This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please do not remove maps that show Albanians in the VIth and VIIth century. Albanians did not come from the moon in the XIth century: they were there. sulmues--Sulmues 14:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems like proper development of this article is being impeded by multiple editors working in tandem, but let's assume good faith for now and try to improve the article through rs first. sulmues--Sulmues 16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the Yugoslav map is necessary. No one serious disputes that Albanians "were there", so it is unnecessary to add maps to refute loony nationalist theories by implying "aha! but you once admitted that we were there".--Ptolion (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If no one dispute that Albanians were there then why two ethnic Greek users (Megistias and Alexikoua) are removing map not only from this article, but also from the articles related to demographics of Kosovo and Serbia? Also, I am Serb from Novi Sad and I made good-faith map about Albanians and since I had problems with users Megistias and Alexikoua in other Wiki projects as well, I can tell that they are Greek nationalists who have very negative ethnic attitude towards Albanians and they doing everything to push their POV that Albanians do not have history and that southern Albania (claimed as Greek by Greek nationalists) was "always" Greek and never Albanian. Because of that, they removing from the articles not only this map, but also my map of ancient Illyrian kingdom (and as user Megistias explained, he removing it because present-day southern Albania is located within Illyrian kingdom in that map, which is contrary to his personal view about "eternal Greek character" of that territory). I am open to hear proposals for compromise solution in this case, but a proposal that would be reasonable and rational, not based on nationalistic prejudices. PANONIAN 09:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why this map isn't deleted yet. There were not Albanians recorded in this period, at all, and every estimation about their existence in a specific region can't be scientifically convincing. No wonder that the source of this map is by far pov: a school atlas of a communist regime of 1970...ignoring the entire bibliography of the western world.Alexikoua (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Maps are not deleted only based on your personal nationalistic opinion. As for map itself, can you understand the simple fact that map does not reflect appearance of Albanians in sources, but opinion of historians about their presence in that time? Please do not tell me that you support pseudo-historical theory that Albanians came from Caucasus in the 11th century. Majority of World historians think that Albanians lived in Albania in that time (6th-8th century) and I really do not see that purpose of Wikipedia is to present "scientifically convincing" "proofs" or to "convince" somebody into something - Wikipedia is here to collect knowledge and all valid academic opinions (including opposite opinions about varios subjects) and to present all these opinions to readers (not to push certain POV and conduct censorship of any kind). As for Yugoslavia in 1970, SFR Yugoslavia was not a Soviet-type communist country, but a country with its own more liberal form of socialism in which ethnic rights of all ethnic groups were respected and protected and nationalism of any kind was punished by the law. In another words, Yugoslav historians from that time did not had any reason or motive to publish propaganda or false claims about presence of Albanians in the Balkans in the 6th-8th century and they certainly did not ignored bibliography of the western world - Yugoslavia was a kind of buffer zone between Soviet and NATO areas of influence and was a country open to the western World (not to mention open western financial support for Yugoslavia) and Yugoslav libraries always had foreign literature about varios subjects. So, if you think that this map contradict to any book from "western" bibliography, please quote that book and present to us what exactly that book would claim (so far, your claim that Albanians were not there in that time is similar only to claims of Serbian pseudo-historian Jovan Deretić who has no any credibility in academic World or in Serbia itself). PANONIAN 09:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, its a fringe/minority view from a communist regime era.See origin of albanians at that time there was no such thing.Megistias (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please elaborate what exactly you claim to be "fringe/minority view" - claim that Albanians were there or that they were not there? Also, if you claim that they were not there, would you please explain to us your view where Albanians lived in the 6th century? In Caucasus I presume? PANONIAN 11:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
As for "communist era" issue, Yugoslavia was not a communist, but a socialist country and Yugoslav historians from that time were not nationalistic and thus they were more credible than many modern historians who see entire history only through the eyes of their own nation. PANONIAN 11:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
If "western bibliography" does state something different from these "fringe theories", I'd be very interested to read it. Most "western" sources I have read on the subject either state Illyrians or Thracians, or "unknown for sure" but also mention Illyrians and Thracians. Saying that there were Albanians in the 6th century is not that far-fetched by western standards. FTW "western" does not mean authoritative. There is such as thing as western propaganda as well.--Ptolion (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
@PANONIAN: I advice you to carefully follow wp:rs, a map is simply considered the result of various historical sources, and it is unacceptable to claim that 'they were somewhere' or 'they didn't came from the moon' so lets try to paint a map at random. Suppose the next step is to see a prehistoric 5th cent. B.C. map of the European nations' estimated positions. Morevoer, this map doesn't meet wp:verify and, if you don't have any arguments please do not insist on adding this historically exaggerated drawing.
And please lets limit our arguments at least on non-personal level.Alexikoua (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
@Megistias & @Alexikoua: If you read Origin of the Albanians you will be able to see the following. I'll quote:
In the 6th century AD, Stephanus of Byzantium in his important geographical dictionary entitled Ethnica (Εθνικά) mention a population called abroi from Adria Taulantii and a city in Illyria called Arbon, with its inhabitants called arbonios and arbonites.
I don't understand why one would continue to remove maps written in Serbia that talk about Albanians being present in the 6th century. Kind regards. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thats a primary source. Its irrelavant. The Map is fringeMegistias (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Several points: the map is not fringe, it's just unnecessary. True, the map doesn't meet WP:V, but it doesn't need to because it is not being used as a source (pretty much every other old ethnic map of the region - Stanford etc - also don't meet WP:V). However, it needs to be demonstrated that the map is sufficiently relevant in order to include it. What is the point of including it? Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used as depositories for any old junk. Unless what's depicted isn't discussed in the text, the assumption is against including it. Moreover, even though a picture paints a thousand words, images shouldn't be used as a substitute for actual encyclopaedic text. There are hundreds of maps on Albanians on the web, we can't and shouldn't include them all.--Ptolion (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
@Megistias: The map is actually a Tertiary source, not even secondary and I'll give you the definition of Tertiary source per Wikipedia as it applies to this one:
Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks may also be considered tertiary sources, to the extent that they sum up multiple secondary sources.
@Ptolion: Thank you for pointing out that the map is not fringe. The map is extraordinarily necessary. And relevant. The article is called Albanians and maps are graphically showing the continuity and the autochtony of the Albanians in the lands they inhabited over time. It graphically shows their settlements and that is of course relevant to the article. I would also add that map in the Origin of the Albanians article where a map (used by Megistias) and which is REALLY fringe because a user has drawn it is appearing there and showing that the Albanians have daco-tracian origins.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sulmues, I think he was referring to Stephanus of Byzantium as a primary source, which it is. About the map, you have just confirmed my suspicions that the motive behind trying to include this map is to "prove" that Albanians are autochthonous. I'm afraid though that this is not how Wikipedia works. The origin of the Albanians is uncertain, there are many theories. All we can do is present the various theories together with their credentials. This map is simply not reliable enough to be used as a source for the Illyrian (or whatever) theory. We don't use schoolbooks here.--Ptolion (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Stephanus of Byzantium, other than being a Primary Source,merely mentions a single city,Megistias (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess that I should make another citation of what the Tertiary sources are:
Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources
Stephanus of Bysantium is a Tertiary source because he mentions the Albanians in his Encyclopedia.
That the Albanians are autochtonous in their lands I don't need to prove, it's already proven. If you want to be unsure about it, you can continue to do so, but please allow me and other users to bring all the secondary and tertiary sources without recurring to edit-warring. You are not allowing us to bring tertiary sources. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
No it isn't. A 6th century source is a primary source.--Ptolion (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Called third opinion. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 15:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The hypothesis that Albanians are the direct lineal descendants of the Illyrians is just one of many. Just as serious arguments have been put forth that Albanians are primarily descended from Thracians or Dacians. Since this is the article on Albanians, not Illyrians, including such a map in this fashion is trying is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Modern scholarship is not decided on the Origin of the Albanians, so we shouldn't try to influence our readers in this fashion. The one thing modern scholarship has decided on is that the first undisputed mention of the Albanians is in the 11th century, 5 centuries later than this map. Athenean (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I was asked to give my opinion about whether the map in question is a primary or a tertiary source. Ancient manuscripts, in general, are considered to be primary sources since we are not always sure about their sources or how far removed they are from their sources. The whole notion of distinguishing primary, secondary and tertiary sources is really only applicable in relatively modern sources. Ancient sources are almost never considered to be other than primary sources. This includes such respected and distinguished historians as Thucydides, Herodotus, and Plutarch. All are considered primary sources in a Wikipedia sense. Let me put it this way--it's a secondary source if you can look at the primary sources it uses. In ancient manuscripts, the primary sources are gone, thus even though they may have used sources, we can't find them and so the ancient secondary source becomes an ancient primary source. Thus, this map is a primary source. (I'm not going to get involved in this discussion other than stating my requested opinion.) (Taivo (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
Thank you for your opinion. I appreciated it! However you did not an answer on the second question that I asked and a vandal removed (Disagreement over whether a map from a secondary school may be used see this version: ([1]). Your last sentence says that the map is a primary source but your overall explanation is about manuscripts. not the maps. You are setting the stage about old historians and draw a conclusion on 1970 maps.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I'm sorry. I was not asked by sulmues to comment on the map, I was asked by Ptolion to comment specifically on whether the 6th century source was primary or tertiary. This discussion is so convoluted that I though the 6th century Stephanus manuscript was the map in question. I see the problem. The 6th century source, whether billed as an "encyclopedia" or not is a primary source for the reasons I stated above--since its primary sources are no longer extant, then it, itself, becomes the primary source. It is not a tertiary or even secondary source--along will almost all other ancient manuscripts, it is primary. As far as the "map" is concerned, it is not well described anywhere in this discussion, so it's very hard to tell what it is or if it is appropriate. (Taivo (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
Since Sulmues appears so fond of "Belgrade" maps, perhaps we can also include this one: Ethnographic map of the Balkans, J. Cvijic. On a more serious note, we really don't need POV maps from Yugoslav textbooks from 1970. Seriously. Athenean (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you remove your last comment by reverting yourself. I have already asked for a third opinion on the use of the map.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with the map I just posted? It too is a "Belgrade" map. You don't like it or something? Athenean (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Your recent Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:
Reason: Third Opinions are available only in disputes between two editors. Once a third editor is involved, a Third Opinion has already been given. At least five editors (Megistias / Ptolion / sulmues / Taivo / Athenean) have participated in this discussion. If the dispute continues, you might want to consider moving on to an RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! sulmues--Sulmues 19:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Religion
diff the religion section is fine. There is an article religion in Albania that deals with the region itself.Megistias (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Needed lots of work. As I explained the change, removed part on Constantine, but Religion in Albania is different from Religion within Albanians. As a matter of fact aren't you are exactly disputing this above? That the origin of the Albanians is uncertain?user:sulmues--Sulmues 15:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Albania (name)
Disagree with the last change on Athenean ([2]). Probably you need to read Albania (name) first. user:sulmues--Sulmues 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Albanians appear as a people in the historical record in the middle Ages (see Origin of the Albanians. There were no Albanians between the 2nd century BC and the 6th century AD. There was an Illyrian tribe by the name "Albanoi", but that is something completely different from the modern Albanian ethnos. Athenean (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The Illyrian tribe "Albanoi" gave the name to the Albanian nation through various forms of the word but the root is the same, even though we are talking about Greek, Old Greek, Old Albanian, Albanian, and English, however you deleted my explanation. The Romans first were a little tribe in Lazio 26 centuries ago and then they had an empire. 22 centuries ago an Illyrian tribe was called "Albanoi" and we have a continuation of that tribe per various sources from the 2nd century BC to the 21st century AD. I wrote: From the 2nd century BC till the 6th century AD the Albanians were called Arbanios and Arbanitai (Polybius), Albanoi (Ptolemy) and Arbon (Stephanus of Bysantium and you deleted that sentence. I think you should revert yourself. When you say "modern Albanian ethnos" what do you mean exactly? Since when was this "modern Albanian ethnos" formed according to you?sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see Origin of the Albanians. The ethnogenesis of the Albanian people most likely occured sometime between the 7th century AD and the 11th century AD, during the early medieval period. It doesn't make sense to say "From the 2nd century BC till the 6th century AD the Albanians were called Arbanios and Arbanitai (Polybius), Albanoi", simply because there was no group of people that collectively identified as "Albanians" at that time. Athenean (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well Megistias just changed that article with an odd ending, but I took that off. The root is the same. Albanoi or Albanian to me is the same word. I think that the autochtony of the Albanians is not tough to prove. Saying that the Albanians identified themselves in the 7th century (not earlier) is far fetched. There is a continuation of the name, customs, language (origin of Albanian language but you deleted 72 references there) and continuation of settlements. For the religion of the Albanians it is important to mention that these people had Christianity for 15 centuries (at least, because muslim conversion intensified only in 18th and 19th century). sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess the point of Athenean here is that you cannot use a name of a certain tribe as the name of a whole people, even if this people have (which in this case is improbable/disputed etc) a common identity. It is as if trying to say that the Greeks were called Hellenes at the time of the Troyan War. Although this name is attested (the tribe of Achilles), the poet attests that they used other collective names (Danaans, Argives and Achaeans) but NOT Hellenes. So, you have to find a source that calls the non-Greek population of medieval Albania by a certain collective name, if I am not mistaken, they still were called Illyrians, even though this name was also used to describe the populations inhabiting a greater part of the Balkans than nowadays Albania.GK1973 (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The only ancient writer whose testament has any relation with the region of albania is Ptolemy, as Polybius and Stephanus (who just copies the Polybius account) writes of either an island or a city ?somewhere? in Illyria. Ptolemy has to do with the geographical location, but at the time centuries after Roman conquest, a toponym does not prove or support in any way that that tribe was Illyrian (Certainly not "Albanian") in any way. Being that the only Illyrian element of that tribe that would matter would be a linguistic one they had probably lost that too by that time. All of Epirus nova (up to the river drin) was colonized and Hellenized by Greeks. And even Romans settled there.Megistias (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
RfC: RS use (encyclopedia of 6th century and map from school atlas)
(1)An encyclopedia from the 6th century (the Ethnica (Εθνικά) manuscript of Stephanus of Byzantium): is it a Primary, Secondary, or a Tertiary source and as such may it be properly used.
(2)A map from a secondary school may or may not be used in Wikipedia.
Please take time to read the comments on the section. sulmues --Sulmues 19:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
A couple of clarification, because sulmues is presenting a confusing picture. Question (1) refers to whether a map made by a wikipedia user that is based on a source from the 6th century AD is appropriate. Question (2) is whether a map from a 1970 Yugoslavian high school textbook should be used. Athenean (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
sulmues' question and Athenean's "clarification" are still not in tune. sulmues' 1) Ancient manuscripts are primary sources because their sources are no longer extant and cannot be checked. Athenean's 1) The hand-made map in this case is appropriate only if it is clearly labelled "Based on X source" and is not presented as uncontroversial accepted fact. 2) The Yugoslavian high school textbook map is copyrighted material and not free use, I suspect, so its use is based on copyright and fair use principles. If the map's conclusion is controversial, however, then it should be very clearly labelled that "This is one view" and another map added. If it is the only map and it is a fringe position, then it should either not be used or seriously balanced. It all depends on how fringe the representation on the map is. (Taivo (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
Thank you! The map is labeled "own work", but based on copyrighted material (even though I am not sure whether those rights have expired yet or not after 40 years). Then we can use the map and properly label it? What about if we can't find a map that has no opposite view? (sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 20:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
@Taivo: The map does indeed represent a fringe position. It flatly contradicts the historical record and every source out there. It shows "Albanians" in the 6-8th century AD, when in fact the Albanians appear in the historical record in the 11th century. WTo my knowledge, this is the first time I see someone claiming there were Albanians so far back in time. The sources are clear: Albanians as a people appear in the 11 century AD. Anything else is against the historical consensus and hnce fringe. Where is the source that claims there were Albanians in the territory of modern Albania in the 6-8 century AD? Presumably the 1970 Yugoslav schoolbook? Title, author, publishing house, page number? None of those are given. Why should we just take the creator's word for it? Better yet, why use a 1970 Yugoslav textbook as a source, when there are far, FAR better, academic sources out there? Athenean (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the statements here need to be carefully tailored. Albanians (and their ancestors) are not new--their language has been an independent branch of Indo-European for as far as we can tell given the evidence. So to say that Albanians just came into existence in the 11th century is not accurate. What is accurate is that they are not uncontroversially mentioned in the historical record until the 11th century. That 6th century encyclopedia could, indeed, be mentioning the ancestors of modern Albanians, but the fact is that it is not a universally accepted position. Albanians as a people did not "appear" in the 11th century. They are recorded for certain for the first time in the 11th century. The Albanian language (and presumably the people who spoke it) dates back about 6000 years to when Proto-Indo-European was breaking up. Maybe they weren't called "Albanians" that far back, but just because they aren't mentioned in the historical record doesn't mean that they weren't around, as either a separate people with a unique Indo-European language or as a part of a small group of languages, of which Albanian is the only survivor and the only one recorded. (Taivo (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
Well, the ethnogenesis of the Albanians occured sometime in the early middle Ages (6-11th centuries AD). Albanians aren't mentioned before the 11th century for a reason. While I suppose it is possible that the Albanians' ancestors lived in what is now Albania in the 6th and 8th centuries AD, the problem with the map is it says categorically "Albanians", not "proto-Albanians (possibly)". And this is based on nothing more than a Yugoslav schoolbook from 1970. As such it is in discord with mainline scholarship on the subject, which follows a much more cautious line on the subject. Athenean (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You cannot say that the "ethnogenesis of the Albanians occurred sometime in the early middle ages". You have no evidence for the ethnogenesis of a people. You only have evidence of when the name "Albanian" was first recorded for an ethnic group by that name. That's my point--you cannot prove when the Albanians came into being. Their language was certainly part of a distinct Indo-European group for 5-6 thousand years. Whether you want to call that group "Albanian" or not is not relevant to the fact that a distinct group of Indo-Europeans have existed for 5-6 millennia and that the descendants of that group were first recorded with the name "Albanian" in the 11th century. That doesn't mean that they didn't exist in the 6th century or in the 2nd century or in the 1st millennium BCE. The only evidence is that the name "Albanian" was first indisputably attached to them in the 11th century. I agree that the map makes a claim that is not backed up by the hard evidence. It is certainly possible or even probable that the people who were later called "Albanian" were already living in the area of Albania/Illyria in the 6th century, but the evidence doesn't conclusively prove that. (Taivo (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
So you see the problem. The map covers the 6-8 centuries AD and says "Albanians", when in fact the ethnonym "Albanians" is first attested in the 11th century AD. If the map covered the 11th century AD and said Albanians, that would be fine, but that is not the case. So if the map makes a claim that is not based on hard evidence, as you say, what does that say about the map, and what business does such a map have in wikipedia? Athenean (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The map is based on evidence of something, just not conclusively on what the mapmaker claims the evidence proves. It's all about how the labelling is done, as you said earlier. If the map implies conclusive proof, then it is wrong. If the map implies one possible theory, then it is appropriate. (Taivo (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
The way I see it, the map says "Albanians" quite unequivocally, so it implies conclusive proof. This stems of course, from the source it is based on, a Yugoslav textbook from 1970, rather than mainline scholarship. Since it presents only a hypothesis based on this particular source, including it here in this fashion goes against WP:UNDUE. Athenean (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
A note, sulmues: Don't go taking the first (and so far only) comment in a RfC as a definitive answer to your question. It is my comment, but hopefully you will get others. You will not have your answers for a few days, so slow down, take a breath, and let the process play out for the next few days. You and Athenean can go have a cup of coffee with your friends while you wait. (Taivo (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
I'll look forward to other comments, but since Alexikoua already started putting his maps, I'm putting mine per rfc as of now. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 23:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
School book maps cannot be viewed upon as impartial, since they are tailored to suit state policies. Can't you just find some more reliable ethnological map of the region at the said time? GK1973 (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
What would be according to you a more reliable ethnological map? sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 12:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course one from a book/study/encyclopedia written by acknowledged impartial academics. I do not think there should be any question as to what reliable sources are... Imagine a map coming from a Greek, Macedonian or Bulgarian schoolbook. Do you think that it could be used here? GK1973 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that per Wikipedia definition of rs, school maps are secondary sources, whereas encyclopedias are tertiary.
Right now the following two maps (Lejean and Sax) are disputed by the Greek Editors even though they are coming from Encyclopedias:
Guillaume Lejean's Ethnic map of 1861 of European Turkey and its vassal statesEthnological Map of European Turkey and her Dependencies at the Time of the Beginning of the War of 1877, by Karl Sax, I. and R. Austro-Hungarian
They want instead that the following map (Synvet) be presented:
Ethnic composition map of the Balkans by A. Synvet of 1877, a French professor of the Ottoman Lyceum of Constantinople
.
What are your thoughts on the presentation of each of the above three maps?sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
A school atlas published by a totalitarian regime, which was Yugoslavia at 1970 makes things more complicated. The map makes estimates that are contradicted by the entire western bibliography today, especially in relation to Albanians as well Aromanians. For example this book [[3]], says that there is not historical evidence of Albanians in Epirus (southern Albanian included), before 1250 AD. (p. 134). In 1337 while migrating southwards, they reached, for the first time the city of Berat and that's historically proved, not just something based on estimations. Quite extraordinary the map shows Albanians in 600 AD in Berat while they first settled there in 1300 AD...
About Aromanians (Vlachs) the situation is similar, they are not recorded before 11th century too, moreover this map claims that they came from the north something that is highly questioned.
Most probably the map is based on older material, maybe some Yugoslavian book from the Tito-Hohxa friendship period ca. 1945 [[4]], it cannot be explained with a reasonable scientific-academic approach.Alexikoua (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
These are pure suppositions. Illyrians-Albanians have been in Berat for 2600 years and I can give you some evidence on that. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
These are very poor theories as the Vlachs may not be mentioned until the 11th century but they came during Illyrian wars. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
And these are your suppositions. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Stephanus of Byzantium is a primary source, he is also irrelevant as he does not mention or Albanians and just cites Polybius on an location. Does not claim anything related to this map.
Illyrians have nothing to do with this. The map is a 6-8th century AD map.
Those 3 19th century maps are irrelevant too. The map in question is a 6-8th century AD map.
Secondary school data are not reliable sources nor are they "competent ones". Universities have publications for adults, schools are for children.
The claims of the map are unreal and against all data.Its Fringe, not even minority view and frankly impossible to substantiate. Albanians appear 5 or more centuries later and even then they don't swarm all over the place. Vague mentions of them in 11th and later centuries.
The creator seems to ignore completely what is WP:RS. Below he uses a random website for comparison...Megistias (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
What is the problem exactly? If you want to use one map, then this map should depict current academic consensus on the matter. If a (modern or old) map is negated by current academic theories, then they should only be presented as old theories or not at all. If a map coincides with current academic consensus, then it should be presented no questions asked, as long as the need for its presentation exists. So, you (plural) should check if either of all these maps (proposed by you, the Greeks or the Chinese) properly illustrates its purpose. I guess that these maps are disputed because of some arguments, these are the ones who should be discussed and not the maps themselves. Of course I also have to agree with Megistias on the fact that there is no connection between any of these maps and the one illustrating the situation in the "6th to 8th century". I want to see more arguments, I cannot comment only on whether I like a map or not... Up to now I see no reason for this map to be accepted. You have to give sources claiming that the depicted nations existed in the specific time period in the specific areas. GK1973 (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually there are lots of problems, because current Balkanian academics don't have an academic consensus on the matter.
In regards to the 6th-8th century map: The pro-Albanian consensus (which has a list that doesn't include exclusively Albanian academics) will argue about the existence and the autochtony of the Albanians over time in the region and describe how the Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians. They will cite, among other, that from the 2nd century BC till the 6th century AD the Albanians were called Arbanios and Arbanitai (Polybius), Albanoi (Ptolemy) and Arbon (Stephanus of Bysantium, and they will give examples that the Albanains were there continuously. The Greek academics won't agree with that and will say that Albanoi has nothing to do with Albanian and that Albanoi were not in Epirus anyway, so at least Epirus was not inhabited by the Albanians. The matter is complicate because even though there are some contacts between the two academies of sciences (Albania and Greece) the positions are so remote that the poor wikipedians don't know where to draw the line. History of course is taught differently in the two schools. I don't know if I created more confusion to you or if I were helpful in any way. Please read my comments above in the this part of the talk discussion.
In regards to the 19th century maps I brought above: those are the three maps above. You can see now how remote is the disagreement for the pro-Albanian maps and the pro-Greek maps in the 19th century, so you can multiply that disagreement 1000 fold for the 6-8th century map. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 19:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
What you claim is a mix-grill of known fringe theories and nothing more.Megistias (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Illyrians-Albanians have been in Berat for 2600 years?.... That's a perfect hook for unencyclopedia's main page.Alexikoua (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a historian but I think the illyrians were in balkans together with the ancient greek (at least they are mentioned in the "Troy" film), no offence intended but I suggest you should at least google a little before posting such sarcastic jokes :) --CD 22:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Lets stay on topic.(note:There are no Illyrians in Troy(film) or Iliad-wise)Megistias (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
@CD: How would you find the claim that the Americas were explored 700 before Columbus by Europeans? A similar extraordinary fact is also stated here. No wonder the same user believes that Napoleon was... Albanian [[5]].Alexikoua (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm talking about facts, not claims. See Illyria, they were there for at least 2200 years, when they were fighting with the romans, so logically more since it is unlikely they just came there and started fighting (in the context). (note:there are no illyrains in the above mentioned films but a reference to them: "...probably escaped to Illyria", can't remember who said it though) --CD 20:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
To stay on topic, the map is not WP:RS, its fringe and cannot be used. Its 500 and more years off to say the least.Megistias (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
...well... actually the Americas was visited, partly explored and colonized by Europeans centuries before Colombus...Check out the Viking colonies in Vinland... As for the 6-8th century map, I still can see no argument to support their inclusion here. GK1973 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
@CD:You are right, Illyrians fought against Romans. That has nothing to do with both the fictional 'Illyrians-Albanians' (there is not such term) or their continuous 'existence' in Berat for 2000+ years..., which was 'not' a Illyrian town in antiquity, by the way.Alexikoua (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Reference
Here, I found an external link with a map very similar to the one that I originally used: http://www.camo.ch/illiricum7.htm (there are some slight differences in comparison to the map from history atlas that I used, but basic info regarding presence of Albanians, Vlachs and Slavs in the 6th century is same). PANONIAN 11:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Olbonensis, Pliny mentions Liburnians, not Illyrians. Pliny "communities of the Liburni of which it may not be tedious to name Lacinienses, Stulpini, Burnistae, and OlbonensesMegistias (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Liburnians are an Illyrian tribe, so no problems there.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
No they are Liburnians and the location( Croatia ) is irrelevant, so is this quote from Pliny.Megistias (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Liburnians were an Illyrian tribe, but I see that Wikipedia has made sure to bring them out of Illyria. Mission impossible now to fix all this mess. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
No they are not, and Croatia is not in Albania. Just because a name sounds similar doesnt mean its related.Megistias (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
19th century maps
I see three 19th century maps of the ethnic groups of the western Ottoman Empire. Two of the maps show the Albanian ethnic group stretching into northwestern Greece and into Kosovo. One of the maps shows the Albanian ethnic group confined very tightly to central Albania without any presence in either Greece or Kosovo. That seems to indicate that either the first two maps are seriously flawed or the third map is seriously flawed. The natural answer is that the third map is the flawed one. I find it nearly impossible to think that the Albanian majority is a recent addition to Kosovo. So that leaves the first two maps as presenting more reliable information than the third. Just my impressions. (Taivo (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC))
Infobox Numbers
The numbers in the infobox appeared a bit inflated, so I adjusted them accordingly. First, the figure for Turkey is taken from the newspaper Milliyet, which states that approximately 500,000 identify as Albanians, the rest having fully assimilated as Turks, something very common with Turks of Balkan Muslims ancestry. Second, the figure for Albania was a bit large, since 3.2 million is the total population of the country, but not everyone in Albania is Albanian. There are approximately 200,000 ethnic minorities, which results in approximately 3 million ethnic Albanians. The new figures add up to 7.6 million, which interestingly enough is the figure Ethnologue gives, which I have added as a source. Hope that's ok with everyone. Athenean (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your attempt to clarify, but there are some problems with it: first of all the minorities are inflated in the 200k estimate (see change I made in Greeks): Greeks in Albania are not more than 50k per Vickers (RS) [6]: per Vickers the 200k number is supported only by Greek nationalist groups. Citing Vickers:
Greek nationalist groups such as the American Hellenic Institute claim that the population figures for the minority are grossly distorted, citing the CIA World Fact Book (1992), which records the Greek minority at 8 percent of the total population, and the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples 1 Vlachs are semi nomadic pastoralists, who speak a language akin to Romanian and live in southeastern Albania, northwestern Greece and southern Macedonia. Organisation which estimates the Greek minority at roughly 8.75 percent of the population of Albania.2 The problem here is that since 1992 around a million Albanians, including ethnic Greeks, have emigrated in search of work, and therefore the CIA 1992 Fact Book, which cites figures taken before the collapse of Communism, is hopelessly out of date.
Second, if you follow ethnologue, you need to do it consistently for all the nations in the world, and there are a lot of Albanians in Turkey who don't speak Albanian very well. Same thing for the Albanians in the USA. The ethnologue should not be followed, the total number should just come as a total from the other numbers, and almost all of them are carefully cited. Btw if you follow Ethnologue for the Greeks you'll end up with some less millions. --Sulmues(talk) 16:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ethnologue provides statistics about the speakers of a language and not how many people are part of the nationality identified with the language itself.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 17:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you have a point about Ethnologue, however, regarding the minorities, you are wrong. Greek nationalist groups claim 400,000, not 200,000. 200,000 is the figure used by most western sources [7], and by the way Vickers is a highly partisan, non-neutral source, so she shouldn't be used. Besides, 200,000 falls exactly halfway between the maximalist Greek nationalist estimate and the minimalist Albanian nationalist estimate. Even so, the numbers in the infobox do not add up to 8.6 million. Athenean (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That's from 2001 and Vickers is from 2010(she's RS, unless you can bring some sources that prove she isn't RS) and newer sources are preferable. Btw this 2003 source used in the article [8] says about Greek researchers estimating the minority numbers at 60,000, so the 200,000 figure from 2001 is outdated.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 17:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't matter when vickers is from, she is partisan and non-neutral. Her works don't include a bibliography, so she also fails RS rather painfully. The phrase "most western estimates" is ideal, and 2001 is recent enough. Besides, the figure here is for ALL Greeks from Albania, whether they still live in Albania or have moved to Greece (no one knows). 200,000 for the total is eminently reasonable. Also, don't forget, there are other Minorities in Albania: Serbs, Macedonians, Aromanians, Roma, Balkan Egyptians. They add up to ~200,000 for sure. Athenean (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
There are 2 sources from 2003 and 2010 that put the number to less than 70,000 and you insist on labeling them as pov(without providing sources when asked to) and there is a source from 2001 that has a single sentence among many others and you're trying to monopolize the sources with that single sentence. --— ZjarriRrethues —talk 18:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
What about all the other minorities in Albania: MAcedoanians, Serbs/Montenegrins, Aromanians, Roma, Balkan Egyptians? They add up you know. Even so, there is no way the numbers in the infobox add up to 8.6 million As a compromise I propose 7.6-7.8 million, which covers the 100k difference we are arguing about. Most ethnic group articles have a range instead of a fixed number anyway. Athenean (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
A compromise to overlook the math is unreasonable. You add up the numbers and then you have a total. We have reliable sources that all the other minorities are half of the Greek one, the Greek one being around 2% of the total of the population. Since Vickers says the Greeks are 50k, 75k is the total of the minorities. See RfC in Greeks. --Sulmues(talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
What sources? All you have is Vickers, which is out of the question. Even so, the numbers in the infobox do not add anywhere near 8.6 million. Even if we use your numbers, the numberson add up to 7.8 million. That's why I propose 7.6-7.8 million as a compromise. Be reasonable. Athenean (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Add 'em up and you'll see that my number is correct. --Sulmues(talk) 20:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I did, long ago. With my figures they add up to 7.6, with yours to 7.8. Your tone is aggressive, and your WP:IDHT is rapidly becoming disruptive. Athenean (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually I agree that the 8.6M done by Kedadi is incorrect because it has taken the 1.3M in Turkey which is incorrect: it should be .5. We'll have to get .8 out of the 8.6M and then we have 7.8M. I agree with you on this, and I thank you for watching carefully the number of the Albanians in the world. However I disagree with you into decreasing that number. Vickers is reliable, and please wait for the RfC in Talk:Greeks before making any changes. --Sulmues(talk) 20:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Flag
Since the article is about the ethnic group and not the state, I've removed the state flag. This is also in consistency with all the ethnic groups articles in wikipedia. For example the Albanians of Kosovo use the Kosovo flag, so I believe things are clear in this case (we don't have one flag).Alexikoua (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Please explain
"It is disputed, however, whether that refers to Albanians in an ethnic sense."
Please explain what 'ethnic sense' is supposed to mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nestorius Auranites (talk • contribs) 22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Alex, there is no data about Greeks in Albania. So you are speculating and doing original research! —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Greeks in Albania? That's irrelevant, I excluded the number of ethnic Greeks from Albania (holding Albanian citizenship) that now live in Greece (200k). Fortunately there is a precise number (both official and unofficial) per source.Alexikoua (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)April 2011 is near so then I'll change all the articles to the real(official and EU monitored) figures and at last articles will deal with reality. Btw please don't make OR deductions because a)your source was about 2001 not 2006 b)the vast majority of those who had co-ethnic documents in 2001 nowadays have relinquished Albanian citizenship and acquired a Greek one(laws of 2003 and 2005 on naturalization).--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 22:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The last statement is what you would call an "OR deduction". Athenean (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Unless we stick to official data, all we can do is OR. —Anna Comnena (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually this is official data and we are talking about demographics in Greece. About the 2011 census in Albania, I'm sorry but probably this will never happen (the ethnic identity will be optional).Alexikoua (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
So, you are saying, Greek data is reliable (because you are a Greek?) but Albanian data will not be? —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Where did I say that? Please avoid trolling.Alexikoua (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
You mentioned Greek census. But on the next sentence you say that the Albanian one will not be reliable? Or what? I just did not understand, please be more clear! —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)Alexikoua those people who will self-identify as Greeks in the 2011 census will be the only figure we will use. If someone doesn't want to self-identify as Albanian, Greek or anything else he has the right to do, so please don't make or deductions about their ethnicity or the reliability of the census. --— ZjarriRrethues —talk 13:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I still wonder how a census conducted in Albania (no matter when) is relevant to the number of ethnic Albanians in Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)I found exact figures for Albanian emigrants(and not just Albanian citizens) in 2004 from IMEPO432.120 p.28. Btw most of the co-ethnic documents in the ethnicity field have both Albanian and Greek ethnicity. --— ZjarriRrethues —talk 14:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This number includes ethnic Greeks too (ca. 189k of the 432k).Alexikoua (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)Please don't make OR deductions because it says nothing about any ethnic Greeks. Btw omogeneis don't have άδειες παραμονής because their co-ethnic card serves as an αόριστη άδεια παραμονής. This is the whole quote Τα αθροιστικά
δεδομένα εμφανίζουν τους Αλβανούς οι οποίοι έχουν εξασφαλίσει άδεια να αριθμούν
τους 432.120. --— ZjarriRrethues —talk 16:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
You are right the specific paper doesn't the number of Northern Epirotes in Greece, so in order to exlude them from ethnic Albanians we have this: [[9]] p. 5: "438,036": This is the total number of Albanian citizens residing in Greece, including 185,000 co-ethnics holding special identity cards (EDTO).(this source is more than a year in this article).Alexikoua (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems the recent extreme wp:own acticity removes this source without an explanation... [[10]].Alexikoua (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
If you continue making disruptive OR deductions I'll ask for assistance in ANI because IMEPO and the most recent source say nothing about any Greeks.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 17:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It's very easy: 438,036 - 185,000 = 274,390 [[[[11]] p. 5, I'm sorry but the one that follows an extreme national campaign strategy may be you. The case is very clear here.Alexikoua (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
say nothing about any Greeks. What does this mean? Claiming that there aren't living ethnic Greeks from Albanian in Greece now is really extreme, we have a mountain of bibliography that supports this fact. Also both IMEP and ELIAMEP are dealing with the same census (2001), ELIAMEP mention the number of Northern Epirotes, so we have to be precise here.Alexikoua (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)That's WP:SYNTH because you can't make or deductions based on two sources that say nothing about them.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 17:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Please, it's verbally taken from the source (no synth, actually you are on extreme povish territory): 438,036: This is the total number of Albanian citizens residing in Greece, including 185,000 co-ethnics holding special identity cards (EDTO). I'm sorry that's very clear. What's really unexplainable is why you take the 438k number as the total of ethnic Albanians. Alexikoua (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The source is citing the 2001 census and I am not using that source but the 2004 official data from IMEPO, so please don't IDHT.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
And 400,000 suddenly became 650,000. Seems like someone else is IDHTing. Athenean (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why Zarithoues insists on this childish activity: the number of Albanian citizens that live in Greece includes a number of ethnic Greeks... again and again adding the entire number and ignoring ethnic Greeks that are included in this [[12]].Alexikoua (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)None of the sources I've added say anything about any Albanians being Greek omogeneis while you Alexikoua have cherry-picked one single source quoting the 2001 census and you're applying that to everything else(WP:SYNTH. Btw you've already made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours so you should consider that too and WP:NPA about your comments about other people's childish activity(I have made only 1 revert and didn't make any npa comments).--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 17:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
(ignore trolling): I wonder why Anna Comnena continuously claims that there are not official data in Greece [[13]], unfortunately I can only suggest that she didn't see what reverted.Alexikoua (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Alexikoua please don't WP:IDHT other peoples' arguments and WP:DEADHORSE the whole thing. There are already 3 sources saying the same thing. Btw 650,000-189,000=461,000 not 400,000 and also Cham Albanian numbers have to be added.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 21:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The most recent studies put the number of Northern Epirotes in Greece at 200k, then we will have 450k.Alexikoua (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)WP:OR and please WP:DEADHORSE the whole issue, since there's no source about any of your deductions. For future reference please learn what a co-ethnic card and what a residence permit is, because I had to bring 3 sources, while only the IMEPO was enough because it said about Albanians with a residence permit and whoever has to get a residence permit doesn't have a co-ethnic card, which is basically an indefinite residence permit.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 22:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why you insiste on irrelevant accusations, actually everything is sourced (the 200k number here), also please avoid wp:gaming the system, and pretending that you are wp:npaed while you launch an endless campaing on misinformation (in wiki and irc).Alexikoua (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)Alexikoua please don't WP:IDHT again. You did make 3 reverts in less than 24 hours, labeled my sourced edits childish activity and yet I assumed good faith and didn't report you.I've brought 3 sources, while you're making or deductions about the 2001 census. Btw since 2003 whoever had the co-ethnic card for 3 or more years had the right to apply for Greek citizenship.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 22:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
What criteria determine which albanians are "notable enough"?
I've reverted a deletion of some of the people listed as notable, and been reverted. What criteria should be use to determine who is notable enough? Or would it make sense to remove that section and just use a see also link, since there is already a list of albanians, who should be under policy notable enough for inclusion? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Every map is welcome!
Athenean, I do not think there are that much maps from the period to afford deleting any of them. I see you have another map, that could be useful as well to explain the complexity of the issue that is even reflected today. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The complexity of the issue is discussed at Demographic history of Macedonia. The Gallery section of this article is not the place for it. Athenean (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
IMO all ethnographic maps should be removed (even if some are obviously closer to the truth of the matter like the 1898 map vs the grossly inaccurate 1861 and 1877 ones)..Wilkinson describes the map issue in the case of 'wider Macedonia' in his good study and the same is true of any other 'border region' like Epirus or Kosovo or western FYROM..in fact many of the maps he includes in his study are the ones used here..heh!87.202.156.68 (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this map thing seems to be more complicated than it looks, as we can see from Demographic history of Macedonia. We could explain the problem in a neutral way, showing how different views got different maps. We can show two extremes maps, one showing huge Albanian population, the other showing small Albanian population (I can see we have an abundance of both such maps) then give the current map of Albania as fixed by the Protocol of Florence (November 1913). —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with 87.202 here. As we can all agree, the issue with the 19th century maps is quite complicated. The maps should only be present in articles where they can be discussed in the proper context, such as Demographic history of Macedonia. In the gallery section of this article, that is impossible. The article moreover, is about the the Albanians, not Albanians in 19th century ethnographic maps. Athenean (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
[14] Also related to this discussion.--Olahus (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The 19th century maps are completely useless and only serve to fuel nationalist passions and edit-wars, just like they did 100-150 years ago. As is clear in Demographic history of Macedonia, there are dozens to chose from. Which ones do we include? Which do we exclude? It is impossible to reach a consensus on that. Albanian users like Map A, which is hated by Greek users who prefer map B, which is in turn loathed by Bulgarian users who prefer map C. Map C however is anathema to Turkish users, who prefer map D, which is in turn hated by all the others. And on we go, round and round, to no end. This 19th century ethnographic map business has been going around for years now. There is simply no need for them here. They are not useful to our readers, they contradict each other, and fuel edit wars. Enough. I will remove all 19th century maps from the gallery and I hope that's the last I see of them. Athenean (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
actually the inclusion of the one 'moderate' and the two 'extreme' maps made sure that there was no edit warring from any side funnily enough since almost every view was represented...in fact most editors were in agreement about the map problem LOL..but i still agree with you from what ive seen in other articles in the past..proper context in an article that doesnt deal *directly* with the ethnographic propaganda of the last 2 centuries might be hard to establish or is just plain offtopic87.202.152.195 (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
This section shouldn't become a museum of old maps, there is not a single reason to add outdated and highly questioned ethnological maps in there. Actually this would belong to Demographic history of Albania or Balkans.Alexikoua (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
We cannot remove maps just because they are 100 years old. There is no wikipedia rule who forbids 100 years old maps. --Olahus (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
@Olahus there's nothing wrong with maps as long as no or deductions are made about them.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 16:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
"There is nothing wrong with the maps" and "There is no wikipedia rule who forbids 100 year old maps" (sic) aren't valid, rational arguments. The maps are useless, obsolete, incorrect, contradictory and serve only to fuel edit wars. Oh and by the way: Can some people understand the difference between "no official data" and "no data at all"? Yes, there is no official data on Albanians in Greece, but there is data, unofficial data, and lots of it. Besides, even if there was official data, the same people would howl in protest at how biased and wrong it is. The map of Albanians in neighboring countries is sourced to top-notch sources, and I'm not going to accept POV OR captions. Athenean (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
'serve only to fuel edit wars' i have no strong opinion against the inclusion of 'many' vs 'none' as i said before but this is the best point IMO..87.202.134.240 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Enver Hoxha
Even that i don't like him, i think he must be included on top, beacause every one no him! --Vinie007 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Please Remove "Albanian Migration Map" by user:Megistias and please investigate user:Megistias professionality and true intentions
It seems that user:Megistias OVERSTATES information based on one or too few sources. In other words he makes it seem like information regarding Albanian subjects is UNIVERSAL when in fact it comes from very few sources. He also falsifies the origins of the information by pretending it came from multiple sources rather then one. Albanology and other related Albanian historical subjects are very difficult and complicated. You can't just come to conclusions based on some book that was written by a western scholars who clearly had an unconscious pro-Greek bias formed by their studies of ancient Greece. The map showing "the Albanian migrations" is based on one map made by one British scholar. These "migrations" occur during the "DARK AGES," therefore the authenticity itself cannot be assured...that's why the dark ages are called the dark ages. There is a huge debate going on about the origins of Albanians, once again the map's accuracy is in question. I ask that it be removed immediately because it is misleading and it does not deserve to be in the front page. It is clear by looking at user:Megistias contributions that he does not care about the Albanians or Albanian culture, he only submits works that show that south Albania and or Epirus was Greek. He clearly does not enjoy Albanian culture, but rather wants to hijack it. I do not have the time and effort to deal with this insecure rascal, but i politely ask that someone who is more acquainted with Wikipedia comes to the aide of the Albanians and stops this misleading information. This is not a matter of nationalism, in other words, me being an Albanian nationalist, but it is a matter of "CULTURAL HERITAGE" and hijacking a nation's cultural heritage is a serious matter.
It is made under the false pretense "THE WORLD KNOWN TO THE HEBREWS according to the mosaic account." In reality this map is just another excuse for him to write GREECE on present day ALBANIAN territory with little or no facts that do not have any strong validity. What kind of scholar produces different maps on different subjects that show the same result i.e. Strong Greek presence in Southern Albania, and goes at such great lengths as to insert this information in unrelated subjects. I do apologize for calling user:Megistias an insecure rascal, but people must know this is a serious matter, and user:Megistias is pushing a personal agenda, rather then a scholastic agenda, he is getting away with it because he is constantly falsifying the sources and overstating their validity. I hope I'm making my point clear.
Sincerely, Henri Spahiu
(174.119.109.116 (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)).
The map is about antiquity and modern Southern Albania was inhabited by Greek tribes in antiquity, so the map is correct. For more see Epirus (region). A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Well said Macedonian "in Antiquity", ...please notice that the map is of Medieval times just to be sure you got the idea Aigest (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The map is 1000% correct and it's accepted by the entire international scientific community (it's taken by Hammond [[15]]). If someone wants to claim that a nation inhabited a region 'since ever' this is not the right encyclopedia to claim it. As for Noah's map I admit I'm not familiar with the subject: obviously it needs to be dealed in the relevant discusion page.Alexikoua (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment that map is obviously wrong just a summary
Conclusion, don't take for granted the correctness of every map you see. Aigest (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
@ Alex, the phrase "The map is 1000% correct and it's accepted by the entire international scientific community" does not look like academic, I can bring you other WP:RS maps here claiming the contrary, but that would end up brutalizing the article. I am speaking for a common sense judgment here, hope you understand. Aigest (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
@Aigest this is just another map with or and synth deductions by Megistias like the Illyrian map, in which he moved the Bylliones from southern to central Albania. Btw that caption about Albanians living in the extreme north can't get any more since it isn't included even on Hammond's map. We need a centralized discussion about these vast and deliberate mistakes of Megistias, who left wikipedia when FutureP reported him to AE.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 13:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
@Aigest: What are you talking about? The map (Hammonds and Megistias are the same) shows that Albanian tribes descended to Durres ca. 1300/8. @Zjarri: plz avoid this worthless wp:npa vio concenrt against Megistias since you have run out of arguments. If someone doesn't like Hammonds map he needs to fill an wp:rsn case (apart from luck).Alexikoua (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
No npa vio Alexikoua since Megistias did leave wikipedia when he was reported to AE. Btw I'll start by changing the Illyria maps, which are the most obvious ones since we can actually verify Wilkes's maps.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 13:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
@Aigest: Checking the captions I feel we can get rid of the text right that speaks about 'extreme north'. Also, I see that the original map claims that Albanian tribes inhabited 'Arbana' (right of Durres) prior to 1300, I believe the map itself isn't a problem here, since the 14th century migrations started from there (Arbana, Debra region: right of Durres).Alexikoua (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Arbana is a village in the Tirana District, how can it be in Debar? What the hell are you talking about Alexikoua? And where do you find "Extreme nationalism" of which you accuse me in this edit? Furthermore, you say that the map is accepted by the scientific community? Which scientific community? --Sepastaj (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say somehing like this (?). Arbana in Hammond's map [[16]] appears to be a region east of Durres. Since this map is found in a reliable work you need to initiate wp:rsn case. Apart fom the left caption everything seems ok in this map, there is no need to remove him.Alexikoua (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, you did, you said "Debar region" in this edit, and Debar is 60 miles from Durres. Probably you were confused with all the Albanian toponyms, they might be unfamiliar to you, as it seems like you are a Greek, not an Albanian. Well, this article is so poor, that there is no need to fight for a map, which is even more POV than the article itself so I'll leave it there and leave newbies of geography and history fight it on wikipedia.--Sepastaj (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Debra is right (east) of Durres, as it appears in the same map, however I disaggree with the caption. If you have a specific suggestion plz feel free.Alexikoua (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the criticism of the map, I see nothing but personal attacks against its creator, conspiracy theories, and wp:idontlikeit-type OR. The map is sourced to Hammond, a top-notch source, and I would appreciate it if people bothered to read him before posting here. Seems to me like the reason some people object to it is "It is doesn't show the Albanians as inhabiting Albania since antiquity, therefore it's GOT to be false". Well, that's not how we do things around here. Athenean (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
athenean..despite the influx of SPA accounts and IPs that accuse past editors like Megistias (who was certainly biased but also added a great amount of good information to wiki...) the truth is that Hammonds map suffers from various faults (eg dates...though i guess this applies more to the southern migrations who arent included in the wiki map) and Hammond though an expert on the ancient history of the area wasnt an expert in its medieval history and has various mistakes in his 'migrations and invasions in greece...'. we shouldnt rely on it too much just my 2 cents87.202.151.183 (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
@Alexikoua, you are absolutely right so people like user:Megistias have to stop claiming that Southern Albania was inhabited by Greeks since ever.
@Athenean, First of all the mere fact that there is criticism towards the map shows that the map is not universal. Second, no one is attacking user:Megistias personally, he is being attacked on an academic level, for academic misconduct, because he has a history of producing inaccurate Albanian-related maps that have the same theme i.e. over amplified Greek presence in southern Albania and above. When it comes to those maps he is a “specialist,” but an amateur at anything else that is related to Albanian history, so therefore he is not pushing a neutral academic agenda, but a biased personal agenda, it is as simple as that. The reason we also object to the map is because we have evidence that Albanians inhabited Albania since antiquity, with the exception of the Greek colonies found in Albania, Albania was one of the first regions conquered by The Roman Empire laying outside of the Italian Peninsula as a countermeasure against Illyrian pirates belonging to Teuta. It is also wise to say that it would be immensely absurd for Greeks to establish Greek colonies in Greek lands. In “The Anchor Atlas of World History, Vol. 1 (From the Stone Age to the Eve of the French Revolution)” by Gary Kindler on pg 80 and pg 82 there are two maps showing the new lands acquired by the Roman invasion that are more or less the same with the current Albanian territory. This is in direct contradiction with another map of user:Megistias map’s “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KingdomofTeuta.png”. Why would the Romans declare war against Illyria, invade through Epirus or Greek lands, and then retain a territory that is divided half and half between Greeks and Albanians. The Roman forces invaded from Brindisi or Brindisium and not from Bari, they landed around Apollonia and not Epidamnus , yet again in direct contradiction with another map from user:Megistias “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IllyrianWars.jpg.” . Apollonia is a Greek colony, thus meaning that the surrounding population is of barbaric stock, in this case Illyrian stock.
Here we are dealing with Greek bias that is caused from modern Greek’s inferiority complex and their need to relate to ancient Greek’s achievements, we are dealing with aversive racism that has been systematically taught since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, we are also dealing with pro-Hellenic propaganda created by the early Greek leaders and supported by the British Empire, who wanted a strong Greek presence in the Balkans which they could control, due to Greece's excellent strategic position, along with Malta, the Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, and the Falkland Islands. Your everyday Greek does not mention that The Greek War of Independence against the Ottoman Empire was mainly fought and funded by Albanians and Vlachs “OI APMANOI BAAXOI by Nikolaos Mertzos.” I just came back from Thessaloniki, and there’s isn’t one reminder that tells you Thessaloniki had the largest Sephardic Jewish community in the world, and that almost all of them perished in the Holocaust. It does not mention the important role Vlachs played in the early days of the newly born Greek state. All you see is a sea of Greek flags and Greek Orthodox Crosses. The only EU nation that does not recognize its minorities. It is clear that there is a large primitive tribalist psychological Greek complex that we encounter here. If the modern Italians acted like modern Greeks, they would be claiming that France is Italian, Spain is Italian, Romania is Italian, etc…. I call it the “Greek Complex” and it can be summed up with this phrase “God is Greek.” Communism might have crippled our culture but there are still a few decent Albanians that are capable of independent thinking and critical analysis.
Sincerly, Henri Spahiu ( 174.119.109.116 (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC) ).
I'm obviously not going to respond to the content of the tedious, hate-filled rant above (also boring, I've heard all this so many times before I've lost track), but I should let you know that when you post stuff like this, the end result is not that Greeks look bad, but rather yourself (and your nation, if only by extension). Now, I will content myself to ignore further such rants for the near future, however, be aware that if you continue, I will see to it that your editing privileges on this site are revoked. Athenean (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
@Henri all these maps are the pov work(btw if you know Greek I can show you some of his posts on some Greek nationalist fora) of someone who left wikipedia when an admin brought him to AE. In order to deal with these I'll start a new discussion and ask from the users, who can deal with Balkans topics without a COI to correct the maps.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 00:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
All I'm going to say is, the map looks like a fairly faithful copy of the one found in Hammond, who is a reliable source without a doubt. Good luck with that. Athenean (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Since someone mentions repeatitively the ae against Megistias some 6 months ago (and this was without any action), I feel is worthy to mention to our new editors that the only involved users under current restriction are Zjarrirethoues and Sulmues (the latter vanished from wikipedia since his restriction was imposed).Alexikoua (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)He edited for a couple of weeks after that so please don't make npa comments against him. Btw that report wasn't reviewed because Megistias instead of responding left wikipedia.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 11:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
No npa comments at all: he just vanished after a couple of days when his restriction was imposed. Moreover, since when an ae procedure stops when someone doesn't want to respond? (guess you are npa violating and nearly trolling here something I suggest you need to avoid, it isn't necessary to repetitively comment on users, plz comment on content).11:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
You agreed on removing at least the caption so now a someone who can do a proper map change should be found.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 12:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
what is the troll talking about...? what do illyrians have to do with medieval albanian migrations? i guess i answered my own question: he is a troll (then we have Zjarri..the google book scholar..'look up random book of whatever quality on google books then show how wrong megistias is' lol)85.75.242.25 (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
@ZjarriRrethues sorry I can't speak Greek.
@Athenean You are still dodging the main point here, that is that content similar to that of user:Megistias is unacceptable and offensive. That THERE IS A BIG PROBLEM when a user, like user:Megistias, who if we examine all his content submitted regarding Albanian history has a "pro-hellenic" correlation and each map is full of "minor" mistakes, is tolerated as fair and neutral scholar by all of you. I have made several arguments and look, I'm repeating myself for the third time now. "I'm obviously not going to respond to the content of the tedious, hate-filled rant above (also boring, I've heard all this so many times before I've lost track)" ... Then respond to all my arguments, that are based factually. When I first posted my arguments (OBJECTIVE) against user:Megistias's content you responded by saying "Regarding the criticism of the map, I see nothing but personal attacks against its creator, conspiracy theories, and wp:idontlikeit-type OR. " ..." Seems to me like the reason some people object to it is "It is doesn't show the Albanians as inhabiting Albania since antiquity, therefore it's GOT to be false". " (SUBJECTIVE) ..... This is textbook aversive racism. This is a hate rant. What are you trying to imply here? Let the reader figure out what I meant, we don't need your judgmental POV to understand my words. So it's OK for you to judge my POV, but when I judge yours its a boring hate rant. I'm sorry your mighty Greek logic is far superior then my Albanian logic. Don't judge me and I won't judge you, it's as simple as that, stick to the facts and try to rebuttal. Don't expect me to be objective, when every time I make an objective argument, its responded by your subjective rebuttals. (174.119.109.116 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)).
Other Latin provinces in Southeastern Europe (3rd century AD - 7th century AD)
This section has absolutely nothing to do with Albanians or Albania. It doesn't even mention them. It mentions the Danubian plain, road maintenance under the Romans, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Stara Planina, and the Emperor Justinian. All very interesting, but absolutely nothing to do with Albanians. The section seems completely off-topic and seems more appropriate for Bulgaria than here. Not to mention the bizarre placement between the Middle Ages and Ottoman sections. Removing. Athenean (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
A note on numbers
You can't use one source for the pop. of Albania (INSTAT), and another for the ethnic percentages (US State Department), then combine the two to obtain number of Albanians in Albania. That it WP:SYNTH. The only source that gives both the country population and the ethnic percentages is the CIA factbook, hence that is the source we should use. Athenean (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I also added the numbers using a calculator. 7.4-7.7 million. Athenean (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest edits
@all the participants in the debate. If you feel that I am misrepresenting anything or making a WP:OR you are experienced enough to know that there are relevant boards here in wikipedia where you can address your concerns. Up to that the map stays since it is based on more than WP:RS references (Cambridge 1999) and it is not controversial. Aigest (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
First of all, it is completely empty and uninformative. It's just a blank map with some city names. What is that supposed to show? That those cities were "Albanian" (whatever that means) in 1204. Second, it looks a lot like "Greater Albania" in disguise. For example, it stretches all the way down to Epirus, when in fact the Cambridge source doesn't mention Albanians south of the Devoll. So, OR and POV. I could accept your map if it didn't stretch south of the Devoll, but in its present version it is unacceptable. Athenean (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Athenean Cambridge maps aren't Greater Albania in disguise and if you think that their borders are wrong please take it to WP:RSN.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 18:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Cambridge doesn't mention Albanians south of the Devoll, Cambridge doesn't have any maps like Aigest's, so stop mindlessly repeating "take it to RSN". Your IDHT is becoming disruptive. Athenean (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Aigest has uploaded a map similar to the one found in the work[17], so please take it to RSN and don't label Greater Albania in disguise.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Which page is the map on? Athenean (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
779-80 on scribd and btw that's on the map's description.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 19:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually it's a clear copy-vio map. There is nothing in map's description, apart from saying that this is the area of modern Albania in 1204, off course completely irrelevant with an article like this.Alexikoua (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Arbanon etc. are relevant to the article.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, it looks like he used the same base map and just changed the fonts, a clear copyvio. Athenean (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a replaceable map since you just have to add some locations and btw Alexikoua please don't label again Cambridge as dubious.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
None added Cambr. as dubious, on the other hand Cambr. is completely misused in order to present an frindge scenario. According to this: [[18]], you remove parts that are stated in this book.Alexikoua (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You labeled Cambridge as dubious and btw please stick to the sources since Cambridge includes Vlorë in the Albanian areas.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 22:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry you are again wrong, but in this case you misused the source, that's why the dubious tag was placed. Please see the edit summary. In general Camdridge or any other serious publishing house doesn't believe at fringe 1916 footnotes. In fact Cambridge claims that Albanian populations lived in central modern Albania that time (something that was mysteriously removed as part of an endless national agenda) Alexikoua (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
(unindent)@Alex I see the Jirecek line (1916) in the other map, why double standards? 08:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
what has this to do with the Jiceric line? Please use relevant to the subjects arguments. In fact the Jizerec line was about the early medieval age 600 years before (it also claimed that Greek area of domination reached Shkoder, something you both rejet I assume due to the typical nationalistic agenda)... You both should read the source carefully: it claims that Albanians after 1204 existed in central modern Albania: wp:IDHT wp:OR & POVis really disruptive in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
As I see the usual nationlistic paranoia is in full motion [[19]]: unexplained removal, irrelevant edit summaries, no relevant comments in talk page.Alexikoua (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
That Jirecek line is presented in the other map and is from the same 1916(Jirecek theory) source. Apparently you don't have problems with this (Jirecek 1916) source while it is being used in the other map. Some coherence please. Aigest (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears that ultranationlistic paranoia has no limits in this case. To sum Zjarri. perfomed a number of times the following problematic edit (revert):
Zjarri's edit
What the source claims
Controversy
[[20]] (removing every part that mentions that Albanians inhabited central modern Albania in early 13th cent.)
Source is completely misused. In fact it's ignored and a footnote that mentions parts of a 1916 work, among others, that claims autochthony of Albanians in modern Albania is used instead
I also note that the first ever record of Albanians in history (11th century) is also ignored.Alexikoua (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Alexikoua please don't cherry-pick sentences and not the whole quotes as
Albanians dominated the central regions of what is now the Albanian republic
It is apparent from a charter granted to Dubrovnik in 1230 by Ivan II Asen that Albanians dominated the central regions of what is now the Albanian republic
No wonder the link has '0' hits, seems you were not lucky in this case [[21]]. For future referene the coast of Epirus was under Serbian&Greek control 150 years later, please don't snippet abuse and be precise on what you want to claim to justify a revert.Alexikoua (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The quote is on p.780, so please stick to it. Btw the area was under the Byzantine Empire.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Wrong again, the period 'after 1204' (the map's caption) there wasn't a Byzantine Empire. Can you please read the source carefull?Alexikoua (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Why are you connecting the map with unrelated quotes?--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 17:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please be focused on the subject: you are making a series of serious historical errors and completely falsify every possible source. In general there wasn't a Byzantine Empire that period (1204-) and the Serbian&Greek rule in Epirus started at 1330/40, where the first Albanian tribes descended in Epirus Nove to E. Vetus for the first time ever.Alexikoua (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Stefan Nemanja is completely irrelevant with Epirus and southern Albania. As I said please be precise in your arguments, just being revert-ready and presenting "irrelevant" arguments/comments in talkpage isn't a sound approach in this project. As I've said Serbians descended to this region (coast of Epirus) in 1330-40.Alexikoua (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
[22] and btw medieval Epirus as Pelagonia weren't similar to the ancient areas.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 18:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
wp:IDHT, you are snippet abusing again by using the very same snippet as above. I can only guess that you have run out of arguments, not to mention extreme oring by defining geographical regions.18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Alexikoua you are defining geographical regions(epirus), so please stick to Cambridge.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 18:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
To be precise: Epirus is completely irrelevant with S. Nemanja if you really mean that.Alexikoua (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Alexikoua please don't define medieval Epirus by using as a criterium ancient Epirus.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 18:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Zjarri. claims that in S. Nemanja's empire, Epirus was incorporated, but in fact God knows what Zjarri meant by saying that Epirus doesn't conincide with the ancient region of the same name... Epirus never included Serbia, Shkodra etc. or any other part of this state.Alexikoua (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please don't attribute comments and btw some users seem to only edit, when they are needed for reverts.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 20:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please avoid wp:npa violations, since you have long being run out of arguments in this discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm using the Cambridge source and you're deleting it, so you've run out of arguments and now you're using edit-warring.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 20:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I will say it again: you are 'misusing' this work, and this is clear. Not to mention all the historical inaccuracies that are presented in this discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
wp:IDHT, unfortunatelly applies to you, so if you are certain about your view I suggest to bring it to wp:rsn. Unfortunately all arguments you presented here like: "Epirus was after 1204 under the Byzantine Empire" or "Epirus stretched as far as Serbia and Kosovo, during S. Nemanja" can't be believed.Alexikoua (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please don't attribute comments to me and why should I take Cambridge to RSN?--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 21:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
My message in Zarrit's page was deleted without a reason. Avoid attacks on me. I own this book and I was NOT told by someone to participate.CoolMartini (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
@Z: For one more time: what you claim isn't supported by this source. If you still believe that this is supported by this one feel free to start an rsn case.Alexikoua (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Alexikoua the quotes from Cambridge are above, so please stick to them.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
In general a footnote where Cambr. just mentions a 1916 work doesn't mean that Cambr. adopts this view: in fact it contradicts it in the main text. Since you deny any rsn solution I can only suggest you are just wp:trolling here, recyucling the same or and pov.Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Cambridge is using it as a source and how is Cambridge contradicting it when saying that the coast of Epirus was inhabited primarily by Albanians and that the theme of Dyrrhachium was renamed to reflect its ethnic character?--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but wrong: it's just a footnote contradicted by the main body of the text. About the Albanians in Epirus you are chronoligally wrong since no Serbian presence was there in the region pre-1330 (considered that we believe you about this since the context isn't presented for verification), the "Theme of Dyrrachium", after 1204 it didn't exist per collapse of the Byzantine Empire.Alexikoua (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Your recent Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:
Done. Thanks! sulmues--Sulmues 19:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[15]](http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s130/olvios300/VariousTemporary/?action=view¤t=map11Hammond.jpg){kind=link}
