Jump to content

Talk:Peja

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ThreatMatrix (talk | contribs) at 08:07, 28 August 2019 (→‎Requested move 12 August 2019). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Moved from Question section

The english name of this city is not Pec but Peja, so why does the serbian version exist in higher priority to the albanian? The article was eeven redirected from Pejë as you can see when you search for Peja/Pec: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=District_of_Peja&redirect=no District of Peć -> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -> (Redirected from District of Peja) PowerlockeDurim (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So don't you answer quickly but refusing my article immediately is possible. My aunt does'nt live in Pec but in Peja and this is not serbian. PowerlockeDurim (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of pejan people use the word peja to describe their home eeven in english it's the same so what kind of serbian influence rules wikipedia? PowerlockeDurim (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just start comparing the minority rights of serbs in kosovo. We should not say minority rights because privileged status fits better. At the same time Albanian in Serbia does not have the rights although they are larger in number. Also seen relatively.
User Vanjagenije deletes eeven pictures with albanian name of the city. (just saying) PowerlockeDurim (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PowerlockeDurim: articles are named after the most used name of the subject in English language sources. You can make a WP:Move Request if you think there are good reasons. Read the instructions on the link I placed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: are you an albanian? so could i ask you pleas some questions in shqip if it is possible? maybe on an other plattform via email or facebook? PowerlockeDurim (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PowerlockeDurim: The title of the article is (currently) "Peć". Regardless of your opinion about the title, the subject (city) should be refereed to as "Peć" through the article as long as the title is "Peć". It is not acceptable to have one title and then different name in the text. So, please stop change the name of the city in the text. If you think the title is wrong, try to reach WP:consensus thru a wp:move request. You should be aware that article titles should follow the WP:COMMONNAME policy, so the ethnic majority/minority status is irrelevant. Also, you should be aware that the common name was discussed here several times, and never was consensus reached for moving (renaming) article. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PowerlockeDurim: Editors are required to use only English on the English Wikipedia. If you want to talk about this content dispute, it is preferable to continue the discussion here. If you need instructions about the process of editing Wikipedia, you can ask me on my talk page on the English [1] and Shqip [2] Wikipedia. I placed a welcome message on your talk page, there you can familiarize yourself with editing process. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really need to adress one issue which I see too often being brought to this discussions. People really need to stop bringing allways the same useless argument about how the city is refered by locals. Seems people are really unable to understand one basic fact, which is that this is an English-language online eencyclopedia. By that, it means it is directed towards English-language speakers. WP:COMMONNAME is a good policy because adresses this issue in practice. We need to find the name English-speakers refer to the city most. Not locals. Locals are irrelevant for this issue. "Oh we people of Peje we call it Peje"... well yes, OK, but no one cares here how people in Peje refer to the city, but what matters is how English-language literature refers to it, so it makes English-language speakers more easy to find and know what is covered in this article. People fail to understand that this is ENGLISH encyclopedia and make a mistake of arguing as if this was some sort of multilinguistic United Nations one. To facilitate them to see their own absurdity, it would be like someone coming to an Albanian encyclopedia and complaining why the entry about Germany is named Gjermania when all locals call it Deutschland!!! When you write an encyclopedia in Albanian you are obviously doing it in focus for Albanian-language speakers and all that matters is how Albanian-language speakers call things. So it is time for all to undestand this (I mean all, Albanians, Serbs, Macedonians, Chinese, Indonesians, whatever) that the only valid arguments are the ones that deal about English-language speakers perception. How English-laguage speakers refer to it, how English-laguage literature and sources refer to it, and what name they associate the most for the subject dealt in the article. It is often a name in English, but if not, it may be an addopted word from some other language which came to be in use in English as well for it. Whatever locals, speacially if not English-language speakers think about it, is totally irrelevant, and even further irrelevant are the local sensibilities and POV´s. I already saw people here writing that names of places in English which were adopted from Serbian language are "offensive" (???) for locals, a total absurdity, because this articles are NOT written for locals, but for native English-language speakers, which may, or not, share those sensitivities, which in case of not, well, makes those senstivities irrelevant.

So, from now on, I really think that whenever appears again some user bringing those same arguments which show total lack of understanding that this is an online encyclopedia written for native English-language speakers, they should be disregarded on spot. "Oh we in X-onia call it different", "Oh we in X-onia find it offensive", and such, should be just ignored. The only valid arguments are the ones that refer to English-language speakers, literature and sources. FkpCascais (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe your argument is pretty moot though. As far as I can tell, the english name for the city is Peja. Pejë in Albanian and Pec in Serbian. So the article should reasonably be named Peja with reference to it being called Pejë in Albanian and Pec in Serbian. Sort of like [1] the Gothenburg article where it's called Gothenburg in english with a reference to Göteborg being it's Swedish name. Pihlbaoge (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The English name of the city is determined by Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Every futher discussion ends there. FkpCascais (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pihlbaoge I compleetly agree with you. The english name for the city is Peja. Pejë in Albanian and Pec in Serbian. Why should the American/English people take those slavic words ars the english version? :( --PowerlockeDurim (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't they? The English name doesn't need to have any relationship to the name used in the city itself. If English usage was to call this place "Susan", it would be at that title. Whether you like the fact that the English form is closer to the Serbian form than the Albanian form is completely irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothenburg

Peja or Peć

Hello, I want to ask why the name of this article is Peć and not Peja? Many Books are using Peja (look here: (1), (2)) In Peja City are living 48.962 people. Thereof are 45.915 Albanians (94%!). Only 21 Serbs are in Peja. In the municipality are 96.450 people. 87.975 Albanians and 332 Serbs. That shows that the people in Peja are using Peja and not Peć. And many books too. The German Wikipedia had the same discussion and they moved the page from Peć to Peja in 2017 because of this reasons. Please join in the discussion. ElmedinRKS (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ElmedinRKS: Please, read carefully discussions above, including the archives. Wikipedia has its principles on page titles, most important of which is WP:COMMONNAME. During numerous discussions, it was concluded that Peć is still the COMMONNAME. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.: (1), (2), (3), (4). Reliable English-language sources use Peja. And now? ElmedinRKS (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not forget: it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. ElmedinRKS (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just search the archives above and you'll find many examples of "Peć" being used in (post-2008) English sources. In order to move the page, you need to prove that the desired title is the most common, not just that it's common. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: I already read the archives above. Maybe there are sources for Peć and Peja; what could be a good solution here? And in the archives you will find the most common of Peja. And: please read my marked annotations above about WP:COMMONNAME. ElmedinRKS (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 August 2019

Peć → Peja – Kosovo has declared its independence in 2008. Previously Kosovo was an autonomous province of Yugoslavia and later a region of Serbia. In this time (1974-89) Albanian, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish were official language (Article 131). Look at the census of 2011: There are 94% Albanians - which means that the people in Peja would more use Peja as Peć. Let me show you reliable English-language sources: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) - there are many sources (books (published in different years), newspaper articles (NYT)). Certainly there are sources for Peć too. But look here on this result of Peć and Peja. According to WP:AT, WP:COMMONNAME (WP:UCRN): Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. (added ElmedinRKS (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)) When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. ElmedinRKS (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my arguments and the „arguments“ of October 2018? Here are different reliable English-language sources (WP:UCRN) and I have looked at WP:COMMONNAME in great depth. ElmedinRKS (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In order to convince the Wiki community about this move, you will need to show not only that Peja is used by reliable sources (and the examples given are not convincing – travel guides, one memoir, one novel, one single caption in a newspaper article), you need to show that Pejë/Peja has become the most commonly used name. You would have to show that there is a significant shift in usage since the last move request in 2018. I doubt that this is the case. --T*U (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I can not understand it. According to WP:COMMONNAME I have to show reliable English-language sources. That is it what I did. The previous RMs are showing how much articles they are for Peć and Peja. And: In year 2007 this book was published. Or this neutral one. ElmedinRKS (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that for a COMMONNAME to be established the name has to be prevalent in English language sources not simply that some source use the name. The problem is that so far most people aren’t convinced that has been demonstrated.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
”Some sources”? ElmedinRKS (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. Unlike the occasional requests to use the Turkish names instead of the Anglicized Greek names of locations in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognized by only a single UN member, this request concerns a location that does not have an English exonym (thus leaving English speakers with either the Serbian name, Peć or the Albanian name, Peja), in an entity which is recognized by 101 UN members, including the entire English-speaking world (List of states with limited recognition). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current consensus is that Peć is the most commonly used form in English-language sources. What will be needed to change this consensus, is to convince me and others that this has changed. The proposer has shown a handful of sources that use Peja (by the way, the second and the third are identical, and the first is another edition of the same book). I could easily list any number of similar sources using Peć. Also, most of the given sources for Peja are not even new, so they will have been around when this was discussed last, and before that, and before that... Unless anyone can show that there has been a shift in usage, the current consensus holds. --T*U (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article uses Peja and is from 2019. The argument that the books are not new shows that Peja was always been used. (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8); definitely Peja is the most commonly used form. ElmedinRKS (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google analysis by Cal : this one is a bit hard because both Pec and Peja will turn up other entities on Google (a Hungarian city also with a Slavic(?) name spelled Pec plus some Czech villages as well as the Pec patriarchate, an athlete with the forename Peja, etc), so some filtering was necessary.

  • English google with "Peć" + Kosovo -Wikipedia : 746,000 results -- some of these refer to the patriarchate but I think many more refer to the city.[3]
  • English google with "Peja" + Kosovo -Wikipedia : 858,000 results [4] note also that some of the sources in both columns here are alternating between Peja and Pec'... but it seems Peja has a slight advantage.
  • English google with "Pejë" +Kosovo -Wikipedia: 538,000 results. [5]. Note that Britannica appears to have recently changed to using Peje by default.
  • English google with "Peje" (no umlaut) +Kosovo -Wikipedia: 308,000 results [6] -- this form is preferred in many Latin alphabets without the umlaut e, and is also used by Albanians when typing with non-Albanian keyboards.
  • to be fair I then searched Pec with no accent +Kosovo -Wikipedia... for 1,180,000 results. Some of these do refer to other entities but scrolling through I'd say the vast majority refer to the town in Kosovo.

So none of this shows what has become more common but we can gather (a) that Anglophones dislike the versions with accented letters, and (b) there appears to be a statistical tie if you add these forms together -- i.e. the Albanian name's variants have 1.704 million, the Serbian name's variants have 1.926 million (there is certainly some double counting for Pec/Peć and Peje/Pejë which helps the Pec side more because Peja does not get double counted .... buuuuut I don't think this changes the fact that the Albanian versus Serbian forms have a sort of parity online).

Google N-grams is unreliable for "Pec" here [[because a look through the sources it includes in Pec include cookbooks, some cases where it is apparently used an acronym like in chemistry and nanotechnology it seems, bodybuilding books (you know, pectorals) and so forth. With other forms, Peja and Peje are clearly dominant as you can see here [7], and although Peja Stojakovic is included in the Peja sources, the difference is way too huge for that to matter, and Peja actually had the upper hand before he was born (the same cannot be said for other places called Pec). Furthermore, the dominance of Peja/e is only growing and has steadily increased from 1996 till present -- but, even before '96, in English, it appears Peja had the upper hand (likely not because of any favoritism toward Albanian names, but instead perhaps because no one wanted to write that accented c -- the Pejë form similarly was beaten out by Peja). The vast majority of the sources of all of these remaining strings have to do with Kosovo. However, one thing I did find is that although we have a huge weight in favor of the Pej(a/e) variants, when we are talking about the Patriarchate, the situation is the reverse and very much favors the Serbian form.

I don't think COMMONNAME is clear here -- we have more of a Gdansk Danzig situation. So instead I suggest (1) Use Peja -- definite form -- Anglophones seem to prefer this -- for the city since the end of Serbian administration, (2) Pec for periods when under Serbian administration, (3) Ipek in history sections when discussing the Ottoman period and finally (4) Pec for all Orthodox Christian institutions in and of the city (Peja for Muslim/Catholic ones). Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems pretty reasonable. As you noted, the stalemate by the number of search results isn't of use here, so having this sort of balance reaches an good conclusion. Calling the city as per the time-frame of the context proves logical to me. ArbDardh (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)ArbDardh[reply]
Wikipedia:SPEEDYCLOSE Everybody here agree that the renaming proposal is not grounded in WP:COMMONNAME or any other wikipedia policy. The consensus for the existing title remains. If nobody managed to present valid reasons to change consensus reached for Peć for 13 days, this discussion should be (not so speedy actually) closed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speak for yourself Anti. I dont support this.--Calthinus (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Antidiskriminator: Are you sure that “everybody“ does? I do not think so. @Calthinus: Agree ! ElmedinRKS (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - aparently there were no new significant changes since the last consensus. Another thing I already pointed out in other similar RfM´s for cities in Kosovo, and I will repeat again and it is valid for all RfM´s from around the world, is the invalidity of the argument that X or Y % of "locals" use the name more. Certainly over 90% of Venetians call their city "Venezia" but that is absolutelly irrelevant for English Wikipedia. Each language Wikipedia should use the titles for their articles in the most used name in the corresponding lnaguage. So, returning to our issue here, what matters is how English-language publications majoritarily refer. The title must be the one most recognisable to English-speaking readers. There are three options for cases of foreign places, one is a proper English word when it exists (exemple Belgrade for Beograd), second option is a native name, and third option is the adoption of the name in some language which has influenced English-language enough to be adopted instead of the native language. In our case here, English language has not come up with an original form of name for the city, but instead has adopted the Serbian version as Serbian has been culturally domminant in the region. Kosovo-Albanians should focus that the city is properly written in Albanian in Albanian Wikipedia, and allow all other Wikipedias in other languages to see by themselves what name they use in their language most commonly to identify the city and use that version as title. But demanding other language Wikipedias to addopt the Albanian name of the city just because majority of population now is Albanian, is unreasonable. Besides, it is overwelmingly commun to see either right at the lede, or in a section at the begining, the mention of the other names of the city, its etimology, etc. FkpCascais (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Long time no see Cascais. As for proper English... what Anglophones actually use is not what you think. Google NGrams shows how much Anglophones hate having to type accented Peć , while the dominance of Peja is steadily increasing. [[8]]. --Calthinus (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus: Thank you for this ElmedinRKS (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposal to move this has been rejected in the past. The argument behind this application is political, rather than a significant increase in the use of "Peja" in online literature. Both sides can argue for the name as both Serbian and Albanian are official languages in Kosovo. The fact that just because there is an Albanian majority does not warrant an immediate change in the name. Since the previous attempt to change the name of the article, I have not seen a significant shift in the use of "Peja" in online literature. Debating the names of towns/cities in the Balkans is an ongoing trend and I have seen it happen recently in the Skopje page when there was a push to have "Üsküp" utilised in text. For the sake of keeping the peace, this proposal should be rejected. ThreatMatrix (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ThreatMatrix: Hello TryDeletingMe. Long time, no see. Wait for a SPI. I will file one soon time permitting. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: I see you are synonymous with edit warring and that you have taken the liberty of removing traces of it off your talk page. VJ-Yugo, Osourdounmou and Donaldduck13, it seems your witch-hunt is never ending. ThreatMatrix (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peja&oldid=912849320"