Talk:Kosovo vilayet

Comments

Map

My thanks to whomever placed the maps on the article, it's just the kind of thing I can never find when creating articles! Celtmist 05-12-05

"....a new idea of nationalism was surfacing originating from Thessaloniki and gaining popularity among a potential elite group of intellects accross the region, and that idea was the creation of a Macedonian state, incorporating all Slavs within that area as a rival to both Bulgarian and Serbian states. This movement was none other than the IMORO activities which prevail to this day in the F.Y.R.O.M." I do not understand, which nationalism was originating from Thessaloniki? If we know the character of IMORO, we will answer of this question in two ways: 1 Bulgarian nationalism (Nevertheless that IMORO purpose was autonomous (independent)Macedonia and Thrace (NB!, before 1912); 2. No nationalism in ethnic sense - only struggle for autonomous (independent)Macedonia and Thrace and for rights of all (Christian) inhabitants - not only Slavs. In both of cases there wasn't Macedonistic ideology yet in IMARO, i.e. the ideas for Macedonic natonality separate from Bulgarians or Greeks. Therefore I suggest to erase these sentences. --AKeckarov 15:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian nationalism did originate from Thessaloniki and I too did assume that IMRO spearheaded the movement. If anything, delete the bit about IMRO not the idea about 'Macedonianism'. Of course, if it were true that there was a popular movement that was NOT ethnic, it should have incorporated ALL of historical Macedonia, with all its Greeks, Slavs, Albanians and the like, and possibly then base itself on the Swiss model. All history has tought us is that a Macedonian state now exists formed on a part of the historical region and that the Slav population who are about 68% constitute the primary national group. The point made on the article anyhow simply tells that the people of Skopje (for example) wiere split between being Bulgarian or Serbian as BOTH groups were fighting for influence over them and finally they fell to the Serbs. By 1943, there is a widespread feeling of being Macedonian among certain Slavic peoples in the region of Macedonia and as a result, they are awarded a republic. I'm in favour of doing more research before making immediate changes to this article. Batsos 30.xii.05

I just want to correct that to the Serbs fell only part of the geographical region Macedonia (Vardar Macedonia, present Republic of Macedonia). I agree that there was some macedonistic feelings in Macedonia by 1943, but it was mostly in Vardar Macedonia and it was undoubted predominant after "award" a Yugoslav republic in 1944. In Pirin Macedonia the inhabitants kept their Bulgarian consciousness and this is obviously after fell of Comminism and free census, when fall of the pressure to be Macedonian (1944-about 1960)or to be Bulgarian (about 1960-1989).--AKeckarov 16:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point AKeckarov. Well there was some underground Macedonian movement between the two world wars. Of course, modern Macedonian nationalists will be as anti-Yugoslav as their radical counterparts in Slovenia, Bosnia, Montenegro and even Serbia today. I know this site is not about Bulgaria but there was even there at one time a pro-Macedonian movement opposed to Sofia but certainly since World War II, that has been silent. They now see themselves as a Bulgarian subdivision BUT feel that the REST of Macedonia should come with them! Whilst however, there was opposition to Sofia's rule (before World War II mainly), Pirin was split with so much of the population being pro-Sofia and the rest being, not so much pro-Yugoslavia, as pro-all of Macedonia and 'STICK two figers up at everyone else!' - all this even though they were still a single nation of people. Anyhow, the point on the article was that a pro-Macedonian movement WAS forming. Whether or not this was IMORO is another matter. It is a fact that IMORO did eventually take over the pro-Macedonian national interests contrary to all surrounding states, as for the defend-Christians, not just Slavs - well anyone can see that the whole project IS Slavic driven, and given their way, would do little to extend democracy and freedom to ethnic Greeks, Turks and Albanians also entitled to the same status. See the adjustment on the aerticle Akeckarov and tell me what you think. Celt 31.12.05

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Kossovo Vilayet → Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire – need for standard Ottoman subdivsion title format and standard spelling for Kosovo. See WP:RM page for similar requests. Sample: Bosnia Province, Ottoman Empire. See Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire for details of Ottoman subdivisions and Category:Provinces of the Ottoman Empire for list of pages.

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose Pointless pursuit of an unnecessary uniformity. If this disambiguated, it might be worth doing; but there is no need for a long name, which will usually require piping or redirection. Septentrionalis 21:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support for changing the name but I guess we have to change it to 'Kosova' not to 'Kosovo'. This is an Ottoman Province and therefore, I guess, should be changed to its Turkish spelling, Kosova --Quinlan Vos 11:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Ottoman provinces went by a variety of names. Some were eyalets, some were eyalets and later vilayets, some were just vilayets, and others had special names like khedivate, sharifate, and mutasarrifate. For consistency across time and space, the English term province covers it best as does the English spelling of Kosovo. LuiKhuntek 07:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that name of the article about Bosnia province should not be model for other articles, but that article is the one which should change its name into "Eyalet of Bosnia", "Vilayet of Bosnia" or something like that. PANONIAN (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. —Nightstallion (?) 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

To Interestedinfairness

The Treaty of London means nothing? I am afraid that this was what ratified Kosovo's new borders from 1913 and it is also the event which rebuffs Malcolms claim of "not being incorporated into Serbia." In another pathetic report by Malcolm from 1998, he makes an even sillier comment that Kosovo's Albanians had not been de-jure' integrated in Serbia. In the ten years between that embarrassment and his prescious Guardian article, he probably came to realise that what he said made no sense. Land is land, what you gain you gain; and there is no such thing as a "de jure programme of integrating new citizens." Of course, the source used for the Treaty of London was pasted directly from the Treaty of London (1913) article; there it has stood unchallenged from its first inclusion. Indeed, anyone can have their own perception of "legal" and Malcolm too clearly has his own opinions. Evlekis (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Noel has an opinion which is highly regarded. The treaty of London does not matter much, as it was never ratified by the Serbian parliament. The only time Kosovo was "legally" incorporated into any entity's, was when it became a part of Yugoslavia.

Nevertheless, the article is about the Viyalet of Kosovo, not the "Treaty of London". There is a lot of information to give to users with regards to the Viyalet, and the last year of its existence is not the place to start.

The Treaty of London article is where you want to be. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)).

You and your buddy Malcolm are making no sense. If Kosovo wasn't legally in the Kingdom of Serbia between 1912 and 1919 then it must have legally been a part of the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty of London was only as binding as the Treaty of Versailles which initially inaugurated Yugoslavia. What the Serbian government did and did not ratify made no odds where Kosovo was going. And whatever Malcolm says, you take it from me (my word against his): Serbia did observe the conditions of London in 1913; it had (with Greece) hitherto established control over almost all of present-day Albania. It was the Treaty of London which, whilst giving them today's Kosovo, pulled them out of Albania. As such, Albania is also a product of Malcolm's "illegal" Treaty of London. Furthermore, Albania even controls a part of the former Vilayet; so perhaps Noel Malcolm can publish a new book explaining exactly how the First Balkan War resulted in a legal Albanian entity - created from the Ottoman Empire following a pullout by Serbs and Greeks - whilst over the border, the areas in which there was any Albanian population at all was still a part of the Ottoman Empire. And even if the "highly regarded" gentleman purported to be a "historian" should provide a logical answer to this, I'd like to know how he could equate Kosovo not legally being in Serbia (because of one or two unresolved issues in Serbian parliament) with the Ottoman's very own recognition of the new countries and their borders in 1914. The fact is simple: after the First Balkan War, there was no more "question of Kosovo". The only issue unresolved from the First Balkan War was the "question of Macedonia"; this led to the Second Balkan War fought with Serbia and Greece on one side, and Bulgaria supported by the Ottomans on the other. This too was resolved by a "treaty", but only one of Noel Malcolm's illegal affairs; suffice it to say that according to Malcolm, Macedonia too was conquered and not legally incorporated into the new territories. I suppose he thinks it is still part of the Ottoman Empire today. Shame nobody else agrees with him. Evlekis (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

I think we agree the sentence "divded by various Balkan entities" removes all the problems. The article is about the Viyalet, not its collapse.

Name

Kosova Viyalet, as spelled in the book; "George Gawrych, The Crescent and the Eagle: Ottoman Rule, Islam, and the Albanians, 1874-1913 (London: I. B. Tauris, 2006).

The book fulfills the criteria set out by WP:V.

Please bring other English language sources which attest it as the Kosovo Viyalet is you have objections, knee-jerk reversions are only going to lead to blocks.

Lets keep it sources based, and not personal POV or research. Thanks, (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)).

It is neither. The George Gawrych book is a later publication. The name being used in English was Kossovo, with this unique spelling[1][2]. The information here is copied directly from the encyclopaedia published in 1911 when the province was still active as an Ottoman entity. Judging by internet sources, it appears that English has used the name Kossovo not only for the former Ottoman province but also for this list of commonly derived names, particularly Belarus/Poland. Evlekis (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Firstly, there is already a ruling which disregards the use of the title "Kossovo". Wikipedia recommends one good source for the lead, and the province is spelled Kosova throught the latest publication. As per WP:V, the George Gawrych book is a gold mine. I've based most, if not all of the lead on that source, and there doesn't seem to be any contentious issues, apart from the name? My opinion is that we should keep it "Kosovo Province" also known as the "Viyalet of Kosova".

Would you agree that this is a good way passed this problem, or have you another suggestion? Regards, Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I've got no problem with that. I wasn't quite sure what you were getting at. I know that Kossovo is not to be used anywhere on WP and I was simply pointing out that this is an older English language usage. But remember, you were in your above statement calling for English language sources regarding the entity; that entity has expired, so I thought you were seeking the English name for it at the time. I don't think that there is an official policy within English usage to refer to this region. It has no real importance to the English speaking world. It doesn't even have much importance to present-day Kosovo squabbles either. The zone was created by the Ottomans, and the modern Turkish republic is itself an entity which in some way broke free from Ottoman rule. They don't have an expansionist policy which would reincorporate this land, and neither the Serbs nor Albanians are suggesting reunifying the territories. So any references to the territory in post 1912 sources will be named however the author chooses. Gawrych, as you say, has chosen Kosova. This could be for one of two reasons: not having read the book myself, I gather from the title that he may have the Albanians in mind; or possibly the Turks - who also called it Kosova - who ruled the province. Evlekis (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

I'm glad we can find consensus friend. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)).

Source

www.kosovo.net is not in a verifiable source. A stable ending to the lead was created here, which lasted for a week until sockpuppets and other nonsense started kicking in. The sentence read; "As a result of the First Balkan War, the vilayet was divided between various Balkan entities". Propose to restore this --Interestedinfairness (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Synvet map

I removed that map because it isn't an ethnographic map but a map connecting ehtnicity to religion. I don't think that anyone can argue that Mussulmans is an ethnic description of any kind or that there is a nation called Serbo-Croats or Bulgar-Greeks.--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Synvet's map

The removal of the map's ref was not a vandalism. I removed the ref about A.Synvet being pro-Greek because what the ref actually says is not at all that: It says that the MAP was favourable to the Greek cause, which is something entirely different. In detail: "Other maps (not other geographers) amongst other ..... were favourable to the Greek cause" meaning that they agreed with the Greeks. That doesn't make (the geographers themselves) pro-Greek. The text is free on line as pdf. --Factuarius (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Maps

Resolved

Map of the Kosovo Vilayet drawn in the infobox does not correspond with map below. Author of the map in the infobox made mistake and used existing borders of Kosovo that are different than borders of vilayet (Kosovo today is much smaller that vilayet Kosovo). Someone could be mislead to believe that Kosovo vilayet did not include Skopje, Novi Pazar, Sjenica, Tutin,.... Therefore I propose to delete map of the vilayet from infobox until it is improved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The year of disestablishment

Armies of Kingdom of Serbia and Kingdom of Montenegro occupied Kosovo Vilayet in 1912. Officially, it was occupied part of Ottoman Empire untill the London Conference of 1913 resulted with Treaty of London (1913) signed on May 30, 1913. According to the text of the treaty:

“His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans cedes to their Majesties the Allied Sovereigns all the territories of his Empire on the continent of Europe to the west of a line drawn from Enos on the Aegean Sea to Midia on the Black Sea, with the exception of Albania.”

I think that only after this contract is signed the official sovereignty over Kosovo vilayet was ceded from Ottoman Empire to the Kingdom of Serbia and Kingdom of Montenegro. Does anybody have anything against my approach? If not, I propose to change the year of disestablishment to 1913. Comments are welcome.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Format

• "Üsküp (Skopje" -Llc 98
• "Skopje (Üsküp" -Llc 30

Üsküp (Skopje) is more common than Skopje (Üsküp). Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

*"Üsküp" -Llc 968

*"Skopje" -Llc 87.900

Skopje (which is also precise per title of existing GA) is more common than Üsküp. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Of Course, Skopje is much more common than Üsküp. I tried to explain the format in the articles related with history. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I give another sample: Caesarea (Kayseri), Sebastea (Sivas) and Amaseia (Amasya) in the article Eretnids. Takabeg (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to improve articles about Ottoman Empire. I am very happy there are more users dealing with this topic, especially so active like you are.

I think that there is mistake in the article you used as argument (the article Eretnids). There is some rule (I can't find it now) that it is wrong to use the case of some other article as argument in discussions, because that other article could be wrong. Nevertheless, I am willing to consider any additional argument you bring, but please try to support it with wiki policies.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

• Don't lean too hard on the content of other articles, because it undermines quality improvement (copying from another article is the best way to multiply one error into two errors). If in doubt, check sources!
• Apart from the facts, there's always the stylistic issue of how to present "foreign" demonyms - there can often be more than one "correct" name. Again, we shouldn't assume that any other article is a perfect model. If in doubt, use what sources use.

If this is going to be an issue for many articles, it's probably worth raising it at the relevant wikiproject. bobrayner (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Macedonia is missing as a country where this vilayet was, even in the text it is mentioned couple of times

Resolved

please correct the section on the rigst "today part of": Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo, not only Serbia and Kosovo

Where is TURKS?..

i am sure gostivar,kalkandelen,prizen,üsküp(skopje) contain more than 9000 turks.

1.from this page we learn in 1921 there were 27,920 Turks in kosova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Kosovo

2.from this page we learn in 1900 there were 9.000 Turks in kalkandelen. http://www.promacedonia.org/vk/vk_2_27.htm

27.920+9000 = 36.920 in conclusion there must be at least 35.000 - 40.000 turks lived on this vilayet.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkishpat (talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kosovo Vilayet. 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/20120320154832/http://lfh.edu.gr/histoiregeographie/sites/default/files/Ressources%20pedagogiques/conseils_bibliographiques/WorkBook3.pdf to http://lfh.edu.gr/histoiregeographie/sites/default/files/Ressources%20pedagogiques/conseils_bibliographiques/WorkBook3.pdf

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) 02:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kosovo Vilayet. 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/20090205233122/http://arts.yorku.ca/hist/tgallant/documents/peckhammapmania_000.pdf to http://www.arts.yorku.ca/hist/tgallant/documents/peckhammapmania_000.pdf

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) 12:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Adrianople Vilayet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The name in Turkish

It should be “Kosova Vilayeti” Michbruh (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Michbruh: That is exactly what is written in the first sentence of the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Not in the introduction part with the map. Both the Ottoman and Turkish names are wrong there Michbruh (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Is it ok now? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The Turkish name is okay in the intro section and above the map section. But the Ottoman names are conflicting. To be honest, I don’t know which one is the correct one. Can you check? Michbruh (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)