Talk:Leposavić

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. https://www.osce.org/kosovo/13982.html

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

---

1. https://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/03albanian/A2000regs/RA2000_43.htm
2. https://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 21:00, 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 04:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not making any sense of you here... By "please dont inteprete the documents" do you mean please don't interpret the documents? Why wouldn't you want to make sense of the documents? And I don't see why we shouldn't put it in the Serbia-stub category, when it is still geographically a part of Serbia on the map. It is only UN-administered. Cheers, --Krytan 02:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Leposavic rivers

Article needs names on leposavic rivers that go into serbia-kosovo, they could serve as future borders, seem solid! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kosovo_political.jpg#filehistory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Listonlistlists (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Including Turkish language in article

At the time I am writing this, there is a discussion on minority languages taking place that would ultimately determine which languages are used in which contexts. For me it is very late and it has become WP:TLDR, far easier to take part when you've followed from the outset. On the topic of Turkish being added and removed from this article, I concur with Zoupan than there is no Turkish population recorded in the muncicpality. If it can be argued that its status as a nationally recognised minority language warrants its listing then I will point out that Kosovo's constitution also names the Gora dialect, Bosnian and Romani as official languages and therefore the question is whether to include them all. The idea that only Turkish be included is rather illogial. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. I forgot to mention to add, I do not personally mind which languages are included and which are not. I am more than happy for all six languages to feature here and on Kosovo's other geographical articles. I thereby don't oppose Turkish being included and will not be seen to remove it. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Albanik"

The article should not use "Albanik", an utterly provocative name suggested by the Albanological Institute for a Serb-inhabited town that has its own name, Leposavić. User:Ktrimi991 first thanked my edit removing this addition, then returned it by adding a Republic of Kosovo document. Good faith, yeah, right...--Zoupan 22:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC) -- this was the blocked sockpuppeteer, {{u|Ajdebre}

• Marc Sommers; Peter Buckland; International Institute for Educational Planning (2004). Parallel worlds: rebuilding the education system in Kosovo. International Institute for Educational Planning. On some maps, for example, the town of Leposavic (Serbian) is listed not as Leposaviq, the Albanian equivalent, but as ' Albanik' , which translates as 'Albanian' . Located in the far north of Kosovo and close to Serbian borders on three sides, Leposavic / Leposaviq / Albanik has historically been an area of Serbian settlement. The politics surrounding 'Albanik' is only one example of the multitude of ways that conflict between Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo continues after the war has passed.
• Saskia Drude (2008). Hundert Wochen Kosovo: Alltag in einem unfertigen Land. Karin Fischer Verlag. pp. 99–. ISBN 978-3-89514-836-1. Für Leposavić/Leposaviç, mitten im serbischen Siedlungsgebiet gelegen, verfügte das Albanologische Institut den Namen Albanik, das ist schon eine besondere Provokation!
• Grand Hotel Kosovo: Schlaglichter einer europäischen Staatsbildung. LIT Verlag Münster. 2011. pp. 69–. ISBN 978-3-643-11425-9. Örtchen Leposavić in Albanik umzutaufen, konnte bisher angesichts. mangelnder Repräsentanz der Albaner vor Ort bisher nur in den. Werken nationalistischer Kartographen Gestalt annehmen. sock of permabanned edit warrior, Ajdebre

So, what is said is that Kosovo Albanian nationalists and RoK are trying to change placenames in Kosovo, including, provocatively, places where there is no Albanian community. Since the established, historical, neutral and official name is Leposavić, and not this scarcely used newly-composed provocative Albanian nationalist name, I see no logic in retaining it.--Zoupan 22:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC) blocked sockpuppeteer: Ajdebre

I suggest you to be more careful with the words you describe other people and nations. Albanik is used in an official document. Provocative or not, it is a fact. By the way I added the Kosovo government doc and then I thanked you for making me find a more reliable source. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Where have I described other people? It is not a 'fact'. Carefully read what is said. The use is dubious and undue, period.--Zoupan 22:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. From the text above, I paste "Located in the far north of Kosovo and close to Serbian borders on three sides". With such flagrant comments, it is not difficult to question the neutrality of the source. As far as Serbia and many others are concerned, Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia just as Abkhazia is to Georgia. There is a way of presenting disputed situations and this source singularly fails to do so. --OJ (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not flagrant, it describes the geographic location of the town.--Zoupan 22:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Borders Serbia" is unambiguously biased. Supporters of the Serbian position say that it is Kukës that is near the Serbian border. The whole thing could have been written in so many different ways that neither favoured one side or the other, so when a writer ignores the source of the dispute, it is unsurprising that he will call Leposavić by the name Albanik. --OJ (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The author takes the "Western" side on the matter of Kosovo's independence, yes, but he does actually not call Leposavić by the name Albanik, only notes that it has been used "on some maps", part of the Albanian linguistical campaign (Albanianization) in Kosovo (and groups this under the "Albanian-Serbian conflict"). The source should obviously not be used to support the inclusion of the name Albanik, as falsely done by Ktrimi991.--Zoupan 02:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppeteer: Ajdebre

Of course not. On that I agree. Anyhow, because I only read the text on this body of conversation, I wasn't clear on what was being insinuated by the author. --OJ (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Hello. This is just a notice that this conversation can also be seen at WP:DRN. Until a consensus is reached, it is deemed not possible, or the issue is closed by volunteer moderators this dispute will remain open on DRN. Everyone is welcome to hold conversation there. Have a good day, ItsPugle (Talk) at 06:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Albanik

@Vanjagenije: In all pages for settlements in Kosovo, the first sentence contains all alternative names in Albanian and Serbian. That done to avoid conflicts. Why does "Albanik" concerns you? Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: See the section above this one. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Really? I see it. "Albanik", a new or old name, is used in official documents. And as such should be present in the first sentence. Some time ago you were saying that if you have sources, you do not need consensus (And were helped by some certain editors who reverted me for "vandalism" to outnumber me). What changed your opinion? Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, really. Sources are obviously conflicting. There are much more official documents that do not use "Albanik", but use "Leposaviq". The city can't have two official Albanian names, so which one is it? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Maybe it is Albanik. Some official documents use "Leposaviq", some use "Albanik". Nah, it does not seem to me that "Leposaviq" is used more frequently. Why don't you agree to have all names used in official documents in the first sentence, as a sign of good will? In all the other articles is used this practice. For example see Podujevo. The first sentence contains "Podujevo", "Podujeva" and "Besiane". Novo Brdo contains "Novo Brdo", "Novoberde" and "Artane". Why the case of "Albanik" is different? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: You did not understand me. I am not supporting nor opposing the inclusion of "Albanik". As an administrator, I am concerned about procedure. If there is a discussion, and nobody except you supports the inclusion, then you can't add it. That is against WP:consensus. Maybe further discussion is needed, maybe wider participation is needed, but at this moment, there is simply no consensus to include. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Do not ping yourself :) The discussions always have their friendly and funny side. On the issue you cite, I suggest adding the name "Albanik", and if in the coming few days opposition arises, I will open a RfC. Good? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: @Ktrimi991: it might make sense to make a "Name" section where we explain how the name Albanik came to be, if we keep it-- if what is said in the above section (admittedly by a sock whose comments must be stricken) is true. --Calthinus (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)