Talk:Names of Kosovo

Weasel tag

I'm removing the weasel tag. There is no explanation for why it was placed there in the first place and I can't see any good reason after reading through the article.Osli73 13:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo isn't a slavic name

I'm sorry but I highly doubt that the name Kos + ovo is a slavic one. When you know that κόσσυφος (kossyfos) in ancient greek means "blackbird" how can you tell to everybody that this name comes from kos (blackbird) + ovo? It's more reasonnable to think that Serbian people have adopted and adapted the byzantine name.

The immediate source is Slavic, regardless of the etymology of the Slavic word itself

Ybgursey (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Kos is the name for Blackbird in most Slavic languages, including Polish, which had little contact with Greek. It's most likely a native Slavic name. Kostja (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually there were contacts between the Byzantines and the Poles. In addition there is the "thieves' slang" used in Poland which employed Greek words too. Etymologically attested Kossyphos (the black bird) is in the earliest from Greek (as per Liddle and Scott) but there is no doubt that both Greek and Slavic have shared cognates thereby kos can be PIE for some form of blackbird. This in itself is interesting if anyone has any more info on this matter? *** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.30.60 (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely that the Poles would adopt a Greek name (through their rather limited contacts with the Byzantines) for a native bird. According to the Etymological Dictionary, the Slavic and Greek versions are cognates from PIE, not borrowings. Kostja (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

-ova Turkish?

I would rather say that -ova ending is a Slavic genitive.  Andreas  ^(T) 00:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. I have placed ciotation needed sign. I will delete that section if a good quality source is not provided. The morpheme -ova is an Albaniization of Slavic -ovo, which in turn might be related to Thracian -dava. And the fact that the name "Kumanovo" was inspired by a settlement of Cumans, the word itself is still Slavic. Are we going to claim that Tetovo is also Turkic ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The form Kosova appears after the Ottoman period. it is false etymology with Turkish ova "field, plain". In fact Ottoman historiogrpahers give the Tutkish grammatically correct Kos ovası "The Plain of Kos" spelt in Arabic script <qwṣ 'wAsy> قوص اواسى See Enc. of Islam II "Kosowa, Kosovo"

Ybgursey (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually there were contacts between the Byzantines and the Poles. In addition there is the "thieves' slang" used in Poland which employed Greek words too. Etymologically attested Kossyphos (the black bird) is in the earliest from Greek (as per Liddle and Scott) but there is no doubt that both Greek and Slavic have shared cognates thereby kos can be PIE for some form of blackbird. This in itself is interesting if anyone has any more info on this matter? ***

Content dispute

The title of the header was changed here in order to make it more neutral. Primefac (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I am asking from user @Ktrimi991: to first gain consensus on edits, and to stop edit warring. Why would we remove half of article and more then ten sources? This is very strange. Please, use talk page first, and stop edit warring on this article. Thank you. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 14:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:, i am again calling you to talk actually, so we can solve this massive removal of sources. I dont understand why would we remove half of article? What was your idea behind it? Please, explain it to me. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The stuff was mostly added by a banned sock. The name of Kosovo was never "Serbia" or "Albania", and the name "Dardania" is not derived from Albanian. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Content is sourced and proper. Do you have any other source that can overweight that? Also, i dont understant your comment. None said Kosovo was named Serbia or Albania? Where did you saw that @Ktrimi991:? Everything is properly sourced and everything is about names of the territory of Kosovo throughout the ages. That is article subject. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources say that in some time in the past Kosovo was part of Serbia or Albania (Arnavutluk). Being part of an entity is sth different. For example, Belgrade is part of Serbia but its alternative name is not "Serbia". Tirana is part of Albania but its alternative name is not "Albania". Ktrimi991 (talk)

You should also change the name of this section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you obviously didnt properly read the article at all. It said: "Kosovo was part of the medieval Serbian state prior to the Ottoman conquests." and "Kosovo was part of the Ottoman state for 457 years." After that, it presents contemporary names and comments about the territory that was used during those periods. Also, again, content is sourced. You cannot just remove sourced content without agreement or number of better sources that said different. And even after that, both versions should be included. Removal of entire sections are not in anyone's guidebook :) --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What does Kosovo being part of the Serbian or Ottoman Empire have to do with the name of Kosovo? In both periods Kosovo was named "Kosovo". I guess you now agree that "Dardania" is not an Albanian word, right? Nah, the content was just added, without agreement, by a banned sock. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Its just introduction, to explain historical content of the terminology. Sources presented that territory of Kosovo was named in a different manner by different people. I am just reacting on sourced content. As it was sourced, it cannot be removed without proper counter source and discusion to remove it. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be a worthless introduction. Indtroduction to what? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Introduction to the historical content of the region. Territories are named after historical content around them, so it's important to mention who ruled over this territory in that time. Those two section spans almost 1000 years of history! Anyway, it's just simple historic facts, its nothing special... on the other hand, it looks like you don't like introductions to these sections. Why did you then removed entire two sourced sections if you don't like just two sentences? We can agree on direct words for those, so let's restore those great sources and nice sections, as it looks like you only have problem with details. Again. Sources... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Readers can read about who ruled Kosovo on the History of Kosovo. Who ruled Kosovo has no value for the names of Kosovo. The current stuff provides a background i.e. the name of Kosovo in ancient times, the way nationalism has shaped Kosovo etc. However, a list article does not need any kind of backround or any name that does not belong to it. "Serbia" and "Albania" were never the name of Kosovo. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Who ruled Kosovo have great value for the names of the Kosovo, as you may see in toponyms and other locations throughout the region. It have absolute value, as names were established because of that. I dont agree with your opinion about that... But, lets ignore those minor two sentences about background, we would solve phrasing out anyway... I am repeating main question for the fifth time, please respond to me in a great manner you finally agreed to use talk page. Why did you removed everything else, entire properly sourced sections? Please, explain so i can finally understand. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to see that you are finally agreed to communicate and use talk page! I hope you will not go into reverts again and disband talk as before. I am sure we will be able to agree on any subject placed between us! :) --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In the end it boils down to what's this page about. Formal territorial units that existed in the area that now is Kosovo and the area being previously known by those names, or what certain states and people colloquially called the place. If its the first then the article assumes roughly what its current form is, if its the second its bigger like as it was before. Apart from the sock account adding much of the content, half the section about the toponym Serbia was based on the nationalist work of historian Dimitrije Bogdanović written during the problematic 1980s era of Serbian histriography.Resnjari (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Emmm, no? Only one source is by Dimitrije Bogdanović, well known historiographer whose sources are used throughout Wikipedia without any problem. But tons of other sources are by set of different authors. Also, article is about Names of Kosovo, about different historic and current names of the territory known as Kosovo. All of those does not address the massive removal of everything. If just some details or some source are questioned, everything should be restored and rearranged. Please, leave me and my man Ktrimi, we have finally started talking like a proper wiki editors, and i am sure he can explain his own removal of half an article by himself. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm, yes. The one source is half the section. No one is saying Bogdanovic is not a historian. However the content based in the article comes from: Bogdanović, Dimitrije (1986) [1984], "Tursko doba", KNJIGA O KOSOVU, SANU. Anscombe (whose works as a scholar meet wp:reliable) stated this p.761 [1]. "In the 1980s and 1990s, overtly nationalist Serbian scholars such as Dušan Bataković received the most generous support for the publication of their work. [2] The focus of much of such nationalist history was Kosovo. Footnote: [2] Bataković wrote a series of nationalist works on Kosovo, of which several (The Kosovo Chronicles [Belgrade, 1992] and Kosovo, la spirals de la haine [Paris, 1993]) have been translated into other languages. Many similar works have not been translated: e.g., Kosovo i Metohija u srpskoj istoriji, ed. R. Samardžic (Belgrade, 1989); D. Bogdanović, Knjiga o Kosovu (Belgrade, 1985); and A. Urošević, Etnički procesi na Kosovu tokom turske vladavine (Belgrade, 1987)." Half the Serbia section is based on Bogdanović and is POV.Resnjari (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So what? Is not a problem to have sourced section. If you question usage of that one source, that's not the reason to remove everything, but to solve the source. Also, what you said is not true. That is only one source, while Ktrimi removed tons of other sources also. Also, @Ktrimi991:, i was talking to you, not to anyone else. You have removed half of the article, so you should come back here to defend that, or to agree of restoration of sourced material. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 09:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It depends on what sources one is using. If its a nationalist one, then its POV. Half that section is attributed to a work identified by other reputable scholars as nationalist from a problematic era in Serbian historiography.Resnjari (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you joking with me? First, @Ktrimi991: return to the discussion as administrators told you to do. Should i again raise a question somewhere in order to use talk page? If half of what section is disputed exactly? Tell me so i can understand the sentence that is the problem. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nah, no joke. Half the Serbia section is based on Bogdanovic and his nationalist work Knjiga o Kosovu. See wp:reliable.Resnjari (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Serbia

Kosovo was part of the medieval Serbian state prior to the Ottoman conquests. The Vatican viewed Kosovo as part of Serbia and included the latter in documents of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and in the titles of primates and apostolic visitors for example. For Venetian and Latin travellers the Drin (Serbo-Croatian: Drim) separated Albania from Serbia; for instance Giacomo Soranzo in 1575, Marino Bizzi (1570–1624) in 1610 and Peter Masarechi in 1623 visited Kosovo, which they called Serbia (Italian: Servia). Giorgio Bianchi who visited Serbia in 1637–38 included all of modern-day Kosovo, Toplica and northern Macedonia in "Upper" and "Lower Serbia", and described Prizren as "the most beautiful place in all of Serbia". In 1650, bishop Benlić called Prizren the capital of Serbia. Andrea Bogdani and Peter Bogdani also divided Albania and Serbia. Vicko Zmajević grouped the towns of Skopje, Prokuplje, Tetovo, Novi Pazar and several in what is now Kosovo as part of Serbia, and as earlier done divided Albania and Serbia at the Drin.

In the 19th century, the term "Old Serbia" (Serbian: Stara Srbija) was used for the territory of Raška, Kosovo and Metohija and the northwestern part of Macedonia, which were south of the borders of the Principality of Serbia.

Ok, this is disputed part. We have here more sources that the one you dispute. Lets go sentence by sentence. First half of the section is not sourced by Bogdanovic. as well as Balcanica section. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Half the section is sourced to Bogdanovic. Notice there are four refs attributed to that source labelled [2].Resnjari (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Wrongly cited ref

'Another explanation is that the word root kos stems from the root of the Serbian word kos-iti (English to scythe, to mow, Russian kosit’, косить, Polish kosić, češ. kosit, Slovakian kositi, Romanian cosi), so that the toponym would mean a place for mowing or yielding good hay. Over 90 per cent of terms used in agriculture, names of settlements and geographical names in today’s Kosovo are of Serb origin.'

The reference does not support the information in question. If someone can provide a credible source for the content, I have no objection to re-implementing it. Excine (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)