Talk:Ukshin Hoti

Rahovec or Orahovac
There seems to be an odd edit war going on here switching the order of the alternate names "Rahovec or Orahovac". A quick Google search suggests to me that "Rahovec" would be the preferable spelling here; it's both given on the town's website and in the BBC News, suggesting it's the preferred English spelling. I don't see any reason to list any/all of the town's alternative spellings in the article.

Another option would be to simply remove the reference to the town as his birthplace altogether, as it appears to have no source. Khazar2 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the town website is in Albanian so that rules that variation out. The idea is that we give the English name. English in turn where there is no exonym adopts the local forms. Kosovo is a difficult case for a number of reasons. Firstly, the region came into the spotlight during its time in FR Yugoslavia so Serbian language names were the practice. Following the declaration of independence in 2008, international recognition has come but it has been sluggish and with 90 states recognising from the U.N., this puts the status at around half and half after four years. Regarding the BBC pronunciation, this was ameteur workmanship with a reporter venturing into the area and taking no notice of the facts nor consulting whether an English name had existed but you will find on all maps and in media published in the last century that Orahovac has dominated. He could just have easily gone into Preševo and declared the town Presheva. No difference - unless we start treating Kosovo as sovereign and ignore that there is still less than half of world states recognising it. In addition, it is also the target page; the true place to suggest radical changes is on the town pages (eg. Đakovica, Peć, Uroševac, Gnjilane) but you will find there is no sense changing one without the rest of them. On all subjects, the birthplace will lead to the target except if born prior to a town's inclusion within the new entity in which case the displayed name will be the name as known at the time in the local official language. For Balkan subjects, this tends to be Turkish if country was Ottoman Empire. Hoti was born during WWII and the article fully explains this complication. The region was de facto Albanian Kingdom but on another dimension still within Yugoslavia; whether this was Kingdom or DFR is also not known for technical reasons. First - we don't know his birthday, second - Kingdom was dissolved in 1941 but had continued recognition by Allies, third - DFR naturally recognised Kingdom but since coming to power spent its time abolishing monarchy and leading to FPR Yugoslavia from 1946. Whichever Yugoslav entity is relevant, Orahovac is correct there and Rahovec for Albanian Kingdom. Remember, WWII saw a major breakdown in world order and continuity of international convention collapsed. This is why we use two forms. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the explanation of your reasoning, but please keep in mind that we have to rely more on reliable sources than on our own research and knowledge. The BBC is generally considered a reliable source; if you consider them "amateur", that's fine, but then the next step is to provide more reliable sources of your own. If you can, though, I've got no problem with either spelling (or with both, if that's how it's most often written). In any case, though, I suggest that in this (as in all things Wikipedia) we follow the sources that we find. Khazar2 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, the BBC is what Wikipedia considers a "reliable" source though Heaven knows what they expect me to do about that! What you need to remember is that it is a huge state-run corporation with several outlets ranging from TV channels, radio stations and websites and this is before we begin to count the programmes. Any publication can be attributed to BBC though, we need to look at news more than reports. Obviously, with naming conventions there is no right or wrong and sometimes, more than one name is standard. The best way to find English language sites for suspected town names is to insert the preferred variation next to an English preposition or linking word and then envelop the phrase in "quotes" (eg. "in Gnjilane" vs "in Gjilan"; "Rahovec is" vs "Ohahovac is"). If you try those, you'll see the Serbian variation overwhelmingly attracts more results. However, Uroševac loses out to Ferizaj but this is where we can examine the sources more carefully. No doubt most sources come from the state in question on both and Ferizaj is no exception as a scan down the list gives you websites and weblogs that invariably begin "Kosova...". Staying with BBC, if you search for "BBC Ferizaj" vs "BBC Uroševac", the latter gets more. To that end, this is also the case with Orahovac. Rahovec=18,200; Orahovac=328,000 on my system. Obviously not everything is BBC though. Also, with Ferizaj, a lot of the time you see something like, Uroševac (Ferizaj in Albanian). This adds further weight to the former. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Facts
The title of this page is Ukshin Hoti, not Bardhyl Çaushi. When there is a see also section on any page, it requires a raw list. The reader may click on that article if he wishes to read it. Apart from that, if there is to be any content it needs to be minimal. There is no requirement for the full biography and sources there as that all belongs to the designated article. Be that as it may, the Bardhyl Çaushi article is at the time of speaking locked pending discussion with over a day left to run and no consensus has been reached on the matter and yet the very information posted by Bobrayner concerns the bone of contention that has left editors unable to edit that article. This really is unacceptable, but worse still, I would like to know why Bobrayner insists on promoting spurious information, the current revision names the culprit as the Serbian Armed Forces. The alleged event took place in 1999 yet this organisation is active from 2006. How does this make sense? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely illogical, innit? 23 editor (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If sources say that Serbs did something in 1999, but you are adamant that those serbs only existed from 2006 onwards, then we do have a serious problem. Personally, I'd rather stick to what sources say. bobrayner (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, so the sources on the article you were linking (which does not change when you remove the link) state that the organisation is active from 2006. So are they wrong? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some context that connects the see also entries with the main article is required.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some context doesn't mean the full biography. This is gross pushing of falsehood. The army in 1999 was VJ, not the Serbian Armed Forces. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, who told you "Some context that connects the see also entries with the main article is required"? Since when?,, , , , ,. I see no evidence that any information is required here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)