Talk:Kosovo

NPOV

The first sentence of the subject is misleading. To make it sound less misleading it should be country with limited recognition in Southeastern Europe instead of country in Southeastern Europe with limited recognition. Stating country in Southeastern Europe with limited recognized might mislead the reader who is not familiar with the history of the area into reaching the conclusion that the subject is a country. Stating country with limited recognition in Southeastern Europe avoids that. Who agrees with my statement?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katharinabuchholz/2023/02/17/kosovo--beyond-where-the-un-disagrees-on-recognition-infographic/ 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:D914:CEF0:F24D:5D78 (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your statement enough to agree one way or another, a country with limited recognition is still a country. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is still a country. My question was about the first sentence of the subject. It makes more sense to write the end of the sentence as country with limited recognition in Southeastern Europe rather than country in Southeastern Europe with limited recognition. Is my question clearer? 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:6493:D35:2CE8:6F77 (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2024

please change formatting of capital (erroneous tags)

from: Pristina^a

to: Pristina Anvish (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: The superscript a is a footnote, not part of the name. One could make the argument that the footnotes need to be better constructed in the infobox, but that will require a separate edit request. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the intro, for the second sentence, before it mentions borders, please add that it is situated on the Balkan Peninsula (I.e. “It is situated on the Balkan Peninsula and is bordered by by Albania to the southwest, Montenegro to the west, Serbia to the north and east and North Macedonia to the southeast”). Multiple sources have included Kosovo as part of the Balkans. https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/kosovo-guidebook.pdf 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:E879:81B4:EADF:A345 (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The location of Kosovo is already described in the first sentence as being in Southeast Europe, which is precise enough for the lead section. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024

There is a part in this Wikipedia page that says that the Albanians pilgrimaged Novi Pazar, Sjenica and Pristina. Novi Pazar and Sjenica have links that take you to their respective articles, while Pristina does not. This is the change i want to make; to link Pristina to its respective article. Ieditwikipedda (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Pristina is already linked to in the upper article. We create a link only every first time a city gets mentioned, otherwise articles would be hard to read. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Albanian population growth in Kosovo in the lead

@AlexBachmann Per your revert, why is it "UNDUE and NPOV"? The topic is already discussed in the article's body. The sudden mention of "Albanian" in the lead through the "Albanian Renaissance" might confuse readers. First mentioning the substantial growth of the Albanian population helps provide context, making it clearer how it grew to become a central hub of Albanian history. Azor (talk). 15:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not. Since when do we mention population growth in the lead of the article?

Western Kosovo (Dukagjin Plain) has always had Albanian presence and that is shown in numerous Ottoman defters (per Pulaha, Selami). Even in certain mines located in the the real "Kosovo plain", such as Novo Brdo, Albanian presence is well-documented. Even if you contest this there's more to the story. If you want your information added, we may as well add the fact that many Serbs left Kosovo during the Great Serbian Migration, and Albanians naturally filled up that vacuum. At this point, let's consider adding the Yugoslav Colonization Programme of Kosovo to the lead of the article. Not to mention that almost every city had a substantial Serbian population before the Kosovo War in 1999. It is simply wrong to add it to the lead and create the impression, that the Ottoman reforms exorbitantly changed Kosovo's demographic. It did, in some degree, but still, Kosovo retained a significant Serbian minority until the end of the 20th century.

Your addition creates a wrong impression and is simply irrelevant to the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the most important information on the article. If one were to add your proposed content, it would be simply the start of an "adding content" contest. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that it's WP:UNDUE for the article to mention historical demographics in the lead, but if editors decided via consensus that it should mention them, then it should mention that a)there were no Slavs anywhere in Kosovo before the Middle Ages b)the first Slavs who settled in the area were the ancestors of the Gorani and Serbs appeared in the 12th century in Kosovo b)Albanians increased in eastern Kosovo during the Ottoman era, while in western Kosovo Albanians, Gorani, Serbs lived c)Serbs who originally came from Montenegro largely replaced local Serbs in eastern and northern Kosovo. As these four points would require a small section for a balanced overview, it would create an even more unbalanced lead section. As such, it's probably for the best that all such details are discussed in the main article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The statement under point A is factually inaccurate. This addition by Azorzal was significant as it marked a major shift in the region, making it far from a "minor detail." The arrival of the Slavs in the 6th and 7th centuries has already been noted, and that suffices. Anything beyond this is unnecessary and it's a matter of balance, taste and not forgetting that the lede is not about demographics. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no. If the Ottoman policies were that significant, all cities in Kosovo wouldn't have had such a large Serbian presence until 1999. That automatically disqualifies it from the lead, per WP:IRRELEVANCE. Otherwise, we would have to mention every other notable demographic change in the lead, like I've mentioned. It doesn't work like that though and it's going nowhere. This is what I mean by "content adding" contest. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The mention of this demographic shift is not intended to diminish the historical presence of Albanians in Kosovo. At present, the lead makes no reference to Albanians until the abrupt statement that "Kosovo was the center of the Albanian Renaissance", leaving a clear narrative gap. The growth of the Albanian population during the Ottoman period represents a critical historical development, similar to the Slavic settlements in the early Middle Ages, and warrants similar inclusion. Highlighting this shift provides essential context. Azor (talk). 01:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

During the Middle Ages, Albanians formed a significant component of the demographic population of Kosova. In fact, it would seem they formed the majority in certain areas, particularly Rrafshi i Dukagjinit, or the western half of Kosova. Significant Albanian communities were also recorded throughout eastern Kosova and the Drenica region. The line that some of the editors here wish to include places too much importance on Ottoman policies when in reality, the shift wasn’t as significant as some wish to claim. As such, all of that context would need to be included in the lead, which might make it too long.

Furthermore, if we’re talking about the shift in Ottoman policies, then we should also talk about the shift during the Serbian periods of control, both in the Middle Ages (Slavicisation of Albanians, conversion of Catholic Churches etc) and later on (Yugoslav colonisation, genocide of Albanians in the early 1900’s, constant ethnic cleansing policies etc). Now, if we add everything, the lead may very well become far too big. Botushali (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

How does a group go from not being mentioned once in the lead about a region to suddenly having a renaissance in that same region? Azor (talk). 13:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I was not in favor of the request when users propsed to remove that the coalition of the Battle of Kosovo also consisted of Albanians. Suppressing that and wondering where "Albanian" has gone in the lead is really something. Anyways, your question doesn't really overrule Wikipedia policies and the fact that a consensus here is literally light years away. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

My point is not specifically about the word 'Albanian,' but rather the absence of any particular Albanian history or events in Kosovo leading up to the 'Albanian Renaissance.' How did we suddenly get to that point if not primarily through significant population growth? Azor (talk). 21:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

We have many scholars pointing out that the Albanian Urheimat was located in Kosovo and today's southern Serbia before Slavic invasions, meaning the regions of Dardania and Moesia. It may be more convenient in the article Origin of Albanians, but I absolutely would not oppose including it here if that solves your issue. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

As Alex pointed out above, Dardania (along with Dibra-Mati-Mirdita) are the two regions that are considered to be the places of origin of Proto-Albanian as a language (and as such the Albanians). In the Middle Ages, the Dukagjini family controlled large swathes of land in Kosova. As mentioned previously, Albanians are mentioned as being a dominant element in western Kosova and parts of central Kosova, and making up a significant portion of certain parts of eastern Kosova. These are all important notes that prove that the whole “Ottoman policies = Albanians in Kosova” myth is quite overblown.

Albanians have always been a major demographic factor in Kosova, from antiquity to today. My point here is that including the line on how the percentage of Albanians seemingly grew during Ottoman control is WP:UNDUE on its own. To paint the full picture, you need to talk about Kosova’s importance as part of the nucleus of the Proto-Albanian population. Then, you also need to talk about their strong and historically-documented presence in Kosova during the Middle Ages even during Serbian rule, when parts of the population also underwent Slavicisation. You should also bring up the fact that the Bulgarians were in the region before the Serbs, who only began settling the region later during the times of the Serbian kingdoms.

Then, you can also talk about how from the 1900’s up until Kosova’s independence, Serbian and Yugoslav politics have deliberately attempted to lower or eradicate the presence of Albanians in Kosova (genocide, colonisation program, settling of non-native Serbs and Montenegrins whose ancestors form most of Kosova’s Serbian population, ethnic cleansing, land theft etc) and yet Serbs still do not form even 10% of Kosova’s population. IMO, all of this is far too lengthy and long for the lead, and is better kept in the body. So either the full picture, or none of it to prevent non-neutral POV’s from being reflected. Botushali (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Slavic archaeological evidence has been found in the territory of modern-day Kosovo dating back to the early Middle Ages. Asserting that "it's Bulgarians" or that "they were there before" lacks scientific rigor and it's not the kind of language or thinking usually found on Wikipedia, in my experience. Unlike the speculative theory about the origin of Proto-Albanian, which remains a mere hypothesis — one alternative placing this population in modern-day Romania — what Azorzal highlighted is grounded in factual evidence and statistical data. This approach prioritizes verifiable information without engaging in original research or making claims about their alleged presence in ancient times. Even if that is true, though it's a significant uncertainty, the modern-day population has virtually no connection to those people, apart from, at best, a tenuous linguistic link. We should not engage in WP:OR. There is no basis for comparison here. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is engaging in WP:OR, as in recent years, a scientific consensus has continuously emerged on the origin of the Albanians. Your incorrect claim the modern-day population has virtually no connection to those people, apart from, at best, a tenuous linguistic link… suggests that you should do more reading on the topic. Aside from a strong linguistic link (literally why it’s called Proto-Albanian…), there’s genetic and cultural links to. The paternal haplogroups and admixture of modern Albanians matches up with samples found from Paleo-Balkan populations (namely Illyrians more so than Thracians), much more than any other Balkan population. Culturally, many aspects of Albanian culture and mythology are believed by scholars to have a Paleo-Balkan origin. Before making such baseless and incorrect claims, I suggest you read a little more on the origin of the Albanians and aspects of their culture. The Romania hypothesis is quickly falling out of popularity, too. The contact zone between proto-Alb and proto-Romanian is believed to be situated somewhere in eastern Dardania.

Nonetheless, none of that is the point here, I just don’t want your false claims to go undisputed. Asserting that "it's Bulgarians" - well, actually, we know it’s the Bulgarians, because the Bulgarian empire conquered Kosova long before any Serbian state did and held it for a while. The Goranis are closer to Bulgarians than they are to Kosova’s Serbians, most of whom are descended from Serbs brought in from Montenegro and other parts of Serbia. Additionally, data from defters and even chrysobulls on the significant presence of Albanians in Kosova during the Middle Ages cannot be denied.

So, again, unless you want to add the full picture, which will require a long, lengthy and tiresome discussion to establish a version everyone is happy with, although it will still be too long for a lead, AzorzaI’s addition stands against WP:NPOV and offers WP:UNDUE weight to Ottoman policies. Botushali (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside forum-style mini-essays on (what appears to be) ethnic pride and interpretations of history, it's still just a theory and theories about ancient times are not important for lede, while the suggested edit is per facts, sources, bibliograhy and it's a sort of shift which is quite important for the history of the region, plus, it’s nothing unfamiliar within the context of the Ottoman Empire and its policies. I'll let other editors join in. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of what world view one might insist sticking onto, what we can agree on is the fact that there's no consensus and the current state of the article will stand. I'll let other editors join in. That would be WP:CANVASS if not done properly. Wiki isn't based on democracy but rather on facts. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Fellow editor Alex, the quoted sentence simply means: let's wait for additional comments. : ) Take care and thank you for your illuminating comments. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Take care and thank you for your illuminating comments Absolutely no problem. Take care too : ) AlexBachmann (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)