Talk:Church of Christ the Saviour, Pristina

Wording

Wording of the article is clearly not neutral, but using Wikipedia as a soapbox for promoting certain political agenda. Perunova straža (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What in particular do you object to? Would you be content with a return to this version? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to this part: "Its construction was seen by the majority Albanian and Muslim population as "an illegal invasion of university property and as yet another move by Slobodan Milosevic’s nationalist government in Serbia to marginalize them",[2] and its future remains uncertain.[2]". The version you suggest has the same problems as current one. Using unreliable sources and political propaganda. Perunova straža (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The version to which I refer does not include the wording to which you object; it says "Its construction was not welcomed by the predominantly muslim population of Kosovo, and its future remains uncertain". Please check. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I added your agreed version, Andy. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Regime

...is loaded. "Era" and "Rule" are not. Sources may use whichever language they choose, it doesn't allow us to editorialise. As such we avoid terms such as "tyrant" and a list of other terms that sources use. --OJ (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

'Regime' is the word used by the cited sources; you've just removed it again, despite my adding an additional, neutral source, which uses it. It appears to be you, not anyone else, who is editorialising a PoV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What POV would this be Pigsonthewing? I'm afraid I don't follow. Are you somehow claiming that "rule" and "era" are cases of editorialising? Do you have any sources to prove this point? Those terms are used widely across the entire site. It says "rule" on the same citation on the Pristina page and one of the sources is this article. That one simply says "Serbian rule". If you truly believe "regime" is not loaded, why don't you comment at WP:WTW as I did, I linked it on your talk. --OJ (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

PS. In addition, looking elsewhere, if we take Supremacism#Germany which cites the "rule of Adolf Hitler", how exactly would this be improved if I were to change it to the "regime" of Adolf Hitler particularly since so many sources apply that very same informal context. --OJ (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

On returning to this article after some time, I see that the cited word "regime" - used widely in other articles - was again removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Church of Christ the Saviour, Pristina. 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/20140302192101/http://www.inyourpocket.com/kosovo/pristina/sightseeing/yugoslav-pristina/Christ-the-Saviour-Cathedral_29493v to http://www.inyourpocket.com/kosovo/pristina/sightseeing/yugoslav-pristina/Christ-the-Saviour-Cathedral_29493v

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Legality of building

There seems to be an ongoing dispute about the phrase "An illegal building". What is not clear to me (as someone who speaks only English) is:

• Is that claim cited to a reliable source? (a quote would help)
• illegal under which laws (i.e. which laws pertained at the time of the building's construction)?
• Has a court of law determined the legal status, or is that merely an accusation? If one has, which court, and when?

Clearly, more eyes on this are needed - and I remind all involved that discretionary sanctions apply to all articles on the Balkans region. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

University position

The claim "the University of Pristina continues to block attempts to refurbish the church" does not seem to be supported by the source cited. Is there a source for this, or should the claim be removed, or reworded? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Categories and navboxes

I have restored some categories and navboxes, and a "Commons category" link, that were removed some time ago, without explanation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)