Talk:Priština

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article and other articles related to Kosovo are subject to article probation in the Kosovo arbitration case. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

Contents 1 Prishtina population 2 Ethnic proportions 3 Truth 4 Rewrite 5 About this page 6 Manipulations with history 7 Reference Book 7.1 Response to noel malcolm 8 Priština or Prishtina? 8.1 REGULATION NO. 2000/45 8.2 No argumet 9 Stadium 10 transelet 11 Film City 12 Demography figures 13 Metohija part 14 Prishtina during the Great Demonstrations 15 What's the problem? 16 Renaming of the article, and some parts 17 Note 18 Requested move 18.1 Survey 18.2 Discussion 19 After WP:MR 20 Renaming within the article 21 Protection 22 Outside opinion on poll 23 naming of towns in Kosmet 24 Invitation to discuss 25 Municipality 26 The city's emblem 27 Prishtinali 28 Page moves

[edit] Prishtina population

Section copied from Talk:Prishtina.

According to http://www.world-gazetteer.com/fr/fr_yu.htm the population of Prishtina has grown by nearly 50,000 since 1991. So if the person who keeps adding the "40,000 Serbs have left Prishtina" claim would like to present a trustworthy source, to back up this claim please do so. G-Man 21:20 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/417632.stm

A spokesman said there were now fewer than 2,000 Serbs left in and around the capital, Pristina, out of a pre-war population of some 40,000.

That was in August of 1999, by now there is about a 100 Serbs left in Pristina. -- Igor 19:41, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

To Nikola Smolenski, I do not see how "Everywhere" translates to a Serbian government website, and even it says that the number is a total. It does not say that they are all Serbs. You can be sure that at least some Albanians were displaced too. I would imagine some are still "displaced" inside Serbian prisons or mass graves, but that is my viewpoint. If you have to add something that is disputed by the other side, at least note it for the record. Dori 02:38 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

To Nikola Smolenski, I do not see how "Everywhere" translates to a Serbian government website, and even it says that the number

That is just the first source I've found. --Nikola 05:27 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

is a total. It does not say that they are all Serbs. You can be sure that at

No it doesn't:

"There are also additional 20,000 internally displaced individuals from Kosovo and Metohia, who moved from multiethnic environments to almost mono-ethnic enclaves."

"It is important to note that the number of registered IDPs (Tab. 1) includes only the individuals who have applied personally for registration, and it has been estimated that there are nearly 50,000 IDPs (Tab. 2) living in Serbia and Montenegro, who have not been officially registered (Figures 1, 2, 3)."

And I don't say that they are all Serbs: "more then 95555 [1] Serbs and other non-Albanians" --Nikola 05:27 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

least some Albanians were displaced too. I would imagine some are still "displaced" inside Serbian prisons or mass graves, but that is my viewpoint.

That is possible. If you have some information about that, add it to mine. --Nikola 05:27 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you have to add something that is disputed by the other side, at least note it for the record. Dori 02:38 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know what other side is disputing so I can't note it. If the other side does know it can note it itself. Nikola 05:27 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic proportions

This article seems to have an all encompassing obsession with the exact ethnic make up of the city. The only possible reason for which as far as I can see is to forward a particular POV political agenda.

I personally fail to see the relevance of the exact proportion of Serbs to Albanians in 1931. I have not seen any other articles about cities on the wikipedia which list dermographic changes of particular ethnic groups over decades, why, because it is irrelevant, this is why I removed it earlier.I dont see any need for it to be here G-Man 22:50, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well most articles state that a certain city passed from one group to another, I can always start a new article on the demographic changes in Pristina but then this particular article would look bare. -- Igor 21:17, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No other cities on Wikipedia had such drastic demographic changes as Pristina, and that is why you haven't seen such data in their articles. Of course, in future this article will be expanded with history, geography, sightings and other things about Pristina that other city articles have, and demographic data will not be the largest part of it. But there is no reason for data removal until that happens. Nikola 10:02, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Truth

It is clear that this a a Pro-Serbian propaganda peice. It is absolutely false information and clearly only concentrates on false statements poinyting to a serbian claim to Kosovo. As the whole world is now aware, Serbia's government, particulary since 1981, was deceitful, misleading, falsifying and created for themselves a pseudohistory. It is embarassing to write such an article on what you call an encyclopedia. Albanians are the true inhabitants of Kosovo, and always have been the majority. The lies of Serbias ill-nationalistic brainwashing regime have ended. The government of Serbia has bothered all of the balkans. It started with disputes in hungary, a war in Croatia and a massacre in Bosnia and Kosovo. The only true history that exists is the one that Serbia was the insulting factor. Now, that is a fact that can be proven, not the lies you write about. Please, grow up! Tecah your children the true history, so that the Albanian, Bosnian, Croatian and other nationalities dont have the same problem as this past ill-generation. Let people live in peace for once. It starts by telling the truth and stopping the lies once and for all. Kosovo is Albanian, and until that is understood, you will never progress ahead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.80.68 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 October 2003 (UTC).

Whoever wrote that above paragraph - I suppose it was written a long time ago, but I just feel the need to write something! - is talking a load of sh*t. I mean, "Serbia's government, particulary since 1981, was deceitful, misleading, falsifying and created for themselves a pseudohistory". Who says that? The Western media? That same media doesn't want to dwell too much on Milosevic's Trial, even though, at the beginning, it was referred to as the "trial of the century"!! I wonder why...

(I mean, "trial of century" and neither the BBC or CNN has established for instance programmes devoted to Hague proceedings! You shouldn't call certain trials "trials of the century", unless you're thinking of regularly covering them, now should you?)

The "lies of Serbias ill-nationalistic brainwashing regime have ended"? When did they even start? 1989, perhaps? Here we go again...!

Grow up? Always look at yourself first before you cast such judgments on other people. And the guy who wrote all that rubbish above my response should study more about Kosmet's history, unless of course, he's decided to support the side that was given loads of support from the Western media (now, have they always been honest?). Or perhaps, he has always held that opinion: "Albanians are the true inhabitants of Kosovo, and always have been the majority (Note: That is NOT true that they have always been the majority)...Kosovo is Albanian (Note: matter of opinion)".

Oh, and people can live in peace. Preferrably without so-called liberation armies forcing them to support their side.

Alan. --81.79.116.16 00:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've expanded and largely rewritten the article to give more information on Pristina's 20th century history and to put it in the overall context of Kosovo's history, including the 1999 war, which was unaccountably poorly covered in the article. -- ChrisO 17:45, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About this page

Sorry, but I don't think this is the real description of Pristina, especially the historical part.
Please check all your datas and correct them. I think that all what is written in there is wrong.
Whoever wrote this - I wish you could add some more things - like how was Kosovo before the war - and after war, but using only the truth. Albanians were always the majority - not only in Prishtina but everywhere except Brezovica - I don't see how someone could come up with numbers easily without checking the history - the true history. Please think and please write the truth...because this is not the truth.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.154.26.251 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 September 2004 (UTC).

[edit] Manipulations with history

First of all, I don't really like the fact that in the introduction to this page you have classified the Serbs as "the Slavic invadors" (when you were talking about how the city was founded). If you knew ANYthing about the history of the Balkans you wouldn't classify the Serbian people as savages/invadors- simply because, in the year 630. Heraclius (Eastern Roman Emperor) has reached an agreement with Serbs and Croats, an agreement by which those peoples were INVITED to settle the Balkans. In return, they were asked to defend the northern borders of the Empire against the varvarians.
Second thing... you mentioned the Slavic invadors that have pushed the local population, Illyrians, towards the south. First of all, there are no material evidences whatsoever for such a claim, and another thing...even though many Albanians like to connect themselves with the Illyrians, most of the scientists would disagree or at least stay neutral about that matter, due to the lack of any kind of evidence that could tell the opposite, the Illyrian- Albanian "truth". There are no linguistical nor cultural connections between the ancient Illyrians and the Albanians. Illyrians have lived in the western Balkans area (mostly coastal parts) and they have been asimilated during the time by all the surrounding nations, not exclusively Albanians. There are theories that the Albanians have moved in the late middle ages from the Caucausus region (which would be more likely, considering the languistical similarities).
Thirdly, Kosovo was the heart of the Serbian Kingdom and Empire, core of the Serbian nation. After the Serbian Empire collapsed due to clashes with the emerging Ottoman Empire, and especially since the beginning of the 15th century, Serbs have started to migrate towards the north, especially during the Two Great Migrations from Kosovo into Austria (Vojvodina, Croatia, Hungary). That is when the Albanians (who became Muslims under Turkish influence) started to settle in Kosovo and Metohija together with the Turkish Muslims, eventually forming a big part of the population. However, the Muslims didn't become a majority until the 20th century. See Demografic history of Kosovo, as well as Serbia, De Administrando Imperio- the document that tells about the Serbian/ Croatian arrival to the Balkans, as well as Albanian language and Balkan linguistic union.
Please try to be more objective in the future and stick to the truth- the one that has evidential support, not the anti- Serbian (pro-Albanian) one. Unless of course, there are evidences that show the opposite which I higly doubt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.252.86.63 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 24 June 2005 (UTC).

This was a pretty wasteful occupation of space by a lame piece of Serb Propaganda. Much better without it. Ja u qifsha ato motrat mu ne vrime te pidhit gjithe kurvave Serbe, dhe ata qe i mbeshtesin. Motrat ku ti keni bythqirat e mutit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.136.61 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC).

Sorry But you have shown a very lack of knowledge about the history with the fact that you said that theres no evidence of albanians having iilyrian heritage! Living almost in the same area where illyrians lived, having a extraordinary similaritys in language and lately a high tech studies of a german Scientist over the Skull Bones of illyrians and now days albanian allready closed the question are the illyrians predecessors of albanians, the answer is clearly YES they are! adding here the fact that serbs and other barbarian slavic tribes invaded a balkan peninsula in the VII Century the picture is all clear! Kosova was allways the heart of albanian Ntion, playing a key role during the whole history of albanians, Dardan wars against Roman Empire( Sorry you might dont know this cos your predsecessors were still travelling from Kaukhaz to Karpates) than wars against Bizant Empire of Arbreshe feudals( still serbs didnt cross the Danub) and then wars against them to protect the other part of albania that logicaly carry through unoccupied! Then wars against Ottoman Empire , albanians were converted to islam but they never cesed fighting turks NEVER! until the 1912!! So 2000 Years Fighting 3 Empieres ROMAN, BYZANT AND OTOMAN and the Slavic Hyena on the Back! What u realize out of this --UNBELIEVABLE NATION!! when you talk of albanians you have to take a look more than one Side and found out how the "JEWs" of Balkans Survieved:), Kosova is our Sacred Land! Prishtina is our Jerussalem!! Im Albanian Jew maby you didnt hear about this cos most of my albanian borthers Musslims and Christians! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.238.212.1 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reference Book

Why don't you refer to the NOEL MALCOLM'S "Kosovo a short history". Probably the best history book written (by a brittish, not albanian nor serbian) on Kosovo ever. Eniel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.205.135.254 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 February 2005 (UTC).

Unfortunately, the location of Malcolm's citizenship doesn't change the fact that "Kosovo - a short history" is so one sided in its source material as to practically be a compendium of Albanian political propaganda. Perhaps someone more widely read can suggest a thorough (and multi-language, since most of the authoritative sources have never been translated) bibliography covering both sides of the issue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.73.5.189 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC).

Internationally, Noel Malcolm's book is well respected. Predictably, people close to the issues he discusses feel he misrepresents them. For great justice. 17:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to noel malcolm

So read response to noel malcolm, on goggle tape "response noel malcolm" and you'll see what's the truth! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.5.219.147 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC).

omg, and you expect me to believe the response written by a Serbian writer?Historical Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Art?? Isn't this the institution that compiled the plan to exterminate all Albanians? (http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts/AH25.html) You are ridiculous :)))) oh, and you should TYPE in GOOGLE :)))Mark ma 10:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Priština or Prishtina?

The name of the article is "Priština" so surely the spelling of the city's name throughout the article should reflect this. There has been lots on anonymous reverts to the Albanian spelling recently with no explanation. I prefer Priština as this is the spelling that is the most used in the English language. If users insist on Prishtina then surely the article should be renamed. -- Phildav76 21:02, 24 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Priština is not the name used in english, but it is "Pristina". If you prefer the "Priština" name, that is your problem. I will revert the name as many time as it takes, if somebody puts the curls to the "s" letter. Greetings, ilir —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilir pz (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

"Pristina" is the usual spelling in the English language media, but it is pronounced with the "s" as a "sh", therefore the š should be used as this is the convention on Wikipedia. Niš is used and not Nish for example -- Phildav76 10:12, 10 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Nis is a Serbian city, Phildav. Of course that is the official spelling. None from the installed International Administration in Kosovo uses the "š" when referring to Kosova's capital name. Are you saying that US president should be called "Buš" instead? :))) since that is the Wikipedia convention???. ...regards, ilir —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilir pz (talk • contribs) 10:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

But my argument is that the article name is Priština and other than the Albanian spellings of the name at the beginning, the article name should be used throughout to be consistant. Also your recent additions to the article are far from being NPOV. -- Phildav76 15:11, 10 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I am not to blame that the main name of the article is wrong. It does not mean that the rest of the article should follow a mistake someone made a long time ago. As of my additions being NPOV, I at least base them on a 25 year experience (read: having lived in that place) whereas most of people who add info in this site live in suburbs of Belgrade, or elsewhere in Europe and think they know how things really work down there. Let alone those who go too far to cite their destructive and ill Academy of Science who had plans to exterminate the whole non-serbian population in Kosovo. If there is no agreement to remove the "hat" over the name of the capital city, I will keep reverting it, to fit to the english way of pronouncing it, which is composed of letter "s" and "h", examples: "Bush", "bush", "rush", "blush" :))) Ilir pz 11:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My argument is that if there is enough support for moving the article then it could be done. I have spoken English (note capital letter - proper noun) for more than 25 years. I believe the article name was changed from Pristina to Priština relatively recently - 28 June 2005. All the place names in Kosovo are known by their Serbian names and spellings in English. That might change in the coming years, who knows, but I don't see any evidence of it changing in the past 7 years. Other users will revert nonsense like the Roma oppression of Albanians - it is plainly not neutral. Bush is a word that is native to English while Priština isn't and therefore is not comparable. Belgrade/Beograd is the only Serbian city that is known by a different name in English. -- Phildav76 18:43, 11 Mar 2006 (UTC)

There will be given enough support to whomever cares to look at that. As of having changed the name recently, I am very curious to know why that was decided so recently?! You seem to be also sensitive because of a single "E" (which was by no means done on purpose) not being upper-case, and argue with me about the "sh"(**t) issue. The international administration installed in Kosova uses both names when referring to a location in Kosova, and that is what my point is. IF you like Serbian names, that is your problem, not at all mine. "Priština" is not native to the more than 90% of the population that lives in Kosova, as a result it is not acceptable to any of us. Seems like we agree on many points. Regards, Ilir pz 19:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ilir. I understand your frustration at what you perceive as mis-spelling of place names that you are familiar with, but the authoring of wikipedia content should be conducted with courtesy and good sense. The point at issue here has a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), note particularly: "Avoid revert wars: If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars the name from the title of the relevant article should be used in all occurences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page(s)". The procedure for proposing a new naming convention is outlined in Wikipedia:Naming conventions

I know you have issue with Đakovica, Uroševac, Račak, Šar mountain and no doubt others, the problem is, if you change just the article content, you create an inconsistency with the article title, and may also break existing links, as you did with Sharr mountain. Any changes to be made need to be systematic and comprehensive.

As a start, looking at Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Resolving disputed names within articles, the Google method (in English, -wikipedia) returns 1,990,000 1,680,000 and 347,000 for Priština, Pristina and Prishtina respectively (5,160,000 4,510,000 and 555,000 for plain searches), so the current situation does appear to reflect the popular usage. I am not saying that we must retain the status quo, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#Europe states In absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used, but we should find a way to reach a consensus.

Nigosh 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nigosh, thanks for taking the time to explain. I recently heard the article title has been changed in march 2005. We could change it back, for the anniversary of such a change. So it is not holly title, and then can be consistent to the rest. As far as reflecting the popular usage is concerned, I must tell you your numbers are wrong: searching "Priština" gives you more hits because it includes all "Pristina" hits, and some "Prishtina" hits, in Google. Check for yourself. I understand that consensus should be reached.I agree though that status quo is not sustainable. Consistency means to keep the article in English, not add characters which have no meaning to that language. Those who want to write down in their own alphabets have the sites in their languages. As far as other cities names are concerned, that sounds horrible, especially to Recak or Gjakova people who have suffered so much from many people who use those characters. I am sure all this will be fixed once Kosova de jure becomes independent. This process has already started, to correct the naming convenctions which was imposed during a century (or more) of terror. Regards, Ilir pz 09:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So... to move things on... how about identifying place names at issue, and listing them for discussion at Talk:List of cities in Serbia and Montenegro, with a note to the geographic names group. This creates a locus for discussion and comment on this community of place names, and should allow those with concerns in to the discussion. We can then seek to reach consensus on proposed spellings in public discussion; suggest the proposals on the relevant talk pages, and after a suitable period (a week or two), make the agreed changes across the whole name space (main articles, links, redirects, disambigs etc.).

Also, we cannot ignore the discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which is an attempt to work out a simple and acceptable policy for geographic names in Central and Eastern Europe

Nigosh 00:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure we can discuss this issue, but of course not in the List of cities in Serbia and Montenegro, as I don't think that is the place to discuss that. (READ: I don't think I live in a city in Serbia and Montenegro.) Nigosh, I respect your attitude towards regulations, and conventions, but you seem to blindly think they should be obeyed. Everything changes, and especially conventions. One should try to find a fair solution in between. I think that we are not the ones to decide about such conventions. Kosova has its democratically elected representatives, and there are responsibles that have already started to address the issue. Until Kosovo becomes independent (de jure, and indications show that this is very soon to happen), we can just play games here. I suggest we apply a double-naming system, where only English alphabet can be used. So for example "Prishtina/Pristina" when referring to the city name, etc. If not, I am afraid reverting the name will be the thing I will do every day after my morning coffee. Ilir pz 10:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Double naming throughout the article text is outright silly, which was the main reason for my edit. We can debate over which version should be used, but there is most certainly no need to repeat all (or some) of them every time you reference the city. In fact, it was not even consistently done - the place was called "Pristina/Prishtina" in some cases, and just "Prishtina" in others.

Now, as for the reason why I edited it to be "Priština" in all cases instead - as pointed out numerous times already, this is the title of the article. If you believe it is not a valid one and should be changed, then make an appropriate request, and if it is successful, we shall edit the article to conform to the new spelling. Either way, please keep in mind that consistency is important here. Also note that the latest Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) proposal specifically mentiones this as a proper way to handle such situations:

Avoid revert wars: If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars the name from the title of the relevant article should be used in all occurences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page(s).

Granted, this is not an accepted convention yet, but it is the best we have at the moment. If those who object to applying that convention have a good reason to do so, please specify it.

Meanwhile, I would like to point out that we should not be interested in what the "official" name of the city is at the moment (be it Serbian, Albanian, or the one the UN administration uses). This should be left as a last resort. What we should try to find out is the single widely accepted English name in modern context for the city. I'm afraid Google is not of much help here, as going through the first few pages of search results for "Priština" actually gave me fewest links with that exact spelling, and a rough tie between "Prishtina" and "Pristina" otherwise. Can people living in English-speaking countries tell what spelling is most often used in media?

int19h 11:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is stupied. The Eurpoen card for souch thinks (for citys and municipaity) is saying thate the municipality hase right to chois her name. And the mustly municipality in Kosovo are in albanien L. according to the EU Card for municipalty and the English L for the naming of the citys the municipality name must be Prishtina --Hipi Zhdripi 18:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hipi, Wikipedia does not conform to UN or other rules for naming of geographical locations - it has its own. Or rather, they are being developed - let me link you once again to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Now, this proposal is not a policy yet, but it is the closest thing we have to that on the subject matter, so, for the sake of preventing a revert war, I would suggest that we stick to it for now (it can be easier to agree upon a set of rules defined by a third party). And, among other things, the proposal states: "The title: The single widely accepted English name in modern context (swaEn) is to be used when possible" - which makes sense since it is the general rule for naming other Wikipedia articles as well. If you disagree with this in principle, then you should probably join the discussion of the aforementioned proposal, and present your arguments there. If you believe that it is fine as is, but rather object only to applying it to this specific article (but why?), we could do the same thing that was done on other such occasions and simply vote for the name, then stick to whatever result we get, at least until the naming convention proposal becomes the official Wikipedia policy. int19h 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As if the existing heap of names for the city is not enough, the latest (anonymous) edit added the Turkish name to the list at the beginning of the article. Is there any good reason for it? It was occupied by the Ottoman Empire, true, but so was e.g. Sofia, and the article for it has no Turkish name. int19h 13:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REGULATION NO. 2000/45

Hier is the document:[1]

 See : REGULATION NO. 2000/45 on 11 August 2000. Is saying:

.... Referring to the European Charter on Local Self-
Government, and in particular to Article 3 which
denotes the right and the ability of local
authorities, within the limits of the law, to regulate
and manage a substantial share of public affairs
under their own responsibility and in the interests
of the local population,
Taking into account the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms and the Protocols
thereto, the European Charter for Regional or
Minority Languages, the Council of Europe’s
Framework Convention for the Protection of
National Minorities and the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women,
Hereby promulgates the following:...

Chapter 2
The Municipal Assembly and its
Committees
Section 10

Prishtinë/Priština 51
Podujevë/Podujevo 1
Prizren/Prizren 41
Suharekë/Suva Reka 1
Gjakovë/Đakovica 1
Pejë/Peć 1
Mitrovicë/Mitrovice/a 1
Gjilan/Gnjilane/Gnjilane 41
Ferizaj/Urosevac/Uroševac 1
Malishevë/Mališevo 1
Gllogovc/Glogovac 1
Lipjan/Lipljane/Lipljan/Lipljan 31
Rahovec/Orahovac 1
Deçan/Dečani 1
Istog/Istok 1
Klinë /Kline/a 1
Skenderaj/Srbica 31
Vushtrri/ Vučitrn 31
Kaçanik/Kačanik 31
Kamenicë/Kamenica 1
Viti/Vitina 1
Fushë Kosovë/K. Polje 21
Obiliq/Obilić 1
Shtime/Stimlje/Štimlje 1
Dragash/Dragaš 21
Leposaviq/Leposavić 7
Zubin Potok/Z. Potok 7
Zveçan/Zvečan 17
Novobërdë/Novo Brdo 17
Shtërpcë/Štrpce 17

Bernard Kouchner
Special Representative of the
Secretary General

From this document you can see thate the first name must be the albanian version.--172.183.192.46 01:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The article name must be in albanian version. This document is not in serbian or albanian L, bu tin english and this is the English Wikipedia. In Kosovo city table is not written "Welcomen to" Đakovica but :

Mirë se vini Prishtinë Priština

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.183.192.46 (talk • contribs)- 01:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] No argumet

No argumet!!! please dont inteprete the documents

Sombody have putit this Kosovo place in Serbia stub or category or template here with out argumet. We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this stub or category or template. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia.--Hipi Zhdripi 05:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stadium

Anyone have information on the city stadium. When was it built, who was the architect etc? What was the cause of the fire. --Drdan 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The stadium was ulild at 1974. After the Prishtina futbool klub was at the first Leage of Yugoslavia the peopel of Kosovo has supported with monye to build a new Stadium. During the Great Demostratition on March 04, 1981 of the Studens and Minators in wich was killed more that 200 peopel this stadion it full of the cetnik milic wich came uniform from Hercegovina, Montenegro and Serbia with helicopters in Stadium. After they have landit, they have startit to terrorizet the cityzens. During the last war the Stadium it was iussed for landing he Helikopters. The military propagand has pushit the desinformation that in this Stadium the sebian military are holding the albanians. See Rudolf Sharping interwiev. Ther was military peopel but not civiliens. And NATO was a fried to bomb the Stadium.

But the Stadium in the memory of the cityzens is a place in wich younger peopel from Kosova, after each game was played from FC Prishtina they have demonstratit agains regime. In Prishtina this Stadium is not only a Stadium but a meateng plce for the younger Kosovars during the interval 1981-1992. With other words "This Stadium is a symbol of the younger protest" in Kosovo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.104.90 (talk • contribs)- 00:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] transelet

I was in Prishtina for holidays and I finde out that this culter places are viset from the tourist (NATO, Un and the US prominents stars who go there for the US solders). Kofi Anan has vieset this pleases too. Im askend sombody who know well english to put thi in artikel unter the secsion Prishtians cultur.

Ndër objektet turistike dhe kulturore më të vizituara në Konunen e Prishtinës janë:

* Monumenti „Skënderbeu“

Ky monument i përkushtruar heroit kombëtarë Gjergj Kastriot-Skenderbeut gjendet në qendrën administrative të qytetit dhe është ndërtuar pas luftës së fundit. Banorët e shumtë që jetojnë në diasporë e viztojnë këtë objektë dhe vendasit që me një ceremoni e kanë përcjellur sjelljen e statujës së Skenderbeut dhe hyrjen e trupave të NATOS e konsiderojnë si ardhje të lirisë.

* Teatri Kombëtar

Teatri kombëtar gjendet përballë monumetit "Skendebeu" dhe i argëtonë Prishtinalit me shfaqjet e shpeshtuara pas luftës. Është themeluar pas luftës II botërore nga pasarthësit e familjeve të artistëve që luanin shfaqja edhe para sulltanit të perandoris Osmane.

* Parku Nacional „Gërmia“

Është vendi në të cilin Prishtanisit e kalojnë kohen e lirë kryesisht gjatë ditëve të ngrohta. Ky parkë është i paisur me liqenin dhe restorante e pushimore të ndryshme rreth tij. Pas shpalljes së shtet rrethimit për të parën herë (1981) në Ksovës ishte qender e ushtarakve të APJ-së dhe hyrja në këtë parkishte e ndaluar pë qytetarët. Të vetmit persona civil që mund të hynin aty nga viti 1985-1999 ishin qeveritarët e Serbisë. Tani ky parkë është shëndrruar në vend takim të të gjithë të rinjëve Kosovarë në stinen e verës. Të cilët shpesë organizjnë mbrëmje së bashku me punëtorët e UNMIKU-t.

* Biblioteka Kombëtare Universitare e Kosovës

Vetë objekti i kësaj Biblioteke ka një histori të veten që paraqet rrethanat politike e shoqërore kosovare të viteve të gjysmës së dytë të shekullit të kaluar. Objekti nga pamja e jashtëme është i ndërtuar me disa kupe të cilat në kohrat e kaluara për vendasit simbolizonin "Plisin" simbol i veshjes kombëtare. Përndryshe në këtë objekt ruhen libra të ndryshëm të cilët qytetarët kanë mundësi të i lexjnë brenda objektit. Gjatë luftës pjesa më e madhe e librave është djegur dhe invetari i Biblotekës është dëmtuar nga forcat paramilitare të Milosheviqit.

* Muzeu i Kosovës

Në muzeu e Kosovës janë disa çfaqje të përhershme dhe për çdo muaj organizohen çfaqje me tema të reja që zgjasin një muaj. Çfaqje e përhershme janë ato të historis së Prishtinë, Luftës nacional Çlirimtare dhe të Epopesë së UÇK-së.

* Galeria e Arteve

Galeria e arteve në Prishtinë është një dër galerit me hapsiren më të madhe në këtë pjesë të Ballkanit. Prezentimin e veprave në këtë galeri e bëjnë pjestar të nacionaliteteve të ndryshme dhe nga pjesë Kosovës dhe të vendeve përreth saj.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) 05:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Film City

Who cann tell my samthing more abot the pace in Prishtina caled "Film City", bevor the war it was the are for Movie-Studios caled "Kosovafilm--Hipi Zhdripi 05:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Bashkësia Lokale Qendra (Administrativ part of the Kosovo govermant and UNMIK )

Bashkësia Lokale Dardania the most populedet with over 120 000

Bashkësia Lokale Ulpiana

Bashkësia Lokale Dragodani

Bashkësia Lokale Bregu i Diellit

Bashkësia Lokale Gërmia

Bashkësia Lokale Film City (administrativ part of the represents office from US,UK,EU, USA-Aid ..)

Bashkësia Lokale Hani i Diellit

Bashkësia Lokale Tophania

Bashkësia Lokale Lakrishtja

Bashkësia Lokale Spitali

Bashkësia Lokale Velania

Bashkësia Lokale Xhamia e Llapit (albanians whitch hase comme here places in border with Serbia and Nish during the War 1912 and bedor that)

Bashkësia Lokale Muhaxherit (albanians whitch hase comme here from Toplica, Serbia 1912)

Bashkësia Lokale Dëshmorët e Liris

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.104.90 (talk • contribs)- 00:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Demography figures

HRE, reading the figures you added it seems as if no Albanians lived back then in 15th century, in Prishtina. I clarified that part a bit. Convertion by force from Christian to Muslim is a well known fact that Albanians went through. Christian could have still been some Albanian families which did not convert(and still are Catholic). Hope you agree with my clarification. Ilir pz 09:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those "Slavic i. e. Serbian" turned out to be simple original research. With your agreeing, I would like to remove both and just leave Christian and Moslem instead. Is it OK? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with my formulation? Leaving Christian and Moslem makes it unclear about the nationalities. The truth IS that some Albanians back then were converted to Muslim, but some of them remained Christian, and including them would not be harmful I suppose? but ok as of now I remove the nationality, until we agree further. Ilir pz 18:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Because I want to leave it the way census stated - did census note nationalites? It didn't. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metohija part

HRE, I will let you correct where "metohija" part should placed correctly. "Autonomous province of Kosovo" was the official name until abolished by Milosevic. I think only after WW1 for some time was the Metohija part imposed. I will wait for some time for you to change that to the then official naming where appropriate. Ilir pz 09:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I read the Constitution of SFRJ - check it out, by the way. Also, I specified "Viyalet of KosovA" and "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Methohija" merely out of historical reasons. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot read any Constitution of SFRJ. :) "Viyalet of Kosova" is used so, because Ottomans(and still turks now) called it with an A in the end. That is to preserve the original name. I suppose. Ilir pz 18:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prishtina during the Great Demonstrations

Earlig Demostrations

• Student Movmend 1968 (agains the anexion from Serbian)
• Student Movmend 1974 (full Autonomy and part of Yogoslavia)

Great Demonstrations startit on march 1981

• Student Movmend 1981
• Workers Movmend 1981
• Srudent Movmend 1983-1985
• Minators Movmend 1983-1985
• Student Movmend 1998-1992 (Republika e Kosovës)
• Sindikat Movmend 1998-1992(Republika e Kosovës)
• Akademy Movmend 1998-1992 (Republika e Kosovës)
• UÇK Movmend after 1992 Kosovo tody

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.104.90 (talk • contribs)- 00:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] What's the problem?

The Guardian is quoted....unless you consider it a biased newspaper then leave it. C-c-c-c 21:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming of the article, and some parts

In order to preserve the neutrality in the article, I suggest we rename (and replace) in all parts of the article, include the main title, with the naming used mostly in English, and used by the UN Interim Administration [2] in Kosovo, which is PRISTINA, not the Serbian version Priština neither the Albanian version Prishtina. The naming used by locals can be used in the first line, for illustration, but the rest should be according to the naming in English. For illustration see the case of Gothenburg which is not instead called Götheborg like locals call it, or Copenhagen is not named København like Danes call it. The way other nations call the city should also preserved, and used accordingly, not according to personal opinions of particular users who do not know that for sure, but are POV pushing. Regards, ilir_pz 00:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't make up my mind on this just yet, but: the policy of Wikipedia is to use the most commonly used name in English. However, I remember we also had a discussion on whether to use diacritics if that's the only difference between the local name and the English one. Can somebody remember where that discussion was held and what was the outcome? The other problem is that Priština (Serbian) is still usually used when either of the local names are used, but I imagine that as soon as (if, if you will) Kosovo become independent, Prishtina will start taking over as the international name of the city. So, can we try to determine which name is most commonly used in English? CIA has contradictory information (how ironic). The map says Priština, while the text uses Pristina. BBC uses Pristina exclusively. Let's give it some thought and try to come up with a good and permanent solution. --dcabrilo 01:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Dcabrilo, we notice contradicting namings given by different sources. That is why I suggested we use the naming used by the UN admin in Kosovo. When Kosovo becomes independent, of course the whole namings of the locations will be revised, but I was suggesting this change as a temporary one, until that changes. ilir_pz 11:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We had this problem also in other Kosova-city-articles. The problem is that many users do think that the Serbian name is automatically the international name, which is not true. There are two official names for the city: Prishtina and Priština, and both could be used in the article. Using just one of them is not NPOW. Maybe we could use them 50:50. But I don’t think that will solve the problem.

I guess Pristina would be a compromise.

Or we could avoid using the names by writing instead of the name just the ciy or town. That was the compromise we made in Peja-article .--Mig11 10:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the compromise in the article of Peja, Mig11. I still see that the main article is called according to the Serbian naming. ilir_pz 11:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The compromise was made just how to use the name throughout the text, by simple avoiding it. By naming of the main article itself was until now no compromise found. It is jet named with the Serbian name.--Mig11 13:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no policy on the naming of articles, there are merely a few factors which should normally be taken into account, one of them being the "self-identification" factor. How does the entity in question describe itself - this is also the basis for listing Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel, or Western Sahara and Transnistria as independent states, despite the fact that no one recognizes them as such. --Telex 10:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So what is your proposal, Telex? The city should be named as Prishtina as it is how the entity in question describes itself? Correct me if I am wrong. ilir_pz 11:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a policy on the naming of the articles! int19h 23:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming it into Pristina would be a compromise. And as I said above, in the article itself we could use the Serbian and the Albanian names 50:50 or just try to avoid using them by writing the city, the town, ...--Mig11 10:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your statement, Mig11. Do we have to discuss this elsewhere, for renaming the article, or do we carry on voting for some days here? ilir_pz 11:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting with the vote. It is meant to be a last-resort measure used only when editors involved are clearly unable to find consensus, not a normal decision making process. Let's see if we can decide upon something together first. If, once all arguments are exhausted, we have not reached consensus yet, then a poll it will have to be... int19h 23:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so here's the latest Google breakdown:

• Pristina: 3 910 000 hits
• Priština: 728 000 hits
• Prishtina: 694 000 hits

Note that I specifically excluded other spellings in each search so as to get the real picture. Based on this, Pristina is a clear leader. Therefore, I am posting a request to move the article to Pristina on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Once some administrator does it, spelling in the article will also be changed to Pristina throughout for the sake of consistency. Any objections? int19h 06:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Limiting this to English pages is even more striking; this removes half of the uses for Pristina or Prishtina, but reduces Priština to 34 400 hits. This is not yet the English name. Septentrionalis 17:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, most naming is Priština itself. I agree that this name is not POV, but it resembles the main usage in English language - for instance, the CIA Factbook, Britannica, etc... all use the Serbian version of the name. Although this will probably change if/when Kosovo becomes a Country independent from Serbia, I support the name Pristina. However, I find strange that some people can't wait. ;) For instance, it was written that Montenegro is an independent country 1 minute after the referendum. :D When AFAIC, weeks after it, SCG still didn't dissolve (properly). This sounds to me like hyper-pushing. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I like updating myself. No need to wait, it is better to be consistent with the current status. It is a process.ilir_pz 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with HolyRomanEmperor. If the articles relating to the cities of Kosovo are moved to a NPOV name then perhaps they should use the language of the majority population in the city or municipality (I believe 4 have a Serbian majority). I see the primary name of the article on the other cities or municipalities are inconsistent. Uroševac/Ferizai (or Ferizaj - the article has it two different ways and doesn't really say why) is in Albanian while Obiliq/Obilić is in Serbian. Ultimately the issue is that none of these places has an English name like Belgrade does, and choosing Priština or Prishtinë is POV and Prishtina is phonetic to how it is pronouced in English, but rarely is it written like this. None of the solutions are perfect or will please everyone. -- Phil76 14:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me try to be clear about this again. We should not use majority name, we should use the English name. We do have a naming guideline, here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). It says:
If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) says:
if the version with diacriticals is fairly well spread in English: below some criteria for "fairly well spread in English" are given: these are not "absolute" criteria, but give the direction if you're trying to find a practical way on how to approach this
As two mostly common used name in English are Pristina and Priština (in that order), and as Priština is way behind in the second place, that is, š is usually not used by English sources, I also move to move the article to Pristina. The same way it's Belgrade, not Beograd. Also, Pristina is a widely used term in English, as the city is very prominent, especially in the last couple of decades.
Finally, how to do this: there is no need to vote for us. However, a guideline is to use move template, although I don't see any objection on this so far and we should be able to avoid it all together. Let's give it a day and then act upon this. --dcabrilo 18:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dcabrilo, the "English" names used today to refer to the cities/villages of Kosovo are not in English, but are merely Serbian names, without diacritics. Using the names in the way the majority of the population in the particular location uses is the most fair solution. But for the sake of keeping consistent with the current naming used by the UN admin in Kosovo, a temporary solution would be to use no diacritics when referring to the name of the city, as that makes the naming Serbian, automatically, and thus is not NPOV. I say temporary, because this is going to change once the status of Kosovo will be determined, and the process of unfair Serbianization of names of locations in Kosovo will be reversed. Just as the status, the names of locations will have to be acceptable to the (majority of) people in Kosovo. But as the names in Albanian are quite different in some cases, I also suggest that within the text the double naming of the location to be used. That would make the article even more NPOV. Looking fwd to settling this. ilir_pz 22:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

For God's sake, Ilir, Wikipedia is not a place for pushing truth, righteousness or NPOV things. It's to be a simple encyclopedia. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia should reflect the truth. Correct me if I am wrong. ilir_pz 11:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. In this case, it means that we should follow verifiable English usage. Septentrionalis 17:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, simply put, it so happened that "English" names are derived from Serbian. This does not mean that they are not English - they are, as long as English-speaking world uses them consistently, which it does. Furthermore, we do not need a "most fair" solution - this is a sure way to kill any hope of ever finding consensus. We need an NPOV solution, and preferrably one that would be backed by existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. At the moment, they clearly state that names preferred in English language are to be used for titles of the articles. "Pristina" seems to be such a name in this case. If/when Kosovo becomes independent, and English sources start to use the Albanian name for it extensively, we can switch (note that this does not mean that we switch immediately upon independence - see Talk:Kiev for a precedent and explanation of why not). Double naming is extremely ugly and outright silly - there's no need to repeat two names throughout the article, giving both in the introduction or/and explaining the difference in a separate dedicated section is enough to convey the message.

By the way, what does anything of this has to with "truth"? We are discussing what the article should be named, noone is proposing to remove other spellings from the text of the article itself. This is purely a consistence/convenience/policy conformance issue, there's no "truth" here, but rather options, with some being better than the other - and our task is to decide which are. int19h 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The correkt name is like in table of the city:

Mirë se vini Prishtinë Priština

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.208.200.142 (talk • contribs)- 05:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

It is indeed the correct name of the city in Albanian. However, this article is in the English Wikipedia, and should have the title preferred by speakers of English. int19h 23:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, can't you guys wait a few months? Kosovo is still part of Serbia, and as such, all the cities must be in Serbian, regardless of the majority population. Hungarians are the majority in the city of Subotica in Serbia, but it's not called Szabadka (Hungarian for Subotica) but rather the Serbian name - Subotica. No nationalism on Wikipedia, please. --serbiana - talk 01:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Discussion of the move request is at the top of the page. Please leave this note at the bottom until a decision is reached on the move. Septentrionalis 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] After WP:MR

Ok, it seems the spelling throughout the article is now fixed to conform to the title of the article. As it went, turned out that whoever did the recent Priština→Pristina move, didn't even bother to check if that invalidated any links; e.g. then-absent Category:Pristina and Pristina District, and a double redirect on University of Pristina. Just a reminder to be more careful. Meanwhile I'm going to create redirects for all articles with "Priština" in the name for all possible spellings, since that's what we do for Priština itself.

By the way, note that, as it stands, it is the University of Prishtina, and not University of Priština, at least currently, though that is (surprise surprise) disputed. Anyway, I think it's best to have the links correspond directly to titles of the articles they link to where possible, so I used the "Prishtina" spelling in this article as well. -- int19h 13:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming within the article

Although it may seem unpalatable to some, consensus has now been reached as to the article name. Please therefore could people refrain from editing the article content to use a name other than the article name. Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached. Tonycdp 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Look at the section immediately above this one. Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tonycdp, while I agree with your point, and no consensus has indeed been reached, at least the poll made it clear that, whatever spelling could be a compromise that all editors could agree upon, "Pristina" is definitely not it. So we'll have to seek another solution here.

Furthermore, as it is, the title of the article remains at Priština as per result of the poll on my move request. Whichever it is, spelling throughout the article should conform to spelling in the title for the sake of consistency. If you believe the spelling is incorrect (as I do), it should be changed in the title, and then the rest of the article can be made to conform to it as well. Things being what they are, you cannot just move the page without going through the WP:RM procedure, and even then only if the move is not deemed controversial (I assumed that to be the case when I made my RM, having gotten that assumption from reading the talk page). The poll clearly showed that opinions still differ strongly on the issue, so we need to talk it out and find a solution acceptable to most before doing any further name spelling changes. Once consensus has been reached (and it involves a different spelling), then another WP:RM should be made and spelling changed. I agree with Robwingfield that repeatedly changing it now without consideration for opinions of other editors is disruptive. -- int19h 05:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I've protected the article -- folks, please stop edit warring and discuss. As edit history (as well as discussion) suggests that Tonycdp is the more culpable party in this matter, I've chosen to protect the Wrong Version as far as he's concerned. It is, however, not an endorsement of that version. Talk this through and try to persuade each other. --Nlu (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've tried to do - see above and User talk:Tonycdp / User talk:Robwingfield. My position is this... the above WP:RM has established by consensus that the article should be named Priština. Therefore, the article content should reflect the article name. Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No consensus was ever reached, but if we're going to play it by the rules then we play it by the rules, right. Pristina is the correct English spelling and is used extensively by Neutral secondary sources. Now whether it is due to people not being able to type "š" is speculation and amounts to "Original Research". Thank you. Tonycdp 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside opinion on poll

As someone who is not involved in these discussions, I have some hesitations in drawing any conclusions from the poll above. I count 5 support votes, 9 oppose votes and 2 neutral votes. That means that 56% of the voters is against moving the page and 31% is in favor. That is not a very convincing outcome and one should be very reluctant in using this poll for proclaiming consensus on the issue. In my opinion, the closing editor should have called it no consensus, but with the addition do not move at this time, since a small majority is in favor of not moving. The issue, however, does not appear to be settled and although revert-warring is not a good idea, further discussions will be necessary (including trying to attract the attention of more uninvolved editors in order to obtain more independent opinions). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As an extension to this comment, I suggest people to read Wikipedia:Consensus, which explains the difficulty in reaching consensus using polls, but also includes this sentence: the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds. That said, I think a controversial subject like this one will never reach a true consensus, so instead one should be looking for compromise solutions. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm going to leave the discussion on this one, as I have no interest in Serbian affairs, and I'm an "independent opinion" myself. All I was trying to do was implement the results of the above poll, but I'll leave this to someone with more time/inclination. Robwingfield ^(talk) 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, your contributions are dearly appreciated. Tonycdp 16:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] naming of towns in Kosmet

At the moment, Kosovo is still a part of Serbia, as we all know. Serbia's official language is Serbian, if i am not mistaken. Therefore, any naming of places should be done in Serbian. Yes, Albanians do have the majority of the population in the Kosovo region, and? so what? It doesn't change a thing. If the town or city or what ever is in Serbia, it follows a Serbian name, if it is in Albania it follows an Albanian name. Please, if i am wrong, let me know. thanks/hvala/falemnderit :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JU580 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC).

There was a long discussion on that (as you can see above and on the talk pages). The problem is that, while Kosovo is de jure a part of Serbia, it has different laws (by virtue of being under UN juristiction). If I'm not mistaken, its official languages are at the moment both Serbian and Albanian.

Not that it matters any, since Wikipedia uses the names most commonly used in English, not official names in any of the local languages. -- int19h 07:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To User:JU580: Sorry to disappoint you, but not just Serbian language is the official one in Kosova today but also the Albanian language. This must be very shocking for you! People, with your kind of POV brought the land of Serbia there where it is now - nowhere. Maybe you missed something, but if you didn’t, but just don’t want to realise it: Kosova is under the UN administration. Of course it is also somehow still “part of Serbia in the paper”. But Albanians “also had all the human rights in the paper” in Milosevic-era, if you understand what I mean! We don’t need here another nationalistic POV. If you have a realistic and acceptable solution, please bring it here. And “kosmet” is a well known nationalistic term used also in Milosevic era!

To -- int19h:Hi! I was for a couple of months unable to bring my contributions in en:wiki so I also missed the discussion and the voting about changing the articles name. As I can see, there is actually no consensus reached. Best regards--Mig11 13:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to discuss

I would like to invite everyone interested to the discussion about the correct article name for the Priština International Airport; in particular, the people who have participated in the recent WP:RM poll over there. -- int19h 06:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Municipality

Could someone find me a map of the Prishtina municipality with the settlements in the municipality? --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can noone help with this? Where are all the users from Kosovo when something constructive needs to be done? --GOD OF JUSTICE 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The city's emblem

Apparently the city has no coat of arms, but an emblem. To avoid confusing readers, I boldly created Template:Infobox City Kosovo2, a copy of Template:Infobox City Kosovo in every other aspect. It's my first venture into templates, and would welcome any better solution for the issue (maybe modifying the original Template:Infobox City Kosovo to show either coat of arms or city emblem, if that is possible ?). I'm leaving this comment in Template talk:Infobox City Kosovo also. - Best regards, Evv 00:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prishtinali

Fellow editors,

I have a problem with the paragraph below. It is too complicated and slightly taken out of context by the virtue of political correctness.

The inhabitants of this city are called Prishtinali or Prishtinas in Albanian and Prištinci (Приштинци) or Prištinjani (Приштињани) in Serbian.

I would like to make a contribution here, if I am allowed:

The correct term to describe an inhabitant of Pristina in albanian is Prishtinas, whereas the serbian forms are also correct in their respective language.

The problem I have is that, they are no more than grammatically correct adjectives in local languages. What one fails to realize is that most people in Prishtina call themselves "Prishtinali" in Albanian and "Pristinlije" in Serbian. Although in recent decades serbs have opted to call themselves Pristevci (which is also gramatically incorrect because the city is not called Pristevo), so Pristinci in serbian is correct.

Both terms originate from Turkish "Pristinali" (Pristina was an Ottoman town for 500 years). And people who have been born and grown-up in the City use the Albanized and Serbianized versions of this Turkish term. Similarly, the inhabitants of Sarajevo are not called Sarajevcani or Sarajevci which would be grammatically correct in Serbian/Bosnian, but they use the Serbianized turkish term "Sarajlije" from Turkish: "Sarajli".

Now bearing in mind that Pristina has over 600,000 inhabitants who call themselves "Prishtinali" and it has had a continuous Ottoman, then Albanian character in the last 200 years at least, it is only fair that this paragraph is changed. I propose the following

The inhabitants of this city call themselves Prishtinali. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.251.167 (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't speak either language, so I trust you on what forms are actually used :-) However, for clarity, I find it better to indicate the language used in each case. And I would also prefer to keep the Serbian form/s (whatever it is), for four reasons:

1). The Serbian inhabitants were/are not just a local minority, but the main linguistic group of the country this city is currently part of (and has been since the early 20th century).

2). Serbian is one of the official languages of Kosovo.

3). It's interesting to know the Serbian gentilic, and this information doesn't require much space, but just adding five words to the sentence.

4). Keeping both languages would help avoid more reverts than you can imagine :-)

If you have a source (see WP:V, WP:NOR & WP:RS) for both forms deriving from the Turkish "Pristinali" (written with ş, I guess), I would love to have this detail mentioned in the article.

What I would find really interesting is to know what gentilic is used in English by foreign workers & peacekeepers. Do you know that ? Best regards, Evv 13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

Please refrain from moving this article without previous discussion. Also refer to past threads above. Thanks, --Asterion^talk 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)