Talk:Kosovo is Serbia

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

Remove[edit]

Can you discus you POV removals, like, ever? If you have any comment, talk. Everything is sourced and cited. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to fix deliberate misuse of sources. This source talks about a single demonstration. You have repeatedly reintroduced a much more dramatic claim:

Despite the fact that the Polish government recognized Kosovo's independence from Serbia, dozens of demonstrations and pickets take place, with the countless number of support actions across the country, with banners and cheers-themed stadiums. On 18. February, over the most representative streets of the capital marching demonstration occurred, proclaiming support for the remaining of Kosovo within Serbia

Just another Balkan POV-push which is not supported by sources. That, and the bad English, is why it gets removed. bobrayner (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, same info. Please, stop with this POv pushing agenda, as you dont have even a single reason to support this addition. This is nothing more then a way to minimise event. --WhiteWriterspeaks 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing a new source. It's really scraping the barrel, though - are you sure you want to use an editorial copied from autonom.pl? (I note that the latest thing on their Twitter feed is a glowing eulogy of Eugène Terre'Blanche, who took a strong white stand against blacks generally, and specifically "Nelson Mandela, jeden z autorów upadku Południowej Afryki."). Still, if you really have to have a nationalist source... bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response outside Serbia[edit]

"Despite the fact that the Polish government recognized Kosovo's independence from Serbia, some Poles organized marches in support of Kosovo je Srbija. [1][2][unreliable source?][3] Banners reading "Kosovo is Serbia" and Serbian flags have been displayed by football fans during matches.[4] There is registered organization in Poland called "Polacy na rzecz serbskiego Kosowa" ("Poles for the cause of Serbian Kosovo"). [5][unreliable source?][2][6][unreliable source?] Organization's goals are to promote strong positive predisposition and interest toward the culture, history, and people of Serbia and to help Serbian Kosovars by any means necessary. Delije supporters of Red Star Belgrade displayed huge banner "Śląsk zawsze Polski, Kosowo zawsze Serbskie" ("Silesia always Polish, Kosovo always Serbian"), during a football game in 2011." Isn't this just what the previous section was talking about removing? Even if this is to be put back in the article it needs a complete rewrite into actual English. --Khajidha (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Well done. bobrayner (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ News 24: Warsaw will support Serbian Kosovo
  2. ^ a b Korczarowski, Piotr. "Kosowo jest serbskie!". Niezależna Narodowa Telewizja Internetowa. Retrieved 24 March 2013. (in Polish)
  3. ^ autonom.pl: Demonstration in support of Serbian Kosovo
  4. ^ Kosowo jest Serbskie
  5. ^ "Polacy na rzecz serbskiego Kosowa"
  6. ^ Polacy na rzecz serbskiego Kosowa

False history section[edit]

I support copyedit of this section, as that is not history of the Kosovo is Serbia slogan, but editors wish to push his own view on Kosovo independence. That is not relevant to this article. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 08:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anastan, I felt I explained everything adequately in the summary. If I were to be reverted I would have much preferred an editor to manually readjust rather than roll back every contribution which is downright inconsiderate and impertinent. Quite simply, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for great long speeches even though I appreciate these were reduced. I do not mind the main points being listed in mainspace in the form of ordinary writing with citations but most of the listed opinions by each historian was not in any way relevant to the Kosovo is Serbia campaign. The sympathisers worked mainly on the basis of UNSCR 1244 being in effect, and the "ask any historian" aspect was answered very simply when the historians confirmed the original Serbian empire. The reference to the Ottoman Empire cannot be relevant unless those demonstrating Serbs were in denial of the period. As for where the Empire was founded and when Kosovo came to be incorporated, it just insults every person's intelligence to imply that any Serb thinks differently. The "cradle" theory refers to the significance of Kosovo in the decades that led to the fall of the Serbian Empire. I personally question the reliability of Noel Malcolm anyhow looking at his role in the Anglo-Albanian foundation and the Bosnian Institute (alongside the likes of Attila Hoare). All I did was remove the clutter about when Serbs settled in the Balkans and the like. Besides, it has nothing to do with not fitting some editors' POV but in Noel Malcolm's case in particular, it is not fitting the facts. His article much like his books on Kosovo and Bosnia are not only full of errors but they are conceptually flawed anyhow. For the time being, let us just keep the small bits that have some relation to the subject. Otherwise we could double the length of the Srebrenica Genocide article by quoting the wisdom of those who refute the reported claims. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you disagree with the reliable sources. That doesn't make them unreliable; it means your edits are problematic.
I know a few editors here really want Kosovo to be part of Serbia. However, that does not overrule what reliable sources say.

bobrayner (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I neither agree nor disagree with the reliable sources, they simply are what they are and as editors we can take them or leave them. I would never refer to a reliable source as "unreliable". Yes indeed if I did this then my edits would be problematic. I believe the sources in general to be questionable with regards reliability. Andrea Nagy is someone on whom I can find nothing other than the report listed, but on balance she doesn't seem too bad. Noel Malcolm's Guardian piece is highly selective (focusing on the parts of Kosovo where Albanians were heavily concentrated rather than the entire vilayet), ignorant (discarding the fact that Kingdoms of Serbia and Greece had moved to capture all Albanian-populated lands in 1912), opinionated (Serbs say "liberated", I say "conquered" because there were more Albanians on the whole) and erroneous (Serbia occupied Kosovo, remained an occupier until Kosovo was drafted into Yugoslavia, not Serbia). I could go on. These areas of history are well covered and it is not the role of any historian to redress the facts, his job is to describe in depth the goings on at the time. As for editors wanting Kosovo to be in Serbia, that is not surprising, there are editors who want Crimea to be in Ukraine and South Ossetia to be in Georgia. This article is about the activists themselves, not the Wikipedia editors, and where Kosovo should be treated as being legally with regards the project is not the subject of this article either, and frankly I cannot see any editing that has suggested one or the other at Kosovo je Srbija. You are right that it would not overrule reliable sources but if I am not mistaken, the way to treat Kosovo is neither as independent nor an integral part of Serbia, a step in either direction where an alternative exists would be in violation of WP:NPOV, and there is no such thing as a "reliable source" that dictates what Kosovo is legally, it is all down to individual perception and these as we know are split. You will notice that I have not removed the sources, and the section still exists, I have trimmed it to remove irrelevant material. For example, can anybody tell me what Serbs settling in the Balkans in the 7th century has to do with the Kosovo je Srbija campaign, needless to mention the even more controversial comment that this is when "history started" for the Serbs, as if to say they did not exist before that despite widespread imperial knowledge of the central European previous homeland of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes and other Slavic groups. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kosovo je Srbija. 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) 13:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kosovo je Srbija. 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) 12:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly false data from historians ![edit]

In last paragraph, the historians are giving false data! 1. If all toponyms in Kosovo are clearly from Serbian origins, how can they speak about short reign of Serbs over Kosovo? The word Kosovo is linked to the Serbian word for a bird kos, Pristina means pressed, pec=oven... ALL TOPONYMS ARE SERBIAN because Serbs have founded these cities and villages! These words have no meaning in Albanian language. 2. Most of churches in Kosovo date from 1200, 1100... so, it is all about at least 900 years of Serbian culture in this region! Why are your historians lying? Why do you allow these lies? Do they know that churches in Kosovo show Year around 6500? Because Serbs use own calendar with Vinca / Lepenski Vir origins - now, we live in Serbian Year 7529 (=2021 Vatican's year). Are they hiding our TRUE HISOTRY? DO YOU HELP LIERS AND MANIPULATORS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:6067:3400:D5E8:6885:3475:8BA2 (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, and of course, Wikipedia's firm policy about No Original Research. You've violated all three, besides the general edict of the Talk Pages about only discussing Reliable Sources for the improvement of the article. Your post is a bit paranoid - did you have a bad day in history class, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooo[edit]

Hej are you stupid kosovo is best Serbia is fuck

77.53.143.195 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop 77.53.143.195 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo_is_Serbia&oldid=1211656548"