Template talk:Castles, fortresses and palaces in Serbia

Sites in Kosovo

Sites which are located in Kosovo can't be added if there is no competing land claim by a Serbian institution. I was very suprised to find that Sadko (talk · contribs) had added Dardana Fortress and Harilaq Fortress two sites - excavated post-2008 - about which no Serbian institution has put forward competing land claims. Sites can't be added if they aren't claimed even in principle by any Serbian institution.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

All sites and every piece of territory, castles, fortresses and palaces included, are claimed by the state of Serbia and Serbian institutions.

Please read WP:NPOV and do not make your own rules. What is the problem with having 2 templates? Absolutely nothing. All sides are respected in that way. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If a Serbian institution doesn't claim a site, we can't infer that it's WP:NPOV to create a dispute that doesn't legally exist in terms of competing claims. A discussion about WP:NPOV and WP:DUE presupposes that a Serbian institution has put forward a claim in legal terms. Serbia doesn't claim all sites and every piece of territory of Kosovo and Serbian institutions don't claim the management of sites that didn't exist before 2008. To recap, if a specific claim can't be proven about a site, structure, company (WP:OR), we can't begin a discussion about WP:NPOV.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope, that is plain POV. It is quite clear - Serbia claims every single site and square mile of the territory of Kosovo as its own. It can't be any more simple. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You can't infer from the non-recognition of Kosovo by Serbia that it "claims every single site and square mile" of Kosovo. It's not the official Serbian position and it's WP:FORUM in terms of editing. The state of Serbia claims reparations for certain companies, and assets (Gazivoda Dam, Trepča Mines) and there are negotiations about how these problems can be resolved. If specific Serbian institutions - the Ministry of Culture or the Archaeological Institute of Serbia - don't dispute legal ownership of archaeological sites, these specific sites will be removed. A discussion WP:NPOV and WP:DUE begins on the basis of bibliography and official state sources which produce competing legal rights. Thank you. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Not recognising the independence (joined by roughly 50% of UN members) equals exactly that. It's not a fringe viewpoint and be kind enough and do not not try to portrait it that way because that is political advocacy, which has no place on Wikipedia. Legal rights are claimed based on the constitution of Serbia and UN resolution(s); the dispute is not simply about land and wealth, as you would like to present it, which is mere POV editing. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)