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 00:39, 8 June 2015 editBobrayner (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,708 edits Categorisation: comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:10, 6 January 2025 edit undoAlexBachmann (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,200 edits remove ultranationalist IPTag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} {{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
{{On this day|date1=2015-02-17|oldid1=647571644|date2=2016-02-17|oldid2=705065041|date3=2017-02-17|oldid3=765980915|date4=2018-02-17|oldid4=826174848|date5=2019-02-17|oldid5=883684771}}
{{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}}

{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Geography|class=B}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Kosovo|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Serbia|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Albania|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Unrecognized countries|class=B|importance=High}}
{{V0.5|class=B|importance=Top|category=Geography}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 30 |counter = 34
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(60d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Kosovo/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Kosovo/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Kosovo/Archive index|mask=Talk:Kosovo/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=2 |units=months |auto=yes}}
{{Forum}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2015-02-17|oldid1=647571644}}
{{Archive box|search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |auto=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask1=Talk:Kosovo/Archive <#> |mask2=Talk:Kosovo/Republic of Kosovo
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
}}
{{old move | date = 19 March 2014| from = Kosovo | destination = Kosovo (region) | result = moved as proposed | link =#Requested move }}
{{merged-from|Republic of Kosovo|23 May 2014}} {{merged-from|Republic of Kosovo|23 May 2014}}

__TOC__ __TOC__
== 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?
== According to CIA Factbook, Population ==


https://www.forbes.com/sites/katharinabuchholz/2023/02/17/kosovo--beyond-where-the-un-disagrees-on-recognition-infographic/ ] (]) 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Ethnic groups: Albanians 92%, other (Serb, Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian) 8% (2008) --12:45, 27 November 2011
: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 ==
== Kosovo's third official language\ ==


{{edit extended-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
Kosovo's third official language is English. On the page only Albanian and Serbian is shown as official language. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
please change formatting of capital (erroneous tags)
:Do you have an official source for this? ] (]) 20:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
::Article 5 of the constitution: "The official languages in the Republic of Kosovo are Albanian and Serbian." ] (]) 21:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
::: And bullet 2: "2. Turkish, Bosnian and Roma languages have the status of official languages at the municipal level or will be in official use at all levels as provided by law. " ] (]) 22:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Every document in Kosovo is written all three languages. ID card, Passport, bills etc. Road names, company info is written in all 3 languages, warning signs etc. You can register your company in all three forms Sh.p.k , OLK, LLC etc. all goverment sites are written in three languages etc. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::The officialdom of language lies within a constitution or statute. In light of the fact that there is no permanent significant English speaking population in Kosovo there is little chance of it being named, just as it has no local population to serve. From having lived in Greece for 22 years of my life, I recall 99% of road signs and documents being published in Greek and English (including my driving licence since that is where I passed back in 1987) but this is more for international-friendly circumstmaces (Greek on top in yellow, then English in white to avoid all confusion), just as the pilot on the plane speaks in English when telling the cabin crew to take their seats for landing, even if the operator is Montenegro Airlines. In Europe you'll find English is only official in Malta. --] (]) 19:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::British Passports are also in French as well as English, it doesn't mean that French is an official language of the UK. English is used in Kosovo at International level and Business level because the English language is an international and business language, not because it is an official language of Kosovo. ] (]) 23:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


from: {{nowrap|]}}<sup>a</sup>
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2015 ==


to: ] ] (]) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
:{{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)
<!-- Begin request -->


== Semi-protected edit request ==
Author-editor recommends addition to sources of internationally recognized balanced work with translated essays from all sides.

* Buckley, William Joseph, ed. (2000) Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans.


<!-- End request -->
] (]) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.<!-- Template:ESp --> — <code class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></code> 03:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

== Redundant note ==

Somebody just tried to add that boilerplate {{tx|Kosovo-note}} to the article. People, I'm sure we've discussed this before, that template is obviously only for other articles that deal with Kosovo in passing, not this main article. Everything that note does is already said right at the top of the article lead. Besides, it wasn't even used properly; there was no "status" text anchor that linked to it, so it was technically quite useless too. ] ] 20:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
:Agreed; it's redundant. However, there are still a few redundant transclusions of that template on other pages, which have been left behind since its biggest fan stopped editing. ] (]) 21:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

== Kudos ==

I was doing some research for my job, which included learning more about the history of Kosovo from the breakup of Yugoslavia to present. I found this article to be quite well-written and informative. I just wanted to congratulate those you who have worked hard on the article, including resolving disputes, and to tell you that your sustained efforts are appreciated. Good job! -- ] 21:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

== Categorisation ==

Reliable sources () say that Kosovo is a country in Europe. We shouldn't even need to worry about sourcing for such an ] statement. Why, then, do some editors insist on removing ]? Eventually, articles on Kosovo will be brought in line with what reliable sources say, but FkpCascais' s make this a very slow and difficult process. ] (]) 18:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

* Kosovo is i) a country (government, territory, armed forces, institutions, etc ...) , ii) geographically located in Europe, ii) recognized as a country by 82% of the European Union countries and iii) recognized by 56% of UN countries . The lack of recognition by some countries does not undo the existence. Do China, Israel or Taiwan not exist, because some countries do not recognize them? Let us get serious. Bottom line: Kosovo exists as a country (by all criteria of the definition) and is a reality. ] (])

*It seems like some people feel that being diplomatically recognised by every other country in the world is a prerequisite for being defined as a country, but it's not so. If it was neither the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China (Taiwan) or Israel would be countries. Kosovo is a ] by all normal definitions of it, and thus a country, whether some people like it or not. So I strongly suggest {{U|FkpCascais}}, now blocked user {{U|Muffi}} and everyone else who is removing the category and all mention of Kosovo being a country stop their reverts. ] ] 20:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Build wider consensus first, threaten users later. I suggest that. ] (]) 20:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Saying current Kosovo is sovereign is challenging per se (is there a consensus from the past to include the link ] in the lead of this article that I missed?). Also, comparing Kosovo, which is considered independent roughly just by half countries of the world, and still territory of Serbia by other half, is far from being comparable to the mentioned cases of Israel, PR China or Taiwan. ] (]) 21:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
:::We need to keep a NPOV on this subject. So basically, by this argumentation, would you gentleman oppose adding as well the ], ] and ]? Perhaps also ]? ] (]) 21:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
::::And ] starts by saying {{tq|''"All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."''}}. I personally don't give a rat's arse about whether the country-category or other mention of Kosovo having the status as a country is in the article or not, but reliable sources regard Kosovo as a country, which is what matters. So since many reliable sources regard Kosovo as a country, and a large number of countries, particularly in Europe where Kosovo is situated, have recognised Kosovo as a sovereign country, you and the others cannot remove all mention of it, without violating ]. Period. ] ] 22:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::I don't give an arse about European countries neither your "period", understand sir? So while you don't show a willingness to fairly archive consensus, the clearly tendentious category will be removed. Period. ] (]) 01:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Here are two sources saying it is a province: (it finished the text also talking about the "province"), and we have ... I can go on... There are clearly diffenrent views on this subject, so your agressivness is useless, cause this is a clear case where ] applies. So if you getleman want to include that much one point of view (of the independence), so some of the other categories I mentioned in my earlier comment should be added as well. It is up to you gentleman. ] (]) 01:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Roughly half of world doesn't recognise the independence of Kosovo and still regards it as Serbian province under UN/interim administration, so in order to archive neutrality over this issue, we must either present both sides, or be careful and only present the undisputed facts. If the countries are European, I see no connection to it, I honestly didn't understand that argument. ] (]) 02:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::A lot of reliable sources say also that Kosovo '''is not''' a country in Europe. You cannot just ignore some sources that you dont like. Kosovo is disputed, its not even a UN member, and it must be treated like that. You must be neutral here, everyone. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">] (])</font>''' 11:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

To everybody, there are numerous as yet unmentioned problems with the category for ''countries in Europe''. I will address those specified in the summaries.
*One states in its first part: ''Regardless if a country is partially recognised or not, it is still a country''. This is in tune to arguments posted above stating that Kosovo meets all the criteria to be sovereign regardless who does not recognise. I confess that to these points I cannot comment, however, if that is correct then the category should also include ], ], the ], and if you define them as Europe, ] and ].
*Then the same summary mentions: '' for example Cyprus or Armenia which both lack recognition''. I am sorry but there is absolutely no way in this world Kosovo can be considered similar to Cyprus or Armenia. I would question any editor's ] if he cannot distinguish between states that do not have diplomatic relations with others, and states whose sovereignty is disputed. No country refuses to recognise Armenia or Cyprus as a result of either being a breakaway from the state in question, they are merely examples of states involved in internal territorial disputes. If an entity exists with which we can realistically compare the Republic of Kosovo then this would be the ] (which lacks a "countries in" listing). Kosovo has fewer diplomatic recognitions than the ] which stands at 135, yet this too has no "countries in" listing, and therefore Republic of Kosovo has no special status over any other unrecognised territory.
*Another summary is: ''can't we just follow the sources? http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/kosovo/overview''. The World Bank is an institution that happens to recognise the Republic of Kosovo. It is not a paragon of irrefutable reference to what makes a country or not. Besides, the job of an editor is to identify neutral positions in disputes, and having any disputed territory in a "countries in" category violates ]. Its absence is by no means an indication that it is recognised as being within the state to claim it. For what it is worth, the State of Palestine is eligible to become a member of the World Bank. Also, when the original editor added the category, he was not going by that source, so it is not a case of following the World Bank website.
*Kosovo is already listed in ]. I have checked several left-hand side entries and no other state has a "countries in" category and this includes ] which is the article for Republic of China, itself having once stood on the UN Security Council. So unless I have missed something, I see no special reason Kosovo outranks the states listed in this post. --] (]) 16:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
:Reliable sources say that Kosovo is a country in Europe; this article belongs in the "Countries in Europe" category; it's not rocket science. ] (]) 22:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
::Although if Oranges Juicy ''genuinely'' wants to be consistent, I would point out that other entries in ] generally don't have their own equivalent of {{tl|Kosovo-note}} spammed across hundreds of pages. Oranges Juicy, will you get rid of that too? ] (]) 22:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Those entries are actually not presented in the artices as independent nations in the way your edits tend to be, and that was the reason in first pleace the note was established. However, I will be happy if we rid the Kosovo-note template and return to Serbia/Kosovo formula if you wish. ] (]) 23:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, I'm lost. What do you mean by {{tl|Kosovo-note}} being "spammed" across hundreds of pages? If it is spam, shouldn't somebody ] it? If not then perhaps someone more experienced should tell me exactly where the note should and should not be used. Not very long ago I but received no response. Anywhere it stands but does not belong I believe we are free to remove it (such as ), and yes I have found it in several places and have even added it, or repaired the link to it when its foundation was already in place such as . If I am "spamming" I would like this to be explained to me. --] (]) 07:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. Although no note appears to exist for the other disputed territories, I see the matter is addressed in main space, for instance ] (''Mohamoud is the current President of Somaliland, <u>a self-declared republic that is internationally recognised as an autonomous region of Somalia.</u>'') and ] (''The President of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is the head of state of <u>the self-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), an exile government based in the refugee camps of Tindouf, Algeria.</u>'') to give two examples. So even there editors need to be cautious. On that note I cannot see a way out of this one, either the irritating note has to be in place or we'll have to exercise our fingers and type more. Unless someone knows the solution! --] (]) 07:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
* Reliable sources say that Kosovo is a country in Europe; this article belongs in the "Countries in Europe" category; it's not rocket science. ] (]) 14:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
* Reliable sources say that Kosovo is not a country in Europe; this article does not belongs in the "Countries in Europe" category; it is really that simple, i agree. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">] (])</font>''' 14:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
::I hope that now you will understand that what you think is not a fact, but only your own opinion. We have sources for both thing. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">] (])</font>''' 14:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Anastan, you have never provided any such source. If you want people to believe you, now would be a good time to provide a source that supports your claims. ] (]) 15:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
:Anastan, if you followed the thread then that last post to which you replied should have given you a sense of déjà vu. So let me make this response shorter and simpler. Reliable sources also say that it disputed, and disputed territories are treated differently throughout. Of course, if there is something that makess Republic of Kosovo different from , then please share this with us. --] (]) 14:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Until there's no longer a dispute over Kosovo's status either way, it shouldn't be placed in the category-in-question. ] (]) 15:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
* is ]. Oranges Juicy cites a source which treats Somaliland as a country, yet somehow twists logic into arguing that the source means we can't categorise a different country. I look forward to uninvolved editors' comments. ] (]) 15:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

::Oranges Juicy hit the nail on the head with his first comment. You just keep repeating the same line that has already been addressed and even brought up the Kosovo-note which is entirely unrelated to this specific categorisation; if you want to discuss that, start a new discussion.
::GoodDay provided an uninvolved editor's comment and now so have I. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

FTR. I very much doubt there is a source that bluntly states "Kosovo is not a country", but the same can be said of all of self-proclaimed states which takes us back to square 1. Concerning Somaliland, sorry if I did not make myself clear but I was not editing tendentiously, I was simply giving an example of how a reliable publisher can refer even to a territory that nobody recognises as a country. For what it's worth I am in no way implying that Somaliland be treated as a sovereign entity and anybody following my edits will have seen that I have even taken exception to its inclusion in ] because it has received no diplomatic recognition, (). --] (]) 15:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|Oranges Juicy}}, please note that the questions you posed on ''that'' list's talk page could well be construed as ] since you didn't provide this context for the question, and that the list has just gone through a spate of edit warring (again), including RM's in order to change the name with the objective of 'broadening' its scope (roughly translated as ]). Bringing responses here is misleading ]. I will assume good faith, but you appear to be inadvertently spreading it thin. This discussion is taking place here, on this talk page. The list is proscribed to meeting criteria appropriate to that list alone. Bear in mind, also, that ] applies to separate articles. --] (]) 10:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks Iryna (this is separate from the message I wrote to you at my talk). I can assure you that the two issues are individual and I would have edited one the same way as the other regardless. With regards Somaliland (off topic here I know), I am fine with its self-proclaimed status and seeing it treated the same as Kosovo and Western Sahara but in having had no recognitions, I didn't believe it belonged on that article and therefore have proposed either the removal of states with no recognition, or switching article title for clarity. Obviously if that discussion should develop then I will happily cite this talk thread, so far I have found no need. I shall courteously alert involved editors to prove I am not intentionally forum-shaping. --] (]) 15:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
{{od|::}}Cheers, {{u|Oranges Juicy}}. For the record, as a neutral party, I would like to note that I "'''!oppose'''" including Kosovo in the European countries category per ]. While I realise that there are arguments on a case to case basis, for the sake of parity across the board, being designated implied sovereign status would demand a review of all break-away states being included in the same category. Unless there is an extraordinarily compelling case for being depicted as a recognised sovereign state, I don't see how we can cherry pick which states of limited recognition should be treated differently. Such decisions could only serve to encourage further subjective pushes, so are we actually following RS or OR? As an encyclopaedic resource, I'd suggest that it isn't up to editors/contributors to make calls that only tertiary sources can.

That being said, however, 100+ sovereign nation-states and a plethora of RS attesting to recognition of Kosovo as being a country in Europe are ''very'' compelling arguments therefore, per ] I, personally, would be so reticent to remove it from the category that I'd find myself having to "'''!oppose'''" its removal. Evaluating the arguments on a case by case basis suggests that, in this case, 'limited recognition' does not apply as being as being as extremely limited as other parallel cases presented here. In that manner, distinguishing between borderline or truly limited recognition doesn't factor into the equation as other states with limited recognition can't even begin to aspire to compete with Kosovo. It would be ] to proscribe ''is'' and ''isn't'' in such a manner. --] (]) 00:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
::If I could analyse the following comment: ''100+ sovereign nation-states and a plethora of RS attesting to recognition of Kosovo as being a country in Europe are very compelling arguments''. Well it is an argument, but not ''that'' compelling. Without doubt any entity to have recognised Kosovo will unquestionably call it a country, and this in turn will influence "reliable sources". As far as the remaining states are concerned, plus in their relevant media, Kosovo and Metohija is an autonomous Serbian province. The matter here is not the limited recognition but the disputed status, and not just disputed by one country but a good 50-60 who are likely never to recognise Kosovo unless Serbia does first. So this brings us back to the other unrecognised entities, and the one most deserving of any country status is Palestine. Unfortunately there is no middle road with these problems, either a subject does or does not appear on a category, and if it does, there is no way the all-important disputed status can be shown. --] (]) 23:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Oranges Juicy}} Quite. I actually agree with your evaluation. While playing at devil's advocate in the second instance, I'm predisposed to the inclusion of Kosovo in the European countries cat as being OR as I don't see NPOV as actually being the brunt of the issue. My preference would probably be to hold an RfC with regards to the inclusion, but an RfC would bring in neutral, but uninformed, editors/contributors (i.e., POV opinion regardless of GF). As the category is representative of recognised European countries, I would prefer to err on the side of caution, with Kosovo as being a subcat of Serbia. --] (]) 00:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

::::Irina, you just said what I tried to say in a bit rudimental way in the beginning of this discussion. Since this is such a 50-50 case, representing one POV, which was bobrainers intention by wanting to add that cat, would make us necessarily have to represent the other POV as well. So we can chose going into two ways, one would be to be wise and cautious and only represent acknowledged undisputed facts, and the other would be to represent both views (meaning, adding "country in Europe" cat and "Serbian province" cats). I always defend the option of caution, but editors obviously well informed about the subject but pretending not to know the complexity of the issue make me kind of loose my good faith assumption and treat them like POV-pushers. ] (]) 02:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::To feature them in both categories would satisfy NPOV but is blatantly self-contradictory and would create confusion for readers less knowledgeable that happen to stumble across the category pages first. The question of reliable sources calling Kosovo a country is at best clutching at straws to make the desperate point. Irina's argument that 100+ countries recognise is definitely a valid point. Obviously there is no threshold and everything works case by case. On this note she is right that we who have discussed here and at the noticeboard have largely exhausted our points and maybe the whole matter should be placed in the hands of a fresh set of contributors whose areas of interest lie outside Balkan politics. If WP policy should ever state that once recognition reaches the half-way mark with regards all declared states (even those unrecognised, as they still afford recognitions), it won't just be admitting Kosovo to Countries in Europe, but its rewording in the article opening line, its shift within lists to sovereign tables, and the likely removal of the note which features on a number of articles. All I would say here - to any onlooker - is that where Kosovo should go, it would be commendable and wise to take Western Sahara and State of Palestine down the same route. --] (]) 12:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::{{replyto|FkpCascais|Oranges Juicy}} Well, we've now allowed for this discussion to sit around to the point of stagnation, and no other contributors/editors have joined in, <s>nor has anything been established other than Kosovo still featuring at the top level of European countries</s>. As this is ultimately a categories issue it really can't feature as a top level category ''and'' a subcat. This is a category issue which should be referred to the ]. If it is deemed to be NPOV to enter Kosovo as belonging to both categories, those who predominantly work on cats will end up removing a subcat as being superfluous unless they've actually been involved in the discussion and know what the issues are. It would also allow for fresh, neutral evaluation by experienced Wikipedians. --] (]) 03:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::You know the procedure at this stage far better than I do, so by all means go ahead with the necessary arrangements. I will observe whatever the next set of editors decide. I just hope they read the entire discussion here and at the noticeboard, it is long and repetitive I know, but many interesting points are raised. Thanks Iryna. --] (]) 17:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Both categories seem fair to me. ] (]) 17:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
{{od|::::::::::::}}
Putting it in both categories is not ideal, since it's a return to the bad old days where we present reality and nationalist fiction side-by-side even when they're mutually incompatible. However, I'm concerned about a couple of things:
* FkpCascais removed the category, that it was just something that I personally wanted to add. That is not true; this article has been in the category since .
* Anastan repeatedly claimed to have reliable sources saying that Kosovo ''isn't'' a country in Europe. Anastan has refused to provide those sources.
Reliable sources say that Kosovo is a country in Europe. I recognise that there are several active editors who hold political views which are incompatible with what reliable sources say; sooner or later they will stop reverting, and the rest of us can start repairing articles. ] (]) 19:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

:Interesting how you consider everything related to assumed independence of Kosovo a ''reality'' and the other view as ''nationalist fiction''. You said it all now regarding your inability to deal with this subject objectively. ] (]) 19:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
::Reliable sources say that Kosovo is a country in Europe. If your political beliefs are incompatible with what reliable sources say, you have my sympathies, but I would urge you to self-revert tendentious edits like - removing a category that's been in the article since 2008, with the excuse that it's "under discussion". ] (]) 19:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

:::Oh poor of me, I am some lunatic with crazy political beliefs... Recognising the complexity of this issue doesn't make me any of that. If Kosovo is a country in Europe (view shared by half world) then it is also a region of Serbia (view shared by other half of world). Not my fault half a world doesn't deal with Kosovo the wa you would like them to do. Category: Disputed territorial and partially recognized states is quite neutral and is already there. ] (]) 20:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::::The whole point of this conversation is precisely because this is a deeper issue than "reliable sources say Kosovo is a country in Europe". In the first place those are not reliable sources, they are websites of institutions that recognise Kosovo. In the second place, a simple caption from a "reliable source" is in this case grossly ] and an attempt to ] the system by ignoring the fact that this is a disputed area. No matter even what ''real'' reliable sources report, this is about presentation and not the disputing of a fact, and presentation is down to consensus. If Kosovo sits outside of this category, one does not imply that this makes it a province or prefecture or oblast of some other country, not at all, the other categories and the article itself show that Kosovo is among a big group of self-proclaimed states and one that has achieved considerably more success than the vast majority. --] (]) 21:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the category has not featured since 2008, I have gone back as far as which clearly shows the categories as given at the time, nothing remotely suggesting undisputed sovereignty. The category was added in and has been the subject of debate since its first removal . Curiously, the editor to originally insert the segment had on the matter when I courteously briefed him that I removed it. This is all a departure from the concept that the category was added because of what "reliable sources" are printing. --] (]) 21:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
:Well, this has become awkward, hasn't it. I'm now wary of taking it to CfD without referencing this discussion, but to do so would also be seen as FORUMSHOPPING as I'm now involved. Does anyone think this is worth taking to the ] and, if so, which editors would be willing to be involved? I'm not sure that I'm even uninvolved enough by this point to write up a decent submission, but would be willing to take a stab at it if there are enough editors with conflicting understandings of what the NPOV approach would be are willing to participate. --] (]) 04:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

===The move request===
We had a very drawn-out, noteworthy move request which brought the article ''']''' here. This article is '''''about the country'''''. Period. Kosovo is a "region" in the same way that Denmark is a "region", but Denmark's lead sentence doesn't include that word for the same reason that Kosovo's should not. ]] 03:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
:I'm not concerned about ] decisions (i.e., this is circular self-referencing as in one decision about ] sets the momentum for the tone of the rest of the article). We also have an article which was moved from several other naming conventions in order to create ]. Please explain how that makes it realistic enough to impact on whether it is a sovereign country for the top level category or, worse yet, a candidate for the top level and a subcat for Serbia? --] (]) 03:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Red Slash. As you'll appreciate, I have no issues with number of articles and whether Kosovo as a region and as a republic should take separate articles. I assume that is more down to how much there is to say for one, how much for the other, and whether keeping them on one article really is long and bouncing between one topic and another throughout. All I need to point out is that even if this article's primary subject is the Republic, it would still need to be shown per NPOV that the status is disputed, therefore the mention of "disputed territory" early on and the exclusion of a countries category is consistent with all other self-proclaimed entities. The sovereignty of Denmark is not disputed by any nation. In my case, consistency is my main interest and not whether Kosovo should be treated as a subcat of Serbia. If consensus should be reached whereby the number of recognitions should rule Kosovo a top level entity then I am happy to observe that, but realising that this would apply to the State of Palestine, and possibly Western Sahara depending on the threshold. In addition, the lede would be reworded to be consistent with Denmark (a country), and the Kosovo entry would have to be shifted across numerous articles to reflect a top level presentation. I'd like to point out that despite the edits I made to the article, I truly have no opinion on the question of a threshold and if that figure should be 100 (to give an example), then fine, raise Kosovo and Palestine, leave out Western Sahara, and everything will be within a black and white framework. The ''one and only'' issue I would raise there is - now moving onto a new technicality - if or not recognition is limited to the UN. If so, we disclude Cook Islands, Taiwan and Sovereign Military Order, but if they should be included, then it should be realised that the remaining non-recognised states do not recognise Kosovo and this might on a new count bring the total number of potential recognitions slightly below the half-way mark. This is mere conjecture though on how others may wish to tackle the problem. --] (]) 10:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
:The article is about the province/country, as it is still disputed/unrecognized. The article lead clarifies the issue, bolding both "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo".--] 10:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
In the intro, for the second sentence, before it mentions borders, please add that it is situated on the ] (I.e. “It is situated on the ] and is bordered by by Albania to the southwest, Montenegro to the west, Serbia to the north and east and North Macedonia to the southeast”). Multiple sources have included Kosovo as part of the Balkans.
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 ==
By all definitions of the word "country", Kosovo is a "country". It has i) a very large international recognition (majority of UN countries), ii) a freely elected government, iii) defined borders and authority over most of its territory (army + police), iv) an independent state apparatus (hospitals, schools, institutions), etc... Attempts to oppose the creation of the state of Kosovo by Russia, Serbia and their Allies (China, Greece, etc ...) have failed, therefore I believe it is time for folks still supporting a Serbian-occupied Kosovo to give up. Kosovo already exists as a country, so creating a virtual reality in Misplaced Pages, as if Kosovo is not a country, only further damages the reputation of this Encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is already terribly biased against Kosovo, I do not see a note under every Israel-related article stating that the country is "partially recognized"! So let us leave the people of Kosovo freely choose their status for themselves and accept their free will. Colonialism and external interventions which deny sovereignty to other nations are a pre-18-th century style. ] (]) <span style="font-size:smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding ] comment added 20:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Well hello IP! Thanks for the observation. Yes Republic of Kosovo meets all the criteria for what defines sovereignty, and is included in ]. The problem with going straight for top level listing is that this line of thought would admit every self-proclaimed entity into that list, and this includes Somaliland which has never been recognised by anybody. Per your description, they all have defined borders, many exercise authority over the entire proclaimed territory though all have control over part, and all have the parallel institutions. Though this could be said to have applied to ] in the 1990s. The matter of recognition is a stronger argument by all accounts and there is evidently no threshold, but there is a fundamental difference between Kosovo and Israel which goes beyond the number of countries to recognise Israel. Israel is unrecognised because some states refuse to establish diplomatic relations with her, not because Irsael is disputed by the entity from which she broke away. This was ] which had been a British mandate. Although Palestinians originally felt they were entitled to the entire region, the ] only defines Gaza and the West Bank as its territory, so no entity in this world other than Israel lays claim to ], ] and ]. --] (]) 07:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
:: Independence implicitly involves self-proclamation. This is a chicken-egg problem apparently, however many countries more or less self-proclaimed independence, often through painful liberation/indepence wars. Kosovo is special because happened the latest, nevertheless it is not a different country compared to others. ] (]) <span style="font-size:smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding ] comment added 10:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::My sentiments exactly to every point raised. I'm just not sure about the relevance of Republic of Kosovo having been the latest example. There is one later than that and this is ] but that as we know was short-lived, and transitional from the start: necessary to avoid the unlawful annexation of territory by one sovereign body from another. But I would have thought if anything that newcomers be placed at the back of the queue rather than be given special priority. That said I know this is not the issue. But on the subject of proclaimed independence, if Kosovo could be joined by at least Palestine and Western Sahara (not for Europe of course, but as Cat:countries-in-XXX) as well as any others (the more the merrier), then I would have no problem whatsoever with the category feature. I assure you of that. --] (]) 11:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
::::: There are two approaches: i) Using an instance to generalize over other cases (constructive), and ii) using other cases against an instance (devil's advocate). In that aspect, I believe using other non-identical examples against Kosovo is counter-productive. That being said, I believe a constructive editor can be motivated by principles and their generalization towards very similar cases. Personally, I would strongly support you on the addition of Palestine to the list of countries in the relevant categories. As for Western Sahara, I am not an expert on the case and prefer to not provide an opinion. ] (]) 11:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::That's better than nothing of course. I intend to raise this conversation anyhow on other regional talk pages and I am sure that by the end, a more universal method will emerge. I have posted at ] but that is by the by since that isn't even a disputed territory, it has been added for some strange reason. Obviously everything in the world of self-proclaimed states is unique to one's own case, so probably no two examples are exactly the same, least of all the one I provided because that by its own actions became defunct within days (so the category would be obsolete there). Essentially, everybody wishes for recognition and the chance to participate within the international community. Where recognition is the importance factor, Kosovo without doubt ranks very highly among disputed territories, and that is the strongest argument for its listing. Once there is more input from uninvolved editors (as is likely to happen), I shall respect the outcome. --] (]) 12:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::: I definitely understand the need for a unified standard on categorizations, however I believe your criteria is not the right direction. Being self-proclaimed is perfectly fine, since most countries have a self-proclaimed independence (incl. USA). In that perspective I do not think self-proclamation constitute a reasonable criterion. The only practical criteria I see are i) the country exists, i.e. has sovereignty, government, territory, independence, institutions, etc ... and ii) international recognition. Kosovo fulfills both criteria strongly, therefore I personally think it should be included in all relevant categories of countries without much further discussions. ] (]) 12:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Well this is why there is no consensus. Obviously with that line of thinking one automatically promotes other states alongside it. I don't think the first part ("''sovereignty, government, territory, independence, institutions, etc''") is relevant since parallel institutions are necessary in the first place to exist as part of any form of state. The question of ''how recognised'' must an entity be is one with no clear guidelines hence this debate. And to be honest, I haven't formed an opinion yet there. --] (]) 15:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks for your comment IP, however I'm sorry, but it isn't very constructive when one is building an encyclopaedia. We have to be neutral and go one what the references/ sources say and we have conflicting references/ sources. But back to the question at hand; I see no harm in having a category saying that Kosovo is a country in Europe (we have sources to back this up) and also there is no harm in having a category saying that Kosovo is a partially recognised state (we have sources to back this up too). Let's have both categories. Add a category saying that Kosovo is a disputed territory too if you want (we have sources to back this up as well). These are only fucking categories at the end of the day! ] (]) 22:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
:: IJA, your suggestions seem reasonable and reflect the truth. 1) Kosovo is a country and 2) It is partially recognized. I believe it should be included in all relevant lists of countries, given the right clarification of its status whenever necessary (necessary means not spamming the boiler-plate status note on every Kosovo-related article, including sports, food, etc ...). ] (]) 14:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Oranges Juicy, you've made some claims about categorisation which contradict what the article history says. They're not true. They're false. Would you like to redact them, or is this another line of argument that relies on fiction? ] (]) 00:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


{{Edit extended-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
== World Bank source ==
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)
Hello again Red Slash. Thanks for the citation you added from World Bank. I'd just like to point out that nobody has denied Kosovo's wide recognition or its membership in institutions that accept its proclaimed statehood. Though when providing the source, you removed the ''disputed territory'' mention. Acknowledgement of Kosovan statehood from a recognising organisation is not evidence of a non-existent territorial dispute. In fact, it is necessary for a population to declare their region independent in the first place for a territorial dispute to even emerge. I still favour a joint inclusion at top and middle level provided Kosovo does not stand alone over all other partial or unrecognised states. --] (]) 07:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


== Albanian population growth in Kosovo in the lead ==
: I would be in favour of Red Slash. I believe that implanting the term "disputed territory" on the "very first sentence" of this country's introduction has an unnecessarily negative tendency. Furthermore, it is completely redundant because the second sentence already states "While Serbia recognises the Republic's governance of the territory, it still continues to claim it as its own Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.". In addition, the introduction related to Kosovo is written in a politically-heated and unprofessional language. If one considers the first paragraph on pages of "Germany, USA, etc ..." the first paragraph tells the location, capital, weather, etc ... i.e. facts on the country that relate to general life aspects, not only politics. I recommend to remove any status related political words from the first paragraph, instead we should professionally write something real about the country. The status dispute is unnecessarily repeated in so many places of this article, that having it even on the first sentence suffocates the reader. ] (]) 14:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
::I am not sure that we should take your opinion as valid here at all, having in mind ] Maybe you should go back to your original account... --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">] (])</font>''' 14:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent}}@95.90.184.124. So far we have only discussed the category, though if I am to be realistic, should a wider consensus dictate that it becomes as you wish then indeed it would also change the opening line and how we treat Kosovo across other lists and articles. I see your point about wanting to downgrade the political connotations in order to bring the article to the same standard as Germany and the United States. The fact is however that Germany and the United States are not embroiled in any form of territorial dispute and if they had been, they too would have article ledes similar to ]. By presenting a regular first paragraph and introducing all controversy in the second is not only contrary to the criteria of a standard lede but an editor will feel justified in merging it the minute he notices, and that takes you back to the square one. --] (]) 15:15, 6 June 2015 (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)
::: Wider consensus has already been reached by the 'majority' (108 or 56%) of UN nations and 82% of European Union states (the continent of this country). This case has not much similarity to the counter-case mentioned, which is recognized by ZERO UN countries. In case you infer consensus to mean 100% recognition by all other countries, I fear that this is not a must requirement, because, as said, neither China, nor Israel are recognized by 100% of other countries. Second, a vast number of other countries have territorial disputes (]), so having a dispute is not an exclusion criterion neither. I personally see no objective argument against treating Kosovo's article like all other countries. ] (]) 15:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::95.90.184.124, I realise this thread is long but every point raised here has already been addressed adequately. By consensus I was referring to the wide scope of editors and not the international community. For what it's worth those statistics are out of proportion. I mean Kosovo has received (up to now) 111 diplomatic recognitions regardless of whether territory is claimed or how many are in the UN. The number of states including unrecognised I believe is 206, so a slight majority recognising Kosovo but even that is on the basis of governments representing people. So the "world consensus" which has achieved a majority can be largely attributed to the likes of Iceland, Luxembourg, San Marino, Andorra, Nauru, Monaco, Tuvalu, Brunei, Malta, Vanuatu, Tonga, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Dominica, Samoa and many others. When you consider that those not to recognise include People's Republic of China, India, Russia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Brazil and Bangladesh then these countries by themselves represent over a half of the world's population before adding the remainder. So I wouldn't base my argument on statistics if I were adamant to support the category. As I've now said on enough occasions, I have never implied that a state should have 100% recognition and I have repeatedly cited that there is no threshold to pass before proclaimed states reach the top level here, it is all down to editorial opinion. China is subject to a dispute between two rival entities PRC (Beijing) and ROC (Taiwan), and the entire world recognises <u>one or the other</u>. So China per se does have 100% recognition. As regards Israel, there is a huge difference between refusing to establish relations with a country and recognising 100% of its territory as belonging to another state. The State of Palestine claims the West Bank and Gaza, not Tel Aviv or Eilat, therefore no country not recognising Israel claims that those cities belong to another country. That is the issue that dictates not only this minor Kosovo-related matter but all others such as what is written in the lede. --] (]) 07:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


:Definitely not. Since when do we mention population growth in the lead of the article?
:::: Sorry to say it, but your stance against Kosovo is totally ungrounded. Do you think Bangladesh (with all respect) is more "important" than Germany, France or England, because it has a bigger population? Basing your arguments on the sizes of populations if wrong and does not reflect current principles of international relations. Countries might have different populations but have all equal rights in the modern era. For me the situation is clear: Kosovo is a country by all definitional criteria, despite the fact that it is not recognized by 100% of countries (which is not a criterion). As said, territorial disputes are not a criterion to deny the existence of countries (see above list of territorial disputes). Your other example on Israel is superficially manipulated, you forgot that both countries claim the capital of each other (Jerusalem). So finally, I see no more points to discuss with you, because I see no objective reasons against Kosovo's inclusion. I would leave it to other impartial editors to further comment. (Naturally, impartial means not Serbian, ex-Yugoslavian, Greek or Russian, most of whom usually have an anti-Albanian vertigo). ] (]) 10:58, 7 June 2015 (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.
{{outdent}}Once more you fail the comprehend the basic factor. I am not for one minute implying that one country is more imporant than another, I am merely demonstrating how one technicality - in this particular case - of number of states to recognise exceeding 50%, can be easily trumped (for the time being) by the fact that over half the world's population lives somewhere that does not recognise Kosovo. With each new recognition that will start to remedy slightly, I am well aware. Well done on noticing Jerusalem which indeed is claimed by two entities. That makes Jerusalem the subject of a territorial dispute, it does not turn all of Israel into a land that some 80 countries recognise as belonging to another state. Now do you follow? --] (]) 12:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
:Your addition creates a wrong impression and is simply irrelevant to the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the most important information on the article. If one were to add your proposed content, it would be simply the start of an "adding content" contest. ] (]) 21:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*Can't we just comply with ]? We have a reliable source saying that Kosovo is a country in Europe. Anastan countered that the category should be removed, claiming that there are many sources which say that Kosovo ''isn't'' a country in Europe; but Anastan has refused to provide these sources, and I can't find any. Eventually this article will follow what sources say, rather than Serb nationalist fantasy. ] (]) 13:04, 7 June 2015 (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)
::Welcome back! Much has been discussed in your absence. Yes by all means we can follow WP:V. These confirm that over one third of world countries that represent over half the population recognise the claimed territory as Serbia's territorial integrity in spite of certain publications from organisations affiliated to and composed of bodies to recognise Kosovo. The reliable sources in turn confirm that the region is the subject of a territorial dispute. The remaining arguments which focus on the usual criteria associated with statehood are shared with all other proclaimed states which are not recognised by the state from whom they endeavoured to break away. If you have any difficulties finding these please let me know and I'll gladly help. --] (]) 13:22, 7 June 2015 (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.
Serbia itself does not dispute the territory. Who else is disputing it? And why do they matter? ]] 23:58, 7 June 2015 (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)
:Thanks, Red Slash.
::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)
:Oranges Juicy, instead of irrelevant screeds about how a minority of countries "recognise the claimed territory as Serbia's territorial integrity", whatever that means, perhaps you could let us know how many of them say that Kosovo is ''not a country''? If you could provide sources, that would be even better, since at the moment you're opposing the addition of very well sourced content. ] (]) 00:06, 8 June 2015 (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)

Latest revision as of 19:10, 6 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)
Categories: