Talk:North Kosovo crisis (2011–2013)/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about North Kosovo crisis (2011–2013). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Borders
Sources just call the border a border - example. Sources generally don't call it an "administrative border"; attempts to add that are just weasel wording. bobrayner (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Bravo, Evlekis, problem should be avoided whenever possible. :-) This should be idea for other articles, also, some say border, some administrative, but its only crossing anyway. Bravo. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's a border. Sources call it a border. Why are people on one side of enwiki's endless Balkan conflicts so allergic to the word "border" in this article? bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Some sources say Elvis is alive. Border is POV. Follow agreement, or talk it out. Revert. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Some sources say that shit doesn't stink, doesn't make it a fact. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Some sources say Elvis is alive. Border is POV. Follow agreement, or talk it out. Revert. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Using the term "border" indicates, in this case, obvious bias towards one side (i.e. the Kosovan separatists.) We cannot have that in Wikipedia, or in any encyclopedia for that matter. 23 editor (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Except if the author is a blatant denier of being biased. Isn't it funny everyone claiming to be neutral just isn't! User:Mr.Neutral, User:Neutral Fair Guy, User:NeutralStandpoint, User:N for Neutral, User:Neutral Democrat. Honestly, what passion behind these words[1]! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 03:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- It really is quite simple. Sources just call it a border. I realise that you feel strongly about this, but in reality it's just a border. bobrayner (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- So they might, but there are different types of "border", and if you are deliberately pushing for anything hinting at state border then you are breaching every aspect of NPOV. I can't see many editors sympathising with you here, but hey, it's only consensus, who cares about that! Let's just stick to Bobrayner's POV. Please take not of the discussion above this one. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- It really is quite simple. Sources just call it a border. I realise that you feel strongly about this, but in reality it's just a border. bobrayner (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Except if the author is a blatant denier of being biased. Isn't it funny everyone claiming to be neutral just isn't! User:Mr.Neutral, User:Neutral Fair Guy, User:NeutralStandpoint, User:N for Neutral, User:Neutral Democrat. Honestly, what passion behind these words[1]! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 03:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's a border. Sources call it a border. Why are people on one side of enwiki's endless Balkan conflicts so allergic to the word "border" in this article? bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
This issue is very straightforward. We call it what the sources call them. They call them "border crossings" per the two sources used in the lead. Neither of them uses the weasel phrase "administrative crossings". What source uses that phrase? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)