Jump to content

Talk:Metohija

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KazanElia (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 28 February 2014 (→Requested move =). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Names in Albanian or Serbian?

This article is a bit messy. Some of the place names are in Albanian (e.g. Peja, Gjakova, Bjeshket e Nemuna etc), and some in Serbian (Kosovo, Mokra Gora and the title of the article itself). We need to decide whether it is best to use the Serbian (because de jure Kosovo is still part of Serbia), the Albanian (because de facto it is part of the overwhelmingly Albanian inhabited province of Kosova from which the Serb state organs are entirely absent), or whether in deference to equal treatment of all parties we go for the messier way of using both names. Of course, even if we chose the last option, we would still have arguments over whose name should appear first. Personally, I think that 'historical' arguments (about who was there first, and who stole land off whom etc) should not have a place in making this kind of decision.Mattwhiteski 13:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that 69.255.94.118 has attempted to introduce some consistency into the naming scheme used here, but wouldn't it have been better to discuss it here before deciding to use Serbian names across the board? Mattwhiteski 13:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, we use Serbian names always, because Kosovo is both de jure and de facto part of Serbia. Nikola 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De facto in what sense? As the Serbian state has no presence in Kosovo, it seems that in the strict sense of the terms Kosovo is de jure part of Serbia, but de facto an international protectorate pending the outcome of so called 'final status' talks due to take place this year. Please understand that this is not any attempt to belittle Serbs' historical, cultural religious and emotional attachment to Kosovo. As I mentioned above, I don't see those issues as being particularly relevant when we are discussing what is simply a naming convention. I'm simply aiming at consistency. Mattwhiteski 15:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia and Montenegro is a member of the United Nations which is providing this protectorate. The province is a part of Serbia, both de facto and de jure, and a UN protectorate, again both de facto and de jure. Names of places in Serbia should be given in Serbian, as should names of places in France be given in French - that's consistency. Nikola 00:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from the Wikipedia article de facto: "The de facto boundaries of a country are defined by the area that its government is actually able to enforce its laws in, and to defend against encroachments by other countries...". Are you saying that Serbia is actually able to enforce its laws in Kosovo, or to defend it against encroachments by other countries? Mattwhiteski 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (actually, not Serbia but Serbia and Montenegro but that is not the point). If you take a look at [1], you will see that Yugoslav laws (which include SCG or Serbian laws if no appropriate Yugoslav law exists) apply in entire Kosovo, except if replaced by an UNMIK regulation. For example, contributions made from Wikipedians from Kosovo are copyrighted under the Copyright law of Yugoslavia (to my knowledge, UNMIK didn't make any regulations regarding copyright). So, Serbian laws are enforced in Kosovo, but by the UN, and not by Serbia. If Serbia updates an old law, it could ask the UNMIK to issue a regulation which supports it and if UNMIK agrees, it would be enforced too, and if law is reasonable (f.e. extension of copyright law from life+50 to life+70), UNMIK would certainly support it.
If SCG would be displeased by UN's acts, it could leave the UN, which means that UN troups would have to leave Serbia. If that doesn't happen, the province would be occupied, and then if SCG doesn't remove occupiers by force, it could be said that it is no longer de facto in Serbia. But even in that case I believe that Wikipedia should continue to use Serbian names, or otherwise it would support the occupation. I'm not sure if there were any cases of an occupation which happened during existance of Wikipedia (Iraq, but there were no name changes) and what are the practices. Nikola 09:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metohija

Kosovo has to feeld Metohija (Dugagjini) and Kosovo. The feld of Dugagjini (Metohia) is ony a geographicel region .

What??? Litany 18:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does Metohija mean? This is "Rrafshi i Dukagjinit" an Albanian land belonging to the Republic of Kosovo, the second Albanian country in the world after Albania. Why should it use Serbian names? Or Brazilian names, or Chinese, or whatever ... In respect to the reality and the existence of what-is reality we should identify items by their names. If my name is John you can't call me Jack! It is me who knows what is my name! Therefore please immediately rename the place to its own name, the name which its people call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.165.139 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected Dukagjin to Metohija, according to Robert Elsie: "The Albanian-language equivalent of Metohija is Dukagjin or Rrafshi i Dukagjinit (the Dukagjin Plateau)."--Zoupan 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is treacherous, and based incorrectly on Elsie. Robert Elsie says Dukagjin: Geographical region. In Kosova, the term Dukagjin refers to western Kosova, broadly equivalent to the BCS term Metohija, i.e. the populated plateau running from Peja down to Prizren. The region is referred to more accurately as the Dukagjin Plateau, in order to distinguis it from another region called Dukagjin in Northern Albania.--KazanElia (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Can we include the local names of the towns as well?

Can we not include the local names in addition to the Serbian names in Kosovo articles? It is common place on the official Kosovo article. Yet, user User:Tadija is reverting all my additions. James Michael DuPont 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for this article to be reviewed for edit warring because of the amounts of revert that the user is doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/EW#User:Tadija_reported_by_User:Mdupont_.28Result:_.29 James Michael DuPont 10:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that Albanian language names (or Kosovan) names could be given alongside the Serbian ones. The status of Kosovo is inevitably controversial. The NPOV principle implies using both. If User:Tadija is reverting this, he is a vandal and should be blocked. WP is not the right place for resolving conflicts over Serbian and Kosovan nationalism. And James, please learn to sign your contributions to talk pages with ~~~~, which automatically generates your name and the date etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Kosovan and Serbian names should be given. Dincher (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!

edit protected?

why is the article protected? 99.140.182.69 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some NPOV issues

I removed some of the nastier serb-nationalist rant, which contradicts what reliable sources say about the region's history. Unfortunately, WhiteWriter restored it. This is unfortunate. Could we discuss? I'm happy to bring more and better sources, if you want. bobrayner (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The German historical school and foreign occupational troups? I think that WW's latest revert-warring over such edits probably warrant admin intervention.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O, c'mon, quite the rhetorics, please. You have removed two sources, Bob. Can you tell me why, please? --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not every website is a reliable source, not to mention that that particupal assertion was fringe and constituted just a small part of what you reverted. If you still think that the content of your reverts i.e.:
  • German historical school has promoted and spread a theory that Slavs settled in the Balkans in the 6th century, meant to undermine the Serb presence and significance in the area during the Roman era./
  • Serbs formed the majority of western Kosovo until the 20th century
  • On 17 February 2008, the Albanian minority in Serbia supported by the foreign occupational troups declared independence from Serbia.

there can be a discussion on several general boards, where you could list your sources about the German historical school that was undermining the Serbian presence in the Balkans during the Roman era with sources".--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same general boards could be used to discuss the presence of ethnic Albanians on the Balkans before 6th century. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text about "German historical school has promoted and spread a theory that Slavs settled in the Balkans in the 6th century, meant to undermine the Serb presence and significance in the area during the Roman era" is a conspiracy theory, and it would be pretty hard to find sources (other than perhaps a couple from Belgrade) which support such rants.
Linguistic evidence (I could cite a reputable source here but the name alone would spark more drama ;-) hints at Albanian-Slav contact before the end of the ninth century - when there was a vowel shift in local Slavic language. Some loanwords in Albanian were taken before that vowel shift. However, "Albanians" ≠ "Kosovo" and "Slavs" ≠ "Serbs", of course.
However, all this is relevant to many different articles (because the history of the region is told over and over again, in different ways, on different pages) so we should probably discuss it somewhere more central if we're planning to make serious improvements. bobrayner (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Serb presence on the Balkans before 6th century nor Albanian before 11th century are supported by contemporary scholarship or scientific consensus. Most of the articles about Kosovo and Metohija don't attract much of attention of uninvolved editors so it is easy to misuse them for POV pushing. Any assertion about pre 6th century Serb presence or pre 11th century Albanian presence on the Balkans should be left to centralized articles about nationalistic mythologies and similar topics. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator it would be prudent to read the relevant literature as you're rather unknowledgeabe on subjects like the Paleo-Balkan languages etc., not to mention that whatever I wrote was used in a precise manner per the relevant source. In fact, the sentence Albanian presence before the 11th century isn't supported by the relevant scholarship/academic consensus is grossly inaccurate and indicative of ae general lack of linguistics knowledge. Bob, Slavic loanwords are present as early as the late stage of Old Albanian (8th century AD> [2] p.37) but they mostly entered Albanian via Bulgarian.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Antidiskriminator in one sense - apart from linguistic evidence (which doesn't allow precise conclusions) there is very little evidence for who was living where in earlier centuries. Certainly not enough to support some of the later nationalist stories... bobrayner (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, for the "dark ages" (of historiography) we can only rely only on linguistic evidence and the results are going to be approximate.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Metohija → Dukagjin Plateau – This article has moved during its history from Rrafshi i Dukagjinit (in Albanian) to Metohija (in Serbian) back and forth, but has never had its English name (as it should), which is Dukagjin Plateau. Robert Elsie say as follows in regards:

So let's move it to Dukagjin Plateau, as a geographical region, supported by accurate sources. KazanElia (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly searching "Dukagjin Plateau" on Google books returned 40 results, while "Metohija" returned about 60,000. "Rrafshi i Dukagjinit" returned 47. So, the common name seems to clearly be Metohija. --Local hero talk 20:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those googlehits come from the term Kosovo and Metohija which is the historical name of the former Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, on which another article already exists, but I doubt you can provide sources in English that refer exclusively to Metohija as a geographical region. Can you? Also, the term Metohija means "owned by the Church", hardly a geographical name. Dukagjin Plateau is a geographical name. If we want to make a comparison between Metohija Plateau and Dukagjin Plateau we'd get the following results:
Don't you think Dukagjin Plateau gets more hits than Metohija Plateau, looking at the above research? KazanElia (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have to go to the last page to see that Dukagjin Plateau actually has 40 results. Why does the word 'plateau' have to be included? I think the etymology of the word 'Metohija' is irrelevant. Typically, we're supposed to use the most commonly used name and, to me, it seems to be Metohija. I suggest making a formal WP:RM discussion to get more input. --Local hero talk 21:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 295 results refer to 295 times one can encounter Dukagjin plateau in googlebooks, and the 40 hits refer to 40 different books. Metohija plateau yields 2 results in 2 different books. The 295-2 and the 40-2 results for 40 different books for Dukagjin plateau reinforces my argument, as it's a pretty overwhelming result as opposed to Metohija. The word plateau needs to be included as, in geography it clearly better defines a physical geographical region. As a matter of fact we have Dukagjin highlands, Mississipi River, Po Valley, or, referring to the most famous plateau in the world, the Tibetan Plateau. The Dukagjin Plateau is a geographical region and needs to be defined by a geographical name (as it's actually called by 40 books). And... I put the requested move to get more participation as carefully suggested. KazanElia (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metohija&oldid=597582277"