Talk:Metohija

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Names in Albanian or Serbian?[edit]

This article is a bit messy. Some of the place names are in Albanian (e.g. Peja, Gjakova, Bjeshket e Nemuna etc), and some in Serbian (Kosovo, Mokra Gora and the title of the article itself). We need to decide whether it is best to use the Serbian (because de jure Kosovo is still part of Serbia), the Albanian (because de facto it is part of the overwhelmingly Albanian inhabited province of Kosova from which the Serb state organs are entirely absent), or whether in deference to equal treatment of all parties we go for the messier way of using both names. Of course, even if we chose the last option, we would still have arguments over whose name should appear first. Personally, I think that 'historical' arguments (about who was there first, and who stole land off whom etc) should not have a place in making this kind of decision.Mattwhiteski 13:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that 69.255.94.118 has attempted to introduce some consistency into the naming scheme used here, but wouldn't it have been better to discuss it here before deciding to use Serbian names across the board? Mattwhiteski 13:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, we use Serbian names always, because Kosovo is both de jure and de facto part of Serbia. Nikola 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De facto in what sense? As the Serbian state has no presence in Kosovo, it seems that in the strict sense of the terms Kosovo is de jure part of Serbia, but de facto an international protectorate pending the outcome of so called 'final status' talks due to take place this year. Please understand that this is not any attempt to belittle Serbs' historical, cultural religious and emotional attachment to Kosovo. As I mentioned above, I don't see those issues as being particularly relevant when we are discussing what is simply a naming convention. I'm simply aiming at consistency. Mattwhiteski 15:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia and Montenegro is a member of the United Nations which is providing this protectorate. The province is a part of Serbia, both de facto and de jure, and a UN protectorate, again both de facto and de jure. Names of places in Serbia should be given in Serbian, as should names of places in France be given in French - that's consistency. Nikola 00:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from the Wikipedia article de facto: "The de facto boundaries of a country are defined by the area that its government is actually able to enforce its laws in, and to defend against encroachments by other countries...". Are you saying that Serbia is actually able to enforce its laws in Kosovo, or to defend it against encroachments by other countries? Mattwhiteski 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (actually, not Serbia but Serbia and Montenegro but that is not the point). If you take a look at [1], you will see that Yugoslav laws (which include SCG or Serbian laws if no appropriate Yugoslav law exists) apply in entire Kosovo, except if replaced by an UNMIK regulation. For example, contributions made from Wikipedians from Kosovo are copyrighted under the Copyright law of Yugoslavia (to my knowledge, UNMIK didn't make any regulations regarding copyright). So, Serbian laws are enforced in Kosovo, but by the UN, and not by Serbia. If Serbia updates an old law, it could ask the UNMIK to issue a regulation which supports it and if UNMIK agrees, it would be enforced too, and if law is reasonable (f.e. extension of copyright law from life+50 to life+70), UNMIK would certainly support it.
If SCG would be displeased by UN's acts, it could leave the UN, which means that UN troups would have to leave Serbia. If that doesn't happen, the province would be occupied, and then if SCG doesn't remove occupiers by force, it could be said that it is no longer de facto in Serbia. But even in that case I believe that Wikipedia should continue to use Serbian names, or otherwise it would support the occupation. I'm not sure if there were any cases of an occupation which happened during existance of Wikipedia (Iraq, but there were no name changes) and what are the practices. Nikola 09:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metohija[edit]

Kosovo has to feeld Metohija (Dugagjini) and Kosovo. The feld of Dugagjini (Metohia) is ony a geographicel region .

What??? Litany 18:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does Metohija mean? This is "Rrafshi i Dukagjinit" an Albanian land belonging to the Republic of Kosovo, the second Albanian country in the world after Albania. Why should it use Serbian names? Or Brazilian names, or Chinese, or whatever ... In respect to the reality and the existence of what-is reality we should identify items by their names. If my name is John you can't call me Jack! It is me who knows what is my name! Therefore please immediately rename the place to its own name, the name which its people call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.165.139 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected Dukagjin to Metohija, according to Robert Elsie: "The Albanian-language equivalent of Metohija is Dukagjin or Rrafshi i Dukagjinit (the Dukagjin Plateau)."--Zoupan 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
The redirect is treacherous, and based incorrectly on Elsie. Robert Elsie says Dukagjin: Geographical region. In Kosova, the term Dukagjin refers to western Kosova, broadly equivalent to the BCS term Metohija, i.e. the populated plateau running from Peja down to Prizren. The region is referred to more accurately as the Dukagjin Plateau, in order to distinguis it from another region called Dukagjin in Northern Albania.--KazanElia (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Can we include the local names of the towns as well?[edit]

Can we not include the local names in addition to the Serbian names in Kosovo articles? It is common place on the official Kosovo article. Yet, user User:Tadija is reverting all my additions. James Michael DuPont 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for this article to be reviewed for edit warring because of the amounts of revert that the user is doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/EW#User:Tadija_reported_by_User:Mdupont_.28Result:_.29 James Michael DuPont 10:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that Albanian language names (or Kosovan) names could be given alongside the Serbian ones. The status of Kosovo is inevitably controversial. The NPOV principle implies using both. If User:Tadija is reverting this, he is a vandal and should be blocked. WP is not the right place for resolving conflicts over Serbian and Kosovan nationalism. And James, please learn to sign your contributions to talk pages with ~~~~, which automatically generates your name and the date etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Kosovan and Serbian names should be given. Dincher (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!

edit protected?[edit]

why is the article protected? 99.140.182.69 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some NPOV issues[edit]

I removed some of the nastier serb-nationalist rant, which contradicts what reliable sources say about the region's history. Unfortunately, WhiteWriter restored it. This is unfortunate. Could we discuss? I'm happy to bring more and better sources, if you want. bobrayner (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The German historical school and foreign occupational troups? I think that WW's latest revert-warring over such edits probably warrant admin intervention.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O, c'mon, quite the rhetorics, please. You have removed two sources, Bob. Can you tell me why, please? --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not every website is a reliable source, not to mention that that particupal assertion was fringe and constituted just a small part of what you reverted. If you still think that the content of your reverts i.e.:
  • German historical school has promoted and spread a theory that Slavs settled in the Balkans in the 6th century, meant to undermine the Serb presence and significance in the area during the Roman era./
  • Serbs formed the majority of western Kosovo until the 20th century
  • On 17 February 2008, the Albanian minority in Serbia supported by the foreign occupational troups declared independence from Serbia.

there can be a discussion on several general boards, where you could list your sources about the German historical school that was undermining the Serbian presence in the Balkans during the Roman era with sources".--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same general boards could be used to discuss the presence of ethnic Albanians on the Balkans before 6th century. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text about "German historical school has promoted and spread a theory that Slavs settled in the Balkans in the 6th century, meant to undermine the Serb presence and significance in the area during the Roman era" is a conspiracy theory, and it would be pretty hard to find sources (other than perhaps a couple from Belgrade) which support such rants.
Linguistic evidence (I could cite a reputable source here but the name alone would spark more drama ;-) hints at Albanian-Slav contact before the end of the ninth century - when there was a vowel shift in local Slavic language. Some loanwords in Albanian were taken before that vowel shift. However, "Albanians" ≠ "Kosovo" and "Slavs" ≠ "Serbs", of course.
However, all this is relevant to many different articles (because the history of the region is told over and over again, in different ways, on different pages) so we should probably discuss it somewhere more central if we're planning to make serious improvements. bobrayner (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Serb presence on the Balkans before 6th century nor Albanian before 11th century are supported by contemporary scholarship or scientific consensus. Most of the articles about Kosovo and Metohija don't attract much of attention of uninvolved editors so it is easy to misuse them for POV pushing. Any assertion about pre 6th century Serb presence or pre 11th century Albanian presence on the Balkans should be left to centralized articles about nationalistic mythologies and similar topics. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator it would be prudent to read the relevant literature as you're rather unknowledgeabe on subjects like the Paleo-Balkan languages etc., not to mention that whatever I wrote was used in a precise manner per the relevant source. In fact, the sentence Albanian presence before the 11th century isn't supported by the relevant scholarship/academic consensus is grossly inaccurate and indicative of ae general lack of linguistics knowledge. Bob, Slavic loanwords are present as early as the late stage of Old Albanian (8th century AD> [2] p.37) but they mostly entered Albanian via Bulgarian.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Antidiskriminator in one sense - apart from linguistic evidence (which doesn't allow precise conclusions) there is very little evidence for who was living where in earlier centuries. Certainly not enough to support some of the later nationalist stories... bobrayner (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, for the "dark ages" (of historiography) we can only rely only on linguistic evidence and the results are going to be approximate.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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: not moved. The consensus is in favor of keeping the article at the current title. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Metohija → Dukagjin Plateau – This article has moved during its history from Rrafshi i Dukagjinit (in Albanian) to Metohija (in Serbian) back and forth, but has never had its English name (as it should), which is Dukagjin Plateau. Robert Elsie say as follows in regards:

So let's move it to Dukagjin Plateau, as a geographical region, supported by accurate sources. KazanElia (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly searching "Dukagjin Plateau" on Google books returned 40 results, while "Metohija" returned about 60,000. "Rrafshi i Dukagjinit" returned 47. So, the common name seems to clearly be Metohija. --Local hero talk 20:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those googlehits come from the term Kosovo and Metohija which is the historical name of the former Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, on which another article already exists, but I doubt you can provide sources in English that refer exclusively to Metohija as a geographical region. Can you? Also, the term Metohija means "owned by the Church", hardly a geographical name. Dukagjin Plateau is a geographical name. If we want to make a comparison between Metohija Plateau and Dukagjin Plateau we'd get the following results:
Don't you think Dukagjin Plateau gets more hits than Metohija Plateau, looking at the above research? KazanElia (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have to go to the last page to see that Dukagjin Plateau actually has 40 results. Why does the word 'plateau' have to be included? I think the etymology of the word 'Metohija' is irrelevant. Typically, we're supposed to use the most commonly used name and, to me, it seems to be Metohija. I suggest making a formal WP:RM discussion to get more input. --Local hero talk 21:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 295 results refer to 295 times one can encounter Dukagjin plateau in googlebooks, and the 40 hits refer to 40 different books. Metohija plateau yields 2 results in 2 different books. The 295-2 and the 40-2 results for 40 different books for Dukagjin plateau reinforces my argument, as it's a pretty overwhelming result as opposed to Metohija. The word plateau needs to be included as, in geography it clearly better defines a physical geographical region. As a matter of fact we have Dukagjin highlands, Mississipi River, Po Valley, or, referring to the most famous plateau in the world, the Tibetan Plateau, or all the other plateaus one can find in wikipedia, which are all called for what they are (plateaus).
The Dukagjin Plateau is a geographical region and needs to be defined by a geographical name (as it's actually called by 40 books). And... I put the requested move to get more participation as carefully suggested. KazanElia (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)— KazanElia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Metohija is the historical name of that plateau. People there change but that name stayed for long time. Take a look at the googlebooks and one will see unless it is an albanian speaking writer all others are new books not older than ten years. Looking at any kind of historical sources unless they are albanian ones, even if you take away serbian ones, you will only get one name of both the area and the plateau and that is Metohija.Stepojevac (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This region does not appear to be part of Serbia anymore, and it lies next to Albania in Kosovo. Kosovo is an Albanian speaking region, not Serbian, so this should not reside at the Serbian name. If you're arguing historicity, it shouldn't reside at any Slavic name, since the Greek and Roman names predate the Slav replacement of the native peoples of the region. So, we can go to historical Greek and Roman sources and find the old name, or we can use the Albanian name, or we could just WP:Use English. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serbian has official-language status in Kosovo
  • Let's say Albanian was the only language spoken in Kosovo, that is irrelevant to the common usage in English to refer to this place
  • Why should the ancient Greek or Roman name be preferred over the Serbo-Croatian one? I don't get it. Just because it was used first? That's not based on any policy that I know of.
  • Typically, the common name should be used. --Local hero talk 15:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per commonname.
Google Scholar after 2010:
Even if we avoid books mentioning "Kosovo and Metohija", we get:
Dukagjin is, by the way, also a person name that will be among the 191 hits.
nGram:
--T*U (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Local hero's and TU-nor's arguments are quite convincing. Vladimir (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"Dukagjin"[edit]

Did members of the Dukagjin family ever hold parts of Metohija? What is the oldest dated use of "Dukagjin" when referring to Metohija? Please present reliable sources.--Zoupan 00:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

Move[edit]

@Hakuli: You need to reach consensus to move the page [4]. As you can see above, no consensus could be reached previously. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 March 2018[edit]

The following is a closed 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: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metohija → Dukagjini Plateau –

  • Reason 2: In 1999 during the Kosovo war, many Albanian civilians were massacred in the name of Metohija. Since then, the term "Metohija" has meanings of massacres committed against Albanians.

Hakuli (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support - We can not rely on Google because the term "Metohia" is a very broad term. This term is also a religious term in the Serbian Orthodox Church, which is why this term has a big impact on Google Ngram Viewer.

- But all of this is undone because the official name is " Dukagjin Plateau" based on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 recognized by the Serbian government and the Government of Kosovo.
- Even the Serbian media use the term "Metohi" only in Serbian language, while the term "Dukagjini" is used in every English language articles, except when serbian politicians use the term "Kosovo and Metohija" against Albanian cause in Kosovo! Click HERE to see the www.inserbia.info

--Hakuli (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be honest, Metohija and Metohi are the same and have the same result! Again, we can not rely on "Google Ngram Viewer" because the names settle the agreements and governments of the internationally recognized states! For this, the Government of Kosovo in Pristina and the Serbian government in Belgrade have agreed to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakuli (talk • contribs) 19:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC) --Hakuli (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be honest, like always. Everything you wrote is incorrect. Serbian Orthodox Church and all Serb language sources use term metoh for religious purposes and Metohija only to denote territory which is the subject of this article. The text of UN resolution does not mention Dukagjin nor Metohija. The above presented Google ngram does not show results for Metohi. Serb source you insist above is not Serb but Kosovo Albanian source mirrored on some obscure private web portal. Although everything you wrote is blatantly and obviously incorrect, I expect dejavu of Đakovica, Uroševac and other Kosovo related RMs. Even editors who spent half of their wikipedia life to prove how sources authored by Serbs and Serbian media are not reliable will support your Even the Serbian media... forgery and !vote in support, inspite policy based evidence. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hakuli you shouldn't have two separate statements saying "support" because people will think you are trying to vote twice, which obviously isn't allowed. Just letting you know. --Calthinus (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus Oh, okay! I did not know about it!--Hakuli (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted one vote of Hakuli. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per reasons outlined by Hakuli.Resnjari (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "Metohija" is clearly the common name. Badly (and anti-Serbian?) done move request btw. "Dukagjin" is ambiguous.--Zoupan 19:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
Zoupan, the term "Metohija" today is not used in Kosovo. With that term in Kosovo we remember the crimes committed by the Serbian army and police during the years 1997-1999. So the term "Metohija" is not a common name! --Hakuli (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to personally associate the name "Metohija" with massacres of Albanians in the Kosovo War (and I think that is a real shame), but that is not a valid argument in the move request. I must say Serbian ultra-nationalist term and massacred in the name of Metohija is... a bit over the top. --Zoupan 22:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
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.
I strongly deny that it is a personal issue, please be honest. The Ultra-Serbian nationalist statements also include the term "Metohija". Even Serbian politicians have been banned from expressing this when visiting Kosovo on the basis of the Brussels agreement. We have the case of Marko Djuric who was arrested in Kosovo, because last time he visited Kosovo he mentioned "Metohija", not based on the region but on the nationalist terms. Read this --Hakuli (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What nationalistic kosovar goverment bannes or not is totally irrelevant. FkpCascais (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FkpCascais - It is important because the Kosovo government and the Serbian government have made agreements under the supervision of the European Union. Please with your answer I see you have to do with Serbian nationalism, whether it is nationalist or not should assess whether to history. --Hakuli (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I read your source and I dont understand the connection of the source with the issue of Metohija here. I dont even see the word Metohija mentioned anywhere. What am I missing? FkpCascais (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My source shows that Marko Djuric was banned from entering Kosovo because Kosovo authorities did not give permission to him. On the following page you have the situation before his arrest and some tweets and nationalist speeches by Marko Djuric. Click here
While here you have a source quoting the cabinet chief deputy prime minister and foreign minister's Jetlir Zyberaj, "He has not been granted permission to visit Kosovo because of his recent statements that have contributed to raising tensions," he said Zyberaj.
P.S Please inquire about the event before you get involved in it. --Hakuli (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop talking nonsense, I know very well what happened there, what I am asking you is what it has to do with Wikipedia naming policies and this article? Wikipedia doesnt care what some semi-recognised governament thinks or does. This article is named Metohija because that is the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME in English, and that is what matters, and not personal traumas of someone neither what governaments do. Get familiarised how Wikipedia works before PS-ing veteran editors asking them to inquire about events if you dont even understand what is in question here. FkpCascais (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the entire victimization of "Oh we suffer when we see the word Metohija" is ridiculous because this encyclopedia is made for English-language speakers and not not locals. FkpCascais (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove serbian ultra-nationalist thoughts. Regarding the language, please read the above my comments above. During the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo there was no "Metohija" but "Dukagjini Plateau" --Hakuli (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read it all. The victimization tactic of labeling oposing arguments as "serbian ultra-nationalist" doesn´t work here. You want to convince us that the term "Metohija" is Serbian ultra-nationalistic term that provokes you trauma, but you fail to understand that that is irrelevant here. The only valid argument you have is the mention of instances where English-language literature and texts use "Dukagjini Plateau" instead of "Metohija". However, you need to demonstrate "Dukagjini Plateau" is more used than "Metohija". Other editors already pointed you out Google search demonstrates that is not the case and that Metohija is still overwelmingly found more often. That is why your move-request failed. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hakulis reasoning given above is totally wrong.
  1. Reason: Metohija doesn't mean "Dukagjini platou" in English and you here made a logical mistake, because you already concluded that the English name for Metohija is Dukagjini platou. It is the simple name for one region which is derived from the Greek word μετόχια (metókhia, metochion), meaning "monastic estates", as a reference to the large number of villages and estates in the region that were owned by the Serbian Orthodox monasteries and Mount Athos during the Middle Ages.[1] as stated in the article (I quoted it here).
  2. Reason: The word "Metohija" is not connected with the massacres of Albanians during the Kosovo war. It is the name used way before Kosovo war. For example, after the World war II, the area was part of Autonomous Region of Kosovo and Metohija, in Serbia, at that time part of Yugoslavia - this was official name from 1945 to 1963. From 1963 to 1968 this territory was part of Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, as part of Serbia in Yugoslavia. If we use that reasoning, then the name Dukadjini plateau is absolutely wrong, because many Serbs were massacred in Peć and other cities in that area during the Kosovo war, by Kosovo Liberation Army who used that name for the territory.
  3. Reason: In a huge number of books and a lot in the literature, the territory is called "Metohija" - from Western European and US, to Russian, to Serbian. Here are just some examples (also among them, you have even CIA report which published online from 1951, where they have used that name,with the link).[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] So the name "Metohija" is clearly used outside the Serbian literature. Just a few of these are counter-examples of Hakulis claim that the translation and term in English is "Dukajini platou", as they used the term "Metohia/Metohija". So, if it the term is, in fact, used even in English-language literature, why then to remove it? Here, Hakuli is accusing of "Greater Serbian" stuff - who claimed this in the literature? What's the logic behind this - the name of the territory is "Greater Serbian nationalism"? Did they used ethnic terms in the name? Political? It is obvious that this claim by Hakuli is clear example nationalistic bias from him - unreferenced attack and claims, there is no room for this on Wikipedia. Also, not to mention that the term was used, as I said, in socialistic Yugoslavia during the Tito's time, politics was pretty much against any kind of "Greater Serbia" - and they used the name Metohija to 1974.
  4. Reason: Here is Resolution 1244. There is no mention of the region Metohija as "Dukagjini platou". Here is the link: [5]. This is or a lie or mistake by Hakuli - Metohija isn't even mentioned in 1244 Resolution. And in which page, in the link you gave from ICTY, the term "Dukagjini platou" was used? If you thought about Dukagjin Operational Zone then this would be just one of the numerous cases in which you haven't read the sources you've used at all. The name Dukagjin operational zone was used by KLA - it was their name for operational zones of some units they had in that area. You didn't even read the names of the section in the source you give to us? That's a surprise. Also, During the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo there was no "Metohija" but "Dukagjini Plateau" - what sources do you have to support this? I tolerated you Hakuli because I believed that had good intentions, but this ultra-nationalistic stuff and attacks are crossing some lines and I will see what it could be done here to prevent this of happening in the future. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please why you are dealing with this article when you have not any knowledge? The United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo is an administration that has legislated, as well as the government and the parliament.
During the years of Serbian rule, the majority population in Kosovo (Albanians) did not have the right to govern, so the name was decided by the violence and the will of the majority people in Kosovo.
During the break-up of Yugoslavia the term "Metohija" returned to the Serbian nationalist term, Yugoslav dissateriate did not like by President Milosevic and this term peak of nationalism came to Slobodan Milosovic's visit in 1989.
The KLA used the name "Dukagjini Plane Operational Zone" with the sense of stretching over this area, even the KLA never used the term "Metohija"
All international institutions in Kosovo have never used the notion "Metohija"
"Metohija" is a term of pure Serbian propaganda, I live in Kosovo and face every day with this term! Every time tensions between Albanians and Serbs are high, the term "Metohija" is mentioned by Serbian politicians. --Hakuli (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Metohija is mentioned everywhere in the literature I gave you. It is a name for the region. But, let us look at summary - you failed to gave any argument to support your theory, only claims that you live there and that you know stuff which are showed wrong because you gave us the school-text example of bias. You have the problem with Wikipedia:OWN and your edits are driven with Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT methods. When asked to provide the page in the documents you provided in which your claims are allegedly based, you done nothing and the simple check of the documents showed that your claims weren't even supported by the sources you provided. You haven't responded to a single question, nor gave counter-arguments and counter-examples when asked to answer some stuff. So, your arguments were proven false, and claims weren't truthful at all.
Secondly, your response towards anybody here were personal attacks such as You don't know nothing, You support Serbian nationalism - which needs to be reported. I will repeat - again - where is it said that "Metohija" is Serbian propaganda? Where are those major sources - or they are imaginary? Also, one logical question, how can the name of an area be a propaganda, in this case? It is a name of the region, used by the Serbs and other nations, and in non-Serbian language literature. Your claim that it is just "Serbian propaganda" and just used by the nationalists is simple and clear lie, because I gave you numerous counter-examples. Or maybe, CIA were supporting Serbian nationalism in 1950', or in in even that botanics book I gave you - that name "Metohija" basin was Serbian propaganda, provided by Western Europeans? Shame. I gave you just tincey part of a bigger number of sources - you haven't even look at them. Also to mention, there was no "Serbian rule" in 1945. - there was Yugoslav rule during the time of Tito. Nobody objected to the name Metohija, not even Albanians, which is clear because there were no protests in that time against the name.
As for personal topics, well, for example, some people I know are Serbs who were forced to leave their homes in Peć, in Metohija, by Albanians close to KLA and they have told me that Albanian nationalists forbid them to use term "Metohija" from 1998, and forced them to use terms "Dukadjini land". They have faced with that every day. Serbs used the term Metohija much before Milosevic - so basically your arguments that they have stopped but continued later because of one of his speeches were false. You see, I could have used this kind of arguments against your claims - but I didn't. Why? Because this is Encyclopedia and there are methodology you need to respect when you edits some topics. It is not very well to discuss the topics which are close to you, because of the lack of objectivity which you get from this, as seen from your example. By the way, in literature, there is also term Metohijci - a name for the Serbs and other people from Metohija. Forbidding the name of the region just because it is in Serbian and even ignoring the fact that it is used in a lot of non-Serbian speaking literature is the school example of the speech and claims used Albanian ultra-nationalism which you, intentionally or not, promoted here and chauvinism towards the Serbs. As for Milosevic, you once again showed that you aren't knowedgable in the topic. During his rule, the term "Metohija" was brought back - but not as a term for the region, but as a term in the name of the administrative province, for about 16 years after it was removed from the name. When it is used for the name of the region, and when it is the part of the name of the province. By your logic, then there is no room for "Mirdita" for the region, because the country is called Albania which is total nonsense. Or Siberia, because there is Russia and there are administrative units which use different name. Administrative unit doesn't necessarily follow the name of the region. It is basic logic and I am sure that you understood the difference. As I said, up to 1974, the term existed in the name of the province, part of Serbia, so it is not connected with Milosevic in that way you are trying to provide. It was brought back by Yugoslav government in 1990. At that time, Yugoslavia still wasn't broken apart. This brings me the question - Did you even read anything I have told you? Non-cooperativnes and disruptive edits can be easily be reported and banned.
United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo - It is a mission of the UN. It is a mission with four pillar to provide the mechanisms for administration in Kosovo. It was formed after the Kosovo war via Resolution 1244. We all here know that, but your point about this is irrelevant for the question. I am asking you again - give me the sources which supports your claim that UNMIK doesn't use the term "Metohija" at all. You didn't provided any sources, you failed to understand the rules on Wikipedia I gave you in the links and haven't read them from the pages I provided you when the similar topics was discussed. As for your personal attacks towards me, which are showed me that you really have no sources or arguments to support you claims for which I if you continue, I will consider a report in the future. As for that I do not need to tell anyone that I am knowledgeable about the topic of Kosovo. I proved it and provided you sources to read because these are not my ideas, these are the books from the experts on this topics. Because of that I am very surprised that you, as alleged expert (if I live in some place, that doesn't make me an expert for that town) on the topic as you claimed, again failed to even read the basic sources you provided, which contradict your own arguments. In some way, that's a shame. You provided the sources from Haradinaj trial, and claimed that there is mentioning of Metohija as "Dugadjini Plateau" - which is proved as false, because simple check of the source and you can see that there is none. You failed to make a difference from the name of operational zone, used by some extremists and other groups, and the name of the region, an area, used by civilians and in numerous literature such as the books for geography, history and even botanics I provided you. So, for the last time, read the sources, give a good and objective references for your sources, when you make edits - explain them, when you are wrong - learn to accept that. Otherwise, you will be reported, probably not by me, but by somebody else for sure. As for edits, I will continue monitoring edits like this. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hakuli, you fail to understand that this encyclopedia is built in English for English-language speakers, and decitions are made in their favour. What matters here is how that region is best known for English-language speakers. Your personal traumas as local living in the place the article deals with are totally irrelevant. Much less makes any sense your crying against the "bad Serbs" as if you are expecting someone is gonna support punishment for Serbs and boycot of their names for places adopted by English because of that. FkpCascais (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Also, you fail to understand that not only your anti-Serb rethoric is questionable as truth and fact, but also that even if you were absolutelly right and Metohija was really a horrible Serbian propaganda term, if Metohija is how English sources refer o the place, that is how the article title should be. FkpCascais (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Paulin Kola, The Search for Greater Albania, p. 47 fn 108. C. Hurst & Co, 2003. ISBN 978-1-85065-664-7
  2. ^ The southern Balkans: Perspectives for the region (PDF). Paris: Institutes for Security Studies, Western European Union. 2001. Retrieved 1 April 2018.
  3. ^ Jura, Cristian (2013). "KOSOVO – HISTORY AND ACTUALITY". AGORA International Journal of Juridical Sciences. 3: 78–84.
  4. ^ Troebst, Stefan (1998). "Conflict in Kosovo: Failure of Prevention?- An Analytical Documentation, 1992-1998" (PDF). European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI). Retrieved 1 April 2018.
  5. ^ Dodd, Tom; Youngs, Tim (7 July 1998). Kosovo. UK: INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE SECTION, HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY.
  6. ^ NDERTAKE EUROPEANIZATION OF ALBANIAN MINORITY IN KOSMET REGION OF YUGOSLAVIA (PDF). CIA. 1951. Retrieved 1 April 2018.
  7. ^ Pearson, Owen (2006). Albania in the Twentieth Century, A History. I.B.Tauris in association with the Center for Albanian Studies. Retrieved 1 April 2018.
  8. ^ Recent Landform Evolution: The Carpatho-Balkan-Dinaric Region. Springer Science & Business Media. 2012. p. 348. Retrieved 1 April 2018.
  9. ^ Haszprunar, Gerhard (2011). A nomenclator of extant and fossil taxa of the Valvatidae (Gastropoda, Ectobranchia). Sofia, Bulgaria: PenSoft Publishers LTD. Retrieved 1 April 2018.
  10. ^ Van Antwerp Fine, John (1994). The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. University of Michigan Press. Retrieved 1 April 2018.
  11. ^ Buckley, Mary; Cummings, Sally (01.01.2001). Kosovo: Perceptions of War and Its Aftermath. A&C Black. p. 33. Retrieved 1 April 2018. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[Move request] The region which the article refers to is called Dukagjin[edit]

The region which this article refers to is called Dukagjin in the real world. Metohija is a chauvinistic construct used by Serbia to try and establish its presence in the Republic of Kosovo that was used by force in Kosovo between 1945 and 1968, and then between 1990 and 1999, but never de facto. The term Metohija was never used historically before the attempted replacement of the population, and the population of Kosovo never accepted the terminology which apart from being incorrect is offensive too, because it symbolizes the attempted ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. Furthermore, Serbia has nothing to do with toponyms in Kosovo. And as far as I know, Wikipedia does not accept chauvinistic names for cities or areas. For instance, Zamość is not titled Himmlerstadt. For the same reason, this article should be called 'Dukagjin, Kosovo' or 'Dukagjin Plain', not 'Metohija'. Uniacademic 11:52, 25 August 2019 (CEST)

Proper way to make a move request is explained here: WP:Move request. But, if you want to make a successful request, you have to prove that the proposed name is the WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody was able to prove that in previous requests (see sections above). Vanjagenije (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 January 2023[edit]

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved'. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Dukagjin gets 11.200 on Google Books. "Metohija" (excluding (!) "Kosovo and", "Kosova and") gets only 5.410 results. I excluded the terms on purpose so that the term for the actual plain doesn't get associated with the Serbian name of Kosovo ("Kosovo and Metohija"). (Search for "metohija -kosovo and -kosova and" to view results) AlexBachmann (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: pages with content, such as Dukagjin, are ineligible as new titles in move requests unless they, too, are proposed to be renamed. Dukagjin – Dukagjin (disambiguation) was added to this request as a result of that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 14:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The filer's reasoning is flawed. 11.200 results for "Dukagjin" include those about the Dukagjini family, several villages named Dukagjin and the Dukagjin Highlands in Albania. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that at least 5.411 do not refer to the Dukagjin plateau? The majority still refers to the plain.
Also, Metohija is also the name of several villages in other Southslavic-speaking countries which I have not excluded in this search. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two questions here: 1) whether the Wikipedia article about the region should use "Metohija" or "Dukagjin" in its title; 2) whether this region is the primary topic for "Dukagjin". I haven't looked into the first question, but the second one can be answered with a clear "no": it gets about a quarter of the usage [6], with none of the other competing topics appearing to have less long-term notability. – Uanfala (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's dismiss the second one. I didn't originally introduce the second idea. Let us just focus if we're renaming the page to "Dukagjin" or not. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flawed that is extreemely weak arguments here and cherrypicked google results (not that important). Metohija is a Slavic and Orthodox term which has been in use for centuries. It does not always match the area of Dukjagin, which is a term used by local Albanians. By the same logic, we should delete Sandzak because Rashka (grand total) has more google search results. I honeslty don't see what do we have to vote about here. --Ranko Nikolić (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't weak arguments - it depends whether you want to accept it or not. Metohija is an obsolete term and indicates "orthodox faith" in the Dukagjin area, even though the vast majority are Muslims and Catholics (Partesh, Gracanica, etc. are not located in Dukagjin!) except for monks living in Serbian churches. Pure POV.
Please search on Google Books for "Metohija". You can surprise yourself how many books refer to the Serbian name of the Kosovo rather than the plateau.
The area of Dukagjin and southern Kosovo has been inhabited by Albanians for centuries - other than northern Kosovo.
I disagree with you on your opinion Rashka because only the southern part corresponds to the Sandzhak region. But that is not what we're talking about. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Vanjagenije. Additionally, "Metohija" is the term used for a geographical region that has official use by the Serbian government. The term "Dukagjin" is for a geographical region with no official state use. At best the articles can be separated as the "Dukagjin" region covers Northern Albania, which "Metohija" does not. ElderZamzam (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i must say, i hear it for 1st time Dukagji, but that name can be Redirected to Metohija. --Petar Milošević (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Dukagjin (region), which redirects to Metohija. Is Dukagji an alternative spelling? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The oldest name of this region is Dukagjin[edit]

Nowhere does Metohija appear as the name of this region ,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjak_of_İpek

The Sanjak of İpek (Turkish: İpek Sancağı, Albanian: Sanxhaku i Pejës, Serbian: Пећки санџак) or Sanjak of Dukakin (Turkish: Dukakin Sancağı, Albanian: Sanxhaku i Dukagjinit, Serbian: Дукађински санџак) was a sanjak (an administrative division of the Ottoman Empire) with its capital in İpek (Peja), now in Kosovo.

In Fedor Karaczay's 1842 travel memoir, it was reported that the Sanjak of İpek included northeastern Albania and the larger part of the Dukakin plain, and had three kadiluks: Dukakin, İpek, Yakova

The oldest name of this area is Dukagjin. In Albanian it is known as Plains of Dukagjin or simply Dukagjin TheCreatorOne (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The area between Peja and Prizren[edit]

The name Dukagjin was used to refer to this area between Peja and Prizren from what I know and not Metohija which is not even a geographic term but rather invented later TheCreatorOne (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Not looking to start a heated debate but I find it interesting how a name such as Metohija which was made up after the occupation in 1912 is used when it's not even the real name of this territory ? So why isn't the name changed to it's actual name ? TheCreatorOne (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

....[edit]

I have already said that the name of this page should be changed to the Albanian name and the picture should be changed , if the name is not changed within one day I am personally going to change the name. There is no such thing as 'Metohija' this is nothing but an insult, even more insulting is the Serbian names that are being used for some of the towns, especially in some foreign languages, but towns that have actually have had an Albanian majority very early on. This is my last warning before I change the name personally. TheCreatorOne (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not move unless you are able to reach WP:CONSENSUS for such a move. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metohija&oldid=1201113167"