Talk:Rrajcë

Albania Low‑importance

	Rrajcë is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What's going on

I see you guys are fighting a lot about the name.
Whay should the Slavic name be present? That is not a minority village. The Golloborda region is in Peshkopi Ditrict, not in Librazhd. Mondiad (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Rajca in Macedonia West of Struga

That would be Rrajce in Albania. The other Rajca was never administratively linked to Struga but to closer Manastir, and is listed separately, and is inhabited by Christians, not Muslims-- so the chance of confusion is zero [[1]]. The map makes it very, very clear. Whether or not "there was ever a Slavic population in Rrajce" is not for random IPs to decide, but rather researchers like Steinke and Ylli -- who indeed concluded that it's unlikely at least in the last 100 years, contradicting Kanchov. We don't decide this, they do. Po te thuash se nuk paskesh pasur "asnjehere" sllave ketu apo ne rajonin... good luck explaining all the place names (Pogradec, Sopot a real classic Slav toponym, Rrajca itself could fit in Poland, Stranik can't be Albanian otherwise it would be Shtranik at least... etj.) and all the Slavs right next door across the border. Kjo s'eshte e rendesishme per fshatin ne kohet tona, por mos u perpiqni te "pastroni" historine... --Calthinus (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: I will try to keep an eye on this page. It has become clear that the IPs will not choose discussing here insted of trying to damage the article unilaterally. Do not revert again, if they repeat the removal of sourced content, I will request semi-protection. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus:@Ktrimi991: Hi, I came to this little article to highlight that it's a UNESCO natural site - the actual practice of conservation is a ... rather different thing. In your discussion, I just wanted to add that maybe the best way to deal with conflicting ethnographic accounts from the past is to historize them. By that, I mean that every reader should have access to available bibliography, but sources could be presented within a general context that will help them examine factual and methodological aspects of what wikipedia writes. A paper (it should be publically available, if not I can e-mail it to you) that could help evaluate ethnographic accounts from the late Ottoman Balkans:

"The overwhelming majority of early 20th century available statistics is more an estimation based on birth books rather thanconstituting a proper census. They present their data by administrative area (Vilayet) and not byvillage. Exception to this are the detailed statistics prepared in 1900 by Vasil Kancov, Inspector of the Bulgarian elementary schools in Macedonia, and the 1905 official census ordered by Hilmi Pasha, General Inspector of Macedonia since 1902.6 In any case, before the Balkan Wars, all statistics were biased and reflected exclusively diplomatic concerns. Their authors were public servants hardly relevant to the subject they were called to examine. Kancov and Hilmi Pasha were not really exception to this rule."

Maybe this could help someone add context to the bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maleschreiber thanks for the source, and perhaps that is a good idea. What were you imagining we would say here exactly though? Btw I don't actually think there is a dispute here: Kanchov and Ylli-Steinke do not actually contradict each other, being over a hundred years and five generations apart.--Calthinus (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus:@Ktrimi991: I think that the way many articles are written in wikipedia is without context and a sense of historiography-anthropology-archaeology and research progressing. People who wrote 200 years ago didn't have access to bibliography of people who wrote 100 years ago and so on. To me it's important to highlight that very important aspect, otherwise as in many articles what we're left with is fragments of who said what. That's not educative in any way I think. I've tried to do something like that in the Hoti_(tribe)#Origins section in the days that followed our brief discussion here.--15:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)