Talk:Selci, Struga

	North Macedonia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Notices of the Bulgarian Cartographic Society from 1903.

Such a statement is an absurd for several reasons. 1. The Bulgarian Cartographic Society was established in 1918, i.e. 15 years later. 2. The cited study does not cite an original author. 3. The statements in the study contradict all other Bulgarian studies from this period cited in the article. Probably this is a mistake or some kind of inaccuracy. I suggest that this data be transferred here until a second reliable source is found to support it, although I doubt it. Jingiby (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I think is absurd here, is that you have cited Slav sources ranging from 1893-1911 by the looks of it, and you are claiming that they hold more academic weight than a book published on the region in 2005. The sources you have cited do not seem to be NPOV, nor do they seem to be RS. I will attempt to find more recent sources on the Malësia region of Struga, but I see no reason as to why the sources you have used should be prioritised over the 2005 book that has been cited. Botushali (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Botushali, the secondary source you mentioned in this article should be based on a Bulgarian primary one. I cannot find any such primary source in Bulgarian, confirming that info. The secondary source in Albanian that you point, should describe it. Can you indicate who is the Bulgarian author of that primary source, where this study was published, what is its title and on which page in the primary source are quoted these data published in the secondary source. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Botushali, Jingiby's concerns and points are valid. I am familiar with these areas and the credible scholarly literature overwhelmingly note them as being Slavic. Yes, the village and others are in a region that bears the Albanian origin name Malesija and nearby in Golloborda (Alb and Mac parts there are a few old Albanian toponyms for Slavic inhabited places (Pareš or the hybrid Gjinovec, both identified by Pianka Włodzimierz in 1970). Those kinds of things do not make the people there defacto "Albanian" or of Albanian origin. Personally i am in favour of removing all additions based on Dervishi and his citing of The Bulgarian Cartographic Society source on all wiki articles that have them. @Botushali you can either scan or take pics of the pages where Dervishi writes this and if the footnotes are on another page, post that page as well (can be done through here [1]. I want to have a look as i can read both Albanian and have certain degrees of knowledge of Balkan Slavic languages and their writing systems. Otherwise all additions will need to be removed. .Resnjari (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, Jingiby I have been biding my time on responding to this until I'd have time to look for the map myself - I was already thinking on whether or not I should just write up the source's quote exactly so that all can see and correct any translation or the like. I'd personally disagree - if an Albanian toponym has been preserved after invaders have taken over the region (and considering these invaders practically changed every toponym they came across, rarely ever preserving native toponyms), then I'd say it strongly suggests the presence of Albanians. Nonetheless, my thoughts on the matter are unimportant, whereas what's written in sources is extremely important. I will upload the pages talking about Malesija and the map in question - perhaps you'd have more like finding what map he's talking about. I intend to go on holiday next year and see it for myself to verify it. As a note, Resnjari, the "dokumentet bullgare" that he mentions I believe refer to the map he cited on the previous page, but I could be wrong. Botushali (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stick to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). To weight different views and structure an article so as to avoid original research and synthesis the common views of scholars should be consulted. In many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - but I'd argue many of the sources you used are hardly the work of credible scholars. Dr. Nebi Dervishi, the author of the book I've cited, graduated from the University of Prishtina with a Bachelor of History in 1978, then proceeded by graduating with his masters in 1981 at the same university before graduating with a PhD from the University of Tirana in 1997. Quite clearly, he is not simply masquerading as a scholar, and if the book was available to read online you'd be able to see the plethora of sources he's utilised in the detailed Sources and Literature section (16 pages worth, all in all). Furthermore, I'd like to highlight the dates of the sources used on this page as something that should be worth nothing. Nonetheless, I will upload those pages now and paste them onto this TP if possible. Botushali (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is not masquerading, but if his source can not be found elsewhere apart from his book and the year given for an academic body having published the source in question did not exist at that time, then that brings up a whole host of issues about having confidence in what he is saying. Botushali having had a look at some of your wiki editing, i see your new so i'll go into a few pointers. Wiki editors whatever their background edit based on things like their strengths (academic, knowledge of a topic) or just out of interest done often in good faith. Editing is also done based on RELIABLE sources and edits, i.e wording etc should be WP:NPOV. Some editors who previously engaged in the Balkans topic area have been banned because they exhibited WP:NATIONALIST tendencies or WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. This is not to say anything about you, but that you need to be familiar with these kinds of things and not get bogged down in unnecessary quagmires. As with all Balkan scholarship some especially from back in the day are problematic because they were taught to research through either nationalist or communist frameworks. So for Albanians, the Rilindja framework of everyone is an invader, etc ,etc is present. There is much more. Read Historiography of Albania. On this unless your sources are to the point, best not to add them because its making a big claim that all these villages were Albanian speaking some time back in the modern period of 2 centuries which really is not the case.Resnjari (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the point I'm trying to make - please take a look at the sources Jingiby has used and the authors, as well as the dates. It would be hard to say that Slavic sources from 1893-1911 do not include "research" through a certain lens when it comes to this topic. Judging by your edits and the like you seem like an intelligent person, so I'm sure you are well aware of this. Botushali (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links: https://ibb.co/9HgqXZM https://ibb.co/KDcK4QD

These are the two relevant pages - the first one, towards the middle, discusses the map in question (the rest of it is not really relevant to Malesija). The second link, in the top paragraph, contains the Malesija information. Botushali (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I see in the Albanian text is that it is claimed to be citing a study of the Bulgarian Geographic Society and part of it is cited. At the same time, its author and where it was published is not indicated, nor the original publication is given under line. This is rather strange, not to say very doubtful. Jingiby (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure if "Geographic" is the right word either - I feel "Cartographic" would be more appropriate but I am not sure. The author says that the Institution published 3 maps on the vilayets of Kosovo, Selanik and Manastir, and that there are some statistics that have been published to accompany the maps by said society. Right below that, the passage of text in quotation marks is a direct quote from the published material. I will try and find a detailed citation in the references section of the book, bear with me. Botushali (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there was no Bulgarian Cartographic Society, but only a Bulgarian Geographical Society established in 1918. Check here, please. Jingiby (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the group Dr. Dervishi is referring to is the same as the one that had a role in this [2] - "Based on a 1:126,000-scale Bulgarian map produced by the Cartographic Institute, Sofia, 1903;" Botushali (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible. This is a map of the Dragoman Pass based on a 1:126,000-scale Bulgarian map produced by the Cartographic Institute, Sofia, 1903. The Cartographic Institute in Sofia is in fact the Military Geographic Service (Bulgarian Army) founded in 1891. However the Dragoman pass is close to Sofia. Jingiby (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that not possible? That could very well be the same Cartographic Institute that created the maps Dr. Dervishi is referring to. I am currently trying to get into contact with him and ask for a specific citation of the map, but nonetheless, I don't see why this same institute cannot be the one he is referring to. Botushali (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I have found is that the Cartographic Institute of the Bulgarian Army issued such a map, but in 1902, not in 1903. Only two originals from it have been preserved in very poor condition. The first version is kept torn in separate parts in the National Library "St. St. Cyril and Methodius ”in Sofia. Part of the second version was found in the library of the Bulgarian Exarchate in Sofia, and another part in the private collection of the artist Kl. Atanasov in Burgas. The card was restored in its entirety by a specialized company only in 2016. Dervishi published his study 15 years earlier. All this is an absurd story. Check here. Jingiby (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using a news agency article to judge a scholarly source seems more absurd - there are a number of archives and documents referenced in the back of the book, usually in titled sets, so once I get the exact reference from Dervishi I shall place it here, should he respond. Botushali (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave you a processed information. Here you can see the scientific publication on the case, but you will hardly find your way. Look at pp. 14-15. © Дигитална възстановка 2002 –2019, ДА „Тракия” –ГЕОПАН. Карта на Македония и Одринския вилает –1902, М 1:500 000. Jingiby (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Botushali, Jingiby, did a bit of a search. ok looks like there was a Bulgarian Institute of Cartography based in Sofia in the early 1900s. I had a look at Wilkinson's study Maps and Politics: A Review of the Ethnographic Cartography of Macedonia which looked at all those ethnographic maps pre 1950 and is still considered in modern scholarship as the best work to date on this kind of thing. The only ethnographic map produced by the Cartographic Institute was for the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1901, not 1903. Wilkinson also notes on pp.131-132 (copy of book is here: [3]) that a large part of it complemented Kanchov's map [4] and work. As a side note Kanchov never coloured Struga's Malesija area as Orth Alb, only villages in Upper Reka. Point is that Dervishi says on p.173 the ethnographic maps are from 1903 (he has the date wrong). On p.175 he writes "Në dokumentet bullgare fshatrat e Malësise figurojnë me shumicë shqiptare ortodokse, por sot janë asimiluar." (translation: "In Bulgarian documents the villages of Malesija appear with an Albanian Orthodox majority, but today they have been assimilated.") That's a sweeping statement to make in one sentence without offering much more than that. First off, all villages that have Dervishi as a source saying this should be removed because he does not refer to specific villages and the wiki addition to all them makes it WP:SYNTHESIS bordering on WP:OR. The only article that at the moment can have it is the Malesija one as it mentions the topic in question (even there i'm not comfortable with it). Still considering Dervishi got the date wrong, and has a slim sentence with little info and no ref, it's hard to fathom that the Bulgarian Exharchate referred to these villages as Orth Alb as opposed to Slavic Bulgarian.Resnjari (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the source, he specifically refers to Globocica as well, so I believe it should be kept on both Malesija and Globocica articles. I understand why the other articles would warrant a removal, but I've seen no sources stating the contrary for those either, and, like this article, I'm sure there are early 20th century Slavic sources on some of them but I'd question their reliability for obvious reasons. Nonetheless, Resnjari if you want to remove them per this TP, go ahead - Malesija and Globocica should remain, however. I think there may very well be some errors on Dervishi's part in regards to the date, but hopefully he responds to my attempts of communication and can clarify the source in question. Botushali (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Botushali, i know what you mean, but he is not specific, even for Globocica, he refers to "dokumentet bulgare" (Bulgarian documents). When making this kind of claim Dervishi needs to be on the ball and he is not. On problematic Slavic sources, if you mean people like Gopcevic and especially Cvijic, yeah, the editors who added that rubbish years ago have been topic banned for nationalist editing and or socking wiki accounts. There is a lot to clean up with that, a lot has been removed but yes some is still out there. There are only so many editors to deal with that. Point is we don't need to add more sources that create new issues. I am not against Dervishi but this is poor form on his part regarding referencing especially on a big statement that a whole region's population was once Orth Alb. I've noticed recently that some Alb academics and journalists like Marin Mema (who once did really good journalism but has gone down the nationalist rabbit hole these few years) are pushing the line that the Muslim Macedonian population in the area were also once Albanian. Beware of that kind of amateurish claims. I may come off as a prick on this, but its because i've been let down in the past by some Albanian academic sources. I don't want you making similar errors investing all that time doing edits to then have to have them undone because a certain scholar was sloppy or worse in their work. Sometimes before adding just double check what they have written or sourced something to. I'll remove Dervishi from the rest. I am interested in Jingiby's thoughts for Malesija and Globocica and the Dervishi source. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]