Talk:Albania (Balkans)

Copyvio

It looks to me that a web search the VWBot has performed found website that contains material copied from wikipedia (the article Albania (name) that covers topic of name Albania in various regions of the world). Therefore I think there is no reason to worry about copyright violation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is still effectively a copy-and-paste move, and/or a POV fork. I really can't see a reason for having this as an extra page. What do you suppose the function of this page to be side by side with Albania the country article, and Albania (toponym)? I don't see how it could be anything other than a POV fork of either or both of these. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brunswick Dude and me agreed here that "we currently don't have an Albania (region) article, although it would have been a great idea". The existing article Albania (toponym) links to ~~two~~ three separate regions: Albania (Balkans), Caucasian Albania and Alba. The function of this page would be to avoid wikilinks to lead to Albania (toponym) which "refer to more than one topic which Wikipedia covers". In such cases Wikipedia:Disambiguation recommends:

*Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title.

*Making the links for ambiguous terms point to the correct article title.

*Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not getting it. Where and when would you want to use it? Why would we want a separate "Albania (region)" article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page would not be side by side with the existing article Albania (toponym) because the latter will be changed to disambiguation page, as I already stated in this diff right after I created this page.

If there is a concern about my motifs (POV fork) I will not insist on this issue because I am sure that I will win trust of the community (including individual users who care about wikipedia) both with my past merits and my future contributions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my past contributions give enough reason for assuming a good faith with creation of this page. A reason for having this extra page is the same for having any other page about region, like Bosnia (disambiguation) which includes both Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosnia (region) or Kosovo (disambiguation) which includes both Kosovo region and Republic of Kosovo... If a region and the existing state have the same name, like in this case of Albania, sometimes term Albania does not refer to the state but to the region, and vice versa. That means that term Albania "refer to more than one topic which Wikipedia covers" and by having separate article for state and region we would be "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about recreation

I agree with Fut. Perf that this article is completely unnecessary. What would be there that isn't already in Geography of Albania or Albania articles? We don't split articles just because we can. The "region of Albania" and the "state of Albania" have covered roughly the same territory since the term came into being, so I fail to see on which grounds the information would be split (and, why it should be split in the first place). No such user (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I would like to thank you for your participation in this discussion.

If you were right and if "The "region of Albania" and the "state of Albania" have covered roughly the same territory since the term came into being" maybe the article about region of Albania could be understood as fork. But that is not the case. But please take a closer look at the article. It is about the region in the Balkans which was referred to as Albania. For most of its history it existed before any kind of state with word Albania in its name. Most of the time it did not correspond with the territory of todays Albania. Therefore when readers are faced with some text about region of Albania (or one of the versions of its name) before Republic of Albania was created in 1913 they would be mislead to believe that it corresponds with todays Republic of Albania. That would be wrong and misleading because the territory of the region of Albania at some point comprised the territory which is completely or almost completely different, or much smaller or much bigger than todays Albania. And vice versa. Not to mention Epirus and Northern Epirus issue.

The article explains how both the region and its name evolved over the time.

I think that readers should not be mislead and confused with this redirect. Let us present the whole picture to them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should follow recommendations of the WP:Dispute resolution and inform participants of WikiprojectAlbania and WikiprojectGreece about this discussion and RfD.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without judging the quality of the sources, that material seems encyclopedic enough. However, it does not really concern a region named "Albania" but possible etymology of word "Albania", because early mentions of the word are of rather speculative nature. I took a look at Albania#Etymology, and sure enough, it links Albania (toponym) as the "main" article. So why don't we just restore that material under the title Etymology of Albania, and add some material to also explain the origins of shquip- root? That is the standard practice of article splitting when the section gets too long. As a reader, I would really expect to find geography under the name "Albania (region)", not (ancient & speculative) history. No such user (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right that big part of the text deals with evolution of the name of the geographical region. There are explanations what geographical region has been referred to Albania at different times, but still that part should be expanded.

Taking in consideration that expansion is impossible if this article remains redirected I propose to revive this article and to allow all interested users to expand the "geographical" part which explains development and changes of the "geographical region" over the time. If there is no progress after reasonable period of time (say one month) we can easily redirect this article again. What do you think about my proposal to give a chance to interested users to expand this article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology-related material is already present in Albania (toponym), where it is treated together with the etymologies of the two other "Albania"s. That page is not so big that we'd have to factor out part of it into a subarticle, so the material can simply stay there. As for the geography and history-related stuff, the fact remains that there is no reason to factor those out from the main Albania article with its existing subarticles History of Albania and Geography of Albania. The argument that the geographic coverage pre-statehood and after isn't 100% identical is just not cogent – we have the exact same issue with Germany, Italy, India, China, Egypt, Greece, Syria and doubtless many others. In cases of modern nation states that are the continuation of a much older, but more vague, geographic/cultural/ethnolinguistic unit, we routinely have the article on the modern state as the top article, and treat older history and geography as subtopics within its article hierarchy. Exceptions (like Bahrain, Macedonia etc) are made only in some very special cases where that continuity is particularly problematic. This is not the case here. Antidiskriminator's effort at splitting these apart is just a transparent part of his longstanding POV-driven campaign of marginalizing and delegitimizing our coverage of Albania-related topics, which is highly disruptive and annoying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect.

The articles about geographical region exist if there is a geographical region. Regardless of the politics and "continuation of a much older, but more vague, geographic/cultural/ethnolinguistic unit".

It is wrong to use examples as arguments because the nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist. Above mentioned examples are not only against the nature of Wikipedia but also wrong. There is an article about both Italy and Italian Peninsula or India and Indian subcontinent....

I don't agree that expanding the article about geographical region Albania can be interpreted as "POV-driven campaign of marginalizing and delegitimizing our coverage of Albania-related topics". On the contrary.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Peninsula and Indian subcontinent exist because they are geographically salient, physically distinct entities. "Albania" isn't; it doesn't physically exist independently of its connection with the Albanian ethnos. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, of course, disagree with ideology which connects ethnos and soil and with claims that geographical region "doesn't physically exist independently" from ethnos. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I assumed that Albania (toponym) was a dab page without looking at it. While I don't quite like the approach that 3 Albanias (of apparently diverse etymologies, not sure about Caucasian one) are lumped into one article, all the material required is there, so I consider that everything is just about fine. No such user (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that is in this article (or was there before the redirect) is covered in the article Albania (placename). As for expanding with the history of the "region" Albania: The section about history in the Albania article and the main article History of Albania covers the period from 4th century BC, with several additional articles about the history of the "region" before the state was created: Albania in the Middle Ages, Albania under the Byzantine Empire, Principality of Arbër etc. etc. etc. etc. I am really at a loss to understand why we should need Albania (Balkans) in addition. Regards 79.160.40.10 (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that "Everything that is in this article (or was there before the redirect) is covered in the article Albania (placename)." The reason is because it was impossible to expand this article. It was redirected a couple of hours after it has been created. That is exactly why I proposed to revive this article and allow interested users to expand it within reasonable period of time.

What is important to understand is that the topic of this article is a region (not its name) which exists and is notable (has significant coverage by reliable neutral sources). I am sure it will be more obvious after I prepare a draft of expanded version and present it here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it. The history of the region is thoroughly covered in the article "History of Albania" and the large number of spin-offs from there, where the word "region" is used repeatedly to describe the different geographical areas that are relevant at different times. Another "region" article will only confuse matters. 79.160.40.10 (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate using examples as argument, but in order to illustrate rationale I provided I suggest you to take a look at History of Macedonia. In case when (both notable) geographical region and state are different and have different development and history they have separate articles. If my explanation is still insufficient please wait until I present a draft with expanded version of the article about geographical region and present it here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you picked up exactly the wrong example, because the region of Macedonia and the modern republic of Macedonia are not coterminous, and have never been. On the other hand, the modern state of Albania is just a continuation of the region formerly known as Albania, and occupies roughly the same area, and thus they share (pre-)history, and we cover both in History of Albania. If you want to argue that state of Albania is not coterminous with region of Albania, sorry, I don't buy that: historical regions have always had more or less vague borders. I don't see the need for yet another article, it would be just confusing.No such user (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are maybe right and I am maybe wrong. Everybody have right to make mistake. Right now, I believe that I can present sources which prove exactly the opposite. If I don't succeed then I will come back here and admit that I was wrong and you were right and that geographical region don't exist without connection with state, like ... I don't know... maybe Croatia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is therefore recommended to introduce the term "region of Albania" instead of Albania, so no associations can come up with a political entity or a particular culture, but to point out that "Albania" in the Middle Ages is a geographic concept.Schmitt, Oliver Jens (2001), Das venezianische Albanien (1392-1479), München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag GmbH München, p. 47, ISBN 3-486-56569--9, Eine eigenständige albanische Kultur gab es nicht. Es empfiehlt sich deshalb, Anstelle von Albanien den Terminus "albanischer Raum" einzuführen, der keine Assoziationen mit einem politischen Gebilde oder einer besonderen Kultur aufkommen lässt, sondern darauf hinweist, das "Albanien" im Mittelalter ein geographicer Begriff ist. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |lastauthoramp=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |laydate=, |laysummary=, |doi-inactive-date=, and |separator= (help); no-break space character in |quote= at position 19 (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about redirect

There is discussion going on here about redirecting this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After taking advice to resolve issue on the article's talkpage this discussion is closed and solution of this problem will be (hopefully) found trough WP:DR --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]