Talk:Gjakova/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Djakovica who?

What is the procedure for changing the article's title itself? The city's name does and never had any link to the Serb language and it's definitely NPOV. You can clearly see that the name, an Albanian one, was taken and suffix "ica" added to it in order for the city name to sound more Serb-like.

Can anyone help out there?

--arianit 01:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course, this is especially visible in names of Vucitrn (Vushtrri), Istok (Istog), Pec (Peja), Kamenica (Kamenice) or Suva Reka (Suhareke). Nikola 04:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What is visible, Nikola? That every city in Kosova has Serb origin because Kamenica and Suva Reka do? I think I explained what makes "Djakovica" different from other Serb toponyms: it's clearly a fabrication in later times from from the Albanian-Turkish name. I researched some more (http://gjakovainfo.com/historia/index1.htm if you know Albanian) and found out that Yal-ova (the version in Turkish) means the field of Jak. Still today Vula family is probably the biggest one in the city and any old person will tell you that it is the oldest. That Serbs came to Gjakova only in the 20th century shows the fact that there didn't exist any Orthodox church in or around Gjakova until the 20th century. --204.62.200.88 22:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and maybe Djakovo in Croatia (500km north-west from Kosovo and there's no and never been Albanians, almost exclusevly Croatian and Serbian population) is also got the name from the famous Vula family!? You must be joking. Try this one: the name is derived from name "Jakov", vassal of the duke Vuk Brankovic (http://www.sumadinac.de/manastiri/manastiri_dj.htm). Although you're right about Sebs presence in XX st., Metohija was vastly Serb-populated area in the Middle Ages. Ottoman census from 1485 says that in willage of Djakovica were 67 homes with one priest, all people with Serbian names, with exeption of two names that might be Albanian.

No Word on Serbs ?

What happened to Serbian population ? Albanian genocid over Serbs? Mo mention at all on Serbian culture, industry... Now, drug and prostitution and human trafficking are florishing instead real industry that was guided by Serbs - right or not?  ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.244.217 (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop Serbian propaganda first of all and let's start to mention the real-happend genocides towards other ethnic groups. Totally out of place your comment! Lorik17 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for —119.160.119.136 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You did not provide any "fixes". Vanjagenije (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Anscombe (2006)

My recent edit has caused a heated response. I remind @Ktrimi991 to act in a civil manner (WP:CIVIL) rather than accusing me of "very obvious POV pushing". The contentious content in question relates to these extracts from Anscombe (2006):

• This explicitly Albanian settlement should be paired with the larger nearby town of Yakova (Djakova),which is thought to have been Albanian since its founding in the late sixteenth century - The use of the word "thought" is needed in this article as the author has not come to a definitive conclusion.
• While the ethnic roots of some settlements can be determined from the Ottoman records, Serbian and Albanian historians have at times read too much into them in their running dispute over the ethnic history of early Ottoman Kosovo. Their attempts to use early Ottoman provincial surveys (tahrir defterleri) to gauge the ethnic make-up of the population in the fifteenth century have proved little...Such cultural mimicry makes onomastics an inappropriate tool for anyone wishing to use Ottoman records to prove claims so modern as to have been irrelevant to the pre-modern state. Of interest with this is that under footnote 6, Anscombe (2006) states See, for an Albanian example, S. Pulaha, ‘On the Presence of Albanians in Kosova... A number of sentences over (in this article - Gjakova), Pulaha, an Albanian historian, is noted as making demographic inferences from onomastics, something which Anscombe (2006) critiques. IMO the manner in which this article is written is bordering on WP:CHERRYPICKING, however I am keen to hear the opinion of others. ElderZamzam (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is very obvious POV-pushing, not the first time from you (even fringe material like the Carpi stuff). Anscombe mentions Pulaha in the context of the dispute between Albanian and Serbian historians. Either the article mentions that this is a problem of Albanian and Serbian historiography in general or "According to Albanian historian" can't stay in the article. "According to Selami Pulaha" ofc is neutral. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

And no it does not need "thought" as long as there are sources that treat it as a fact (Kiel, Pulaha) and no reliable sources that say it was not an Albanian-inhabited city since its foundation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You are treading on WP:ASPERSIONS @Ktrimi991, your continued effort to repeatedly label me a POV pusher is doing you no good. ElderZamzam (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you propose a neutral wording of the change you want to make? My time is very limited. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

And again, do not use without a proper context terms like "According to Albanian historian" or "According to Serbian historian" or whatever nationality because it brings no good at all to the article. For many readers it looks like the article is saying "This historian is from X country so their opinion is biased and has less value". The way the content is written influences the readers, and I am sure you know that very well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991 agreed, thanks. I will be mindful in future of this minefield and do my best to edit accordingly. ElderZamzam (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Change 1: "Gjakova has been an Albanian settlement since its foundation" to "Gjakova has been a settlement with an ethnic Albanian majority since its foundation"

Change 2: According to Selami Pulaha, during the early period of Ottoman occupation, Gjakova and the Gjakova Municipality were part of the Nahiya of Altun-ili. Most of the villages in the Nahiya of Altun-ili were dominated by inhabitants with Albanian anthroponomy, which indicates that during the 15th century (as supported by Ottoman defters), the lands between Junik and Gjakova were inhabited by a dominant ethnic Albanian majority. In 1570, the majority of the inhabitants of Gjakova as a settlement itself were recorded with Albanian anthroponomy; Albanian onomastics prevailed over Slav onomastics. According to Anscombe (2006), ethnic historiography of the defter is not a reliable determinant of specific ethnic make up.

Something like this, you or other editors can edit where you best see fit. Thank you. ElderZamzam (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I am OK with change number 1. Re change number 2: Anscombe does not disagree with Pulaha's conclusion that that specific area had a majority of Albanian names (anyone can check the defters after all). Anscombe disagrees with Pulaha's conclusion that a majority of Albanian names proves an ethnic Albanian majority, i.e. if a guy is named Bardhi or Gjon that does not prove that he is an Albanian or has Albanian origin. So the text should be sth like: During the early period of Ottoman occupation, Gjakova and the Gjakova Municipality were part of the Nahiya of Altun-ili. Most of the villages in the Nahiya of Altun-ili were dominated by inhabitants with Albanian anthroponomy. This is seen by Selami Pulaha as an indicatation that during the 15th century (as supported by Ottoman defters), the lands between Junik and Gjakova were inhabited by a dominant ethnic Albanian majority. In 1570, the majority of the inhabitants of Gjakova as a settlement itself were recorded with Albanian anthroponomy; Albanian onomastics prevailed over Slav onomastics. According to Frederick Anscombe, the onomastics of the defter are not a reliable determinant of the ethnic make up. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I oppose the term Ottoman "occupation" as its WP:NPOV. "Ottoman rule" is fine.Resnjari (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to modify it in the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)