Talk:Kosovo/Archive 3

message: I've added an explanation of the usages of the collective term to the article. -- ChrisO 20:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It will go to BJODN soon :)) Nikola 07:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kosovar, Kosovan, Kosovian

message: The Kosovo article is already structured along the lines of a regular country or state article, but it lacks a summary table giving basic information on the place (official language, capital, largest city etc). If nobody objects, I'll have a go at creating a summary table for the article. I've already moved the map to the top of the page and will create a locator map based on that in the Serbia and Montenegro article. -- ChrisO 10:24, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding summary info to article

message: Kosovo and MetohiaКосово и Метохија
Kosova
Demographics
Population:1.7-1.9 mill. (2002 UN est.)
Ethnicity:88% Albanian, 6% Serb
Note: Ethnic composition 
estimated and result of 
ethnic cleansing
Official languages:Albanian, Serbian, English
Geography
Administrative Capital:Priština
Other Cities:Prizren, Peć, Đakovica,Kosovska Mitrovica, Uroševac
Area:10,887 km²
Politics
UN Administrator:Harri Holkeri
Economy
Currency:Euro, Dinar
Please comment on this table below this point
Thanks for producing this, Igor. My comments:
*Morwen has produced a nice concise locator map which I've included in my version of the table: see :Image:SerbiaMontenegro-Kosovo2.png. :Image:KosovoMetohiaMap.png is a bit too large and detailed for this purpose and doesn't put Kosovo in its usual context as one of Serbia's two autonomous provinces.
** I don't think that it doesn't put it into context but I agree that it is too large, though I think that the other one is somewhat small. But as far as I am concerned it could be used, eventually replaced with a larger image later. Nikola
*The "ethnic composition" note is a bit POV; I suggest just listing the figures and explaining the context in the text.
*Politics: you can't just ignore the elected administration. It's a good idea to include the UN Administrator (I've done this with my table as well) but given that the president and prime minister are recognised as such by all the governments and international organisations involved, they need to be included. Also, I think the "declaration of independence" does need to be mentioned. For comparison, see the tables in Chechnya or South Ossetia, which likewise declared independence in 1990 and 1992 respectively but haven't been recognised internationally. Northern Cyprus is not dissimilar.
** Again, above. Vojvodina never declared independence. Nikola
The table isn't bad, but I still think that for the sake of consistency it would be better to use the standard model for subnational entities. -- ChrisO 11:59, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Table based on London Borough

message: How do we acknowledge the fact that each community in Kosovo endorses its own flag and deprecates the use of the other community's? Should we show both flags? Should we show neither?
: Neither is in official use, UN flag and Yugoslav ones are. --Igor
: I don't know whether it is in official use and in which way Nikola 11:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag

message: How do we acknowledge the existence of the President and Prime Minister of the interim administration? Both offices are recognised by involved governments and international organisations. 
How do we refer to the 1990 declaration of independence, given that it's accepted by one side but rejected by the other? Wikipedia precedent is to include it but note that it is unrecognised.
----
To sum up my points:
* Official name of the province should be used, as is in other tables.
** I think we're all agreed on that. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You've not mentioned the "Independence" field - it should be included, as is the standard practice for secessionist regions elsewhere (e.g. Northern Cyprus, Chechnya, South Ossetia, Biafra etc.). I think this field also needs to be included in the infobox on Republika Srpska and any future infobox on Republic of Serbian Krajina. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I like it - very good idea. I'll see what I can do. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics

message: I've removed some errors from the discussion of the demonym:
:someone from Togo is a Togoan, and so on.
Actually, someone from Togo is Togolese.
:"Kosovian" is grammatically incorrect; the -ian ending should only be used for nouns ending in -ia (e.g. Russia, Serbia, Georgia).
You mean like "Canadia" and "Panamania"?
--Montrealais (not Montrealian ;)
And Liverpudlia? 142.177.21.14 17:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Demonyms, continued

message: Under which name should this article go?
===Kosovo and Metohia===
# Drbug 20:49, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on the name 

message: # Drbug 20:49, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kosovo and Metohia

message: # Dori | Talk 03:12, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
# Kosovar 04:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kosovo (current)

message: The discussion had died down and there was overwhelming support for the move. Nikola was the only dissenting voice, though I imagine Igor would oppose the move as well, but that's still a minority. Dori | Talk 00:54, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
: I was not a dissenting voice. I have not voted because the voting was irregular. Nikola 08:30, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the move, but a bit later it was back at "Kosovo and Metohia", so I moved it again to Kosovo. -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  In what way was it irregular, Nikola? If there was a procedural problem let's hear what it was. -- ChrisO 15:49, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Kosovo archives have recently been moved by Nikola. I suggest the are returned where they were Talk:Kosovo -- not Talk:Kosovo and Metohia. Also, I replied to Nikola's letter. Apologies for the delay. Kosovar 06:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the archive pages -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:34, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cheers Chris. Many thanks for your efforts. Greatly appreciated. --Kosovar 10:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved the page

message: For the record, this is what Google shows for the number of results returned for each variant of the name, searching only on English-language pages:
* "kosovo -metohija -metohia -metohiya" - 2,100,000
* "kosova" - 179,000
* "kosove" - 9,850
* "kosovo and metohija" - 19,100
* "kosovo and metohia" - 6,640
* "kosmet" - 5,360 (note - many references not relevant to Kosovo)
* "kosovo and metochia" - 194
* "kosovo and metohiya" - 23
* "kosovo i metohia" - 4
On the issue of how to spell "Metohi*a", an English-language newspaper archive search also confirms that "Metohija" is predominant (3884 results) versus just 12 for "Metohia" and none at all for "Metohiya". A search for "Kosovo and Metohija" returned 476 results, with "Kosovo AND NOT Metohija" returning 158,823.
Although this is somewhat inexact, it does indicate a number of things:
# The overwhelmingly predominant name used for Kosovo in English is, unsurprisingly, "Kosovo" (without the Metohi*a bit in any of its variants).
# "Metohija" is preferred to "Metohia" (and I suspect it's probably a more accurate transliteration anyway).
Given these data, it's clear that "Kosovo" is the preferred name by a huge margin, and the preferred version of the full Serbian name is "Kosovo and Metohija". -- ChrisO 10:46, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. -- ChrisO 10:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Data on relative usages

message: Rather than getting into an unproductive revert war over each link to the Kosovo article, I think it might be a good idea to work out some basic guidelines on where and how the names are used.
First, a bit of background: Kosovo is both an administrative entity and a geographical region. The term we use depends on the context.
* Serbs refer to the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", or "Kosovo and Metohija" for short. Kosovo and Metohija are regarded as distinct geographical regions within that administrative entity. The entity was not created until 1945. (BTW, I do think we should standardise on "Metohija", as that is the most-used transliteration.)
* Albanians refer to the "Republic of Kosova", or "Kosova" for short. I *think* that's used to refer to the entire administrative entity, including the part that Serbs call Metohija; perhaps Dori or Kosovar could confirm this? The name "Metohija" is not used.
* English-speakers refer to "Kosovo" meaning the entire administrative entity, including the part that Serbs call Metohija. In this respect it's rather like the way we often use "Holland" to mean "The Netherlands" even though Holland is actually only part of that country. The name "Metohija" is only rarely used and has very little mass recognition.
I suggest the following guidelines:
* For articles about Kosovo towns and cities (e.g. Pristina, Prizren, Kosovo Polje etc) it makes sense to refer to them as being located "in the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija," as that is the proper name of the administrative region in which they are located. I think Nikola's use of the term in this context should stand.
* For historical references, particularly before the Serbian (re)conquest of 1912, references to a place called "Kosovo and Metohija" are anachronistic, as there was no administrative unit of that name before then; if I remember rightly, the name wasn't even used as the name of the Ottoman province covering the area. But it would be sensible to use "Kosovo" to describe the geographic region.
Does anyone have any comments? -- ChrisO 10:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: First, thanks for starting a compromise attempt. However, I disagree with your first point. In English, the province is called Kosovo, and should be referred to in that way (see also the majority vote above, which I consider valid until the majority votes different. Google also shows about 10 times more returns for Kosovo than for anything else). The name Kosovo and Metohija belongs at the beginning of the Kosovo article as the name used by Serbs, short for 'Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". The name can also be used at Political divisions of Serbia and Montenegro. Thus "Prizren is located in Kosovo" seems to be the proper way for me. I would like to avoid the use of Metohija because, as you said, the name has very little mass recognition and is not used in English. About the geographic region: If the region is roughly the same as the province, I would continue to use Kosovo for both, otherwise maybe Kosovo (province) and Kosovo (region). I'll guess it will take some more time to sort this out. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested guidelines on usage

message: User:Nikola Smolenski has listed a number of pages related to Kosovoon Wikipedia:Requests for page protection due to the dispute about the name of this province. According to the unanimous vote above, the English name Kosovo is to be used, not the Serbian name Kosovo and Metohia. The poll was removed three times by user:Nikola Smolenski (, , ), who disputes the validity of the vote and uses only the - in my opinion - narrowest possible interpretation of the vote result, i.e. that the vote decided only the location of the page Kosovo, but everything else is to be Kosovo and Metohia . The protection requests are made by him to ensure the usage of Kosovo and Metohia throughout Wikipedia. In my view, the above vote is A) valid, and B) decided the name to be used for this province. I am willing to support another vote if necessary. Comments about this dispute are very welcome. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection request of pages related to [[Kosovo]]