From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Using Gjeravica[edit]

I propose to start using the Albanian name, Gjeravica, for this article, as Albanian is the official language of Kosovo, and therefore place names should be in Albanian, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). What does everyone else think? 2007apm (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, both Albanian and Serbian are the official languages of Kosovo (see Kosovo). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Our naming conventions for geographic names do not indicate the use of "names in the local official language"; instead, they ask us to follow the usage commonly found in English-language publications. – In our case, that would mean either Đeravica or more likely Djeravica. - Ev (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I support Djeravica as a compromise solution. In Serbo-Croatian Gj was aslo used as a digraph for Đ so this way we have a correct solution with support in the English language. -- Imbris (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not about compromising between the Albanian and Serbo-Croatian names or forms, but about complying with our naming conventions by limiting ourselves to follow the name or form commonly used in English-language publications. - Ev (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose to start using the Albanian name, Gjeravica, yep since its the Official name most of the people i've meet in the region of Gjeravica call it Gjeravica and they know that its written Gjeravica, i've visited the Gjeravica mountains and i hike a lot, and most of the people around the Shar mountains are Albanians, and since Kosovo is an independent state and the majority of people in Kosovo speak Albanian like 95% of them, i think it should be fair to use the name that the People from Kosovo use, not the old names used by the old people who occupied Kosovo for years and oppressed the people there. And yes Albanian is the Main Language in Kosovo and the Official one. Heroidshehu (Usertalk:Heroidshehu|talk]]) 20:15, 08 November 2010 (UTC)

This name is agreed by consensus of different editors, as most common one per international sources, and other relevant data. If you want to rename it, you need to talk here first, and not just rename it as you did. Therefor, i reverted your edits. You are welcome to ask any question you need, and we will agree here about it. Thanks! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 20:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Most of the data in this article is outdated, i can update the data. I hope you don't have anything against some updates, i still think that the Majority of people should decide and the people who live in that place not people who have never been in Gjeravica, i have more information about Gjeravica because i visited that place, and got to speak to people who come from there, also my Offsprings are from Voksh, a village near Gjeravica, they have been there for many of years. Anyway i hope Justice will be set soon and this article will get updated, and the right names shall be used.

Heroidshehu (Usertalk:Heroidshehu|talk]]) 13:02, 09 November 2010 (UTC)

Listen, it is not about that. It was agreed, by consensus, that Đeravica is most common name.There are a lot of guidelines that you must follow. It is not important how you call it, or your friend, as this is not your wikipedia, this in international wikipedia. Also, Kosovo Independence is disputed, and in wikipedia Kosovo is not represented as independent country. It is disputed territory. So, before any edits, better first talk in talk page, and ask for public opinion. That's the way wikipedia works. If you need more help, you are welcome to talk to me, and i will try to help! :) All best! --WhiteWriter speaks 12:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, i removed sources that are not reliable per wikipedia guidelines. Thanks! --WhiteWriter speaks 12:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, im Just adding some more pictures to this article and things i've seen there from my experience, lets leave the name aside for the moment we may settle it up later, first we need to make this article rich with more information and pictures, if you have more information about the region of Gjeravica you can add some more stuff... Yes i call it Gjeravica and will continue calling it so, although you probably know what i mean. Heroidshehu (talk) 14:49, 09 November 2010 (UTC)

Futile argument that Đeravica is common in the English language[edit]

It is more common in the English language to use the native name, that is Kosovan name in the Albanian language especially when that name is more pronouncable in the English language. The English language speaker do not know how to pronounce the letter Đ but would more easiable say Gj instead. -- Imbris (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First, as our naming conventions for geographic names mention, "a widely accepted English name" (or a common English usage) "[will often] be a local name, or one of them; but not always."
In the case of the former Yugoslavia, for a number of obvious historical reasons, for many decades English-language publications have been using the Serbo-Croatian place names (instead of the Albanian ones). Of course, this usage may change in the future. But is there any evidence that it has already changed in this case ?
Second, on the ever contentious issue of diacritics usage, if the "đ" letter (d with stroke) causes any problem, the norm is to replace it with "dj" – in our case, Djeravica.
For a quick general overview, compare these Google Book searches:
Đeravica: unclear; although 16 books in English are listed.
Deravica: 4 3 books in English (and 1 using Đeravica [1]).
Djeravica: 16 books in English.
Gjeravica: 1 book in English (Robert Elsie's Historical Dictionary of Kosova).
Gjeravice or Gjeravicë: 0 books.
As a matter of fact, I have often thought about moving this article to Djeravica, but because I'm personally fine with Đeravica too I have always posponed doing it to avoid another political & ethnic match (as opposed to a rational discussion on what form would most English speakers encounter in English-language publications). - Regards, Ev (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Some Google Scholar searches:
Đeravica: 1 clear result in English (of a raw total of 13).
Deravica: 1 result in English (of a raw total of 4).
Djeravica: 4 clear results in English (of a raw total of 10).
Gjeravica: 2 clear results in English (of a raw total of 5).
Gjeravice or Gjeravicë: 0 results.
And some searches:
Đeravica: 0 books (11 books using Deravica, see immediatley below).
Deravica: 11 books in English (7 atlases -which tend to conserve local forms, thus being less representative of English usage- and 4 non-atlases, including 2 travel guides and 1 using Gjeravica/Deravica: The CIA World factbook 2009).
Djeravica: 4 books in English (including 1 travel guide).
Gjeravica: 2 books in English (1 travel guide & 1 using Gjeravica/Deravica: The CIA World factbook 2009).
Gjeravice or Gjeravicë: 0 books.
Regards, Ev (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
What is also important is this, photos indicate community.
Google Image Search :
*Gjeravica 2.110 [2]
*Đeravica 2,020[3]
*Deravica 441 [4]
*Gjerovica 280 [5]
So Gjeravica returns more.
Also on facebook, a good indicator of community there are fanpages and hiking groups for Gjeravica but for Đeravica there is only the wikipages.
Flickr :
* Gjeravica on flickr : 126 results [6]
* Đeravica on flickr : 2 results [7]

James Michael DuPont (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move to Djeravica[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was no consensus to support move as proposed. JPG-GR (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ĐeravicaDjeravica — Based on the two sections above, to comply with our naming conventions by limiting ourselves to follow the name or form commonly used in English-language publications. — Ev (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).
  • Support Undecided as nominator. - Ev (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Changed to undecided per Knepflerle's contribution. - Ev (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as described by User Ev -- Imbris (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sigh. As I've pointed out many, many times before, Google Scholar and Google Books are absolutely useless for deciding these sorts of matters - the optical character recognition is not up to the job whatsoever. Note this which I managed to have included in WP:UE -
"modified letters have the additional difficulties that some search engines will not distinguish between the original and modified forms, and others fail to recognize the modified letter because of optical character recognition errors."
Look at your second result for "Deravica" from Google Scholar. The summary quote on the results page says "Deravica" - but if you click on the link you see the text actually contained Đeravica!
Not only does their optical-character recognition perform annoying but accountable mistakes such as reading Đ as D; lots of results may be being overlooked by Đ being read as something completely unexpected. I wrote this at WT:UE a while ago:
"In any search there are so many false positives and omissions that any numerical comparisons are spurious.
For example PBS's search to pick out cases of Soren and excluding Søren. Of the first five results we can see the text of, four use Søren on the title (Y, Y, Y, Y, N). OK, so maybe the OCR doesn't work on the title (never mind that this is the spelling people might actually remember most), but it even happens in the text - Søren gets Googlified as S0ren, Søren OCR'ed as Seren, text says Søren, OCR says Soren, OCR gives and f1nally SAren Kierkegaard - sometimes it even struggles with English! The 148 results for University of D0sseldorf tells us nothing about English usage and likewise neither do the above searches for Kierkegaard.
You can clean up your results to be meaningful: you must first go through the results weeding out the false positives (and these are not rare - in my check they were the majority of results above) and then secondly try and perform an exhaustive search for all combinations Google might have OCR'ed the diacritic as (eg for ł try t, 1, l, k...) to avoid missing out large numbers of cases where an English writer did use the diacritic but Google has morphed it into something that you might not search for. However, it might be better to just admit Google is not up to the job on this one and try a more reliable method."
In my experience Đ can be read as D, B, @ (honestly), O, 0, &, omitted as a space ... and those are just examples I've seen and remember. If you don't believe the algorithm is that bad, any guesses what "A8-SI02TOBS TO BIHXS HAKTTVACTTTBXNG-' COMPAHY" means? Answer here. Sorry, but the tool you're using is not up to the job, especially when there's little numerical difference between results. The numbers are meaningless and the conclusions invalid. Without more soundly based evidence, I oppose. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking the time to write this detailed -and clearly needed- explanation, Knepflerle. :-) In this case I paid little attention to the distinction between Đ & D because I thought that it wasn't significative when comparing with Dj (although I have now corrected the Google Books results). But I failed to consider the possibility of Đs being misread as something other than Ds. — I'll see if I can -or care to- do something better...
I have just realized that WP:UE was not in my watchlist (the cautionary note was added in April 2008, immediately following your suggestion at WT:NC). - Best regards, Ev (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem! There's absolutely no reason to expect editors have read that tiny note in the turbid depths of WP:UE, and it's a point that is far from immediately obvious. The best way (nay, probably the only effective way) of highlighting the issue is just to bring it up every time this sort of argument is used. Otherwise people quite naturally see it in one place, don't realise the problem and quite justifiably go on to use the same argument elsewhere and the cycle goes on.
It would be fantastic if Google improved their OCR and counting algorithm - not just so that we can solve questions like this on en.wp, but more importantly so that thousands of titles which have been improperly scanned and stored become searchable at long last! It's incredibly frustrating trying to find a document that you know exists in Google's database, but which does not come up searching either with or without diacritics, just because it has been parsed with a completely unrelated character or with a space.
It's really quite amazing: if searching for say, Düsseldorf or Dusseldorf doesn't give you the result you know exists, try Dasseldorf, DOsseldorf, D sseldorf, Dūsseldorf, Dsseldorf, Dússeldorf, D?sseldorf... and suddenly you can discover entire new worlds of relevant hits in the database! And Google's relatively "good" at ü's really - trying to reliably find documents with ß, ł or þ is a black art mastered only through painful hours of apprenticeship ;)
Anyway back off the topic of duff algorithms and back on the topic of (*)eravica! If there's any other non-search-engine-counting-type evidence, then it would be interesting to see. But the searches do tell us one thing - pretty much all the alternatives are used in English at some time or other, so whatever is picked won't make a massive amount of difference - a few people will get the title they expect, users of any other title won't get what they expect but will get redirected to where they want to go anyway. Little difference either way. Knepflerle (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
lol Well, from now on I will help to spread the word. :-)
Anyway, the other detail that the searches appear to show (and possibly underestimate due to misread Đs) is the expected fact that English-language publications tend to use Serbo-Croatian forms (Đ, D or Dj) instead of Albanian ones (Gj-a, -ë or -e), as is the general case for place names from the former Yugoslavia.
And there lies the problem of this article: as with so many Kosovo-related ones, the history and logs show constant changes to the less common Albanian forms, and not to "diacriticless" Ds or Djs. — I was hoping that a change to Dj (and away from what some appear to regard as a "purely Serbian Đ") would be enough for at least some people. *sigh* - Regards, Ev (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose As discussed ad nauseam, diacritics have nothing to do with our conventions regarding common usage in English. It is a matter of accuracy in that common usage. Húsönd 19:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Húsönd :-) I agree in general when it's just about adding or removing a little thing from a single character, as in Đ/D, š/s or ü/u, and the diacritics are used in high-quality publications. I'm not so sure when a "diacriticless" common usage has more than one character... e.g. Ushak/Uşak carpet. - Best, Ev (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to "Djeravica", as that is not correct in any language. I would support a move to Gjeravica, the Albanian name, as that is the language of Kosovo, under which the area is under de facto control if not de jure. MTC (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the question of whether to move to "Djeravica" or not, please note that:
  • The form Djeravica is often used (see Google Books; Google Scholar &, and our own article on the "Đ" (D with stroke) currently mentions that "when a true đ is not available or not desired, it is transcribed as dj in Serbian, and gj in Macedonian." — Although this is probably a matter of opinions on what "correct" means, I would hardly describe such a widely attested usage as "not correct in any language".
  • Our general naming conventions and the specific ones for geographic names & on using English indicate that our articles should use the name commonly found in English-language publications, not the one in the language of the local majority.
  • The only clear result of my poorly performed searches is that the Albanian name is the one least commonly used in English-language publications. As such, it is not "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" (WP:NC).
Regards, Ev (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and Ev's evidence. Actually supplying evidence should be rewarded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although I support using English and am impressed by and appreciative of the nominator's evidence, I disagree that "Djeravica" is a true exonym (it is an obscure place to most English speakers) and believe that the instances of "dj" usage are the result of typographical challenges rather than the actual existence of an "English" name. This issue should ideally be dealt with systemically but I have attempted to bring it up in the past with no luck. — AjaxSmack 21:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Just one clarification: I don't regard "Djeravica" as an English exonym either. :-) It's simply one of the three forms in which the name can be written in Serbo-Croatian (the other two being "Đeravica" & "Ђеравица").
I proposed the move believing that it was the form most commonly used in English-language publications, and thus the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (now, after Knepflerle's comments, I'm not so sure); not proposing "Djeravica" as an English exonym or a "real English name".
My apologies for not stating this clearly in the nomination. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
  • Comment the title of this article cannot remain. If a move to Djeravica is not an option then it is most certainly an option to move the article under the name of Gjeravica. -- Imbris (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
No, Imbris: "Gjeravica" appears to be the form least commonly used in English-language publications, and thus clearly not "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". Using it is out of the question. — Please, read carefully what our naming conventions stipulate (including the issue of modified letters). - Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Highest point of Serbia[edit]

If we consider Kosovo a part of Serbia (as Belgrade does), then Đeravica is Serbia's highest point also. This fact was removed by Imbris with the following edit summary:

That explanation under the footnote [a] is quite enough, even more than enough. Peak of Communism was once the highest peak of USSR but not Russian Federation.

The answer is "no to both points".

First, the footnote only explains Kosovo's complicated political status. It does not mention anything about Đeravica being considered by some as Serbia's highest peak (nor should it, as that fact belongs in the article's body).

Second, you cannot reasonably compare Đeravica's situation with that of Communism Peak. The Russian Federation does not claim sovereignity over Tajikistan, nor is Tajikistan's sovereignity questioned by any other country as far as I'm aware. However, Serbia does claim sovereignity over Kosovo, and Kosovo's sovereignity is questioned by other countries. – Apples and oranges.

In any case, we're not factually asserting that Đeravica is Serbia's highest peak. We're merely mentioning that those who consider Kosovo to be a part of Serbia's sovereign territory (as Belgrade does) see Đeravica in that manner.

I have re-introduced the fact, using the Serbian government as source for its own position, clearly attributed. - Ev (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop your shouting of Serbian positions, they are very well known. Serbian governmental sources have nothing to do with geography, find the Factbook by CIA, find in other encyclopaedical works.
the Republic of China (Taiwan) still considers the "Top of the World" as its territory which is laid in the People's Republic of China. Who are we to decide which of those information is correct.
You have expressed to be unbiased and that you do not know either Albanian or Serbian, it seems that those info should be considered with a grain of salt.
Explain what you want but in that footnote. That inserting of Serbian Governmental Position has nothing to do with this article.
Imbris (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a notable sourced position, so it should be included. Inclusion does not imply "truth", and truth is not a prerequisite for inclusion. Verifiability and notability are. We state "very well known" (your words) positions and who holds them, and leave it to the reader to assess their validity. Knepflerle (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Imbris says: "Stop your shouting of Serbian positions, they are very well known". Then, why wouldn't we include something that is well known?Vanjagenije (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed it back. It is Serbia's highest peak. Show me some evidence that says the majority of the world's countries recognize the independence of Kosovo and it can be changed back.-- (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion was about the addition of this sentence, not about how to mention its location ("in Kosovo", "in Kosovo, Serbia" or "in Serbia"), the issue of your edit. I have reverted it according to what was discussed at Talk:Šar Mountains#Serbia and Kosovo. - Best, Ev (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting edits[edit]

Hello, the page in being reverted without any comments. We are trying to improve this article. please stop reverting for no reason. thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo_and_Metohija also redirects to Kosovo and that sets a good standard. Also no one uses serbian letters in english. THe funny "d" does not even exist on my keyboard. James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Read Talk:Đeravica#Using_Gjeravica from above! --WhiteWriter speaks 12:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Main reason to change, authors[edit]

Listen, let me present you with the biggest reason to change the name, the local people are offended with the serbian names. They live there, and they feel that wikipedia is biased to serbia. This is a major reason not to contribute to wikipedia. It has been a big problem all the time. The few vocal serbs who are pushing to keep the old name dont even live there and cannot contribute much. the people who do live there and can write are being excluded.

I would appreciate some comments on this. James Michael DuPont (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a procedure for renaming articles. See: WP:REQMOVE. You are welcomed to make a move request. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to admit, I haven't heard for any sillier request. Somebody is offended... Yeah, let's remove everything that might offend certain part of Earth population. I would vote to delete parts or whole articles on Christianity, Islam, Scientology, etc cause it offends my blasphemic mind... -- Bojan  Talk  03:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It is more than the names of the articles. I will leave the names of the articles alone. I dont want to get blocked or cause problems. I will focus on adding in information about the articles and making sure the albanian names are listed as well. James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
As i can see, you have been warned already on your talk page about adding dual language names in articles. Stop that, please. We have other languages in article lead, and those should not be used throughout the article. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I requested arbitration on that issue. I still think that the links to the towns should have both names, because it is more useful that way. James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against dual names. After all, they are undisputed facts, right? -- Bojan  Talk  13:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

the names are also listed on the signs when you enter the town, both of them. the names are also available in geonames and from other sources. Of course they are undisputed. They are being removed however from the bodies of the articles. I would like to see the albanian names listed at least on the links so we dont have to know the serbian names. I never have to deal with these serbian letters and names except when coming to wikipedia. it is very annoying. James Michael DuPont (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia has quite different rules than the road signs (What a surprise!). Double and/or triple names are not recommended on Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that kosovo deserves an exception because of its status. We need to be able to support albanian names, it is important for the community. Wikipedia wants to attract new editors, and the editors for Djeravica are from the area, speaking albanian. They are able to contribute data to the article cause they live there. lets get them involved. James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I Totaly Agree with James Michael DuPont, It is just Unacceptebel that a mountain on the Albanian/Kosovo (May be seen as part of Serbia) But the surrounding area of more than 200km is no Serb to be found. Sorry this title is really invented by a twisted mind. If it was on Serbian/Kosovar border ok sure use Serbian name for now. But in this case it is just totally not accepteble! --Vinie007 18:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
People need to calm down here. Nationalist/jingoist rhetoric will not get any move done regardless of what someone thinks on his own and willingness to edit wikipedia. There may be a reason to change it to either the official or most commonly used name, but it wont happen this way.Lihaas (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It is Gjeravica, not the other one[edit]

Illir writes :

As a native Decanasa (The municipality that Gjeravica belongs to) , I herebly declare that this is Gjeravica and not that other one. This is how everybody calls it there and how it also will be calles in the future. BR, Ilir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone removed this. I think it is very important to document how people who live there call the mountain. We should be listening to them and encouraging them to edit, these are the people who will help improve the wikipedia , the people who live there,. not people far away who are just going by books and outdated information. I protest the removal of this comment! thanks,

James Michael DuPont (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM means constructive and productive comments are welcome "hereby declare" doesnt constitute something that can be used to enhance the article.Lihaas (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Look, this person is not a WP editor and dont know all the rules of the game. Point is there are many many people who see it the same way.James Michael DuPont (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
That doesnt matter is many individuals see it that way, wikipedia doesnt work for just anyones assertions. If so then cite it, or discuss why it should be. The comment above doesnt mentions anything whatsoever about improvng the article.Lihaas (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Highest Point in Kosovo[edit]

Hi Anastan, regarding your revert of my edit an this subject. The source is the Yugoslav topographic map. At the time that it was made, about 1973, it was probably restricted, but it is no longer restricted and is therefore verifiable evidence. Someone has uploaded part of the map at the bottom of, which shows the 2658m summit in the Rudoka range. More recent mapping published by the Macedonian authorities also shows a 2561m summit, and that both summits are on the border with Kosovo. The difference is probably within the margin of error, but I think there is at least enough evidence to question the official claim that Gjeravica is the highest point in Kosovo - and, depending on your point of view, Serbia also. Viewfinder (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: On the map you linked, it is not clear whether that 2658m peak is located in Macedonia or Kosovo. Crno Ozero (Black Lake) that is visible on the map is located in Macedonia, and the border is not marked on the map. How do you know that the peak is in Kosovo? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I know from the Macedonian map, which shows the border passing through these summits. I have uploaded the relevant part of it to my site here. Viewfinder (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
There is more discussion about this subject at Talk:List_of_mountains_in_Kosovo#New_highest_peak.3F. I think there is enough evidence to reinstate my edit. Viewfinder (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)