Loading AI tools
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kosovo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 17, 2015, February 17, 2016, February 17, 2017, February 17, 2018, and February 17, 2019. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | In accordance with sanctions authorised for this article:
|
 | Useful information for this article
|
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
 | The contents of the Republic of Kosovo page were merged into Kosovo on 23 May 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- I'm taking the step as a bot-summoned respondent to procedurally close this discussion temporarily, pending necessary first steps in discussion and necessary changes in approach that will need to take place for the discussion to proceed. Unfortunately, I think to leave the discussion up in it's current format would only pull more and more volunteers into a confusing procedural loggerhead, and a lot of non-productive corss-talk arising out of issues with how the RfC has been initially approached. Since this I am temporary shutting down the RfC with this action, I will provide a fulsome account of my reasoning:
- To begin with, there is an WP:RFCBEFORE issue here. I think that element of the RFC procedure gets tossed around very arbitrarily and problematically in recent years, bureaucratically stalling useful RfCs for little practical reason. The issue has gotten to the point where literally almost every RfC will have someone invoke RFCBEFORE to try to shut down the discussion, whether it is a valid objection or not. Nevertheless, in this case, I think it is justified. There's no previous talk page discussion on this issue as far as I can tell, and while linguistic disputes on articles which touch upon ethnically controversial issues can generally be expected to need broader community involvement to resolve eventually, in this case (since there are other reasons to pause and/or restart the RfC), it makes sense to take a pause to have some initial discussion.
- I'm taking the step as a bot-summoned respondent to procedurally close this discussion temporarily, pending necessary first steps in discussion and necessary changes in approach that will need to take place for the discussion to proceed. Unfortunately, I think to leave the discussion up in it's current format would only pull more and more volunteers into a confusing procedural loggerhead, and a lot of non-productive corss-talk arising out of issues with how the RfC has been initially approached. Since this I am temporary shutting down the RfC with this action, I will provide a fulsome account of my reasoning:
- Secondly, the RfC prompt is in no way neutral, rather arguing very strongly for the OP's interpretation of the editorial issue, in flagrant violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The reality is that IJA is correct that neither the Serbian nor Albanian terms are per se the terms we would use in an encyclopedic context / in Wikivoice. What matters is what the most commonly utilized (and thus most easy to identify) common nouns would be, for an English-speaking readership. The purpose of an en.Wikipedia article is to educate an English-speaking reader on the articles subject, using the most accessible language and terminology possible--not to validate the linguistic preferences of one group over another, whatever the numbers involved. Numerous policies converge on this principle of neutrality--see, for example, WP:ENGLISH, WP:CRITERIA, and WP:COMMONNAME-- and the OP may wish not to proceed with this discussion once aware of those policies. However, even if the OP is not convinced after discussing those policies and still wants to have an RfC involving community third parties, the RFCNEUTRAL issue remains, and the opening prompt will need to be reworked into very different wording. No minor tweaks to keep the RfC open would suffice in this case. Arguments for one approach over another should be saved for individual !votes.
- Lastly, meaning no disrespect to the two respondents who suggested this matter needs to be handled through an RM request, but that is not in fact the correct course of action to resolve the OP's inquiry. Even if there were agreement to relocate the two relevant articles for the mountain ranges themselves, as well as any other landmarks that might get referenced in this article, that doesn't really directly impact the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue that the OP is raising, concerning this article. The articles for those landmarks could be located at namespaces that reflect the common Serbian toponyms, the Albanian variants, or a third option altogether, and none of those options would directly mandate that we use the same term in the context of this article, and the OP's inquiry would still stand as needing addressing.
This RfC proposes to change references in the article from Serbian terms such as "Metohija" and "Šar Mountains" to their Albanian equivalents, "Dukagjin" and "Sharr Mountains", respectively. The article currently utilizes Serbian terminology that may not reflect the linguistic preferences of the majority of Kosovo's citizens, who predominantly speak Albanian. Over 90% of the population in Kosovo identifies as Albanian, making it imperative that the language used in the article accurately represents the voices and perspectives of the majority of its people.
Using terms that resonate with the local population aligns with Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. The NPOV guideline emphasizes that articles should represent significant viewpoints fairly and proportionately. Since the Albanian language is the primary language spoken by the majority in Kosovo, adopting Albanian terminology helps to present an accurate portrayal of the region’s cultural and linguistic identity.
In conclusion, I propose to change the following terms in the article:
Discussion
- English Wikipedia uses the common name in the English language, not what the local population call something. Neither of them terms are the common name in the English language. IJA (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wrong venue, this needs to be taken up as WP:RMs on the specific pages. CMD (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like this RfC may have jumped the gun a little. An RfC is appropriate after discussion with involved parties on the talk page WP:RFCBEFORE. You might be able to achieve consensus without requesting additional input. Pathawi (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- (Summoned by bot) Procedural close , Start an RM and publicise accordingly. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Snow Rise, your closure is incorrect regarding the RMs. Per WP:UEGN, we should refer to places by their article title except when discussing historical periods. The article title does directly mandate changes in article text, and there is no local consensus for this article, which follows the global guideline. To change use on this article, the best way is a successful RM. CMD (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Chipmunkdavis. That's all correct, and you may even be right that an RM would be the path of least resistance for the change the OP wants to effect (though I think not, insofar as I don't believe the variants of the toponyms they wish to introduce are the English common names, so I doubt that the RM process will avail them). Nevertheless, my point is that these are actually two separate processes, procedurally speaking. Even if the OP chooses not to attempt RMs (or attempts them and fails to gain consensus for the moves), they are still permitted to make an argument here for variances in the terminology (either along the lines of one of the considerations built into UEGN itself, or a separate IAR argument). And when we're talking about an article with as much multi-ethnic complexity and controversy as exists for this article, we can't write off the possibility of such an outcome entirely (though I still think the OP would have a very uphill climb in making that argument, which I attempted to emphasize for them in the close). All of which is to say, a separate local consensus discussion here is not foreclosed, and this is a potentially appropriate venue for it, regardless of UEGN (or indeed, partly because of it, since it does contemplate variations over time, if nothing else) and regardless of what does or does not happen with any prospective RM. However, as I also emphasized in my close, an RfC on such a proposal should only take place after further discussion, and would need a neutral prompt if it is ultimately undertaken again. That said, your caveat contains useful information the OP should be aware of, and they should definitely read through UEGN before deciding whether to pursue their argument further. SnowRise let's rap 00:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone could try to argue IAR, but in the meantime, it is in correct as the close says that "none of those options would directly mandate that we use the same term in the context of this article", and that "the OP's inquiry would still stand as needing addressing", as if the RM was made and successful, it would unless someone wants to do an uphill climb lead to a change here, and would address the OP's inquiry. CMD (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Chipmunkdavis. That's all correct, and you may even be right that an RM would be the path of least resistance for the change the OP wants to effect (though I think not, insofar as I don't believe the variants of the toponyms they wish to introduce are the English common names, so I doubt that the RM process will avail them). Nevertheless, my point is that these are actually two separate processes, procedurally speaking. Even if the OP chooses not to attempt RMs (or attempts them and fails to gain consensus for the moves), they are still permitted to make an argument here for variances in the terminology (either along the lines of one of the considerations built into UEGN itself, or a separate IAR argument). And when we're talking about an article with as much multi-ethnic complexity and controversy as exists for this article, we can't write off the possibility of such an outcome entirely (though I still think the OP would have a very uphill climb in making that argument, which I attempted to emphasize for them in the close). All of which is to say, a separate local consensus discussion here is not foreclosed, and this is a potentially appropriate venue for it, regardless of UEGN (or indeed, partly because of it, since it does contemplate variations over time, if nothing else) and regardless of what does or does not happen with any prospective RM. However, as I also emphasized in my close, an RfC on such a proposal should only take place after further discussion, and would need a neutral prompt if it is ultimately undertaken again. That said, your caveat contains useful information the OP should be aware of, and they should definitely read through UEGN before deciding whether to pursue their argument further. SnowRise let's rap 00:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
