Wikipedia

Talk:Mitrovica, Kosovo/Archive 1

< Talk:Mitrovica, Kosovo
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (February 2018)
Archive 1

Bringing up Hitler...

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This page is a perfect example of Serbian propaganda. For example, it is mentioned that the aim of the Albanian population - most of whom are extremists - is to rid Kosovo of its Serb population. I believe that the author(s) of this page "forgot" to mention that Serb forces supported by some Kosovo Serb extremists started the Kosovo War in 1999. Serb military and paramilitary forces murdered hundreds and hundreds of Kosovo Albanian civilians. Men, women, elderly people and children, were abused before being brutality murdered by the Serbs. These Serb extremists wanted Kosovo to become 100% Serb and they once again tried to commit mass killings and genocide as they did in Bosnia.
However, this is not important according to the author(s) of this page. This proves that the this page is not neutral and is unmistakeably pro-Serb. This page fails to acknowledge the brutal crimes that were committed by the Serbs. It focuses only on the crimes that were committed by the Albanians as revenge for the mass killings committed by the Serbs that started the war. Once again, we have a case where the role of the Serbs is that they are poor victims of someone else's crimes. This was also the case in Croatia and Bosnia where Serb propaganda claimed that Croat Fascists and Islamic fundamentalists tried to get rid of its Serb minorities. This was claimed, at the same time, when Serbs were killing Croat and Bosnian Muslim civilians. These were actions committed totally with no reason what so ever and with no crimes being committed by Croats and Bosnian Muslims. Later when the wars escalated there were crimes committed by all sides. However, this does not justify the actions of the Serbs and does not change the fact that around 90% of all war crimes committed in Croatia and Bosnia were committed by the Serbs. The sooner, the Serbs and the whole International Community accepts this fact that the wars were started by Serb extremists supported by many but not all Serbs, the sooner the reconciliation can begin. It is important to note that some Serbs were manipulated by the Serb media propaganda into supporting the extremists. Nevertheless, this does not change that most Serbs were open and positive to the Great Serbia project that had the aim to have all Serbs in one country where Serbs ruled over everything and everyone.
One can compare this to Adolf Hitler's demand called Lebensraum where Hitler wanted to have all German minorities in Europe incorporated into the Great Germany.
Serbs wanted something very similar, which is basically to have all Serbs in a Great Serbia where all other people could choose either to live in suppression, get murdered or flee. However, the easiest way was to committ mass killings and genocide as the Nazis did. In this way, Great Serbia could not really be threatened in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.2.84 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

During World War II and the Holocaust, Kosovar Albanians killed 10,000 Kosovo Serbs and expelled 100,000. Kosovo-Metohija was made a part of a Greater Albania by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Hitler and Mussolini realized the Greater Albania ideology established by the 1878 League of Prizren. Albanian-settled areas of the Balkans - Kosovo-Metohija, western Macedonia, southern Montenegro - were incorporated in a Greater Albania. The Greater Albania Kosovar Albanian nationalist movement murdered Kosovo Serb civilians and took over their lands and houses. Kosovo Serb women were raped. Kosovo Serb Orthodox priests were arrested, tortured, and murdered. Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries were attacked and destroyed. Serbian monuments, cemeteries, and gravestones were desecrated and demolished. The Greater Albania nationalist movement formed the Balli Kombetar, the Albanian Kosovo Committee, and the Skanderbeg Nazi SS Division, two-thirds of whose members were Kosovar Albanian Muslims. Kosovar Albanian Muslims played a major role in the Holocaust, the murder of European Jews. Kosovar Albanian Nazi SS troops participated in the roundup of Kosovo Jews who were later killed at Bergen-Belsen. What occurred in Kosovo during World War II was genocide. The mainstream accounts of World War II have censored and covered up the Kosovar Albanian role in the genocide against Kosovo Serbs and the role of Kosovar Albanians in the Holocaust. The Nazi past of Kosovo remains an untold story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.13.232 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
People, this is an article about Mitrovica, not about the entire history of Kosovo, so none of that is relevant. Please keep discussions not related specifically to Mitrovica out of here. Edrigu 21:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
"Serb extremists wanted Kosovo to become 100% Serb and they once again tried to commit mass killings and genocide" -- I know you're a fool but I shall entertain you. Let's simply ask the question: If Serbs were the ones making Kosovo pure then why did the peaceful muslims co-opt this obviously criminal agenda? They carboncopied the ethnic cleansing blueprint and they executed the operation without being demonized like the serbs were! Amazing! You have zero trouble with apologizing for muslim crimes against a weak minority when you accuse this victimized minority of the crimes committed unto them! In your world it is okay when NATO--came to the balkans with the same Hitler-Mussolini plan--helps muslims create a 100% pure-ethnically-cleansed-kosovo-for-albanians-only. You don't mention that because you are clearly biased in fanatical belief in this genocidal NATO plan to help the muslims exterminate christians. I'm a little sick of seeing your lunatic kind of weakminded propagandists whine all over the internet so unplug will ya?

Offical name

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The official name of this city is Mitrovicë see UN documentation.--Hipi Zhdripi 17:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If sombody has UN accepted evidence that the name of the city is not Mitrovicë but is Kosovska Mitrovica, then this article must be under the name: Mitrovicë and the page named "Mitrovica" must be redirect. My evidence you can see in UNMIK oficiale page and documentation.--Hipi Zhdripi 00:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The territory is under temporary UN administration, as ruled in Resolution 1244 (1999), adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 10 June 1999[1], where the UN reafirmed its commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (and its sucessor state, the Union of Serbia and Montenegro, after the country changed its name). Therefore, it is not up to the UN to invent new geographical denominations. I also like to remind you that this is English language wikipedia, so please make sure your contributions are up to standard regarding syntax and spelling, together with the use of commonly recognised geographic denominations (i.e. (Kosovska) Mitrovica is common in English, Mitrovice is not). Regards, Asterion 12:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Please continue the discussion under the "UPDATE NAME" heading (below). Klungel (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

United Nations Law in Kosovo

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The use of the city names in English Language (newer version from the UN liable pilari in Kosovo for such think )

  1. http://www.osce.org/kosovo/13982.html

The original page of the Law (1. in albanian L., 2.Serbian L.)

  1. http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/03albanian/A2000regs/RA2000_43.htm
  2. http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/04serbian/SC2000regs/RSC2000_43.pdf

The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only official names are the names presented in >A< every thinks als is out of Law. This is for albanian language. 

RREGULLORe NR. 2000/43
UNMIK/REG/2000/43
27 korrik 2000
Mbi numrin, emrat dhe kufinjtë e komunave
-------------------------------------------
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm,
Në pajtim me autorizimin e tij të dhënë me rezolutën 1244 (1999) të datës 10 qershor 1999 të 
Këshillit të Sigurimit të Kombeve të Bashkuara,
Duke marrë parasysh Rregulloren nr. 1999/1 të datës 25 korrik 1999, të ndryshuar, të
Misionit të Administratës së Përkohshme të Kombeve të Bashkuara në Kosovë (UNMIK)
mbi autorizimin e Administratës së 
Përkohshme në Kosovë dhe Rregulloren Nr. 1999/24 të datës 12 dhjetor 1999 të UNMIK-ut 
mbi ligjin në fuqi në Kosovë,
Me qëllim të qartësimit të numrit, emrave, shtrirja dhe kufinjve të komunave para mbajtjes 
së zgjedhjeve komunale në Kosovë,
Shpall sa vijon:
Neni 1
Numri dhe emrat e komunave
Kosova ka tridhjetë komuna ashtu siç figurojnë në Tabelën ‘A’ të kësaj rregulloreje. 
Komunikimi zyrtar nuk përmban asnjë emër për ndonjë komunë i cili nuk figuron në Tabelën ‘A’ 
të kësaj rregulloreje, përveç që në ato komuna ku komunitetet etnike a gjuhësore joshqiptare 
dhe joserbe përbëjnë një pjesë substanciale, emrat e komunave jepen edhe në gjuhët e 
atyre komuniteteve.
Neni 2
Shtrirja dhe kufinjtë e komunave
Shtrirja e çdo komune dhe kufinjtë e tyre skicohen nga zonat e tyre përbërëse kadastrale. 
Zonat kadastrale të cilat përbëjnë çdo komunë figurojnë në Tabelën ‘B’ të kësaj rregulloreje.
Neni 3
Zbatimi
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm mund të lëshojë direktiva administrative 
në lidhje me zbatimin e kësaj rregulloreje.
Neni 4
Ligji i zbatueshëm
Kjo rregullore mbulon çdo dispozitë në ligjin e zbatueshëm e cila nuk është në përputhje me të. 
Neni 5
Hyrja në fuqi
Kjo rregullore hyn në fuqi më 27 korrik 2000.
Bernard Kouchner
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm

The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only oficele name are the names presentit in >A< every thinks als is out of Law. This is for serbian language. 

UREDBA BR. 2000/43
UNMIK/URED/2000/43
27. jul 2000. godine
O BROJU, IMENIMA I GRANICAMA OP[TINA
Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara,
Shodno ovla{}ewu koje mu je dato Rezolucijom Saveta bezbednosti Ujediwenih
nacija 1244 (1999) od 10. juna 1999. godine,
Na osnovu Uredbe br. 1999/1 od 25. jula 1999. godine Privremene
administrativne misije Ujediwenih nacija na Kosovu (UNMIK), sa izmenama i
dopunama, o ovla{}ewima Privremene uprave na Kosovu i na osnovu Uredbe
UNMIK-a br. 2000/24 od 12. decembra 2000. godine o zakonu koji je u primeni na
Kosovu, <u>(hier is oficele user)</u>
U ciqu razja{wavawa broja, imena, oblasti i granica op{tina pre odr`avawa
op{tinskih izbora na Kosovu,
Ovim objavquje slede}e:
Clan 1
BROJ I IMENA OPSTINA
1.1 Kosovo ima trideset opstina kao sto je dato u Tabeli '''A''' u dodatku ovoj
Uredbi.
1.2 Zvani~na komunikacija ne mo`e da sadrzi bilo koje ime za opstinu koje
nije naziv odredjen u Tabeli A ove Uredbe, osim u onim opstinama gde etni~ke i
jezi~ke zajednice, koje nisu srpske i albanske ~ine znatan deo stanovni{tva, gde
se imena op{tina daju i na jezicima tih zajednica.
Clan 2
PODRU^JA I GRANICE OP[TINA
Podru~je svake op{tine i wene granice su ocrtane wenim sastavnim
katastarskim zonama. Katastarske zone koje ~ine svaku op{tinu su odre|ene u
Tabeli B prilo`enoj u dodatku ovoj Uredbi.
Clan 3
PRIMENA
Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara mo`e da donese administrativno
uputstvo u vezi sa primenom ove Uredbe.
Clan 4
ZAKON KOJI JE U PRIMENI
Ova Uredba zamewuje svaku odredbu zakona koji je u primeni a koja nije saglasna
sa wom.
Clan 5
STUPAWE NA SNAGU
Ova Uredba stupa na snagu 27. jula 2000. godine.
Bernar Ku{ner
Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara

tabel of contens >A< 

TABELA ‘A’ (alb) RASPORED A (ser.)
Emrat e komunave (alb.)IMENA OPSTINA (serb)
Albanski Srpski
01 Deçan \Decani
02 Gjakovë \Djakovica
03 Gllogovc \Glogovac
04 Gjilan \Gnilane
05 Dragash \Dragas
06 Istog \Istok
07 Kaçanik \Kacanik
08 Klinë\ Klina
09 Fushë Kosovë\ Kosovo Polje
10 Kamenicë \Kamenica
11 Mitrovicë \Kosovska Mitrovica
12 Leposaviq \Leposavic
13 Lipjan \Lipqan
14 Novobërdë \Novo Brdo
15 Obiliq \Obilic
16 Rahovec\ Orahovac
17 Pejë\ Pec
18 Podujevë\ Podujevo
19 Prishtinë \Pristina
20 Prizren \Prizren
21 Skenderaj\ Srbica
22 Shtime\ Stimqe
23 Shtërpcë\ Strpce
24 Suharekë\ Suva Reka
25 Ferizaj \Urosevac
26 Viti \Vitina
27 Vushtrri\ Vucitrn
28 Zubin Potok \Zubin Potok
29 Zveçan\ Zvecan
30 Malishevë\ Malisevo

If sambody have a argument Im waitting. In another cases you are going to interpret the dokumets (you are out of UN Law) and you dont have argumet, you dont work for Wikipedia but are destroing the Wikipedia image. I know that my english is not so gut, but a desinformation is not gut for Wikipedia and for the peopel in Kosovo. You can have a problem with "Haage". This tabel is speeken better then I.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A few points here:
1) Wikipedia is not an agency of the United Nations and isn't bound by any decisions of the UN. The UN's views can help to guide us, but they don't compel us to do anything.
2) The UN's law clearly says that both names are valid. This gives us a bit of a problem, as Wikipedia's software requires an article to be at one specific name (we can't have two articles, each under a separate name).
3) Fortunately we have a solution: the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guidelines. I suggest that you look at the section under "How to make a choice among controversial names". I think this will probably result in many Kosovo articles retaining their Serbian names (e.g. Pristina, Pec) as these are the most widely known in English. -- ChrisO 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
A few points here as well: Retaining Serbian names only is NOT a solution ChrisO. Wikipedia is not a Serbian agency either, and is not bound to some namings that are inherited from the time an occupatory regime terrorized the population of Kosova. That regime also made the maps to which you like to refer now. Using such sources is unfair to the more than 90% of Kosova's population. Thank you, Ilir pz 20:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that many Kosovo places are better known in English by their Serbian names than their Albanian ones. I'm not saying that we must use the Serbian names, but we need to find a solution that reflects the fact that the Serbian names are better known internationally. There are many examples on Wikipedia of placenames that are rendered differently in English to how they're spelled locally - Rome, not Roma; St Petersburg, not Sankt Peterburg; Munich, not Munchen; etc. Perhaps in 100 years the Albanian placenames in Kosovo will be well known internationally but right now that clearly isn't the case. -- ChrisO 17:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No argumet

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No argumet!!! please dont inteprete the documents

Sombody have putit this Kosovo place in Serbia stub or category or template here with out argumet. We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this stub or category or template. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia.--Hipi Zhdripi 04:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

University of Pristina

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

University of Priština was relocated from Priština in 1999, but first to Kruševac. Relocation to Mitrovica was in 2001 and 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrija.b (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

2004 Riots and earlier incidents

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

First I noticed that this phrase "...exacerbated by the presence of nationalist extremists on both sides" is somewhat POV. It equalizes Albanian and Serb violence, while it should be clear that most of the violence that occurred after 1999 was committed by Albanians in order to drive the remaining Serbs out of Mitrovica and the whole Kosovo.

The information about the 2004 riots is very obviously POV. The alleged drowning of an Albanian child is presented as the sole reason for the unrest, while it was actually the killing of a Serb teenager that predates the drowning incident, which by the way was never clarified by the authorities (this should also be mentioned in the article). It should be made clearer that the Albanian rioters where the ones who tried to enter the Serbian part of the city, while the Serbs gathered to stop them from crossing the bridge which separates the two. From photos of the riots at the bridge it is clear that the main clash occurred between KFOR troops and attacking Albanian rioters. Of course this is my interpretation of the pictures, therefore I'm asking for references to clarify the incident. Last but not least, there is no mention of the Serb victims, which clearly shows again that the article is POV.

Maybe earlier incidents like this one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/01/wkos01.xml should also be mentioned.

I'm sure my writing here will be regarded by some as biased, so I won't even attempt to change the article myself. All I'm asking is to rewrite the concerning part in proper English, unbiased language and with clear references in order the meet NPOV Wikipedia standards. --80.219.119.16 09:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I will pu the official name on brackets"()"--Bindicapriqi (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE NAME

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Kosova is now and independent state, as of 17th February 2007, the Republic of Kosova is referred to as Kosova by all nations that recognize it the only countries to call it Kosovo is Serbia & Russia.

Second the name of the city is now officially Mitrovica e Kosovës SO the tital should be changed to that or just Mitrovica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.201.125 (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Mitrovica is the best variant imho since it's most popular one in English (the most important Wikipedia criterion) and more or less acceptable to both sides. Meanwhile, let's wait for other opinions. Alæxis¿question? 06:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So "Mitrivica" is the English name, the other ones are names in Serbian and Albanian? OK, I think this is a good starting point for a neutral title. Klungel (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Serbs gave the name of this city in the 14th century. City is called after the Christian saint − Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki (Greek: Άγιος Δημήτριος της Θεσσαλονίκης). In Albanian, there isn't one word with the root mitrov, and of course, Albanians can speak, read and write easier version for they tongue (eg. Albanian: Mitrovicë) for they local use, but globally, the name of city is Mitrovica (Serbian: Mitrovica). Many centuries past and we today have tons of written records, literature and scientific sources and referencies which point to the Serbian name - Mitrovica. If one change this name today (btw, due to daily-political reasons just) people around the globe will not understand what this new term Mitrovicë stands for.--Dejvas (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
But if Albanians call it Mitrovicë, that is of course their business. As a non-Albanian speaking wikipediants, we can only observe it, we don't prescribe the "better" version because of the Neutral Point of View policy. So Albanian is Mitrivocë, Serbian is Kosovska Mitrovica and English is Mitrovica. Klungel (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Writing just Kosovo in the infobox isn't right. Let's look at the situation from the de facto and de jure views. De facto part of the municipality is ruled by Pristina and part of it is still ruled by Serbia. De jure Kosovo isn't a sovereign country (no UN recognition and only partial recognition by other countries) so officially it's still Serbia. It is clear that Serbia has to be mentioned in the infobox as well. I'll now restore my version, if anyone has other ideas about a compromise solution let's discuss it here. Alæxis¿question? 06:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Eeek, infopoxes. "And if thine infobox cause thee to stumble, cast it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of NPOV with no infobox, than having a big infobox and be cast into hell fire".
Is that the only problem you guys have with this article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not a bad variant as well; actually it is used now in all the articles about localities in other de facto independent states. Let's see whether it'll help. Alæxis¿question? 20:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to say that I applied it to other Kosovo citis as well. Nikola (talk) 00:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovska Mitrovica

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Klungel the fact is that you keep changing internationally recognized name of Kosovska Mitrovica to another. The fact is that name Kosovska Mitrovica is here since article was created and YOU are the only one who keep changing it to Mitrovica, Kosovo without consulting with any other user of Wikipedia nor administrator. Best regards --S T E V A N (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is "live" proof that English name of Kosovska Mitrovica IS Kosovska Mitrovica: [2] At this link (Official websiste of University of Texas) you have Map of Serbia (and Montenegro) in English created by The University of Texas at Austin. Look at the name of Kosovska Mitrovica on this map! So Klungel I'm kindly asking you to stop changing it to Albanian name. Thanks :-) --S T E V A N (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One source is no proof when all other sources contradict. Just google for "kosovska mitrovica" and you will get 568,000 hits and googeling for "mitrovica -kosovska" gives you over 3 million hits, almost 6 x as much! Therefore please change into Mitrovica. TIA. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you guys check out the Kosovo talk page, at the bottom of that page you will see extensive discussions between me and EV. Renaming the article Mitrovica was fair because that name is the most recognizable and neutral form it could take. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Munich and Colone

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

When a name exists in English, the name used by the people lifing there is of no concerne for wiki.en. If it would be not this way, I would personally move alle names of citys in German, Chinese and ans all arabic written to the right ones which nobdy will understand. --13:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As I said many times official international name is Kosovska Mitrovica. Albanian name is Mitrovica / Mitrovicë, Serbian name is Косовска Митровица (Kosovska Mitrovica), Serbs also use short name Митровица (Mitrovica) some times. In some documentation English and Serbian it's used name Mitrovica, but official name is Kosovska Mitrovica because in region of former Yugoslavia there are 3 places named Mitrovica. --S T E V A N (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your arguement is not strong at ALL. Obviously people would not understand those but people WILL in fact understand just Mitrovica unlike adding another name before it (Kosovska) which I doubt any English-speaking people can rightfully pronounce. Kosovo is now independent, and the real name should be changed to just Mitrovica. That map you provided is nothing really, since it was made in 2004 or even before. Now times are different and the city is called Mitrovica. By the way, Prishtina on the map has an accent on the letters but that cannot be English because English does not have accents like that. Again, your arguements are not strong and the name should be changed to Mitrovica. Kosovo is independent, why are you fighting this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.20.18 (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
A lot of time could be saved in these discussions if everyone would bother to read and understand WP:NAME first. The only thing relevant for deciding article title is "usage in notable English language publication". Not google counts. Not native names. Not changes in territorial sovereignty.
Anyone who wants to move this article should WP:CITE notable English language publications, such as major newspapers or encyclopedias, to support their preferred title. I don't see anyone doing this, and as long as nobody does this, there isn't any valid "debate" here.
Regarding the Serbian name, this will remain relevant in any case, since even in independent Kosovo, Serbian is an official language, remember? --dab (𒁳) 07:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Article title

Latest comment: 15 years ago37 comments10 people in discussion

This article has been at Kosovska Mitrovica since its creation in 2003. It has been moved to Mitrovice once in 2007 and to Mitrovica, Kosovo a couple of times in 2008. And these are the options for possible article titles I can see:

which it is going to be depends entirely on most common usage in English language publications. From a quick overview of major news outlets at google news, I gather that "Mitrovice" isn't arguable. The possibilities are Kosovska Mitrovica and Mitrovica, Kosovo, since English news agencies use "Kosovska Mitrovica" as well as simple "Mitrovica" (when the context of Kosovo is given). Thus, BBC has "the Kosovan town of Mitrovica".

From this, I conclude that a title of Mitrovica, Kosovo is a valid suggestion and I would support such a move. --dab (𒁳) 08:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  • The article is on the good place since creation. Google news include Kosovska Mitovica, when you search for Mitrovica. There :are no need for this move! This is only truly international name. Neither
NPOV asks from us NOT to change the name. Tadija (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not a vote. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Please read the Wikipedia convention, especially the bit about the tests that should be used to determine a name for the article and specifically the bit about using the name...that is most recognizable in the English Language. As is apparent to every everybody who is not Serbian or possibly otherwise confused about the criteria, Mitrovica, which is neither Albanian nor Serbian, is the most recognizable name. Furthermore, Kosovksa Mitrovica is not neutral, if I were to suggest using the name Mitrovice, I would be accused of POV pushing. Mitrovica, just like Pristina is the English spelling of the word, the most recognizable and neutral. Also:

Identification of common names using external references

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

  • The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
  • International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
  • Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
  • Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
  • Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .
  • Scientific nomenclature. Check usage by international bodies like CIPM, IUPAP, IUPAC, and other scientific bodies concerned with nomenclature; consider also the national standards agencies NIST and NPL. Consult style guides of scientific journals.

Mitrovica passes the Google test 

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,460,000 for Mitrovica -Wikipedia. (0.13 seconds) 
Results 1 - 10 of about 540,000 for Kosovska Mitrovica -Wikipedia. (0.22 seconds)

And this is exluding Wikipedia - as is advised by Wikipedia when conducting the Google test


The organization test: 

   http://www.osce.org/documents/mik/2008/04/1191_en.pdf ===
   http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3650 ===
   http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-A96ACA06-6A049C51/natolive/news_17833.htm?selectedLocale=en ===
   http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7520.doc.htm ===

The Major English-Language Media outlets: 

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7525916.stm ===
   http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/02/21/kosovo2_21.a.tm/index.html 
   http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1721389_1547061,00.html ===
   http://www.sofiaecho.com/2009/05/15/719174_the-fortunes-of-kosovo =

Using other encyclopedias to identify consistency: 

   http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/322726/Kosovo

   http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531537_3/Kosovo.html#p28

Geographic name servers: This ones is a bit complicated to use, but nonetheless I got more results for Mitrovica than for Kosovska Mitrovica, which I am unable to post as a link.


I hope this clarifies the fact that Kosovska Mitrovica is not the most recognizable in the English language as per the tests Wikipedia has set out. Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What ever these articles tells you, it is completely vivid that those sources are not regarding our NPOV rule, and sourcing them is pointless. I can find much more articles that are only under Serbian view, and that will be even easier, because only 60 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state. Just imagine all of those sources that completely disregard and roar with laughter on Mitrovicë!! Regarding your "Mitrovica passes the Google test", google test is pointless in this search, word Mitrovica is in the Kosovska Mitrovca, so it is logical that there are more Mitrovica then Kosovska Mitrovica. There are more New, then New York.. Ha, ha! And, at the end, as Ev told earlier, wiki naming conventions goes in favor of Kosovska Mitrovica. Tadija (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I will let the Wikipedia community judge your illogical, irrational and blatantly stupefied comments. Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for having gone through all the trouble of collecting infos on the use of Mitrovica vs. Kosovska Mitrovica. You have my support on renaming this article to Mitrovica. I would only suggest adding a disambiguation note on top (just like the one on London), so that people looking for other Mitrovicas can find their way towards them. Khuft (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it may be, but as we see in this wiki naming convention, since a fuller neutral name exists, disambiguator is not needed.
Be precise when necessary
Convention: Name an article as precisely as is necessary to indicate accurately its topical scope; avoid over-precision. If there are other articles with the same name, then the title should include a disambiguator in parentheses, unless the article concerns the primary topic for that name. If alternative common names exist for a topic, sometimes a less ambiguous option may be chosen in order to avoid the need for a disambiguator.
Rationale and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation
Tadija (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The relevant convention here is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which not only states in its first article that the most common English name should be used (which in this case is obviously Mitrovica), but additionally says under the sub-header Multiple local names that in case various local names are as common (as would be Kosovska Mitrovica and Mitrovice) and chosing one over the other may be controversial, a alternative solution should be chosen. E.g. it says "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems; one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive." So following the English use of Mitrovica should definitely be acceptable in this case. Khuft (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll never accept that lying manipulation!
Mitrovica is DEFINITIVELY NOT the most common English name for Kosovska Mitrovica! Wikipedia is not propaganda! Stop manipulation!! You dont have even one firm argument! How this is not apparent to others? You dont have even one reason to move this article, and it shouldn't be moved! This is only one possible NPOV! Tadija (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to have arroused such emotions from you 'tadija', but please refer to my earlier work on the most common name. Thanks, aand remember, English news source such as the BBC and CNN use Mitrovica, the news sources Wikipedia advises we use to test the recognizable name not 'blic' 'b92' and 'radioserbija'. Laughable really. Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Taking a closer look at the results from that Google News search, we see that:
Of the ca. 170 results for "Kosovoska Mitrovica", only ca. 15 are in English (at least 7 of which are from Serbian sources).
Of the ca. 109 results for "Mitrovica" alone, ca. 28 are in English (at least 7 of which are from Kosovan sources). Other 2 results in English refer to Sremska Mitrovica, and another 1 to a certain Jerry Mitrovica.
Best, Ev (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Why are people here always arguing about names, and others? Stay calm, there are no need for ! sign... I agree, but peacefully, with Tadija, and oppose the move. There are no need for this kind of gesture, and, as i understand, there are lot more Mitrovica's in Serbia, if this is Kosovska Mitrovica, it should stay so. Why make problems when we don't need them?
    Best regards, Pagliaccioknows (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • here is my "google test":
    Mitrovica: 117 khits
    Kosovska Mitrovica: 53 khits.

    I agree that a move to Mitrovica, Kosovo is arguable and probably the most straightforward title for this article. "Kosovska" is just an adjective meaning "of Kosovo". Seeing that it is a non-English adjective, I see no reason not to prefer the unambiguous "Mitrovica, Kosovo" which means the exact same thing as "Kosovska Mitrovica" while avoiding unnecessary non-English morphology.

    However, it is undisputable that both names see significant use in English. The google news count does come up with a ratio of about 170:100 in favour of "Kosovska Mitrovica". Both titles are arguable. Seeing that this is the case, I would simply tend to support the "more English-looking" one. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • After taking a cursory look at current usage in press & publications, I agree with dab. Both forms are widely used in English, but lately "Mitrovica" alone appears to be more common. I agree to a move to Mitrovica, Kosovo. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that moving it to Mitrovica, Kosovo is completely pro-Albanian. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for POV pushing.
I am very much against the move and I strongly support keeping the article name as it is. --Cinéma C 19:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If we were to consider it in that light, using "Mitrovica, Kosovo" as title would be more-or-less as biased toward Albanians as using "Kosovska Mitrovica" would be toward Serbs. – Luckly for us, our naming conventions and neutral point of view policies don't consider those details. Instead, they ask us to reflect the usage commonly found in English-language publications, irrespective of the various possible biases that some people would always perceive in any choice. - Best, Ev (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
"Kosovska Mitrovica" is no more biased towards Serbs as the name "Kosovo" itself (Serbian in origin). Kosovska Mitrovica is the name of the town, the precise name of the town, and encyclopedias are supposed to be precise. --Cinéma C 20:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If we named each town according to their precise or original name, we should then rename the Bangkok article "Krung Thep Mahanakhon", or move Los Angeles to "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula". The point is that "Mitrovica, Kosovo" at once solved 3 problems: it doesn't take sides between Serbs and Kosovars, it is widespread in English and it can't be confused with the other Mitrovicas. Khuft (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Cinéma, you're right about your first point: for the dispassionate anglophone, "Kosovska Mitrovica" is no more biased towards Serbs than the name "Kosovo" itself; nor is "Mitrovica, Kosovo" towards Albanians. — But regarding your second point, the town has various equally valid names: Kosovska Mitrovica, Mitrovicë, Mitrovica, Mitroviça, Kosowska Mitrowica. Among those names, our naming conventions ask us to simply choose the one commonly used in English-language publications, because we expect that it would be the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (the core criterion of our naming conventions policy). - Precision is archieved through the disambiguator ", Kosovo" or "(Kosovo)" just as well as with "Kosovska". - Best, Ev (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

sheesh, Cinéma, you are being unreasonable now. Saying that there is a town "Mitrovica" and that it is in Kosovo is "pro-Albanian" how? You could arguably claim that naming the article Mitrovicë would be about as pro-Albanian as naming it Косовска Митровица would be "pro-Serbian". "Kosovska Mitrovica" and "Mitrovica, Kosovo" are just common names used in English language sources that aren't "pro" anything. The fallacy of dividing anything as belonging to either of the two camps lies entirely in the perception of those with an opinion on this ethnic conflict. If you have an opinion that is either "pro-Albanian" or "pro-Serbian", you should just excuse yourself from editing Wikipedia articles on the topic and leave it to editors for whom this is about just another Balkans toponym. This would seem to apply to both Cinéma and Interestedinfairness. --dab (𒁳) 07:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry "dab", please refrain from mentioning me by name when I clearly have nothing to do with this part of the discussion. If it was left up to editors then this page would always be named kosovska mitrvica, thanks to my investigative nature, we have finally come to some sort of conclusion regarding the article. So again, please show me the same courtesy I show you by contacting me here when you have something to say to me. Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
how do you have nothing to do with this discussion? You are the one who keeps nagging me on my talkpage about this. Look, Interestedinfairness, it is painfully obvious that you simply want this move because you are Albanian, not because you care two hoots about WP:NAME. Well, in this case WP:NAME just so happens to coincide with your agenda. You have me in your camp in this instance by pure coincidence, simply because your agenda by mere coincidence agrees with Wikipedia guidelines. All your comments and general behaviour on Wikipedia has been completely party-line pro-Albanian. Which makes your vote on anything perfectly predictable and as such irrelevant. Same as Cinéma's, who just happens to be in the opposite camp. --dab (𒁳) 14:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, you surely cant move the article after this much disagreement! "Mitrovica, Kosovo" is not acceptable! Tadija (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Tadija, remember that these discussions are never a vote, but an exchange of opinions on how our naming conventions policy applies to a specific case. The number of editors opposing a move tends to be of little relevance; instead we focus on policy-based arguments and the manner in which they sway opinions. - Best, Ev (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone ever consider that naming it "Mitrovica, Kosovo" would automatically suggest that Wikipedia considers Kosovo independent? There are two other Mitrovicas in Serbia, and each one of them has a word before it that signifies in which region it is - Mačva (Mačvanska Mitrovica) and Srem (Sremska Mitrovica). Why is Kosovska Mitrovica "so special" then? Just because Albanians hold a majority there and that specific region declared independence (to which Wikipedia must be NEUTRAL)? Why then not name the other two Mitrovicas "Mitrovica, Mačva" and "Mitrovica, Srem"? It's pointless and I'm starting to fear that there is a political background behind this proposed move. --Cinéma C 00:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone ever consider that naming it "Mitrovica, Kosovo" would automatically suggest that Wikipedia considers Kosovo independent? No; we use St. Louis, Missouri and Windsor, Ontario, without any suggestion that Ontario is independent of Canada. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The difference is that Missouri and Ontario are not disputed territories. --Cinéma C 17:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Cinéma, our disambiguation methods are not declarations of who's sovereignty is valid "according to Wikipedia", nor do they suggest anything similar to our readership. – The title "Mitrovica, Kosovo" simply informs our readers that it is the Mitrovica located in Kosovo, without passing judgment on what Kosovo is (a Serbian province, an independent country, or something in between). - Best, Ev (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and there would be no argument against that, was the town not called "Kosovska Mitrovica" instead of "Mitrovica", how the self-declared state of Kosovo calls it. What's next? Turning Leposavić into Albaniku, Kosova? --Cinéma C 19:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
For our specific purposes, what Albanians, Serbs, Roma, Turks, Danes, Chinese or the authorities & institutions in Belgrade, Pristina, Washington, Moscow, Brussels & New York call the town is of little relevance. The main question is by what name do most English-language publications refer to the town... what name do most anglophones find when reading books & newspapers, or when watching TV news. - Best, Ev (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Kosovska Mitrovica. --Cinéma C 20:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Who's going to change the name of this article? There seems to be enough consensus to do so...(Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).

Are you kidding us? There is NO CLEAR consensus :P Please don't do this kind of stuff. --Cinéma C 03:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose sending this to Arbitration for their opinion. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

Name is Kosovska Mitrovica. Why are Serb editors so offended by the use of city's legal name, which is Kosovska Mitrovica? Kosovo is 90%+ Albanian. If there were any justice, Kosovska Mitrovica would be renamed to Albanian Mitrovica, and Kosovo would join Albania. Serbs are minority in Kosovo - not as a result of ethnic cleansing, but as a result of Albanian population growth. Bosniak (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bosniak, Wikipedia is not a place to discuss "which territory belongs to who"... And I suggest that discussion stops here, but before you make false claims that Albanians never ethnically cleansed Serbs, I suggest you look into WWII in Kosovo, as well as what was happening in the 1970s and 1980s (not to mention 1998 - present). And Interestedinfairness, you've already been blocked twice for POV pushing, I suggest you stop trying to get others to do your POV pushing for you, because it's not going to work. Not on Wikipedia. --Cinéma C 17:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggested it go to arbitration although the opposition to my proposal only seems to be coming from one person. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)).

Would you mind giving us a link to where you suggested it? It would be a nice gesture, considering that we're all in the discussion too. --Cinéma C 00:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the only Albanian-Serb related article where the two peoples have been able to see eye to eye (I commend EV for this). Again, only one serious user -- cinema -- seems to be in opposition. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

What are you trying to do here? Why are you stating these things? Are you hoping that someone, who doesn't want to read the entre discussion, will pick up on your false statement and believe it? Only in the past couple of paragraphs, myself, User:Tadija, User:Pagliaccioknows and User:Brutaldeluxe have also opposed the move. There is no consensus, and just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. --Cinéma C 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
All your evidence is based on the work presented by EV, here. The user subsequently decided, and after lengthy debate, but also in the interest of reaching a consensus, to retract this and support my view, here. "Dab" also seems to be in agreement.

If you cannot agree to this, and you feel so strongly about it, then I will take this to arbitration --- but remember --- this is always a last resort and it shouldn't be taken lightly. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

You're right, because EV changed his mind, we all changed our mind - *end sarcasm here* :P Did you even read ALL our arguments? There is clearly no consensus, not because of EV's arguments, but because there are several users who do NOT agree with your POV pushing or with moving the name of this article. For now, it stays the way it is. --Cinéma C 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, if you look carefully at the "Article title" section, the majority of users who left their comment on this discussion have argued AGAINST the move (myself, User:Tadija, User:Pagliaccioknows, User:Brutaldeluxe, User:Andrija.b, while User:Ev later changed his mind) and the only ones left firmly arguing FOR the move are you and User:Dbachmann. Regardless of who the majority is, does that sound like a consensus to anyone to support the move? I think not. --Cinéma C 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Majority? You must be kidding. This majority is consituted by Serbian wikipedians competing with each other who achieves most rewriting of history at Wikipedia English. --NOAH (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
NOAH, the majority is NOT Serbian Wikipedians, only 2 of them, and even if they were, their opinion is not worth less than anyone else's. Do not discriminate against anyone, please. --Cinéma C 18:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Kosovska Mitrovica" is biased and disputed, tag added

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have added a tag in the article to notify the readers that the name "Kosovska Mitovica" is disputed. There is no doubt that the name is biased. The name is biased and in direct conflict with Wikipedia rules on place names and neutrality. "Kosovska Mitrovica" is only used in the Serbian language and Wikipedia by allowing Serbian nationalists and revisionist change the English names of cities in Kosovo, is becoming very pro-Serbian. Since the Serbs here with their puppets are majority the article continues to have the name "Kosovska Mitrovica" which is not the name used by the English world. I as a reader and senior Wikipedia editor according to Wikipedia rules have the right to add that tag and that's what I have done. --NOAH (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Proposal

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Rename page Mitrovica, as per all the discussions above. Who agrees? Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Will you stop proposing this already? There is no consensus for the move and you can't just keep pushing this. Accept the reality. --Cinéma C 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This does not have anything to do with the fact that you already know what the outcome of such a proposal will be? --- Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what do the signs welcoming you into the town say? If they all just say Mitrovica then there could be a reason for changing it, but if they give different names in different languages then the status quo should remain. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there's several signs because you can enter the city from both the Serbian and the Albanian side. I do remember even the Albanian side having a Serbian version underneath, but it was covered with graffiti. At least that's how it was last summer. So much for the free democratic state of "Kosova" :P --Cinéma C 03:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to arbitration, this is not working as some users are not willing to stay with the fact. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)).
Yes, you are that user. But facts will not be changed just because you don't like it... Tadija (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mitrovica

Latest comment: 15 years ago69 comments17 people in discussion

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) we are meant to use the English name of the city, which is Mitrovica. According to the policies above we are only to use a native name of a place if there is no common name used in the English language. The name of the city used in the English language is Mitrovica not Kosovska Mitrovica, which is currently used and is the native Serbian name of the city, not the name used in the English language. This name is POV as it violates the policies above and gives the article a pro Serbian touch to it, which violated WP:NPOV. Mitrovica is used by British news such as the BBCthe Guardianthe independentfinancial timesthe times International news EuronewsRussia TodayAl JazeeraFrance 24Balkan InsightSETimes. This shows that Mitrovica is the name commonly used in the English Language and thus should be the name of the article per WP:COMMONNAME. Also take a look at google books, most use "Mitrovica" [3] Encarta uses Mitrovica too [4], which is another English language encyclopaedia. The only English language news sites where I could find Kosovska Mitrovica is Serbian based news sites such as B92.

I now propose to move the title of this article from "Kosovska Mitrovica" to "Mitrovica, Kosovo". Your thoughts? IJA (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  Agree kedadial 16:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Also EULEX uses "Mitrovica" [5] and so does the United Nations [6] IJA (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated above, Mitrovica is a disambiguation page. If "Mitrovica" is really the most common name, the article should be at Mitrovica, Kosovo. The article title will be either of Kosovska Mitrovica and Mitrovica, Kosovo. Both are arguable. I have no preference. --dab (𒁳) 14:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally support Mitrovica, Kosovo as dab stated. Mitrovica only, is a disambiguation page. Thank you. kedadial 14:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Mitrovica should be a disambiguation and I support the article being named Mitrovica, Kosovo IJA (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  Disagree I oppose this suggestion. The issue has been the topic of many many discussions in the past and every single time we didn't come even close to reaching a consensus. Since some people just never give up, and I sincerely don't have the energy to repeat everything that was said in the past, I suggest you scroll up or click here. --Cinéma C 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but wikipedia is a meritocracy and we should go by Wikipedia's polices and use the common English language name, not a Serbian name. This is wikipedia policy. The UN and EU call it Mitrovica in English, basically all mainsteam English language media calls in Mitrovica. I don't see why we should use a Serbian name on wikipedia which is less frequently used in the English language. The Serbian name belongs on Serbian wikipedia not English wikipedia IJA (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the main arguments above which rejects my proposal is the amount of google hits, this is not a legitimate argument per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Search engine issues. Also none of the arguements above are backed up with wikipedia policies unlike my proposal IJA (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Why do you need everything repeated? Why do I have to repeat everything that was written just above your new header? For the past 5 headers, the name is all that has been discussed.
The territory is under temporary UN administration, as ruled in Resolution 1244 (1999), adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 10 June 1999[7], where the UN reafirmed its commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (and its sucessor state, Serbia, after the country changed its name). Therefore, it is not up to the UN to invent new geographical denominations.
Wikipedia is not an agency of the United Nations and isn't bound by any decisions of the UN. The UN's views can help to guide us, but they don't compel us to do anything. The UN's law clearly says that both names are valid. This gives us a bit of a problem, as Wikipedia's software requires an article to be at one specific name (we can't have two articles, each under a separate name). Fortunately we have a solution: the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guidelines. I suggest that you look at the section under "How to make a choice among controversial names". I think this will probably result in many Kosovo articles retaining their Serbian names (e.g. Pristina, Pec) as these are the most widely known in English.
A lot of time could be saved in these discussions if everyone would bother to read and understand WP:NAME first. The only thing relevant for deciding article title is "usage in notable English language publication". Not google counts. Not native names. Not changes in territorial sovereignty. Anyone who wants to move this article should WP:CITE notable English language publications, such as major newspapers or encyclopedias, to support their preferred title. I don't see anyone doing this, and as long as nobody does this, there isn't any valid "debate" here. Regarding the Serbian name, this will remain relevant in any case, since even in independent Kosovo, Serbian is an official language, remember?
Did anyone ever consider that naming it "Mitrovica, Kosovo" would automatically suggest that Wikipedia considers Kosovo independent? There are two other Mitrovicas in Serbia, and each one of them has a word before it that signifies in which region it is - Mačva (Mačvanska Mitrovica) and Srem (Sremska Mitrovica). Why is Kosovska Mitrovica "so special" then? Just because Albanians hold a majority there and that specific region declared independence (to which Wikipedia must be NEUTRAL)? Why then not name the other two Mitrovicas "Mitrovica, Mačva" and "Mitrovica, Srem"? It's pointless and I'm starting to fear that there is a political background behind this proposed move. --Cinéma C 18:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"A lot of time could be saved in these discussions if everyone would bother to read and understand WP:NAME first."
  • Maybe you should take a look at the WP:NAME. In the first paragraph, it clearly says: "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.", and that's exactly what User:IJA presented.
  Remark: And it would be very easy to present verifiable reliable sources in English (in fact, the exact same sources IJA provided) that refer to the town as Kosovska Mitrovica:
lol, so what's your point? --Cinéma C 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not an agency of the United Nations and isn't bound by any decisions of the UN."
  • Here come the double standards. When we debate if we should refer to Kosovo as a country or a disputed territory, you keep saying that it is a province of Serbia because that's what UN is saying. Now, when UN refers to Mitrovica as Mitrovica only, you say that Wikipedia is not an agency of the United Nations. Hmmm, seems that UN is not backing your POV all the time.
  Remark: I'm afraid you don't understand. If Wikipedia was an agency of the UN, Kosovo would be a province within Serbia, as per UNSCR 1244. Since this is not so in the Kosovo article, I don't see why we should make an exception in this article. --Cinéma C 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me refrain it again for you. You are applying double standards the way it suits your POV better. When we debate about Kosovo's status, you keep crying: "Kosovo is a Serbian province, because that's what UN is saying", now when we debate about the name of Mitrovica to be used on wikipedia, you say that: "What UN is saying is irrelevant because of ...". So, in the first case, wikipedia seems to be a UN agency (from your POV) while on the other case it seems to be not. In other words, you are saying: "Wikipedia is a UN agency as along as it backs my POV, otherwise it is not.". Weird, huh? kedadial 10:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
What a notorious lie! Find me a place where I have urged us to write that Kosovo is a Serbian province in the Kosovo article. I have always been in favour of "disputed territory". --Cinéma C 17:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
this kedadial 22:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I was asking for a link of me "crying: "Kosovo is a Serbian province"" (quote by Kedadi) and not me changing the status to "an autonomous region". Do you know what the difference between "province" and "region" is? In fact, here, I'll show you: province, region. Also, take a look at the definition of autonomy. If I had wanted to wrote "Kosovo is a Serbian province", I would've written "Kosovo is a Serbian province", but I didn't. All the best :) --Cinéma C 02:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
"Anyone who wants to move this article should WP:CITE notable English language publications, such as major newspapers or encyclopedias, to support their preferred title."
  • Well, User:IJA gave us a plenty of examples in the first post and he did it again to fulfill your request.
  Remark: See my list above. --Cinéma C 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
"Regarding the Serbian name, this will remain relevant in any case, since even in independent Kosovo, Serbian is an official language, remember?"
  • Yes sure, Serbian language is an official language, but after the Albanian language. <hint>If you didn't knew it before, the name of Mitrovica in the Serbian language of the independent Kosovo is Mitrovica only</hint>.
  Remark: Seeing as how Serbs are boycotting the Kosovo Albanian government, it's not surprising. The few Serbs who have sided with the Albanians on the issue are insignificant as Kosovska Mitrovica is the name of the city in the Serbian language. Are you saying that the Serbian language must be discriminated against because there's less people speaking it in Kosovo? Also, what does this have to do with the article? --Cinéma C 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
"It's pointless and I'm starting to fear that there is a political background behind this proposed move."
  • Yes, probably Jean-Claude Van Damme is behind all this. The editor who requested the move is a Briton, it's not Hashim Thaçi who did it.
  Remark: He can be Papua New Guenean for all I care. --Cinéma C 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. kedadial 23:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No, thank you. --Cinéma C 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I have provided loads of notable English language publications, such as major newspapers or encyclopedias, to support their preferred title, look here (British news such as the BBCthe Guardianthe independentfinancial timesthe times International news EuronewsRussia TodayAl JazeeraFrance 24Balkan InsightSETimes). This discussion has nothing to do with the sovereignty of Serbia. Wikipedia says we should use the most common English language name, which is "Mitrovica", therefore I support calling the article as such, however we have to call it either "Mitrovica, Kosovo" or "Mitrovica (Kosovo)" due to disambiguation. It doesn't suggest Kosovo is independent because does "Halifax, West Yorkshire" suggest that "West Yorkshire" is independent? No! If we were to call it "Mitrovica, Serbia" it confuse readers with the other Mitrovicas in Serbia, therefore "Kosovo" next to it defines the exact one. You still do not have a legitimate real argument for opposing the title proposition. IJA (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are your precious sources, but supporting my argument:

So stop bringing them up as an argument. The other ones make no sense whatsoever, so I suggest you calm down with the POV pushing. The town is called Kosovska Mitrovica. Thanks, --Cinéma C 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh, a BBC News article from the medieval era, here you've got a recent one, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7251895.stm.
  • The Guardian article mentions Mitrovica once and Kosovska Mitrovica twice. The article dates back from 22 February 2008. Recent articles from The Guardian (1, 2, 3, 4) mention it only as Mitrovica.
  • The Independent article mentions Mitrovica three times and Kosovska Mitrovica five times. The article is from medieval times (20 February 2000). Recent articles from The Independent (1, 2, 3, 4) mention it only as Mitrovica.
  • Here you have a rececnt article from The Times, after the independence of Kosovo, they refer to it as Mitrovica only.
  • Here you have a recent article from Euronews which refers to it as Mitrovica only. Instead of using a football player profile.
  • The Russia Today article is from the day of independence and it mentions it once as Mitrovica and once as Kosovska Mitrovica. Recent articles from Russia Today (1, 2) refer to it as Mitrovica only.
  • Al Jazeera article mentions it as Mitrovica four times and only once as Kosovska Mitrovica.
  • France24 seems to refer to it as Kosovska Mitrovica so far.
  • Here are some recent articles from Balkan Insight (1, 2) that refer to it as Mitrovica only.
  • Here are some recent articles from SETimes (1, 2, 3) that refer to it as Mitrovica only.
Thank you. kedadial 11:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


Support the renaming. The weight of English commentary and especially the more careful/scholarly commentary is on the side of Mitrovica. The policies in WP:COMMONNAME apply. Phil153 (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


  Disagree I also oppose this suggestion! This question is up once again! How many time we should go throw this? As User:Cinéma C told you, there are number of sources that goes in favor of Kosovska Mitrovica. http://en.wikipedia.org. And of course, there are also this, so there are no quesions about it any more. Tadija (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Also   Disagree. Well, it is quite that this move is unaccepted. Now, and in the past. AntoniusPrimus (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  Invalid vote: User's 3rd edit, single purpose account. --Cinéma C 02:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  Disagree. This was already a subject, and it was disbanded... Pagliaccioknows (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
@ PagiaccioknowsWP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:WHOCARES IJA (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Even the prominent Search Engines seem to support Mitrovica only instead of Kosovska Mitrovica,

Thank you. kedadial 11:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Foolish. Please dont promote wrong searches.
Your search included Kosovska Mitrovica in all your searches. That's how you have that much hits. So, none of your search engines posts are relevant. Tadija (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
If Kosovo would be equal to Kosovska so the hits would be. kedadial 13:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The official Website of the City calls it Mitrovica [16]
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica calls it Mitrovica [17]
  • Encyclopaedia Encarta calls it Mitrovica [18]

Also Cinema C, some of them news sources are dated. Not to mention officially international organisations call the city Mitrovica. Mitrovica is the common name of the city and per WP:COMMONNAME we should change it to Mitrovica. IJA (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

@ Tadija, google hits are not a legitimate argument per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Search engine issues IJA (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
And look at your sources! This is plagiary!
  • United Nations source is unofficial transcript, so it cannot be used as relevant!
  • EULEX and European Union source is minor dual language notification, this cannot be used as official state of European Union!
  • OSCE source is pointless! Here it is called Kosovska Mitrovica. So your source is irrelevant.
  • NATO source. THIS IS OFFICIAL SOURCE! Here is Kosovska Mitrovica! Your source is minor and unimportant!!
  • Council of Europe source is nonexistent!
  • IMF source is disputable, because is is prepared by Kosovar Albanians, so it is not international!
  • IFC source in irrelevant, because it is not IFC side of view, then Lydian International Limited’s Company's.
  • And World Bank source is off, because it in not name of the town, it is name of the Kosovska Mitrovica University!
And Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encyclopaedia Encarta regard Kosovo as completely independent country, so we already regard those sources as irrelevant, because Kosovo status is disputed.
You dont have EVEN ONE regular source, that we can use! You try to show us something that are unneeded for good wiki article. As i told earlier, and with majority on my side (one again) i   Disagree with this impudently move! Tadija (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
All the sources that IJA has presented are accessible and up-to-date. The OSCE and NATO articles that you've presented are around 10 year old articles. Why your sources are official while those presented by IJA are not, even from the the same domain? According to you, what sources we should use to solve the issue? I can't think of anything that has been left to convince you. kedadial 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Majority? 4 disagree, 4 support, 1 neutral. Also the sources I have brought up show that universally Mitrovica is the name used in the English speaking world. Besides them two encyclopaedias are mainstream. IJA (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, none of your sources are relevant. And you will see majority if you scroll up. This was subject many times, but it was rejected as unneeded move. Every single time.Tadija (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Support the renaming. As it has been pointed out, the name Mitrovica is almost universal in English language designations of the community. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Disagree - This is just one of Mitrovicas. It's like renaming British Columbia to Columbia. It's not the same thing. And everyone calls Los Angeles - LA, yet we still have an article on Los Angeles. This doesn't make any sense and would harm articles on other towns with that word as part of it's name.--Avala (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But the proposal is to "Mitrovica (Kosovo)" not Mitrovica. IJA (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Be precise when necessary we must follow the idea. Since a fuller name exists, disambiguator is not needed. Tadija (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  Agree The name of the city is Mitrovica. In serbian its Kosovska Mitrovica and the Albanian name is Mitrovica; after the war even serbs have started calling it Mitrovica due to the ease to say, write, and talk about. I agree to change the name to simply Mitrovica. SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN
  Invalid vote: Unregistered user. --Cinéma C 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Agree - It should be just Mitrovica. Kosovska Mitrovica is a remnant of Tito's Yugoslavia. Those names have been going away all over the place. Why do Serbs from Chicago still insist on what Kosovo cities should be called? Arianit (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Kosovska Mitrovica was called Titova Mitrovica after Tito's death. As far as the name is concerned, it's not Serbs from Chicago who invented the name, was named "Civitas Sancti Demetrii" in the 14th century after Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki, a name that later became "Kosovska Mitrovica", as happened to other locations in the Balkans named after Saint Demetrius. --Cinéma C 19:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I can barely follow your logic there. Please stop being an obnoxious, destructive and partisan Wikimedian or else I'll have to report you. Thank you for your understanding. Arianit (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  Agree - Kosovska Mitrovica? What the hell is that? Only the northerners call it that. Everyone calls it Mitrovica. Mdupont (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"What the hell is that"? If you have no knowledge on the issue, I suggest you reconsider whether we should read your opinion on it. As you can see from the provided links, many world organizations call the town Kosovska Mitrovica, so please educate yourself a bit more about the issue before you broadcast your POV. --Cinéma C 18:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Agree Kosovska is a disambiguation adjective as opposed to Sremska Mitrovica, and is only relevant in serbian context. I don't see why should it be relevant in Kosovo context or the rest of the world. --Bresta (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bresta, your last (which is also the first) edit before this was 25 July 2009. Who called you to vote, hmmm? Also, I hope nobody forgot to mention that Kosovska Mitrovica means "Mitrovica in Kosovo", not "Mitrovica in Serbia" or anything like that...--Cinéma C 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Cinema C, you shouldn't be annulling votes arbitrarily. Please raise a formal request and it will be duly considered by the interested parties if it comes down to that vote. Moreover, deal with the argument, not the person. Once again, I call on you for un-Wikimedian behavior and partisanship. Arianit (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that Kosovska Mitrovica means Mitrovica in Kosovo, but I don't think that everybody would understand that, while Mitrovica, Kosovo is just natural to an English speaker to understand that it is talking about the Mitrovica in Kosovo. To my knowledge, not every English speaker understands the Serbian language. kedadial 02:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
And not every English speaker understands the Czech language and yet we have České Budějovice. --Cinéma C 03:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  Alright, y'all want recent sources? Your wish is my command.

So, still,   Disagree with the proposed move. --Cinéma C 18:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Disagree I oppose this suggestion. It has been discussed many times.--Andrija (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Remark: User:Cinéma_C,

  • When you reply to a comment, do it below the comment and not in-line.
  • Be constructive and keep your WP:COOL.
  • Use a normal font size. Those editors who have problems, probably use accessibility tools.
  • I don't know who gave you all that limitless power to invalidate votes. Superhero characters, like Batman and Superman are fictional, they do not exist in reality.

Thank you. kedadial 23:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, the "invalidation" is one sided. Above, the !vote from Tadija was canvassed[19] by Cinema C, and another disagreer, AntoniusPrimus, has 4 edits in total. Cinema commented on neither. He also accuses multiple users of POV pushing, which is rather uncivil and unnecessary. As a completely uninvolved user with no Serb, Albanian or other ties (unlike nearly everyone here), never having edited these articles I think Cinema C is being disruptive. This is a friendly reminder to stop. Phil153 (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
So was the vote from Vanjagenije (diff), the message was camouflaged in the Serbian language, anyway Google Translate is our friend. kedadial 02:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Also the vote from Andrija (diff), the message was also camouflaged in the Serbian language, here is the Google Translate. kedadial 02:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Now we will be waiting for Nikola Smolenski to vote (diff and Google Translate). kedadial 02:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
So, it's come to this, eh? After I provided recent references by verifiable sources, the arguments have come down to attacking me personally. Kedadi, I'm being very cool, and don't rely much on votes, as this is not a mere vote, it's a discussion to see if there's a consensus for the proposed move and, clearly, there isn't one. One of the users who agreed with the proposal isn't even registered, while it's the very second (not including his user page) edit for another one of the users who agreed. Isn't that a bit more strange than letting users with a good reputation on Wikipedia know that there's a discussion going on that they might be interested in? Tadija may have called for attention to the issue from other users who are actually registered and contribute greatly to Wikipedia - so what's wrong about hearing their opinion? On the other hand, someone invited users with no reputation on Wikipedia concerning these issues and now Tadija and I are being accused of canvassing? Please... The argument makes sense if the other side isn't doing something similar too, and since they are - who cares. Oh, and Phil153, I think you're being disruptive by driving attention away from the subject matter. But I agree with you concerning AntoniusPrimus, I'll write invalid under his vote too. Still, the arguments are solid regardless whether you or anyone else attack any actions outside of this talk page. --Cinéma C 02:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Wikipedia:Canvassing: "Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." - So far, most of the users who were called to give their opinion have simply provided a one or two line opinion on the matter. Since this is not disruptive and we're not really counting votes here, I wouldn't be worried. It's the arguments that matter, and to change the page, we need a consensus which we obviously don't have. And by the way, on the Wikipedia consensus page it's written that "At the same time it is normal to invite more people into the discussion, in order to obtain new insights and arguments." Cheers, --Cinéma C 02:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  Disagree It is Mitrovica, and it is in Kosovo, so it's Kosovska Mitrovica! Vanjagenije (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  Agree Mitrovica is the name of the city in official, conventional, and historical/political terms.--Getoar TX (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Getoar TX, "Mitrovica" is faaar from conventional and historical/political term for this town. If you vote, you should have at least basic knowledge of the subject. You apparently dont have. And, this kind of disruptive discussion that you showed to me and Cinéma C is so out of order that i have no word about it! Only thing that i can think of is that you cannot find any other way to push your idea, so you are trying to sabotage all our sources and votes. All that Cinéma C told is totally in wiki rules. And, also, i will write again, "Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Be precise when necessary, Since a fuller name exists, disambiguator is not needed." Until better wiki rule is written, all Kosovo sites names will remain equivalently. I am tired of your fake sources and vain concepts, but i will not give up. I will never agree on those destructive and scurrilous ways of edits. There will be no that kind of edits here. Tadija (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
You can't say that Mitrovica is the official name of the city. What does that mean "official name", anyway? Kosovo is still legally part of Serbia (as per UN), and the official name of the city, used by Serbian government, is Kosovska Mitrovica. What other name can be official than? UNMIK does not have power to change city names. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  Agree I agree with all of you who wants to move this article to the neutral name "Mitrovica". "Kosovska Mitrovica" is very baised and pro-Serb. I can not understand how someone can propose such a name when this name is only used in Serbian language. News outlets in English uses Mitrovica and I hope rationality prevails and this article is moved to that page. --NOAH (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  Invalid vote: You didnt say anything useful about this discussion. It doesn't matter what you think, wikipedia is not forum (WP:NOT). Constant repeating of same empty word will do no good. Tadija (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The name is POV

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The name of the city used in Engish is Mitrovica and therefore Kosovska Mitrovica is POV that should be removed immediately. No serious, objetvtive newspaper uses "Kosovska Mitrovica". Only Serbian media use this term. --NOAH (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Read above. We agreed what is most common English name, and it is Kosovska Mitrovica. Tadija (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, there was no agreement to change to Mitrovica, but there was also no agreement that Kosovska Mitrovica was the most common English name. --Sulmues Let's talk 22:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tadija plz, u know kosovo is independent and stop your serbian propaganda, we dont use the serbian name, for example:
In the netherlands their is a city named Den haag, but in english it is The Hague
So why we are going to use a old history name if we got a nice english name? u know very good the realty and plz stop your serbian/Milosevic propaganda.
Please admit it and name it kosovska mitrovica on serbian wiki, but this is the ENGLISH one.

BTW other wikis admit it is mitrovica for example this one.

--Vinie007 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC), BTW i am advise you to stop it, you made the same dobious edits on the illyrian sheepdog page

You may read above. Kosovska Mitrovica IS common English name. And, btw, for majority of the world common English name is Kosovska Mitrovica, and for majority of the world, Kosovo is integral part of Serbia. only 69 out of 192. Not even half. But that fact is not subject of this section. I am afraid that you are not neutral with this subject. If you want to change name, you should ask for lost lasting request, but those has been rejected in the past. Please, man, try to be neutral. This is not milošević propaganda, dont be rude to me. Kosovo is disputed, that is only fact i am editing. --Tadijaspeaks 19:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
vinie007 is wrong here for attacking WP:NPA the editor rather than the content. WP:Consensus can change, so if an editor feels outside he is perfectly in his right to ask for change. If someone wants to oppose they can discuss it.Lihaas (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In Turkish

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

In Turkish, the name is "Mitrovitsa", NOT Mitroviça! Mitroviça came from the Albanian language... I'm a Turk. Böri (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Turkish Wikipedia it is in fact "Mitroviça", see the tr:Mitroviça article in Turkish Wikipedia. Reverting you in good faith. Cheers, — Kedaditalk 01:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Wikipedia wrote it from the Turkish newspapers... Böri (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, that makes it even more credible than OR. Cheers, — Kedaditalk 14:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Change the name from serbian name to international one (albanian included)

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The name should be edited ASAP firstly its in independent state since 2008 recognized by 86 out of 193 states (44%) of all UN nations, 22 out of 27 EU countries or 81%, 24 out of 28 NATO states or 86%, and 27 out of 57 (47%) member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have recognised The Republic of Kosovo and all the countries recongnize and call the city Mitrovica this is one of many reasons to change it but all major news international agency use the name MITROVICA not kosovska mitrovica serbian name, the UN recognize within Mitrovica name, same is used in municipality of mitrovica and the last and most important one the name should be used how the demographic of ethnic population lived and lives in municipality or city which it means name should be and is Mitrovica cause great majority are ethnic albanians. And kosovska mitrovica should be invalid name anyways cause the name was put in yugoslavian regime where serbs hold it the most of power and changing it how the want it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illyrian88 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC) I changed the names expect the title which i cant change it, the one who disagree with international name(albanian incl.) should give a prove or the good reason to change it again but i mention again the name kosovska mitrovica is invalid for the simple fact the serbian regime change it only to serbian. Its recognized by all country with name Mitrovica so wiki should respect the international rules and not playing the role of lawyer of serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illyrian88 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree after having conducted a Google Test that this page needs to be renamed. A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

  • The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
  • International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
  • Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
  • Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.

Mitrovica passes the Google test hands down.

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,460,000 for Mitrovica -Wikipedia. (0.13 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 540,000 for Kosovska Mitrovica -Wikipedia. (0.22 seconds)

And this is exluding Wikipedia - as is advised by Wikipedia when conducting the Google test - Ottomanist (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • It's not really surprising that there are more Google hits for 'Mitrovica' than for 'Kosovska Mitrovica'; every hit for 'Kosovska Mitrovica' is also a hit for 'Mitrovica'. (Also note that Mitrovica has other meanings apart from this city.) A more thorough research is needed.

    It's not out of question that Mitrovica is used more often internationally than the (official?) name Kosovska Mitrovica. For instance, take the Czech city České Budějovice - from 1920, the official German name was Böhmisch Budweis, but the longer name was not popular among Germans. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Project Albania?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Can someone explain to me why is this article a part of the Wiki Project Albania?-109.92.117.132 (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Per albanian population in town. It is related to the WP Albania per that. --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Being part of a project means simply that it is of interest to the participants of that project. Alæxis¿question? 09:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but then why doesn't every Serb town in Bosnia have Wikiproject Serbia written all over it? 23 editor (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move to Mitrovica

Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments10 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. As usual we wish to follow WP:COMMONNAME. The supporters of the move, especially User:PWilkinson, had the most convincing analysis of the Google results, which favor using Mitrovica without the Kosovska. The opponents had an uphill fight against the Google results and had trouble coming up with good reasons for their position that were based on policy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Kosovska Mitrovica → Mitrovica, Kosovo – More commonly used. Ujkrieger (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Google books

  • 'Mitrovica': [20] 95,400 results
  • 'Kosovska Mitrovica': [21] 11,900 results
Could editors please restrain from making baseless arguments and instead try to contribute to the discussion. Ujkrieger (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Antidiskriminator - Where is your argument? You've just dismissed all the evidence because it doesn't fit in with your POV. IJA (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are some oder towns named Mitrovica, Sremska, Mačvanska, Kosovska, so Only mitrovica is not the right solution to have. If we have full name, why to use only Mitrovica (Kosovo), that is wrong. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 17:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Ąnαșταη - That isn't much of an argument, there are lots of places with the same name all over the world. "Mitrovica" is the common name for the town in Northern Kosovo in the English Language and we should follow Wikipeida guidelines and use the common name of the Common name instead of a foreign name. IJA (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose This is a divided town. South of Ibar its called Mitrovica but north its called Kosovska Mitrovica. On all oficiall papers I have at home it says Kosovska Mitrovica on them even on the english papers who commes from Nato or UN. The town has not changed the name sence it changed from Titova Mitrovica to todays. Albanians calls it Mitrovica but that is only on the southern part. On the cars it still says KM nothing else. Lets take Sri Lanka for example. Isnt the most common name for that part of the world in english Ceylon? What does google books say. Ceylon 10 milion+ Sri lanka 7,7 milions. Google books can be very unprecize. What I am trying to say one can not change the names of a town into english just based upon how many books are wroten about the town especially not this town. Before the war not many outside Jugoslavia had any idea this town even existed and the main reasson people are interessted in the town today is becose of it being the main front between serbians and albanians and also the only divided town in Europe today. Changing the name into the one used on the south side will only resolt in someone asking to change back. As a last reasson I can also say after the election of 2013 based upon the agreement between the republic of serbian side and kosovo albanian goverment side the town will stay divided but the north part will stay autonom. In that agreement the town in both english and serbian is called Kosovska Mitrovica while only in albanian version its called Mitrovica.Stepojevac (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The north has its own article. --Λeternus (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Stepojevac - Your argument goes against what is said in WP:COMMONNAME. We don't necessarily use the "official" name (even though both names have official status), we use the Common Name in the English Language. We use the name which is most recognisable and identifiable to our readers/ audiences. I have produced lots of evidence to show that "Mitrovica" is the common name for the town and that "Kosovska Mitrovica" is not even half as common as "Mitrovica" in the English Language. The only evidence you have is some "oficiall papers" (sic) which you have at home supposedly. Your argument carries very little weight, lacks evidence and doesn't follow wikipedia policy/ guidelines. IJA (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Per arguments provided by User:IJA and User:Ujkrieger. --Λeternus (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - while difference in search results seems significant, if you try '"mitrovica" -kosovo' search, you will see only 67k results. Not all 'Mitrovica' searches relate to town in Kosovo. In other words, 'Kosovska Mitrovica' vs 'Mitrovica' is 1:2 ratio only. So this search results numbers argument for me doesn't work. 109.93.95.230 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

similar is for web results '"Kosovska Mitrovica", Kosovo -wikipedia -ucl' vs '"Mitrovica" Kosovo -kosovska -wikipedia -ucl', although it is 2:1, the opposite. 109.93.95.230 (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - Hits aren't really that important, it's more about how many books. For example if you had a book titled "Kosovska Mitrovica" the name ""Kosovska Mitrovica" is likely to feature thousands of times within that one book. So out of all them hits, lots of them will be from one book alone. This is why on google books searches, we see how many books use the name; not how many hits. Also you need to make sure google books setting is set to search for English language results only because we're looking for the common name within the English language. Of course the Serbo-Croatian language(s) books will use the Serbo-Croatian name of the town. IJA (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - On my GBooks searches, "Mitrovica" gets 97,400 hits, "Kosovska Mitrovica" gets 19,900 hits and "Mitrovicë" gets 16,400 hits. This doesn't actually help very much - the "Mitrovica" hits total presumably includes all the "Kosovska Mitrovica" hits, besides ones for people surnamed Mitrovica and other places called Mitrovica (mostly Sremska Mitrovica). Looking through the first few search pages for each term helps rather more, even though the evidence one gets is basically anecdotal. One thing to note is that once one has ignored the results for other Mitrovicas (including those which refer to Sremska Mitrovica simply as Mitrovica), quite a proportion of the ones dealing with this Mitrovica at least mention more than one of the names. Several specifically start by mentioning that the Serbian name for the place is Kosovska Mitrovica, that the Albanian name is Mitrovicë - and after that usually simply refer to Mitrovica (and can thus be taken to be "voting" for Mitrovica as the English name). Quite a number use both Mitrovicë and one of the other names (very often Kosovska Mitrovica, but sometimes just Mitrovica) every single time they mention the place - these ones should presumably be taken as refusing to commit to an English name by not choosing to decide between ones from both major local languages. Relatively few seem to use just Mitrovicë. Of the books only or primarily using Kosovska Mitrovica, many are from the 1990s or before - back then, this obviously was the common English name for the place but, outside historical articles, we would generally expect the current common English name to be the article title. And a number, though not all, of the more modern books using Kosovska Mitrovica seem to be by Serbians (or at least people with Serbian or similar surnames). Going through all this, it looks to me as if the usual name now used by English speakers who are from outside the contending communities and who are prepared to commit to a single name is Mitrovica, and probably by quite a large margin. We obviously still need to disambiguate this Mitrovica from other Mitrovicas and, if the majority population in the place as a whole was Serbian, if the place was fairly indisputably under Serbian control or if the apparent current consensus of English language writers was for the present title, I would regard it as an acceptable method of disambiguation. However, none of these seem to apply, so we should prefer disambiguating by adding the name of the region the place is located in to the end of the common English name for the place to produce the article title, as suggested by the proposer. PWilkinson (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose - I am for Kosovska Mitrovica--Nado158 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Content forking

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following articles needs some editing, and then merging into this article:

As per scope, and the small size of the parent article, there is no need for content fork.--Zoupan 03:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Closing, for the one proposal that still remains open (that for demographics), on the grounds that this is a stale proposal with no support over more than 2 years. It is common to have a summary section linking to a main page. Klbrain (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

From municipality to city

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Wikipedians, I just made some changes on the article's introduction and Infobox, following the example of an another divided city, such as Nicosia in Cyprus. The article of Mitrovica is mostly about the southern municipality, rather than the whole city (including North Mitrovica municipality) as it should be. If you find this initiative as right thing, i will continue to edit other categories within the article. Thank you! --GentiBehramaj (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mitrovica, Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mitrovica, Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mitrovica, Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitrovica,_Kosovo/Archive_1&oldid=1255641565"