Talk:Albania/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Albania. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Map replacement obsession
All of the sudden and contrary to long debates an editor claims that a map about the historical presence of minorities should vanish from this article [[1]]. I'm sure that this initiative warrants talkpage participation by the editor instead of simply (misleading) edit summaries.Alexikoua (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Talkpage discussion happening at the Language of Albania talkpage (Talk:Languages of Albania) on map a thread on that page revived by you. Adding this link as an addition to this thread which is about your controversial "historical presence of minorities" map with a replacement map encompassing scholarship.Resnjari (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- By the way, the unexplained removal of a long established consensus map equals disruption (no need to pretend to be offended in specific edit summaries in order to avoid talkpage participation).Alexikoua (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- "long established consensus" not really, it was the only map available at the time.Resnjari (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wiki commons appears to disagree with this claim.Alexikoua (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well one issue with the second map is that it shouldn't have the editors username written on it.Seraphim System (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Seraphim System, about a username it can be removed and not removed. Those things are trivial. The issue at hand is whether Alexikoua's map is factually grounded (as of now it is based on few sources (6!) with one being academic and only selectively used for the Aromanians) vs the second map which covers everything separate to the additions by Silent based on sources. Its important that such maps are based on scholarship and not a certain POV. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar enough with the sources but the map shouldn't be restored with a particular editor's username written on it. Either way it looks like the two maps are wildly different, at least in their representation of the Greek speaking areas. It would really be best to post the sources for the discussion here directly.Seraphim System (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Seraphim System, A username thing is trivial with or without. The discussion was revived on a another talkpage. I don't know whether it should be done over there or here. But having multiple discussions one the same thing many pages would not be productive toward resolution although i don't mind having it here if others want to move the discussion to this talkpage. A similar discussion was had some time back on this issue -in the end it went no where are there was no replacement map, although some editors acknowledged the limitations of Alexikoua's. Questions where asked of Alexikoua as well with little reply. For full discussion see: [2]. Anyway the divergence in the Greek population has to do with the Orthodox population in general. In the late Ottoman period, much of the Orthodox Albanian speaking, Aromanian speaking population had Greek sentiments due to religious factors, schooling etc. From a Greek point of view these are Greeks who were made Albanians (post 1912) and from a Albanian perspective these where Albanians being Hellenised, a process halted due to inclusion into an Albanian state. The issue is are these to be shown as Greek outright. If so then the distribution as per Alexikoua map sort of covers that, if linguistic and other local identities are taken into account, then language etc ought to be shown which limits the Greeks to the area in the south, as per Calinthus's map. I still am perplexed as to why Muslim areas are shown in Alexikoua's map or additions by Silent to Calinthus' map as being Greek. On sources here is the wiki link that Calinthus has used to date based on scholarship [3] -the link is also highlighted on the map caption. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think the best thing would be to find a clear source for a map and follow that. Even then, sometimes in issues like this it is better not to have a map at all, or to keep it simple, so other editors can WP:V. The preference should also be for English sources, or translations should be provided. I think we have to take care that what is in the articles will be considered valuable by those reading them.Seraphim System (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Seraphim System, there is one in map form and its Winnifirth, which is in line with the scholarship and had Alexikoua followed that map fully (instead of just for the Aromanians) would have almost to a fine line had the same outline that Calinthus originally had with his map (before Silent's additions) for the distribution of Greeks in Albania. The scholarship does not contradict each other. There are editors here who are pushing for a Le Diplomatique map source which is not based on scholarly sources to extend the Greek area, in addition to a early 20th century Greek source Sotiriades -while not saying why that map ought to be privileged above others which show like the scholarship something different. Thing is when i pose questions to these editors about their map like Alexikoua's i get no reply or the reply does not address the issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and ought to be based on its criteria of having wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources not POV affirming something. I am also for not having a map too, but these editors insist, so i insist on accuracy. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think the best thing would be to find a clear source for a map and follow that. Even then, sometimes in issues like this it is better not to have a map at all, or to keep it simple, so other editors can WP:V. The preference should also be for English sources, or translations should be provided. I think we have to take care that what is in the articles will be considered valuable by those reading them.Seraphim System (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Seraphim System, A username thing is trivial with or without. The discussion was revived on a another talkpage. I don't know whether it should be done over there or here. But having multiple discussions one the same thing many pages would not be productive toward resolution although i don't mind having it here if others want to move the discussion to this talkpage. A similar discussion was had some time back on this issue -in the end it went no where are there was no replacement map, although some editors acknowledged the limitations of Alexikoua's. Questions where asked of Alexikoua as well with little reply. For full discussion see: [2]. Anyway the divergence in the Greek population has to do with the Orthodox population in general. In the late Ottoman period, much of the Orthodox Albanian speaking, Aromanian speaking population had Greek sentiments due to religious factors, schooling etc. From a Greek point of view these are Greeks who were made Albanians (post 1912) and from a Albanian perspective these where Albanians being Hellenised, a process halted due to inclusion into an Albanian state. The issue is are these to be shown as Greek outright. If so then the distribution as per Alexikoua map sort of covers that, if linguistic and other local identities are taken into account, then language etc ought to be shown which limits the Greeks to the area in the south, as per Calinthus's map. I still am perplexed as to why Muslim areas are shown in Alexikoua's map or additions by Silent to Calinthus' map as being Greek. On sources here is the wiki link that Calinthus has used to date based on scholarship [3] -the link is also highlighted on the map caption. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar enough with the sources but the map shouldn't be restored with a particular editor's username written on it. Either way it looks like the two maps are wildly different, at least in their representation of the Greek speaking areas. It would really be best to post the sources for the discussion here directly.Seraphim System (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Seraphim System, about a username it can be removed and not removed. Those things are trivial. The issue at hand is whether Alexikoua's map is factually grounded (as of now it is based on few sources (6!) with one being academic and only selectively used for the Aromanians) vs the second map which covers everything separate to the additions by Silent based on sources. Its important that such maps are based on scholarship and not a certain POV. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- "long established consensus" not really, it was the only map available at the time.Resnjari (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- By the way, the unexplained removal of a long established consensus map equals disruption (no need to pretend to be offended in specific edit summaries in order to avoid talkpage participation).Alexikoua (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I am against bold replacement of the map. Without going into detail who is right and who is wrong, editors who struggle to insert another map should respect wp:brd because their bold edits are reverted with appropriate explanation. The current map is based on long term consensus and it would be necessary to gain another consensus for its replacement.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- There was no consensus then, there just was no alternative map. A discussion on map accuracy is more than warranted as per Wikipedia criteria of wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Resnjari (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- The current map was inserted with this diff more than two years ago. That counts as silent consensus. If you have valid arguments which support removal of the map then follow WP:DR and gain consensus for your position. Do not advocate violation of WP:BRD.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- It was not silent consensus. The map has been challenged heaps of time in various talkpages of where it has been displayed. There has not been an alternative one to replace until now. Many questions of accuracy have been raised. If you want you can participate in the discussion. I base my self on scholarship and the sources in those deliberations and not something else. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- The map survived for more than two years. That counts as silent consensus in articles which are so frequently edited like this one. The problem with article on this kind of topic is that a few people with strong opinions end up aguing among themselves and generate huge walls of text that might drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion. If the map is indeed so bad, then follow WP:DR and easily gain consensus for its replacement. There is no particular need to continue this discussion here and clog talkpages with huge walls of text. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Its not about survival, its about accuracy, I have seen maps such as one regarding the Principality of Arbanon that was there for years and years which was removed in the end for being inaccurate [4]. Anti, there can't be one set of rules about accuracy and source reliability applicable for one map and then out the window it goes in favour of 'map survival' for another. The map by Alexikoua has multiple problems ranging from omissions of communities like the Gorani, Romani and Bosniaks etc. Calthinus has gone out of his way to address those short comings using scholarship with a new map. The discussion was initiated by other editors on multiple talkpages so i have answered on those and they too replied. They have agreed to move discussion to one on the Languages of Albania page. Don't know about a DR yet, this process on the talkpage first needs to run its course, hopefully with a resolution.Resnjari (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Blatant WP:IDHT again. Although I clearly stated (diff):
That counts as silent consensus in articles which are so frequently edited like this one
and you decided to completely ignore my comment and to compare:- Albania with 836 watchers and 15,110 edits
- with Principality of Arbanon with less than 30 watchers and 261 edits
- Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy is English Wikipedia policy with its own page. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Blatant WP:IDHT again. Although I clearly stated (diff):
- Its not about survival, its about accuracy, I have seen maps such as one regarding the Principality of Arbanon that was there for years and years which was removed in the end for being inaccurate [4]. Anti, there can't be one set of rules about accuracy and source reliability applicable for one map and then out the window it goes in favour of 'map survival' for another. The map by Alexikoua has multiple problems ranging from omissions of communities like the Gorani, Romani and Bosniaks etc. Calthinus has gone out of his way to address those short comings using scholarship with a new map. The discussion was initiated by other editors on multiple talkpages so i have answered on those and they too replied. They have agreed to move discussion to one on the Languages of Albania page. Don't know about a DR yet, this process on the talkpage first needs to run its course, hopefully with a resolution.Resnjari (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- The map survived for more than two years. That counts as silent consensus in articles which are so frequently edited like this one. The problem with article on this kind of topic is that a few people with strong opinions end up aguing among themselves and generate huge walls of text that might drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion. If the map is indeed so bad, then follow WP:DR and easily gain consensus for its replacement. There is no particular need to continue this discussion here and clog talkpages with huge walls of text. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- It was not silent consensus. The map has been challenged heaps of time in various talkpages of where it has been displayed. There has not been an alternative one to replace until now. Many questions of accuracy have been raised. If you want you can participate in the discussion. I base my self on scholarship and the sources in those deliberations and not something else. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- The current map was inserted with this diff more than two years ago. That counts as silent consensus. If you have valid arguments which support removal of the map then follow WP:DR and gain consensus for your position. Do not advocate violation of WP:BRD.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- There was no consensus then, there just was no alternative map. A discussion on map accuracy is more than warranted as per Wikipedia criteria of wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Resnjari (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I pointed out previously in an example where a 'silent consensus' map was overturned due to accuracy issues. It does not matter how many watchers there are for that to occur on any article. Accuracy is very important otherwise why have rules like wp:reliable and wp:secondary. A discussion has begun on the map issue. If you want to participate by all means, otherwise this is trivial here. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Blatant WP:IDHT again. There is absolutely no doubt that you do understand that the difference in number of watchers and number of edits is very important and that you can not compare the article on Albania and some other article with 100 times less page views. Instead to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy you opted to clog this talkpage too with walls of text although there is no doubt you understand that it
might drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion
as I pointed in this comment above. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)- Anti, you keep infering on one thing an i gave an example of another where a change has happened in such a instance. I thought this was a encyclopedia project, not a online forum about how many pageviews occur determining outcomes. Accuracy is very important, as per wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Otherwise whats the point of Wikipedia if accuracy is not the overall standard of the place. Also please don't infer something of my comments. I have not inhibited anyone from commenting and nor have i said that they should not. As i have said to you before and now again, see: wp:civil. On walls of text in recent times you engaged in some of that on my talkpage and some other article talkpages. If you don't like it don't do it. If editors want to comment it is their choice. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
i gave an example of another where a change has happened in such a instance
If 6,000 people who see this page every day did not challenge the map it for more than two years, based on Wikipedia:Silence and consensus I conclude that it gained silent consensus. If you believe that your Arbanon WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS example means that Wikipedia:Silence and consensus is not valid anymore, go and initiate its change.
If editors want to comment it is their choice
Absolutely not, because repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, might be characterized as stonewalling or filibustering. And it is disruptive and sanctionable. I looked trough the archives of this page to see if there was consensus to remove this map and noticed a couple of threads where small group of editors indeed challenged this map, but they failed to gain consensus for their position. One of them was initiated by you (link. If after all this comments you and other members of this small group did not convince multiple other editors, the only way to proceed is to follow WP:DR policy. Not to continue with stonewalling and filibustering.
- I think I gave clear explanation about my position and I do not have anything else to add to it now. I understand that you are not satisfied with my position, but you can not expect me to be somehow obliged to continue discussing this with you as long as you are not satisfied. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that Res. still needs to offer a decent explanation why Le Monde Diplomatique's map is unreliable. I would suggest to avoid terms like "controversial map" etc. without serious explanation.Alexikoua (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your map omits communities (Gorani, Romani etc) and it colours areas that have solid Muslim populations as Greek. Controversial is the term because Muslim Albanians in the past did not even identify with pro-Greek sentiments. It infering that they where affiliated with Hellenism when even Soiriaides (that map you use) avoids that. With the Le Monde Diplomatique it was published in 1999 while Wnnifrith's book was published in 2002. Why does it not reflect the view of Le Monde Diplomatique but instead the ethnic map done by Winnifrith reflects data like Kallivretakis? You uses both sources for your map, either one or the other is wrong? Additionally why the Sotiriades map? One could use Gustav Wiegand's map which resembles the scholarship or others.Resnjari (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yet again you fail to explain why Le Monde Diplomatique is unreliable. On the other hand SR's initiative to solve the various contradicting views still meets stubborn opposition, though it solves the Gorani, Romani issues.Alexikoua (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Le Monde Diplomatique is not a scholarly source and in between its publishing in 1999 there is Kallivretakis who did fieldwork before and Winnifrith who did fieldwork after. Le Monde Diplomatique have also produced a map of Macedonia that has issues as well like showing the Ohrid and surrounding areas as Albanian! When it comes to accuracy big issues (one does not know how Le Monde Diplomatique came by its content -not specified, no footnotes or something of a disclaimer about fieldwork, guesswork?) and does not correspond time and time again to scholarship. Instead works like those of Nitsiakos corroborates via fieldwork the previous works of Kallivretakis, Winnifrith etc. On your end how about a reply about Sotiriades, why that map? Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Le Monde Diplomatique is not a scholarly source... Actually you have to be kidding since dozens of authors of academic background contribute there. Feel free to take the issue (yet again) to the relevant noticeboard. On the other hand I have the feeling that you simply cherry pick Nitsiakos, Kallivretakis, Winnifrith etc. in order to promote your personal POV. Winnifrith for example mentions Greek speakers in the Korce region, Nitsiakos in Permet & Kallivretakis doesn't offer an analysis about Permet & Korce.Alexikoua (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Its a media source, not a peer reviewed scholarly journal. Le Monde diplomatique is to quote its wiki lede disclaimer "is a monthly newspaper offering analysis and opinion on politics, culture, and current affairs. Le Monde diplomatique is a left-wing anti-capitalist newspaper." Its also had issues with 9/11 conspiracy theories etc. I have not taken the issue to a relevant noticeboard. On Winnifrith mentioning there are Greek speakers does not mean they are a majority, same with Nitsiakos and Permet. Can you highlight where in those passages it says majority, mixed or even Greek only -as i have those books right in front of me on the desk. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Its part of an article that's focused on diplomacy&international politics. Not to mention that the author of the article is a Sorbon Uni. graduate on the subject: It simply falls into both wp:academic and wp:secondary. It also appears that another book also adopts this "controversial" opinion about the Greek inhabited area [[5]]. On the other hand a can't see a single published map that limits the Greek region in something similar to the one uploaded by Calthinus. It's better to wait for corrections about Permet and especially about SR's proposal (about double&triple colored areas) which sounds quite reasonable.Alexikoua (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Le Monde Diplomatique is a newspaper, and as such it can not weight more or as much as peer reviewed academic studies. Le Monde Diplomatique has been criticized for its publishing of fringe content. For example, just some examples because the list is long enough to write a book, Le Monde Diplomatique has been criticized for its promotion of fringe ideas that globalization is nothing more than an American attempt at world conquest, the United Sates are worse than bin Laden, Europe is an American "vassal" [6]. To be honest with you, the best thing Le Monde Diplomatique has done so far is its portraying of Ohrid as a city of contemporary Albania. However Le Monde Diplomatique is nothing against the author of literary essay Alexikoua has mistakenly taken for an academic source. Philippe Rekacewicz is a geographer and cartographer, and has nothing in common with a reliable historian or ethnographer. He has participated in some "radical cartography" projects and this is well-documented. The geographer has used only one reference, Rexhep Qosja. You keep this up and I will add Qosja's writings to some Wikipedia articles. The same standards to be applied to all articles, right? I guess essays like the one used in the fringe map are the reason behind Ignacio Ramonet's (editor-in-chef of Le Monde Diplomatique) worry about unreliable information that is being served to media organizations such as Le Monde Diplomatique itself [7]. The other book Alexikoua presented here was written by who based on what references? Based on Wikipedia? The book is an ordinary collection of online information that is of much help to tourists. The proposal of SR is misguided because what is disputed is Le Monde Diplomatique source (and some others, maybe), hence just adding it to the map made by Calthinus creates more confusion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Simply degrading articles written by serious academics (as this one) isn't a sound approach. I doubt if someone can be convinced at the correspondent noticeboard. On the other hand I would suggest to avoid sources written by ultranationalist journalists such as Marin Mema (see S. Melani).Alexikoua (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- "Simply degrading articles written by serious academics", well since you place scholarship above everything else, why Le Monde Diplomatique (is it an opinion piece or peer reviewed) serious scholars like Kallivretakis, Wnnifrith, Nitsiakos etc etc ? Ktrimi991 analysis is quite warranted here and concerns expressed of merit. Alexikoua, some reflection on "ultranationalist" issues as you still have given a response about Sotiriades, what makes that source credible? "On the other hand a can't see a single published map that limits the Greek region in something similar to the one uploaded by Calthinus." Should i upload Winnifrith on a image sharing site and place a link here, since you used him to show Vlach distribution and ignored the rest (to refresh your memory)? You want "corrections" on Permet using scholarship, yet are not in favour of such corrections for other places. Albanian Muslims are Greek on the map, what kind of POV is that? We'll see where this goes here for now. Map will need much more corrections.Resnjari (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Simply degrading articles written by serious academics (as this one) isn't a sound approach. I doubt if someone can be convinced at the correspondent noticeboard. On the other hand I would suggest to avoid sources written by ultranationalist journalists such as Marin Mema (see S. Melani).Alexikoua (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Le Monde Diplomatique is a newspaper, and as such it can not weight more or as much as peer reviewed academic studies. Le Monde Diplomatique has been criticized for its publishing of fringe content. For example, just some examples because the list is long enough to write a book, Le Monde Diplomatique has been criticized for its promotion of fringe ideas that globalization is nothing more than an American attempt at world conquest, the United Sates are worse than bin Laden, Europe is an American "vassal" [6]. To be honest with you, the best thing Le Monde Diplomatique has done so far is its portraying of Ohrid as a city of contemporary Albania. However Le Monde Diplomatique is nothing against the author of literary essay Alexikoua has mistakenly taken for an academic source. Philippe Rekacewicz is a geographer and cartographer, and has nothing in common with a reliable historian or ethnographer. He has participated in some "radical cartography" projects and this is well-documented. The geographer has used only one reference, Rexhep Qosja. You keep this up and I will add Qosja's writings to some Wikipedia articles. The same standards to be applied to all articles, right? I guess essays like the one used in the fringe map are the reason behind Ignacio Ramonet's (editor-in-chef of Le Monde Diplomatique) worry about unreliable information that is being served to media organizations such as Le Monde Diplomatique itself [7]. The other book Alexikoua presented here was written by who based on what references? Based on Wikipedia? The book is an ordinary collection of online information that is of much help to tourists. The proposal of SR is misguided because what is disputed is Le Monde Diplomatique source (and some others, maybe), hence just adding it to the map made by Calthinus creates more confusion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Its part of an article that's focused on diplomacy&international politics. Not to mention that the author of the article is a Sorbon Uni. graduate on the subject: It simply falls into both wp:academic and wp:secondary. It also appears that another book also adopts this "controversial" opinion about the Greek inhabited area [[5]]. On the other hand a can't see a single published map that limits the Greek region in something similar to the one uploaded by Calthinus. It's better to wait for corrections about Permet and especially about SR's proposal (about double&triple colored areas) which sounds quite reasonable.Alexikoua (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Its a media source, not a peer reviewed scholarly journal. Le Monde diplomatique is to quote its wiki lede disclaimer "is a monthly newspaper offering analysis and opinion on politics, culture, and current affairs. Le Monde diplomatique is a left-wing anti-capitalist newspaper." Its also had issues with 9/11 conspiracy theories etc. I have not taken the issue to a relevant noticeboard. On Winnifrith mentioning there are Greek speakers does not mean they are a majority, same with Nitsiakos and Permet. Can you highlight where in those passages it says majority, mixed or even Greek only -as i have those books right in front of me on the desk. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Le Monde Diplomatique is not a scholarly source... Actually you have to be kidding since dozens of authors of academic background contribute there. Feel free to take the issue (yet again) to the relevant noticeboard. On the other hand I have the feeling that you simply cherry pick Nitsiakos, Kallivretakis, Winnifrith etc. in order to promote your personal POV. Winnifrith for example mentions Greek speakers in the Korce region, Nitsiakos in Permet & Kallivretakis doesn't offer an analysis about Permet & Korce.Alexikoua (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Le Monde Diplomatique is not a scholarly source and in between its publishing in 1999 there is Kallivretakis who did fieldwork before and Winnifrith who did fieldwork after. Le Monde Diplomatique have also produced a map of Macedonia that has issues as well like showing the Ohrid and surrounding areas as Albanian! When it comes to accuracy big issues (one does not know how Le Monde Diplomatique came by its content -not specified, no footnotes or something of a disclaimer about fieldwork, guesswork?) and does not correspond time and time again to scholarship. Instead works like those of Nitsiakos corroborates via fieldwork the previous works of Kallivretakis, Winnifrith etc. On your end how about a reply about Sotiriades, why that map? Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yet again you fail to explain why Le Monde Diplomatique is unreliable. On the other hand SR's initiative to solve the various contradicting views still meets stubborn opposition, though it solves the Gorani, Romani issues.Alexikoua (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your map omits communities (Gorani, Romani etc) and it colours areas that have solid Muslim populations as Greek. Controversial is the term because Muslim Albanians in the past did not even identify with pro-Greek sentiments. It infering that they where affiliated with Hellenism when even Soiriaides (that map you use) avoids that. With the Le Monde Diplomatique it was published in 1999 while Wnnifrith's book was published in 2002. Why does it not reflect the view of Le Monde Diplomatique but instead the ethnic map done by Winnifrith reflects data like Kallivretakis? You uses both sources for your map, either one or the other is wrong? Additionally why the Sotiriades map? One could use Gustav Wiegand's map which resembles the scholarship or others.Resnjari (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Anti, you keep infering on one thing an i gave an example of another where a change has happened in such a instance. I thought this was a encyclopedia project, not a online forum about how many pageviews occur determining outcomes. Accuracy is very important, as per wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Otherwise whats the point of Wikipedia if accuracy is not the overall standard of the place. Also please don't infer something of my comments. I have not inhibited anyone from commenting and nor have i said that they should not. As i have said to you before and now again, see: wp:civil. On walls of text in recent times you engaged in some of that on my talkpage and some other article talkpages. If you don't like it don't do it. If editors want to comment it is their choice. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Blatant WP:IDHT again. There is absolutely no doubt that you do understand that the difference in number of watchers and number of edits is very important and that you can not compare the article on Albania and some other article with 100 times less page views. Instead to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy you opted to clog this talkpage too with walls of text although there is no doubt you understand that it
I also will note why is it that scholars like Nitsiakos (2010, also a Cambridge scholar -since qualifications of other academics were raised by Alexikoua) on the ground that do fieldwork mainly note that the Greeks are found in Albania's south, in the Gjirokaster and Saranda areas [8] even corroborating previous scholars like Kallivretakis while source like Le Diplomatique (opinion piece or is it peer reviewed?) or even that source now used by Alexikoua don't show methodology, source etc from where they got their info.Resnjari (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- After Ktrimi's well-sourced and comprehensive takedown of some of the sources used, we should engage that rather than the totally unrelated Marin Mema. Weirder still the reference to a discussion where Alexikoua tried to paint Mema, who is of Orthodox Christian heritage, as a "Jdichadi". Honestly if I were you Alexi I would be incredibly embarassed that took place and would never want to bring that up again. Its bizarre to accuse Ktrimi of using Mema anyways as he is the one who worked hard to replace Mema's journalistic sources with published books on Stath Melani. To be fair Mema may not have been best, although many of his views are common in Albania, he happens to be persona non grata in Greece due to his statements on the Cham issue. Alexi you should be understanding as you too made mistakes, like using Cassavetes, who I suppose you didnt notice launched into rabidly racist diatribes not only against Albanians, Christian and Muslim alike, but also offtopic ones against Arabs and "Abyssinians" in his failed attempt to convince the American political elite to award North Epirus to Greece-- which was what you cited as a scholarly source. One interesting tidbit though-- the stats Cassavetes cited, Virgili's, in his rabidly Greek nationalist propaganda work, show zero Greek speaking Christians in the Korcha and Erseka kazas...--Calthinus (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- For the record i was not in favour of using Mema and prefered removal of him with replacement via scholarship. There is a huge issue with the hatched lines matter. Apart from covering areas that are solidly Muslim Albanian (even the Greek army in its statistics respected that those people were Albanians and not some kind of Greek people), Orthodox Albanian (speaking) areas are given as Greek. Take for example Leskovik (cited by both Greek army stats as majority Muslim Albanian etc). Modern fieldwork there by Karolina Bielenin noted that it was not evident that the town is a mixed Greek and Albanian one, with most people there that know Greek having only learned it post 1992 due to going and working in Greece -p. 282. [9]. Alexikoua used Winnifrith and the comment above about not knowing or having come across a map that was inline with Calthinus' map on Greek distribution does not suffice. Alexikoua cherry picked it for Vlach distribution and ignored the rest. Any further comments of the sort about not being aware of that content, then i will place the map on a image sharing site and a link to it here for all to see and compare with Alexikoua's map. We ought to strive for accuracy, not something based on a reality that is not there.Resnjari (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Alexikoua Your words do not match with the truth, hence they can be interpreted as a personal attack. Sadly, you have produced such claims in relation to me in places that are much more serious than this page. Of course, you opened that little investigation on the behalf of another person with whom you seem to have off-Wiki connections, hence if that kind of circus resurfaced the person who would face with the outcome of that kind of disastrous and ill-advised action is not nicknamed Alexikoua. I never supported making use of Mema's article because it was written in a newspaper (newspaper like Le Monde Diplomatique) and the author, like Rekacewicz himslef, does not wear the blessed coat of a historian. After I saw Mema and other newspapers, I placed two academic books after every sentence of the said article and proposed on the talk page to remove Mema and other newspapers. I pinged you but you did not respond. You supported keeping Mema there. You say that "Jdichadi" Mema is not a reliable source, and you say that another journalist, Rekacewicz is a reliable source. I guess journalists as sources are of help when it suits our POV, right? Rekacewicz made use of Qosja for his work, hence Qosja is a good peer reviewed source? I have access to the books of Qosja, and I will use him like you use Rekacewicz. Of course you don't share Qosja's opinion on Greece and the Greeks in Albania. We are in a crossroad. We disregard sources that claim the United States are worse than bin Laden and equal to Hitler and Stalin and stick to sources that are in the world of historiography or make use of every journalist that comes to our hands. I support giving Caesar what belongs to Caesar, the Greek speakers should be represented on the map in every corner of Albania they live. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- For the record i was not in favour of using Mema and prefered removal of him with replacement via scholarship. There is a huge issue with the hatched lines matter. Apart from covering areas that are solidly Muslim Albanian (even the Greek army in its statistics respected that those people were Albanians and not some kind of Greek people), Orthodox Albanian (speaking) areas are given as Greek. Take for example Leskovik (cited by both Greek army stats as majority Muslim Albanian etc). Modern fieldwork there by Karolina Bielenin noted that it was not evident that the town is a mixed Greek and Albanian one, with most people there that know Greek having only learned it post 1992 due to going and working in Greece -p. 282. [9]. Alexikoua used Winnifrith and the comment above about not knowing or having come across a map that was inline with Calthinus' map on Greek distribution does not suffice. Alexikoua cherry picked it for Vlach distribution and ignored the rest. Any further comments of the sort about not being aware of that content, then i will place the map on a image sharing site and a link to it here for all to see and compare with Alexikoua's map. We ought to strive for accuracy, not something based on a reality that is not there.Resnjari (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The map of Calthinus is complete and accurate.Tiimiii (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- It appears that certain editors follow strict national lines and thus credible sources "must" be labelled as POV (Monte Diplomatique & various published maps that clearly show the Greek area stretching under a Himare-Prespa line) simply beacause wp:IDLI. 2. I'm also still waiting for Ktrimi's analysis (as in the weird S.Melani additions he did in Permet which still aren't addressed by him), 3. Kallivretakis, Winnifrith, Nitsiakos do not refute this map which isn't controversial but a product of a long established concensus.Alexikoua (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's also sad that SR's middle solution isn't accepted by editors that display stubborn and unexplained opposition.Alexikoua (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- While SR's proposal was intended as a middle solution, it was absolutely not, as it included unacceptable sources. You are not listening but Resnjari and Ktrimi991 have sufficiently demonstrated the problematic nature of all three of your sources concerning the Greek distribution. It is not IDLI. Le Monde Diplomatique is a newspaper that promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories, equated the united States to Hitler, Stalin and bin Laden and cited only Rexhep Qosja, bizarrely -- and its other maps are similarly wildly inaccurate (indeed solidly Albanian Ohrid is something not even rabid Albanian nationalists believe, yet Le Monde Diplomatique has it...). Frankly the use of such a conspiracy theory mouthpiece is offensive. Rekacewicz is also a "radical cartographer" also involved in the same sort of far-left madness. Sot----- is one of many problematic 19th century sources that have long been refuted. Not a single one of these holds up. Ktrimi and Resnjari explained this all and cited their statements, first you tried to redirect the conversation onto Marin Mema which is wildly offtopic and also not favorable to your position anyways, and now you are pretending Ktrimi's revelations never happened. Please stop running and hiding and engage. If you can counter these statements that would be one thing but so far you have appeared unable to do so.--Calthinus (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Its quite weird that while defending the use of nationalist advocates such as M. Mema you reject Diplomatique because of 9/11 conspiracies... the nature of your arguments can be easily considered as not impartial. I'm not running and hiding neither engage but this kind of POV and stubborn opposition to remove long established consensus map needs to stop. Alexikoua (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- You either didnt read or are being deliberately misleading. No one has defended using Mema in this discussion (ironic given your unapologetic use of the wildly racist Cassavetes). In fact Ktrimi was the one who removed him. On the other hand, how can you defend your reliance on far-left "journalism" that vomits out wild anti-Western conspiracy theories?--Calthinus (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Let me remind you that the one that used Cassavetes was you (can't understand why you accuse me on that). Also about Mema let me remind you that you found him reliable about Melani [[10]]. It would be very weird to dismiss Diplomatique (which isn't the only map that defines the Greek area) because of "Bill Landen claims" made against other authors of this newspaper, while at the same time defending the use of ultranational journalist with connections to ISIS sympathizers such as Mame. Apart from this, you proposed to add in your map areas about populations that identified as Greeks. May I ask if this still an active proposal?Alexikoua (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I used Virgili's stats inside Cassavetes pamphlet. Virgili is not Cassavetes. You on the other hand used the racist propagandist Cassavetes to make a statement about population sentiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/791211498 . Its ok, we all make mistakes, and i assume it was one. Ive talked ages about how ridiculius the defamatory ISIS claims about Mema are (for starters hes Christian!), but I prefer less emotive books to his journalistic style. Additionally, my support for the use of Mema was for simple facts like the date of Melani's death which I didnt think would be fabricated, nothing else -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/792946528 -- but in hindsight I admit that might have been a mistake-- we both make them. Enough with the Whataboutism. Yes my proposal to include a statement about sentiment on the side is still active.--19:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- The non-Albanian character of such communities: bilingualism, mixed ancestry, self identification etc. is an essential feature for a map about "traditional presence of non Albanian communities" and should be portrayed in the correspondent areas of this map. I'm glad you understand this fact.Alexikoua (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- The map should portray facts-- language, religion-- not analyses ("true nationality", etc...). I'm fine adding a statement that some non-Greek speakers identified as Greek. I'm not fine saying all Orthodox on the South diddid which would have Veqilharxhi, the Qiriazis, Mitko, Hoxhi, Melani, Sotiri, some of the Frasheris and so on as all "Greek" which is absurd.--Calthinus (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua, i asked about Sotiriades, how is that map accurate ? Kallivretakis refutes your map. Do you want me to start citing parts of his work Greek where it would refute your map and i'll throw Kokolakis in too [11] for good measure p.50 Τα αλβανικά αποτελούσαν την κυρίαρχη ομιλούμενη γλώσσα προς τα βόρειαμιας γραμμής που άρχιζε από την περιοχή των Αγίων Σαράντα, περνούσε δίπλααπό τις πόλεις Δέλβινο και Αργυρόκαστρο (ανάμεσα στα χωριά Κολορτσί και Δερβιτσάνη) και φτάνοντας στην Πολίτσανη, όπου και το βορειότερο άκρο της επαρχίαςτου Πωγωνιού, στρεφόταν προς τα νοτιοανατολικά και ακολουθούσε περίπουτην πορεία των σημερινών ελληνοαλβανικών συνόρων -this description is in line with Calinthus' map, and of course Winnifirth. Not that Kokolakis also notes that the Albanian Greek language border ran along the modern Albanian-Greek border after the Pogoni area which is the Vjosa valley and Leskovik area. p. 50-51. "Τα εδάφη που βρίσκονται νότια απ' αυτή τη γραμμή, δηλαδή το μεγαλύτερο τμήμα της κοιλάδας της Δρόπολης, τα βορινά χωριά του Πωγωνιού, τα περισσότερα χωριά της Ρίζας του Δελβίνου (Δρόβιανη, Μάλτσανη, Δίβρη, Λεσινίτσα) και ο κάμπος του Βούρκου μεταξύ Δελβίνου και Αγίων Σαράντα ορίζουν μέχρι σήμερα την έκταση των ελληνικών μειονοτικών περιοχών στην Αλβανία." -Greek speaking area of Dropull, Pogon, Vurg +Delvina area, Saranda area plus the Rreza area (he highlights those in a map on page 374 in the area of Biovizhde and Vllaho-Psilotere which are still Greek today) which he concludes define the Greek minority areas of Albania.; p.56 "Η διαδικασία αυτή του εξελληνισμού των ορθόδοξων περιοχών, λειτουργώντας αντίστροφα προς εκείνη του εξισλαμισμού, επιταχύνει την ταύτιση του αλβανικού στοιχείου με το μουσουλμανισμό, στοιχείο που θ' αποβεί αποφασιστικό στην εξέλιξη των εθνικιστικών συγκρούσεων του τέλους του 19ου αιώνα." -note the reference to εξελληνισμού/Hellenisation of the Orthodox.Resnjari (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- The map should portray facts-- language, religion-- not analyses ("true nationality", etc...). I'm fine adding a statement that some non-Greek speakers identified as Greek. I'm not fine saying all Orthodox on the South diddid which would have Veqilharxhi, the Qiriazis, Mitko, Hoxhi, Melani, Sotiri, some of the Frasheris and so on as all "Greek" which is absurd.--Calthinus (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- The non-Albanian character of such communities: bilingualism, mixed ancestry, self identification etc. is an essential feature for a map about "traditional presence of non Albanian communities" and should be portrayed in the correspondent areas of this map. I'm glad you understand this fact.Alexikoua (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I used Virgili's stats inside Cassavetes pamphlet. Virgili is not Cassavetes. You on the other hand used the racist propagandist Cassavetes to make a statement about population sentiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/791211498 . Its ok, we all make mistakes, and i assume it was one. Ive talked ages about how ridiculius the defamatory ISIS claims about Mema are (for starters hes Christian!), but I prefer less emotive books to his journalistic style. Additionally, my support for the use of Mema was for simple facts like the date of Melani's death which I didnt think would be fabricated, nothing else -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/792946528 -- but in hindsight I admit that might have been a mistake-- we both make them. Enough with the Whataboutism. Yes my proposal to include a statement about sentiment on the side is still active.--19:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Let me remind you that the one that used Cassavetes was you (can't understand why you accuse me on that). Also about Mema let me remind you that you found him reliable about Melani [[10]]. It would be very weird to dismiss Diplomatique (which isn't the only map that defines the Greek area) because of "Bill Landen claims" made against other authors of this newspaper, while at the same time defending the use of ultranational journalist with connections to ISIS sympathizers such as Mame. Apart from this, you proposed to add in your map areas about populations that identified as Greeks. May I ask if this still an active proposal?Alexikoua (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- You either didnt read or are being deliberately misleading. No one has defended using Mema in this discussion (ironic given your unapologetic use of the wildly racist Cassavetes). In fact Ktrimi was the one who removed him. On the other hand, how can you defend your reliance on far-left "journalism" that vomits out wild anti-Western conspiracy theories?--Calthinus (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Its quite weird that while defending the use of nationalist advocates such as M. Mema you reject Diplomatique because of 9/11 conspiracies... the nature of your arguments can be easily considered as not impartial. I'm not running and hiding neither engage but this kind of POV and stubborn opposition to remove long established consensus map needs to stop. Alexikoua (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- While SR's proposal was intended as a middle solution, it was absolutely not, as it included unacceptable sources. You are not listening but Resnjari and Ktrimi991 have sufficiently demonstrated the problematic nature of all three of your sources concerning the Greek distribution. It is not IDLI. Le Monde Diplomatique is a newspaper that promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories, equated the united States to Hitler, Stalin and bin Laden and cited only Rexhep Qosja, bizarrely -- and its other maps are similarly wildly inaccurate (indeed solidly Albanian Ohrid is something not even rabid Albanian nationalists believe, yet Le Monde Diplomatique has it...). Frankly the use of such a conspiracy theory mouthpiece is offensive. Rekacewicz is also a "radical cartographer" also involved in the same sort of far-left madness. Sot----- is one of many problematic 19th century sources that have long been refuted. Not a single one of these holds up. Ktrimi and Resnjari explained this all and cited their statements, first you tried to redirect the conversation onto Marin Mema which is wildly offtopic and also not favorable to your position anyways, and now you are pretending Ktrimi's revelations never happened. Please stop running and hiding and engage. If you can counter these statements that would be one thing but so far you have appeared unable to do so.--Calthinus (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's also sad that SR's middle solution isn't accepted by editors that display stubborn and unexplained opposition.Alexikoua (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Refering to the position of Greek Kokolakis divides it into three categories p.52. Θα καταλαβαίναμε καλύτερα τη θέση και το ρόλο της ελληνικής γλώσσας στο εθνολογικό σύμπλεγμα της Ηπείρου αν χωρίζαμε τους χρήστες της σε τρεις κατηγορίες:
- α. Ο συμπαγής ελληνόφωνος πληθυσμός καταλάμβανε το σύνολο των εδαφών στα νότια και ανατολικά του ελληνοαλβανικού γλωσσικού συνόρου, όπως το περιγράψαμε παραπάνω, με εξαίρεση τις βλαχόφωνες περιοχές της Πίνδου, τους αλβανόφωνους της Τσαμουριάς και κάποιες ακόμη μεμονωμένες γλωσσικές νησίδες (τα αλβανόφωνα χωριά της Δρόπολης Φραστανή και Μουζίνα, τους Τουρκόγυφτους της Βοστίνας, τους Αρβανιτόβλαχους του Μετζητιέ κ.λπ.). Σε αυτόν περιλαμβάνονταν και οι περισσότεροι από τους αστικούς μουσουλμανικούς και εβραϊκούς πληθυσμούς των Ιωαννίνων, της Αρτας και της Κόνιτσας.
- β. Ο διεσπαρμένος ελληνόφωνος πληθυσμός περιλάμβανε τις ελληνόφωνες νησίδες που βρίσκονταν πέρα από το κυρίως ελληνοαλβανικό γλωσσικό σύνορο,
δηλαδή ορισμένα παραλιακά χωριά στην περιοχή της Τσαμουριάς (Σαγιάδα-Μαυρούδι), τρία στη Χειμάρρα (Χειμάρρα-Δρυμάδες-Παλιάσα), δύο στην Αυλώνα (Αρτα και Σβερνέτσι) και μικρό αριθμό οικογενειών στα αστικά κέντρα του Αργυροκάστρου και της Αυλώνας.
- γ. Τέλος, ο δίγλωσσος πληθυσμός περιλάμβανε όλους όσους, έχοντας για μητρική τους γλώσσα την αλβανική ή τη βλάχικη, ήταν σε θέση να μιλήσουν και την ελληνική όταν το έφερνε η περίσταση58.
p.53. Βέβαια σε πολλές ελληνικές πηγές, για λόγους ευνόητους, η βασική αυτή διάκριση συσκοτίζεται, ή κρύβεται σεμνότυφα πίσω από ελαφρές φραστικές διαφοροποιήσεις: «ομιλούντες την ελληνικήν», «ομιλούντες και την ελληνικήν», «ομιλούντες μόνον την ελληνικήν». Δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία ότι, αν στον ελληνόφωνο πληθυσμό περιλαμβάνονταν όλες οι προηγούμενες κατηγορίες ομιλητών, τότε οι ελληνόφωνοι θα αποτελούσαν την πλειοψηφία στο πασαλίκι• γιατί όχι μονάχα η συντριπτική πλειοψηφία του ορθόδοξου πληθυσμού, τουλάχιστον του αντρικού59, αλλά και πολλοί Μουσουλμάνοι, γνώριζαν σε μεγαλύτερο ή μικρότερο βαθμό την ελληνική γλώσσα. Αλλά ένας συνεπής ορισμός της ελληνόφωνης κοινότητας δεν μπορεί παρά να βασίζεται στη χρήση της μητρικής γλώσσας των ομιλητών, να περιλαμβάνει δηλαδή μονάχα τις ομάδες (α) και (β)• οι υπόλοιποι περιλαμβάνονται στους αλβανόφωνους και βλαχόφωνους πληθυσμούς που καταγράφονται στους Πίνακες A4 και Α5. Με βάση αυτά τα στοιχεία, στην ελληνόφωνη κοινότητα απομένει γύρω στο 1/3 του πληθυσμού της ηπειρωτικής επικράτειας.
Kokolakis notes that the Greek was used in the area (in fact there is more in Kokolakis about it being the language of religion and mainly used written language of the time in the area). He notes that though the population of Albanians and Aromanians were bilingual by the late Ottoman period, and if ones includes them all them the population of Greek speakers they become huge, however only from category A and V can they be considered as being the core of Greek element, and from those category G containing Albanians and Aromnians being separate due to mother tongue because Greek was not their mother tongue.Resnjari (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have suggested a solution (i forgot if was this page or one of the others) previously as a compromise and i am going to reiterate it again, with additions. Orthodox Albanian (speakers) should be coloured with a different colour. As Calthinius has used tints of red for Albanians of various faiths and blue for Greeks, purple should be the colour for Orthodox Albanians. It would fitting (as red+blue=purple -for those that did art class in school) considering that this community has Albanian traits such as Albanian mother tongue etc and still does express (pro) Greek sentiments in both past and recent times. This does not mean they all do but within a family (nuclear or extended) there are people who hold that view and others who hold another of a firm Albanian one and others still who hold both. This varies in regions with Myzeqe, Shpat, the Berat area, and somewhat the Korca area being more toward the Albanian side, while Orthodox Albanians further south of the Vjosa valley, the Dangelli, Rreza, Zagori, Lunxheri area and especially those of the area in Xarre administrative unit being toward the Greek side. The disclaimer for the map i proposed is also important and from my side i think that additional sentence on the modern area ought to be there too. The Romani can be coloured in a tint of (light) grey as that colour has not been used. Hatched lines showing Greeks in those places should be removed. Otherwise, we are going to be in a revolving door here.Resnjari (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Resnjari sorry but I think that creates more problems not less. It is a map of language and religion. Do Orthodox Albanians have their own language? Absolutely not even in terms of dialect they differ little from Muslims (ironically its different for Catholics who DO have distinctive dialects in the North esp in Shkoder). Furthermore, coloring OAS (Khirurgs acronym) similar to Greeks but not OSS (Orth Slav speakers) and OVS (Orth Vlach speakers) would imply tthat OAS were Greek like in a way the othe other two were not-- but thats not true, actually if anything it is the OVS who were historically the most pro-Greek anyways. Lastly, it doesnt even look like the Greek side in this discussion is even interested.--Calthinus (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Calthinus: Off course a map of traditional presence of minorities should portray facts and this concept (bilingualism, mixed ancestry because of intermarriages etc.) "is" one fact. The specific regions where people fall into this category should be reflected. On the other hand if a map of this kind presents a specific region as inhabited by minority/-ies this doesn't mean that the Albanian element is non-existent there: Not all Orthodox are self-declared non-Albanians, but a part of them are and this should reflected in a map like this one, just like the one in the article of Monde Diplomatique, the ethnographic map of "World and Its Peoples: Europe, Western Balkans Vol. 18" and even maps of past (1990s) CIA reports. Under the same rationale Zappas, Zographos, Bangas and can't be "Albanians" it would be absurd too. Let me remind you that the boundary commission of 1912-1913 couldn't decide if the specific populations could be classified as Greeks or Albanians (I assume that labeling them as purely Albanians as you insist -contrary to pulbished maps- isn't appropriate).Alexikoua (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- The map labels them as Albanian speakers not Albanians. It is a map of language and religion, not ethnicity or nationality. Readers can interpret it however they like. As I have ssaid, I'm willing to put a statement on the side about how some non-Greek speakers identified as Greeks. Are you interested in that?--Calthinus (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Calthinus Indeed, the map made by you does not label anyone as Albanian. I agree with you on addition of a statement about Greeks who spoke a language other than Greek. By the way I had a quick look at Rexhep Qosja's books. He has written about, among other things, efforts of Greece to create a kind of new Hellenic land in contemporary southern Albania and how it helps political parties to gain support from radical and anti-American voters. He is a good source and if we concluded that Le Monde Diplomatique is reliable, Qosja stuff would be placed on some articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Clathinus: I appreciate you accept the fact that such communities did exist, though deny to point them in the map. To be precise the consensus map is about the presence of non-Albanian minorities in the country whether they are minority or majority in a specific area. Thus, I wonder why the map which you recently created can be seen as an alternative one since it portrays non Albanian communities only in case they are in majority in a specific areas, not to mention that it portrays various communities as Albanian even if they are bilingual/of mixed ancestry/self defined as non-Albanian. Its definitely not a map about traditional presence of all non-Albanian minorities.Alexikoua (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Resnjari: Not all Orthodox communities were connected with a Greek identity thus it wouldn't be correct to paint them all purple (or something similar).Alexikoua (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- The reason I use the map of Soteriadis as reference "in addition" to the maps of 1. Le Monde Diplomatique, 2. "World and Its Peoples: Europe, Western Balkans Vol. 18 (2010) 3. cartographie.sciences-po.fr, 4. CIA, Intelligence Memorandum 1994, is that the former is more detailed in some aspects (it's obvious that Soteriadis reduces the Greek area compared to the rest of the available maps).Alexikoua (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies, User:Alexikoua, I thought there were only two RS supporting the Greek blue lines on Calthinus' map. I am impressed that it turns out there are not just one or two, but five RS now. Four non-Greek RS, and one Greek RS, correct? There can be absolutely no excuse when it comes to five different RS documenting the Greek element in Southern Albania. I think it has become quite clear what can be done: Calthinus has 2 options in resolving the dispute the one or the other way: either he will restore the blue lines on his beautiful map to reflect the 5 RS, or withdraw his map completley from Wikipedia's articles due to Albanian POV and restore the previous, older map. I highly recommend that the editors here refrain from any further disruption, especially on non-English Wikipedia articles regarding this map's addition, until this dispute is resolved, otherwise I will take action and seek advice from the administrators, as Wikipedia-wide disruption is a problem the administrators are very sensitive with. Take this as a friendly call. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes you would have thought there were two because, while not engaging Ktrimi's and Resnjari's concerns about his previous sources, Alexikoua just added three new sources to his ancient map yesterday.--Calthinus (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies, User:Alexikoua, I thought there were only two RS supporting the Greek blue lines on Calthinus' map. I am impressed that it turns out there are not just one or two, but five RS now. Four non-Greek RS, and one Greek RS, correct? There can be absolutely no excuse when it comes to five different RS documenting the Greek element in Southern Albania. I think it has become quite clear what can be done: Calthinus has 2 options in resolving the dispute the one or the other way: either he will restore the blue lines on his beautiful map to reflect the 5 RS, or withdraw his map completley from Wikipedia's articles due to Albanian POV and restore the previous, older map. I highly recommend that the editors here refrain from any further disruption, especially on non-English Wikipedia articles regarding this map's addition, until this dispute is resolved, otherwise I will take action and seek advice from the administrators, as Wikipedia-wide disruption is a problem the administrators are very sensitive with. Take this as a friendly call. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- The reason I use the map of Soteriadis as reference "in addition" to the maps of 1. Le Monde Diplomatique, 2. "World and Its Peoples: Europe, Western Balkans Vol. 18 (2010) 3. cartographie.sciences-po.fr, 4. CIA, Intelligence Memorandum 1994, is that the former is more detailed in some aspects (it's obvious that Soteriadis reduces the Greek area compared to the rest of the available maps).Alexikoua (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Resnjari: Not all Orthodox communities were connected with a Greek identity thus it wouldn't be correct to paint them all purple (or something similar).Alexikoua (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Clathinus: I appreciate you accept the fact that such communities did exist, though deny to point them in the map. To be precise the consensus map is about the presence of non-Albanian minorities in the country whether they are minority or majority in a specific area. Thus, I wonder why the map which you recently created can be seen as an alternative one since it portrays non Albanian communities only in case they are in majority in a specific areas, not to mention that it portrays various communities as Albanian even if they are bilingual/of mixed ancestry/self defined as non-Albanian. Its definitely not a map about traditional presence of all non-Albanian minorities.Alexikoua (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Calthinus Indeed, the map made by you does not label anyone as Albanian. I agree with you on addition of a statement about Greeks who spoke a language other than Greek. By the way I had a quick look at Rexhep Qosja's books. He has written about, among other things, efforts of Greece to create a kind of new Hellenic land in contemporary southern Albania and how it helps political parties to gain support from radical and anti-American voters. He is a good source and if we concluded that Le Monde Diplomatique is reliable, Qosja stuff would be placed on some articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- The map labels them as Albanian speakers not Albanians. It is a map of language and religion, not ethnicity or nationality. Readers can interpret it however they like. As I have ssaid, I'm willing to put a statement on the side about how some non-Greek speakers identified as Greeks. Are you interested in that?--Calthinus (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Calthinus: Off course a map of traditional presence of minorities should portray facts and this concept (bilingualism, mixed ancestry because of intermarriages etc.) "is" one fact. The specific regions where people fall into this category should be reflected. On the other hand if a map of this kind presents a specific region as inhabited by minority/-ies this doesn't mean that the Albanian element is non-existent there: Not all Orthodox are self-declared non-Albanians, but a part of them are and this should reflected in a map like this one, just like the one in the article of Monde Diplomatique, the ethnographic map of "World and Its Peoples: Europe, Western Balkans Vol. 18" and even maps of past (1990s) CIA reports. Under the same rationale Zappas, Zographos, Bangas and can't be "Albanians" it would be absurd too. Let me remind you that the boundary commission of 1912-1913 couldn't decide if the specific populations could be classified as Greeks or Albanians (I assume that labeling them as purely Albanians as you insist -contrary to pulbished maps- isn't appropriate).Alexikoua (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Although I've added them yesterday they were presented in the community in 2010 in a similar discussion [[12]], [[13]]. For the record after that a consensus was reached in the Greater Albania map.Alexikoua (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
As far as the dispute concerns, I feel obliged to remind everyone that the new map by Calthinus lacked and still lacks the necessary WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion to the topic articles due to POV issues relating to minorities and Cherrypicking of WP:RS that could promote a certain WP:POV about their presence in the country. Although it is a positive step towards the dispute's resolution that both User:Calthinus and User:Resnjari acknowledged the existence of a Greek element in Southern Albania larger than the one currently portrayed on Calthinus' map. The heart of the dispute are the 2 RS (which now are 5 thanks to User:Alexikoua) and their inclusion to the Calthinus' map. The one side dismissed the RS as being either "too generic" or "too POV" or "too politically unreliable", while the other side insists on their inclusion. Like how I explained to fellow Wikipedians, as per WP: Neutrality of Sources, these arguments presented thus far against the RS lack any strong grounds for the omission of these RS from the map. Personally speaking, the only valid argument against the RS I have heard thus far, comes from Calthinus and is against Diplomatique over its notoriety and past assertions (such as declaring the United States a terrorist state). The rest of the arguments, however, absolutely do not stand against the RS criteria. To resolve the dispute, I have, as mentioned previously, intervened with a "middle-ground" proposal that does not violate Wikipedia's rules; this is to keep Calthinus's new map over the older one which it does replace due to it being a higher quality map containing more information about the minorities in Albania, but with the necessary corrections regarding the underrepresentation of the Greek Minority on it, in line with the NPOV concerns as expressed by the other side of the dispute.
The dispute is spanning multiple talk pages at once, as well as multiple articles and multiple language versions of Wikipedia. It is a miracle that the admins haven't intervene thus far. Those who do not know already, the failure of reaching a WP:CONSENSUS and inclusion of the map without consulting all parties, had already consequences in Wikipedia: caused disruption and triggered edit warring across several pages. Mind you, this article, like all the other Balkan topics, are subject to WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions and please, no excuses of the kind "I am right", or "I didn't knew about ARBMAC". Any editors who are not interested in resolving the dispute, should take a break and let the others work their way out of this mess. To insist that the new map by Calthinus shall stay "as is" and without the requested corrections/inclusion of 5 WP:RS, without providing any strong arguments to explain their rationale, is the least a form of WP:Disruption nevertheless and I am sure no one is happy with that. I strongly support that a solution where no side is winner and loser, a solution that contains the necessary WP:NPOV modifications supported by the 5 RS that were originally omitted from Calthinus' map. There is no other way around this; if we fail to resolve the dispute and reach a consensus, then we will declare "No consensus", which means the Calthinus map will have to be removed completely and from every article where it has been added, and the pages will ve reverted to the last stable version. Period. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 00:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua, i am aware about Orthodox Albanians and their complex history and identity, hence my proposal. As i said above within a family there was a combination of views. I'll cite a prominent one. The Zographi's of Labova. The father Kristaki opened Greek schools and particpated in the debate on the Albanian alphabet, on how the Albanian language ought to be written. His daughter married Koto Hoxhi from the village of Qestorat who promoted Albanian language education in his native village and had issues who pro-Greek Orthodox people in the area. Kristakis son of the same name was later the leader of the northern Epirote forces in 1912-1914. On this see Clayer .p.201. [14]. As i noted above on issue of bilingualism by citing Kokolakis is that the first two categories can be counted as Greek not the third of where people were bilingual due to learning the language via schools and Orthodox religion in the late Ottoman period, while their mother tongue was Albanian or Aromanian. It would be like saying that because some Muslim Albanians were to various extents fluent or had some knowledge of Arabic (Kokolakis cities usage of this language for religion) due to Islam they are Arabs of some sort. Silent deal only with the scholarship. If Admins intervene you would have to explain some of your comments that are definitely not conducive toward compromise like your "rage" toward me and dictating to others in terms of "period" etc etc. That kind of terminology is not encouraged in wp:civil. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I have asked of Silent and multiple times of Alexikoua with no response about why Sotiriades is considered accurate and why that map should be given prominence over other "ethnographic" maps from that era. Anyway time to place a reply on the matter as to why it does not fulfill Wikipedia requirements of wp:reliable and wp:secondary. British Scholar Henry Robert Wilkinson, in his detailed study of 200 cartographic maps of Macedonia dealing with "ethnographic/linguistic" material, noted the following of Sotiriades' map, p.193-195 [15]:
- "Conclusion. Soteriades’ map may be said to be almost an official Greek view of Balkan ethnography, put forward at a time when the war was going well for the Allies (Bulgaria had just asked for an armistice), and it was intended to support Greek claims in Albania. and Thrace. Unlike the Jugoslavs, the Greeks had not been engaging in propaganda in European capitals throughout the war, and, until Greece definitely entered the war in 1917, Greek policy in the Balkans had been suspect by the Allies. In the interim, the Jugoslav interpretation of the ethnography of Macedonia had become fairly well established, and so Soteriades had to recognize Macedo-Slavs where Nicolaides had marked only Greeks. Viewing the map as a whole its Gracco—Turkish character was rather remarkable. The impression is gained from this map that Thrace, the Black sea coast, and the coasts of Marmara and Anatolia were peopled by a mixed population, predominantly Turkish and Greek. One was obviously expected to infer that the Greeks were in a position to supersede the Turks as rulers of the southern Balkans, were the latter compelled to forfeit their control of the Straits as the penalty for aiding the Central Powers."
Though that study was published in the 1950s Wilkinson is still highly regarded from then in scholarly circles till now (1953-The Geographical Journal) [16] , (1997-Danfroth) [17], (Pettifer- 1999) [18], (Stavrianos-2000) [19], (2002-Harley) [20], (Livianos-2008) [21]. For those that want to see the pages in whole, give the word and i'll upload these onto a image sharing website where their whole context and analysis can be seen. Sotiriades is a POV issue because it is the Greek view of the time in relation to WW1 victors thing and division of spoils, not of reflecting the reality on the ground. Having accuracy of sources is important here. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- One thing to emerge in this discussion so far is though this issue relates to Albania, Albanian sources are not highlighted like maps of the late 19th and early 20th century era (or even scholarship of today), odd that considering this topic relates to Albania. Am i the only editor to have noticed this.Resnjari (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, youre not the only one to notice. Of course if I pointed out all the similar things Ive noticed we could be talking for days... at the very least one might say its disturbing that of all the sources that exist regarding the greek distribution in albania-- including many far less obscure and much more recent sources-- the ones selected for the map by Alexikoua consist of a poorly sourced map in a non-RS paper tarred by its propagation of rabid anti-Western conspiracy theories, and a Greek wartime propaganda document (the others appear to have been added quite recently to the map page...namely, yesterday). Wow. And then the alternative map, based on modern demographic studies, is the one accused of "cherrypicking" not that one? Ironic beyond belief. --Calthinus (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Alexikoua also said in previous comments that he was not aware of any map that followed the lines of the Greek minority that you gave, and yet of his 6 cited sources, he has Winnifrith who has a map on page 192. Alexikoua's outlines for the Aromanian community were copied to the line exact from that Winnifrith source on the Aromanian community, but ommited for the line between Albanians and Greeks. Isn't that text book cherry picking, while he used other sources to get his spread of the Greek community which is of course synthesis of sources.Resnjari (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Resnjari for future reference Winnifrith accepts that Greek speakers live in Korce and its surroundings & he also states that they were there at early 20th cent. too (this means there is a traditional presence there as 5 published maps confirm). I understand that there might be some kind of national POV in your arguments but to present a series of credible material as unreliable is not a convincing approach. So far the arguments presented against a 7 year consensus map can be summarized: 1. Le Mond Diplomatique is leftist pro-Bin Landen newspaper, 2. CIA intelligence reports are useless (though there are not pro Bin Landen), 3. Now you claim to that science-po.fr and the map published at Questions Internationales "Les Balkans et l Europe" 23, 2007, is unreliable too. No wonder you avoid the appropriate noticeboard.Alexikoua (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @For future reference Alexikoua he says there are only speakers, never any majority or that they constitute some large minority in the town. I have the book right beside me so cite the page if it says otherwise. Once again i ask that you to please refrain from this kind of language "I understand that there might be some kind of national POV in your arguments", see wp:civil. The arguments presented are warranted against your map. 1. You cherry picked Winnifrith only using material for the Aromanians. 2. you have used Sotiriades which was a World War One propaganda map (if you insist on maps from that era i have scholarship which has analysed them in full showing issues like with Sotiriades, also Albanians produced their maps and in the West others produced maps which shows something similar to Calinthus' map). 3. Le Mond Diplomatique is not a peer reviewed journal article and i asked you previously about whether the article that has the map is an opinion piece or whether it is peer reviewed (no answer). These are just a few of the issues not to mention limitations/omissions of other ethnic groups like the Gorani, Bosniaks, Romani etc.Resnjari (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- You need to avoid pretending that there is wp:CIVIL case against you and accept a mountain of wp:RS. Even if Greeks are a minority in Korce, Permet they should be portrayed in a map like this one and Winnifrith, Nitsiakos etc confirm that there are Greeks in those cities. Moreover, I assume you can understand that Questions Internationales "Les Balkans et l Europe" vol 23, 2007, is a peer reviewed academic journal.Alexikoua (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's odd i never said anything about a case being put forward about me. My reference to wp:civil was in relation to etiquette in discussion due to the comment you made about national POV (see wp:civil). Anyway what those sources note is that there are Greek speakers, not a majority or even mixed 50/50 or even being a large minority. They say nothing of the sort. On Les Balkans et l Europe what is the link to this source, i want to see this so as to understand if it really meets wiki requirements.Resnjari (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is description and link in commons. In general a map about traditional presence doesn't necessarily imply that a specific community is in majority, it simply states that there is a "traditional presence" because this is based what the available scholarship claims. I can add a statement next to the map for clarification.Alexikoua (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Come on Alexikoua i looked at the sources on your map (the extras you also placed). None of those say "Les Balkans et l Europe". Where or which one is it ? At the very least place a link, i have done the courtesy of doing so in the past for things.Resnjari (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- The full description of the peer reviewed publication is Questions Internationales "Les Balkans et l Europe" vol 23, 2007 [[22]] and it was created by science-po.fr/.Alexikoua (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I am looking at the map created by the French cartography company and apart from it looking like the Le Diplomatique map there are a few things with it. For its sources it has the following: Rexhep Qosja, La Question albanaise, Paris, Fayard, 1995; Michel Roux, Les Albanais en Yougoslavie, Paris, Editions de la MSH, 1992; Republique hellenique, ministere des Affaris etrangeres (http://www.mfa.gr/); OSCE Mission in Kosovo avec des donnes estimees pour 2002-2005 (http://osce.org/Kosovo/); Recensement de Macedoine de 2002 (http://www.stat.gov.mk); Recensement du Montenegro de 2003; Recensement de Serbie de 2002." Of those used for the south like the Le Diplomatique map it uses Qosja and then the Greek government source on migrants but it gives no deffintiave webpage or document just a generic link to the site. Cant even see what data its based on. Also the the area for map symbols, it has a box with with two strips. The disclaimer next to it says "minorité ethnique hellénique (MEH) concentrée dans la region élargie de Gjirokastër, Sarandë et Himarë." Roughly translated says "Ethnic Greek Minority (EGM) concentrated largely in the region of Gjirokastër, Sarandë and Himarë". Yet it colours Permet Kolonje, Korce and Devoll district with the strips as well. In addition though the disclaimer for the strip box cites Himare, in the map no strips cover Himara and its coloured in a dark orange meant for showing populations of 80% and above. Now last one recalled Himara as a district is majority Greek due to three large settlements and a forth mixed one. How is that then ?Resnjari (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- The full description of the peer reviewed publication is Questions Internationales "Les Balkans et l Europe" vol 23, 2007 [[22]] and it was created by science-po.fr/.Alexikoua (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Come on Alexikoua i looked at the sources on your map (the extras you also placed). None of those say "Les Balkans et l Europe". Where or which one is it ? At the very least place a link, i have done the courtesy of doing so in the past for things.Resnjari (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is description and link in commons. In general a map about traditional presence doesn't necessarily imply that a specific community is in majority, it simply states that there is a "traditional presence" because this is based what the available scholarship claims. I can add a statement next to the map for clarification.Alexikoua (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's odd i never said anything about a case being put forward about me. My reference to wp:civil was in relation to etiquette in discussion due to the comment you made about national POV (see wp:civil). Anyway what those sources note is that there are Greek speakers, not a majority or even mixed 50/50 or even being a large minority. They say nothing of the sort. On Les Balkans et l Europe what is the link to this source, i want to see this so as to understand if it really meets wiki requirements.Resnjari (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- You need to avoid pretending that there is wp:CIVIL case against you and accept a mountain of wp:RS. Even if Greeks are a minority in Korce, Permet they should be portrayed in a map like this one and Winnifrith, Nitsiakos etc confirm that there are Greeks in those cities. Moreover, I assume you can understand that Questions Internationales "Les Balkans et l Europe" vol 23, 2007, is a peer reviewed academic journal.Alexikoua (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @For future reference Alexikoua he says there are only speakers, never any majority or that they constitute some large minority in the town. I have the book right beside me so cite the page if it says otherwise. Once again i ask that you to please refrain from this kind of language "I understand that there might be some kind of national POV in your arguments", see wp:civil. The arguments presented are warranted against your map. 1. You cherry picked Winnifrith only using material for the Aromanians. 2. you have used Sotiriades which was a World War One propaganda map (if you insist on maps from that era i have scholarship which has analysed them in full showing issues like with Sotiriades, also Albanians produced their maps and in the West others produced maps which shows something similar to Calinthus' map). 3. Le Mond Diplomatique is not a peer reviewed journal article and i asked you previously about whether the article that has the map is an opinion piece or whether it is peer reviewed (no answer). These are just a few of the issues not to mention limitations/omissions of other ethnic groups like the Gorani, Bosniaks, Romani etc.Resnjari (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Resnjari for future reference Winnifrith accepts that Greek speakers live in Korce and its surroundings & he also states that they were there at early 20th cent. too (this means there is a traditional presence there as 5 published maps confirm). I understand that there might be some kind of national POV in your arguments but to present a series of credible material as unreliable is not a convincing approach. So far the arguments presented against a 7 year consensus map can be summarized: 1. Le Mond Diplomatique is leftist pro-Bin Landen newspaper, 2. CIA intelligence reports are useless (though there are not pro Bin Landen), 3. Now you claim to that science-po.fr and the map published at Questions Internationales "Les Balkans et l Europe" 23, 2007, is unreliable too. No wonder you avoid the appropriate noticeboard.Alexikoua (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Alexikoua also said in previous comments that he was not aware of any map that followed the lines of the Greek minority that you gave, and yet of his 6 cited sources, he has Winnifrith who has a map on page 192. Alexikoua's outlines for the Aromanian community were copied to the line exact from that Winnifrith source on the Aromanian community, but ommited for the line between Albanians and Greeks. Isn't that text book cherry picking, while he used other sources to get his spread of the Greek community which is of course synthesis of sources.Resnjari (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, youre not the only one to notice. Of course if I pointed out all the similar things Ive noticed we could be talking for days... at the very least one might say its disturbing that of all the sources that exist regarding the greek distribution in albania-- including many far less obscure and much more recent sources-- the ones selected for the map by Alexikoua consist of a poorly sourced map in a non-RS paper tarred by its propagation of rabid anti-Western conspiracy theories, and a Greek wartime propaganda document (the others appear to have been added quite recently to the map page...namely, yesterday). Wow. And then the alternative map, based on modern demographic studies, is the one accused of "cherrypicking" not that one? Ironic beyond belief. --Calthinus (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- One thing to emerge in this discussion so far is though this issue relates to Albania, Albanian sources are not highlighted like maps of the late 19th and early 20th century era (or even scholarship of today), odd that considering this topic relates to Albania. Am i the only editor to have noticed this.Resnjari (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Following the discussion, is clear that the one side is not willing to ever accept the RS, no matter what and how many. Although the RS meet Wikipedia's criteria, they still are insisting on their exclusion from the new map on faulty POV grounds which have nothing to do with WP:Neutrality of Sources. It is saddening that instead of seeking a compromise, the one side deviates from the WP:POV problems the new map has, and instead of focusing on the dispute, goes as far as to dispute other maps that were already in the article for a very long time already, just to justify their bias and editorial POV that has nothing to do with the WP:RS. If any party to the dispute believes there is a problem with the RS and that they need evaluation prior to their inclusion to the new map, then I highly recommend that they take the case to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and seek a third party opinion and evaluation of the 5 RS to see if they do meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. As for the new map itself, it has been removed from all articles and will not be reinstated unless and until the above POV issues are addressed adequatelly. The editors can always discuss the problem on the talk page and seek a new WP:Consensus over the map's inclusion.
Also I highly advice everyone to not try add the map unilaterally and or get involved into any forms of disruption and edit wars, as the articles in question fall under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. PS: User:Resnjari, User:Alexikoua, User:Calthinus, I'll be following the discussion but the lack of will to achieve any progress and provide any tangible results, does not give me much of a reason to participate. I tried to help but I failed utterly. No matter what, the one side disputes the RS while the other side disputes the map. There isn't much for me to do anymore, but if you believe there is anything I can do to help, or if I have missed something, please ping me and let me know. Have a good day. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 12:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I do agree that there one side not willing to accept RS no matter what or how many. In the end the reliable source noticeboard (on a source by source basis) may have to be consulted etc. However Wikipedia processes on the talkpage first must run its course. Otherwise we will all be refered back here again.Resnjari (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Resnjari: I appreciate that you accept that the publication of science-po.fr is part of peer reviewed scholarship. The specific map divides the country into districts and Vlore district isn't included in the Greek minority area since Himara is a tiny part of it. It wouldn't be appropriate to paint the entire region as part of the Greek minority since they obviously make less than 20% of the district according to the map.Alexikoua (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua, please don't infer something from my comments when i have not said it. Now on the map, reason why i brought the issue up is because it says one thing while showing something else which there is either a error or sourced material was in error etc, hence i.e accuracy comes into question. Saying Himara is tiny does not omit that it was excluded. Your now adding a explanation as to why that possibly could have happened, however i do not see such a explanation provided in the map. What i do see in it says the Greek minority is largely concentrated in the Gjirokaster, Saranda and Himara areas -without the third being striped as such. While Permet, Korce, Devoll and Kolonje districts are striped and the disclaimer saying nothing about them being where the Greek minority resides. In its sources it also cites that Rexhep Qosja source that Le Diplomatique cites for the basis of its map and the map overall is a copy in many respects of that map.Resnjari (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- To sum up since you appear to be confused: 1. Questions_Internationales is a top graded academic journal, 2. the map is accurate in the district- level depiction of the Greek minority (don't expect village-level resolution in country maps). In case you raise again anti-Albanian conspiracy theories that's not the correct project to question most of the available scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Alexikoua, I believe you have overdone yourself here, and I don't see any reason for you to keep up with this increasingly repetitive discussion, unless the defiant party that supports the problematic map's inclusion to the articles, is willing to make the necessary conhessions for it to meet the Wikipedia's WP:NPOV criteria. If User:Resnjari is still stubbornly insisting in baptisisng the reliable sources however they like, and in the expense of Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability, there is nothing we can do to help. Furthermore, I shall remind you that as per WP:FORUM the article Talk pages are solely about improving the articles, not about endlessly discussing an editor's personal views over the 5 RS, hoping that at the end they will finally give up on their POV. It is preferable that if they have a problem with a RS, a case is filed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and get it evaluated. Simple as that. The RSN exists for a reason, and is recommended that Resnjari takes a 3rd opinion there as they are obsessed with the exclusion of the RS and we couldn't reason with them here. A third opinion, like the one of the admins and volunteers at the RSN, who are intelligent and experienced in dealing with such cases, may be what Resnjari needs to be convinced about the 5 RS and is preferred over this endless discussion which leads nowhere. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 18:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua, once again please refrain from terminology like "you appear to be confused" toward other editors (see wp:civil). I observed discrepancies in the map and cited that in my comments. @Silent Resident, please refrain from refering to others as "stubbornly" or "obsession" etc. Your comments about "rage" toward are already unpalatable enough (see wp:civil). Look the main aspect in this talkpage and the others is that the process of discussion in good faith (well at least i hope so on my part) was undertaken to its fullest extent Silent (not in "rage" or other) was done, but of course options of taking the matter further are open as per the guidelines at a time of my choosing in future. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Alexikoua, I believe you have overdone yourself here, and I don't see any reason for you to keep up with this increasingly repetitive discussion, unless the defiant party that supports the problematic map's inclusion to the articles, is willing to make the necessary conhessions for it to meet the Wikipedia's WP:NPOV criteria. If User:Resnjari is still stubbornly insisting in baptisisng the reliable sources however they like, and in the expense of Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability, there is nothing we can do to help. Furthermore, I shall remind you that as per WP:FORUM the article Talk pages are solely about improving the articles, not about endlessly discussing an editor's personal views over the 5 RS, hoping that at the end they will finally give up on their POV. It is preferable that if they have a problem with a RS, a case is filed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and get it evaluated. Simple as that. The RSN exists for a reason, and is recommended that Resnjari takes a 3rd opinion there as they are obsessed with the exclusion of the RS and we couldn't reason with them here. A third opinion, like the one of the admins and volunteers at the RSN, who are intelligent and experienced in dealing with such cases, may be what Resnjari needs to be convinced about the 5 RS and is preferred over this endless discussion which leads nowhere. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 18:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- To sum up since you appear to be confused: 1. Questions_Internationales is a top graded academic journal, 2. the map is accurate in the district- level depiction of the Greek minority (don't expect village-level resolution in country maps). In case you raise again anti-Albanian conspiracy theories that's not the correct project to question most of the available scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexikoua, please don't infer something from my comments when i have not said it. Now on the map, reason why i brought the issue up is because it says one thing while showing something else which there is either a error or sourced material was in error etc, hence i.e accuracy comes into question. Saying Himara is tiny does not omit that it was excluded. Your now adding a explanation as to why that possibly could have happened, however i do not see such a explanation provided in the map. What i do see in it says the Greek minority is largely concentrated in the Gjirokaster, Saranda and Himara areas -without the third being striped as such. While Permet, Korce, Devoll and Kolonje districts are striped and the disclaimer saying nothing about them being where the Greek minority resides. In its sources it also cites that Rexhep Qosja source that Le Diplomatique cites for the basis of its map and the map overall is a copy in many respects of that map.Resnjari (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Resnjari: I appreciate that you accept that the publication of science-po.fr is part of peer reviewed scholarship. The specific map divides the country into districts and Vlore district isn't included in the Greek minority area since Himara is a tiny part of it. It wouldn't be appropriate to paint the entire region as part of the Greek minority since they obviously make less than 20% of the district according to the map.Alexikoua (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, it seems you are REALLY confused. WP:Civil is about editorial conduct and does not prohibit editors from expressing how they feel as result of your arrogant stance and failure to be a WP:COMPETENT editor. How many times do the others have to sit down and clean up your mess? --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 18:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Your doing it again with words like "confused", "arrogant". See: wp:civil because maintaining good faith is important in a discussion and not "rage" as you said before you had toward me. As for my competences i know what they are. I don't need someone else to inform me apart from an admin. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? Because last time you drew attention, the admins didn't warn you, they blocked you. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see where your going with this about "Are you sure you want to push things that far" in your original comment before you deleted it [23]. Is this still part of the "rage" you said you expressed toward me? I really hope not. The talkpage is to discuss improvements to the article and its content (i.e map). I have discussed issues in good faith and have not used language like "confusion" or other here on my part toward other editors and nor have i said something to belittle their cognitive capacities, as its none of my business. Though editors may have much disagreement on certain things such as this matter, for me i believe that respect must be upheld and i said repeatedly that scholarship sources guide my comments and nothing else. I never veered away from that regarding this whole map discussion. As i said, admins are the ones who can judge my competences on anything, and i take their advice for self improvement due to their experience of their position.Resnjari (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- My question to you is the same, so don't dig up to make imaginary conclusions. The question is the same, no matter how I trim it for the sake of reducing the worrisomely large discussion, so if incompetence is all what I am dealing with, let me write it in full, with italics for you to get its FULL meaning:
If you are sure that pushing things that far as to draw admin attention again is good for you, then go ahead.
- Like it or not, this (unfortunate) rattle about RS not being RS has come to a natural end, as it has become clear to everyone that no matter what, you will not consent, as you are not interested in compromises or changes that could make the map acceptable. It is your choice and your take. Its pointless to argue with you, and I feel really sorry for the fellow editors having to read all this, only to realize that it had produced absolutely no tangible results. (Wow,
73.9KB74.5KB of text!) --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 20:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- My question to you is the same, so don't dig up to make imaginary conclusions. The question is the same, no matter how I trim it for the sake of reducing the worrisomely large discussion, so if incompetence is all what I am dealing with, let me write it in full, with italics for you to get its FULL meaning:
- I don't see where your going with this about "Are you sure you want to push things that far" in your original comment before you deleted it [23]. Is this still part of the "rage" you said you expressed toward me? I really hope not. The talkpage is to discuss improvements to the article and its content (i.e map). I have discussed issues in good faith and have not used language like "confusion" or other here on my part toward other editors and nor have i said something to belittle their cognitive capacities, as its none of my business. Though editors may have much disagreement on certain things such as this matter, for me i believe that respect must be upheld and i said repeatedly that scholarship sources guide my comments and nothing else. I never veered away from that regarding this whole map discussion. As i said, admins are the ones who can judge my competences on anything, and i take their advice for self improvement due to their experience of their position.Resnjari (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? Because last time you drew attention, the admins didn't warn you, they blocked you. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Your doing it again with words like "confused", "arrogant". See: wp:civil because maintaining good faith is important in a discussion and not "rage" as you said before you had toward me. As for my competences i know what they are. I don't need someone else to inform me apart from an admin. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, it seems you are REALLY confused. WP:Civil is about editorial conduct and does not prohibit editors from expressing how they feel as result of your arrogant stance and failure to be a WP:COMPETENT editor. How many times do the others have to sit down and clean up your mess? --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 18:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- On "imaginary conclusions" those were not my words regarding "rage" toward me, they were yours. I don't see why this discussion would be seen as "worrisomely" considering that other editors have also participated at length. Some of your comments above are lengthy more so in other threads on the map discussion. Its a discussion on an important issue, so its not my place to say how much a person wants to write in a comment. I do agree this discussion has come to a conclusion as all angles have been covered. Also i was not the only editor partaking and they also did not agree for their own reasons. For the record I did offer a compromise above based on scholarship. Its just that your compromise and mine did not align. These things happen. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2018
 | This edit request to Albania has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The translation of the name of the national anthem says "Albanian National Anthem" when it really translates to "Hymn to the Flag", shouldn't it say "Hymn to the Flag"? Grngu (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Done The English translation was added. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2018
| This edit request to Albania has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rename Republic of Macedonia to FYROM AF85 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done: That would be against WP:MOSMAC. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Presence_of_Albanians_in_%22Greater_Albania%22.png&diff=44240178&oldid=44236953){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Presence_of_Albanians_in_%22Greater_Albania%22.png&diff=43958144&oldid=43948950){kind=link}
Maps
Serbs have changed the map,allegedly “Kosovo is part of Serbia” someone inform the administrators about these kids.Tiimiii (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2018
| This edit request to Albania has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "but although" to "although" in the first sentence of the Climate section. Wizlardo (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2018
Albania is one of the country in the Balkans. Some people don't know Albania since they are busy with other main countries. This is all i can write and say. Sorry and thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.250.242 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Please specify-- what exactly is your request?--Calthinus (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Calthinus: I think that they are disturbed because the first sentence does not say that Albania is in the Balkans. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- It says Southeastern Europe which is probably a more comprehensible term as some people not from Europe have never heard of "the Balkans". Whereas SE Europe is self-explanatory. --Calthinus (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. Furthermore, the article says that Albania is in the Balkans just a few sentences later. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- It says Southeastern Europe which is probably a more comprehensible term as some people not from Europe have never heard of "the Balkans". Whereas SE Europe is self-explanatory. --Calthinus (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Calthinus: I think that they are disturbed because the first sentence does not say that Albania is in the Balkans. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Electricity production
Under Energy, the second sentence states that: "Almost 94.8% of the country's electricity consumption comes from hydroelectrical stations and ranks 7th in the world by percentage." For the first fact, the CIA Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/al.html) is stated. But the factbook states that (Electricity - from hydroelectric plants: 94.8% of total installed capacity (2015 est.)). The author seems to have mistaken installed capacity for consumption. Installed capacity is always greater than the actually produced power in a plant because hydroelectric plants seldom run at full capacity. Further still, Albania also imports electricity, so even if 94,8 % of the power in Albania would be produced from hydro, the share of hydro in the amount of consumed electricity would be even smaller. It would be correct to say: "Almost 94.8% of the country´s installed capacity comes from hydroelectrical stations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Putsunutsija (talk • contribs) 12:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Gjovalin Shkurtaj
Gjovalin Shkurtaj is a linguist, with a PhD [24]. He has a rich background [25] and his book has been reviewed by Jani Thomai PhD [26] and Bahri Beci [27]. All are members of Albanian Academy of Science. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- A source present on the article gives the same picture [28]. Hence no "controversial" thing, IDONTLIKEIT put aside. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Ambiguous Dispora
Souliotes & Arvanites are presented in Culture/Diaspora section as modern Albanian diaspora minorities without any reference, next to Arbereshe and Arbanasi which are indeed recognized minorities. I am pretty sure that this should change because its a falsification. Thanks Othon I (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just fixed. Nice notice.Alexikoua (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for the quick response Othon I (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
OR dialect map
I wonder what makes Dropull a traditionally Lab speaking area & Mesopotam a traditionally Cham speaking area. No wonder this map [[29]] lacks RS. A typical example to claim that Albanian language was spread in every corner of the country. Some editors are very familiar with Kokkolakis work and what's interesting there is a map titled "maximum extent of Albanian speech".Alexikoua (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
![[29]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania#/media/File:Dialect_map_albania.png){kind=link}
- The map was added on the article by Khirurg. Ping him if you want to remove it and add the previous map. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- The map covers dialects of Albanian used in a area. As for Alexikoua's claims of the map not being RS, do you really want to go there?Resnjari (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Greek government claims
The Greek government no longer makes any claims on the size of the minority, see [30]. It may have done so in the past, but government policy changes, sometimes rapidly. This seems to be the case here. The statement that the Greek government backs a figure of 300,000 should be removed. Khirurg (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Data
The data is sourced to a source added by Khirurg. Like Kathimerini, Instat and Shkurtaj, it is of value, though it might seem controversial to some. If we go down that road, other apparently controversial content should be scrutinized as well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- The figure of 0.5% native speakers is sourced to Olivet Nazarene University. Here's another source that says Greek is spoken natively by 3% of the population [31]. We can include a range if you'd like (e.g. "0.5% to 3% of population"). Khirurg (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I originally said the source is Olivet Nazarene University and you disagreed. Anyways, World Atlas actually says 3% are speakers of Greek, not native speakers of Greek. Furthermore, it says
The language is spoken by the Greeks living in the country as well as by Albanians who had immigrated to Greece in the past.
Another figure of it is Albanian speakers 98.7%. Hence, some of the speakers of Greek speak Albanian as well. If we are to consider the data of WA as referring to native speakers, the article should specify that some of the native speakers of Greek are native speakers of Albanian too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)- The 0,5% claim comes from the disputed 2011 census. Off course this data is far from reality and mainstream bibliography tends to dismiss results of such procedures.Alexikoua (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why did not you complain about Olivet Nazaret University before? It has been on the article for months. Whether it is census data, it has no importance. A reliable university endorses the 0.5% figure, so does CIA as well [32]. And so do other reliable sources, as a matter of fact. IDONTLIKEIT put aside, it is of value. By the way, where did Kathimerini find its figure? Who is the scholar(s) that came to such conclusion? I do disagree with removing Kathimerini, as indeed Albanians for a variety of reasons, immigration included, learn a lot of new languages. My point is that if Kathimerini with its figure is allowed, all other possible sources are allowed as well. Do not insist, otherwise if we go down that road, Albanian newspapers with their claims will be next to Kathimerini. By the way, "off course" has a different meaning from "of course", just to not confuse our discussion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is already an entire paragraph in the article which states that the results of this "census" need to be treated with heavy precaution based on publication by EU Commission, U.S. State Department, even institutions from Kosovo agree on this. Sure, it's a typical case of persistent IDONTLIKEIT to try to present dubious data that way.Alexikoua (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- No way. The 0.5% figure is endorsed by many reliable sources, and it has its place on the article. On Kathimerini, where does it find that figure? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- the results of the census should be viewed with the utmost caution and calls on the authorities not to rely exclusively on the data on nationality collected during the census in determining its policy on the protection of national minorities. I assume you should respect that too.Alexikoua (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong. You assume wrongly. I have to respect the sources, all of them. One POV is that the census data is not reliable. The other POV is that the 0.5% data is OK. Hence it is used by CIA, Olivet etc. 0.5%-3% is what the sources say, and that is to be present on the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong. It's verbally taken by a official EU publication. The US State Department Factbook is also quite clear about the unreliable data. CIA published various estimates one of them claims that the Greek minority makes 3-5% of the country and is accompanied by a map [[33]]. In general even the Albanian press raised serious concerns about the quality of this procedure, see for example Tirana Times. Not to mention that the Encycopedia of Islam is also clear about the data of the Greek minority [[34]]. In general all in depth sources fully agree with the conclusions of the EU, UN, US Department statements. Thus this can't be interpreted as POV but as universal agreement.Alexikoua (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Universal agreement"? No, as sourced above. You make use of Olivet and CIA when it suits your POV, and hide behind "universal agreements" when it does not. The number of Greeks is not consistent with the number of those who speak Greeks as a first language. Ethnic identity is rather fluid, and the first language is associated with several factors such as place of living, family traditions and social class. There are sources that endorse the 0.5% data, and those sources are quite reliable. As there are disputes and criticism, there are various estimates, and all are to enjoy their reflection on the article. If you go down that road, who is the academic(s) that found the data of Kathimerini? Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, none of the sources above states they have taken the 0.5% data from census results. CIA actually says "estimate", not "census data". Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- By the way it is inappropriate to hedge sources with verbiage such as "According to a 2003 article by Greek newspaper Kathimerini...". Kathimerini is one of the most prestigious Greek newspapers with over 100 years of history. What you are trying to do is called poisoning the well. Khirurg (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nah, someone else is poisoning the well. I said before, I believe that Kathimerini's data is true or near the truth. The data of Instat gives a nearby figure. If the sources are not to scrutinized so much, both Kathimerini and the 0.5-3% data are OK. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Kathimerini article is from 2003. One decade and a half has passed. I agree with @Ktrimi:. Excellent analysis. I should also add that Greek educational institutions in Albania have been shutting due to the Greek government being unable to pay bills some 8 years ago [35] (article is by Greekreporter). Plus there are new players around like Turkey and increasing numbers of Turkish schools [36], so Greek influence is not what it used to be. I fail to see this "universal agreement" that Alexikoua refers too like the "Encycopedia of Islam" (Alexi's spelling). Alexi was so quick to find any source that i guess he missed that the source is not the Encyclopedia of Islam which is this source [37] while the reference that was referred to is the The Oxford Handbook of European Islam. At least get to know your sources before jumping the gun so as to be precise. Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and so what? The "new players" have nothing to do with Greek education. It's not like they are shutting down Greek schools and converting them to Turkish ones. Khirurg (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- My point is Greek education is on the decline as the report by Greekreporter shows Greek schools are being closed down permanently as Greece cannot afford them. Turkish schools have been expanding with even the opening of a Muslim University, via Turkish funds (Yearbook of Muslims in Europe. Vol 5. p.28: [38]).Resnjari (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- First of all, nothing is "permanent", so you are rejoicing prematurely. Second, the issue of Turkish schools has nothing to do with Greek schools, I don't know why you keep repeating that. And third, Turkey's economy is in freefall as we speak, so the the triumphalism may also prove to be a little...premature. Khirurg (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Khirurg. I am merely citing Greek news reports. Greece owes 350 billion to its German/European creditors until mid century. Schools were closed down because it can't afford it. Turkey's economy at the moment is in free fall, however Turkish schools (+Muslim Beder University) in Albania are Gulen run [39] (hence private) and outside of Erdogan's reach. Albania has said no to their closure. The Turkish government instead has now devoted its attention to acquiring other important private Albanian educational institutions with plans to run them through the Maarif foundation [40]. Other foreign languages have been on the uptake in Albania like Italian and English. Anyway its not about triumphalism, and I will note for the sake of irony that its some in Greek circles today who are now advocating for Albanian nationalism due to its anti Turk and now emerging anti-Erdogan sentiments such as in this piece [41] in the centre-right [42], [43] Katherimini newspaper. I've been strongly against nationalism per se. In 2018, its a different educational landscape to the report of Katherimini (2003) when Turkey was nearly non-existent in Albania and Greece was almost the only influential country in the state.Resnjari (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- As I've already mentioned above there are more than one estimates by the CIA (official census, Greek estimates etc.), there are no reasons to hide them.Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- First of all, nothing is "permanent", so you are rejoicing prematurely. Second, the issue of Turkish schools has nothing to do with Greek schools, I don't know why you keep repeating that. And third, Turkey's economy is in freefall as we speak, so the the triumphalism may also prove to be a little...premature. Khirurg (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- My point is Greek education is on the decline as the report by Greekreporter shows Greek schools are being closed down permanently as Greece cannot afford them. Turkish schools have been expanding with even the opening of a Muslim University, via Turkish funds (Yearbook of Muslims in Europe. Vol 5. p.28: [38]).Resnjari (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and so what? The "new players" have nothing to do with Greek education. It's not like they are shutting down Greek schools and converting them to Turkish ones. Khirurg (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Kathimerini article is from 2003. One decade and a half has passed. I agree with @Ktrimi:. Excellent analysis. I should also add that Greek educational institutions in Albania have been shutting due to the Greek government being unable to pay bills some 8 years ago [35] (article is by Greekreporter). Plus there are new players around like Turkey and increasing numbers of Turkish schools [36], so Greek influence is not what it used to be. I fail to see this "universal agreement" that Alexikoua refers too like the "Encycopedia of Islam" (Alexi's spelling). Alexi was so quick to find any source that i guess he missed that the source is not the Encyclopedia of Islam which is this source [37] while the reference that was referred to is the The Oxford Handbook of European Islam. At least get to know your sources before jumping the gun so as to be precise. Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nah, someone else is poisoning the well. I said before, I believe that Kathimerini's data is true or near the truth. The data of Instat gives a nearby figure. If the sources are not to scrutinized so much, both Kathimerini and the 0.5-3% data are OK. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- By the way it is inappropriate to hedge sources with verbiage such as "According to a 2003 article by Greek newspaper Kathimerini...". Kathimerini is one of the most prestigious Greek newspapers with over 100 years of history. What you are trying to do is called poisoning the well. Khirurg (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, none of the sources above states they have taken the 0.5% data from census results. CIA actually says "estimate", not "census data". Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Universal agreement"? No, as sourced above. You make use of Olivet and CIA when it suits your POV, and hide behind "universal agreements" when it does not. The number of Greeks is not consistent with the number of those who speak Greeks as a first language. Ethnic identity is rather fluid, and the first language is associated with several factors such as place of living, family traditions and social class. There are sources that endorse the 0.5% data, and those sources are quite reliable. As there are disputes and criticism, there are various estimates, and all are to enjoy their reflection on the article. If you go down that road, who is the academic(s) that found the data of Kathimerini? Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong. It's verbally taken by a official EU publication. The US State Department Factbook is also quite clear about the unreliable data. CIA published various estimates one of them claims that the Greek minority makes 3-5% of the country and is accompanied by a map [[33]]. In general even the Albanian press raised serious concerns about the quality of this procedure, see for example Tirana Times. Not to mention that the Encycopedia of Islam is also clear about the data of the Greek minority [[34]]. In general all in depth sources fully agree with the conclusions of the EU, UN, US Department statements. Thus this can't be interpreted as POV but as universal agreement.Alexikoua (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong. You assume wrongly. I have to respect the sources, all of them. One POV is that the census data is not reliable. The other POV is that the 0.5% data is OK. Hence it is used by CIA, Olivet etc. 0.5%-3% is what the sources say, and that is to be present on the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is already an entire paragraph in the article which states that the results of this "census" need to be treated with heavy precaution based on publication by EU Commission, U.S. State Department, even institutions from Kosovo agree on this. Sure, it's a typical case of persistent IDONTLIKEIT to try to present dubious data that way.Alexikoua (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why did not you complain about Olivet Nazaret University before? It has been on the article for months. Whether it is census data, it has no importance. A reliable university endorses the 0.5% figure, so does CIA as well [32]. And so do other reliable sources, as a matter of fact. IDONTLIKEIT put aside, it is of value. By the way, where did Kathimerini find its figure? Who is the scholar(s) that came to such conclusion? I do disagree with removing Kathimerini, as indeed Albanians for a variety of reasons, immigration included, learn a lot of new languages. My point is that if Kathimerini with its figure is allowed, all other possible sources are allowed as well. Do not insist, otherwise if we go down that road, Albanian newspapers with their claims will be next to Kathimerini. By the way, "off course" has a different meaning from "of course", just to not confuse our discussion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- The 0,5% claim comes from the disputed 2011 census. Off course this data is far from reality and mainstream bibliography tends to dismiss results of such procedures.Alexikoua (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I originally said the source is Olivet Nazarene University and you disagreed. Anyways, World Atlas actually says 3% are speakers of Greek, not native speakers of Greek. Furthermore, it says
That figure belongs to 1989. The CIA estimated the Greek community in that time at 3%, and in a note presented estimates of Albanian gov and an unnamed Greek org. The CIA did not endorse the 1% and 12% figures. Anyhow, those were 1989 estimates and can not be mixed with those of 2000s that are present on the article. The 1989 figures, though, would be a good addition to Greeks in Albania. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- All the data on the Orthodox Greek speaking community or people in Albania who speak it as a foreign language in Albania are mostly outdated going on 1990s estimates or early 2000s data. Migration and other factors have seen much change and we are after all we in 2018, not 1992. Ktrimi has added some contemporary data, which goes someway to update readers on the current reality.Resnjari (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)