Jump to content

Talk:University of Pristina/Archive 2

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

This is the second archive of Talk:University of Priština, archived at 07:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

University of Priština

[edit]

I think that Wikipedia should have two articles about two universities with similar names: University of Priština about Serbian university and University of Prishtina about Albanian.This could help in surpassing disputes. Andrija.b

The English version of the institution's website at http://www.uni-pr.edu/ clearly calls it the University of Prishtina. Is the University of Priština a separate body? -- ChrisO 18:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I helped re-establish the University's student union in 1999 after the bombing. Everyone I met called it the University of Prishtina, and it appears that that's the name, as recognised by UNMIK, which is in use today. I'm sorry that this is "primary research" but it's also common sense. However, it's clear that for some considerable time an institution based in the same place, and serving the same geographical area, was referred to by the appropriate government (the Serb one) as the University of Priština. Perhaps they also accepted an alternative Albanian spelling at that time, although it seems unlikely.
So, we have one institution, which has effectively undergone a change of official name. Let's please look at other universities in this position. For example, the British University of Aberdeen which was previously two distinct universities: Kings College, Aberdeen and Marischal College. The two colleges are now part of one university. Each of the constituent parts has a page (largely about the buildings) but the main article is about the whole place, including its history, and uses the current official name as the article title. Another example is the University of Abertay Dundee, which was previously known by another name. The article on the institution takes the current name as its title. Let's follow the standard model, and from now on just concentrate on making sure that the introduction and "history" sections are fair and balanced. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 18:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,University of Priština is a separate body.Founded by Serbian government in 1970 for students of all nationalities and minorities,in early 90's it split into two universities-official conducted by Serbian Ministry of Education,and parallel Albanian,which was not recognised by any state institution.In 1999,after the Kosovo War,a few faculty and staff were killed at campus by Albanians (I wrote about that and can cite mu sources),and University was forced to move from Priština.It was moved first to Kruševac (city in central Serbia),and later,in 2001,back to Kosovo,this time to Kosovska Mitrovica and neighboring towns (Zvečan,Zubin Potok,Lešak,Leposavić).It's official name is University of Priština (Serbian: Univerzitet u Prištini).It is recogniseed by Serbian government (Kosovo and Metohija is autonomous province of Serbia-read Wikipedia's articles about Kosovo and UN's Resolution 1244),and, from 2001, also by UNMIK (As I can realize,both institutions -Serbian and Albanian - are recognized by UNMIK).I suggest you to visit websites of Infostud(http://www.infostud.com/obrazovanje/pris/) and Ministry of Education and Sport of Republic of Serbia(http://www.mps.sr.gov.yu/code/navigate.php?Id=156) or to ask for information chancellor of the University of Priština.You can write to the following adress: Filipa Višnjića bb, 38220 Kosovska Mitrovica,or call 028 422-340,or send fax to 028 422-320.As I know, the website currently doesn't function. Andrija

Thanks for this info. So in the early 90s there was a separate Albanian institution. But (and I ask this as a genuine question, not to stir up trouble) after 1999, did it "take over" the buildings of the Serb institution in what might in less unpleasant circumstances have been called a re-unification? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 10:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the name dispute, I think you might be interested in seeing the result of a recent poll on what spelling the article on Priština itself should use. It might not be directly applicable here, of course, but still, something to consider. Personally, I find it strange that the name of the city is spelled differently on different relevant pages. If the official name of the university is "University of Prishtina" in Albanian, then we have to use the translation for the article title anyway, and then it is only logical to use the spelling for Priština used in the article for the city. If, however, there is an official English name of the university, and it is "University of Prishtina", then that's what it is... -- int19h 14:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


University of Prishtina and University of Priština (both names were official) were the same thing since its foundation in 1970. It has been established as a result of increasing demands of the Albanian population to have more independence in their education. So the University of Belgrade branches in Kosovo simply converted into the core of the future University of Prishtina ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed].


After the abolition of Kosovar autonomy the university lost its independence too, so the Albanian academic staff (90% of the total staff) decided to boycott the new Institution and set up their own parallel "University of Prishtina". Teaching was conducted in private houses and the diplomas that were issued were not regocnized internationally and deemed illegal by the Serbian authorities. At the same time "University of Priština" hired a number of lecturers from Serbia to fill the void left by the departing staff. Most of its students came from Serbia too. The teaching quality on both parallel institutions fell sharply and was crippled by rife corruption ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]. This (along with the fact that they were studying in an Albanian speaking town) made the University of Priština a very last choice for the vast majority of Serbian students who would reluctantly enrol in it because of their failed attempts to get into the one of the three major universities elsewhere in Serbia. It was rumoured that you could buy a medical degree for 1000 (or even less) Deutchmarks. Whether or not this was true, the university was more or less considered to be a bad choice if you wanted to be taken seriously.
On the ther hand, University of Prishtina was facing almost identical problems. Due to constant harrasment of its students by the Serbian police and the security forces, most of its potential bright students would migrate to the West or to the other Albanian speaking universities in the Balkans: University of Tirana and the (then illegal) University of Tetovo. After the 1999 NATO intervention. University of Prishtina moved to their original buildings, whereas the University of Priština relocated to the northern part of Mitrovica.
There are no plans to re-unite them. Tonycdp 10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for writing these explanations. I would just add some corrections. There are five state universities in Serbia,including this. Although University of Priština had a little bit lower ranking than,for example,universities of Belgrade or Novi Sad, stories about corrupction are exeggerated(statistics about percentage of Albanian academic staff should also be checked). Quality of teaching offered by some departments was lower, but,on the other hand, students graduated from some other departments (such as Music Performance, Visual Arts, Acting, Philosophy) and their teachers were, and are, esteemed in Serbia and abroad. We should not generalize. 18:41 5 September 2006 Andrija

Thank you for writing such an informative explanation, Andrija. I've done a bit of research using Google Books, and the University does seem to have a very interesting story. I've expanded the article to provide a bit more background on it. In reply to int19h's question above, yes, it does call itself the University of Prishtina in English (see http://www.uni-pr.info/zmj/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=26&lang=en ). -- ChrisO 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to an earlier version of the article because I found two major errors in the current version:

  1. It doesn't mention faculties of Serbian university, as if they don't exist.
  2. In the history section it says that the university was opened in 1970 while it was in fact founded in 1960s, so there are likely to be major inaccuracies as well.

Chris, I see now that you wrote most of the history. Sorry for destroying your work, but otherwise my work would be destroyed, and I did it first. I hope we could join the two versions, some parts are quite similar. Nikola 21:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back, for two reasons. First, the version reverted to was blatantly POV. Second, neither of the "errors" given as the reasons are, in fact, errors. Specifically, the faculties of the Serbian university are mentioned (par. 3):

The Albanian faculty regained control of the campus after the end of the Kosovo War in 1999. The Serbian faculty relocated to the northern Kosovo town of Kosovska Mitrovica, where it has operated - effectively as a rival university - under the name of the University of Priština (Serbian: Univerzitet u Prištini). Both faculties are recognised by the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the Serbian faculty is additionally recognised by the Serbian government.

Furthermore, the university itself was indeed opened in 1970. Even your own version of the article says as much:

In the beginning, most of the faculties have operated as external units of the University of Belgrade, but as their number grew, in the beginning of the 1970 the University of Priština was formed.

So there was no such thing as the "University of Prishtina" in 1960. All sources I was able to find give 1970 as foundation date as well. The information about the university roots is certainly worthwhile, though, so I'm including it into the article. -- int19h 07:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the university's predecessor was something called the Philosophical Faculty in Pristina, which appears to have been a branch of the University of Belgrade. Every source I've found gives the foundation date of the U of P as 1970. As for Nikola's version, I agree that some bits of it were too POV to stand, but nonetheless there's a fair amount of useful info in there. Let's do what we can to merge the two. -- ChrisO 07:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources

[edit]

First of all, I would like to reference the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies:

In particular, I want to draw attention to this definition:

A fact is an actual state of affairs. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact. As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. (New evidence might emerge so that the statement is no longer accepted as a fact; at that time the encyclopedia should be revised.)

Now, this article references a lot of sources, and some of them are in support of seemingly POV statements. This is something to be expected due to the nature of the article, but even so, more care is neede. In particular, at the moment there are many sourced statements in the article, which feel POVish, and are phrased as if describing a fact - "X happened", rather than "according to Y, X happened", or "Y believe that X happened", which would seem to be more appropriate when sources are suspect of being unreliable and/or biased. The following source has particularly drawn my attention:

  • Sladjana Djuric (No. 240-241). "Izmesteni univerzitet". Republika. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Just to clarify: having POV sources and references to them is fine, they just cannot be relied upon to state facts rather than opinions. For example, this is presented as a fact in the current version of the article:

Those who were needed have been offered to work on education in Serbian language, however because of threats and pressure directed to them by other Albanians very few remained.

or this:

The university ... existed without any connection to the academic system, whis led to worsening of the quality of education ...

Yet the only reference to back these rather strong statement is to the aforementioned source. I'm not sure what it is, even - a web mirror of a printed magazine? an e-zine? Yet the source is the most heavily referenced one throughout the article, with 33 references to it - this, IMO, justifies a higher level of scrutiny for it.

It's hard to verify suspicions I have though, as the source is entirely in Serbian. I would therefore like to ask people who can read it to help with determining its nature, and clarifying on how reliable it is. -- int19h 11:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The URL is a part of the web mirror of a printed magazine. It is my impression that the article is written by a woman who was (is?) employed at the university. I don't see why would statement "The university ... existed without any connection to the academic system, whis led to worsening of the quality of education" be of any doubt, it is obvious that if you move out of buildings and laboratories specifically made for education you will get worse education, especially on some faculties (technical, medical, drama...). I recall otherwise that there were threats directed on people who were "loyal to Serbian government" so that too is not doubtful. Nikola 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why worsening of quality of education could be disputed is right there in the article: "However, the university professors have reported about a large number of graduates, magisters and doctors ...". As I understand, the professors in question are those of Albanian university (this might need clarification, by the way). I fully agree with you that one would expect the quality to worsen in this case, but quality is an objective measure. If we have the numbers showing that academic results did indeed worsen, then it is a fact. If we only have claims, then they should be reported as such. It is the same thing for threats - I personally very much believe they took place, but we need more than one source (or a single but reliable, and preferrably impartial, source) claiming that to state it as a definite fact rather than just a claim of one side. -- int19h 06:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a stub about Republika. Yes, that refers to Albanian university. Perhaps an objective measure could be whether its diploma was recognised at some other university (if it was it shouldn't be hard to proove).

About Sladjana Djurić:

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:rORnNBQxDuwJ:www.fco.bg.ac.yu/biografije/sladjana_djuric.pdf+sla%C4%91ana+%C4%91uri%C4%87+sociologija&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=netscape-pp

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:d7gQqP3CCmwJ:www.fco.bg.ac.yu/eng/biographies/sladjana_djuric.php+sladjana+djuric&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=netscape-pp

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:KfVrbH3MCJAJ:147.91.230.48/ifdt/tribina/s_arhiva%3Fstdlang%3Den+sladjana+djuric&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=netscape-pp


http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Y5d0gTW7X7YJ:nainfo.nbs.bg.ac.yu/html/autori/autori_8.htm+sladjana+djuric+pristina&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10

http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/issuedetails.aspx?issueid=729a71d5-2bf4-4ace-85c0-f4b64fac54b6&articleId=e082e06d-ac50-447f-9a16-14e08f737c61#search=%22sla%C4%91ana%20%C4%91uri%C4%87%20%20sociologija%22 

                                               Andrija 12:19, 13 September 2006
Enough to write an article about her too. Nikola 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name

[edit]

User:Bormalagurski has (in effect) proposed that this article should be at University of Priština. I've reverted this change, because I feel it needs some discussion before we go down that road.

The current university in Pristina seems to call itself the "University of Prishtina" and not the "University of Priština". Equally, the rival university in Kosovska Mitrovica calls itself the "University of Priština", not the "University of Prishtina". I note that Andrija says above that the "University of Priština is a separate body". In that case, should we have two separate articles on the two rival universities? -- ChrisO 22:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that while University of Priština is in fact a separate body, it didn't use to be that. In other words, there was a long period of time when there was only one university there, and it was called University of Priština back then. If we split the article, it would be logical to have three articles: one for a single University of Priština which existed from 1970 until 1999, one for the Albanian University of Prishtina (Priština) from 1999 on, and one for the Serbian University of Priština (Kosovska Mitrovica) also from 1999 on, the latter two articles linking to the first one from their respective "History" sections. If we only have two articles, we will either have to duplicate a lot of info about history in both, or, if we only choose to place history in one article (and link to it from another), it could be taken as a claim that this one university is a true successor to the original University of Priština, and not the other one - probably not a good idea... -- int19h 06:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point(s). I think a three-article solution along the lines that you suggest would be the fairest solution. -- ChrisO 21:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that the last two attempts at moving the article were done via cut & paste. This is not how it should be done, as in case of cut & paste moves the editing history is not preserved. See Help:Moving a page for more information on how to do it properly, but to cut it short: since the article titled "University of Priština" already exists, and it has more than one record in its history, there is no way a non-admin can do this move properly. -- int19h 06:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the three-article solution: I don't know about such a solution being used anywhere; also, in the same way as having two articles would imply that one of the universities is successor, having three would imply that they both are (or that neither isn't). Maybe, if the articles on universities would be expanded, but I don't see what is wrong with having only one article as is the case now. That article, IMO, should be at University of Priština because the article on the city is on Priština. Chris, I don't see why you keep insisting on the way the university calls itself. How an institution calls itself is irrelevant for Wikipedia, or else the article on Republika Srpska would be at Republic of Srpska, right? Nikola 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having three articles would not imply anything about which one is a successor. It would merely state the fact that there was a single university for some time, and then it branched into two clearly distinct ones. It is because they are two different institutions is why they deserve separate articles in my opinion. As for the name, I'd say just use the most common one, which at the moment seems to be "University of Prishtina". I did a Google test just to be sure:
So while "Prishtina" on its own has not become more common in English yet, "University of Prishtina" clearly had. I think this is because the uni which is located in Priština proper is more widely known (and at the moment it happens to be the Albanian one), and it is more often referred to by the name it gives for itself. -- int19h 16:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot one combination: University of Pristina - 20800 (+305=21105). Pristina is Priština minus the diacritic. In such cases (and let me again say that I think this is stupid) we keep the diacritic in the article title despite the fact that common English use is without diacritic (on the basis that common use should be with diacritic, similar to how naïve, née etc. are most oftenly written without diacritics). Pristina is also more common than Priština. Nikola 19:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the no-diacritic version myself, but it is not so clear-cut in this case. While words such as "naïve" are indeed commonly written without diacritics in non-official writing, the correct English spelling is still with diacritics. Yet for names in foreign languages, such as "Priština", there is no common rule, so we have to decide on a case by case basis.
Anyway, the updated Google test at least clearly shows that there is no preferred English name anyway. That leaves us with the official name if the article remains one (tricky, that, considering there are two official names as there are two universities). Makes me favour the split even more. -- int19h 06:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Serbian nationalists"

[edit]

This little phrase is intended to discredit the point that is made. Just because someone makes a certain accusation doesn't immediately mean they are "Serbian nationalists" as the past revision implies.--Hadžija 14:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That little phrase is not trying to discredit anything. It is just attributing those comments to those that have made them. What you are trying to push is inherently POV and constitutes "Weasel Words". Read up on it before reverting again.135.196.7.146 14:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's your POV that people who held such a view were by definition "Serbian nationalists".--Hadžija 15:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's supported by the sources. I've added a reference and attributed the claim to the people who were making the charge - Serbian politicians and the Serbian media. -- ChrisO 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to University of Pristina or Priština

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to University of Priština.--Húsönd 03:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


University of Prishtina → University of Pristina or University of Priština — Move from the Albanian name (used in the official web site) to the Serbian one, to reflect common English usage, as illustrated in the "English usage" sub-section below.

Since the use of diacritics -š- is also an issue here, I think that both options should be considered:

  • Pristina, which would reflect the usual lack of diacritics in English-language publications, and may be considered a "politically neutral" name.
  • Priština, which I find, in the words of Húsönd, a more perfectionist and educative way to display it. It would also be consistent with the article on Priština.

Best regards, - Evv 19:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Add #'''Move''' or #'''Keep''' in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation (with further comment in the "Discussion" section), then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Move to University of Pristina

[edit]
  1. Appears to be more common, by the results below; and if we make one heart calmer by compromise, that's a gain. I'll think about the others, but this is my first choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Argument below, in the discussion section. Meelosh 23:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to University of Priština

[edit]
  1. Move, as nom. This is my preferred choice, for consistency with the article on the city, but I also agree to a move to "Pristina" (without diacritics), based on the searches in the "English usage" sub-section below :-). - Evv 19:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Move for consistency with the article on the city --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Move for consistency with the article on the city. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Move for consistency with the article on the city. --Avala 21:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Move for consistency with the article on the city and thats the correct spelling, not Pristina. --Happyman22 22:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Move for consistency with the article on the city. -- Andrija.b 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Move for consistency with the article on the city. --SasaStefanovic • 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Move for consistency with the article on the city. --Krytan 02:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Move, name of city is Priština. --Djordjes (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Move for consistency with the article on the city. --BokicaK 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Move for consistency with the article on the city and to avoid losing a NPOV. --Acachinero 14:57, 18 February 2007 (GMT +1)

Keep at University of Prishtina

[edit]
  1. Ordinarily I would vote for a move to "University of Pristina" as a straight translation of "Universiteti i Prishtinës", but in this case the institution has explicitly identified itself in English as the "University of Prishtina". This sort of situation is already addressed at Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms. To quote: "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name. ... Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is." The fact that other sources use "University of Pristina" is, I'm afraid, irrelevant, particularly as many of those sources will relate to the pre-1999 university. Our long-standing rule per Wikipedia:Naming conflict is that current self-identifying names take priority. For instance, a great many sources refer to the city of Bombay, but that place now identifies itself as Mumbai - hence our article on it uses that as the official name of the place. If we choose to use an alternative name we are in effect imposing our preferred version, which would violate Wikipedia:Naming conflict and probably WP:NPOV as well. The current name of this article is the only option that fully meets those policies and criteria. -- ChrisO 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is discussed at "Discussion" below. - Evv 13:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keep. The self-identifying English name used in this case is "University of Prishtina", not "University of insert-your-preferred-name-of-the-capital-of-Kosovo-here". "Prishtina" is certainly legal English spelling of the name, even if it is less widespread. Therefore, there is no reason to go around deconstructing the name and - the simplest, and thus preferrable, course of action is just to use it as is. -- int19h 15:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Keep, since the university self-identifies with this name. —Nightstallion (?) 13:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Keep. I think that the people of the abovementioned institution have the right to decide how they like to name their institution, and how they like to be known around the world. If the people who work, teach and study at this institution want to call it "University of Prishtina" then people who have absolutely no connection with this institution do not have the right to rename the university to their liking. Kosovar 13:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Keep. The institutions name is just that, and it is internationally recognised as that. This move seems to remind me of the Serbian politics, desparate and defeated. Move to the serbian version, only so that it will move back to its original form in the next 4 months. Seems exceptionally stupid. One last note: ALL or MOST the editors that support the move, seem to be Serbs, from their personal profiles.Sanmint 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English usage

[edit]

Google Print test:

Google Scholar test:

Amazon.com test:

The New York Times:

BBC:

CNN:

Best regards, Evv 19:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments:
  • Comment on ChrisO's opinion:

Note: This long comment can be resumed as: Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms advocated for common English translations of self-identifying terms (preferred per WP:UE), and not "the English translation used by the institution itself". - Regards, Evv 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I must say that I'm confused with what Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms implies. It's the very first time I read it - I hadn't seen it mentioned before during my six months in Wikipedia :-)

So far I have been under the assumption that common English usage was the golden rule, with some exception here and there. Talking with Davu.leon about the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo article I even mentioned that "in my understanding, for the purposes of article naming and usage throughout Wikipedia, common English usage [...] trumps whatever name a foreign political party chooses for itself in English." Was I wrong about that ? I'm already thinking of how many of my last edits will I have to revert if self-identifying names are indeed the norm :-)

Upon reading the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline, I found that #Proper nouns gives "three key principles":

  1. "The most common use of a name takes precedence;"
  2. "If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names; "
  3. "If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves. "

The way I read it, those three principles support my previous interpretation that common English usage takes precedent, and only its absence leads to the adoption of a self-identifying name as a tie-breaker of sorts.

However, #Dealing with self-identifying terms is written as if it were an autonomous guideline, as far as it doesn't mention those "three key principles", or a clear relation with common English usage. That would mean that #Proper nouns and #Dealing with self-identifying terms contradict each other.

What it does mention is:

Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. For example: "Japanese" and not Nihon-jin.

That example could perhaps be morphed into something like: University of "Pristina" and not University of Prishtina.

Then, #Ambiguity persists reminds us of the recognisability concept: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize..." , which brings us back to WP:NC and common English usage.

So, after all this I fully agree that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. But as I understand it, it is descriptive of common English usage, not of self-identifying names (although it may use self-identifying names in the absence of a clear common English usage).

If common English usage is the norm, then it's "Prishtina" the one that violates WP:NC, WP:NCON & WP:NPOV, and "Pristina/Priština" the one that would comply with them. But, is it really the norm ?

Regarding Mumbai, that's the name I see constantly used in CNN & BBC. It's not only the self-identifying name, but has also become widespeard enough to have even a good messure of common English usage on its side. This is not the case with "Prishtina".

Finally, if self-identifying name is indeed the norm, and more important than common English usage, I guess that we should start moving most articles about Kosovo to its Albanian names, starting with Prishtina Municipality (not to mention Kiev and its university)...

In any case, as I said at the beginning I'm still confused and not entirely sure of what to make of all this. I hope that some cold beer and a good dinner with friends will help to clear my thoughts. Happy weekend everyone :-) Evv 01:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well... those activities do clear the mind :-) Upon reading it again, I find that #Proper nouns and #Dealing with self-identifying terms do complement each other neatly if we circumscribe the former to the actual words employed and the latter to the general concept.

So, using the self-identifying terms rationale we state the fact that both competing institutions (the Serbian and the Albanian one) identify themselves as "University of Kosovo's capital" (and that would be so even if each one of them -and other institutions and government bodies- were to deny the other the right to use such a name).

But, when it comes to what precise word to use for "Kosovo's capital", we rely on common English usage to choose between "University of Prishtina", "University of Pristina" or "University of Priština".

Such a reading reconciles both competing rationales, and from my point of view makes perfect sense, mantaining a descriptive and NPOV approach without sacrifying the use of English words or common English usage.

Thus, quoting again from #Dealing with self-identifying terms:

Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. For example: "Japanese" and not Nihon-jin.

And I stress the mention of common English translation, usually preferred per WP:UE, instead of references to "the English translation used by the institution itself".

So, in our case, the common English translation of the self-identifying term appears to be "University of Pristina" (with or without š).

Am I making any sense, or is this a clear sign that I need to take a wiki-break ? :-) Best regards, Evv 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it says "commongly used English translation", and not "commongly used English spelling". If the self-identifying name of the university would only be in Albanic, then the point would make sense. But "University of Prishtina" is a self-identifying name already in English, so there is no need to translate, and therefore the question of "the most common translation" does not even arise. -- int19h 15:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why this principle is not applicable to names of Kosovo cities and municipalities (for example) is that they have no official (which in this case amounts to "self-identifying") English translations, but only Serbian and Albanian. Therefore we use the most common English translation there. Should Kosovo become independent, and its government declare that the official English spelling is "Prishtina", we would have to use that for the article names (descriptive, not prescriptive, remember?); see Côte_d'Ivoire for a precedent. Same goes for Mumbai. The only real reason why Kiev is not at Kyiv yet is that, unfortunately, there is a large number of Russian users on en-wiki who tend to vote as a single block on "sensitive" issues like that, and a few heavy-handed Russian admins who are quite eager to enforce the results of such polls (that is obviously my very subjective opinion - take it for what it is). -- int19h 15:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure. As I mentioned above, before this move request it had been my understanding that Wikipedia was descriptive of current common English usage, not prescriptive, but neither descriptive of the "official" translations used by the article's subjects themselves.
That was the reason behind my "using Kosovo or -va"-related edits so far, and the reason why I believe that Kiev & Ivory Coast should be used instead of Kyiv & Côte d'Ivoire. – In the case of Mumbai, I support its use because it also is, to a large extent, common English usage, with its official character being only a re-inforcing factor. In other words, Mumbai is a new official name that has to a large degree been adopted as common current English usage.
That is not the case with the Albanian names of Kosovo's geography, a region for which the English language apparently continues to use the Serbian ones. But, not surprisingly, many institutions and organizations from Kosovo already use the Albanian forms as their own self-identifying English-language names. This includes how Kosovo's cities choose to name themselves in the English-language verisons of their official web pages:
Priština's official web-page uses "Prishtina " in English.
Dragaš's official web-page uses "Dragash " in English.
Đakovica's official web-page uses "Gjakova " in English.
Gnjilane's official web-page uses "Gjilan " in English.
Kačanik's official web-page uses "Kaçanik " in English.
Lipljan's official web-page uses "Lipjan " in English.
Orahovac's official web-page uses "Rahovec " in English.
Peć's official web-page uses "Peja " in English.
Podujevo's official web-page uses "Podujeva " in English.
Srbica's official web-page uses "Skenderaj " in English.
Štimlje's official web-page uses "Shtime " in English.
Uroševac's official web-page uses "Ferizaj " in English.
Vitina's official web-page uses "Viti " in English.
Or take a look a the list of "Municipalities of Kosovo" at Kosovo's Government Portal in English: only Malisevo uses a non-Albanian name.
The Democratic League of Kosovo's official web-page uses "Democratic League of Kosova " in English.
The Alliance for a New Kosovo's official web-page uses "New Kosova Alliance " in English.
The Alliance for the Future of Kosovo appears to use "Alliance for the Future of Kosova" in English (Davu.leon could name adequate sources).
The Football Federation of Kosovo's official web-page uses "Football Federation of Kosova " in English, and "Kosova Super League " (or Superleague) in English (Wikipedia's article is currently under Kosovar Superliga).
Those are clearly examples of how those intitutions and organizations already identify themselves in English using the Albanian names, while the Serbian forms remain common English usage.
So, in my understanding, if the principle applies to this article (University of Prishtina"), then of course it should apply to Kiev, but also to the above listed articles (some of which would be under their "incorrect" names because of my previous misinterpretation that common English usage had precedent).
I'm still confused, and waiting for more comments :-) Best regards, Evv 16:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment by PaxEquilibrium:

I don't have much time, but I spent what little I could skimming through this talk page, and moving to University of Pristina seems to be the most sensible thing (and not š). --PaxEquilibrium 22:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment by Meelosh:

My understanding is that common current English usage refers to what's the most frequently used word for something, in this case the University of Pristina. Firstly, I cannot accept the argument that "University of Pristina" is a world of its own, independent of the city of Pristina itself, so different standards could apply. Let me draw a parallel - Belgrade's university is called University of Belgrade in English, not University of Beograd, which would be a direct translation of a commonly used name.

So, the question remains what word is the most common for Pristina in the English language. The answer - look in the dictionary, on the map, Google it, talk to someone impartial who speaks English as a native language. Pronounciation differs from Pristina to Prishtina, but they all spell it Pristina. And that by definition is common current English usage. Meelosh 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment by Andrija

I disagree agree with Kosovar's oppinion . Keep in mind that there are two institutions, one of which call itself University of Priština, and the other U. of Prishtina. We should find some other criterion. Andrija 16:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Move request to University of Prishtina

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy close. This has been discussed a couple of weeks ago. Persisting with another poll will not move the article back. Article moves regarding Priština or other Kosovo related matters always result in a Serbian-Albanian disputes and there is really no way to please everybody. However, Wikipedia is not a Balkan battleground, we use consensus here. And for this particular page move, there was consensus to move.--Húsönd 04:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Naming conventions Wikipedia:Proper names

I call into the arguments made by neutral non-Serb editors to support the move request back to University of Prishtina. For these reasons:

1. The name of the Institution is "University of Prishtina" and is recognised as such by all the international bodies.

2. The recent move request POLL does not reflect the neutral POV. I have a good reason to suspect that the article has been hijacked by Serb nationalists, who have come together to tip the balance in their favor. This represents a victory for Serbian POV, and not for the NPOV. 90% of all the editors that supported the move to the serbian version of "University of Priština" are ethnic serbs as per their profiles.

3. This article was in a stable state for a relatively long time, and the change that has been applied is purely political, albeit ignoring the original internationally recognised name of the institution.

To the admins considering this request, I would suggest to read the arguments presented in this page again and reach a neutral conclusion, and also to resist the Poll results which are not indicative of NPOV, in contrary it is a tool that is easily abused by batch voting by an ethnic group. Sanmint 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Pristina/Archive_2&oldid=1137288160"