Jump to content

Talk:Ibrahim Rugova

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Favourite clothing

[edit]

What's the deal with the scarf he always wears around his neck? J.J. 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was a Harry Potter fan? I honestly thought it was a weird beard until I looked closer.--KrossTalk 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the skarf were killd His father and Grandfather from the Serbian Komunists in 1944 just 4 days after Ibrahim Rugova was born —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.74.96 (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rugova often wore a distinctive red waistcoat and a mottled scarf.
Maybe, but not in that picture. It's clearly a sweater not a waistcoat. Is that what was meant? Flapdragon 22:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right, it is a sweater. I just thought his very consistent fashion sense should be noted– I hope this doesn't fall into original research.--Pharos 22:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic cleansing

[edit]

In this article, it is claimed that Croatia made an ethnic cleansing of so called "Krajina" in Croatia, but Operation Storm was legitimate liberation of occupied Croatian territory...Please correct to more neutral words.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.138.204 (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, it is claimed that Croatia made an ethnic cleansing of Serbs in the Republic of Serbian Krajina, but operation "Storm" was also the most evil aggression on helpless civilians in the war, with many fatalities and thousands of burned homes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.20.182 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ovarian Cancer

[edit]

How is it possible that he died of ovarian cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.195.248 (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't, of course. This is what we call vandalism. If you see anything else of this nature, please correct it. Thanks.--Pharos 00:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albania and Axis powers

[edit]

Albania was not occupied-it was an axis allied state (like Croatia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia)-when a country is occupied it does not receive territorial expansions, like Albania did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.140.123.52 (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albania very definitely was occupied, first by Italy and then by Germany, until the end of 1944. See Military history of Albania during World War II. The annexation of Kosovo by the Italians seems to have been undertaken to make the Italian occupation more acceptable to Albanian nationalism [1]. -- ChrisO 02:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what with Albania after 1943. There was no Italian occupation, and Albania was self proclamed "independent" and "neutral", and fully functioning as German ally (including formation of Albanian SS troups). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.140.123.77 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albania was occupied by Germany until it was liberated in 1944. Yes, there were collaborators but there were also resistance organizations. It didn't become voluntarily an axis state. And as far as I know there weren't any changes to its borders after the war. Stop twisting the history around, Albania never was self proclaimed neutral or independent as you say, the article simply states "Berlin subsequently announced it would recognize the independence of a neutral Albania and organized an Albanian government, police, and military." Rejnal 05:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was resistance movement in Germany, too, but that does not change your perception of its character during the War. And of course, no changes of the borders after the War, but it received significant territorial expanisons DURING the war, just as any country allied with axis powers. Nations that were considered enemies (France, USSR, Yugoslavia, Poland, Greece)-they were either wiped out or broken into pieces. Resistance in Albania was present against the Italians, but against the Germans it was all but dead until it became clear that the Germans were losing the War. Think about this-if the Germans won, would Albania be better or worse off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.140.123.170 (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a revisionist historian, not even a simple historian, but I would like to give my opinion in this discussion. It is hard to say that if Nazi Germany won the war, Albania would be better. It is clear it wouldn't suffer under the communist regime, but the Nazi regime was a dictatorship too. Albania would probably gain territories with Albanian majority from Yugoslavia and Greece, but it doesn't imply that it would be an independent and free-to-prosper country. There was a large number of communists/partisans in Albania, and there would be a big struggle going on until the last communist was captured. Think of how much pain would it cause to the innocent people. An armed conflict can never end without touching the civilians.
On the other hand, I also would like to say that those who see WWII Albania as independent and Axis-ally country are totally wrong. First of all, Italy invaded Albania on April 7, 1939, while the Albanian army's efforts did not help against the huge overwhelming Fascist army. Italy installed a puppet government in Albania and Victor Emmanuel III pretended the throne which legally belonged to HM Zog I, who fled to exile. In 1941, Germany conquered most of Yugoslavia including parts of modern Kosovo. Hitler wanted to make sure Kosovo mines are included in the German control zone as they played a major rule in the war industries. While much of Albanian inhabited land was left under German control, the other part of Kosovo and some of western Macedonia fell under Italian control. So, it is not a territorial expansion of an independent Albania to include the "terra irredenta" given to Yugoslavia by the European powers, but it is an expansion a European power - Italy.
It is worth to mention what my grandfather told me about his experiences passing the "Great Albania" (Italian-controlled Albanian lands)-"Small Albania" (German-controlled Albanian lands) border. It took him one week to go from Podujeva to Prishtina and its 20 km from one another. The border was very difficult or almost impossible to pass. Therefore, I would like to ask you if it was a unification of Albania?--Pjetër Bogdani jr. 03:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best definition to WWII Albania would be "an Axis-occupied nation". Furthermore, it was occupied before WWII.--Pjetër Bogdani jr. 04:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

[edit]

nuke ka tjeter president qe vet vendose , perveqe te ndjerite rugova —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.95.39 (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality/Birth

[edit]

This is clearly going to open a whole can of worms. Excuse my ignorance, but was he really Albanian by nationality? Or was he 'Yugoslav', though ethnic-Albanian? The former is only correct if he had nationality for the Republic of Albania. Perhaps there's some useful compromise wording if the latter is correct? DSuser 17:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And surely Crnce was part of Yugoslavia at the time? We can't go allowing legitimacy to war-time 'countries' created by invading powers. That would mean we would have to say that anyone born in 'Poland' between 1939 and 1940 was actually born in the 'General Government', the 'Greater German Reich' or in the 'USSR'. That ain't right. I suppose we might compromise with 'Crnce, Kosovo (Yugoslavia;under Albanian/Italian occupation)'? DSuser 17:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, he was only ever a Yugoslav citizen. The various annexations of the Axis powers were never regarded as legal or recognised by the international community, and were nullified after the reconquest of the occupied areas. -- ChrisO 18:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His Yugoslav citizenship was more to do with the fact that Yugoslavia was the country he lived in for most of his life (technicly all of it as he actually died in the last months of the final federation). But the subject of which region controlled what and who did and did not recognise it is more complicated. World War II was a time of chaos and I doubt anyone truely knows what fell where at all of the times. I do say however, that anything from that time is very sticky; difficult to imply with certainty. The term "international community" is itself controversial as it never involves all 6,000 million people of the world; it doesn't even include every state leader at the best of times! And where it is a political issue, what does it matter that 99% of countries fail to recognise an entity when everyone within that territory recognises it as claimed; it is one argument against another, you recognise Israel, I don't; he recognises the Republic of China (Taiwan) and she recognises the People's Republic of China (Beijing) etc. So the only way to present subjects is to tell the whole story: he was born in Crnce, known as such and such a name locally, controlled by one state, recognised by several others, eventually overturned etc. I think it is fair to say that during World War II, the parties involved were split 50/50 at its height; I may be a little inaccurate but all the same, it is hard to apply the word "legal" to any political entity unless 100% of the world's population are in full agreement. Evlekis 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]
Well, the view of the "international community" as such was represented by the Declaration by United Nations in 1942, which included the government of Yugoslavia; this endorsed the principles of the Atlantic Charter of 1941 which (among other points) provided that "Territorial adjustments must be in accord with wishes of the peoples concerned." Obviously the dismemberment and annexation of various countries was not in accord with their peoples' wishes, and it wasn't undertaken with the permission of the internationally recognised governments. There was never any doubt that the annexations were illegal and I don't think they were recognised as legitimate by anyone except the Axis powers. -- ChrisO 23:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Chris O: territories occupied by invading powers are not legitimate under international law. But as importantly, he held a Yugoslav passport for most (all?) of his life, did he not? He must have been Yugoslav to have participated in SFRY politics. Did he hold Albanian nationality as well? Perhaps we could also not that he was of ethnic Albanian origin, though obviously that's not preferable or standard for Wikipedia (as far as I've seen from a quick scan)? Is there anyone who knows the detail of his nationality? DSuser 09:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well fine. A Yugoslav citizen he was then. I was only taking issue with the term "international community"; and hearing how frequently it is being uttered in modern times, particularly by people close to the world's most powerful nations when trying to bully a smaller nation, you can't exactly blame me! For instance (briefly off-topic now): whilst the UK, the US and our former Yugoslav republics all recognise 193 countries including each other -the US and its puppets state that it is the "international community" who is opposed to Iran developing nuclear power. But over 120 countries have backed Iran's right to do so. Here, Global Elite is more appropriate. For the purpose of Rugova, and annexed lands, a country named Yugoslavia of some kind was widely recognised, but I say again, World War II was a time of change: many regions which today are so-called "legally" in a certain country, became so when annexed at some earlier time. I mean, try telling some Kurds and the Basques that Turkish and Spanish sovereignty over their lands are "legal" and they'll impose the death sentence on you! The Axis lands were powerful, and at their height, they had a great chunk of world support; they even had civil support from quarters within countries who fought as Allies, and vice-versa. But to clarify, I am often applying the appropriate country and nationality name to people on Wikipedia, and this means adding "Yugoslavia" for most of that time, so I am not opposed to this article standing exactly as it is. Evlekis 09:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]

Clearly there is a confusion of what is nationality and what is citizenship. Ibrahim Rugova was from the day he was born to his last breath an Albanian by nationality. The concept of citizenship is another issue: during the time of existence of Socialist Yugoslavia the one might conclude he was Yugoslav citizen of Albanian nationality. The one should have in mind also that since that time there were people who declared their nationality as Yugoslavs, besides other recognized nationalities (Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosniaks, Albanians, Macedonians, Hungarians…). This would be as referring to Eduard Shevardnadze as Soviet, because for a period of time he had Soviet Union citizenship, although by nationality he is Georgian. Same rule would have to apply to former president of Croatia Franjo Tuđman, former president of Bosnia Alija Izetbegović, of Macedonia Kiro Gligorov and so on…Ulisi 18:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that Rugova was Albanian; in the end of the day, terms such as Albanian, Yugoslav, Croat, Soviet etc. are merely demonyms; you can be French by citizenship, Italian by ethnicity, Soviet by birth and Australian by professional representation of one kind or another. Demonyms. That's all these people-names are. My point is that the infobox caption for nationality is refering to statehood and not ethnic group. Recently I switched Oliver Dulić from his Serbian status to Yugoslav, as he is reported to declare himself - it did not survive one edit, User:Duja switched it straight back on these very principles. Maybe we should debate, what will nationality mean? Relationship to State? or ethnicity? Evlekis 23:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]

Yes, it's a fair point that Rugova was clearly Albanian by ethnicity. The article itself does bring that very important point out and I don't think anyone reading the article would think he was anything other than an ethnic-Albanian politician from what was called Yugoslavia. I've had a look at other biographical infoboxes and the standard seems to be that 'nationality' is used to refer to statehood. Most other parts of the former Yugoslavia, of course, now have their own states and so we can easily note them as (say) 'Croatian' if they lived or died after that Republic gained statehood. Kosovo is in an unusual situation (for now) and so Yugoslav is almost certainly the best term to use (I think). He was a politician in Yugoslav politics and held a Yugoslav passport. Perhaps we note 'Ethnicity: Albanian' in the box as well, but we could end up with some very... Balkanized... infoboxes! DSuser 10:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that you think that the best term to use is 'Yugoslav', but that doesn't mean that you are right. I see you are insisting that Dr. Rugova was "Yugoslav" because he had a Yugoslav passport. What makes you so sure he used Yugoslav passport? Since March 2000 until he passed away in January 2006 he had a United Nations Travel Document (a substitute of a passaport for countries without clear international political status). Besides that he had a diplomatic passport of Republic of Albania. It is true that Kosova has for the time being an 'undefined status' but that doesn't make Dr. Rugova a Yugoslav. I assume that you have a Slavic origin so you should know the difference between 'drzavljanstvo' and 'nacionalnost'. And last but not least, a country called Yugoslavia does not exist, even more at the time that President Rugova died, successor of Yugoslavia was the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro - Would that make Dr. Rugova a Serbo-Montenigrin by nationality?! Although not very similiar case the one should look at the presidents of Chechnya and their nationality. Ulisi 13:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the solution is to repeat all this information as a response to the "Nationality" caption. If it is cumbersome, then we need to remove the Nationality part as inappropriate. Never the less, although the facts you produced about Rugova are true (that is, I take your word for it), Nationality is still not taken to mean ethnic group, so it needs to remain Yugoslav until we reach a concensus about the future of the actual section itself. In the meantime, if you decide to change it back to Albanian, and do not want it reverted back; then I suggest you edit Oliver Dulić and change his nationality to his ethnicity which is sourced as Yugoslav. It is one or the other, and I don't mind which, but we cannot have double-standard here. Evlekis 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]

Interesting, Ulisi, that your first instinct on meeting an opinion you don't like is to 'accuse' the other party of being of an ethnicity which you clearly assume is either distasteful or permanently biased. That's known as Racism. In fact, I'm English (British by nationality). Being a former diplomat, I do know the difference in former SFRY constitutional law between citizenship and nationality: those definitions passed away with the SFRY and are not relevant here.

I think it's clear that Dr Rugova could not have participated in Yugoslav politics unless he was Yugoslav. As no new nationality was created when UNMIK took over the administration of Kosovo in 1999, he's either of no nationality at that point (not likely) or he remains Yugoslav (or, as you say, Serbian and Montenegrin). I'm interested in the point about an Albanian diplomatic passport: do you have a source for this? Had he formally taken Albanian citizenship or was he given the passport as a means of travel internationally (as is Albanian's right to do, without requiring citizenship)? Did he ever formally revoke his Yugoslav nationality? Perhaps he had dual nationality? Evlekis is right that we should stick with Yugoslav until we can determine which to use: some 'hedged' and annotated option sounds the only stable solution. DSuser 15:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The western concept of nationality does not apply to the Balkans and can not be applied to the Balkans. In the Balkans ethnicity and nationality are thought of as synonmys (infact the term `nationalism` itself refers exclusivley to ethnic nationalism). Rugova was a citizen of Yugoslavia and held it`s passport and thus was a Yugoslav national in the Western sense, but he certainly considered his nationality to be Albanian and likewise everyone else in Yugoslavia considered his nationalitiy to be Albanian. Simply because in this part of the world nationality reffers to ethnicity, not to citizenship. And this is not meant to be an a form of intolerance, infact it would be intolerant not to recognise him for what he was as it would be a form of assimilation pressure. And all of this has little to do with the SFRY constitutional law, this is the prevalent worldview in the Balkans and Eastern Europe in general and has been ever since the national awakenings in 19th century. Stanimir 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evlekis, the Oliver Dulić case is an entirely different matter of no relevance as a precedent to Rugova. Dulić is of mixed Serbian and Croat heritage so instead of declaring for just one of those he offers his nationality as Yugoslav (South Slav) so as to encompass both. (And he spoke of himself as a Yugoslav in public Rugova did not.) But Croats and Serbs are both South Slavic peoples and they were both the soverign state forming peoples in Yugoslavia. Albanians were not. In legal parlance Serbs and Croats were a "narod" (constituent nation) of Yugoslavia while Albanians were a "narodnost" (nationality) of Yugoslavia. Thus nobody ever imagined Albanians are Yugoslavs by nationality. They themselves the least of it. Before the 7th January constitution of 1929 Yugoslavia was known as `The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes`, should then by your logic all citizens of this state including the Albanians of the time have their nationality as "Serb, Croat and Slovene"? Stanimir 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right Stanimir, this is the situation: it makes no difference to me X, Y, or Z. I support a universal approach to all issues; now I am fully aware that the term nationality is not grasped in the same way by all people, it varies more than you and I actually know. My point is that we cannot use the same caption in the same box to mean "ethnic group" for Rugova and "citizenship" for Dulić. Personally, in my eyes, it is stupid including ethnicity or nationality in the caption as it is plain obvious. Rugova having possibly held a Yugoslav passport is obvious, so needn't be included. His life's work was devoted to Kosovo's Albanians, and it is known that he is a member of the Albanian linguistic community, so to be anything other than Albanian by ethnicity is unlikely, so that too is pointless. And even though the so-called "west" has its way of viewing nationality, it may affect how we present articles based on people from the "west", but Albania and the former Yugoslav republics arn't exactly a part of that "west", and Rugova didn't come from Albania anyhow. Now I won't quibble with the decision of a concensus; you vote, they all vote - ethnic group or citizenship status? Whatever you choose, Dulić and Rugova are going together. There can be no one rule for one, one for the other. And finally, Dulić being Yugoslav because one parent is Croat, the other Serb is neither here nor there. He is Yugoslav because he chooses to be; remember, the fact that many Yugoslavs have parents from different Slavic backgrounds is not a prerequistite for one to consider himself by that designation. The fact that one parent is Serb does not imply that he or she has nothing but Serbian blood, and even if it did, it can only go back so far before it joins with everyone elses ancestors - different nationalities (of that kind) can only exist because one offshoot has chosen to be something different to both of his parents. His children will be of half-Yugoslav descent, it doesn't mean that they have to call themselves Yugoslavs, again, the choice is their own. Nobody can imply that being Serb or Croat has a more solid status than Yugoslav - as if the two were different species. Times change, people assimilate/dissimilate/mix/branch off etc, and if you go back the golden age of nationalism, the 18th century, you'll find that many people never knew one day to the next what to consider themselves. So, he is as Yugoslav as Rugova is Albanian. Evlekis 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]
DSuser, it is good that everyone can see what has been posted here. Although, English is not my native language (as it is yours), I think that everybody can see that I didn’t ‘accuse’ anybody for belonging to an ethnicity or for being biased. For a former (British) diplomat it is pitiful how easily you accuse others for racism, when it is you altering (denying?) somebody’s nationality. The assumption of Slavic origin was not to offend you, it was because the words “državljanstvo” (citizenship) and “nacionalnost” (nationality) were used in original Serbian language (a Slavic language). Rugova didn’t have to revoke his ‘Yugoslav nationality’ because, again, he was never a Yugoslav by nationality. Since 1992 he was elected President of Republic of Kosova and I think that there is no stronger argument that he publicly revoked also the citizenship of Yugoslavia.Ulisi 22:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evlekis, you should edit and make your case on Oliver Dulić yourself as I don’t have any information about his background, so it’s not up to me to decide whether he is Yugoslav or Serb. But, however you are trying to apply double standards. If Dulić is Yugoslav, because it’s his choice (and I take your word on that), why Rugova is not Albanian? I do agree with all explanations of Stanimir. Ulisi 22:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons of Wikipedia, Nationality is there to mean državljanstvo and not nacionalnost, so Oliver Dulic is Serbian not Yugoslav. By the same logic, Rugova is Yugoslav up to 2003, and Serbia-Montenegro until he died. But situation in Kosovo was different from 1999. Not easy. He must have had Yugoslav citizenship for most of his life, but I think solution for now is to remove that part of the infobox. Because it is not important. ---Sanjack 23:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just say it again, I don't mind whether we mean ethnic group or statehood, so long as it applies to all. I only used Dulić as an example, there are others the same. Evlekis 07:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]
Apology accepted Ulisi. Whatever might be thought of the 'Western' concept of Nationality, it is the standard used for Wikipedia and the standard by which readers will judge our articles. Whatever his ethnic background, noting that his Nationality was Albanian implies (in fact, states) that he was a politician in the Republic of Albania, which he was not. And to say so is not to deny his 'nationality', so I'll thank you for not balkanising this discussion. The declaration of the Republic of Kosovo (though since renounced in order to agree the Kosovo Constitutional Framework - possibly temporarily until Final Status) is indeed good grounds for believing that he had renounced Yugoslav nationality, and there is precedence, I believe, for considering that he was therefore, at the time of his death, without Nationality. He was nevertheless a Yugoslav politician (of ethnic Albanian descent) for most of his life and at no point an Albanian national (unless we find a good source stating otherwise). Seems sensible, therefore, to keep the Nationality box out of this infobox or to note the complexity of the situation with footnotes, if we must. Good that we've got to this point. DSuser 11:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evklis, I can hardly find a point I disagree on in your reply to me so I really don`t see the point of it. Did you write in reply to my text or to some kind of assumptions of yours about me?? Dudić is as Yugoslav as Rugova is Albanian? Excellent. That is exactly what I was saying. But why then make Dudić being a Yugoslav an argument to make Rugova a Yugoslav as well?? Dudić considers his nationality to be Yugoslav, so he is Yugoslav by nationality. Rugova considered his nationality to be Albanian so he was Albanian by nationality. To make Rugova a Yugoslav makes a mockery of what nation (volk) means here. And infact it would have most likey been insulting to him. (As it would be for example insulting to a Serb living in Romania if it was insisted on his nationality being Romanian.) Stanimir 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly Stanimir, apologies if you felt I was making any assumption about you, you know how these things start to appear when several people enter into a conversation; my only point I was making was very much as you yourself put it: except I was presenting it from another angle, stating that whatever the term should mean for one individual, it should mean for all of them. By all means you are right, Rugova was Albanian - he stood for Albanians, he fought for Albanians, and calling him "Yugoslav" sounds very much a mockery. The question is, what do we mean by /nationality/? ! Evlekis 10:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]

Converted to catholic religion before death

[edit]

Why isnt it mentioned in this article that he converted to roman catholic religion before his death? I think it deserves to be mentioned. Some of the factors as to why he converted to roman catholic faith were, because his ancestors are said to be catholic, who only converted after ottoman turkish rule. Also het met the pope, and is said to have decided to convert after meeting the pope.User:Bextoj 19:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I think he converted to Scientology shortly thereafter. Teetotaler 11 September, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal: Kelmendi

[edit]

The entry for "Kelmendi" currently has a "Legends of Kelmendi" section with various biographies, including one of Ibrahim Rugova. – Any new content should be incorporated in this article, and only a short mention of Rugova should remain at "Kelmendi". - Best, Ev (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ibrahim Rugova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ibrahim Rugova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intro Paragraph

[edit]

The intro paragraph looks good overall. I think that the part about ancient Dardania could be taken out as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretsch whitepanther (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace and deathplace

[edit]

I put places with names of state from that period. We have always done in that way. Please respect this rule this time. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in February 2008, which means it was definitely part of Serbia before that. Kosovo is a disputed territory and partially recognised state, but United Nations still claims it as de jure part of Serbia. [2] It was under international protectorate as part of Serbia: [3] After declaration of independence, UNMIK continues to implement its mandate in a status neutral manner and operate under Resolution 1244. [4] We don't talk about present situation, but Kosovo did not exist as country in 1944 and 2006, de jure or de facto eather. Please, stop reverting and writing false information.--Aca Srbin (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2016 (ECST)

I don't always agree with @Aca Srbin:, but I do on this occasion. We should use the names from that period. What @Ulisi: is proposing is on par with saying that William Wallace was born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, even though this country didn't exist (or at least have this current name) until 1922. At the time of Rugova's death in 2006, the country which he died in was called "Serbia and Montenegro". The Republic of Kosovo declared independence two years later. I've changed the infobox to reflect this. IJA (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hekuran.D: Kosovo issued a Declaration of its independence on 17 February 2008, while Rugova died in 2006. At that time the area was de jure part from another state, non-existing now: i.e. Serbia and Montenegro. It is impossible Rugova to day in Kosovo by objective reasons. Jingiby (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ibrahim Rugova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secession/separation

[edit]

TadejM, I don't know who you mean by 'concerned parties' when you say:"the term 'separation' has been adopted by all concerned parties and is as such the most neutral one." The only parties we are concerned about are WP:RS and ordinary English readers. The standard term for a part of a larger entity declaring itself independent is 'secession'. It is inherently neutral and clear and is used by many/most sources to describe various parts of FRY declaring themselves independent of Yugoslavia. I offered to change the wording to saying these places 'declared independence' to avoid pointless squabbling about, what is effectively a euphemism which you insist on using, but you again reverted.

WP:BRD requires that you make your case here as to why we would prefer - what I believe - is mere obfuscation. If you are not able to do so, but continue to WP:EDITWAR, you will be reported. Pincrete (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ibrahim_Rugova&oldid=1195471244"