Talk:Gračanica Monastery

---

Location edit war #2

I also do understand that Serbia is not happy about Kosovo being independent country and that location changes from Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo on many wiki-pages angers many here. However, the changes I have made concern english Monastery page and most of native english speakers come from countries who recognized Republic of Kosovo as sovereign country. That is very misleading and confusing, as I have been informed on several occasions.

All you have done is add the controversial "Republic of" before "Kosovo" with each of your edits. That term is confined to references wheree the republic's infrastructure is the intended target, for anything else, a plain and simple mention of Kosovo suffices. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Kosovo" leads to english Kosovo-REGION page, whereas "Republic of Kosovo" leads to english Kosovo-STATE (Republic of) page. With all due respect, when pointing out the location, if known, countries are preferred over regions - and Kosovo is, you like it or not, recognized by most countries with native english speakers.

Furthermore, "Republic" is not a controversial term per se. It is called "Republic of Serbia" as well. It is all about the point of view, either you recognize Kosovo as a Republic or you don´t. I repeat, countries with most native english speakers DO recognize Kosovo as a country. For other countries and languages, there are pages in their respective languages.

Location is irrelevant here. We have source, the only one source that is relevant, and that is UNESCO. Unesco designation is Serbia. And that is it. When (If ever) that is different, on their own webcite, we will fix if here also. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The UNESCO page is therefore outdated. Just because their page has made a mistake, doesn't mean you have to repeat the mistake. Grachanica monastery is in Grachanica. And Grachanica is in Kosovo. It's basic knowledge and logic... Dirifer (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I came here because Dirifer asked for my opinion about this dispute.

I think that since, World Heritage Site list is maintained by UNESCO, it is completely logical that UNESCO classification should be used. UNESCO classification is, if I am not wrong, requested at the templates' document page.

Therefore WhiteWriter's position is grounded both in sources and templates' document page. Still I don't agree with him here. Nor with Dirifer. If I am not wrong, there is a consensus that in case of Kosovo both Republic of Serbia and Republic of Kosovo POVs should be avoided and instead Kosovo should be used, with a note about the dispute. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, it looks like the article will continue to state the location as Serbia; Wikipedia users can now either continue to use the UNESCO article as a reference and wait for it to be updated so that it shows that the monastery is in Kosovo, or common knowledge and fact of the location can be used to determine the location as in Kosovo. Thank you Antidiskriminator for adding your view to the talk. Dirifer (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as i said. We have two infoboxes. In other below, we have only Kosovo with kosovo note. But the first one represent country of designation, and there must be Serbia, as in UNESCo site. This means that this location is Serbian WHS, not KOsovan. Therefor, those two must not be mixed up. One is location (which is already fixed) and other is designation, which must be linked with UNESCO official attitude. Thank you. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, the template's tranclusion is not exactly the same as the field names. Serbia may well be the "state party", but in the article that displays as "country". Most readers will interpret that to mean location. Whilst it is technically accurate that Serbia is the state party, that is deeply misleading to readers as most would gain the impression that the monastery is actually in Serbia rather than Kosovo. Our articles are misleading enough already without problems like that. Perhaps the template needs to be changed in order to deal with corner cases like this? bobrayner (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Or instead of POV pushing, lets follow what sources said. The end. That is your way of editing wiki. Right? --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am genuinely surprised that you would go along with what independent sources say. This is a positive development. I have updated the article accordingly. Personally, though, I would prefer to fix the template to remove the conflict between the "state party" (the name of the field) and "location" (what the field actually shows to readers). bobrayner (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, why did you make this edit? I was hoping that you would join WhiteWriter's commendable newfound enthusiasm for WP:V. Removing sources and inserting content that directly contradicts what sources say is a Bad Thing, even though it's routine on Kosovo topics. bobrayner (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Because UNESCO is the only relevant source here. Stop with POV pushing, or deal with consequences. Judah? C'mon, that is way too poor, even for your editing style. Also, we do not dispute that is it located in Kosovo, that is obvious. But this is NOT Kosovo designation, but Serbias. Deal with it. When (if) UNESCO change it, we will also. --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's be quite clear:

• You say "we do not dispute that is it located in Kosovo";
• Sources say that the location is Kosovo;
• You say you want to "follow what sources said";
• You and Antidiskriminator change the location from "Kosovo" to "Serbia". When I try adding sources, they are reverted.

When will you two start complying with the encyclopædia's policies? bobrayner (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am complying with wikipedia policies. Your accusation that I am not is unjustified.
• In this situation I already explained my position which actually supported by you when you wrote: " ....it is technically accurate that Serbia is the state party....Perhaps the template needs to be changed in order to deal with corner cases like this?" --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed that you frequently refer to Balkans in your comment implying that it is something bad. I suggest you not continue such practice in future because Balkan editors could be offended by your comments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This matter is finished, if you ask me. POV pushing of this kind should not be allowed in ARBMAC area. If you are not able to edit in neutral and normal manner, drop the subject. Based on your bad edit summaries about Balkan all around, that would be the best for the neutrality of this encyclopedia anyway. --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that this matter is not finished. The article simply needs to be edited to show what is correct. This article can be edited in a neutral way - if you think that Bob Rayner cannot edit this article, then you, WhiteWriter, should edit it yourself, either by changing the template or adding a note regarding the dispute in the article. Quote: Also, we do not dispute that is it located in Kosovo, that is obvious.. Then why are you making such a simple edit so difficult? If it is 'obviously' in Kosovo, then change the article. Dirifer (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That is already added and mentioned in article, as you may see. Anyway, we should really fix the template, as we should have state party, and not just location, as those two are sometimes different, here also... I will see something about it... Also, blond reverts by Sokac in this area may be reported, just to mention. If he is willing to cooperate and talk, great. But blind reverts are big problem. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, true, he should first discuss the topic on the talk page before making edits. Still, assume good faith. When i first edited this article, i didn't know that there was a dispute until you, WhiteWriter, told me, and so i came onto the talk page. Yes, the template needs to be changed. But to what? Dirifer (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Serbia does not have any influence on Kosovo. These areas are managed by the Kosovo police. What does this one monastery has with Serbia? --Sokac121 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That monastery was founded and kept by Serbia for hundreds of years, and it can be regarded as in Serbia de jure still. RoK independance is disputed, and Kosovo does not have "influence" over North Kosovo. And its not just this one monastery, but a lot of those, that remains undestroyed by Albanian mob. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your answer does not make sense. Firstly - it's not 'de jure' Serbia - over half of the world disagree. I am not saying it is de jure Rok either, as that is disputed too. What we can say is that the monastery is in the Kosovo region. Secondly, Gracanica is not even in north Kosovo, that is unrelated to this topic. Gracanica is in the part of Kosovo controlled by the Kosovo police and Kosovar government. In the past, the area was controlled by Serbia - but not any more. We are living the the 21st century, not the 14th century. Dirifer (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, no. De jure is still Serbia for almost (other) half of the world. De facto it is Republic of Kosovo, but with only limited control over territory. And, most important, this is unrelated to our question. It is located in Kosovo, but state party is Serbia. Those are fact that we cannot change with discussion here... --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What does it matter as "Serbia" founded a monastery? And Smyrne (Izmir) was once in Greece, now in Turkey. Kosovo was recognized by half of the member states of the United Nations (from 193 countries, 101 countries recognize Kosovo). Serbian President should not come to Kosovo, if not get approval from Pristina. On the border between Serbia and Northern Kosovo is the border police, and between Northern Kosovo and Kosovo has no borders. So I suggest that we put Kosovo as a country where the monastery--Sokac121 (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont want to explain to you all over again, as i already did it several times. Kosovo is disputed territory, not a country, and will be represented like that. Republic of Kosovo is partially recognised state, not even a member of UN, so it cannot be represented like other normal states like France or Italy. Now the fact. Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. This is Wikipedia consensus. Obey it, or get sanctioned if you ignore it... Simple as that. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we can see that Serbia has no control over the monastery. Kosovo is "disputed territory" that has full control of its territory. Please contributors to accept the reality, I know it's hard but, such is the situation.--Sokac121 (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Serbia have complete control over the monastery, as it is part of Serbian Orthodox Church, and it will be like that in the future. Kosovo does not full control of its entire territory, not even de jure. As it is obvious that you do not speak by arguments and facts, i will not respond to you anymore. This is not place for general discussion about Kosovo anyway. You are at the very border of disruptive editing, better stop. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The monastery is not in Serbia. It is not in the Republic of Kosovo. However, it is in Kosovo. The article must be changed to show that. It is not in Serbia de facto any more than it is in RoK de facto. To remain neutral, neither of the countries should be shown as the country in control of the area, but instead the location of the monastery, in the Kosovo REGION, must be used. It matters not what UNESCO says - as i have said before, UNESCO is unupdated for several years - Wikipedia must be updated. Dirifer (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No, this will not work like that. Monastery is Serbian cultural heritage. Location is Kosovo. Also, to state that "UNESCO is unupdated for several years" is bullsh.t, it will NOT be "updated" as long as Kosovo independence is disputed, and until (if ever) Kosovo become UN member. It matters ALL what UNESCO says. Location is already added after this discusion, but state party is SERBIA. And that will stay like that, as far as we have references in UNESCO about it. Get over it, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Thank you. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Monastery is Serbian cultural heritage, but not heritage Republic of Serbia. Stari Most has built the Ottoman Empire, and is now part Bosnia and Herzegovina cultural heritage--Sokac121 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Stari Most UNESCO reference have Bosnia and Herzegovina as state party, not Ottoman Empire. That is my point, thank you. We must not have other state party then one recognised by UNESCO. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh how wrong you are WW. You have blinded yourself thinking it is in Serbia. Of course it isn't. You are just being a hypocrite, and showing your blatant opinion that you refuse to recognise Kosovo. It matters not whether you recognise Kosovo or not, WW, only that the monastery is in Kosovo. The state party isn't Serbia, it's Kosovo. Dirifer (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

When i see Kosovo here, in this article will be Kosovo also. Do not comment on editor, but on content, and do not disturb stable version to push your nationalist propaganda over disputed subject without consensus. It is in Kosovo, but state party is NOT Kosovo, its Serbia. Disputed non neutral author Tim Judah is by far less important reference then UNESCO, inyourpocket is even worse then that. Not to be compared to UNESCO. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, i do not have time to repeat everything here to you. This is now on WP:DRN. If you are willing to deal with consequences of your edits, come there to solve this, or disband this discussion. Or, if you would finally start to follow what sources tells us, we can close this with agreement, and without any other actions. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Came here after seeing a request for assistance at User talk:BDD. I have to agree with what Chris said in the section below this one: "UNESCO still lists Serbia as the state party of the monastery. Unless and until they update their records, changing the infobox is misrepresenting the source". The infobox should reflect precisely what UNESCO gives, unless we have evidence of some sort of outright error, e.g. they make a spelling error or they say something is in one country when it's quite obviously and unambiguously in another, e.g. if Mesa Verde National Park accidentally got listed as being in the United Arab Emirates. Even if everyone around the world agreed that Kosovo should be considered independent, including the government in Belgrade, it would seem reasonable to me to list Serbia until the database got updated, because UNESCO has dealt with the Serbian government in treating with it — Serbia is the state party, not Kosovo. Change it if UNESCO change their position, but keep it as Serbia unless they change it. We could improve things by adding a footnote saying something like "Kosovo's legal status is disputed; Serbia is provided here because this infobox follows UNESCO data, which considers the monastery to be in Serbia." Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

We already have footnote, kosovo-note, and its already in article, next to word Kosovo, per agreed usage. --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Reported at this footnote that leads to region Kosovo and not to Republic of Kosovo is very biased.--Sokac121 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Location is region Kosovo. That is not disputed. To say that location is Republic of Kosovo only is actually very biased. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Leaving this message here, since an IP three times in a row changed Kosovo to Kosovo and Metohija. Next time I will post on 3RRN, and this message is required.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Location edit war

I understand that there is a dispute over the status of Kosovo. However, UNESCO still lists Serbia as the state party of the monastery. Unless and until they update their records, changing the infobox is misrepresenting the source. Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bazjaš monastery which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative name

Google Books have an alternative name which is "Monastery of Gracanica". Yes, Nis is not the alternative name of Niš and Shkoder isn't the alternative name of Shkodër but we are here in Kosovo. Unlike settlements in Albania and Serbia, their counterparts in Kosovo have alternative names in their articles. For example Ferizaj/Urosevac, Peje/Pec, Gračanica/Graçanica. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gračanica Monastery. 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/20070127093805/http://www.suc.org/culture/history/Serb_History/Monasteries/Gracanica/index.html to http://www.suc.org/culture/history/Serb_History/Monasteries/Gracanica/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 21:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gracanica 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)