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 00:32, 3 November 2010 editEnric Naval (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,509 edits Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija -like redirects: please let's not start again← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:27, 14 January 2025 edit undoIJA (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Rollbackers28,327 edits Albanian population growth in Kosovo in the leadTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}} {{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 Albania|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{V0.5|class=B|importance=Top|category=Geography|nested=yes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 26 |counter = 34
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(20d)
|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 |bot=MiszaBot I |age=20 |<br><!-- {{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}}
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
--><center>'''Former article talkpages (archived)'''<br>]<br></center>|auto=yes}}

== Link to Abdul Hamid ==

The link to Abdul Hamid in the text "The Albanians threatened to march all the way to Salonika and reimpose Abdul Hamid." appears to link to the incorrect Abdul Hamid. I think ] is the correct one, but I am not sure. ] (]) 18:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is antiserbian, this article strongly supports only albanian side and point of view, and this will be published in "Politika", most selled newspaper in Serbia!
--] (]) 23:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the update. I hope it doesn't mention my user name in any bad capacity! This article is not ''that'' anti-Serbian. Ask the Albanians who would prefer to change the intro to "country" and see if it is anti-Serb. ] ('''Евлекис''') 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

== Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija -like redirects ==

I see that many variants of "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" redirect here (including such written in cyrillic). I propose that we redirect them to ] - or if possible directly to an article such as: ], ], ]. ] (]) 20:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:If it can be determined that they are not referring to the current Serb conception of KiM, then they should be redirected appropriately. If they are making reference to current events, they should stay as is. Unless, of course, we were to split this article. (Note: While I support splitting the article, I don't want to start another argument about it. I was just covering all possibilities.) --] (]) 12:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
::Oh, I didn't noticed that this article is '''not only about RoK'''. It has only the RoK infobox and no APKiM or UNMIK infoboxes - so I assumed that it is '''only about RoK''' - that's why I found it strange for APKiM redirects to go here.
::So, the problem is not only in the redirects, it is in the whole structure/topic of the article!
::I think the current setup is entirely inappropriate - if the article "Kosovo" is to be a combo-article covering both Kosovar POV and Serbian POV - then it should include '''infoboxes for both POVs''' (as the two POVs imply entirely different statuses). I understand that it will be difficult to decide what is put first, but having one of them missing is even worse - and misleading. Also, I don't know if Serbian POV should be represented by APKiM infobox or UNMIK infobox (these are already existing in the respective articles) - after all UNMIK is "accepted" by Serbia.
::Such double POV arrangement seems inappropriate to me. Current situation: we have articles for ] and ], but we don't have article for ]. We also don't have articles devoted to Kosovo as a region/territory (in the sense of physical/natural properties, not in the political or administrative sense), we don't have article explaining Kosovar position on Kosovo, we don't have article Serbian position on Kosovo. The current Kosovo article is an awful mix of all these topics (both such that have their own articles and such that don't have separate articles). I propose the following arrangement (but reading your comment above it seems to open a can of worms):
# ] to be devoted to as "general description" of the region/territory with sections
#* about the physical/natural properties of the region/territory - parts of the current "Geography" section
#* about the historical developments up to somewhere in the 20th century (up to 1912 or 1990) - most of the current "History" section
#* with brief section about demographics, languages, culture
#* with a separate section "Status of Kosovo" or similar - somewhere '''at the bottom''' where the recent (post 1990) political developments are '''briefly''' described - with links to the main articles of ], ], ], ]. Maybe mix it with the current "Name" section in "Status and names of Kosovo"
#* remarks about current political status and Kosovar/Serbian POVs to be kept mostly out of the lead section (otherwise it will become too big) and put into the "Status" section in the bottom
# ] to get most of the sections (and the RoK infobox) of the current article (parts/summaries of them can be put in the general ] article, relevant/ammended parts of them can be put in APKiM and/or UNMIK article) - ''this can be considered to show the Kosovar POV - or a separate ] or ] article can be made''
# ] (already existing) - this can be considered to show the Serbian POV - or a separate ] article can be made
# pre-lead & disambiguate navigation helps ("XXX redirects here, for other uses see YYY", "This article is about XXX, for other uses see YYY") changes to relevant articles:
#* ] to have such link to ] and "] redirects here, for general description of the territory see ]"
#* ] to have such link to ]; ] to be linked from inside the text, where Kosovo dispute is mentioned
#* ] to have such link to ] and "] redirects here, for general description of the territory see ]"
#* ] to have such link to ]
#* ] to have such link to ], ]; ] to be linked from inside the text, where Serbia dispute is mentioned
#* ] to have such link to ], ]; ] to be linked from inside the text, where Serbia dispute is mentioned
#* ] currently has a plain link to ] - just keep it or add "general" and "political" sections with the first containing "general reference to the territory of ]" and the second containing the APKiM pre-1974, SAP, APKiM post 1990 links
#The redirects to be changed:
#* to ]: ], ] (sometimes called region instead of province)
#* to ]: ] (or the article text to reside in "]" with "1990-1999" and "1999-" redirecting to the "1990-" article), ] (or to ] or ])
#* to ]: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
#* to ]: ], ] (sometimes called region instead of province)
#* to ]: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
#* to ]: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (delete, not used?), ] (delete, not used?), ], ], ], ], ]
#* to ]: ], ]
#* to ]: ] ] (]) 10:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::You and I seem to be in complete agreement, but many users here seem to disagree. I don't know why it is so hard to understand that the physical place is separate from the social structure erected upon it and that different social structures can exist in the same physical space. USUALLY this does not occur and the physical space and social structure can be covered in one article. When exceptional circumstances occur, however, this can and should be recognized with an exceptional article structure. --] (]) 11:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::But what are the objections? Maybe we should put some "split proposal" template in the article linking to this discussion?
::::The group of articles about ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. is a good example for another similar case like the triad here of Serbia/UNMIK/Republic of Kosovo. ] (]) 16:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::By similar I mean - it is an example of having different articles for the "general description" of the region/territory, for each of the "opposed to each other" governing authorities. Please, don't start arguments like "Kosovo is not like Palestine, because ..." - I don't claim it is. ] (]) 16:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::I {{agree}} completely with this great wonderful proposal! I tried to propose this multiple time alredy, but each time i was sabotaged by few problematic users. Whatever you decide, i would love to participate, PLEASE just inform me on my talk page. Also, i propose split templates, that would be the best. Alinor, i propose to create new section, with your main proposal. Or we can use this one above? Anyway, i am here, and i am willing to help to fix this unbelievable POV horror that we have now... --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 16:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)WhiteWriter please don't try again without consensus because last time a large number of editors tuned your proposal down and some of them ended up complaining at AE about your actions.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC).
:I think to add a variant of ] linking to this discussion (if the page protection allows me to), but could someone please point me to the previous discussions on such proposals? ] (]) 05:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::For the most recent of the many split discussions, you may want to read archives ] and ].
::Consensus can change, of course, but it gets a little tiring when some people who disagree with the consensus just want to try over and over again. To complain that one is sabotaged by problematic users is profoundly unhelpful; for people who genuinely believe (or pretend) that they have have The Truth and everybody else either helps or heeds them, wikipedia will be a very frustrating place, because wikipedia runs on consensus.
::There wasn't even consensus to place a split template on the page, last time around.
::This tends to turn into a very long debate so I would suggest putting it under its own heading if you wish to discuss further. ] (]) 09:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I looked at some of the previous discussions (haven't read everything) and if I understand correctly the previous proposal were different - they proposed almost all material to go into the "general" ] article, the RoK was referred to by the proposal "de facto ... disputed" (I think this doesn't help to have impartial debate) and wasn't clear what content will go there, the UNMIK was to go into APKiM article, etc. Then the comments revolved around "Serbia has no control over Kosovo, including North Kosovo", etc.
:::The current proposal is different than that. First it doesn't deal with the questions of how controls what, what the status is according to different POVs, etc. - the proposal is exactly about that - leave POVs to the appropriate articles and use ] only for physical features/pre-1990 history - with only '''small''' section devoted to "Name and status" - mostly linking to the POV-articles.
:::I don't understand how anybody could be happy with the current status quo - the ] does not have its own article - the current one is "pested" with APKiM-POV remarks. Even Somaliland article is more Somaliland-focused than this (and Somaliland has ZERO recognitions - for those that like to count recognitions and non-recognitions). On the other side, the APKiM-POV is pushed to the sidelines, there is no APKiM infobox (the reason I misunderstood the topic and started this discussion)! How could anybody claim that the status quo represents both POVs, when it actually represents neither?
:::What is the problem of putting APKiM and RoK POVs in their own articles (APKiM already has an article), UNMIK POV (that is different from the other two) also has an article. I think that the editors who support one of the POVs should concentrate on explaining it with great details on its own dedicated article - with just small remarks "the other POVs are the following: link1, link2, link3" - not like here to make "essay" delaboration in a mixed article. Espicially for UNMIK and APKiM POVs - they have their own articles, but their POVs are not explained well even there - for example - current functions/mandate of UNMIK, if/how it gave up tasks to EULEX (which tasks), to RoK (which tasks); Serbia position on APKiM - "since 1999 it is under UN administration", OK, but then "elections organized by Serbia produced the APKiM assembly->Serb APKiM Council, President" - so, is Belgrad officially working with these APKiM structures or it works with UNMIK (and what about EULEX?) - and only unofficially supports the APKiM structures? - the RoK POV also leaves many things unexplained - again about UNMIK-RoK relations - PISG were part of UNMIK, now ''it seems'' that they are part of RoK - how was the transition made? documents, sources. Is the old UNMIK currency regulation (4/1999) in force ("allowing official payments to be done in dinars, but with additional charge for exchange costs")? etc. And general questions - does Serbia put customs duties on goods coming from Kosovo? And from North Kosovo? Are there serbian border guards and customs officiers at the Serbia-Kosovo crossing, or is it considered by Serbia "internal administrative boundary, not border"? What about foreign debt of Serbia+Kosovo - how/whether it is divided? What about shares/immovable properties in Kosovo owned by Serbian entities/citizens? And vice-versa? What about RoK representation in organizations where the membership is of UNMIK? etc. the list of unanswered questions could continue.
:::Instead on focusing on delivering content with sources, etc. - we argue if we need source for "state with limited recognition" against "disputed territory with limited recognition" or if we should count recognitions or non-recognitions. I think, that by dividing the article into RoK, APKiM, UNMIK and historical/physical "general Kosovo" - all POVs would be represented much better, each in their own article.
:::By putting all in the same place is like requiring from Misplaced Pages editors to agree on common position - a thing that politicians could not do for 20 years. This is just a magnet for reverts, vandalism, etc. - so, the page is protected.
:::''practical question'' - so, if putting a split-template is not acceptable, what can be done? ] (]) 10:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Creating separate articles to avoid the irksome chore of getting "''Misplaced Pages editors to agree on common position''" would be a ]. I'd rather get a NPOV here than create two separate POV ghettoes (which would, themselves, still attract lots of reverts and vandalism). ] (]) 11:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::Alinor, you are very much welcome to propose some solution and add split-templates. None can ban you to propose split. Thats one of the main wiki rules, as you know. You must know that you have here some editors that find this subject very personal and emotional, so they can try to stop you, or there can be some minor problems, as i unfortunately find out. As i told you, just add new section with your proposal alongside split templates. With your fine explanation, every neutral admin will be willing to read what you have. Also, only arguments can win here. ] needs to be fixed. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 12:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::Bobrayner, i don't agree that this is a POV fork proposal. RoK and APKiM and UNMIK are three '''different''' things, that's why putting them in a single article results in the problems described all over these 27 talk pages. There is one single thing that is common to all three and it is that the three are "administrations/governments" of the same territory - Kosovo. How much any one of these three is "legitimate", how much any one of these has "real control", etc. is irrelevant. I think it is better that we have one article, containing only the ''common'' things (Kosovo history pre-1990, geography, etc.) - and the other articles to deal with their own topic (and mention the others only when required in order to explain something about ''their'' topic).
::::::WhiteWriter, thanks for the support! But it seems that the issue is very controversial (and entrenched) and right now I don't have time to be dragged into such discussion - I made my proposal above - if the editors here like it - they could easily implement it. I was just passing by and saw the strange redirects (some of them could be corrected even without the article split). ] (]) 13:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::To me it seems that splitting the article would allow clearer presentation of each side. Just as a debate has each participant speak individually instead of having everyone speaking at once and trying to drown out the other side's points. Yes, there should be a prominent note reminding people that these other POVs exist and linking to the presentation of each, but each government/administration should be presented in its own article. --] (]) 13:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I put a "split proposed" template in the article lead on October 30, 2010. ] (]) 09:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

:{{Disagree}}. This was already a long debate. I agree that the current article leaves much questions unanswered. And, really, the whole article requires to be re-edited. It has to be shortened and it should redirect to other pages that are already created, and have much more information (e.g. APKM). However, Kosovo referring to the geographic territory would only be POV, meaning, ''Kosovo is not a real state''. And this in itself is disputable. —] (]) 13:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
::So, it was a long debate, so it shouldn't be debated anymore? ''Kosovo is not a real state'' is fact. Kosovo cannot be compared with Poland, America, or any other fully recognized state. Kosovo status is disputed, and excluding that fact is POV.
:{{Agree}}. absolutely, completely, with no doubts! This split may be only real solution to save wikipedia from being propaganda tool. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 14:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
:{{Agree}} - This is the solution I have always favored. Having both ROK and APKIM in the same article means that neither can be given the full focus each deserves. --] (]) 14:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
:{{Agree}} - per Khajidha. Moreover, I always found it odd that the infobox of this article says "Republic of Kosovo" at the very top. ] (]) 15:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
::Exactly. The previous situation of multiple infoboxes was horrendous and opens us up to debates about to which to give priority. Having just one means that at least some of the information isn't correct from one or the other viewpoint. --] (]) 16:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
:::This is a fact. Without other side, this page is not neutral. And i think that this is almost unquestionable, like the common sense. One side, without other side, not equal to full. :) A bit of a poetry! :) :) --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:{{Agree}} - The only possible solution for ending the Misplaced Pages dispute! --] (]) 21:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
::Obviously WhiteWriter is trying to gain consensus again only about one month after the vast majority of users without a conflict of interest rejected it. I suppose I'll have to inform them because this isn't a voting competition.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Your comment is completely untrue. Thank god we have archive to check. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:{{Agree}} per WhiteWriter, Khajidha, Athenean and UrbanVillager.--] (]) 08:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:{{Agree}} - strongly agree! right way to end this endless dispute. --] (]) 14:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:Ca you all just read ] first! —] (]) 14:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
::This split proposal is based on ARBMAC. Misplaced Pages is NOT propaganda tool! --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please let's not start again with trying to move Republic of Kosovo to a different name. This split was already rejected. And stop voting, wikipedia is not a democracy. --] (]) 00:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


__TOC__
== Republic ==
== 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 Republic of Kosovo has: its own Controlled Territory, its Population and Sovereignty, which are the three musts for being a state. ] (]) 18:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
:This is highly questionable subject, and intro must have community consensus to be edited in that way. You may propose here your version, and we will talk about it. Thanks! --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
::It's a partially recognized ], that means it's recognized by 70 or 80 other countries, but it's disputed by only one, Serbia. It will take time to reach a consensus on that, but eventually consensus will come. Look at ], for example. ] (]) 21:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Your theory is incorrect. It is ''recognised'' by 70-80 as you say, and '''not recognised''' by the rest. The "dispute" factor works two ways, those that do not recognise Kosovo (including those that will at a later date) at present recognise Serbia's territorial integrity over the land, as such, they "dispute" the republic; for those 70-80 that recognise, they "dispute" Serbia's claim on the land, so this way or that way, it is still disputed. In addition, Serbia is not alone in its outright rejection of the republic, there are a handful of sympathising nations. ] ('''Евлекис''') 23:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::It's recognized by many countries, which is enough to call it "partially-recognized" (see ], a redirect to "List of states with limited recognition")


https://www.forbes.com/sites/katharinabuchholz/2023/02/17/kosovo--beyond-where-the-un-disagrees-on-recognition-infographic/ ] (]) 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::P.D.: Agh, ] doesn't have a section for "partial recognition".
: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 ==
:::::P.D.D.: Note that Kosovo is also listed at ], a redirect of "List of territorial disputes". After all, it's a territory and it's at dispute. However, I think that it has gained enough recognition to label it as "partially recognized". --] (]) 09:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this is related to the mixed topic issue - see above discussion. ] (]) 11:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
please change formatting of capital (erroneous tags)


from: {{nowrap|]}}<sup>a</sup>
@Evelkis,
so what? There are a lot of republics that are disputed, see China for example. Can you give me the WP guidelines for defining states v. "disputed" states? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::So what? China is anything but disputed, its borders are clearly marked and the country has ties with every other government in the world. The trouble there is that the land is split in terms of ''which'' Chinese authority governs which particular area, and world states in turn recognise one of the two rival authorities. Serbia/Kosovo is not an example of two power bases claiming sovereignty of one entire region making it impossible for one to recognise the other, it is a case of one region declaring independence and the host (or ex-host) rejecting the move. So the analogy involving China does not stretch. ] ('''Евлекис''') 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Your attempt to deflect the question is useless. I would still like to see WP guidelines that defines "states" v. "disputed" territories.
I'm waiting!! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


to: ] ] (]) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I am not deflecting anything, just stating the differences between the China situation and Kosovo. If we remove the "disputed" part and present Kosovo no differently from Sweden or Bhutan, we are ignoring the fact that its ex-host continues to take issue as well as over half the world's states presently recognising the status quo ante. ] ('''Евлекис''') 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:{{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 ==
== Questionable removal of sentence from the lede ==


{{edit semi-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
I don't understand, and don't agree with, the removal of this sentence from the lede . There is nothing "too disputed" about it, and it is perfectly well-sourced. If the lede is to include a historical summary, then for sure that Serbs consider Kosovo the cradle of their culture should be mentioned. That goes to the very core of the conflict, and our readers should know this upfront. Any sources in the literature on the Kosovo conflict mention that Serbs consider Kosovo the cradle of their culture. Whatever the merits of this belief, it is central to the subject of this article, and any brief summary of the topic should include it. It seems to me that it was removed on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds and nothing more. Its placement was moreover strange and clumsy, and disrupted the flow of the article. ] (]) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (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 ==
:::I am one of a number of editors that has shaped this entry since its introduction by Cinema C. We need to be careful with it because its status as a ''crux'' is purely a sentimental phenomenon cherished by the Serbian nation. The land is of equal importance for one reason or another to Albanians. I don't like many parts of it, such as the silly statement that ''the Serb stgate never originated from Kosovo''. Who said that it did? I stated in previous comments, a cradle is where an infant sleeps, it is not the womb. And why do we need Noel Malcolm as a source for the irrelevant remark? All right, he might be a historian and a usable source, but we no more require his services for this than Michael Palin to tell us that Eritrea split from Ethiopia in 1993; it happens to be an international event and people know this to have happened. For historical territories we need maps, not vexatious commentary from apologists in conflict. ] ('''Евлекис''') 12:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


{{Edit extended-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
We don't know when Serbs started to consider Kosovo the cradle of their culture. Was it in the XIX century, with the rise of nationalisms? Or was it sooner, and the nationalisms simply took the pre-existing idea and radicalized it? --] (]) 14:41, 22 October 2010 (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)
:Both sources strongly suggest that Kosovo was ''made'' the cradle of Serbs only during the 20th century rise of nationalism in Yugoslavia.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 05:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
::Regarding historical and religious importance of numerous monuments on Kosovo, and regarding other sources, it seems that it wasn't only in the 20th century. That would be impossible. ], seat of ], numerous monastery's built by Serbian kings and Emperors, site of the ].... There are a lot of sources that claim this. Also, i dont see that any source "strongly suggest"... Can you point it out? It seems that it wasn't like like you said. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 08:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
:::That says nothing about Serbs considering it a ''cradle''. Can you bring any sources that say ''Serbs considered Kosovo their cradle before the rise of nationalism''?--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 08:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Sure, just wait to collect few, please! --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 08:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::Since you reverted me, you should have them already available.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 08:49, 23 October 2010 (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)
It would seem that Serbs want to recover "their" land of Kosovo since the ] in 1389. (not a very reliable source, but somewhere to start)


== Albanian population growth in Kosovo in the lead ==
Also the Western America diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church (there are lots of references to shared culture between Kosovar Albanians and Serbs): {{quote|1="The Patriarch became Milletbasha or leader of all Serbian and Bulgarian Orthodox, ruling from Pec in Kosovo ], circa 1330)]. If we look for the seedbed of the idea of a "Greater Serbia," it may come from the Pec patriarchate under Ottoman rule rather than from the medieval kingdoms. This reorganization gave the Serbs the possibility of preserving their religion, language and cohesive identity."}}


@] 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)
The name "Cradle of Serbian culture" was probably the catchy name that nationalism used, but the sentiment existed already. --] (]) 09:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


:Definitely not. Since when do we mention population growth in the lead of the article?
::::Enric, that is precisely what I was going to say when logging back in to catch up on updates. "Cradle" and "crux" are purely rhetorical, and rightly as Zjarri states, have only in recent times been incorporated into the fabric of Serbian consciousness. But as you also rightly say, the sentiment has stood for longer, and is based on actual occurrences that took place on the territory of modern-day Kosovo and not some fiction. Well argued. ] ('''Евлекис''') 10:10, 23 October 2010 (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)
== WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal ==


: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.
There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at ]. This proposed project would have within it's scope the ] of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. ] (]) 06:04, 20 October 2010 (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: