Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The locus of this dispute is the manner in which the english wikipedia spells the name of the capital of the newly-independent Kosovo, which is (depending on what source you use) variously "Prishtina", "Pristina" or "Priština".

Contents

[edit] Statements and evidence

[edit] Happy-melon

I have created this RfC after seeing the considerable amount of dispute on Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, and numerous {{editprotected}} requests. I would like to note that per the protection policy no admin is going to make any changes to the spelling without a clear consensus, preferring the "wrong" status quo. Remembering also that there is no deadline, any further ediprotected requests requesting changes to the spelling of Prishtina/Pristina/Priština will simply be disabled without comment until this dispute is resolved.

As an uninvolved editor, I will not be providing any evidence for either side, as I'm sure the editors who are already participants in this dispute will produce plenty of suitable evidence. I would like to ask, however, for high standards of civility in this discussion, and the highest standards of verifiability and reliability in the sources presented. offensive comments will not be tolerated. Happy‑melon 11:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Previous discussion

See also: Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#The name Hungarians and Wikipedia use is...
See also: Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#EDIT REQUEST - Can we please use the English Language as this is English Wikipedia
See also: Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#Kosovo's constitution spells "PRISTINA" as so
See also: Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#Edit Request: Change Prishtina to Pristina

[edit] Current discussion

[edit] Prishtina

Support because:

  1. Involving the constitution of Kosovo, foreign embassies, countries, universities, etc. as a proof for or against the proper spelling, will not help in this case. The only authority which has to be taken onto consideration is the municipality of Prishtina and its assembly which decides on issues related to that city. Kosovo has a decentralized administration and as such it lies within the assemblies of the cities to decide on their coat of arms, the names of the streets or the economic development plans. Every outside country obviously has decided differently or just taken some form of the spelling with-ought a second thought or for granted. In Skopje, the traffic signs show directions to Prishtina and not Pristina, why they did that is their issue. Fact of the matter is that Prishtina Municipality presents itself as Prishtina and so does the majority of the population living in that city. Denying them that is unfair. Jawohl (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. The argument of using the english speaking form for the city i.e Pristina, is also arguable because H is not a chinese character. It is present in the english language. This argument has also been discussed thoroughly in the talk page so I will not repeat anything. Jawohl (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Facts vs. NPOV vs. POV.
  • I do not need t explain POV but rather NPOV which is introduced by neutral editors in order to solve disputes. NPOV when introduced as a solution becomes automatically a POV of the third party which introduced it and as such is nothing more then a POV trying to achieve a compromise. As much as we endorse compromises, they do are not lang lasting and this is a FACT. Now if we were to stick to facts, this argument could go on and on, because there are facts for and facts against. But FACT is the we as the BIG guys have the responsibility to respect the FACTs of the small guys, in this case- the citizens of Prishtina. If the city of Novobrdo/Artana decides to change its name to Neuberg tomorrow. What do you do? consult the constitution of RoK, Britanica, of course you could do that. Novobrdo is not as important as St. Petersburg and the Authorities in Kosovo would not move their finger to stop them as long as it is not against the constitution. So, would we conntinue calling the city Neuberg or Novobrdo. However we decide, their lives will not get better. The least we can do is respect their decision. Jawohl (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason why I oppose pristina is because it is easier to spell than the Serbian pristina. The Serbs used this type of cultural oppression to change our identity and create their own greater Serbia. Prishtina is the correct spelling and I think we should preserve this. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, first this but I might change my vote --Cradel 15:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. First: The municipality of Pristina is not as Senior as the Govt of Kosovo and is obviously going to call it "Prishtina" as that is what it is in Albanian and thats fine when in Albanian article, but not in English. # Second: So what if "H" is not a Chinese character. That has nothing to do with this. # Third: It is a weak argument opposing the English spelling because it closer to the Serbian spelling that it is the Albanian spelling. # Fourth we shouldn't use this spelling when there is an English alternative available and we are on English Wikipedia therefore we use English not any other language. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That is what I thought too but it seems that some people (including me) tend to think that this word is rather just a "bastardization" of the Serbian word, it has been used by the media and others in the missing of an actual english word --Cradel 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that it's not a bastardization if it's in the constitution. You could say the same thing about Rome being bastardization of Roma but actually it's just an English term. Just like we have an article on Tirana and not on Tiranë etc.--Avala (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
So if i went on to Albanian wikipedia and decided there was a word i didnt like, so used the English version that would be ok? Obviously not. You have just basically admitted that your use of the "Prishtina" is POV, not NPOV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
@Avala, Go to the albanian wikipedia and see that there is also an article named Tirana, not Tiranë because that is also a spelling in albanian (only in a different form), and please note that I am not saying it is a bastardization , Im saying it might be
@Ijanderson , please note that this is note a matter of me likening or not, thank you--Cradel 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
@Cradel im afraid it does as wikipedia states you are to edit with a NPOV and using "Prishtian" is not neutral, it is pro Albanian. English is neutral as it is the norm on English wikipedia.
All i am asking is for you all to respect the English language. Remember it is countries such as the UK and USA which were some of the first to recognise Kosovo and they use the English language. They are both UN security council members and thanks to them Kosovo has loads of support, with out them Kosovo would not survive long at all. So all i am asking is for you to respect the English language. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ermmm... , alright then :) --Cradel 17:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This shows through a reproduction of a physical encyclopedia page published in 1905, that the word Prishtina was the primary definition in Encyclopedia Britannica over a hundred years ago already. p.766, Encyclopedia Britannica 1905, Google Books. It is also currently the spelling favored locally, not only by the Prishtina Municipality, but also its Airport [1] (still lodged on Wikipedia as Priština International Airport), University [2] (still lodged on WIkipedia as University of Priština, and by the way, someone cleverly link-farmed that article with external links all reading "Official" and leading strictly to Serbian pages representing satellite campuses in Serbian enclaves such as Kosovska Mitrovica, while excluding the main campus in Prishtina or any link to its pages!), and CARO office (Civil Aviation Regulatory Office, the regional air navigation and traffic control agency) [3] [4]. This spelling also correctly respresents how the city name is pronounced by everybody, Kosovars, Albanians, Serbs, Turks, Croats, Montenegrans, Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Macedonians, Hungarians, Russians, Poles... Why adopt the linguistically worst possible variant for encyclopedic use? Contemporary Kosovan contexts should use the English variant used on the ground in Prishtina, which is Prishtina. The Serbian variant, complete with its diacritic, should be used for historical Serbian contexts. Do we need a formal sanctioning of this dichotomy by using the Danzing/Gdańsk Wikipedia rule already in force? And the proposed Kosovo naming guideline strongly implies that the Prishtina viariant be used on its merits, not perceived popularity: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles). Wikipedia is historically strict about preserving salient diacritics, much more so than general use patterns in the English media or other prevelent (mis)use, because it aspires to being an accurate reference. Where the Wikipedia article is parked is a secondary, sometimes arbitrary, consideration, and in this instance orthagonal to guiding proper contextual use. --Mareklug talk
  • It's probably ency to say what the postal authorities for Kosovo stipulate for international mail markings, as well as what they say on their English-language web pages: POST powered by PTK, Postal Transit Centre: "Postal Transit Centre plays a very important role in the overall activity of the Post of Kosova, and apart from its operational and institutional activity it has been also internationally recognised by the UPU (Universal Postal Union). International features of the PTC are the following: The address of incoming letter mails LC/AO through international exchange offices shall indicate the aero postal code of Prishtina XZPRNA for the territory of Kosovo. The address of incoming parcels through international exchange offices shall indicate Prishtina CP and the aero postal code for parcels XZPRNB." --Mareklug talk 03:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pristina

  1. Agree We should spell Pristina the same way the EU aproved Republic of Kosovo's Constitution does as this makes sense. Kosovo's Constitution spells it as "Pristina". Please read Chapter 1 Article 13 Kosovo's Constitution Here is another copy of the constitution Kosovo's Constitution other COPY. This too spells the city as Pristina. The constitution has been approved by the EU and according to news it has been adopted in the Kosovo parliament. It's a done deal. There will be no further changes. Therefore you can not disagree with the spelling. Now we must update the articles accordingly. Pristina Municipality is not as senior as the Republic of Kosovo. The English translation for the Albanian version of "Prishtina" is Pristina. We should use the English version for English Wikipedia and the Albanian version for Albanian Wikipedia. Seems logical to me. Also Google news hits... Pristina gets 1,638 hits [5], "Prishtina" gets 49 hits [6]. English speakers overwhemingly prefer Pristina. Pristina is also neutral as it's not the Serbian or Albanian spelling. Almost all of the governments that recognise Kosovo use Pristina (see [7] [8] [9], [10], etc.). 2008
  • CIA WORLD FACT BOOK [11]
  • BBC Country Profiles [12]

These two who are very important in the English speaking world and spell it as "Pristina". Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Note: User:Jawohl has cast his vote several times in this section.--Avala (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Its OK Avala, we are not deciding based on votes. And sorry for the double vote. :) Jawohl (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia has a policy of listing articles for cities and other geographic entities under their common English name, unless the articles are written in a different language. The Constitutional name of a city, and its spelling at homes, is irrelvant. Foreign cultures can import proper names and modify them in any way they like in their own language, which is why the wikipedia article for: Torino, Italia, is under Turin, Italy. München, Deutschland, is under Munich, Germany. Tō-kyō, Nippon, is under Tokyo, Japan. The overwhelming majority of evidence clearly suggests that "Pristina" is the accepted English importation of both Prishtina and Priština. It was this way before Kosovo's declaration of independence, and it is that way afterwards. A country's political stance on independence has nothing to do with the linguistic fact that Pristina is the correct spelling, and the article should reflect that for consistency with all other world cities and countries. Serbian and Albanian versions of the article can spell it differently if they wish--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. English language terms should be used in the English language Wikipedia. Pristina is not only the official spelling of the city name but also the spelling used in all other reliable English sources. This RfC was opened only after two users who oppose every proposed addition to the article (check the talk page and it's archive to see what I am talking about) opposed this one as well. Abusing RfC by users who oppose for the sake of opposition shouldn't be tolerated, instead follow the already reached consensus where all other users agreed on using the English language here.--Avala (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

'Support. The evidence overwhemingly supports Pristina. Google news is a good indicator as to what English speakers prefer and it shows that Pristina gets 1,639 hits [13] while "Prishtina" only gets 51 [14]. The constitution of Kosovo and Metohija spells it as Pristina. Pristina is neutral as it's neither the Albanian or Serbian spelling... it's the English spelling. This article used Priština for over a month, yet it was changed to the Albanian spelling without consensus shortly before the article was locked. If we were following the decisions of the community then we would use Priština as that is what the editors of the that city's article have decided to name that page. But since this article is like a battleground between two entrenched sides keeping Priština or Prishtina is only going to keep tensions higher. Pristina is a good compromise. --Tocino 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

'Support. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree', google only gives 327 hits on my name but I am much more worth and active then that :) Google criteria can not be used for this issue. And it has been used as an argument over and over again. Please use new arguments. Jawohl (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC) @Jawohol What you have said is completely irrelavant to this discussion, however the google criteria proves that "Pristina" is more popular in the english than "Prishtina" therefore i am to ask of you to remove your previous comment. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please use a new argument that isn't something to the effect of "Kosovo is Albanian so therefore we should use Albanian spelling." --Tocino 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a better argument then that, "English Wikipedia is English so therefore we should use the English spelling" Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was only refering to the request of happy melon, that's all. Jawohl (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)lease, however, try to avoid duplicating the dozens of pages of text above - arguments on Wikipedia cannot be 'won' simply by drowning the opponent in discussion. Happy‑melon 11:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pristina is the most widely used English term.[1][2] It is also the term that official English language foreign institutions use, like the US[3] and UK embassies.[4] However, the municipality's official English website uses the term Prishtina.[5] Furthermore, the newly-adopted Constitution states in its official English translation that the capital is Pristina.[6] The Constitution is most likely newer than the latest update of the municipality's website and has certainly more authority being the most important legal document of the country. This is why I support the term Pristina.
References
  1. ^ Pristina - Google-haku. www.google.com. Retrieved on 2008-04-09.
  2. ^ Prishtina - Google-haku. www.google.com. Retrieved on 2008-04-09.
  3. ^ Home - U.S. Embassy Pristina, Kosovo. pristina.usembassy.gov. Retrieved on 2008-04-09.
  4. ^ Kosovo, Pristina, British Embassy. fco.gov.uk.
  5. ^ www.prishtina-komuna.org. www.prishtina-komuna.org. Retrieved on 2008-04-09.
  6. ^ Kosovo Constitution. www.kushtetutakosoves.info. Retrieved on 2008-04-09.
Rayhou (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Support for the reasons mentioned above (as the common English name). --DaQuirin (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dissagree because:

  1. Involving the constitution of Kosovo, foreign embassies, countries, universities, etc. as a proof for or against the proper spelling, will not help in this case. The only authority which has to be taken onto consideration is the municipality of Prishtina and its assembly which decides on issues related to that city. Kosovo has a decentralized administration and as such it lies within the assemblies of the cities to decide on their coat of arms, the names of the streets or the economic development plans. Every outside country obviously has decided differently or just taken some form of the spelling with-ought a second thought or for granted. In Skopje, the traffic signs show directions to Prishtina and not Pristina, why they did that is their issue. Fact of the matter is that Prishtina Municipality presents itself as Prishtina and so does the majority of the population living in that city. Denying them that is unfair. Jawohl (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. The argument of using the english speaking form for the city i.e Pristina, is also arguable because H is not a chinese character. It is present in the english language. This argument has also been discussed thoroughly in the talk page so I will not repeat anything. Jawohl (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Facts vs. NPOV vs. POV.
  • I do not need t explain POV but rather NPOV which is introduced by neutral editors in order to solve disputes. NPOV when introduced as a solution becomes automatically a POV of the third party which introduced it and as such is nothing more then a POV trying to achieve a compromise. As much as we endorse compromises, they do are not long lasting and this is a FACT. Now if we were to stick to facts, this argument could go on and on, because there are facts for and facts against. But FACT is the we as the BIG guys have the responsibility to respect the FACTs of the small guys, in this case- the citizens of Prishtina. If the city of Novobrdo/Artana decides to change its name to Neuberg tomorrow. What do you do? consult the constitution of RoK, Britanica, of course you could do that. Novobrdo is not as important as St. Petersburg and the Authorities in Kosovo would not move their finger to stop them as long as it is not against the constitution. So, would we conntinue calling the city Neuberg or Novobrdo. However we decide, their lives will not get better. The least we can do is respect their decision. Jawohl (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion is about the English use of Pristina. Not weather if Pristina or Prishtina should be the name of the city You have said that already. Pristina Municipality is not as senior as the Republic of Kosovo. They Speak Macedonian in Skopje not english so that is irrelavant as it has nothing to do with the English use of "Pristina". The Chinese "H" argument is also irrelavant as it has nothing to do with the English use of "Pristina". You have obviously got the wrong end of the Stick. We all agree that "Prishtina" is correct in Albanian, but not in English. So your NPOV argument is irrelavant too Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support pristina - the most NPOV and I respect the constitution --Cradel 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

@ ljanderson977 I know what I have said but I do not know if everyone is reading everything or just the things that wants to read. The reason why I mentioned Macedonia, was to show that obviously everyone had its own ways own deciding. As for the government being senior, it is true as long as it is not anti constitutional. Two years ago the assembly of Prishtina decided to remove all the fences around the ministries i.e senior government. The decision was carried out. So much about the government on being senior. It is a very loosely centralized government. Another example, after the war, assemblies (both albanian and serbian run) started to rename streets. These decisions were overruled by UNMIK/Government as anti constitutional and inflammatory. Again, I am not trying to offend anyone by posting twice. Just trying to help out. Thanks. Jawohl (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. All i am trying to say is that i understand in Albanian that the city is called "Prishtina" and the English translation is "Pristina". It is only fair to use the English spelling on English Wikipedia. If this was Albanian wkikpedia i would use the Albanian spelling, but its English. Will you agree to use the English spellings for English Wikipedia? Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, because english speaking people who do not know the city would spell it same as the words star or stranger or pristine for that matter. On the other hand, should, shallow and Shanghai are pronounced just as Prishtina is pronounced by albanians and serbs. What you refer to as the english translation or spelling is just something that has crawled itself in the last 40 years. Do you agree :) Jawohl (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This is an English Wiki. Pristina is correct. Beam 18:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. But at the end of the day that is the English version which has been adopted long before Kosovo declared independence and because it is the English version it shall be used as we speak English on English Wikipedia. Only you and Kosova2008 support your argument, your outnumbered and i think we should be democratic about this and should use what the majority believe, which is Pristina. 2 Vs 9 Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it has. Prishtina was represented through Belgrade. I am asking you to find english words with st and those with sh and see how they pronounce. If we were discussing the german spelling that is a different case because steuer, schwalbe and shade all sound like prishtina. I thought wiki was not a democracy. I am interested in the long lasting solution not the short one, ops, or is it the sort one. Any counter arguments are very welcome. I am ready to be evangelized any time as long as there is a good longstanding argument. Jawohl (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC) And BTW, since counting counts 4 you, you forgot cradel; so it is 3:9  :) Jawohl (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Use English Not using english means you are violating wikipedia. And FYI Cradel changed his mind "Support - the most NPOV and I respect the constitution --Cradel 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)" [15] Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree "Pristina" is by far the most commonly used name for this city in English. Third discussion about this in what, 2 days? Húsönd 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

@ ljanderson977. Rules change, we are not discussing the bible. And we should not repeat the same arguments over and over again. But since you just did, I will allow it to myself as well. Find a 13 year old, native english speaking, who does not know the city and ask him to read out loud the words: star, should, pristine and prishtina. I am really curios. Jawohl (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats irrelavant. Try get him to read Pristina. I bet he can pronounce that with no problem. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, since the name is in english i supuse it should sound different, right? --Cradel 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

@ ljanderson977. I can scrub my nose with my own hand, in other words don't use my arguments against me if you have none. I thought you might have a 13 year old around. I don't. Jawohl (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What has this got to do with anything? It doesn't matter what a 13 year old pronounces it, it doesn't change the English name of the city does it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Its is about the pronunciation not the english name of the city. The english name for the city, as you refer to your argument, is a borrowed name from the serbian spelling. But both Serbs and Albanians pronounce it with Sh like Shanghai. That was my question/argument. Jawohl (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But that is not resolving the situation. Please tell me why we shouldn't use the English spelling, even though this is English wikipedia? Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think what he is trying to say is that there is no "correct" english spelling --Cradel 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well quite obviously there is since "Pristina" has been used in English for over 40 years. And lots of Govt official site wich are in English spell it in "Pristina" therefore that is the correct english spelling. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Cradel. Last time I checked, you were not my spokesperson. @Ijanderson977 If you really want to know, then just go through my arguments again. Please. Then we can talk. Thanks :) Jawohl (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All i can make out from your argument is that the people of Pristina are to name it themselves, English people can't pronounce it properly, that the municipality of Prishtina and its assembly which decides on issues related to that city and that the English version has only been around 40 years. This seems like a rather weak and poor argument to me. But there is not really an argument against using the English version, just an argument for using "Prishtina" the Albanian version, which is POV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you also do not sound very convincing to me either. Let me ask you another thing?. How would you decide on the Ferizaj/Urosevac name and also on my hypothetical Neuberg question? Thanks. Jawohl (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How do i not sound convincing. I'll tell you my argument. Then you tell me what is wrong with it. Then you tell me yours after. This discussion is not on Ferizaj/Urosevac, so stop changing the topic.
My Argument- We are using English Wikipedia and wikipedia states that you are to write in English on English Wikipedia. [16]. Wikipedia also says on place names that you are to use the English version of the name, and use the foreign version as a redirect. [17]Now since we have established that we have to use English place names we use "Pristina". This English spelling is used by many official governments [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. So this English version is not un-heard of and is highly used and the most popular among Native English speakers. Even Kosovars themselves understand that there is an english name for the capital city and is used in the English version of the EU approved Kosovo Constitution which comes into affect in a few months. Kosovo's Constitution (please read chapter 1, article 13). The use of "Pristina" is not only the correct name according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), it is also the correct name according to WP:NPOV as it is in English making it neutral as English is the norm on English wikipedia and that using a name from another language is POV and would be breaking wikipedias neutral policy. (Keep in mind that using a foreign language on English wikipedia may offend certain users) So it makes sense and is logical and correct to use "Pristina" rather than any other name for the city. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have read those arguments, I know them. The reason why I mentioned Ferizaj/Urosevac or Gjilan/Gnjilane or some other smaller place which has completely different albanian/serbian name but does not have an english name is to know, how would that village be named here and then based on what. I do not want to go onto these discussions again. So how would you decide on this names or on some village that exist in reality but not on the web?. Bare with me. I am trying to find a formula, but of course if you are not up to it that is OK. Thanks. Jawohl (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but they are not really important and are not used as much as the Capital city. We should go by what wikipedia says. If there is an English name, that is to be used, if not use the local name, which probably will be the Albanian version. So any criticism on my argument? Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

On your second argument, not really, because you do not know and assume which is correct although we will be faced with that decision sooner then we think. And as far as the first one goes, I am still not convinced and repeating my self will not help any further. Thanks Jawohl (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I applied the same rules to both arguments. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Can anybody give criticism on my argument, if not we may have reached a concenus. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Ijanderson977. I said that I am not yet convinced on the Pristina argument. And we do not have a deadline so there is no need to hurry. Once a decision is made it will be forever. Let us just take it easy. OK. Jawohl (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright then. Have a look at my argument. Then when you want with a few bulletins say what with my argument you disagree with. I can't guess what your not satisfied with. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Pristina — I think it would be better if cities had their native names, not the typical English ones, but that's definitely not the standard. "Pristina" is definitely the standard English usage, so putting the article at anything but "Pristina" would be incorrect. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Prisitna for all the erudite objections raised during its two attempted requested moves to this very string as evidenced on the city article's talk page. Mandating a popular albeit incorrect rendition of the city's name degrades Wikipedia's quality as a reference. Furthermore, I documented in the section above, that Encyclopedia Britannica already lodged the city under "Prishtina" back in 1905. And contemporary use in Prishtina itself, in English language contexts, points to the emergence of "Prishtina". Rendition of the Serbian name devoid its diacritic is only a simplification borne of convenience, not a bonafide common English name such as Hanover or Belgrade. This dispute should be settled on linguistic merits and contemporary self-representation of the city and its affiliated entities, not on perceived global popularity which conflates the Serbian name with simplified typography. The Serbian name, intact, should be rendered in Serbian historical contexts on Wikipedia. There just is no justifiable encyclopedic middle ground. We should note that this spelling exists, which we do, but that's as far as we should go in using it. --Mareklug talk 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The name 'Pristina' is the serbian version of 'Priština', and because Kosovo has lived under Serbian rule during the 20-th century, the world has come to recognize the latinized versions of the Serbian names of the Kosovar cities. This is, of course, to change. And it has changed. Because the official language in Kosovo is Albanian followed by Serbian, the logical and NPOV way to go is the use the Albanian and then the Serbian name of the city. However, that would not be practical, so the ultimate solution would be to call the city with its Albanian (and only) name: Pishtina.--Arbër T • ? 06:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Ijanderson977. I still disagree, because the english spelling is wrong compared to the pronunciation. The spelling and writing have been endorsed and adopted because of the ease of use and friendly relationship to the former government in YU. It was easier to use an S as in Pristina instead of Š as in Priština and thus it was adopted as such. But if you see how the word is pronounced then it is a clear Sh. parish |ˈpari sh |, Irish |ˈīri sh | and so on and so forth, now notice this words: star |stär|, pristine |ˈprisˌtēn; priˈstēn| and the city itself: Priština |ˈpri sh tiˌnä| which is pronounced same as parish, irish, etc. So in my opinion it is Prishtina is the correct way of writing it. Jawohl (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it doesnt matter because according to wikipedia out off all three names, the only one which can be used is "Pristina" this is according to WP:NPOV,Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and WP:English. "Priština" and "Prishtina" can not be used according to wikipedia. So its pointless debating. The only one acceptable according to wikipedia is "Pristina". Using any other name violates wikipedia.

@ Jawoh FYI: its pronounced differently in english,without the "sh" its pronounced "Priss-tina". Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I got those from a dictionary. Everything points that SH letters are pronounced phonetically as Sh as in Shanghai. Maybe we should invite some english linguists. Jawohl (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe you should obey wikipedias standards instead of supporting to violate it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You know by now, that not everything in Wikipedia obeys it's standards. The more users join and new cases are introduced, the more those standards are put on test. So, I suggested a linguist just to get an opinion of what is the proper pronunciation of SH and ST in english. Not to violate rules. Or is that invitation the violation that you mention. Jawohl (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You go find some them and also find people English graduates from Uni or English proffesors too. See what they have to say. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
you say it is pronounced differently to the spelling. so what? the word "knife" in english has a "k" at the beguining but you do not pronounce it, so should we change that too? obvioulsy not. Its not up for you to change the English language.Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon now Ijanderson977. I suggested to invite an english linguist, not my self. The linguist would not change anything but would simply point out to what is the correct pronunciation. Do not put your words in my mouth. I am for sure not going to change the english language. My knowledge is limited. If you are against it let me know (knife - another pattern obviously). I am not convinced by your arguments. That is all. You can show me wikipedia rules but as Mareklug pointed out with his Gdańsk/Danzig example, there is always room for improvement. You have to agree at least on that one with me. Jawohl (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What is a linguist going to prove. That the albanina spelling is closer to the pronouciation. so what? think of it this way. there are many pro serbians on here and many prov albanians/ kosovars on here to. The pro albanians/kosovars are going to opose to Priština, sowe have no chance of using that. The pro serbians are going to oppose to Prishtina. So all that we have left and Pristina, which is english and thisis english wikipedia so dont be suprised to find an english word on it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are truly inspiring for further discussions. Black is black, white is white and that's it. So we have to use gray. Now, is this gray that you want to use truly NPOV. Because according to the rules that you so often like to quote, Black and White seem to be more NPOV then the grey introduced by you and the like. If you are not interested in a long lasting solution, do not post. I am not interested in chasing my own or your tail. If in a discussion, arguments for and against end up in a dead end, other opinions should be welcomed. Let us say that we decide to go the gray way. On the 15th of June the Constitution, to which you refer, gets an updated translation, this time Kosova and Prishtina. What do you do then. Start a new discussion. What if Britanica also decides to go that way. All I am asking for, is new arguments, which would ensure for a long lasting solution. Not old ones repackaged. Jawohl (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Another reason why I support Mareklug's solution is the example of Ferizaj/Uroševac. The city is a bit over 100 years old and there is not as much reference for it. On top of that, there are several "legends" as to how it came to an existence. Both "POV". What will your solution be to satisfy the english wikipedia. Use Urosevac withought the š but with an s instead. Well, I will strongly oppose to that, since it is closer to serb then albanian. Or will you come up with a new word. As you can see, there is no need to rush and mareclug's solution is the best one so far, as it could be applied throughout the articles on Kosova and keep both POV's happy. Just my opinion. Jawohl (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Here is the link to Ferizaj's oficial website : http://www.ferizaj-komuna.org/. Notice the coat of arms with the word Ferizaj and now choose the serbian link and you will be presented with Uroševac. And when you select the english language it is Ferizaj again. What will your vote be? Jawohl (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Im afraid i'm not too familar with the naming disputes of Ferizaj and Uroševac, so i believe i do not have a place to comment on them. On the 15th of June the Constitution this time read Kosova and Prishtina i would still say its irrelavant as you said the Kosovo constitution does not determine the english language. I just used it as an example to show that the Kosovo govt even acknowledges there is an englih version of Prishtina Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is also important that you have a look as this, it shows the popularity of the words "Prishtina" and "Pristina" [25] Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As the Govt of Kosovo announced it was to use the approved Constitution yesterday, the Final Copy as now been issued FINAL COPY (not a draft) The final version spells the capital city as "Pristina". Chapter 1 article 13 Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You're really not perusassive with this constitution argument. The text of the constitution refers to Prishtina exactly once, in a one-sentence Article 13 when designating it as the capital. In fact, the article is titled "Capital city". In no way is this a prescription, legal or otherwise, on how to spell the city. And the current English versions of the websites of both the President [26] and the Prime Minister [27] consistently use "Prishtina". As does the Government's Portal [28], listing all the municipalities of the country right on the main page. At least those governmental sites ostensibly and by their own description dissenminate official information, whereas the Constitution won't even be in force until 15 June. Let's portray all information truthfully. --Mareklug talk 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Aheem... I guess this is piling up the votes but anyway, Pristina is the most common English spelling and I see no point in arguing this over and over again. Regarding the other cities and towns, if there has been no proposal yet, what about using a Serbian name for places with Serbian majority (like Mitrovica) and Albanian name with Albanian? Of course, unless there is a widely accepted name in English, such as in Pristina case (I am not sure whether there are more cities like this). When we discuss policies, it will be useful if we consider the whole naming sistem so we have one thing less to worry about. (quite some work here, templates, lists etc.) --Tone 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought of this too, but is seems that in borderlne cases that would be quite a problem --Cradel 22:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. It's the most commonly used in English. It's a compromise because it's (technically) not Serbian or Albanian. It's in the Kosovo constitution (draft). BalkanFever 10:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Apart from being neutral with regards to the Serbo-Albanian imbroglio, it is also the way we Greeks actually pronounce it in our language, which lacks the voiceless postalveolar fricative. Oops, will that make people vote against it now? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Seems to appear most commonly in English-language sources. Priština is probably more correct, but it's a pain to type it. I've never seen it spelled Prishtina before. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 21:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It's a mixed bag, but if you qualify your count by noticing where it is used in the English-language sources, you'll see Prishtina on the ground in Prishtina, as well as concentrated in the newest digital geographical uses (giskos.com [29], a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provider, see its "Go to Kosova" service [30]). In particular, it is used in English by the Municipality of Prishtina [31] and on the official webpages of the Republic of Kosovo (President's [32], Prime Minister's [33], Governemnt's Portal [34]), on websites of it's main infrastructure providers (Post Office - POSTA [35], Telecom of Kosovo - TK [36], IPKO - internet provider [37], Prishtina International Airport [38]; it used to have a sign over the main terminal "PRISTINA AIRPORT" -- somone should check to see if it stil does, University of Prishtina [39] [40] [41] (U of Iowa's page about their collaboration with "UP"); used to be called "University of Priština" but is no longer) and various foreign Kosovo-based NGOs (A.I. Prishtina [42], World University Service Austria in Prishtina [43], World Trade Point Federation, Prishtina [44], FeHe.org research and contemporary art, Kosovo Projects [45]) and foreign cultural missions (French [46]). All the preceding would imply a weighed preference for this spelling on merits by those in the know. I discount the US government, because for some reason, they have staken out "Pristina" long ago and kept it, and I can't fathom what motivates it -- maybe just wishing to keep in agreement with military maps and preserve cross-agency tranparency? After all, USA imposes feet in air traffic measurements and designations worldwide, so I'd not be surprised at its clinging to Pristina because that's they way they keyed it into their systems long time ago. --Mareklug talk 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
reply to Mareklug I don't think that institutions and businesses in Kosovo are neutral, they are bound to spell things in Albanian. Why don't you have a look at Native English institutions and businesses ans see how they spell the name of the city? I bet 99 times in 100 its spelled "Pristina" Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope that by "Native English" you don't mean just those owned and operated by people with accents out of My Fair Lady. :) Here's some for you to acknowledge:
Hope this is enough. --Mareklug talk 23:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Support. I'm a disinterested passer-by. Wikipedia doesn't care about political issues either way, Wikipedia doesn't care about what should be or why. It is not Wikipedia's job to fix the world if the world does something bad or wrong. Others have already cited excellent Verifiable Reliable Sources demonstrating that Pristina is the overwhelming English language spelling. Whatever arguments people may have, I think we all must agree those sources exist, agree they are Verifiable, and agree are Reliable. Language is defined by actual usage. Like it on not, good or bad, Pristina is the de facto English name. Wikipedia reflects and follows a Verifiable Reliable Source reality. It is not Wikipedia's job to attempt to create or change the outside world. If the predominant Verifiable Reliable Source English language usage were to become Prishtina or something else, then Wikipedia would follow that change. Alsee (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    Please see my answer, with many new links to sources, also "Reliable", but favoring "Prishtina" with good cause, immediately above. And please note the fact that "pristina" is a common word in Latin used in biological names and common in Latin texts, the use of which people conflate with English use for the name variant of the Kosovan capital, without apparently realizing that they do so when they bring up Google counts as evidence. --Mareklug talk 23:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Priština

Comment: Priština is the official name of the article on Wikipedia but I support using an alternative English language spelling Pristina as it doesn't match either Albanian (Prishtina) or Serbian (Priština) spelling so it's a great compromise solution.--Avala (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't use this spelling as there is an English alternative, which is "Pristina". Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. If there is a neutral alternative which happens to be used officially as well we should use it (Pristina).--Avala (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Priština. This is the proper, encyclopedic rendition of the name in Serbian, and in English, when pertaining to Serbian historical contexts, as opposed to the contemporary Kosovan contexts, where we should reflect the current locally self-identified Prishtina variant. The two variants correctly identify the pronounciation, while the third English language variant, Pristina, while popular, conceals it. --Mareklug talk 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug is the only one who has an NPOV approach IMHO so far. He is respecting both spellings, albanian and serbian, in their respective context and rejects the third "NPOV" englisH solution introduced for commodity. Jawohl (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

you both need to read [48] and ill quote from it too "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. Non-English names should be used only if there are no established names in English" Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I respect you for sticking to rules, but as I mentioned, rules, laws and constitutions for that matter change and are replaced by better ones. And we are discussing what is best. :) Jawohl (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well thats your POV to what is better. Noteveryone elsesas you are outnumbered 11 to 3 Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion moved

This discussion belongs on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles). It is pointless to do strawpolls on naming conventions on individual article talkpages. Also, a pointer to the discussion should be left at Talk:Priština, since that is the article primarily affected. dab (𒁳) 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the RfC to a suitable subpage of that MOS page, and made a few adjustments to the section namings to further remind participants that this is not a vote. If you think a neutral note should be left on any talk page, please don't hesitate to add one: I have now placed one on Talk:Priština. Happy‑melon 20:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move the Priština article

If consensus is reached here about the name should we move the corresponding article as well? --Cradel 20:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I still do not agree. Hold your horses. There is no deadline. Thanks. Jawohl (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I mean if we reach a consensus we must also move the priština article --Cradel 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Was there a voting on the move? Jawohl (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Was there a move ? --Cradel 20:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
sure. That's the main question. The Priština article can only reside at a single title, while de facto usage scattered over various articles can and will still vary. --dab (𒁳) 20:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
See Danzig, which resides under Gdańsk. Both names are used, context-depending, and the fact of where the article resides is not a guide in proper use there, and neither can be for Prishtina/Priština. --Mareklug talk 23:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the historical context, almost nobody in the English speaking world calls that city Danzig anymore. It resides in Gdańsk simply because nowadays it's the most common name for that city in English. Still, moving "Priština" to "Pristina" would require a proper WP:RM listing/procedure, as it's obviously a controversial move that would need more feedback from the rest of the community. Húsönd 11:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Really? I don't meant to sidetrack this discussion on Kosovo's capital, but, in America at least, it seems to me most people know it as Danzig, not Gdansk.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I live in America as well and I've heard both terms being used. Kosova2008 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There will obviously never be unanimous consensus here, but it seems to transpire that Pristina is the variant clearly favoured by non-partisan editors. Even the English language version of the constitution draft of the Republic of Kosovo spells it Pristina. In my opinion, this is a clear-cut case. Google news hit count: 438 : 90; that's better than the 80:20 ratio usually required for "consensus" (plus, the 90 "Priština" hits appear to be exclusively due to http://www.b92.net/). dab (𒁳) 10:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't bother you one whit that "pristina" is a Latin homonym in common use in biological taxonomy, absolutely unrelated to "Pristina" the Kosovan city, and that this fact inflated the Google count significantly and unreliably, and apparently, without any filtering made to account for it by you and other Google-hit counters? Furthermore, this point has been made and remains unaddressed in this very discussion, above. How can you keep explicating such shoddy evidence, as decisive, no less? This borders on demagogy. I am appalled that this reasonaing was the last salvo before the move was hurried, despite a rather obvious lack of consensus on its merits, in spite of best academic evidence that "Pristina" is a low-brow corruption, albeit popular, of the Serbian variant, and is tacitly seen in Serbia as extending Serbian cultural imprint on the city. For that matter, the movers made no acknowledgment of the nearly exclusive usage on the ground in the city and in Kosovo's government circles of "Prishtina" (yes, in English only, which in English usage apparently dates back at least to Encyclopedia Britannica 1905, predating modern Serbian control of the city, also shown in the discussion above). I was laboring under the misimpression that merit rules on Wikipedia, but I am sadly mistaken. It has clearly yielded, at least in this case, to building political correctness in the name of controversy avoidance through "compromise". I suggest "compromise" should be regarded here under the lexical definition as synonymous with "inferior, debauched", as in "found in a compromising position". Very sad. --Mareklug talk 08:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


So , can I move it now ?-- CD 17:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

It seems clear to me that the consensus from this RfC is that the English wikipedia should use "Pristina" when referring to the capital of Kosovo. To this end, I have moved the article to Pristina. I suggest that the result of this RfC be reflected in MOS:Kosovo and in all pages refering to Pristina. Happy‑melon 18:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The shortcut is WP:MOSKOS by the way :-) BalkanFever 01:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Ev after the move to Pristina

This comment, made with the sole aim of giving my opinion, is added after User:Happy-melon gauged consensus. I thank him for helping with this issue :-)

To clarify on these usages in the English Wikipedia: our core criterion for choosing one form over another is reflecting common English usage, we merely do as the English language does. In the case of this city, it's evident that Pristina is the standard English form. I'm ok with using it.

However, I prefer to include the caron ( ˇ ) and use Priština, thus incorporating the š grapheme to denote the /ʃ/ sound, as some English publications do in various contexts (for the specific case of this city, cf. Britannica's article and usage in the National Geographic Magazine). I see it as a more perfectionist and educative way to display the name. I think that, given the technical limitations of what some see as a "standard English alphabet" that doesn't have them, the use of diacritics by a minority of highly reliable sources is enough to justify it's use in Wikipedia, again, as a more perfectionist and educative form. In my view, the fact that the form Priština also happens to be the original Serbo-Croatian one, and thus percieved as biased by some people, is irrelevant and shouldn't deprive our English-speaking readership of what I consider better quality content.

Of course, my personal preference assumes that diacritics are a good thing, and that their use should not depend entirely on our core principle of reflecting common English usage :-) Both opinions are contested, the second one with what I consider very good arguments.

Finally, although the forms Prishtina, Prishtine and Prishtinë are sometimes used in English-language publications (publications that often use Kosova instead of Kosovo), their frequency is simply not comparable with that of Pristina, and thus should not be used on Wikipedia. The fact that these forms happen to be the Albanian ones is irrelevant, and so is its percieved status of "official name" by some people: Wikipedia's common editorial practice, and the naming conventions that describe it, does not call for using "local" or "official" or "true" names, but for merely following common English usage. We do as English does.

Of course, I can imagine that Kosovo's declaration of independence may well induce a change in English usages, with the Serbo-Croatian names being phased out and the Albanian ones adopted. If/when that happens, the English Wikipedia should reflect that change, but not before.

In short, and for the specific issue of usage in the English Wikipedia: Pristina good; Priština my personal favourite; Prishtina, Prishtine and Prishtinë bad. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your point on the diacritics question. A precedent for this is the Zurich vs. Zürich debate (see Talk:Zürich/Archive 1), where we narrowly opted to include diacritics because they are given in higher quality English language sources, even though not in the majority of English language sources. However, Zurich vs. Zürich is a simple question of anglicization, while Pristina vs. Priština is tied up with ethnic conflicts. Sort of, as if Zürich had been taken over by a 90% French speaking majority who insist on Zurich and a vociferous Alemannic minority who insist hook or crook on the umlaut. In this case, English language sources that go out of their way typographically to give the historical spelling of the ethnic minority would seem to be taking sides. In such a case, since it is not just a question of "English vs. native" spelling, but a much more hairy question of "which native", an unadorned diacritic-less anglicization will be the best bet for neutrality. --dab (𒁳) 07:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)