Talk:Monuments of Kosovo

NPOV

[NPOV: Does the article delete the Serbs?]

Present summary ends " According to UNESCO, monuments in Kosovo are classified as Byzantine monuments, Islamic monuments of the Ottoman Period and Vernacular architecture. [5][6] " and a simlar classification is used earlier in the summary.

The citation is incorrect. The UNESCO report uses the phrase "Byzantine/Orthodox" monuments. In fact, of course, very few monuments still stand which were built by the Byzantines. Serbs will understandably interpret this classification as an Albanian attempt to delete the fact that Kosovo was ruled for a time in the Middle Ages by a Serbian dynasty, and that this contributed in a major way to currently standing heritage sites.

I propose that the article refer in the sentence which cites UNESCO to their terminology ("Byzantine/Orthodox") and in teh earlier part of the summary as "Byzantine/Serbian Orthodox" since all the major extant church sites were built after the separation of the Byzantine and Serbian Orthodox Churches.

Markd999 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

[[[NPOV: Serbian Destruction of Albanian/Islamic Monuments, 1998-1999]]]

Summary reads: " Only their construction walls have remained. [2][4] The destruction of kullas was not only a genocide against the Kosovar monuments, but also a destroyer of the world’s most important cultural values.[4]"

I entirely agree that the Serbians engaged in a systematic effort to erase Kosovo's Islamic and Albanian built heritage, but it is factually incorrect to say that "only the construction walls have remained" - the extent of damage and destruction varied widely - you cannot have "genocide" against monuments, and the passage reads as if kullas by themselves are one of the world's most important cultural values, while in fact it is the preservation of a historic built environment which is the cultural value at stake.

The passage will be stronger, not weaker, if these two sentences are deleted. Markd999 (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It has now been changed to "In many of them, only the construction walls have remained. The destruction of Kullas was not only a move against the Kosovan monuments, but also a destroyer of very important cultural values." Also monuments are called "Byzantine/Orthodox monuments" when UNESCO refers to them as such. I think the message about the lack of neutrality of this article can go now - MicMicMic (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think not yet. There are many POV issues mentioned in the section below which remained unresolved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Saint Nicholas' Church

Current text reads: Church of Saint Nicholas is the sole Serbian Orthodox Church active in town. It is located in the Tauk bahqe neighborhood, in Nazim Gafurri Street, which leads to Germia Park. [11] It was built in the 20th century, whereas it’s wooden iconoclastic were made by Dibran craftsmen in the 19th century. [11] During the Kosovo’s war it was undamaged, but it was later completely burned down by March rioters. [11] Church of St.Nicholas was set on fire in 2004 by rioters, who damaged all of its distinct pieces, interior, and the roof collapsed. [11] Only outer walls and dome survived but yet, they were also affected by fire. [11] Its reconstruction was funded by the European Commission in 2007, and specifically covered the cost of roof reconstruction and the restoration of the choir gallery, the baptismal chamber and the parish home. [11]

I propose to delete entirely. I think it was built in the second half of the nineteenth century: why else would it have had an iconostasis of that period, which no longer exists? But in any case, it cannot possibly be linked to "Byzantine" or medieval "Serbian Orthodox" monuments.

Markd999 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Monastery of the Holy Archangels, Prizren

Present section reads:

"Monastery of Holy Archangels was constructed during the 14th century and it is located near the Bistrica river in Prizren. [4] At the time when it was constructed, the building contained a monastery and two small churches. [4] A really important feature to be mentioned is that Stephen Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia and Strazimir Balsha were buried in this monastery. It presents a very important archaeological site and photography is forbidden. [7][10]"

This is somewhat misleading, although Serbs will like it. It is indeed an important site historically. But I have a (Serbian) book with a photograph showing that in about 1990 all that remained was the foundations. What happened was that it was rebuilt on the foundations during the Milosevic regime (something which in Western Europe would probably be regarded as cultural vandalism); that it was burnt down during the March 2004 riots; and that it has subsequently been rebuilt with international money whose donors probably thought that they were rebuilding a genuine medieval building. Why photography is forbidden is a mystery to me: is the rebuilding of a rebuilding really so bad? Or has it been turned into a brothel?

Markd999 (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Links

There are already articles on Visoki Decani, the Patriarchate of Peja, and Gracanica which should be linked to this article. Once it is cleaned up a bit I shall link it to the "History of Kosovo" article. But it needs to be improved first. Markd999 (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Still work needed with this one. :) - MicMicMic (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

POV, at the painful level

This article is the nest of pro-albanian propaganda, to say so. With nonexisting political creation of Byzantine-kosovar style, instead of Serbo-Byzantine architecture, with "under the Nemanjid state territory" instead "part of Serbian empire" or at least "NemanjiĆ". Also, 75% of the sources are published by Republic of Kosovo, and therefor non neutral to speak about history of Kosovo, with usage of Albanian names of everything, etc, etc... I have restored the tags, as you are not allowed to remove them without complete resolution of the every problem presented. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, we will now start normalization process for this article. First, names of the monuments. All names must be names of the Wikipedia articles, as those are most offen created by consensus. Lets do that first, as that is the easiest thing. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Most of these sources have been published before the Republic of Kosovo was even proclaimed. Btw Justinian was a local of Tauresium, a settlement of the province of Dardania. That being said, tag bombing is considered disruptive.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I never use tags unless they are needed. And, this is only 3 of the most important ones. As far as i can see, years are 2008, 2009, 2011... But there are some older, and also, some neutral sources. I will work on it to list only neutral ones, and both of the relevant regarding designation of monuments. Also, usage of wikipedia as propaganda mashine is by far more disruptive. I am quite sure that you agree with me that this article is far below our standard on wiki regarding NPOV. Only problem is that POV is on the other side. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::The article indeed has many POV issues, i.e. expressions like "independence of Albania and all Albanian territories", treatment of all pre-Albanian nations as invaders and occupiers (i.e. During the Nemanjic occupation... due to these invasions). Placing monuments destroyed by "Serb forces" into the lede without mention of monuments destroyed by other party during and after war. "Paleo-Christian church, used by Albanian Christians" 800 years before Albanians were mentioned for the first time in history. Byzantine-Kosovar architecture? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, Antid, help me with this article. I will fix Serbian monasteries first, please help me with the rest of article. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for invitation, but I am afraid that I don't have enough time. Sorry.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is in mess. :( Half of it is in Albanian! Why kulla was not translated to tower? Puufff, a long way still to make it ordinary... --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Since I was the first to suggest that this article needed work to make it neutral, and to propose changes, can I also say that I think this article will be useful once changes are made? And I think that some of the reactions are exaggerated. "Nemanjid" is the usual form found in most English-language history-books, and similarly "kulla" is the word used in most international English-language publications dealing with this architectural phenomenon.
The fixes needed to make this genuinely NPOV are not all that big; and with a bit of good will we can have a genuinely useful article. 79.126.153.107 (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, actual edits do not correspond with statements on talkpages. Underestimating POV issues of this article does not give much hope that it will soon be resolved. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The situation is worse with every new edit. If English names correspond with name on Serbian language they are changed into version on Albanian language.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would be easier to use AfD than massive copyedit. What do you think? --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so because I have always believed it is better to deal with real issues than with consequences. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(unindent)Btw if the sources prefer the term kullë, that term will be used instead of generic translations.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Zjarri, this is rather mischievous! Trying to deal with three languages at once is enough of a pain for me! The article is either likely to deal with a singular, definite, tower, which will be the kulla of somewhere or someone, or a plural, which will also be kulla. "A rose is a rose by any other name", so let you and WhiteWriter work out a common Serbian/Albanian translation of that Shakespeare sentence, and then argue about what alphabet to put it in!

Markd999 (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't deal with three languages at once. Deal only with English language per WP:COMONNAME. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo/Republic of Kosovo

To accommodate the sensitivities of our Serbian friends, I propose to change the beginning of the article to the neutral term "Kosovo" rather than "the Republic of Kosovo", and to use this term wherever possible in the rest of the article. (It may not always be possible, for example if one refers to official laws or publications of the present Republic - whether one regards it as de facto or de jure - but it should often be possible simply to use the term in citations rather than text).

Markd999 (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What about accommodating sensitivities of your Cypriot/Russian/Greek/Spanish/Slovak/Chinese/.... friends? I think it is wrong to comment the ethnicity of other editors from we-them perspective and to use accommodation of the sensitivities of editors of certain ethnicity as argument in discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair comment, Antid, though I don't really believe that Russians, Greeks, etc care very much. I should simply have said "to preserve NPOV over Kosovo's status". Sorry if I offended you - I certainly did not mean to be offensive - Markd999 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should accommodate to people's sensitiveness in this manner. Of course people might be "touched" by it, but that shouldn't be taken as an argument (at least not in articles like this one. - MicMicMic (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

While many don't recognize the Republic of Kosovo, this article is about monuments in the Republic of Kosovo. This was neither constructive nor supported by RS.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I read RS as "Republic of Serbia", before realising you probably mean "reliable sources". Please be careful when using such jargon, especially around new users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I will clarify. While the borders of the Kosovo region may be debatable (including Metohija or not; including the Presevo valley or not) the borders of the Republic of Kosovo are clearly set. Of course these borders may or may not be recognized as state borders by different parties, but the line drawing the border is well known. This article is about monuments within those borders (I know because I was there when it was first created). As for sources dealing with the legality and whatnot of the Republic of Kosovo, you may consult the article about the Republic of Kosovo. Also, it was proposed earlier that the change from Republic of Kosovo to Kosovo be made based on the "sensitivity" "our Serbian friends" and we never agreed to it. Furthermore, the argument presented to defend this change "While I recognise the Republic of Kosovo, many don't, and the monuments exist regardless of whether one recognises Kosovo's independence or not." doesn't really contain any value and I could as well present to defend my edit. - MicMicMic (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Following the split consensus between articles Kosovo/Republic of Kosovo/Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, it was agree to use only relevant articles in linking. So, in article about diplomatic relation, we must use article Republic of Kosovo. In article about geographical determinant, we must use article Kosovo, as Kosovo is the region disputed between two parties. So, monuments from Kosovo are protected by two republics, and only relevant neutral solution is to use only link Kosovo, as per everything stated. Also, all of those monuments (except "Newborn") are there long before both Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and some will probably be there even after those two. So, there are not a single real reason to use Republic of Kosovo instead Kosovo. Kosovo is location, and Republic of Kosovo political entity on that location. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. Monuments in Kosovo are protected by the republic of Kosovo with a few exceptions where some monuments have some autonomy. That makes the Republic of Kosovo very relevant to these monuments. As to who SHOULD be protecting these monuments, that is another question. You might argue that the Republic of Serbia controls/some Orthodox churches but a)there are other kinds of monuments in Kosovo and those are just exceptions. "Also, all of those monuments (except "Newborn") are there long before both Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and some will probably be there even after those two." Do I sense propaganda? "Kosovo is location, and Republic of Kosovo political entity on that location." The Republic of Kosovo administers and protects monuments within its borders, which are the borders that we are discussing. - MicMicMic (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are monuments (not only New Born) within the Republic of Kosovo that have been created after the declaration of independence (that some choose not to accept), sometimes from the institutions of the Republic of Kosovo. As such, they certainly deserve to be discussed as monuments in the Republic of Kosovo. We also have the special case of New Born which was erected on the day when the independence of Kosovo was declared, to celebrate this independence. - MicMicMicf (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that you dont understand me. It is not optional for us to talk about it. Monuments in Kosovo are ALSO protected by Republic of Serbia. You should understand that here on wiki we follow this guideline. Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo. Also, North Kosovo is the location of a number of monuments, while RoK have minimal influence there. It is standard thing, that you can see an ALL relevant article. We never link disputed political entities, only geographical. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If a monument has protection under law (whether it be Serbian or Kosovo law) both laws should be cited. This automatically means that links to "Republic of Kosovo" as well as "Kosovo" must be cited, because the monuments cease to be mere geographical phenomena and are important legal subjects. If one wanted to be cruel, one might insert the Serbian protected monument classifications against those monuments which were destroyed or severely damaged by Serbian forces in 1999 - but I really would not recommend this.Markd999 (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right, actually. The only problem I have with this is that even if the monuments are protected by Serbian law, Kosovo and the monuments within it are still administered by the Republic of Kosovo. I'm really not trying to be nationalistic, but with the exception of monuments in northern Kosovo and those with some autonomy, Serbian law doesn't really count within the borders of the Republic of Kosovo, so Serbian law isn't really relevant, at least not today (please reply to this, I'm very willing to discuss it with you). - MicMicMic (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks like i was no understood. I was talking about the first word in the article, and not about article content. In the article, you may see that i added both designations, as it should be like that, but first word should be only Kosovo, as it contains both political entities within. Now,i must correct your POV. Serbian law IS very much relevant, per de jure (and de facto in the North) government of Kosovo. Now, it would be good to talk about first sentence. I do not agree with that, as that is strong POV pushing, and guidelines are against it, so i will remove RoK and leave only Kosovo.The rest can be solved in article. --WhiteWriter^speaks 01:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I really doubt you're understanding anything anybody is saying here. I was talking about the first sentence, too. The fact there EXISTS a Serbian law about monuments in Kosovo still doesn't make them relevant as there could be a German law that protects Serbian monuments but it still wouldn't matter because German law enforcement doesn't have any jurisdiction in Germany; the same goes with the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Kosovo. North Kosovo isn't under the exclusive rule of law of neither party and since it's only a part of the Republic of Kosovo and the Republic of Serbia (as it is contested), it is the exception rather than the rule. Now this isn't a point of view and seeing it as such a is a fallacy. - MicMicMic (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Republic of Kosovo is disputed political entity, and it cannot be compared with Germany. Wast number of coutries does not recognise RoK existance, and we must represent that. Therefore, again, Serbian law IS VERY MUCH important and relevant, despite POV ideas. Until (if) situation and Kosovo integrity is undisputed, we will not use RoK as a main list. On wiki and i real life, Republic of Kosovo is not normal sovereign state like Germany or France. And it must not be presented as such, as that would be breach of NPOV. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Except the fact that it is disputed doesn't play a role in this aspect. Law of enforcement of the Republic of Kosovo is present around these monuments and law enforcement of the Republic of Serbia is not.

"Wast number of coutries does not recognise RoK existance, and we must represent that." - well then represent it, but don't deny the fact that they are managed by the the Republic of Kosovo (the legitimacy of which may be disputed). You can There was a Kosovo-note that you added to another article so you might as well add it here to represent that it is a disputed territory.

And anyway, more that half the members of the UN have already recognized the Republic of Kosovo, so what you said isn't true.

PLEASE stay on topic! - MicMicMic (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is topic. Article name is "Monuments of Kosovo", and not Monuments of "Republic of Kosovo". We are talking about both republics. I fixed that, and added kosovo note. We do not care about law enforcement's around this monuments, but their history and encyclopedic value. Those are not only monuments of the since 2008 republic, but also monuments of Serbia. In one, territory of Kosovo. Undisputed, Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo, as agreed on Talk:Kosovo (see FAQ). --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

We did care about it until the moment you apparently noticed that it doesn't suit your cause. You're the one who actually brought up the discussion on WHO PROTECTS THESE MONUMENTS and that's done by law and law enforcement. So why are you backing up from that discussion now? This is nonsense. And YES, we do actually care about law enforcement around these monuments and not only their history as that, too, is an encyclopedic value of them. Just because you personally don't like to talk or read about that subject, many people do. They're not monuments since 2008 but since 2008 they're on the Republic of Kosovo, disputed republic or not. - MicMicMic (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

But, all of those are mentioned in article, and should be as it is, even more. But, no, i didnt brought up who protect it as a argument in this discussion, that would be nonscence for me to do. Please, read carefully my post. In all other we DO NOT use RoK in the lede. Here we do, as that is ONLY RoK institution, and everything else would be wrong. Do you get it now? --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"So, monuments from Kosovo are protected by two republics, and only relevant neutral solution is to use only link Kosovo, as per everything stated." - That is you bringing these monuments' protection to the discussion. That means you are lying and lies shall not be tolerated. Because of that, I cannot take your arguments into consideration.

I will also have to say that is is very hard to understand you from the way you write. Please be clearer! - MicMicMic (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Kosovo, an article about a territory. It is not about Republic of Kosovo, the semi-recognised state. If you want that article, write down Monuments of Republic of Kosovo. It's that simple, per WP:TITLE. And one more time.
Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo I would also tell you that revers in ARBMAC area is strictly forbidden. This was my last restore here, so please, dont push you POV anymore, or i will be forced to ask for help to protect NPOV on this article. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"This article is about Kosovo, an article about a territory. It is not about Republic of Kosovo, the semi-recognised state. If you want that article, write down Monuments of Republic of Kosovo." - Finally an actual reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicMicMic (talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There should be only one article about Monuments of Kosovo and it should follow WP:NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, there is an existing version called (in the title and the lede) "Monuments of Kosovo", which is how it should be. I am afraid, Whitewriter and Antidiskriminator, that your inconsistent arguments look simply like a vandalistic attempt to stop this article from getting developed properly, so that all significant monuments are recorded. Riedlmayer has published (or is about to publish) a book on the Ottoman monuments damaged or destroyed by the Serbian forces in 1998/1999, most of which were protected monuments under Serbian law. I don't see a problem about putting in the protection under Serbian (as well as "Republic of Kosovo") law, either for Serbian Orthodox monuments or for Islamic/Albanian ones. But unless we seek a compromise based on what is standing today, we will end up , potentially, with photographs of around 500 monuments protected by Serbian law and the damage done by the Serbian government; and a lot of photographs of Serbian Orthodox Churches etc damaged by Albanians in June-September 1999 and in March 2004 (none of them, I think, during the conflict itself). If we don't stick as far as possible to what exists now, Serbians are shooting themselves in their own foot. When one "offers a finger, and they take the arm", the people who refuse a compromise normally lose out in the endMarkd999 (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If article is going to be developed in a way where Serbian monuments will be built on Albanian foundations 1000 years before Albania, and where imaginary Kosovo-Byzantine style will replace Serbo-Byzantine, then yes. I will give my best to stop such a "progress".

Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.
ARBMAC final decision

Also, you constant mentioning of "monuments destroyed by Serbian forces" will not help the atmosphere and usefulness of this discussion. Serbian monuments destroyed by Albanians is by far longer list. But, all of this is unrelated to the subject of this thread, so i will not speak about it here anymore. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it is very hard to deal with this inconsistency of arguments. It doesn't make any sense. And I don't understand how WhiteWriter can preach so much about NPOV and then make comments like "...in a way where Serbian monuments will be built on Albanian foundations 1000 years before Albania." Look, this isn't the place to show us how old the Serbian nation really is. We read this History of Serbia and we get it. Monuments destroyed by Serbian forces aren't mentioned here constantly. In fact, the last mention of them brought up a very good argument why it doesn't depend on the POV to understand how unimportant Serbian law is in regards to monuments of Kosovo. PLEASE, carefully read other user's comments before you go accusing everybody of pushing their POV. This isn't getting us anywhere and I'm starting to think that your comments are deliberately nonconstructive, unlike those of Administrator and Markd999. - MicMicMic (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Patriarchate of Pec

I've moved the Patriarchate to the "Monasteries" Section and added a link (also it is absurd to call the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate the Patriarchate of Peja/Pec, though not absurd to talk of the municipality of Peja/Pec.

To my surprise I find the main article on the Patriarchate called "The Patriarchate of Peć" rather than the "Patriarchate of Peč" as I had expected, so I have left this spelling for the moment. But surely it is wrong? Should I correct? Markd999 (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I will not edit it to be "Patriarchate of Peja/Pec" until I hear your reply to my arguments, but I think that because the name of the Patriarchate derives directly from the name of the location where it is based, it should be "Patriarchate of Peja/Pec". -MicMicMic (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Patriarchate of Peć is common name on English.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that is a good reason. "The Patriarchate of Peć" may be a common name in English but the place is still called Peja by its inhabitants and it's only reasonable to call it "The Patriarchate of Peja/Peć". - MicMicMic (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you, MIcMicMic, but if you look at the Ahtisaari Plan, which reflects long-standing UN practice, it refers to all municipalities by their Albanian and Serbian names, but to the Patriarchate only by its Serbian name. You will find that Noel Malcolm refers to the Patriarchate only by its Serbian name. Wikipedia already has an article (to which this one should link) referring to it only by its Serbian name, so if you want to change existing Wikipedia practice you should propose a change there since it is the main article. I think there is a law passed by the Kosovo Assembly whose Engliah-language version again uses only the Serbian name for the Patriarchate (but I have not been able to locate it in a three-minute search). In the last half hour I have made edits to at least four Kosovo geographical names where the Serbians have put in only their version and not the Albanian one; it is bad enough trying to deal with unnecessary expressions of Serb nationalism without having to deal with unnecessary expressions of Albanian nationalism. Markd999 (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read this comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not about nationalism, it's about correctness. I think you are right on this matter so far. - MicMicMic (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

@MicMicMic the name of the institution is "Patriarchate of Peć" it is not "Patriarchate of" + <var1> Pixius talk 09:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Byzantine Monuments

I propose to re-name this Mediaeval Monuments (this article should be about what stands today). Present text reads:

"In the Late Antiquity and beginning of Middle Ages, 5th to 6th century, Dardania as part of Kosovo was under the Byzantine Empire ruled by the Dardanian origin byzantine emperor, Justinian I.[5] During this time, many destroyed Dardanian monuments were rebuilt, and also new Christian buildings were built.[8][9]

From the 7th to 11th century Kosovo was under the Bulgarian emperor Samuil. In 1054 the Christian religious views were finally separated into Catholic and Orthodox.[10] At this time, the territory of Kosovo was under the Orthodox Byzantine empire, therefore art, culture and architecture were influenced by the western and eastern Byzantine Church.[11][5] In the Byzantine Orthodox construction, worth-mentioning is the Bishopric of Prizren and Lipjan which from 1019 were under the jurisdiction of Archbishopric of Ohri.[4] During the Nemanjid[12] occupation in 1343-47[13], many churches and basilicas remaining from the Paleo-Christian period and the following centuries were adapted and transformed into objects of Orthodox cult.[4][5] Besides, many other castles, basilicas and monuments were built and later converted into sacral monuments.[5]

Nowadays, due to these invasions influences, many byzantine, Christian catholic and orthodox Serbian cult buildings coexist.[5] These monuments contain different cultural and architectural layers.[5] The Medieval Period in Kosovo mostly covers the construction of monasteries and churches."

I propose to edit to:

"In the sixth century Justinian I, himself of Dardanian origin, reasserted Byzantine control over Dardania after the Hunnish invasions and engaged in an extensive building/rebuilding programme in the region. From 839 to the early thirteenth century the region fell under Bulgarian control, with intermittent periods when the Byzantines were able to reassert their rule. From the early thirteenth century, until 1355, Kosovo was part of the Serbian Empire under the Nemanjid dynasty; and it was in this period that most existing mediaeval Christian buildings were built".

This has the advantages of (a) being short; (b) being NPOV; and (c) removing the implication that Tsar Samuil lived for 400 years. I would link this section to "History of Kosovo" and "Mediaeval Monuments of Kosovo", an existing - I suppose probably Serbian Orthodox Church-originated article - which may or may not be NPOV but certainly seems technically good.

An underlying problem in this article is the repeated references to suggest that most Nemanjid foundations were on existing church sites; in other words, that "Albanian/Catholic" churches were replaced with "Serbian/Orthodox" ones. I think this problem comes from the sources used for the article, which have their own agenda, rather than from any intentions of the creators of the article. Rather to my surprise, the sources cited for Gračanica seem to have some Yugoslav-period archaeological evidence to back up this claim. Otherwise, I am very doubtful about (a) the relevance; and (b) the facts about rebuilding on old church sites. Rebuilding was commonplace throughout the period, and it would not be surprising, but I doubt whether it is of much if any relevance to the article. If Kosovo was ecclesiastically subject to the Archbishop of Ohrid from 1018, as the present artcile concedes, and the Great Schism did not occur until 1054, it is totally anachronistic to say that churches founded before 1018 were "Catholic" or "Orthodox", let alone "Albanian" or anything else. As a Protestant (the result of another Great Schism) I too say with Catholics and Orthodox each Sunday the Nicene Creed: "I believe in one holy, catholic, apostolic and othodox church"

Markd999 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs)

Clock tower and Sahat kulla (not Sahat tower)

While there are three instances of what are be called clock towers in English listed as Sahat towers, that doesn't really make any sense, because neither a common name for them in Albanian, nor a translation of their name into English, so I think they should be called Sahat kullas or Clock towers. - MicMicMic (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I prefer Sahat Kullas. Happy to include a Serbian name for NPOV. Markd999 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you should not do that! If common name is Sahat kula, then it should be only that in article! Only that is neutral, as you should not set up the Serbian/Albanian version, but the English one, or most COMMON. --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Letnica

Shouldn't the (Catholic) Church of the Black Madonna in Letnica be in the article somewhere, although it doesn't fit easily into the present structure? The present building is admittedly fairly recent (and in my view not very distinguished architecturally) but there has been a church there since at least 1485; and the statue of the Black Madonna is at least 300 years old. Since its allegedly miraculous properties attracted both Muslims and Serbian Orthodox, as well as Catholics, it deserves a mention. As does the fact that this is where Mother Theresa received her calling to become a nun. Markd999 (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hamams and Turbes

Hamams are spelt variously in the article as "hamams" and "hammams". "Hamam" is now the usual spelling so I suggest that this be used. A turbe is indeed a mausoleum but since we are only dealing here with Islamic ones, it is normal in scholarly usage to use the word "turbe" (usually but not always without the Turkish "ü". By the way, "Sultan Murati" should be replaced by "Sultan Murat plus his number which I forget off-hand. Markd999 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Tekkes

I think the word should be explained in English, although I always find this difficult to do. But surely the one example of the Rifa'i tekke is not the only one, or the most important one, in Kosovo. I know that Prizren has a Bektashi sheh, so it must have a Bektashi tekke (and, of course, the Bektashis seem to have played a central place in the conversion of - most - Alabanians to Islam). I suspect that this tekke has a longer history than the Rifa'i one, Markd999 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Names of the cities

For the sake of article neutrality, names of the cities are written both in Albanian and Serbian. Since you want that neutrality, please do not erase the Albanian names and leave only the Serbian ones. Do refer to OSCE names! Fjollac (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not a neutrality issue. City names are written on English language. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Are city names as Ðakovica or Peć written in English? No. Therefore they are written in both languages. Please check http://www.osce.org/kosovo/43753 since you are such an active fan of the topic :) Fjollac (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Destruction of the monuments during the war of 1999

Please do not minimize the systematic damage of the monuments in Kosovo caused by Serbian forces, especially in the last war of 1999! Do not write Yugoslavian forces instead of Serbian forces, unless you refer to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or FRY which should not be confused with Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia also known as only Yugoslavia. From 1992 to 2000, some countries, including the United States, referred to the FRY as "Serbia and Montenegro". As a result, there were only Serbian forces damaging the monuments, no other ex-Yugoslavians. Fjollac (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monuments of Kosovo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150330044323/http://www.inyourpocket.com/kosovo/Gjakova to http://www.inyourpocket.com/kosovo/Gjakova
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130316035117/http://www.akademiaevolucion.com/muzeu-i-kosoves/ to http://www.akademiaevolucion.com/muzeu-i-kosoves/

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) 06:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gracanica 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)