User talk:Calthinus

Hi Calthinus, so I guess the main issue I have with your map is that uninhabited areas are shown as "Albanian", i.e. it seems red (Albanian) is the default color. Now for areas in the north, that's obviously fine, but for areas in the south that is obviously problematic. Example: The coast northwest of Palasa is shown red, even though 1) The nearest village is Greek, 2) Toponyms are Greek (e.g. Gramma bay, Acroceraunian Mountains, 3) The coastline is accessible only from Greek towns (e.g. boat trips to Gramata bay depart from Himara town). Thus, the western slopes of the Acroceraunian range should be colored in blue, not red. Same thing with the slopes of the Aeropos/Nemercke: The western slopes in the Pogon region should be colored blue, the eastern red. Also, I think Himara town, which is predominantly Greek, occupies a far larger area than shown in your map, and adjacent uninhabited areas should be colored blue. Alternatively, uninhabited areas should be left blank, but I think the result would be visually unappealing. But I cannot accept a situation where all uninhabited areas are colored red by default. Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still overdue for some fixes which I said id do "immediately" (oops, I meant "wiki-immediately which is "in a week"). I suppose I can also review the Pogon and Himara regions. I have a version of the file on my computer with the old commune boundary lines. I'll temporarily upload a clipping of that for discussion use probably in a few days, so we can discuss this properly as its pretty fine grained. Thanks for your input. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus' map does the same thing that Winnifrith's map does with the Greek community (who gives that outline of Greek population in the Himara area -Calthinus actually shows more). Also to take a similar example that been around for many years on Wik.ipedia.Pro, the ethno-linguistic map on Greece does not leave as uncoloured or blank the uninhabited areas [21] - and Greece has a lot of uninhabited mountainous terrain, especially the large Pindus area. I should also note that Alexikoua's map does not highlight uninhabited areas (nor Khirug have you asked Alexikoua to make such changes), yet alone the other issues that map has. Many villages that have become depopulated (due to migration and urbanisation post 1992) with no people are in the Albanian speaking zone, especially in the northern highlands that are Albanian with no new population moving in. Calthinus' map should cover the confines of what a village covers, hence whatever geography assigned to it within the cadastre registry as it has officially outlined it and not extra land (i'll also note that some small former Albanian settlements like Mesare which no longer exist are now within the confines of other villages like Greek Vllaho-Psillotere). Calthinus, here are the two links: the very detailed topographic soviet army maps of Albania [22] and the official Albanian cadastre registry [23] (click on the maps option at the top of the webpage and it will open up to a page that has a map legend and many cartographic options that contain various in depth military topographic maps and other options to see the cadastre village confines as well) for any small fixes to your map. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: I appreciate your response. However please be aware I will follow up on this and will not abide by any map that shows uninhabited areas as red. Khirurg (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirug, same goes for other maps and i too will follow those up as well for consistency. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking to you. And there is no need to obsessively follow me around and respond to all my posts. Khirurg (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have this page on my watchlist, as i have many others. I was heavily involved in all the map discussions. Far as i see it, this is a another discussion on the map. In the comment above i provided Calthinus with very good cartographic sources. Soviet army topographic maps are of highest quality (that even something like google maps cannot equal), they even show former settlements (though in smaller and finer print on the map). Additionally the source on cadastre village/town/city boundaries is sufficient for the things you raise. Geography located within a settlement's confines ought to be coloured by the colour of that predominant ethnic group etc and no further than that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg Resnjari see picture and explanation on the left. --Calthinus (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what you mean about "communes", but what about individual settlements, e.g. Himara town? Also, shouldn't we state in the caption that most Aromanians and many Orthodox Albanian-speakers have Greek sentiment? Khirurg (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Himara town is covered blue. I'm pretty sure. The blue-magenta boundary should be the midway point between it and nearby Pilur which speaks Albanian. Then the towns further after that are also Albanian until Dhermi and Palase. The caption idea was Resnjari's compromise proposal I believe. I didnt catch any response to it at the time. I preferred it over fighting but now that we have this side by side with Alexis map which shows Greeks in many more places I dont think its necessary. My aim was to make a map that was simply language and religion-- the verifiable stuff-- not "national sentiment". Indeed it could come off as an anti-Orthodox double standard (defamation of the Albanian Orthodox typically revolves around their supposed propensity toward pro-Greek conspiracies, its all nasty hogwash and also anti-Greek I'm sure you know) if I did that for the Orthodox but didnt discuss all the other such phenomena that existed at the turn of the 20th century. For example there was also pro-Romanian and pro-Albanian sentiment among Vlachs, and an "Ottoman" national identity that competed with the Albanian one among Sunnis in some areas right up until the empire no longer existed. And then nobody likes to admit it but many people didnt have any national identity at all at that time. I'd rather not deal with these things at all on a language and religion map. I figure readers who are interested in the Greeks can already infer those factors and deduce what they need to know in the South-- all Orthodox communities share their lighter shade from the Muslim ones. Sorry for longwindedness.--Calthinus (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. A few more points though: 1) In addition to Himara town proper, there is also Himara fshat, which extends to the northwest, and is almost entirely Greek, 2) I think you have the Cham areas in the south stretch a little too far north, 3) what are the Albanian villages in the Mesopotamos/Livadia/Dhrovian area? As far as I can tell there are 3: Sopik (Orthodox), Pandeleimon (Cham), and Navarice (Muslim) but in the map I see 5. By the way, I found the old commune boundaries extremely helpful. You may consider adding them (or the new ones). It's otherwise very difficult to locate individual settlements. Cheers, Khirurg (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) On Himara fshat I think you might be right actually. My bad. Will look into this.

The rest-- I'll be back later with my notes from Kallivretakis with pages on this. Gotta run. Cheers.--Calthinus (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pece and Muzine are Orth, Alb and near Navarice geographically -they form a Albanian speaking cluster in the area. Also one of the blue hatched lines (the most southern one in the whole map) ought to be removed for the Orthodox village of Cifliq, in the deep south. Navarice should not be hatched, not a mixed Albanian-Greek village, but a fully Albanian one. The Soviet army maps and the cadastre records go a good way to making the settlement confines more crisp and fine. The Soviet map also shows the two neighbourhoods of Qeparo (one Orth Alb. and one Greek in Kallivretakis) which are some distance from each other. Instead of having Qeparo hatched as mixed you can actually colour it solidly for both ethnicities depending on the location of either neighbourhood. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navarice is not hatched, rather it looks like there are TWO muslim villages, which is incorrect. One of the patches (I'm guessing the southern one) should be removed. Furthermore, Navarice is a very small village, and it occupies way too many pixels on the map. Khirurg (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In its cadastre boundary, Navarice takes in a bit of surrounding geography as it covers a sizable area located in hilly terrain with other settlements some distance away from it. See the cadastre map registry and that map + Soviet maps as well.Resnjari (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add that Navarice is a large settlement in the area of some 3700 people [24].Resnjari (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever. I counted less than 100 houses on google earth, and probably most of those are empty nowadays anyway. Pop. is 489 according to Kallivretakis (and probably much lower nowadays). It's also hemmed in pretty closely to the north,, west and south by Greek villages. Nice source by the way, where did you find it? And are you sure it's 3700 and not 37,000 or 370,000? Anyway, it's not your map so I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time addressing you. Khirurg (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from Albanian media, because the village is in Albania. I don't know if reporters went there during the summer when many people come home from seasonal work abroad, but it still has a significant population. Neighbouring Greek villages also had the same experience of depopulation as well, migrating to Greece and some doing the seasonal return thing in the summer. Thing is no one else has moved into those villages so they are still Greek and the case is the same countless times over for villages in the whole country. Not many villages have undergone religious or ethnic change post 1992. The main change has been depopulation due to urbanisation and migration (at times both factors) Regardless over matters of population growth or contraction, the cadastre registry exists and shows what area is with a settlement's confines. We have the maps and sources to be precise about this. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Ok, hopefully I'll hit everything here.

Himara -- haven't found this "Himara fshat" extending to the west yet at least. However I did mess up. Pilur is to the Northeast not the Northwest. So I need to extend the Greek blue along the coast till the Vuno-Himara midpoint, and move the magenta further down inland to the Himara-Pilur midpoint. I'm bolding this so that I can look at this discussion later and easily see what I need to do despite all the text, so please don't bold anything else in your comments. Sorry for asking that.

Qeparo -- Resnjari I can't do this if I don't know which one is Greek and which is Albanian. Otherwise sure I can color the neighborhoods in Qeparo separately.

Ciflik -- Resnjari, Kallivretakis has Greeks here. Kallivretakis is my source for the region.

Hatching -- both of you are wrong. Khirurg, they are hatched, not separate villages. Resnjari it means "mixed areas" not "mixed villages". I also use hatched lines to denote insignificant villages of one group surrounded by a dominant other group. I do this all over the map. You can see it with Shipska for Vlachs surrounded by Sunni Albanians. The entire region of Shenpremtja is like this but its because there's almost entirely Vlach villages surrounded by almost entirely Muslim (Sunni, Bektashi) Albanian ones. This happens again with Vlachs in Andon Poci -- exclusively Vlach as per Thede Kahl's map in Schwandler Sievers' Aromanian Awakening. I probably really overdid it there, the hatching is way too big for one small town. I can see now why this might be confusing. Perhaps I will fix it. It requires a lot of work. The Soviet map will be a big help -- thanks a ton Resnjari -- with that as Google Maps (which I was using before) is really sketchy in some areas. Also btw Khirurg if you actually took the time to count the number of houses in a random village on Google Maps I feel very sorry for you.

Mesopotam(i/os) and Navarice in Dhiver -- Resnjari is right, the two Albanian Orthodox villages are Peca and Muzina. Kardhikaq is mixed Vlach/Greek. Bistrica is just mixed overall-- which at this point I would infer Albanian/Greek/Vlach (ironically the name is a classic Slavic toponym). Looking at the map it's clear that although Peca and Muzina are totally Albanian I have the area around them as mixed as they are surrounded by Greek (Dhrovjan, etc) towns or mixed ones (Bistrica, Kardhikaq). Bistrica (Alb/Vlach/Greek) and Kardhikaq (Vlach/Greek, no Albs) are both portrayed as mixed with the hatching region being smaller. Perhaps if we are going to be sticklers I will need to mark these villages individually-- but I almost want to say I'd rather have hatching as if we do that, I will have to do work locating all the village midpoints, and then after I've done all that, there may be issues like the ones we just saw in the Himara region where I did use midpoints rather than hatching -- mostly because it sorts itself more easily into Albanian and Greek areas than do areas like Vurg or Shenpremtja.

There is not a significant Albanophone pocket in Vurg. Peca and Muzina are close to each toher. But you have to go through Greek areas (either Livine or Dhrovjan) to reach Navarice from them. Navarice is small. Kallivretakis has less than 500 there. Idk about this 3700 from Albanian media. I would rather stick with Kallivretakis' rigorous demographic study than media sources. As per Kallivretakis, the Albanian population of both Mesopotam and Dhiver is small.

The map has a disclaimer that it overrepresents regional minorities. The hatching scheme I used for small and isolated villages that are one ethnicity that is surrounded by a dominant other ethnicity is the same across the map. In Vurg it is dominant Greeks with solidly Albanian villages surrounded. For the rest of hte map it is the "reverse" where Albanians are dominant and we have scattered minorities (most often Vlachs). The scheme ensures minorities are visible but do not make it look like there are significant pockets where there aren't because they are only tiny villages surrounded by others. Hence there is a slight overrepresentation of minorities -- this "hurts" Greeks in Vurg but it more significantly "hurts" Albanians almost everywhere else. Either proposal (fewer pixels as per Khirurg, solid areas as per Resnjari) if implemented would have to be applied to the whole map, not just Vurg, for consistency's sake. That said, it is possible I make mistakes. I'm checking the Soviet maps now.

Sorry for my habitual rambling. Cheers guys, --Calthinus (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg forgot to mention-- I thought the version with the commune boundaries made the ethnic distributions hard to see because they're so many. It'd be difficult to correctly make the modern municipality boundaries as some of the lines have apparently changed. What I can do, if you want, is make one that shows the boundaries for cluster of communes with large Greek populations stretching from Himara to Carcove. The only hairball in this area is Xarre, which isn't that bad (i.e. not like some parts of Myzeqe, Vlore, etc). --Calthinus (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about Peca and Muzina, those are easily spotted. I'm talking about the two muslim pockets (or hatches) to the south of them. As far as I can tell, the only Muslims in the area are at Navarice, which since it is a small village surrounded by Greek villages, the whole area there should be blue per your above explanation. There is also an orthodox Albanian pocket north of Sopik that doesn't seem to belong. Btw, I didn't count the houses in Navarice, a quick glance on Google Earth is enough to tell that at most there are not more than ~100 houses. At 4-5 people per house (reasonable for the 90s, much less now probably), 400-500 is plausible. 3700 is just ludicrous. Khirurg (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinius, ok fair enough. On Qeparo, the Greek part of the village (known by Greeks as Ano Kiparo or Upper Qeparo) is the larger settlement located in the hilly area (the original core of the village), and the Orthodox Albanian smaller part is on the coast. On the Soviet army map [25] its written as Кепарой (in larger print for the upper part and smaller print for the lower part). Hope that assists. Another thing is the Greek stripe you have over Voskopoje. The settlement in the early 19th century was noted as having Aromanians only [26], and Greek consular reports of the late Ottoman period note it was populated by Aromanian and Orthodox Albanian speakers (the latter having arrived in the settlement after troubles in the Opar area) [27]. In the modern area also no Greeks are cited by De Rapper [28]. A correction is needed there. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirug, regardless of its size, a small clarification on Navarice. The village borders Greek villages in closer proximity on its western, northern and southern flanks. On its eastern side villages are not close and it instead borders uninhabited hilly terrain (see soviet army map [29] written as Наварнца). This is the same even in Austro-Hungarian topographic military maps of the late 19th and early 20th century showing the same [30] (written on the map as Avarica). Navarice in the Albanian cadastre registry map has its village confines contain all that hilly uninhabited geography and it forms part of its village confines. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sopik, Pandelejmon, and Navarica are all hatched. The hatching or Pandelejmon happens to connect to the Sunni Cham area to the south. This was actually incorrect-- I placed Pandelejmon too far south, it is in fact roughly in line with Sopik and the area I hatched included Greek Vagalat, so it should be moved further north. Since the hatching in this area is confusing Khirurg, I propose the following solution to you both Khirurg and Resnjari:

• For Navarice, the hatching lines are made to be 2 pixels in width. There will be two of them, with 3 pixels in between. THey will be extended eastward into the wilderness which apparently is part of Navarice's official confines.

• Pandelejmon is moved 3 pixels north.

• Sopik and Pandelejmon are connected, and similarly made to be 2 pixels wide, with three in between, and they are connected to fill the space between them as there is no Greek village in between.

Does this work? --Calthinus (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of hatching since these villages are not mixed. The cadastral area of Navarice should be shown in brown, the cadastral area of the neighboring Greek villages should be shown in blue. These are very small villages and currently they occupy an area on the map far out of proportion of their size. Hatching unmixed village makes things worse by exaggerating the area even more. As for Moscopole, of course there were Greeks there [31] (p. 278). Khirurg (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirug, umm i don't see Greeks, i see Aromanians cited who were divided between those who were pro Greek (sentiments) and those who where pro-Romanian (sentiments). An Albanian Christian presence had established itself there as well and the Greek consular report makes no mention of anyone else. Either Aromanians exist as a group or they never did and where all Greek ? Can't have it both ways. Otherwise we enter POV territory of all Muslim Albanians were "Turk" because some number, in particular Sunni's were very pro-Ottoman, Catholic Albanians as Italians or Latinates etc,, etc. Or for that matter the whole Orthodox Balkans was Greek because until the 19th century all where under the Patriarchate, had Greek liturgy and saw themselves as having a common Orthodox identity transcending other localised ethno-linguistic identities which in some circles is in interpreted as being Greek (however that is defined) . @Calthinus, On Navarica, Sopik and Pandelejmon, yeah thats good. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moscopole was and is an Aromanian settlement, but there were always Greek merchants there before its destruction. Regardless of the past, there is a Greek language institute in the town currently, which means Greek is spoken, so a blue line is due. My point regarding hatching stands. Mixed areas (Delvino, Gjirokaster, Korca, etc...) should be hatched, but I don't see why unmixed villages such as Navarice should be hatched. It greatly exaggerates their significance, when all is needed is to show the cadastral area of the village in the color of the group inhabiting it. Also, Calthinus, I have source that states that as of 1994, there were 8,000 Greeks in Vlore city [32], which is a plausible figure and not insignifcant. Khirurg (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Vlore and Gjirokaster there where very few Greek families in the Ottoman period (Kokolakkis: [33] p.52. "β. Ο διεσπαρμένος ελληνόφωνος πληθυσμός περιλάμβανε... και μικρό αριθμό οικογενειών στα αστικά κέντρα του Αργυροκάστρου και της Αυλώνας.") and the more sizable Greek presence in Gjirokaster and Vlore is a later modern day occurrence. Albanians were a majority then and still are (Kallivretakis notes this for Gjirokaster and De Soto notes this of Vlore [34] p.3. On Voskopoje, i am glad Khirug you noted that it is a Aromanian settlement. It also has a sizable amount Orthodox Albanians as well (for more then a century now) and in the modern era Muslims too (as per De Rapper). A few Greek merchants who were mobile is still no reason for it having a Greek stripe over it. Yet alone a Greek institute. Tirana has one too. Are we going to place a stripe over Tirana due to that? Albanian Ottoman soldiers (and Turkish ones too) were all over places in what is now modern Greece, but were not going to hatch sizable portions of Greece with Muslim Albanian lines on the ethno-linguistic map (not to mention the sizable number of modern day Muslim Albanian migrants that are there today. The hatching for mixed areas ought to be done in a way that shows a minority, but not a 50/50 split or plurality of Greeks, as that is not the case over a century ago or the modern era. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Khirurg and Resnjari since it seems you both agree that ethnic pocket villages should be solid and agree on the cadastre boundaries as the bounds, I can be pragmatic and do that for Vurg. Don't know when and if I can implement that for Shenpremtja, Opar etc (though I guess one could argue they are different due to the historically pastoral nature of Vlach populations).

On Vlore -- thanks for the source Khirurg. Actually, however, Vlora already has Greeks on the map though-- they interlock with the Jews and Muslims in the Western part of the city, and the blue is continuous with the Greek blue of the Narta Lagoon. Still the source is useful as I realize I can't seem to locate my earlier source on Greeks in Vlore (it had them at 6%, if that rings any bells...). 6% was obv below the threshold but I actually made a tiny mark for Vlore's Catholics too (significant as its the only significant late Ottoman Catholic population in South Albania), so there's symmetrical treatment. Resnjari I'm pretty sure it's good to mark: the earlier Ottoman demographics differ markedly from the later ones which the map relates, because the city changed from mostly Catholic to being 33% Jewish in the 16th century, to nearly entirely Sunni after the mass conversion, and then eventually majority Bektashi at the end of Ottoman rule, and there are plenty of nearby Greek populations that likely came to the city as part of urbanization.

Gjirokastra -- similarly it's well-known that earlier Ottoman records aren't relevant for the later history of the city which is what the map charts. Greeks from neighboring regions came to the city as part of urbanization (as Orthodox and Bektashi Albanians did too).

Moscopole -- admittedly my source for the Greekness of teh city is definitely not the best -- Aravandinos (probs wouldn't survive RSN tbh). If by its destruction, we're referring to the 18th/19th century events then its probably too early (if that refers to Sali Butka's actions, not so). Do either of you know of sources besides Aravandinos which place Greek speakers in Moscopole for some time after ~1870? --Calthinus (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koukoudis is your main guy for the 18th and 19th century as well. He even discusses the emergence of Voskopoje from small settlement clusters of shepherd huts until its destruction many centuries later (it was not Ali Pasha but local Ottoman feudal lords and 3 raids). Koukoudis goes on for pages and pages. Overall the Aromanian population with a Greek religious and literary culture is highlighted. But most Orthodox from the Danube to the Levant during the Ottoman era had Greek religious and literary culture. If where going to be using that as a marker of being Greek that is problematic and going into POV territory. Muslims in the Balkans used Arabic script etc due to Islam, no one would speak of them as Arab. Anyway on the Vlora and Gjirokaster matters, the Greek presence was not big in the Ottoman period and is recent. Their arrival overall to those urban centres is not large enough to have disturbed the ethnic balance and Albanians are still the majority population. Placing Greek lines needs to be done in a way (like you did with Permet) that shows they are there without the implication that the settlement is 50/50 or majority Greek otherwise its going into POV territory. With Aromanians in the Opar etc, just do what you did for Vrug using the cadastre registry. Aromanians overall live in certain settlements and are not to spread out (Enver settled some nomadic one here or there (it mainly affected the Orthodox Macedonian villages like Boboshtica and Drenova causing demogprahic change). For both past and present settlements use Kahl, he did fieldwork throughout Albania and consulted the archive at length for both past and present spread of Aromanians.Resnjari (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Gjirokaster Greek hatching is every third line (width 2 pixels)-- so it gives a 33-66% percent impression if anything not a 50-50 one I think unless I"m wrong (actually Kallivretakis has Greeks at a slightly higher rate than this I believe although he's more recent). Are you saying this is too much? --Calthinus (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: I think you have it right for Gjirokastra, your coloring is consistent with Kallivretakis. Regarding Vlore though, I don't think the blue from Narta lagoon extends into the city itself. Regarding Moscopole, well, since there is a Greek language institute in the town, that implies the presence of Greek speakers, and the map shows language, so the small blue stripe is appropriate. I'm also glad Resnjari brought up Tirana, because we do heave sources that there are Greeks in several major cities in Albania [35], so that should be addressed. Khirurg (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we really use a Greek langauge institute as source of a Greek language community? Gjirokastra has a French language institute... As for the cities, the map is not for the modern day but pre-communism. The only northern city I've heard of having Greeks is Durres-- but I don't have an RS on that at the moment (Tirana was only 8% Ortho in 1920 and most of these were Albanianized Vlachs from the Southeast). If you want to alleviate that, please do. --Calthinus (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirug, my point with Tirana was that having an Greek institute does not make a place be Greek. Tirana also has a Turkish language institute and a Italian language institute. Does not make the place Turkish or Italian. The Greek presence in those places is also new and small. I should note that Calthinus' map is of traditional areas of habitation, not a map on the internal migration pattern (forced or through choice) of Greeks under Enver Hoxha [36] and post-1992. Otherwise maps of Greece showing its linguistic situation today would show some Albanian stripes over Athens and Thesalloniki where sizable numbers of modern day Albanians now reside. Not to mention the many Urdu speaking Pakistani Muslims, Farsi speaking Muslim Afghanis, Egyptian Muslims and of course Bengali Muslims who in all number in the hundreds of thousands in Greece, living in Attica and surrounding areas. See this demographic map, the Argolis area has a lot of Muslims these days that scholars like Micheal Izady are highlighting [37] (its hatching depicts and 50/50 mixed situation). As you want far flung modern day small clusters of Greeks highlighted like those living in Shkoder and other places, I mean you would be ok with highlighting such things for Greece about newly arrived Muslims outside the traditional zone of habitation of Greek Thrace? Khirug i am very curious though in the attention you have taken regarding this map as to why you have not devoted this attention not once to Alexikoua's map over the years in correcting issues. For example like colouring areas of solid Muslim habitation as being "Greek", a map which you have defended in the past and are in favour of?Resnjari (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction in Permet. However, it appears that extensive regions are still painted in red while the correspondent scholarship is in straight disagreement. For example the Lukovo municipal unit is purely Albanian, though according to this source [[38]] Einfuhrung in die Albanologie, 2006 (p. 4-5) based on 1957 observations: Kakome is labelled as Greek speaking and the villages of Piqeras, Lukova und Sasaj are labelled as "Greek-speaking pockets". That's interesting because the specific observations were conducted prior to the forced relocations by the People's Republic authorities.Alexikoua (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kallivretakis, in his fieldwork noted a different reality and compared matters to previous data and concluded its the same as before with few execptions which he noted. In Lukova and Piqeras he found small numbers of Greeks, not the village being outright Greek (i should note that Kallivratakis did another study [39] in relation to Piqeras noting it being Albanian speaking further back as a large number of them migrated to southern Italy in the 18th century due to local troubles) Sasaj is wholly populated by Muslim Albanians, a thing that even Greek army statistics of 1919 noted. The source you have presented is not even clear saying some villages are mixed or Greek speaking but not saying which one or lumping everything into one. For example Fiedler lists Kakoméa-Bametat-Lefterohor-Derviçan-Nepravishtë-Poliçani all that in that category. So you would have no qualms about coloring villages like Batamat, Lefterohor, Dervican and Polican which Kallivratakis lists as being wholly Greek villages being coloured as mixed with Albanian ? But i do agree on on your interesting remark that those villages that are listed about being wholly Greek by Kallivretakis should be hatched as Albanian (as per your source). While Nepravista is Muslim Albanian something that even the Greek army statistics noted in 1919. Your source also claims that there are 25 Cham villages around Konispol ! Can you please list them because that source is wrong. Kallivretakis does not list that (nor do Greek ones), nor do even Albanian sources. Or should one infer by your comments about relocations that there were once 25 Cham villages in the Konispol area and then Enver removed them and thats why now we have lots Greek majority villages in the area. I can go on here. @Alexikoua:, before jumping the gun on other peoples maps, when are you going to start correcting your POV map that colours areas of solid Muslim Albanian habitation as Greek? And what about the omission of other Muslim communities like the Gorani, or Romani for that matter and others too? Alexikoua the Albanian Muslims, when are they going to be shown in your map as existing instead of POV colouring them as Greeks?Resnjari (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Alexikoua you clearly aren't looking at the map closely because it does not show Lukova as clearly Albanian but has Vlachs and Greeks as per Kallivretakis and etc. As for that source, well, I must examine it further but "25 Cham villages around Konispol" looks .... really weird... as pretty much all sane sources about Konispol have 4-5 (one is mixed) not 25 Cham villages around it.--Calthinus (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari: It appears you didn't read my comments correct: Kallivretakis is based on 1990 data while the paper I've provided is based on a 1953 study, prior to the "policies" of the PRA. I assume that the tiny blue dot above Saranda is about Kakome, but the three villages above Kakome are clearly on the red painted area. If we believe the 1957 study the coastal area between Qeparo and Kakome is Greek with the exeption of Borsh & Qazim Pali. I assume you find it weird about the 25 villages around Konispol because Kallivretakis doesn't inlude several minor settlements in his list (Kakome and Perdikar aren't found in Kallivretakis' list too).Alexikoua (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read that data. Did you read my comments? Your source lists 25 Cham villages. Which are they ? Or is it science fiction? It claims Bametat-Lefterohor-Derviçan-Nepravishtë-Poliçani as being mixed villages etc as well. Taking this into account your source is with errors. As it is with errors why should it be considered accurate, or to put it in another way selectively accurate for a settlement or two? Moreover, Kallivretakis' study states that the demographics of the settlements as found in 1992 aligns with previous compared data (going back into the 19th century) except in few exceptions where there was change in the modern era -and he cites those. Kakome and Perdikar are hamlets of larger villages. See the Soviet army topogrpahic army maps. Perdhikar is a hamlet [40][41] of Karroq (a village listed as wholly Greek by Kallivretakis) and the hamlet within Karroq's village boundaries -see the cadastre registry. Kakome is a coastal hamlet near Cape Qefali [42][43] of Nivice-Bubar and falls within its village boundaries -see the cadastre registry. Kallivretakis notes the small Greek community of 30 persons in the overwhelmingly Orthodox Albanian village of Nivice-Bubar. Calthinius' map give a thin Greek stripe already for the area. By the way @Alexikoua: when are you going to start correcting your POV map that colours for starters solid Muslim Albanian areas as "Greek", not to mention addressing the many, many omissions of other ethno-linguistic communities in Albania?Resnjari (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another difference with Kaliretakis is that the 1957 study marks Bamatat as Greek instead of Muslim Albanian.Alexikoua (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1957 data also lists Lefterohor-Derviçan-Poliçani mixed villages and not Greek only. And of course the 25 Cham villages of the Konispol area? Which are they @Alexikoua:, can you list them?Resnjari (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said the coastal strip between Kakome and Qeparo needs to be corrected if we believe that 3 of the total 5 villages of this area are "Greek-speaking pockets". The only red area between Himara and Kakome is Borsh & Qazim Pali. To be correct the settlements in Kakome-Dervican etc line are marked as "Greek speaking- in particurlar of mixed speech". The population in the Greek speaking settlements after incorporation in Albania speaks also Albanian as a second language. It's better to avoid the science-fiction or anti-Albanian conspiracy scenarios as in Le Monde Diplomatique.Alexikoua (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua: No, nothing needs to be "corrected" as you infer. The source you have presented is wrong like science fiction of 25 Cham villages in the Konispol area. Once again and not surprised you are cherry picking bits you like, avoiding giving an answer on problematic things i have pointed out like many times before on other map related issues. Until you show some reciprocity and clean up the huge POV in your map (like the coloruing areas of solid Muslim Albanian habitation as "Greek" based on world war one Greek nationalist propaganda like Sotiriaides) i think Calthinius should not continue with this thread and its a done deal his map. Oh and Qosja is a nationalist source you used in your map.Resnjari (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting that Hammond points to Piqeras in his description of the Greek-speaking villages that were attacked during Ali Pasha's time [[44]]. It would be wrong to mark this village as predominantly Albanian while it is mentioned as "Greek-speaking" both in the 18th century and in 1950s. I'm afraid that the one whose cherrypicking is exclusively you. I would appreciate if you avoid conspiracy scenarios for the Albanologie department of the University of Munich & Hammnond. Alexikoua (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua:, yep and Kallivretakis corrects Hammond. Do you want me to copy and paste the whole Kallivretakis study for you. Its in Greek. The village Piqeras was Albanian speaking and so were the people who left for Italy from that village in the 18th century and those that still are there still speak Albanian and are part of the Arberesh community. Funny how that works. By the way Calthinus has not used any Albanian sources (he has a link to all the sources he used), unlike you who uses Qosja and whose particular work has been evaluated in the scholarly community as a nationalist and full of inaccuracies. And the cherry picking of Wnnifrith etc, etc.Resnjari (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you provide some decent explanation of your personal claim, for example you claim now that Kallivretakis corrects Hammond, nevertheless Kallivretakis does nowhere say that he is correcting Hammond. Both Hammond and the Albanologie department of the University of Munich (a more recent publication compared to Kallivretakis) are wp:RS, as well as Le Monde Diplomatique, and Questions Internationales as you have been instructed in wp:RSN.Alexikoua (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that the continuous attempt to derail the discussion by insisting on "my map" can be considered near trolling activity. I don't believe that this is a constructive approach.Alexikoua (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well here is the corection. Hammond on page 30 cites as the basis for his information for that sentence that has at the end of it footnote 2 and at the bottom of the page is the source: Evangelides BE 63. Now Kallivretakis who did a whole study (2003 -Νέα Πικέρνη Δήμου Βουπρασίων: το χρονικό ενός οικισμού της Πελοποννήσου τον 19ο αιώνα (και η περιπέτεια ενός πληθυσμού) on Piqeras, its partial refugee flight to Italy in the 18th century and the Arberesh diaspora from that community who in part relocated to Greece in the 19th century and met a sad end due to disease and poverty of their new settlement (see article [45]), notes the following: p. 223 on Piqeras Arberesh diaspora being Albanian speaking "Τον Απρίλιο του 1875, επισκέφθηκαν τον Έλληνα πρόξενο στην Ancona Γεώργιο Δουρουτη αντιπρόσωποι σαρανταπεντε αλβανοφώνων οικογενειών του χωρίου Badessa, που βρίσκεται στην περιφέρεια των Abruzzi της Κεντρικής Ιταλίας, με επικεφαλής τον Dimitri de Martinio,". p. 224-225. "Ο πυρήνας της ιστορίας που διηγήθηκαν ο De Martinio και οι συγ­ χωριανοί του στον Δουρούτη επαληθεύεται από τα πραγματολογικά δεδομένα. Υπάρχει πράγματι χωριό Πικέρνη στην παραλιακή οροσειρά της Νότιας Αλβανίας, 25 χιλιόμετρα βορείως των Αγίων Σαράντα και 30 χιλιόμετρα νοτίως της Χειμμάρας, υπαγόμενο διοικητικά κατά τον 19ο αιώνα στον Καξά Δελβίνου του Σαντξακίου Αργυροκάστρου και εκκλη­σιαστικά στην επαρχία Δρυϊνουπόλεως. Το τοπωνύμιο εμφανίζεται στις ελληνικές πηγές με τις παραλλαγές Πικέρνη (του) και Πικέρνι (το), ενώ στην αλβανική γλώσσα αναφέρεται ως Piqeras ή Piqerasi, και έτσι το αποκαλούν σήμερα τόσο οι κάτοικοι του, όσο και οι Έλληνες της περιο­χής. Στους πίνακες του Αραβαντινού, δημοσιευμένους το 1856 αλλά με στοιχεία της προηγούμενης δεκαετίας, το χωριό εμφανίζεται να έχει 60 χριστιανικά σπίτια, των οποίων οι κάτοικοι ομιλούν ελληνικά και αλβα­νικά. Το 1878 σημειώνονται 100 σπίτια «ελληνικά» κατοικούμενα από «εμποροπλοιάρχους πλουσίους, φιλότιμους και φιλομαθείς», το 1885 ισάριθμες οικογένειες «ναυτίλων ή σαλασσεμπόρων» και δημοτικό σχο­λείο «αξιόλογον», και το 1913 καταμετρούνται 750 κάτοικοι «Έλλη­νες», δηλαδή ελληνορθόδοξοι. Είναι προφανές συνεπώς ότι το χωριό δεν εγκαταλείφδηκε εξαιτίας της μετανάστευσης της ομάδας περί τους αδελφούς Μαρτίνου άλλωστε υπάρχει ακόμη, υπαγόμενο στην ομώνυ­μη κοινότητα της επαρχίας των Αγίων Σαράντα και έχει 917 κατοίκους (1989), οι οποίοι παραμένουν Αλβανοί ελληνορθόδοξοι χριστιανοί. Χωριό Μπόρσι υπάρχει επίσης, σε απόσταση 6,5 χλμ. βορείως του Πικερνη, το οποίο σε όλες τις πηγές εμφανίζεται κατοικούμενο από Αλβανούς μουσουλμάνους."

Lets go over your comment "Both Hammond and the Albanologie department of the University of Munich". Hammond was 1967. The Albanologie department which you cite also says 25 Cham villages of the Konispol area. I asked you a question which are they and where are they because no Greek or even Albanian sources give 25 villages for the Konispol area. This goes to the heart of whether your source is accurate in their observations of which they claim. One other thing @Alexikoua:, at the RSN non-involved editors proposed their solution by having two maps, (and i only agreed to whatever Calthinius would go along with as it was his map, and thats about it) they did not give a final assessment on Qosja (which is used by the other sources in your map), Sotiriades or did they say for @Calthinus: to take on board any changes which you now are so eager to implement on other peoples maps yet are not even going to do on your map (Greek army statistics never coloured large areas of Muslim Albanian settlement as being Greek, yet your map colours it anyway). In light of this, your insistence here on this page for changes to use your own words "can be considered near trolling activity". Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to your rationale an older source is "de facto wrong" because a more recent is published and corrects the older one (?). You declared that Hammond is wrong because he was published years before, but in the same manner the publication of the Uni. of Munich is the most up to date we have. There is no reason to question that "Piqeras, Lukova und Sasaj" are "Greek-speaking pockets". It's obvious that the traditional Greek presence in the specific villages were much higher compared to Kallivretakis modern statistics (what makes you believe that there were not c.25 villages and hamlets-not mentioned by Kallivretakis as in the case of Kakome&Perdikar- around Konispol?). Also try to follow wp:CIVIL & if you have some concrete objections about the consensus map that presents traditional settlement of non-Albanian communities you can post your suggestion in the appropriate discussion page.Alexikoua (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the 25 Cham villages of Konispol??? Give an answer on that instead of avoiding the question like you have done repeatedly on other issues relating to the map and then i'll engage with this. Hammond is wrong (used one source, an old Greek one) as Kallivretakis has done a whole study on Piqeras, comparing the archive + fieldwork. One again @Alexikoua: you are cherry picking a source, as you like something in it while not providing answers about other claims it makes. If you stand by its accuracy once again where are the 25 Cham villages of Konispol ? Which are they ? Also regarding what you refer to a "consensus" map, there is no consensus map. What was stated by outside editors at the RSN was that two maps be in the article. Certain editors went with that recommendation etc, all i said on my part was as long as Calthinus' map is in the article, and that i agree with what Calthinus said. Just so there is no confusion on my position, I have never agreed to your map nor to the sources you have used and am of the view that it is POV and based on problematic sources. Now as you don't want to make huge changes to your map, i am curious as to why you are here asking Calthinus to take all your points on board (on sources which once again have issues and you give no replies to questions) considering that no outside editors stated that he should.Resnjari (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been already addresed: it's not my job to correct Kallevrakis in case he didn't include a number of hamlets&small settlements in the area (I named Kakome&Perdikar that aren't found in Kallivretakis list). Another issue about the Greek area is that Kakome is mentioned as the NE corner of the compact Greek area but on the map appears as an isolated pocket, so according to this source: 1. the huge gap between Qeparo and Kakome should contain some blue area (3 villages), 2. the compact Greek area should reach the isolated blue dot (Kakome).Alexikoua (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua:, umm your "correcting" Kallivretakis. Please. Hamlets/village neighborhoods are not included because they are counted as part of the larger settlement by the state and Kallivretakis has gone by that. As i noted above, Perdhikar falls within the village confines of Karroq -a village (which Calthinus has already coloured as Greek and the area where Perdhikar is located as well) noted as wholly Greek (have you even consulted the maps i provided above or even the national cadastre registry?), while Kakome falls within Nivice-Bubar and Kallivretkis notes the small Greek presence there as part of that village. If you want Kakome coloured separately, ok fine, but then no hatched line/s over the whole of Nivice-Bubar. You cannot have it both ways. Also with Bamatat, i have Fatos Rrapaj who was there and notes it as being a Muslim Albanian village, with only two Greek families living in the village [46] (two Greek families does not make a village Greek). The name of the village is in reference to Baba Mato, a Muslim Sufi saint who is buried in the village. As for the other villages, unless you give an answer about the "25 Cham villages" (as to where they are and which ones they are) i am still treating your source with skepticism. And because you still keep avoiding giving an answer on that matter, about colouring 3 villages these too are to be treated with the same skepticism. By the way when are you going to address the POV in your map that colours solid Muslim Albanian areas as Greek (considering that not even the Greek state did such a thing with its statistics in 1919).Resnjari (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, it's good that you agree that Kallivretakis does not count "seperately" hamlets/village neighborhoods in general. There should be no concern now why the more recently published academic paper I've provided counts more settlements compared to Kallivretakis. The name of the village is in reference to Baba Mato, a Muslim Sufi saint who is buried in the village. I assume you are kidding, this can't be your best argument for the ethnic composition of a village (Kolkondas for example isn't Greek because a Greek-Orthodox missionary is burried there).Alexikoua (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again @Alexikoua: you are inferring something i never said. I gave you additional info on the village (to familiarize yourself with the area), i don't now why you are bringing Kolkondas in this as its far away. Bamatat has only two Greek families, the rest of the village is populated by Muslim Albanians. Now lets explore that paper you placed. Fiedler says this on page 11 regarding Piqeras. "Die größte und weitaus bedeutendste Gruppe der Albanophonen außerhalb des geschlossenen Sprachgebietes bilden heute die Italoalbaner od. Arb(ë)reschen. Sie sind im Zusammenhang mit den Türkeneinfällen aus dem heutigen Albanien und Griechenland seit dem Anfang des 15. Jh. über die Adria gewandert, besonders nach Skanderbegs Tod 1468. Bekannt sind Wanderungen 1437 nach Ancona, 1448 nach Kalabrien und Sizilien, 1534 aus Morea, letzte bekannte aus Piqeras nach Villa Badessa in den Abruzzen. This is 100% inline with Kallivretakis' study of Piqeras and its Arberesh diaspora. Now that said your source claims Greek speaking islands in Lukova and Piqeras. He does not say they are in majority, minority, etc in relation to Piqeras or Lukova. Its Kallivretakis who clarifies and notes the small presence of Greeks in those villages in relation to the villages large Orthodox Albanian majorities. Sasaj stands out in that sentence and its Kallivratakis that gives it as wholly Muslim Albanian, something that Greek army statistics of 1919 do too. Moreover Kakoméa-Bametat-Lefterohor-Derviçan-Nepravishtë-Poliçani-Sopiku Fielder says are "die angegebenen Orte sind griechisch-bzw. gemischtsprachig". To translate "the given places are Greek or mixed language". Fiedler does not clarify so i am guessing Lefterohor-Derviçan-Poliçani must be bilingual and not fully Greek. Who does clarify? Once again its Kallivretakis. Now Fielder continues with "Breite kommt eine größere alb. (çamische) Sprachinsel, die den ganzen Südzipfel Albaniens mit ca. 25 Dörfern um Konispol" or to translate "The width comes a bigger alb. (Cham) linguistic island covering the whole southern tip of Albania with about 25 villages around Konispol"! Once again Alexikoua where are the 25 Cham villages your sources claims exist in the Konispol area??? Also if you think that Kallivretakis is not RS, you always have the option take that there and test it out, you or others. Anyway some replies would be nice especially on when your going to fix your POV map that colours areas where only Muslim Albanians live as Greeks.Resnjari (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for you I'm fully familiarized with the specific area. As for the c. 25 settlements around Konispol you gave the answer yourself about Kallivretakis as you previously declared (Hamlets/village neighborhoods are not included because they are counted as part of the larger settlement...) i.e. Kallivretakis doesn't count them separately. Let me also help you that the villages of Piqeras, Lukova und Sasaj according to Fiedler are griech.-sprachige Sprachinseln/Greek speaking pockets (based on 1957 observations) and this needs to be portrayed on a map about linguistic groups in Albania. It's also interesting that Kallivretakis didn't count a single Greek in Sasaj in 1990, while it was marked as a Greek pocket during 1957.Alexikoua (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again @Alexikoua: you have not familairized yourself with the area because you would have known that Bamatat has only two Greek families, the rest of the village is Albanian Muslim, hence the extra detail needed to be provided. Now you claim that the Cham villages are 25 hamlets. Wrong. You see those links i placed above over there, the ones on the Soviet army maps and the ones from even the Austro-Hungarian army maps. In essence they give details of all settlements (small and big). That covers villages and even their hamlets, yes hamlets. Now when ones looks at Konispol, there are no hamlets in the area, only villages, the ones that Kallivretakis gives as well. So once again i ask you where are the 25 Cham villages of Konispol (note your source specifically notes "Dörfern" i.e villages, not hamlets or even neighbourhoods). So since you say you have such good knowledge of the area it should be of no issue to account for all those villages. Please list them as i am so ever curious to know. Also something else you avoided giving an answer on is that Fiedler says Lefterohor-Derviçan-Poliçani are in the list of villages that are "die angegebenen Orte sind griechisch-bzw. gemischtsprachig". Kallivretakis gives them wholly Greek but Fiedler not being sure says they are either just Greek speaking or bilingual. Thats odd. Are these villages bilingual? Does Calthinus need to hatch these places as being Albanian speaking as well. Or are you selectively going to cherry pick the source once again. By the way since you like to tell others what to do with their maps, when your going to fix your POV map that colours areas where only Muslim Albanians live as Greeks (considering that not even the Greek state did such a thing with its statistics in 1919).Resnjari (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are deep into OR territory and selectively choose specific parts that fit your national POV. 1. Now you claim that the Cham villages are 25 hamlets., not me it's Fiedler, 2. Bamatat has only two Greek families, it appears that Fiedler dissagrees with you, 3. I understand that the creationg of such a map is a difficult task and I have to thank Calthinus for his time and effort to examine a huge bibliography that can appear "odd".Alexikoua (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking through the source. Yes it looks weird. One useful thing that came up in this convo was population movements. Do we have sources stating tjat Greeks were ultimately moved out of places like southern Lukova commune because of these-- and preferably also any ultimate (i.e. not temporary) effects on the distribution of other groups in the region? That would surely be quite useful for this discussion and also elsewhere.--Calthinus (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from 18th century and Piqeras cited by Hammond there were settlements of Albanian populations in the villages of Nivice and Lukove (Albanian majority in post-Socialism) as part of the Socialist era policies.Alexikoua (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's what I think. I've already fixed Western Zagori as per your edit on that page, and Permet as per you in the previous kerfuffle, as well as Himara per Khirurg, and I will fix Moscopole per Resnjari and Vurg per Khirurg/Resnjari (will get to this, been busy, sorry). Regarding Lukova, this seems really fishy to me. I wouldn't necessarily question the source, but this is clashing with other sources on various points. I don't feel comfortable making the deduction based on Kallivretakis and Fiedler alone that the difference between them is due to deportations that significantly changed the ethnic makeup of the region. Afaik Lukova and Piqeras had Albanophone populations long before this point (Nivice it's quite possible you're right but I'd still have to look through that village's history somewhat). If you want, however, I can extend the blue hatch mark in the south of Lukove commune so it connects to the rest of the blue area. I believe where the blue hatch mark is in fact covers Nivice anyways. Bueno? --Calthinus (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nivice-Bubar in regards to violence committed against the village is placed in the context of the era of conversion of Orthodox Albanians to Islam in the late 18th century and not of some other ethnicity (see Ramet: p. 204. [47]). Fiedler is not clear (the 25 Dorfen (villages) of the Chams in the Konispol area) on many fronts, while Kallivretkis in his work undertook fieldwork (with a research team) + archival work comparing data he found with past works. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Renjari it appears you are still confused about the dynamic character in local demographics: Kallivretakis work is based on 1990s research while Fiedler's fieldwork (published by a top-graded academic institution) offers data about the 1957 demographic situation. You still need to accept that the PRA regime forcibly moved various population groups. That's the case of the coastal villages between Qeparo and Kakome (the latter isn't even mentioned by Kallivretakis).Alexikoua (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua, confused ? Hmm, lets see your POV map shows areas of solid Muslim Albanian settlement as "Greek" (something which even Greek army statistics of 1919 on a village by village did not do). The confusion is on your side. The "1957 demographic situation" as you term it based on Fielder is problematic considering that he claims there are 25 Cham villages (the Dorfern) in the Konispol area which no Albanian or even Greek academic sources note. Other mistakes are Fielder lumping villages that Kallivretakis notes as solely Greek as being bilingual etc, etc. Alexikoua, you claim that the "PRA regime forcibly moved various population groups". Yeah sure they did. Enver settled many Vlachs in ethnic Orthodox and Muslim Albanian villages i the area, the same Vlachs which some number have come out these days as "Northern Epirotes". Can you provide sources to specific villages that you want changes made to that Enver altered their demographics or is this another case of original research ? To @Calthinus, exercise caution. Its your map and you are under no obligation to make changes considering that those calling for change don't bother to correct the huge omissions of communities like the Romani, Gorani, Bosniaks etc that exist with their maps yet alone the other stuff.Resnjari (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Until now you selectively dismiss a number of academic papers because they simply don't agree with your personal POV, even more weird in the case of Hammond you admit that only some specific parts are problematic and "have been corrected by others" for example the 18th century Greek-speaking village Piqeras (per Hammond). This is not exactly the right way how wp:RS works. Let me also remind you that the PRA regime installed ethnic Albanian communities in the area. On the other hand those "Aromanians" were already living in the region as nomadic groups.Alexikoua (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari: By the way it's the 5th time in this section you mention "my POV map": a clear attempt to divert the topic (not to mention repeated wp:CIVIL breach) though you have been advised to post your suggestions in the relevant page.Alexikoua (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV map, its a POV map, i stand by it all. Moreover its you who has selectively chosen a small handful of works (In case you missed it Calthinus' has sourced a lot and all are academic works) and created a map which omits so many communities while POVishly showing others in areas where they don't exist (like for example Serbs/Montenegrins inhabiting the whole of lake Shkodra which is false). As i have said to you when are you going to address the omission of for example the Gorani, Romani, Bosniaks, not to mention all the Muslim Albanians in southern Albania which Greece via its army in its 1919 statistics to the Peace conference at least showed as existing in Southern Albania. Also i am going to post here because you are asking for changes to someone else map (which a sources that is not clear on certian things, i.e "25" Cham villages of Konispol) when they are under no obligation to do so. As i said at the beginning of this thread, one this talkpage is on my watchlist and two this discussion is an extension on the one had on the map. Hence my participation until it is no longer active.Resnjari (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid Alexikoua got a point here. I am saying this even if it is aleady too obvious. We, as editors, *may* scrutinize sources, but we can't use this scrutinization to prove that certain other sources that suit certain POVs are better than them. If an editor asserts that a source is problematic, does not make it something more than just an editorial opinion. I could like to hear whether the sources supporting different views do break the Wik.ipedia.Pro's rules, and not whether a source is problematic according, always, to an editor. To me has long become apparent to me what the case here is: not the differing sources, but an editor not willing to accept the inclusion of sources he does not find himself agreeing with. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 02:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Silent Resident, "an editor not willing to accept the inclusion of sources he does not find himself agreeing with", that is correct hence my comments about Alexikoua's POV map which does not show ethnic Gorani, Romani, Bosniaks, not to mention the omission of Muslim Albanians (something which Greek army statistics in 1919 shows as a reality). I can go on and on and on. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you do understand that you are the editor in question I am talking about. Good.

And your response to my comment is to bring the argument that your approach is justified on the grounds that another editor, in that case, Alexikoua, happens to not have included the Gorani, Romani, Bosniaks and so on another map? Wow. Wow. Simply wow. Now, if you aren't trying to justify your problematic approach against the WP:RS! Could it it so hard for you to explain to me which Wik.ipedia.Pro rules has Alexikoua violated, instead of showing to me even more of your incompetence as an editor regarding Calthinus' map? (And no, don't point me to WP:CIVIL again, WP:COMPETENCE has nothing to do about other's civility towards you).

@ Calthinus, I think this whole discussion about the map has pretty much become pointless as it is apparent that Resnjari's interest is to maintain a very specific map POV than be genuinely interested on the maps themselves. This downgrades the whole effort you put into that map and does not deserve it. But Resnjari is right that this is your map - It is your pick. I don't see why is the discussion still going on, unless someone here is enjoying Resnjari posing as RS Judge. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 04:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Silent Resident, Alexikoua's map has issues for all the reasons outlined above over and over again that i said. Many of you want to have a continuing discussion about one map (hence me also participating), then so are other maps of the srot up for discussion so that there is no hypocrisy. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Silent Resident: Thanks for your understanding. Unfortunately Resnjari insists to divert the discussion on "my POV map" (though the specific Greek region was first presented by Future Perfect on his map) obviously because there is no serious argument to present against Hammond and Fiedler.Alexikoua (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua, your map has always been a focus of attention when the map issue has come up, not just for me but many, many editors over the years and now there is a alternative based on scholarship (which is welcomed) to your POV map. As i said before, Alexikoua when is your map going to show the Albanian Muslims of the area, as not even the Greek army statistics of 1919 on a village by village basis does not colour areas inhabited solidly by them as "Greek" (like your map does). I can go one and on.Resnjari (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is still going on because it takes two to tango. Or, I suppose, three, as there's now a threesome. I'm not going to assign blame but it has gone in a direction that is very much the opposite of productive and being the busy person I am, I simply had better things to do, forgive me. Not going to comment on anything else until you all start treating each other like colleagues. Cheers all and don't let wiki take the joy from your life... --Calthinus (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua your last post actually raises a question I've had for quite some time. Perhaps you could answer it here. I'm assuming by Future Perfect at Sunrise's map you're referring to this one [[48]] right? It has him as the author, yet I don't see a single upload of his to it. Actually, they're mostly all you. I've always wondered -- did he simply give it to you to upload?

Anyhow, regarding Lukova, as I said, I'm not taking a stance on Fiedler but I am convinced that certain aspects of it are "weird" (such as 25 Cham Albanian villages in Konispol-- unlikely and contradicts almost everything else and has not been adequately explained). This is not necessarily a "no". If you have other sources saying the region spoke Greek, or especially sources that explicitly state your earlier argument that the difference between Fiedler and Kallivretakis is due to internal deportations of Greek speakers, please come forward with them.--Calthinus (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus, i don't know how much you have read of the Fiedler source, but if the 25 Cham villages of Konispol don't add up (where are they, Alexikoua is yet to provide us with that information), not to mention that he lumps some villages in a bilingual category, when Kallivretakis shows them to be solely Greek speaking. Also he refers to Greek speaking pockets etc in villages like Piqeras, etc and does not say whether is a majority, minority etc, etc. Fiedler is not clear and vague (if you can't read German i can translate that whole paragraph for you that he wrote). Kallivretakis did a in depth study that not only involved himself but a whole Greek university research team that went to all those places on foot and spent time there. Not to mention that in his analysis he notes that most settlements were as they were in the past with the exception of a few news ones that the communist regime created. Places like Piqeras, Lukove, Nivice-Bubar do not fall under those. Moreover the small Greek presence is noted in those villages by Kallivretakis which you have done hatching on your map for. Please take these into consideration. If the above editors keep going on about this, they are more then welcome to place Kallivretakis at the RSN and i will engage with them there on the matter in detail. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lukovo & Nivitsa are marked as villages that became mixed during the PRA regime policy due to the settlement of Albanian populations there (marked in Latin letters in this list [[49]] in p. 568-569). It's also interesting that Dimitropoulos -the author of this Thesis- belongs to the same research team together with Kallivretakis (from 2002 [[50]]). Dimitropoulos combined with Fiedler (1957 data) offer no doubt about the dynamic demographic situation in the area. Kallivretakis offers post-socialist data. All of them are fine & we need to have them all. If one editor keeps going on about this, he is more then welcome to place a specific author at the RSN. @Calthinus: F.P. initial map [[51]] about Northern Epirus.Alexikoua (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua the link doesn't work for me. Could you give me another one, or send it? Thanks, --Calthinus (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC) (no longer necessary --Calthinus (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Resnjari: I fail to confirm Kallivretakis "research team" though this wouldn't make him more credible compared to the rest. I can also find some minor discrepancy in his work: he was unable to confirm the ethnic identity of the Pogon villages, same situation with some settlements in Cepo and Zagorie. It appears none can be perfect.Alexikoua (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua, with the commune of Zagori he notes it as having an Albanian Orthodox majority and Vlach minority (KOMUNA ZAGORI/KOINOTHTA ΖΑΓΟΡΙΟΥ (ΑΧ+β) before he lists the villages -he is quite clear about that. In Cepo commune he only lists the composition of villages that where fielwdwork was done. But if you are curious about those other villages the Greek army statistics of 1919 give them as Muslim Albanian. On Dimitropoulos an interesting source (a post graduate thesis) and i had a look at it and then remembered where we last had a chat about it some years ago on the Carcove talkpage Talk:Çarçovë (@Calthinus -read that discussion in whole so your familar with things). Since you brought it up, here it goes for Calthinus to be acquainted with issues. First off on Kallivretakis regarding the administrative unit of Pogoni, he only cites the demographic makeup in full of Selcke, the rest of the villages he just lists as Christian (in no way is falsifying the composition of settlements) and on page 28 in the context of discussing Aravantinos refers to Pogoni as Greek. Its Fielder who lumps Polican, a Pogoni village in his category of bilingual villages, while all other sources (Albanian, Greek, foreign etc) give those villages as Greek speaking. Anyway with Dimitropoulos there are a few differences on certain settlements with Kallivretakis. For example Kallivretakis notes Gjashte as being a mixed settlement of having a Cham Albanian majority, Orthodox Albanians (300) and Greeks (220) on page 51, while Dimitropoulos gives Gjashte as wholly Muslim Albanian on page 567. So Kallivratkis would be giving more detailed info in that instance or the correct one. Bamatat is given by Dimitropoulos on page 568 as wholly Muslim Albanian, just like Kallivretakis on page 54. Its only Fatos Rrapaj which i cited above that gives a family breakdown of Bamatat village noting only two Greek families that live there, as opposed to Fiedler's vagueness.Resnjari (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That all said Dimitropoulos is an issue for a number of reasons. On page 13 he says the following statements "2) χωριά δίγλωσσα ή χωριά που για διάφορους λόγους (εγκατάσταση εποίκων, πιέσεις κ.ά) επέλεξαν την επίσημη κρατκική γλώσσα αλλά παραμένει ισχυρή στους κατοίκους τους η ελληνική εθνική συνείδηση" translated is "2) bilingual villages or villages that for various reasons (settlement of settlers, pressures etc.) chose the official state language, but the Greek national consciousness remains strong for their inhabitants" and lists the following villages Vuno, Pilur, Qeparo, Kudhes, Piqeras, Lukova, Shen Vasil, Nivica, Xara, Mursi etc. No info on this when this "change" occurred considering that people like Hammond who passed through some of these places in the early interwar period (the Albanian state had only come into existence less then two decades and was weak having limited schools etc) found them to be monolingual in Albanian like Pilur or Mursi. Not to mention that Kallivratiks did a whole study on Piqeras and it has a history of being Albanian speaking (and its Arberesh dispora) centuries before Albania was a country. Interestingly that Arberesh diaspora who lives in Villa Badessa, Italy also came from places like Lukova, Shen Vasil and Nivica) yet they speak Albanian over there not Greek. Where did their Albanian speech come from ? Kallivretakis Piqeras study page 226-227 notes: Η Villa Badessa έχει σήμερα 510 κατοί­κους, οι οποίοι είναι επαρκώς ενήμεροι για την ιστορία του οικισμού τους. Σύμφωνα με την παράδοση τους, κατάγονται από μια ομάδα δεκαοκτώ οικογενειών που εγκατέλειψαν τον οικισμό του Πικέρνη, κυρίως, αλλά και ορισμένα άλλα χωριά της ίδιας περιφέρειας στα νότια της Χειμμάρας (Λούκοβο, Άι Βασίλη, Νίβιτσα, Klikùrsi) και, πιθανότατα μέσω Κέρκυρας, έφθασαν το 1743 στην Ιταλία, συνοδευόμενες από δύο ορθόδοξους ιερείς." Also Dimitropoulos does not inform how or when this happened or even give a citation from some other source to trace it. Continuing on he lists on page 13 Lukova and Nivica as places which "adopted" the state language, i am guessing he is refering to the Albanian language as he does not spell it out there. This contradicts what he says about Lukova (p.568) and Nivica (p. 569) placing them in the category of "Εγκατάσταση Αλβανών" or "Installation of Albanians/Installed Albanians". If the Albanian speaking element is all "settled" there, how can it be that the population of those villages adopted Albanian under the Hoxha regime ? Kallivretakis gives Lukova as 2076 Albanian Christian, Albanian Muslim 250 and Greek 120 and Nivica is 899 Albanian Christian and 30 Greeks. Dimitropoulos cites a Muslim Albanian population for both villages while the Greek army statistics of 1919 cite no Muslim Albanians there at that time. When Dimitropoulos refers to "installed Albanians" is he refering to Muslim Albanians ? Some clarity is needed.Resnjari (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on Dimitropoulos says on page 13. "3) χωριά που οι κάτοικοί τους είναι σήμερα μουσουλμάνόί και αλβανόφωνοι, αλλά γνωρίζουν ότι ένα μέρος τους προέρχεται από τους ντόπιους ελληνικούς πληθυσμούς της περιόχής" which translated is "3) villages whose inhabitants are today Muslims and Albanians, but know that a part of them comes from the local Greek population of the area" and lists Pandalejmon, Markat, Janjar, Sopik, Çiflik, Stjar etc. Dimitropoulos' source is a Greek book published in Albania (2005) and he cites from it as his evidence of this a Greek folk song on Panadalejmon converting to Islam from Christianity. Ok, however there is nothing in that song which refers to some linguistic or ethno-identity change, just a religious one. From that he infers that those Cham villages (Kallivretakis cites them as Cham Muslim Albanian) had a "Greek origin". Is he meaning "Greek" in a religious sense or is Dimitropoulos saying they were "Greek" in a ethno-identity sense ? Another issue is that he cites Sopik as being Muslim. This is outright false as they never have been Muslim (if that was true when did they covert to Islam and why are they Orthodox now?) Albanian sources note it as Orthodox Albanian and Kallivretakis does the same. If you want a detailed breakdown of the families of the villages Sopik is all Orthodox [52] as noted by Fatos Rrapaj.Resnjari (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some corrections from the above comments: Dimitropulos paper is a Phd dissertation, Kallivretakis was unable to identify ethnicity in 4 Zagori villages: HOSHTEVE, VITHUQI, LLIAR, DOSHNICA (labelled simply Christian) and Pogon apart from Selcke and in some villages he was unable to identify any ethno-religious background: ANDON POÇI, ÇEPUNA, KODER, TARORINA, VALARE. Dimitropolous (Kallivretakis' colleague in the same research team and supervisor since 2002) sheds additional light in the dynamic character of the local demographic condition. It's also interesting that the village Qasim Pali (next to Borsh) was created by the PRA authorities during the socialist era, thus the clear red area between Qeparo-Saranda should be limited to Borsh.Alexikoua (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Kallivretakis noted for the whole of the Zagori commune that it had a Orthodox Albanian majority with a Vlach minority. After noting that, with some villages he notes only their religious composition. With Pogon he noted its religious composition and in the article the reference about it being Greek when discussing Aravantinos. With other villages that he cites those that are blank he did not go to, that is why they are blank and also they are located within an area that is Albanian speaking, not Greek speaking (i can get Kokollakis here, or even Thede Kahl for Vlachs living in Andon Poci and Valare). Dimitropolous has issues regarding certain villages and a contradiction on the example which you highlighted such as Lukova and Nivica. In one instance he claims that that the Albanian element is "installed" on the other hand the claims that the villages adopted the state language (Albanian? does not elaborate) due to "pressure" from the state (no source or further explanation). Which is it? Not to mention that he claims a whole host of other villages that are identified in academic literature as Orthodox Albanian speaking to somehow have adopted the "state language". But how can that be when Orthodox villages like Piqeras were Albanian speaking centuries before (and their Arberesh diaspora as well stills speaks Albanian, not Greek) before an Albania existed ? Also what of the Cham villages and Dimitropolous' claim of a "Greek origin" based on a Greek folk song about Pandelejmon village which only refers to religious conversion and not ethno-identity or linguistic change. In 2015 when i brought up the issue on the Carcove page, Alexikoua wrote a comment [53] (making some OR and somewhat personal point of view comments on Markat that Kallivretakis never noted) and then backtracked with the words "have to double check" (although in that comment Alexikoua still deferred to Kallivretakis as the go to source on demography issues of the area). Now if Alexikoua was not confident with that part of Dimitropolous, why should other editors take at face value the rest of his work when there are other issues?Resnjari (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kallivretakis' work is peer reviewed, Dimitropolous is a PHD thesis and Wik.ipedia.Pro states the following on use of those sources (WP:SCHOLARSHIP): "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." @Calthinus, with this source you need to vet Dimitropolous thoroughly due to issues and also with even Alexikoua in the past being unsure about claims it makes on the Chams. Also Kokolakkis who did a study of the area on the late Ottoman linguistic and religious situation of the area, is in line with Kallivretakis and not Dimitropolous on language of some of those Orthodox villages of the area which Dimitropolous refers to. If we cherry pick part of that (as Alexikoua is calling for to colour this, that or the other) then its also POV and we end up with a result like Aleixkoua's map where he used for example the Vlach distribution from Winnifirth but ignored the Greek one which in that work aligns with you map and not the result that is Alexikoua's map. Just sayin'. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lets count them: Dimitropoulos (but not Kallivretakis who works for Dimitropoulos' research team), Fiedler, Hammond have "issues" according to the POV presented by Resnjari. It's also interesting by claiming that Aravantinos corrects Kallivretakis about Pogon, nevertheless Aravantinos is dismissed in another case when he claims that Moscopole has Greeks. So many wp:ACADEMIC&SECONDARY need serious arguments to have them dismissed in RSN.Alexikoua (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua were is the page number about Dimitropoulos and Kallivretakis. Want to double check before i comment.

User Resnjari is dangerously close to violating Wik.ipedia.Pro's rules regarding WP:RS. I highly recommend that any RS whom their reliability is questioned or disputed by them, is taken to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Sorry but the RS can not be left to the personal judgements of a certain editor, especially on such sensitive issues of the Greco-Albanian topic areas. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 22:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silent, your claim about "dangerously close to violating Wik.ipedia.Pro's rules regarding WP:RS. Nope only according to you. An RS on a source can happen anytime by which ever editor on any source. At the last RSN the proposal by non-involved editors was that Calthinus can be added to articles. There was nothing about this, that or the other for changes to be made, as all of you are going on here. Question is why are you all here on Calthinus' talkpage requesting things when non-involved editors made no such resolution?Resnjari (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sardinians are well known to be a genetic isolate population within Europe -- indeed RS estimates from the genetics research holds that at least some 4/5ths (78.4% to be exact) of the island's genome arose in situ with regard to recorded history -- see here [62]. This means that all the historical occupations of the isle had minimal effect; the ongoing Italian rule of the island which has also seen considerable in-migration from foreigners around the globe in the global age has obviously had the most noticeable effect. This includes the minimal effect of the Roman imperial occupation that caused a language replacement such that the Sardinians forgot their native language and adopted the prestige language of Latin, while maintaining notable effects from the native substratum. I don't think we can explain this sort of intricacy in the tiny "Related peoples" tab; at the same time it is a bit misleading to give off the impression that Sardinians might be descended from Roman settlers when, for 78.4% of their genome, that is held by professional research to be impossible.
• 2) Beyond that, "Romance people" is a category error (no page exists for "Romance peoples" -- instead it redirects to Italic peoples, which describes people in pre-Roman Italy...) -- Romance is a language group not a population one, and it is not any sort of consensus in the literature that "Romance" exists as a valid grouping either genetically or culturally. Indeed most people do not need to be told that there are not strong resemblances either genetically or culturally between Haitians, Peruvians, Romanians and Salonican Sefardis. But this applies not only to the effects of modern and medieval imperialism, but also ancient Roman imperialism. Romanians are indisputably genetically much closer to Bulgarians and Albanians than Italians, and once you stop listening to Romanian nationalists it's pretty difficult to place what sort of cultural resemblance they still bear to Spaniards (though since 1830 or so there has been a trend of intentional aping of Italians and French by Romanians, thanks to nationalism). The current historical linguistics in the case of French holds that the native Gaulish language survived the Roman period, only succumbing in the early middle ages (see: Laurence Hélix (2011). Histoire de la langue française, page 7 : Pendant près de 500 ans, la fameuse période gallo-romaine, le gaulois et le latin parlé coexistèrent; au VIe siècle encore; le temoignage de Grégoire de Tours atteste la survivance de la langue gauloise). Aside from Napoleon's little "Latin" phase, the French also have historically resisted attempts to group them culturally with other Romance speaking peoples to their south whom they referred to with a number of slurs (which were also applied even to the Provencal population of Marseilles which is technically French) -- you can see this in classic French literature like that of Ernest Renan, but there is even is attestation of them using "celtique" in the Old French even to refer to themselves (nowadays this does not happen, since the word now means the Celts of the British Isles), and variously traced their origins to Gauls, Franks, Greeks or Goths -- not Romans. There are also considerable genetic distances between Italian, especially South Italian, populations and the Spanish, while the Aromanians don't even have an identifiable genetic profile at all per Bosch et al. Genetically the same can be said for "Turkic peoples" and to a lesser extent "Slavic peoples" (when you include South Slavs) and "Germanic peoples" -- but in those cases at least there is a clear cultural commonality that can be supported with topically reputable RS in anthropology, studies in perceptions of ethnic identity etc (i.e. at least people think they are related ... even when they aren't as much as they think).

Imo on the page before: (it had related peoples Italians, Basques, Spanish and Corsicans). French really shouldn't be there as the French don't consider their ethnicity nowadays to be some sort of "tribal" thing where you have "cousins" -- it is solely a contract between a state and its people whether they descend from Romans or Gauls or Neanderthals or Algerians or Vietnamese or whatever. The others were actually much more reasonable -- and to a degree sourced. Sardinians are part of Italy and thus have been profoundly influenced by (other) Italians culturally, with some in-migration and mixing. The Spanish I presume was due to hte genetic study that linked Sardinians to Iberians-- since both have more input from those pre-Indo-European populations-- Basques being (I presume) the Iberian population least Indo-Europeanised. Aside from this one could mention and cite traceable cultural influences from the time of Aragonese rule on the island, which did see the settlement of Catalan people in Alghero. Corsicans additionally have a relationship with Sardinia and the northern part of the isle actually speaks Corsican (see Gallurese language) -- not Sardinian. This was all reasonable and somewhat cited. I'd be fine with restoring it-- but we are not WP:CHERRYpicking which related peoples mentioned by the sources given in the section we are mentioning. However, on other pages, related peoples' sections have been extensively criticized for being arbitrary and I figured it was better to be consistent. --Calthinus (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)|}[reply]

Thanks for the reply Calthinus, and yes I see all your points. In that case, yes, leave if off as you have done. In time they may all be removed if what I'm seeing elsewhere sets a precedent. The issue at hand is actually far simpler than shady blood tests and reports of mixing. I'm - sadly in this case - from the school that dispenses with ethnogenesis for a list of reasons as long as the Nile; not least because my own people wouldn't be related to each other between west and east let alone others. To use Ukrainian identity as an example, the definiton of Ukrainian is a person who declares his ethnicity to be Ukrainian, regardless whether his parents are non-Slavic Tatars. As a matter of fact, the only thing to make them Tatars in the first place is that this is how they as parents have identified :) . In history, nations have come and gone, and have been absorbed into neighbouring races, etc.! Now in the case of Corsica and Sardinia, there is something striking in what both populations represent which is that they are insular for one, and their reasons for being parts of a French and Italian state respectively rather concerns the more domineering aspirations of the "bigger nation" as is always the issue. That said, Sardinian individualism separate from Italy is not based on contact with Basques, just as Basque mixing need not have been stopped in Sardinia. For anybody to claim it does would also be implying Sardinians are a hybrid. I gather you know that there is no tribal element to Dutch and German ethnicity. It seems that the border does a good job of keeping you Dutch on one side and German on the other, while the two languages are subject to a dialect continuum. With the Turkey and Azerbaijan border region (i.e. Nahcivan region) it is fractionally more fluid with some calling themselves Azeri in Turkey, or Turkish in Azerbaijan. But in my native Ukraine, 8 million declare Russian and I tell you that these are not Moscovites who relocated, these are as local as my family. Along the ethnic fringes, there is even difference within families as one sibling declares Russian and the other Ukrainian, and at the next census they might both switch. So what makes a Sard is what declares itself as Sard, and if the Sards really and truly overnight embraced Italian identity, then this would no more make Italians more Basque, or less Romance. Geneticists today believe that Hungarians have barely a trace of their Uralic ancestry, and that their code makes them more Slavic, south Germanic and East Romance (i.e. their neighbours). But then if this is so, then it stands to reason that the Uralic Magyar must also have his seed in the surrounding non-Magyar people including possibly my very ancestors (I am from Lviv). Bottom line: modern-day people to declare Hungarian live in about eight states (as natives) and all embrace Árpád and the other historical figures that predate mixing with Slavs. As such, when those Romanians and Ukrainians/Russians married Hungarians, the children overwhelmingly chose Hungarian identity and carried this on despite the original ethnic gene getting more and more diluted with each generation. It is the embracing of a demonym and its properties that make one a native, not the past mixing of nations. In antiquity there were many more ethnicities in Europe such as Thracians and Curonians but the locals became absorbed into surrounding populations. So this brings us to Romance people, and yes I see your point. Very difficult to comment. In essence, the dialect continuum from Portugal to Belgium makes it impossible to mark boundaries and say "one side Spanish, other side Portuguese, but northern part Galicia". The individual national identities are in no way based on whom each group has mixed with, but for some bizarre reason the Germanic and Romance nations don't seem to have a conscience like the Slavic nations. Don't get me wrong, not all people from Poland, Croatia, Ukraine, etc. embrace a Slavic identity but there exists Pan-Slavic sentiment within a respectable part of the community in every Slavic nation. To this end, it is easier to call Czechs and Macedonians Slavic nations than it is to call anyone Romance or Germanic. So I suppose the community (Wik.ipedia.Pro that is) is going along with the linguistic aspects. So as you can see, there is much to take into consideration on all manner of things presented here. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do intend to reply to this. I am just very busy... you know :). --Calthinus (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. No rush as we are clearly not in conflict with one another on any article. I'll keep an eye out for this page. :) --Coldtrack (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coldtrack replying to what you said -- actually when it comes to Slavs I'm more in agreement-- in some cases there is real genetic relation, in others there isn't, but there is clearly a meaningful sense of "supertribal" relatedness that can be sourced to RS (albeit one that is historically politicized by cooptation by Russian state interest. But unlike Slavonic, speaking Latin or its descendants did not necessarily decide someone's identity-- it was often more like Aramaic, a lingua franca (indeed Assyrians and Jews both came to speak Aramaic yet maintained separate identities the whole time and then millenia later too). "Romance peoples" are not like Slavs because there has never been and probably never will be the same sort of supertribal identity among them (except for maybe Romanians), not least because it is well known that they are not all descended from Romans, but rather mostly accultured natives, the French identifying with the Gauls (or the Franks, or most commonly of all nowadays that "French is not an ethnic group but an idea"), the Portuguese the Lusitanians, etc. When the Romans conquered Gaul, even if they had moved half their citizens (i.e. mainly non-enslaved Central Italians) it still would have been majority native. Spain is harder to say and to be fair there is indeed a vague sense of a shared Roman heritage in Italy (I mean Mussolini talked about it...), while there is definitely a very strong "Latin" identity in Romania that arose in response to pressures from Slav and Hungarian nationalisms (by copying them, essentially). But overall this is different from Slavs, where some sense of Slavicness is pretty widespread even among people that happen to dislike Russian historical actions such as Poles or Croats -- though even this is not without being contested in some cases (Czechs and Bulgarians notably claiming descent from Celts/Germanic tribes or Thracians/Bulgars respectively -- and these are probably the two most marginal Slavic peoples anyways and indeed they likely have the most non-Slavic ancestry).--Calthinus (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it has been so long. I elected not to edit while I spent the whole of 2019 in Ukraine and returned home in Britain just before this pandemic. I see what much of the above states about French and others. For the Czechs to have been a Celtic/Germanic mix, it is implausible that two non-Slavic nations could have mixed to later produce a homogenous race that speaks its own Slavic tongue so naturally along a continuum. If Slavs themselves had mixed with Germanic and Celtic tribes, that is another thing, but it would mean that those Celts/Germans ended up assimilating. Same with Bulgaria: only the name honours the one-time Bulgar nation. Those Bulgars however settled everywhere up the Dinaric Alps and into the Italian peninsula, so the Bulgar seed is everywhere. That said, history recorded Slavs settling in the modern-day Bulgarian lands and so there is no "Slavic denial" among wither of those groupings you mentioned. Anyhow, best regards. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wik.ipedia.Pro:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It came to my attention that someone is impersonating you on other people's talk pages: [63] Just letting you know. The disruptive editor got blocked already. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident thanks for the heads up, but I am aware. I didn't respond as I didn't think that sort of twisted clownery deserves a response. Of course this is only one part of a multiseries act. Likely the same person(s), (a) likely Serbian ultranationalist(s) using their IP, also sent a string of death threats, now redacted, but still with an open thread on ANI, to myself, Resnjari and Ktrimi991. There is a good chance the perpetrator is connected in some way to the Serbian banned sockpuppeteer AMES, given that this occurred concurrently with similar IP activity on Talk:Skanderbeg. Life is beautiful.--Calthinus (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed he reverted your edit.[64] - LouisAragon (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: interesting. Actually, this Leo Freeman is a different editor htan the original person who objected, that being CrzyCheetah. Rather odd, isn't it, that a sneaky revert was done by an editor with ostensibly no connection to a dispute that resolved at least a month ago? Let's keep an eye on this one, both of us here. --Calthinus (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created an ANI section. This charade has gone on long enough. Feel free to leave a comment.[65] - LouisAragon (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a pain these guys are...--Calthinus (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

50 edits in 2,5 years time, and yet there he is, restoring the old version of the article![66] Just wow. I reverted him, but this appears to be a deep-rooted problem. Not sure; would you be willing to create a RfC? Or perhaps reopening the same talk page section? - LouisAragon (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LouisAragon:, Calthinus is rather busy at the moment due to the festive season but will return soon. Meanwhile I am trying to keep an eye on this page although I am busy myself. I suggest opening a RfC, now or when Calthinus returns. The issue is indeed deep-rooted and a strong community consensus would be a barrier against further POV-pushing. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktrimi991: Hey, thank you for your comment. Yeah, you're right, a RfC is probably the best solution, but lets wait till Calthinus returns so we can hear his opinion as well (as he originally revised the infobox and created the talk page section, etc.). - LouisAragon (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yo @LouisAragon: and @Ktrimi991:, I don't want an RfC. This is not matter of interpreting wiki rules, it's dealing with a clear fringe theory. Literally no one serious thinks Armenians was founded around 2400 BCE - millennia before any attestation of any form of Armenian identity. A better move is an SPI possibly...--Calthinus (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want an RfC either as this is (objectively speaking) nothing but WP:CIR. However, a RfC might just grant an additional layer of protection. Based on what I have seen, it seems that this "2400 BCE" fringe stuff is deep rooted online (ever checked YouTube comments? Lel). By the way, you and Ktrimi991 might be interested in this.[67] - LouisAragon (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this btw? Same thing basically.[68]-[69]-[70]-[71]-[72] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually familiar a bit with Artaxiad. Never interacted but know of him. You really think they are one in the same LouisAragon?--Calthinus (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a decent chance, but the edits need to be examined individually. Btw, what do you think about those other diffs (^)? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Calthinus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

@Cinadon36: hey, I saw your email. I would reply but I have to run. There are many others who can answer this question. Please accept my deepest, deepest apologies.--Calthinus (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help improve and copy edit for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Ngocxuanmai (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I would help, but I doubt I will be of much use as I don't know the topic. I'll fix any errors I see.--Calthinus (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calthinus, I cringed as I read your well meaning post.

I don’t have time now to discuss in detail but I will make a few points. Your idea that some nationalisms are more real than others is incorrect at best and bigoted at worst.

First, I suggest you study Nationalist historiography, perhaps reading Imagined Communities.

The list of “bottom-up” examples you gave is just a list of well-defined linguistic groups. Your suggestion that they formed a social group into pre-modern history is not correct. Social groups require communication; most of these regions did not have mass printing or easy movement until the 19th century. Plus, the world was full of dialect continuums before the mass-standardization of national languages, again mostly in the 19th century. All these groups, either on the basis of language or geography, and usually both, went on to create national myths to create a politically-powerful sense of peoplehood as democracy began to become relevant. This happened mostly as a domino effect, and often had its flames fanned by outside political actors looking to undermine larger political units.

As to the Jewish identity, which you stated you consider is superior to the Palestinian identity. In the 19th century Haskalah, intellectual Ashkenazi Jews were split as to whether Judaism was just a religion, or might be considered an ethnic group - a concept which was as alien as it was irrelevant to most Jews at the time. You said the Jewish “existing social group... already existed”. That is nonsense. A Jewish religious community existed. But disparate and separate linguistic groups existed. And very different social and geographical groups existed. The idea that medieval Baghdadi Jews, medieval Rhineland Jews, medieval Yememi Jews and medieval Moroccan Jews were part of the same “social group” is absurd - but perhaps you consider medieval Christianity and Islam to have been social groups as well.

The more you look into any single nationality, the more you’ll see how manufactured they all are. Pick one at random, that you don’t have any connection to, and investigate it. It’ll open your eyes. Of course each modern national identity tries to convince its adherents of its primordialism, and its superiority. That gives nationalism the potency and danger we all know it has, as it creates disdain for opposing “lesser” nationalisms - a way of thinking that you appear to be familiar with.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something I missed here. Aside from misunderstanding the Haskalah, you said The idea that medieval Baghdadi Jews, medieval Rhineland Jews, medieval Yememi Jews and medieval Moroccan Jews were part of the same “social group” is absurd - but perhaps you consider medieval Christianity and Islam to have been social groups as well. -- this is rather curious. Perhaps you don't consider Palestinians in Chile, Palestinians in Yemen, Palestinians in Germany etc to be the same ethnic group? Indeed there has already been heavy intermarriage in many of these places -- already exceeding what Jewish genealogy and genetics studies said occurred for Jews over two millenia, not less than one century. Perhaps there is no such thing as a Palestinian diaspora for you? --Calthinus (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not state Jewish identity is superior to Palestinian identity nor do I believe such a thing to be true. Nor did I ever say any nationalism was lesser. Well, Onceinawhile, we can have a mutually interesting discussion if you (a) read my actual post and (b) acknowledge that is not in fact what I was saying at all. Being pretty awfully misquoted on such an issue as that -- I would never care to deny anyone else's identity and place judgment upon it, be it Jews or Palestinians or Italians or Tanzanians or whoever and I actually find the habit of people doing this on wiki quite annoying. It's a thing in the Balkans where all the nationalities try to deny each others' "legitimacy" in various ways, and yes I acknowledge that Israelis/Jews and Palestinians/Arabs can bilaterally engage in this behavior but personally I prefer to avoid it. To be entire clear, I do think that Palestinian identity emerged later -- with plenty of cites I can pull to back that up -- but that doesn't mean I view it as lesser or inferior. Indeed, Chinese identity is millenia upon millenia older than Australian identity, but that doesn't mean I view either as more or less valid. Thanks for taking the time to read this! --Calthinus (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that you did not make such statements directly. You espoused a belief in Primordialism, for some nations, and I extrapolated the usual beliefs of primordialists on to you. You have since denied that you consider some nations superior to others, so I was wrong.

As to the rest of your post, you again mixed up modern identity with historical togetherness. You are also entirely wrong regarding Chinese identity - this was also a modern invention.

Your understanding of the ancientness of nations appears to be derived from reading of nationalistic tellings of history!

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Well that then that was a personal attack… or at least a pretty severe case of non-WP:AGF... anyhow, Chinese identity -- this was also a modern invention -- well that's one of the fringiest things I've ever heard, and the scholars of the Middle Kingdom would very likely be astounded. The Imagined Communities interpretation is only one of many interpretations, which is popular among some groups for certain reasons that need not be enumerated, but it is not some scholarly unanimous consensus. If you don't think someone can disagree with (your interpretation of) Imagined Communities that not only all "nations" but also the identities that correspond with them (i.e. Chinese ethnic identity, etc etc) are exclusively modern, it's hard to see how one can work as colleagues on abstract fields where disagreement is common... --Calthinus (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you realize that Modern Hebrew is a Slavic language with ties to the Khazars. The very sounds vowel exist only in the minds of the Masoretes. The relexificationist are true masters of innovation :) Jonney2000 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

()Hi Calthinus, I don't agree with your first sentence. In my prior post I was being generous with the intent to close down the personal topic. But now you have lurched too far in the opposite direction, I feel compelled to tell it unvarnished: your repeated statements that you consider Jews a historical group vs Palestinians just an identity, implies very strongly that you (subconsciously?) consider one set of beliefs superior to the other.

As to your reaction to my Chinese statement, there must be something not clicking in our conversation – maybe I am not being precise enough. There is no scholarly debate on this question – modern Chinese identity was formed in the 19th century.

You are also being imprecise – your statement re “The Imagined Communities interpretation” is impossible to interpret. Most of what Anderson wrote is entirely undisputed (not least because he built upon the work of other scholars). I don’t know which particular parts of his thesis you are trying to refer to. It it’s the history of identity, most of it is entirely undisputed and indisputable. Just think for a minute about what collective identity really is, and then consider how irrelevant it would have been to most people before mass communication (printing), mass transport, the hardening of language borders / dialect continuums, and the existence of democracy. If you have a different understanding, perhaps you could point to a source supporting it.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile Of course I can. You should read Anthony D. Smith. And even with Imagined Communities though, Anderson is primarily discussing nationalism -- not ethnic identity, ethnoreligious identity etc, religious identity etc. --Calthinus (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In other news Ted Cruz has grown a Talmudic beard.^[1]Jonney2000 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonney2000 such heart-warming news, such a mensch. Reminds me of when Trump's Pashtun birth was certified by Pakistani doctors before his adoption [[73]]. Oh such a beautiful baby boy, people are saying this was THE most BEAUTIFUL baby boy in the entire world. --Calthinus (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have opened a discussion on the Rachel Riley talk page about whether the background of commentators should be added to the page as such actions have been previously reverted. Jontel (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally like to think most people are generally pro-human, they just have different viewpoints.

We all subscribe to that sentiment, but unfortunately we are dealing with a world where vituperative odium is normal, so that Palestinians can be called ‘lice’ (Rehavam Ze'evi); ‘ravening beasts’ (Benjamin Netanyahu); ‘grasshoppers’ to be crushed underfoot (Yitzhak Shamir; ‘two legged beasts’ (Menachem Begin);’they are not human beings, they are not people, they are Arabs’ (Yehiel Hazan), 'cockroaches' (Raphael Eitan); ‘local bacteria’ high ranking IDF official during one of the wars on Gaza,ec. I could go on with another 50 odd high ranking Israeli caricatures, meticulously sourced, of this problematical other, the Palestinian, but would rather not go into the ugly details. It was because he was intimately familiar with that kind of subhumanizing contempt that Jimmy Carter went out on a limb in asserting “the citizens of Palestine are treated more like animals than like human beings,” a comment which led him to be smeared as an anti-Semite.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani while we're collecting unsavory comments, for every non-kosher Bibi or Jabotinsky comment we an pull Haniyeh and Husseini. And just so we're inclusive of Palestinian Christians, Habash. And then, sadly, Abbas too. What do you prefer, Nazis, cockroaches, termites or octopuses? Or is that octopodes? In any case octopuses is truly an interesting touch, I've gotta give it to the guy, that was creative, and it would be pretty dope to have 8 limbs with which to control world politics and simultaneously conquer the Arab and Aryan races :). Nowadays it is Jews mistreating Arabs, yes, we agree on that. It was not long ago that the Jewish women of Baghdad awoke to find their husbands and childrens' corpses hanging, still bleeding, from the clothes lines. Today it is some Palestinian kid shot for throwing stones. I'm not thrilled with the current direction of Israeli society. I had my BDS days, before I began to realize their one-state "solution" (the only possible result if the right of return AKA Zionism for Palestinians was ever realized) would look more like Rwanda than South Africa. Well we can go on about this, or we can rise above it. --Calthinus (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one gets anywhere by flattening out the differences invariably, with the subtext: 'everybody in the game speaks like that, so what's new?', though I know that is not your intent. It is precisely because I grew up formatively reading numerous books about the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and genocide that I find these metaphors not only unbearable but, if recycled against Palestinians by Jews, deeply repugnant.

I have a simple rule, which some others also use, for example Zero on the AE page. I replace the ethnonym in these cases with the ethnonym of the slurrer. So you obtain:

• Jews are ‘lice’ (again the association reflects a widespread anti-Semitic trope)
• Jews are ‘ravening beasts’;(See generally Jay Geller's recent Bestiarium Judaicum: Unnatural Histories of the Jews, Fordham University Press, 2018
• Jew are ‘grasshoppers’ to be crushed underfoot;(Compare here)
• Jews are 'two legged beasts’;("Perhaps some Jews will survive. But those who do will be two-legged beasts." Efroim Oshry,The Annihilation of Lithuanian Jewry, Judaica Press, 1995 p.38)
• Jews ’are not human beings, they are not people, they are Jews’; Compare (Nazis posters with the slogan Juden sind keine Menschen.)
• Jews are 'cockroaches' (The point of Franz Kafka's parable about antisemitism in his The Metamorphosis)
• Jews are ‘local bacteria’ (that was said by the anti-Semite Paul de Lagarde)

In short that language is excruciating anti-Semitic immediately the ethnonym is replaced, but you can use that kind of terminology, without being kicked out of the corridors of power, if the subject happens to be Palestinian.

I'm too realistic to think there is any solution, one-state/two state or whatever. All that interests me is getting the full record down, which will be, inevitably, deeply uncomfortable all round. Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a solution. All it takes is both sides recognizing that peace and stability are worth more than "justice".--Calthinus (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was what Mussolini argued to justify his new order. Historical results are not dictated by justice - with two modern exceptions (the British abolishing slavery, was one). There can be no reciprocal recognition of 'peace and justice' since both sides, as opposed to both peoples, understand those terms differently. Thucydides in some versions, spoke of the decisiveness of the factor of 'preponderance of power' and, precisely for that fundamental technical disparity Nathan Thrall's analysis is the most probable. Peace there is only possible if it is imposed from outside, something that will not in all likelihood happen. Anyway, back to editing. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah Mussolini was all about "justice" i.e. getting Fiume, Malta, Corsica... Peace? Not so much. And thanks to his quest for "justice" what was left of the Italians in Slovenia and Croatia was decimated. --Calthinus (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That is to restrict 'justice' to territorial claims, ignoring both the deological centrality of social justice in the new order to attract an agrarian base, and the function of organizations like La Camera dei fasci with their programmatic call for giustizia sociale and that Zionism is intrinsically a cause based on an ideology of the justness of their land claims to a territory. 'Thanks to Zionism's redemption of a land 90% Christian-Muslim', Palestinians were left with 8& of their historic homeland. Silly.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is exactly what Im saying. The historical exclusion and expulsion finalized after WWII -- paired with not always voluntary assimilation, leading to the annihilation of the coastal Romance culture of Dalmatia, Rijeka etc was probably "unjust". As were Byzantine orders to wipe the Jews from "Palestine" (the names Syria Palestine and Aelia Capitolina having first been formalized by the Romans with the explicit purpose of severing Jews from their homeland) also unjust -- but it's reversal is now a fait accompli. A third example of sunk cost injustice would be the Nakba. Reversing any of these three is/was bound to lead to tragedy. The difference is that in the second case that already came to pass, not least due to several powerful push factors like life becoming unbearable and deadly in Germany with its ideology, Iraq with its clothes lines episodes, Russia with its pogroms et cetera. Do you really want a repeat of the cost of ameliorating that injustice again? BTW there are several Palestinians and Israeli Arabs / Israeli Palestinians who share a version of this viewpoint, Nas Daily being a pretty prominent case.--Calthinus (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broad generalizations and allusions to the shorthand versions of myths and ideologies of ethnic groups as true, are pointless. One anecdote rebuts another, in a racconteurial tit-for-tat. You mention a Jewish corpse on a clothesline in Iraq, a Palestinian might mention Yohai Ben-Nun’s castration of Araf Shatawi, or that Palmach trained its officers in proper surgical techniques for such events, or that it was not rare for soldiers to rape women before executing them in the 24-65 massacres of Palestinians in 1948. Pointless, also because you still believe the myth that Hadrian severed Jews from their homeland, or that the drastic drop of 'Jewish' numbers in late Byzantine Palestine can be confused with the huge massacres of Samaritans, the dominant population of what is now curiously claimed to be a Jewish historical landscape, Samaria. I don't 'want' anything from history, except perhaps that the victors who feed their self-assurance with fairy-tales be reminded of how complex, and often, dark, the events of the founding of their country were, as even Ari Shavit has begun to admit. Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History is full of skeletons. Some trees may be more fascinating (morbidly) to look at but don't forget the forest. Everyone has fairy tales. Some of them certain editors seem to like (Ashkenazi Khazars related to Khazar Armenians??, Canaanite Palestinian time hop?) while others those people might find disgusting (bloodless Palmach). Whether Jews were specifically expelled by Hadrian or Heraclius or Billy Bob Joe it doesn't really matter, what matters is the historic systematic disenfranchisement (if we go by a different fairy tale of events, whereby the Jews all magically become Arab Muslims and the modern Jews are um... Khazarian "fakers" to use the Stormfront terminology... this is still a case of disenfranchisement not to mention what some people might call cultur[al geno]cide). Personally I tend to disregard and remove on sight all of these oversimplifications and outright fantasies. You may have noticed I have stayed out of attempts by some Israeli-focused editors to water down criticism of some past actions -- but it's not like I don't edit those pages. Humans suck all around. At least we try. Sometimes.--Calthinus (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Humans don't suck'. I know decent people who have toxic ideas, known fascists who gave sanctuary to Jews etc. Their thinking was repellent, but not their humanity. What's stormfront's garbage got to do with the price of cheese? I wrote the Khazar article because editors were toxically obsessed with the Jews/non Jews idea, each caught up in their own simpleton prejudices and disregarding their fascinating history. Give me a discursive field where taboos and fears, and anxieties driving ideological interpretations thrive, and I feel naturally attracted to it. All peoples were, and many still are, subject to 'systematic disenfranchisement' until the establishment of modern democracy. Loss of land is another matter, and no claim reported relatives by religion 2,000 years ago lost national title somewhere makes any sense in the hot-air rhetoric of a right (to redeem an historic injustice) to dispossess and disenfranchise another people on that same terrain. The state was established, fine, unquestionable, legitimate: that as lunatic fringe thinks it must persist in an ongoing project to keep pushing boundaries and utterly dispossess those 'others' who remain there has no warrant, other than of abetting anti-Semites in their prejudices and clouding the moral heritage of Judaism, as thousands of sensible Zionists have said, and restated for decades.Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront loooooves the Khazar theory. I would give you links, but tehy're probably blacklisted, for good reason. Humans are complicated. You do have lots of fascists who saved Jews like Xhafer Deva, a research topic I've contributed to on here. Not everyone was systematically disenfranchised on the basis of who they are, often for the explicit purpose of extinguishing or marginalizing their culture; and those who were, to different degrees. English or French people, I'm sorry, have not experienced what Jews have. The Irish, closer, but no cigar. On the other hand Jews did not experience anything like hereditary chattel slavery en masse for a prolonged period, a trauma whose pseudoscientific racist hangover is still tormenting and perverting at least one major Western democracy. This is not the oppression Olympics it is just facts, and different experiences are not necessarily "worse" they are simply categorically different. Fleeing/expelled/etc Palestinians were also systematically disenfranchised, yes, both by the other side of the war, and by "brothers" who refused them the rights of citizenship. Most peoples who are not wealthy and secure tend to defend what they love most, their family, their village, and by extension their people, over the "others", not (only) because of hatred, but because "if it wasn't them, it would be us". If BDS ever gets its RoR and one-state, I hope all their Western backers will be able to forgive themselves for the most likely scenario 20 years later.--Calthinus (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

twenty years later, the scenario will be the same for everyone, save for myself. Fortunately I won't be around, and thank the (bull)dust that made me that I chose to forego the deepest and most beautiful form of altruistic egotism we have, the instinct to have children. We agree on much, really, but agreement is not what I seek for in a conversation. So thanks.Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure. Better to talk here than on public talkpages though imo. --Calthinus (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we were both wrong—Linda Sarsour was granted GA status. () 08:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

holy flying fuck what did I miss. And furthermore, how transparent was this process...?--Calthinus (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed on the article talk page. I actually think this is a testament to all of our work—I was particularly pleased to read this comment from the review: There's so much vitriol about Sarsour from both far-left and (especially) far-right sources that I was worried that, somewhere along the way, the article would veer off too far into one of those directions and eventually end up including content which violated neutrality. But you did a damn fine job avoiding that. The article dryly incorporates all the aspects of Sarsour's public perception, without giving much providence to one particular viewpoint. Kudos on that. The main issue cited as causing some trepidation among reviewers was article stability, but fortunately there were no major disagreements ongoing during the review process. It seems pretty rare that a BLP on a highly controversial subject would be elevated to GA status, especially considering that article's contentious history in particular, so definitely something to celebrate! () 20:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hmm.. I think you're right actually :). Good work, team. --Calthinus (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Varieties of Modern Greek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Postalveolar affricate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice. I have recently closed a RfC which you participated in. I am notifying all contributors as a courtesy. Thank you for support for Wik.ipedia.Pro! Please do not reply to this message. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 16:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

kai o tiasteriskosgiou tonypostirizei sto ανι. epeidiexeis empiriastisxesitwndyo pigainenavoi8iseis.

I ask you to not command me on what to add to any article. My comment to the removal of the piece of information was clear and correct and to the point, and the removal therefore reasonable, especially since (as I said) I don't see value in mentioning it. Don't break your nerves on me. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Jürgen Eissink, please accept my humble apologies, I didnt mean for that edit summary to sound punchy or accusatory of anything at all. Cheers and happy editing! --Calthinus (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I can see that you are active on Chechens and I wanted to know if you would cast an eye over Chechen Kurds, which I believe could use some reviewers/editors. Thank you. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedo Semsurî Hi Ahmedo -- I'm on it. Great work on expanding Kurdish issues including this page :). --Calthinus (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedo Semsurî I happened to come across one of your heavily edited pages Kurdish phonology as well. I think the last to examples, after the word for ogre, on the last table on the page appear to be errant, as they are presented as examples where the labialized palatal offglide occurs, but the cited phonetic forms lack it. Unless I missed something. Cheers! --Calthinus (talk)

Not sure if I understand you. The authors transcript 'küa' and 'tela' as 'kü[ɥ]a' and 'te[ɥ]la', which have been 'translated' to [ˈkʉːɥɑː] and [tɛɥˈlɑː] accordingly. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I must be dyslexic. --Calthinus (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Hats Off Barnstar
		For your editorial skills on articles and good advice given in talkpages.Resnjari (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton Resnjari!--Calthinus (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Anatolia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cappadocian language

Arbanasi people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rhotic

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[74] François Robere (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@François Robere: this looks like an intentional provocation from Tatzref. He needs to explain himself or my testimony may become less rosy.--Calthinus (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[75]. I am not sure why they usually do not do it. Perhaps they want to stay focus on long-term contributors. But we will see. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes If both sides agree on something, the admins will not get in the way of a solution.--Calthinus (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually pejorative, but not always, e.g. "Если в кране нет воды - значит выпили жиды...", meaning making fun of anti-Jewish prejustices. My very best wishes (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes I would translate it as "Heeb" or maybe Hebrew in English-- not quite like kike, imho.--Calthinus (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Zhyd and Person of Jewish ethnicity. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes Ja govorju porusskij. Jesli bytj tochnym... passivnoje ponimanije. Well no, not enough to fully comprehend your poetry though :(, or have reasonably efficient conversations. I probably have some obscure grammar error somewhere int his message but you get the point. But I think I have a good idea what.... interesting... words mean. You can't translate history of course. Now, as for bezrodnyj kosmopolit, I am guilty as charged, that describes me quite well if we're talking literally. Did you know the US right wing now uses the term? The parentheses too! I didnt know they the Polish/Ukrainian/etc words were (originally?) separate, I had kind of assumed that they all came from Russian or the (German originally?) "(y'/j)id". I figured as much as for Polish with Marek's comment (prior exposure -- only the word Zhydokomuna, forgive my plain keyboard's lack of accents-- quite pejorative, if only Joe the Steel gave this sort of credit, that'd've been nice :) :) :) ). I'm not in Icewhiz' head, I tend to AGF (he also has an interest in Ukraine/Russia topics -- possible Russian speaker), but I've had different experiences than you guys with him, clearly. Vsego nailushchego. --Calthinus (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got it. I am sure they originated from Yid. And of course we have Rootless cosmopolitan. I usually do not pay attention at all at the "ethnicity" of people and consider this mostly as a cultural heritage. My ancestors were Russian, Jewish, Armenian and apparently Georgian people. I consider multiculturalism as a very good thing. Speaking of which, the cultures and mentalities of people are indeed very different, for example in Russia, USA and Caucasus. For example, I think the "incivility" (offensive comments about another person) are pretty much tolerated in Russian and other Slavic cultures (where this is known as "khamstvo", not a good thing), but not in the English-speaking countries. Even more so in Caucasus, where someone can be killed on spot for saying something perceived by locals as really offensive. Fortunately, my culture is mostly Russian, so I do not care too much when someone openly expresses himself. But of course one must follow the rules of society where he lives. This is one of the reasons I do not live in Russia any longer. My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pinging Piotrus here so that this off-topic conversation does not continue in the section about Tatzref's views on Jews and slavery. --Calthinus (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on Russian which I sadly don't speak; but IMHO in Polish the word Zyd is not pejorative - it's neutral. It can be used negatively, by antisemites, of course, for whom it is pejorative, but for most people it is neutral. Just like I think the word Jew in English is mostly used in a neutral fashion now, but of course it can be used with malicious intent by the antisemitic minority. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz posts stuff like this and you still gonna defend him? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek In his capacity to also edit constructively that I have seen plenty of in the past -- yes. Both of you are fighting hard right now. Two way street.--Calthinus (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your work on linguistics, for the interesting info you add to articles! :-) Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ktrimi :) --Calthinus (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recently decided to reopen James R. Russell's Zoroastrianism in Armenia.[76] Other than it being an excellent work, I stumbled across some newer works dealing with the same matter, which I thought were pretty interesting as well. Some excerpts:

• "There are two very important exceptions to this general pattern of the spread of Zoroastrianism: It is certain that the Armenians and the Georgians (or Iberians) were Zoroastrians before they converted to Christianity. This is not an obvious fact to everyone; on the contrary, it has been (and continues to be) bitterly opposed, especially by Armenian and Georgian scholars, who prefer to think of the pre-Christian religions of the Armenians and Georgians as chiefly “local” or “indigenous” traditions, which accommodated some Iranian elements (Ananikian 1925). They are aided in this interpretation by the fact that the (Christian) Armenian and Georgian sources rarely, if at all, identify the religion of their ancestors before their conversion to Christianity as “Zoroastrianism.” These sources either prefer seemingly neutral terms (such as “the religion of our forefathers”) or polemical ones (“heathenism”), but do not label the reli-gion as “Iranian” or “Zoroastrian.” Where these terms occur, they refer to the religion of the Persians, chiefly of the Persians as enemies of the Christian Armenians. This fact in itself, while undeniable, is not compelling; on the contrary, it seems to be in harmony with the selfidentifications of most of the Iranians; the wide spread of the term “Zoroastrian” is of post-Sasanian date and even “Mazda-worshipping” is mainly used in limited (e.g., imperial and liturgical) contexts. Iranian Zoroastrians seem to have been identified after the Iranian land they came from (Persians, Parthians, Sogdians, etc.), with the Zoroastrian element of their identity selfunderstood."

• "Historically, the first trace of an Armenian polity is the inclusion of the satrapy of Armina in the Achaemenid Empire."

• "From the period of Alexander to the downfall and partition of the kingdom(s) of Armenia between Sasanian Persia and the Byzantine Empire, Armenia is usually presented as a battle-zone between the two superpowers of the ancient world (Iran in the East and Greeks and Romans in the West). While this is true politically, it is not a very promising perspective culturally, for Armenia and the Armenians clearly and unequivocally participated in Iranian culture."

• "Recently, intensive archaeological study of various sites in the eastern half of Georgia has strengthened the case for a very early inclusion of Iberia in the Iranian political and cultural realm (Knauss 2006), and, like the Armenian sources, Georgian historical sources present a variety of evidence for a long period of intimate interaction between Georgian and Iranian culture. In both cases, this interaction continued after the (early) conversion of the kingdoms to Christianity. The conversion of the Iberian king Mirian III (with his realm) is traditionally dated to the year 337 CE. Georgia too was ruled by families with an Iranian ancestry (Persian and Parthian), who participated in the Iranian dynastic network that dominated the eastern half of the ancient world from Alexander to the end of antiquity."

-- Albert de Jong (2015) "Armenian and Georgian Zoroastrianism" in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism; Michael Stausberg, Yuhan Sohrab-Dinshaw Vevaina; Anna Tessmann (ed). John Wiley And Sons Ltd. pp. 119-128[77]

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAragon indeed, very interesting. Speaking linguistically, the Armenian language is significantly Iranianized (via Parthian, Persian, perhaps also poorly understood Median) in a very deep, not superficial way -- so much so that in the early days of its study, it was widely mistaken as a proper Iranian language, before the Iranian aspects of its lexicon were identified as long time Iranic loans, not always an easy task. Analogous I guess would be English and French, or more properly the Latin nature of 60% of Albanian vocab dating back to 100 BC. Religiously, my understanding has been that in the Caucasus the rule was generally that rulers converted (or married) for alliances with powerful foreigners but for quite awhile the native polytheist religions remained -- at least in the High Caucasus, paganism might have still been dominant even a few centuries ago, and Chechens will still sometimes use "Deela" (Nakh Zeus or perhaps more like Odin) for Allah; I've heard some Georgians do the same with the name of one of their own indigenous deities for the Christian God, maybe in the highlands like Khevsureti or Svaneti only, I don't know, maybe Kober could confirm. Certainly the early history of the Caucasus should be expanded on here by all means. --Calthinus (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. As for religion in the Caucasus, the South Caucasus is a completely different story than the North Caucasus. Even when dealing with the South Caucasus, the "Armenia/Rep. of Azerbaijan" cline has to be distinguished from the (Western) Georgian one in order to obtain a proper understanding. Its a complex story nevertheless. 20th/21st century ethno-nationalism and state buidling, once funded under Tsarist/Soviet hegemony, has been detrimental in the development of proper academic research free from pseudo-historic bogus. I mean, for instance, take a look at the "academic" history books produced in the Republic of Azerbaijan. It's a total joke. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAragon in general, it appears an effect of being on the receiving end of imperialism causes epidemics of bogus history to justify nationalist objectives, the effect being widespread throughout the Caucasus and also the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa, Asia... etc. Dagestani squabbling can be amusing, Azeris pretend Armenians never existed, Armenia's ancient history from day zero supposedly when Noah was on Ararat which is literally equated to Urartu (...) can be amusing, not to be outdone Chechen nationalists agree with Armenian nationalists about Ararat but also claim Noah was a Nakh, perhaps Georgians made Ancient Sumeria. Meanwhile, the descendants of people on the "giving" end who now find themselves occasionally on the receiving end of imperialism have the nationalists among them proud of being former imperialists... while denouncing the current ones.--Calthinus (talk)

Hi Calthinus, I saw your recent edits on Alarodian languages, thanks for bringing more material to that article. Just two related comments. First, I think your (re-)inserting of Fournet & Bomhard (2010) is actually not IAR, since both scholars have a good record of peer-reviewed publications. This is also why I had just brushed up the previous incomplete citation, but had no second thoughts about keeping the source. On the other hand, I am less sure about Ed Robertson's paper. (You got the citation from the article "Etruscan languages", right?) As far as I can judge, Robertson does not have a record comparable to that of Fournet and Bomhard, and further, the paper is only retrievable on the Wayback Machine, which gives me doubts about its notability. To put it bluntly, if the author himself deemed it worthy of further consideration, we should expect him to place it somewhere else on the web. Or would you still argue for keeping it? – Austronesier (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have the pdf on my computer from awhile back. Robertson's analysis is well reasoned and cautious. Nothing is conclusive obviously. Searches for his name are complicated by a certain musician. Filter that out and you find his work on Esperanto. Its true that he does not have a background in Urartian or Hurrian. Yes he is less established than Fournet- however I dont think the authors are considered per the normal practice of guidelines unless theyre famous and then (Chomsky) there might be talk page fights. At least in my experience (one time a source I used was removed although the author was a leader on the topic, a university professor with awards, because it was published in a journal that had been the subjects of ethical complaints in a totally unrelated topic area.... for example). At the same time, Robertson's work is very useful as it has a pretty good summary of the existing literature. From a readers viewpoint at least, Id rather have both.--Calthinus (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explainations. I agree that the paper looks methodologically sound, although I have no expertise whatsoever on these languages to make any judgment about its conclusions. And yes, you have a good point that it also serves as a good secondary source for previous studies. It really depends on the individual case, and you got me convinced. Probably I would still object if the paper presented an insular hypothesis, but then Robertson simply expands on an existing proposal.

Well, expertise (not notability) of authors does matter according to the policy for self-published sources, and in a way it makes sense. E.g. I consider Roger Blench's online papers as reliable sources when it comes to African languages, but definitely not when he dabbles in Southeast Asian languages. And to reject an expert source just because it appeared e.g. in JIES (that's a typical example in linguistics) is nonsense, so I can imagine your frustration about that experience.

Btw, do you have a reference for Hommel? It's one of the few citations still missing in the article, and I'm curious about what the orignal proposal looked like. – Austronesier (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesier Yeah, if this was an isolated theory, like the one about Venetic being the closest branching relation to Estonian (a paper that does have citations but fyi no support), I'd shy away. For Alarodian a Google Scholar search revealed some stuf -- this source is accessible if you have JSTOR, it's Brinton discussing Hommel's theory. Brinton's writing is more than a bit cringe, his section on "the Aryan stock" may not be for those prone to involuntary facepalms [[https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/983161.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ab28f067bab5d4a03bfa00f1dba7b2a72

]]. --Calthinus (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brinton is obvs not RS, here a 1947 work [[78]]. Here's one of Hommel's works that the search retruns but sadly it text retrieval doesn't work on it [[79]] ... and that's all I can find that I think you may think useful. I hadn't heard of Hommel before -- I had always assumed the theory came from Sergei Starostin or Orel (who I have more respect for than the late 19th century orientalist sorts like Brinton, as you may have guessed...) --Calthinus (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Brinton's ideas on race and language are clearly from the pre-Boas era. Yet, thanks for the ref, because he has a citation of a three-part paper by Hommel that is available on the web. I'll read it later, because it is looks quite confusing, even for a L1-speaker like me. His musings on "Alarodian" start from p.330. –Austronesier (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesier regarding the term Alarodian, it is used sometimes it seems. I.e. Polyakov in [Based Relevant Grammar Features of the Caucasian Languages (2016)] -- Another theory on the affinity of the Hurro-Urartian and Northeast Caucasian languages (Alarodian hypothesis) belongs to I. M. Diakonov and S. A. Starostin -- unfortunately I can't access Diakonov-Starostin 1986 at the moment but that is where you want to look, imo. Imho, in the unverifiable truth of things it is difficult to tell apart language contact from a genetic relationship and both likely exist at some point in history (i.e. correspondences in vocab regarding geology and domiciles could just as easily be loans), the question is when it branched, 5000 years like IE or something more Starostin-esque than that. My totally OR unverifiable suspicion is that Pliev got it backwards -- NEC could have an HU superstratum.--Calthinus (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I have done some reading about the historical Alarodian hypothesis (which had pretty weird proportions at one stage), and have separated the old hypothesis from the modern proposal in the article Alarodian languages. The latter part still needs some minor clean-up. I have a Russian translation of the introduction to Diakonov-Starostin 1986; in that publication, they simply refer to HU+NEC as East Caucasian. But I have found a publication where Diakonoff revives the old term Alarodian in the modern sense. –Austronesier (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: great work! The page had been in a sorry state for quite awhile.--Calthinus (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesier re Proto-Berber -- not that I'm against that edit, it reflects my original approach.... but... if we view self-published work from Arnaud Fournet on Proto-Berber as not RS, surely we should not have a separate policy for another self-publication by the same Arnaud Fournet (LINGUIST List [[80]]). If anything, well, his main work was on Moksha it seems, though that too is in EUE which has [this particular issue]. I'm not trying to bash the man, I do respect his work, and you already know my feelings about these pesky issues. I just want a consistent guideline to follow. -Calthinus (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally -- if we view him as unqualified to speak on "Afrasian" -- he should be less qualified to speak on relations or non relations to Northeast Caucasian. He does have work in Afro-Asiatic (on Proto-Arabic) though I don't exactly recognize the journal "Zeitung für Arabische Linguistik" and the google search results for it are... underwhelming (actually his work is a quarter of the results). He does not have any work on any NEC language, peer-reviewed or not, whatsoever. --Calthinus (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a coincidence, I was looking for our previous talk, but so far only looked up at Hurro-Urartian languages and Alarodian languages. Good you guided me here. It's always a pleasure to talk with you. :)

I get your point about what looks like an inconsistency, but Fournet's inclusion in Alarodian languages is mainly supported based on the co-author Alan Bomhard, who has a long-standing record of peer-reviewed publications on long-range comparisons involving IE languages (whatever their factual merit, that's not ours to judge here). On the other hand, Fournet's publication trail is not really supportive for keeping him in Proto-Berber.

The policy WP:SELFPUB gives a good guideline: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Actually, this is the just the minimun threshold. In the case of Robertson, we were actually both too lenient, but it is somehow justifiable because there is not much literature about the linguistic affiliations of Hurro-Urartian anyway. In the case of Proto-Berber, however, there is no lack of reliable sources in the strict sense. Giving a whole para to Fournet would not just run against WP:SELFPUB, but would also create some undue weight.

As for "Afrasian", there is actually no need for a ref in lede (there is a ref citing the EB further below). But if we want to emphasize that it is an extant alternative name, we should use a less "vulnerable" citation. –Austronesier (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesier Okay yeah that makes sense. Bomhard has a large trail as an Indo-Europeanist and a Nostraticist (within which he discusses Kartvelian etc etc). I was thinking, maybe we'd best keep him to arguing for IE/HU, and have the HU-NEC presented by Smeets, or Schulze, or Tuite (he cites them) [[81]]? [tried to find Nichols on this, couldn't]

And yeah, I didn't really think that hard when adding the cite to the lede. But as you may have guessed Afroasiatic is not really my personal domain.--Calthinus (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found Nichols [82], can you open the page? I will add the citation among the critics of Alarodian. Tuite only gives a neutral mention of the proposal and its critics. I have found an offprint with full page numbering [83]. It's the perfect ref for the opening sentence "The modern Alarodian hypothesis is fairly controversial." –Austronesier (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Tuite is neutral but useful in that he synths up for us the lack of enthusiasm among post Soviet Caucasologists for Alarodian. Side note I found his historiographical discussion very interesting, if damning (not sure how Gimbutas would feel about being compared to Zviad Gamsakhurdia). Thanks for Nichols. I'll do the edit later today. --Calthinus (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, "Zeitung für Arabische Linguistik" (per Fournet on LINGUIST list, NARKIVE etc.) should read "Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik". LOL.

And yeah, Tuite (2008) is a great source. I'm thinking of expanding Ibero-Caucasian languages based on it, some time when I am in the mood again for paleo-linguistics. –Austronesier (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesier On second inspection -- there is no 'Alarodian' or 'Hurrian' in this, but there is discussion of 'Urartian'; alas, I cannot access the page. I'm about to make the other fixes as stipulated but when you get a moment, I think readers would appreciate Nichols' specific reasoning, as she is hte leading expert on Nakh (which is the branch of NEC most frequently compared to HU). --Calthinus (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full quote from Nichols: Diakonoff and Starostin 1986 assume that Hurro-Urartean [sic] is related to Nakh-Dagestanian, and assemble putative cognate sets so as to maximize similarities between the two families.

She then goes on and describes Nikolayev and Starostin's (1994) proposal of uniting NEC and NWC into a North Caucasian family, and concludes: Neither Diakonoff and Starostin, nor Nikolayev and Starostin, take on the burden of proof and discuss whether the incidence of resemblances exeeds chance expectation, nor do they present examples of the kind of shared morphological paradigmaticity that would strongly support genetic relatedness. Accordingly, the possibility of external relations to NWC and/or Hurro-Urartean must be regarded as an opinion for which no support has been offered. I'm thinking of changing the cite format (sfn's and stuff), so we can include more quotes. –Austronesier (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesier -- thanks! And if you haven't already changed the citations, go for it. --Calthinus (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources may have originated from searching from Google, however it may be from this web page: https://books.google.com/books?id=pGClDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA534&lpg=PA534&dq=Kuk+bure&source=bl&ots=clCbWwM6CV&sig=ACfU3U0vTKuTbGlDOhh7bD65L-W9Ei3eAA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcu5OD9qPkAhUH01kKHaubByAQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false. Or for simplistic stances: from Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups around the World. Around page 537 to page 540 says so, for more information, page 533 to 540.

ExplodingPoPUps  —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

I don't think Minahan is an ideal source here. He is asserting the existence of a bunch of totally unknown organizations advocating for a group that stopped existing due to assimilation in the Middle Ages, and while his book has good info in some places, it also has some interesting claims, like Californian English being distinctive because it uses words from Asian languages (he is totally unqualified to say this and gives zero sources or data; suffice to say it is rather bs). Maybe My very best wishes knows if such "Merya separatism" exists.--Calthinus (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that only Volga German separatism is able to stay up for now, or quite the opposite. If he is totally unqualified, either some of the info or advocacy group is a bit misplaced, otherwise a little off or it’s entirely wrong or uncertain. I would say that not all of them are correct. If you think 'Volga German separatism' shall not likely stay up, please reply me back. Perhaps he is trying to mention Merya Finns, otherwise known as Volga Fins.-- ExplodingPoPUps 02:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing at a time. For now they are both out (frankly they both look ridiculous and embarassing for us to have, at least without a good citation). Get a good source that shows an active separatist movement in either case and we can restore. --Calthinus (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Calthinus, I saw your edits there. Ethnologue might be of help [84]. It says: "Total users in all countries: 181,120". Take a look at it. EU institutions might have published helpful info too; maybe the Council of Europe. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They also have good maps. --Calthinus (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello, Calthinus. in imam Shamil article Хаджимурад user removes information which is of consensus. He did this Special:Diff/914512519 and reverted reversion Special:Diff/915035575. As you see in my reversion which he reverted I called him to talk page Special:Diff/914805390. I called him to talk page in April also Special:Diff/890905135 when he did his vandal edit Special:Diff/888065632. No reaction. How to stop the vandal? Can you do smth?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

called a user to talk page again Special:Diff/915096976 and reverted Special:Diff/915110988 vandal edit with another call. I think if he does it again it's clearly edit warring and destructive behavior.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenekoumyk Arsen -- this dude is likely an Avar nationalist editor (user name references Hadzhi Murat) and is not being constructive from the start. A block is likely in order. You're already on 3rr and Im too busy to add my few cents there but feel free to copy paste.--Calthinus (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]