This page is currently under extended confirmed protection until July 22, 2026 at 17:40 UTC. Extended confirmed protection prevents edits from all unregistered editors and registered users with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits. Thepolicy on community use specifies that extended confirmed protection can be applied to combat disruption, if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Extended confirmed protection may also be applied to enforcearbitration sanctions. Please discuss any changes on thetalk page; you maysubmit an edit request to ask for uncontroversial changes supported byconsensus.
Kosovo is part ofWikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating toKosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit thewelcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, pleasejoin the project and help with ouropen tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo
Kosovo is part of theWikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating toAlbania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit thewelcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with ouropen tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSerbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcountries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide toEuropean topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Limited recognition, aWikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities withlimited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at theproject page, or contribute to theproject discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
In accordance with sanctions authorised for this article:
All editors on this article are subject to1RR per day and are required todiscuss anycontent reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see[1] (subsequently modified by[2]).
This isnot a forum for general discussion of Kosovo, or whether it is a 'country', 'state' or 'province'. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.
You may wish to ask factual questions about Kosovo at theReference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at theVillage pump, or ask for help at theHelp desk.
The opening paragraph to the article was decided upon, by consensus, following lengthy discussions. It is based on reliable sources, providing aneutral point of view.The first sentence, in particular,must call Kosovo a "country", reflecting the consensus found in the RfC held in the spring of 2023.
This page has archives. Sections older than60 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.
The content ofRepublic of Kosovo wasmerged intoKosovo on 23 May 2014. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see itstalk page.
RfC: Should the phrase"with partial diplomatic recognition" be removed from the intro?
Oppose - Most articles of countries in a similar position to Kosovo include recognition information in the intro, as it is a defining element of their contested statehood. Wikipedia needs to maintain aWP:NPOV and I believe that by mentioning that Kosovo is partially recognised, we are neutrally demonstrating to our readers that Kosovo's statehood is contested, however, it is also a de facto reality. I think this is fair and factual. At present, the intro states"Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition." This was the result of aRfC in Spring 2023 which stated""Based on all of this, the consensus seems to be that the opening sentence of the article should read as laid out in the proposal "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition." --Jayron32 17:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)".User:Horse Eye's Back believes that the "with partial diplomatic recognition" part should not be included in the intro as they believe"that is the opposite of NPOV and standing consensus" but they have not stated how this is the case. They also believe that the RfC in Spring 2023 was more about Kosovo being described as a country in the intro and not about the part about "partial diplomatic recognition". This topic has come up time and time again. Please seeTalk:Kosovo/Archive 34 for details of various discussions on this matter. I believe that an RfC is required to resolve this issue and to build consensus.IJA (talk)18:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note, my opposition isn't to it being in the introduction its to it taking up so much of the first sentence. Perhaps the RfC can be adjusted or a new one opened which actually addresses the concern raised?Horse Eye's Back (talk)01:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Four words? You even reverted it when it was shortened to two words. Then why claim it's the "opposite" to NPOV? Anyway, several other users have also brought up this issue on several other occasions as demonstrated in Archive 34. You're free to come up with your own suggestion.IJA (talk)05:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008[17] and has since gained diplomatic recognition by at least 108 member states of the United Nations. Serbia does not officially recognise Kosovo as a sovereign state and continues to claim it as its constituent Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, but it accepts the governing authority of the Kosovo institutions as part of the 2013 Brussels Agreement.[18]" is a whole paragraph which I have never objected to, do you understand that the into/lead is all five paragraphs at the beginning not just the first sentence? Per the MOS the only situation where we would include it in the first sentence is when its the only thing the topic is notable for (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section), which isn't the case here. It is not necessary to define the topic, its presence in the lead is supported by MOS but its presence in the first sentence simply is not.Horse Eye's Back (talk)14:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because IJA claims to have only made this RfC to address the issue I raised... But they've poisoned the well by asking a different question, one to which I would be surprised if anyone agrees. They're wasting everyone's time.Horse Eye's Back (talk)14:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep changing your mind about why you're opposed to including it the intro, so it's hard to keep up. You've claimed stuff about a "standing consensus". This process is about building a consensus. Feel free to put forward your own proposals. And as I've previously stated, you're not the only user to raise this issue.IJA (talk)19:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please seeWP:RFCBEFORE and again I have never opposed including this sort of information in the into in general, what I have challenged is whether or not its due in the first sentence of the intro. Please do not misrepresent my position or that of others.Horse Eye's Back (talk)20:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - partial recognition should be mentioned within the first two sentences. Acceptable options include:"partially recognized","with partial diplomatic recognition", or"Recognized by 108 of the UN's 193 member states" likePalestine article has.--Staberinde (talk)13:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing from the first sentence - Which appears to be what was requested. This is what is done at every other country under “States that are state parties within the United Nations System” inList of states with limited recognition, such asPalestine. A couple with less recognition under this categorization (such asTaiwan) also mention recognition only later in the introduction. Nor do any countries with the majority of other countries recognizing them have this in the first sentence. It is unnecessary and not essential enough for the first sentence.LordDiscord (talk)17:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment - i think we should remove the sentence saying "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition." and instead of "independent" in status put somewhere similar like withPalestine: Regonised by 108 out of 193 countries, under UN administration, claimed by Serbia as autonomous province. Very simply, correct and not complicated
But the United Nations doesn't administrate Kosovo, nor does it claim to. We would be misleading our readers by stating something that isn't true or factual. UNMIK exists but its day-to-day functions are very minimal.IJA (talk)21:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The UN has not administered Kosovo since 2001, ie, well before the declaration of independence. The United Nations gave Kosovo 'provisional democratic self-governance' in 2001 when it re-established the Kosovo Assembly. The United Nations does not administrate Kosovo. The United Nations does not claim to administrate Kosovo and hasn't done so for almost a quarter of a century. Like I said previously, UNMIK's day-to-day duties are very limited and they do not involve governance. It would be factually wrong to state that Kosovo is under UN administration. Not even Serbia considers Kosovo to be under UN administration, and per the2013 Brussels Agreement, Serbia accepts that Kosovo is administrated by institutions of self-governance. This is an encyclopaedia, we need to be factual for our readers.IJA (talk)08:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia claiming Kosovo is very irrelevant when it controls nothing within it. Not even the Serb enclaves are under de facto Serbian control. Kosovo is an independent nation, recognition is another matter.Botushali (talk)00:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are pushing way to much how Kosovo is independent, while i understand why, we should still respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of Republic of Serbia.GazuzBaguzz (talk)12:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I’m going to try and make this as clear as possible in hopes that you may finally understand the reality of what it is we’re discussing, and thereby refrain from trying to remove ‘independent’ from the lead. Your continued insistence on framing Kosovo as part of Serbia is misleading and not supported byreliable sources, Wikipedia’s standards and even international law. Kosovo is not under Serbian control - whether it be militarily, administratively or politically.Serbia has no governing presence in Kosovo, including in the Serb-majority areas, which are managed entirely by Kosovo’s institutions under agreements Serbia has signed (as mentioned above, please see the Brussels Agreement, 2013). Even Serbia recognizes Kosovo’s de facto governance.
The UN does not administer Kosovo. UNMIK’s role has been ceremonial for over two decades and does not equate to administration or sovereignty. The International Court of Justice ruled in 2010 that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law. Over 100 UN member states recognise Kosovo as a sovereign country, and it participates in international organisations, signs treaties, fields its own teams in sports competitions and issues internationally accepted passports, just as any independent nation would.
This RfC is about how recognition should be phrased in the lead, not whether Kosovo is independent. That is no longer a matter of debate; rather, it is a political and legal reality. The question here is how best to phrase recognition neutrally and clearly for the reader. That does not mean parroting nationalist talking points or introducing inaccurate claims about UN administration.
Finally, your appeal to “respect the territorial integrity of Serbia” is rather unsuitable. Wikipedia does not take diplomatic positions or adopt the policy stances of any single state. It reflects the realities of the world as described by reliable sources, not the preferences of any particular government. Serbia’s territorial claim is not exercised in reality, and equating it with Kosovo’s functioning statehood is simply wrong.Botushali (talk)12:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why can Kosovo have the independent status and other regions cannot? What makes it stand out? After all, Although International law said that Kosovo's independence was not illegal, they never said that it was legal. Kosovo's independence directly violatesResolution 1244, resolution that confirmed the integrity of Serbia after the war. Serbian enclaves in Kosovo are in some way under the influence of Serbia and the institutions operate within the framework of the Republic of Serbia. Kosovo isn't the only region that wants independence, there are many regions and breakaway states that wants independence. I don't say what I think like you, I say what the real situation is. And whether you will accept it or not is none of my business.GazuzBaguzz (talk)13:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although International law said that Kosovo's independence was not illegal, they never said that it was legal. This statement is logically absurd. If something is not illegal under international law, then by definition, it is legal. The ICJ’s 2010 advisory opinion explicitly stated thatKosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law. In legal terms, something that is “not illegal” is legal. This is looking increasingly like a case ofWP:NOTHERE.
Just so you know, UNSCR 1244 did not confirm Serbia’s sovereignty over Kosovo - it suspended Belgrade’s authority and placed Kosovo under international administration, leaving its final status open. The ICJ actually affirmed that Kosovo’s independence did not violate 1244. As for Serbian enclaves, they are governed by Kosovo’s institutions under the Brussels Agreement, which, again, Serbia signed. Claims that they “operate within the framework of Serbia” are simply incorrect.
Each case of independence must be assessed individually, as all arise from specific historical and political circumstances. No two are identical, and drawing false parallels ignores this reality. This RfC is not about Kosovo’s factual independence, it is about the depiction of its recognition on the article. Stop insisting otherwise. If this pattern of disruption and agenda-driven editing continues, it may warrant admin attention as per WP:NOTHERE.Botushali (talk)13:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That "Kosovo's independence directly violates Resolution 1244" is the Serbian nationalist position, not the consensus among relevant experts. You appear to in multiple places be substituting a Serbian nationalist perspective for NPOV, including gratuitous attacks against someone you believed to be Albanian based on their perceive nationality. You can't do that.Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we should still respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of Republic of Serbia. Absolutely not. We shouldn't respect anything in this regard. It appears that the user has failed to comprehend how Wikipedia works — that it is based on reliable sources and ought not to abide bypolitical circumstances nor political views. Serbian or Kosovan point of views are largely irrelevant as long as they contradict reliable sources. This is off-topic to the RfC.AlexBachmann (talk)21:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I've said this before: the main problem I see with the "with partial diplomatic recognition" phrase is that it is being used as if it was an established term with a well-defined meaning in international politics or law. As far as I can tell, it isn't – at least not in this sense. In the literature, when people speak of "partial diplomatic recognition", they are almost always referring to something quite different: a situation where one particular state is giving recognition to another state in a limited, partial way. It's not really a conventional term to describe the overall situation of a state that is fully recognized by some other states but not at all by others. In this sense we've been using it here, this term is basically just a Wikipedia-internal coinage, invented by Wikipedians to allow them to group certain articles together that are perceived as having certain common NPOV issues. It's not an established real-world thing, as far as I can tell. It should be removed from the lead. I'm not saying the overall fact (of Kosovo being recognized by only some states) isn't due for the lead, but that should be expressed in actual prose (and that of course means it would go at least a bit further down, for space reasons.)Fut.Perf.☼09:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I agree with the above proposal by Fut.Perf. Rather than “partial diplomatic recognition”, a simple line later in the lead stating how many nations recognise Kosovo would suffice and is much clearer than the aforementioned line.Botushali (talk)11:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "this term is basically just a Wikipedia-internal coinage" its usage here was something I had to learn and I came into editing here from an international relations background. What I've found most interesting over the years is how it actually gets used... For example there is generally a double standard where advocates for using it are only advocating for its use with one party... For example if Kosovo has partial diplomatic recognition then by definition so does Serbia, but you won't find any of the people insisting that it gets added here adding it there... Same goes for China-Taiwan, you never see the people pushing partial diplomatic recognition in the first sentence ofTaiwan suggesting that it even be mentioned that China has partial diplomatic recognition.Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion made by user Future Perfect at Sunrise. We need to find an convenient place for the clarification regarding the int. status of Kosovo. "Partial diplomatic recognition" suggests that there exists ambiguity or vagueness in certain diplomatic recognitions, or rather note verbales, which is not true.AlexBachmann (talk)22:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm convinced by Future Perfect at Sunrise's comment that this phrase is a creation of Wikipedia and isn't backed up by relevant sources. I agree with the above opposers that its recognition is integral to its statehood; however, the fourth paragraph of the lead provides a better overview of the topic for readers than this vague clause in the first sentence.Dan Leonard (talk •contribs)16:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand the reasoning behind this RfC, but there are no viable alternatives currently offered, and the proposed version would remove information that is highly relevant to an encyclopedia. —Sadko(words are wind)00:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the viable alternative that preserves the relevant information would be to have the full verbal description of the recognition status in an extra sentence:Kosovo unilaterally declared independence fromSerbia in 2008 and has since gained diplomatic recognition from about half of the world's other states, while Serbia continues to assert its own sovereignty over it. That is still concise and preserves all the information (and more) of what we mean by the "partial recognition" phrase. It also has the advantage that it doesn't merelytry to get that information across, using a phrase that doesn't really mean what we want it to mean, but it actuallydoes get that information across, using words that do mean what we want them to mean. Of course such a sentence is already in the lead, so there can be no talk of "removing information". It is currently quite far down in the lead (and a bit wordier than I proposed here), but it could easily be moved further up – as far as I'm concerned, it could go as far up as to the second or third sentence of the lead paragraph. For a country that is still one of the youngest countries in the world, I would agree that the information as such is quite relevant enough to be made visible somewhere near the beginning – it just doesn't need to be crammed into the very lead sentence.Fut.Perf.☼08:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiUser:Future Perfect at Sunrise. That's certainly something we can work with and I'd be prepared to support. How would you propose the first paragraph to be? Something like:Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a landlocked country in Southeast Europe. Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in 2008 and has since gained diplomatic recognition from about half of the world's other states, while Serbia continues to assert its own sovereignty over it. It is bordered by Albania to the southwest, Montenegro to the west, Serbia to the north and east, and North Macedonia to the southeast. It covers an area of 10,887 km2 (4,203 sq mi) and has a population of nearly 1.6 million, with ethnic Albanians making up roughly 92% of the population. Would that be the first few sentences that you'd propose?IJA (talk)09:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above version seems OK, but I only have one issue regarding the use of the word “assert”. It doesn’t seem like the most suitable word, as Serbia has failed to assert its sovereignty on Kosovo to this day. Perhaps something along the lines of “… Serbia continues to claim sovereignty over it…” might be a more suitable alternative?
Also, rather than saying that Kosovohas since gained diplomatic recognition from about half of the world's other states, perhaps we could be more precise by stating exactly how many UN member states recognise Kosovo’s independence?Botushali (talk)12:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an additional sentence in the first paragraph to be a viable alternative... Its already going to be fully covered in the lead, that would be undue.Horse Eye's Back (talk)15:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it shouldn't be covered twice in the lead. I was talking of moving that statement up (and possibly shortening it), not duplicating it. I don't see how that would be undue – the disputed recognition status is undoubtedly a highly prominent fact about Kosovo, arguably much more prominent than many other facts that we're currently giving pride of place over it (like the fact that it's landlocked, that it contains rolling hills and high plains, that it was once inhabited by Dardanians and at another time governed by the Brankovic and whatnot).Fut.Perf.☼21:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake I misunderstood. For what its worth I would remove landlocked from the first sentence too however it is traditional in the leads of landlocked countries but I think thats more tradition than actual MOS or guideline.Horse Eye's Back (talk)15:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per rationale provided by FPaS. Support the wording of IJA with the 2 small changes proposed by Botushali. IMO this is a good wording that improves the lede, its clarity and flow.Ktrimi991 (talk)23:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Hello~, what's the standard practice of describing & handling unrecognised and partially recognised countries/territories onen.wiki, or is it done on a case-by-case basis here...? + Comment: Anyways, let'skeep this article in line with theState of Palestine. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk)19:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no standard practice; each case is decided on its own article talk page. Your !vote is to be counted as "Support", since the proposal is in line with the Palestine article. Cheers,Ktrimi991 (talk)21:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - By this point most of the world recognizes Kosovo as independent, and it's basically old news at this point. The whole "dispute" is kinda in the shadows (with groups like OpenBalkan including both Kosovo and Serbia), and shouldn't be in the lead.⛿WeaponizingArchitecture |yell at me14:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything wrong with stating that Kosovo has partial diplomatic recognition when 50% of the world's countries do recognize Kosovo & 50% do not. It's just a neutral and correct fact stated in a straightforward and concise manner. The words partial diplomatic recognition link toRecognition of Kosovo where the reader can learn more about the topic if they wish. We do this with a majority of states with limited recognition already (though I also find the language to be non-problematic, so I wouldn't oppose its inclusion on any of them) Vanilla Wizard💙19:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that this is a term invented by and only found within Wikipedia or that it's likely someone will see "partial recognition" and believe that means that one country's stance towards another is some inbetween state of recognition and lack of recognition (not quite sure what that would mean, perhaps informal or unofficial diplomatic relations?) as opposed to astate with limited recognition.
Would their issues with the term "partial" not also apply to terms like "limited" recognition? Limited recognition is the more standard way of referring to these entities' recognition status on Wikipedia, so if enough editors have a problem with "partial" but not "limited", I'm not opposed to switching the adjective, nor do I have any issues with simply saying "recognized by n UN member states."
The problem I have with their issues raised with "partial" is that they did not suggest an alternative, but they did suggest moving it down a bit and not mentioning its recognition status in the opening sentences, which I disagree with. If we set a precedent that "partially recognized" is not acceptable terminology and we should instead just say "x is a country in y region" and not mention their recognition status until later on, this would likely be controversial on most other articles about other partially recognized states.
So while I'm not entirely convinced that there is a problem to begin with, I'm open to some alternatives if there is a consensus that a change is needed, but I don't agree with not including this information in the first sentence.
I see your point. The main issue with your rationale IMO is that you say thatIf we set a precedent that ...... this would likely be controversial on most other articles about other partially recognized states. We are discussing only Kosovo, this article's subject, and what we decide to do here can't serve as a precedent for any other article, and other articles' issues can't decide what we should do here. Each article is on its own with its own specifics. Furthermore, the current proposal is to mention the number of recognizing countries in the second sentence, which is not a big change from mentioning it in the first one.Ktrimi991 (talk)22:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2025
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
1. The official languages in the Republic of Kosovo are Albanian and Serbian.
2. Turkish, Bosnian and Roma languages have the status of official languages at the municipal level or will be in official use at all levels as provided by law."
Hello Sadko, I like to believe you that the photo was taken by a professional photographer, however, I have serious concerns about this images verifiability, which I believe justifies its removal. Here's why:
No verifiable source confirms the claims. The photo is described as showing “Serbian and other children refugees” from Cërnica, Gjilan, but there is no reliable source confirming the ethnicity of the children, their location, the date it was taken, or that they are refugees at all. Such sensitive images and bold claims require to be backed, not just theoriginal research of uploader’s description.
The description used on the article contradict the visual content on its own. When you look closer, the children in the image appear well-dressed, smiling and completely relaxed near their houses (?), the bigger children (adults?) on the right seem to be quite happy. There is no whatsoever of a visual sign of displacement, hardship, or a refugee context. The author himself never stated that they are refugees, the translated description of the image on Commons "Little Serbs and non-Albanians send greetings to the world from the town of Cernica near Gnjilane".
I looked at other images of the photographer and their descriptions. The image comes from the projectKoreni duše, meaningRoots of the Soul, a collection with a clear Serbian national perspective. It doesn't show any other suffering besides of, according to him, the Serbs (again not verifiable), he provides a date "March 18, 2013 " that does not correspond with the timeframe he's trying to describe and he's not at all neutral using language like "Albanian terrorists" which violatesWP:NPOV and increases concerns aboutbias and editorial framing. In fact there's this photo from his own collection that the "Serbian refugees" photo also is part of,this right here, which shows a Memorial plaque in Staro Gracko, and in the lower part of the plaque states that "The memorial plaque was placed bySNS of the Kosovo District 23.07.2000", exactly one year after theStaro Gracko massacre. This alone justifies that this photo and all other photos of this same project are taken after the Kosovo War. The original uploader, Darko Dozet, renamed himself the album as "Photo of Kosovo and Metohija from the "Roots of the Soul" project of theyear", and the plaque of after 1999 clearly shows that the photos are taken after theKosovo War. Hence, the author Darko Dozet cannot be deemed as reliable, neutral or accurate.
I’m not questioning the fact that Serbs also experienced displacement during the end of the Kosovo War, even though in far lower levels that the Albanians. But this particular image fails on many areas proving what is written in the description. I propose for it to be removed again.Kogjaimeqem (talk)10:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great points made above by Kogjaimeqem. If the claims made in the caption cannot be verified, then I second the image’s removal.Botushali (talk)12:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) You don’t need to take my word for it, that has never been the point. He is a professional photographer, which can easily be confirmed through a simple internet search:[3]
2) The exhibition was titled Koreni duše (“Roots of the Soul”). The photos were taken between 1998 and 2007.
3) Just for the record, there were many refugees after the Kosovo War, for example, following the2004 unrest in Kosovo.
3.1) The photographer himself has stated when he began taking photos in Kosovo. You simply haven’t done your research: Prvi put sam otišao 1998. godine, dok su se još vodile borbe. Bio sam klinac, rekli su mi da idem na svoju odgovornost, jer ni jedna redakcija htela da šalje svoje ljude. / I went for the first time in 1998, while the fighting was still going on. I was just a kid — they told me I was going at my own risk, because no editorial office wanted to send their own people.
3.2) If you don't take his word for it, there’s a photo showing the photographer near Pakistani peacekeepers. Check the MNS article.
4) I will not address the so-called “analysis” of how some of the children are dressed, what that supposedly signifies, whether it’s staged, and similar claims. Please do not do that.
5) If someone, somewhere, used inappropriate language, I can only condemn it — but that does not mean the photo should be removed, or that an alternative cannot be considered.
6) I’ve been informed that a number of his photos, including those uploaded to Commons were published in20 godina u jednoj sekundi, a monograph marking his personal jubilee (ISBN: 978-86-86655-06-6, COBISS.SR 284294663). It is also available for download on Amazon.
7) To sum up: the time frame fits, we have professional, high-quality photographs (which is relatively rare when it comes to the Balkans), and the works have been both published and exhibited multiple times. Therefore, there is no valid reason for removal and simple “I agree” comments are not enough. Thank you. —Sadko(words are wind)16:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If after all this you don't think that there are valid reasons to remove the image then go back to the beginning and read it again... They're certainly valid even if you think that your reasons overcome them. Would you describe Darko Dozet's POV as that of a Serbian nationalist?Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of my arguments were addressed. As for your fair and well-intentioned question, while that’s certainly possible, I haven’t come across any reliable sources to back it up. Can you help with that? —Sadko(words are wind)16:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Serbian nationalism appears to be the theme of the photo montage on their wiki page. Do you know what news organizations they've worked for as a professional photographer or are they a professional in a different sense?Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not know.
Foreign media outlets that they've worked include: the Associated Press, Reuters, the European Pressphoto Agency, Bild, Huw Evans Images, Yedioth Ahronoth, Titan Sport, and Gamma. Furthermore, he has worked for a number of Yugoslav and Serbian media: the news agency Tanjug, as well as newspapers and magazines such as Večernje novosti, Dnevnik, Kalibar, Sport, Bilje i zdravlje, Treće oko, NS Sport, Neven, Hlas ľudu, Ruské slovo, and Mađar. It should suffice. Ty. —Sadko(words are wind)19:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable to me, that would still leave the question of going above and beyond the information supplied by the photographer with the image.Horse Eye's Back (talk)01:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see any RS here that verifies the claim made in the photo? Regardless of the points Sadko made above, it’s all speculation until the caption is verified. As Kogjaimeqem stated,Such sensitive images and bold claims require to be backed, not just the original research of uploader’s description. Additionally,The author himself never stated that they are refugees, the translated description of the image on Commons "Little Serbs and non-Albanians send greetings to the world from the town of Cernica near Gnjilane".
None of these crucial points made above have been satisfied. You keep pushing what seems to be a WP:OR captioning of the photo, and the arguments you made still failed to verify the caption. Simple comments of agreement are more than sufficient when walls of text from your end fail to provide anything meaningful to the conversation. The caption made here was WP:OR, and you have failed to prove that it isn’t thus far.
Not really, no. First, there was a claim that this photo is 'fake' and that the photographer 'wasn't there.' I have shown that to be untrue. Then there were questions about whether he is 'not a professional photographer'; that was also shown to be untrue. After that, his credibility, specifically, who he had worked with or for, was questioned as well, and that was refuted as well. There is no 'OR' here: the photographer himself uploaded the photo and provided the description and relevant information. Nothing to add here. If this photo is not restored (as it should be), we will find another one with the same motif and that's it. Thank you. —Sadko(words are wind)15:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At no point did I claim the photo was “fake” or that the photographer “wasn’t there” (Read it again!). That’s not what was stated by me or anyone else on this matter, and such an clear attempt to twist others points doesn’t help at all moving this discussion forward. The concerns raised are all valid under Wikipedia’s policies, especially WP:V and WP:OR. What’s also concerning is that you’ve repeatedly avoided directly addressing any of the points made, while declaring “nothing to add here”, despite the fact that the main concerns about the photo still remain unresolved. That’s quite surprising coming from an experienced editor with over 83,000 edits.
And also, saying “if the photo is not restored...” comes across as more of a warning/threat than a neutral comment. That’s definitely not how decisions should be made especially for content on such a sensitive part of the country's history. Content should be included or excluded based on verifiability, not based on pressure.
Calling the photo "fake" as in: analyzing whether the children in it are well-dressed or not, is something I have never seen before on Wikipedia. Since you are new here, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith, which is always strongly encouraged.
It appears that your issue is not with a single photo, but with all photos taken during this sensitive period by a professional photographer who has over 25 years of experience. Another editor and I have confirmed that he is indeed a professional. He has generously uploaded these images to Wikimedia Commons under a relatively permissive license. His credentials have been verified, and his credibility has been established. Having said that, what seems to be the genuine issue?
The number of edits I have made does not matter. What is important is that I started this discussion and am sincerely trying to find a compromise or something close to it. Perhaps you misunderstood me, dear fellow editor. My point is that if this particular photo is considered unacceptable, although I still do not see why, then we should try to find another one with a similar motif. Would you agree? Best. —Sadko(words are wind)18:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, despite these walls of text, the main concern has not been addressed -Such sensitive images and bold claims require to be backed, not just the original research of uploader’s description. Also,The author himself never stated that they are refugees, the translated description of the image on Commons "Little Serbs and non-Albanians send greetings to the world from the town of Cernica near Gnjilane".
These have been the main concerns since the beginning. Even the author doesn’t use the caption presented here. Sadko, stay on topic, and try to refrain from trying to make it out as though the dispute has been resolved. You still have not addressed the main issue I’ve explicitly highlighted above from Kogjaimeqem’s original arguments.Botushali (talk)21:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the same caption was used across multiple articles. I'll look into it.
My rational proposal is to remove misleading captions and to make sure they don’t return. I don’t think the topic needs this long of a discussion about alternatives and solutions. An image had a misleading caption, the misleading caption has been removed. The image itself is probably more usable on articles likeKosovo Serbs or something similar, only if the actual caption is used, of course.Botushali (talk)23:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
This wikipedia page should be reported. The Entire page here has been vandalized by Serbs filled with Serbian nationalistic nonsense. I'm getting reverted when I post actual historical sources from these periods and they claim this asnationalistic nonsense yet at the same time promote a 'version of history' that basically has no evidence. What kind of fairytales are these that you are telling here ? This is not Kosovos history that you are telling here.TheCreatorOne (talk)20:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid such vague allegations of malfeasance are not helpful for editors to figure out how you wish to see the page improved. Reviewing this page's recent history and that of your talk pge, I don't see any examples of editors accusing you ofnationalistic nonsense or reverting your edits.
That having been said, your complaint does give an inkling as to a problem with your own approach to editing articles about history. You complain that editors are revertingwhen I post actual historical sources from these periods--we should almost never be using historical,WP:PRIMARY sources to support claims on Wikipedia; instead we should use recent (generally, the newer the better), reliableWP:SECONDARY sources. Misuse of primary sources is an example oforiginal research, which is not allowed.WP:RSHISTORY provides good advice on which sources to seek. Please also seeWP:VAND, as you appear to be misusing the term "vandalism" here.signed,Rosguilltalk20:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
History sections of country articles are meant to summarize key points of the country's history, not give undue weight to particular incidents or POV.
TheCreatorOne should start consideringWP:NPOV andWP:DUE when editing, but my guess is they'll just continue adding thousands of KB worth of text over and over and accuse anyone who tries to improve upon it of vandalism and nationalism, as they continue to push an Albanian POV. --Griboski (talk)02:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you removing this?
these villages are known with the names Gjinovci (Gjinajt), Magjerci, Bjellogllavci (Kryebardhët), Flokovci (Flokajt), Crnça, Caparci (Çaparajt), Gjonovci (Gjonajt), Shpinadinci (Shpinajt) and Novaci.
level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Question: Hello~, what's the standard practice of describing & handling unrecognised and partially recognised countries/territories onen.wiki, or is it done on a case-by-case basis here...? +
Comment: Anyways, let'skeep this article in line with theState of Palestine. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk)19:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please providereliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Statements are controversial given this article's CTOP status, please source properly—🪫Volatile 📲T |⌨️C18:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
