Talk:Kosovo

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There's still some nonsensical prose in the sports section (ex. what is going on with the last two sentences?) - it seems like it either was LLM-generated or an artefact of partial cleanup of the section. ~2026-47268-36 (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

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

This wording was inserted here 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2026

The name of Kosova's capital is "Prishtina"; it has remained as "Pristina" due to "sh" sound which in serbian is written as "š" and is not part of the English alphabet. ShqiptarDardanie (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not clear what your suggested edit is (replacing all instances Pristina with Prishtina? Priština?), but based on either of my best guesses, it does not appear to be an appropriate suggestion for this page, this page should just be following the spelling used at the main article Pristina. Proposals to change how Wikipedia generally spells the name of the city should be taken up at Talk:Pristina. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:45, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Reinstating the article about the basin?

The title Kosovo (region) was an article from October 2017 to April 2018, when it was merged into the Kosovo article per the 2014 discussion at Talk:Kosovo/Archive 30#Merge?, but was briefly reinstated twice later that month. It was then reinstated again as an article for less than a day on 28 August 2022 before being redirected again.

Personally, I think the old version can be made to work as an article. In the 2014 discussion, editors raised the point (which I agree with) that the old version was largely duplicative of what we have in the "Kosovo" article today. By contrast, as shown in this map, the basin (or the blue area) is a genuinely different topic from the partially recognized state (which administers both the blue and the yellow area) or the region of Metohija (which is just the yellow area). This distinction is also recognized by secondary sources: the book by Dragan Ćukić cited in the lead sentence of the old article states Kosovska kotlina je odvojena od metohijske planinom Crnoljevom, which (according to Google Translate) means The Kosovo basin is separated from the Metohija basin by the Crnoljeva mountain.

If the title "Kosovo (region)" doesn't work (which I recognize was also a point brought up in the 2014 requested move discussion, because "region" is a vague and potentially pointy disambiguator), then we could also consider the titles Kosovo basin (currently a redirect to Coal in Kosovo) or Kosovo (basin).

Any thoughts?

Duckmather (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)