Talk:Pristina/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Upgrade name of Prishtina

Name of city is not Pristina, but is Prishtina in English language because Prishtina is also in albanian language. Kosovo is a independent state and its not in Yugoslavia or Serbia. Please upgrade name of Prishtina city Beratademajj1997 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Beratademajj1997: Please, read carefully WP:COMMONNAME. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

And it must be Prishtina, Kosovo Lil.bektashi (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Pristina, Kosovo Lil.bektashi (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It must be Prishtina, Kosovo and not Priština Lil.bektashi (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Prishtina is a far more suitable name for the article than "Pristina" as it is both reflective of Albanian (The official Language of independent Kosovo) and English orthography. The name "Pristina" in when pronounced in English doesn't even reflect the pronunciation of the Serbian "Priština" on which it is based. Prishtina would be consistent with the orthography of the language of the article (English) and the official language of the country in which the city is located and the first language of the vast majority of its inhbitants (Albanian), "Pristina" is an inaccurate relic of the Yugoslav era.Swilkinson627 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The common name in English is "Pristina", hence it more suitable than "Prishtina" is. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Description of pre-modern Pristina/Prishtina

"In 1966, Pristina had few paved roads, the old town houses had running water and cholera was still a problem".

This sentence appears inconsequential. Did the author mean to say "the old town houses LACKED running water"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frotronic (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Unclear opening lines

The sentence:

"It is predominantly populated by Albanian-speaking peoples, constituting the second-largest capital city in Europe, after Tirana"

is unclear; Pristina isn't "the second-largest capital city in Europe", it has the second highest population of Albanian-speaking people.

Perhaps instead:

"It is predominantly populated by Albanian-speaking peoples, of which it has the second-largest population in Europe, after Tirana" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.160.167.131 (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Municipality of Prishtina in English is Municipality of Prishtina, not Pristina

Municipality of Prishtina when they refer to the city in English they refer to as Prishtina. Even on the municipality building it is spelled as "Municipality of Prishtina" in English version. This is not a typo. The reason Americans spell Pristina is because the got it from Serbian spelling "Priština" but the letter "š" is replaced with simple "s". However, even the serbian version Priština, sounds exactly the same as in Albanian because the letter "š" actually sounds like "sh". So why keep saying it wrong as Pristina when in fact everyone calls it with Prishtina.

Here's a photo of the building and see how then introduce themselves in English:

MunicipalityBuildingOfPrishtina

It would be wise to change Pristina -> Prishtina everywhere in the English language.

Thanks, //Agroni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agroni (talk • contribs) 07:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I second this. It's a constant violence to the majority ethnic Albanians in Kosova to have the names of their places written with the language of the oppressor. 188.155.82.248 (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

@AmanuensisBalkanicus Can you please explain why you are targeting Kosovo related pages and removing sources from Albanian authors, this seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Surix321 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think Hoxha-era authors, when Albania was known as the North Korea of Europe, [1] are suitable for making controversial claims which are bound to be challenged? Guidelines such as WP:EXTRAORDINARY exist for a reason. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Iljaz Rexha is not a Hoxha Era author, in this sense, all Authoritarian time periods with works are to be disregarded, I have checked the source and it isn't POV at all, it is just translating and writing what the defter says. Surix321 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

He literally is. His book was published in Tirana in 1984 while Hoxha was still Albania's dictator, during a time when there was very little academic freedom and scholars had to toe the regime's line (for example, with regard to the competing Illyrian/Pelagasian theories of Albanian origin). This same book has been used to spam dozens of Albanian-related (and not Albanian-related) pages over the past two months with innumerable dubious claims.

But that's beside the point, the dispute here is about "Ali Hadri", a political organization masquerading as a historical society which sends hundreds of nationalists to block off ancient monasteries and harasses elderly pilgrims attempting to visit said monasteries, and has made extremely dubious claims such as that the Serbian Orthodox monasteries of Kosovo were never Serbian to begin with. [2] [3] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that is true, but The author does not belong to their actions, Plus these are Serbian sources claiming that this happened, But thats beside the point, The authors (Selami and Iljaz) are still reliable, Writing a book about the defter does not have to do with the institution's aim to force Decani to speak about the Genocide on Albanians in Kosovo (which did happen). Surix321 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The authors share the view of the association, otherwise they wouldn't be its members and wouldn't have works published by it. The whole point of this source is to "prove" that Kosovo's Serbian Orthodox monasteries were built by Albanians and that they should be taken from the Serbian Orthodox Church. As seen with the sources above, members of "Ali Hadri" have shown they are willing to use intimidation to push the Serbian Orthodox monks out of Decani and confiscate the monastery's land, despite a Kosovo Supreme Court ruling to the contrary and criticism from the U.S. embassy in Pristina. All this is beyond WP:FRINGE and completely beyond the pale. It is part of a trend promoted by certain Kosovo Albanian authors over the past 10 years and really took off when Kosovo tried to join UNESCO in 2015. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you use a non-serbian source for this claim like you did with Kosovo defter?, Additionally, most of their works came before this "situation" Surix321 (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Which claim? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That this institute did this? Surix321 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure how comments about "Europe's North Korea" are relevant for a discussion about the academic reliability of sources. They're also wrong. Iljaz Rexha is a professor of Ottoman history at the University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and this particular book was published in 2016. The argument which is being discussed concerns this sentence In the 15th century the toponym Arnaut was recorded in the town ,which implies an Albanian presence.. AB claims that this is WP:FRINGE. The next sentence is that In 1455 Pristina had a significant Muslim Albanian population.. The source is Magdearu (2008). What does Rexha (2016) propose which isn't already accepted by other sources and written in the article?--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The North Korea remark didn't pertain to Rexha, it was about Hoxha-era Albanian historiography. I was replying to Surix's comments as part of a dispute which has spilled across several TPs. The "Ali Hadri" organization, and any so-called scholars who posit that the Serbian Orthodox churches in Kosovo were built by Albanians and should be expropriated and given to the Albanian Orthodox Church or the government of Kosovo, are completely beyond the pale and that is most certainly a hill I am willing to die on metaphorically. End of. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

But we're not discussing Serbian Orthodox churches, the Ali Hadri institution or Hoxha. We're discussing a specific sentence which is already part of the article and supported by another source. My point is that there never was a need for an edit-war to happen and several editors to get warned over content which already exists in the article. I'm not very active lately, but I don't remember any of the senior editors to ever get involved in such disputes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yet again you are ignoring, His work came out before this incident even happened with the Churches, and he is a Professor in Sarajevo, and a contributor to academia.edu, this situation with the Serbian churches has nothing to do with this and you are trying to find something to discredit sources. Surix321 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Academia.edu is a networking and republication page for academics.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, So it is a reliable source Surix321 (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Ehm, no. Academia.edu is not a source in and of itself, and thus is not a marker of reliability. It is a social networking site for academics, both reliable and not so reliable. This has been discussed at RSN before. [4]

This discussion isn't about what can and can't be found in non-Balkan sources. If anyone has strong academic sources to back up some assertion, please provide them, as happened at Niš. All I want is unimpeachable sources to be used to back up contentions in a topic area where most things are hotly contested. Is that really such a big demand?

Again, I repeat. "Ali Hadri" is not an association of scholars and researchers it may nominally present itself as. It is a political organization with very narrow views and it publishes texts with the intention of proselytizing those views. Here are a few Albanian-language articles just from the past few years. It is known for its anti-LGBT stance, lobbying deputies in the Kosovo parliament not to pass a law that would have legalized same-sex unions, [5] giving posthumous honours to KLA commanders [6] called the largest Serb party in Kosovo a "terrorist organization" and urged for Serb voters to be disenfranchised. [7] Their work is entirely agenda-driven and using sources published by them to back up assertions that anyone who has edited this topic area for any amount of time knows are going to be disputed is, frankly, astounding. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Iljaz does not bear responsibility for these actions. Surix321 (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The same editor who added the sentence first removed a sentence describing Pristina as a Serbian royal estate under dubious reasons. The editor in question in turn added this disputed sentence reinforcing a narrative that Pristina is a historically Albanian city, ironically with a questionable source. This is not an isolated incident and there have been other attempts to reinforce this idea that Pristina is a historically Albanian city. [8] The long standing sentence "In 1455 Pristina had a significant Muslim Albanian population" is more than enough to cover that historical period. Packing the paragraph with more contentious content will continue to create edit wars. The fact that the one sourced sentence "implies" a contentious narrative is more than enough to have it removed. ElderZamzam (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Even Selami Pulaha, who is famed for translating significant quantities of Ottoman archive material, is considered to be "Hoxhaist propaganda" which comes as quite a surprise to me. How did one come to have this opinion and for what reasons? To set the record straight, Selami Pulaha was an Ottomanologist, and the work that he did is crucial to our comprehension of the demographic structure of Albanians in the Ottoman empire. As a result, anthroponymic/onomastic data ought to be provided, given that such information is pertinent. In actuality, it would be ludicrous to even dispute the reliability of Selami, since even modern western academia credit (such as Schmitt) Pulaha for his translations/archival work. So, what exactly is the issue? Excine (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. Surix321 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2022

Change the location of Pristina to Serbia, since most countries do not recognise Kosovo. 135.0.17.180 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of the process of establishing a consensus, since I don't usually edit Wikipedia articles. I am not able to find how to establish a consensus in the provided article link. 135.0.17.180 (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2022

Change that "it is part of kosovo", to, "it is part of the partially recognised autonomous province of Kosovo." Oliver Delattre (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

Please change from is the capital of the autonomous province of Kosovo to is the capital of the Republic of Kosovo. 37.221.176.203 (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Already done by User:Ktrimi991. [diff] EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 11:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I made the edit without noticing this edit request. What a coincidence. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Title

Hello the Title should be Changed to Prishtina. As it is the native name and the name used in English. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Article titles must comply with Wikipedia's naming guidelines. Globally, the English name Pristina is more commonly used than the native Prishtina. Please see WP:COMMONNAME for more info. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Typo in first paragraph of the culture section

"The National Library of Kosovo has than 1.8 million books, periodicals, maps, atlases, microfilms and other library materials." I think this is missing more between has and than Egasneets (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent addition

I have removed the text added on the 16 January 2023 for two reasons. One, the content is not related to the city of Pristina at all. Two, the text is touching on the subject of the origin of Albanians, a subject that is well covered on its own Wikipedia page (see: Origin of the Albanians). Its presence in the lead of this article without any discussion in the article is POV pushing. ElderZamzam (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll agree with that one, my changes on the etymology will remain thought. If, however, you disagree we should reach a new consensus before edit-warring. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Conflict about edits

Evening @HoneymoonAve27, I wanted to discuss the issue about our recent edits.

I've already explained why I removed the quotes:

- obsolete, low quality and not reliable sources.

You do not have to answer to this if you want me to revert your edits without further discussing. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The Serbian Literary Cooperative is certainly not an unreliable source. — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed the 1913 source per WP:AGEMATTERS. It's an old and unreliable source. The relevant Ottoman defters which were published in the 1970s show that before the Ottoman era, Prishtina was just a small village and remained so for quite some time. The 1913 contradicts the main body of the article which explicitly argues that all contemporary sources describe it as a village before Ottoman urbanization.

Vinča culture is a Middle Neolithic culture, not a Paleolithic one.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I will remove the parts that we've been conflicting on on grounds of age matters and lack of reliablity. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

We can also use the second source and write "according to Serbian sources" because it does not fall under age matters. AlexBachmann (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I have had an extensive read and I can only find sources describing Pristina as a royal court for Stefan Dušan. I found no sources describing it as a royal court for Stefan Milutin, Stefan Uroš III, Stefan Uroš V nor Vuk Branković. Given that John VI Kantakouzenos met Stefan Dušan in Pristina in 1342, it demonstrates that a court was there. If you have conflicting sources, please list them. ElderZamzam (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@ElderZamzam: Stefan Dušan had no "royal court" or even a capital, his "court" was wherever he was at the time of the meeting. There is no court palace or any other structure in Pristina which would suggest even a small "court". Guylas (2021): Under Dušan’s reign Kosovo became the central part of the Serbian state. When investigating the political sphere, it can be stated, that the political centre was moved from Raš to Priština, then to Prizren, eventually to Skopje. --Maleschreiber (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Note

@AlexBachmann: Greeting. A note when mentioning Kosovo as a country is always added to the infobox and the article itself (which you already know, but okay). This has already been discussed before when determining the use of this note. This applies whether it is a city, a lake, a mountain or anything related to Kosovo/Kosovo and Metohija (1, 2). Once again, I would like to take the opportunity to ask you to turn more towards neutrality. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Dejure / defacto

Greeting. I came up with the idea of standardizing the text of the articles on Kosovo (and Metohija) with that of the articles on Northern Cyprus, Transnistria and other "states" that are not members of the UN. So, as in the article of North Nicosia, I think that Kosovo should be added to the infobox as a de facto state and Serbia as de jure. This could also remove the note that explains the political situation in which Kosovo (and Metohija) are. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

That is a impertinent proposal. You're just using Northern Cyprus to justify your POV (Your intention is clear when you use "Kosovo (and Metohija)"). There has also been no discussion with the whole thing dejure/defacto in Northern Cyprus. Therefore it is not comparable. AlexBachmann (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2023

On the pictures to the right when you enter the page the Sahat kulla is mistaken from Mother Theresa Cathedral. (the picture shows Sahatkulla but what you wrote says Cathedral of Saint Mother Theresa) Jonitooo (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jonitooo:  Done, corrected the caption. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the text, it's said that Pristina is the capital and largest city of Kosovo, it's right that it's the capital, but it's the second biggest city of Kosovo, after Podujevo, Podujevo coming with 633km2, while Pristina has 572km2, but you can say that by population Pristina is higher. 185.174.209.38 (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. The size of a city is usually measured by the number of inhabitants. That is what people usually think when they read about the "size" of a city. Per the WP:principle of least astonishment, we cam thus say that Pristina is the largest city of Kosovo. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991's revert

@Ktrimi991 Concerning your revert with "Eric Hamp is a linguistic source of the highest quality, way more recognized and cited than all other sources of the section combined": The reason why the Slavic theory goes first is because it is supported way more. Judging by the sources, the Proto-Slavic/Serbian etymology is supported by five sources. How many sources back the Proto-Albanian theory by Hamp? None. Your personal opinion of Hamp, and your alleged "over-qualification" of his work compared to others, is backed by no RS. --Azor (talk). 19:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hamp's view is supported by Curtis and Mehmeti. And yes, Hamp is way more recognozed than the rest of sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991 Mehmeti don't explicitly agree with Hamp, it is called recitation. Read the source. --Azor (talk). 19:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I read Mehmeti way before you did. He says:Hamp’s sharp eyes dissected even phonetic evolution of certain Albanian place-names which went hand-to-hand with the complex historical processes that underwent carriers of Albanian. Being himself an ardent neogrammarian, Hamp inferred peculiar phenomena as an outcome of the specific development of place-names: of major importance is his new etymology regarding Prishtinë, attested ever since, which he acknowledged as a derivative of  *pṛ-tu-, harking back to the Indo-European root *per- ,,passage, through”, cognate with Lat. portus and Eng. ford, while for the second element he surmised *stein-, a cognate with English ‘stone’, thus most likely a motivated name for a place between rivers. Moreover, vocalization ṛ > ri, which is notably Albanian, warrants that proto-Albanian has been spoken in Dardania before Trajan commenced to spread Latinization through Dacia. Je praises Hamp's etymology of Pristina. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Where do you see praising? It's recitations/interpretations. Mehmeti is explaining Hamp's work. That's why Mehmeti's source was used to refer to Hamp's work, as you can see in the article. --Azor (talk). 21:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

Pristina seems to have been a small village before the late 15th century. ... The first mosque in Pristina was built in the late 14th century while under Serbian rule.

The second claim seems highly improbable in light of the first. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Good point. The second sentence is sourced to a travel guide, so it does not meet the WP:RS criteria. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Expansion of the lead

Why wasn't my edit an improvement, Iaof2017? Let me remind you that the lead is supposed to be an overall summary of the article. --Azor (talk). 16:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)