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 00:02, 20 May 2012 editOttomanist (talk | contribs)383 editsm →Merge with Republic of Kosovo?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:15, 6 December 2024 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,557,843 editsm Substing templates: {{Esp}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info. 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}}
{{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=
{{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}}
{{WikiProject Unrecognized countries|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 28 |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=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |auto=yes}} {{Archive box|search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=2 |units=months |auto=yes}}
{{merged-from|Republic of Kosovo|23 May 2014}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index |mask=Talk:Kosovo/Archive <#> |mask=Talk:Kosovo/Republic of Kosovo
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
}}
__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 ==

Ethnic groups: Albanians 92%, other (Serb, Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian) 8% (2008) --12:45, 27 November 2011

== Merge with ]? ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">

----

This discussion makes a very good point. Having two articles about Kosovo one as a geographical region, one as a political region is a violation of ]. I suggest to read it, as I said makes good points especially when it's compared to ], ] and ]. ] (]) 00:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I fail to understand how this is a violation of NPOV - if anything, it's the opposite. Nobody disagrees that Kosovo is a place, but plenty of people disagree that it's an independent republic, and others disagree that it's a Serbian province. So, saying that the place is independent (or part of Serbia) is POV. So, this is intended to be a neutral article on the geography, population, ancient history, etc., and we have other articles covering the claimed political entities which complement this one whilst not giving the impression that the position of Misplaced Pages is that the Kosovo place is definitely independent or Serbian. The fact that other Misplaced Pages languages, or the Abkhazia etc. articles, handle this differently is irrelevant. ] (]) 09:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::Also per Bazonka's comment: there aren't just two articles about Kosovo (one about Kosovo as a geographical region, and one about Kosovo as a political region). Actually there are at least three: ], ] and ] (if we weren't to count ]). So this argument about existence of several different articles being POV is rather void, I'd say. Especially when compared to situation of having articles ] and ] - which, I think, is also a situation of having at least two articles about, somewhat, similar thing. --]] 15:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. We had lots of polls on whether to split ]. Despite certain editors repeatedly gaming the system, polls kept on returning the same consensus; "no". Then somebody went ahead and split the article anyway, there was an editwar, the ] got protected, and now we're here; a fait accompli. I would support a merge so that we're back in line with both consensus and with neutrality. --{{unsigned|Bobrayner|14:41, 8 January 2012}}
::When the split was done, the voices against it eventually subsided - I suppose because the arguments were not on their side. I am sorry if this doesn't sound like my best faith on your behalf but I must say it anyway: I don't remember reading anything coming from you which would suggest you had something (substantial) against the split. Also if I understand the Misplaced Pages's consensus building process correctly, the polls aren't a stable way to build one consensus. Discussion would usually be a better way. I am more inclined to the opinion that the consensus is more in line with the current situation as neutrality surely is. --]] 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:::The voices subsided because we got tired of being ignored by the edit warriors that kept the split alive. --] (]) 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::::So even if it were how you describe it - that there was an edit war about this - the conclusion from your words remains the same: it wasn't that important to you. So I believe that there was consensus for the split after all. --]] 12:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. It's a violation of NPOV. ''"Nobody disagrees that Kosovo is a place, but plenty of people disagree that it's an independent republic, and others disagree that it's a Serbian province"'', means you're taking a side here, that of the people who disagree. So there's one article for the people who disagree with Kosovo's independence, and one article for the people who disagree with that being a Serbian province. ] (]) 14:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC) <sub>(User have 5 edits in article space. Sock... --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 15:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC))
</sub>
::If somebody disagrees with one position, that doesn't necessarily mean that it agrees with the position which is the opposite of the one with which he/she disagrees. This kind of reasoning is what I believe could be portrayed as ]. --]] 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Exactly. I'm certainly not taking sides, and I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be disagreeing with. I was just pointing out the fact that if Misplaced Pages equates ] ''or'' ] with the geographical area of Kosovo, then that would be a POV position. The only neutral way to handle things is to treat both opinons as equal, and that can't easily be done in the main Kosovo artice - it's best to keep the different opinions separate. Saying that this approach is "a violation of NPOV" is bizarre and inexplicable. ] (]) 17:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ], per consensus reached below this archive link, per fact that this split was created by sock puppet IP also, and per fact that '''Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo''' --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 15:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::Duplicate pages and overlaping http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Duplicate_articles#Rationale:

::'''''Kosovo'''''

::1)Kosovo is landlocked and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the south, Albania to the west and Montenegro to the northwest. The remaining frontier belt is with the Central Serbian region which is the source of international dispute

::''Republic of Kosovo''

::2)The largest city and the capital of Kosovo is Pristina (alternatively spelled Prishtina or Priština), while other cities include Peć (Albanian: Peja), Prizren, Đakovica (Gjakova), and Kosovska Mitrovica (Mitrovica).

::3)After the Kosovo War and the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), most of whose roles were assumed by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008. In February 2008 individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo (acting in personal capacity and not binding the Assembly itself) declared Kosovo's independence as the Republic of Kosovo. Its independence is recognised by 86 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan). On 8 October 2008, upon request of Serbia, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the issue of Kosovo's declaration of independence. On 22 July 2010, the ICJ ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law, which its president said contains no "prohibitions on declarations of independence".

::4)Names of Kosovo.

::5)History of Kosovo starting from Disintegration of Yugoslavia to Declaration of independence. '''ALL 6 sections'''.

::'''''Republic of Kosovo'''''

::1)Kosovo is landlocked and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the south, Albania to the west and Montenegro to the northwest; all of which recognise Kosovo. The remainder of Kosovo's frontier to the north and east is the subject of controversy and is with the Central Serbian region

::2)The largest city and the capital of Kosovo is Pristina (alternatively spelled Prishtina or Priština), while other cities include Peć (Albanian: Peja), Prizren, Đakovica (Gjakova), and Kosovska Mitrovica (Mitrovica).

::3)After the Kosovo War and the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), most of whose roles were assumed by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008. In February 2008 individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo (acting in personal capacity and not binding the Assembly itself) declared Kosovo's independence as the Republic of Kosovo. Its independence is recognised by 86 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan). On 8 October 2008, upon request of Serbia, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the issue of Kosovo's declaration of independence. On 22 July 2010, the ICJ ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law, which its president said contains no "prohibitions on declarations of independence".

::4) Names of Kosovo

::5)History of Kosovo starting from Disintegration of Yugoslavia to Declaration of independence. '''ALL 6 sections'''.

::Repetitive information so MERGE.] (]) 17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:::There is bound to be a certain degree of overlap in articles about similar topics - this is not necessarily a reason to merge, and of course there is scope for improvement. However, the main issue here is the principle, not the specifics. ] (]) 18:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::::And those sentences are about it. Names are removed, as those should not be in RoK article. While EVERYTHING else is different, scope is different, article is not small, and not of minor subject, and therefor, WP:MERGE cannot be in use here. But i am sorry, but it is devastatingly obvious that we are dealing with sockpuppets here, and new users dont know how to cite the guideline and start merge idea on talk page. And i will ask for admin help in here. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 23:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support''' We should report Kosovo as it is, giving the situation as it lies on the ground. Yes, we can have an article about both governments (obviously with both establishing how effective their actual control is), but to create an article on a geographical area (which is defined by its political boundaries) is not NPOV but Political Correctness. ] (]) 17:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::So, you support merging the two articles but suggest having articles about both governments. I don't understand how should this be achieved. NPOV in your opinion would be to have article Republic of Kosovo linking to Kosovo - but wouldn't then issues with flags, government, whole infobox problems reemerge? --]] 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::::It's quite simple to have a separate article on the Serbian administration. We have an Abkhazian version, ]. When Kosovo is discussed in English, it is for better or worse discussed as a (separatist) state. To create an article on an abstract geographical area doesn't fix NPOV. An article with decent text would. ] (]) 18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::The meaning and surely the usage of the term Kosovo was discussed earlier - during the discussion right after the split. And that, I would say, at large - with all that analysis and comparison of the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines i.e. policies. As well as the WP:GOOGLE how-to. I mean the subject of this article is geographical area, but an area that isn't so abstract after all. Especially if you regard only the history that comes with the term Kosovo. And with the Kosovo as such. For example, wasn't the term Kosovo used to describe this area before the 2008 declaration of independence also? Its meaning didn't abruptly change just because some people decided to declare some independence. Or whatever somebody did. Not just the meaning but also the usage of the term - even if it were just because the media currently uses this term to denote the state. If it were, but it isn't. Say, the term Kosovo in the syntagma North Kosovo doesn't simply equate with the term Kosovo for the state/republic. It corresponds moreover with the region/(abstract) geographical area/call it what you want. And that's just one example: I haven't even considered all the uses in all the media and/or publications. Not to mention if I were to focus some analysis on the usage of the term in the publications before the year 2008 only. Why, we should strive more for eventualism than for immediatism... if we should strive for anything, for that matter. Also, why do you think that the current text of this article is not neutral - I mean since you say that there is some POV which should be fixed. If you do say that. --]] 19:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::Things change as time passes, and as an electronic encyclopaedia we can keep up. There was a massive shift when the government decided to declare independence, and it led to the present situation. The history, geography, etc. of Kosovo we need to cover with all usages in mind is done through the main articles of those topics. I've never said the current text isn't neutral. What I feel is that the creation of this article was a solution to a nonexistent problem. 02:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::But what has changed? There were clashes at the border/administrative line in North Kosovo with several people wounded and dead and you suggest that situation changed? To what degree - that Kosovo has now somehow magically become the Republic of Kosovo? I mean all the "fuss" about the separation of these two articles was in part done to solve the problem of simultaneous existence of several infoboxes in the article. The infoboxes for which one editor, who is now voicing support for remerging and who states he/she has always been against the split, stated ''they must burn in hell anyway''. I assure you that this was no abstract problem. --]] 12:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::A lot changed, most especially in the perception of Kosovo. Southern Sudan magically became South Sudan last year, and we reflected that. As for infoboxes, I think that an infobox for Serbia, which controls a very small amount of Kosovo, would not be appropriate. I'd assume however it'd be extremely clear from the beginning Kosovo was disputed. ] (]) 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Situation with South Sudan is different: for one thing it is a member of United Nations, magically or not, and, to the best of my knowledge, there was and there is no dispute about its sovereignity. Whereas there is about Kosovo/Republic of Kosovo/Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Also the smallness or greatness of the territory controlled by the Serbs of North Kosovo should not be used as a parameter since we aren't here to determine this smallness (greatness) and act upon it. Since you said it yourself - Kosovo was disputed - I must ask: why do you think it isn't anymore? --]] 13:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't think it isn't disputed, I just disagree that a dispute means we need to create a new page to avoid politics. Kosovo is Kosovo. While it can be argued what it is, it definitely isn't two different things, which necessitate different pages. In reality, it functions as an independent state with a small area it doesn't control, rather similar to Serbia. ] (]) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Similar could be said for Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija: in reality it functions as part of Serbia with some area it doesn't control. Yet I wouldn't simply agree with either position. While ago there was an edit dispute (let me call it thus) about the "de facto control of Republic of Kosovo over the most of its territory" and "control of North Kosovo by the Republic of Serbia" in the first paragraph of this article. One editor agreed that it is poorly worded, since international institutions have more control over the territory than it is described in the article or acknowledged for that matter. Perhaps this stuff in the article still needs some work. Anyway I'd say that the matter isn't so simple as it is usually perceived. Also you posit that Kosovo isn't two different things, yet you say Kosovo is Kosovo - what do you mean by the term Kosovo itself when you say it like that? Republic of Kosovo? Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija? Or disputed region? Whatever you mean by the term, there might be different opinions, don't you agree? The usual point of meeting is that Kosovo is a disputed region and this article deals with this subject. I think that quite many editors in previous discussions agreed that this is most neutral. --]] 14:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::As far as I know the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija hasn't had effective control since the beginning of the UN mission. That being said, I don't know the full details of how North Kosovo functions, although from what I know it seems to organise itself. When I talk about Kosovo I'm definitely not talking about the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", and I doubt anyone really does, if only because by its own definition it covers more than what it considers Kosovo. Am I talking about the Republic or the disputed region? I'd say I'm talking about both, since they're the same thing. The only reason it is disputed is because of the republic. ] (]) 16:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It is true that Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija had none or almost none control over its claimed territory since 1999, but if you take having effective control as a parameter then it would at be least fair to consider whether Republic of Kosovo always had enough effective control over its claimed territory so as to talk about Republic of Kosovo and disputed region at the same time always when you use the term Kosovo. It sure can't be that Republic of Kosovo and the disputed region are that simply the same thing since Republic of Kosovo is a state, i.e. a republic (and that would be a state by its definition, if I am correct), while disputed region is well... disputed region. Right? Same as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is autonomous province. Only when you dive into the subject i.e. read the rest of the article (I am talking about a non-knowledgeable person who encounters this article and/or wants to learn more) you find that there is a dispute over the sovereignty of Republic of Kosovo, or Republic of Serbia for that matter. And all that goes with this. Also, you are wrong: "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" covers the same as what you consider region of Kosovo, but it also covers the same as what itself often considers Kosovo: since in Serbian the term Kosovo is often used as a short for Kosovo and Metohija, or region of Kosovo in English. --]] 10:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I think there's toying with semantics there. We don't have two different topics. If one just wants to focus on say, constitutional apparatus, then yes, you can write articles on clearly different topics; however, discussing it as a whole, as both pages do, doesn't allow for such specificity. I assume that any decent article on Kosovo, even in the current form, would note somehow that there was a dispute from the very beginning (like Northern Cyprus, which opens straight away with "self-declared state").
::::::::::::::I know that "Kosovo and Metohija" refers to the same area as what I call Kosovo (being an English speaker), but within that definition Kosovo is only a smaller part. I highly doubt that Kosovo is often used as a shortform when discussing that state apparatus today, after over a decade of redundancy. ] (]) 01:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::There is no toying - look at the articles and their history. You will find that they deal with different topics. There sure is still much room for improvement: for example in this article there should be some information excluded from the infobox as I was explaining in previous discussions regarding a proposal to make this a disambiguation page. And surely there is much more to improve in the Republic of Kosovo article, but to say that there is toying with semantics while on the other hand basing an argument on the claim that in Serbia's definition of "Kosovo", "Kosovo" is a smaller part of "Kosovo and Metohija" that is very unconvincing. I assure you "Kosovo" is a shortform for "Kosovo and Metohija" in Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin language, or may I say Serbo-Croatian. A very well established shortform. And that is regardless of some state apparatus's efforts. I mean we are talking about language here - no state apparatus can control it that easily as some naive person might expect.
:::::::::::::::These two articles, Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo, exist mostly to satisfy the distinction between the state and the region and by that to accomplish neutrality over treatment of Kosovo - as a state or as a disputed region. To say that there are no different topics regarding treatment of Kosovo and treatment Republic of Kosovo is also biased. It comes from the perspective that Kosovo is a state and that perspective is by itself not sufficiently founded in reality and/or sources as well as it isn't neutral. You said that we don't have two different topics, but I think you should allow yourself to think that we should have if we don't. You say we can write a decent article but rest assured that problems will arise very soon as how to treat Kosovo - as a state or as a disputed region - since it is very hard if not impossible to present both in one article. Especially when it comes to inclusion of infoboxes. Case of the Northern Cyprus article is much easier since there are no disputes over its sovereignty as far as I know. In the case of Kosovo situation is different: with all the "effective control" either of Republic of Kosovo or of Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Or should I say Northern Kosovo. And here it is one part of the problem, right away since I mentioned the existing terms: "North Kosovo" and "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". Now same goes for the Kosovo itself - whether it is a self-governed state or not, and how to present this. --]] 09:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::At the moment, they are both incomplete articles. One would expect demographics, geography, etc. to be present on each, and they would be identical if both were perfect. As for the shortform in Serbocroat, I have no reason to doubt that, but whether it carries on to English, and whether that carrying on applies in the present day, is different. The simple solution to this is to treat Kosovo as what it is; a disputed state, something quite solidly founded in reality and sources. Northern Cyprus is entirely claimed by Cyprus, so there's a massive dispute over its sovereignty. I thought we'd established the autonomous province had no effective control? Names in English can be confusing, but that's why we have article text to explain them. ] (]) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

::: Merge because its a duplicate content, leave as part of the information the fact that is a partially recognized and there are two governments acting on it: the goveremt of the Republic of Kosovo in the whole region beside the Northern tip not recognized by by countries that support Serbia, the Serbian government on the Northern tip, not recognized by countries that support Kosovo: 2 governments. What's here about not to understand?] (]) 18:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::::What's not to understand is why some people think that the current approach is POV. Sure, it might not be perfect, but there's no pro-Serb or pro-Albanian bias. ] (]) 18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' For the same reasons we don't split ] from ], ] from ], etc. The modern political entity covers all the geographical area that bears the same name. --] (]) 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::France and Spain are utterly different; they're not in any way disputed. Please, think about what you're suggesting - equating Kosovo the place with the very-much disputed RoK is like disturbing a nest of POV hornets. Things have been so much more stable, with less arguments since the articles were split. Let's not go back there. ] (]) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:::] is recognised by every entity in the world, undisputed ruler of territory of ], which is claimed by none other, while ] rule only part of territory of Kosovo, it is widely unrecognized by majority of the world, and its entire territory is claimed by other, undisputed and politically older entity. Those two cannot be compared in any way, as they are 1000000 miles apart, both physically, politically and historically. Repetition of questionable and seriously faulty POVs, and empty ip s's and sockpuppets ''supports'', not backed in arguments will not disturb cement ] we gained on this page. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 22:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' largely per PersonPaOpinion. The articles represent two Ps oV for one place (unlike, for example, Cyprus and North Cyprus). ] (]) 03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' re-merge. I've always been opposed to the split, and I'm not convinced there ever was a valid consensus for it, outside the persistent pushing by editors with obvious national agendas. Far too much content overlap between the two articles; conceptual split goes counter to common English usage, and nothing in the inherent POV problems is grave enough to make treatment in a single page impossible. NPOV is better served in fewer articles, not in more articles. ] ] 09:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::But '''you will not''' gain NPOV with this merge, you will only gain ultra-nationalistic article about Republic of Kosovo. As this POV proposition dont mention merger of ] article, but only ]. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 11:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' Why we need two or more info boxes and mention all parallel institutions in one article. Situation is now clear. If content overlap is problem, then delete sections on history, geography from articles on Republic of Kosovo and AP KiM. --]] 12:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' It's better to have three neutral articles, one about the region and the two about political entities, than to have one article that will be the scene of constant edit wars. If we put all information into one article, each party will try to remove content which relates to the political entity of the other side. Finally, we will get a POV article, that will be only about one political entity. That's why I can't support this merge proposal.--''<font face="bold">]]</font> 12:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This is the case similar to ]. So there are 2 separate entities, with separate institutions. --] (]) 13:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:*] is both about the island and the most recognized country. This is an argument in favor of merging. --] (]) 15:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I agree with Enric Naval. Also, it seems somewhat fishy that the Serbian editors gather at the same time to ] a decision (and not just this one, but others too).--] (]) 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:Many of users of serbian wiki have this article in whatch list. For example I sow now that, so I came here --] (]) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Kosovo is disputed teritory. So, that can't be same as Republic of Kosovo. This is obvious that there we have POV pushing and troling proposition. --] (]) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''', and block anyone that disagrees <tt>:)</tt> Wouldn't that make this a nicer place to edit. Obviously you cannot reasonably justify separating the articles about a region and its government, even if the governance is disputed. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::But did you really read the ]? And this place '''already is''' nice place to edit, since article was split. 0% of vandalism and POV pushing. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:::This is not the only example for existence of separate articles about region and political entity. See, ] and ].--''<font face="bold">]]</font> 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::::The Taiwan and ROC articles cover different areas. Taiwan focuses only on the single island, the ROC article covers quite a few other islands as well, similar to ] and ]. The two Kosovo articles cover the same area. ] (]) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::Why would Repuvlic of Kosovo would have advantage over AP KiM? What if we want to merge AP KIM and Kosovo? Having three non- ambiguous articles is the best, NPOV solution. --]] 01:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::And what about ]? It is disputed territory between ] and ]. Same as here. Note that self proclaimed RoK doesn't control ]. RoK claims sovereignty over the entire territory of ], but don't have control over the some territories..--''<font face="bold">]]</font> 00:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

::::::You presume that those are acceptable. ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Oh linking to ''Other stuff exists'', favorite argument of those who don't have arguments. I used it many times :)''<font face="bold">]]</font> 09:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''- the rational solution, as with the 'Cypress' articles. ] (]) 05:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:*] and the ] are the same article. There is no separate article for ], despite the existence of ]. You are actually supporting the merge. --] (]) 10:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
::*Oh, that's interesting. Good to know that the ] article doesn't exist. I was hallucinating that it did for a bit. ] (]) 10:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:::*] also exists..... --] (]) 11:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
::::*And you support destroying the content left in this article related to the historical Kosovo with some stuff about this 'Republic of Kosovo', why? ] (]) 11:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::*What on heavens are you talking about?? Why would this merge destroy any information?? I suggest you look at ], ] or ], they are perfectly able to contain the history of the historic region. --] (]) 12:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

*'''Support''' merge. Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija or any other relevant info from other related articles, can be included here although they may stand as separate. I see some here cite Cyprus case. I don't think they are similar, unless you want to delete Kosovo article and have Serbia/Serbia(Kosovo) dab page which is extremely pov. Someone rightly feared that this merge might bring edit wars, however I think we have the tools of fighting it. We are speaking about scientific principles of encyclopedia articles here. We can not deform them because some hot headed persons might react. ] (]) 09:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''', wikipedia only reflects the common use of terms. There's no possible source that uses another term for Kosovo and another one for the Republic of Kosovo, just as no source uses the term ''France'' or ''Germany'' without referring to the state entity.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
::Misplaced Pages also tries to maintain ]. Equating the territory of Kosovo with the disputed Republic of Kosovo is taking sides, especially if you bear in mind that the territory of RoK is smaller than that of Kosovo the place. In my opinion, ] is more important than ]. ] (]) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Also, I think it's very wrong to say that there is no single source that uses a different term for region of Kosovo and a different term for Republic of Kosovo since this oversimplifies the matter. The term for Republic of Kosovo would be exactly the term "Republic of Kosovo". And that differs from the term Kosovo. This may seem banal but true nevertheless. And right to the point I think. --]] 11:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:::And ] differs from ], yet they are the same article. --] (]) 13:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::But does the meaning of Germany and the meaning of Federal Republic of Germany differ that much as does the meaning of Kosovo and the meaning of Republic of Kosovo? The term Germany is almost always if not always used to denote one sovereign state, while the term Kosovo is surely very often regarded as a term to denote one disputed region and sometimes a term to denote one state... where the term "sometimes" is hard to decipher especially should the term "sovereign" be used in front of the term "state". At least for that this distinction should be taken into account very carefully, if not for maintaining neutrality, which of course should also be maintained, despite the fact that some think that this is of secondary importance in this case. --]] 14:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''-It's not the same thing. Kosovo is autonomic region of Serbia, and Republic of Kosovo is partially recognized country. ] (]) 08:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I am actually not strongly opposed to it, apart from some minor concerns - how will the ''history'' of the region of Kosovo be included in the new Republic ? Given that the former has existed since 40 kYA, and the latter only in recent years ] (]) 09:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::It would just be written in the history section, similar to articles on any place in wikipedia. ] (]) 13:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Those are to conflicting entities, that is the reason for concern. Those two should not be represented together, as they are not. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 14:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Isn't this "''similar to articles on any place in wikipedia''" a referral to Kosovo the region and not the state/republic/entity? Or is this me toying with semantics? --]] 14:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::Not many places have multiple general articles about them. There's only one history of Kosovo. ] (]) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::In one place Kosovo is called an abstract geographical area, here it's called a place. Above it is again said it to be a disputed state - which would allegedly be solidly founded in reality and sources. I think this is quite confusing: what is Kosovo in the end? I mean in English language? --]] 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::If you're looking for a short and simple definition or title, your search is pointless. If we were to go by the point of your statement, through reductio ad absurdum, we'd have an article on Kosovo the abstract geographical area, an article on Kosovo the place, an article on Kosovo the disputed state, etc. It's untenable and ridiculous. Obviously no-one is advocating this huge number of articles, but the point is the current set-up tries to cover the same thing in two different ways, trying to separate the state from the area it governs. It'd be like creating a Serbia article and a Republic of Serbia article (with Serbia covering the region), because the Serbian government doesn't control a part of this Serbia. ] (]) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::And what would be the difference between the articles on "''Kosovo the place''" and "''Kosovo the abstract geographical area''"? Also worth noting: if a sound proposal to create two different articles one called Serbia and one called Republic of Serbia would have been made, I would surely consider it, but I most seriously doubt that you could make one such proposal. But hey, you can try. If you want, I can give you a hint. --]] 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::I have no clue what the difference would be, which was the whole point. The current setup faces exactly the same issues as that. As for Serbia, I would oppose that split, just as I support undoing this split. ] (]) 16:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Anyway, user Chipmunkdavis was the one who referred to Kosovo when he/she used the phrase "abstract geographical area", not me. And therefore I don't see a point of reducing my point to reductio ad absurdum. Also I am aware that someone would oppose the hypothetical split which I described and that perhaps even ferociously - especially since that someone said he/she would oppose something he/she haven't even been informed of. I won't comment on his/her reasons for such a stance, but maybe he/she could. --]] 17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' How this can be same, Republic of Kosovo is not even UN member, not recognized by 2/3 of UN members, and Kosovo is still by every international law autonomous province in Serbia, so this would be just another political decision by some users, and far from neutral point.--] (]) 16:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

* '''Comment for closing admin''' ] has canvassed in the Serbian wikipedia. Google translation:
{{quote|text=
<nowiki>==En wiki / Kosovo==</nowiki>

IP address of the proposed merger as Article Article Kosovo Republic
of Kosovo, no article on the autonomous province of Kosovo and
Metohija. Participants and lutci already blocked some users.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kosovo#Merge_with_Republic_of_Kosovo.3F
Talk: Kosovo # Merge with Republic of Kosovo]

Give your suggestion, comment, or attitude. - A word BeliPisac 12:53,
9 January 2012. (CET)}}

: had not edited the English wikipedia since August, so he probably saw that notice. All other users seem to be regular editors. --] (]) 18:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::This translation is almost meaningless, btw... This is NOT CANVASSING, per WP:CANVAS. This post was limited, Neutral, Nonpartisan and open, all propositions used in ] guideline. And i asked for more opinions, i dont see whats wrong in it. It is the same here and there, wiki is not voting, if arguments are not useful, then we cannot use it. Also, you are cross wiki hounding me? That is not permitted, as opposed to the first thing mentioned. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Why would someone seeking non-partisan views leave such a message on a board of Serbian wikipedia, when this is an issue of the English wikipedia? Checking(I was possibly the first to find out about your posts) and making known activities that possibly involve gaming the system isn't wikihounding in any way. Gaius earlier pointed out that most of the ''oppose'' come from certain users, so your messages on sr.wiki verify the demographic tendencies of the discussion.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::I don't think that we should be overly concerned that most of the opposers are pro-Serb. The proposal here is to move from a neutral format to a pro-Albanian format, so it is inevitable that the Serbs are going to be the most vocal in opposition to it. As long as they are not counter-proposing a pro-Serb format, then they have an entirely valid position. (Note that I am opposed, but am neither pro-Serb nor pro-Albanian.) ] (]) 19:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::: Ethnic profiling of users wont help us here, Zjarri, and that is forbidden per WP:NPA. Arguments will. Exactly as Bazonka told you, this proposition is so POV, and i didnt say anything wrong regarding that. I just told "Give your proposition, comment or attitude". That can hardly be non neutral sentence... --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::I don't mean to profile, but most of the Support votes come from non-Albanians and most of the Oppose votes come from Serbs. There is nothing wrong with that, but meatpuppetry and canvassing is an inappropriate way to block the merge. As per the categories set up on ], the message sent out is biased, the audience is probably partisan (despite obvious objections), and the transparency is secret (since it was posted in another language wiki) and since it satisfies at least 2/4 categories (perhaps 3/4), it is inappropriate and Enric Naval's point is worth noting.--] (]) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::<s>Sorry to bump in but it would be an edit conflict and I wanted to comment a previous post. What exactly is the bias of the message? "Audience is probably partisan" - isn't this profiling an entire contributing population of sr.wikipedia.org? "Transparency is secret since it was posted in another language wiki" - and the filing party for this case of alleged canvassing used a Google translator? Does the previous comment support the view that this was canvassing or...? I really don't understand this comment especially when one user commented previously that "Gaius earlier pointed out that most of the ''oppose'' come from certain users". And yet in the previous comment it is claimed that it wasn't meant to profile. And that right before the claim where do the Support votes mostly come from and from what ethnicity do Oppose votes mostly come from. I find this comment utterly peculiar if not contradictory. --]] 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)</s>
::::::::: I retract my comment, since after reconsidering the message I realized that it is biased: "Učestvuju i lutci nekih već blokiranih korisnika." is an opinion. --]] 09:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Well, it is somewhat apparent from the state of affirs that it might be premature to homogenize everything into an article titled ''Republic of Kosovo'' when it is not actually a recognized country yet. And there is merit in what certain editors who state that the two are not the same. This article is about a region in Southeastern Europe which has existed for hundreds- thousands years, the other is a newly created, and according to some view points, illegally created state. As messy as it might be, two separate articles might be warranted until international/ UN status moves to a more a recognizable/ unanimous position. ] (]) 22:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Canvassing''': Let's be honest; there ''has'' been canvassing to attract editors from the Serb side. (Or maybe just a few emails reminding people to !vote, eh? I'm under no allusion; most canvassing is done in less public ways). It's happened with previous polls on this subject on this talkpage; when those polls did not deliver the desired result, somebody just went ahead and split the article anyway. Establishing, and acting on, a fair consensus takes second place to serb nationalism. It's a shame that such controversial matters can't be decided fairly. ] (]) 22:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
:Serb nationalism? What a pompous rhetoric. Resorting to appeal to morality by claiming something is shameful while disregarding previous replies about this? I'd say a weak attempt to avoid the issue. Casting suspicion on previous polls by profiling editors who participated? I think we established profiling is inappropriate and that polls are not a good way to build consensus, yet these arguments keep on repeating. --]] 08:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The ] is disputed. And if you didn't know, ] is a current event (referendum in February). --] (]) 21:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - for all the reasons so well stated by User:Bazonka. We HAD an article that combined the region and the Republic, at the same time we had a separate article for the Autonomous Province (which article the proposer seems to forget). This inequality of presentation and the fact that even the simplest things had to be qualified so many different ways meant that the article was always a wishy-washy, self-contradictory mess. Far from being POV, this current setup seems the most NPOV to me. --] (]) 15:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. See ] and ]. ] (]) 01:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Ah Kosovo... All Serbian users will vote against this and all Albanian users will invariably vote for it, but objectively, If ] isn't merged with People's Republic of China, the disputed RoK shouldn't be merged with Kosovo. This is a far more complex issue than is apparently understood in the move proposal. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 02:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
::China has been merged with the PRC, but I still think that we should keep Kosovo and ROK separate.--] (]) 13:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Ha, so it has. Either way the RoK is hardly the People's Republic of China, I agree. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I don't agree with rationale provided for this merging (''Having two articles about Kosovo one as a geographical region, one as a political region is a violation of WP:NPOV.'') Having two separate articles about region of Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo doesn't have to do anything with NPOV. Both topics are notable (]) and described in very large articles (]). We would have problem with NPOV only after merging of those two articles, regardless of the recognition issue. --] (]) 09:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': For what it's worth, I came to here looking for info on Kosovo as a political, rather than a merely geographic entity. Wouldn't a disambiguation page be useful under the ] name? ]<sup> ] </sup>
*'''Oppose''' - The so called Republic of Kosovo is not even recognised by the United Nations. The move would be inappropriate and could not command consensus support. ] (]) 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC) <small>User has made 2 edits prior to this comment. Most probably a ]. --biblbroks] 23:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)</small>

*'''Comment''': Does the Republic of Kosovo have actual control over North Kosovo? ] (]) 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
::No, I don't believe it does. ] (]) 07:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
::: Is North Kosovo part of Kosovo? ] (]) 10:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: Now isn't this a great question? I believe that some might say that the answer depends on the context - what exactly is meant by the term Kosovo in "of Kosovo". --biblbroks] 13:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
::::: The same problem pops up with every single place that a country claims but doesn't control.. From Northern Ireland to Northern Cyprus.. Are they part of Ireland and Cyprus respectively? What if Kosovo is defined as a geographical region rather than a reference to a country? Is North Kosovo part of Kosovo? ] (]) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Well again, now it depends on how you define Kosovo as a geographical region. I'd say North Kosovo is part of Kosovo.. when using the term Kosovo as in the syntagma ]. But some might object to the very notion of Kosovo being considered as a geographical region. So there you have it. --biblbroks] 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per Bazonka on top. This issue seems to were part of BIG discussions you can see in the archives of this and related pages. The result of these discussions is: ] article is about the geographic region. ] is about the independent state. Another article is for the Serbian region. In any case these three topics should be at different articles and that is the result of all discussions. Whether ] is a disambiguation page, a redirect to ] or article about the republic - in those cases the current content of this article should be moved to ] or something like that. But that's not what the previous discussions reached as conclusion. The examples with russia-supported separatist regions are one thing, but we have also ] (about the region) and ]. ] (]) 08:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Japinderum and Bazonka. ] (]) 12:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
<s>*'''Support''' Merge. Honestly I see no reason why to let politics and racism rule in Misplaced Pages. The serbian editors should get over their racism and not let it cloud their judgment. Whether or not they, or anyone else for that matter, accepts the political will of the people of Kosovo to be free and independent should not impact our judgment when it comes to encyclopedias or history books. If we follow the logic of having two to three articles on Kosovo just because there is a political dispute going on, then I believe we should also have another article on Serbia based on the disputes that Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Kosovo have with this country and government. Nevertheless if we followed this logic I doubt there will be one single country that is not in one way or another disputed by another country. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--></s> <small>stricken out by --biblbroks] 22:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC) per ]</small>
*'''Support.''' A descriptive article would tell us what Kosovo is--that is, the Republic of Kosovo--and not what others want Kosovo to be--a province of Serbia (the article could, of course, tell us of Serbia's position on Kosovo). With this said, I announce my renewed retirement from Misplaced Pages precisely because of political tensions that continue to hinder the content quality and fairness of the encyclopedia. Thank you,--] (]) 02:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
: So we should consider this claim of Kosovo being the Republic of Kosovo based on what arguments? --biblbroks] 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
: @Getoar TX, you're saying we should have this article tell us what ''you'' want Kosovo to be? :) That's just it - Kosovo ''isn't'' the Republic of Kosovo, both legally to a great extent and ''de facto''. An entire segment of it is outside the RoK, and Serbia has a legal claim on its old province. Kosovo is both the Republic of Kosovo and the AP Kosovo and Metohija, and this article represents that excellently. I had nothing to do with the introduction of this state of affairs, but as far as I know I actually suggested it a long time ago as an NPOV solution to a complex problem. And that it is imo. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 04:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
<s>*'''Support.''' Since my earlier comment was stricken through due to the lack of a Misplaced Pages account, I hope that this re-post will not face the same unfair silencing of an honest expression of free and professional thought regarding the topic. I believe the articles should be merged. Honestly I see no reason why to let politics and racism rule in Misplaced Pages. The serbian editors should get over their racism and not let it cloud their judgment. Whether or not they, or anyone else for that matter, accepts the political will of the people of Kosovo to be free and independent should not impact our judgment when it comes to encyclopedias or history books. If we follow the logic of having two to three articles on Kosovo just because there is a political dispute going on, then I believe we should also have another article on Serbia based on the disputes that Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Kosovo have with this country and government. Nevertheless if we followed this logic I doubt there will be one single country that is not in one way or another disputed by another country. I also agree with ], and to respond to ]'s question on arguments I would like to ask her the same question regarding any other country in the globe. From my own experience and education (I studied Law with a focus on Int'l Law) I haven't found a single case where independence is measured by the rate of foreign recognition or by the opinion of individuals. Independence is a fact, you see it in the field. The formal declaration of independence just re-affirms the factual state in the field which cannot be denied by anyone. Please biblbroks, tell me, if Kosovo is part of Serbia, then why does Serbia have no say in any matters besides the topic of rights for the serbian minority in Kosovo? Just in case you intend to mention the illegal parallel structures in northern Kosovo please be aware that they are considered illegal by the whole international community including Serbia (re-affirmed by the recent arrest of Zvonko Veselinovic) and that sovereignty and independence is not related to the extent of control over your territory, as long as you have full control over a core area. ] (]) 01:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)</s>
:::The aforementioned comment was stricken out because it contained personal attacks on a whole group of editors, and not because of some arbitrary fact that the user giving it was lacking some arbitrary Misplaced Pages account. This reason, the reason for striking out that previous controversial comment, was properly noted later on within the note of the signator - the editor, who was striking out the very comment. Also, in the edit summary of that striking out it was merely suggested to the editor giving the comment in question to register an account so as to not arouse any suspicion about things like ]. I repeat: it was merely suggested, and not conditionalized. Perhaps the reason for giving such a suggestion may not be self-evident since the very act of giving such a suggestion could be perceived as a case of having bad faith, but if one accounts the content of the comment which was stricken out I think that many would agree that the suggestion could have been received with much more good faith. And the comment surely wasn't silenced since it was stricken through and therefore it could still be read. Any such statements about censorship are not just ridiculous but very very disturbing and even very harmful. Therefore I note that any further reiterations of opinions of alleged unfair treatment of this commentator will be regarded as a grave breach of one of Misplaced Pages's core guidelines about behaviour ]. As for racism remarks, I strongly suggest the commentator to be escorted to the one of Misplaced Pages's core policies ''']'''. Until the comments given here are eradicated of any personal attacks, they will be disregarded and stricken out even in the future so that any future commentators on this page learn some Wikipedian manners before posting within this highly controversial and, as such, highly inflammable topic. I surely had my own share of such treatment here and learned many lessons in this very article and discussion page, so as to my word have some weight regarding the issue of how Wikipedians are to conduct on this discussion page. As one such editor, and with explanations given, I honestly believe that this can only better any further dialogue. Although I am very sorry as I am the one who is making this probably controversial actions, and even more sorry that such actions are to be made in one such situation where previously this comment was already stricken out once, I most strongly think that this is utmost necessary. Therefore, I am striking out the whole previous comment... again. --biblbroks] 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
:::: In the interest of not breaking 1RR (it's not quite clear if it applies only to edits in the article or also here on its talkpage), I have refrained from reverting your striking out another time, and am instead giving you a chance to self-revert. This is a final warning: stop messing with other editors' postings, no matter how offensive you find them. If you don't self-revert, I'll take this to ]. ] ] 16:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::I strongly disagree with your ultimatum, FPS! This user created account just for participation in "Vote" where politically driven votes are not needed. User violate NPA! Biblbroks didn't removed it, he just stricken it. Per consensus, two users agree that comment should be strikened, per violations of several crucial wiki rules! This user must not participate in this, as kosovo page article is on probation! I cannot find a single reason why we should leave it like this! TLDR, NPA, SPA, most probably SOCK, GAME, how may reasons and violations should be list here? Instead of blind AE, tell us why we should leave this comment here? Agreement is gold, AE is poor... --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
:: SPA, 0 other edits prior the voting, user was obviously invited here to vote, or came as sockpuppet. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 03:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::I am sorry but not only that I don't understand but I don't believe: the <s>threat</s> warning was given on the grounds that comments containing personal attacks, and that to a whole group of editors, should remain as they are because? <s>Isn't this a grave case of wikilawyering? I mean, if this "stop messing with other editors' postings, no matter how offensive you find them" isn't wikilawyering, I don't know what is.</s> Should we condone personal attacks and that on the very discussion page of the article which is under General sanctions? Personal attacks are sometimes even *deleted* on much less controversial pages than this is. And we are to keep them here untouched? In the interest of preserving this discussion page a place for civilized discussions and not turning it into another battleground I will leave the previous comments stricken out. If somebody thinks that this is then for WP:AE, ok, see you there. My conscience is clear. --biblbroks] 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
::: Don't strike other people's comments, unless it's a proven sockpuppet. Leave it to the closing administrator to determine how much weight to give this opinion. ] ] 07:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Imo there is simply no consensus for the proposed merge, and its coming up on ''two months'' since this thread was started. Everyone's expressed their opinion once and now we're starting to see socks arrive - I take that as a sign its about time to close-up shop. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 04:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
::Well, i tried that, but Fut. Perf. pushed this even longer then needed... I will ask from someone to close this charade... --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 14:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. First of all the Republic of Kosovo is partially recognized. Second of all in combination with it being partially recognized, it is a disputed territory due to a history of strong animosity, hatred, and war between Albanians and Serbs; the North that does not recognize the Republic of Kosovo. Third of all, in combination with the first two points - how is merging this article about the history of Kosovo as a whole into the Republic of Kosovo article going to improve anything here? Everyone knows it will start a vicious edit war between Albanian and Serb editors. No one should expect a neutral discussion to occur between Albanian and Serb users here over the status of Kosovo - that's like asking Israeli and Palestinian users to agree on the status of ]; these people have had long history of animosity and bloodshed - '''an administrator should be brought in to arbitrate this'''.--] (]) 00:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Do to the extremely controversial nature of this topic and the strong ethnic divide between users on this topic, I have requested informal mediation from an outside user to act as mediator, I have made the request here: ].--] (]) 03:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
<s>
*'''Support'''. The point is that whenever anyone in the world of academia or even in everyday conversation speaks about 'Kosovo,' they are undoubtedly referring to the modern day Republic of Kosovo (whether or not its legitimacy is recognised is a separate issues). Having an article such as this is pointless and clearly reflects a political point of view which is not what wikipedia is supposed to be about. ] (]) 10:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Attempts to present this case as closed by archiving it are rather tendentious and in bad spirit. Any non-nationalists in here? ] (]) 10:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)</s>

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a proposed merge. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>

This thread has been closed! I have replaced the closure code and struck out all text added since the closure. Please read the text immediately above: ''Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page.'' ] (]) 20:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you an administrator? How comes it's archived when I made a comment? Please inform me under whose authority this thread is being archived? ] (]) 23:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
:] closed this discussion under ]. If you wish to continue the discussion, please do so in a new thread. ] (]) 06:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read ], specifically the 'avoid pitfalls' part. Many thanks, this discussion is very useful and is leading to some constructive comments. ] (]) 00:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

== History in the lead section ==

To achieve a fair and balanced presentation of Kosovo, I call for the blessing of the community on adding, to the lead section, the following sentence:

"In antiquity, it was known as the independent kingdom, and later Roman province, of Dardania."

As the introduction is currently laid out in a chronological order, such a reference is best suited to come right after the first sentence of the article, as long as the latter remains unchanged.

Thank you,
--] (]) 01:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

<s>I Agree with you Getoar! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--></s>], only edit. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)<br />
<s>*'''Support.''' That would be very helpful and balanced. --] (]) 21:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)</s>], tried to gain auto-confirmed status with self reverting. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 22:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
::IP anonymous ] ] does not count as relevant on this page. This article is on probation. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Pre-medieval history is irrelevant to the current state of the region. It is not important to add it in the lede. That history may be added in the history section, if more info is needed about it. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
::Your contention is severely weakened in light of the "historical right" argument that are made as part of territorial claims on Kosovo. Simply, because presenting Kosovo's history with Medieval Serbia as the starting point overemphasized a Serbian legacy, it is biased against other groups that have historically inhabited the land and creates a false impression of Kosovo's past. Furthermore, precedent in well-written, comprehensive, and not-on-probation country/region articles favors a balanced and inclusive overview of history. See, for example, the article on the ] (beginning history note with the arrival of Native Americans). Given the significance of history in both the United States and Kosovo, the U.S. model serves well the purposes of this article.--] (]) 19:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

'''Comment'''. Not voting in either direction here. Obviously KEEP IT OFF!!!! But that is not because I imply that we should overplay the region's importance in Serbian tradition. Intros by their nature need to be short and history generally needs to be kept out of it. They should not go into too much detail and the main content that should be found on the intro is what the subject '''is''' (or '''was''' if notability is entrenched in the past). All right, if editors feel that an immediate history lesson requires projecting from line one then can I suggest we mildly brush all revelant topics, one or two words if possible not stressing anything too heavily (it was, X, Y, Z before becoming C. B and then A). As soon as we hit paragraph two, the first headed section, spill the beans from A to Z in chronological order. Is that fair?

::A fair reading of your comment would seem to indicate that we should focus on the most essential elements in the opening paragraph. An alternative could be to exclude medieval Serbia and the Ottoman Empire to begin instead with the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. After all, that should explain why there is existing tension over Kosovo; medieval history doesn't tell us much.--] (]) 00:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
::Sort of. It's a long intro and could do with a reduction or atleast a trim. I don't know why Geotar hasn't simply made the edit; as the article stands, I don't see a problem with a few words before Medieval Serbia. I must admit, I respect WhiteWriter and have been associated with this editor for a long time but it cannot be said that pre-Serbia is irrelevant for the present because history has no cycle; one minute leads to the next and no lines are drawn. Events overlap each other rather than neatly taking place chronologically so to that end, either everything is relevant or irrelevant. It's hard to pinpoint an exact period that matters to now; before mattered to then! If it makes sense. ] ('''Евлекис''') (]) 01:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Thank you, Evlekis. I have made the addition. I do agree with you, if I understand correctly, that the introduction should not tailored in a chronological order. There are better and more logical ways to do it. Other country/region articles should serve as a useful model.--] (]) 06:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


https://www.forbes.com/sites/katharinabuchholz/2023/02/17/kosovo--beyond-where-the-un-disagrees-on-recognition-infographic/ ] (]) 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
'''Comment, Region .v. legal entity'''. I am just pointing out a contradiction in the text. This article, by its own definition in the very first sentence, is an, "article is about the geographical region of Kosovo" - which to the best of my knowledge refers to various administrative units of different surfaces during the Ottoman Empire, during Yugoslavia and then Serbia. Then, in the first section titled 'Background', we read that, "Kosovo is landlocked and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the south". So first we read that this article is about a region, then that it is confined to the borders of the partially recognised Republic. It is not surprising that disagreements over definition arise. But since this article, while it exists, is about the region(s) named Kosovo, then it seems reasonable that it should deal with the region(s) until editors decide what to do with the debate over region/Republic. ] (]) 00:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I understand your statement enough to agree one way or another, a country with limited recognition is still a country. ] (]) 19:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::While I do not see any reasonable basis for this article to exist separate of the coterminous political entity, i.e. the Republic of Kosovo (claimed by Serbia as a province), I could reconcile your insistence on a non-political definition of a region by use of a broader, and substantially less prevalent meaning of the name "Kosovo."
::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)
::In that regard, I can refer to the former Vilayet of Kosovo, which became the namesake for modern Kosovo. Likewise, Albanians in Kosovo and FYROM have consistently regarded the Albanian communities of north-central and northwestern FYROM as part of a historical and cultural region of Kosovo. The city of Scupi, as the former capital of Kosovo, to this day bears the significance of a metropolis, inseparable from the heritage of the country. (This remark, nevertheless, should not be construed as a politically charged argument in favor of a territorial claim. It is a note on the geographic, cultural, and historical region of Kosovo.) In addition, the Albanian communities in the Preshevo Valley are often referred to as "Eastern Kosovo" (one may prefer East Kosovo as it represents a distinct, separate entity, but that is not the point here; the discussion is on the political entities).
::Kosovo may also mean--most notably in the Serbian tradition, and with a restricted geographical meaning in Albanian--just the eastern half of the Republic of Kosovo. Yet, that is usually referred to as the Kosovo Field (also, valley or basin), and would still be viewed as part of a greater Kosovo region.
::These interpretations, however vague and secondary, present Kosovo as a region as opposed to a political entity. The issue here, nevertheless, is that none of those definitions of Kosovo bear any weight in the English language. Using the name Kosovo to refer to the actual country is the most practical approach.--] (]) 03:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2024 ==
== Bad link in Balkan wars section ==


{{edit extended-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
At the end of the first paragraph in the Balkan wars section, there is a link to Abdul Hamid. However the Abdul Hamid linked there is in fact a pakistani soldier born 21 years after the events in this section. Perhaps this reference was meant to be made to the Abdul Hamid II referenced earlier in the paragraph, but the link is clearly in error. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
please change formatting of capital (erroneous tags)
== File:Morto i Serbi.jpg Nominated for Deletion ==


from: {{nowrap|]}}<sup>a</sup>
{|
|-
| ]
| An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for deletion at ] in the following category: ''Deletion requests March 2012''
;What should I do?
''Don't panic''; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is ] then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no ] then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant ]


''This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image'' --] (]) 02:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC) to: ] ] (]) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (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 ==
== Name ==


{{edit semi-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
Change name to '''Kosovo and Metohija'''! It's real name, '''Kosovo''' only is name of north part of this province. — ] (]) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (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.
:{{notdone}}. Its ] in the English language is just Kosovo. Also, the longer name has ] connotations. ] (]) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
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 ==
== "It was an independent kingdom" ==


{{Edit extended-protected|Kosovo|answered=yes}}
I removed the last entry which claimed that "it was an independent kingdom", with a ref containing an image.--] 13:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
There is a part in this Misplaced Pages page that says that the Albanians pilgrimaged Novi Pazar, Sjenica and Pristina. Novi Pazar and Sjenica have links that take you to their respective articles, while Pristina does not. This is the change i want to make; to link Pristina to its respective article. ] (]) 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)


:] is already linked to in the upper article. We create a link only every first time a city gets mentioned, otherwise articles would be hard to read. ] (]) 21:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
== Serbian not Serbo-Croatian ==


== Albanian population growth in Kosovo in the lead ==
You can't write for southern Serbian province in Serbo-Croatian, but official Serbian language! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I think that the language is referred to as Serbo-Croatian (and Bosnian in some cases) with different dialects ekavian, ikavian etc., etc., ] (]) 23:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
::Ekavian, Ikavian, and Ijekavian are the three '']'' of the ], which predominantly uses only one '']'' - ] (there are others, ] and ], but they are rather marginal). Serbo-Croatian is a ] with four official ''standards:'' Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin, all of them based on the same Shtokavian dialect. As its article states, sources consider "]" one of the four ''standards'' of the Serbo-Croatian language. As you know, the area recently suffered war and ethnic strife. As a result, the governments in the Balkans do not recognize the fact that they use a single language for political reasons, and nationalists in all these countries tend to claim that they each speak a "separate" language. Linguists disagree, however, and that's that matters on this project. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 12:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Some linguists. There is no scientific consensus on it. Misplaced Pages should not be (mis)used to push any particular POV. Until scientific consensus is reached wikipedia should not merge Serbian and Croatian and.... to "Serbo-Croatian". --] (]) 12:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
::::Exactly my point. I also disagree with merger, as there is no real need nor consensus on wiki for that. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 13:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm afraid there is a consensus. Both in the scientific community (i.e. linguists), and enWiki itself. This was discussed at ''enormous'' length at the appropriate talkpage. It has been conclusively established, many times, that the position of the vast majority of linguists is as outlined above. This is not up for discussion. I was merely explaining to User:Ottomanist what the current ] is on this issue. Consensus on this project can only be based on sources, as I'm sure you know, and the bare opposition by users does not affect it in the slightest. This is ].


@] 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)
:::::If you wish to contest it, please go to ]. When you change it in accordance with your beliefs, you are free to pursue that goal elsewhere (though you are far more likely to just get shot down immediately by users who are actually familiar with the subject matter). Otherwise It seems very much inappropriate for you to attempt to ignore both the scholarly sources and Misplaced Pages consensus on fringe articles like this one, simply because noone's here to enforce them actively. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 13:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::You yourself confirmed there is a dispute between "a single language" or "separate languages" point of view. You obviously support "single language" point of view and you refer to other party as "nationalistic vast minority" supported by "politically motivated Balkans governments". You are, of course, entitled to have your own point of view but please dont (mis)use wikipedia to support it. Speaking of being shot down, if you really believe there is a consensus on wikipedia that all "separate" languages should be merged into a "single language" please prove the existence of such consensus by changing Croatian language to Serbo-Croatian in the first sentence of ] article. --] (]) 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::You're confusing a ''political'' dispute in the Balkans, which is irrelevant for our considerations, and a ''scientific'' dispute. There is no ''scientific'' dispute. Look like I said, it has been established ''over and over and over again'' that practically all sources agree on this issue, and unambiguously support the above. That is the current ]. And if you don't believe me, go to the ], ], ''etc'' articles and see for yourself. If you would like to change said consensus, you're welcome to '''try and do so at ]'''. When you do, come back here. This is not the place to discuss this issue - but it is a place where sources and consensuses should be applied, according to Misplaced Pages policy.


:Definitely not. Since when do we mention population growth in the lead of the article?
:::::::As for your "challenge", I don't think we will playing games like that :). The ] article does not really matter, since the ] article abides by consensus. See for example the disclaimer here on ] if you like. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 15:35, 16 May 2012 (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.
::::::::Croatia article does not really matter, but ] does matter? How come? Majority of users should decide what does and what does not matter, and not single user. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 15:47, 16 May 2012 (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)
:::::::::Well, if you ask me, the ] and ] articles too should have sh up in the lede. I just don't have the time or the nerves to explain all the above 50 times a day to people who don't care anyway and are ruled by their life-long misconceptions. Like I told you, WW, I don't intend to go on a campaign to replace all the four languages with sh. A reader can see what ''e.g.'' "]" really is when they click on the wikilink - it is only when the lede is cluttered by three or four seperate entries for the same language that I try to do something about it. Here too I don't particularly care if sr is replaced with sh (as it should), I was just explaining the current WP:CONSENSUS to User:Ottomanist.
::I think that it's WP:UNDUE for the article to mention historical demographics in the lead, but if editors decided via consensus that it should mention them, then it should mention that a)there were no Slavs anywhere in Kosovo before the Middle Ages b)the first Slavs who settled in the area were the ancestors of the Gorani and Serbs appeared in the 12th century in Kosovo b)Albanians increased in eastern Kosovo during the Ottoman era, while in western Kosovo Albanians, Gorani, Serbs lived c)Serbs who originally came from Montenegro largely replaced local Serbs in eastern and northern Kosovo. As these four points would require a small section for a balanced overview, it would create an even more unbalanced lead section. As such, it's probably for the best that all such details are discussed in the main article.--] (]) 23:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The statement under point A is factually inaccurate. This addition by Azorzal was significant as it marked a major shift in the region, making it far from a "minor detail." The arrival of the Slavs in the 6th and 7th centuries has already been noted, and that suffices. Anything beyond this is unnecessary and it's a matter of balance, taste and not forgetting that the lede is not about demographics. — ] ] 00:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yeah no. If the Ottoman policies were that significant, all cities in Kosovo wouldn't have had such a large Serbian presence until 1999. That automatically disqualifies it from the lead, per WP:IRRELEVANCE. Otherwise, we would have to mention every other notable demographic change in the lead, like I've mentioned. It doesn't work like that though and it's going nowhere. This is what I mean by "content adding" contest. ] (]) 18:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The mention of this demographic shift is not intended to diminish the historical presence of Albanians in Kosovo. At present, the lead makes no reference to Albanians until the abrupt statement that ''"Kosovo was the center of the Albanian Renaissance"'', leaving a clear narrative gap. The growth of the Albanian population during the Ottoman period represents a critical historical development, similar to the Slavic settlements in the early Middle Ages, and warrants similar inclusion. Highlighting this shift provides essential context. ] (]). 01:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


:During the Middle Ages, Albanians formed a significant component of the demographic population of Kosova. In fact, it would seem they formed the majority in certain areas, particularly Rrafshi i Dukagjinit, or the western half of Kosova. Significant Albanian communities were also recorded throughout eastern Kosova and the Drenica region. The line that some of the editors here wish to include places too much importance on Ottoman policies when in reality, the shift wasn’t as significant as some wish to claim. As such, all of that context would need to be included in the lead, which might make it too long.
:::::::::@"''Majority of users should decide what does and what does not matter, and not single user.''" Heh, ]. Neither "single user", nor the majority. Sources. The majority of the sources. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 16:15, 16 May 2012 (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)

Latest revision as of 22:15, 6 December 2024

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.


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: