User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 11

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

I was not aware of the guidelines before and it was pointed out to me.

The comments were made before those guidelines were made known to me. I have ceased and will follow the guidelines, the same way that all should follow the guidelines on wikipedia.

The

It was quite time consuming when i wrote most of that part of the article on the Morava/Toplica area and i remember i did it very late at night, so an error of that kind was going to occur. Thanks for correcting it. I also added a few more needed sources about other number estimates and moved a few sentences that you placed on population movements in the area that deals with the larger picture of population movements regarding the area. I also placed Batakovic back. He is a prominent Serbian historian and his book the ''Kosovo chronicles'' have been influential in Serbian historiography. See the changes and additions. Suggest more if you think are needed. I got access to the material. Best [[User:Resnjari|Resnjari]] ([[User talk:Resnjari|talk]]) 06:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Excuse me, What ? "which includes giving undue weight to irrelevant Albanian nationalistic mythology about autochtonous Illyrians does not leave much space for assumption of good faith." Your comment is very problematic to say the least. I outlined the Albanian position since you felt the need to put the Serbian for such matters. The view written is what Albanian historiography states. I was outlining their position. Note i wrote Albanian historiography in order to state that the position is theirs. And note also i wrote in the first sentence that there are divergent views to outline that. Ask youself why would one write that if they were to use you accusative tone POV pushing? As wikipedia policy states we are not here to interpret or editorialize the sources. Your accusation of POV is very problematic. I could have made the same same argument with Serbian historiography who states that Albanians are "settlers". Jagodic uses Serbian sources to make that claim. That claim has been part and parcel of Serbian nationalist thought which is still alive and kicking today regarding Albanians and has been used to justify all sorts of violence. You wrote the sentence as if it is undisputed fact, instead of outlining other viewpoints and stating that thier are others. The reader must get a sense of all points of view do they not. What privileges your sentence as being fact (unsourced mind you, funny as i had to put Serbian sources for that also which you seem to have deleted.)? I in the previous edits felt it was best to go down that road as the large article in general deals with persecution of Ottoman Muslims and only to deal with that matter, but since you felt that it was important to state that "After Albanians settled Kosovo they began to inhabit wider Toplica and Morava regions in the second half of the 18th century." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims&diff=662652507&oldid=662646783] what was i to make of that. Trust Jagodic and take that one face value when there are other positions about the Albanian presence in Toplica/Morava. It why i then wrote it as i did. Either this sentence is removed also (which mind you you have not referenced) or the rest comes back up. This sentence "After Albanians settled Kosovo they began to inhabit wider Toplica and Morava regions in the second half of the 18th century." When you made that edit, i could have stated what you said to me, but i took it as good faith. That is the Serbian position. It is not the only historiographical position. It being on its own when there are other positions is POV pushing. I know the policy. Believe me, i have learned a lot from experience. I know how this works now. Either it gets deleted or the other stuff needs to go in. Serbs sources are not the only sources. What privileges them over others? I am very interested as to what your reply about will be ? Also Jagodic writes: "The Albanian refugees (Turk. muchageers) were mostly settled in the Lab region and in the north of Kosovo, next to the new Turkey-Serbia border52. The Serbian population from Lab had moved to Serbia during and after the war in 1876 and then the Albanians inhabited their villages" Your sentence: "Most of Albanian refugees were settled in the region of Lab and other parts of northern Kosovo. Serbs from Lab moved to Serbia during and after the war in 1876 so Albanians populated their vilages.<ref name=Jagodic1998/.>" Since you refer to about being precise one your sentence omits the important words "next to the new Turkey-Serbia border". I included that in my sentence: "Sizable numbers of Albanian refugees were settled in the Lab area and other parts of northern Kosovo alongside the new Ottoman-Serbian border.<ref name=Jagodic1998/><ref name=Uka2004/>" Why because the reader may infer that Albanian where resettled all over northern Kosovo. And considering that the recent conflcits were about claims of setting and so on, its best to clarify, is it not? Also, why did i not write most for the Lab resettlement. Because in Sabit Uka's material, he states and gives a very detialed list, settlement by settlement and family by family in villages where they are today in Kosovo. Most of these refugees are in those 30 villages and in the cities. In the Lab region, they are much smaller in number. Jagodic does not even bother to clarify this he states Most for the Lab area, and then again "Most" for the 30 settlements. Which is it with Jagodic ? The refugees where "mostly" settled in Lab or the 30 villages ? Uka clarifies. Moreover, the inclusion that sentence in the above area. Why? that area only discusses numbers. Population movements is at the last paragraph. Are you POV pushing again? The article is talking about Ottoman Muslims not Serb refugees, and it being there out from the population movement section does not make sense. Clarify so i can be convinced that your not POV pushing. ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Resnjari|2=08:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)}} <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> What ? Red handed ? What is this ? Are you now some kind of law enforcement officer. Your Orwellian talk is interesting. I hope this is not because i am of Albanian heritage. There is a long history of this kind of [[Albanophobia|Albanophobic]] view of catching them "red handed" and so on. I focused on the sources. When i wrote this, it was late at night. It was hard as i condensed Jagodic. Again i am trying to converse with you in good faith, per Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution, yet your dismissive language and "interesting choice of words" seem to put into question your credentials about being about Anti-discrimination. Your may call your self that, but you must also embody its principles and not cherry pick what you want. Wikipedia says to work with the sources. You accused me of promoting Illyrian mythologies. I did not. If i did, one i would have deleted what you wrote about the "settlers" and two, i also would not have sourced it. What i wrote is on history deletion page now. But please, make my day with this accusation of yours. You know how i wrote it, and it gave due attention to all sides. Others too can judge whether your accusations suffice. You may not like me or whatever. Regarding your claim of "Albanian nationalist mythology of victimized autochtonous Illyrians is irrelevant for 1876-1878 events." No i did not and this is what i wrote just in case you missed it: "As with Kosovo, there are a number of divergent views regarding the historical presence of Albanians within the region. Serbian historiography holds that Albanians settled Kosovo and began to inhabit the wider Toplica and Morava regions in the second half of the 18th century. Albanian historiography maintains that the Albanians of the region are autochthonous and descendants of the ancient Illyrians. Whereas in the field of linguistics, some Western scholars also postulate that in the early medieval period, Romanians and Albanians lived in close proximity at one time in the area of the Morava valley." Now i ask you to please point out how i am advancing "Albanian nationalist mythology of victimized autochtonous Illyrians is irrelevant for 1876-1878 events". Your accusation is problematic and very importantly i did not conflate the events of the late 1880s with Ilyrians in the sentence. Your unsubstantiated accusations are concerning that your not treating this issue with a seriousness and care that states you are being sincere about these issues. In my edits, I specifically point out that one there are "a number of divergent views". Why, becuase i want to be in line with wikipedia policy on neutrality. Its why i then also wrote, "Serbian historiography holds" followed by "Albanian historiography maintains" followed by "Whereas in the field of linguistics" and the word "postulate" which indicates a hypothesis, an assumption in an academic sense. No position is outlined as fact. Each are treated as they are. Yet for some reason these views according to you are to be deleted and we are only to keep the sentence "After Albanians settled Kosovo they began to inhabit wider Toplica and Morava regions in the second half of the 18th century." because the Serb view always comes out first. Let me quote to you wikipedia policy regarding neutrality [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]: "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Which is what i have done. "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." Which is what i have done. After Albanians settled Kosovo they began to inhabit wider Toplica and Morava regions in the second half of the 18th century. Unless you can tell me why one the way you have written that sentence and why it should stand (when it is but one viewpoint and not being POV) and that it is not POV. If you continue with this i will have no other choice but to take this to the next level and seek outside dispute resolution. We are not about pushing agendas, here. ~~~~ ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Resnjari|2=09:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)}} <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == Continiued. (previous reply might not have come up.) == What ? Red handed ? What is this ? Are you now some kind of law enforcement officer. Your Orwellian talk is interesting. I hope this is not because i am of Albanian heritage. There is a long history of this kind of [[Albanophobia|Albanophobic]] view of catching them "red handed" and so on. I focused on the sources. When i wrote this, it was late at night. It was hard as i condensed Jagodic. Again i am trying to converse with you in good faith, per Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution, yet your dismissive language and "interesting choice of words" seem to put into question your credentials about being about Anti-discrimination. Your may call your self that, but you must also embody its principles and not cherry pick what you want. Wikipedia says to work with the sources. You accused me of promoting Illyrian mythologies. I did not. If i did, one i would have deleted what you wrote about the "settlers" and two, i also would not have sourced it. What i wrote is on history deletion page now. But please, make my day with this accusation of yours. You know how i wrote it, and it gave due attention to all sides. Others too can judge whether your accusations suffice. You may not like me or whatever. Regarding your claim of "Albanian nationalist mythology of victimized autochtonous Illyrians is irrelevant for 1876-1878 events." No i did not and this is what i wrote just in case you missed it: "As with Kosovo, there are a number of divergent views regarding the historical presence of Albanians within the region. Serbian historiography holds that Albanians settled Kosovo and began to inhabit the wider Toplica and Morava regions in the second half of the 18th century. Albanian historiography maintains that the Albanians of the region are autochthonous and descendants of the ancient Illyrians. Whereas in the field of linguistics, some Western scholars also postulate that in the early medieval period, Romanians and Albanians lived in close proximity at one time in the area of the Morava valley." Now i ask you to please point out how i am advancing "Albanian nationalist mythology of victimized autochtonous Illyrians is irrelevant for 1876-1878 events". Your accusation is problematic and very importantly i did not conflate the events of the late 1880s with Ilyrians in the sentence. Your unsubstantiated accusations are concerning that your not treating this issue with a seriousness and care that states you are being sincere about these issues. In my edits, I specifically point out that one there are "a number of divergent views". Why, becuase i want to be in line with wikipedia policy on neutrality. Its why i then also wrote, "Serbian historiography holds" followed by "Albanian historiography maintains" followed by "Whereas in the field of linguistics" and the word "postulate" which indicates a hypothesis, an assumption in an academic sense. No position is outlined as fact. Each are treated as they are. Yet for some reason these views according to you are to be deleted and we are only to keep the sentence "After Albanians settled Kosovo they began to inhabit wider Toplica and Morava regions in the second half of the 18th century." because the Serb view always comes out first. Let me quote to you wikipedia policy regarding neutrality [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]: "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Which is what i have done. "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." Which is what i have done. After Albanians settled Kosovo they began to inhabit wider Toplica and Morava regions in the second half of the 18th century. Unless you can tell me why one the way you have written that sentence and why it should stand (when it is but one viewpoint and not being POV) and that it is not POV. If you continue with this i will have no other choice but to take this to the next level and seek outside dispute resolution. We are not about pushing agendas, here. ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Resnjari|2=09:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)}} <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == Accusations do not suffice == I don't know why my account seems to be having issues all of a sudden, but your accusations do not suffice. I don't care about the Albanian Ilyrian matter, its a theory, not myth. I did infer this when i said that its a point of view, not fact ! Lets avoid POV words, please. Same with the "settlers" claim. I did note there are divergent views and they are contentious and you know that. Also where does it say in wikipedia that i cannot have a thorough discussion? I want to talk it out. Also, Jagodic stated all that and that is fine. He also used those same Serbian sources to state that Albanians are "settlers". Those sources discussed the then situation.. The things about Albanians being "settlers" was a position they took. They were not there when the settling took place now where they? And today there are divergent issues. That is fine, but there needs to be the inclusion of other view points or deletion of your sentance. If you did not like the wording then we could have worked on it. You keep making personal attacks upon my person and i don't know why you keep persisting. As for the 1992 source, Batakovic is a Serbian historian and that is what he states. I use Jagodic as no other Serb author has challenged him about the process of the 1978 events. In Serbian historiography this event is acknowledged that it happened, only numbers are disputed (and we have placed a large array of divergent number have we not?). So i am not cherry picking. However the matter of an Albanian presence and its origins are? Why are those other views not important to be stated? If that sentence stands so should the others, as per the policy of neutrality on Wikipedia. This is how the social sciences and humanites works. It analyses all sources and mentions those viewpoints. Wikipedia stresses the same. If you find the words "authochtonous" a problem then we can remove it (i used it because the author and many others use that in their text. Same with Serbian texts, they use the word "settlers" for the Albanian presence. Hey, take it up with them not me) Again i never said that's my view and i tried to present all views. Albanians say what they say and Serbs theirs. But why is the Serbian view privileged, but others are not? Please i would like to know ? "That information is unquestioned by scholars" Prove it, prove that that is thee only uncontested view out there. The settler view is is onne advancced by Serbian national interests in the nineteeth and twentieth centuries. Noal Malcom gives great detials of that. You remeber that scholar and book. Is he someone with an agenda. Agian, i don' care about the Illyrian theory, but when you refer to someone as settlers, and it have been challenged, it need sot be there. SSo you have an issue with the Albanian source, why delete Fine for. He states that some linguistics believe the Morava region was the contact zone for Albanian and Romanian speakers ? Please indulge me on that one ? Is Fine peddling some kind of to use your Personal attack words "Albanian nationalistic Illyrin authochtonous victimisation mythology" ? There are many words one can call the settlers matter. However unlike you i don't do POV. {{subst:Unsigned|1=Resnjari|2=11:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)}} <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Resnjari|2=11:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)}} <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> I am glad you have reminded me of wikipedia policy and the same counts for you. Your edit warring and your divisiveness shows a disregard for wikipedia and its policies. You only pick and choose what you want. The Serb position is ot the only position or privileged view on the matter. Wikipedia dispute resolution states that a third opinion could be sought. Again i engage with you in good faith and your sentence about Albanians being "settlers" can stand if other scholarly positions are there. If not it is POV. I added John Fine, a reputable academic to the section. He is a credible historian and outlines a position that is held by some in the academic linguistics community regarding an Albanian presence in the area. If it is good enough for the origins of the Albanians article to be there (which you edit and have no issue with it being there), then a section that deals with Albanians and the Morava valley and considering he discusses that in his text should be there. I wonder what your rationale will be again. But please continue with your dismissiveness and personal attacks. I am starting to notice that your claim of being about anti-discrimination is all a farce when you come across someone that irks you (not sure if its because i am of Albanian heritage?). Your delightful commentary is all on my talk page and your spin of it too. There are procedures as you would know about dispute resolution and a third party opinion will be needed if your intransigence continues. I have tried to explain to you that a sentence stating about "settlers" on its own is problematic being on its own, if other positions are not there. If we don't call it a Serb or Albanian position fine i am very ok with that. But John Fine's contribution needs to be there as it relates direct to content. ~~~~ ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Resnjari|2=00:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)}} <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The sentence of my edit was based upon this section within Fine's book (below is the passage. In bold are parts of the section on which i based the edit upon). I wrote the sentence as "The other is that Romanians and Albanians lived in close proximity at one time during the early medieval period in the area of the Morava valley." which basically condensed this whole section (pages 10-11.) If you can come up with a better sentence, go for it. But we do it in the discussion page of the article. Again i avoid saying Illyrian and i keep it simple. By the way early medieval period refers to it as starting from the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire and the era of invasions. And Fine cites the invasions and that time period. The sentence is in keeping with the sources. I have in no way distorted them. As Fine states, the findings of Georgiev, a Bulgarian linguist(i have not come accross anywhere that says he was pro-Albanian, if anything Albanians have been hostile to him) about the Morava valley and Albanians and other matters are "are serious (nonchauvinistic) arguments and they cannot simply be dismissed." So they should be mentioned there also in a article that talks about Albanians of the Morava valley, in particular the first sentences about their presence there. Again its why i wrote "a scholarly position". Unless Georgiev is not a scholar or there are issues with his scholarship (if there are, please point out a source). As for "your disruptive actions connected with Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and your comments in which you try to imply ethnicity based motives to my editing". Your insistence of the sentence about settlers without wanting to consider at least this source led me to believe that your edit was not in good faith. The use of the "Albanian settler" argument in Serbia was one of the reasons for past actions of mass violence by the Serbian government against Albanians many years ago. You must understand that is has been used as a tool to undertake and justify violence. The sentence i have written encompasses what Fine wrote. If you have a better alternative, lets talk it through. If you still have a issue with that i would gladly have a outside third opinion take a look at it and if i am in the wrong then so be it, but if it said that the Fine sentence is in keeping with the source than why can't it be there. If Romanians is the issue then fine, i will delete that. But i included Romanian because of the symbiosis argument made in Fine. And i am glad you have quoted wikipedia policy and yes i have followed it. Whether or not you want to edit the article is not my concern. I wish you still did. Your added input made it read better. Anyway, i wish you the best. To bad you took things differently. By the way i do speak Serbian, read and can write (to an extent) and i don't have anything against Serbs. I wish Serbs could speak, read and write Albanian also. Cross cultural learning is a good thing. Anyway below is the Fine passage on Georgiev (in bold are bits i have based the sentence on:

"Recently the Albanian-Illyrian identification has come under more Serious challenge from linguists. Before turning to the arguments, it must he pointed out that Dacian, Thracian, and Illyrian are not only dead languages but languages in which no texts have survived. Thus all that is known about these languages comes from personal and place names mentioned in classical texts or surviving place names (toponyms). V. Georgiev argues that Illyrian place names are found in a far smaller area than I have given above for Illyrian settlement. Secondly, he argues that, though the Albanians now live in what was Illyria, they themselves come from part of Moesia, from the Morava region of eastern Serbia. This was ethnically a Dacian region and thus he argues for a Dacian ancestry for the Albanians. These conclusions, he believes, are shown by the following: (1) lllyrian toponyms from antiquity do not follow Albanian phonetic laws. (2) Most ancient Latin loanwords in Albanian have the phonetic form of East Balkan Latin (i.e., proto-Rumanian) and not West Balkan (i.e., Old Dalmatian) Latin, suggesting the Albanians were descended from the Dacians. (3) The marine terminology in Albanian is borrowed from different languages, suggesting that the Albanians were not originally a coastal people. (4) Few ancient Greek loanwords exist in Albanian; if the Albanians had originated in the Albanian-Epirus region there should be more. (5) There is no reference in any source to Albanians in the Albanian region until the ninth century. (6) Roughly one hundred Rumanian words are similar only to Albanian words, and when this fact is combined with the similar treatment of Latin in Albanian and Rumanian. Georgiev concludes that the Albanians came from what is now Rumania (or the region of Yugoslavia close to modern Rumania) and that their language developed during the fourth to sixth centuries when proto-Rumanian was formed. Rumanian he sees as a completely romanized Dacian-Moesian language whereas Albanian is a semiromanized Dacian-Moesian language. These are serious (nonchauvinistic) arguments and they cannot simply be dismissed. Furthermore, during the fourth to sixth centuries the Rumanian region was heavily affected by large-scale invasions of Goths and Slavs, and the Morava valley (in Serbia) was a main invasion route and the site of the earliest known Slavic sites. Thus this would have been a region from which an indigenous population would naturally have tied. However, very little is known about the Dacian and Illyrian Ianguages—and that little consists chiefly of certain place names and a few historical personal names. The Albanian language could well preserve large numbers of Illyrian features that simply are not known to linguists. The two languages, Dacian and Illyrian, may have been more similar than linguists think. And since the Morava region was near the border between Dacians and Illyrians, through direct contact possibly Illyrian was influenced by the Dacian language.' The lack of early references to the Albanians is not significant. The centuries before the ninth are a period of few sources. And, if the Illyrians were proto-Albanians, the argument does not stand because sources mention IIlyrians there earlier. We should also note that Vlachs are not mentioned anywhere in this period either."