19:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in the least concerned as to who thinks what is transgressive. I will remind you both that you don't WP:OWN the article, the subject area, or consensus. Please don't treat Wikipedia's content as a personal joust, OJ. All you are accomplishing is opening up talk pages to forum-style headaches that no one wants to (or needs to) have to read through tl;dr sparring. The conscious use of multiple accounts is an abuse of editing, particularly as the editor in question has definitely been around for a long, long time in various guises. Once you've gained more experience, you'll realise that it ceases to be entertaining and will be understood for the disruption that it actually is. If I can't identify the puppet-master for the SPI, it'll have to go to the ANI. As for OppositeGradient, there are no personal attacks being levelled at you on my behalf: I'm calling it for what it is. If you don't like it, start an ANI thread and condemn my behaviour. I'm good with it either way because I'm likely to be seeing you there soon, one way or the other. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Given the degeneration of any form of discussion here into indignant personal attacks towards me, I think no other inputs are likely arriving from the same batch of editors. Therefore, we should wait an admin to close the RfC. I call for respecting the clear will of the involved editors: Sovereign state (SS) 11 editors, Partially Recognized (PR) 10 editors and Disputed Territory (DT) 9 editors. OppositeGradient ^Talk 07:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Consensus" does not equal "majority rules." LavaBaron (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

nb OppositeGradient appears to be Unrelated to the accounts above, but is very Likely to be LupinoJacky .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 14:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Pincrete, OppositeGradient is now confirmed as being the block evader LupinoJacky, hence I'm striking all input by the sockmaster and his IP input. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Post RfC

"Country, partially recognised as a sovereign state" or "disputed territory, and partially recognised state"? The first is awkward. diff.--Zoupan 18:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There is not and has never been (post-move) a consensus to list Kosovo as a disputed territory first, and the RfC confirmed this. I really want to get another closer despite the fact that the closer basically gave assent to my position, since A) it was non-admin and B) it was left sort of vague. But there's a consensus for the change I made, I believe, first referring to it as a country and then later mentioning that there is some dispute over the territory. Red Slash 04:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You broke 1RR, then commented. Since when were "partially recognised" and "disputed territory" synonymous to "country" and "sovereign state"? I would like to see a discussion without voting, as it was obviously flawed.--Zoupan 04:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In what possible way did I break 1RR? I reverted once. I'm continuing to work on the article right now, but will go to bed soon. Red Slash 04:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You did not break it, my fault. But this revision is very biased. Is this how the second sentence in an introduction should go (Kosovo is a landlocked country in the Balkans in Southeastern Europe. Kosovo, formerly a part of Yugoslavia, was subjected to ethnic cleansing from the Belgrade-based Yugoslavian government, but was protected through NATO's participation in the Kosovo War.)?--Zoupan 05:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it's how it should go. I would love to see your attempt at writing a good, fair, unbiased lead that follows the consensus on this talk page. Please. I'm going to bed now; please, go for it. Red Slash 05:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In reverse order, the NATO campaign was not without its fair share of controversy and opposition and to refer to Kosovo as "protected" through NATO's participation gears the tone of the encyclopaedia towards the pro-independence side - to others the territory was confiscated and finally handed over to the rival belligerent. The ethnic cleansing in turn was not only two-way but also part of the campaigns of both sides to achieve their objectives. I know that numerically speaking, the atrocities committed by the state towards the Albanians outweighed the opposite but that doesn't detract from the fact that an encyclopaedia needs to be written objectively. Therefore one would need to acknowledge the crimes against humanity being committed by all sides with NATO coming down on the side of one of the belligerents, as opposed to Macedonia where the west had an ally in both the Skopje government and the Albanian rebels thereby dealing with the problem differently from the start in that they threatened neither faction with military action. So if the need for NATO and ethnic cleansing need to be mentioned in the first paragraph, then they need to be drafted differently. As for calling Kosovo a "country" with the first words, then this attacks the very foundations of WP:NPOV because all of the debate that took place earlier to oppose "sovereign state" did so precisely because parity could not be reflected if the land is first said to be an autonomous province or a state before all additional details are provided. I have on previous occasions asked how "disputed territory" and "partially recognised state" can possibly be biased when these are clearly terms spoken by a third voice: one entity calls it a country, the other says it is a province of another - this makes it disputed. It is illogical for one to say "it is a country" and for the other to respond, "no that is disputed" because he is the one disputing it. As for "partially recognised", well yes a majority of governments do recognise it but the minority is significant enough to deem partially recognised a term that represents the proclaimed state. By the same principle, Serbia claims it is a de jure province and that too is only partially recognised - by all of the states who have yet to recognise or will not recognise the independence. The call for both sides to be voiced is strong enough and therefore the opening needs a third person Wikivoice which I believe it has through its current arrangement. --OJ (TALK) 13:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am simply clarifying my RfC ruling. This diff by Red Slash certainly does not fulfil the RfC because it uses "sovereign state" which was specifically rejected there. It is partly my fault, because I thought I was clear in my closing, but it seems my comments just above the last paragraph (about "country" etc.) has confused Red Slash somewhat. Since "country" was not an option I did not even consider it. All I wanted to say there was that "sovereign state" does not find support. I meant the result of the RfC to be "#2 and #3", as I say unambiguously in the final paragraph. If there are any questions about my determination, let me know.

It seems to me that the version of the main article that exists right now (Permalink) essentially captures the result of the RfC. It reads Kosovo is a disputed territory and partially recognised state in .... Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I will ask for a reclosure. As a non-admin, I would never have dreamed of closing a discussion like this, personally. A non-admin supervote close with muddled and vague reasoning was really not helpful. And Kingsindian, why on earth did you not want to ping me in what you just wrote? Red Slash 20:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Red Slash: I assumed you were watching this page. I do not usually ping people in my normal responses (there are some people who are touchy about it, and ask not to be pinged). You are of course free to ask for a closure review if you feel it is not adequate. As for non-admin closures, I am not sure if I understand what your concern is. There is nothing special in being an admin. Any uninvolved non-admin can close discussions with sufficient rationale, and I have closed other discussions at WP:ANRFC. If you are unhappy with my closure, you can follow the directions laid down here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Closure was completely ok! Red Slash, its time to move away from this for now. Consensus is very clear, and its not on your side. Get over it, and stop bothering everyone with it. Step away from it for a few months, and then, if you still want to push your version, raise a question again. Right now, you are just disruptive. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

Ok, I will bite the bullet and evaluate this. There are many issues involved, I will try to address them. First, I am afraid that a lot of this RfC is marred by WP:OR. It is not up to wikipedia editors to determine the status of a territory. International law is complex. A lot of the discussion is in this vein discussing Hobbes's definition, international recognition and so on, without reference to citations to WP:RS on this matter and is therefore fairly discounted (not totally). The ideal way to do so would be look at what reliable international law sources say on this matter. Secondly, looking at the raw !votes to get a rough idea: I see

• option "1" - 4
• option "2 and 3" - 4
• option "2 or 3" - 1
• option "3" - 1
• option "1 and 2 and 3" - 3
• option "1 and 2" - 2

(please correct me if I'm wrong).

Now for closer analysis of the arguments. I stress that many of the arguments are WP:OR, they need to be backed up by citations to WP:RS on this specific matter. The arguments about sovereignty are threefold. First, control of territory/borders, second international agreements, third comparisons with other disputed territories. Going into them in easiest order:

• The comparisons with Taiwan, Israel etc. are off the mark, for reasons given by Oranges Juicy and Јованвб.
• International agreements: There is, at best, no consensus on the validity of this criterion, which is ill-defined. It can only be used in a suggestive way.
• Control of territory: Many of the "1" votes fail to explain their rationale for this point. Oranges Juicy and LavaBaron make good arguments on this point. Rolandi%2B makes a counterpoint which is most persuasive, but it is not convincing to me.

Overall, there has not been a good enough case made for "sovereign state", with or without other conditions. "Country" or something similar is better.

So here is my ruling: option "1" is rejected by consensus. Taking raw votes and reasoning into account, option "2 and 3" is the one which comes closest to the consensus. However, I stress that this is a close thing, and is marred by significant WP:OR on all sides. This, however, seems to be the least bad choice. (non-admin closure) Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• This close is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#RfC closure review: Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment. I am unhiding the close so that closure review participants can more easily view the close. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

---

Pursuant to this move discussion from 2014 and the following merge discussion, which ended with the Republic of Kosovo moving to Kosovo, should Kosovo be described in the lead sentence of this article as

1. A sovereign state
2. A disputed territory
3. A partially recognised state

or a combination of either #1 and #2, or of #2 and #3? If a combination, please indicate what order you think the two/three should be in. Feel free to add any other suggestions. Red Slash 06:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion and "voting"

• #1. Remember, the lead sentence of an article is supposed to define it. For years, the article located at Kosovo was about "the region", and the country was at Republic of Kosovo. We had a somewhat turbulent requested move that led to the article on the republic moving here, backed by a consensus and over the objections of many Serbian nationalists. (I'm actually not joking--read that move request!) This article is emphatically about that republic, just as Croatia or Cuba or Ethiopia or Taiwan are about their respective states. The most significant part of Kosovo and its most defining characteristic is that it is a sovereign state. Its lack of official diplomatic recognition from many other countries does not define Kosovo. (It's not like any countries fail to actually literally recognize Kosovo. Nobody disputes that the government in Pristina actually and truthfully exerts authority over Kosovo. Diplomatic recognition deals not with "does control" but "should control"; no country doubts Kosovo's control of its territory. Serbia signs accords and treaties with Kosovo and yet doesn't "recognize" it.) But no one disputes Kosovo's factual governing of the land. Therefore, in our lead sentence of the article, we should focus more on the actual and well-sourced facts on the ground, and only later on explain the relevant and important but not actually defining fact that the governments of Serbia et al currently pretend that somehow that Kosovo does not actually control Kosovo. Red Slash 06:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• #2 or and #3 An encyclopedia article is not a treaty or legal statute. For the reader's edification it should reflect the de facto reality, not de jure. The de facto reality is that it is a disputed territory and/or partially recognized state. LavaBaron (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Please read what a Sovereign state is. Territorial disputes do not undermine sovereignty. 95.90.184.69 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:WINARS, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Hobbes' first mark of sovereignty is "control of the military." Kosovo does not have penultimate control over a majority of the military forces operating on its territory. Sixty-percent of troops engaged in armed operations on Kosovar territory are non-Kosovar forces operating outside the Kosovar chain of command and by which the Kosovar government has no ability to direct or expel. LavaBaron (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• • -LavaBaron And/or? Are you seriously suggesting that Kosovo is not wikt:sovereign? Red Slash 19:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I seriously am. The mandate, mission, and size of KFOR creates question as to whether Kosovo has an absolute monopoly on the legal use of violence within its territory, which is an essential component of statehood. LavaBaron (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolute monopoly on legal use of violence is not a criterion of sovereignty. The presence of international military forces do not imply lack of sovereignty, see List of United Nations peacekeeping missions. 95.90.184.69 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As per the "Penguin Dictionary of International Relations: Sovereign states are judges in their own cause, have an absolute right to go to war to pursue their conceived interests, and can treat those who fall in their domestic jurisdiction in their own way. KFOR is exercising exclusive jurisdictional authority in the patrol of the administrative line between Kosovo and Serbia, operating on Kosovar territory, and doing so outside of any Kosovar command structure or ability of the Kosovar government to independently direct them. KFOR is operationally, functionally and legally different from a UN peacekeeping mission and cannot be compared to one. LavaBaron (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The presence of KFOR does not mean the Kosovo government can not go to war on pursue of its interest. Also note that KFOR is not the only or superior military force in Kosovo, see Kosovo Security Force. And finally, you are again wrong to assume KFOR is not an international peace keeping mission, or that it is different from the ones in the list. As such, I see your points to be selective and having no ground truth. 95.90.184.69 (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Saramati case (Saramti v. France) confirmed KFOR's ability to detain independent of domestic Kosovar police and to treat suspects according to UNIMK rules and not Kosovar law. Kosovo does not have the absolute ability to treat those who fall in their domestic jurisdiction in their own way, which is a requirement of sovereignty. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. LavaBaron (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Saramati case happened in 2007, while the Republic of Kosovo was declared in 2008. You are claiming that the government Kosovo does not have jurisdiction in an event that happen before its existence, which is funny of yours! 95.90.184.69 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if the Saramati case happened in 2007 or 1907 if the judgment of the court is still in force. LavaBaron (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• #2 or #3, defining it as sovereign is not factual.--Zoupan 10:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Zoupan - do you know what wikt:sovereign means? Do you suggest that the Republic of Kosovo does not exercise the power of rule over the territory of Kosovo? That's a rather extraordinary claim. Red Slash 19:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ditto.--Zoupan 22:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• #2 and #3 are essential, but a combination with #1 would also work well, (e.g. partially recognised sovereign state). Following a long drawn-out discussion on the category, we established that all breakaway republics meet the criteria for sovereignty, and all are included in List of sovereign states in one section or another. It should be noted also that Serbia signing the Brussels Agreement is not recognition of the breakaway state, and the countries that do not recognise Kosovo do so not because they dispute who is in control, but because they dispute the sovereignty (i.e. legal status) and continue to recognise Serbia's territorial integrity, just as they do Georgia's over Abkhazia. I say #2 and #3 are essential because despite the menu in the RfC, the items do not strictly contradict one another, and just as Kosovo features in the aforementioned article, it is also included in List of states with limited recognition (for partially recognised) and in List of territorial disputes (for disputed territory). As such, removal of these statements from the lede cannot even be justified on the strength of consensus. Since Kosovo is named on all three linking pages, the only way to not have one of those articles in the lede is to achieve its removal from the corresponding article. I believe any editor that aspires to omit any of these legitimate listings while making no effort to remove it from the list it appears in is guilty of denialism. I also wish to state that partially recognised states and disputed territories are not one and the same thing by any means. A partially recognised state is one with whom one or more nations refuse to establish diplomatic relations, such as Israel or Armenia. A disputed territory is land that is contested between two or more entities regardless of who holds power and who recognises. In the cases of Kosovo, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the territory being disputed is the region on the whole. With partially recognised states such as Israel, the city of Tel Aviv is not claimed by any other proclaimed state in fruition or in exile, with disputed terrtitories such as Western Sahara, it is claimed by both Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. So not the same thing. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• #2 and #3 together, having in mind all of the things from above. Kosovo is far from sovereign state, in the sense of France, Germany, or something like that. Its very disputed, its not even member of UN, does not have control over entire territory, its not recognized by half of the world. We will see at some point what will be, but now is disputed territory and partially recognized state. Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Please read what a Sovereign state is. UN membership is not mandatory for sovereignty. 95.90.184.69 (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC) (First and only edit, this IP is sockpuppet --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ))
  • Red Slash 19:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• #2 and #3 Obviously both. It is heavily disputed territory. It is not part of UN, as it is every other undisputed and independent state in the world. So this facts should be presented in article. No one is disputing that Kosovo is recognized by half of world as independent state, but other half of world think it is part of Serbia. And only with both views article will be neutral and by wiki standards. Presenting R. Kosovo as undoubtedly ordinary state is same mistake as presenting R. Kosovo as undoubtedly Serbian territory that is currently rebelled. --Јованвб (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• #1, definitely sovereign state now, with Kosovo's institutions controlling the entire territory. Khestwol (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Kosovo is not controlling the entire territory. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• #1. Kosovo fulfills all the scholarly defined criteria for statehood, clarified in Sovereign state, such as independence, government, defined borders, armed forces, international recognition (the defined criteria demands at least 1 UN state, Kosovo has recognition from 108 UN states). There are many countries (List of states with limited recognition) that are partially recognized, such as People's Republic China, Republic of China (Taiwan), Israel, Cyprus, etc .... Please check the pages of those countries and compare to the first paragraphs on Kosovo. You would realize an asymmetry that is negative against Kosovo. The other argument that a territorial dispute prohibits sovereignty is amateurish from an international relations perspective. There is a long List of territorial disputes, however there is no basis in claiming that states of such a list are not sovereign.

Look at Taiwan for instance, it is recognized by less countries that Kosovo and its territory is fully disputed by China. However, the sentence on its page is "a sovereign state". We should not apply a negative standard only against Kosovo.

Obviously pro-Serbian editors (incl. Russians, Greeks, etc ...) outnumber pro-Albanian ones, however Wiki should be about logic, not numeric majorities. Even if you do not agree, like or accept the sovereignty of Kosovo, you should accept the reality that it fulfills the scholar definitions of sovereignty. 95.90.184.69 (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

^Only edit.--Zoupan 22:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This sockpuppet comment should be deleted. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Following the personal attack, I can only say that your opinion on me is comparable to your understanding of international relations. 95.90.184.69 (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw no personal attack by Anastan. LavaBaron (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment to IP#95.90.184.69. Thank you for the protocol. You forgot to tell the pro-Serbs, Russians, Greeks, etc. what you find wrong with #2 and #3 since neither contradict #1. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You are right, points 2 and 3 do not contradict 1. However, the question is which definition do we use in the leading sentence. Other countries having all characteristics 1,2,3 such as Israel, Taiwan, etc ... do not have such a leading negative paragraph repeating points 2,3 in almost every sentence. On the contrary, articles on Taiwan and Israel simply state that the countries are sovereign and/or state general facts on the country. Kosovo should be treated equally to the similar cases (e.g. Israel and Taiwan). For this reason, I think the article on Kosovo has three major flaws, 1) forgets to state that the country is sovereign and 2) has two first paragraphs which are full of repeated words on how Kosovo is not recognized by Serbia, 3) misses the utilitarian purpose of a Wiki article, i.e. the article should start with info on geography, climate, population, capital, etc, not whether Serbia recognizes it. Points 2,3 can (and should) be clarified after the first paragraph, without contaminating the article with politically heated disputes. 95.90.184.69 (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor to launch the RfC did state that more than one could be chosen. For the purpose of this discussion, Kosovo, Israel and Taiwan are incommensurable, three different situations placing each into a different group.

• 1. Israel is partially recognised in that many countries refuse to establish relations with the state. Apart from the disputes with Palestine over Jerusalem and pockets of the West Bank, the remaining Israeli territory is not disputed and no existing entity claims Eilat or Tel Aviv. Israel's counterparts here include Armenia, unrecognised by Pakistan, and Cyprus, not recognised by Turkey even outside Northern Cyprus.
• 2. Taiwan, Penghu, Matsu, Kinmen and other small islands compose the Republic of China which claims all of China, not just the land it controls. As such, countries to recognise Taiwan recognise its sovereignty over the whole of China, and subsequently that state will not recognise the People's Republic of China (the rule of Beijing). More information can be found at One-China policy. States in similar situations include North Korea and South Korea which both claim the whole Korean peninsula, with Japan recognising South Korea's territorial integrity over the north. A historical example includes the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which was recognised by Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia while the rest of the world recognised the Islamic Republic.
• 3. Kosovo is not an entity with which states refuse to recognise. It does not claim area outside of its proclaimed borders held by another Kosovo and therefore is not subject to any "one-Kosovo policy". It is a breakaway state and the refusal by countries to establish relations with it is based on their continued recognition of Serbia's territorial integrity over the region. As such, Kosovo's counterparts include: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria. Not Israel and Taiwan. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. The question indicates 1) sovereign state, 2) partial international recognition and 3) disputed territory. For instance Israel, Cyprus and Taiwan fulfills all points 1,2,3. Of course those countries have different languages, cultures, currency, different elements that you pointed above, etc ... However, they all share the three points of the discussion with Kosovo. They are all sovereign (see definition), are all not recognized by all other countries and all have territorial disputes. Since they are the same case as Kosovo (with respect to the three points), then naturally the article of Kosovo should be written similarly to those countries. 95.90.184.69 (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• One more observation. I thank LavaBaron for the detailed sovereignty synopsis. If that is the case then sovereignty is totally out of the question. Not only is this hampered by the international bodies over whom it has no jurisdiction, but I suddenly remember that Kosovo is STILL represented by UNMIK in the Central European Free Trade Agreement, such scenarios cannot occur with sovereign states. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a great point, Oranges Juicy, and pretty much the slam-dunk observation of this discussion. A few years ago Richard N. Haass pertinently observed "one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction." [2] If Kosovo doesn't control its own representation to the Central European Free Trade Association, it fails a "fundamental principle" of sovereignty. LavaBaron (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Guys you still keep inventing personal definitions and criteria of sovereignty, different from how a Sovereign state is defined. Participation to the CEFTA organisation is not a criterion of sovereignty. The other point that Kosovo does not control its borders is plain misinformation. All the customs are presently controlled by the Republic of Kosovo through the Kosovo Border Police[3]. The boomerang you created showed that another criterion of sovereignty (border control) is satisfied. 95.90.184.69 (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is asking if Kosovo should be identified as "a sovereign state." As OJ has observed, Kosovo does not control its own representation to international institutions, such as the CEFTA. It is, therefore, not a sovereign state. Sovereign states enjoy exclusive control of their internal and external affairs, as has previously and exhaustively been noted. LavaBaron (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That is wrong again. Kosovo fully controls its representation in international affairs, see the diplomatic missions of the Republic of Kosovo[4]. 95.90.184.69 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As was previously demonstrated in the case of CEFTA, no it does not. LavaBaron (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• 1. The republic has been recognized by over half the world and is officially recognized from Belgrade since 2013 which now has no more claims over the republic. It is in every way exactly the same as Taiwan and Israel as all three are recognized by well over half the world and control all of their own land. Obviously it is not partially recognized if most of the international community recognizes it (more than Taiwan), and it is disputed only by a terribly small minority which is getting smaller and smaller. Greece, Slovakia, Rumania, Spain, Sotuh Africa have all given indications they are prepared to fully recognize. Serbia wants to join the EU and NATO and knows that they cannot do so unless they recognize full sovereignty of Kosovo. Kosovo have their own military and flag, the denialism of sovereignty is a no-brainer. Newquartermaster (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

In reference to "XYZ country have given indications they might recognize Kosovo in the future," please see WP:CRYSTALBALL. LavaBaron (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@95.90.184.69.

1. Although the Saramati case happened before 2008, the mandate of the international armies present has not changed, they answer and take orders from their own governments.
2. CEFTA is a trade block no different from the European Union and the EFTA. Such organisations strictly comprise sovereign bodies. Of course if you know of a non-sovereign entity to be a member of CEFTA or the EU, please tell us who this is.
3. The comparisons between Kosovo and Israel or Taiwan have truly gone into hyperbole. It seems that you have picked two examples from the list of countries without 100% recognition and are attempting to elevate Kosovo to their level, when in fact those are the most remote examples to Kosovo's situation. You speak of Taiwan as though it were Taiwan itself that claims independence. Clearly the article being where it is has caused many editors deep confusion. So let me explain, Taiwan is where Republic of China redirects. Taiwan by itself has never declared independence and one who recognises Republic of China will automatically recognise its territorial integrity over all of China, and as such cannot recognise the People's Republic of China because of the One-China policy. Now naturally if you believe Republic of Kosovo to be a similar case, please provide us with the other Kosovo whose territory Republic of Kosovo claims. Unless you can do this, I ask that you discontinue with the comparisons to Taiwan. Additionally if you believe Kosovo is similar to Israel then please tell us the name of any region or settlement in Kosovo which is not claimed by the state from which it broke away. For instance, no state claims Tel Aviv to form part of anything other than Israel, but you know this is not the case with any piece of land claimed by Kosovo, Serbia claims all of it and a great many countries recognise that claim. I've already told you, if you want similar examples to Kosovo, you need to look at South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh or Lugansk Republic as these are the entities to share its characteristics. And if they are presented as sovereign with denial of their disputed status, then maybe it is time someone fixed those articles.

@Newquartermaster

1. Belgrade does not officially recognise Kosovo, it has established ties with Priština over how the region is to be governed.
2. Not that it is relevant here, Serbia is not a candidate country for NATO membership nor has it expressed any wish to join. It has in fact declared neutrality over world affairs.
3. 80 countries is not a "terribly small" minority. It is a significant minority.
4. South Africa has NOT given indications it will recognise, it says it is prepared to if Belgrade does. South Africa's position is that it promotes continued dialogue. See South Africa's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.
5. . Yes Kosovo has a military and a flag, and so does Somaliland, but nobody is implying the elevation of that state.

Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think the best and most neutral way to describe Kosovo is as a partially recognised Sovereign state and Disputed Territory. That way all is covered and it is de facto correct, this is exactly what an encyclopaedia should do. IJA (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Bravo IJA, neutral, complete explanation. I agree. I would just drop the "sovereign state" term and replace it with the term "country", as we would not then bother with question of sovereignty of Kosovo, and that's not even common among other articles (Hungary, India, Russia, Canada, Brazil, Albania, so many others.) We really do not need that in the lede, even for far bigger, and politically stable countries.--Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would also like to make a note. When article Kosovo instead to be article of region become about political entity ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo/Archive_30#Requested_move Request for move), main argument for moving was that article will be neutral and will include all views. Now suddenly some peoples are trying to make this article only about Kosovo - "independent state" ignoring fact that there are different views. --Јованвб (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• I have to disagree with you. Taiwan, Israel, North Korea and Cyprus are partially recognized and disputed territories by at least one UN country, however the starting sentences in none of those articles have such a negative tone on their status. I agree that the partial recognition and the territorial dispute should not be hidden, however they should not shadow the factual sovereignty of Kosovo. To come to Јованвб's note, no one here is asking to remove the disputes on Kosovo, however in the current form this article is negatively biased against Kosovo and should be made neutral. My suggestion is:

First paragraph: i) State that Kosovo is a sovereign state in the Balkan peninsula, ii) mention location, population, etc...

Second paragraph: i) State that Kosovo declared independence in 2008, ii) mention that Serbia does not recognize Kosovo and claims the territory as its province, iii) provide figures on the international recognition of Kosovo. ""

In that way we state all points in a neutral manner. Who (dis)agrees? 95.90.184.175 (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I do - disagree that is - for precisely the reason that you continue to demonstrate a complete inability to discern. You honestly think Kosovo is exactly the same as Cyprus, North Korea, Israel and Republic of China. Republic of China and North Korea are not partially recognised, they are wholly recognised. Japan recognises Korea as Republic of Korea and views South as legitimate authority over north - North Korea in turn claims South, and both exist as a result of the Korean Armistice Agreement. What is Kosovo's equivalent? If Taiwan is partially recognised, so then in People's Republic of China. As such, if El Salvador recognises Taiwan, then it cannot physically recognise Beijing due to the One-China policy. I recommend you read Foreign relations of Taiwan for a clearer picture, there is no similarity to Kosovo. Israel occupies and claims disputed territory, but is not a disputed territory per se. Its non-recognising states do not dispute its uncontested lands. Cyprus claims territory that is held by what it considers local rebels. Those rebels have a diplomatic recognition in Turkey, whilst Turkey refers to the remainder of the island as the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus. The lands controlled by Nicosia are not contested, I recommend read Politics of Cyprus. Once again, no comparison to Kosovo's situation. I'm very concerned as to why you continue not to comment on or try to match this article with the entities which are exactly on the same boat as Republic of Kosovo (i.e. South Ossetia, Donetsk People's Republic, Somaliland, etc.). They are like for like identical, regions with a local population to declare independence - but with the exception that these self-proclaimed states have repelled central forces by themselves and maintain sovereignty without the help of peacekeeping missions from all over the world. This level of denialism cannot go on. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Kosovo have similarities with Cyprus, but not with Cyprus that is recognized as country by rest of the world, but with Northern Cyprus. And article about Northern Cyprus begins with: "Northern Cyprus (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs), officially the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC; Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti), is a self-declared state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. Recognised only by Turkey,[2][3][4] Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be part of the Republic of Cyprus". --Јованвб (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• @OrangesJuicy: I fear you confuse what a partially recognized state is. See the criteria in the List of states with limited recognition, which defines partial recognition as the lack of recognition by at least one UN nation. Following that established scholar criterion Kosovo, Cyprus, North Korea, Israel and Republic of China are all partially recognized. Therefore, your erroneous (in violation of the scholar definition) classification of the aforementioned countries as fully recognized is a show-stopper for your arguments. You further claimed that Kosovo is similar to Donetsk People's Republic (whatever that comparison means) because the "local population declared independence". This claim is somehow funny, because most of the sovereign countries in the world arose as local people declaring independence, for instance see the List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom. To come back to the topic, with respect to the scope of this discussion, there are no differences to other partially recognized countries with territorial disputes, e.g. Taiwan, Israel, Cyprus, North Korea. Despite your attempts to joggle with irrelevant details on how you "think" Kosovo is similar to other selective cases, I see no objective reason why Kosovo is not sovereign. You should notice that sovereignty is a Question of fact and Kosovo is 'factually' sovereign by the scholarly accepted criteria, (see what a Sovereign state is). @Јованвб: See the response above to OrangeJuicy on what a partially recognized state is. Cyprus is not recognized by Turkey, a UN state, therefore is defined as partially recognized. 95.90.184.175 (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You continue to juggle perceived sovereignty with the concept of outright universal recognition. The two concepts are only related because in the case of Kosovo as opposed to its imagined peers Israel, ROC, PDRK and Cyprus, the partial recognition is a direct result of the territorial dispute - so just as PRC does not recognise Kosovo's independence based on its principles of territorial integrity, it won't recognise Abkhazia either, thus Kosovo and Abkhazia will continue to be partially recognised states because they are disputed territories. Turkey refuses to recognise Cyprus simply because of the mutual animosity - not because Turkey recognises another country's territorial integrity of Limassol. As such, the "partially recognised" for Cyprus is deeply a matter of WP:FRINGE, so disproportionate that you couldn't even waste inches to introduce this subject anywhere at all on the Cyprus page. For Israel this is the same only with more countries not recognising. As for PDRK and ROC, again these have been taken out of context. If they are partially recognised, then PRC and ROK (South) are also partially recognised. But this is becuase they dispute the legality of the other's control over its claimed territory. So for reasons of parity, the wording of the lede on Taiwan has to correspond to the wording of China. Likewise North Korea needs to match South Korea. So Kosovo is not a member of the club that you feel it belongs to. As for "sovereignty per scholarly definition", you need to look at the full description of the term and not just an abridged summary which fits the bill. For more on that topic, have a talk with LavaBaron since he is better versed in sovereignty than I am. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Your last phrase is a fallacy on it's own . It does not matter what you or LavaBaron define/perceive as sovereign , what matters is if Kosovo is sovereign as per definition , which it is . I wont enter in an ad infinitum debate of ad hoc preconceived ideas based on point of views , however i feel that this discussion has long ago derailed and has transformed itself into a WP:POV pushing attempt based on non existent arguments such as ' China does not recognize Abkhazia and China does not recognize Kosovo thus Kosovo and Abkhazia are in the same boat ' , completely and blindly ignoring the fact that Kosovo is a sovereign state recognized by 108 UN members ( 90 % of the western world ) . Likewise , your attempt to simplify this debate into a ' Taiwan has to correspond to the wording of China ' is one more proof -amongst many others- that this cycle of ignorance leads to nowhere , for the simple fact that : 1) Serbia is not China & Kosovo not Taiwan 2) There is no cultural and linguistic link between the population of Kosovo and Serbia 3) Taiwan is not recognized officially by the EU,US,China and the vast majority of the world as a sovereign/independent state while Kosovo is recognized by the US the EU and the majority of the World etc. Gjirokastra15 (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Oranges Juicy, I saw no objective argument from the editors involved against the sovereignty of Kosovo. The opposite is true, all the scholarly accepted elements of sovereignty are fully present in the case of the Republic of Kosovo, most of which clarified here. The crucial point is that sovereignty is by-definition a matter of fact, not of recognition by third parties. Secondly, the above-referred countries are all sovereign, all partially recognized (not fully recognized as you previously suggested) and all have territorial disputes, par-definition same as Kosovo. Therefore, Kosovo deserves no discriminated treatment compared to the equivalent instances. Equivalence is defined with respect to the three points of the discussions. The rest are irrelevant details, I agree with you that the historic roots and circumstances of the partial recognition statuses are different for each country, however the objective categorization of a status follows only the scholar criterion of partial recognition. Therefore, the different histories and circumstances are subjective aspects and should not be confused with the standardized criteria for the statuses. The same scholar definitions should be followed for sovereignty. Otherwise, if we by-pass the accepted scholar criteria and introduce personal beliefs and standards, we end up producing opinions. 95.90.184.175 (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• #1. As per definition & the reasons stated above Kosovo is sovereign , however i would also include the fact that there is a minority of countries left that still do not recognize Kosovo as a sovereign state . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• The opinions and the voting are currently 1 - Red Slash, IP95.90.184.
• , Khestwol, NewQuarterMaster, Gjirokastra15; 2,3 - LavaBaron, Zoupan, Anastan, Јованвб; 1,2,3 - Oranges Juicy, IJA. I see a majority of editors agreeing on the sovereignty of Kosovo (7 editors indicating point 1), a stance which I believe was well articulated and mainly unchallenged (despite expressed disagreements). At the same time, there is a large number of editors indicating points 2,3) (6 editors). Given the numbers are slightly on the sovereign side, we need an agreement from the editors pointing points 2,3. For me all points 1,2,3 should be mentioned in the article. I propose point 1 (majority) as the first paragraph, and points 2,3 (minority) as the second paragraph. Would you agree on a neutral formulation according to this proposal?95.90.184.175 (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It does not work on the premise of number of votes, it is the quality of the arguments. #2 and #3 are either factual or false. Obviously if they are wrong, they should not be in the article on any paragraph whatsoever. If they are factual, they need to be specified as soon as possible. Their omission is not an option, and the comparisons to the Cyprus, Israel and Republic of China articles do not stand up. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

As for "numbers are slightly on the sovereign side", this has been challenged by LavaBaron based on scholarly sources and not original research. The observations have not been refuted. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion Gjirokastra, and thank you for your points. You are correct that the conversation has derailed from RfC to ordinary debate. I naturally feel the need to respond if I should see any editor pushing for a specific option if that choice is influenced by purposeful misrepresentation of facts. Now you may feel you have introduced a new angle on things though what I have read appears to be a mere development of the comments as related by 95.90.184.175. So here I will address each of them individually.

• Your last phrase is a fallacy on it's own . It does not matter what you or LavaBaron define/perceive as sovereign , what matters is if Kosovo is sovereign as per definition , which it is .

Correct. Neither LavaBaron nor any other editor to oppose #1 on its own has discussed what he perceives sovereignty to mean. It is not a debatable subject so therefore we neither agree nor disagree with the definition, we are bound by it. Per scholarly definition, LavaBaron cited areas where the Republic of Kosovo failed to meet the definition, and other than the usual jumping up and down, nobody has disproven his findings, proved them spurious in other ways, or responded in such a way that a more essential factor trumps his observation.

• China does not recognize Abkhazia and China does not recognize Kosovo thus Kosovo and Abkhazia are in the same boat ' , completely and blindly ignoring the fact that Kosovo is a sovereign state recognized by 108 UN members

This is the downfall not only in your argument but everybody's that favours #1 by itself. Discarding the claim of "sovereign state" you are arguing that the 112 recognitions (combined as of today) warrants omission of #2 and #3 from the lede. The number of non-recognising entities is more than sufficient to uphold the partially recognised list, and the subsequent debilitations such as UN membership which Kosovo desires are a major factor which characterise the Republic. Until Kosovo is recognised by Serbia, the region will remain a disputed territory. The Republic is partially recognised, whilst the land is disputed. This is directly comparable to Abkhazia, whose disputed status has nothing to do with Eritrea not recognising it, but solely because Georgia does not recognise it. How the international community decides to view the situation is down to each component.

• ...108 UN members ( 90 % of the western world )

Here I interpret the comment to suggest that the western world is of greater significance than the eastern world. You mention the UN. In the General Assembly, there is one nation one vote. There is no points system giving special status to countries for being situated in the west, or forfeit to states in the east. The point is wholly invalid.

• Likewise , your attempt to simplify this debate into a ' Taiwan has to correspond to the wording of China ' is one more proof -amongst many others- that this cycle of ignorance leads to nowhere

I have not been party to the wording of the China/Taiwan articles, however, it just happens to be the case that their presentation is identical and I can see no single reason to change the wording of either. Since ROC has been in existence since 1912, and was the original country to occupy the coveted UN seat on the Security Council, I just wouldn't know how to even suggest presenting it differently given its continued existence. Obviously if you can see a different way, good luck to you in your endeavour.

• for the simple fact that : 1) Serbia is not China & Kosovo not Taiwan

Correct. And to this I offer no argument to dispute you. The Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Kosovo are not two rival entities which claim the very same land as legally constituting its territorial integrity as is the case with China/Taiwan, and before 2001, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and the current state.

• 2) There is no cultural and linguistic link between the population of Kosovo and Serbia

Indeed there isn't. Just as there is no cultural link between the people of uncontested Georgia and South Ossetia. I'm not sure what the point is being made here, unless you are implying that the absence of a relationship between Serbs and Albanians somehow rules the disputed territory and partially recognised status as irrelevant. Apart from that, I get the impression you may just be fishing for reasons to justify the difference between Kosovo and Taiwan in the hope that people will agree that Kosovo should bypass the technical dissimilarities between itself and Taiwan, whilst evading association with the entities with which it has like for like characteristics such as South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In other words, a straw man has been built and knocked down: "Kosovo doesn't claim integrity over Serbia like Taiwan does PRC, but there is a historical link between Taiwan and the PRC and none between Kosovo Albanians and the Serbs, therefore Kosovo should be presented like Taiwan".

• 3) Taiwan is not recognized officially by the EU,US,China and the vast majority of the world as a sovereign/independent state while Kosovo is recognized by the US the EU and the majority of the World etc.

Well it would be just a touch silly if People's Republic of China recognised the Republic of China now wouldn't it! That would effectively be political suicide. The EU is a trade bloc composed by member states, not a body that affords diplomatic recognitions. But where a country does not recognise Kosovo, it automatically recognises Serbia's territorial integrity over the region. Where a country does not recognise the ROC, such as the United States, it is because they choose to recognise PRC instead. Until such time that two entities will control two different sections, there will always be a split between which China to recognise. One day it may be 50/50 land and 50/50 recognitions, another day it might be 1/99 and 99/1, but the whole world - with no exception - recognises China. I think it would cause less confusion if editors were to familiarise themselves with the Chinese question, the sooner they do this the sooner they will realise that this idea of Taiwan being a breakaway from the PRC is wholly erroneous.

Any questions, please feel free to ask me. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I responded to LevaBron and I am repeating it here. The presence of international peace keeping missions is not an exclusive criterion for sovereignty. See the list of UN peace keeping missions [5] in sovereign states such as Lebanon, Cyprus, Syria, Cote d'Ivoire, India and Pakistan, etc ... Qualitatively the fulfillment of the criteria are clearly in favor of sovereignty.

Secondly, those supporting 1) are not opposing 2) and 3). In my opinion, Kosovo fulfills all points 1,2,3, similarly to Taiwan, Cyrpus, Israel, etc ... Logically, the lede sentences should be neutral and comparable to the articles of similar countries. In other words, negative phrasings such as "Kosovo is a disputed territory and a partially recognized state" are unacceptable because they neither indicate the sovereignty, nor are they present in Israel's, Taiwan's or Cyprus' articles. The articles of related countries mention point 1) in the first paragraph and points 2,3) in the second paragraph or later. I insist we should follow the same fair standard with Kosovo, instead of discriminating this state. 147.172.223.99 (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll assume you are one of the editors to have previously posted (automatic log-out happens to me as well sometimes). LavaBaron's points are not defeated by citation of peacekeeping missions in another batch of states. Kosovo's authorities do not outrank the occupying forces, and Kosovo may not decide off the cuff to disestablish KFOR. Many countries that do not recognise Kosovo are a part of KFOR. So how can they be told they are answerable to the government of Kosovo? In the case of the other countries, the presence of international troops is at the behest of the authority recognised by the contributing nation to represent the state. Nobody has provided an explanation as to how Kosovo can be represented by UNMIK within the CEFTA. One editor argued that such trade blocs are open to non-sovereign entities, but failed to name another non-sovereign member of any such organisation, and produced no explanation as to how it happens that every member of the EU, CEFTA, EFTA, NAFTA, the African Union and the Arab League are all sovereign bodies.

Once again I am reading "...nor are they present in Israel's, Taiwan's or Cyprus' articles. " with regards disputed territory. Just tell me which of the aforementioned examples is a breakaway state and who the non-recognising state is from which they declared independence and then we can discuss whether "disputed territory" is necessary. As for partially recognised, PRC is recognised by 171 and Taiwan by 21. So 21 + 171 = 192 combined. Is that "partially recognised"? Cyprus minus Northern Cyprus is acknowledged by Turkey as the Greek Cypriot Authority of Southern Cyprus, so Limassol is seen to be part of the one country to claim it by every state in the world. Now, have you anything new to add which supports your suggestion? --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it is perfectly usual to have a peace-keeping mission in a sovereign country, otherwise the mentioned list of countries (incl. India and Pakistan) would be absurdly classified as non-sovereign. Your confusion arises because you treat KFOR as an occupying force, when it is a peacekeeping mission established before the independence of Kosovo. KFOR does not challenge the sovereignty of the state, on the contrary it is currently defending Kosovo's borders (a boomerang I fear). Coming to legal terms, it is meaningless to demand an official Status of forces agreement, given that KFOR was established before the creation of Kosovo. In terms of governance, KFOR was succeeded by the EULEX mission, whose mandate is approved (and recently extended) by the Parliament of Kosovo. Secondly, CEFTA membership (again signed before Kosovo existed) is not a criterion for sovereignty. In addition, your assumption is paradoxical within its own terms, you assume that every member of CEFTA is a sovereign country. Is UNMIK a sovereign country (yet another boomerang)? For the rest, you confuse the metaphore of one-China policy and claim that Taiwan is fully recognized. Sorry to say that I find such a gaffe not worth an answer. In addition, you are wrong once more when claiming that Turkey recognizes Cyprus, that is not true. It seems you keep re-iterating the old points that has been answered in details before, adding few wrong assertions in each iteration. 147.172.223.99 (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You obviously never read the statement properly because my post does not contain one flaw, every comment 100% factual. If you would truly like me to spell out for you why Israel, Taiwan and Cyprus cannot be presented as partially recognised and disputed territories then I will do so. But at this point I do not wish to insult your intelligence. Yes there is certainly some boomerang in your above statement. You claim that sovereignty is not a prerequisite for CEFTA membership and then substantiate this by implying, "is UNMIK a sovereign country?". For the record, of course it is't, but I admire your tactics - they would have worked on a less discerning editor. Independent or not, Kosovo has the right and indeed obligation to move forward, so it joins a trade bloc. It had been de facto separate from the rest of Serbia (and Montenegro) since 1999 therefore progress had to be made in a manner that treats Kosovo as individual. One way or another, it required representation, now if sovereignty has been achieved outright, why has it not been able to stand by itself in the bloc since independence? Why is every other entity sovereign and why does Kosovo have the need to be represented by a third party? As for international forces, these bodies are on a mandate. The question is what their governments instruct them to perform. Kosovo's very dependence on these armies betrays diminished sovereignty at best, but the fact that the missions include states not to even recognise Kosovo is proof if proof be needed that the government of Kosovo does not outrank its guests. These are the areas sovereignty comes into question. As regards China, I've re-read my statement and it appears I did indeed make one tiny error. Taiwan does not have 21 recognitions, it has 22, I forgot to include the Vatican (Holy See). So the recount is 171 + 22 = 193. That is the figure to recognise China, and who recognises what there is of no importance to Kosovo's article as Kosovo bears no similarity to ROC. Where did I claim Turkey recognises Cyprus? Are you sure you were reading the correct post and not a remark made on some forum? I reiterate, Cyprus minus Northern Cyprus is acknowledged by Turkey as the Greek Cypriot Authority of Southern Cyprus. This was stated to clarify that Southern Cyprus is not a disputed territory. It is not a claim that Turkey recognises Cyprus. None of my points have been answered because my points are not questions, they are solid empirical statements. Naturally I am not perfect and I accept I may be wrong, maybe the One-China policy is a myth and Taiwan is really a breakaway with limited recognition. Maybe Cyprus is a disputed territory which is claimed by Libya. I'm willing to believe anything if you provide the sources, but until then, it would be nice if we put an end to all this unrealistic POV-pushing and pretending that Republic of Kosovo is the same as North Korea or Armenia. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Sovereign state" would be best; partially-recognised state would be second-best; obviously the option that omits any mention of statehood is a WP:FRINGE view that has no place in the lede of an article about Kosovo. Reliable sources say that Kosovo is a state in Europe. I recognise that the usual minority of editors will always edit-war to remove anything that doesn't fit a WP:FRINGE serb-nationalist view (cf the ridiculous attempts to remove this article from Category:Countries in Europe), but sooner or later we have to cut through the bluster, stop the pov-warriors, and return the article to a neutral state. bobrayner (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I see once again you cite policy whilst it is clear you have never read it. Firstly, the only option for omitting statehood is disputed territory by itself, since a disputed territory doesn't have to be a proclaimed state (e.g. the Vukovar and Šarengrad islands claimed by both Croatia and Serbia). As every single voter has specified #1 and/or #3 there isn't a single editor pushing for a Fringe Serb-nationalist view, so another empty accusation. As regards WP:FRINGE, there is no scope for this language within this discussion since there is no super-majority on the world stage to rule one presentation a fringe theory. However, what the page does say is this:

The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately.
If anybody considers 80 countries that do not recognise Kosovo not to be a "significant minority" then I question whether such a person should be allowed to continue editing. Since this is indeed a significant minority, not least when considering it accounts for over half of the world's population and includes India which is the world's largest democracy, we have no option other than to "represent fairly and proportionately" the facts. So how this can be achieved by omitting "disputed territory" is surely baffling. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Have all three, 3, 2 and 1 on first sentence then everybody will be happy. After all, it is a sovereign state, it is disputed and it is partly recognized. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Our job is to provide the most accurate information possible, not make people happy. A polity that isn't allowed to represent itself at an international organization like CEFTA is, by definition, not sovereign. LavaBaron (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• #3 is the best simply because it combines #1 and #2. It recognises that Kososvo is a state and it recognises that Kosovo's statehood is being disputed. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• CEFTA representation is a very odd definition of "sovereignty" and it certainly does not overrule what reliable independent sources say. We've seen lots of different arguments like that. For instance, a couple of years ago, there were people arguing on this talkpage that we couldn't call Kosovo a sovereign state because it wasn't recognised by most other states; now that the number of recognisers has increased, instead of the position changing, a new excuse is found. bobrayner (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Any source that can so bluntly declare Kosovo's "sovereignty" would have as much merit as one to suggest "autonomous province". Both types are negligible. But as it happens, those sources are neither reliable nor independent because the actual reliable sources are more likely to refer mildly to "country" in passing and even then acknowledge the full scenario of dispute and partial recognition. The issue here is along the lines of WP:NPOV, something you frequently cite but do not read. And yes that does overrule reliable sources in cases where other reliable sources differ, or where the point being raised is a small part of a bigger picture. I cannot see what is odd about CEFTA, Kosovo as an entity had functioned independently of Serbia/Yugoslavia since 1999 and therefore needed some kind of representation within a trade bloc. It could either have done this by itself in the name of Kosovo, or it could have been represented by outsiders. It was the latter. After 2008, this did not change. Since when did Germany need to be represented in the EU by the international forces present on its territory? As for discussions two years ago, whatever the reasons were then, opposition to the term - and note I am not one of them because I opted for all three items - there is nothing new on the case therefore any reason to oppose would have been equally valid at the time. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Dear Bobrayner, I have the strongest impression that there exists a correlation between anti-Kosovo reasoning and the origin of the editors having those sentiments. In those lines, those editors believe that "what they wish is what it should", by entering into a state-of-mind where they create realities based on their wishes. Kosovo is a sovereign country by the "facts-on-the-ground" principle, i.e. sovereignty is a factual case, not a matter of recognition by Serbia or other parties. Not recognizing, not liking or disputing the existence/sovereignty/well-functioning of a country doesn't change the "facts-on-the-ground". I personally would like to warn you that those editors are very likely going to find a new excuse against any reliable and independent source. At least until the Kosovo je Serbija nationalistic bell stops ringing in their heads. Yet, all of us, independent on our sentiments, have no other choice than cooperating with all types of editors based on reliable sources and neutral descriptions. OppositeGradient (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: if we look at the criteria in Sovereignty, we see: 1. "Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence [i.e. law] as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies." 2. "In political theory [i.e. politics], sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation."

The first question to answer is whether we are approaching Kosovo's sovereignty or lack thereof from a legal or political perspective, or both. Once that question is answered, we can decide whether the country meets the criteria for sovereignty.

Personally, I'd stick to legal definitions, because Wikipedia should not be getting involved in politics. In which case, we have to ask: does Kosovo have full right and power ... to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies? If not, then it is not a sovereign state. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Kosovo does not gave full right and power over its territory as per sourced comments above. Thanks Willhesucceed, that was very usefull comment. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Willhesucceed, do you have a reliable scholar source that define sovereignty as per your categories? For your information, Kosovo is an independent country and has full constitutional rights to govern itself independently. The country has an independent government, an independent and democratically elected parliament, its independent judicial system, independent foreign relation missions, a territory it exclusively control (without a small part in the north), its independent banking system, its independent educational system, its independent health system, etc ... . After the declaration of independence in 2008, the United Nations Mission in Kosovo is obsolete and has neither any constitutional responsibility, nor any legal power within Kosovo's constitution, nor any sort of practical inference in matters of governance. As such, Kosovo has power to govern itself, in no different ways from other countries in the world. I can provide endless reliable sources on the independent Kosovo constitutional framework, if you would insist on the contrary. Nevertheless, let me express why I doubt your criteria are POV, instead of scholarly accepted standards. You refer to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies, which can not be a serious criterion by any rationale. All states in our modern interconnected world govern under the interference of several actors, such as (i) other states, (ii) the United Nations, (iii) European Union, (iv) International Money Fund, (iv) several NGOs., (v) international court of justice, and (vi) lobbyists and private investigators. To sum up, yes Kosovo has power to govern itself in no different ways to other states, and no your evaluation criteria are not meaningful. OppositeGradient (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment. The question raised in Willhesucceed's post was this: does Kosovo have full right and power ... to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies? . He didn't ask "does Kosovo govern itself, etc.?", the nature of the governance is not being challenged. The editor asserts - and it is not my place to argue or agree - that "sovereignty" should not be used if the right to govern is questioned, and this as we all know is precisely the case. Without giving names, it is the same scenario every time a breakaway state is not recognised by the government from which it broke away, whether this be modern examples such as ISIL or past instances such as Republic of Biafra. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what the previous editors indicate with "right to govern", however according to scholar definitions, the Consent of the governed means [citing]:

• In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government".

Not only does the above criterion give the democratically elected government of Kosovo the right to govern, moreover Article 21 of the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly denies Serbia's colonialist ambitions and its right to govern Kosovo against "the will of the people of Kosovo". Therefore, Kosovo has both the right (this message) and the power (my previous message) to govern, which I believe closes this discussion. (OrangesJuicy, if you compare the state of Kosovo to ISIL, then I am afraid you do not have the moral integrity and the NPOV attributes to further contribute in this topic.) OppositeGradient (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned ISIS in regard to a body that controls its land. You closed your discussion just a little too early because - other that the outline of the Republic of Kosovo as proclaimed being consistent with the autonomous province as created centrally - the land constitutes nothing more than arbitrary territory whereby a specific ethnic group forms the majority. In other words, the autonomous province did not need to exist in the first place for a secessionist movement to come into existence, it only needed the population it had followed by claims for that space. By your so-called "1948" definition, it would appear all minorities in all parts of the world are welcome to create their own states if they so please, and that is exactly the reason Kosovo is one of many breakaway states. There is nothing special about Republic of Kosovo over the rest of them. As for ISIS not representing the will of the people, well there is certainly resentment towards them, of that there can be no argument, but even a vicious terrorist organisation requires at least some passive support from within firstly to exist in the first place (after all, its own members were once ordinary people) and secondly for the state not to collapse. So the argument posted above this is hogwash. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient, please acquaint yourself with WP:NPA. The only thing you've demonstrated with "... you do not have the moral integrity and the NPOV attributes to further contribute in this topic." is that it is you who is unable to approach the subject neutrally. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, thanks for lecturing me. I firmly believe that everyone that compares ISIS (a terror organisation) with Kosovo do NOT have the NPOV integrity to contribute to this topic. If you also have the same opinion, i friendly advise you as well to step back from this topic as well. Wikipedia does not need hatred against Kosovo, it needs neutrality. OppositeGradient (talk)

@OppositeGradient: What you believe to be the high moral ground, or what anyone else (including myself) 'believes' to be The Truth is totally irrelevant to evaluating content for an encyclopaedic resource. As Wikipedians, we follow what WP:RS tell us: we don't !vote on creating our version of it because we believe it to be righteous. What we do is engage in WP:CIVIL discussion and analysis according to policies and guidelines, not via personal attacks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: For god's sake, are you seriously defending the comparison of Kosovo to ISIS? Instead of delineating yourself from comparing the state of Kosovo to the most brutal terrorist organization, you even try to teach us what policies and guidelines are. Regrettable! OppositeGradient (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

But OppositeGradient, that is attacking the straw man because the only person to have taken part in this discussion to compare ISIS to Kosovo is you! You have done this inadvertently each time you have argued with other editors as to what on Wikipedia should constitute sovereignty (two editors not including OJ). By attempting to "throw the book" at people with alleged scholarly definitions and further assertions as to the legality of states ruling over specific nations, you don't realise just how far-reaching those implications are for the simple reason that your only interest is Kosovo. Then when someone points out similarities per your definition you switch tactic by calling one a "terrorist organisation" and saying nothing about the other as if to say "it isn't". Now it is curious because the label of "terrorist" is totally subjective with some governments calling an organisation "terrorist" and others not doing so. Most of the time, we tend to follow a "terrorist" policy geared towards United States declarations. Yet they and so many "trusted sources" publicly referred to the KLA by this label even if never officially listing them. Although they may have "officially" disbanded, it is a fact that since 1999 from the creation of UNMIK, there has been persecution of all kinds towards non-Albanians as well as moderate Albanians by the proponents of the republic. As such, dissidents in Kosovo (even inactive ones) are only as "protected by the de facto state" as they are in any totalitarian society. Security remains an issue. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Either you,
  • (i) fail to understand that no parallel can be drawn between the Republic of Kosovo and ISIS, or
  • (ii) you are using Wikipedia as a forum of anti-Kosovo sentiments.

In case you cannot see a difference between ISIS and the Republic of Kosovo, I regretfully think you lack the ability to neutrally contribute to this topic. OppositeGradient (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As is evidenced here, you do not understand Wikipedia policies, and your input is plainly WP:POINTy. If you're WP:NOTGETTINGIT, follow the advice I've left for you on your talk page and please stop being disruptive. All you are accomplishing is discussion clutter and are doing no favours in promoting your WP:POV by casting WP:ASPERSIONS as regards to some form of sinister, POV intentions on behalf of other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Partially recognised sovereign state and disputed territory - Until something is resolved, this is the fairest, cleanest and most neutral description. BMK (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• #2 and #3: After all of this discussion, I do see some merit in using "country" for the nomenclature in lieu of "sovereign state" but, for the purposes of Wikipedia, I consider it to be a bit of a sneaky workaround. In lay terms, it cannot be expected that readers are going to understand that we're playing with lexicology. Most people would understand 'country' and 'nation-state' as being one and the same. Claiming sovereignty is misleading as Kosovo simply doesn't meet all of the criteria at this point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate which criteria of sovereignty (and which source do you use for them) does Kosovo not fulfill? In particular, since me and other editors have been detailing in depth the scholarly-accepted criteria for sovereignty and in my opinion Kosovo fulfills them. If you do not have any concrete criteria you think Kosovo do not fulfill, then it would be nice for you to justify your choice. OppositeGradient (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, OppositeGradient, I don't appreciate your request for an elaborate response to your question. Do me the courtesy of looking into my editing history (such as on articles like List of states with limited recognition, etc.)... and don't presume that I'm ignorant of the subject matter. I'm really starting to get weary of your tendentious editing patterns. Stop trying to make this personal. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Even if you might not appreciate it, I believe you should motivate your vote based on arguments and reliable sources. If you believe Kosovo is not sovereign you should explicitly state which criterion does it not satisfy, because the editors involved are not obliged to read your history of opinions elsewhere. I simply asked you an objective question, and have no interest to deal personally with you. All is needed is a list of reliable sources, stating the sovereignty criteria that Kosovo does not fulfill? If you have them please share it with the other editors and justify your vote. Meanwhile, there is a long elaboration of sources and criteria in favor of the sovereignty of Kosovo located in this talk page. Your are kindly invited to consult with those arguments and sources first. OppositeGradient (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient, you may not WP:HARASS other editors over the way they decide to !vote. The options were made clear to them at the top of the RfC and Iryna has cast her vote as have several others. You are entitled to your opinion that her reasoning is flawed just as I too consider much of the content to be dubious from some of those choosing the "sovereign only" option. All you need to say is, "I don't agree with XYZ statement for ABC reasons" and that is all. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient: furthermore, this is an RfC, not a WP:BATTLEGROUND as I have patiently tried to explain to you on your own talk page. Note, also, that it is unacceptable to WP:SHOUT. I have been involved in the category discussion, have thought long and hard over the academic definitions of sovereignty, the NPOV position Wikipedia is obliged to adopt, and do not want to fill this RfC with my own WP:WALLOFTEXT reiterating the self-same arguments already amply represented. All that would accomplish is to make it more of a protracted chore for the closing admin to have to wade through for the sake of rehashing pre-existing arguments. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy: I fail to see any WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:SHOUT or WP:WHATEVER. Instead of personalizing the responses, I naturally expect an editor to present neutral arguments supporting his/her stance. As you can assess, my question was impartial, impersonal and objective, I simply asked you whether you can provide the list of reliable sources, stating the sovereignty criteria that Kosovo does not fulfill, upon which you based your vote. Needless to say, offering sources and arguments helps both the quality of the RfC, as well as the closing admin him(er)self. So let me recap: "Would you please share with us the list of reliable sources, stating the sovereignty criteria that Kosovo does not fulfill?". OppositeGradient (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Sovereign country " is the best choise.It is also the most neutral,because that term is used for Taiwan that is less recognised than Kosovo.

Also note that the mandate, mission, and size of KFOR isn't a problem.Afghanistan,Iraq,Mali and many other countries have foreign intervention and are defined as sovereign countries. This means that Kosovo wouldn't be a sovereign country only if Serbia had legal/ juridical power over Kosovo.There isn't any specific country that has legal/ juridical power over Kosovo.Rolandi+ (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This RfC is crawling with !votes and comments by one sock (identifiable by where they are in Germany). Input by this sock should be struck. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Instead of fictional sock-puppet allegation, it would be very happy if you would provide any reliable source to support your claim that Kosovo violates the sovereignty criteria. Which criteria, defined by which reliable source? Not having an argument to offer, (despite multiple polite requests), should not give you an excuse to personally attack other editors. If I were you, I would stop personalizing Wikipedia and instead focus on offering sources and arguments to support your claim. As such, you are still invited to present evidences in support of your allegation that Kosovo does not fulfill some [yet undeclared] criterion. OppositeGradient (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Hello Rolandi+, thanks for your observation. The first thing I have to say is that Taiwan and Kosovo are incommensurable, other than the low level of recognition towards Taiwan, there is no further parallel between the two entities but this has been discussed in much detail earlier in the thread. Furthermore, asides Taiwan and Kosovo, there are 14 other partially recognised states and no single approach for every entry. Moving on, I notice you claim that "sovereign country" is the "most neutral". Can you explain what you mean here? If that is supposed to be neutral then what exactly what it be referred to in any pro-Kosovo Albanian presentation? (for us all to agree that "sovereign state" is neutral here). I note also that for an editor to choose one out of three, no explanation has been provided as to why the remaining items should not appear in the article. For what it is worth, neither partially recognised state or disputed territory breach any segment of WP:NPOV since they are given from a WP:WIKIVOICE narrative; the first is based on the split in world recognition, something factual that is not simply claimed by one of the parties, and the second is based on the territory being contested by rival entities, again not something that a party would claim - instead one would call it a state and the other a province of another. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Partially recognised sovereign state, in this instance 'partially recognised', remains a defining characteristic, as a sizable number of states have not/yet recognised it, for whatever reason. 'Disputed territory' seems to be unnecessary in the opening sentence of the lead as the full dispute can be explored in the article, however I would not object to its use. I am mindful of what Iryna Harpy says about not playing 'word games', but in this instance, the adjectival 'partially recognised' applies as much to 'sovereign' as it does to 'state'. … … … Now important questions, is it 'recognised' or 'recognized' Pincrete (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pincrete: That would depend on some form of consensus as to what variety of English this article uses (see WP:ISE and WP:IZE). At the moment it doesn't carry a template for a national variety, although the majority of the article suggests GB-English (centre, favour, etc.), although there's one 'center' in there. Judging by the input by users on this talk page, I'd say that the majority of us use GB English. There is no particular form of English attached to the subject, therefore it's up to regular editors to make a decision as to their preference. There's nothing extraordinary about Wikipedia articles being mish-mashes, but it would be nice to decide on a variety of English for the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, thanks, I was half-joking, but also drawing attention to the issue. As you say there is no logical connection to any Eng variant, but it is better to standardise/ize.Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You caught me in a half-serious mood. Even though I copyedit (proof read) here, I think I'd have to be fully batty to be a stickler in most of the areas I edit in. I did go the article quickly and realised the only American English allusion was that single instance of 'center' which I've corrected. My 'instinct' is for GB English as I'd be rubbish at copyediting in 'Americanese': too much of 'that' instead of 'which' makes the Harpy's talons itchy, and her disposition a little bit pooty... well, more so than usual. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Partially recognised?

Is Kosovo's independence "partially recognised"? It seems to have the same amount of recognition that the People's Republic of China has. There are some countries that do not recognise it- principally Slavic countries. I suggest downplaying the lack of recognition from some countries, and putting that in a separate section.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I know that the sections above this dating back approximately two months are extremely long and nobody would wish to read them top to bottom but the link between Kosovo and other unrecognised entities is fully explored - in particular China, with which Kosovo cannot be compared for all logistical reasons. As for the answer to your first question, yes Kosovo is included in List of partially recognised states. --OJ (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141013014004/http://archive.serbianunity.net/kosta/memorandum/contents.html to http://archive.serbianunity.net/kosta/memorandum/contents.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081121041814/http://www.publicinternationallaw.org/docs/BW2005/Balkan_Watch.11April_05.pdf to http://www.publicinternationallaw.org/docs/BW2005/Balkan_Watch.11April_05.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140302190734/https://esk.rks-gov.net/shendetsia/doc_view/1066-statistikat-e-shaeumlndetaeumlsisaeuml-2012?tmpl=component&format=raw to https://esk.rks-gov.net/shendetsia/doc_view/1066-statistikat-e-shaeumlndetaeumlsisaeuml-2012?tmpl=component&format=raw
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130427162752/http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/enlargement_papers/2005/elp26en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/enlargement_papers/2005/elp26en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140706194202/http://www.buyusa.gov/kosovo/en/doingbusinessinkosovo.html to http://www.buyusa.gov/kosovo/en/doingbusinessinkosovo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090324234705/http://www.seerecon.org/kosovo/documents/wb_econ_report/wb-kosovo-econreport-2-2.pdf to http://www.seerecon.org/kosovo/documents/wb_econ_report/wb-kosovo-econreport-2-2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006101521/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/globe-article.php?yyyy=2006&mm=10&dd=02&nav_category=123&nav_id=37090 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/globe-article.php?yyyy=2006&mm=10&dd=02&nav_category=123&nav_id=37090
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100521044236/http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpCountries)/165F03EE03E9D015C1257662005CE095?OpenDocument&count=10000 to http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpCountries)/165F03EE03E9D015C1257662005CE095?opendocument&count=10000
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110514140932/http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpEnvelopes)/B4A8E121B6EA5BBB802570B8005AA863?OpenDocument to http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpEnvelopes)/B4A8E121B6EA5BBB802570B8005AA863?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100306175049/http://www.unmikonline.org:80/civpol/statistics.htm to http://www.unmikonline.org/civpol/statistics.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120311191948/http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/10585/ to http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/10585/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120225155838/http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/shared/mainsite/published_docs/studies_and_reports/second_annual05.pdf to http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/shared/mainsite/published_docs/studies_and_reports/second_annual05.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Kosmet

It seems logical to make Kosmet redirect to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija now rather than Kosovo, but given the contentiousness of this subject, I'd like people here to sign off on such a change. -- Dissident (Talk) 21:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case, the best thing to do is transfer this discussion to Talk:Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija so that we can all take a closer look at things. If the redirect goes ahead as you propose, it will not affect the Kosovo article so we don't need to make this talk page any longer. --OJ (TALK) 00:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy in Demographics?

Is the following not redundant: "CIA World Factbook estimates the following ratio: 88% Albanians, 8% Kosovo Serbs and 4% other ethnic groups.[152] According to CIA The World Factbook estimated data from July 2009, Kosovo's population stands at 1,804,838 persons. It stated that ethnic composition is "Albanians 88%, Serbs 7%, other 5% (Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian, Janjevci – Croats)".[152]" 70.31.62.70 (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Categories

@Hugo999: What is the point of this edit? Category:2008 in Kosovo and Category:2008 in Serbia are categories for articles about events that happened in 2008. How can "Kosovo" be an event on Kosovo? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

These categories seem pointless for this article. You could put a category for every year in Kosovo on this article. I think these categories should be removed. IJA (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed those categories from the article, since they are obviously for events, and "Kosovo" is not an event. I also removed the Category:2008 establishments in Kosovo. I don't see how "Kosovo" can be an "establishment in Kosovo", sounds weird. I also removed the Category:Independence of Kosovo, as that category is for the articles about events and people connected to the independence of Kosovo, and this article is a general article on Kosovo, not specifically connected to the independence of Kosovo. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)