Talk:Visoki Dečani/Archive 1

Archive 1

No argumet

Sombody have putit this Kosovo Monustier here with out argumet in to the Serbia category. We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this category. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia. The sub it most be kosoo-stub--Hipi Zhdripi 04:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

1. See: ... situated in Metohija,... for the toponim name in English L. Kosovo // Out of first and secend pilary
2. See: Categories: World Heritage Sites in Serbia and Montenegro | Serbian Orthodox monasteries | Monasteries in Serbia and Montenegro | Buildings and structures in Kosovo // Out of first and secend pilary (with fanatysmus)--Hipi Zhdripi 20:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

UFO-Frescos

Who knows more about the UFO-frescos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.193.208 (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed that section because the sources cited have no scholarly value. The objects depicted in the upper right and left of the Crucifixion fresco are neither UFOs nor even comets, rather they are stylized depictions of the sun and moon (as is clear from the colors and characteristics). The alleged spacemen "riding" in them are simply personifications of these celestial bodies -- such personifications are an element of Greek art that endured through the Christian Byzantine period into modern Orthodox iconography (cf. the personification of the River Jordan in icons of the Baptism of Christ). Horatio325 (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It’s both confusing and inappropriate that this section has been totally removed. This claim—irregardless of its substance or veracity—has been circulating in popular media for more than half a century, probably longer. It easily passes the test for notability. At a minimum, this should have been moved to an “In Popular Culture” section. 2603:8000:D401:6E6F:15C:12C6:BC8B:7589 (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Categorisation

As the commenter above suggested; categorising it as being in Serbia is silly. In fact, it's false. Feel free to describe the historical connection in the article prose, but don't add it to a category for a country that it's not in. Simple. bobrayner (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

By this, only official source we need, this monastery is in Serbia. Because other option is not available, officially. And that is explained in article, with Kosovo note. That category is used to group all Serbian UNESCO world heritage. Kosovo does not have its own heritage, as it is not member of UNESCO... When, (or better, if) that happens, we will know what to do with this. Without it, it is wrong only not to be in this category. Simple as that. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? A UNESCO page about a monument is now the definitive reference on whether parts of Kosovo are actually in Serbia? Do you genuinely believe that? It's absurd. (More recent UNESCO docs emphasise Kosovo's government rather than Belgrade, of course. I wonder why you don't cite those.) bobrayner (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You are apparently not informed about this location. It is not welcomed to edit content you are not familial with. "Medieval Monuments in Kosovo" is official designation by UNESCO. That is not "Medieval Monuments" that are located "in Kosovo" That is official designation "Medieval Monuments in Kosovo" by Serbia. If you point source where this UNESCO heritage site is not designated to Serbia, that would be better then this nationalistic OR. And yes. UNESCO page about that monument is definitive reference of designation country. definitive, by far. If you question that, go to RS/N. Without that, or any other source for this POV spree, your edits are regarded as vandalism. --23:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That source is prior to Kosovo's declaration of independence . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, here's the modern-day list . Kosovo isn't mentioned as a country and all the UNESCO monuments in ROK territory are listed under the heading "Serbia" as "Medieval monuments in Kosovo" (which includes Visoki Dečani .) 23 editor (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No i am not wrong . Did you bother to click to the link of this monument via the web link that you brought here ? Do that and you will see that the information has not been updated since 2004 , prior to kosovo's independence and thus registered as the Autonomous province of Kosovo . Plain and simple Gjirokastra15 (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

War editing in order to wp:pov push with the pretext of a source from 2004 ( prior to Kosovo's declaration of independence )

It seems that some users in this part of Wikipedia do not know the purpose of talk pages , they prefer war editing instead . First and foremost , this monastery is located in Kosovo , which is an independent state and not Serbia . Second this Unesco source is from 2004 prior to Kosovo's declaration of independence , and that explains why this monastery figures as a part of the Autonomous territory of Kosovo within Serbia and not as simply Kosovo . Third , even so , Unesco is just Unesco ... if someone has confused it with the U.N ( United Nations ) then maybe that/those person/s should abstain from editing Wikipedia .... This is my last effort in establishing a consensus , otherwise i will be forced to forward this to A.N.I Gjirokastra15 (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If editors like Anastan cannot create neutral content, it would be helpful if at least they stopped reverting others' attempts to do so. bobrayner (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong designation. wrong number with second designation. template rks do not exist, its red link, Albanian text is not in the list of sources, official designation name is not in albanian. Not a single edit is normal. i restored it. If you dont like War editing, dont touch it, article was ok before you and your friend come along. First have agreement here, and dont touch it anymore before that. Here is the latest list from this year. (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/) Kosovo does not exist as State Party. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You have an hour to revert yourself before being reported for wp:3RR , you have made 4 reverts in 24 hours regarding the same matter. As for that source , do you see any date there ? Because the only date i see , is when i click via your web link to this monument and it says 2004 ... ! In addition do familiarize yourself with wp:npov. Gjirokastra15 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Its not 4 reverts, its 3. Same as you. ans same as your friend. But i will not revert anything else, this may pass. Its not about number of reverts, but about content. UN didnt recognize Kosovo, so its not UNESCo also. They meet every year, if they wanted to update list, they would do it. In the list are sites that are unesco from last time, so the list is from 2014. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 18:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Aaa massive bug, i have reverted 20 times my self!! Stupid computer! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 18:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Let us call it 3 reverts then even if in fact they are 4 . How about we keep as a state party Serbia , BUT we also include the names in Albanian too as per wp:npov given the fact that de facto and de jure this monastery is located in Kosovo? Will you be kind enough to 'fix that bug of your computer' in order to re install the version as it was after Bobreyner's & Local hero's edits ? Gjirokastra15 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This version is good. Albanian name cannot be in the tamplate, as Albanian is not the language of designation. But it should be in the first sentence, so i added it there. Note is also here, as it should be there --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There are no consensus NOt to use kosovo note, so, its back. If anyone question that, must talk here. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Obvious logic-chopping is obvious. There is no consensus to add it; stop your tendentious editing. bobrayner (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why has the Kosovo-note been removed?--Zoupan 08:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this user does not like it in article. Its back now. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes; when you need extra reverts, an IP address magically appears to revert on your behalf. Why does this happen so often, Anastan? bobrayner (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am so sorry that unrelated IP address harms your edit warring, Bobrayner. IP address edits in their own behalf, but it looks like its connected to you, and not me, as it follows you on other articles. Everything goes with a reason. On the other side, related to this article, you are the only one on this page that is against kosovo note. Dont remove it anymore then, if you dont want to talk reasonably with editors here. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, another day in the Balkans: Anastan lies and misrepresents other editors, and hammers the revert button; socks join in the reverts; allies stand back and let it happen. bobrayner (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If an editor wishes to make a contribution without having an account, he is free. If an editor wishes to edit on Balkans topics, he is free again. If he is deliberately logged out to conceal his identity then yes this is a problem but in this case it was one isolated edit that would not have breached any policy even had it been one of the editors party to the revision being restored. The question here isn't "who performed the edit", but whether the edit was valid. So question then whether we need the Kosovo note in this context. Naturally if anybody feels it is not required then remove it but explain why this is the case, don't try to pretend it is a good faith act of reverting a sockpuppet when the procedure on this issue is laid out clearly on how to report the suspicion. --Vrhunski (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the Kosovo status note

The status note is the standard way of presenting Kosovo in a neutral way, look at how other articles use it. You need to stop with this repeated blanking of it on this article. Why are you even doing it? - Anonimski (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the editor's name from the header as I don't think it is procedural. I too fail to understand the purpose of removing the footnote when its purpose is clearly to balance a WP:NPOV matter. Without it, the reader is misled into acceding to Kosovo's undisputed independence. If this were the case, there would have been no requirement for the note to exist. Otherwise, where else does anybody suggest it be used? --Vrhunski (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I phrased the title like that on purpose, to remind him of an amazingly unproductive dispute (Talk:Goraždevac#Anonimski and the sourcing problem) that was started in a way similar to this Kosovo note issue. Thus, I'm putting back the original title for the record. - Anonimski (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And there's another one that I forgot: Talk:Battle of Glodjane#Anonimski and the problem of undiscussed moves - Anonimski (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've been WP:BOLD there as well. Hope that makes things better. --Vrhunski (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed ONE of the two Kosovo status notes, leaving the one attached to its first mention. Personally I see no need for EITHER, Visoki Dečani is in Kosovo, whether that is the province of Kosovo or the state of Kosovo does nor seem relevant to the subject at all.Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

NO SENSE - NO LOGIC - NO TRUTH

How Albanian Muslims can seek refuge in a serbian Christian monastery? What is this sentence : Albanian civilians seeking refuge in the monastery returned to their homes following the withdrawal of Serbian military from Kosovo in June 1999. An Italian unit of the Kosovo Force (KFOR) was subsequently assigned to guard the monastery, which was attacked on several occasions.[10] Dozens of Romanis sought sanctuary in the monastery over the next several months, fearing retaliatory attacks by their Albanian neighbours, who accused them of collaborating with the Serbs and looting Albanian homes.[12]?? Who attacked the monastery? the Alabnaian Muslims? why do you hide who is aggressor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.139.87 (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus below. Kraose (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Visoki Dečani → Deçan Monastery – The English Name Hakuli (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Sam Sailor 10:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose No evidence provided that this is the English name or the common name. 23 editor (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a name in Serbian language. Usually in English Language is used as Dečani Monastery but I changed the name of the city by adapting it to the name of Deçan

This object in official website of UNESCO is known as Dečani Monastery --Hakuli (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Nom has not provided any supporting evidence to indicate "Deçan Monastery" is the name commonly used in the English language. My quick searches indicate "Visoki Dečani" is used in English-language sources such as the Smithsonian magazine and by Lonely Planet. AusLondonder (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is a reflection of what is most widely accepted as the norm. In this case, Visoki Dečani is the most widely accepted name for this monastery and should stay as it is. ThreatMatrix (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vita Kotoranin

@Fa alk: PLease present RS backing your claim. As I have said, back in the day Albanians very pretty much nonexistent in Kotor, with a very small minority. Linking Wikipedia page is not an argument and not a good practice. Furthermore, there is no relevant sources about Vito's ethnic background. We know one thing for sure - his first name is hardcore Slavic. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether there were Albanians in Kotor in the 1300s is neither here nor there. A quick check of the Elsie and Judah references shows no mention of the individual being Albanian and they therefore fail WP:V. Rexha and Drancolli are both members of the Ali Hadri society, which has claimed that the monastery was built over an ancient Illyrian temple (it wasn't) and that the Serbian Orthodox monks are occupiers of a monastery that was originally Albanian. Drancolli, in particular, has made quite extravagant claims, such as that the Battle of Kosovo never actually took place . These views are clearly WP:FRINGE, especially when one takes into account that Vito of Kotor's father had the decidedly Slavic given name Trifun. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

In 1610, the Kuči (Cucci) are mentioned by Marino Bizzi as being half Orthodox and half Catholic.

Elsie shows a document dated roughly around 12th century mentioning how the "Latins" of had six towns with bishops in Antibarum (Bar), Chatarensis (Kotor), Dulcendinensis (Ulcinj) Suacinensis (Shas), Scutarensis (Scutar) and Drivacensis (Drisht).

Through out the Middle Ages, most of the clergy in Kotor were Albanians.

In 999, Ragusa became a bishopric which put Kotor under its authority, and its leader, Archbishop Tribunus, (1158-1187) engaged in taking care of the Catholic rites of Northern Albania.

According to Albanian folklore legends, Kotor was partly founded by the families of Nikole Buca and Don Vita Kuqi, constructor of the Decani monastery. Historian Bogumil Hrabak states that the number of Albanians (Arberesh) in Kotor was so large that they constituted an essential element of the demographic renewal.

In the same year, during Pope Alexander's reign, "Albanski Andrija" (Andrea the Albanian) was mentioned as bishop of Kotor, called "Prior Kotor Vita".

G. Stadtmuller writes of two documents from 1166 and 1167 from the chancellor of Rome, with the former signed in Kotor, with the toponyms of "Arbanensis" and "Albanensis". In 1305, Adamus de Catharo (Adam of Kotor) is mentioned in a Latin script as a Catholic priest of Kotor. On October 18, 1369, the Balsha rulers ceased harassing the Catholics of Kotor and began promoting local bishops, with Pope Urban V nominating several bishops under the family

Milan Šufflay writes that in the 13th century, there were Albanians in Ragusa and Kotor who had been scattered from the Albanian nucleus, and in the 14th century, the Arbanenses appeared among the Zhupan of Grbalj.

In the 14th century, Albanians are mentioned in Kotor in the valleys of Sermnica to the northwest of Skadar Lake and in Stoc in Hercegovina, as well as in Montenegro in 1305 with the names of "burmadh" (herdsman) in Sekular and Shingjon.

Konstantin Jireçek's studies shows that in 1285, Ragusan documents mentioned "lingua albanesesca" (Albanian language) in Kotor and Grbalje, and that there was a presence of Albanians in the 14th century

--Fa alk (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you confirming my previous thesis. Folklore legends and folk wisdom are irrelevant. Those sources only mention Albanians in some parts, as a very small minority. The only place with historically larger Albanian presence on the coast is around Zadar. Most of those people have succumbed to Croatisation (and there is no info. about it on the page). You did not post anything reliable about Vito, son of Trifun. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Fa alk, IMO the only relevant detail to this article is Vita. I do not see reliable sources supporting an Albanian identity for him. You can improve articles on Albs in Montenegro though. Any edit is welcome. :) Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree that we are getting off-topic as this article is about the monastery, not the ethnic makeup of Montenegro and Herzegovina. I vaguely recall reading that Vito was a Croat from Kotor. I'll try and find where I read this, and if I'm successful, perhaps it can be added. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

References