Talk:Republic of Kosovo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The asterisk

I need help with a user, User:Danlaycock, who insists on inserting an asterisk after "Kosovo" in Future enlargement of the European Union and Template:European Union candidates. The asterisk is not even mentioned anywhere in the main article for the Republic of Kosovo (let alone Kosovo) and its meaning, which is very technical, unfamiliar and irrelevant to the average (general) reader of Wikipedia, is explained only in specialised sub-articles. The user, however, ignores all my objections and just keeps reverting. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice try. I'm not "inserting" an asterisk anywhere. You are attempting to "remove" an asterisk that is already there and I'm simply reverted your proposed changes. Unfortunately you keep ignoring all my objections to your removal of the asterisk and just keep reverting rather than proposing your changes on the talk page to establish a WP:CONSENSUS.

The reason for the asterisk is that due to the lack of unanimity by the EU on recognizing Kosovo (5 states still dispute its existence) the EU has taken a status neutral approach on Kosovo's independence, and NEVER refers to the "Republic of Kosovo" and instead only to "Kosovo*". See [1] [2], [3]. As such, in contexts related to the EU we must follow their lead to respect WP:NPOV. We can't say "The Republic of Kosovo" is a candidate for EU membership because that is false. The EU has never said that. They have said "Kosovo*" is a candidate for membership. Attempts to distort this don't accurately reflect what the sources say on the matter.

Anyways, I'm not sure what the relevance of this is to the Republic of Kosovo article. If Florian would like to propose changes to other articles, the proposal should be made at those pages. Raising it here is a rather transparent attempt to get a favourable audience for the changes. TDL (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I recently edited the first sentence to change it from "The Republic of Kosovo ... is a majority recognised state in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe" to "The Republic of Kosovo is an entity recognised as a state by the majority of countries. It is located in Southeastern Europe", with the edit summary: "Rephrased first sentence to be clearer and more precise". User:IJA has reverted this with the edit summary: 'User:Neljack's POV pushing did not make the first sentence "clearer and more precise"'. In accordance with BRD, I am bringing the matter here for discussion.

I am unsure of which side's POV I am being accused of pushing. As far as I can see, my change did not affect the substance of what was being said - the sentence was saying that the Republic of Kosovo was recognised by the majority of countries, and that's what I explicitly said. I found the term "majority recognised state" confusing and clumsy; it is not a phrase I had ever seen before. The sentence did not make clear which "majority" it was referring to, so I thought it would be helpful to clarify that it was referring to countries (not the people of Kosovo, for instance). Neljack (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What on earth is an "entity"? In the past, avoidance-words like that have been a fairly serious problem for the articles around Kosovo. bobrayner (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The "Republic of Kosovo" is a de facto independent self declared state who's legitimacy and sovereignty is disputed however it enjoys majority recognition throughout the world and has membership in an increasing amount of world organisations. The word "entity" is a very loose, generic and broad term used for describing a disputed country like Kosovo. It is very misleading for our readers and audience. The definition for the word "entity" is "1 That which has a distinct existence as an individual unit. Often used for organisations which have no physical form. 2 An existent something that has the properties of being real, and having a real existence. 3 (computing) Anything about which information or data can be stored in a database; in particular, an organised array or set of individual elements or parts. 4 The state or quality of being or existence." It isn't an appropriate word for describing Kosovo as it is very ambiguous. Saying that the Republic of Kosovo is an "entity" is confusing and clumsy. IJA (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that "entity" is a less than ideal; I just couldn't think of a better term. How about this for the opening sentence: "The Republic of Kosovo, which is located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe, is recognised as a state by the majority of countries." That would avoid the unclarity I was concerned with, as well as the awkwardness and ambiguity of "entity" that has been mentioned. Neljack (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I prefer "The Republic of Kosovo is a State located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe, it is recognised by the majority of countries." or "The Republic of Kosovo is a State which is recognised by the majority of countries, it is located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe." IJA (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

But we cannot flat-out state that Kosovo is a state because that is a "seriously contested assertion" and would therefore violate NPOV. Neljack (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The current lede already has a caveat about recognition, immediately before the word "state". Which is pandering somewhat to the old Belgrade position, but I can live with it. bobrayner (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We are not "flat-out" saying that Kosovo is a state, we are saying that the Republic of Kosovo is a state. Big difference You want us to say that the Republic of Kosovo "is recognised as a state", well what else are they going to recognise the Republic of Kosovo as? There was a consensus to have three articles, one about Kosovo the region, one about Kosovo the country and one about Kosovo the province. This article is about the state which de facto exists. It would be biased to say that Kosovo is a state but it isn't biased to say that the Republic of Kosovo is a state because this is de facto true. If the Republic of Kosovo isn't the name of a state, then what is it the name of? In the opening paragraph it clearly mentions that the Republic of Kosovo's legality and sovereignty is contested, hence the lack of recognition. IJA (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

But on the view of the Serbian government (and those who support it) the Republic of Kosovo is not a state. Whether the Republic of Kosovo is a state is seriously contested. Our article therefore cannot say that it is, because that would violate NPOV. Neljack (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

They haven't exactly said that the Republic of Kosovo isn't a state, that'd be against WP:OR. Serbia has said that Kosovo is legally apart of Serbia and they've said that they can't/ won't recognise Kosovo because (in their perception, but never legally proven) that Kosovo's independence is illegal, it goes against UNSCR 1244, the Serbian constitution and because it was unilateral. To an extent they acknowledge that it exits, they have even sat at the negotiation table as equals with the Republic of Kosovo and have appointed a Liaison Officer, whilst at the same time refusing to extend official diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Kosovo. Even the Russian MFA has stated that Kosovo is "quasi state" [4]. For ages on this article the Republic of Kosovo was referred to as being "a partially recognised state" to show to our audience/ readers that not every country accepts the Republic of Kosovo as a legitimate state and that it's legality is contested. However with recent events over the past few months, the Republic of Kosovo now has been recognised by the majority of countries in the world; therefore the lead sentence was changed to describing the Republic of Kosovo as "a majority recognised state". Now I understand what this term means, but it doesn't sound right; it isn't clear what this term is referring to. I now propose the following as the opening sentence:

"The Republic of Kosovo is a de facto independent state which is recognised by the majority of countries, located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe."

This clearly informs to our readers neutrally what the Republic of Kosovo is and it reflects on it's current status by informing them of it's acceptance by a majority of countries in the international community. The rest of the introduction clearly informs our audience/ readers that the Republic of Kosovo does not administrate all of the region of geographical Kosovo, that Serbia considers Kosovo to be legally apart of Serbia and that other countries support Serbia on this. Just because a number of countries refuse to recognise the statehood of the Republic of Kosovo doesn't mean that it is in violation of NPOV to say that the Republic of Kosovo is "a de facto independent state". Remember that some countries refuse to recognise the statehood of Israel and the PR China, yet we refer to them as states on Wikipedia without it being considered a violation of NPOV. This article is about the Republic of Kosovo and we must inform our audience/ readers what it is however at the same time we have made it very clear from the beginning of the article that not every country recognises the statehood of the Republic of Kosovo and that other countries consider Kosovo to be apart of Serbia. IJA (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think IJA's latest proposal is an improvement over the current wording. (You need to drop the "it is" though.) "majority recognized" sounds really awkward, but so does calling it an "entity". Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with the old wording of "partially recognised". wikt:Partially just means "incompletely", so it is equally valid now as it was a few years ago since they aren't completely recognized. TDL (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to including to making clear that it is de facto independent, provided we acknowledge that its de jure status is disputed. Perhaps our second sentence could state that whether it is de jure a state is disputed? Neljack (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

We do already say and demonstrate to our readers/ audience many many times throughout the article that the legal status and legitimacy is disputed. De facto means "In fact, whether by right or not" aka regardless of the law, but if you really want us to include the term de jure then I would not be opposed to these being the opening two sentences:

"The Republic of Kosovo is a de facto independent state which is recognised by the majority of countries, however there is ambiguity surrounding the de jure status of Kosovo's self-declared statehood. It is located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe, its largest city and capital is Pristina."

I think this is a neutral way of wording the legality as we're not specifically saying if it is legal or illegal, we're just stating that the legal status isn't clear. This fits in line with countries who are both in favour and opposed to an independent Kosovo, as well as UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion. I've compromised a lot here, can we put this to bed now and agree please??? IJA (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do we even need to mention legality in the lede? Serbia went to the ICJ hoping to get the declaration declared illegal... and got the opposite result. It's difficult to understand how "NPOV" requires us to put in extra caveats to reflect a "legal" stance which contradicts the ICJ, the Serbian constitution, and Kosovo's own parliament. NPOV does not require us to bend over backwards to accommodate minority views which have no basis in reality. bobrayner (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You do raise some very good points regarding NPOV, like I said earlier some countries don't consider Israel and PR China to be states yet we don't take that into account when describing them as states and that isn't deemed a violation of NPOV. IJA (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The ICJ did not pronounce on the question of whether Kosovo is a state. From para 51 of the Advisory Opinion: "The question is narrow and specific; it asks for the Court's opinion on whether or not the declaration of independence is in accordance with international law. It does not ask about the legal consequences of that declaration. In particular, it does not ask whether or not Kosovo has achieved statehood...the Court does not consider that it is necessary to address such issues as whether or not the declaration has led to the creation of a State..."[5]

I'm not sure what the Serbian Constitution has to do with this. Does it really say that Kosovo is a sovereign state? I find that hard to believe. Obviously Kosovo's parliament supports the independence of their own nation, but that isn't saying much.

While various countries do not recognise Israel or the PRC for political reasons, they do not deny that they meet the requirements for statehood in international law (if any do, there is a consensus to the contrary in the international community). In this case Serbia's position is supported by a considerable number of states (Russia, China and Spain are examples), as well as many international lawyers. I can go through and find sources to back up these statements if you wish. Neljack (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Neljack, please read WP:NOTAFORUM and keep it in mind when posting future comments on this talk page please. Bobrayner brought up the ICJ as you're the one who brought up legality. As to your comments regarding requirements for statehood, the UN and EU endorsed Montevideo Convention states the criteria for statehood is "(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states... The political existence of the state is independent [aka regardless] of recognition by the other states." Kosovo meets all those criteria’s and it has majority recognition therefore it isn’t in violation of WP:NPOV to refer to the Republic of Kosovo as a “state”. As the old saying goes “to call a spade a spade” / Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade IJA (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

IJA, I haven't violated WP:NOTAFORUM. I was responding to objections raised by bobrayner and you to my proposal to mention that Kosovo's de jure status is disputed. I was not expressing my own opinion on the subject of Kosovo's statehood - I was referring to what the ICJ had actually said and what states and scholars thought (and offered to provide citations if requested, given that I didn't have them to hand). As for the Montevideo criteria, they are not the only requirements for statehood. In particular, if the territory is already part of another state (as Serbia claims) then the putative new state will not qualify for statehood unless the other state's claims are validly extinguished in some way (again, I am happy to provide citations, though I will have to look them up as again I don't have them to hand). Also making the judgment that Kosovo satisfies the Montevideo criteria (though I agree that it does) would be OR and therefore impermissible - we have to go on what states, international lawyers and other RS say, not our own judgments. We cannot call something a spade if we have determined that it is a spade through OR, rather than because a consensus of RS call it one. As I have indicated, I am agreeable to the lead stating that Kosovo is de facto independent and de jure disputed. You had indicated that you were prepared to accept that too, but then seemed to withdraw that after bobrayner's comment. So if you are still amenable to the compromise wording you proposed, I have am happy to agree to that. Thanks, Neljack (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I had to withdraw it because it was in violation of WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV) and it wouldn't be consistent with articles of other majority recognised states. IJA (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I like IJA's terms, "self declared state". I.e. what I propose is - "The Republic of Kosovo is a self declared state recognised by the majority of countries." -- Director (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@ DIREKTOR I can live with that, it is fine by me. My only minor issue is, aren't all states "self-declared"? For example, Uganda isn't a state declared by Brazil is it? Uganda declared Uganda, no one else did. All countries declare themselves, no-one does it for them. This is why I also think the term "Unilateral Declaration of Independence" is stupid; do some countries have a "Bilateral Declaration of Independence" or a "Trilateral Declaration of Independence"? No, all independence declarations are Unilateral. IJA (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course declarations of independence are almost always unilateral. It goes without saying. Insisting on putting that label in an article about this particular state is just perpetuating the problem. We don't add such caveats to the ledes of Mexico or Norway or Mauritania or a hundred other countries. bobrayner (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I concede that "self-declared" doesn't really make sense, but by the same logic "majority-recognized" is also redundant: 14 other countries, including Israel and China(!) are only "majority recognized" - yet we do not point that out in the lead.

The point of the phrase "majority recognized" in the lead sentence is to note the dispute that exists over the republic's sovereignty, no? In that case, "partially-recognized" is the term we want, its more generic than "majority recognized" and exclusively points out there is a dispute, without #1 sounding silly in using that phrase which can be applied to many countries, and #2 without making OR judgements. The countries which do not recognize Kosovo, for example, are easily home to a "majority" of the world's population etc.

So as I said I suggest we use "partially recognized state" or state "with limited recognition". -- Director (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps "a state which is recognised by the majority of the world's countries"? I think the phrase "partially recognised state" could imply that (I'll use Ghana for an example) Ghana only partially recognises the Republic of Kosovo, it only recognises part of it as being a state. It isn't clear that a partial ammount of the international community recognises Kosovo. To be very clear and factual, we could say that "The Republic of Kosovo is state which is recognised by 114 UN member states". This is very factual and there is no ambiguity over the wording. This way there is no need for us to describe the Republic of Kosovo, the audience/ reader can see the facts and decide for themselves and they will see later on in the lead that Serbia has a claim over Kosovo and that other countries support Serbia on this position. I believe this to be very neutral as we let the facts do the talking and after all this is an Encyclopaedia. IJA (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's stupid to prefix the declaration of independence with words like "unilateral" or "unilaterally". We have consensus on that point. Nikswerdhond (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest a slight change so that it reads "The Republic of Kosovo is recognised as a state by 106 UN member states". That way we aren't saying it is a state ourselves, we're reporting on what states think, which eliminates the NPOV and OR issues. Neljack (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that "unilateral" and "self-declared" are silly and redundant. However, I agree with Neljack that we should avoid taking a position on whether Kosovo is or is not a state in the first sentence since this is a very complicated issue which is in dispute. I think it would be much more neutral to be clear about this by saying something like: "The Republic of Kosovo is a disputed state in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe which is recognised by 114 UN member states". This gets across the point that it is recognized by the majority of states, but that it is still significantly disputed. Replace "by 114 UN member states" with "a majority of states" if you like, and "disputed" with "contested", "partially recognized" or "de facto", but I don't think we should say without some sort of qualification that it is a state. TDL (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok how's this then: "The Republic of Kosovo is a state with limited recognition in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe; it is currently recognized by a majority of UN member states."
I figure it would be appropriate to use the term from the title of our own article on the subject. -- Director (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with DIREKTOR We just need to use the "is" spelling of "recognised" to be consistent with the rest of the article IJA (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

My concern with this is that it appears to imply that the Republic of Kosovo is a state (though one with limited recognition), which is precisely the matter that is in dispute and which we therefore cannot pronounce on per NPOV. I would suggest: "The Republic of Kosovo, located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe, is recognised as a sovereign state by the majority of states in the world. It is de facto independent, but whether it is legally a state is disputed." I think that is fair and balanced, giving appropriate recognition to the facts that the majority of states recognise Kosovo and that it is de facto independent, but taking no position on the disputed point of its legal statehood. Neljack (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that is disputed is the legality of Kosovo being a state not whether it exists or not. No one denies that it is in existence. It is already mentioned many times in the article that the legality is disputed and that some countries refuse to recognise it and that Serbia considers it to be legally apart of her territory. You're wanting to give WP:UNDUE weight to the legality issue and that is in violation of WP:NPOV. You're wanting to over emphasise and draw over-the-top attention to the legality issue despite the fact it is already heavily covered in the introduction. This is an article about the state, we are not stating that RoK is legally a state and we are not saying that every country in the world recognises it, the article very clearly states that this is disputed thus in accordance with NPOV. If this discussion carries on much longer as a stale mate, I'm not bothered because I can live with the status quo. I'm already contemplating getting admins to help mediate this discussion because it has gone for far too long. IJA (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Wanting to insert these quibbles about statehood right at the start, to the extent that we can't even call it a state even though reliable sources agree that it fits the definition of a state, is giving far too much weight to a fringe position; that fails WP:NPOV.

We could just sidestep the whole thing with "'The Republic of Kosovo is in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe..." - or are we supposed to avoid the word "republic" too? bobrayner (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the dispute over Kosovo's status isn't a "fringe position". If the premise of your argument was true you'd have a point. However, RS do not describe it as a state without qualification. See for example Encyclopedia Britannica, whose first sentence reads: "Kosovo, self-declared independent country in the Balkans region of Europe." Do you think Encyclopedia Britannica is a "fringe" source? TDL (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• OK, how about this?

"The Republic of Kosovo is a de facto independent country located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe. It is recognised as a sovereign state by the majority of states in the world."

I believe that addresses the concerns raised about undue weight. Neljack (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed I'll accept either "de facto independent country" or "de facto independent state". I'm not fussed, they both mean the same thing. I'm happy to have something short about Kosovo's statehood being legally disputed in the second paragraph, continuing on from the sentence "Serbia does not recognise the secession of Kosovo[7] and considers it a UN-governed province within its sovereign territory,[8] a position supported by a number of other countries." I feel it would be more appropriate there. But I suggest a new section for discussion is created on this talk page for that. IJA (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Neljack, there is much dispute whether Kosovo as such is a state, but naturally nobody disputes whether the Republic of Kosovo is a "state", and this article is about the latter. Further, the de jure independence of said state is not in question: Serbia does not claim the Republic of Kosovo is somehow its legal dependency - rather that it legally doesn't exist. In other words "de facto independent state" makes no sense, as its de jure "independence" isn't in question (as is implied).

So again I propose "The Republic of Kosovo is a state with limited recognition in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe; it is currently recognized by a majority of UN member states". -- Director (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, Serbia (and other states that support its position) do dispute that the Republic of Kosovo is a state, because (as you say) they believe that "it legally doesn't exist." As for whether they question its de jure independence, on their view it does not legally exist, so they obviously don't think it is de jure independent.

I believe your proposal violates NPOV, since it appears to say that the Republic of Kosovo is a state (albeit one with limited recognition). As I have explained, this is contested by Serbia and those who support its view. It is a seriously contested assertion and as such cannot be asserted in our article. Neljack (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Plus it seems a bit redundant to say that it has limited recognition AND that it is recognized by a majority of countries in the very first sentence since this is effectively saying the same thing twice. I don't see what the objection is to "The Republic of Kosovo is a disputed state in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe which is recognised by 114 UN member states." This gets across the three most important points about the subject: 1) it's a state 2) who's status is disputed 3) but most countries recognize it. We can go into all the details later, but these are the fundamental points which need to be explained in the first sentence. TDL (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

But point 1) is not something we can say under NPOV. Neljack (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Neljack - no. You need to distinguish between the topics of this article, and the Kosovo article. As strange as that may sound, Serbia does not dispute the "Republic of Kosovo" is a state - they dispute its legal right to exist. They consider the RoK an illegal state formed on the territory of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. They do not recognize its legality, and demand its abolition, but nobody denies that the Republic of Kosovo is a "state" as such, i.e. a political entity. That's not a subject of any dispute - rather its the legality of the state that is disputed. Its a fine point, but not so fine as to be ignored. If you need someone else to tell you this, I suggest you try and take it up on the States with limited recognition article.

@TDL. I agree that it may be redundant to mention majority UN recognition right in the first sentence. We can possibly move that down into the second or third sentence, or anyway a part of the lede dedicated to closer coverage of the dispute. -- Director (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, it seems that our disagreement may arise from the ambiguity of the word "state". You have indicated that you have been using it to mean "a political entity". I have been using it in the international law sense of "a sovereign country" (and I interpreted you as using it in that way too). No doubt Serbia cannot deny that the Republic of Kosovo is a political entity, but it does deny that it is a state in the international law sense. This ambiguity would suggest that "state" is a word best avoided here, unless it is made clear which meaning of it is being used. Neljack (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Again: no. Serbia denies the legality of the RoK, not that the RoK is, in fact, a state. I don't know how else to say it. "Serbia denies that Kosovo is a state" - that's true, they affirm Kosovo is their autonomous province. "Serbia denies the Republic of Kosovo is a state" - not really, that would be silly. They essentially consider it an illegal state formed on Serbian territory that should be abolished. -- Director (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, can you provide a reference for your claim regarding Serbia's position? It doesn't accord with what I've seen from the research I've done. Neljack (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ugh.. made too many positive statements in my post and now I get the obligatory sources demand.

What I'm doing here is pointing to a basic logic error. Its not a matter for sources - once you realize the difference of talking about Kosovo the region, and the Republic of Kosovo itself. Every single other state with limited recognition is in the exact same position. That's what diplomatic recognition is: strictly speaking, its not about accepting the existence of a political entity as such, but accepting its legality, or "right to exist" if you will. E.g. various Arab countries do not consider Israel to be a legal country (they deem it an illegal state on the territory of Palestine), but they certainly do not claim its somehow not a state. And I get the feeling you're not really reading my posts, so.. -- Director (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I have in fact read your posts carefully. Serbia does deny that the Republic of Kosovo is a state. From its submissions to the International Court of Justice (para 974): "...the so-called Republic of Kosovo does not fulfil the constituent requirements of a State..." [6]

This is not a matter of logic. There is nothing logically incoherent in saying (as Serbia does) that the Republic of Kosovo is not a state because is does not meet the criteria for statehood. Neljack (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and here's the paragraph in full:

"...the so-called Republic of Kosovo does not fulfill the constituent requirements of a State, as there is no effective independent government in Kosovo."

The document you cite is from 2009, four years ago, and is dated - in that there is an effective independent government in Kosovo (I hope you have sources if you wish to challenge that). So lets not play games with these partial quotes.

Furthermore, strictly speaking, the statement you quote does not deny the RoK is a "state" - merely that it shouldn't be regarded as a "state" in international law. This is legal dribble, you need to differentiate between these things. And as a final "nail in the coffin", Serbia lost that lawsuit, and the points there have been rejected by international courts, therefore its questionable whether we should base any WP:OR on such flimsy grounds. -- Director (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the source is dated. Do you have a more recent source to show that their position has changed? If not, you are just speculating that it has. There is legitimate debate over whether Kosovo actually has "effective independent government", and hence whether it meets the definition of a state. See for example this (from 2011) which says

• "the legal arrangements governing its territory makes it doubtful whether Kosovo has a full international personality"
• "...Kosvo's statehood does not seem to be disputed only on the basis of the absence of the consent of the parent state and lack of universally-granted recognition. It is also obvious that Kosovo does not satisfy all of the statehood criteria and that it was created not as a fully sovereign but rather as a protected state"
• "Before the number of recognitions was granted, it was clear that Kosovo was not a state. This is now unclear and remains unclear even after the Kosovo Opinion"
• "it is questionable whether the recognising states (or at least some of them) have recognize Kosovo as a fully independent state"
• "it is at least debatable whether Kosovo is a state"

The point that the Serbian government was making is that the RoK is essentially a "protected state", not an independent state. Their statement clearly shows their position is that the RoK isn't a state because it doesn't meet the criteria for statehood. That has nothing to do with the legality of the RoK's creation, but a dispute of the "facts on the ground". And while Serbia lost the case, as discussed previously, the subject of the case wasn't whether Kosovo was is state or not, and no judgment was passed on these arguments, so that point is irrelevant.

The point remains that Serbia disputes that the RoK is a state, and their is significant debate over this point. You are trying to make a distinction between Serbia claiming that the RoK does not exist, and it being a state, but to date you have been unable or unwilling to back up your position with any RS. Without sources, this argument is OR. TDL (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

TLDR - lets keep this discussion focused. The statement "RoK is a de facto independent state" is the one that is opposed (in addition to "state with limited recognition"). From what you have read, you can now see I hope that this statement actually comes down explicitly on one side of the dispute you have taken great pains to outline, in that it states outright that the RoK is de facto independent - which is explicitly questioned by Serbia. Further, the statement is misleading in that it inescapably implies the RoK is a de jure dependency of some state or other. Specifically, it can mislead the reader into concluding that the Republic of Kosovo is claimed by Serbia to be its dependency, when this is clearly not the case, and Serbia holds Kosovo as being part of an entirely separate, parallel entity - the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

So in short, if our goal is to provide an arguably-neutral lede sentence that incorporates the Serbian view - then the last thing you gentlemen should be arguing for is the addition of "de facto independent"... -- Director (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Rather than attacking me with childish memes, it would be more helpful if you'd engage in an adult conversation. My apologizes if sourcing my argument to a RS is to much trouble for you to read. Much easier I suppose to just proclaim my opinions as facts as you have done. It is rather humerous that you can't be bothered to read my response, considering all the kb you have added to this discussion and that you've accused Neljack of failing to read your responses. Unfortunately you keep making unsourced and off topic arguments (ie Serbia considers the RoK to be a state.) If you want to keep the discussion focused, then please stick to the subject at hand so that your off topic and illogical arguments need not be refuted.

If you had read my source above, you'd have seen from quote #1 that the RoK is arguably a de jure dependency.

Also, you seem to have misunderstood my position. I'm not a fan of the "de facto state" wording. I prefer the simple "disputed/contested state" so that we don't have to give an oversimplistic position. Everyone agrees that their status is disputed. Better to leave all the complexities of their legal/de facto status to later on in the lead where it can be explained properly. TDL (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"Disputed state" is semantically nonsensical. How is this state "disputed"? Its legitimacy is disputed, its independence from foreign powers. -- Director (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No not at all, it makes perfect sense. Have you heard the English language phrase undisputed champion? Similarly, France is an undisputed state since there is no dispute over its statehood. Kosovo is a disputed state since there is a dispute (both de jure and de facto) over whether it is a state or not. I know you don't like when I cite sources, but see here for example which says of states such as Kosovo: "'partially recognized' states would therefore be a more accurate description of these entities than 'de facto state' or 'unrecognized state'. But 'contested state' is an even better term inasmuch as it neatly captures the full political and legal problems faced by these territories." This book titles an entire chapter on the subject "Contested States, Frontiers and Cities". I have a hard time believing that Wiley-Blackwell would publish a "semantically nonsensical" phrase as a chapter title and as a technical term for such states used regularly throughout the book. TDL (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course I've heard of such expressions, what I meant was don't you think an encyclopedia, in one of its lead sentences, should use less colloquial phrasing? -- Director (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As I demonstrated above, books on the legal theory of statehood use the phrase as a formal term to describe such states, so by definition it's not "colloquial phrasing". Nevertheless, if you don't like it I'm certainly open to alternatives. Any suggestions for an adjective to describe Kosovo's statehood that gets across the point that it is in dispute? "self-declared/self-proclaimed" has been suggested above, but I'm not a fan of these as they tend to be used to downplay claims of statehood and are rather redundant. Other alternatives I can think of (but don't think are as good as disputed/contested):

"The Republic of Kosovo claims statehood over territory in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe which is also claimed by Serbia. To date, 114 states have recognized their independence."

"The Republic of Kosovo declared independence in 2008; to date, 114 states have recognized their independence though Serbia continues to claim the territory."

"The Republic of Kosovo is an autonomously governed territory in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe whose declaration of independence from Serbia has been recognized by 114 states but is disputed by Serbia."

These are more wordy than I'd like, but I'm running out of "short" ways to say this. TDL (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• User:DIREKTOR, given that sources have been provided showing that whether the Republic of Kosovo is a state is contested (thus addressing the point you originally raised), do you still object to the text I have proposed? If so, what is the nature of your objection? Is it the use of "de facto"? I don't think that has the implication of dependency that you suggest - in context, it merely implies that the de jure status is disputed. Neljack (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You've not been reading the discussion, User:Neljack. If Danlaycock and yourself have shown anything, its that "de facto independent state" is not a good way to go in terms of NPOV. -- Director (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have been reading the discussion. However, I am confused. First you seemed to say that the Republic of Kosovo was clearly de facto independent now (and said I needed to produce sources if I disputed that, which I don't), and then you seemed to suggest that saying that it was de facto independent was problematic because Serbia disputes that. I'm left unsure as to your position. Neljack (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

All part of my plan ;). Forgive the jest; at this point I'm also unsure as to what your position is exactly, as your concern appears to be adherence to NPOV by keeping the Serbian position in mind (to which I of course agree in principle). Yet you have gone to some length to dispute your own proposed wording on those same grounds - namely ignoring the position of the Serbian side.

So, to put it in your own words "de facto independent state" is opposed because it is "precisely the matter that is in dispute and which we therefore cannot pronounce on per NPOV" [7]. See above sources by Mr. Laycock and - yourself.

As for the perceived lack of logic on my part, that's besides the point, but allow me nevertheless to draw attention to the fact that there's a difference in claiming a state is "de facto (in)dependent", and that it is, in fact, a "state" as such. -- Director (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Publications are one thing, but its up to us here to keep to encyclopedic wording. And no, colloquial terms can be used in scholarly publications and still remain "colloquial". One cannot make something less informal (and again - semantically inaccurate) by simply publishing it...

The issue at hand is the lead sentence. Currently it reads "the RoK is a state with limited recognition". However, reading all your sources, it seems that the de facto independence of the RoK is indeed disputed by Serbia. And (while I'm fine with the current state of affairs) if we really aim to introduce more detail based on the refs you gentlemen presented, what we need to do is introduce the phrase "de jure independent", as in "the RoK is a de jure independent state with limited recognition in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe". -- Director (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

But Serbia et al dispute that it is a "de jure independent state". Neljack (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• How about simply this (adapted from an earlier proposal of mine)?

"The Republic of Kosovo, which is located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe, is recognised as a sovereign state by the majority of states in the world."

It states what others have said/done, rather than adopting a position ourselves, and it avoids the de facto issue that has been raised. I don't think there can be any NPOV or factual objection to it. Neljack (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to clear this up:

• Existence.
  • De jure: The RoK's de jure existence is in dispute - Serbia claims the RoK was formed illegally.
  • De facto: The RoK's de facto existence is not in dispute.
• Independence.
  • De jure: The RoK's de jure independence is not in dispute - Serbia does not claim the RoK is its legal dependency (that's the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija). Neither does any other country.
  • De facto: The RoK's de facto independence is in dispute - Serbia claims the RoK is a de facto dependency of foreign powers.

The old version is imo a step backward from what we have now. I am fine with this or the addition of "de jure independent". -- Director (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely de jure independent. It was internationally proven in court for one and Republic of Kosovo is recognized by the absolute super majority of world states and many of them recognized it in the first week. I hardly think the US would recognize a rebel state. The introductions needs to read that Kosovo is an independent country, full stop. Only after you can add that Serbia refuses to recognize and a few of Serbia's allies hold on to the outdated biased view. Cognoscerapo (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Serbia never actually claimed the 'Republic of Kosovo' as such, the state, is its legal dependency (again, that's the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija). They claimed it was formed illegally and does not de jure exist (and also that it isn't de facto an independent state). -- Director (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Director, you've made your opinion on what the Serbia's position is clear; repeating this dubious claim ad nauseum doesn't make it any more true. Unless you can provide a RS that supports your argument that Serbia recognizes the RoK as a "de jure independent state", you're just some guy on the internet making it up. This is an extremely WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that I've never seen made before. If true, it is something that would need to be covered at length in the article. However, all the evidence points to the contrary. I've referenced the quote above ("the legal arrangements governing its territory makes it doubtful whether Kosovo has a full international personality") twice now, but you still seemingly haven't read it. There is a debate over whether the RoK is legally a dependency of foreign powers as well (similar to the situation Timor-Leste was in.) Also, no one is suggesting that Serbia claims the RoK as its legal dependency. The argument is merely that Serbia claims that the RoK isn't legally a state. Those are two quite different arguments, and you keep conflating the two.

The entire premise of your argument is illogical. If the government of Serbia's position is that the RoK doesn't legally exist, how can they recognize it as a "de jure independent state"? One of the key criteria for being a state is existing. Without existence, there is no state. It's like arguing you don't believe in ghosts, but you believe ghosts can fly. The two positions are inherently irreconcilable. TDL (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

*double facepalm* Once again - you misunderstand me. This article is about the state itself - not the entire region. When talking about the state it is absurd to say "Serbia disputes the RoK's independence". No it doesn't - it disputes its existence altogether. That sentence inescapably implies Serbia claims the RoK, the state, is its dependency - which it does not. For goodness sake...

When Croatia and Slovenia declared their independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, or various Confederate states from the US in 1861, the US/Yugoslavia did not dispute their legal existence, but rather claimed these were their legal dependencies - they disputed the independence of these states. The RoK is an entirely different case - Serbia disputes the very legality of its formation, wwhich is far beyond simply contesting its independence. The RoK wasn't a part of Serbia that seceded - it was formed on Serbian territory.

One might say "Serbia contests the independence of Kosovo", but we have two separate articles for the region and the state - when discussing the state, we cannot say that Serbia contests its independence. -- Director (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I see where your misunderstanding is arising from. It seems that you're using the word "independent" in the sense of "separate from Serbia". Is that true? If so, that's not the sense that I'm using it. I am using it in the sense of "sovereign", ie as defined in the article independence. When the term "independence" is used to refer to states, it is used exclusively in this sense.

So yes, Serbia considers the RoK to be de jure "separate from Serbia", however Serbia disputes the de facto AND de jure "sovereignty" of the RoK. Do you agree with this statement? TDL (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sovereignty is more-or-less the same thing as "independence". Strictly speaking, Serbia does dispute the de jure "sovereignty" of the RoK - but it also disputes much more, it disputes the legality of the state's very existence. We cannot say "Serbia disputes the de jure sovereignty of the RoK" because that implies they accept its existence and merely claim it as a dependency. This is not the case. -- Director (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the fundamental problem with your argument is that you draw a very sharp distinction between independence and existence, whereas I would say they are very inextricably linked. If a putative state is not de jure independent then it cannot de jure exist, since independence is one of the criteria for statehood in international law. Conversely, if a putative state does not de jure exist it cannot be de jure independent. If X does not exist it is not independent, dependent or anything else - such qualities can only apply to something that exists. Neljack (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I said something of the sort didn't I? They are linked in the sense that, for example, hitting someone in the head with a mallet - is linked with bashing one's head in. Say Mr. Laycock here struck someone over the head and killed him. If you started the article with the statement "Dan Laycock was the man that hit John Peoplefox over the head with a mallet" (I'm having some fun here of course, apologies :)), such a sentence would be an inadequate description of the action. It would imply, by omission, that Mr. Laycock didn't actually kill young Johnny - whereas, of course, he's a brutal mallet-murderer.

To put it in other words, when you dispute someone's existence, you naturally dispute their independence as well. When you bashed someone's head in, you did more than just "hit him with your father's golf club". And when you omit to explain the extent of the action (or dispute) you are liable to imply it is of lesser degree. D'you follow? -- Director (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, that is exactly my point because that is precisely what you're doing. When you suggest wording such as "the RoK is a de jure independent state" this implies, by omitting to adequately explain the dispute, that Serbia (and many other countries) don't dispute their de jure independence, when in fact they do. As you said, they dispute much more than there independence, they dispute their existence, but even this limited claim is in dispute. TDL (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well technically they don't, but I was just trying to accommodate you two with that proposal - I'm fine with the current text. -- Director (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Technically, formally, in every way imaginable they dispute the de jure independence of Kosovo. TDL (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• DIREKTOR, can you explain what your objection is to this text?

"The Republic of Kosovo, which is located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe, is recognised as a sovereign state by the majority of states in the world."

I can't see how it conflicts with your position. Neljack (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Just because it isn't bad doesn't mean its good. Apart from using "state" twice in a sentence, practically every country on the planet can say its "recognised as a sovereign state by the majority of states in the world". What would be the point of pointing that out, before first mentioning in some way that there is a dispute over recognition? The idea is to define the RoK, not exclusively describe the extent of its recognition. Save that for at least the second sentence imo, it kinda sounds like a POV boast even. -- Director (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can suggest a form of words that defines it without taking a position on whether it is a state then I would be very happy to consider it. Neljack (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

For the love of Pete.. of course its a state, no dispute rages over the issue that this is a polity of that type. The Serbian side disputes the RoK is a fully independent state based on claims that it's a dependency of foreign powers (but crucially they dispute the legitimacy of its foundation). This can be made clear, but there is no call whatsoever to question whether the Republic of Kosovo is a "state". Your own proposals ("de facto independent state" et al.) say outright that it is a "state", and only question the independence of said state. This is a standard-issue, run-of-the-mill state with limited recognition. -- Director (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, do I need to repeat my RS quotes again? Please do be sure to read them this time, as you're leading this discussion around in circles: "Before the number of recognitions was granted, it was clear that Kosovo was not a state. This is now unclear and remains unclear even after the Kosovo Opinion" and "it is at least debatable whether Kosovo is a state". You can pretend that there is no debate over Kosovo being a state, but RS makes it clear that there is such a debate. Once again, any sources to back up your claim that "there is no call whatsoever to question whether the Republic of Kosovo is a state"? TDL (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ugh! One side, of this dispute, years ago, says its "debatable" that this is a state. FINE. Imo that's a minor point and its not for the lead sentence where we're supposed to define our subject; oppose such an entry there on basis of WP:WEIGHT. Make it clear in the second sentence or the dedicated lead paragraph.. I'm skeptical of Kosovo's right to secede and even I find "debatable state" inappropriate. -- Director (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you've once again misunderstood the source. It's not "one side" of the dispute. It's a neutral source analyzing both sides of the argument and concluding that whether Kosovo is a state or not is unclear. See also "Kosovo is such an example. With 98 recognitions to date, it is impossible objectively to determine its legal status. For some it is a State, for others it is not." and "it is debated whether Kosovo is a State under international law." Others sources (such as Britannica) avoid using the word "state" all together to describe the subject. You also seem to be misunderstanding WP:WEIGHT, which says "represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". If you want to cite WP:WEIGHT then you need to provide sources that back up your position. To date, your argument is that "all the sources are wrong and I'm right because I say so, so we shouldn't give the RS any weight." Show me a neutral source which says "Kosovo is undisputedly a state" and then we can talk about weight. However, your personal opinion is not enough to veto what all the RS say on the subject. TDL (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Kosovo is for "some" officially a state and for others not officially a state. However this article isn't about Kosovo as a whole, this article is about the Republic of Kosovo aka the name of the state. Regardless of what others consider Kosovo to officially to be, there is no dispute that the Republic of Kosovo is the name of the state which is in existence. TDL, you need to stop mixing Kosovo as a whole with the Republic of Kosovo, we have separate articles; I suggest you read them to learn the differences. And to be honest I really don't care how long this discussion goes on for because I have no issues with the status quo. IJA (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Serbia denies that the Republic of Kosovo is a state. Serbia claims that the Republic of Kosovo is not a state because Serbia has sovereignty over its territory. That position is supported by various other states and scholars. We cannot take one of the dispute without violating NPOV. Neljack (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the difference between the RoK and "Kosovo". However, statements such as "Kosovo does not satisfy all of the statehood criteria" and "Kosovo is such an example. With 98 recognitions to date, it is impossible objectively to determine its legal status." are obviously referring to the RoK and NOT a "region in southeastern Europe" or the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, which are undisputedly NOT states and make no claims to statehood. If you think otherwise, I suggest you read diplomatic recognition and state (polity) to learn what these terms mean. The only thing that could be a state is the RoK, and sources say that this is disputed. Of course, you could show me a RS which says the RoK is undisputedly a state to help resolve the dispute, but the fact that no such source has been produced speaks volumes about the strength of the argument. This article isn't supposed to be a WP:POVFORK where significant alternative viewpoints are ignored because the subject of the article is one side of the dispute. That's not how NPOV works.

Also, thank you for your honesty in admitting that you're not making a good faith effort to try to find a mutually acceptable compromise, but rather are disruptively WP:Stonewalling the discussion. Given that revelation, perhaps the best path forward is to restore the status quo wording from prior to the start of the dispute and launch an RFC on the matter. TDL (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've also been thinking that an RfC may be necessary. My concern is that this will lead to an influx of POV warriors (who are, of course, all too common in ethnic/nationalist disputes), but I'm not sure what else we can do. I had a look at the NPOV noticeboard, but it seems to be pretty backlogged and I'm not sure how many people we'd get commenting there. Neljack (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the noticeboards are generally pretty useless in my experience. RFCs are the most effective way to get non-partisans involved in a politically charged issue such as this. TDL (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I already stated two weeks ago that I was considering getting admins involved because this discussion has gone beyond ridiculous, that was back then; it is Bedlam now. TDL, we were reaching a mutually acceptable compromise until you came along and opened a new can of worms which put this discussion back to square one because you're extremely unreasonable over the word "state". Even the Serbian and Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs refer to the Republic of Kosovo as a "quasi-state" therefore they unofficially to an extent acknowledge that it is some sort of state whilst not recognising it's independence and sovereignty. So yes, the sooner the admins get involved the better I say. IJA (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Khm... "quasi-state" means it isn't a state.

To be clear, I am not opposed to mentioning that the RoK's statehood is disputed, as it obviously is, I'm only opposed to having that fact distort our definition in the first sentence. 23:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"quasi = apparently but not really". So IJA, you've presented yet another piece of evidence that the RoK's statehood is disputed. And yet you continue to unreasonably refuse to present both sides of the dispute in the first sentence. Also, rather than blaming me, you might want to re-read the discussion, as your memory is mistaken. The issue over the word "state" was raised before I even joined the conversation.

Director, claiming in the first sentence that the RoK is a state, when that very fact is highly disputed, distorts the definition. If you don't want to deal with the dispute in the first sentence, then we need to avoid presenting one side and ignoring the other. What about using the status neutral word polity rather than "state"? TDL (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"polity" is too ambiguous and is misleading to our readers and audience. But if it is going to to be too awkward to describe what it is, then lets avoid it all together and go for Neljack's former suggestion: "The Republic of Kosovo, which is located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe, is recognised as a sovereign state by the majority of countries." Thoughts people??? IJA (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, never liked that suggestion. And I don't see how 'polity' can be "misleading" since by anyone's definition the RoK is indeed - a polity. I would go with "political entity", myself. "The RoK is a political entity in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe, partially recognized as a sovereign state." That seems fair. No need to go into how many states have recognized Kosovo right there in the first sentence, nor do we need to elaborate on how the RoK's statehood is disputed. As I said the whole "majority recognized" thing is kind of slanted when pushed into the lead sentence. -- Director (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Either of these options would work for me, though I think "whose sovereignty has been partially recognized" sounds a bit better. TDL (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It has already been discussed earlier on why "entity" shouldn't be used at the beginning of this discussion. Polity when used in the broad sense such as the proposed opening sentence is misleading because it can mean many a things such as nation, state, church, organisation, province, prefecture, county, municipality, city, or district and we aren't informing our readers which one of these it is. If you're completely alien to such a topic, you aren't going to know which one it is referring to. In this proposed context, the word "polity" is too open and broad hence why it is misleading. As an encyclopaedia, the opening sentence should be informative to our reader/ audience as to what the Republic of Kosovo is. It'd be better if we described Kosovo as a "State (polity) / polity state" as we're not necessarily stating that it is sovereign as that is disputed, it also gives leeway for being under the Hegemony of the international community as argued by Serbia and Russia. After all the Republic of Kosovo is a community living under one Government, minus Northern Kosovo which de facto isn't properly integrated into the institutions of the Republic of Kosovo. Also DIRECTOR, why did you revert my edits with the revision edit "Rvv to status quo"? Only the lead sentence is under discussion here, not the rest of the introduction. Whilst the lead sentence is under discussion, the lead sentence was put back to the status quo, not the rest of the introduction. I think you should revert your edit until you can come up qualified reason to revert my edit. IJA (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

When has the word "polity" ever been used to describe a church? The definition is "something (such as a country or state) that has a government : a politically organized unit". That seems like a pretty perfect description of the RoK, without all the extra baggage that comes along with "state". The ambiguity is a plus in this case, because then we don't need to take a side in the dispute. We can only be as precise as the sources allow us to be.

Of course we should try to inform the reader what the RoK is, but we SHOULDN'T tell them something that isn't true. Since it isn't clear whether the RoK is a state or not, it's extremely misleading to claim without qualification that it is. If we were to take the Serb nationalist side, the "correct" term is "quasi-state", while from the Albanian nationalist side the "correct" term is "state". No doubt you would object to using "quasi-state" in the lead, because that presents one POV of the dispute as fact, at the expense of the other. What you're proposing is exactly the same, only in reverse. This is why I like "disputed/contested state" because it perfectly encapsulates both positions: claims of statehood which are disputed.

What about "breakaway state" or secessionist state"? We could just call it a republic, but that seems a bit redundant. TDL (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Polity can mean a Church (dictionary definition), please see these two articles “Episcopal polity” and “Ecclesiastical polity” as examples. Why use "breakaway state" or "secessionist state"? Many states are these, even the United States which broke away from the British Empire or South Sudan which broke away from Sudan. Also TDL, you need to learn the differences between the term "state" and the term "sovereign state", both are very different. I get the feeling that you seem to think that the term “state” is used exclusively to describe a “sovereign state” and this is not the case. We should just use the term "Polity State" as it means a community under a Government and that is what the Republic of Kosovo is. Whether or not that Government is Sovereign (Kosovo's claim) or under the Supervision of the international community (Serbia's claim) isn’t taken into account when using this term. The Republic of Kosovo which is based at the Kosovo Assembly in Pristina is a community under a Government. Also the general term “state” can be used at either national or sub-national level, but the term "polity state" dosn't specify national or sub-national level. The term state can even be used to describe a "political body" and that is what the Republic of Kosovo is. The term "state" can be used to describe a "a body politic or to an internally autonomous territorial or political unit constituting a federation under one government". It isn't exclusively used to describe a "sovereign state" as you imply. But I'm trying to compromise and be extra-neutral by suggesting the term "polity state". I like the term "Republic" but it would sound silly saying "The Republic of Kosovo is a Republic". IJA (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

IJA, please understand: the proposition that the RoK is a "state" has been sourced as disputed. Calling it a state or republic, etc. - is in obvious violation of WP:NPOV. "Political entity" seems to me a good choice. -- Director (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No! "State" has not been discussed, only in the context of a "sovereign state". You're purposely avoiding what I've said. Tell me what is wrong with the term "polity state". It is ok with you coming out with simple comments like " "Political entity" seems to me a good choice" but you haven't explained why. And I still see you haven't expained your revert on my edits. IJA (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Nooooo!" :) Well, that's what I thought, but if you read the sources you'll see that the Serbian side disputes that the RoK is a state precisely on the grounds that it isn't sovereign, but a dependency. It is arguable whether a "state" in this context can be a "state" while not being sovereign, but such discussions are of course - not for us. We simply report what the sources say. Regardless of whether you feel that the Serbian argument has or doesn't have merit - it won't change.

P.s. Do not re-introduce changes once you've been reverted. Pls see WP:BRD. -- Director (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious that you haven't read what I wrote or that you haven't understood what I wrote, assuming it is the latter and given that English isn't your mother tongue, let me make this really simple for you.

• 1: The term "State" has multiple meanings.
• 2: State and Sovereign State are two very different things. They are NOT the same.
• 3: State = "either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity (such as a country) or sub-entity (such as an autonomous territory of a country)"
• 4: Sovereign State = "a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by a centralised government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area."
• 5: Serbia denies and disputes the RoK is a Sovereign State (not a state) because Serbia claims sovereignty over Kosovo. Serbia wouldn't deny that Kosovo is a "State" because Serbia would deem it a "State" at sub-national level within Serbia's sovereignty.
• 6: Serbia claims that Kosovo is an autonomous part of her territory.
• 7: Going back to point 3, the term "State" can be used to describe a "sub-entity (such as an autonomous territory of a country)"; Serbia would would agree with this regarding Kosovo.
• 8: I'll break up into three parts.

8A: "Polity State" is a "an organised community living under one government". The RoK is an organised community living under one Government which is the Kosovo Assembly (remember Serbia officially considers the Kosovo Assembly to be the head of the autonomous government of Kosovo), this is regardless of whether it is an independent government or an autonomous government.

8B: "Polity States may be sovereign". Polity States can be sovereign, but they aren't always sovereign either. This takes into account both Serbia's and RoK's views. The term "Polity State" doesn't discriminate over sovereignty.

8C: ''Some states are subject to external sovereignty or hegemony where ultimate sovereignty lies in another state." Serbia would agree with this, that Kosovo's sovereignty lies with Serbia but Kosovo is autonomous and under the hegemony (leadership/ rule) of the UN (UNMIK) and EU (EULEX).

• 9: The term "Polity State" is neutral and suits the Republic of Kosovo as there is a community (the people of Kosovo) living under a Government (regardless of whether that government is autonomous or independent), it doesn't say that the Republic of Kosovo is or isn't Sovereign and it doesn't say whether or not the Republic of Kosovo is under the Hegemony of the International Community (UNMIK/EULEX).
• 10: The term "Polity State" does not take sides and fits in with both sides of the dispute. It can be used to describe bother Serbia's and RoK's argument as to what the Republic of Kosovo is.

Now, I hope that made a lot of sense because if you continue to avoid what and I'm saying and dance around what I've said then I'll get an Admin involved because they won't overlook what I've said.

Can someone please tell me what is wrong with the term "Polity State" and explain how it violates NPOV?

P.S. I reintroduced my changes after I discussed it on the talk page first and you have since commented on this thread and had plenty of time to reply to what I said and I've brought it to your attention twice now (1 & 2), but you have still ignored what I said regarding the changes; therefore I assumed that you no longer contested my edits. Because if you had, you would have discussed them. And another thing, "All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole per week". You've had two reverts in just over 24 hours Revert 1 Revert 2. That was rather greedy of you considering you're only allowed one per week on this article. If I were a proper ba***rd, I could report you for violating the WP:1RR imposed on this article; but won't unless you violate it again. IJA (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"State" is opposed by one side of the dispute. No amount of talk can change that. Therefore "polity state" is nothing more than a weird POV concoction wrapped in insulting condescension. Is that "simple" enough for you? -- Director (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You're taking the mick now, I'm asking the admins for their input. "Sovereign state" is opposed by one side not the term "state" or "polity state". IJA (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything. "State = a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign ". Yes, the term is not used exclusively for sovereign states, but it is used "especially" for them. And neutral sources explicitly say things like "it is debated whether Kosovo is a State under international law" which contradicts your position. It doesn't say "it is debated whether Kosovo is a sovereign State", simply state. You can't just ignore these sources because they contradict your POV. All of your personal analysis of what the RoK is and is not is WP:OR. Please WP:PROVEIT.

"Serbia wouldn't deny that Kosovo is a "State" because Serbia would deem it a "State" at sub-national level" - You are confusing the RoK and APKM. This article is about the former, not the latter. I suggest you read these articles and learn the differences so you will stop mixing them up. Serbia certainly does dispute that the RoK is a state: "...the so-called Republic of Kosovo does not fulfill the constituent requirements of a State".

Basically your argument comes down to that you oppose "polity" because one of the definitions is a bit broad. But you support "state" even though the primary definition is "incorrect". If we have to choose between "correct" and "specific", the choice is obvious.

Re "polity state", any sources which actually use this phrase? You can't just make up things up. It sounds pretty ungrammatical to me. Polity is a noun; I've never seen it used as an adjective. TDL (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

When it says "it is debated whether Kosovo is a State under international law" it is fairly obvious that it is in the context of a 'sovereign state' as a "A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system" Other states don't claim to exist under international law. Only sovereign states claim to exist under international law.

I'm not saying that we should portray RoK as existing under international law as that is disputed and would therefore be POV. I'm saying that we should portray RoK as a community living under a government. That isn't biased or POV.

Serbia would not dispute that there is a community living in Kosovo under a government (regardless if it is autonomous or independent) aka a State.

I'm not confusing RoK and APK, that is why I used the term "Kosovo" on it's own.

I apologise for using "polity" as an adjective, what I should have used is the term "Politic-State".

"Politic state" is status neutral term and can be used to describe any of the following (Texas, Peurto Rico and the United States), (Scotland, City of London and the United Kingdom), (Vojvodina, Serbia and Kosovo), (Hong Kong, Taiwan, PR China).

So, what is this so-called "primarary definition" of the word "state"? In it's most basic form it means a community living under a government . Anyway I'm not proposing that we refer to RoK as a "state", I'm proposing that we refer to RoK as a "Politic-State" aka a community under a government (regardless of sovereignty and hegemony). IJA (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR. Do not try to draw conclusions from sources. I'm not a native English speaker so I'll try to put it as "simply" as I can, without "taking the mick": they do not contend the RoK is a 'state' that isn't 'sovereign', they contend it isn't a 'state' because it isn't 'sovereign'. A native speaker such as yourself should have no problem making out the difference between the two assertions... -- Director (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yawn! The word "state" has different meanings, it is fairly obvious which context Serbia is referring to without violating OR. IJA (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Arguing semantics: the last refuge of the POV-pusher ("they do say the RoK isn't a state, but what do they really mean by that..."). Pardon me if I don't place much stock in your personal opinions and interpretations. Whichever meaning you think they use - the term is disputed as applied to the RoK and therefore its entry is not in accord with WP:NPOV. Not "sovereign state", but "state". Do you have any alternate suggestions or are you just here WP:STONEWALLING for the sake of the RoK? -- Director (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

≈"they do not contend the RoK is a 'state' that isn't 'sovereign', they contend it isn't a 'state' because it isn't 'sovereign'" That is a contradictory statement as a state can exist without being sovereign (California, Wales, London, Hong Kong, Vovjodina ect to name a few). Also the term "Politic-State" very clearly means that it can be a state without sovereignty. Serbia contests RoK being a "sovereign state" or a "state in international law". A state in international law is "Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign... Complete independence and self-government... A territory existing as an independent state." By describing RoK as a "Politic-State" we are not saying any of the above. DIRECTOR, you have still not said what is wrong with "Politic-State". IJA (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"they do not contend the RoK is a 'state' that isn't 'sovereign', they contend it isn't a 'state' because it isn't 'sovereign'" - That is their argument. And I really don't care whether you think it makes sense or not, semantically. Please forgive me, but I'd rather trust the specialists in international law that formulated it - than you.

So again: your thoughts on semantics, and your interpretations of sources, are irrelevant to us here. The term "state" is clearly and directly disputed in application to the RoK, and therefore it cannot be used. You may think that this position on the part of Serbia doesn't make sense, semantically or in some other way, and you are free to approach the Serbian government in that regard and tell them they do not know what "state" means or that they're using the term wrongly. Until they change their position, however, spare us your opinions on this. -- Director (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A brief note regarding the DRN case (see below). Because DRN is for content disputes that editors have not been able to resolve on the article talk page, we don't want it to become a clone of what didn't work before. To that end, I would like to briefly explain what we are going to do that is different from the above:

• At DRN we only discuss article content, not user conduct. Basically, we want to avoid words such as "you", "he", "they" or naming another editor. This has been shown to increase the chances of a resolution. You van continue talking about each other here on the article talk page if you choose.
• At DRN we ask everyone to slow down and focus on one part of the article or on one or perhaps a few related sources at a time, with an uninvolved mediator (that would be me) guiding the conversation.
• At DRN we attempt to resolve the dispute to everyone's satisfaction, and if we cannot do that in a reasonable amount of time we mark the case as failed and advise the editors involved as to where to go next (RfC, mediation committee, administrator's noticeboard, etc.)

I am looking forward to working with you all on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@ User:DIREKTOR "Kosovo isn't a state because it isn't sovereign". If that really is Serbia's argument as you claim, then I suppose you won't have any trouble providing a WP:Reliable Source to back up it will you? Because I've spent half an hour googling that and I can't find anything which even resembles what you're saying Serbia's supposed argument that "Kosovo isn't a state because it isn't sovereign". I even skim-read through and used "Ctrl & F (find)" on the ICJ transcript of Serbia's statement at the "International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence" and I could find no such thing. I would like you to WP:PROVEIT... if you can. Please back up what you have so boldly claimed. IJA (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL, demanding sources when you can't even back up your own positions with sources?

I provided a source which quite clearly says that Serbia's position is that "...the so-called Republic of Kosovo does not fulfill the constituent requirements of a State". The reason why they think this is quite irrelevant to our discussion. You've come up with the hypothesis that "yes they said that, but they didn't really mean "state" they meant "sovereign state"". Please show us a source to back up this position, otherwise it is simply more WP:OR. You are attempting to draw unstated conclusions from Serbia's statements.

"Politic-State": again any sources which actually use this phrase? You can't just invent it, give it a definition and claim it's neutral. TDL (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course the word "state" was used in the context of "sovereign state". What context do you think it was referring to? A Province (another name for a province is "state")? or an Austrian/ Brazilian/ US state? an occupied territory? a city? a territory ect? a land? All of which are states. It isn't Original Research, it is common sense. Here are some links of Serbia saying that Kosovo isn't a sovereign state. 123 They're just the first few I got off google.

If I made it up, then how come there is entire article on Wikipedia about it already? State (polity) IJA (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you've missed the point. Of course Serbia disputes that the RoK is a sovereign state. You argued that their position is that it IS a state, but NOT a sovereign state. Please provide a source to back up this hypothesis, otherwise it's OR.

Obviously you didn't make up the word "Polity", you made up the phrase "politic-state". Has this term ever been used to describe a political entity? If not, then quite clearly it's OR. TDL (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. IJA, as I've said several times by now, it is blatantly obvious that Serbia does indeed oppose the RoK is a "state", period. Not "sovereign state" or whatever. Now, what are we talking about here?? -- Director (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A province is a state, Serbia wouldn't deny that, in fact they'd support that. Also DIREKTOR, I see that you've been unable to back up your lies. IJA (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here; this is the war room! bobrayner (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

I am a dispute resolution volunteer at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I am posting this message to let everyone here know about a discussion regarding a content dispute on this page. The thread is "Republic of Kosovo". No one is required to participate, but everyone is invited and encouraged to help us find a resolution. If we missed your name, reply to this post and I will add it. This does not imply that you should stop trying to resolve the issue here. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their opening statements before opening it up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I just opened the discussion. Please join in. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

New article help please

I am planning to create a new article called Kosovan local elections, 2013. I think it will be considered a very notable article due to the build up to it, the participation of Serbs, the results and the violence which occurred in Northern Kosovo. If you would like to help me establish this article then please message me on my talk page. All are welcome. IJA (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)