Talk:Šar Mountains/Archive 1

STOP this with illegal creations!
There MUST write Serbia and you can add in the note that Kosovo is illegal state self proclaimed and successful separation alike North Ireland or Texas. But Serbia is a state like Turkey is and not Kurdistan, like the USA are and not Texas or California, like Canada is and not Quebec, like France is and not Corsica, like Germany is and not Bavaria, like Finland is and not Aland. Stop with this hypocrisy for God sake! STOP!77.46.180.222 (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nearest city
If we use template for NP,then in the line called city we`re puting name of the city in which is placed base for NP,not nearest bigger city.

If it`s cousing problem,we can put down and place infobox about mountain instead. CrniBombarder!!!    (†)  03:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

NP
For the National Park there must be another article but this one is about the mountain. This error is made only on the Serbian Wiki and here thanks to SR users. These two articles must be separated.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Serbia and Kosovo
I see there are editors who are hell bent on the article not mentioning Serbia at all (and one who would like that it doesn't mention Kosovo at all). What is wrong with simply saying that the mountains are in Kosovo (Serbia) or Serbia (Kosovo), without going into details? Nikola (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus seems to rest with those who believe that locating the Šar Mountains in Kosovo, without reference to Serbia, is sufficient geographical precision. Such a designation has the virtue of avoiding any question of the sovereignty of Kosovo. Please consider the following diffs: User:Ev, User:Aramgar , User:J.delanoy, , User:Illyriandescendant , User:Cradel , User:Xp54321 , User:Vishnava , Kafka Liz . Let us, for the moment, pass over the issue of establishing to whom the mountains belong. Kosovo alone is precision enough. Aramgar (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not the consensus, since there are several editors who disagree, and since these edits include things other than the introduction. When you say that "such a designation has the virtue of avoiding any question of the sovereignty of Kosovo", you in fact mean that such a designation has the virtue of stating without any question that Kosovo is a sovereign country, since its name appears, without any indications to the opposite, in a list of sovereign countries. That is not acceptable. Nikola (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Consensus exists against adding Serbia. Kosovo is the precise location of the range. Such a designation implies nothing about Kosovo's sovereignty. Aramgar (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Please, read what is Consensus and Consensus. Nikola (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nikola, as I see it, there are two main reasons to mention the location as "Kosovo" alone, and avoiding "Serbia (Kosovo)" or "Kosovo (Serbia)". And both should be considered in the light of Wikipedia's nature & purpose: a simple attempt to build an encyclopedia that conveys information clearly, and not a complex excercise in determining complicated sovereignity issues in every single of its articles.


 * First (and in no particular order), because for a certain time already, especially since February 2008, Kosovo has been distinct from Serbia to a degree that allows us to mention it individually without compromising clarity or accuracy (and without implying formal political indepencence either). – This is most certain in articles like this one, dealing with physical geography, not political one.


 * Second, because of the sheer complexity of the opinions on the sovereignity issue, which can not be resumed in a simple parenthesis. Both "Serbia (Kosovo)" or "Kosovo (Serbia)" alone are widely misleading simplifications, besides representing Belgrades' position only and not the other side.


 * The problem is that describing the current situation properly would require much more words unrelated to the mountains themselves than what the geographical (not political) topic of this article merits... probably assuring a constant edit war over it also. By the simple procedure of not mentioning the political issue we can avoid a world of trouble.


 * However, if you really, but really wish to enter into details, it could be done by adding a footnote (that wouldn't hinder the readability of the article's body, and being less conspicuous may reduce edit warring). I would prefer not to do it, because I fear the edit wars would continue over its wording... but here is a proposal:


 * ...that extends from southern Kosovo1 and the northwest of...


 * Footnote:


 * Kosovo, having been part of Serbia since 1912, declared its independence on 17 February 2008. The move was not recognised by Serbia, which continues to claim it as part of its sovereign territory. See also: "International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo".


 * In code:


 * Kosovo, having been part of Serbia since 1912, declared its independence on 17 February 2008. The move was not recognised by Serbia, which continues to claim it as part of its sovereign territory. See also: International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo.


 * Best regards, Ev (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Original comments by Nikola Smolenski 22:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC) refactored:


 * First (and in no particular order), because for a certain time already, especially since February 2008, Kosovo has been distinct from Serbia to a degree that allows us to mention it individually without compromising clarity or accuracy (and without implying formal political indepencence either). – This is most certain in articles like this one, dealing with physical geography, not political one. - Ev (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I simply don't see it. I don't see how is Kosovo's distinct from Serbia, and why would such a distinction allow us to mention it individually without mentioning the country it is a part of. Nikola (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well... at the risk of stating the obvious: Kosovo may be considered by certain parties as indistinct from Serbia in a specific legal sense, and by some groups from a "cultural", sentimental or even mystical perspective.


 * However, when moving away from those abstract fields, the situation on the ground shows a significant degree of distinction from Serbia: since 1999 Kosovo has been, for all intents and purposes, a protectorate of NATO & the EU, with different institutions and decision-making processes, and with only minimal involvement by the Serbian state (basically restricted to the Serbian enclaves).


 * No matter how (il)legitimate, (un)just or (un)desirable you may consider this situation – whether KFOR are liberators, peacekeepers or an occupation force – whether UNMIK & PISG are illegal parallel institutions, colonial administrators or early state structures – they are something quite different from what you would find in Niš or Novi Sad... and have been so since 1999. After these years, regardless of your opinion on the sovereignity issue, Kosovo is quite naturally seen as a distinct entity (an extremely autonomous province, an occupied territory or an independent state... but in any case, not exactly the same as Serbia proper).


 * Of course, for some parties (including all G7 nations) in February 2008 the degree of distinction increased exponentially. For this group, Kosovo is not part of any other country anymore.


 * With this general situation, I think that it's pretty easy to see how we can mention Kosovo individually (without any implication whatsoever to the issue of sovereignity), as English-language publications and media often do. — Especially when we're just mentioning the location of a mountain range in an encyclopedic article (and most definitely not writing a legal paper mindful of the issue of sovereignity). - Ev (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, situation on the ground is what you describe it, however, you are wrong when you say that an extremely autonomous province or an occupied territory is naturally seen as a distinct entity and that country in which that entity is in should not be mentioned at all. Also, it's not just that Kosovo is mentioned individually, it's that it is mentioned in a list of countries - that carries certain implications.
 * I believe that your proposal is an excellent one, and that it could be massaged into one that would be satisfactory to everyone. Nikola (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Second, because of the sheer complexity of the opinions on the sovereignity issue, which can not be resumed in a simple parenthesis. Both "Serbia (Kosovo)" or "Kosovo (Serbia)" alone are widely misleading simplifications, besides representing Belgrades' position only and not the other side. - Ev (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. By saying "Serbia" alone would we represent Belgrade's position only and not the other side. By saying "Serbia (Kosovo)" or "Kosovo (Serbia)" we are representing both positions, however tersely. Nikola (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's too tersely, Nikola. You can't seriously expect our readers to understand Kosovo's complex situation by using those parenthesis, especially when such notation has another meaning althogether in normal usage: "Kosovo (Serbia)" will be read as meaning "Kosovo, part of Serbia", not as "Kosovo, considered by some to be part of Serbia, by others to be in some sort of legal limbo and by others to be an independent state". - Ev (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, let's have this and the footnote. Nikola (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that describing the current situation properly would require much more words unrelated to the mountains themselves than what the geographical (not political) topic of this article merits... probably assuring a constant edit war over it also. By the simple procedure of not mentioning the political issue we can avoid a world of trouble. - Ev (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I could agree, but we have a constant edit war right not, and sorry, not mentioning Serbia means mentioning the political issue. Nikola (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * However, if you really, but really wish to enter into details, it could be done by adding a footnote. - Ev (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is something I have suggested already at Wikiproject Serbia, however I have strong issues with your wording. You are again implying that Kosovo is a country, and you are further implying that Kosovo is no longer a part of Serbia. Nikola (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Kosovo is a country according to some, and it is part of Serbia according to others. We have to present both positions (or, much simpler, avoid the issue altogether by mentioning "Kosovo" alone :-) I was thinking about changing "continues to claim it" by "continues to consider it". But please, feel free to propose an alternative wording. - Ev (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The version to which you have reverted is not a compromise version but your own — a version, I might add, that has found no favor with any other editor. User:Ev has provided a thoughtful analysis and a compromise solution involving a footnote. I too am not very fond of the footnote solution but believe it is sufficient explanation of a complex situation. The fact remains that Kosovo is distinct from Serbia, and an article on physical geography need not address wherein the distinction lies. I have restored the consensus version. Aramgar (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What? Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. You are simply lying when you say that this version "has found no favor with any other editor". Ev's solution is an attempt at compromise, we are going there, but it isn't good enough, and you aren't helping. Kosovo is not distinct from Serbia - it is a part of Serbia, and if you don't accept that fact, I don't see why are you commenting here at all. The version you call "consensus version" isn't a consensus version at all, stop spreading lies. Nikola (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Aramgar is right, Nikola: your version is not a "compromise version", and is much further away from any meaning of "consensus" than the alternative one. - Ev (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. Your version is not a consensus version, it is an extremist version, not mentioning Serbia in the lead or in the article at all. My version is an attempt at compromise - perhaps you don't like it, but it is way closer to compromise and NPOV than your version. Nikola (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, as a matter of houskeeping, please see Etiquette which states: Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to some, but it is virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow. Thanks. Aramgar (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Spare me. Nikola (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Footnote workshop
After considering Nikola's feedback, let me propose this alternative wording:

''Kosovo is the subject of a territorial dispute between Serbia and the local Albanian majority. The Assembly of Kosovo declared its independence on 17 February 2008, a move that was not recognised by Serbia, which continues to claim/consider it as part of its sovereign territory. See also: International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo.''

In code:

Kosovo is the subject of a territorial dispute between Serbia and the local Albanian majority. The Assembly of Kosovo declared its independence on 17 February 2008, a move that was not recognised by Serbia, which continues to claim/consider it as part of its sovereign territory. See also: International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo.

I apologise to all native English-speakers for any torture to which I may be subjecting their language. - Ev (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine with me, I'd only change "was not recognised" to "is not recognised" and "continues to claim" to "claims" (or "considers").


 * As for the introduction, it could be Kosovo (Serbia)[1], Serbia (Kosovo)[1], Kosovo/Serbia[1], Serbia/Kosovo[1], hell, I could even make a template that would pick one at random. Nikola (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Those changes are fine with me also :-) However, the whole idea of this long footnote is to mention Kosovo's complicated situation there instead of doing it in the introduction, which would mention Kosovo only:


 * ...southern Kosovoa and the northwest of the Republic of Macedonia to northeastern Albania.


 * I think that the a or i (or any other sign different from the usual numbers that references use) after "Kosovo" would be enough to alert readers to the fact that there is something special about Kosovo, as opposed to the other locations mentioned. - I have taken the liberty of adding the footnote, as an example of how it would look only - nothing definitive yet.


 * The four options you mention bring the sovereignity issue right back to the introduction, and stylistically leave much to desire... I feel that even a long "Kosovo (a region disputed between Serbia and the local Albanian population, which declared independence in Febrary 2008, an action not reconised by Serbia)" would be better. But, again, it's unnecessary detail for this geographical article. We don't need to revisit the sovereignity issue everywhere. - Regards, Ev (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

- Update two months later: Since the note used in this article after the above discussion is being used in other articles as well, I have created a template for it Kosovo-note, although taking the liberty of making a modification (subject to review by everyone, of course). - Feel free to discuss the issue at the template's talk page. :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

more names from other language wikipedias
from sh:%C5%A0ar-planina


 * Brodska planina are made of Rudoka Vraca Planina Radika

Lakes :
 * Bogovinsko
 * Crno
 * Belo
 * Golem Gjol
 * Mal Gjol
 * Krivošinsko
 * Golemo Dedelbeško
 * Malo Dedelbeško
 * Gorno Dobroško
 * Dolno Dobroško

Peaks :
 * Titov Vrv (2747 m)
 * Bakerdan (2,704
 * Mal Turčin (2702 m)
 * Bristavec (2,675 m)
 * Borislavec (266 m)
 * Peskovi (2,651 m)
 * Rudoka (2610 m)
 * Velika Vraca (2,582 m)
 * Piribeg (2524 m)
 * Ljuboten (2498 m)
 * Mala Vraca (2,483 m
 * Karanikola (2,409 m)

Need to resolve these. James Michael DuPont (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Only good valid sources will resolved this. Also, most of them are just Macedonian language names for the same peaks and lakes already added in article. Find some good sources for this question. -- WhiteWriter speaks 14:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Knowing the names is half the battle to finding sources. also the heights will help. What I need to understand is the Brodska planina is that one or many mountains. is it made of or one of. Also on the Geonames/gns names, it lists them as mountains, not a mountain. can you make sense of that article? thanks James Michael DuPont (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Name
Why is the name in slavic? Last time I checked the Sharr Mountains run between Kosovo, Albania and a section in Macedonia. My argument lies on the premise that 2 out of those 3 countries use the name "Sharr" while Macedonia uses "Sar" (w/ Serbian s). My second argument is since when is it neutral to have a foreign letter? I can't even type the serbian s on my keyboard.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.68.213 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First, Kosovo is not country, its disputed region between Republic of Serbia and Republic of Kosovo. Second, this name is the most common English name per sources and other relevant info's, and third, diacritical marks (foreign letters) are allowed on wikipedia. And if foreign letters that you and i cannot type on keyboard are problem, then we should rename Hashim Thaçi article also! :) All best! -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the political status of Kosovo, the WP rule is to use the most common English name, but I don't know what that is.... --Macrakis (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is Šar Mountains, we already agreed on that before. :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 16:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you please point me to that discussion? Google searches seem to show Šar, Shar, and Sar as about equally common. --Macrakis (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Slavic name? It's a Roman name, doesn't belong to any nation currently in existence, although it is adapted for use in English (Websters) as Sar mountains because English doesn't have umlauts over the Š. 174.113.134.157 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Gbooks (-llc -wikipedia), the Albanian variant, "Sharr mountains" has only 43 hits.--Z oupan 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

English spelling of the mountains should be reflected in the article name. English readers do not know how to read the "Š" therefore it should be replaced with "Sh". Even the Exploring Macedonia website has the mountain range spelled as "Shar Mountains" so I'm not sure why wikipedia is different from its sources: http://www.exploringmacedonia.com/shar-mountain.nspx Vepton (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Etymology
The text read:
 * In Antiquity, the mountains were known as Scardus, Scodrus, or Scordus (το Σκάρδον ὂρος in Polybius and Ptolemy).


 * In Albanian, the word "sharr" means "saw", referring to the saw-like order of the peaks when seen from a distance. Sometimes they are also called Carska planina ...; the Serbian word šar (шар) means "orb".... The Macedonian word šara (шара) means "mottle".

The modern names Sar/Šar/Šara are surely related to the ancient Skardon, so the meanings of those words in modern Albanian and Slavic languages is hardly relevant. I have removed these folk etymologies. --Macrakis (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are really irrelevant. But i removed lede addition, as per relevance. Other names are already presented below. -- WhiteWriter speaks 16:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Partly irrelevant.Word шар does not come from modern serbian language,but from medieval times,when it was used in meaning orb (Globus cruciger).It should be mentioned,in context of Carska planina name. CrniBombarder!!!    (†)  17:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Name of the mountains
"The Šar Mountains (Macedonian and Serbian: Шар планина/Šar planina) or Sharr Mountains (Albanian: Malet e Sharrit), "

Why is this neccesary? This could easily be (Albanian: Malet e Sharrit, Macedonian: Шар планина) (for Zoupan, it's called alphabetical order) I don't see the need of the serbian version here. But, considering Zoupan has been here, I am not surprised. It's unreal how much vandalism from this user administrators allow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theedardanian (talk • contribs) 21:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Read WP:Common name. Is there any reason why you removed Serbian?--Z oupan 19:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Serbian and Albanian are official languages of Kosovo.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How exactly did I remove serbian? Check first before accusing, I did not even touch the article. Or you can report me to your administrator friends, they'd be happy to help you. | Well, I don't see over 90% of Kosovar people speaking serbian. An imposed language by politicians doesn't change that. Also, serbs don't live in this region, think the albanian and slavo-macedonian versions are enough. Though, my whole point is, the article look pretty bad with the names being divided like that. Also, with both of you being serbs, I don't expect anything. Theedardanian (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In your suggestion, you clearly removed Serbian . Don't be silly. Serbs indeed live in this region.--Z oupan 21:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - Sorry, just saw this. Where do serbs live in this region? Could you please show me a municipality located in Sharr Mountains that has a serbian majority? If there is any, then we sure could add a serbian version aswell. But the currect version is not "proffesional" enough, I just gave an idea and it is for sure that my version looks better. Hope you leave your nationalism behind for a minute and agree with that. Theedardanian (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"Proffesional"? It is for sure that your version does not look "better". Hope you leave yours behind. There is obviously no requirement for a municipality in Šar to have a Serb majority for this article to have the Serbian language-name (which is the common name). Štrpce, if we take into account that the 2013 census is unreliable.--Z oupan 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So, we should divide languages because you don't want them? Also, Strpce has an albanian majority [more than 50%], and if you do not have clear proof, we will go with the 2011 census. Maybe we should add the bulgarian, and latin names if we add the serbian name too? My idea looks more proffesional and not biased, unlike the current version, no offense. Theedardanian (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Bulgarian and Latin? This discussion goes nowhere. "Serbs make up 70% of Strpce's population." It is a known fact that Štrpce is a Serb enclave.--Z oupan 17:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, one small enclave [assuming]. But add serbian too. However, the point is, there's no point in dividing the languages. Theedardanian (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)