Talk:Istog

The Name

If sombody have UN accepted evidence that the name of the city is not Istogu but is Istok, then this articel must be under the name: Istogu and the page named "Istok" must be redirect. My evidence you kann see in UNMIK oficiale page.--Hipi Zhdripi 00:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Unitet Naticion Law in Kosovo

The user of the city names in English Language (newer version from the UN liable pilari in Kosovo for such think )

1. http://www.osce.org/kosovo/13982.html

The original page of the Law (1. in albanian L., 2.Serbian L.)

---

1. http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/03albanian/A2000regs/RA2000_43.htm
2. http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/04serbian/SC2000regs/RSC2000_43.pdf

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

tabel of contens >A<

TABELA ‘A’ (alb) RASPORED A (ser.)
Emrat e komunave (alb.)IMENA OPSTINA (serb)
Albanski Srpski
01 Deçan \Decani
02 Gjakovë \Djakovica
03 Gllogovc \Glogovac
04 Gjilan \Gnilane
05 Dragash \Dragas
06 Istog \Istok
07 Kaçanik \Kacanik
08 Klinë\ Klina
09 Fushë Kosovë\ Kosovo Polje
10 Kamenicë \Kamenica
11 Mitrovicë \Kosovska Mitrovica
12 Leposaviq \Leposavic
13 Lipjan \Lipqan
14 Novobërdë \Novo Brdo
15 Obiliq \Obilic
16 Rahovec\ Orahovac
17 Pejë\ Pec
18 Podujevë\ Podujevo
19 Prishtinë \Pristina
20 Prizren \Prizren
21 Skenderaj\ Srbica
22 Shtime\ Stimqe
23 Shtërpcë\ Strpce
24 Suharekë\ Suva Reka
25 Ferizaj \Urosevac
26 Viti \Vitina
27 Vushtrri\ Vucitrn
28 Zubin Potok \Zubin Potok
29 Zveçan\ Zvecan
30 Malishevë\ Malisevo

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 are destroing the Wikipedia image. I know that my english is not so gut, but a desinformation is not gut for Wikipedia and for the peopel in Kosovo. You can have a problem with "Haage". This tabel is speeken better then I.--Hipi Zhdripi 20:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No argumet

No argumet!!! please dont inteprete the documents

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 Zhdripi 04:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Importen material for the articel

B92 - News - Headlines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.222.131 (talk · contribs)- 22:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

On different histories

I am asking you to protect the page of Istog due to constant vandalization by the user called PajaBG.
The name of Istog/Istok is not related to nationalism or anything similar. I provided a number of various etimologies on the name of Istog/Istok both in Serbian and Albanian that are widely used.
Be advised that Istog is not a town or a name established after 1999 as PajaBG wrongly thinks. My page clearly excplains that the meaning of Burim is officially refuted.
I am also asking you to protect the same page from a Kosovar Albanian user called Zhuki who put the meaning of the name as Isa Shtogu, which is a combination of two different names that I have provided.

Thank You and keep writing by using NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isa Mulaj (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a misconception about what vandalism is: bringing correct and true data is not, bringing fake and invented ones is. The name Istok/Istog (older first) is not related to nationalism but your etymologies are. You can provide even more numbers of your fake etymologies (which are not widely used as you say but widely invented, yes), you can provide an etymology that New York is actually an Albanian word, but the problem is not so much that it's simple case of Albanian propaganda, but more it's total falseness and forged history context. It would be as if Asians, who today make over 20% of Birmingham's population would claim that Birmingham is Urdu word for the mill owner so it must be Urdu name. Total nonsense. And it is quite clear from my corrections of your messings that Istog as a phonetic variant of Istok can be almost 300 years old and not since 1999. Also, as the name of the river is always older than that of the town, Istočka reka in Serbian means the river that flows out of the well while in Albanian means nothing (like 99% of other toponyms in Kosovo and Metohija). But I am sure you can 'provide' more of those etymologies of yours... PajaBG 17:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

PajaBG,
There were no Serbs living in Istog before it was annexed by Montenegro in 1913. The Serbs from Istog were Montengrins and I knew them very well as I am from Istog. Following the Milosevic's brutal regime over Kosovo, the minority of Montegrins in Kosovo dissapeared. Before the 1990s, it was common to use: Serbi i Crnogorci (i.e. Serbs and Montengrins). Only recently (after the independence of Montenegro) some Montenegrins have begun to return to Istog. Have you seen them? I have.
The names of the towns and places in Kosovo are adopted by Serbia. For instance, Skenderaj after WWII was called Srbica to mean something Serbian. Ferizaj was called Urosevac (the name of a Serb). And this is the only battle of Serbia now after losing the wars in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo (though Serbia commited too much attrocities against defenceless civilians).
By the way, Serbia's history is related to Russia because that is from where it came to Kosovo. And when Serbia came to Kosovo, whom did it find there, or was Kosovo an inhabited territory? Are Albanians of Kosovo descendants of Russians as you are?. What was the name of Istog before the Serbs arrived in Istog? Have a look at the official names which the world knows (see above the United Nations Law in Kosovo). It is Istog/Istok, thus the Albanian version (the oldest and the original one) comes first.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isa Mulaj (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If it wouldn't be sad it would be funny...there were no Serbs in Kosovo before 1913...maybe there are even no Serbs today here...maybe Serbs are just a holographic projection from another planet...I bet you'd like that. Serbs from Istok were not Montenegrins (which is also irrelevant as Montenegrins are also Serbs until Communists didn't invent them as separate nation in 1945, one of your fakes). My family is from Istok until you forced them out in 1999 and my uncle was slaughtered by Albanians on Orthodox Easter on April 11, 1999 so Serbian atrocities and similar Albanian propagandist crap about defenseless civilians is not something you wish to discuss with me. No one returns to Istok except to sell houses and fields because no one can live with you there. Let's get back to the history and all the fakes and lies: Srbica (not Skenderaj) was founded as a new settlement in the 1920's (not after WW II, false) and didn't exist before that so it couldn't be called Skenderaj prior to that (false). It is a good thing that you mentioned Urosevac because you know the story about this dual name: during the Ottomans, two Serbian brothers lived there and one remained a Christian (his name was Uros) and the other one became a Muslim and took the name Feriz...not an A of Albanians in it (false). Your mention of 'lost Serbian wars' is suppose to annoy me I guess but instead it is tragically pathetic and I will not address it at all. Serbs didn't come from Russia as Russia didn't exist in VI-VII century when Serbs came to the Balkans (this is not even false, this is historical idiocy). Serbs are not descendants of the Russians and they already came to the Balkans as separate ethnicity, just like the Croats (historical idiocy. this would mean that all Slavic people are descendants of the Russians; but it shows what you think of Slavic people because obviously Russians are suppose to be something bad). Kosovo also didn't exist prior to 1945 (Albanian propaganda) until Communists created it and with it one of many problems we have to deal with today. Kosovo was NEVER any kind of territorial entity until then and even then they didn't know how to call it so they named it after two geographical fields that make it: Kosovo and Metohija. Kosovo itself is Serbian word and means nothing in Albanian. As for your insinuations on who lived there before the Serbs, there lived Romans, the remnants of the romanized Illyrian and Thracian tribes, Greeks, some Armenians, etc. but not Albanians as Albanians as an ethnicity were formed much later. This is also false from your side as you make it seem that Istok is at least II millennia old. So you can't claim something that's not yours (Illyrian Dardani tribe and the whole absolutely improvable etymology of Dardania being the pear country). As if Serbs would claim emperor Constantine is a Serb because he was born on the territory of nowadays Serbia. Nonsense. What you need to learn from history is that when Serbs settled in these areas, they belonged to the Byzantine Empire, which called itself Roman Empire and it's population considered themselves Romans...check the Byzantine Empire page, I can't teach you everything. Albanians formed later between the ethnic Serbian territories to the north and Greek to the south, on territory of nowadays (inland) Albania and had nothing to do with the territory of nowadays Kosovo and Metohija (Kosovo field is only the eastern half) as before Ottomans conquered it, there were virtually no Albanians there, you began settling there VIII-IX centuries after the Serbs, and massively after 1,000 years.

With all this bent and weird view on history you have no wonder you have all those fake etymologies to offer. You sound just like those Albanian historians from the Enver Hoxha era...I remember one of the professors from Tirana I watched on TV in 1980's who claimed that Albanians are the oldest nation in the world and that they have the oldest language on the planet (10,000 years old!!!) that all other languages developed from, including language of the ancient Egyptians...we laughed, not foreseeing what such idiocies will bring in years to come. You just seem to be a good student of his. PajaBG 11:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Paja BG,
If Albanians are not the oldest people on earth, they are certainly older than the Serbs. Serbs are Croats, Croats are Serbs, Montegrins are Serbs, Bosnians are Serbs, Serbs are Bosnians, etc. All of these are Russians.
If Albanians do have any connection to Dardans, their language must have been similar to Russian (like it is yours, of Croats, of Montenegrins, etc). Why Albanian is completely different language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isa Mulaj (talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your insisting on historically hilarious antiquity of Albanian nation and inability to differentiate Slavs and Russians is amusing and also focal for understanding your inability to differentiate ancient Illyrians and modern Albanians. I don't know where did you get this that someone is saying Albanians are descendants of Russians? You are the first to mention it so it must be one of your immaginary history things. I am not even challenging the theory that Albanians are descendants of the Illyrians but not at the time of Serbian settling in the Balkans (Constantine Porphyrogenitus' De Administrando Imperio). There is a thing called e-t-h-n-o-g-e-n-e-s-i-s (I know, I know, sounds complicated) and in process of clumsy Russian-Serbian mumbling you gave a perfect example of ethnogenesis: first, a Slavic mass; separate ethnicities differentiated from it (like Russians, Poles, Serbs, Croats); then new ethnicities separated from Serbs or Croats or both (by the proces of religious conversion, like Bosnian Muslims, or simply by decrees, like Montenegrins). Someone should tell you two things when you were a kid: first, when God created Adam, he didn't create him as an Albanian; two, there is no Santa Clause. Anyway, this is the last discussion with you as it was intendent to supress your historical forgeries, not to convince you personally of anything. And of course, I will continue removing those fakes you post in the article. PajaBG 20:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

On the "Name" section

I've hidden the section from view (diff.) as unsourced & contentious. I ask everyone to first source it appropiatedly (as required by WP:V, WP:NOR & WP:RS), and only then make it visible again.

Any disagreement among editors would be dealt with by clearly attributing interpretations, writing something along the lines of: Serbian historian Smith considers This^ref, while British historian Jones espouses This View ^ref.

If you don't know how to source it, please read WP:CITE or ask here for help. I would be only too happy to help on this. - Best regards, Evv 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you PajaBG for citing the source for Istok's etymology :-) I encourage you to continue sourcing similar edits in the same form: it improves the quality of articles and simultaneously helps avoid edit wars.

If somebody could provide a reliable source for the other possible etymology , we could finally end this dispute. - Best regards, Evv 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Well, this is the most handy source which I had at home at the time. I will search the library of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences for some more (and detailed) sources. But, I don't think this will end this dispute because I am quite sure there are sources which will claim that the name used by one nation is actually the name of the other nation, which came...later. That's the complex of small nations. Communists encouraged nationalisms of small nations to ballance the nationalisms of the big ones and now we have new nation proclaimed in the Balkans every two months. And, by automatism, everything that ever flew over newly proclaimed area is declared belonging to the new nation. In the Balkans, every village must have its own state, nation, language and church. As I stated above in the discussion, I personally watched some Albanian historian on TV who claimed that Albanian language is the oldest on the planet, 10,000 years old and that ancient Egyptian language developed from Albanian. And just few days ago, Rafiz Haliti, one of the leaders of the Albanian DUI party in Macedonia, said that already Plutarch wrote that Alexander the Great was an Albanian (!?). I will dispute any such claims and sources on the name of Istok and will not allow it to have the same treatment (by the way, I checked the Albanian (official) site of Istok: there is no mention of any trees or anything and the source is so reliable that the period of medieval Serbia when the percentage of Albanians living on Kosovo and Metohija was 0% is called Slavic occupation...occupation of what?) PajaBG 16:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

We should put both versions of the etymology of the name because we dont know for sure wich one is true--Bindicapriqi (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Name od Istok was first recorded in the XIV century, in an bestowment of the land to the monastery of Decani by Tsar Dusan. Albanians began settling territory of todays Kosovo several centuries later (as said by every source but Albanian; even Turkish early records from XV and XVI century mention no Albanian houses in Kosovo). Only Albanian historians claim that Albanians ever since the beginning of the world existed as such and lived on every inch they do live now. Therefore, a name that existed 400 years before Albanians came there can't be really an Albanian name, right? PajaBG (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that serbs where in istog before albanians . As you might know the albanians where in the balkan peninsula long before the serbs , and there was albanians in kosovo before there was serbs too --Bindicapriqi (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of course they were. I watched one of your "historians" on TV which claimed Albanians are 10,000 old and that ancient Egyptians and their language developed out of the Albanians and Albanian language. Or as they claim today that Serbian monasteries on Kosovo and Metohija are built by Albanians in times when Albanians didn't live there even though the entire world recognize them as part of the Serbian cultural heritage. The litteral (and doubtful) claiming of ancient Illyrians heritage is another thing (and it's not so intelligent implementation, i.e., someone snapped a finger and all Illyrians, wherever they were, transformed into Albanians, etc). Albanian usurpation of the heritage of other nations sometimes gets hilarious. New site of Kosovo's Ministry of Industry has new name for the Adriatic Sea: Albanian Sea and among touristic attractions of Kosovo names Albanian Alps (Sar Planina), japanese birds, american trees and...polar bears!!! Maybe polar bears developed from Albanian cats? I'm sure the first amino-acids in primordial soup were Albanian too. There is no room for this "version". First and second, it is neither historical nor chronological (as explained above). Third, it is not logical. Albanians claim Istok (well) is Serbian rendering of their Istog. If that is the case, why on Earth are they changing it now to Burim, which is translation of the Serbian Istok (well) which is supposedly rendering of Albanian Istog....why not keeping "Albanian original" Istog? Any sense? PajaBG (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You clearly dont know what you are talking about.Im not saying the albanians built the monasteries or anything but they were there before the serbs.So if you are a serb I'd suggest learning your national history.Oh and how do you explain that the albanian word "shtog" refers to the same nature on wich Istog lies in (to much of a coincidence dont you think) , or perhaps this word comes from a serbian word , or perhaps the albanians migrated to the balkan with the croats and found the serbs there.

The albanian lands are actually much bigger than the borders of albania , they include Kosovo ,the Presevo valley and more ( refer to Greater Albania ).But the serbs want those lands so much they claim the lands are serbian, theyre pathetic (no offence).

How do you know the serbian version is the correct one ? were you there when they named it ? I dont think so , so please stop deleting the albanian version of the etymology of the name --B.C. 13:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Greater Albanian lands...that was exactly my point. Shtog is not Serbian word of course, in Serbian it's "zova", just like Istok has nothing to do with "shtog". I will remove every impossible and obviously false etymology. PajaBG (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Istok → Istog – Per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and Istog is also the name officially used by the Town's Local Government in the English Language.

• Google Search:
  • Istog = 2,120,000
  • Istok = 1,830,000
• Google Book Search:
  • Istog = 236,000
  • Istok = 96,000
• Google Scholar (Journal) Search:
  • Istog = 29,200
  • Istok = 14,300
    

NB Please note that Istok is also the name of several small towns in Poland, as well as the name of several medium sized businesses.

• Support as nominator. IJA (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support: As reference, Ferizaj, Deçan, Gjakova — Maurice07 (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is another RM which IJA supports based on invalid arguments and incorrect misleading search results. Although it was explained more than once that it is necessary to exclude wikipedia and llc from GBS search and to present its last page User:IJA continues to generate huge walls of incorrect and misleading GBS results. Vast majority of the Google Scholar search results presented above do not even refer to the subject of this article. Simple Google search results most often refer to the word istog (which means "same") then to the town.
  • Ngram Viewer gives huge advantage to Istok over Istog link
  • Post 2010 GBS istok kosovo -wikipedia -llc - 48 : Post 2010 GBS istog Kosovo -wikipedia -llc - 28--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Incorrect No wikipedia policy says wikipedia must be excluded from a google books searches. Books and Journals do not reference or use Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Ngram only does until 2008, a lot has happen since 2008. Also, your google books links don't produce the figures you say they do. Also, please comment on the content not the user per WP:NPA. IJA (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia results must be excluded from such searches. Wikipedia cannot be its own reference, and there's no functional difference between using Wikipedia as a reference and using a book consisting of prints from Wikipedia as one. See WP:CIRCULAR and this xkcd comic. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it just occurs to me that you probably meant to include a comma after "No"—the meaning is completely changed without! --BDD (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The absence of a comma is intentional. I'll reword the sentence for clarity: "There isn't a wikipedia policy which says 'wikipedia' must be excluded from a google books searches." Books do not reference, use or even mention Wikipedia as it is not deemed to be reliable. Nothing wikipedia related comes up in google books searches either, unlike a regular google search. IJA (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@IJA: Wrong. There is indeed such a policy. See WP:COMMONNAME: "exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books". That's because Books LLC publishes wikipedia articles in book form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Wouldn't it be better to take all these naming disputes to WP:ARBCOM? There are so many of them! We need a set of general principles that we can adhere to. As for this nomination in particular, I think it's problematic. "Istog" is just a phonetically changed variant of the original name, and the English language tends to be conservative and ignore such trends. We don't say Göteborg in English, we say Gothenburg. Also, there are some cross-linguistic problems with the "argumentation by Google", as User:Antidiskriminator noticed. Further, I'd like to add that the presented Google arguments are biased towards languages that use the Latin script.
  I don't have the time and energy for all these nominations that are being thrown around. Both Albanian and Serbian are official, and I think the issue can be solved by looking at how the English language deals with city names that have shifted pronounciation but intact etymology. Some cities will then have titles with the Albanian variant, and some of them will have Serbian ones. And this could hopefully be a solution that most people can find acceptable. - Anonimski (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Arbcom will be keen to rule on content issues. It could help with behavioural issues, but there has been less of that recently. I can think of some articles which were recently successfully moved, which had hitherto seen unsuccessful RMs thanks to obstructive sockpuppets &c. If behavioural problems did become serious again, then ARBMAC enforcement could be a good option. bobrayner (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm intrigued, though; when people like WhiteWriter unilaterally moved hundreds of articles from "Albanian" to "Serbian" names, nobody took it to Arbcom; when WP:RMs to move from "Serbian" to "Albanian" names were obstructed by socks and deceptive comments, nobody took it to Arbcom; but now that several articles have gained a consensus at WP:RM (involving several outside editors) to move from "Serbian" to "Albanian" names because those are most common among English sources, now we need to call in somebody else to override such decisions? Hmm. bobrayner (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

When did those moves occur? If they were unilateral and involved many articles, then arbitration could have been a good choice. Anyway, I don't think it's possible to stop all these Kosovo title conflicts without any clear norms that people can refer to. I still think that using the etymological approach (Göteborg/Gothenburg, Kyiv/Kiev, etc.) throughout the whole range of articles could calm things down on both sides. As it looks like now, it's more like a tug-of-war. - Anonimski (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support, per nomination; I would also point out that natural disambiguation is preferred. Moving the article to the more common English-language name would also allow Istok (disambiguation) to be moved to Istok. bobrayner (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. If istog is a word and Istok also is a place in Polen, it is completely useless to make a search for plain "Istok" vs. "Istog". It is necessary to refine the search, i.e. by including Kosovo: "Istok Kosovo" vs. "Istog Kosovo". "-wikipedia" is not crucial for Books or Scholar searches, but neither does it hurt to include it. I am not able to get the same numbers as Antidiscriminator, but I find the same tendency. Google Books and NGram seem to favour Istok, Google Scholar favours Istog, none of them with a convincing majority. In some years it may be time for a change, but I feel we are not there yet. --T*U (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Istok is more common in reliable sources, Istog is mainly confined to proponents of Albanian position. Try this search with certified English results: Istog in Kosovo, under 5,000 vs Istok in Kosovo, over 15,000. No comparison. --Здраво свијете! (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Struck out sock

What account do you normally use? Perhaps you should log back into that account. bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I found 183 results for "Istok" Kosovo and 116 for "Istog" Kosovo in Google books. The nominator's searches are flawed since they don't include the very necessary word "Kosovo" in the search words. --Local hero ^talk 00:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 31 December 2015

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 not moved. Being the official name of something is not the relevant standard for article titling. Wikipedia generally prefers the title that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. No evidence was presented that the target meets this standard over the current title (or that name usage has changed since the prior requested move).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Istok → Istog – Official name is Istog – Hajdaj (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Hajdaj:: I don't want to get caught up in an ethnic dispute. Best discuss this move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both Istok and Istog are official names. But, we don't use official names, anyway. We use the the WP:COMMONNAME. The nominator has to show us that "Istog" became the most commonly used name in English sources since the last move request was made a year ago. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vaj & COMMONNAME. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Being the official name isn't the grounds for a RM, the common name is the grounds for a RM. Besides, they're both official names. IJA (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as per guidelines.--Zoupan 12:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Another official name is Prishtinë, but I don't we think we're going to use that one any time soon. 23 editor (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 15 April 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 18:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Istok → Istog – Istog 3590 Istok 1890 It is evidently clear that 'Istog' is the more suitable name as it is the most common. Botushali (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and per convincing references. This request concerns a location that does not have an English exonym, thus leaving English speakers with either the Serbian name, Istok, or the Albanian name, Istog, in an Albanian-speaking entity which is recognized by 101 UN members, including the entire English-speaking world (List of states with limited recognition). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose; ngrams suggests the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Like i said to @Vanjagenije in the comments below, its the same with the ngram. BilledMammal, all you have done is add Istok, and Istog to the ngram. Problem is istok is the word for east in the south Slavic languages and the ngram results are picking up any mention of the word istok outside the context of the town in Kosovo. Do you have a way of making it precise, where it only relates to Kosovo and the town? Otherwise the nominator's case for change is strong.Resnjari (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. The difference is increasing: 2015-2022 Istog 1820 vs Istok 811. On google trends search for Istog+Kosovo and Istok+Kosovo otherwise you'll get results for all Istok in Europe.Alltan (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support 'Istog Kosovo' [1] has about 1050 hits to 'Istok Kosovo's [2] 480 on google scholar in the last five years . Similarly (and surprisingly) 'Istog Serbia' [3] has 4700 to 'Istok Serbia's 920 [4]. Further 'Istog Yugoslavia' [5] has 1300 to 570 for 'Istok Yugoslavia' [6]—blindlynx 15:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The filer's only argument is that "Istog" has more results on Google scholar search, but that is not true. The real number of hits can only be seen if one scrolls to the last page of the results. When scrolled to the last page, we can see that both Istog and Istok have exactly 100 pages each. So, there is no difference between the two in number of Google scholar hits. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  that holds true for any search term with over a thousand hits on google scholar, the max number of articles about a given topic isn't 1000 though—blindlynx 20:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I read Serbian and some of those results do not mention the town per se but the Serbian word istok meaning east within the same body of text talking about Kosovo. In some of those hits there are formations like "zapad-istok" (west-east) and "jugoistok" {south east) etc. That is definitely not about the town and minus those sources, the Serbian form decreases. Does Vanjagenije have a way of rooting out those formations from the search results for "Istok" + "Kosovo"? Otherwise opposition does not suffice, as the nominator has made a good case for change.Resnjari (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore, even if editors did not agree on a common name, then such cases are decided by WP:NCGN: "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name". The local population is virtually 100% Albanian. We also have WP:OFFICIALNAMES. The first and only official name used by the local authorities in all documents is the Albanian one (the Serbian one is used as a secondary name and not always). Durraz0 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • NCGN does not apply, as there are two names widely accepted in English. BilledMammal (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. As Durraz0 explains, if we can't agree which one is the common name, then according to the naming policy WP:NCGN and then WP:OFFICIALNAMES apply. No consensus on a common name in English means that the local name should be used. This has been the way to solve disputes on other Kosovo toponyms in other RMs, because obviously that is what the policy tells us to do. Excine (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nominator and WP:COMMONNAME.Resnjari (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. It is obvious based on the sources provided above that Istog is more commonly used than Istok and that Istog has been WP:COMMONNAME for quite some time now. Uniacademic (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.