Revision as of 00:49, 24 August 2020 editCinderella157 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers18,619 edits →Requested move 18 August 2020: break for ease of editing← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:20, 24 August 2020 edit undoKtrimi991 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users12,596 edits →Requested move 18 August 2020: Add.Next edit → | ||
Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
* '''Oppose''' - There is no English language name of Peć. The English language sources predominantly use the original Slavic name - Peć, the name Slavs gave to this place when they populated the area in 6th century. The Albanian language neologism ''Peja/Pejë'' entered the sources for the first time about 100 years ago. It is important to bear in mind that this place is subject of larger attention of English language sources mostly because of two related topics: the ] and ] and because of that more or less, all English sources use the original - Peć version when they refer to Peć. The Albanian language neologism is a recent phenomenon, also pushed in English language general sources published by Kosovo/Albanian institutions within the campaign of Albanisation of names. Still, it is far from prevailing in English language specialized sources, and I doubt it will ever prevail having in mind the above-presented arguments. --] (]) 13:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC) | * '''Oppose''' - There is no English language name of Peć. The English language sources predominantly use the original Slavic name - Peć, the name Slavs gave to this place when they populated the area in 6th century. The Albanian language neologism ''Peja/Pejë'' entered the sources for the first time about 100 years ago. It is important to bear in mind that this place is subject of larger attention of English language sources mostly because of two related topics: the ] and ] and because of that more or less, all English sources use the original - Peć version when they refer to Peć. The Albanian language neologism is a recent phenomenon, also pushed in English language general sources published by Kosovo/Albanian institutions within the campaign of Albanisation of names. Still, it is far from prevailing in English language specialized sources, and I doubt it will ever prevail having in mind the above-presented arguments. --] (]) 13:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC) | ||
::A neologism is a newly constructed term, Peja is just the name Albanians use for this settlement since the Middle Ages. When and how it was written (you're also wrong about that - but it's unrelated to our discussion) is a factor independent of the language itself. I think that you need to familiarize yourself with wikpedia's WP:COMMONNAME. The editor who started the discussion makes a very good case about current use in bibliography, including the most reputable encyclopedia in the 20th and 21st centuries, Brittanica. You're not disproving his arguments by putting forward a fringe narrative about "Albanisation of names".--] (]) 14:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC) | ::A neologism is a newly constructed term, Peja is just the name Albanians use for this settlement since the Middle Ages. When and how it was written (you're also wrong about that - but it's unrelated to our discussion) is a factor independent of the language itself. I think that you need to familiarize yourself with wikpedia's WP:COMMONNAME. The editor who started the discussion makes a very good case about current use in bibliography, including the most reputable encyclopedia in the 20th and 21st centuries, Brittanica. You're not disproving his arguments by putting forward a fringe narrative about "Albanisation of names".--] (]) 14:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC) | ||
* '''Support''' I was a bit unsure, but after following the discussion for a weak, I am now entirely convinced that the move is the right thing to do. While GB search does not lead to a clear conclusion over which name is the most likely to suit readers that seek to get information, other things should be taken into account. This is a (small) settlement in a small Balkan country, so most people are likely to search info on it due to being its citizens who live in English-speaking countries (they are almost all Albanians) or due to being tourists (who tend to seek info in line with names used in official capacity by the country and used by local people). Most of them will come to search the city on Misplaced Pages due to real life reasons, not because they will make a prior search on GoogleBooks or GoogleScholar. So it is beyond any reasonable doubt that "Peja" is more suitable than "Peć" is. "Peja" is the only name that is in line with all the five criteria described by ]. Unlike "Peć", "Peja" follows the rationale of the Consistency criterion, ie "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles" -- indeed, all major Kosovo cities have been moved to their "Albanian" names, as opposed to keeping the "Serbian" names. The last, but most meaningful argument, is that if we remove all !votes from the usual Balkan accounts that keep opposing each other here or there, '''the non-Balkan !votes are 4 vs 1 in support of the move'''. And they seem to be native English speakers. ] (]) 23:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
* '''Note to the closing editor''' As we know, in such cases consensus is determined by the way how arguments stand against Wiki policies, not just by counting !votes. Such Balkan discussions have for years been damaged by canvassing etc. The most recent case: other editors have expressed concerns about canvassing, as lately is every discussion perceived as a "voting process", certain editors on srwiki who rarely edit on enwiki, appear and !vote the same way. Some of them have made blind reverts too here or there without any tp participation etc. Of course this does not mean that editors from srwiki or sqwiki are not welcome to participate here and give their opinion, but in any case the consensus building process should not be held hostage to blind "votes" by any side. As a matter of fact, only four editors (Ortizesp, Iamawesomeautomatic, StellarHalo, Red Slash and Roman Spinner) that have participated in this discussion so far, are not Balkan-focused. More input from non-Balkan editors would be welcome. ] (]) 23:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
===Arbitrary break=== | ===Arbitrary break=== |
Revision as of 23:20, 24 August 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peja article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 4 months |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peja article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 4 months |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Change the name to Peja
The user who keeps changing the name back to the less used Serbian version shows strong political influence and refuses to follow the policies of Misplaced Pages of not spreading false news towards helping propaganda. Searching Peja + Kosovo in google and google scholar shows more results than the Serbian version. All the documents released from the country of Kosovo in the English version refer to it as Peja, which brings down the argument that Peja is referred otherwise on English. Please change the name back to Peja and stop with this stupid political propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.59.2 (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 18 August 2020
The request to rename this article to Peja has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag. |
– Hi. I have never edited on Misplaced Pages, so excuse any lack of familiarity with the common practices in place in this community. I take note of the previous arguments against changing the name of this page, which hinge on the claim that Peć is more common in English usage. Some users have used Google results to claim this, however this seems to produce inconclusive results, sometimes skewing to one side, sometimes to another.
In any case, it seems to me there are at least six good reasons to change the page name to Peja.
1) All other major cities in Kosovo are titled by their Albanian names, except Pristina. Gjakova, Ferizaj, Gjilan are in Albanian. Of course, Peć sees more English usage than Đakovica, Uroševac and Gnjilane, which is an argument against this reasoning. However, one should consider the matter of naming consistency across the territory of Kosovo.
2) The municipal government English language website, as well as documents issued from the municipality in English, all call the city either Pejë or Peja, and the Municipality either the Municipality of Pejë or the Municipality of Peja. As the article states, it is about the municipality. Municipal website: https://kk.rks-gov.net/peje/en/. Example document issued by the municipality https://kk.rks-gov.net/peje/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2020/08/B05-Njoftim-per-Kontrat-2-1-1-1.pdf. (See p. 2, which refers to the "Municipality of Peja".) I realize some have argued that official names do not constitute common usage. However, since there is no clear consensus, for example in Google results, as to which name is more commonly used in English, it makes more sense to take official names into account, as well as common practice with other Kosovar cities.
3) As many have pointed out, the use of diacritics is not preferred by English speakers. This has the effect that if one searches "Pec" (without the ć), one is referred to a disambiguation page. Same goes for "Pejë", "Peje" or "Peja". Therefore, for English speakers (who presumably do not have access to the letter ć or ë on their keyboards, all possible spellings currently lead to a disambiguation page. This could be confusing to many users, and is clearly not desirable. To avoid this, Peja is the most neutral and easily typed English spelling.
4) For what it's worth, most tourist websites and tourist materials for the city, seem to refer to it as Peja.
5) Some have argued that since the Germany page is not titled Deutschland, and the Belgrade is not titled Beograd, then this page should also not be called Peja, just because it is official. However the first example, Germany, is a native English exonym for the country, and is not comparable to Peć, which is the Serbian name for the city, adopted into English after the Balkan Wars. Prior to this the English name was based on the Turkish name for the city, Ipek.. As for Belgrade, this name has been in English usage and is undisputed, while the case of Peja/Pejë v. Peć is both disputed and there is no clear preference in English usage. Therefore, the argument that official usage (in English language municipal documents, for example) is irrelevant, is strange. Notwithstanding the usage of Pejë/Peja by, as an example, Britannica , because there is no clear English language preference, the official usage of the municipality (which this page is about) should be considered, and would be most neutral.
6) It is used, for example, by the Encyclopædia Britannica, which on the naming convention page, is listed as a sources for "widely accepted names".
References
- https://kk.rks-gov.net/peje/en/
- https://kk.rks-gov.net/peje/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2020/08/B05-Njoftim-per-Kontrat-2-1-1-1.pdf
- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Edward_Stanford_1877.jpg
- https://www.britannica.com/place/Peje
- https://www.britannica.com/place/Peje
- https://www.britannica.com/place/Peje
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)
– Best regards. Leokr (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment whatever the consensus is here, it should probably be extended to District of Peć as well to remain consistent.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 21:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This question was discussed in details not that long ago. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per detailed nomination and per convincing references. This request concerns a location that does not have an English exonym (thus leaving English speakers with either the Serbian name, Peć or the Albanian name, Peja ), in an Albanian-speaking entity which is recognized by 101 UN members, including the entire English-speaking world (List of states with limited recognition). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Google Trends clearly demonstrates that Pec (without the diacritic, including in Serbia) has been most commonly used globally from as far back as 2004, outpacing Peja by a factor of 8 to 1. In the United States, Pec is more commonly used by a factor of 7 to 1. We have a similar situation in the UK. If broken down by region, Pec is used more often in all the Western countries. The only country where Peja is used more frequently is Poland (not an English-speaking country).
- It is important to note that the Peja results are artificially inflated by mentions of the basketball player Peja Stojaković. Otherwise, they would be even lower than they are. There are two villages in the Czech Republic, both with around 300 inhabitants, called Peč and Pec. Given their small size, I doubt they have seriously affected global trends in favour of Pec over the past 16 years. Going by WP:COMMONNAME, this renaming proposal is baseless. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Amanuensis Balkanicus. The Google Trends reference is both inconclusive and misleading. Pec (w/o) diacritic leads to thousands of companies and organizations around the world, for example the Pakistani Engineering Coorporation. https://en.wikipedia.org/PEC. Since Google statistics are inconclusive, and do not constitute common use by reputable sources, it is non-productive to reference them here.
- If you add the diacritic, the results are much lower. But this does not mean it argues for changing the name of the Misplaced Pages page, since Google results are inconclusive and difficult to interpret. Please reference and see my above arguments instead.
- Thank you. Leokr (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above and WP:COMMONNAME StellarHalo (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME. On Google scholar: Peja+Kosovo 2,940 results Peć+Kosovo 1,940 results. But what should be established here is what is the name used in everyday life (what the COMMONNAME policy tries reflect) if you have any sort of activity that is related to this town. In practice, every travel guide, hotel booking service and any other service uses Peja/Pejë for this town. If even Brittanica with its very slow methodology of adaptation to changes in the real world has opted for Pejë (the indefinite form of Peja), I'm sure that[REDACTED] can finally to Peja (as over 95% of its citizens call their town). Despite !vote attempts to keep a status quo that is far removed from real life,[REDACTED] has moved to Gjakova (instead of Đakovica), Ferizaj (instead of Uroševac), Gjilan (instead of Gnjilane) for the same reasons. Time to do the same here.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 14:52 PM 19 August 2020(UTC)
- Oppose, not again with this nonsense. A unsuccessful move request was closed exactly a year ago. It is not hard to see why. Google Books results for "Pec+Kosovo": 13,000 , for "Peja+Kosovo": 6,000 , for "Peje+Kosovo": 2000 . Likely the reason for this is that the town's main claim to fame is the Patriarchate of Pec, which will likely never be referred to as the Patriarchate of Peja for obvious reasons. Contra Maleschreiber, many place names in kosovo have not been moved from their Serbian spelling (Mitrovica, Pristina, Gracanica, Podujevo, Orahovac, Glogovac, Suva Reka, Podujevo, etc.). The argument "this is what the inhabitants call it" is not policy based. It only matters what reliable English language sources call it. In this case, it is very unlikely the name will ever change, due to the Patriarchate. Also, the OP, Leokr (talk · contribs) only has 5 contribs , all starting August 18, though the account was created in 2017. Almost certainly a sleeper account of one of the many banned users in this topic area. Needs looking into. Khirurg (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Khirurg (talk · contribs). Did you have an argument against this? I did see the move request from 2019, but I did not feel that the closing reasoning was very thought out, so I wanted to bring this up for discussion again. As for my account history, I made this account in 2017 to add a custom font to my Misplaced Pages layout, to experiment with the UI. Although I have not contributed, I do not see what the problem is. My arguments for the move are sincere and written in a civil tone. It is impertinent to show such a lack of good faith in the argument's of others. I hope that whoever closes this request will consider whether the opposition brings any new and/or convincing argument to light, and that opponents are reviewing the case somewhat impartially. We are not trying to find out which English name for the city is more palatable for Serbs or Albanians, but what will be more useful and intuitive for English speakers.
- Best regards. Leokr (talk) 16:47 PM 19 August 2020(UTC)
- How about you cut the bs and tell us the name of your previous account? Khirurg (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Khirurg, we don't have to take this kind of tone. Leokr will reply to you. ArbDardh (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Kind of a weird answer. How are you so sure? Are you him? Khirurg (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think I can assure you I'm not! No, I just think it's logical enough to assume they would. I don't see why not. My main point was to not start using phrases such as bs. We don't need them to sort this debate out. ArbDardh (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)ArbDardh
- Kind of a weird answer. How are you so sure? Are you him? Khirurg (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Khirurg, we don't have to take this kind of tone. Leokr will reply to you. ArbDardh (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- How about you cut the bs and tell us the name of your previous account? Khirurg (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I can see that Khirurg (talk · contribs) has edited their opposition to include arguments about placenames in Kosovo that use Serbian forms. I will address these. As far as Gračanica goes, it is a majority Serb community, so it makes sense that the Serbian version of the name is still more common in English. Along with Podujevo/Podujeva, Orahovac/Rahovec, Glogovac/Gllogoc and Suva Reka/Suhareka, Gračanica are very rural, small and (for most English speakers interested in the region) irrelevant. As far as major towns go, the only one with a non-Albanian form common in English is, as you mention, Pristina. However, this usage is highly established and also used in official English language documents in Kosovo. Meanwhile, Mitrovica, as you probably know, is spelled the same in both Serbian and Albanian.
- As far as the Google results go, these arguments are very stale. The results are inconclusive, and the geographic naming conventions policy refers to common usage by reputable/widely accepted sources, not any sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names).
- I also am concerned about the tone of your replies. You rudely asked about my account history, as if it has any bearing on the arguments, yet I answered. If you do not believe my reason for creating a Misplaced Pages account in 2017, then that is your prerogative, but please do not attack other users such as ArbDardh (talk · contribs) in this way.
- I must say the seemingly ethnic fault lines and political interest in the two sides of this discussion makes me feel distraught. I would have hoped for a more constructive discussion.
- Kind regards, Leokr (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Leokr: any editor is welcome in[REDACTED] regardless of the number of their edits and if anyone suspects you to be any other editor, they can report you. But they can't casually link you to other editors (WP:ASPERSION) outside the context of an actual report.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I have yet to come across a convincing argument why it should remain as Peć. On the basis of the inconclusive Google results, as Leokr (talk · contribs) proposes, our main priority should indeed be finding the most convenient, reasonable name. Therefore, coupled with the recent changes of Đakovica to Gjakova, Gnjilane to Gjilan, and others as mentioned, it only seems logical to change Peć as as well. Although Peć may not be falling out of use, this is not to say it is still the most fitting. User:ArbDardh (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per ArbDardh's rationale. N.Hoxha (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Side comment: if you remove the results that are about the Patriarchate of Peć, the gap in modern use between Peja/Pejë and Peć/Pec increases even more. That's a very normal phenomenon and should not be politicized as sadly happens usually. Name use reflects the conditions of its time. Misplaced Pages should at the very least be as close to the movement of time as Brittanica, a tertiary source which has minimal input from outside editors. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - honestly, uses of "Pec" and "Peja" in English are both inflated by things like "check out my pec muscles" and "I hated Peja when he played in Sacramento". So the proposer's rationale holds. Red Slash 03:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per arguments given by Amanuensis Balkanicus. --Soundwaweserb (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per previous arguments and discussions. You shouldn't change name of the city just because its name is traditionally Serbian. — Вукан Ц (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Side comment this account !voted here in its 12th edit just 10 minutes after another account that is not particularly active in English wikipedia. It's obvious what is happening and will keep happening but these accounts should know that "its name is traditionally Serbian" is not an argument or policy in[REDACTED] and with such actions they're only showing how necessary it is for the whole community to be involved in order to stop these attempts and allow the community to decide freely.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- What's even more obvious is that the account that started this move request has all of 10 contribs , all from August 18. But that doesn't seem to bother you. Khirurg (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't bother me because one editor who starts a move discussion, can't influence its result. You can file a report at SPI if you have any suspicions about a returning editor. Massive off-wiki canvassing and campaigning on the other hand undermine community decision making.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, except if the socking was on the other side, you wouldn't be saying that. And if you think there is "massive off wiki canvassing", you should file a report at WP:ANI instead of railing about conspiracies on the talkpage. Khirurg (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't bother me because one editor who starts a move discussion, can't influence its result. You can file a report at SPI if you have any suspicions about a returning editor. Massive off-wiki canvassing and campaigning on the other hand undermine community decision making.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- What's even more obvious is that the account that started this move request has all of 10 contribs , all from August 18. But that doesn't seem to bother you. Khirurg (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Side comment this account !voted here in its 12th edit just 10 minutes after another account that is not particularly active in English wikipedia. It's obvious what is happening and will keep happening but these accounts should know that "its name is traditionally Serbian" is not an argument or policy in[REDACTED] and with such actions they're only showing how necessary it is for the whole community to be involved in order to stop these attempts and allow the community to decide freely.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support I see no reason why this city should be called Peć. If Peja is an official name of the city then we must respect that. Mikola22 (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Sadko. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- "per Sadko" refers to the comment "This question was discussed in details not that long ago". Neither is an argument of course, nor is 2018 when this was last discussed with almost no actual debate, "not that long ago". The 30 edits of the above account in all of 2020 in English[REDACTED] require no further analysis.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- What requires "no further analysis" are the total 10 contribs from the OP . Khirurg (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- It is. Stop bashing other editors. Arguments were laid out during that debate and nothing signifacnt has changes in all this time. The idea here is to achieve the wanted result through agressive pushing and team-tagging, while putting labels on editors who are opposed and accusing them of the similiar sort of behaviour. Means and instruments should be chosen in RL and on Wiki both. Not to mention that the editor you want to bash and label is an admin and a senior editor who trumps anything you have done during your stay on the project. x Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is the English wikipedia, not the Serbian wikipedia/wikiquote - and whether someone is an admin there is irrelevant to our discussion or their editing here. Arguments still have to be presented and be judged based on their content which is very lacking from those who !oppose the move. The canvass issues are self-explanatory, any comment is redundant. Other editors can judge the depth of the discussion of the previous Talk:Peć/Archive_2#Requested_move_11_October_2018 move request. What stands out among the few who participated is that someone even argued in 2018 that it shouldn't be moved because it had already been discussed in 2015. It highlights that the response "we've discussed it before" is not an argument, but a deflection from the burden of having an argument.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- "per Sadko" refers to the comment "This question was discussed in details not that long ago". Neither is an argument of course, nor is 2018 when this was last discussed with almost no actual debate, "not that long ago". The 30 edits of the above account in all of 2020 in English[REDACTED] require no further analysis.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This name appears more often in sources. (WP:COMMONNAME) Тhe trend of simultaneous pressure on Balkan topics and nationalist WP:POVPUSH is very worrying. It is important to discuss politely and respect policies. (WP:NOTDEM) The most recognizable events and sites in the city are associated with the name Peć. Most importantly, World Heritage Site: Patriarchal Monastery of Peć.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- (8 March 1999: The Serbian Run District Court in Peja convicted the following for "hostile activity" and "terrorism"). Information from Council for the Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms - PHDN Mikola22 (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- A lot of the opposition to this move seems to come from Serbs or those who make a lot of edits about Serbian topics. I too, like @WEBDuB, am worried about POV pushing. A lot of the opposition of this move also speak very respectlessly and little consideration for nuance in argument when addressing their opponents in opinion. I take note of the use of the word "non-sense", as an example. It is important to consider all arguments, as I did with the arguments from previous requests before I made this request. I addressed the concerns of those who worried English common use would be harmed, for example. Meanwhile, the opposition seems stuck on that line of argument, and seem unable to address any of the reasons from myself and other supporters have pertinently provided. They then claim we are nationalists for giving clear and new reasons. This is an unacceptably low level of discourse by the opposition. I sincerely hope that some of you will be able to formulate some good reasons of opposition, when I have given six good reasons in support, without reference to the inconclusive Google data (which both sides claim), and without appeal to national interest, but to the best interest of the English-language Misplaced Pages user.
- (8 March 1999: The Serbian Run District Court in Peja convicted the following for "hostile activity" and "terrorism"). Information from Council for the Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms - PHDN Mikola22 (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Best regards. Leokr (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per above what Khirurg, Sadko and others said. Peervalaa (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose poor arguments provided and google hits are overwhelmingly against this.Alexikoua (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support I think we should be careful not to overlook the arguments because of some people reacting emotionally. So far I cannot see a single argument against the move, other than "it has historically been so" and google hits. Both have already been refuted quite convincingly by senior users in the current discussion.Uniacademic (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME.Bes-ARTTalk 22:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose How many times do we need to have the same discussion? Just look at the arguments presented in the previous debates. Google hits isn't a reliable indicator that one name is more common than another. --Aca (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Aca (talk · contribs), I don't think that's a valid reason to oppose the move. The discussion has been brought up again because, simply, the issue isn't exactly finished, and I think Leokr (talk · contribs) did bring up some new points in his argument. It's too easy to not give these a go just because it's "the same discussion". ArbDardh (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)ArbDardh
- Oppose - There is no English language name of Peć. The English language sources predominantly use the original Slavic name - Peć, the name Slavs gave to this place when they populated the area in 6th century. The Albanian language neologism Peja/Pejë entered the sources for the first time about 100 years ago. It is important to bear in mind that this place is subject of larger attention of English language sources mostly because of two related topics: the Patriarchate of Peć and NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and because of that more or less, all English sources use the original - Peć version when they refer to Peć. The Albanian language neologism is a recent phenomenon, also pushed in English language general sources published by Kosovo/Albanian institutions within the campaign of Albanisation of names. Still, it is far from prevailing in English language specialized sources, and I doubt it will ever prevail having in mind the above-presented arguments. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- A neologism is a newly constructed term, Peja is just the name Albanians use for this settlement since the Middle Ages. When and how it was written (you're also wrong about that - but it's unrelated to our discussion) is a factor independent of the language itself. I think that you need to familiarize yourself with wikpedia's WP:COMMONNAME. The editor who started the discussion makes a very good case about current use in bibliography, including the most reputable encyclopedia in the 20th and 21st centuries, Brittanica. You're not disproving his arguments by putting forward a fringe narrative about "Albanisation of names".--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support I was a bit unsure, but after following the discussion for a weak, I am now entirely convinced that the move is the right thing to do. While GB search does not lead to a clear conclusion over which name is the most likely to suit readers that seek to get information, other things should be taken into account. This is a (small) settlement in a small Balkan country, so most people are likely to search info on it due to being its citizens who live in English-speaking countries (they are almost all Albanians) or due to being tourists (who tend to seek info in line with names used in official capacity by the country and used by local people). Most of them will come to search the city on Misplaced Pages due to real life reasons, not because they will make a prior search on GoogleBooks or GoogleScholar. So it is beyond any reasonable doubt that "Peja" is more suitable than "Peć" is. "Peja" is the only name that is in line with all the five criteria described by WP:COMMONNAME. Unlike "Peć", "Peja" follows the rationale of the Consistency criterion, ie "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles" -- indeed, all major Kosovo cities have been moved to their "Albanian" names, as opposed to keeping the "Serbian" names. The last, but most meaningful argument, is that if we remove all !votes from the usual Balkan accounts that keep opposing each other here or there, the non-Balkan !votes are 4 vs 1 in support of the move. And they seem to be native English speakers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note to the closing editor As we know, in such cases consensus is determined by the way how arguments stand against Wiki policies, not just by counting !votes. Such Balkan discussions have for years been damaged by canvassing etc. The most recent case: other editors have expressed concerns about canvassing, as lately is every discussion perceived as a "voting process", certain editors on srwiki who rarely edit on enwiki, appear and !vote the same way. Some of them have made blind reverts too here or there without any tp participation etc. Of course this does not mean that editors from srwiki or sqwiki are not welcome to participate here and give their opinion, but in any case the consensus building process should not be held hostage to blind "votes" by any side. As a matter of fact, only four editors (Ortizesp, Iamawesomeautomatic, StellarHalo, Red Slash and Roman Spinner) that have participated in this discussion so far, are not Balkan-focused. More input from non-Balkan editors would be welcome. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Kosovo articles
- Unknown-importance Kosovo articles
- WikiProject Kosovo articles
- Start-Class Serbia articles
- High-importance Serbia articles
- WikiProject Serbia articles
- Start-Class Albania articles
- Unknown-importance Albania articles
- WikiProject Albania articles
- Start-Class WikiProject Cities articles
- All WikiProject Cities pages
- Requested moves