Talk:Destruction of Serbian heritage in Kosovo

"156 Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries have been destroyed since June 1999"

In 3 wikipedia articles, this one comprised, it is stated that "156 Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries have been destroyed since June 1999". From these 3 articles, many more blogs and sites repeat the sentence, as if the more it's repetated the more it will become truthful.

I have tried to search for every possible source in internet to confirm this data, but there isn't anything more than hearsay repeated ad nauseam that do not lead to any specific source to confirm the aformentioned assertion. As I noticed, there is no evidence to justify this number.

The only legit forensic research that there seems to have been carried out is this (http://www.b92.net/specijal/kosovo2004/unistenecrkve.php), that anyway fails to list more than 30 destroyed or severly damaged churches. The source tells also about other 100 structures related to churches being destroyed or damaged, that are senselessly added to the final reckoning. Other than not being supported by any evidence, even if true this number should not be put here becuase these supposed structures are, I quote, 'economic buildings and residences'. I don't have to stress the ridiculousness of adding such an information in a wikipedia article dedicated to cultural/spiritual monuments of historical relevance. The purpose of such a mystification is of course to overexaggerate the amount of destruction in order to fit an obvious and specific agenda.

There is also this article (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/marchweb-only/3-22-31.0.html), wich does not quote any source, that mentions 30 destroyed churches and further 11 damaged structures.

If anybody knows of any legit source based on forensic researches or evidences to back up the initial phrase please post it here, otherwise all the 3 articles will be corrected of the inflated number. Herakliu (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to play detective and find out where the number 156 comes from. The first article to use the number was Serbian Orthodox Church. Up to 2007 it had only said that "many Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries were damaged or destroyed". Then came this edit in June 2007. No source. Then in November 2007 came this edit, actually followed by an explanation in the talk page. No source, and that was the last edit of the IP. The claim has been marked with "citation needed" since October 2010.

At least four other articles have copied the number since then, with one interesting difference. None of the other articles have copied the "damaged or destroyed" part. They all say just "destroyed".

The number is suspiciously exact, so the editor must either have had a source, or the number is pure fiction. The talk page entry seems to suggest that the IP really had a source, but that we will never know. The possible source presented has, however, a mention that may have escaped @Herakliu:: it mentions "destruction of or damage to more than 140 Orthodox churches".

There seems to be a simple solution: Write "more than 140" instead of 156 and be sure to say "damaged or destroyed", not just "destroyed", giving the B92 source. --T*U (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Thanks for the input.

I have to partially disagree with the conclusion of your post, let me explain why.

I didn't miss the 140 figure. In fact if you notice it gives the number of 30 (surely destroyed, almost all of them of historical importance) and then, to complement, it says (google translated) that "...destroyed dozens of auxiliary church buildings (parish houses, economic buildings and residences), so that the total number of destroyed church RELATED buildings (N.B. therefore NOT all of them are churches), is close to a hundred."

To me it is ridiculous to add those 70 auxiliary buildings to the final compute of 100, because economic buildings and residences can hardly be counted as relevants in an article that talks of important medieval time architecture.

It is obvious to me that here we are not talking about 140 churches but just a generic 140 buldings damaged or destroyed (if 140 is even correct to begin with). Very likely the relevants ones (medieval churches) that meet wikipedia's standard are not more than 30. Economic buildings and residences hardly matches the relevance of this article to use a euphemism.

Anyway, in our aid I have found 3 other sources that talks about the subject. 1 (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?191988-The-difference-between-a-(too)-tolerant-people-and-savages), 2 (http://cool.conservation-us.org/byform/mailing-lists/cdl/2000/1124.html), 3 (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/letter-protest-kosovo-unesco-filip-filipi-jankovic). The first 2 are of Andras Riedlmayer, a first hand witness as explained by him. The third source is serbian.

The first source says: "... Remarkably, we found that not a single Serbian Orthodox church or monastery in Kosovo was damaged or destroyed by Albanians during the 1998-1999 armed conflict. Unfortunately that changed after the end of the war in June 1999, when thousands of Albanian refugees who had been forced out of Kosovo during the war returned to their burned-out hometowns and villages. During the summer of 1999, dozens of Orthodox churches and monasteries were damaged to various degrees and about 40 were destroyed in revenge attacks. The inter-ethnic riots of March 2004 resulted in damage to another 30 churches and monasteries. ..."

The second source says (not count 2004): " ... After the end of the war, however, the situation with respect to Serbian Orthodox heritage changed for the worse. ... Most of the Serbian Orthodox village churches that have been vandalized or destroyed are of relatively recent vintage, built or "rebuilt on ancient foundations" (obnovljena) in the 20th century; 25 of them were churches constructed in the 1980s and 1990s. About a dozen, however, were genuinely medieval structures and listed monuments. ... "

the third serbian source says: " ... destruction of 36 churches, monasteries and other facilities owned by the Serbian Orthodox Church, as well as cultural and historical monuments that have been targeted by Albanian attacks in Kosovo, 61 of which have the status of monument of culture and 18 are marked as sites of exceptional importance for the Republic of Serbia. Added to that, a total of 174 religious facilities and 33 cultural and historical monuments have been destroyed ... "

Apparently there seems to be some confusion, but we can put it in order. The first source mention 40 destroyed churches in 1999, of wich (thanks to the second source) about a dozen were of medieval times therefore of historical relevance, meanwhile 25 five of recent construction. First source mention also 30 churches damaged in 2004. The third sources is more specific about the relevant architecture, mentioning 36 destroyed churches, 33 of them of historical value. It mentions also other 174 generic "religious facilities" like the economic buildings and residences of the b92 source that cannot be put in a wikipedia article.

So it seems that, from the first source that seems more reliable, in total not more than 70 churches were destroyed or severly damaged, of wich, thanks to the last source, we can say 33 were of historical value.

One thing seems obvious taken all of that into account, and that is that among cultural objects of historical value only 33 is sure to have been destroyed (all the sources confirm more or less this number), plus few dozens of little churches and small parishes. So I propose to change the initial phrase 33 churches plus an undefined number of small parishes of little historical value, (apparently they are some 40 but I propose to write "a few dozens" since we can't be more precise). Herakliu (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Herakliu: The number 30 is for those destroyed in the 2004 unrest in Kosovo; B92 mentions "at least 30 churches damaged or completely destroyed" in the 2004 unrest (17–18 March). Don't you think 100 ecclessiastical buildings damaged and destroyed over the course of 2 days speaks volumes? The number of damaged and destroyed churches and monasteries is at least 100. Do the math. Mileusnić mentions 151 churches and 7 monasteries destroyed between 13 June 1999 and 19 March 2004 (158). This book mentions that by Sep. 1999, there was 60 destroyed churches, and unconfirmed reports of 20 more. The Eparchy list includes 76 churches destroyed and desecrated between June–October 1999 (5 months); 39 of these were bombed. A total number of 33, that is, your evaluation of what constitutes a site worthy of mention (wtf?), as you just proposed to change the introduction, is a serious and ridiculous downplay.--Zoupan 16:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

@Herakliu: Your arguments are a combination of selective picking of details from the sources and your personal interpretation of them. Please read WP:Cherrypicking and WP:No original research.

Regarding the numbers "at least 30" and "more than 140" in the B92 source, you seem to think that the number 140 is some sort of addition of 30 plus auxiliary buildings plus plus. The source says nothing like that. "At least 30" is the number of churches that, at the time this was written (26 April 2004), could be verified to be destroyed or damaged, while "more than 140" (explicitly "Orthodox churches and monasteries", not economic buildings and residences) is a number estimated at that time by the Diocese of Raska and Prizren. The text continues to explain that the documentation work was progressing very slowly, because of security reasons. As Zoupans sources show, later findings have given credibiity to the higher number.

I would also ask if you really think that only medieval churches are relevant in an article about heritage. That would be bad news for many young countries. One of your sources mentions "cultural and historical monuments ... 61 of which have the status of monument of culture and 18 are marked as sites of exceptional importance". Would it not be fair to assume that "monuments of culture" and "sites of exceptional importance" might be part of the heritage, too? --T*U (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@TU-nor:"you seem to think that the number 140 is some sort of addition of 30 plus auxiliary buildings plus plus." I don't think it is so, it IS so. Just read what's written in the incipit "... 156 Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries were destroyed ...". It doesn't exist any source that tells what the incipit claims. It tells of 156 Orthodox churches, when in fact it is 156 buildings of any sort, among them "economic building and residences" lol. Another example, "Devic Monastery (15th century) burned to the ground ... The monastery was destroyed and about 20 different monastery utility buildings (residential quarters, warehouses, stables, etc.)".

I rest my case. It is pure and simple intended distortion of facts.

The first source I mentioned also seems the more reliable too, since it is a first hand witness. It talks about 40 destroyed churches plus an undefined number of damaged ones ("dozens"+"30").

@Zoupan: All of the sources you posted are unverifiable, except the last one, The eparchy list that seems good to me. It does make a list that can be checked any time. So we have this source that talk of the lootings, light/severe damagings and destroyings of 1999, and then the b92 source that talks of the 2004 ones. Put together then we have 76 churches of 1999 plus 30 churches of 2004, therefore 106. Some churches though have been vandalized both in 1999 and in 2004, making the final reckoning inferior to 106. I have counted 3 of them: Crkva sv. Nikolaja in Prizren; Manastir Devic (15. vek) in Srbica; Crkva Presvete Bogorodice in Pec.

So to sum it up, the total number of looted, damaged and destroyed churches is 103. I think this is the best way to resolve this situation. Herakliu (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Herakliu: It seems you did not take my advice of reading WP:No original research. The source says "complete destruction of or damage to more than 140 Orthodox churches and monasteries". Your personal interpretation of this is of no interest, as is your arithmetic antics. There seems, however, to be progress: Yesterday 33, today 103. --T*U (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I didn't bother to read it becuase there is no original research in 76+30.

I have the impression though you are playing the dumb here. Maybe (I think almost certainly) we have different linguistic rigors, but in my vocabulary and that of wikipedia "economic buildings, residences, stables (lol!!!)residential quarters, warhouses (lol again!!!)", are NOT counted as "national heritage".

The two sources make list with names of the looted, damaged or destroyed churches, and it is 103, not 140. If you need further concept simplifications I am here. Herakliu (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this user is a sockpuppet, and therefor it should be ignored. --Axiomus (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Useless ad hominem that doesn't add anything to the article. Herakliu (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that 76+30 is not original research. It is synthesis. Please add WP:SYNTH to your reading list. However, 106-3=103 is original research. And all your numbers are cherry-picking. Your reading of "complete destruction of or damage to more than 140 Orthodox churches and monasteries" as including "economic buildings, residences, stables..." is either original research or plain misrepresentation of sources. In addition: Why do you say that Zoupan's sources are unverifiable?

By the way, I agree that the number 156 is unsourced. But your arithmetic is not any better. --T*U (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Why don't you read the source instead than throwing strange accusations at me? It is all written in the b92 source. The source tells about 140 damaged/destroyed churches but it doesn't give any list or evidence for them, except the 30 churches in 2004. The 140 number is not any less verifiable than the 156 claim, verifiabilty being a basic pillar of wikipedia if I'm not mistaken. Therefore we should use the "eparchy list" and the "b92 article", that gives number and names of surely damaged/destroyed Orthodox buildings. Everything else is legend for what we know.

Now, having understood that in wikipedia it doesn't matter truth but consensus, 106 is the only number I can put in this article (even if factually wrong, since some churches had been damaged both in 1999-2004). So do we all agree that in all this mess 106 is the only reliable number or not? Herakliu (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure you understand what Wikipedia means by "verifiability"? It means that "anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". You obviously mean that "b92" is a reliable source, since you yourself intend to use it. But then the "complete destruction of or damage to more than 140 Orthodox churches and monasteries" is verifiable, since that is from a reliable source. You also have claimed about Zoupan's sources that "the sources you posted are unverifiable". Please explain how they are unverifiable. I am sorry if you think I am "throwing strange accusations" at you. I am simply trying to explain that Wikipedia is based on a number of policies, and that it is important to read and understand them; in this case I ask you to read WP:Verify. --T*U (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am coming late to this, but I think the problem is that this article is essentially a list article. It would be better to stop obsessing about exact numbers and start adding content about the how, the where, the when, the why, and the by whom. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

I have deleted this content [1] because it has as its source a propaganda text produced by those who destroyed the monuments. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

Explain how its "propaganda" considering the website is funded by the EU and contains much documentation from the ICTY trials and Western based academics who have done fieldwork in the area such as Riedlmayer. Much more explanation then a wp:idontlikeit of "propaganda" for removal of content.Resnjari (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

You did good, that source was incredibly unreliable and false. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Destruction of Serbian heritage 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320013239/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=03&dd=18&nav_id=73300 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=03&dd=18&nav_id=73300
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203233339/http://www.kim.gov.rs/en to http://www.kim.gov.rs/en

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) 13:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Written by Albanians??

No mention that some churches were 1000 years old? HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT ALL CITIES NAMES, ALL TOPONYMS ARE SERBIAN ORIGINS and not Alabnains! Kosovo means a land of a bird KOS that is Serbian WORD! Pristina, Pec, Djakovica...ARE ALL SLAVONIC SERBIAN NAMES! SHAME ON YOU ALL ! CHEATER, thieves, liers... Just Youtube: "albanians burn churches" - and you will find videos from real burning of real churches in Kosovo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.139.87 (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath of Kosovo War

@Resnjari: Almost half of the section was written on the basis of one source. It can be summed up in one sentence that some observers describe destruction of culturarl heritage as a revenge attack. Otherwise, it's about WP:GEVAL. Many sources say that this is systematically organized. It is especially controversial that these claims are put as the leading sentences. Such an introduction is not encyclopedic. The article is about destruction, and more is written about some other events that two authors have linked to this. --WEBDuB (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Either you are kidding or you are reading a version of Wikipedia other than the one the rest of editors are reading. Where does the article say that the attacks were not "organized"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@WEBDuB:, nope. It is neutral for the following reasons. It discusses the views of Kosovan society of the time that led to those events. There are no other sources that discuss this properly and from a reputable scholarly source. Riedlmayer and Herscher as noted scholars who not only researched the destruction of Albanian heritage in Kosovo, but that also of Serbian heritage (if you have ever read their works a lot of it actually deals with destruction of Serb hertiage much more then even the Albanian one). Those two were the ones that have compiled several reports to the UN about which sites suffered damaged and often from whom. Misuse WP:GEVAL because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT it not a reason. Unless you have evidence to show that Riedlmayer's and Herscher's works are wrong and their scholarly reputation has been question, please don't remove it. You have been doing a lot of interesting edits of late.Resnjari (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but I think it's more appropriate to describe the events in the introduction, and then explain the context and interpretation. I didn't say that that Riedlmayer's and Herscher's works are wrong, but almost entire sections are based on interpretations from one source. That is excatly WP:GEVAL. Several of you just wanted to lynch me when I tried to just mention a sentence about the context in other articles. --WEBDuB (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Several of you just wanted to lynch me @Resnjari:, do not try to "lynch" WEBDuB again. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@WEBDuB:, no one was going to lynch you or made any comment toward that end. Its inappropriate that you say this of other editors. On the other articles no one opposed the context, the point was is it specific and relevant to the topic. Its starting to accumulate now on your part, but some of the sources you added discussed the topic from a generalised manner that did not address the specific topic of which the article is about. In this case Riedlmayer and Herscher directly address this topic and time period thereby making it relevant to the topic. Otherwise, why the eff would it be included?Resnjari (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

novo brdo fortress

can another section be added with destruction to heritage sites such as novo brdo fortress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.8.245 (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography

Most bibliography in this article comes from institutions of the Serbian state. Thus, it lacks a fundamental part of WP:NPOV. We can't have an article, which is based on the claims of a particular POV presented in wikivoice.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: That is simply not true. There are currently 72 citations in the article. I've been able to identify 4 of those being from institutions of the Serbian state. Most cited works are not from Serbia at all. In the "Sources" section, there are five books, none of which was published in Serbia. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Vanja, the Decani website (not RS in any way) was a website of the SOC/Serbian state. It's the main source for many of the incidents which are listed. To ask for these claims to be taken as facts in wikivoice is something that just can't happen by any stretch of the WP:NPOV policy. If these incidents happened - of which I assume a substantial number of them are indeed are true - then just replace the sources and remove any tags. But we can't have the SOC's claims presented to the readers in wikivoice. If we follow that pattern, the Catholic Church in Kosovo which has even greater claims about the abuses that Catholics suffered under the Serbian state, would be presented in wikivoice as an article twice as large as this one. But in order to be able to have a functioning project which helps the readers instead of confusing them with grand & conflicting claims, modern political claims can't be presented in wikivoice (NPOV).--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The entire WWII section is based on POV bibliography from a Serbian state perspective. The part which cites Kosovo's Displaced and Imprisoned: Hearing Before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Second Session is actually citing a pamphlet of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC), which SOC read in the assembly. Wikipedia can't be expected to present the particular viewpoint of the Serbian state and the Serbian Orthodox Church in wikivoice as fact.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And, what else? After WEBDuB's removal of disputed parts, I see very little (if any) reasons for WP:TAGBOMBING. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow discrimination of sources and authors on the basis of nationality. It is really true that most sources cannot be connected with Serbia, but there are international institutions, books, journal articles ... The concept of destroying the Serbian heritage in Kosovo is widely known. One of the World Heritage Site in Europe that UNESCO has listed as endangered. What is the particular POV here? What would you suggest as “another perspective”? I'm looking forward to additional sources. For example, the entire 1999 section practically presents the destruction of monuments and cultural heritage as revenge attacks, although there is much criticism for such characterization and justification of systematic destruction of someone's culture.

Speaking of the Decani website, it can be considered disputed as well. However, it doesn't affect the article's content and essence, but only the list of objects. Should such an excessive list exist here? I’m not 100% sure, but that problem shouldn’t be labeled as POV.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Almost all of the bibliography about these incidents come from publications of the Serbian state and the Serbian Orthodox Church. You know that the project can't function with double standards which eventually downgrade the entire project. Also, most of these churches were built in the 1990s. Why is this article title "Destruction of Serbian heritage in Kosovo" when all it lists under Serbian heritage are Serbian Orthodox Churches and includes a long history about "communists who burnt churches". --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Not only churches, but also monuments and fortress. Also, numerous churches in that period practically had the function of monuments. I think that a quality article should not be an extensive list. The most significant incidents and monuments can be mentioned. It is unequivocal explained that the demolition of any landmarks, even churches (whenever they were built), is a way to erase the trace that a certain group of people existed there at all.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not - that is a political interpretation. If you think that this has to do with the Serb people as a whole that is a political belief which seeks to make one particular belief among Serb people appear as what all Serbs believe. The SOC with the support of the Serbian state (Serb businessmen who wanted to get into cheap real estate after the war) built Orthodox churches even in 1998 as a means to increase church property at the expense of private property of Albanians and Catholic or Muslim institutions' property. There was reaction. The Serbian Orthodox Church is a political institution which one can support or oppose and that translates to support or opposition to its real estate plans. The WP:FORUM can end now, but I'm making this comment in order for you to understand how I perceive the issue.

Oder (2009): Even though most of these monuments were built in the twentieth century, there are some that were built in the medieval period and have (had) a great value. There is also a dispute about when these were built. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to post spins and political interpretations which are presented as the general case, which in my books seems like a way to discredit Serbian and Christian heritage in general, you should enter the politics or offer references for those /comments/. Your viewpoint is noted. That aside, you can now tell us what is disputed at the moment. Vague comments are not helping. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to identify the private property of one particular religious institution with religious sentiment in general do that, but be clear about what you're referring to and don't place it under a vague terminology about religious heritage. Megachurches having tax-exempt status is not treated like Christian heritage in the US either. That aside, we can't have the SOC's claims presented to the readers in wikivoice. If we follow that pattern, the Catholic Church in Kosovo which has even greater claims about the abuses that Catholics suffered under the Serbian state, would be presented in wikivoice as an article twice as large as this one. But in order to be able to have a functioning project which helps the readers instead of confusing them with grand & conflicting claims, modern political claims can't be presented in wikivoice (NPOV). Almost all of the bibliography about these incidents come from publications of the Serbian state and the Serbian Orthodox Church. --

All right, I hope you've noticed that I'm ready for the discussion, that I've already made changes based on your recommendations. What exactly do you want to change now? List the sources and parts of the article that you consider controversial, so we will discuss it. After all, the title of the article refers to the destruction of heritage, and the motives could have been different. You claim that the buildings owned by the Serbian Orthodox Church should not be considered part of the Serbian heritage? What is your suggestion for the WWII section? The reasons for the tags are really not clear.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Much of the article is controversial because much of the article is based on what the SOC claims to have happened - in wikivoice. We could either change the citations or remove the claims.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and you or any other editor, do not get to tell anybody "it's either A or B". If you think that sort of thinking or behaviour is okay, you are in the wrong place. That reminds me of the moment when you said "I'm giving you 24h to find sources". Enough. Be civil. If you want to prove that SOC is "not RS" (like the church organisation is ignorant of how many churches got burned down or destoryed!) you can try to get that confirmation via proper Wiki channels - and see what comes back. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Maleschreiber, please, indicate here which exact claims and sources you consider unreliable and biased. Most of the article, except the lists, are based on books, journal articles, international institutions, even Kosovar portal. Much of the content about different time periods is based on Herscher, which is, by the way, often used for Albanian nationalist content forking and POV-pushing. He characterized all that as the destruction of Serbian heritage, no one has questioned that so far.

There are no elements for the POV tagging. What other sources do you suggest? No Albanian source? This does not mean that they exist and are left out. If Albanian authors and media didn't want to write about events, such as the destruction of medieval monuments, that doesn't mean that the events didn't happen.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You can replace anything from the SOC (Decani website etc.) - which is indeed the faction which has a direct involvement in these events - with any reliable source. You can't ask from wikipedia to present the point of view of one particular faction in wikivoice as fact. Giving space to all points of view is not the same as allowing any point of view to be presented to the readers without any context about it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And what is the context? I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Cultural heritage is often destroyed in wars and riots. What would be another context? There is the intention of certain editors to present all crimes against here as the so-called revenge attacks, reaction etc. That is a dangerous and irresponsible bias, as well as POV-pushing and content forking. I really hope that is not the case. I would say that you are a good Wikipedian. I believe you can find quality sources on this topic. If not, then the article can remain as it is, since probably everything that exists about the topic is included. The only thing I could agree with was removing the list.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

There's also the issue of the article's scope. Why is the destruction of a church allegedly by the partisans (who largely were Serbs themselves) an acting of destruction of Serbian heritage? If bibliography doesn't call it that, why should wikipedia do so in wikivoice?--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't notice that the Partisans are mentioned in the article. Did you mean the destruction during the communist-led Yugoslavia? That is well-documented by Herscher and Di Lellio, who generally cannot be considered pro-Serb or something like that. Each section is composed of sources from “different sides”. Also, that view of the so-called revenge attacks was explained in detail.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If sources are an issue, this whole thread could easily be ended with one source Herscher, Andrew (2010). Violence taking place: The architecture of the Kosovo conflict. Stanford: Stanford University Press. I used it extensively for Albanian material, however to editors who want to expand the destruction of Serb heritage in Kosovo page, just buy the book, read it and use that for the article. Why, you may ask, apart from being RS, Herscher and his scholarly colleague went all over Kosovo and documented all destroyed heritage both communities experienced and later handed their data to the UN. This includes what happened in 2004 too. The book i refer too is inclusive of all that. Herscher also looks at Serb heritage in Kosovo during the communist period and the incidents of damage/destruction it faced from authorities or from some Albanians. Two thirds of the book is about Serb heritage.Resnjari (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Most of the article is based on his book. Also, “all sides” are represented in all sections. What is still a problem? For months, there has been no explanation as to which part is exactly disputed. It's not ok to just put tags, especially when all the editors want to discuss and contribute to solving the problem. It is high time to remove the POV tag.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)