Talk:Medieval Monuments in Kosovo

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

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Medieval Monuments in 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian name is not related with the article[edit]

The site https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/724 doesnt include the albanian name. These medieval monuments in kosovo are visible, clearly and indisputable serbian orthodox And in the article says what albanians tried to destroy these monuments The Un site says "Autonomous province of Kosovo" (Kosovo and metohia) So its visible the not related albanian name need to be deleted or putted in second position, because these monuments are serbian (and even UN recognises) John L. Booth (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:JohnGotten.[reply]

:They're in Kosovo, where the official langauges are Albanian and Serbian. THere's no reason to prefer one over the other in order, so it might as well be alphabetic. The damage during the civil war is immaterial to this discussion. Your UNesco link doesn't include names in either language, so that's irrelevant as well.Pipsally (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:Orchomen. :Kosovo is not recognised in the Unesco(and it will never be), and is proved in the site, Albanian and Serbian language are official only in existing, but is not like glued, albanian mosques in kosovo will not have serbian name(because its not serbian) like the same serbian orthodox churches will not have albanian name (because its not albanian). Its not only damaged in the civil war, but too in recent albanian arrest against serbs in 2007 and 2012. The albanization name in this its like to put an nazi aryan name in a WW2 damaged synagogue in poland. The name is not in alphabetic order, its not intuitive, but yes by priority, that’s why the Serbian should come first. I am agreed the removal of both serbian and albanian name in the translation of the text "Medieval Monuments in Kosovo", or at least, the albanian name, because is not relatedJohn L. Booth (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:JohnGotten. :@Pipsally: Do you agree at least to the removal of both Serbian and Albanian names as they are not related with the UNESCO site? John L. Booth (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:JohnGotten. :: No, I think they should stay per established consensus on the page.Pipsally (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:Orchomen. :::No, was none "per established consensus on the page", only edit-warring of kosovars sockpuppets, If you continue to respond in a manipulative and malicious manner, I will call an administrator to speak about, as you prove to be a waste of time and a delay in making ethical decisions about Wikipedia policies. John L. Booth (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:JohnGotten.[reply]

Ad hominems remarks aren't going to help resolve this. It seems to me that three monuments are in Kosovo, where the dominant language is Albanian so that would probably guide me to listing that language first. Obviously Serbian has equal status, so if both native language translations are going to be listed alphabetical ordering seems as good as any.
Anyhow, you and I clearly aren't going to agree between ourselves, so let's wait to see what others think. Pipsally (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:Orchomen.[reply]

:::::: What I said is not ad hominem, but a personal overview of what is going on.

This claim that "the dominant language is Albanian, therefore, everything that is Serbian must be written in Albanian first" is malicious and ethically wrong.
Example: Nazi Germany invades Poland (a country with a Polish language - a slavic language), exterminates the Poles and commits genocide, and now Poland is a linguistically dominant German.
Now, if Germany won the second world war (and which nearly it won), everything that is Polish or Jewish would be rewritten or would be a priority in German language (even if it is not German).
If a person thinks it is ethical to put the other language in the creation of a language unrelated to him, he is an accomplice or supporter of Nazism or a nazist. that is, an immoral, criminal person
The difference between the German case of the Albanians is that the Nazis (Albanian terrorist - KLA and NATO who violated the UN treaties - like Nazi Germany (aka who violated League of Nations)) won and are behind a historic genocide of serbs since the Ottoman Empire.
And ethnic genocide is not enough. So now they want to commit a cultural genocide and, as they failed to blow up or burn down the Serbian churches and build Albanian mosques, they are now gradually trying to appropriate something that is not theirs. This is a tenebrous cultural theft.
Serbs at least do not put the Serbian name in Albanian mosques, as they know they are not theirs.
So why put Albanian names in historic Serbian Orthodox churches (which are ethnic Serbs like the Voski decani that was prepared to be made by serb king Stefan Dečanski)?????
Why does this disgusting nazi anti-serb revisionist double standard rules the wikipedia?
Every day I see that this wikipedia is not free and much less valid as a source, but rather in bad faith and prejudiced financied by foreigners and lobbyists, nobody is cares with the truth here.
I'm really glad that wikipedia is seen as a bad joke by the academy and by people who are aware of what they are reading.
Anyway, thats why I am not in favor of putting both names, because they are not related to WP:RS. Or at least put the Serbian (because it's theirs)
I respect your right of opinion and your opinion itself, even if i disagree.
So I’m waiting for other users to give their opinion... John L. Booth (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:JohnGotten.[reply]

::::::: I'm not certain accusing everyone who disagrees with you if being a Nazi helps your case, but let's see what people think.Pipsally (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:Orchomen.[reply]

Location[edit]

There's a long history of edit warring on this article in reference to the location. The overall and IMO best version seems to be Kosovo, as this is what it is today, but there's are also edits to Serbia, clearly incorrect, and the Autonomous Region of Kosovo. What should be the consensus?Pipsally (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the country of origin listed (Serbia) on the UNESCO should be put as the location. This is an article about a cultural organisation's list and it shouldn't be overshadowed by de facto and de jure standing of certain territories. As this is an article about the "Medieval Monuments in Kosovo" made by UNESCO with UNESCO listing the country of origin as Serbia then Serbia should be the country of location. Tho, I suppose a footnote explaining the situation should be considered. ILIKESHIPSalot (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UNESCO recognition[edit]

@Pipsally: @El C: Not sure about these edits. [1] [2] UNESCO hasn't recognized Kosovo, and accordingly, the link used in the infobox describes the sites as being located in Serbia. [3] Why was this altered last week after so many years? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Amanuensis Balkanicus: Well for starters those edits are reversions of the JohnGotten sock farm. But, that aside, looking back it's not true to say that it was 'altered after so many years'. There's plenty of needless edit warring over this, and indeed you'll see above on the talk page that I flagged this for discussion already when the reverse we're made, though noone cared to do so at that point.
In my view what's clear is that the sites are in Kosovo, so why do we need to get involved in the status of Kosovo beyond that in this infobox? UNESCO is not a definitive source here, even allowing for the WHS info box.
The best thing might well be to go back to how the article actually was for about 80% of its existence and remove the location from the infobox all together. There's a clue in the article name about the location after all...Pipsally (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:Orchomen.[reply]
I don't think the recognition of Kosovo by UNESCO itself in connection with these sites —sites which they added in 2004, four years before the independence declaration, anyway, right?— is that germane to that descriptor. Kosovo exists as a partially-independent state, so that's what that parameter says about the location of these sites. Calling something within its "borders" Serbian, is a recipe for ethno-national discord.
I also think it's worth emphasizing that nearly 100 UN members recognize Kosovo's independence, compared to the 6-to-3 for other partially-recognized states that immediately come to mind, like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. And, yes, I am aware that UN-member recognition is not a perfect metric, seeing as 14 UN members recognize Taiwan, whose independence is, qualitatively, far more well-regarded than that of Kosovo (and for many decades), but that formal discrepancy has more to do with appeasing China than anything else.
Anyway, while I am precluded from making content decisions in my capacity as an admin, I do believe that WP:ACDS provide me some leeway in so far as ruling on matters which I deem to be WP:BLUESKY in nature. If my stance here is still contested after this explanation, seeking clarification from the Committee is the appeal option I'd recommend. El_C 22:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me that an explanatory footnote about UNESCO's position (per the citation) could serve as a working compromise. Thoughts? El_C 23:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support proposals made by El_C and Pipsally Blocked sock:Orchomen.. Either add an explanatory footnote about UNESCO's position or remove the location from the infobox. In any case, it is clear that the momuments are in Kosovo, a partially-recognized state that is claimed by Serbia as part of its territory. Edit warring over such things is frivolous, as the status of the Kosovo-Serbia conflict is well-known. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::::maybe the footnote is the best solution for a stable version that will prevent endless readding from either side of the argument and be sufficient for the majority.Pipsally (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:Orchomen.[reply]

A footnote stating that UNESCO hasn't recognized Kosovo and lists the state party as Serbia may be useful given the context. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medieval_Monuments_in_Kosovo&oldid=1212454153"