Talk:Gjakova

Anscombe (2006)
My recent edit has caused a heated response. I remind @Ktrimi991 to act in a civil manner (WP:CIVIL) rather than accusing me of "very obvious POV pushing". The contentious content in question relates to these extracts from Anscombe (2006):
 * - The use of the word "thought" is needed in this article as the author has not come to a definitive conclusion.
 * Of interest with this is that under footnote 6, Anscombe (2006) states A number of sentences over (in this article - Gjakova), Pulaha, an Albanian historian, is noted as making demographic inferences from onomastics, something which Anscombe (2006) critiques. IMO the manner in which this article is written is bordering on WP:CHERRYPICKING, however I am keen to hear the opinion of others. ElderZamzam (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very obvious POV-pushing, not the first time from you (even fringe material like the Carpi stuff). Anscombe mentions Pulaha in the context of the dispute between Albanian and Serbian historians. Either the article mentions that this is a problem of Albanian and Serbian historiography in general or "According to Albanian historian" can't stay in the article. "According to Selami Pulaha" ofc is neutral. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And no it does not need "thought" as long as there are sources that treat it as a fact (Kiel, Pulaha) and no reliable sources that say it was not an Albanian-inhabited city since its foundation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are treading on WP:ASPERSIONS @Ktrimi991, your continued effort to repeatedly label me a POV pusher is doing you no good. ElderZamzam (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you propose a neutral wording of the change you want to make? My time is very limited. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And again, do not use without a proper context terms like "According to Albanian historian" or "According to Serbian historian" or whatever nationality because it brings no good at all to the article. For many readers it looks like the article is saying "This historian is from X country so their opinion is biased and has less value". The way the content is written influences the readers, and I am sure you know that very well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ktrimi991 agreed, thanks. I will be mindful in future of this minefield and do my best to edit accordingly. ElderZamzam (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Change 1: "Gjakova has been an Albanian settlement since its foundation" to "Gjakova has been a settlement with an ethnic Albanian majority since its foundation"
 * Change 2: According to Selami Pulaha, during the early period of Ottoman occupation, Gjakova and the Gjakova Municipality were part of the Nahiya of Altun-ili. Most of the villages in the Nahiya of Altun-ili were dominated by inhabitants with Albanian anthroponomy, which indicates that during the 15th century (as supported by Ottoman defters), the lands between Junik and Gjakova were inhabited by a dominant ethnic Albanian majority. In 1570, the majority of the inhabitants of Gjakova as a settlement itself were recorded with Albanian anthroponomy; Albanian onomastics prevailed over Slav onomastics. According to Anscombe (2006), ethnic historiography of the defter is not a reliable determinant of specific ethnic make up.
 * Something like this, you or other editors can edit where you best see fit. Thank you. ElderZamzam (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am OK with change number 1. Re change number 2: Anscombe does not disagree with Pulaha's conclusion that that specific area had a majority of Albanian names (anyone can check the defters after all). Anscombe disagrees with Pulaha's conclusion that a majority of Albanian names proves an ethnic Albanian majority, i.e. if a guy is named Bardhi or Gjon that does not prove that he is an Albanian or has Albanian origin. So the text should be sth like: During the early period of Ottoman occupation, Gjakova and the Gjakova Municipality were part of the Nahiya of Altun-ili. Most of the villages in the Nahiya of Altun-ili were dominated by inhabitants with Albanian anthroponomy. This is seen by Selami Pulaha as an indicatation that during the 15th century (as supported by Ottoman defters), the lands between Junik and Gjakova were inhabited by a dominant ethnic Albanian majority. In 1570, the majority of the inhabitants of Gjakova as a settlement itself were recorded with Albanian anthroponomy; Albanian onomastics prevailed over Slav onomastics. According to Frederick Anscombe, the onomastics of the defter are not a reliable determinant of the ethnic make up. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose the term Ottoman "occupation" as its WP:NPOV. "Ottoman rule" is fine.Resnjari (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to modify it in the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

...
So what you are saying is that people with Albanians names are not Albanian ? but people with Slavic, Christian names are not Albanian either ? It seems more plausible that an Albanian also bore a Christian name and even possibly a Slavic name considering they came under such influence, of course the opposite could also happen but the occupation was Slavic (Serbs, Bulgars) and not Albanian. For example the Shipshani in North-East Albania, just next to Gjakova, which we know were Albanian and part of the Gashi tribe had in fact majority Slavic names in 1485 and only one Albanian name. Also the Morina tribe are next to Gjakova and were in fact mentioned with Albanian names. So it seems plausible the villages around Gjakova were Albanians too as they had a lot of Albanian and Christian names, Slavic names are present but mixed with Albanian. Some villages in other defters had Slavic names majority but with Albanian names present while some others had majority Albanian names etc etc.

I mean that the area of Gjakova has had an Albanian majority is certainly supported by later historians and defters such as for the Has region between Gjakova and Prizren which did in fact have majority Albanian names according to the 16th century defter + Pjeter Mazreku who specifically mentioned it as Albanian. or for example various sources that mention Prizren and Peja within Albania or the Turkish traveller Evliya Celebi later. But at least we agree names are always open to doubt. But it seems to me that people here want Kosove and Dardania to still be connected to Serbs despite Albanians are obviously connected to the territories history but there it is almost not allowed to write anything about Albanians here, in other languages in wikipedia anything about Albanians in this territory gets immediately removed, it's a big no no, while Serbian nationalism is promoted by sources which do not have any kind of historical validation. What's even more insulting is how they use the Serbian names despite these areas haven't had Serbs it seems for a long time. What supports further that the area of Gjakova was majority Albanian for a long time is the name 'Dukagjin' or Dukagjini Plataeu which i nfact is an Albanian name, the Serbs changed it later to Metohija. I'm sure if the Serbs made the majority here for that long they would have their own name for Western Kosovo and not use some made up 19th-20th century name, as for the name Kosovo, that is only some small field in the eastern part, names of towns such as Nish, Scupi/Shkupi, Shtip, Lipjan etc etc are by various linguists considered to be non-Slavic for example. TheCreatorOne (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)