Jump to content

Talk:Kosovo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

?

Care to show us when the Albanians were settled here by the Ottomans? Going by sources many Serbs moved into Kosovo in the 18th century. TheCreatorOne (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible AI generated text

Hi - I added the AI generated tag here, specifically regarding the text by Iaof2017. Their edits, such as this (note: this is just one example), display many strong indicators of potential LLM use. A lot of editing has obviously been done since 2024 and a lot of eyes have been on this, but enough of those indicators remain that the text needs additional review for hallucinations, sourcing issues, and -- these are for sure present -- tone, editorializing, and OR/synth issues. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tag really damages the article's overall appearance. I'll try my best to look into it in the future. It's really not good having this tag on top of a country's article. @Gnomingstuff, what do you think about moving the tag to the sections that you suspect of having included AI-generated content (e.g. the cuisine section)? I think that would be more appropriate than having it in the first line. Thanks! AlexBachmann (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's really not good having AI text in a country's article; don't shoot the messenger.
This editor is really prolific so I'm not sure the text is restricted to one section unfortunately. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I have to agree to the fact that the aforementioned edits do indeed look suspicious, we can't automatically assume that every edit by that user is AI-generated. I think we can all agree upon the fact that such a tag is not really the best thing that can happen to the lede of a country's article. I did not - or at least it was not my intention to - attack anyone. I will look into that more deeply, and if I find that the edits only concern certain parts of the article, I'd propose restricting the tag to those specific parts of the article. Any objections to that? AlexBachmann (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that every edit by that user is AI-generated -- the link is just for convenience's sake since the edits start at that point in time. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gnomingstuff, I appreciate what you’re doing, although I would have to agree with AlexBachmann that it would make more sense to restrict the tag to the section where you’ve actually identified what seems to be AI-generated text by that specific user. I too have noticed a rise in AI-generated text on articles and even talk page comments as well; some articles that have been created recently IMO have been almost entirely AI-generated, so it’s important to stay vigilant about it.
However, much of the article does not seem to be AI-generated. So, if you don’t think it’s possible to move the tag to that specific section (which IMO it should be unless you can identify AI-generated text from that user in other sections as well), then how do we go about fixing it so as to get the tag off the article? Just rewrite it? Botushali (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If something is AI generated then every claim needs to be checked against the source to ensure that A) the source even exists, and that B) the source backs up the text. With non-AI edits it can be assumed that the writer at least read the sources; with AI edits, that isn't always the case. AI text also frequently contains original research and synthesis, and general non-neutral language -- this at least should be immediately obvious and was probably caught in earlier rounds of editing.
I would guess that if one edit to an article is AI then all the other edits by that person around the same time are also AI, it would be unusual for someone to suddenly stop. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that all makes sense, but we’d have to go through all of that user’s edits around that time to check. Aside from the cuisine section, any other portions of text you noted as suspicious so anyone who wants to fix the issue knows where to look and double-check? Botushali (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only other large-scale text addition around that time aside from the cuisine subsection was the sports subsection (which does read as puffery). There were two smaller additions about the world happiness report and Global safety report. CMD (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De jure and De facto, consensus

Kosovo is de facto independent state but it hasn't been internationally regonised including China, Russia and Serbia and Kosovo is also considered as de-jure part of Serbia, because of this i think places in Kosovo should have their de–facto (That being Kosovo and their de facto districts) and de-jure (Serbia and their de jure Districts) locations like for example Kijevë has. It's still maintaining NPOV and also other disputed territories do have their de facto and de jure locations and Kosovo is currently still disputed territory Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It can be argued that Kosovo is de jure independent as well as de facto independent. Serbia has a territorial claim over Kosovo. That is it. IJA (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo still isn't regonised by all countries including Russia, China and Serbia and is considered as province by the UN so Serbia isn't the only country who considers Kosovo as their territory Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Despite common overuse, “De jure” is a relative term by definition: it relies on a specific jure. CMD (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, it's relative and it relies on a specific jure. UN members and United Nations specialised agencies are divided on the matter. There are many conflicting de jure claims. We can't just choose one de jure argument. Anyway, this isn't the correct place to discuss this matter. This talk page should only be used for improving this article. IJA (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Query from a non-EC user

This edit request (actually a request for clarification) was made at WP:RFED:

The section 'History,' subsection 'Kosovo War,' second paragraph, last sentence:

'By 1996, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an ethnic Albanian guerrilla paramilitary group that sought the separation of Kosovo and the eventual creation of a Greater Albania,[121] had prevailed over the Rugova's non-violent resistance movement and launched attacks against the Yugoslav Army and Serbian police in Kosovo, resulting in the Kosovo War.[117][122]'

I'm struggling to understand the use of 'the Rugova's' - it seems like an error. Could this perhaps be referring to Rugova and his wife (or even brother, other family member) working in tandem towards their movement? (e.g. JFK and RFK during JFK's presidency - 'The Kennedy's')

Or, is error the precedent 'the,' and Rugova was a singular figure leading said movement?

Cheers Kolcun (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This wording was inserted here [3] in 2017. Looks like a copyedit error to me. Rugova wasn't known for acting together in a family team politically, so this must be referring to him alone. Thanks both for flagging this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&oldid=1355956394"