Talk:Gazivoda Lake

Requested improvements
Please add the name of the dam that created the lake. Please give the name of the hydro-electric generating plant associated with the dam. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Serbian text removed
Another editor removed the Serbian name for this lake, which is in both Kosovo and Serbia. I think the Serbian name should be restored. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing
, I do not understand this edit and its summary. What is the problem here? Kosovar and Serbian newspapers cannot deliver proper information on this lake? You are fighting with User:Vanjagenije and User:Sadko, but without seeking the talk page. If anyone is guilty of edit warring right now, it's you. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, do not start silly accusations of edit warring, as nobody else has done that so far. Also, nobody here is "fighting", as "fighting" is not a thing to be done on Wikipedia. I think none of us has that battleground mentality, right? Also, why the problem of not "seeking the talk page" is only when I am concerned, and that after just two reverts to the stable version? Last time I read WP:BRD, it said that when a change is disputed, the stable version should be left till things are sorted out on the talk page. On the sources, there are zillions RS that elaborate on the lake, better ones than the Serbian or Kosovar "Radiotelevizions". Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Ktrimi991, first off, you were edit warring, you didn't seek the talk page though you told another to do so, and I will block you for disruptive editing and a battleground mentality if you keep this tone up. Carry on. Drmies (talk)
 * Also, before this discusses goes on further, it is interesting that Sadko reverts Kosovar sources (I am giving one example here but can give more if needed ) and in the same time uses Serbian ones on controversial issues of Kosovo. I will also post here a diff where Sadko says that using Serbian/Kosovar sources on controversial Kosovo topics is wrong. I might need some time till I find that diff though. I think it was a year or so ago. I, and practically virtually everyone experienced in editing Balkan topics, agree that Sadko is right when demanding better sources than those linked with certain circles in the Balkans. But Sadko should respect that in every case.... Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Major media networks like national radio and television is usually considered a reliable source unless you can prove it wrong. If you have better sources covering the same topics wrote about, please provide them and include them in the article. If you have some evidence to show that what Sadko added is wrong, please provide it. Otherwise, please do not remove content just because you don't like sources. What Sadko did and said in previous discussions is, of course, irrelevant here.    Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is a general standard of what constitutes RS in some topics. It has to do with the framework and the context of its use. If both sides are presented fairly and there's a distinction between facts and political views, sources by both sides can be used to present the two different perspectives. The only thing I'd want a second source about has to do with the claim about 14 villages in the lake prior to its construction. 14 villages in 11.9 km² looks very improbable in terms of settlement patterns in the area.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a Kosovar source says that the construction of the Gazivoda dam damaged Albanian population of Kosovo as Serbian colonists settled the area nearby to work in construction activities and colonize Kosovo. It also lists Gazivoda among those places where Serbian propaganda claims ruins that actually are not linked in anyway with Serbia (pages 25 and 47 respectively). Another one says that Serbia has used debts taken by Yugoslavia for Gazivoda to advance Greater Serbia claims and that Serbia has not paid any related debt. And since you like such sources, more will come in the few coming days on many Kosovo articles. If you want to open Pandora's box, open it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t exist kosovar, But Kosova Albanians 😉✌️ 90.240.109.150 (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did I say that I like such sources?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , we all know that it is preferable to not use Kosovar or Serbian newspapers that do not have any sort of academic supervision for controversial history topics. Imagine if the opposite was applied to every article of Yugoslavia, it would be a disaster. But since you support such sources here, I guess you will support similar Serbian/Kosovar ones on other articles, right? Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Gazivoda's construction was funded by 50% by a special fund of the Yugoslav Federation about infrastructure development. The explicit purpose of the project was to decrease the energy reliance of Kosovo to Serbia. The other 50% was paid by a loan taken by Yugoslavia from the World Bank and was paid by all republics of Yugoslavia up to its breakup. It's absurd to even hint that a Yugoslav Republic could take/pay a loan by itself in 1974.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We can not make generalisations when it comes to local medias. That is a great info. Maleschreiber, please add it to the article. As far as I know the idea of the time was to make provinces and republics of YU self-sufficient and it was a part of wide policy of decentralisation (in a way).  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  21:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody has made generalisations. I am also adding content based on the two sources I posted above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, are those who wrote the newspaper article's academics or had their work gone through a peer review process before being published, since their claims are opposed by sources posted above? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * May I ask if you have evaluated the two sources in Serbian in terms of how accurately they have been used in the article? That requires some knowledge of Serbo-Croatian, although Google Translate can be used in a limited way. I both read and speak Serbo-Croatian in a near-native level, so I read them - the first step towards responsible writing I think. They don't support the second section of the article that Ktrimi991 removed. They say that Helen of Anjou's court was in the village of Brnjak, Zubin Potok (at a ~5km walking distance from the lake on the other side of the mountain range; 12km by car) and that some artifacts found by a Russian team of archaeologists in the lake may be related to that site, but that is a speculation that remains unclear and which will be investigated by the Russian team in their research. The section that Ktrimi991 removed said that Roman tombstones, medieval court of queen consort Helen of Anjou with the first school for women in Serbia, several medieval Serbian Orthodox churches and 19th century houses have been discovered at the bottom of the lake. I'm taking the time to make such a long comment about a very small dispute because I feel unsafe about editing in an environment where an admin can say to another user that he will block him because of disruptive editing without having verified that an important part of what the user removed wasn't in the sources at all.


 * The other part Ktrimi991 removed had to do with the claim the 14 villages were relocated around an 11.9km² area. By itself, in terms of geography and settlement density that should ring a lot of bells. Zubin Potok has 63 villages in 335km². If the source was evaluated, it would have been confirmed that this is a comment by an artist and film director that was making a documentary about the area. Ktrimi991 was right: an artist and film director is not a reliable source. A Columbia University Press publication cannot be held as equally valid as his comment .--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, I did not evaluate any sources. That is not my job as an administrator--my job, here, is to call out editors for incivility and edit warring, and to guide them towards the talk page and the idea of consensus. I don't know why that would make you feel "unsafe"--what I am doing is what administrators on Wikipedia should be doing, though perhaps you haven't had much experience with administrators yet in your career on Wikipedia. Anyway, edit warring is edit warring even if you're right; this is not news. Thank you for your comments on content; that is the kind of thing needed to settle this dispute. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I only just saw your comment, the source claims that the court of queen consort is at the bottom of the lake, as well as medieval Serbian Orthodox churches. My personal guess about "14 villages" was that the guy was thinking about "zaseok" (if there is such a term in English). Regardless, a figure of 1000 is per RS and should be included with neutral wording. As far as I am concerned, Columbia UP source could come in first when it comes to figures. I'll see more about it come tomorrow  Sadkσ   (talk is cheap)  00:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a metaphorical comment by the same artist in terms of cultural legacy that was lost, the Serbian head historians explain the situation as described already. Maybe the paper of the Russian team has been published since then. I don't think that the comment of a film maker about the relocations can be used as an alternative to someone who spent a lot of time and a thorough peer review process to get on CUP. Bogumil Terminski is a specialist on displacement caused by energy production projects in the developing and developed world. I don't think that it is responsible towards readers to present them with two different numbers and then let them decide between 230 and 1000 as if the two were the product of the same academic process.


 * You're right. I don't have any experience with admins. You may be the second (?) admin I'm interacting with. I think that all options should be explored before getting to the block phase, but I also understand your point about the necessity of administration.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber, IMO it is better to move on sometimes and forget some things. From years of editing controversial Balkan topics I have learnt that making threats or warnings on an article talk page brings no good, and so does discussing them in the same place. Whoever is interested in improving this article should focus on what is important. Anything else is a waste of time and focus. Stuff other than the content dispute should be discussed in places other than a Balkan article talk page. Believe me, I have edited such articles for years: too much words are never good for an article. After all, a good Wiki editor is focused on improving an article. :) Thanks for your edits btw. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Renaming?
As far as I heard it and many sources state it (e.g. ) the lake has been officially renamed to "Lake Trump". Has there been some different development from then on? Otherwise this article should be also changed accordingly. 213.55.244.24 (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the source you cited does not say that the lake has been officially renamed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)