Misplaced Pages

Talk:Kosovo: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:49, 23 October 2009 editMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Talk:Kosovo/Archive 25.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:27, 14 January 2025 edit undoIJA (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Rollbackers28,328 edits Albanian population growth in Kosovo in the leadTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkpage}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{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}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Kosovo|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Albania|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Countries}}
{{WikiProject Europe|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Limited recognition|importance=High}}
}}
{{Talk:Kosovo/Header}} {{Talk:Kosovo/Header}}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCountries|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Kosovo|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Serbia|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Europe|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{V0.5|class=B|importance=Top|category=Geography|nested=yes}}
}}
{{British English}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 25 |counter = 34
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(14d)
|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}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=2 |units=months |auto=yes}}
{{archive box|<br>'''Former article talkpages (archived)'''<br><!--
{{merged-from|Republic of Kosovo|23 May 2014}}
The following pages are archives and should not be renamed or moved to other names or back to their original names until these articles are recreated with consensus
-->]<br>]<br>]|auto=yes}}

== Fake de facto North Kosovo ==

"except for North Kosovo, which remains under de facto governance of Serbia." this is Fake

Municipalities in the north including north mitrovica use UNMIK stamps not republic of Serbia Stamps

Courts use Eulex Stamp there is no Republic of Serbia in the Courts

Kosovo Police in the north reports to EULEX police there are no Republic of Serbia Police in the north

There is No Police of (Republic of Serbia) in North Kosovo Customs

the person who edited this probably dont know what is governance?--<span style="color: #FFFF00; background-color: #00008B; font-family: arial ; font-size:11px"> LONTECH </span> 14:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
::I have addressed this issue before. It is a bit of a sticky point, not easy to define. Three municipalities in North Kosovo and two others elsewhere are not ''controlled'' by Belgrade, but by locals. The locals of the five municipalities have a Serb majority who govern themselves in such a way as to deliberately observe Belgrade policy. Then again, Serbia does and has always recognised UNMIK and sees this as the highest body with the authority to rule over all matters. I believe that the governance within the five municipalities operates in such a way as to also respect this position. But what is unclear is: with there being an Albanian population within the Serb enclaves, how does it happen that Pristina leaves this region alone? What would happen if Pristina decided to assert its control over these areas? Does it really not wish to on account of the Albanians forming a minority? Or is it really EURALEX which is stopping them from doing so in order to keep peace? If it is the latter, then it is clear that ''local Serbs'' are maintaining influence in their zones. But these questions I believe nobody can answer. ] (]) 13:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding UNMIK - Stop PROPAGANDA please

KOSVO ASSEMBLY is the HIGHEST body

Unmik and Eulex serves as Bridge beetween Prishtina and North Kosovo
after independence UNMIK is DEAD

Serbs are maintaining and will maintain influence in all Municipalities as long as they are majority in those municipalities
In order to give serbs more independence from Prishtina and according to DECENTRALIZATION Prishtina will create at least 5 other municipalities with serbian majority ex.(Gracanica) which now is part of Prishtina, Municipality OF NORTH MITROVICA, Prtesh etc --<span style="color: #FFFF00; background-color: #00008B; font-family: arial ; font-size:11px"> LONTECH </span> 21:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
::There is no propaganda. UNMIK, NATO, UN, EU, EURALEX, call it what you wish. There '''is''' an international presence in Kosovo. The Kosovo Assembly is heavily dependent on this presence because left to fight one against one with no logistical support from or arms coming from the side, Kosovo would not last long against Serbia. They kept the war going by forever running for cover in Albania to regroup every time the VJ advanced, but take away outside help (from Albania too) and arms and support (from the US) and ''Kosovo'' will not have the power to fight. Sufficient is it to say that in the event of a dispute between Kosovo's "assembly" and the international authorities, the so-called "HIGHEST body" is in no position to give EURALEX orders. So the "assembly" has de facto control of most of its municipalities and that is the end. The other five are governed locally. ] (]) 03:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your reply is ] and no one here dont like to hear ]

the "assembly" dont have de facto control of most of its municipalities and that is not the end
because the Assembly of Kosovo dont control local governments (local cities) local Assembly

You dont have idea what is Assembly?

Every city (municipality) has its own Assembly they are independent from the Assembly of Kosovo--<span style="color: #FFFF00; background-color: #00008B; font-family: arial ; font-size:11px"> LONTECH </span> 05:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:Well Lontech, if people don't want to know about demagogy you should have thought about that before starting this provocative and disruptive section "North Kosovo is fake". I know what an assembly is (скупштина, ''skupština'', sobranie, knesset, seimas, Russian Duma, mejlis?). It is parliament. The powers of the townships and municipalities are limited and cannot violate the constitution, neither can they overlook provisions laid down by the assembly. If the ministries which form the assembly state "drive with these plates, use this currency, this is our phone code etc" then all who serve that assembly are obliged to comply. The assembly of Kosovo implements nothing at all within the Serb enclaves and it seems according to you that the international heavy mob stands to ensure that this status quo remains in place. ] (]) 13:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"under de facto governance of Serbia" - do you agree that this statement this is Fake --<span style="color: #FFFF00; background-color: #00008B; font-family: arial ; font-size:11px"> LONTECH </span> 04:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

::Not fake, just ''de facto'' as you say. Nothing ''de facto'' can be fake. How it is ''de jure'' governed is a different matter but that is the whole source of the dispute. --] (]) 13:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

De facto - No courts no police no army there are no Republic of serbia in the north
and there are Kosovo Police in the North and the command of the Kosovo Police is in Prishtina

you misunderstood the term defacto or you forgot that there are no institution of republic of serbia in the north

stop propaganda

this should be removed or renamed under Eulex administration --<span style="color: #FFFF00; background-color: #00008B; font-family: arial ; font-size:11px"> LONTECH </span> 14:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Lontech, will you please refrain from constantly reproducing this isolated "Stop propaganda" slogan. You are not here to demonstrate, and this is not a protest. Nobody is spreading propaganda. The loyalty of the Serb enclaves to Belgrade is optional and is not a claim that the municipalities form some sort of "Serbian sattelite state". They may be making the most of their autonomy and there may yet be a police force controlled by Pristina there, but is that force doing anything more than driving around and carrying out ceremonial patrols? According to my information, the three northern municipalities are taking their orders from the ethnic Serb section of Kos. Mitrovica. This body in turn governs its region in such a way which is unconstitutional throughout the rest of Kosovo. For example, Albanian is an ''official'' language. It can either be superior to or on the same level as Serbian according to the Kosovan Assembly. That means that no Serb should leave school unable to speak Albanian for having had atleast one part of his basic education with that tongue as the medium of instruction. You provide me with a list of schools in "Fake North Kosovo" which the "Prishtina Police" is ensuring that Albanian is taught to non-Albanians. --] (]) 18:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Its is not just porpaganda but it is also Demagogy
You have a lack of information about official languages in kosovo
According to constitution of Republic Of Kosovo Official languages are Albanian and Serbian

what about your state tetovo city in macedonia etc. does this cities take orders from albania and not from skopje (since albanians govern this municipalities) this is demagogy

again i thought you agreed in your in your first reply you said it is not controlled by belgrade but by locals

do you agree to remove under de facto of governance of serbia - they can take orders but they are governed by locals as you said --<span style="color: #FFFF00; background-color: #00008B; font-family: arial ; font-size:11px"> LONTECH </span> 20:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We can add they keep strong ties with serbia --<span style="color: #FFFF00; background-color: #00008B; font-family: arial ; font-size:11px"> LONTECH </span> 20:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
::Now I see what you are proposing. Well certainly I agree; at no time did I personally suggest that North Kosovo was with the rest of Serbia. Locals govern for sure, and what degree of their governance is accepted by Pristina and what is beyond its influence is a different subject. I can safely say that I see no problem with your idea. No demagogy or propaganda now! :) --] (]) 21:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

I solved the infobox problem at long last by taking out the irrelevant one and placing the national ROK box on the top as people need to see it. Can't argue with democracy and that is how all Kosovars see the state (because Serbs are not real '''Kosovars''' and they are down to about 1% anyway). In addition, this is how a vast amount of countries recognize the region. This is also as per concensus on this page (ie. Kedadi, myself, Anna Fabiano, Factarius, a gang of others). The "anti-Kosovo" party lead by Dab lost out and run out of steam a good month ago. They have given no arguments and are grappling onto the lost cause "it is Serbia" rebuffed view. ] (]) 09:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:This sort of behavior makes me ashamed to be on the same side as you. While I am in favor of Kosovo independence, it is rather rude and bigoted to refer to people who have lived their entire lives in Kosovo as not being real Kosovars. As far as the infoboxes go, as long as this page is not officially the Republic of Kosovo page that infobox should NOT be at the top. This page should be reformatted into a disambiguation page leading to articles dealing with each phase in Kosovo's history and each government that currently claims it. Also a "lover of democracy" should have asked for input from others before doing this. ] (]) 13:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you dont have a Good reason to oppose INFObox on top STOP Replying

There is a Big HUGE propaganda about this article

There is a fact that:
We are using double standards for Kosovo and other states (Abhkazia) etc
even editors dont know the reason why they are opposing Coat of arms cause they change their statements every hour



Finally:
There is a Consensus about this--<span style="color: #FFFF00; background-color: #00008B; font-family: arial ; font-size:11px"> LONTECH </span> 00:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All serious Misplaced Pages editors are tired of having discussions about the same thing over and over again. If you don't have the will to look over the previous discussions about the matter and do not want to put some effort into reading all of them, I do not have the will, nor will I put any effort into, repeating it all. Show some respect for this web-site and project. --] 01:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

there is a broad consensus to put ROK in top.--<span style="color: #FFFF00; background-color: #00008B; font-family: arial ; font-size:11px"> LONTECH </span> 02:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:nonsense. There are no "double standards", we are judging each case on its own merit as we should. This has been discussed to death. The current revision is perfectly stable, and any attempts at edit-warring over it should be met with sanctions per the hatnote on this page. Any bogus claims of "consensus" just go to illustrate bad faith on the part of those making them. Now please find something else to invest your wiki time in. --] <small>]</small> 09:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::in fact, I must concede that the ] and ] articles appear to be biased in favour of the secessionist viewpoint. Please take this to ] and ] and stop complaining about it here; see also ], one policy violation is no defense of another. --] <small>]</small> 10:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no "double standards" you said also
I'll post one of your statements here -> There is no UN resolution recognizing any "Republic of Kosovo".
but my friend i'll repeat it again UN dont recognize states

and i think that you dont have knowledge about Diplomacy and International Law

You maybe are admin but that doesn't mean you know everything

Also you are breaking every Misplaced Pages rule
there is a broad consensus 80-90% about this and if you want i'll add names.--<span style="color: #FFFF00; background-color: #00008B; font-family: arial ; font-size:11px"> LONTECH </span> 18:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:All you have done since you arrived on this page is post incoherent inflammatory comments and general accusations of pretty much everything. Please try to contribute more constructively in future. ]:] 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"United Nations has maintained a position of strict neutrality on the question of Kosovo's status"., and so has Misplaced Pages. Slapping the secessionist flag at the top of the Kosovo article hardly amounts to "a position of strict neutrality". Now please stop trolling this talkpage. --] <small>]</small> 17:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not neutral to slap the flag of Serbia with a miniscule Kosovo inside. We're trying to be consistent with ] and ]. I would advise that you stop bullying around and revert edits when there is a consensus. We are not doing the same thing to Serbia's page, but given your behavior, probably we should.]--Sulmues 21:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:: I suggest that we go back to the version of Lover of Democracy. ]--Sulmues 21:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop comparing articles, read what dab wrote. ] has a map that doesn't have Abkhazia and S. Ossetia shaded, while the map of ] has Kosovo shaded in that article. So what? I could go on complaining that the Serbia article should resemble the Georgia article, but I understand that every case is unique. Besides, even the Kosovo leadership and those who support it use the "every case is unique" argument, so accept that there's no neutrality if one side gets it all, and the other side gets nothing. I know it's easier to just push your own beliefs instead of trying to see things from a different point of view. Tolerance, mutual understanding and respect. Start from there. On the other hand, I'm afraid that some users are using Misplaced Pages to promote their "national interests" to a global stage (since Misplaced Pages is a popular web-site) and don't really care that this is not the purpose of this encyclopedia. If this is your goal, leave now. If not, show how you can think above your own POV. --] 00:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cinema C dont act here like neutral . Go check http://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Kosovo-note

what are you tryin to do with your statements now is clear. you want to win support of other serious editors like dab etc.

so dont act like your neutral.--<span style="color: #FFFF00; background-color: #00008B; font-family: arial ; font-size:11px"> LONTECH </span> 11:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


Dab You have to accept there is a consensus but that consensus is not valid because you decided like that.--<span style="color: #FFFF00; background-color: #00008B; font-family: arial ; font-size:11px"> LONTECH </span> 11:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
:There was never consensus for three (3!!) infoboxes, that was always absurd on it's face. Wiki practice is a single infobox in all of our articles. Multiplying infoboxes is not an accepted practice, what if there are 8-10 different POVs on a topic use 10 infoboxes on top of each other? Not to mention the horrid redundancy for exl. ] being the prime minister in all Kosovos... All POVs can be properly explained in the text. Serbs believe in Greater Serbia Kosovars believe in independent Kosovo. Usa is for X Russia is for Y etc etc. ] (]) 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

:Oh really? Serbs believe in Greater Serbia? I'd like a reference showing all Serbs believe in Greater Serbia. Kosovars believe in independent Kosovo? Really? The Serbs in North Kosovo believe in independent Kosovo too? --] 23:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
::No the user is stating that they believe in both Greater Serbia and an independent Kosovo!!!!!!!! --] (]) 15:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that issues regarding Abkhazia should be resolved at ''that'' talk page? Just because that article does or doesn't do something, doesn't mean that this article should or shouldn't do it, nor vice-versa. OTOH, if you think that the situations are essentially the same and should thus be treated the same, and if there are other examples that should follow the same convention, feel free to join or start a discussion about a convention for those cases.

But please, use this talk page to discuss ''this'' article. ] (]) 21:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no change in consensus. I see a single-topic editor repeating over and over how there is supposedly a new consensus, without any evidence that this is so. The current article revision is the stable consensus such as it is, and was developed after months of debate. If you want to do a significant change in presentation, such as merging, splitting or moving about infoboxes, you will need a very clear change in consensus before you go ahead. Before there is any evidence of that, we are just wasting time here. --] <small>]</small> 11:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a new consensus, I even took voting on it and we were told that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. That was a 10-1 vote. If that's not consensus... http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Kosovo&oldid=314341520#There_is_a_standard_on_wikipedia]--] (]) 12:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

dab now you have evidence.--<span style="color: #FFFF00; background-color: #00008B; font-family: arial ; font-size:11px"> LONTECH </span> 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
:You are now approaching disruption. This consensus 'vote' was created by one user: . Of that list, is not valid, neither is . is questionable. Please stop. ]:] 20:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
::"This consensus 'vote' was created by one user" This seems false. As the linked diff shows that edit merely summarizes stuff (moves it into one place). And what do you mean by "questionable" that link you gave? What exactly is questionable about it? One thing seems clear is that, the current non-consensus version (3 infoboxes) was never created nor maintained by any agreement of editors(consensus) but by simple reverts to sustain it. Consensus is actually against this as is standard wikipedia practice in all our other articles. Please show just a single wikipedia country article with three (3!!!) info boxes on top of each other. ] (]) 21:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
:::I think that what I created is real consensus. Consensus is not trying to convince everyone, because there will be always someone who will disagree. We are trying to convince people that are philibustering against a very reasonable change (HAVING ONE COUNTRY INFOBOX ONLY). The arrogance is shown with requests like "stop trolling this page!", "you are disrupting!", "you are being rude!", while all I am doing is to bring consensus. And even after I bring it, there is Cinema C saying "wikipedia is not a forum", or "wikipedia is not a democracy". After rehashing those things, he makes his own changes (meaning Serbian POV) and hides behind "be bold". Or starts a war of banning people who are bringing valid arguments. I am trying to bring SERIOUS EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS to understand that we are having an anomaly with Kosovo as:
::::the only partially recognized country in Misplaced Pages NOT TO HAVE A FLAG AND COA on top;
::::the only partially recognized country in Misplaced Pages with 3 different infoboxes to express two different POVs (one huge Serbian infobox that stays on top, and a tiny Albanian one in the bottom), and one "neutral" (UN) one.
:::::The first infobox is rather generic, the only "pro-Serb" item really being the map. The ROK box is next, followed by the UN box. As for your point about this being the only partially recognized country treated this way, perhaps the others should be changed? (For the record, I am in favor of Kosovan independence and of splitting this article. That should take care of your "only the Serbs are against me" statements.) ] (]) 00:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me like we are having a gratuitus offense to Misplaced Pages readers who are not able to read they just look at infoboxes. It's not the case: people read. They also have opinions and by the voting I took it wasn't a good one. I make a call to serious editors and contributors to intervene and based on a consensus reached to make one SINGLE INFOBOX WITH ALL THE DATA OF KOSOVO AND FLAG+COA ON TOP. That would be a great improvement to the article.] (])--Sulmues 15:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

kajidha we are not askin for ]

cause The consensus already exist

what we are tryin to do here is that we're trying to convince serious editors like (dab,etc) to change infobox because consensus exists and is valid --<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 06:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
::Obviously the consensus DOES NOT exist. At least not the consensus you mean. ] (]) 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

provocative reply khajidha
When it comes to existence of things they exist or they do not.You dont have at least
I said serious editors khajidha not editors who would change the whole wikipedia article infoboxes just to stop kosovo COA on top--<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 10:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
::First, I fail to see how my reply was provocative. The fact that several editors (including "serious editors" -your term- like dab) are against it shows that there is not agreement with your proposal. Second, yes, things exist or do not exist, but a consensus is a system not a thing. Third, I said nothing about changing all of wikipedia or the structure of the infoboxes. What I said was, that if other disputed countries have their country box at the top of the article perhaps those articles are the ones that need to be changed. This means that there would be separate articles for the history of the regions and the political bodies that claim said regions. This is the approach I have always advocated for this article in particular. I have no problem with the ROK infobox being at the top of the ROK article, this just isn't that article. Finally, it is really disruptive to the flow of conversations for you not to indent your responses. ] (]) 14:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

you can call it whatever you want system, democracy, agreement etc even systems exist or do not exist
and yes you said "perhaps the others should be changed?"

check this http://en.wikipedia.org/History_of_Kosovo
Kosovo history actually exists

The history of kosovo belongs to the people who lived and live there in that territory for thousands years (Serbs,Albanians etc.) and the people who live there decided to be independent.The histroy of kosovo dont belong to occupations
check history of France, etc during Germany occupation the history of France dont belong to Germans

I want to get the approval from dab because he was involved in this article for long time
he is wikipedia pioneer he is first or among the earliest in wikipedia--<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I will wait for a couple of weeks and will do the change myself if no one enters constructive opinoins. Dab is a very respectable wikipedian, but I cannot wait till he changes his mind. Doing thousands of changes in Misplaced Pages does not make you a Kosovo expert. This thread will come to oblivion exactly like the other infobox thread where I reached consensus to have ONE INFOBOX ONLY. I won't leave this article in Serbian POV pushers' hands]--Sulmues 13:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

== Disruptive edits ==

user ] did a lot of distruptive edits in the article of ] history edits including Dardanian Kingdom, territory etc
You can see history of the article he removed the text a couple of times and reverted

I warned him to stop these reverts check his talk page ]

You can verify that this kingdom existed just go to google books and type dardanian kingdom you can find hundreds of books about this kingdom.

Kosovo represents the core of the Dardanian territory--<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 09:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

== Kosovo Article is now read by my program! ==

http://www.archive.org/details/KosovoWikipediaArticlesVideo
Here is the full 127mb 02hours of reading from this wikipedia article. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== UN Security Council ==

This article alleges that the NATO action in Kosovo was contrary to the provisions of the UN Charter. In fact, Article 52 of the UN Charter allows regional organisations such as NATO to take such action as is necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security, provided such actions are consistent with the purpose of the Charter. In other words, an explicit Security Council endorsement is not a necessary condition of every intervention, assuming a regional organisation meets the criteria laid down by the Charter (which the North Atlantic Treaty quite explicitly does - cf. the North Atlantic Treaty), and that the reasons for intervening are consistent with the Charter (given that there was an imminent danger of genocide in Kosovo, this criteria was also met by NATO).

While it common to mistakenly assume that the UN Security Council has to agree in every instance (frankly, very few people bother to read the Charter), there is no reason to endorse that mistake on the Kosovo page or elsewhere. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Dardanian Kingdom ==

I know just about zilch on this topic, but I'm starting this section to encourage ] and ] to get to discussing this topic, which they seem to be arguing over in other places.

After a cursory search, it seems to me the name "Kingdom of Dardania" itself is ]. The name would therefore need to be left out of the article. That doesn't mean Dardani shouldn't be mentioned at all, though. Perhaps some cues should be taken from the ] article. References for information relevant to Kosovo could probably be found there too.

Sorry I can't be of more help; I'm no historian. Please start discussing this issue here. Remember, this article is under a ] restriction, so '''there is to be no more reverting''' until this dispute is resolved. I'll be watching this page, and if anyone has questions (about policy etc, not Kosovo '':)'' ) feel free to contact me. Good luck. ] (]) 09:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:I just found this: http://albaniaonline.org/the-dardanian-kingdom/ . Not sure if it helps. ] (]) 09:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

::What dispute there is no dispute at all the only person in this world who dispute this kingdom is Hxseek--<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 09:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:::When someone disagrees with you on the content of an article, that's called a dispute. ] (]) 09:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

disagreement without any reference or change of credible referenced text is vandalism--<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 09:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:No, it's not. Vandalism means ''intentionally'' compromising the integrity of an article. If an editor is making edits that he believes make the article better, it's not vandalism. Read ], and ] about other editors. ] (]) 09:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Lontech changed the original standing version to ''In antiquity, Kosovo formed the central part of the Kingdom of Dardania''. This is wrong for several reasons. This "kingdom" - if it existed at all (it was more of a temporary tribal hegemony over neighbouring tribes, even by Antiquity standards)- lasted a couple of generations. Antiquity was a period which spanned several centuries. Error # 1. Secondy, the phrase in non-sensical and anachronistic. Kosovo is a later ethnomym. Lontech's statement is like stating that "France was the centre of Gaul" ! For this reason, I reverted it to older versions. ''In antiquity, the Dardani - a Thraco-Illyrian tribe, inhabited the territory roughly corresponding to present-day Kosovo''. I do not even need to explain why this version is better. Whilst I understand that Lontech might not be a native English speaker, I do not understand his incapability to accept someone who is making good faith edits, who clearly has a better command of English and grasp of historical reality.

Moreoever, lontech's provided reference states ''nothing'' in support of his quote. It is a text about Ancient Macedon which makes a passing mention of on Cleitus "king of the Dardanii". This is blatant misrepresentation of the text. Moreoever, Lontech asserts that my edits are 'nationalistic". Not only is he obviously incorrect, but he is rather comical. I cannot see how one can harbour nationalistic sentiments against an ancient peoples which no longer exists :) ]


__TOC__
Thank you for your help Equazcion. But that site is an unscholarly production by the Albanian government. People can try and claim whatever they believe. But on an encyclopaedic site like Wiki, it is hardly WP:RS. Whenever one writes "based on irrefutable facts and evidence", any scholar takes alarm. The very first sentence just shows this unscholarly POVHow can theories about a distant era about which we have little solid evidence be "irrefutable". The entire premise is to prove a lasting link between Dardania and Kosovo-Albanians. One that, whilst possible, would require us to forget the 1,500 years of discontinuity. Whatever the case, the matter is peripheral to the main thrust of the article anyway ] (]) 10:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
== NPOV ==
(]) 10:08, 21 October 2009 (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?


https://www.forbes.com/sites/katharinabuchholz/2023/02/17/kosovo--beyond-where-the-un-disagrees-on-recognition-infographic/ ] (]) 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not the place for serbian nationalism.
: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 ==
i dint revert to kosovo but to present day kosovo i left your text ive removed the provocative nationalists text like "was integrated into serbian empire" etc


{{edit extended-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
If you carefully read the his text he inserted in the name of MINOR CHANGE you can understand that he intentionally compromised the integrity of an article.--<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 10:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
please change formatting of capital (erroneous tags)


from: {{nowrap|]}}<sup>a</sup>
I have outlined my arguement. Yours, on the other hand, is non-sensical rabble filled with personal attacks (which are mis-directed, given that I am not even Serbian :) ) Unlike the alleged Dardanian-Albanian ''myth'' (see the very books you provide a link to), there is a ''plethora'' of evidence that Kosovo was part of the Serbian kingdom. Provide one scholar that denies this (even Albanian) ? ] (]) 10:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


to: ] ] (]) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I proved that you are lying the discussion was about the dardanian Kingdom. Dardania was conquered not integrated and the territory of Kosovo represents the core of the Dardanian territory
:{{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)
read the books before you come here next time to change the histroy.


== Semi-protected edit request ==
--<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 10:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
:You provide no counter-arguements, instead vear off into another topic, which - again- you are wrong about. Dardania ceased being an entity, even as a region, after Late Roman times. There was no Dardania in the 7th century, no Dardania in the 13th, no Dardania in the 21st century. ] (]) 11:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024 ==
What the hell are you talkin about. DEMAGOGY . You denied the existence of this kingdom. Now you keep me lessons about dardania.


{{Edit extended-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
i added this links for other editors to see his PROPAGANDA
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)
I Call editors to revert those changes he did.--<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 12:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


== Albanian population growth in Kosovo in the lead ==
this article, not to mention its lead, is no place to discuss patriotic ]. Just leave it. If you're genuinely interested in Dardania, discuss it at ], but don't trouble this already busy page with it. --] <small>]</small> 13:39, 21 October 2009 (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)
:There is very little information on anything resembling a "Dardanian kingdom" in antiquity. Any such claims smack of antiquity frenzy, as dab pointed out, and I have removed the passage about the so-called "Dardanian kingdom" as a result. For what it's worth, I think the whole paragraph about the history, beginning with the Dardanians, should be removed from the lead. It is repetitive and virtually identical with the History section. --] (]) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


:Definitely not. Since when do we mention population growth in the lead of the article?
::Remove the paragraph and put there Serbian History.Check the books i added now i'll add at least 10-100 references about this kingdom and i'll change your revert you cant revert credible referenced text as POV because your revert is POV. Sorry but you have lack of knowledge about this Kingdom --<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 19:59, 22 October 2009 (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.
: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)
:::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)
::::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)


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.
I agree with Dab and Anthenaean. Lontech accept this and stop exclaiming racist remarks. If we accept this Dardanian kingdom, which I accept ''is'' mentioned by historians, it was (1) unstable (2) temporary and (3) lasted only during the reign of Bardyllis and his immedieate successors. So to say that during Antiquity there was a Dardanian kingdom is ''wrong''. Antiquity is a period of one thousand years. There was no kingdom for 1, 000 years. Moreoever, your wording is non-grammatical. To say "Kosovo was the centre of Dardania" is a non-sense statement. Yu have to say something like the territory of present-day Kosovo roughly corresponds to the lands occupied by the Dardanii, if you really have to mention them. It is that simple. Stop accusing people of nationalism and accept suggestions by people who have a more technical and less abrupt (ie POV) grasp of the English language ] (]) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (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)
::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)
:::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)
::::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? Lets stick to the typical Manual of Style. ] (]) 10:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Even in case of being valid per MoS (which it is not), the proposed population growth was not notable enough to include it. ] (]) 23:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed - it's not notable or relevant enough to include in the intro. ] (]) 10:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:27, 14 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kosovo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 17, 2015, February 17, 2016, February 17, 2017, February 17, 2018, and February 17, 2019.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconKosovo Top‑importance
WikiProject iconKosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlbania Top‑importance
WikiProject iconKosovo is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSerbia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconEurope
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLimited recognition High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Misplaced Pages by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

In accordance with sanctions authorised for this article:
  • All editors on this article are subject to 1RR per day and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see (subsequently modified by ).
InformationUseful information for this article
  • Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Misplaced Pages:Etiquette.
  • This is not a forum for general discussion of Kosovo, or whether it is a 'country', 'state' or 'province'. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.
  • You may wish to ask factual questions about Kosovo at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Misplaced Pages policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.
  • The opening paragraph to the article was decided upon, by consensus, following lengthy discussions. It is based on reliable sources, providing a neutral point of view. The first sentence, in particular, must call Kosovo a "country", reflecting the consensus found in the RfC held in the spring of 2023.
  • This article is written in British English, which differs from American English in some ways. See American and British English differences.
    According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
  • Kosovo received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34



This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
The contents of the Republic of Kosovo page were merged into Kosovo on 23 May 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

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?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katharinabuchholz/2023/02/17/kosovo--beyond-where-the-un-disagrees-on-recognition-infographic/ 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:D914:CEF0:F24D:5D78 (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2024 (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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 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? 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:6493:D35:2CE8:6F77 (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change formatting of capital (erroneous tags)

from: Pristina

to: Pristina Anvish (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: 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. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the intro, for the second sentence, before it mentions borders, please add that it is situated on the Balkan Peninsula (I.e. “It is situated on the Balkan Peninsula 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. https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/kosovo-guidebook.pdf 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:E879:81B4:EADF:A345 (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The location of Kosovo is already described in the first sentence as being in Southeast Europe, which is precise enough for the lead section. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

Pristina 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. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Albanian population growth in Kosovo in the lead

@AlexBachmann Per your revert, 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. Azor (talk). 15:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not. Since when do we mention population growth in the lead of the article?
Western Kosovo (Dukagjin 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 Novo Brdo, 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 Yugoslav Colonization Programme of Kosovo 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.
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. AlexBachmann (talk) 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.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2024 (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. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:08, 4 December 2024 (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. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:48, 4 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)

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.
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. Botushali (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2024 (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? Azor (talk). 13:52, 5 December 2024 (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. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2024 (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? Azor (talk). 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 Dardania and Moesia. It may be more convenient in the article Origin of Albanians, but I absolutely would not oppose including it here if that solves your issue. AlexBachmann (talk) 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 WP:UNDUE 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. Botushali (talk) 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 WP:OR. There is no basis for comparison here. — Sadko (words are wind) 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 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. 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 WP:NPOV and offers WP:UNDUE weight to Ottoman policies. Botushali (talk) 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. — Sadko (words are wind) 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. I'll let other editors join in. That would be WP:CANVASS if not done properly. Wiki isn't based on democracy but rather on facts. AlexBachmann (talk) 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. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Take care and thank you for your illuminating comments Absolutely no problem. Take care too : ) AlexBachmann (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Let me contribute to this discussion via a question. Is it the typical Manual of Style to include population growth from a certain ethnic group in the lead on an article about a country? If not, why do it here? Lets stick to the typical Manual of Style. IJA (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Even in case of being valid per MoS (which it is not), the proposed population growth was not notable enough to include it. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed - it's not notable or relevant enough to include in the intro. IJA (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: