Revision as of 22:32, 12 March 2022 editColdtrack (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers2,963 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022: retort← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:40, 13 January 2025 edit undoIJA (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Rollbackers28,326 edits I'm removing these comments because Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTABLOG.Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
(767 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
|
|
{{On this day|date1=2015-02-17|oldid1=647571644|date2=2016-02-17|oldid2=705065041|date3=2017-02-17|oldid3=765980915|date4=2018-02-17|oldid4=826174848|date5=2019-02-17|oldid5=883684771}} |
|
{{Talk:Kosovo/Header}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Geography|class=B}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Kosovo|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Kosovo|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Albania|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Serbia|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Albania|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
|
{{WPCountries|class=B|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Europe|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Europe|class=b|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Limited recognition|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Limited recognition|class=B |
|
|
| b1 = yes |
|
|
| b2 = yes |
|
|
| b3 = yes |
|
|
| b4 = yes |
|
|
| b5 = yes |
|
|
|importance=High |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Talk:Kosovo/Header}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 33 |
|
|counter = 34 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Kosovo/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Kosovo/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Kosovo/Archive index|mask=Talk:Kosovo/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2015-02-17|oldid1=647571644|date2=2016-02-17|oldid2=705065041|date3=2017-02-17|oldid3=765980915|date4=2018-02-17|oldid4=826174848|date5=2019-02-17|oldid5=883684771}} |
|
|
{{Archive box|search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=2 |units=months |auto=yes}} |
|
{{Archive box|search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=2 |units=months |auto=yes}} |
|
{{merged-from|Republic of Kosovo|23 May 2014}} |
|
{{merged-from|Republic of Kosovo|23 May 2014}} |
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
== Lead == |
|
== NPOV == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first sentence of the subject is misleading. To make it sound less misleading it should be ''country with limited recognition in Southeastern Europe instead of ''country in Southeastern Europe with limited recognition. Stating ''country in Southeastern Europe with limited recognized'' might mislead the reader who is not familiar with the history of the area into reaching the conclusion that the subject is a country. Stating ''country with limited recognition in Southeastern Europe'' avoids that. Who agrees with my statement? |
|
The lead of this article says that Kosovo is a "partially recognized" state. The closest comparison to Kosovo is probably Taiwan/ROC, which is also a ''de facto'' state with partial recognition. Its lead simply calls it a "country" which I think is more appropriate for that article and for this one. I fail to see the point of calling it "partially recognized" in the lead despite the fact that it is even more widely recognized than Taiwan/ROC. ] (]) 20:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katharinabuchholz/2023/02/17/kosovo--beyond-where-the-un-disagrees-on-recognition-infographic/ ] (]) 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
I propose to change it from "partially recognised state" to "partially recognised country".] (]) 18:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I'm not sure I understand your statement enough to agree one way or another, a country with limited recognition is still a country. ] (]) 19:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::It is still a country. My question was about the first sentence of the subject. It makes more sense to write the end of the sentence as country with limited recognition in Southeastern Europe rather than country in Southeastern Europe with limited recognition. Is my question clearer? ] (]) 23:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2024 == |
|
Should probably change to country per talk ] ] 18:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
* I agree that just "country" is the most appropriate, just drop "partially recognized" entirely. ] (]) 19:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::]. The consensus on this article has consistently been to describe Kosovo as a "partially recognized state" because the term "country" does not denote statehood and/or sovereignty. Scotland, for example, is a country. It's still under British sovereignty. ] (]) 19:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}} |
|
{{Comment}} State is far more accurate per current state of affairs. Secondly, ''de facto'' and "sovereign state" was added in the lead without any consensus and should be removed. Kosovo* is not a sovereign state and it is very much dependent on foreign political, military and financial aid, only irrational and badly informed individual would claim otherwise. God bless. ]: 1-9. ] (]) 03:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
please change formatting of capital (erroneous tags) |
|
* I agree that ''de facto'' should be removed, Kosovo is recognized by many countries, including 97 UN members. When it is recognized by half the UN, it doesn't make sense to claim that it is only a ''de facto'' state. ] (]) 19:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've reverted to the "partially recognised state in Southeast Europe" wording. Further discussion is needed if this is to be changed. ] (]) 10:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from: {{nowrap|]}}<sup>a</sup> |
|
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-02-18T14:52:46.042459 | Kompleksi i shtëpive të familjes Jashari ne Prekaz 10.jpg --> |
|
|
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 14:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to: ] ] (]) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022 == |
|
|
|
:{{not done for now}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> The superscript ''a'' is a footnote, not part of the name. One could make the argument that the footnotes need to be better constructed in the infobox, but that will require a separate edit request. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 17:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}} |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}} |
|
|
In the intro, for the second sentence, before it mentions borders, please add that it is situated on the ] (I.e. “It is situated on the ] and is bordered by by Albania to the southwest, Montenegro to the west, Serbia to the north and east and North Macedonia to the southeast”). Multiple sources have included Kosovo as part of the Balkans. |
|
Introduction grammar request |
|
|
|
https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/kosovo-guidebook.pdf ] (]) 21:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> The location of Kosovo is already described in the first sentence as being {{tq|in Southeast Europe}}, which is precise enough for the lead section. '''] ]''' 21:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Change: |
|
|
|
|
|
… with a population of about 1.8 million; it is bordered by by the uncontested part … |
|
|
|
|
|
To: |
|
|
|
|
|
… with a population of about 1.8 million; it is bordered by the uncontested part … ] (]) 16:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 17:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::My mistake. I was manually reinserting something that had sat unchallenged for seven years less the occasional opportunistic troll's attempt at covert disruption. I'll be more careful next time. --] (]) 20:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{Ping|Edin balgarin}} please immediately retract your characterization of me as an "opportunistic troll" per ]. ] (]) 20:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I said "the occasional opportunistic troll" and I can see that about four people have done what I said in the passage. Nobody said your name, and I make no comment about you. What's to retract? I'll name the culprits if you want. --] (]) 20:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I challenged it, you said that only "occasional opportunistic troll" intent on "covert disruption" had challenged it. Either you're wrong and should retract an untrue statement or thats a personal attack. ] (]) 20:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Just a minute. Are you saying I ask because this editor bowed out shortly after Horse Eye Jack was created, and you two are the only ones to ride roughshod over ] by trying to appropriate ] for a issue where RS does not apply. See . Does writing the comment "''And what's more, when did a reliable media source ever call the border "Kosovo-Serb uncontested territory". ''" ring any bells? --] (]) 21:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Nope thats not me, also RS apply to everything on the page. I would imagine that all editors would attempt to apply RS when adding content to a mainspace article, they are required to do so after all. Also just to be clear thats not a troll, thats an editor in good standing... If thats who you meant thats still a personal attack. ] (]) 21:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::It's a troll in no finer feather: I've seen this past half an hour that he had a history going back ten years doing the same old thing, using several accounts. No RS does NOT apply everywhere and I have already explained this. I can find reliable sources that refer to Muammar Gaddafi as an "evil tyrant" with casual abandon. You think you can go adding that to his page just because about six UK broadsheets used this term about him? --] (]) 21:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Are you saying that account is an unidentified sock? Its not tagged. WS doesn't apply everywhere (talk pages for example) but it does apply to content in mainspace articles (such as ])... We don't publish *anything* besides whats from WP:RS there. See ] "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. '''This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.'''" ] (]) 22:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}}"We don't publish *anything* besides whats from WP:RS" = ]. I never said "use unreliable sources". I already gave you an example as to how "reliable sources" refer to unfavourable world leaders as "evil tyrants" and you still haven't edited the ] article to call him what the "''analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors''" are printing about him. I never for one moment said that account is an unidentified sock. I am saying he is an IDENT-ified sock. --] (]) 22:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
: I agree you didn't say use unreliable sources, you said don't use sources *at all* aka "RS does not apply" "RS comes into play where two editors present diametrically opposing viewpoints. Where presentation is the bone of contention as is the case here, the quintessential factor is WP:PARITY." etc (WP:PARITY only comes into play when evaluating ] BTW). That is not a not a tagged/identified sock, see ] (]) 22:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I am sorry to have floated the suggestion that you are that person. It was not intended to cause you offence and I assure you never again to broach that topic. Just to get back to the issue of policies, note that ] and ] land elsewhere on the same project page. FRINGE goes straight to the head of the article, though PARITY migrates to its specific subsection. The discussion to have taken place in 2015 explored the matter of how to deal with wording over a subject that is not only hotly disputed, but polarises the entire world almost right down the middle. Since you said you have only "dipped slightly into the Balkans" (and your edits back up your honesty), I'll tell you what the opposite is (and indeed what was once displayed on the article). Just as an overture, I'll give you the backstory: the competing factions are proponents of Kosovan separatism (we'll say Group A), and proponents of Serbian territorial integrity (say Group B). Group A argue "Kosovo borders Serbia" based on a presupposition that Kosovo should be treated as an undisputed sovereign state. Group B argue that "Kosovo borders CENTRAL Serbia" based on Serbia's claim of sovereignty over Kosovo. Uncontested territory was a type of compromise. --] (]) 23:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Wouldn't they be nationalists on both sides at this point not separatists and integralists? The separation was successful after all and Kosovo is currently a sovereign state (albeit one with limited recognition). You would appear to be pushing a rather dated POV. I don't understand why you're invoking any part of ] at all because it doesn't seem to apply here. WP:RS applies everywhere WP:FRINGE applies and then some, such as here. ] (]) 23:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I was correct the first time. It is separatists and proponents of Serbian territorial integrity (I didn't use the term integralist). Nationalism doesn't come into the picture. When nations base their claim on ] then that is nationalist. Ukraine's claim on Crimea and the Donbass (and maybe now everything east of the Dnieper) is based on its constitutional outline and not on a desire to take foreign lands. When it came to separating Kosovo from Serbia and Yugoslavia, the work was done by separatists and achieved by the powerful handlers of those separatists. But whose "nationalism" is it? Albanian nationalism does not advocate for Kosovo and Albania as independent of one another. Meanwhile with regards the opposite nationalism (Serbian or Pan-Yugoslav), it should be known that being Albanian did not determine where they stood since the VJ (Army of Yugoslavia) had Kosovo Albanians among its ranks, and a certain part of the ethnic Albanian population supported the union with Serbs and Montenegrins. Then on top of that, Kosovo is home to ethnic Serbs, Montenegrins, Gorani (minor Slavic group), Bosniaks, Roma and Turks. Most Turks are said to have been separatists, and the rest are firmly against an independent Kosovo. Correct, FRINGE does not apply, and it is for that reason PARITY is essential given the near 50/50 global split. RS was explained to you , , and so I am not repeating myself. You claim that I am pushing a dated POV, yet there have been no new developments between 2015 and 2022 in this ball park. Your appraisal of Kosovo being a "sovereign state" is based on some anecdotal interpretation. There are a list of states with limited recognition and nothing weeds out Kosovo from the rest of the catalogue. ] declared independence from the Soviet Union before the country was officially recognised as dissolved, meaning Moldova has never exerted any leverage there. Despite this, it is not said Transnistria "borders Moldova", but rather the "the river Dniester and the Moldovan–Ukrainian border". On the ] article, it mentions bordering Albania by way of the disputed Kosovo breakaway. What the Kosovo article does not call its border with Albania however is the "Serbia-Albania" border. If you ask me, proponents of Kosovo independence have a damn good deal with the current arrangement. Then you have the wider list, ], ], ], ], each with their own backstories. I assure you that there is nothing special about Kosovo that should split it from the rest on the limited recognition club, regardless of whether the claimed territory is controlled in whole, in part, or no part. Furthermore, this is not the only geographical article that addresses the Kosovo-Serbia issue. There is ], ], ] (where I just reverted an unchecked POV breach), and ] (which explains the situation well). If there are to be any radical amendments, then it needs to be distributed across dozens of articles. --] (]) 11:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If the nation has been established and achieved its independence then they're nationalists... Kosovo has done both. The Serbian claims are in fact irredentist, they no longer have sovereignty over Kosovo. "If you ask me, proponents of Kosovo independence have a damn good deal with the current arrangement." is exactly the sort of battleground POV pushing I have asked you to abstain from. ] (]) 15:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Kosovo is not Serbian irredentism because it has never recognised the breakaway of this region, and as such, Serbia's claim over Kosovo extends beyond nationalists to the whole of ethnic Serb society. It would be no different to me saying the LPR and the DPR are subjects of Ukrainian irredentism when in fact Ukraine still claims them as their own. When you say, Serbia "no longer has sovereignty over Kosovo", you invoke the dispute itself. What you mean is that Serbia no longer has any control over Kosovo and that is correct, much as Ukraine has no control over the LPR and the DPR (nor Crimea), and Syria does not control all of its claimed lands either. so according to your argument, Kosovo is only as sovereign as ISIS had been at times it had control of its claimed territory in whole or in part. --] (]) 22:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::If the LPR and DPR were sovereign then you would have a point, but they aren't... They're puppet states. A better analogy is Taiwan which is also sovereign yet claimed by its neighbor. ] (]) 22:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::The LRP and DPR declared independence from Ukraine, and Kosovo declared independence from Serbia. Nobody is interested in your unauthenticated appraisal of what is a "puppet state" and what you decree to be "sovereign", and while you are unable to corroborate any form of "puppetry" outside of your Russophobic mainstream media, everybody know knows Kosovo, famous for Camp Bonsteel, knows that it is nothing more than a western outstation. Its streets and squares shamefully honour contemporary US political figures in a way not even know in the US, and where the Kosovo "flag" flies, so too does the US flag. Taiwan most definitely does '''not''' compare to Kosovo in any way. Taiwan represents the ], and you have just betrayed your own ignorance as before you made the last comment, you evidently had never heard of the ], and as such, I am certain you have never heard of the ] either. There are, and have been some examples on the world stage which compare to China-Taiwan (such as before 2001, the ] v ]. Those the examples which most closely approximate to Kosovo are the LPR, DPR, Islamic State, Somaliland, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Kosovo has no trump card over any of those I mentioned. --] (]) 22:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024 == |
|
== Area == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}} |
|
The area of Kosovo is 10,908 km2 not 10,887 km2 ] (]) 03:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
There is a part in this Misplaced Pages page that says that the Albanians pilgrimaged Novi Pazar, Sjenica and Pristina. Novi Pazar and Sjenica have links that take you to their respective articles, while Pristina does not. This is the change i want to make; to link Pristina to its respective article. ] (]) 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:] is already linked to in the upper article. We create a link only every first time a city gets mentioned, otherwise articles would be hard to read. ] (]) 21:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Typo == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Albanian population growth in Kosovo in the lead == |
|
Under the culture section, on the topic of food, one mention of Fila is misspelled as Flia. I do not have an account to fix this. ] (]) 17:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:It should be spelled ], according to its article. ] (]) 16:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@] Per your , why is it "UNDUE and NPOV"? The topic is already discussed in the article's body. The sudden mention of "Albanian" in the lead through the "Albanian Renaissance" might confuse readers. First mentioning the substantial growth of the Albanian population helps provide context, making it clearer how it grew to become a central hub of Albanian history. ] (]). 15:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Change to lead == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Definitely not. Since when do we mention population growth in the lead of the article? |
|
{{Ping|No such user}} please get consensus for your desired addition to the lead per ]. It does not appear to be appropriate to push a dated POV in the lead and I see no closed discussions in the archives which are relevant. ] (]) 16:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Western Kosovo (] Plain) has always had Albanian presence and that is shown in numerous Ottoman defters ''(per Pulaha, Selami)''. Even in certain mines located in the the real "Kosovo plain", such as ], Albanian presence is well-documented. Even if you contest this there's more to the story. If you want your information added, we may as well add the fact that many Serbs left Kosovo during the Great Serbian Migration, and Albanians naturally filled up that vacuum. At this point, let's consider adding the ] to the lead of the article. Not to mention that almost every city had a substantial Serbian population before the Kosovo War in 1999. It is simply wrong to add it to the lead and create the impression, that the Ottoman reforms exorbitantly changed Kosovo's demographic. It did, in some degree, but still, Kosovo retained a significant Serbian minority until the end of the 20th century. |
|
:{{ping|User:Horse Eye's Back}} - I did ''not'' add anything new to the lead recently (I did reorder two sentences, but you seem to take issue with ). It was ''you'' who removed the long-standing and neutral formulation "borders '''the uncontested territory of''' Serbia". It is POV to suggest that it "borders Serbia", disregarding that Serbia claims Kosovo as its integral part. <br>Consensus for "uncontested" wording was last affirmed in ] in 2015, among a dozen involved editors, and has been present in the lead almost continuously since. The ] is on you to demonstrate support for your version. ] (]) 20:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::WP:ONUS doesn't apply here, onus is "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." ] (]) 21:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
:Your addition creates a wrong impression and is simply irrelevant to the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the most important information on the article. If one were to add your proposed content, it would be simply the start of an "adding content" contest. ] (]) 21:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think that it's WP:UNDUE for the article to mention historical demographics in the lead, but if editors decided via consensus that it should mention them, then it should mention that a)there were no Slavs anywhere in Kosovo before the Middle Ages b)the first Slavs who settled in the area were the ancestors of the Gorani and Serbs appeared in the 12th century in Kosovo b)Albanians increased in eastern Kosovo during the Ottoman era, while in western Kosovo Albanians, Gorani, Serbs lived c)Serbs who originally came from Montenegro largely replaced local Serbs in eastern and northern Kosovo. As these four points would require a small section for a balanced overview, it would create an even more unbalanced lead section. As such, it's probably for the best that all such details are discussed in the main article.--] (]) 23:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Also there is no clear consensus in that link, the conversation ends without consensus ever being achieved. A number of editors seem to have made significant errors, such as treating countries as ]... ] has nothing to do with the opinions of countries. ] (]) 21:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::The statement under point A is factually inaccurate. This addition by Azorzal was significant as it marked a major shift in the region, making it far from a "minor detail." The arrival of the Slavs in the 6th and 7th centuries has already been noted, and that suffices. Anything beyond this is unnecessary and it's a matter of balance, taste and not forgetting that the lede is not about demographics. — ] ] 00:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::In that case, change it to what it originally said, Kosovo borders ]. Problem solved. --] (]) 22:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::Yeah no. If the Ottoman policies were that significant, all cities in Kosovo wouldn't have had such a large Serbian presence until 1999. That automatically disqualifies it from the lead, per WP:IRRELEVANCE. Otherwise, we would have to mention every other notable demographic change in the lead, like I've mentioned. It doesn't work like that though and it's going nowhere. This is what I mean by "content adding" contest. ] (]) 18:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::Central Serbia is not a country, what we are trying to do here is list the bordering countries not parts of those countries. ] (]) 22:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::I agree with you Sadko, but because clique editors have decided to block you in the same manner that the clique editors have tried to block me you probably will never be able to read my agreement with you because you are historically correct and these clique editors are here to promote their hate agenda not accurate historic events. The Slavs arrived in the Balkans during the late antiquity which is considered the 6th and the 7th century and since then they have dominated the Balkans religiously, linguistically and culturally, and Albania is an invention of the 20th century and Kosovo is a Serbian province not a country, and go ahead and block me. ] (]) 07:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
::::::And the majority of countries in the world say that Kosovo is not a country either. So where do we go from here? --] (]) 22:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::Kosovo is Serbia. ] (]) 06:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:::::::What does that have to do with anything? Countries aren't WP:RS, their opinions don't matter to us here at wikipedia. ] (]) 22:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:What is Albania and what is Albanian? ] (]) 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
The mention of this demographic shift is not intended to diminish the historical presence of Albanians in Kosovo. At present, the lead makes no reference to Albanians until the abrupt statement that ''"Kosovo was the center of the Albanian Renaissance"'', leaving a clear narrative gap. The growth of the Albanian population during the Ottoman period represents a critical historical development, similar to the Slavic settlements in the early Middle Ages, and warrants similar inclusion. Highlighting this shift provides essential context. ] (]). 01:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:During the Middle Ages, Albanians formed a significant component of the demographic population of Kosova. In fact, it would seem they formed the majority in certain areas, particularly Rrafshi i Dukagjinit, or the western half of Kosova. Significant Albanian communities were also recorded throughout eastern Kosova and the Drenica region. The line that some of the editors here wish to include places too much importance on Ottoman policies when in reality, the shift wasn’t as significant as some wish to claim. As such, all of that context would need to be included in the lead, which might make it too long. |
|
:::Since you like Wikilawyering, ] states that {{tq|If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change.}} I did object to your change, pointing you to a rather explicit previous consensus (despite your handwaving to the contrary), and you failed to explain why you think your removal improves the article. Now, what's your substantial point? ] (]) 22:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Furthermore, if we’re talking about the shift in Ottoman policies, then we should also talk about the shift during the Serbian periods of control, both in the Middle Ages (Slavicisation of Albanians, conversion of Catholic Churches etc) and later on (Yugoslav colonisation, genocide of Albanians in the early 1900’s, constant ethnic cleansing policies etc). Now, if we add everything, the lead may very well become far too big. ] (]) 11:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::Please withdraw the accusation of wikilawyering, pointing our a basic mistake is not wikilawyering. Multiple editors have objected to the change, there is no explicit consensus... One of the involved even says "I won't call it consensus yet." ] (]) 22:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No cookie for you. I asked, "what's your substantial point" and you continued wikilayering. At this point, I must conclude you have no substantial point. ] (]) 22:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
::How does a group go from not being mentioned once in the lead about a region to suddenly having a renaissance in that same region? ] (]). 13:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::You know what my substantial point is... that "the uncontested part of the territory of" has no place in the lead. Also again unfounded accusation of wikilawyering may be treated as ]. ] (]) 22:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
:::I was not in favor of the request when users propsed to remove that the coalition of the Battle of Kosovo also consisted of Albanians. Suppressing that and wondering where "Albanian" has gone in the lead is really something. Anyways, your question doesn't really overrule Misplaced Pages policies and the fact that a consensus here is literally light years away. ] (]) 19:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::Your proposed "Kosovo borders Serbia" wording implies that Kosovo is not a part of Serbia, a proposition that half the world disputes. How is that compatible with ]? ] (]) 22:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
::::My point is not specifically about the word 'Albanian,' but rather the absence of any particular Albanian history or events in Kosovo leading up to the 'Albanian Renaissance.' How did we suddenly get to that point if not primarily through significant population growth? ] (]). 21:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::We have many scholars pointing out that the Albanian Urheimat was located in Kosovo and today's southern Serbia before Slavic invasions, meaning the regions of ] and ]. It may be more convenient in the article ], but I absolutely would not oppose including it here if that solves your issue. ] (]) 22:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::As Alex pointed out above, Dardania (along with Dibra-Mati-Mirdita) are the two regions that are considered to be the places of origin of Proto-Albanian as a language (and as such the Albanians). In the Middle Ages, the Dukagjini family controlled large swathes of land in Kosova. As mentioned previously, Albanians are mentioned as being a dominant element in western Kosova and parts of central Kosova, and making up a significant portion of certain parts of eastern Kosova. These are all important notes that prove that the whole “Ottoman policies = Albanians in Kosova” myth is quite overblown. |
|
|
:::::Albanians have always been a major demographic factor in Kosova, from antiquity to today. My point here is that including the line on how the percentage of Albanians seemingly grew during Ottoman control is ] on its own. To paint the full picture, you need to talk about Kosova’s importance as part of the nucleus of the Proto-Albanian population. Then, you also need to talk about their strong and historically-documented presence in Kosova during the Middle Ages even during Serbian rule, when parts of the population also underwent Slavicisation. You should also bring up the fact that the Bulgarians were in the region before the Serbs, who only began settling the region later during the times of the Serbian kingdoms. |
|
|
:::::Then, you can also talk about how from the 1900’s up until Kosova’s independence, Serbian and Yugoslav politics have deliberately attempted to lower or eradicate the presence of Albanians in Kosova (genocide, colonisation program, settling of non-native Serbs and Montenegrins whose ancestors form most of Kosova’s Serbian population, ethnic cleansing, land theft etc) and yet Serbs still do not form even 10% of Kosova’s population. IMO, all of this is far too lengthy and long for the lead, and is better kept in the body. So either the full picture, or none of it to prevent non-neutral POV’s from being reflected. ] (]) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Slavic archaeological evidence has been found in the territory of modern-day Kosovo dating back to the early Middle Ages. Asserting that "it's Bulgarians" or that "they were there before" lacks scientific rigor and it's not the kind of language or thinking usually found on Misplaced Pages, in my experience. Unlike the speculative theory about the origin of Proto-Albanian, which remains a mere hypothesis — one alternative placing this population in modern-day Romania — what Azorzal highlighted is grounded in factual evidence and statistical data. This approach prioritizes verifiable information without engaging in original research or making claims about their alleged presence in ancient times. Even if that is true, though it's a significant uncertainty, the modern-day population has virtually no connection to those people, apart from, at best, a tenuous linguistic link. We should not engage in ]. There is no basis for comparison here. — ] ] 10:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Nobody is engaging in WP:OR, as in recent years, a scientific consensus has continuously emerged on the origin of the Albanians. Your incorrect claim {{tquote|the modern-day population has virtually no connection to those people, apart from, at best, a tenuous linguistic link…}} suggests that you should do more reading on the topic. Aside from a strong linguistic link (literally why it’s called Proto-Albanian…), there’s genetic and cultural links to. The paternal haplogroups and admixture of modern Albanians matches up with samples found from Paleo-Balkan populations (namely Illyrians more so than Thracians), much more than any other Balkan population. Culturally, many aspects of Albanian culture and mythology are believed by scholars to have a Paleo-Balkan origin. Before making such baseless and incorrect claims, I suggest you read a little more on the origin of the Albanians and aspects of their culture. The Romania hypothesis is quickly falling out of popularity, too. The contact zone between proto-Alb and proto-Romanian is believed to be situated somewhere in eastern Dardania. |
|
|
::::::::Nonetheless, none of that is the point here, I just don’t want your false claims to go undisputed. {{tquote|Asserting that "it's Bulgarians"}} - well, actually, we know it’s the Bulgarians, because the Bulgarian empire conquered Kosova long before any Serbian state did and held it for a while. The Goranis are closer to Bulgarians than they are to Kosova’s Serbians, most of whom are descended from Serbs brought in from Montenegro and other parts of Serbia. Additionally, data from defters and even chrysobulls on the significant presence of Albanians in Kosova during the Middle Ages cannot be denied. |
|
|
::::::::So, again, unless you want to add the full picture, which will require a long, lengthy and tiresome discussion to establish a version everyone is happy with, although it will still be too long for a lead, AzorzaI’s addition stands against ] and offers ] weight to Ottoman policies. ] (]) 10:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Setting aside forum-style mini-essays on (what appears to be) ethnic pride and interpretations of history, it's still just a theory and theories about ancient times are not important for lede, while the suggested edit is per facts, sources, bibliograhy and it's a sort of shift which is quite important for the history of the region, plus, it’s nothing unfamiliar within the context of the Ottoman Empire and its policies. I'll let other editors join in. Best. — ] ] 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Regardless of what world view one might insist sticking onto, what we can agree on is the fact that there's no consensus and the current state of the article will stand. {{tq|I'll let other editors join in.}} That would be ] if not done properly. Wiki isn't based on democracy but rather on facts. ] (]) 20:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Fellow editor Alex, the quoted sentence simply means: let's wait for additional comments. : ) Take care and thank you for your illuminating comments. — ] ] 20:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::{{tq|Take care and thank you for your illuminating comments}} Absolutely no problem. Take care too : ) ] (]) 21:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Let me contribute to this discussion via a question. Is it the typical ] to include population growth from a certain ethnic group in the lead on an article about a country? If not, why do it here? Let us still to the typical Manual of Style. ] (]) 10:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
The first sentence of the subject is misleading. To make it sound less misleading it should be country with limited recognition in Southeastern Europe instead of country in Southeastern Europe with limited recognition. Stating country in Southeastern Europe with limited recognized might mislead the reader who is not familiar with the history of the area into reaching the conclusion that the subject is a country. Stating country with limited recognition in Southeastern Europe avoids that. Who agrees with my statement?
There is a part in this Misplaced Pages page that says that the Albanians pilgrimaged Novi Pazar, Sjenica and Pristina. Novi Pazar and Sjenica have links that take you to their respective articles, while Pristina does not. This is the change i want to make; to link Pristina to its respective article. Ieditwikipedda (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The mention of this demographic shift is not intended to diminish the historical presence of Albanians in Kosovo. At present, the lead makes no reference to Albanians until the abrupt statement that "Kosovo was the center of the Albanian Renaissance", leaving a clear narrative gap. The growth of the Albanian population during the Ottoman period represents a critical historical development, similar to the Slavic settlements in the early Middle Ages, and warrants similar inclusion. Highlighting this shift provides essential context. Azor (talk). 01:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)