Talk:Kosovo

Suspect typo

from User:Uziel302/Typos vegeation->vegetation? context: ~~~ ountains National Park]] are the most important regions of vegeation and biodiversity inside Kosovo. ~~~

Article name

I have restored article name on wikipedia. If someone want names different, then main articles should follow that. Thank you. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What article? Please be more specific what you're talking about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

O, its nothing, i have just send message here to mark. My recent edit in article, I have restored name Prokletije as per article name. Its nothing really to talk about... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Kosovo and Serbia economic normalization agreements (2020)

I feel like these agreements should be mentioned somewhere in the article: Kosovo and Serbia economic normalization agreements (2020)

Cleanup, size, expansion

1. I've done some cleanup to bring the article more in line with the improvement which has occurred in Kosovo-related articles about the Middle Ages. I've removed use of the Alexiad per WP:PRIMARY - also I don't think that Anna Comnena ever put forward modern concepts about nationhood. The timeline was expanded - it was very confusing in its previous state as it was unclear when Byzantine rule ended and how the Bulgarian Empire was involved in Kosovo.
2. Many articles about Kosovo have been improved and the article needs to be reworked to reflect those changes. Articles about the Neolithic sites in Kosovo have seen much expansion but the section of the article is poor.
3. Which brings me to my last point. The size of the article stands at 200kb+. It doesn't allow much room for any expansion and even a minor cleanup results in size increase. In line with WP:SIZERULE: at > 100kb an article almost certainly should be divided - let alone at 200kb.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
4. I have removed Stipcevic (1977) and Curta (2001). They don't discuss Kosovo or Dardania in any context. In terms of size reduction, I will removed many of the citations on the WP:LEAD. They are repeated in the main article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Prokletije

Should be referred to as such, per the relevant article name. Khirurg (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It should be referred to as the Bjeshket e Nemuna or the Albanian Alps because these names are predominantly used in Albania and of course in Kosovo! Lorik17 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You've been slow edit-warring over this for years. If you do it again I will report you. Khirurg (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You're also involved in the dispute. @Iaof2017: maybe a move request on that article would be a better step forwards.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Maleschreiber: thank you for the suggestion, I would truly support a moving request--Lorik17 (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the lede and body

Maleschreiber made some pretty major additions to the lede and body, which I have partially undone per WP:BRD. The edits were problematic in that:

1. They removed the wording "disputed territory" which had been there for many years, and can thus not be removed without consensus. There was a recent discussion on whether to change that, but it ended inconclusively [3].
2. They removed any mention of the Slavic invasions, which had a major effect on the area. No explanation was provided, but it seems this was intended to prevent the appearance of a "break" between antiquity and the medieval period.
3. They removed mention of the Battle of Kosovo, which is a key event in the history of the region, and the fact that Kosovo was a core of the medieval Serbian realm.
4. They added some major unsourced assertions about the Roman Emperor Justinian, written in such a way to imply certain things about Justinian. Justinian was born in a village called Tauresium, in what is now the Republic of North Macedonia [4]. Justinian is thus outside the scope of this article.

These edits are pretty major, amounting to basically a rewrite of the history of the region, with a heavy slant. They should not be reintroduced without discussion. Khirurg (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not required to be aware of archived discussions with very few participants at a time period, in which I wasn't even an editor on wikipedia. I don't think that it's a "major change". Khirurg's edit changed the sequence from partially-recognized state and disputed territory to disputed territory and partially-recognized state. The lead sentence can't start with a presentation of Kosovo as a "disputed territory" because de facto it's not "disputed" despite diplomatic recognition issues and it's not the WP:STABLE version. Khirurg didn't just revert me, they also added a very heavy POV.

I didn't remove any mention of "Slavic invasions" because there was no mention of "Slavic invasions" in the article before Khirurg introduced it:pre-edits revision. I wrote Byzantine administration was eroded by emerging Slavic states like the First Bulgarian Empire which Khirurg changed to Byzantine administration was eroded by Slavic invasions beginning in the 6th-7th century AD. Of course, there never was a "Slavic invasion" in Kosovo (a 19th century term produced in colonialist Britain - it has been abandoned in modern bibliography). Slavic polities expanded as fully formed states after they settled in the Balkans- the idea of an "invasion" is a heavy POV which I consciously avoided in the context of an WP:NPOV approach.

I didn't make any major assertion about Justinian: he was a native of Dardania and he refounded Ulpiana as Justiniana Secunda. These basic facts are well-cited in both articles and the sentence above the one which Khirurg removed: *Teichner, Felix (2015). "Ulpiana - Iustiniana secunda (Kosovo) : das urbane Zentrum des dardanischen Bergbaubezirks". Ephemeris Napocensis. 25.: Tatsächlich spricht Prokopius im Zusammenhang mit dem Aufbauprogramm des Kaisers Justinian (527–565) für den Zentralbalkan explizit von einem Wiederaufbau der durch ein Erdbeben und die Gotenkriege zerstörten Stadt Ulpiana, nun unter dem Namen Iustiniana Secunda

Now it's time for Khirurg to explain their reverts, specifically: where does Curta (2001) in p.189 or elsewhere mention Kosovo in relation to Archaeologically, the early Middle Ages represent a hiatus in the material record and where does Stipcevic (1977) in p.76 or elsewhere mention that whatever was left of the native provincial population fused into the Slavs I explained their removal because I could find no mention of Kosovo/Dardania in bibliography. In their revert Khirurg should have already specifically explained which pages and quotes verify the claims which Khirurg reintroduced.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem changing to "partially recognized state and disputed territory" - that was an oversight on my part. You should assume good faith before making angry accusations like added a very heavy POV. Of course, it may have to wait a bit, because if I do it now, we both now you will instantly go running to the admins and accuse me of violating the 1RR on the page. Regarding the Slavic invasions, it is a well-known fact the Balkans were overrun by Slavs in the 5th-6th centuries (except for parts of Greece). There is universal consensus for this, wild conspiracies by Balkan nationalists about 19th century British colonialism notwithstanding. It is very easy to find sources for this. And the Balkans includes Kosovo, so when sources say "the Balkans were overrun", that includes Kosovo. Asking for sources that specifically mention Kosovo in the 6th century is absurd and a form of intellectual dishonesty, since there was no "Kosovo" in the 6th century. Regarding Justinian, he was born in Tauresium, nowadays the Republic of North Macedonia, not Kosovo. Any mention of Justinian is a POV attempt at "appropriating" a famous figure of ancient history for the purpose nationalist historiography, a very common problem plaguing Balkan articles. Khirurg (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm against bureaucratic interpretations of policies, so I wouldn't report you. I think that measures exist for the protection of the integrity of the project, not as punitive tools against editors. And it's a self-revert, so there's no violation of 1RR at all.

The "Slavic invasion" is a 19th century construction that has been abandoned. Its use is criticized as a largely nationalist concept today. We'll get back to that once we finish the verification of Curta (2001) and Stipcevic (1977).

Tauresium was in Dardania, it's what we know for a fact in bibliography since the first time Procopius mentions this settlement as Justinian's birthplace. Justinian launched a major reconstruction project across Dardania from northwestern Macedonia to Kosovo and eastern Serbia. I added in the article the information that Justinian refounded Ulpiana as Justiniana Secunda and that he was a native of Dardania. Why do you disagree if the article mentions the refoundation of Ulpiana, a very important site in the central Balkans by an emperor who was a native of Dardania? You asked for sources and now you have access to them.

I have full access to Curta (2001) as opposed to a gbooks limited or snippet, preview - and I know for a fact that he doesn't mention Kosovo. The full quote from Curta (2001) in p.189 which supposedly supports that in Kosovo Archaeologically, the early Middle Ages represent a hiatus in the material record : But when did the system eventually collapse? The communis opinio is that as soon as Phocas’ rebellion broke out, the limes crumbled and the Slavic tide invaded the Balkans. This idea, however, does not stand against the archaeological evidence. The year 602 has no archaeological significance for the early Byzantine settlements in the northern Balkans. Most cities and forts along the Danube frontier had already suffered heavy destruction by fire at some point between Justinian’s and Maurice’s reigns, at least twenty years before Phocas’ rebellion. In many cases, destruction was followed by rebuilding. We have seen that the number of forts apparently abandoned without any signs of violence by far exceeds that of forts presumably sacked and destroyed by barbarians Curta refers to the northern Balkans and specifically the Danube frontier and not even in the context of an "archaeological hiatus". Also, can you spot how the "Slavic invasion" theory has been abandoned even when bibliography discusses the Danube frontier? So, why did you think that Curta (2001) mentioned Kosovo in any context? --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Curta I have full access too, so I'm not sure what you're bragging about. Kosovo is anyway in the northern Balkans, so you kind of conceded the point there. The Slavic invasions are a well-known event, for example John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. has a whole chapter in Early Medieval Balkans called..."Slavic invasions". If invasion is too strong for you, I can agree to "migration" or "settlement". And I do agree that the scale of such settlement was much smaller than previously thought, so we are more in agreement there than not. Unless you are claiming that somehow Kosovo was somehow magically untouched by the Slavic migrations, which would fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL and would require exceptional sources. As for Justinian, Dardania is not Kosovo, and Kosovo is not Dardania. Tauresium was in the Roman province of Macedonia, and there are even sources that place it in Epirus [5]. In any case, there is a separate article for Dardania (Roman province) for good reason. And Justiniana Prima is in southern Serbia. This article is strictly about Kosovo, not Dardania. Justinian is a favorite target of Albanian nationalists, who try to claim he was "Albanian" by virtue of his birth. I have seen this a lot. By this logic, Constantine the Great is also "Dardanian" since he was born in Naissus, then in the Roman province of Dardania. At some point, this nonsense needs to stop. Khirurg (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Btw, I meant to ask you, why did you remove the Battle of Kosovo and the fact the Kosovo was part of the core of the medieval Serbian realm from the lede? Were you just hoping no one would notice? Khirurg (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed them because they're not supported in bibliography. The significance of the battle of Kosovo has been revised - it's not even considered an Ottoman victory anymore and Kosovo as the "core of the medieval Serbian realm" is not a narrative present in contemporary Serbian historiography. The low quality citation mistakenly places Raška (region) - the core of the pre-1371 Serbian state - in Kosovo. We'll get to that again.

Kosovo is in the central Balkans, not in the northern Balkans - it's an WP:AGF mistake. The area of the northern Balkans that is specifically mentioned is the Danube frontier limes (Danube–Iller–Rhine Limes) - Kosovo is located 500-700km to the south of the Danube. The specific mention is This idea, however, does not stand against the archaeological evidence. The year 602 has no archaeological significance for the early Byzantine settlements in the northern Balkans. Most cities and forts along the Danube frontier had already suffered heavy destruction by fire at some point between Justinian’s and Maurice’s reigns, at least twenty years before Phocas’ rebellion. In many cases, destruction was followed by rebuilding. We have seen that the number of forts apparently abandoned without any signs of violence by far exceeds that of forts presumably sacked and destroyed by barbarians. Curta (2001) writes that in the stratigraphy ("archaeological evidence") in the excavations of the settlements of the Danube frontier there are no significant events in 602, thus the claim that "barbarians" sacked and destroyed the limes forts is debunked. The claim that Archaeologically, the early Middle Ages represent a hiatus in the material record is not something that Curta (2001) puts forward because he doesn't discuss that subject at all.

Now, there are three edits that I'll make: a)I'll remove Curta (2001) - he doesn't mention Kosovo or the content he's supposed to put forward in general and Stipcevic (1977) - he also doesn't mention Kosovo b)I'll reverse the order of the lead sentence to its WP:STABLE c)I'll add that Ulpiana - a very important settlement - was refounded in the 6th century by Justinian without a reference to his lineage - which influenced the decision for political reasons, not ethnic ones but other articles can discuss that subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Although the devil will be in the details. Khirurg (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I made the edits we discussed about and I self-reverted a sentence which I removed by mistake.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

A comment about the next part of our discussion: Curta (2001), p.336: Nor does the idea of a “Slavic tide” covering the Balkans in the early 600s fit the existing archaeological data. South of the Danube river, no archaeological assemblage comparable to those found north of that river produced any clear evidence for a date earlier than c. 700 The Avar and Bulgar raids which included steppe Slavic groups are not the same population that later settled in the northern Balkans. The Slavs who first settled in northern Bosnia and gradually expanded southwards after they formed their own polities, were mainly farmers who in their original area of settlement did so under formal agreements with the Byzantines. They weren't invaders - when they acquired statehood, they increased their lands via war as all other states, but they weren't part of any "barbarian invasion".--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I will wait on this. But there was Slavic settlement in the area, and this must be mentioned. The Slavs didn't just magically appear out of nowhere in the Middle Ages. Khirurg (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

They didn't appear out of nowhere, but they also didn't appear in the 6th or 7th century as a people who migrated and settled in the Balkans. There are many articles on wikipedia about Slavic tribes in all corners of Macedonia at a date "traditionally" believed to be ca. 630 CE. But even Slavic settlement in Macedonia has been heavily revised; the consensus which has emerged in the last 30 years is that which is highlighted in Curta (2012), Were there any Slavs in 7th century Macedonia?: Judging from the archaeological evidence, no Slavs have settled in Macedonia during the seventh century Of course there were some outliers throughout the Balkans, but Slavic settlement almost everywhere in the western Balkans is the result of Bulgarian state expansion westwards throughout the 9th century and a later push of Slavic tribes from the coast to the hinterland. This expansion from two different directions is visible in the Slavic dialects of Kosovo. To the south and east they speak Torlakian, to the west and north they speak Shtokavian. What do you think about a change of The region was exposed to an increasing number of 'barbarian' raids from the 4th century AD onwards, culminating with the Slavic migrations of the 6th and 7th centuries. to The region was exposed to raids from populations north of the Danube since the early Byzantine era and Slavic expansion since the 9th century?--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about that. "Early Byzantine era" is very vague. The Avar raids are well documented in the late 6th century AD. As for the Slavs, I read the link to Curta, but is that enough to overturn consensus? The siege of Thessaloniki is well attested. The Principality of Serbia was established in the 8th century, and the Duchy of Croatia in the 7th century. Surely this implies Slavic presence before the 9th century. Khirurg (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Alain Ducellier

Here is a good article on Kosovo, and Serbs and Albanians there [6]. Edion Petriti (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Region of Kosovo

In the sentence "Most of central Kosovo is dominated by the vast plains and fields of Metohija and Kosovo," the second mention of Kosovo links to Kosovo (region), which just sends you back to this page. Is it referring to Kosovo field (Kosovo)? Or the eastern region of Kosovo, which doesn't seem to have it's own page? Or something else? Emmablowgun (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the Fushë Kosovë, the Field of Kosovo in the East; the other half, in the west, is Dukagjin. Edion Petriti (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know a lot about the subject so you'll have to bear with me. It's talking about the region of Kosovo, the entire east half of the country, not the smaller region of Kosovo Field? In that case, since I don't think it has an article, should we just remove the link? Linking back to the article doesn't do any good. Emmablowgun (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Edion Petriti (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

POV tag

@WEBDuB: can't tag a section of a central article without making any edits which have been disputed or providing an argument as to why the section should be tagged. Do the edits and if a dispute arises, then if there is no dispute resolution, tag the article. Not the other way around. --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I will make changes, but there will be a lot of work. The section is terribly problematic.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The section can't cover every detail about Kosovo because it's the central article about Kosovo and it already exceeds WP:SIZERULE recommendations. Put forward your edits and if a dispute arises, then we can discuss about tags, but you can't just tag the central article about the region because you find it "terribly problematic".--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You first have to demonstrate what you think that is POV about the section before tagging the article, you have been around long enough to at least know that. Ahmet Q. (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a minor article with 10 readers/day. Editors must be extremely careful and not place tags which are unnecessary. Nobody stopped WEBDuB from making any edit. POV tags require some dispute to exist, they can't be placed on articles with 4.7k readers/day just because an editor finds a section of the article to be "terribly problematic" because nobody has written about subtopics which he wants to be expanded.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Side comment: The medieval history section is a brief summary of medieval Kosovo. It should be obvious to all editors that a 208kb article can't mention everything that happened in medieval Kosovo. The culture section can cover parts about monuments, but most of that subtopic should be covered on History of Kosovo.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to remind everyone not to take part in the edit war, but to discuss politely on the talk page, respecting the opinions of other editors. The POV template can be moved after the consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard.

Furthermore, I've explained what the issue was. The section is not written in accordance with most mainstream reliable sources. This historical period in Kosovo is perhaps the most researched and documented. The importance of the rule of the Nemanjić family, their legacy and endowments (currently the only UNESCO World Heritage Site in Kosovo!), the establishment of the Serbian Patriarchate, the rise of mining and economy in Kosovo, the Kosovo battle-related events etc, cannot be concluded from the section. The currently version offers readers completely wrong and historically incorrect impressions about that period. (WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL). Many other less important subtopics are described in much more detail.

Also, in the last few weeks, many parts and images that have been standing for years have been removed. (WP:STABLE) Most of that is not agreed on the talk page. If we add to all this the nationalist rise on Balkan topics, which included the simultaneous removal of Serbian names and parts of history from Kosovo cities, as well as harassment of editors who are labeled as pro-Serbian, the situation is even more worrying and debatable. We really need to work together to improve the article, following Wikipedia's policies and respecting each other. Thank you.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It is really extremely worrying that you consider that the changes of the city names of Kosovo through consensuses are part of nationalistic rise on Balkan related topics. You have to understand that on Wikipedia, editors must not ignore WP:CONSENSUS and are supposed to work together in order to ameliorate the project for the benefit of all Wikipedia users. Labelling editors along ethnic or religious lines is really not the way to go. Ahmet Q. (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I never labeled any editor, that's exactly what I criticized. I have pointed out many times to the tense atmosphere on Balkan topics, as well as to stop the simultaneous pressures and openings of RfCs and RfM in which a reasonable exchange of arguments was not possible. Therefore, these unilateral major changes (without consensus) on the central article with a huge number of readers are very wrong. I add again, especially after a period of nationalist WP:POVPUSH and WP:CFORK, including harassment and insult to the editor. There are many witnesses that the admins ignored many of my reports of personal threats and disclosure of personal information. Therefore, it would be collegial to reduce tensions and not initiate such moves around sensitive articles that would lead to quarrels and misunderstandings. I would be immensely grateful to you.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB: do your edits, but don't add tags which don't reflect a consensus or a lack of consensus. You can't place a POV tag without there being an dispute. --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have been harassed or threatened you should contact ArbCom. Again, labelling users' edits as nationalistic only because they don't meet your personal POV will not help ease the tensions in Balkan related articles. Respecting fellow editors is crucial for the development of a civil environment where everyone should be able to contribute without having to be insulted. Thanks. Ahmet Q. (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A number of images and edits on this and other articles have been made without any consensus. Like that Jashari guy. He is relevant in wich way exactly? Hero to one ethnic group, and what exactly is he to several other ethnic groups? How about that? Where was the consensus for that, for example? If proper concerns and arguments have been raised, and they have been, you can't just ignore other people's arguments and call it "tagbombing", because it is not, it's one tag which is placed in order to improve the article, like many times before on Wiki. Nobody has been insulted, a general comment and opinion can't/shouldn't insult anybody, unless... Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You just admitted that you reinserted the tag because of your concerns about an image which has nothing to do with the discussed subject. This is, yet again, a clear example of disruptive behavior from your behalf. A POV tag is placed when there are issues concerning the neutrality of a section and it is normally placed after a discussion takes place. WEBDuB didn't start a discussion nor did they demonstrate any neutrality issues about the actual content. The only concern they had was that the section didn't elaborate enough on subjects they deemed important. Those subjects, by the way, are entirely dealt with in the article "History of Kosovo". Sadko, you have to be more meticulous when editing articles that deal with controversial subjects such as Kosovo. And whatever you think WEBDuB has been insulted or not should be better discussed on their personal talk page. Thank you. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the image and the tag are not connected per se, it is merely an example I used. Reasoning for the tag on that section is fine.

You have no comment about the image, huh? I suggest that we remove it and keep the tag and let WEBDuB work on the section.

I am meticulous and mine idea is to improve the article, which I have edited several times in the past few months or so. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)