Talk:Vjosa

Article name

The name was Aoos and the predominant name used in scholarship is Aoos, and since antiquity. Vjose is later name.Megistias (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what should be leading in choosing the title for this article is what is most used in English, not which name was used first (which might be debatable, who knows which name the ancient Illyrians used). My guess is that both names (Aoos and Vjosë) are used in English, and that there is no clear preference, but prove me wrong. See WP:NCGN#Multiple local names and WP:RIVERS#Rivers with multiple names for guidelines. Markussep ^Talk 21:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I get 1500 names with Aoos in google books, and just 500 with Vjose. Also its source is in Greece.Megistias (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I get similar results. I therefore undid the move by User:ObserverFromAbove. Athenean (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't show which name is predominantly used. In google there are 91,400 results for Aoos many of which refer to totally different subjects like the Alaska Ocean Observing System, while for Vjosë there are 196,000 results. We agree to disagree so I think we should ask for other users' opinions.--ObserverFromAbove (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Per ObserverFromAbove reasoning, I am undoing User:Athenean. Indeed Aoos in Google gives results that have nothing to do with the river. Furthermore the river is 71% in Albania and 29% only in Greece, for not talking about the quantity of water found in Albania which is significantly higher than that in Greece and also the basin of water that collects in Albania which also is significantly higher in percentage than 71-29. For all these reasons, Vjose should be the name. This is per wp:names. I recommend that we keep it that way until we reach a consensus, or we put it in RFC. --sulmues (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, river's mouth is in Albania. kedadial 01:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly: per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Rivers_with_multiple_names, I'll quote that if everything is equal, there should be an Albanian name, because per Wikipedia's policy, I'll quote

if everything else is equal, then choose the name for the section of the river closest to the river's mouth, since generally that is where the river is widest.

--sulmues (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The arguments about the river's mouth and length and quantity of water are meaningless. The only thing that matter is frequency of usage among reliable sources. A search on Google Books for Aoos river returns 243 hits [1], and for "Aous river (an alternate spelling) 322 hits [2]. On the other hand, Google book searches for Vjosë river, Vjose river, and Vjosa river return 50 [3], 48 [4], and 71 [5], hits respectively. Thus, among reliable sources, Aoos/Aous seems far more prevalent than Vjose/Vjosa. Raw google searches are meaningless because they contain all kinds of junk (hotels, restaurants, nationalist websites). Athenean (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RIVERS#Rivers_with_multiple_names kedadial 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:RIVERS#Rivers_with_multiple_names:If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name. The results of the Google Books search confirm that "Aoos" is the most commonly used among reliable sources. Athenean (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What about the other two rules? kedadial 02:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What about them? The rule I am quoting is the first one, so it takes precedence over the second one. The last rule only applies if "all else is equal", which is clearly not the case here, because "Aoos" is far more common. By the way, pretty hypocritical of you to revert me claiming that I shouldn't edit while a discussion is going on, when in fact that is exactly what you did. You made a number of controversial changes after I explained on the talkpage that Aoos is more common, completely ignoring my talkpage post. Athenean (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken, I just restored it to the last stable version (before the discussion and the edit-warring began) and made some improvements to the article (irrelevant to this discussion btw). kedadial 03:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Love the way you just ignored the evidence in my above posts. Very smooth. Athenean (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since Athenean wants to use Google Books, rather than simply google: Even in Google Books Vjosa and its variants give more than Aoos.

Vjosa: Vjosë: 617 [6]; Vjose: 509 [7]; Vjosa: 639 [8]; Vjosës: 159 [9]; Vjoses: 159 [10]:Sum is 2083.

Aoos: Aoos gives 1582 hits ([11]), so it's an inferior number. In addition even if you look into the first page, NONE of the hits refers to the river. Case closed. --sulmues (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Sulmues has no idea what he is doing. You have to use "Aoos river" and "Vjose river", not plain Aoos and Vjose. Another thing, many of the hits for "Vjose" and "Vjosë" are duplicates. In general, "Vjosë" should not be used, because in English there are no diacritics ("ë"). Case closed indeed. Athenean (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Guess what: "Vjose river" generates 19,200 hits in Google Books ([12]) whereas "Aoos river" generates barely 1,474 ([13]). What can I say more?--sulmues (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting funnier by the minute. Newsflash: You have to use quotes, as in "Vjose river" and "Aoos river" to search for the exact phrase. Otherwise you get all the hits that contain "Vjose" and all the hits that contain "river" (19000 books that mention this mighty river? I mean, come on). But don't bother, I already did it for you above. Why do I bother with people that don't even know how to conduct a proper Google Books search? Athenean (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please remain civil everybody, and let's focus on objective arguments. If we can't get to a satisfactory result, the discussion should be announced at WP:RM. Do we agree on the following arguments?

• The river flows through Greece (about 80 km) and Albania (about 190 km)
• The source of the river is in Greece, the mouth is in Albania
• Both "Aoos" and "Vjosë" (in various forms) are used in English
• None of the names is overwhelmingly (e.g. >80%) used in English
• Existing guidelines (WP:NCGN, WP:RIVERS naming conventions) apply

Markussep ^Talk 08:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree on that. Nobody is mentioning it but before consulting Google Books we have to first consult post 1993 English-language encyclopedias (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta). After that we go to Google Books. --sulmues (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not supposed to change the redirect like that Sulmues diff .Megistias (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The redirect wasn't changed, was it? I suggest we leave the article as it is until we've solved this naming problem, uncontroversial changes excepted. Could you comment on my list of arguments? Markussep ^Talk 11:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree to follow Markussep and WP:RIVERS to reach a consensusMegistias (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Other than the aforementioned arguments, Aoos is the term used in specialized treatises as well. (Acta hydrochimica et hydrobiologic, 2001)Megistias (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So is Vjosë, see Annales Geophysicae (2003) 21: 345–364. Markussep ^Talk 13:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Vjose comes from the many Aoos based-variances of names. Stephanus of Byzantium is a 6th century AD writer and he mentions it as Boious (Greek: Βοϊούς). 600 years before any Albanians are mentioned in what is now north Albania let alone the southern part. Vjose is the form of the name in the modern Albanian language.Megistias (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Aoos is the most prominent name due to the historicity of the region, it was just Aoos for most of its history, and the rendition of it as Vjose is a recent one. Wikipedia:RIVERS#Rivers_with_multiple_names "If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name."Megistias (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about the origin of the names, I'm not so familiar with Albanian history and etymology. The guideline you quote is valid, but I think there is disagreement about whether the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned as "Aoos". WP:NCGN#General guidelines says: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it". Unless the river is only mentioned in the context of classical antiquity (which isn't true), we should use the modern name for the title. Classical use is not so relevant then. Markussep ^Talk 14:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Vjosa name comes from Aoos, it would be like not using Danube for the Danube#Name, and using the Romanian: Dunăre, Dunărea because 28,9% of it flows through Romania.Megistias (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Dunăre appear in Encarta? Does it give more than 20% books and articles as compared to Danube? And stop saying that Albanians appeared in the 11th century (read Origin_of_the_Albanians#Written_sources_ --sulmues (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out above, your searches are wrong Sulmues.(also that section of Origin of the Albanians does not claim what you say....read the article)Megistias (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that "Danube" is the most commonly used name in English. There is reasonable doubt that "Aoos" (or "Vjosë") is the most commonly used name in English. Etymology, or "who was first" is really irrelevant, we don't call London Londinium here, or Vienna Vindobona (except in Roman context). Markussep ^Talk 14:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Vjosa river 5,210 hits, Aoos river 10,200Megistias (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Vjose cannot be used in the searches, as the Spanish name Jose is added to the results. And just "vjose river" gives merely 148 hits vjose .Megistias (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I get different results in Dutch Google: vjose river 491, vjosa river 4890, aoos river 10100, so that's 65% Aoos. Google Books: vjose river 48, vjosa river 71, aoos river 243, so that's 67% Aoos. Britannica has Vjosë in its "Albania" article, and Aóös in its "National park" article (referring to Vikos-Aoos park). Columbia doesn't mention it, Encarta has been discontinued. Markussep ^Talk 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My god, this can't be possible!!! How can someone citing "amounts of water" seriously participate in a discussion about this? This is pretty simple. Vjose or whatever is just the albanian version of the name Aoos and I think it is different enough from 'Aoos' to win itself a mention in the brackets. :) The name Aoos is simply more notable because of the very notable Vikos-Aoos national park.--Michael X the White (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A search on Google Books for Aoos river returns 243 hits [14], and for "Aous river (an alternate spelling) 322 hits [15]. On the other hand, Google book searches for Vjose river, and Vjosa river return 48 [16], and 71 [17], hits respectively. Thus, among reliable sources, Aoos/Aous seems far more prevalent than Vjose/Vjosa. Athenean (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is because Aoos was used in antiquity, so google books may contain a little bit more because they are taking all the sources of books that were written in the course of 2000 years. Modern English sources have more "Vjose" than "Aoos", and that's what we should be going with per WP:NCGN#General guidelines --sulmues (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, and it's not "little bit more", it's an order of magnitude more. Athenean (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We go with rivers and Aoos is the name. Someone change the redirect and lets go on with our editing.Megistias (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, please do not continue an edit war on this. --sulmues (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Data shows otherwise and we are not edit warring. Megistias (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"I disagree" is not an argument. The case that "Aoos" is more prevalent than Vjose has been backed by Google Books searches. Sulmues has been unable to refute this, and is now left with saying "I disagree". Case closed, sorry. Athenean (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Negative, I disagree because you are failing to convince me that those books are modern. --sulmues (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That is of course and empty argument, they are modern, but even then it doesn't really matter, what really matters is that Aoos is 2-5 times more common than Vjose in the English literature. But at this point though, I don't think it's possible for me to convince you of anything, at any time, ever. Athenean (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Some "modern" books that refer to the river as "Aoos" [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. Actually, all 10/10 books from just the first page of hits [27] are "modern" (2nd half of 20th century and 21st century). Probably Sulmues didn't even bother looking at the Google Books search. Athenean (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep looking at all of them. I noticed that the other pages are older. --sulmues (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have. I don't think you have, though, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that. For example, page 10 from the Google Book search [28]. You seem to have forgotten (or pretending to have forgotten) that the Aoos flows through Greece as well, and because lots more books have been written about Greece than Albania, that is why most books call it the Aoos. It's not a historical name. It's the actual name of the river in Greece and every single book written about Greece that mentions the river will call it Aoos and never "Vjose". Athenean (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your persistance is not a source or an argument Sulmues.Megistias (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As Markussep said ("There is reasonable doubt that "Aoos" (or "Vjosë") is the most commonly used name in English."), "Aoos" is not the predominant name used in English. So we have to follow WP:RIVERS#Rivers with multiple names. Thank you. kedadial 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually Markussep said this [29], 65-67% Aoos. Case closed, no point in discussing with people who pretend not to hear. Thank you. Athenean (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That shows that the 80% test doesn't pass. The books write about the river in Greece, not the one in Albania, so they are about the Greek part of the river. This article though refers to the WHOLE RIVER. I still continue to disagree with renaming it--sulmues (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

First it was that Aoos is not more common than Vjose, then it was that the sources that call it Aoos are too old. Now it's this "80% test" that you have made up out of thin air. The argument about "the Greek part of the river" is a total joke. It's the same river. And twice as many sources refer that river as "Aoos" than they do as "Vjose". Athenean (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I'm a bit disappointed that Athenaean moved the article when the discussion was clearly not yet finished. But well, back to objective arguments. Note that Google results may well be distorted by the fact that more Greeks than Albanians publish in English, which is understandable given the isolation Albania has experienced until the early 1990s. A 2:1 ratio is not overwhelming IMO, but I don't think we have good definitions of "overwhelming". The Albanian part of the river is longer and more populated than the Greek part, but that not an overwhelmingly convincing argument either. My conclusion is: both names are used and valid, neither one is "bad" as a title. I see no compelling reason to move either way. Markussep ^Talk 12:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I was disappointed too. The discussion is ongoing and I found it arrogant that Megistias and Athenean made edits before reaching a consensus in the talk page. --sulmues (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, a move war. Couldn't we just add {{POV-title}} tags instead?--Ptolion (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues restore the article. What you did was outright vandalism, you removed references and quotes diffMegistias (talk)`

@Markus: The reason I moved it is because to me, if 67% of sources use "Aoos" over "Vjose", that is sufficient grounds for a move. 67% mean twice as many sources use "Aoos" than "Vjose". In my Google Books search, I get 243 and 322 hits for Aoos/Aous and only 48/71 for Vjose/Vjosa. That is an order of magnitude more. If that is only because of Albania's isolation, that is too bad. Anyway, I am happy to discuss this with you, however, I am done discussing with Sulmues. I have no time for people who make up rules as they go along. First he argued that Aoos is not more commonly used than Vjose because he didn't know how to conduct a basic Google Books search. When I showed otherwise, he started arguing that the sources that use "Aoos" are "old". When I showed otherwise, he made up an "80% test" and nonsense about the "Greek part of the river". Clearly, there is no point in discussing with such an individual. Now, where you and I differ is in the definition of overwhelming. To me 243+322 >> 48+71, so I think this is sufficient grounds for a move. Athenean (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That still does not make up the vast majority. kedadial 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"That still does not make up the vast majority" is a completely empty argument. It's not even an argument. I don't know how you define "vast majority", but it's over 80%, which is the "vast majority" as far as I'm concerned. Athenean (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

65 != 80 kedadial 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

243+322=565. 48+71=119. 565/(565+119)=82.6%! Athenean (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many variances of Aoos, perhaps more than 10, and Vjose itself is a variance of it. Megistias (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

earthquake

Has anyone found anything on the earthquake?Megistias (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can read French or German (or trust automatic translaters), this is interesting: French, German. It's about the ancient city Apollonia (40.7215°N 19.4729°E / 40.7215; 19.4729), that used to have a river port on the river Aoos/Vjosë, but now lies about 7 km from the river. The French article says that there was an earthquake in the 2nd century, one in 345 AD, and that the city was abandoned in the 5th century. On a little map they drew the old course of the river, but they don't say when the course was changed, might be as late as the 5th century. Markussep ^Talk 18:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the river port reference in already. But can't yet find a complete ref to elaborate the earthquakeMegistias (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

2nd century AD earthquake in the area refMegistias (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That ref is about Oricum, southwest of Vlorë, not far from Apollonia and the Vjosë indeed. This earthquake might have affected the course of the river, not sure. Markussep ^Talk 09:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Name issue

I believe the best indication in such issues (when a common to two countries river has two different names) is the most common usage in the English language. I think a look in the google hits can solve the issue. --Factuarius (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Factuarius, your revert to my changes is inadequate. It can be done when the article name is Aoos, but it isn't. Right now it's Vjose, and I think it should remain so, based on the discussion above.--sulmues (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But the present name is that because of Sulmues' move warring. I refused move warring and started a discussion. You accuse me for not continuing what Sulmues did? I disagree with the move, but I don't think that an edit war can solve the name issue. Is this the way according to you? To end up all of us banned? Lets discuss it calmly and we will find a solution. --Factuarius (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted a series of moves that started with Megistias' move which occurred on 3/2/2010 ([30]). Then Athenean and Megistias moved again before the discussion had ended. Now Athenean is going from 67% to 82% with some sophistic math from google hits. --sulmues (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is exactly why you do not need to be taken seriously anymore. You casually dismiss evidence that proves you wrong as "sophistic math from google hits" (whatever that means). There is no "sophistic math", only evidence from Google Books.

• "Aoos river": 243 hits [31]
• "Aous river": 322 hits [32]
• "Vjose river": 48 hits [33]
• "Vjosa river": 71 hits [34]

When you do the math, that's over 80% in favor of Aoos/Aous. You tried several lines of arguments ("Not the majority", "too old", "the Greek part of the river", "80% test"), and every time you have been proven wrong. Now that you have no arguments left, you are just trolling and being disruptive. Enough. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't say anything at all. If you persist with the trolling and disruption I will report you. Athenean (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You have forgotten the forms

• "Viosa river": 129 hits [35],
• "Viose river": 48 hits [36]

which bring your Aoos percentage at 65%. --sulmues (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when are percentages an argument in Wikipedia? And still, sulmues, they are against you!! Now, you should bring some good arguments and evidence to back your case, or we shouldn't waste time and space in this any more. Vjose or whatever is not interesting, geographically, historically, or even linguistically.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We agreed above with Markussep that 80% is warranted for a redirect. The interest to the name might shift during a period of time that is much shorter than a lifetime and we should follow Wiki policies for redirects. --sulmues (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"We agreed"? As far as I can tell, you are only agreeing with yourself. Can you show me where Markussep agreed to your made-up "80% test"? Athenean (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Aoos is more prominent, due to the park in Greek, scholarship, history and so on.Megistias (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

80% was my suggestion, apparently Sulmues agrees with it. There is no percentage defined above which a name is clearly the most commonly used one, this just seems a clear cutoff to me. My problem with this discussion is that it's leading nowhere as long as it's Greeks vs. Albanians. I don't think any of us are native English speakers, am I right? Markussep ^Talk 11:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll declare neutral. The 65% advance of "Aoos" in Google books is substantial but not quite strong enough for me to force the issue. The fact that "Aoos"/"-us" will strongly predominate in one important topic domain, discussions of classic antiquity, adds some weight to that side. On the other hand, there's the "longer part" rule of the naming guideline, which clearly favours the Albanian name. To my mind, that's pretty much equal weights. Throw some wiki-dice and be done with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I threw the wiki-dice but equilibrated in the cavity floor. Until someone else will be more lucky or Fut will give us a better solution should we move it into "Vjosë-Aoos"?--Factuarius (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Vjosa" has 368000 Google results, "Aoos" has 58000. The name Vjosa has about 6 times more usages than the Greek name Aoos. In addition, Vjosa has has a length in Albanian of two times its length in Greece. The Google Scholar argument above is fabricated because most books naming the river as Aoos are Greek authors. As such, all arguments are in favor of the name Vjosa (most used in English and the version called in the country it occurs the longest). OppositeGradient (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Shaban Demiraj

Shaban Demiraj , this fella is not RS, with his Pelasgians and so on. The name is definetely ancient Greek with no doubt.Megistias (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the reference that you just deleted includes that Elsie says exactly saying the same. Are you gonna boot Elsie from RS too? --sulmues (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Elsi is not a specialized linguist on Illyrian languages, ancient Greek or in ancient History. He writes about Albanians, most on Folklore and some recent history.Megistias (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then tough luck, because Demiraj is the best Illyrist in the world right now. Has been studying it since 1955. --sulmues (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The best "Illyrist"? According to who? You? You've been told he's not an RS, drop it. Athenean (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tell me who is a best Illyrist than Demiraj. I'm all ears. --sulmues (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues please, dont add aboutnames again, you did it twice diff, diff. Demiraj is just a negligible with no value or worth.Megistias (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

aboutnames is a reliable source for baby first names, what's wrong with it? --sulmues (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, you have been editing for a long time. You should already know.Its a commercial website. Megistias (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? What are they selling? --sulmues (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

They are selling nothing, therefore it is not a commercial website, but a quite reliable database of baby names. Added back. --sulmues (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Added two more sources to show that it is a common female name in Albania. --sulmues (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Take it easy guys. Demiraj is as credible and RS as the fellow Greek sources in here. If we would like to put him out, than lets put all Albanian and all Greek sources out and try to find other sources. What makes Demiraj an unreliable source? As far as I know he is well-respected in linguistics. (and generally I have a really bad idea about balkanian historians and lingusts).Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree and I'll strike out all the Greek sources if Demiraj is removed. --sulmues (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What a ridiculous suggestion. Anybody who dabbles with the Pelasgian theory of Albanian descent is a clown and not RS. That is NOT a reason to remove the Greek sources, which will be treated as disruption and dealt with accordingly. Athenean (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Demiraj writing on Pelasgians, but if he has written on them, that doesn't mean he is unreliable source. Are the Pelasgians some sort of tabu, so that once that a scholar writes on them, he becomes unreliable? In addition, Shaban Demiraj has been the President of the Academy of Sciences of Albania for four years, he can't be that foolish. --sulmues (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that says more about the Albanian Academy of Sciences than it does about Demiraj. Athenean (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am re-entering this for Athenean! Actually, I think this says more about you and your POV. You keep editing Albania related articles and try to make Albanian sources unreliable while stressing your 'Greek' scholars as trustful. THIS IS A FACT but I see you don't like facts so you keep removing or editing them! We won't tolerate any greekefication of albanian related articles by you! This is not trolling, but a message for you to keep your hands off the albanian articles because of your POV. And please do not remove this comment! If you have something to say on this regard (you editing so many Albanian articles) just talk below where you can explain your position freely. thank you! Piasoft (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Your comment was and is trolling and I was actually doing you a favor by retracting it. It only makes you look aggressive and bad. But hey, if you don't care about how you come across, don't let me stop you. Athenean (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't readd Demiraj, similar claims, or aboutames again Sulmues.Megistias (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Shaban Demiraj is, among other things, the author of the "Albanian" chapter in The Indo-European Languages, ed. Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paolo Ramat, Routledge 1997, a top-quality reference work on Indo-European linguistics. This means he is definitely a respected scholar in the field. Megistias, stop talking about things you do not understand. Megistias and Athenean, your remarks about this guy border on the defamatory and might get you blocked for BLP violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He may have contributed to regular publications, but in this book he does not fail to go into Pelasgians and the such.Megistias (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do recall we had a similar case with an Albanian historian born in France (in the Pelasgians article, when Dodona user was still editing), that had written normal material on other issues, but when he go to an issue similar at hand, he reverted to a familiar pattern.Megistias (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Shaban Demiraj doubles in Pelasgians & Etruscans. Epiri, pellazg·et, etrusk·et dhe shqiptar·et, 2008 by Shaban Demiraj

• Epirus, Pelgasgians, Etruscans & Shqiptars?!Megistias (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not for you to judge; you are not among the wikipedians who could have anything to say in a discussion about what is or isn't a reliable linguistic source. As to the matter at hand, Demiraj actually doesn't seem to be saying anything particularly exotic. He just reports that Krahe (the leading authority on ancient river names in older scholarship) classified the name as of Illyrian origin (that would be in Hans Krahe, Die alten balkanillyrischen geographischen Namen: auf Grund von Autoren und Inschriften, Heidelberg: Winter, 1925, which I can check next week); and he then reports other scholars discussing whether the transmission from the ancient name to the present Albanian went directly or via intermediate transmissiont through Slavic, judging that it didn't. Not a revolutionary claim, but I can't assess its details without the full context. Unfortunately, the Demiraj book is given only in very short excerpts in Google books search and I have no access to the print book through my library system. Anybody got the full context? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He seems to just point out that its not Slavic or effected by, that it was Aoos/us in the antiquity and that Vjosa came from Vivosa with some Roman influnece due to colonization.Also that Slavic forms are Vajusa and Vojusa (157 page). Megistias (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that User:Kushtrim123 is aggresively reverting [37]. I don't see Demiraj mentioning the mentioning that the name is Illyrian, nor do I see any references to Elsie. This is just mindless revert-warring. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I added what its stated regarding the name. See the linked refMegistias (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The first ref points to a passage where it says "the ancient Ἀώος survives in the form Vojusa". This is preceded by another sentence that says "The relationship between these two names is not clear". Which two names does that sentence refer to? – the only other thing I can read in the link is the following sentence: "It is possible that the Greeks have denominated it by the proper name Ἀίας, with which the river name /Ἀίαντος/ is identical in declension." – I'll be damned if I know what this is supposed to mean. Without more context, there's no way I could assess what the author wants to say here. – Also, why was the reference to Krahe removed; has nobody yet found out what Demiraj's own conclusion/position regarding that hypothesis is? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

He does not endorse Krahe, just mentions him, he is more interested in debunking any Slavic influence on the Vjose name (dedicating several pages on this) and thus pointing out that Albanians came before the Slavs. The rest of that part goes on "includes this river name among the Illyrian geographical names. According to this scholar, the following forms are evidenced: (nominative) Aous by Plinius and Livius,". In 153 page, before the Aias part he writes "In a footnote Krahe points out: "The relationship between these two names is not clear. ...". In 154 he gives a list of the variant names in the middle ages to the 19th century, from 1305 to 1888.Megistias (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, thanks so far. (BTW, I assume you too are reading this on Google books. Does anybody know why some of us can see more of the text than others?) – Can I still ask, what "two names" is that sentence referring to? Aoos and Aias? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You can try to "" the text you want to see in the search, and add part of the text found on the page. You can in this way see more of the text and by adding proper words, see most of the page. The two names refers to something that Krahe says at 153, i think its the name change to Vojusa but i can't see it clearly. Its Krahe so you should be able to find it in Krahe's 1925, Die Alten balkaniIllyrischen geographischenMegistias (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Basin section

[38] this will help for some info on the basin. --sulmues (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Entered the map as per rivers policies. --sulmues (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Map doesnt fit in the article yet, we 'll do something about that in the futureMegistias (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It fit just fine. It is the map of the basin. Why did you get it out? --sulmues (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I brought the map of the river's basin back. --sulmues (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"definite form"

I notice Factuarius was also revert-warring recently over the sentence "Vjosa is the definite form in Albanian". This is absurd. How could a brief note explaining a morphological alternation between the two Albanian name forms constitute "POV pushing" [39]? Does Factuarius even understand what "definite form" means? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the policy of Wikipedia in regards to stating all the declination forms of a word when the name of the place stems from case rich languages such as Greek, Albanian, or German. A word is declined in indefinite or definite forms in Albanian, so you have potentially 10 forms (5 cases each). In official Albanain only the indefinite form of the nominative case is used for place names in a dictionary (and aside is stated the definite form), but I noticed that the Greek editors tend to give all forms, and I did the same. Could someone please clarify as to what forms are we supposed to write on an article? --sulmues (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My suspicion is Factuarius' reverts actually had nothing to do with it. Maybe he thought "X is the definite form in Albanian" was a botched-up way of saying "its name is definitely X in Albanian"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fut never ending terrorizing me, now is in my mind. My mistake. --Factuarius (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit

Hey what are you doing Kushtrim? diff. Please restore it.Megistias (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just deleted a source for the Kalivac project that did not exist any longer - not only the link, but the entire website was not reachable. Further, I corrected the sentence that the 90 MW Kalivac power plant was generating electricity. I passed by recently and found the construction work still stalled, and local engineers told me that since many years, there is no construction progress. The construction group, though, pretends it, see . No other sources could be found that tell why construction is stopped since so long. -Bjorn, June 6th, 2012

Name

Still waiting replies for my proposition of 17/3 about the name. If we have a consensus I am going to move it tomorrow. --Factuarius (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you mean moving it to a bilingual name, I oppose. See Talk:Soča for a similar case. Markussep ^Talk 16:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

From your previous post about the Google hits you suggest Aoos or am I wrong? --Factuarius (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On 4 March I wrote "My conclusion is: both names are used and valid, neither one is "bad" as a title. I see no compelling reason to move either way.", and I still feel that way. Markussep ^Talk 16:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)