Talk:Mala Prespa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mala Prespa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mala Prespa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current map VS language and religion map[edit]

An editor has tried (again, without achieving WP:CONSENSUS first), to replace the current map [1] with another map of languages and religions [2] which, albeit well-sourced, has noticeable POV issues and for which there was a debate at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard a while ago, as several editors, including me, were opposed to it. The volunteers and administrators at the RSN suggested that, as a compromise, and in line with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:RS rules, other maps covering different views, should to be displayed alongside it. Unless edits taking in account the solution suggested at the RSN are made, the current map, stays. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting old @SilentResident:. The map by Alexi was never on this page. I restored the map that was here and that you removed before the RFC.Resnjari (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the consensus for every Wikipedia article is to either have both maps next to each other or to not have any of them at all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: the whole RFC was mainly for where Alexi's map existed. It would make no sense not to include this map for articles such as Islam in Albania, or for the Bosniaks etc where Alexi's map has nothing of the sort. The point being for here, Alexi's map never was here and this map was.Resnjari (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck it, no map at all then.Resnjari (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ktrimi is correct that the consensus is this. Either BOTH views are present, or none of them. Had you not reverted yourself now, would mean you have acted against this consensus and that wouldn't been a constructive move. I am fine with no maps or both maps present, but not this. I suggest you abide by the hard-earned consensus and the compromises offered by the Admins and the RS Noticeboard Volunteers. Anything else is simply not a constructive attitude. Good day --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident:, since your all for consensus you might as well start readding all the maps by @Calthinus that you removed last year from the other wikiprojects, so consensus is upheld and good faith too. Will you do it?Resnjari (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your obsession with maps is admirable. Sorry but no. I do not share this passion of yours for maps. If you want them back, you have to do it yourself, but do it properly this time if you do not want to upset any editors again. That it is to respect both views regarding this kind of content. This is the only way to keep both views covered and all editors happy.
However, if I may, "so consensus is upheld and good faith too" isn't exactly how Wikipedia works... Consensus isn't Project-wide. Consensus achieved in English Wikipedia doesn't extend to other language versions of the project, it ends along with the English Wikipedia. Simple as that. I suggest that you do this in the context of Good Faith and only that, since this one is a fundamental principle, without which the entire project wouldn't exist today. Just my two cents. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident:, you ought to do restore yourself, as it was you who went around removing them all (yours was the obsession). If your unable, i can over the coming weeks and months. Just a reminder, as for both views, that too will be revisited at a future date. One map is based on facts, the other on alternative facts.Resnjari (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me sounds like you are WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. Everyone at the RS Noticeboard, both the admins, the volunteers and the parties in the dispute, agreed that both maps have to be present and both views covered. If you are unhappy things didn't go your way isn't our problem, but yours. Finding excuses to undermine the hard-earned consensus will backfire at you. This is serious. The admins won't like it when editors are constantly challenging their decissions and are reigniting old disputes by questioning the same material again and again, especially on sensitive topics covered by WP:ARBMAC. Re-opening of resolved disputes is extremely disruptive and never ended well for the instigators.
And -if I am not mistaken- other editors have in the past asked from the admins to ban you from the Albania topic area. But the admins were hesitant. Howaver, now, with 2 or 3 blocks due to disruption on your negative record, things are quite different. If you keep this disruptive attitude and insist in re-opening resolved disputes and grief the other editors who would prefer safeguarding the hard-earned consensus for the sake of peace and stability on sensitive articles, my voice will join other's chorus for a topic ban against you. Good day and don't expect more replies as I am done talking to you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident:, maybe i have a different recollection of the RFC, but you and others who share your perspective were very determined in your attempts to stop Calthinus' map from ever making the light of day. Nor did the author of the map participate in the RFC. Now the outside editors involved said they had limited knowledge in the dispute and in the end could not be fucked and proposed this solution. It does not mean that the matter of maps cannot be revisited at a future date. Now as for the thing about topic bans, whatever wet dreams a few editors have, they turned dry and here i still am. Best. ;-) Resnjari (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For all the text here, this prior map [[3]] ... has no sources. Zero. WP:OR, WP:ONUS, it had to go. The ethnoreligious map meanwhile has meticulous sourcing with even a source chart, which is far above and beyond what most wiki maps have. For all the bluster about Alexi's map, it was I who personally aborted any attempts by Albanians to remove Alexi's map, so that Greek editors did not have to do that work. And what did the other side give in return? They agreed the maps should be side by side, and surely this should hold for of course, the three most controversial pages of all, which I did not touch because I hoped they themselves would implement it there. Foreign relations of Greece has but one map and it is Alexi's. Greeks in Albania, ditto. And "best" of all, Northern Epirus... ditto. Not only did I hold up my side of the agreement, I actively took the time to prevent Albanians from undermining it, and I gave the other side nearly two years to demonstrate its good faith by leaving the implementing edits for them to do. Nothing. Still, the most sensitive pages of all, the three that mattered the most, are untouched by our agreement. --Calthinus (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I see that achieving the consensus didn't led to its automatic implementation. This however isn't an argument for violating the consensus. The best thing that can be done is, the editors who are aware of the problems in the article, are ought to take action and address them. What's the point of waiting 2 years to implement the consensus? Just to test if others have good or bad faith? Is that so? Sorry to say but this doesn't prove anything.
Lets take me as an example. If you have followed my behavior in Macedonia-related disputes (Macedonia topic area is my primary interest as you have probably noticed, along the LGBT articles), you would have seen that I do not wait... 2 years for the implementation of consensus while in meantime defending a content that is no longer reflecting the consensus, I simply roll in an instant, back and forth in the articles to update them right away and in line with the consensus, as it is in my interest to defend the compromises. If I don't bother, then why others should? It is really that simple. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it doesn't prove anything. But when was the point about proving something? I thought it was about collectively building an encyclopedia. --Calthinus (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Indeed, collectively building an encyclopedia requires the volunteers contributing to it. But usually I do not wait for others, I volunteer and go apply the requested changes myself. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No good faith has been maintained @Calthinus:. None, zero, zilch. Your map has not been added to controversial pages like "Northern Epirus" that are woefully POV too as they stand. Not to mention that following the RFC, @SilentResident: who talks of "map obsession" regarding other editors (a case of projection i guess) did not go and restore your map from where the said editor eagerly removed it on multiple wikiprojects and who attempted so very hard in the first place to prevent your map from seeing the light of day at the RFC.Resnjari (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus, the above editor is simply trying to convince you against the RfC and the reached consensus. They apparently have forgotten how I was the most compromising editor in the Reliable Source Noticeboard where it was me who proposed the inclusion of more sources to your map so that they are adjusted and could soothe the other party's POV concerns. It was Resnjari has opposed my compromises and they insisted that:

  • 1) Your map REPLACES COMPLETELY the other side's map instead of presenting both views on the matter and
  • 2) Your map goes "as is" by receiving ABSOLUTELY NO sources/different views on the matter

In short: Resnjari was the most uncompromising on the matter while I was not. The RS Admins and volunteers saw that, and they proposed (against Resnjari's wishes) the obvious practice in Wikipedia: to have both views present on the matter by having the maps displayed next to each other. Do I ever have to remind everyone what happened at the end of that dispute's resolution? The only editor who was reluctant to agree to the resolution outcome was Resnjari. Not me. And I am not the one challenging the hard-earned consensus 2 years later. It is Resnjari. This speaks for itself.

This editor is notorious for their uncompromising attitude on politically sensitive articles and this is what has gotten him into repeated defeats at various RfCs, and do not mention numerous bans by disappointed Admins who have seen a potential in them being wasted like that due to their disruptive attitude. If you doubt me, you can simply check the archives or even ask the Administrators. The facts are here. And you may find more answers than you may ask for: Resnjari's attitude unfortunately goes far back in history: they were uncompromising in the case of the Expulsion of Cham Albanian Dispute Resolution several years ago as well (You can't believe how they have angered the Admins and Mediator with their attitude), and were (again!) uncompromising in the Albania-Greece relations RfC this summer too, which you saw for yourself: I was sympathetic to your proposal while Resnjari opposed you. Literally, in all the RfCs I can think of, where there was heated disputes between me and Resnjari, (Cham, RSN, Albania-Greece relations), my positions were welcomed by the Wikipedia's Admins, Volunteers and Mediators, while Resnjari's not. Their comment here that "the outside editors involved (in the RSN RfC) said they had limited knowledge in the dispute and in the end could not be fucked and proposed this solution" says it all about their attitude and the lack of respect for everyone who may not agree with them.

I suggest you ignore Resnjari and do what the Admins and Volunteers have proposed and feel free to go ahead with implementing the consensus on the articles you find there is a problem in covering both views on the matter. It is in our best interest to maintain stability and WP:NPOV on the matter on sensitive articles such as this. The only way to do this is by respecting and implementing the Consensus where it has not been yet.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: this is an encyclopedia project. Things are supposed to be based on facts (as per RS scholarship), not "alternative facts". Non-involved editors stated themselves that they had little knowledge in the area and decided to go place both maps. Your comments and attempts to redirect the conversation at the RFC are for all to see. Your "compromises" were to place hatched lines of Greek all over southern Albania that correspond to the area that was once claimed by Greeks as "Northern Epirus" (and still claimed by some Greek nationalists and fringe right wingers), even though the RS academic litreture refutes the claims of Greeks living in most of those places. The RFC is for all to see. And yes the matter will be revisited in future through the same mechanism, hopefully a discussion where the bare facts and scholarship are focus not other distractions. And please stick to this topic, we are not talking about Chams. You did a similar thing at the RFC with tons of text that diverged from that topic and that in some respects overwhelmed non-involved editors unfamiliar with the subject that in the end they could not be bothered and decided that both images should be used. Now if you want to show some good faith at this point in time instead of huffing and puffing, since you claim the results of the RFC are sacrosanct, why don't you readd the all maps you removed from multiple wikiprojects pre RFC? Come on, put your money where your mouth is.Resnjari (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry I haven't read what you wrote, because, from past experience, I know you will have me wanting to reply back to you. In case you haven't realized it yet, our talk has already come to an end. My reply above was merely directed towards Calthinus. So, excuse me, but my time here is over. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident: that you replied, makes no sense of your comments of no reply. Looks like the RFC is selectively sacrosant and no restoration of images will occur on your part.Resnjari (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to note that Resnjari has gone ahead and unilaterally added Calthinus' map to 4 articles. So the way I see it, the situation is even. I also remember asking for some changes on Calthinus' map, and was promised these would be addressed, but these seem to have never been addressed. Now, I understand, we all live in the real world and have plenty of things to worry about. But, this is the current situation. Khirurg (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg:, those issues were addressed regarding small matters about cadastre boundaries etc. I partook in those deliberations. I added the map to four articles regarding communities that are cited in the map. Alexi's map makes 1). no mention of the presence of Muslims as per their ethno-religious spread in Albania, 2), no mention of Bosniaks, 3) no mention of Romani and i can go on here.Resnjari (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issues with the map were never addressed. So, "promises, never kept" goes both ways. As far as unilateral actions, these go against the spirit of consensus. Now, I'm fine with the status quo personally, but it's not only one side is to blame. Khirurg (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg:, what "issues"? You need to explain. As for Alexi's map as it doesn't not include those communities and since editors in here state consensus was that both should be included side by side wherever they are, then i'll remove them from the 3 articles, as adding Alexi's map there would make no sense and apply the consensus elsewhere in existing articles.Resnjari (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever Alexi decides to add Romani, Bosniaks etc, i guess can both maps be added to those articles. Otherwise if the RFC is to be followed at this point in time, then it only makes sense where both maps cite the said communities to be used -if both are joined to the hip for now. I removed Calthinus' map from the 4 articles that i recently i added, as Alexi's map does not cover the said communities and including that map means ??? to the topic.Resnjari (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually several serious issues with Clathinus map still need to be addressed, per this discussion [[4]]. By the way I see no Greeks at all in Lunxheri, is that an error?Alexikoua (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua:, where are the Muslim Albanians in your map, (the majority population of Albania then and now)? Where are the Catholic Albanians? Oh yeah, where are the Orthodox Albanians, (or are they nonexistent made out to be Greek)? Where are the Bosniaks, the Romani, the Gorani and the list is endless. As for Greeks in Lunxheri? Say what, we have been through this before about it. Credible RS scholarship like De Rapper, Kallivratkis has dealt with the matter. Whether you want to accept it or not is your issue.Resnjari (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The map is titled "Traditional presence of non-Albanian communities", as such it deals with the presence of ethnic monirities in this country (ethnic Albanians are the majority in Albania). A neutral map needs to display the Greek presence in some villages of Lunxhery, Gjat, Nokove etc, based in [[5]].Alexikoua (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua:, how can it be traditional when your map is missing traditional communities like the Romani, Gorani, Bosniaks etc? What about the traditional Muslim Albanian presence? The traditional Catholic Albanian presence, the Orthodox Albanian? Are these not traditional? Are these no communities? There is scholarship citing the presence of all of these as being in their place of residence not from now in certain areas, but from a really long time back. I know what you have based your map on. Maps based on works by nationalist author Rexhep Qosja etc (we went through this last year). As for the Balla article, that is dealing with the realities in a post communist era and subsequent changes, not before, i.e not traditional. Kallivratkis' study examined the traditional presence from before and how it compared to realities in the early 1990s. What do you take me for, some provincial lout that i would not be aware of these things. The full terms of the RFC have not been implemented and as such should. @Calthinus: map needs to be added alongside your map in articles so as to fulfill the spirit of the RFC. I've started the process.Resnjari (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see communities such as Muslim/Catholic Albanians being treated as ethnic/cultural/etc minorities in the country (source?). It's obvious that a map about minorities deals only with minorities. The map I've created was based on a specific published map (Le Monde Diplomatique) thus POV is out of the question in this case. Calthinus map can be added next to it as long as POV issues are resolved (the addition of Greek communities in Lunxhery for example).Alexikoua (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that creating a map out of 56 works needs courage and I appreciate Calthinus' effort on this. However, dealing with a huge bibliography means that SYNTH is inevitable. In general it's not easy to decide which color to choose when a village is inhabited by three diferrent groups.Alexikoua (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua:, are you for real? You "fail to see communities such as Muslim/Catholic Albanians being treated as ethnic/cultural/etc minorities in the country". So what are they, each a majority? Even the Muslim community which is considered the majority faith is split between Sunni and Bektashi in their own right and by no means are majority, nor are the Catholics or the Orthodox. And that is just the Albanian group. On the Monde Diplomatique, they have the data sourced it from Qosja. That will be a complicated issue to sort out in future. But regarding the sources @Calthinus: has used, all of them are RS scholarly works where academics have studied a part of Albania and a particular ethno-linguistic community. Unless you have something solid to debunk all of them, this here is sour grapes. However, since you feel that that overwhelms you in terms of sources, just one source, that from Tom Winnifirth, an ethno-linguistic map of Albania in his book is almost in line with Calthinus' map than it will ever be with yours. The "synth" argument does not hold and other non-involved editors in last years RFC did not give two cents about it. Calthinus' map will be added wherever your map is.Resnjari (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this approach is clearly SYNTH and OR. As said Calthinus' map issues need to be fixed & a huge variety of sources are contradicting each other, to name few: Greek presence in Piqeras, Lukovo [[6]], Lunxhery: Gjiat, Nokovo [[7]], and if we believe Winnifirth (you name it) in Berat & surrounding villages. I can't understand why an older source (Kallivretakis) is preferred not to mention that even in Kallivretakis is stated that this topic needs further research. On the other hand Le Monde Diplomatique meets wp:RS and SECONDARY. I see no issues in the future about the specific source. You need to avoid wp:CRYSTAL BALL in your arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention on spending large amounts of time with this dispute. But let me just say it's weird to think that SYNTH applies to the ethnoreligious map... and somehow not your minorities map, especially when it comes to the "double counting" of Vlachs, Greeks etc. Then there is the matter of what is better -- SYNTH with let's say 10 sources that ignores significant RS (many of them Greek) which explicitly state that large swaths of the map that you have labeled Greek have in fact zero Greeks present. Don't even get me started on your map's assertion that Lake Shkoder is surrounded by Serbs. Wiki extensively covers Vraka and Serbs in Albania -- literally nothing supports this fantasy. I could write an essay. I have some thoughts about your map. I would really rather not, and I am not going to read all this crap above, but let me just say that at this point, can we just abide by the damn agreement? --Calthinus (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to specific fixes I can do these but each one has to be examined carefully and compared against the other sources. I did do some changes, like adding Vlachs to villages in the Lunxheria-Zagoria area. Regarding Vurg, I still owe it to Khirurg and Resnjari to fix it so it from hatched to solid there (this was after the fight over, I think, six? pixels near Himara which I did fix). I can do this. But I'm also really busy in real life and have a gazillion things to do on Wiki as well, things that actually I think you guys would prefer I be doing including promises I made to you i.e. using the sources you gave me to write up Holocaust in Albania, Alexi, which I moved to my user subpages to work on not long before this balagan started.--Calthinus (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Le Monde Diplomatique offers one of the best examples of maps of this kind and this can't be neglected. I will be surprised if someone starts to claim that LMD is definitely wrong and shows areas with zero Greeks as areas of Greek majorities. As for the corrections in your map I still recall that Piqeras and Lukovo still remain red though they have been Greek-speaking pockets (link above). Another issue is that uninhabited areas north of Saranda and around Himara (cliffs, the Acroceraunian range) are red.Alexikoua (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now we are back to arguing about pixels. The mountain range is what, like 3 pixels, and no one lives there. As for "LMD", even if we pretend that this source is the epitome of RS, why does it have undisputed precedence over multiple other sources including detailed (and often Greek) demographic studies by qualified authors? But instead of arguing over maybe three pixels of uninhabited land north of Saranda, why don't we talk about Harry Potter and the Elusive Serbs of Shkoder. Sources are very clear -- Serbs lived in the Vraka region, a few tiny villages, and with 500 or so families in urban Shkoder. What your map did was take this and present, somehow, the entire region surrounding Lake Shkoder as if it were filled with Serbs throughout the entire region -- and this is one of the most densely populated areas of Albania no less. --Calthinus (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your map offers the impression that its red by default, for example the cliffs in N&NW of Saranda and Acroceraunian massif surrounding the settlements in Himara. I wouldn't say that this is a case of a couple of pixels. Drawing a map from scratch can inevitably lead to such issues. I would prefer a published map from an RS instead to avoid such OR issues.Alexikoua (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I can even illustrate which specific pixels we are talking about. Yes, it is specific pixels if we want to seriously map out which parts are closer to the nearest insignificant Greek village than the nearest insignificant Albanian village (no I did not simply color the default red -- the default in Himara was blue and red was placed on top of it -- fyi.).--Calthinus (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus:, ignore Alexi. Your map is fine. The editor in question wouldn't even bother to make adjustments in their map to even add Romani, Gorani or Bosniaks etc, yet alone to adjust the Vraka area (not even Serb sources claim the whole of the Lake Shkoder coastline as Serb inhabited. Vraka also is not coastal but inland close to the lake coast something which i doubt Alexi is aware if one asked. Frankly, a brick wall would be more informative. So fuck it. On other things, Kallivretakis did an in depth study into the demography of the area. Piqeras ans Lukove are Orthodox Albanian overwhelmingly for a very, very long time. In the end it comes down to this, either all Orthodox Albanians and Aromanians are counted as "Greeks", which recycles nationalist and right wing Greek propaganda (i.e: "Northern Epirus") or the communities are counted as they are.Resnjari (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: These days, an edit war sparked over the maps in other articles and I was going now to point everyone to the archived Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion and remind them what the Consensus is on the matter, but after rereading myself the archived discussion (found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=818857480#Fringe_newspaper's_map_sourced_only_to_a_literary_critic_used_for_wiki_ethnographic_map) I became aware of some problems regarding the RSN discussion which I didn't realize back then: (I may be wrong but as far as I see it:)

  • Besides me and Calthinus, the other participants in the dispute haven't explicitly consented to the outcome regarding the maps side by side. Nor on which articles shall this apply.
  • Blueboar and Darouet proposed a solution to overcome the differing POVs on the matter, and I and @Calthinus: agreed to their proposal, but no one else has explicitly commented further that they do agree with the proposal. I had the impression @Khirurg:, @Alexikoua:, @Ktrimi991: and a more reluctant @Resnjari:, consented to this but they haven't really explicitly commented on whether they do consent to the proposed solution.
  • The discussion was never formally closed nor it had the same procedures followed for it, as is the case for similar dispute resolutions. Thus technically, there was no binding consensus about the maps on the RSN due to the lack of clear editorial consensus other than mine and Calthinus'. The discussion wasn't even closed formally by the admins!

I assume that, back then, exhausted from the dispute, I was so relieved and happy when a hard-earned compromise with Calthinus was in sight that I didn't pay attention to these aforementioned details. Now what? Can I assume the Blueboar and Darouet proposal which was accepted by me and Calthinus, is only about the maps in ONE article but not others? Do we have to discuss the use of the maps in the other articles? Can we agree to extend this proposed solution to the other articles as well or is there anyone opposing this? At least something has to be done about these maps. The RSN proposal brought calm and stability to the article the whole discussion was about, but it is unacceptable that now edit wars and disruptions have sparked in other articles. This is just unacceptable. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident:, ask @Alexikoua and @Khirurg, if they agree that both maps be side by side into Northern Epirus, Greeks in Albania and Foreign relations of Greece, then ok.Resnjari (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but it seems you too have recently attempted to add only one of the two maps in various articles. When these editors (whom the concerns you are fully aware of) pointed out to the problem, you argued that the other map (the one you didn't add along it) isnt relevant to the article's subject. This a plausible argument which has been heard many times in Wikipedia in the past.
We can argue indefinitely, but what I have witnessed lately, definitely isn't a solution to our problem. And you know this, like everyone here does. Which brings us to the most important question: what can be done to overcome this? I could like to hear everyone's opinion and see what can be done to overcome this. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident:, i argued that because Alexikoua's map does not contain communities like the Romani, the Gorani, the Bosniaks etc (ethnic minorities which Albania also recognises officially in law too). Having Alexi's map in those articles would show what, that they don't exist due to omissions for a map that purports to show an accurate picture of Albania's traditional ethno-linguistic makeup. So then neither maps could be in those articles as one lacks their presence. Note i removed the maps from the articles about those ethnic communities. Can't have one without the other, as you reminded me. Anyway moving on since you agreed that both maps are cojoined last year, in the end work it out with @Alexikoua and @Khirurg if you have some sway with them and if you support what you agreed to last year. There are 3 articles that Calthinus' map needs to be added too: Northern Epirus, Greeks in Albania and Foreign relations of Greece. Its something that @Calthinus has also reiterated.Resnjari (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I take this positively. However if the editors and visitors of these articles start wondering why the articles about the other minorities don't have a map like Calthinus's map, what can we tell them? That it is "due to a consensus of having it bundled with another map"? While this is a valid argument, it can't be helped but bring more questions than answers: doesn't this makes Calthinus' map a "hostage" to the other map? This is a sour impression we are giving the other editors. A sour impression stemming from our inability to make a compromise by merging the two maps into one. To me it seems like we need find an way so that the info is presented to the readers without the one map being hostage to the other map, while at same time containing the info that soothes the POV concerns of the other editors. In simple words, have a merged map that wont be perceived as favoring a certain POV by the editors. This "favor no certain pov" is just the direction the volunteers and admins of RSN pointed us to, but IMO is also a step ahead to resolving this impasse once and for all. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will not accept any "map merger" with Alexi's map. Certainly not as long as the issues discussed above (omission of most minorities, coarse distribution of Greeks in many areas where RS explicitly state their absence, total OR with Serbs, and CHERRY wrt Aromanians) are not even addressed.--Calthinus (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I too will not accept any merger.Resnjari (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are faults in BOTH maps. Both yours and Alexis' map. The third map will only have what there really is, without all these faults pointed by both sides. This is the only way I can see us going ahead and finally get over this. I understand that you and Alexikoua are defensive of your works, but compromises are needed for the sake of us all. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I am not saying the third map has to replace the existing two maps. They can exist separately if that is a sensitive issue here. Just I am saying the third map will not be hostage to the problems of the reference maps and will be easier to use around. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Nothing and no one is perfect, but I don't appreciate the equivalence here, as it makes me feel like all my efforts to collaborate were pointless. I have tried to find middle ground, often losing much time over it with no compensation or credit ever, in the 1.5 years the Calth map has been around. Alexi has never budged on anything significant, ever, despite much more glaring issues. I have posted earlier versions of the map, and made versions of it solely for illustrating ethnolinguistic boundaries on it in relation to commune boundaries, as I did for Khirurg with Pogon. I have meticulously sourced literally everything on there. I have entertained some dozen disputes and implemented compromise solutions on my talk page, including novel-long fights over six pixels. That process only shut down when a source raised by Alexi from the 1950s led to the great wall of Pyrrhus getting posted on my talk page, and I'm sorry, but I have a life. Right, Alexi raises sources to modify my map, but what about is? Oh right, the world has been waiting for the better part of a decade for Alexi to explain how -- magically -- the entire area surrounding Shkoder is Serbian (this contradicts most Serbian sources by the way), among the other glaring issues, none of which he has ever seriously engaged. Indeed even when the proposal was to add Roma to the map -- clearly, not nationalistic -- nothing comes of it. Really, if there's one thing that's clear here, it is the Greek ingenuity in inventing concepts whose utility in timeless, in this case exemplified by the Greek invented concept of hypocrisy. --Calthinus (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus:, its a false equeivlance. Calling two things even when they are not is probelamtic and at worst disingenious. @Calthinus, as least now you know what your dealing with.Resnjari (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me say that in a bit I'll make a map for only the Slavic populations in Albania. This will solve the issue for this page and it's a much better map anyways because readers here are only interested in that not the gazillion other groups present. As for the RSN, I was under the impression everyone had agreed but in fact I can't find this anywhere except for as SR noted, myself and herself. Which is of course, ominous. --Calthinus (talk)

I am disturbed about the RSN thing. I really had the impression everyone consented to the two-map-boundle at the RSN. I don't know how the heck it came to have the impression there was a Consensus when clearly there is not. I guess i was just desperate to resolve this never-ending dispute and go ahead with my wiki life and focuse on other affairs. I am not too much fan of disputes that are getting lengthier than they should have been. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident I think possibly the agreement was made on another page, because I swear I remember this happening, but I can't seem to find it. In the the history of WP:RSN, I cannot find Alexi, Khirurg or Ktrimi's agreement anywhere. In fact, as agreement was happening on RSN, Alexi was trying to deflect Ktrimi's insinuation that he had endorsed Qosja as an RS.--Calthinus (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, agreement or not, I feel we are much more mature (I hope I wont be proven wrong) this time around in assessing things and overcoming this problem once and for all. I don't know why this positive attitude, but there is always hope for the best. It will be easier as soon as all the editors here finally start realizing that there are always going to be conflicting views/sources regarding the minorities of a country where the communist past is not so distant, and nationalism and populism dominate its political spectrum and there is mistrust and suspicion against its own minorities and its bigger neighbors to the point that even the national censuses aren't trustworthy. Both maps have WP:RS in them and even so, they aren't without problems: for the one side, there is different POV than the other side. The third map (if we even agree to go with this solution) can be only a result of mutual compromise and a neutral POV. This is better than nothing, and certainly much better than keeping different POVs on different pages by using... different combinations of the maps. Wikipedia can do better than this and history has shown that the project wouldn't exist today if compromises were not to be made at all. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we suppose that the current issues with this map are addressed (with Zagorie, Gjat, Nokovo, Lukovo, Piqeras, Korce basin, etc. are those Ksamil islands Muslim Albanian? hmmm ok) it doesn't show the so-called 'minority zones' (regions with recognized non-Albanian majorities per state policy): essential fact for the subject of the specific articles. Clathinus' map also doesn't show communities that form small percentages in Albanian majority areas (Greeks in Berat for example). However, I'm not against a future inclusion as long as the above issues are addressed.Alexikoua (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness me. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Anything to push northern epirus in there. Alternative facts, that's what your map is.Resnjari (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari your anti-Epirote bias shows that your concern wasnt really about facts. Leaving personal opinions at side, the impasse wouldn't have happened in the first place if Calthinus map was following the example of other maps (i.e. the minority languages map for Greece, where the majority (Greeks) is completely emitted out so that the viewers can see easier the populations which constitute only a small percentage in the areas of Greece they live at). Crowding and synthesizing both majority and minorities into one map, giving the impression that the minorities in the country do live in fewer areas than they really do, is what has caused the dispute to enrupt in the first place if I am not mistaken. You may argue that there is no harm in having both ethnicities, minorities, religions and languages into one map, all with a population threshold%. But when that obstructs the information about minorities in areas where they constitute less than threshold percent% of total population yet accumulatively are still important part of the said minorities, then no wonder why your map has found so much opposition among editors who do not share your views for it and are actually sensitive to how the minorities are portrayed in significantly smaller sizes than they actually are. Calthinus's offer to create a Slavic-only map means (I assume) no population thresolds% applied to it, allowing for a better display of the actual size of slavs in the country and this is a good step in the right direction in resolving the impasse about other minorities such as the Greeks as well. If we can do a Greek-only map as well, for the articles relevant to Northern Epirus, then the hardest part of the dispute will have already been resolved. The question is: why wasn't this done sooner even though similar examples do existi n Wikipedia, such as Greece's minority language map? Why had we go this FAR just to start making minority-only maps that would make more sense and solve some of the problems found in ? Well, I dont know, but at least we are moving in the right direction IMO and in line with what was done in Greece. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like I said above, both sides have their strongpoints, and our goal here isn't to dismiss them but use them to make an even better map. Simple. If we really want to reach an everlasting solution, everything is possible. What is a stake here is not to declare a winner and a loser, but make these much-needed compromises so that the POV concerns are alleviated. Wikipedia after all wasn't build on the accuracy and truth of one view, but by taking all views on the matter (Something I learned in other Balkan topic area debates of the past). At the end it won't be as difficult as you may think. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On some matters, there are multiple points of view and things are complicated with many things to untangle. Other things, there is not much to untangle. Some things are just false and go against all RS. Some have survived only because of inertia and the lack of capable editors in Albanian wikispace with the will and time to tackle the mess. I once argued with Resnjari, trying to argue that trying for compromise was worth it. I have made mistakes of my own. I have been unnecessarily harsh, and insufficiently diplomatic, and at times I was maybe immature and someone else could have done better than me -- I acknowledge all of this, I try to do my best, really. I made another mistake -- sometimes Resnjari is a bit hotheaded, and I didn't give what he was saying the benefit of the doubt. I wasn't fair to him. He was right all along. You three have shown me how wrong I was. There are no winners and losers, we are alllosers, but that is a loss we accept by spending our time like this. If you seriously want to persuade me to not simply become Resnjari, don't waste your time writing me these essays which I will not grade, how about actually giving something on your end, when I have been giving for a year and a half. How about actually considering people's concerns. What a thought. With that, I'm done here, so I don't recommend wasting your time pontificating, though you can if you enjoy writing. --Calthinus (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"...how about actually giving something on your end, when I have been giving for a year and a half." I am sorry to hear this from you. Thing is... we aren't talking about my own map here. Or else, this wouldn't have happened. I wouldn't have let such a debate drag that far if there was a problem with my own work. I would prefer to have just fixed it, instead. I wouldn't ask from others to give to me something in return for my own work's mistakes. This is arrogance. But if you do, then clearly you aren't here to help Wikipedia's articles get improved, but to push Albanian POV. This is surprising for someone who claims to be a neutral editor. If you insist so much on your faulty positions, then you are getting away from consensus building and the only solution I can see to this, is to not use your map at all. At least not unless it is agreed to be accompanied with data and maps which are well-sourced and had a consensus long before you came to challenge anything. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The map is well sourced. Jesus Christ! And what is "Albanian POV" in this instance? Would it mean here for the disenters that its all the academic studies used that meet the criteria of RS from scholars who have no nationalist or "patriotic" agenda. Oh wait, its synthesis, or some other thing. My goodness @Calthinius has gone out of their way as an editor to NOT include academic studies by Albanians for the map, so as to not get crap like "Albanian POV" or its "Albanian nationalism" and so on. I guess it will never ever be enough for some. And yet here we are with the old "Albanian POV" line. Well i got news for y'all. Its about Albania and Albanians, so yeah deal with it. Alvania, Alvanoi, Alvanika or one can render it in whatever language you want. However, I too am done with this shit. At least everyone knows where they stand.Resnjari (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The map in question has serious OR and POV issues. A simple problem here is that uninhabited areas are de facto red in particularly those surrounding mixed regions in the SW: The cliffs between Kakome and Saranda are in red as well as the entire Karaburun peninsula. For an unexplained reason this peninsula including Gramata bay- which is traditionally part of Himara- is Muslim Albanian. If there is a problem painting those areas in mixed colors then I assume a white color for the unihabited areas is needed.Alexikoua (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Perhaps you could also paint uninhabited areas with a white color in your own map? Or perhaps also use white for 100% Albanian areas -- Kurvelesh, most of Shkoder, etc etc -- where you mysteriously have people thinking they can go and find a single Greek/Serb/Vlach who isn't a tourist? Indeed, since you have these profound views, surely you would have found time to implement them on your own side, in the what, eight years your map has been the center of continual controversy? --Calthinus (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't Resnjari and Calthinus been constantly claiming that their map is made dot-by-dot, pixel-by-pixel, and where each pixel is verified by sources and reflects on population data their sources provide, village-by-village? Werent Resnjari and Calthinus the ones who accused your map, Alexikoua, as being "generic" and too "ambiguous" since it "loosely depicts the populations" in the country? Yet here we go: they've painted whole uninhabited areas, not dot-by-dot, but loosely, as being inhabited by a certain group of their preference. Even though none lives in these areas, not even a soul. If this unfortunate example isn't an example of editorial hypocrisy, then I can't help but wonder what it is.
Alexikoua's map strongpoint is that the areas that are painted, are done so because the sources too did. On the other hand, Calthinus' map has uninhabited areas painted outside of what sources support, and if this isn't enough, the inhabited areas have a pop threshold imposed on them which "erases" whole minority areas from being painted in both majority and minority colors.
For me, using 1) uninhabited areas, and 2) population thresholds to shrink the traditional areas of the minorities, is just blatant POV which goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. The editors in question may refuse this and rebuke back, or even turn deaf ears to this problem, but fact remains: The map which is meant to improve the Albania Topic Area does not follow the common practices followed in other Balkan Topic Areas, i.e in Greece Topic Area. Thanks goodness, the Greece Topic Area editors avoided such tricks and tactics in making Greece's Minority Languages Map, and instead, displayed the language minorities freely and without any pop thresholds; without majorities obscuring the visibility of minorities on the map.
Sorry to speak in such an raw and unecyclopedic way: but I am really proud of the Greece topic area editors, they have shown that they can do better than this. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...No? As for sourcing... well, it's ironic, since the entire green northwest block of the map is beyond the fantasies of even Pasic or Nedic and the world is still waiting for attribution. And yeah the whole population threshold mantra... is not. I've never used the phrase except quoting you as far as I recall, and I've placed Greek population markers where they are far below any reasonable threshold mostly because I stupidly occasionally entertain belief in cooperation (i.e. Mborje, Korca where other sources have them explicitly absent, Voskopoja see above, Permet etc...), while yes it is true that I like most reasonable people will ignore if a town has, um, 3 Greeks. As for coloring entire uninhabited areas, or indeed 100% Albanian areas something else.. I'll just tag Resnjari so he can post his feelings about Alexi's map, perhpas via copy paste as it gets tiring. Oh yeah, and about Greece Wikispace's own ethnographic maps ... where? All I know of is a purely language map, which was made by Future Perfect not without considerable protest from Greek editors who called it ["propaganda"], which was nominated for deletion three separate times it seems, as some people don't give up. The Karaburun peninsula probably doesn't have a single ethnic Greek, but traditionally occasionally housed migratory Albanian pastoral populations, plus Albanian settlements Orikum andTragjas. It's also really weird to bring this up, since not even Alexi's map has the Karaburun as Greek...--Calthinus (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus, discussing this with them is a time wasting exercise. Now its "uninhabited areas"' that's an issue. Has @Silentresident ever bothered to raise this issue with @Alexikoua ? No, never. Neither has @Khirurg. And i challenge the editors to show even one thread or comment where they have done this in the past. But apparently your map has “issues”. The thing that these editors seem to ignore is that Albania has a cadastre system (just like all countries in Europe do) where village boundaries exist and incorporate natural features within them. Even if a natural feature like a mountain does not have people, but its attached (i.e belongs) to a nearby village in the cadastre records, accordingly it makes sense to colour the area where the natural feature is as being part of so and so settlement. @Calthinus has coloured them accordingly. Now @Silentresident you can continue on about this as you wish, but @Calthinus has produced a map that is based on RS, on academic studies that not only are based on extensive fieldwork, but that the same research analysed past studies to see how they compare (i.e Kallivretakis, all the 4 studies of Steinke etc). Now if the idea of traditional communities is to define them in such a way as to get as close as possible to the old line of the Northern Epirus claim, that's lacking intellectual integrity at best and at worst peddling nationalism and fringe right wing propaganda. Either Orthodox Albanians and Aromanians in this context exist or they are all "Greek"? A similar thing applies to Muslim Albanians as well. Either they existed in large numbers and were/are compact in many areas or they never were until after Albania was created. Even the Greek army had sense during the Balkan Wars/WW1 period to colour Muslim Albanians as Albanians and did not taper over them as Greek, as they laid claim to southern Albania [8] and later failed. Their views on Orthodox Albanians and Aromanians were another matter. In the end there is facts and for some alternative facts.Resnjari (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"According to Bulgarian sources"[edit]

I'm not sure this statement is the whole truth -- and, according to Bulgarian sources, some people that have identified as Bulgarians. Other sources, including Albanian, have noticed the partial revival of Bulgarian identity in Pustec, and it has been recognized by the Albanian government and international institutions, which are if anything moving toward a neutral stance on the ethnicity of the Slavic minorities (i.e. not only Bulgarian/Macedonian issues but also Serb/Montenegrin, and then the Gorani). --Calthinus (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: AFAIK, the Macedonian identity of Pustec is much stroger than the identity of Golloborda. Many Gollobordas have a fluid identity while Pustec seems to not be in a similar situation. Of course, a few cases of Bulgarian identity revival might exist in Pustec and if reliable sources say that, modifications should me made to the article. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ktrimi -- [[9]] Albanian media has noticed some of the youth in Pustec have begun showing signs of a form of a new Bulgarian identity. This includes statements like "we are of Macedonian ancestry, but now we will be Bulgarians". Of course it's super complicated because being Bulgarian can get you a passport, but also censure from your elders, so who are we to decide what identities are "real". Of course in Pustec you can also find other identities among the Slavophone population I am sure, just as De Rapper demonstrated for Vernik where some of the youth really identify more as Albanians. --Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Gazeta Shqiptarja article says that they do not feel Bulgarian but say to be so to get a passport. We could carefully make some changes to the article in accordance with what the source(s) say. However, tbh I think this might be Lame's joke. The article goal is not academic research. It is a Facebook post. Maybe @Resnjari: is aware of reliable sources that elaborate on the matter. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I'm not saying we should add a statement saying Bulgarians are here. What I'm saying is that we should be careful about saying "only Bulgarian sources say X". Or- to clarify, if we have a source saying "Bulgarian sources say X" that would be fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case, and I am challenging this statement.--Calthinus (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, also, on the other hand, the Macedonian POV i.e. this [[10]] -- in a watered down form, of course -- deserves mention... somewhere in Albanian wikispace.--Calthinus (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus: This source seems to be valuable. Take a look at it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: great find -- I don't even think we need to include this in the article (we can if you want). I just don't think we should be attributing the view that there are Bulgarians in this place to only "Bulgarian sources" is all.--Calthinus (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand your position. Feel free to modify that sentence of the article. You might add the Zhurnal article to avoid conflicts in the future with editors who might say that there are no non-Bulgarian sources to back the sentence. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mala_Prespa&oldid=1205559292"