This is an archive of past discussions about Deçan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If sombody have UN acceptit evidence that the name of the city is not Deqani but is Dečani, then this articel must be unter the name: Gjilani and the page named "Gnjilane" must be redirect. My evidence you kann see in UNMIK oficiale page and documentation.--Hipi Zhdripi00:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The territory is under temporary UN administration, as ruled in the Resolution 1244 (1999), adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 10 June 1999[1], where the UN reafirmed its commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (and its sucessor state, the Union of Serbia and Montenegro, after the country changed its name). Therefore, it is not up to the UN to invent new geographical denominations. I also like to remind you that this is English language wikipedia, so please make sure your contributions are up to standard regarding syntax and spelling, together with the use of commonly recognised geographic denominations. Regards, Asterion13:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
This is only intepretation but is not a argumet. The oficel name of this city in english is like the calle they city. This city is more knowit with the name Deqani. Hier are the last UN officel dokument about the kosovos city/municapitality --Hipi Zhdripi20:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Because Kosovo is recognised by a vast amount of countries worldwide, and the majority of the population comprises of Albanians, the names of all municipalities should state the Albanian name first, followed by the Serbian. The Serbian name being stated first is an attempt by the enthic Serbs to try and inform individuals that Kosovo is still a part of the Serbian state, which in fact is not. Therefore, I request that the name of this article be changed back to the previous Albanian version of the name. Bennybrus (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only oficele name are the names presentit in >A< every thinks als is out of Law. This is for albanian language.
RREGULLORe NR. 2000/43
UNMIK/REG/2000/43
27 korrik 2000
Mbi numrin, emrat dhe kufinjtë e komunave
-------------------------------------------
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm,
Në pajtim me autorizimin e tij të dhënë me rezolutën 1244 (1999) të datës 10 qershor 1999 të
Këshillit të Sigurimit të Kombeve të Bashkuara,
Duke marrë parasysh Rregulloren nr. 1999/1 të datës 25 korrik 1999, të ndryshuar, të
Misionit të Administratës së Përkohshme të Kombeve të Bashkuara në Kosovë (UNMIK)
mbi autorizimin e Administratës së
Përkohshme në Kosovë dhe Rregulloren Nr. 1999/24 të datës 12 dhjetor 1999 të UNMIK-ut
mbi ligjin në fuqi në Kosovë,
Me qëllim të qartësimit të numrit, emrave, shtrirja dhe kufinjve të komunave para mbajtjes
së zgjedhjeve komunale në Kosovë,
Shpall sa vijon:
Neni 1
Numri dhe emrat e komunave
Kosova ka tridhjetë komuna ashtu siç figurojnë në Tabelën ‘A’ të kësaj rregulloreje.
Komunikimi zyrtar nuk përmban asnjë emër për ndonjë komunë i cili nuk figuron në Tabelën ‘A’
të kësaj rregulloreje, përveç që në ato komuna ku komunitetet etnike a gjuhësore joshqiptare
dhe joserbe përbëjnë një pjesë substanciale, emrat e komunave jepen edhe në gjuhët e
atyre komuniteteve.
Neni 2
Shtrirja dhe kufinjtë e komunave
Shtrirja e çdo komune dhe kufinjtë e tyre skicohen nga zonat e tyre përbërëse kadastrale.
Zonat kadastrale të cilat përbëjnë çdo komunë figurojnë në Tabelën ‘B’ të kësaj rregulloreje.
Neni 3
Zbatimi
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm mund të lëshojë direktiva administrative
në lidhje me zbatimin e kësaj rregulloreje.
Neni 4
Ligji i zbatueshëm
Kjo rregullore mbulon çdo dispozitë në ligjin e zbatueshëm e cila nuk është në përputhje me të.
Neni 5
Hyrja në fuqi
Kjo rregullore hyn në fuqi më 27 korrik 2000.
Bernard Kouchner
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm
The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only oficele name are the names presentit in >A< every thinks als is out of Law. This is for serbian language.
UREDBA BR. 2000/43
UNMIK/URED/2000/43
27. jul 2000. godine
O BROJU, IMENIMA I GRANICAMA OP[TINA
Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara,
Shodno ovla{}ewu koje mu je dato Rezolucijom Saveta bezbednosti Ujediwenih
nacija 1244 (1999) od 10. juna 1999. godine,
Na osnovu Uredbe br. 1999/1 od 25. jula 1999. godine Privremene
administrativne misije Ujediwenih nacija na Kosovu (UNMIK), sa izmenama i
dopunama, o ovla{}ewima Privremene uprave na Kosovu i na osnovu Uredbe
UNMIK-a br. 2000/24 od 12. decembra 2000. godine o zakonu koji je u primeni na
Kosovu, <u>(hier is oficele user)</u>
U ciqu razja{wavawa broja, imena, oblasti i granica op{tina pre odr`avawa
op{tinskih izbora na Kosovu,
Ovim objavquje slede}e:
Clan 1
BROJ I IMENA OPSTINA
1.1 Kosovo ima trideset opstina kao sto je dato u Tabeli '''A''' u dodatku ovoj
Uredbi.
1.2 Zvani~na komunikacija ne mo`e da sadrzi bilo koje ime za opstinu koje
nije naziv odredjen u Tabeli A ove Uredbe, osim u onim opstinama gde etni~ke i
jezi~ke zajednice, koje nisu srpske i albanske ~ine znatan deo stanovni{tva, gde
se imena op{tina daju i na jezicima tih zajednica.
Clan 2
PODRU^JA I GRANICE OP[TINA
Podru~je svake op{tine i wene granice su ocrtane wenim sastavnim
katastarskim zonama. Katastarske zone koje ~ine svaku op{tinu su odre|ene u
Tabeli B prilo`enoj u dodatku ovoj Uredbi.
Clan 3
PRIMENA
Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara mo`e da donese administrativno
uputstvo u vezi sa primenom ove Uredbe.
Clan 4
ZAKON KOJI JE U PRIMENI
Ova Uredba zamewuje svaku odredbu zakona koji je u primeni a koja nije saglasna
sa wom.
Clan 5
STUPAWE NA SNAGU
Ova Uredba stupa na snagu 27. jula 2000. godine.
Bernar Ku{ner
Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara
If sambody have a argument Im waitting. In another cases you are going to interpret the dokumets (you are out of UN Law) and you dont have argumet you dont work for Wikipedia but for the sebian govermant and you are destroing the Wikipedia image. I know that my english is not so gut, but a desinformation is not gut for Wikipedia. This tabel is speeken better then I --Hipi Zhdripi20:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
No argumet
No argumet
Sombody have putit this Kosovo place in Serbia stub or category or template here with out argumet. We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this stub or category or template. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia.--Hipi Zhdripi04:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
See: // Dečani // see how the administrativ office have diseditet at first albanian and secend serbian L. The argument [2] and the talk seit of the articel.
See: //..UN administered Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohia..// propaganda Kosovo is not a Serbian provinc (see UN rez. 1244)
See: //..Kosovo and Metohia..// (propaganda) the corret used toponim of this place in englisht is Kosovo (see UN rez. 1244/see Wikipedia artikel Kosovo)
See:// St. Stephen of Decani // The serbian King? pleace place the correkt title name of the person. (without fanatismus or propaganda)
see://Visoki Dečani monastery// place user the correct name of the manastier (without fanatismus or propaganda)
See: //The monastery is situated in the western part of the UN administered Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohia. It was built between 1327 and 1335 by the Serbian medieval king, St. Stephen of Decani, and was dedicated to the Ascension of the Lord. The monastery is situated in the valley of the Bistrica river surrounded by the mountains and forests of the Prokletije mountain range. It is regarded as the largest and best preserved medieval monastery in Kosovo. During its turbulent history the monastery was an important spiritual center renowned for its artistic and intellectual activities. Although the monastery buildings suffered damage from the Turkish occupation, the church has been completely preserved complete with its 14th century fresco paintings. Today a young brotherhood of 30 brethren lives in the monastery maintaining the traditions of the past: religious services, icon painting, wood carving, book publishing and is also active in the missionary work. The beautiful monastic services are served according to the typicon of Mount Athos. // we have in Wikipedia a articel about that. this is a articel about the city.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a collection of primary source documents, a soapbox, a newspaper, a free host, a webspace provider, a series of vanity articles, a memorial collection, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a grouping of links (whether internal or external). It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy. All editors must strive for accuracy.
Wikipedia uses the neutral point-of-view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.
I have changed the languages to alphabetical order. Sorry but Kosovo is still recognised as a Serbian province. If anything else comes out of the Vienna talks (for example, all parties agreeing to a confederation of three states:Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegor), we should change this and the other articles accordingly. At this moment, you cannot decide at your own will to remove the references to Serbia, just because you do not like Serbs. Regards, --Asterion21:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, you should not use the POV tag so arbitrarily. Unless you provide me with a reasonable explanation in the next couple of days, I shall be removing it, in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Regards, --Asterion23:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It is now User:Tonycdp who's doing it - and not Hipi. Tony, please bear in mind that your claims "lost" on Kosovo and several other articles, so don't try to push the fight to other articles, please. --PaxEquilibrium19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Country , Province
Why does the infobox display kosovo as a country and as a province ? It should be either a country or a province not both--Cradel10:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
On using Deqani as title
Before two years, I have presented the argument. In thate time it was clear, thate, Serbia with or without Kosovo, is going to be part of Europe Card for citys names. And Europ Card for citys names (komuna) is adopted from Kosovar Govermend. My dier friends in English Wikipedia, you are maken not a litel problem, but with all information, you are changen the oficial names of the citys in Kosovo.
You have taket the Serbial Law or some imagenedet rouls, als more importen thane UN Law. English Wikipedia is not working/existing under the Serbian Law, but under UN Law. Don´t be wondering if somebody is acusing the English Wikipedia for anti-UN propaganda and "spaming" desinformation to the internet iusers.
The mandat of UN in Kosovo is hight livel thane Serbian Law - witch since the UNMIK is in Kosovo, dont exist anymore for Kosovo.
You are working agains the Kosovo Law
You are working agains the Europen Card for city names
You are working agains the UNMIK - Law
You are working agains the UN - Law
The LAW of Kosovo, Eropen, UNMIK and UN, thate I have presented here before two years nobady diden respect.
Becose of this I acuse you for desinformations and working aganis this LAWS, and with you works here you are helping to destabisate the sitution in Balkan. DON SAY THAT YOUR HANDS ARE CLEAR, DONT BE PART OF PROPAGANDA WITCH MOTIVAT THE PRIMITIV PEOPEL, PLEASE REPECT THE UN - LAW
THE SYS. AND ADMINISTRATORS OF ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA HAVE RESPOSIBLITI TO STOP MAKEN WIKIPEDIA AS PART OF PROPAGANDA WITCH MOTIVATE PRIMITIV PEOPEL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.183.85 (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
POV
I want to make sure that all the names and locations of the villages are listed. Do not remove them. see my talk page for argumentation. I invited you for comments. James Michael DuPont (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Name
The name of the city is Dečane, not Dečani, but the name of the same municipal is Dečani...So it has to be changed.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.209.119 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Decan
The article should be 'Deçan' or 'Dechan', not 'Dečani'. I prefer the spelling 'Dechan' as it is the most English spelling of the name. The letters 'č' and 'ç' cannot be read in English. The article should instead be named 'Dechan' with the native spellings of 'Deçan' and 'Dečani'. If 'Dechan' is not accepted, then it should be named 'Deçan'. Inhabitants of the city are primarily Albanian, so there is no point of a Serbian spelling. ---iRi.
Dirifer (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
What name is now most commonly used? Names can change over time, of course, but can we get some evidence of current usage? bobrayner (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved. Raw numbers from Google are all but useless. Google Books is very bad at picking up data from historical names--believe it or not, "Constantinople" still outranks Istanbul (link 1). Current sources are needed. I also noticed at least one search providing "evidence" for Dečani searched for "Decani" instead; this decreased Google Books results from 39 to 3 English sources that are not explicitly referring to the town's name in decades past (link 2). In absence of a clear common name, we go with the official name. (non-admin closure) Red Slash06:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME. You again tried to support your position with false search results. Even after you adapted it to match your case there is still strong advantage of Decani. If you perform search according to wikipedia rules the situation is quite clear:
Actually, Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo clearly states that: "The official languages in the Republic of Kosovo are Albanian and Serbian." (emphasis is mine) --Ev (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
If you really believe the government's own views on naming should be respected, why haven't you changed your vote to Deçan? That's what the government calls the municipality in English-language media. Nikswerdhond (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Support all Kosovar locations should use Albanian, unless there's an actual English name available (and not just a Serbian name) -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
In Ictu Oculi has shown that usage has changed over time. An indiscriminate count with lots of old sources is a good way to stack the deck in favour of the old name. What did you find when you searched for more recent sources? bobrayner (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Support, In Ictu Oculi's made a good point and the name is now Deçan. Antidiskriminator and 23 editor's arguments depends on counting old sources but not new ones, which is bad because a lot has changed in Kosovo in recent years. The name is Deçan now. Sitta kah (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Dečani: 31 books (not counting 5 non-English ones in the set). Deçan: 4 books (not counting 2 non-English ones in the set). These are Google Books since 2010, but even if such results were in favour of "Deçan", it is un-encyclopedic to determine the most common name of a place by separately considering sources published in several recent years. All relevant sources should be considered. Vladimir (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that VVVladimir (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
Interestingly, here we have another Oppose !voter who has suddenly arrived at a new topic just when more votes are needed. VVVladimir, doesn't it look suspicious that you've never edited this article before, haven't edited a WP:RM since September 2011, but you were canvassed by an Evlekis sock as recently as November 2013? bobrayner (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You last commented on a WP:RM in May 2010. You last used article talk in August 2011. Then you appear on some controversial requested moves, where there has already been canvassing for oppose voters, and say that you routinely look at requested moves. That is hard to believe. Nikswerdhond (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I used the expression incorrectly (English is not my native tongue). I did not mean to say that I routinely look at requested moves. I do it from time to time (now and then, sometimes, occasionally, irregularly), out of curiosity. I did today.:-) Ev (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
In Ictu Oculi found hundreds of sources which support the move. You have picked out five in order to oppose, but one of them isn't even English, and they all predate 2010 by a long way. Do you expect your oppose vote to be taken seriously by the closing admin? Who told you to come here to vote? bobrayner (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Again:
a. There's a difference between sources that use a name (e.g. "He visited Munich") and sources specifically about the naming issue, addressing it directly in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers (e.g. "English-speakers tend to use the name Munich for Bavaria's capital city").
b. I did not use the German-language book as my argument to use Dečani, but simply as a sidenote illustrating that this general usage is not unique of the English-speaking population.
Support. Systematic reviews of sources by people like In Ictu Oculi show that Deçan is now the common name. Ev's results are blatant cherrypicking - only using sources before independence and even using sources in a different language (this is ENGLISH wikipedia and we use the names from ENGLISH sources). Also, Deçan is the official name. Nikswerdhond (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
a. No cherrypicking took place. Those happened to be all the books I could find that directly address the naming issue, in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers. Please, feel free to present any other books that I may have overlooked. — By the way, when accusing someone of "blatant cherrypicking", the least you can do is provide evidence that such unhelpful conduct took place.
b. I did not use the German-language book as my argument to use Dečani, but simply as a sidenote illustrating that this usage is not unique of the English-speaking population.
IJA found hundreds of sources. You chose five, all from before independence, and "die serbische Schreibweise der Leserschaft wohl eher vertraut und geläufing ist." is not English. Nikswerdhond (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a difference between sources that use a name (e.g. "He visited Munich") and sources specifically about the naming issue, addressing it directly in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers (e.g. "English-speakers tend to use the name Munich for Bavaria's capital city"). --Ev (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. This is the most common name for the city in English media and publications post 2008/9. IJA (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Ev Nice to see you for the first time in over a year (29 January 2013 to be exact), back from the dead? Did someone resurrect you via email? I smell WP:MEAT. IJA (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice to see you too, IJA. It's been a while :-) As I already said to Nikswerdhond, nobody contacted me. I just happened to look at requested moves yesterday, as I do from time to time. - Best, Ev (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
English usage related to Kosovo
Probably because since 1912 Kosovo has been part of Serbia/Yugoslavia for almost a century, for decades the English language has usually adopted the Serbo-Croatian names for the region. This fact should be evident to anyone who has read English-language books, newspaper articles & publications on the Balkans in general or Kosovo in particular.
Do take into consideration that our naming conventions for geographic namesindicate that «[a] name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity".»
In the following examples, emphasis is always mine:
Tim Judah mentions this fact in his 2000 book The Serbs: History, Myth, and the Destruction of Yugoslavia (p. xv-xvi): "In the wake of the war in Kosovo, those writing about it have had to face the choice of using either the Serbian or Albanian names for places there. I have decided to stick with the Serbian ones because this is a book about the Serbs, and in general, news reports and maps continue to use the Serbian names. Not using Albanian names, nor calling the region Kosova, its Albanian name has no political implication whatsoever."
And again in his 2002 book Kosovo: War and Revenge (p. xix): "I have used the Serbian [names] because, for the moment, people outside Kosovo are still more familiar with names like Pec and Djakovica rather than Peja and Gjakova".
Human Rights Watch published in 2001 the book Under Orders: War Crimes in Kosovo, which mentions the issue of "names and terminology" (p. xxiii): "For the sake of clarity and consistency, Human Rights Watch provides both the Serbian and the Albanian name at first mention of any location. Subsequent references are in the Serbian language only, since this is the English language practice (for example, Pristina and not Prishtina)."
Paul Hockenos mentions in his 2003 book Homeland Calling: Exile Patriotism & the Balkan Wars (p. xiii): "When writing about Kosovo I have chosen to use Serbian names rather than Albanian simply because they are more widely known and tend to be used on most (non-Albanian) maps."
As a sidenote, Thomas Schmid mentions the same thing in regard to the German language in his 1999 book Krieg im Kosovo (p. 14): "Im Buch wird in der Regel die serbische Schreibweise statt der albanischen verwendet: Priština statt Prishtina, Peć statt Peja und Kosovo statt Kosova. Daher steht keine Absicht. Es ist nur eine Konzession an den Umstand, daß die serbische Schreibweise der Leserschaft wohl eher vertraut und geläufing ist."
Usage may be shifting since 1999 and 2008, but from everything I see I don't think we have yet reached a tipping point that invalidates what these books state. Even more so in the case of Dečani, whose church & frescoes make it one of the best-known places in Kosovo, worldwide. - Regards,--Ev (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
In Ictu Oculi found hundreds of sources which support the move. You have picked out five in order to oppose, but one of them isn't even English, and they all predate 2010 by a long way. Do you expect your oppose vote to be taken seriously by the closing admin? Who told you to come here to vote? bobrayner (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yet again:
a. There's a difference between sources that use a name (e.g. "He visited Munich") and sources specifically about the naming issue, addressing it directly in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers (e.g. "English-speakers tend to use the name Munich for Bavaria's capital city").
b. I did not use the German-language book as my argument to use Dečani, but simply as a sidenote illustrating that this general usage is not unique of the English-speaking population.
I trust that the closing admin will see through such wordplay. WP:COMMONNAME says: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". You continue to rely on five handpicked sources, one of which isn't even English, all from before Kosovo declared independence; other editors have found far more sources which support a move and which are more recent. bobrayner (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Notice that the name of this city has not changed. It remains Dečani in Serbo-Croatian and Deçan in Albanian, just as it was before 2008 & 1999. — Compare this situation with that of a certain Russian city that first changed its name from Tsaritsyn to Stalingrad, and then to Volgograd. Can you see the difference? --Ev (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Common usage has shifted toward Deçan in recent years, as the many sources show. If you're now arguing on the basis of official names rather than common usage, we get the same answer - the municipality calls itself Deçan in English. If your first, second, and third arguments are discredited, will you reconsider your !vote, or will you think up a fourth argument? bobrayner (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Antidiskriminator, please stop this tendentious editing. Just because you disagreed with somebody in a different RM does not mean they're some inherently biased editor trying to "Albanize" the encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Red Slash participated in efforts to Albanize names of toponyms on Kosovo contrary to the most frequently used term in English language sources not only in this article but also in Đakovica and Vučitrn. Red Slash is not uninvolved editor in this case. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yet again, Antidiskriminator, you seem to be citing rules in a way that doesn't match what the rules actually say. Red Slash does not fit the criteria in WP:INVOLVED. I'm puzzled, though - why do you raise such drama about somebody who disagreed with you on a different article, but you don't say anything about the sockpuppetry and misuse of sources among Oppose voters in this very RM? Why is that? And when your own highly selective use of sources gets called out, you say nothing. But you have time to raise a spurious complaint about somebody being WP:INVOLVED because they didn't close the RM the way you'd like. Why is that, Antidiskriminator? All I can do is ask questions; Arbcom has other tools to hand. bobrayner (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Also, WP:RMCI says: "Even the appearance of conflict of interest is worth avoiding, for the same reason." The other part of your comment is another disruptive attempt to discredit me by asking multiple loaded questions you usually ask to other editors in dispute with you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Still avoiding the question, then? Still pretending that there was no meatpuppetry, misuse of sources, or canvassing among Oppose voters? You'd rather pretend that somebody who once disagreed with you on a different page is "involved"? By that criterion, practically every active admin, and practically every active editor in the Balkans, is "involved". bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
No doubt you know that this is not the place for discussion of your opinion about my conduct. Please be so kind not to clog this talkpage with comments about your opinion about my conduct.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
On many different pages, you have complained about many different editors who raised concerns about your conduct. There is one common factor there: Your conduct. If you don't like people pointing out these problems, the best solution is for you to stop doing it. Now, could you address the real concerns about behaviour on this talkpage? Still pretending that there was no meatpuppetry, misuse of sources, or canvassing among Oppose voters? bobrayner (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, could you address the real concerns about behaviour on this talkpage? Are you still pretending that there was no meatpuppetry, misuse of sources, or canvassing among Oppose voters? bobrayner (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello...? Antidiskriminator, could you address the real concerns about behaviour on this talkpage? Are you still pretending that there was no meatpuppetry, misuse of sources, or canvassing among Oppose voters?
The renaming was made using invalid incorrect arguments by involved editor, contrary to wikipedia rules so there is no reason to use this name at all.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
My point is if both sides are unwilling to budge, then there really isn't any point to anything. Everyone knows that the Deçan/Dečani debate will produce ridiculously inaccurate articles as to what a place is called (i.e. we wouldn't call the Battle of Stalingrad the Battle of Volgograd just because the place is now called Volgograd. It doesn't make sense and isn't historically accurate). But why not reach a compromise? Articles or sections describing pre-2008 events or dates should use Dečani (i.e. Visoki Dečani will not become Visoki Deçan, etc.) I really don't see any other way for editors on both sides to stop wasting their time and nationalizing the argument (Albanian and Serb editors, alike). Thoughts? 23 editor (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, then request another move discussion if you feel like it. I don't think I'll involve myself in another one. 23 editor (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, it must be frustrating to find that the sources and the consensus do not fit your beliefs, but you're going to have to live with it. bobrayner (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think Visoki Dečani should probably keep its existing title, because English-language sources on that are obviously going to adopt Serbian vocabulary more than Albanian. İstanbul may have changed its name since the Greeks lost control, but we have Hagia Sophia, not Ayasofya. bobrayner (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where it is exactly, but we use historical names for historical timeframes. So the answer to your question, 23 editor, is yes. Use Dečani for pre-independence dates unless specific sources for specific events determine otherwise. Red Slash06:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@RedSlash So if a source uses Volgograd instead of Stalingrad you would support using Volgograd in that article instead of Stalingrad? 23 editor (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
In theory, yes. But in practice, we resolve tricky circumstances through discussion, and each case is a little different. Often such circumstances are quite contentious. Red Slash06:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
How much is Decani's area?
There's something strange about the total area of this municipality. In the table it's reported as 297 km2, while in the first lines of the page it's 371 km2. And in the page "Municipalities of Kosovo", we find 180 km2...what is the real number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin~itwiki (talk • contribs) 12:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Deçan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
A chrisobull of the Serbian Tsar Stefan Dušan that was given to the Monastery of Saint Mihail and Gavril in Prizren between the years of 1348-1353 states the presence of Albanians in the Plains of Dukagjin, and Albanians were mentioned as farmers in the great feud of Deçan. Entire Albanian villages were gifted by Serbian kings, particularly Stefan Dušan, as presents to the Serbian monastery of Deçan, as well as those of Prizren and Tetova. Serbian historian Stanojević would discover that, in the charters of Deçan, there were several cases where a father had an Albanian name and his son would have a Serbian name. This highlights the process of the Slavic assimilation of Albanians in these areas during the reign of the various Serbian emperors.
I have removed the text as it does not relate to the history of the town of Deçan itself in any manner. Some of the text has been recycled from the page Botushë and similar text can be found in Demographic history of Kosovo. I do not see the purpose of having this text added to random pages, when it rests rightfully within the page Demographic history of Kosovo. In addition, the sentence This highlights the process of the Slavic assimilation of Albanians in these areas during the reign of the various Serbian emperors. falls under WP:EXTRAORDINARY, given that there is only one historian and one citation attached to the sentence. If you feel that this removal is undue or has the opportunity to be significantly reworded, please discuss. ElderZamzam (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The passage, A chrisobull of the Serbian Tsar Stefan Dušan that was given to the Monastery of Saint Mihail and Gavril in Prizren between the years of 1348-1353 states the presence of Albanians in the Plains of Dukagjin, and Albanians were mentioned as farmers in the great feud of Deçan. Entire Albanian villages were gifted by Serbian kings, particularly Stefan Dušan, as presents to the Serbian monastery of Deçan, as well as those of Prizren and Tetova. Serbian historian Stanojević would discover that, in the charters of Deçan, there were several cases where a father had an Albanian name and his son would have a Serbian name. This highlights the process of the Slavic assimilation of Albanians in these areas during the reign of the various Serbian emperors., is entirely relevant. There is no reason to remove it whatsoever. The following are why it's relevant:
It mentions Albanians in the Plains of Dukagjin, particularly as farmers in the great feud of Deçan (probably some sort of traditional Albanian blood fued). Deçan is specifically named, and it corresponds to the Plains of Dukagjin.
The monastery of Deçan (which quite obviously is part of Deçan) is specifically mentioned as one of the Serbian monasteries which were gifted Albanian villages as fiefs.
The charters of Deçan (which, once again, quite obviously refer to Deçan); there really isn't more to be said. It's literally the charters of Deçan.
So, to sum it up, this passage of text is entirely relevant to the article. Your claim that a section of the passage is WP:EXTRAORDINARY is wrong, there are multiple sources which discuss the same thing, and can be cited if need be. You've gone ahead and reverted me under the pretext of "Justification for this removal made in the talk page", but there is really no justification here. Just because you don't like the content of a credible source, it does not mean you can remove it, and I'd suggest you stopped deleting relevant, cited passages for no good reason. There is no significant opportunity for rewording here, because nothing needs to be reworded beyond this text. Facts are facts, they must not be rewritten to suit the agendas of Wikipedia editors. Botushali (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I have provided valid reasons but you have chosen to make grand claims that I have a hidden agenda. I never said that I didn't like the content, my argument is that it doesn't belong on this page as it belongs elsewhere. Significant content would need to be added in order to discuss how Great feud of Deçan, Monastery of Deçan and Charters of Deçan relates specifically to the history of the city itself. This wouldn't be necessary as pages such as the Culture of Deçan and Visoki Dečani exist where content can be added, case in point the entire history of the Visoki Dečani monastery itself doesn't appear on this page because the majority of it doesn't relate to the city itself. Even if you found a multitude of sources for the statement that Slavic assimilation of Albanians in these areas during the reign of the various Serbian emperors., it still wouldn't be appropriate to add to this page. Unless the sources specifically state that Albanians of the city of Deçan itself experienced such assimilation and in turn, documented their experience. ElderZamzam (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
How does it belong exclusively elsewhere when it is talking about Deçan and the history of the area? In fact, there is one line about the monastery of Deçan in the article's passage of Serb presence, hence why it is apparent that there is some sort of agenda. The great feud of Deçan is literally a feud that happened in the town by the looks of it, and the monastery of Deçan is literally part of the town and plays an integral role in it's history - they are both very relevant. The charters of Deçan are very much relevant too, considering they are important primary sources found in the town on the demographic history of the region and Kosovo in general. I already have other sources for the statement above - in fact, one of them discusses Deçan and the surrounding villages in general such as Isniq. Actually, relevant information needs to be added on other related pages too, thanks for the reminder. Botushali (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
