---

I've noticed that a few Star Trek-related articles are using a source from www.ex-astris-scientia.org. It doesn't seem to pass the litmus test to qualify as a reliable source. Can someone point out what about it makes it a good source?
Among other places, I found a source from that site used here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked their FAQ. It looks like it's written by one guy, who describes it as one of the top Star Trek sites in the world. Let's see if anyone else thinks so...

Den of Geek uses it as a source in an article. There's an in-text mention and a note at the end. There are a few other articles that mention it, but they tend more to be talking about it than using it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is without doubt one of the best sites for trek, I have used it numerous times for schematics for creating models for mods. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I can tell that right away. This guy is creating some exhaustive articles on his own website. If I were working on a Star Trek project of my own, I would probably use this as a resource. However, it is possible that this does not meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria. This falls under WP:SPS. Because Ex Astris Scientia is a self-published website without its own editorial oversight, we need to establish that its author is an expert.

• Has the author ever had any other works published? Has he written articles about Star Trek that were printed in magazines? Has he written any books that were published by a non-vanity press?
• Do other/reliable sources say "Ex Astris Scientia is a reliable source" or equivalent?
• Do other reliable sources cite its author as an expert on Star Trek? This would include newspapers, magazines, and people who work to create Star Trek canon.
• Has he ever been invited anywhere as a guest expert? For example, has he served on a panel at a Star Trek convention?
• Is there any other reason not mentioned here to consider Ex Astris Scientia a reliable source or to consider its author an expert?

There's some gray area and consensus rules, but if we can say "yes" to one or more of these questions, then Ex Astris Scientia probably makes the grade. @Darkness Shines: I didn't find anything but I was only looking for about five minutes. You sound more familiar with the website than I do, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw this question pop up on a ST fan forum a while back (somebody was disagreeing with some canon claims they made on the site), and as a result, several of us spot checked a number of claims on that site against the various Star Trek Technical Manuals (which are licensed and approved, generally considered the definitive source for canon), and found that they were 100% on the mark for that test. Whether they still are or not is an open question, but all things considered, I would presume so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it, one of the criteria for RS is editorial oversight. There appears to be none of that here, and there are some pretty bold claims being offered on the site. And there appears to be little in the way of official acknowledgement of the sole write as an "expert" in Trek. For me, the litmus for inclusion of so-called "common knowledge" is its existence across multiple sources and platforms. When a source w/out oversight publishes something found nowhere else, I think its an issue, which is why I brought it here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not quite ready to come out and describe them as an RS for ST canon (the tech manuals would be the best RS outside of the shows themselves), I just felt my prior run-in with them might be informative to this discussion. To be honest, I'd want to see something that has an official status, if it's to be used for anything canon oriented. The production of the franchise is a different matter: we can use news sources for that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all say there would be no problem using Ex Astris as a means of finding sources. Say, checking the website for which episode to look at and then using the episode as a primary source, but it would be on the Wikieditor to actually check that primary source. Now that so much of the series is available online, that's not as hard as it once was. But day-um if this guy is amateur, he is one thorough amateur. I'm not saying Wikipedia should declare someone an expert—that is the place of professional media—but I'd call this guy an unacknowledged expert or unverified, not a non-expert.

This website does have a contact us button. We could just ask "Have you ever published articles anywhere with editorial oversight? Have you ever been invited anywhere as a guest expert?" I can't find the author's real name listed anywhere, or else I'd run a check myself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Schneider runs it, the site has been cited in a few books Darkness Shines (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, as MPants shows above, is that if we consider him a self-published expert (about the only way the website would be useable) we need something to demonstrate that he is. If we start fact-checking him against official sources, we might as well use the official sources. If its something we cant check against anything else, we run up against 'do reputable people consider him an expert', what books has the site been referenced in and are they by a reputable publisher... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've given this some thought, and I would like to say one more thing before this thread gets archived. I think that the site would be fine as a source for statements about canon that might be controversial enough to require a source (beyond the episode), and which can't be addressed by more definitive sources (I expect this to be very rare, but nonetheless). I think the site is notable enough in the community that it would be a fine source with attribution for just about anything. In other words, where there is a question on canon, I think that Schneider's opinion is certainly WP:DUE. I would not use it beyond that. Whenever we have the choice to use an officially licensed source, we should use that, even if they agree. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can get behind that, Mjolnirpants. But if I remember @Jack Sebastian:'s style, I think he's asking because he wants to remove content from articles that relies on Ex Astris as a source, not merely change it from Wikipedia's voice to Scheider's or change the source from Ex Astris to the specific episode(s) or movie(s) and the real issue is what to do with that content. Is that correct, JackS?

Right now, the state of things seems to be that proof that Ex Astris Scientia is an expert source per WP:SPS could indeed exist but none was shown here this time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh< I remember you very well, Darkfrog, and I'm erribly surprised you've elected to address my edits, when in fact you aren't really supposed to,b ut I guess people forget things over the span of a year or two. You have certainly very little footing upon which to descruibe my style, so maybe save us both time by steppign away from that particular land mine, okey-doke?

The point that User:Only in Death is key here: if we don't know the name of the author of the self-authored site, and there isn't editorial oversight, we should err on the side of caution and use the sources that the anonymous author of the website uses (so, wrong yet again, DF). We cannot use the the conclusions that the anonymous author draws, as we cannot prove that the author is an "expert" without supporting RS reinforcement - and there is no way we can use our own judgment to assert that (unless there is a published Star Trek expert amongst us editors). I take this stance to remove the burden of defending the statements made in the documents from Wikipedia and onto the sources that we use instead, which is where they belong.

Again, I think that we can use the far more elgitimate RS noted within the Ex Astra articles, but not Ex Astra itself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave his name already, but here "the reputable Star Trek reference website Ex Astris Scientia" The Gospel According to Star Trek: The Original Crew p8 "Thanks to Bernd Schneider's Ex Astris Scientia" Star Trek: Myriad Universes #1: Infinity's Prism p517 "Bernd schneider maintains ex-astris-scientia.org as a terrific repository of STAR TREK knowledge and articles" Star Trek: Klingon Bird-of-Prey Haynes Manual It is RS for Trek Darkness Shines (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but could you clarify the source of Bernd Schneider's "expertise"? It seems that you noted another fan site quote of praise. Do you have a surce that would be more reliable, like, say a ST published book or something? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I gave you three sources, all published books, none of them are a "fan site" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I have four things to say:

1. I agree: If Ex Astria documents the source of a claim, it would be best to always cite that source, instead of Ex Astria.
2. The identity of the man behind Ex Astria has never been much of a secret.
3. We don't need to independently determine if someone is an expert: If they're referred to as an expert by others whose expertise we don't question (or widely referred to as an expert by lay commenters), then they're an expert. Even if we know absolutely nothing about the "source" of their expertise. Expertise can be demonstrated, and indeed, must be. This is documented by others referring to them as an expert. But credentials can be irrelevant. I guarantee you that I could find a half-dozen people with relevant credentials who would never be an RS, because they have demonstrated a lack of expertise.
4. I don't know what sort of history you and DarkFrog share, but I thought their comment here to be very reasonable, and your response to be very combative. If you truly feel you are in the right in whatever disagreement went on between you, please act like it. I've seen ANI reports filed over comments more civil than that one (not that I'm planning on reporting you). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also cited in Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek: The Original Cast Adventures p185, this from an academic publisher also cited in A Galaxy Here and Now: Historical and Cultural Readings of Star Warsp59, another academic publisher Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back from the post you left at my talk page, Jack, and I'm very surprised by your comments there and here. I certainly do not mean to criticize your Star Trek edits—in fact, I haven't read even one of them. But I feel like you're badmouthing me here, so I'll say to the floor that there is no "really aren't supposed to." Jack and I had a conflict in 2014 but we are not now and to the best of my memory never were under any interaction ban, formal or informal, and I've responded to an RSN thread that he's started before, without any response like this. Kind of surprised at this hostility now. However, part of Jack's comment on my talk page amounted to not wanting any help from me in this thread. I leave it in all of your capable hands.

I wish I didn't have to say this, but I am worried about my actions being misinterpreted. I am respecting another editor's wishes NOT confessing to wrongdoing. Jack clearly wants me to back off, and I am very worried that someone else in the future might say "You backed off, which means you're a filthy f--- and you KNOW IT and you're ADMITTING that you eat babies and you are PERMANENTLY giving up your right to speak in this person's presence EVER!" (For the record, it was not Jack specifically who pulled that crud on me.) I do not mean and am not agreeing to any of that. A couple weeks ago, I was pissed at someone else and asked them for space and they refused to give it to me. It was like he thought he hadn't done anything wrong and felt the need to prove it by getting even more in my face. Well I haven't done anything wrong, but I'll get out of your face anyway. This is not a promise to do so permanently.

You guys seem to have this covered. Ping me if you need anything that only I can provide, but I can't think of what that would be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been more helpful in these sorts of discussions where we are discussing the authenticity of RS to seek out sources that can show the wording. For Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek: The Original Cast Adventures (1) and A Galaxy Here and Now: Historical and Cultural Readings of Star Wars (2) help me see that Bernd has been cited elsewhere. I guess that does make them citable; as long as we are certain that Bernd is the only one writing the articles (others contributing to the cite doe not warrant the same cover as sources), the question is pretty much answered.

The history between DF and myself is pretty well-documented, and I've made a point of avoiding wherever she pops up; I have very specific opinions as to any references she brings to the fore, and that's all I'll say about that. If some of you thought my response to her rude, please take no offense; doe to my experience, they were absolutely warranted and restrained. I did not invite her comments, and she should have known better than to interact with me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, if you want me not to participate in this thread, you must stop saying bad things about me in this thread. Saying you don't want my help is fine. Saying I have to not defend myself while you throw a few punches is not fine. You haven't avoided me. You've posted on my talk page on matters that had nothing to do with you, and you presented yourself as civil and even friendly at the time. You get to change your attitude toward me, but you don't get to say I "should have known better" than to think you were still feeling civil and friendly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're done here, DF. Was there any part of what I asked difficult for you to understand? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello all. This ethnographic map [[23]] uses as a vital source this map ([[24]]) by the French far-left "anti-capitalist" newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique. The wiki map it is used for has been around awhile and has seen wide usage, but also persistent controversy that bubbles up and occasionally explodes, as it is once again doing now. The sourced map is titled "The Albanians, a scattered people, and the cartographer is Philippe Rekacewicz, a "radical cartographer" [[25]]. The newspaper in question is known for many controversial things including 9/11 conspiracies, equating the United States to Osama bin Laden, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, and other wild fringe views and claims including that globalization is nothing more than an American attempt at world conquest, Europe is an American "vassal" [[26]], and other gems like these.

Regarding the map, it doesn't give any demographic studies as sources, but instead cites Rexhep Qosja, a literary critic who is noted for his fiery views on some topics related to nationalism, irredentism and the like. As explained by Resnjari other demographic maps published by the paper have also been wildly incorrect [[27]]. As Ktrimi991 notes[[28]], indeed even the editor-in-chief has expressed worries about the sources that were used for some of Le Monde Diplomatique's reporting, presumably including non-expert essays like those published on demographics by out-of-fielders like that literary critic Rexhep Qosja. Regarding the distribution of Greeks in the map that is used for, demographic studies have produced very different results that falsify parts of the wiki map such as these: [29] (Resnjari speaks fluent Greek and can explain how this one contradicts if necessary-- he highlights the critical section here [[30]] but left it in Greek as he was speaking to other Greek-speakers) and [31] (see pages 50-60 ish, this one covers four of the effected eight districts only but shows no Greeks in many places the flawed wiki map shows Greeks), and others. I also have concerns with many of the other sources used for the construction of that wiki map, but I plan to take this one at a time, so as not to overwhelm those who handle cases on this page.

Therefore, I ask the community -- is reliance on such a map published by a fringe newspaper and sourced only to an essay by a literary critic an acceptable source to rely on for an ethnographic map? I thank you all for taking the time to consider this case, and apologize for its wordiness. --Calthinus (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability always depends on context ... So, in order to answer your question we have to look at the context. Which of WP articles contain a version of the map? Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently on en-wiki it is on Albania, Languages of Albania, Greeks in Albania, Demographics of Albania, Foreign relations of Greece and Northern Epirus. The last is a territory that is historically claimed by Greek nationalists -- 19th century Greek nationalists claimed the whole of it is inhabited by Greeks and the map in question makes it look like this is true, but more recent scholarship, some of which I have linked above (these were written by Kokolakis and Kallivretakis-- more reasonable, modern and academic scholars from Greece, in fact) has mostly limited the Greek presence to a compact area in the regions of Himare, Vurg, Dropull, Pogon, and Carcove, not the huge area shown in the challenged map. Also, in the 19th century, the effected area is considered very important by Albanians because it, especially the eastern region of Korce, was also a cradle of the Albanian Renaissance movement (Rilindja) which helped spark the creation of the Albanian state, despite 19th century Greek nationalist claims that the area was majority inhabited by Greeks. So, needless to say, it's a very touchy issue for editors of Albania-related topics, and there has been plenty of fire exchanged over this map in the past. --Calthinus (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Albanian-Greek issues are particularly thorny. I would generally expect a range of sources to support that sort of information rather than one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Calthinus' posting is stunningly intellectually dishonest, which I find very disappointing. This is evident from the very title of his post, which is a clear attempt at poisoning the well. First of all, the colorful characterizations of Le Monde Diplomatique as a "fringe" newspaper cannot be taken seriously. Le Monde Diplomatique is a highly prestigious political newspaper that specializes in geopolitical issues and is an ideal source for the question at hand. It meets all the criteria outlined in WP:RS. Regarding the "9/11 conspiracy theories", this is clearly explained here [32]. Not only did the LMD never promote 9/11 conspiracy theories, but rather, the editors of the Norwegian version, undertook, of their own initiative an in opposition to the parent French version, to summarise the various conspiracy theories. There is a world of a difference between promoting and summarising, and Calthinus is clearly competent enough to know this. Yet he carefully omits these crucial details and tries to crudely smear LMD as if it were some 9/11 conspiracy website. Regarding Rexhep Qosja, and his "fiery" views (more colorful adjectives), Calthinus fails to mention that Reshep Qosja is Albanian. Thus even an pro-Albanian source (and a "fiery" one at that, apparently) characterizes the areas in question as at least partially Greek-inhabited. Regarding the modern scholarship that Calthinus and other Albanian POV editors praise, I should note that Leonidas Kallivretakis is a member of the Greek far-Left [33]. For those who don't know, the Greek far-left is highly revisionist, for example, engaging in genocide denial regarding the massacres of Greeks in Anatolia in the period 1914-1923. Regarding the issue of the Greek-Albanian border, it is widely known that many Albanian-speaking Orthodox Christians in border areas have pro-Greek sentiment. Yet Greek far-left sources such as Kallivretakis consistently hide this, painting all Albanian-speaking Orthodox Christians as exclusively "Albanian". This calls into question the quality and impartiality of such sources. So the reality of the situation is in fact the exact opposite of what Calthinus claims. Khirurg (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy and feel I must respond to the rest of this post later (a lot of it seems directed at me) but I would like to point out that I'm not an "Albanian POV editor", and in fact I cant be as I am not Albanian. I have a personal interest in Albania topics but I am an American (of Jewish, not Albanian, background if anyone is dying to know). Of course we all have our own points of view but I try to keep my mainspace edits governed by principles, not opinions. There are times I may slip because while editing controversial topics, but I like to think I try my best not to. Rexhep Qosja is indeed Albanian (and a literary critic, so, in my view, unqualified) and many Christian Albanians have told me they dislike him-- inter-Albanian politics are as tangled as inter-Greek ones often. I appreciate good faith and attempts at understanding different perspectives-- making a truly neutral encyclopedia despite all of us having different vantage points is not always easy. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khirug is stunningly intellectually dishonest, in particular the attempted character assassination of Leonidas Kallivretakis. Nowhere does Panourgi state that Kallivretakis is from the left, only that he recounted a memory from his life pertaining to the left in younger days (in relation to his mother). Panourgi in that same page notes Kallivretakis' skills as a historian and even offers praise such as "Kallivretakis 2007 gives a good bibliography of memoirs" etc. It is quite disappointing to say the least that Panourgi is cited via distortion. Kallivretakis in his study went village to village with a university research team right after communism fell in Albania and borders opened. He compared both the reality he found on the ground in both Gjirokaster and Saranda municipalities + Himara district with previous data of old. His scholarly conclusions are peer reviewed, published in Greek scholarship, without dispute. Additional studies in relation to past realities have also been done by Kokolakkis [34], [35] who notes that people in the late Ottoman period considered as Greeks in the area can only be done so on the criteria of mother tongue -another in depth Greek scholarly study. Alexikoua's map apart from omitting other communities in Albania like the Gorani, Bosniaks and Romani, colours areas of solid Albanian Muslim settlement as Greek (as the issue of sentiments where raised these populations were never pro-Greek), which not even the Greek army in its Peace conference village by village statistics [36] for the Greek government (1919) for claims toward the area [37] did not do of the Muslim element, though it considered everyone Orthodox in the area as Greek (regardless of language and other qualifiers). Or the cherry picking of Tom Winnifrith (1999), a Western scholar who did fieldwork in the area, his map resembles Calinthus' one on the distribution of Greeks as opposed to Alexikoua's. Question is are we going to consider scholarship that has done fieldwork on the ground and the archival research in relation to sensitive matters like this or pick one map from a literary critic (Qosja) who has never done the hard yards on the ground that feels like for some as supporting a certain POV while omitting scholarship? I can go on. I'll wait though for others however. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map in Le Monde Diplomatique cites as its source Rexhep Qosja, La question albanaise. (The Albanian question.). Paris: Fayard, 1995. A scholarly analysis of Qosja's book by Antonia Young, John Hodgson, Nigel Young noted on page 90. [38] in the book titled Albania that its contents are about "Writing in vigorous and straightforward French, Qosja (born 1936) argues the case for the unification of the Albanian territories". Now some editors like Khirug have been vehemently opposed to sources used by some past editors that promote Albanian irredentism or nationalism and i have agreed and still strongly agree with that. I ask, how then is this source which promotes "the unification of the Albanian territories" RS and fit for use on Wikipedia regarding such sensitive issues like the demography of southern Albania?Resnjari (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @ Calthinus: the filling on the RSN, is already from the very first word, biased towards your POV, which is unfortunate. The filling's tone should be more neutral as to not attempt to influence the opinion of the RSN volunteers. The purpose of a filling is nothing but to present the RS for everyone in the RSN to see and evaluate them, and ask for their own third opinion on the matter. If you want to to express your views on the sources, it is preferable that you do so with a separate comment below your filling. The RSN volunteers should be allowed to make their own conclusions regarding these RS, independently of your own views on them, and it is sad that you are underestimating their intelligence.

@ Resnjari: you can not use the refusal of others to accept the citation of nationalist POV across Wikipedia's articles to justify the Cherrypicking of RS on your part. Please, we are not here to comment on disputes unrelated to this one, so please avoid recalling what the other editors did or not in the past with RS, and instead, I recommend that you focus your comments solely on why do you believe that the following 5 RS aren't reliable.

@ RSN Volunteers: The 5 RS in question are: 1. Philippe Rekacewicz of Le Monde Diplomatique, 2. "World and Its Peoples: Europe, Western Balkans Vol. 18 (2010) 3. Cartographie.sciences-po.fr, 4. CIA, Intelligence Memorandum 1994 and 5. "Hellenism in the Near East 1918" by Soteriadis.

As everyone can see, the 5 RS are not fringe as Calthinus and Resnjari are trying to claim. They come from very well-known and reliable organizations, scholars and newspapers which confirm the presence of an ethnic Greek Minority in the region of Southern Albania. To those who are not familiar about the unfortunate politics behind the current disagreement over the 5 RS, I shall bring here some facts: there is a Christian Minority of Greek origin inhabiting the southern parts of Albania for more than 2.000 years already. The minority today is facing political discrimination and socioeconomic challenges as result of the rising Albanian nationalism which is today prevailing in the country as result of the Kosovo issue and the tensions in the Balkans. Many ultra-nationalist muslim Albanian politicians are trying to suppress the ethnic minority's historic presence in the region on the grounds that the minority is posing a threat to the character and unity of the Albanian state. Hence why certain editors who are working or focused especially on Albanian topic articles in Wikipedia, are insisting so much on the Albanian-POV which wants the Greek minority's presence in the Albania to be artifically reduced in line with their POV, and for this reason are opposing any RS that goes against their views. I and User:Alexikoua have tried to reason with Calthinus and Resnjari that CIA, Diplomatique, Soteriadis, and Cartographie are all very popular and reliable sources. But to no avail. Just yesterday, Resnjari made clear to me that he will NOT CONSENT to these 5 RS no matter what, and even if others tell them that the RS are reliable. So I am wondering: What is the purpose of the RSN filling if they are so stubbornly firm in their positions and are not willing to re-consider their stance? What if the RSN volunteers/admins find any or all of the 5 RS to be in line with the project's criteria? Could Resnjari and Calthinus then be willing to change their mind on the RS? Sadly, this is not the impression they gave me yesterday. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 13:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RSN Volunteers: Both Rekacewicz and Cartographie.sciences-po [39] cite Qosja as a source for their map (with the first only Qosja). Qosja's book to once again quote Young, Young and Hodgson notes that it "argues the case for the unification of the Albanian territories". How is the use of a map from such a book promoting irredentism and nationalism RS for use in sensitive issues like the demography of southern Albania ?

@Silent Resident. Your reference to "ultra-nationalist muslim Albanian politicians" without even citing a source is quite uncalled for considering that Albania's current prime minster is Orthodox converted to Catholicism and many of the cabinet are Orthodox voted in by a majority Muslim public through free elections. Please keep personal views out of the discussion. Thank you. On other sources, the current RSN deals with the Qosja source, although Soteriadis has its own issues being a propaganda piece from World War One noted by British scholar Henry Robert Wilkinson [40].Resnjari (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Resnjari: first, that a source may contain POV, is not a strong argument to classify that source automatically as unreliable. Please, as per WP:Neutrality of Sources, Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view.. That's the second time I am asking you to read that. CIA, Catrographie, etc, all have a reputation for fact-checking and their reliability can not be dependent on whether you personally agree with their point of view. I am saddened that you have not understood this. Second, that the country currently has an Muslim or Christian Prime Minister elected, matters little, as the issues the Greek Minority of Albania are well-documented and reported (at least outside of Albania), especially by the European Union, to which Albania aspires to join someday, and even by the foreign representatives in the country, such as the American and European Ambassadors. But I am sure you are aware of that already, aren't you?

And could I ever mention of the latest Annual Report of the European Comission for Albania's adaption to the Maastricht Criteria, also confirmed shortcomings in 3 fields: 1) Fight of Corruption, 2) Protection of Minority Rights, and 3) Judiciary Reforms.

Only a naive person could assume that just because of the LGBT Prime Minister Ana Brnabic's election in Serbia, Serbia shall now be considered a LGBT-friendly country, or just because a Greek or Christian PM Edi Rama's election in Albania, the country is automatically more friendly for Greeks to live at. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 14:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Silent Resident, Rekacewicz and Catrographie has used map from a book by Qosja that promotes "Albanian unification" in the 1990s. Now if one does not want to consider that as nationalism, at the very least it is irredentism. Is that the type of source that meets Wikipedia standards of RS ? Regarding Albania's issues with the Greek minority, such as the church Dhermi etc was a tussle between Edi Rama (a formally Orthodox Christian, now Catholic), someone who has deep roots from the Himara region being from Vuno village who is the prime minister and local Orthodox clergy over a religious site. Your characterisation of the issue as some kind of Muslim on Christian thing was completely uncalled for. I am deeply saddened that you said such a thing. Please clarify issues before commenting and keep to the issues at hand, as Wikipedia is not a wp:forum. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, on top of all your other (rich) accusations, now you claim that the RS documenting the minorities living in the country as being "irredendist"! I am really baffled. What else will we hear from you, Resnjari? Please, can you for once leave your nationalist Albanian POV, including anti-Albanian conspiracy theories aside, and explain here to the RSN why the Central Intelligence Agency, the Cartographie, and Sotiriadis and such, are unreliable? How a source containing POV, makes them unreliable? I am asking you this because as far as I am aware, there is no such rule or guideline in Wikipedia which states that Reliability of a source is determined by Neutrality. That CIA and the others, just because they may be citing POV (which may be POV or not, depending your editorial view) are unreliable. To claim that Reliability = Neutrality, goes against logic and is not in line with Wikipedia's standards. -❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 14:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One source at a time. Also once again your inferring something about me regarding "accusations". Please refrain from doing so and keep to the issue at hand. The whole point of this RSN is about the use of Qosja. Le Diplomatique and that French cartography company source both use and cite Qosja as their source for data. Qosja's book is noted by other scholars that it "argues the case for the unification of the Albanian territories". For @RSN volunteers, is Qosja as a source reliable due to the irredentism of "unification" it promotes ? If Qosja here is deemed a reliable source, the ramifications are wide ranging as his book La question albanaise might be used by some editors in future to add Greater Albania POV on any given articles which has the potential to cause much discord and a return to this forum in future asking the same question about Qosja and reliability, yet alone issues of the book's accuracy among other things. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, if Qosja (and frankly, not only this, but every other out there) is deemed a reliable source, it can not be used as an window to insert nationalist POV across Wikipedia's articles, since the WP:NPOV rules are very clear on this: Source POV is allowed in the encyclopedia, but Editorial POV is not. The editors have a duty here in the Project: to take in account these RS, (regardless if they contain POV or not), and present them in Wikipedia in a neutral way. Let me copy-paste the sentence here: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The above five RS may contain POV, but that doesn't mean we can use its information to promote nationalist POV. We may cite RS that contains POV, but it is our duty to present it neutrally. This is why any nationalist content about irredendist concepts such as Greater Albania or Megali Idea have no place in Wikipedia and they shouldn't be confused with information about populations in these countries (i.e. the Arvanite populations in Greece and the Greek populations in Albania). --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 15:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to use Qosja (or any of his other works) -never have, never will- however the whole premise of his book "argues the case for the unification of the Albanian territories", noted by Young, Young and Hodgson. That is not NPOV at all. If Qosja's work is not textbook irredentist, then what is? Hence my question on reliability to RS volunteers. If he is allowed for one thing, stuff from his book will start oping up over time and proliferate articles on the wikipedia project. I don't want to waste time again and again (nor should other editors for that matter) having to discuss this issue about him being RS or not and having to clean up such usage of a controversial source if it comes to that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We cite from CIA and Cartographie and not directly from Qosja as far as I am aware. If they do cite POV RS (Qosja), doesn't make them more POV or less reliable. Unless you are questioning CIA's, Cartographie's and everyone else's fact-checking reputation. Is that so? This is very serious thing, Resnjari, and I do not recommend that you go down the trend as to accusing now any reliable organizations for citing and publishing... unchecked and unreliable (in your view) information, just to justify the exclusion of their information about the Greek minority in Albania. This is very low to do of your part. First time an editor is assuming CIA and the other organizations of citing unchecked fieldwork.

If you are not willing to accept Qosja, it is just your opinion and this is respected. But this does not make your arguments against CIA and Cartographie more valid for the rest of us to omit them from Wikipedia. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First its important to determine Qosja's reliability as he is used as the source material for maps and so on, before delving into other sources and their reliability etc. Determining Qosja's reliability is important not only for this issue of the map, but because in the Albanian speaking world he has published some other problematic material and it could be used on wikipedia articles. Editors have better time than to do constantly have endless discussions about whether Qosja is this or that. An outside neutral assessment and determination by RSN volunteers is needed on Qosja, hence the RSN here. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. But the problem is the RSN can not offer you the answer you want. To brief the entire discussion: here in the Reliable Source Noticeboard, you called Qosja's work to be "problematic" and "unreliable" because it contains, what you call it, "irredendist POV". Right? I replied to you that Neutrality and Reliability shouldn't be confused with each other and unfortunately the RSN can not decide on a source's reliability based on POV issues or to perceived problems in the scholar's fieldwork. You need stronger arguments than just this to present against citing the population data. Even if you had any, still, the RSN's duty is to evaluate reliability of sources, not neutrality of sources. I am sorry but if this is why you came here, then I don't think you will get what you seek. Even in the hypothetical scenario where you are questioning the scholar's reliability without citing neutrality issues, then I am afraid, your answer was already given by the others; the scholar's fieldwork has been used and referred to by several governmental and non-governmental institutions who maintain high reputation in the international community. You may, personally, find yourself opposing the scholar's work and disagree with CIA and others citing it, but here, the editiorial opinions little matter; these well-known institutions checked these parts of his work, especially the population data (mind you, native populations should not be confused with irredendism) and published them in their own publications. Simple.

Everyone is free to publish information, and no one ever questioned them priviously for doing this, except some Albanian topic editors in Wikipedia. There is nothing you can do to change these facts. We are talking about particular organizations which are not known for their anti-Albanian bias and the information they published about the Greek monority, contains data relating to its population, not data relating to irredendism that may exist in other parts of the scholar's fieldwork. But the Albanian topic editors are objecting to this due to their own POVs. It is as simple as that and there is nothing I can do to help the situation. Like it or not, the RS are quite neutral. Since what you are seeking from the RSN is to evaluate reliability by citing NPOV issues in the scholar's work, I can't help you, nor the RSN can, I am afraid. I could suggest the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard instead, but in that case, I don't know how can this resolve your problem, since you have made quite clear (in the article talk page) that you won't deviate from your position and POV no matter what. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Silent, Qosja's has reliability issues that relate to RS and more. I identified one issue on irredentism, i.e Western scholars have noted in a direct way that his whole book La question albanaise is about arguing for "Albanian unification". Other editors here have noted Qosja and his issues toward other Albanian religious communities. Its important that an assessment by editors not involved in the map discussion is done on this issue. Is this work by Qosja fit for usage on Wikipedia in general (one cannot just cherry pick one set of things on population data that they like and then call the rest of his work fringe)? Otherwise we enter problematic territory and POV edits are a possibility in future by some editors. Qosja's book comes as a package. It needs a evaluation on whether its reliable, whether it meets Wikipedia standards of wp:reliable and wp:secondary.Resnjari (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are dealing here with a classic case of literary critics who publish fringe content on purpose and Wikipedia editors who fall for it. Indeed, there are five sources that "support" the map used in some Wikipedia articles. I can type Google now and find not five but fifty sources for Hitler living in Antarctida. Having sources do not automatically qualify a claim as true. The sources are Sotiriades (criticized by academics for deliberately falsifying data), two Qose-based maps, and two sources that are tertiary ones and do not explain where do they base their content (every reliable source uses other reliable sources to make conclusions, right?). One editor keeps saying that Resnjari and Calthinus should present arguments why Qose/Le Monde and Sotiriades are not reliable sources, however arguments have already been presented. On the other hand I ask why academics like Kokalakkis and Winnifrith, who oppose Le Monde Diplomatique's claims are not taken into account? Does anyone have peer reviewed publications that criticize their work? I agree we should confine the discussion here to Qose/Le Monde Diplomatique. Qose is a literary critic. His purpose is not academic accuracy but promotion of his own ideas and provocation of public discussions. Put it in other words, Qose aims at attracting some attention for himself. He is criticized for Albanian irredentism, as showed above, and taking positions against Albanian national interests in the same time.^[1][2] He is criticized for blaming the Orthodox for problems of Albania.^[3] Someone who says some of the most important problems of Albania are caused by the Orthodox is a reliable source for a map that paints all Orthodox Albanian speakers as Greeks? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991, that there are opposing scholarly views, is very true and natural. No one here ever claimed to be the case. The dispute is due to the one side prefering only the RS that fit its personal editorial criteria (be them nationalist POV, or whatever) instead of taking in account all the RS that have been published on this.

I am sorry but to select the X RS and ignore the Y RS, just because it happens that you are finding yourself disagreeing with them, for political or whatever reasons, goes against Wikipedia's WP:Neutrality which mind you, is one of the project's 3 core pillars. Instead of this, it should be wiser of us to highlight all differing opinions between the scholars on the map, something you are refusing to do, hence the current dispute. To prefer only these RS that reduce the Greek minority's inhabited areas in Albania and even excempt it from places it lives, is a blatant POV and is unacceptable, no matter how hard you try to justify their omision on the grounds that it is "Anti-Albanian", "provocative", or against "Albanian national interests" to you.

Also let me correct you on two facts: the map that paints the areas with blue color, does not indicate that these areas do not have Albanians, or that these areas have only Greeks. In the same contect, the blue lines which were added by me on Calthinus' map (prior to its revision) did not replace the purple for Orthodox Albanians at all. So please do not try justify your POV by claiming fringe where there isn't. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 17:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the Albanian topic editors followed the example of Greek topic editors in resolving the neutrality issues. The Greek topic editors, allowed the Albanian population maps of Greece to be reflected without any population thresholds, or whatever. The areas where the Albanian populations lived or still live in Greece; the whole coast of Chameria in Northwestern Greece which has been inhabited by Cham Albanians, a large part of Central Greece and Southern Greece where the Arvanites live, and even Northern Greece where Muslims and Turks do live. If you compare these Greek topic article maps with the Albanian topic maps, you see a big difference, and certainly not what was done on Calthinus map of Albania, where a mere tiny portion of the map shows Greek presence and only on a village-per-village basis, and with population thresholds that obscures or hides the Greek element/presence from regions of Albania where it has been documented. If you take the time to check the maps for Greek topic areas and the infobox picture in the article about the languages spoken by the Albanians which also concerns Greece and other neighboring countries, you don't find any population thresholds, nor the whole countries marked stricktly on a village-by-village basis, just the RS which mark the places where the minorities lived or still live, without any personal intervention from the Greek topic editors of the kind we see now on Calthinus' map. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 17:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On other maps relating to Greece, i did not participate in either making those or if ever there was a discussion about them. That said, Silent, actually i probably should have written this before (and i say it in good faith and respect), we cannot have a proper discussion about map issues unless there is some clarity on source reliability. Otherwise we are wasting time and effort that can be devoted to other productive things on wiki etc. Its important that a assessment of Qosja is given about whether or not he is reliable by editors here at the RS not involved in the map discussion so there is clarity going forward. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If you go into this article: Demographics of Greece you can see a very beautiful map containing ALL the linguistic minorities of Greece, on all possible regions given by the RS, without going into tricks of using population thresholds, nor object to it using arguments of the kind "this RS is anti-Greek POV", "is irredendist", or "is against Greek national interests". Just we don't care if a source is POV or not, they are used as they document the populations living in Greece, regardless of their size (majority or minority), regardless of their numbers (population thresholds), and regardless of Greece's inner politics. See for yourself. Here is the map. I hope you will also assume good faith of the other editors, Resnjari, because (at least for me) of the policy of welcoming the RS that contain information about populations, without starting up fights, edit wars, disputes and bringing up all sorts of POV arguements for its exclusion.

If the Greek topic editors went down this trend, now I hardly could be here talking to you and Calthinus at all. Since you are insisting on taking this different stance for maps concerning the Greek minority of Albania than following the same rationale that is followed elsewhere in Wikipedia, including Greece's minorities, then it cant be helped but make the Wikipedians (not me, but those who are not involved in our dispute atm), be wondering whether you are following an political agenda. Sorry but I tried to reason with you, and there is nothing more for me to say here. I hope Calthinus will see my comments here and be reasoned to follow the same rationale the rest of us the Wikipedia editors follow, to as to have his map corrected even without your consent if possible. What you are doing is to unwillingly apply double standards even though you were the one to use this term in the various discussions we had, and this is finding me opposing. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the map on Greece, its good and can be better if done on a bigger map template if one wants to devote time and effort toward the endevour. That said, the issue with this map for Albania is whether a source is reliable on the data it claims to show. Due to issues brought up, it is important that an assessment and determination of Qosja is made here in the RS by editors who did not partake in the initial map discussion. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, if people want to read or write more on this broader dispute they can do so on the conversation on Talk:Albania. In my own defense (lots of stuff has been said about me above), I must say that I believe my approach to the isshe, a map of languages and religions, to be the approach most free of NPOV. Languages and religions are accepted facts. On the other hand things like the sentiment or national feeling of a population 100 years ago are hard to verify and also the topic of considerable differences in national narratives (Albanian, Greek, but also Turkish, Bulgarian, Macedonian...). The languages and religions formula cuts out all the potential for POV warring, and thats why I am pursuing it. Any further commentary on this should go in appropriate places. This is an RSN about a specific source (Soteriadis will be covered later). I ask for the opinions of non-involved observers who have no connection to any side of this dispute. Also SR I'm busy right now and this is a lot of text, but I promise i will read the post you tagged me in. Cheers all, --Calthinus (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus, it appears you have quite a weird taste of wp:RS though an experience editor: on the one hand you consider LMD as unreliable due to conspiracy theories and it's "not" the only source as you claim since there are 4 additional: among them CIA intelligence reports & a publication in Questions Internationales (an academic journal not a newspaper). On the other hand you insist that banned journalists & nationalist advocators should be used in wikipedia as reliable [[41]]... Needless to say that something is wrong with your definition of wp:RS.Alexikoua (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have discussed every point in this lost ad nauseam already, I'm finding difficulty convincing myself that this post was done for any other purpose than annoying me and derailing the thread. All of your misrepresentative arguments regarding myself on the Talk:Stath Melani issue can be found on that page and on Talk:Albania. We are taking this one source at a time. Please quit derailing the thread with misrepresentative and irrelevant Whataboutism.--Calthinus (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@On the Melani thing, as i said previously and am now on the record many times i was not in favour. Anyway, the source bought here is not Mema but Qosja. Regardless about some issues that editors have expressed here with each other on a personal level, the RS is not about that (not a wp:forum). Editors here have expressed valid concerns about Qosja that warrants an evaluation and determination by RS volunteers about the source and its reliability (wp:reliable and wp:secondary) for use on wikipedia. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Qosja is the subject of this topic the heading needs to be corrected. For future reference the map in question isn't a fringe map but a map verified by multiple sources and a consensus map for more than 7 years.Alexikoua (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same way we don't alter a certain type of wording of a subheading of threads that you create, the same same applies here regarding other editors. The map was challenged many times (there was no consensus), thing is there was no alternative to your map until now and published scholarly sources that had done the fieldwork and research were not utilised in those discussions about your map until recently. Qosja forms the basis as a cited source for two sources that you use for your map. It is important that a evaluation and determination is made on Qosja by RS volunteers regarding reliability. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but there was consensus. That you came and challenged the content at a later time, does not make it less. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 13:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its been challenged over time (such as some editors attempted to change the map at the time when it was first made). There was no alternative map over the years, and nor did those discussions when they occurred on various talkpages where the map was located take into account scholarship by those challenging. Anyway, Qosja needs an evaluation and determination by RS volunteers about its reliability as a source for wikipedia.Resnjari (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say Its been challenged over time (such as some editors attempted to change the map at the time when it was first made), and indeed this is absolutely true and the key in differientating the consensus for its addition from the consensus for its removal: Do not confuse the initial consensus for its addition which was larger than for its non-addition, with the over time lack of consensus among some editors for its removal. A big difference if you ask me. As per WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. Wikipedia's Balkan topic articles are notoriously known for not accepting easily content that is politically sensitive - rarely there has been content or map that was accepted with zero opposition in them. From the Kosovo-Serbia articles, to Albania-Greece or Bulgaria-Macedonia articles. The key for consensus is when people wanting it are more than people disputing it. if there wasn't a minimal consensus, then no content could have been added to Wikipedia and the project could have been hostage to certain editors. Frankly, I am very grateful with that, otherwise contested articles which are hubs for biased editors, could be impossible to expand or change over time with content that may not be in line with their (editorial) POV. I am sorry if you do not like this, I didn't make the rules, but you have to admit nevertheless that these rules are what saved Wikipedia articles from not evolving over time with the addition of content that does not suit some editor's POV.

EDIT : I don't know if you noticed, but one of the reasons Greek topic articles contain content that may not be in line with the nationalist POV expressed by some marginalized Greek editors who happened to be around Wikipedia, is exactly that the Greek topic editors (regardless of nationality) are making sure that the content added (and which does not reflect their one-sided view) summarizes all different views, without the typical nationalist fanfare of the kind "is against Greece's national interests" and such. Just pointing out to an example of why you are still finding minority maps in Greek topic articles that are rather generously painting, lets say, with color the entirety of Central Greece as having Albanian population without any restrictions such as population thresholds, unlike Calthinus' map which drastically has reduced the blue color of the Greek minority to only a fraction of the original areas. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 13:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The longevity of a source does not determine that it is accurate. When some editors who may not have previously been party to past discussions highlight etc certain things change can happen, even if there was previously a consensus. A recent example of this was the map that had been there for years on the Principality of Arbanon article, until its accuracy was questioned [42] and removed [43] with a new map eventually replacing the old [44]. Its very important to establish accuracy of sources especially in things relating to this. Serious issues have been raised by editors regarding Qosja and its important that a elevation and determination on reliability be made. Wikipedia has its guidelines on consensus, it also has policy rules on wp:reliable and ][wp:secondary]] to prevent biased sources and in other cases propaganda or and POV entering the encyclopedia, as in the end Wikipedia is not a wp:forum.Resnjari (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The longevity of a source is not determined by whether it has POV (mind you, the editors who have questioned Qosja, did so on POV grounds), and its reliability is not determined by how much POV or how long it has been on the article. True that. But what you are missing here is that Qosja is deemed as a reliable scholar and his work has already been used by several well-reputed institutions of the international community which are very respected and well known for their lack of POV and lack of fringe publications, and for their fact-checking, as are Cartographie and CIA in Qosja's case. Very important, Resnjari. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 14:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - is the map in question actually being used as a source, or is it merely an illustration of something stated in a cited source? Or to ask this another way... are WP editors creating statements based on looking at the map, or is the map merely illustrating statements made by an external source? (Note: As long as a map accurately depicts what an source material states, then it is an illustration, not a source). This is important, because if it is merely an illustration of external source material, then the question of reliability has to shift... from discussing the map itself to discussing the external source material upon which the map is based. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by User:Calthinus: @Blueboar: -- yes. The LDM map is an illustration of Rexhep Qosja's work. The literary critic. Do you think I should reformulate this thread to match that? I believe this was suggested elsewhere too but I ... can't find it :(. This got long and ugly. --Calthinus (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by User:Resnjari: @Blueboar:, the map in Le Diplomatique [45] is a copy of Qosja's map. I should add here that an academic review [46] in the journal Balkanlogue in 1999 by Michel Roux of Qosja's La question albanaise concludes that it is from the perspective of ethnonationalism (paragraph 7. "Mais il est, comme tant d'autres essais balkaniques récents, tout entier situé dans la perspective de l'ethno-nationalisme."). In addition Roux highlights in detail issues with Qosja's map regarding percentages etc in paragraph 6 and criticises them along with population hatching and population distribution for inaccuracy amongst other things. "Il s'agit ici d'un genre qui se répand fâcheusement, la CMO, cartographie massacrée par ordinateur : vite fait, mal fait, non vérifié." To translate "This is an unfortunate genre, CMO, computer-slaughtered mapping: quick, badly done, unverified." Roux notes further problems of wrong geogprahy and so on. "Istanbul a abandonné le Bosphore et le mot Albanie est à l'emplacement de la Macédoine (p. 299). Mal orthographiés sont Kolašin (p. 301), Ferizaj, Vuçitërnë, Prishtinë, Rožaje, Kičevo et Preševo (p. 306) ; d'ailleurs les deux dernières devraient être notées Kërçovë et Preshevë puisque l'ouvrage met en graphie albanaise les noms des lieux où les Albanais sont majoritaires, et cela vaut aussi pour Tetovo, Debar et Gnjilane (Tetovë, Dibër, Gjilan). Enfin, la dernière carte, p. 307, consacrée à la proportion d'Albanais par commune, est rendue incompréhensible par la permutation de trois types de hachures : il faut lire 50 à 80 % au lieu de 10 à 30, 30 à 50 au lieu de 50 à 80, enfin 10 à 30 au lieu de 30 à 50… faute de quoi on pourrait croire, par exemple, que Skopje est à majorité albanaise, ce que personne ne prétend. Encore la source, non indiquée, n'est-elle pas le recensement yougoslave de 1991, mais une estimation de source albanaise qui majore la proportion d'Albanais dans certaines communes. Cette même carte figure - sans les erreurs ci-dessus - dans d'autres publications, comme la revue Kosova, n°1, Tirana, 1993.". I hope that goes some way to answering things. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by User:SilentResident: (edit conflict) @Blueboar:, the map [[47]] is created by an Wikipedia editor, User:Alexikoua, and as source, it cites authentic maps already published by the academic scholars such as Soteriadis (here is Soteriadis map for you: [[48]], as well as maps by literary critics such as Rexhep Qosja. But, the problem here, Blueboar, is that the filling party (which already apologized in advance for its lack of clarification in its wording), explained what exactly they seek from the RSN: to evaluate the content not by whether it is a source, or merely an illustration of something stated in a cited sources (it is a source, not illustration) but by whether a certain scholars's political views deem it reliable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The editors from the filling party consider Rexhep Qosja's work to no be suitable to their editorial POV, and thus they find it to be "fringe" just because they personally disagree with the literary critic's expressed political views, and are accusing Qosja for containing "bias against the Albanian state and the Albanian people". In this contect, the filling side is asking whether the map by Alexikoua (which includes both Sotiriades and Qosja maps) is too NPOV for it to meet reliability criteria for inclusion to Wikipedia, given that it cites Rexhep Qosja who often has expressed contested political views which the filling party finds itself as disagreeing with. Edit: as you can read above, I have already tried to explain to the filling party about WP:Neutrality of Sources, but they could prefer to hear your opinion instead of mine. They could like to hear the opinion of a third, uninvolved party instead of me because I have been involved in the dispute. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 15:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map by Sotiriades has also been criticized in Western scholarship (i.e Wilkenson) as being a piece of Word War One wartime propaganda [49]. There are huge issues with Alexikoua's map like also omissions of other ethnic groups etc. Considering scholars like Roux who have looked at Qosja's book La question albanaise have cited that his map data is unverified and full of inaccuracies etc and that overall it is a ethnonationalist work, for RS volunteers is Qosja a reliable source?Resnjari (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari, how many times do we have to explain to you that a scholar not agreeing by another scholar during wartime period, does not mean that the opposing views shouldn't be taken in account? Please read CAREFULLY what WP:NPOV states: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Can you point me to a rule in Wikipedia which states that some views should be omitted from the encyclopedia just because there is lack of scholarly consensus on (or criticism among them)? --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Resnjari, know that: I do not disagree with you that this or that scholar has been criticized for their work. Absolutely not. My point here isn't whether this or that scholar have conducted fieldwork that finds everybody agreeing with, my whole point is that given the lack of thorought analysis of the populations in Albania, which you have admitted that it was largely ignored by the academic community and thus, the populations in Albania have not been the subject of extensive studies by scholars abroad, makes even more important to present the opposing views by these few scholars who studied on Albania's populations. To just omit one scholar and cherrypick on sources from others based on political criteria or due to perceived POV, is something that goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How have scholars omitted (Kallivretakis who had a research team with him, Nitsiakos, De Rapper, Winnifrith etc that in their fieldwork when they went to those places did so in most cases on a village by village basis and Qosja did not at all) reach different conclusions based on their research and are different from the Qosja data? Roux notes in detail that Qosja's work is unverifiable, full or inaccuracies and that it is ethno-nationalist. By the way don't bend my words, i never said that populations have been ignored by scholars in Albania, what i said was that Alexikoua has ignored those studies, hence much omissions of those communities in his wikipedia map.Resnjari (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — @Calthinus, Resnjari, Blueboar, Only in death, Khirurg, SilentResident, and Alexikoua: I am not an expert in the ethnographic composition of Albania and the surrounding region. That said, this RSN post's description of Le Monde Diplomatique as a fringe source is incorrect. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of French civilization, or of international publications generally, knows the it is one of the most respected publications in France. A polemical paragraph in this book [50], which acknowledges that LMD is "respected", does not change that fact. Reliable sources can publish false information, and this map could be incorrect. But Le Monde Diplomatique is generally a reliable source. -Darouet (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Darouet. I agree absolutely with you on this. Although it is true that sometimes a reliable source may publish incorect information, this does not make anything about it to be automatically unreliable. This was always the case about the newspapers, books, etc, across the world. Today no source could be taken as reliable if we followed the filling party's absolutist approach on what can be reliable or not. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darouet, Le Monde Diplomatique has also been noted in scholarship to have from the 1970s onward "a radical left-wing editorial line and been involved with some activist movements since the 1990s" [51] or that "Le Monde Diplomatique is owned by the Monde group, but has an autonomous, radical-left editorial staff." [52]. One cannot omit that the newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique has a radical left wing bias. That said the map in Le diplomatiqie is copied from Qosja whose work La question Albanaise is noted as a ethnonationalist work and that the map and data it showed to be inaccurate and unverifiable. Newspapers of any standing can still make mistakes from where they source their data from. And it is quite clear they got it from Qosja.Resnjari (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari: thanks for your note. As a major publication LMD has been described as many things, including:

• "With its clear left-wing political affiliation, Le Monde Diplomatique caters for a global intellectual audience..." with a larger international than home audience [53]
• "...astonishingly successful... political and cultural bi-monthly with a global printed circulation of 1.5 million in 21 languages... editorial line clearly to the left, or rather altermondialiste."[54]
• "Le Monde Diplomatique had established a solid reputation for high-brow criticism and debate on international affairs and for many years had acted as a mouthpiece for the left-wing intelligentsia. This was 'a newspaper produced by and for an elite' and many of France's leading left-wing thinkers had, at various points, filled the column inches of this newspaper..."[55]
• "...the French monthly Le Monde Diplomatique was a success story not only in its home country but also abroad. Today, this left-wing and movement-oriented journal is published in more than ten countries with a total circulation of 1.2 million copies..."[56]
• "the left-leaning Le Monde Diplomatique..." [57]
• "...a leading voice of the European left..."[58]

That said, I agree with you that the map might be wrong. I'm not an expert here and can't evaluate that issue. -Darouet (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You forget however that not only Diplomatique uses Qosja's map, but other agencies too, which are well-respected reliable sources, such as Central Intelligence Agency and Cartographie. What do you say about them? They too are using Qosja's maps. Are they unreliable too? C'mon now. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One source at a time. Qosja first as its used the most by other sources used in Alexikoua's map. Those others in due course. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet: Le Monde Diplomatique is a newspaper, and as such its aim is not to produce academic data on demographics of Albania but to present different views on topics its readers might find interesting. Those views surely include fringe ones. Above everything else, it is its editor-in-chief who has expressed his worry about false information that is being served to media organizations such as Le Monde Diplomatique itself [59].

I value your opinion that Le Monde Diplomatique is generally a reliable source. Of course, as a well-known publication it has its own merits. However, what we need to know is if the specific map published in a specific article of Le Monde Diplomatique is reliable or not. The question is not about Le Monde Diplomatique in general, but about a specific article/map published on it. A map that is very criticized, and was made by Rexhep Qosja, who himself (as shown with references above) is criticized by academics for being an irredentist, an anti-Albanian, an anti-Orthodox, and a creator of poor and unreliable maps in the same time. To sum up all, the question is: Can Wikipedia editors use Qosja-based works on maps and other things? It is very important because his works might be used or not by other editors in the future. For example, his works might be used for demographics maps of the Republic of Macedonia, although he paints as Albanian majority settlements (such as Ohrid and Skopje) that even Albanian nationalists do not claim to be so or as non-Albanian majority settlements that have an Albanian majority, as a matter of fact. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktrimi991: That's fair, and in defending Le Monde Diplomatique generally, I don't mean to suggest that this particular map is correct. I am simply disputing the characterization of the publication provided at the start of this RSN post. -Darouet (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet:, I appreciate the clarification and comments. These issues of demography are both sensitive and complex making even more the importance of using data that is credible and accurate. I agree with @Ktrimi991: on Qosja and its something for RS volunteers to reflect on in their evaluation regarding reliability. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet: I must then apologize for the characterization of Le Monde Diplomatique. To be entirely honest it is not a source I am incredibly familiar with (though I do like to think I have a "modicum of knowledge on French civilization"). Most of what I knew about it were published statements saying things comparing the United States to Hitler, bin Laden and Stalin , that Europe was an American "vassal", and so on. Frankly I find these offensive, and that probably colors my view -- though it is fair to think that such an emotional response may be unfair to a "journal of opinions" based on recurrent themes in editorials (??) and perhaps also I am wrong and it is indeed "not fringe" to compare the United States to Hitler and etc. Let's just say I've been thoroughly surprised, learn something new every day. --Calthinus (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I looked trough the arhives of RSN and found several discussions about LMD. There is a clear consensus that LMD is RS (I presented links and quotes below). Having in mind very neutral, weak and mild context of this RSN request, the "presence" of non-Albanian languages or people (without insisting on majority) and multiple other RS that support it, I think it is safe to conclude that LMD is RS.
  • August 2008 - link - Le Diplo is a major and quite influential publication, and it clearly qualifies as a reliable source
  • September 2010 - link - Le Monde Diplomatique is a WP:RS – and if I remember correctly – is world renowned for its reliable high-quality maps. -- Petri Krohn (talk) ... Le Monde Diplomatique is as good a reliable source as you'll get.
  • December 2010 - link - LMD, which is undoubtedly a reliable source .... Agree. --FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Certainly Agree. Xavier449 (talk) Also agree. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • January 2013 - link - Le Monde Diplomatique is a serious mainstream news magazine, should be reliable for biographies.
  • August 2014 - link - Le Monde Diplomatique, a political magazine owned by a subsidiary of Le Monde. It is being used with attribution for an article it published describing Right Sector as a fascist organization. The journal is highly respected in France, and for political commentary internationally.
  • July 2015 - link - Le Monde diplomatique, which is totally WP:RS. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Antidiskriminator, there is scholarly analysis of Qosja, whose particular work Le Question albanaise is noted as "ethnonationalist" and his map as full of errors with unverifiable information, a map which Le Monde has used in its entirety and sourced in whole to Qosja. In all those RS threads on Le Monde only one touches upon the issue here and none of the issues in that thread about Qosja as an academic yet alone the book Le Question albanaise where discussed which Le Monde sources its map in whole from. There is serious issues of quality and accuracy with Qosja making its use for Wikipedia quite questionable to say the least if wiki guidelines and policy (wp:reliable and wp:secondary) are applied.Resnjari (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Antidiskriminator: Other editors (not involved in the discussion on the talk of Albania) have already explained everything depends on context. We are not asking here about Le Monde Diplomatique in general but about the map made by Rexhep Qosja. I guess you do not support usage of Qosja on demographics of Macedonia or articles related to Serbia. Do you? I guess you want Qosja to be used when it suits your own opinion, and Qosja to not be used when he says things that are not to your liking. Make your mind, is Qosja reliable for such things or not? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question in this RSN is wheather Le Monde Diplomatique (an article authored by Philippe Rekacewicz) is reliable to be cited in context of the presence of non-Albanian languages or people. I explicitly referred to:

• very neutral, weak and mild context in my above comment and
• to multiple sources and authors who support it.

Having in mind very neutral, weak and mild context of this RSN request, the "presence" of non-Albanian languages or people (without insisting on majority) and multiple other RS that support it, I think it is safe to conclude that LMD is RS. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet:, @Antidiskriminator: My thanks to both of you. I am happy to hear the opinion of two uninvolved editors on the RSN regarding Diplomatique, and I appreciate that you took the time to do so, regarding the reliability of Diplomatique. But I am afraid the problem with the filling party is that due to their editorial POV, they are never going to accept Diplomatique as a RS. Never. It seems clear to me that no matter what, they will go the very end about this, and even dispute CIA or Cartographie on top of that. I already have tried to reason with them over the citation of a questionable map of Qosja by reputed and highly respected institutions and agencies. But the filling party not only they are not listening to us, but also are going as low as to suggest exlusion of not only Qosja's map, but also Soteriadis's map on faulty NPOV grounds. Which is very saddening and shows that their NPOV concerns aren't for the sake of neutrality, are for the sake of maintaining a certain editorial POV on the contested articles where this map is to be used. The filling party's approach of classifying reliable RS such as Diplomatique as unreliable, just to justify their position on the maps they do not POV-agree with, is finding me vehemently opposing. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident Antidiskriminator is not an "uninvolved" editor as you claim. He is a party in this dispute. The request for comments was done here after some editors, including Antidiskriminator and you held the view the map made by Alexikoua is based on reliable sources. So do not unfairly portrait Antidiskrimintor as an "uninvolved" editor.

@Antidiskriminator You are saying that Le Monde Diplomatique's article based on Qose is reliable because some other articles published by Le Monde Diplomatique are considered reliable. I have explained before in this discussion that having sources for a claim does not automatically make it true. For example, there are a lot of sources that say the United States are worse than bin Laden. One of those sources is an article published on Le Monde Diplomatique itself. Le Monde Diplomatique has published good and fringe articles. Our purpose here is to have opinions from uninvolved editors on this specific map made by Qose. A map that is criticized by academics as already showed. On the other hand we have several (mostly Greek) academics who after doing fieldwork have presented another version of the truth. Their findings contradict the map made by a literary essayist named Rexhep Qose. I ask you again as you still have not responded my question. Is Qosja a reliable source to be used on demographics of Macedonia or articles related to Serbia? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktrimi991: Antidiskriminator isn't party to the RS dispute. Coming to the talk page to warn you against violations of WP:CONSENSUS which you, the filling party, have committed, along with WP:EDITWAR and violations of WP:BRD, does not make him an involved party to the dispute. Voicing his opposition to disruption and pointing out to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution guidelines that you should have followed, does not make him party to the RS dispute. Please straight your facts. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 20:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Antidiskriminator was involved early in the discussion on the map within the Albania talkpage [60]. That said Silent, @Blueboar: noted that context matters, while @Darouet: also noted that though Le Diplomatiqie is of merit did not suggest that the map is correct either. @Ktrimi991: makes a valid point on Qosja and the need for RS volunteers to give a evaluation and determination on reliability considering Le Monde used the map in whole from Qosja, a source noted in scholarship as "ethnonationalist" with its map being full of errors and data unverifiable. Other sources like the Soteriadis map are noted in scholarship i.e British scholar Henry Robert Wilkinson as being World War One propaganda [61].Resnjari (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is what I am talking about. He explained to you that consensus is required for replacing the old map by Diplomatique with the one created by the filling party. I don't see anywhere his participation to the RS dispute. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As i explained to him as well consensus is needed on other things as well alongside of course accuracy of sources.Resnjari (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution

It seems an important goal of this RSN post is not to ascertain whether Le Monde Diplomatique is a reliable source (it is [62]), but rather to decide between differing and possibly contradictory maps (e.g. #1 [63], #2 [64]) of the ethnic and minority composition of Albania [65]. Note that another map is also available: [66].

As is common in these cases, subtle differences in the apparent magnitude of different ethnicities in different areas become fodder for various disputed nationalist causes, past and present. What those are won't be apparent to the vast majority of Wiki editors.

I'd propose that you make a composite map with 2-3 panels, where each panel shows a different map. You can label them A, B and C. And in the description you can clearly indicate which scholarly sources A, B and C are based upon. That way readers can be made aware that there are different, disputed maps of minorities in Albania. And readers who are very interested can pursue the subject in greater depth, using the referenced sources. What do you all think of this? -Darouet (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The whole root of the dispute is that the sources documenting the minority populations are not reflected due to criteria placed on them by the filling party. The filling party created the following old map which you pointed: [67], as well the following new map: [68], and the maps contain editor-imposed population thresholds that are artificially shrinking the presence of minorities in the country, and this is not in line with the sources cited. The new map was created on the holiday season just few weeks ago, and the filling party tried to replace the Diplomatique map with that new one they made. The filling party said the population threshold on their new map is about 10%, significantly reducing the minority's presence in the country in areas where it is less than 10% of the population.

If the three maps have to be includred to the articles side-by-side as you proposed, then the filling party's POV on it has to be eliminated first. This means, the filling party's imposed population thresholds will have to be removed before the map is accepted to the article so what the readers see on it is what the sources say, not what the filling party wants them to see. If Resnjari and Calthinus are willing to remove their population thresholds on their new map so it can reflect what the sources say, then I will consent to its inclusion. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 21:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All this so-called conspiracy theory about LMD has reached a near-paranoia level, no wonder third part editors confirm that LMD is of merit. Moreover the LMD map is only one of the sources used in this case: Questions Internationales features another identical map and a CIA memorandum on the 1994 situation in Albania yet another one.Alexikoua (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So present them all, with appropriate captions to indicate which source (and thus which viewpoint) they are based upon. Simple. Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's impossible to present in one caption Calthinus recent map it's a wp:SYNTHESIS of 25kb of text [[69]] based on c. 40 citations (though none of the inlines presents a map on the subject only text and partial lists of villages). Alexikoua (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboar:, the maps the filling party created, both the new map: [70] as well as the old map: [71], are not reflecting the sources cited. For example, while the sources are documenting minority presence in the country's cities and villages, they are not marked at all on the map, due to the filling party having placed a Population Threshold 10% on these areas. The population threshold is not supported by the sources, is something the filling party placed by itself, resulting in a map showing very different information from what the sources do. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 21:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboar: I'm not happy to see that in my absence SR has said things about me which are just false. There is no "Population Threshold 10%" for the 2011 census map at all. You can literally look at the map and see that. Also every single thing on that map comes from a single source, the stats available here: [[72]]. Meanwhile, SR's description of the present map is also misleading. Of course no source would say "Hmm I think if you make a map of this you should have this threshold"-- instead it is implemented to prevent a hairball effect that makes everything impossible to see on it. Furthermore, the map is a work in progress-- the "Greek side" has only actually (to my knowledge) criticized one case where "the sources are documenting minority presence in the country's cities and villages"-- the town of Permet. I had simply missed that. I'm going to fix it after I'm done replying to.... all the things that were directed to me (sigh).--Calthinus (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Internationales via a commissioned map produced by a French cartography company also cites the same Qosja source for its map [73], [74] etc. @Darouet:, @Blueboar:, i have only been a interested party in the discussion, we would need the input of @Calthinus: as its his map after all and knows the ins and outs of it. @Alexikoua, your map initially had 6 sources now it has 8 and that too is wp:SYNTHESIS. Calthinus's map is based on multiple academic studies that did fieldwork documented the many ethno-linguistic communities of Albania and their distributions. There are multiple ways of showing complex referencing like this (an example is the Souliots article, see sentence on origins in the lede -its citation [no.3] has a whole host of citations arranged neatly within the context of one citation).Resnjari (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, Resnjari, but none here on the RSN ever disputes Diplomatique or asks for Qosja sources to be removed from Wikipedia; now, the volunteers proposed basically the same thing as I did to you above but you couldn't listen to me: Contain all significant views on the populations of Albania, as per WP:NPOV, without omitting any of them from Wikipedia, unlike how you have attempted when you replaced Qosja's map with your prefered one. You have two options: Either accept the RSN's suggestions, either we return back to the old good consensus. Period. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 22:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They proposed 2 or 3 maps to be side by side (as one of those maps is the official census results spserate to Calthinius' ethno-linguistic map). That's a different thing to what you proposed. As i said above to @Darouet:, @Blueboar:, we'll need @Calthinus:' input for this as it was his map in the end. On my part i have not made up my mind. I want to see @Calthinus:'s view before i say one thing or another going forward.Resnjari (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari: My position that no RS shall be omitted from Wikipedia and that all significant viewpoints should be present, including Qosja and Soteriadis remains unchanged, I am afraid. The RSN now just confirmed my position and expectations on this, that all different viewpoints reflected in the RS shall be present in Wikipedia. But since you do not want that, they offered you an alternate workaround to not adding Qosja and Soteriadis to your map: have them by-by. Thats all. You wanted to remove Soteriadis and Qosja completely from Wikipedia and to do this, you went as far as to dispute Diplomatique. The RSN however, failed to share your views, and proposed the obvious: that all the RS stay in Wikipedia, like them or not. I am sorry if you are disappointed with the outcome, but you should have listened to me from the start instead of being so stubborn to your positions. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 22:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this where we differ, your refering to viewpoints, yet my premise has always been accurate scholarship based on wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Sources like Sotiriades are problematic due to it being basically WW1 propaganda. Qosja is a problem due to it being nationalistic and his map being inaccurate. These are not my views but the analysis of scholarship. Also the RS did not confirm your position on the map, as apart from reliability accuracy and context was raised as well including where a source sourced its source. As i said before and i say again @Calthinus:' input is required as its his map before i make further comments going forward.Resnjari (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari:, I am glad you finally realized what is the case here, but don't you think now to be abit too late for such realizations? I wish you understood this sooner instead of having us drag our feet to Noticeboards just for this. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Qosja isn't the only source Questions Internationales uses for its map. It would be far too much to accuse this academic journal for conspiracy theories and FRINDGE like LMD. No wonder those maps (CIA included) offer almost identical definitions of the Greek minority area. Pardon me but I wouldn't term it SYNTH.Alexikoua (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources do not pertain toward Albania, but neighboring regions like Kosovo, Macedonia [75], [76]. That cartography source also cites the Greek government website on migrants etc, yet no link to a document etc. I thought government sources were not credible in such instances, or is it only applied to Albanian government data that is not considered credible. One wonders how that cartography company formed that data for southern Albania. Well there is Qosja cited in that map once again. Pardon me, but the use of Winnifirth for your map (cherry picked only for the Aromanian community) in no way gives the Greek distribution as in your map, but instead is identical to Calthinius'. You have a collection of 8 sources, that is synthesis.Resnjari (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If mine is SYNTH then Alexi's must also be, as the supposed reason (use of different sources for different groups and regions) is also exactly what Alexi did. Indeed he used Winnifrith for the Vlachs but not the Greeks which is technically CHERRY...--Calthinus (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh Resnjari I'm confused by this crazy thread. For what is my input needed now?--Calthinus (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus:, I do agree that its gotten way big, the discussion. As you joined the discussion now, as there is a lot to read and then contemplate as its your map, on the proposal. Only you can give a answer going forward, as my input is only that of a interested party. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: my friend, let me explain, as the article got shamelessly long for any sane and patient editors to read all this rattle: all what we need to hear from you whether you are fine with RSN's proposal to have no RS omitted from Wikipedia, and instead have the different maps displayed side-by-side. Only if you are fine with that, is what we could like to hear from you. Resnjari's stubborness again got the better of him, and already stated that they are refusing to accept the RSN's outcome, nor they are willing to make any much-needed compromises with other editors. I highly recommend that you consent to RSN's proposal like I already did, as to have the two maps together (not merged like in my proposal, just together by-by) and let us finally make a consensus even if that means a consensus without Resnjari. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Resident, i did not refer to your in any colourful way like "stubborness again got the better of him" and please refrain from doing so (see wp:civil). I made my comments' as i highly regard Calthinius' view on the matter.Resnjari (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your stubbornes is an acknowledgement, no a mere colorful call. Fortunately for you. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident Sure, I support having the two maps side by side, it seems like a good compromise for now. Of course both maps have issues-- I will be fixing Permet and removing my name in a sec. I would also like an answer on Rexhep Qosja. Perhaps honestly I should relist for that, as has been suggested elsewhere. But for now, yes, I consent to having the maps side by side.--Calthinus (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus Thank you very very much, I am very glad we have your consent. So here we go. We have new consensus from now, even without Resnjari. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silent, just give your own view for yourself and don't infer about others. Everyone can speak for themselves. Calthinus' map is going into the articles and am ok with that.Resnjari (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the RSN volunteers: Unless someone here has additional comments to make regarding this dispute over the RSs by Diplomatique and Qosja, I guess the case can be marked as resolved and be closed. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want sth to be clarified so no other problems emerge after this. I guess that the party that opposed Calthinus' map will not object on potential usage of Rexhep Qosja's books in the future, they were the ones who protected his writings and do not have any reason to call him unreliable when used on other articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this piece of information from the specific person is published in RS publications lets say LMD and confirmed by additional academic journals it wont be a problem.Alexikoua (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Qosja? His works are POV and i think a new RS in future will eventually arise due to the nationalist content he has written and POV issues on articles that will use those sources. On the map situation, Calthinus' has agreed and that's what matters now.Resnjari (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a solution since each map does not portray exactly the same info: map #1 is about traditional presence of non-Albanian minorities, #2 majorities whether Albanian or not.Alexikoua (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua Well, do not forget words you just typed. They are very important. For you Qosja's books are a reliable source, otherwise you refute your own map. Cheers all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's important is that LMD is reliable and the so-called conspiracy theories unfounded. Not to mention that a number of official reports, academic journals confirm this map. Qosja might be completely unreliable but this map is based by a variety of RS publications.Alexikoua (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It could be weird to see that many reliable institutions and agencies could cite Qosja if he was not reliable at all. Qosja, POV or not, his work has been cited and used by the international community. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 00:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]