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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
A fact from Languages of Albania appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 November 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that virtually all Italian-speakers in Albania have learnt the language by watching Italian television and not through reading textbooks?
The Ethnologue is notoriously unreliable; I wish people would stop relying so heavily on it. The two largest errors I can see: 1. there is no way Gheg only has 300,000 speakers in Albania. The district of Shkodra which is in the heart of the Gheg speaking area alone has nearly 200,000 inhabitants. 2. Serbian isn't spoken in the southwest, it is spoken (or was, most speakers have pretty much assimilated) in the northwest near the Montenegrin border. --
Depiction of regions which also include a traditional presence of ethnic or linguistic groups alongside Albanians.
Since this article is about which languages are spoken in Albania, I feel this map is a perfect addition to the article. I haven't heard a single valid reason why it should be removed. There is a very similar map in Languages of Greece by the way. Athenean (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally although i am against it for the reasons stated in the talk page of Albania , i reckon that this map has a place in this article since there was a consensus for it to not be deleted . I see that there is a similar map in Languages of Greece , so it is fair .Gjirokastra15 (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm yet again ready to hear why a map on the traditional presence of minorities in the country has to be removed.Alexikoua (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry been busy. Alexikoua's map had pretty bad issues because it clashes with sources. Greek sources included by the way. For example, Kallivretakis. He says there's no Greeks in Lazarat. So why is Lazarat "Greek" in Alexi's map? Same with Vuno. Same with Picar. Et cetera. I based the south of Albania -- i.e. Gjirokaster and Sarande regions -- off of Kallivretakis mainly -- thus it is "more Greek" (having Gjirokaster as part-Greek, same as Sarande, same as Delvina) than the typical Albanian-made map, yet "less Greek" than Alexi's. There's an enormous source chart I made because personally I'm all about accountability. I do not know how the previous map ended up showing all these places as Greek. I went in depth on my talk page. Sorry I've been busy. --Calthinus (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Greek element in the surroundings of Gjirokaster is well attested. In case a single village or a couple of settlements in a district isn't Greek this doesn't mean that the correspondent region can be reflected as non-Greek in the map (same with Himare region). Sources like Le Monde Diplomatique etc offer a good picture of the Greek presence in the country (and they also offer a map, not just a partial list of villages). No wonder your recently created map can be easily considered wp:SYNTH. By the way why there aren't Greeks in the town of Permet? On the other hand I appreciate SR's initiative to propose a version thats closer to mainstream scholarship.Alexikoua (talk)
Map doesn't say there's no Greeks in Permet city, just that I couldn't find sources showing a large Greek community there (rough threshold : 20%). Of course some sources (i.e. Virgili) do have no Greeks in Permet tho I did find sourcing for the ones in the district (see below) Similarly it's not that there are no Sunnis in Corovoda because there are a few, just not a huge community. In Permet district, I marked Greeks in Carcove commune, as they are dominant in Biovizhde, etc etc. There are two towns in Lazarat commune. Both don't have Greeks as per Kallivretakis. Why is the entire commune blue in your map? I can't justify that. SYNTH applies to your map too sadly as it also combines sources-- if we go by SYNTH, well we can't use either of our maps and I don't think anyone wants that as they are actually informative. If you have sources specifically showing a large Greek-speaking community in Permet (it's a language and religion map, not vague "ethnicity"), then please send them my way and I will happily adjust the map.--Calthinus (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is this obsession with Kallivretakis, as if he's the only source out there?
Khirurg (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Kallivretakis did fieldwork with an academic team from Greece and corroborated the issue with with past literature. Le Diplomatque did what kind of fieldwork ? On Permet, Hammond found it to be inhabited by Muslims, not an Orthodox population. Also Alexikoua's map ignores many other communities. We had this discussion some time back on the Albania talkpage and Alexikoua made no effort to update or for her to fix their version of the map. This current map is a huge update on the previous map.Resnjari (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already one can point out mistakes with Alexikoua's map. She coloured the whole of Lake Shkoder green indicating that the whole area had/has a Serbian/Montenegrin population. Source is ? That is the first POV already not even backed up in Serb sources. Vraka is a small area and the villages are known in scholarship which ones they are. Also no differentiation between the Orthodox Serb/Montenegrin and Muslim Podgoricani in the area. Omits the Gorani area in the map on the Kosovo border (these areas are known in scholarship). Bulgarian/Macedonian areas are highlighted but covers areas which did not have them everywhere (Diber area) and does not cover them fully (Golloborde area), and the Prespa area is coloured as being mixed with Greeks. How did that come about (no Greeks there)? Also what source have you used for those populations? Alexikoua has used Winnifrith for Vlach distribution (identical in that map with Winnifrith), and in that same map Winnifrith's alignment of Albanians and Greeks also aligns with Calinthus map, yet alone with Kallivretakis' fieldwork. So if we are going to talk about cherry picking why is it accurate for use for one community and not the other where Le Diplomatique overides it (as some here persist)? Was Winnifrith wrong on the distribution of Albanians and Greeks, but only 'correct' with Vlachs ? Is Kallivretakis wrong? Also no Romani are indicated etc etc and i could go on and on.Resnjari (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the Albanian speaking element, no differentiation and highlighting of the distribution of Catholic Albanians, Muslim Albanians or Orthodox Albanians. The crux of the issue i am guessing here is going to be the Orthodox Albanians and whether they exist or not. See if the argument that all Orthodox people pre 1912 are Greek regardless of their linguistic or other identities then maps such as this ought to be coloured almost wholly as Greek and those who are Muslim as 'Turk' all other identifications being interpreted as 'irrelevant' or 'non-existent'. Yet the thing is though many of the Orthodox had Greek sentiments and many of the Muslim population also had pro-Ottoman sentiments, in terms of these other factors of language and identity, they existed. Hence why this map on Greece shows that reality (could be better to show more but would require a bigger map template). In Alexikoua's map there is a contradiction. Vlachs are highlighted as separate, yet may of them identified/some now once again identify as Greeks in Albania. If these people are 'Greek' outright why have them separate? Why highlight their linguistic and ethno Aromanian identity?Resnjari (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the Greece map has anything to do with here. If you are so upset about the Aromanians, we can include the Aromanians as Greeks since most of them have Greek sentiment, would that satisfy you?
Khirurg (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
. Nitpicking is easy. Real easy. I can start nitpicking too. Bottom line is, you're not going to have village-level resolution on a national map. Your point about Winnifrith is poorly worded and makes no sense.
Khirurg (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Look there is no nitpicking, Kallivretakis went village by village and covered the whole of the Gjirokaster and Saranda municipalities (as their borders were defined back then in administrative terms). I have Winnifrith right beside me, i am looking at that map and Alexikoua's one. Do i need to scan it and place it up on the net on one of those picture sharing sites. Seriously no need for saying something is "poorly worded and makes no sense". See
wp:civil. Base your discussion on scholarship. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we want the best information to go into it based on scholarship and facts. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, sure, scholarship and facts. Just not cherry-picked scholarship and facts.
Khirurg (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That's what i am saying Khirug and what i will be basing my discussion on. Some answers to my above questions would be a good start. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is nitpicking. Your comments are the definition of nitpicking. You are quibbling over individual villages on a nation-scale map in an attempt to undermine it. If that's not nitpicking, I don't know what is.
Khirurg (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Look you can keep refering to "nitpicking" etc. Please address the questions i have placed above. They were done so in good faith. Calinthus has put time and effort into putting fine detail of showing as much as possible and Alexikoua's map does not cover many communities etc. Another question why should they not be shown? For example the Gorani, with a larger population (some few thousand) then say the Serb/Montenegrins (who are a few hundred). As i said scholarship will guide my comments in this discussion.Resnjari (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Silent Resident, why have you altered Calinthus' map based on those two sources. Why are they applicable? There are 19th century sources that contradict yours but those are not used, only scholarship that has gone through that content. Please revert your additions of Calinthus' map until a resolution is reached. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Nitpicking is by definition not good faith. You can insist all you want, but it doesn't change anything. You are finding the tiniest of reasons to exclude Alexikoua's map, and this is pretty transparent. The minor stuff you mention, e.g. about Gorani and Roma, etc..., can be easily fixed. The big question is the Orthodox Albanian-speakers (OAS for short). Kallivretakis seems to adopt a very restrictive definition of "Greek", classifying all Orthodox Albanian-speakers as non-Greek. This is a a very restrictive definition, because as you know many OAS had pro-Greek sentiment. Also, outside the "minority zones" Greek education was not available, which led to natural decrease in people with Greek language and Greek sentiment. On the other hand Le Monde Diplomatique clearly includes OAS as "Greeks". There is no way to reconcile these views, only thing I can think of is to include both maps.
Khirurg (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Greek army map (1919)
"tiniest", -excluding whole communities is not tiny. Alexikoua's map is not transparent. On pro Greek sentiment, i have never said that Orthodox Albanians did not have pro-Greek sentiment. It still exists even today among many of them (heck even Nitsiakos in his fieldwork notes this over and over again when he was in the area less then a decade ago). That said colouring them as outright Greek is POV as it omits other factors like language. I understand where you are coming from in reference to Kallivretakis, however had the area become part of Greece possibly most would have attained a full Greek identity like the Orthodox Albanian speakers of the Thesprotia and Preveza prefectures in Greece insttead of a sizable number being between one or another identity. Since the word compromise is cited, a possible proposal would be having a colour (maybe orange or something) that makes the Orthodox Albanian population a bit different from the others with a disclaimer in the map that in the 19th century and even today parts of this population has had or has pro-Greek sentiments and or has identified as Greek due to religious links with the Patriarchate etc etc. This disclaimer should only pertain to Orthodox Albanian (speakers) and Vlachs. Also many of these populations live outside the area defined as Northern Epirus (in the Greek view) and would encompass them in whole there as Orthodox people in those areas had/still have those sentiments to various degrees. If you want such a disclaimer etc, areas coloured as being Albanian Muslim should not have hatched lines (as Silent Resident has done with Calinthus' map) with being Greek as most are not mixed. The Greek army never did that with the Muslim population of the area when it compiled its data -it also noted it as Albanian too). Otherwise its POV.Resnjari (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
link to compilation of Greek army statistics as presented to the Paris Peace conference (1919) [1]. In this only Muslims are recognised as being Albanian, though places like Gjirokaster, Permet, Leskovik etc are given as having majority Muslim Albanian populations.Resnjari (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident's map seems to embody much of what you are saying (with the exception for the cross-hatching for Muslim areas, which can be fixed.
Khirurg (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It has the blue colour spread out more widely. Orthodox people that have pro-Greek sentiments and them being Greek speaking are two different issues. Otherwise why have a separate category like in Alexikoua's map for Vlachs, if as most do these days, like times past identify as Greeks or that matter of the Orthodox Albanians. Same would also go for Calinthus' map for having Aromanians separate etc. If we focus on the issue of pro-Greek sentiment, Soritades map and other like sources would reflect that reality, however on linguistic issues and other localised ethno identities (i.e: [Orthodox] Albanian or even Arvanite, Helleno-Vlleh) Kallivretakis, Winnifrith, even Wiegand of old reflect that reality. These two are intertwined. A more distinct colour for Orthodox Albanians can be had with a important disclaimer on the map (as proposed in my above comment) as they are also found outside the area of what Greeks define as Northern Epirus and had/have such sentiments, along with the Vlachs if we really want to accurately reflect the issue of both sentiment and other linguistic/localised ethno-identities in the whole area that comprises Albania. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misconstrued pointing out examples as nitpicking. Anyhow, linguistic and religious classifications are much more concrete and citable than national feeling. All we can authoritatively say is that among Orthodox Albanians (or "Albanophones" for some) in the South, some had pro-Greek sentiment and some had strong Albanian nationalist sentiment. Ironically, the network of Greek schools causing a rise in literacy caused a vastly disproportionate number of important Albanian nationalist writers to come from the region of North Epirus. It is no coincidence that the Frasheri family, the Qiriazi family, Naum Veqilharxhi, Thimi Mitko and so on. And yet despite their contributions to Albanian nationalism, the last three (and some of the first) are all "Greek" in some of the definitions used above. Perhaps that wasnt what was intended but thats what happened-- it is wrong to have populations which included pivotal Albanian nationalists (i.e. Orthodox Albanians) as "Greek" on the basis of non-universal "pro-Greek sentiment". I suppose an otherwise reasonable compromise would be to tease out which Orthodox Albanians thought of themselves as Greek and which Albanian (indeed it seems Korcha Orthodox were "more Albanian" and Gjirokaster's "more Greek"). But theres a severe problem with that-- verifiability, when there is no poll data and wildly conflicting sources about sentiment in that time period. This is why I decided to use just the two traits which are verifiable: language and religion. Viewers can interpret the Orthodox Albanian-speaker distribution however they like.--Calthinus (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be hard to tease out which parts of the Orthodox Albanian population was more inclined toward a pro-Greek sentiment, others that had swung over the the Albanian national movement and yet still others who were neither -just spoke Albanian at home, identified as Orthodox and went to church where Greek liturgy was done (i.e Myzeqe [2] para 33). These people could be found within a particular settlement, yet alone region etc all the way to the Shkumbini river and at times in flux as well. (Psomas in his study says that Orthodox Albanian(s) (speakers) were the element that swung the whole Northern Epirus thing toward being in Albania in the end. [3]) There would also be another issue, the Aromanians, though a majority were pro-Greek, a sizable part were/some still are (Sievers-Schwanders study [4]) pro-Romanian in the Korca area and Myzeqe. In Calinthus' map the Aromanians are coloured in a distinct colour. Going by that the Orthodox Albanians also should have a colour that's more distinct with both population groups having a disclaimer about the pro-Greek sentiments matter (both historic and contemporary) that goes toward resolving the impasse while still combining both the sentiments and linguistic/localised ethno-identities matter. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I can see it the Albanian Orthodox magenta (60 steps on the color wheel separated from Albanian Sunni brown and also quite distinct from Albanian Bektashi, the Catholics being irrelevant as they never border Orthodox) is pretty different already. No one is going to confuse the two. Meanwhile the lightness in shade is shared by all Christian groups (indeed Slavs have also identified as Greeks in the past). As for a statement, perhaps "Some Orthodox in the South identified as Greek despite speaking non-Greek languages at home"? This concisely covers the Albanian, Aromanian and Slavic Orthodox. --Calthinus (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the colour scheme then. On the disclaimer some more info is needed (my proposal taking yours in -can be trimmed though): "In the late Ottoman period parts of the Orthodox population in the South were pro-Greek or identified as Greek due to religious factors or national sentiments, despite speaking non-Greek languages at home. In post-communist Albania these sentiments and identity have reemerged among parts of the Orthodox population from different non-Greek language backgrounds and other local identities."Resnjari (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Id cut the post-communist stuff as the map is exclusively for the pre-communist distributions and all my sources cover that time. Otherwise sure. Awaiting the response of the other three here.--Calthinus (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok on the communism part being cut. I had that in mind when i was also focusing on new years and stuff. lol. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that SR's initiative is a good one & I astonished how she managed to make the necessary corrections so fast.Alexikoua (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I too share your astonishment at the pace he was able to make modifications. Thing is are they based on factual information or outdated POV?Resnjari (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we take in account the data (for example) of Le monde Diplomatique we have no POV issues. On the contrary I wonder why sources such as this one should be neglected.Alexikoua (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that going to be the main source you are going to use for having all that extensive hatched lines of the Greek community in areas which scholarship does not support as being Greek. I am very curious here. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an argument to get rid of Le Monde Diplomatique, in fact SR's inititiave still respects the available bibliography. A serious issue about the recent map is that it does not display information about non-Albanian communities in case they were not majority contrary to the "traditional presence" map (as noted above in the Greek present in Permet which though not majority there are still Greeks in the town, per Nitsiakos). It appears that SR's initiative deals with this issue at least with the Greek communities.Alexikoua (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whose initiative it is and not no one asked about that. Anyway, the question is, is it accurate and why does that source take precedence above a whole host of scholarship that is based on fieldwork and archival research. I should note that he also used Sotiriades. Why that map, what makes it accurate? I asked you this a long time back for your map -you gave me no reply. Also on Permet, Albanian Muslims were the majority (cited by the Greek army in their numbers -i placed a link in the above comments) and even Hammond found the place being inhabited by Muslims during the interwar period. Greeks were not a majority population there and insisting on that is POV. Having some of a community in a town does not mean that the place is automatically defacto majority Greek or mixed as 50/50. Permet has Romani too (Baltsiotis found many of them of both faiths a few years ago, as did Hasluck in the interwar period) -still we not going to say that Permet is a majority Romani place or 50/50 with another population.Resnjari (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Silent's hatched lines over areas where Muslims reside is also POV, as neither in the literature of the Greeks nor other refered to Muslim Albanians identifying as Greeks. What's up with that POV of placing blue lines over solid Muslim Albanian Sunni and Bektashi areas?Resnjari (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hate repeating myself through multiple talk pages, but since you are mentioning me here, Resnjari, allow me to bring my response to you as quote from Calthinus's talk page:
Resnjari, the problem of the dispute, as Calthinus and Alexikoua have acknowledged, are these two particular sources by Philippe Rekacewicz and George Soteriadis, and from what I have seen so far, you are fully aware that is the inclusion of these two RS into the map that has got the dispute escalated into edit revert wars. If the disagreements have to be overcome and a minimal consensus has to be reached for everyone's sake, a middle ground like this is necessary, where the concerns of both sides are taken in account but the solution offered is, although not perfect for either side, can work and is what exactly we are supposed to be doing here. On your side, to come and counter the efforts for a solution by proposing now sources that were not the epicenter of the dispute, makes me believe that you are not seeking a solution to this. I am already disappointed at you as your efforts to ram the new map by Calinthus that did not have had the consent of the other editors for inclusion in the English Wikipedia, into the other language versions of the same article in Wikipedia:
when clearly that map is having POV issues for the one side, but you have decided to ignore nevertheles and bolster its use across the other language versions of Wikipedia, with the risk of bringing the edit wars along with it across the entire Wikipedia. To act irresponsibly like this, Resnjari, is bound to turn you into part of the problem, not part of the dispute's solution. Resolving the dispute by making compromises and reaching a consensus are not your goal here and I am not intenting to follow you into this course. If I were you, I could have tried to reach a compromise with Alexikoua and the other Wikipedians regarding Philippe Rekacewicz and George Soteriadis and reach a consensus here in the English Wikipedia where the whole dispute was ignited instead of extending the contested map's use to the other language versions of Wikipedia. You are finding me vehemently opposing your tactics.
EDIT: to my rage and dismay, due to your disruptive actions, the edit warring over Calthinus' map has already spread from the English Wikipedia to the other language versions of the project, such as the German Wikipedia, Resnjari:
As i too hate repeating myself through multiple talk pages, but since you have moved a comment Silent, allow me to bring my response to you as a quote from Calthinus's talk page:
WP:BRD. Its only now that there is a protest. Anyway on POV issues, one can say that with the additions you have made to Calthinus map they are without permission too, as its their map. Now separate to that lets discuss the issue of sources. You use Sotiriades. Explain please why this early 20th century source is accurate above all other material? Secondly explain why the Le Monde Diplomatique source is accurate above everything else. You are pushing for their inclusion so give the reasons why they meet criteria and other content does not. I am all for consensus, however i am also all very serious for accuracy. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Resnjari, since this discussion concerns everyone, can you please continue it here instead of Calthinus' talk page so everyone can access it and read it easier, without us flocking poor Calthinus with dozens of automatic notifications for using and editing his talk page? This could save us from having to quoting our comments as well. Last time I am quoting myself:
Resnjari, you do not want these particular RS for your own POV reasons, and this is understandable. But the other editors too have their own POV as well and from what I have seen thus far, they had their own valid counter-objections to yours. If you want to argue over reliable sources, then I suggest you do it with the others with whom you have the problem, not with me. To me, what matters is not to satisfy your POV, Resnjari, but if they do meet Wikipedia's standards on reliability and they do. So, Resnjari, let me make it clear to you: either you will sit down with the other editors and work on to reach a consensus on the new map, either we will revert back to the last stable version and the previous map. Period. I am sure you do not want us to return to ground zero and back to the previous map, because, I am sure you can agree that, Calthinus' map is the fruit of hard work by Calthinus and is much more detailed and richer in information. It is your call if you will help end the dispute once and for all or insist on your disruptive actions.
Please we have to keep discussion as compact as possible, by replying here, not on Calthinus' talk page. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 12:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, i was following the discussion as some revived it on one talkpage while other editors were replying on others.Resnjari (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident, I am very familar with Sotiriades map (i also have a scholarly analysis about him -i want to know your view and Alexikoua's first before i add comments as both of you insist on Sotiriades), i also know of heaps of maps from the late 19th and early 20th century that are more in line with the scholarship like Wiegand's map than Soitriadis. You have to also look at it this way, many maps from that era portrayed part of or all of Epirus (pre-1912-1913 Balkan Wars partition) as Albanian speaking as well. If i was to create a map of what is now in administrative terms outlined as Greek Epirus and i used hatched lines for areas where there were and are only Greek speakers of the Epirote interior and claim they are "traditional minority areas" how would that go down? I would never hear the end of it how those sources are POV, inaccurate etc, etc that i need scholarship etc etc and possibly and immediately hauled over to the forums etc. In the context of wanting accuracy for this data, let me make this clear to you, why those maps? Why them and not others? Calthinus has a detailed map, your additions based on other material needs oversight and discussion. I do the respect of answering the questions put to me by others, at the very least others should do so in kind. Ball is in your court. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS among all involving parties in the creation of the new maps that are to replace the old ones, besides arguing over the RS. The new map until yesterday clearly contained only these RS you agreed with, but not the ones you didn't. Omitting from the new maps any RS present in the previous map, and then forcing it into the articles without consulting the other editors and in spite of their concerns, is an unfortunate lapse and I wish you hadn't done the way you did. I dont know what you are expecting from me to do in response to such a disruption. Just sit back and let the edit warring not only happen here in the English Wikipedia but also on the German and others? Because you happen to be content and familiar with what the sources say? Our job as editors in Wikipedia is not to brag or pick the sources we feel to be the most appropriate, but to take in account the possible POV problems and present them in a neutral manner. That means to make the necessary compromises with the other editors so as to have the map containing the missing RS which is the epicenter of the dispute. I believe Calthinus has made a great map, and I really hope you and Alexikoua will work out your differences on it so as to not have to revert back to the older, but less detailed map. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 15:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I am all for consensus (its is why i am engaging with you and others here) and that comes about due to discussion. However content going into the encyclopedia must also be based on facts i.e scholarship. Otherwise why have guidelines/rules such as
wp:secondary to guide the reliability of this Wikipedia project regarding content. I have put questions to you regarding those two sources which you and Alexikoua have insisted upon many times over. You still have not provided answer(s)/replies for their usage (what makes them accurate -this is the heart of the issue) to achieve a compromise you seek. Convince me and those out there that also might say, why Sotiriadas and why Le Diplomatique? What overides them above everything. I was ok with the latest version of the map by Calinthus, not your additions to that map thereafter. On other matters, no one is bragging and i don't know where your going with this. You say one picks sources on what they like, no that has not happened. Scholarship has been used that deals with this content directly (and if you have something that i have not come across you need to bring it here so the rest can explore it further - i have thrown the net far and wide and so have others). There are only a handful of academics who have spent time looking at the demographic situation in Albania (both historic and now -offering much corrections) on various regions and areas. The discussion is going forward here. Who gives replies gives, who doesn't, doesn't, but its important that this process has been done. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
As for POV claims I reiterate that my goal was not to reduce Greek speakers and I followed what demographic, sociolinguistic and etc sources said about presence of linguistic communities and religious communities. There are no Greek speakers in places like Lunxheri because De Rapper and etc said there arent. But such accusations don't help us go forward-- especially not personal POV accusations, some of which I see above.
Now there was one interesting thing here Alexikoua I suppose I may have missed where Nitsiakos said there were Greek speakers in Permet. If he said that, Id like to incorporate that. My goal is not reducing the number of Greeks, its verifiability. Could you ping me the page number and etc? --Calthinus (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The concept to avoid already created maps by top graded sources such as L Monde Diplomatique and prefer a huge wp:SYNTH raises serious issues. One of the several inaccuracies as I've noted is in Permet where part of the population is Greek and Aromanian ([[5]]).Alexikoua (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"huge wp:SYNTH", come on, you used Winnifrith (2002) in your map (well only for the Vlachs). I have that map right before me (if we want a recent map by a scholar on one page) and in no way has a distribution of Greeks beyond areas, that correspond to Calinthus' map. The only source that supports the idea that Greeks are found in those areas is Le Monde Diplomatique (1999) which gives no footnotes, nothing of a disclaimer etc that the author of the article did fieldwork etc. Le Monde did another one of ethnic maps, i.e Macedonia which is also wrong [6] colouring the Ohrid and Prespa area as Albanian! By the way you still have not responded about use of Sotiriadis and why precedence should be given to him over other maps of the era. Also on Permet, part is not full majority.Resnjari (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua Ok I can add a partial for Greeks in Permet. Any time you find something wrong and have a usable source behind your statement I can change things. Same goes for Resnjari etc etc. Thats how wiki works.--Calthinus (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About Lunxhery I have to note that De Rapper mentions that the Lunxhiots claim Greek ancestry due to intermarriages with members of the recognized "minoritare" not to mention the expulsions of pro-Greek families in the past. Thus De Rapper isn't against the view that Lunxhery is a no-Greek region. In fact De Rappers offers strong arguments in favor of a Greek presence: even the title of this paper is in favor of the uncrystalized-mixed character of the region (both in past and present). No wonder Le M.Diplomatique's map is in agreement with the view that a Greek presence is evident in the area.Alexikoua (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
De Rapper does state that, what was missed in your comment was that it was also within the context of immigration to Greece and getting work papers to access the job market. Mixed marriages also occured during the communist area between some families from Lunxheri and Pogon and encouraged by the regime. Prior to that Lunxheri people only married among themselves. Additionally De Rapper notes that in the early 19th century Western diplomats noted the region was populated by Orthodox Albanian speaking Christians (not Greek) and that for them it was different from neighbouring Greek country "a different country" as it says in De Rapper. Greek sentiments develop over time with schools and church. On Le M.Diplomatique map the article that it is in, is it an opinion piece (because the newspaper notes that its content is made up of that kind of stuff) or peer reviewed ? By the way you still have not responded about use of Sotiriadis. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
De Rapper explicitly said they speak Albanian. The map charts language and religion. There are people with mixed ancestry on both sides but that does not determine language or religion. As mentioned before Im perfectly willing to do a compromise where I add a statement om the side saying that many Orth Albanian speakers identified as Greek. Viewers can interpret their distribution however they like. What do you say to that?--Calthinus (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the populations that fall into this category (mixed ancestry, bilingual, identified as non-Albanian etc) can be portrayed per SR's suggestion.Alexikoua (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"mixed ancestry" ? De Rapper refers only to instances of intermarriage occurring due to the communist regime. Prior to that De Rapper says the only intermarried with each other, Hammond notes the same thing when he was there during the interwar period. Its important that the content of scholarship is observed, no original research interpretations. SR additions are POV especially colouring areas of solid Muslim Albanian settlement with hatched lines as having Greeks. Not even the Greek army who prepared its statistics (for the Greek government) to the Paris peace conference did that. On Sotiriades, i still have not heard anything from you as to why that early 20th century map is placed above all others. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you all stick to this page because it has attracted more attention? Discussion of the same map in two or three different pages is unjustly misleading.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I appreciate Calthinus' proposal to portray such communities in his map: bilingual, mixed ancestry & identification with non-Albanian identity, like in the case of Lunxhery. As I've said SR's fast response is a good step for this direction.Alexikoua (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What proposal like colouring solid Muslim Albanian areas as being Greek.? Talk about POV. Not even the Greek army in their statistics did that. Lunxheri was not of mixed ancestry, don't distort scholarship like De Rapper. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Alexikoua, your still sidelining the question about Sotiriades. I don't know if its 5th, 6th or 20th time i have asked you about what makes that source "accurate" above other maps of the era. I did the respect of replying to your questions, could you give a response to my question.Resnjari (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am watching the discussion and so far I am disappointed. Resnjari is calling for the others to provide explanation for the inclusion of RS to the new map that has been added without consent to several articles across Wikipedia, in violation of
Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources, a RS being POV for certain editors cannot stand as a valid reason for omitting the RS out of the context; plus I shall remind everyone here that it is not the inclusion of the RS that violates any of Wikipedia's rules, is the exclusion of them that does.) --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 12:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@Res.: I understand you have no arguments against Diplomatique's map. The argument that the article was written in Diplomaque prior to Winnifrith's work should not be taken as serious. According to this "rationale" this work [[7]] was published at 2010 this means after Winnifrith's work (who by the way does not refute the consensus map), thus it is a result of more recent research.Alexikoua (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS, have yet not provided any strong arguments to explain their rationale. I strongly support that a solution where no side is winner and loser, that to be a modified Calthinus map that meets Wikipedia's rules over an unmodified one that could only satisfy the one side of the dispute. Calthinus' map will either be accepted into the article with the necessary NPOV modifications that could include, besides the Albanian POV, also the Greek POV, or, it will be removed completely and from every article, on all the 20+ language versions of Wikipedia where User:Resnjari
has tried in the past couple of days to ram it without the consent of the others. Period.
We should wait and give Resnjari a few days and give them a last chance to prepare and present us any arguments that justify his stance and explain his rationale against the inclusion of RS. In the event he does not, I will consult with Calthinus for the restoration of the modifications added by me on his map, and if there is still no consensus over these modifications, then, we will revert back to the old map and the last stable version of the article, prior to all this, and Calthinus' map will unfortunately be removed completely from Wikipedia's articles until a new consensus has been reached among the involved parties in the dispute.
I am very sorry we had to come down to this, because I really like Calthinus's map and I believe the work he has done so far on the map is too good for it to just be ignored like that. But there aren't exactly that many options on how to overcome the dispute and the objections to the RS and reach a consensus. Like how TransporterMan, a respected member of Wikipedia, has once said when he was called for assistance on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: (I am quoting him here as I couldn't say it better than this): It needs to be remembered that "no consensus" is an absolutely acceptable result at Wikipedia [...] but an equal principle is that consensus can change (no consensus being a form of consensus in that sense). Have a good day and a Happy New Year. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Silent Resident, you have expressed many emotions like disappointment, and then said one was of "rage" toward me etc. As i have conveyed my objections (and so have other editors) with Alexikoua's map based on scholarship (interestingly those are Greek too and published in Greece) that did fieldwork in addition to archival research etc, your responses have been on the lines of no way or else (words like "period", "last chance" and more -don't know if these words are ones used when suggesting compromise) and then throwing in compromise later. When you mean compromise do you mean your version and Alexikoua's version of it, anything goes to show that the whole area has Greeks (even in a majority fashion when that is not the case), even when they are a very small minority of a place or to colour in areas like those of solid Albanian Muslim habitation as having Greeks (as i noted previously on the languages of Albania thread not even the statistics of the Greek army staff who did a village by village analysis did this of the Muslim Albanian population in 1919). I have suggested a solution 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. On consensus, there is no consensus on Alexikoua's map and many editors have expressed this view using scholarship. I have not tried to ram any map and ha'e said that i placed it on other wikipedia projects after some days when the map was placed without protest for some days on wikipedia English pages. Please don't infer things if you want good faith maintained here. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Resnjari: I'm afraid that from the above comments you've posted you didn't even take the time to read SR's proposals. You need to provide more serious arguments than "Hatched lines showing Greeks in those places should be removed." or "Otherwise, we are going to be in a revolving door here.". By the way the map on "traditional presence on minorities" is a consensus map, as Antidiskriminator told you. On the other hand Calthinus map can't show specific minorities in case they are not in majority in specific regions (see Permet which is wrongly portrayed as 100% Albanian). Hatched lines is a good solution to tackle this problem in his map. Unfortunately this "national purity" campaign displaying stubborn opposition towards any suggestion has to stop.Alexikoua (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua, i have read Silent's comments, hence my comments. I am sorry but consensus means agreement by everyone, there is no agreement by everyone and its not based on some ""national purity" campaign" and no one has said such a thing (please consult
wp:civil. Scholarship guides my comments and my objections to your map.Resnjari (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Resnjari:: I will respond to you, one by one even though you haven't yet to me. You wrote:
you have expressed many emotions like disappointment, and then said one was of "rage" toward me etc. Yes I am furious. Did you forget just a couple of months ago, when admin EdJohnston blocked you (for causing disruption again, on contested topic articles just like now), and for insisting that you are right in what you did? Now you are going pretty much on another defiant course with more edit wars, amid the holiday season, and again you are insisting that what you are doing now is right.
[...] after some days when the map was placed without protest for some days on wikipedia English pages, but this isn't exactly true, and you know that. Your actions triggered quite a few edit wars across the articles so the "without protest" isn't exactly true. Now, if you mean the "some days" as the holiday season, during which the overall activity and participation in Wikipedia, and especially on Balkan topic area is reduced as many of us the editors are taking off their time from Wikipedia to spend it with their families and friends, then it is not a surprise that you chose the holiday season on purpose to get an purpoted "consensus" for your contested actions. Please be honest to me.
[...] anything goes to show that the whole area has Greeks (even in a majority fashion when that is not the case), even when they are a very small minority of a place or to colour in areas like those of solid Albanian Muslim habitation as having Greeks (as i noted previously on the languages of Albania thread not even the statistics of the Greek army staff who did a village by village analysis did this of the Muslim Albanian population in 1919). I have suggested a solution 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 as 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., Finally you have admitted that that although there is population in Southern Albania that has Albanian and Greek traits, political or linguistic, yet the Calthinus map displays with blue color only the areas where Greek presence is solid, Have you realized your double standards here? That what was done with Calthinus map is different from what was done with the Arvanite populations in Greece, which although have Greek and Albanian traits, political or linguistic, and have been fully assimilated to the Greek realm, nevertheless are colored on the Albanian linguistic maps due to their Albanian traits. Also finally you have admitted yourself that there are areas in Southern Albania with minor Greek presence which are not reflected on that map (due to a self-made threshold by Calthinus, which he admitted he has done due to the hairball effect). Thank you.
Although I appreciate your response, you haven't provided any tangible answers for the exclusion of the RS. I'm still waiting, Resnjari. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 12:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bend what i wrote. That population is a Orthodox Albanian one that had varying political affiliations and sentiments while having Albanian as a mother tongue (do i need to cite Kokolakkis here as well). Your striped version has problems. You have placed it over solid Muslim Albanian areas which even Greek army statistics (representing the official Greek government view) did not do. That's the first POV and inaccuracy and even the Greek state refrained from doing so or advocating a position of some kind of 'Greek Muslims'. You have not explained how from that time onward those solid Muslim Albanian areas have become Greek or mixed when they became part of the Albanian state onward (where did those Greeks come from?). So that's the first POV and inaccuracy. Secondly you refer to Arvanites and their Albanian traits, and is somewhat applicable in this situation, these populations in Albania have fallen in that category (for Greeks at times) and sometimes both at the same time. However unlike the Arvanites, Orthodox Albanians became part of the Albanian state, hence as Orthodox Albanians and not Arvanites has they become part of Greece. Psomas notes quite clearly that this population group was the one that swayed the area to become part of Albania and not Greece during the whole Northern Epirus affair. To have your hatched lines beyond the area that is direct Greek speaking habitation area of mother tongue is a distortion of the scholarship based on fieldwork and archival research like Kokolakkis, Kallivretakis etc. My proposal of removing your hatched lines while having the Orthodox Albanians in a somewhat differing inbetween colour would sort the issue of sentiments out alongside linguistic and cultural traits, hitting two birds with one stone. Silent just like in Greek Epirus there is still a sizable population (and villages) of Arvanites in Thesprotia, northern parts of Prezeva prefecture and a few settlements in Ioannina prefecture. They speak Cham Albanian called shqip locally (well all those born till the late 1980s have knowledge of it) while Orthodox religion and inclusion in the the Greek state has resulted in them regarding themselves as Greeks and not Albanians (unlike their former Muslim Cham Albanian speaking neighbours). Consideration needs to be given in how to represent these populations. In Albania within a Orthodox Albanian or Aromanian family there can be a variety of positions and some being held both or more at the same time (which would seem contradictory to outsiders but exists). There is more scholarship out there and i can go on there on both past and present issues of that. Reflect on my proposal. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is taking place on Talk:Albania. Lets keep it in one place. Thanks. Cheers all.--Calthinus (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If one map in this article does not offer a neutral picture of Albania I can point to this one [[8]]: it portrays an one-colored country based on data by a disputed census.Alexikoua (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its not used on English wikipedia and you would need to discuss its future on those wikipedia projects.Resnjari (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its part of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, missed that, i got many wiki pages open at the moment. So what do you want done about it? It has a disclaimer that it is based on data from the census.Resnjari (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The caption should inform the reader that the census data were affected due to irregularities in the procedure and boycott.Alexikoua (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Languages of Albania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Languages of Albania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The current version of the article states that “Albania is one of the most polyglot nations in Europe” and cites a travel guide as the source. However, Eurostat data (cited elsewhere in the article) flatly contradicts this. Its data indicates Albanians speak an average of 1.57 languages, compared to an EU average of 2.02. In fact, it indicates Albania ranks near the bottom (31st out of 34 examined nations) in terms of its multilingualism (and fourth highest in terms of the percentage of the population speaking one language (after the UK, Romania, and Bosnia & Herzegovina).
That hardly seems to be “one of the most polyglot nations in Europe” and arguably should make it “one of the least polyglot nations in Europe.” Can anyone defend the claim from the travel guide? If not, this should be dropped because it seems to be verifiably untrue from the most authoritative data sources cited in the article. But as I don’t have that travel guide, I cannot tell if it does actually cite something authoritative enough to justify the claim (which seems quite unlikely!)
The claim is certainly not true. One thing Albanians are famous for is taking foreign words and making them part of the Albanian language, but that does not make one a polyglot.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm going to edit the claim and cite Eurostat then. If folks get mad, I guess they will need to show their work and sources. Fenevad (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what do you mean with "if folks get mad". This detail is not sth controversial, and no editor has ever given much attention to the degree Albanians are a polyglot nation.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I was just observing the rather impassioned discussion above on other items and realized that there is some sensitivity on this page that might manifest in strange ways. And someone did care enough to put in the claim at some point. Without seeing the book, I have no idea if it actually said it or if some editor at some point actually saw it as a point of pride enough to falsify it. I've edited enough of these pages to know that some people get very upset about strange things… Fenevad (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Language_in_Albania_with_%25.png){kind=link}