AlexBachmann (talk | contribs) →More selective removals: Reply Tag: Reply |
AlexBachmann (talk | contribs) →More selective removals: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
:::::I agree with Iaof here. Succinctness is important for the lede, per [[WP:SS]]. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 03:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |
:::::I agree with Iaof here. Succinctness is important for the lede, per [[WP:SS]]. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 03:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
:Personally, I agree with Bato's proposal; it is a more descriptive and informative explanation that solves the concerns I raised previously. I suggest we follow through and make this change on the article. [[User:Botushali|Botushali]] ([[User talk:Botushali|talk]]) 02:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |
:Personally, I agree with Bato's proposal; it is a more descriptive and informative explanation that solves the concerns I raised previously. I suggest we follow through and make this change on the article. [[User:Botushali|Botushali]] ([[User talk:Botushali|talk]]) 02:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
::The current version is misleading. '''Support '''a reformulation. [[User:AlexBachmann|AlexBachmann]] ([[User talk:AlexBachmann|talk]]) 20:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:49, 11 June 2023
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 28, 2004, November 28, 2005, November 28, 2006, November 28, 2007, November 28, 2008, November 28, 2009, November 28, 2010, November 28, 2011, November 28, 2012, November 28, 2013, November 28, 2014, November 28, 2015, and November 28, 2017. |
Sources
Various authors have mentioned Albania and the Illyrians in their works, from late antiquity to the early Middle Ages, among them:
- Hecataeus of Miletus (c. 550 BC - c. 476 BC) [1];
- The inscription of Phoinike, mentioning one Ἀρβαῖος (3rd century –2nd century BC);
- The epitaph of Gornja Solnja (end of 1st century - beginning of 2nd century);
- Polybius (c. 208 - c. 125 BC) [2]; In his work The Histories, Polybius reported the first diplomatic contacts between the Romans and Illyrians.
- Claudius Ptolemy (c. 90 - 168), as reported in one of his key sources, the Greco-Phoenician cartographer Marinus of Tyre (1st century) [3]; Ptolemy is the earliest writer in whose works the name of the Albanians has been distinctly recognized. He mentions (3.13.23) a tribe called Albani (Ἀλβανοί) and a town Albanopolis (Ἀλβανόπολις), in the region lying to the East of the Ionian sea; and from the names of places with which Albanopolis is connected, it appears clearly to have been in the Southern part of the Illyrian territory, and in modern Albania.
- Annales Ragusini Anonymi [4]; an identification of Albania with Croatia Alba has been rejected [5]
- Stephanus of Byzantium (end of the 5th century - beginning of the 6th century) [6];
- Procopius of Caesarea (c. 500-565) [7];
- Catalogus Felicianus (first half of the 6th century) [8];
- Chronicle of Joan of Nikiu, in Coptic (end of the 6th century) [9];
- Constantine Porphyrogennetos (905 - 959);
- Suida (second half of the 10th century) [10];
- Anonymous Bulgarian on the Origin of Nations (beginning of the 11th century) [11];
- Generationum et Banorum apud Chroatos (end of the 11th century) [12];
- Michael Attaleiates (c. 1022-1080) [13];
- Anna Komnena (c. 1083-1153) [14];
- La Chanson de Roland (1085), mentioning Albeigne, - the coastal part of Albania etc. [15].
Update to migration figures
Given there has been a lot of coverage of migration from Albania to other countries in Europe in recent months in international news media [16] [17] [18], so I've made an update. Lots more could be added, so I may ask for assistance at WP:COUNTRIES if necessary. Khirurg (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
"Proto-Greeks"
At, first it is an outdated theory, with mostly sources that don't pass 1990. The only source that these inhabitants spoke a Proto-Greek language (which is irrelevant anyway) is Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond. Studies: Further studies on various topics. A.M. Hakkert, 1993, p. 231. He says following:
The main reservoir of the Greek speakers was central Albania and Epirus
Really? Greek speakers? He doesn't mention any Proto- or Pre- prefixes.
Illyrians, whose main habitat was in the area now called Bosnia
That's incorrect. One of the most securely Illyrian tribes are the Ardiaei, which lived in Albania and Montenegro. Not to forget the Taulantii, etc. This shows that these sources are in fact outdated and can't be used for such a prominent article. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I could see a slim case for cutting proto as the sources just say Greek. They mean proto-Greek for this period of course when they say Greek, but that's what's written in the sources so I can see an argument to match them precisely. Straw man arguments about the location of individual tribes don't invalidate sources, especially when you're not providing any of your own and are just stating that the theory is outdatedGugrak (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)- If an author can't locate a tribe that may be relevant to this hypothesis, there are grounds to dismiss the source. If you could provide a newer source, it will have weight in the article. If not, this will go to the ANI because, as you may know, this article is highly-viewed. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
The author isn't discussing the location of specific tribes. There are three sources already. They're not even particularly old in the grand scheme of things. You are the one that needs to produce sources discussing an alternative here, not OR and WP:JDLI Gugrak (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)- @Gugrak: The section which you reverted is based on outdated theories based on the work of N. G. L. Hammond. The consensus is explained in detail in the relevant article (Proto-Greek language) where you can consult relevant bibliography. The relevant article doesn't claim that Proto-Greek first moved in the Balkans in BA Albania and Montenegro, hence this article will not claim something which not even the main article about the subject claims. In short, Proto-Greek likely moved southwards via Bulgaria towards Macedonia, later towards a part of Epirus and Thessaly from where it ultimately moved southwards to its position in the Mycenaean era. Hammond's view was that Proto-Greek moved southwards via the western Balkans and could be identified with tumuli in Montenegro and Albania. This theory never found much support even when Hammond was very active academically. Today, we even have aDNA studies about exact tumuli sites which Hammond mentioned and they're linked to Cetina culture and other similar cultures, but have no correspondence to BA Mycenaeans.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Bronze- and Iron- Age tumuli in northern and central Albania, down to Lofkënd and Dukat, in present-day scholarship are affiliated with the culture of the Indo-European people who were called 'Illyrians' by the ancients, for instance: Papadopoulos, John K. (2019). "Greek protohistories". World Archaeology. Routledge. doi:10.1080/00438243.2019.1568294. ISSN 1470-1375.
"The modern meaning of protohistory can vary from the study of a culture just prior to its earliest recorded history, to a period that occupies a liminal space between prehistory and history. More often than not, the term is applied to peoples who did not record their own history. In excavating an Illyrian Late Bronze–Early Iron Age burial tumulus (ca. 1400–800 BC) at Lofkënd, in what is today Albania (Figure 2), my colleagues and I were confronted by the problem: there were no Illyrian/Albanian historians or authors in Archaic and Classical antiquity; indeed, what we know of the Illyrians, including the names of their many tribes, comes from Greek authors (Papadopoulos et al. 2014)."
– Βατο (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)- With regard to Hammond's outdated Mycenean migration hypothesis that has been included into the article, Onnis, Elisabetta (2008). Modalità di scambio tra il mondo miceneo e i territori dell'Albania e dell'Epiro". Vol. 9. p. 11.
{{cite book}}
:|journal=
ignored (help):"Tale opera fu elaborata da N. G. L. Hammond in seguito alla sua attività di ricerca sul territorio e agli scavi fino ad allora portati avanti, realizzando un lavoro ancora oggi punto di partenza per lo studio delle più antiche relazioni con il mondo egeo. Se tale analisi particolareggiata risulta, pertanto, fondamentale, la teoria migrazionista relativa all’origine dei Micenei, elaborata considerando i rinvenimenti dei tumuli albanesi, trovò, al contrario, scarso seguito in campo archeologico e venne presto smentita". ["This work was elaborated by N. G. L. Hammond following his research activity on the territory and the excavations carried out until then, realizing a work that is still a starting point for the study of the most ancient relationships with the Aegean world. While such detailed analysis is therefore fundamental, the migration theory relating to the origin of the Mycenaeans, elaborated by considering the findings of the Albanian tumuli, found, on the contrary, little following in the archaeological field and was soon disproved."]
. Today no scholar considers that Mycenean civilization was established by a population that migrated from Albania to Mycenae. Much archaeological and archaeogenetic research has been carried out in the last years, the article should be updated with present-day well-established academic assertions, replacing outdated 20th century speculations. – Βατο (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- With regard to Hammond's outdated Mycenean migration hypothesis that has been included into the article, Onnis, Elisabetta (2008). Modalità di scambio tra il mondo miceneo e i territori dell'Albania e dell'Epiro". Vol. 9. p. 11.
- Bronze- and Iron- Age tumuli in northern and central Albania, down to Lofkënd and Dukat, in present-day scholarship are affiliated with the culture of the Indo-European people who were called 'Illyrians' by the ancients, for instance: Papadopoulos, John K. (2019). "Greek protohistories". World Archaeology. Routledge. doi:10.1080/00438243.2019.1568294. ISSN 1470-1375.
- @Gugrak: The section which you reverted is based on outdated theories based on the work of N. G. L. Hammond. The consensus is explained in detail in the relevant article (Proto-Greek language) where you can consult relevant bibliography. The relevant article doesn't claim that Proto-Greek first moved in the Balkans in BA Albania and Montenegro, hence this article will not claim something which not even the main article about the subject claims. In short, Proto-Greek likely moved southwards via Bulgaria towards Macedonia, later towards a part of Epirus and Thessaly from where it ultimately moved southwards to its position in the Mycenaean era. Hammond's view was that Proto-Greek moved southwards via the western Balkans and could be identified with tumuli in Montenegro and Albania. This theory never found much support even when Hammond was very active academically. Today, we even have aDNA studies about exact tumuli sites which Hammond mentioned and they're linked to Cetina culture and other similar cultures, but have no correspondence to BA Mycenaeans.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- If an author can't locate a tribe that may be relevant to this hypothesis, there are grounds to dismiss the source. If you could provide a newer source, it will have weight in the article. If not, this will go to the ANI because, as you may know, this article is highly-viewed. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Pyrrhus
@Khirurg Here the drama starts again. Not only was Ancient Epirus located in todays' Albania, he was raised in Illyria, to be more exact: in the Taulantian kingdom. That. exactly. lies. in. Albania. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- You need to do some reading. Ancient Epirus was mostly located in Greece. Pyrrhus of Epirus has nothing whatsoever to do with Albania. There is a gap of some 23 centuries between the time of Pyrrhus and the creation of the Albanian state. Are you going to add Alexander the Great next? He conquered some of the territory of what is now Albania. Are you going to add every single notable person that spent part of their lives in what is now Albania? Khirurg (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Serbia has also got nothing to do with the Illyrians and the Vinca culture, it is still mentioned in the history section. I think you don't like the fact that Pyrrhus grew up in an Illyrian household. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Two wrongs don't make a right. "There is some irrelevant junk in the article, so why can't I add more irrelevant junk"? What kind of logic is that? Instead of trying to figure out what I like and don't like, how about you stop the crude nationalistic POV-pushing. Khirurg (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'll propose a third opinion soon. AlexBachmann (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Two wrongs don't make a right. "There is some irrelevant junk in the article, so why can't I add more irrelevant junk"? What kind of logic is that? Instead of trying to figure out what I like and don't like, how about you stop the crude nationalistic POV-pushing. Khirurg (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Serbia has also got nothing to do with the Illyrians and the Vinca culture, it is still mentioned in the history section. I think you don't like the fact that Pyrrhus grew up in an Illyrian household. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Some sections seem to have too many pics
@Iaof2017: maybe a few should be removed, what do you think? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I removed a pic as it was part of a duo that caused an ugly break to the text and I corrected a few things in the Energy sector, but more work on citations and updates to old info on economy etc are needed. The other pics if anyone should be removed I leave it up to you @Iaof2017:. The article needs work but I do not have the time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Khirurg: those pics do not represent any "POV". Read the article on the phone and look how those two pics look together. Even in the desktop version they do are not OK. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Removing the Greek language sign and only keeping the Macedonian language sign is definitely POV. It's the very definition of POV. Insisting it's not so does not make it less so. Khirurg (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- If the Greek language sign is a POV, which is the opposite POV? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Who said the "Greek language sign is a POV"? Keeping one sign and removing the other is what is POV. How about you explain why you kept the Macedonian language sign but removed the Greek language sign, despite the fact that Macedonian is spoken by ~5000 people, but Greek spoken by over 20% of the country? Khirurg (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- And most of those 20% have very limited comptence of the language, similar with Italian. English on the other hand is well-understood and spoken by a majority of both Albanians and those who visit from abroad. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nonsense and original research. You still did not answer my question btw. Khirurg (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hey @Ktrimi991:, I hope you're doing well and thank you for pinging me. Regarding the pics, I also wanted to mention that the article contains too many images, especially sections where multiple images outweigh the accompanying textual content, such as in the "Energy" or "Minorities" section. Unfortunately, I'm currently busy with personal stuff and my studies, but it is still my plan to update the article very soon and particularly enrich the "Culture" section with new and important informations. Thank you anyway for your efforts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaof2017 (talk • contribs)
- Hey @Iaof2017: when you have the time let me know. We can work together on the issues. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hey @Ktrimi991:, I hope you're doing well and thank you for pinging me. Regarding the pics, I also wanted to mention that the article contains too many images, especially sections where multiple images outweigh the accompanying textual content, such as in the "Energy" or "Minorities" section. Unfortunately, I'm currently busy with personal stuff and my studies, but it is still my plan to update the article very soon and particularly enrich the "Culture" section with new and important informations. Thank you anyway for your efforts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaof2017 (talk • contribs)
- Nonsense and original research. You still did not answer my question btw. Khirurg (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- And most of those 20% have very limited comptence of the language, similar with Italian. English on the other hand is well-understood and spoken by a majority of both Albanians and those who visit from abroad. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Who said the "Greek language sign is a POV"? Keeping one sign and removing the other is what is POV. How about you explain why you kept the Macedonian language sign but removed the Greek language sign, despite the fact that Macedonian is spoken by ~5000 people, but Greek spoken by over 20% of the country? Khirurg (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- If the Greek language sign is a POV, which is the opposite POV? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Removing the Greek language sign and only keeping the Macedonian language sign is definitely POV. It's the very definition of POV. Insisting it's not so does not make it less so. Khirurg (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Khirurg: those pics do not represent any "POV". Read the article on the phone and look how those two pics look together. Even in the desktop version they do are not OK. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Selective use of images
In the past there was an agreement to have an image of a Greek language sign, and a Macedonian language sign [19]. As of today, it seems one user has decided to unilaterally end this agreement, and simply remove the Greek language sign and only keep the Macedonian language sign. The only reasoning given is that the Macedonian language sign is "more representative" [20], despite the fact that Greek is the second most-spoken language in the country. That makes no sense, and seems to be just an excuse to remove the Greek language sign. Khirurg (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- No wonder you accuse others of wanting to remove content just because it is related to Greeks. You have tried to add so much Greek-related stuff in UNDUE fashion to the Albania article, that you judge edits only as "add Greek stuff" and "remove Greek stuff". At one point in time the Demographics section talked about Greeks who are less than 2% of population more than it talked about all other groups combined, including Albanians themselves. Anyways, I am not here to discuss your assumptions and past behavior. The WP:SANDWICH issue is a real one, not my justification. Just look at how the section appeared on the phone before my edit. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- There ways to resolve image sandwiching, such as my latest edit. I don't see any sandwiching now. The real question is why your edit privileged one language over another, which you still haven't answered. Khirurg (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your edit solved nothing. I explained it in one of the edit summaries, it seems you rushed to revert without reading it. Also, you have already made 3 reverts (readded the Goranxi pic 3 times). Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? It is your edit that causes sandwiching [21] (which doesn't seem to bother you as long as it does not involve the Greek language), and my version resolves it [22]. Anyway, since it seems to old tag-team is still very much active, I will seek outside intervention. No way you are getting away with just removing the Greek language sign and keeping only the Macedonian language sign. You have 3 reverts too btw. Khirurg (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Greek, Greeks and Greece is mentioned almost one tenth as much as Albania, Albanian and Albanians in an article about Albania. Greeks are definitely well represented in this article about Albania. other minorities are definetly not being "privilege". WP:SANDWICH is also an issue here. Durraz0 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your edit solved nothing. I explained it in one of the edit summaries, it seems you rushed to revert without reading it. Also, you have already made 3 reverts (readded the Goranxi pic 3 times). Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- There ways to resolve image sandwiching, such as my latest edit. I don't see any sandwiching now. The real question is why your edit privileged one language over another, which you still haven't answered. Khirurg (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- The inclusion of two or more pictures depicting road signs is redundant and clutters the article. It is of greater value to include a single image in which the national language, a minority language, and foreign language are shown - as is the case with the sign from Pustec. And as has been presented above, Greeks and Greek-related issues are more 'privileged' and represented in the article (itself on Albania) than other minority groups. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- There are two officially recognized minority languages, so there should one sign for each language. Anything else is POV. But it's nice at least to see the real reason for the removal of the Greek language sign being revealed ("too much Greek"), as opposed to the previous excuses (sandwiching). Khirurg (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh please. You tried to remove the Macedonian sign, it was not an issue for you to have only the Greek one. Albania has 6 or 7 officially recognized minority languages, we will not have a pic for each of them. This article is not a photo gallery. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't remove anything, you did. Greek is by far the most spoken minority language, so if there is to be only one sign, it should be for Greek. In any case, I am in favor of both signs. Why does the Greek sign bother you so much? Khirurg (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- You removed the Macedonian and English signs pic [23]. Removing Macedonian for you was not an issue. Greek being more spoken than Macedonian is not a good argument. Apart from Macedonian that pic also has English; having 2 languages makes it more illustrative. Furthermore, Greeks have a pic of their own in the article (Apollonia the Greek city as said in its caption). Let the Macedonian minority have a pic too.
Why does the Greek sign bother you so much?
It does not bother me for being Greek, though I take note that you have been trying for years to add as much Greek-related stuff as possible to the article of Albania, which reached an entirely undue degree at some point in the past. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)- I could just easily accuse you of trying to remove everything Greek for some time now [24]g/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1151517917] [25] [26] [27], so yes, it does seem to really bother you. Apollonia has nothing to do with the Greek minority in Albania, and you know that. Greek is the second most-spoken language in the country, spoken by over 20% of the country as opposed to Macedonian, which is only spoken by some 3,000-5,000 speakers. "Let the Macedonian minority have a pic too" is not an argument, I have no problem with the Macedonian pic, and there is not a single reason why we can't have both a Greek and a Macedonian pic. There was an agreement to have both in the article [28], but apparently agreements don't mean anything to you. Anyway, this is a high visibility article and will be decided by community consensus, not brute-force edit-warring. Khirurg (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I did not remove "everything" but just some of the Greek-related content. The Demographics section of Albania had more content on Greeks than it had for all other communities, Albanians included, combined. And it was you who added most of it.
There was an agreement to have both in the article, but apparently agreements don't mean anything to you
Things have changed, the article is not how it was back then. At the time 2 pics did not cause WP:SANDWICH issues, now they do. I happened to look at the article on the phone, and it was an eyesore very difficult to read and navigate. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)- No, you just removed almost everything. It's absolutely not true that there was more content on Greeks than " all other communities, Albanians included, combined." A gross exaggeration to justify removal of undesirable material.
Things have changed, the article is not how it was back then
: Nice of you to admit agreements with you mean absolutely nothing. If I claimed the same at another article, you would cry WP:CONSENSUS. Khirurg (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)- (edit conflict)
Greek is the second most-spoken language in the country, spoken by over 20% of the country
English is spoken by more than 40% of the population. Why remove the Enlish sign together with the Macedonian one to keep the Greek sing? We can't keep 2 pics in the section. Bring a stronger argument for keeping the Greek sign and then it is OK doing so. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)- English is not a native language, so the "English" argument is not going to work. Why can't we keep both pics? It is obvious no argument is strong enough to convince you to keep the Greek sign: You just don't want it, period. Khirurg (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- English has much more speakers than all "native languages" combined, apart from Albanian itself ofc. Better to have a map that has 2 "native" languages and English, than to have one that has "native" languahes only. You keep thinking I do not like it because it is Greek. I have no reason why to "like" or "dislike" Macedonian more than Greek, but anyways you are free to think whatever you want. I can't change your mind. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- English is not a native language, and by the way, the Greek sign also shows the Albanian name of the place, which is the same as the English spelling. But you still haven't answered my question: Why not have both the Greek and Macedonian signs, as was the consensus for the past 5 years? Khirurg (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- The reason has been told by 3 editors. WP:SANDWICH. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- The WP:SANDWICH is still there. Removing the Greek sign makes no difference about the WP:SANDWICH, because the two images were part of a horizontal double image. Khirurg (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- At least you are finally accepting that there was a WP:SANDWICH issue since the beginning. It now looks good to me, but even if it is not good, it is better than it was with 2 pics. Yeah they were part of a double horizontal image, so it took more space horizontally than a single image. That's my point. However, if you continue to see WP:SANDWICH issues, feel free to remove the English-Macedonian signs pic as well, if that is what you are suggesting. I would like to keep that pic, but making the article difficult to navigate for readers is not a good idea. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- The WP:SANDWICH is still there. Removing the Greek sign makes no difference about the WP:SANDWICH, because the two images were part of a horizontal double image. Khirurg (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- The reason has been told by 3 editors. WP:SANDWICH. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- English is not a native language, and by the way, the Greek sign also shows the Albanian name of the place, which is the same as the English spelling. But you still haven't answered my question: Why not have both the Greek and Macedonian signs, as was the consensus for the past 5 years? Khirurg (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- English has much more speakers than all "native languages" combined, apart from Albanian itself ofc. Better to have a map that has 2 "native" languages and English, than to have one that has "native" languahes only. You keep thinking I do not like it because it is Greek. I have no reason why to "like" or "dislike" Macedonian more than Greek, but anyways you are free to think whatever you want. I can't change your mind. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- English is not a native language, so the "English" argument is not going to work. Why can't we keep both pics? It is obvious no argument is strong enough to convince you to keep the Greek sign: You just don't want it, period. Khirurg (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- No, you just removed almost everything. It's absolutely not true that there was more content on Greeks than " all other communities, Albanians included, combined." A gross exaggeration to justify removal of undesirable material.
- I did not remove "everything" but just some of the Greek-related content. The Demographics section of Albania had more content on Greeks than it had for all other communities, Albanians included, combined. And it was you who added most of it.
- I could just easily accuse you of trying to remove everything Greek for some time now [24]g/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1151517917] [25] [26] [27], so yes, it does seem to really bother you. Apollonia has nothing to do with the Greek minority in Albania, and you know that. Greek is the second most-spoken language in the country, spoken by over 20% of the country as opposed to Macedonian, which is only spoken by some 3,000-5,000 speakers. "Let the Macedonian minority have a pic too" is not an argument, I have no problem with the Macedonian pic, and there is not a single reason why we can't have both a Greek and a Macedonian pic. There was an agreement to have both in the article [28], but apparently agreements don't mean anything to you. Anyway, this is a high visibility article and will be decided by community consensus, not brute-force edit-warring. Khirurg (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- You removed the Macedonian and English signs pic [23]. Removing Macedonian for you was not an issue. Greek being more spoken than Macedonian is not a good argument. Apart from Macedonian that pic also has English; having 2 languages makes it more illustrative. Furthermore, Greeks have a pic of their own in the article (Apollonia the Greek city as said in its caption). Let the Macedonian minority have a pic too.
- I didn't remove anything, you did. Greek is by far the most spoken minority language, so if there is to be only one sign, it should be for Greek. In any case, I am in favor of both signs. Why does the Greek sign bother you so much? Khirurg (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh please. You tried to remove the Macedonian sign, it was not an issue for you to have only the Greek one. Albania has 6 or 7 officially recognized minority languages, we will not have a pic for each of them. This article is not a photo gallery. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Aside from the WP:SANDWICH, WP:UNDUE is also an issue if a pro-Greek POV is being over-represented. There are more Albanians in Greece than Greeks in Albania (by an overwhelming amount too), yet 'Albanians' are not mentioned once in the main article of Greece and the term 'Albanian' mentioned only five times. It is indeed an issue if there is "too much Greek" on the article, not because it is Greek, but because it is WP:UNDUE. I do not see an Albanian sign in the Greek article, either. Botushali (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- However, if we try to add some "Albanian stuff" (which some users like to call nationalistic POV pushing) to Greek articles, there will be WWIII. I'm sure Khirurg wouldn't like it if I filled up the Greek article with Albanian stuff. AlexBachmann (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The two images present in the article (prior to this dispute) show road signs pretty far in the distance. The following are better options IMO for Greek File:Derviçan_Road_Sign.jpg or File:Frashtan Road Sign.jpg, and for Macedonian File:Dolna Gorica – bilingual sign 2.jpg, File:Dolna Gorica – bilingual sign 3.jpg, or File:Bilingual road signs directing to Glloboçeni, written in both Albanian and Macedonian.jpg. To avoid sandwiching, perhaps the two selected images could be put in a Template:Multiple image like the section directly above. Even with one image as it currently is, it can still be argued to be a sandwich. Maybe the Albanian dialects map could be put in the template along with the road sign images. --Local hero talk 03:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Local hero, for this article the Albanian dialects map has much more weight than local road sign photos. If sandwitch persists, I'd rather remove both road sign photos, as already proposed by other editors above, applying the same standard as other articles about neighboring countries such as Greece and North Macedonia. After all, these articles are about countries, not local demography, I actually fail to see the point of including local road signs in this article, they are more due for more relevant articles such as Languages of Albania and Minorities of Albania. – Βατο (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
To avoid sandwiching, perhaps the two selected images could be put in a Template:Multiple image like the section directly above.
They were in a multiple image template and the WP:SANDWICH was bigger than now.If sandwitch persists, I'd rather remove both road sign photos.
Indeed, if there is still an WP:SANDWICH issue, the other road signs pic too should be removed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)- Right, I'm not at all suggesting to remove the map. Ktrimi991, I meant a horizontal mult image template (as seen currently in the Minorities section) as opposed to vertical how it was. My point is if it's decided to continue to keep both (or one), I think the images I pointed out are better. --Local hero talk 17:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- The maps in the Minority section make the section look like a photo gallery on the mobile version. At least they are informative maps, while road signs have much less value. I would prefer the current pic because it contains 2 road signs: one in Albanian and a minority language (Macedonian) and one in Albanian and a foreign language for tourists (English). So it looks to me to be more illustrative, though I take your point that the signs are a bit far in the distance. I would also be OK with not having any road signs pic, as suggested by several editors here and one at WP:Countries. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I hadn't considered the value in that it the image also shows a foreign language, good point. --Local hero talk 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see the added value of the English sign. Every country in the world has those. The purpose of the images is to show that Albania respects its minorities by having road signs in their language. This may have to go to RfC. In the meantime I will add the images to the articles Βατο suggested. Khirurg (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is definitely no problem about SANDWICH by having both pictures of bilingual signs. In fact we need to retain representative images on both of the so-called minority zones. Alexikoua (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Khirurg: that's not true, among the Balkan countries only the articles of Albania and Kosovo have those. There is no need to show that "Albania respects its minorities by having road signs in their language" in a main Wikipedia article about a country. As stated by another third opinion requested by yourself from WikiProject Countries,
as for language sign(s)...no room
anddialects map should be bigger
. I totally agree with that. – Βατο (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see the added value of the English sign. Every country in the world has those. The purpose of the images is to show that Albania respects its minorities by having road signs in their language. This may have to go to RfC. In the meantime I will add the images to the articles Βατο suggested. Khirurg (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I hadn't considered the value in that it the image also shows a foreign language, good point. --Local hero talk 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- The maps in the Minority section make the section look like a photo gallery on the mobile version. At least they are informative maps, while road signs have much less value. I would prefer the current pic because it contains 2 road signs: one in Albanian and a minority language (Macedonian) and one in Albanian and a foreign language for tourists (English). So it looks to me to be more illustrative, though I take your point that the signs are a bit far in the distance. I would also be OK with not having any road signs pic, as suggested by several editors here and one at WP:Countries. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
More selective removals
@AlexBachmann, you removed "Greek-speaking" from the description of the Chaonians, which seems highly selective. Not only does "Ancient tribe of the Chaonians" read really weird, but elsewhere, the article describes the Illyrian Ardiaei, Illyrian Taulantii, and Thracian tribe of the Bryges. So why did you only remove "Greek-speaking" from the Chaonians? Shall I remove "Illyrian" and "Thacian" from the other tribes, or re-add "Greek-speaking" for the Chaonians? It's all or none. No double standards and selective removals. Khirurg (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for choosing to discuss. As already mentioned, the Greek speaking is irrelevant. The reader doesn't want to know what language the Venetians, Romans or other tribes and rulers spoke. If, however, they do, they should read the article. I'd suggest removing the "speaking" part and adding Epirote. They, in fact, were Greeks but Epirote is a more accurate term. Anything further is irrelevant. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not to mention the WP:UNDUE that is present in the article. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Epirotes" will do, but for the record, the terms "Illyrian" and "Thracian" are ethnic designations, whereas "Epirotes" is just a regional designation, it's not on the same level. Khirurg (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- A more comparable situation would be the Galabri and Thunatae of Dardani. So are we fine with Epirote? AlexBachmann (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Khirurg (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I believe we should be simple on the descriptions of those tribes: Epirote is a subdivision of the northwestern Greek group (and among the Epirotes we have Chaonians). Well we have Illyrian and Thracian tribes, we should be also consistent on naming the Greek ones in the same fashion.Alexikoua (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with AlexBachmann's and Khirurg's proposal, and disagree with Alexikoua's reasoning. Epirotes had their own identity, and Chaonians are mainly described as an Epirote tribe, both by ancient and modern sources. – Βατο (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- One more thing: The past where it says "has been controlled by [...] ancient Greeks". Should we leave it like this or write Epirotes? Both is convenient in this case. If we would place Epirotes in put in brackets it would just get too complicated. So it's this or that. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- First of all it should be "inhabited" instead of "controlled", you just changed that without consulting anyone. Second, it wasn't just Epirote Greeks, but also Greek colonies like Apollonia and Epidamnos, which weren't Epirote. Khirurg (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- As pointed out by Khirurg, I think it should include both Epirotes and ancient Greek colonists. And Bryges, which are inaccurately referred to as Thracians into the article and in that sentence, were an obscure people whose location is very speculative and mainly placed in south-eastern Illyria and western Macedonia in current scholarship, probably even outside present-day Albania, so their inclusion may be undue for this article. – Βατο (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- My point is that Epirotes and ancient Greek colonists can be simply referred to collectively as ancient Greeks. Then there is the Roman and Medieval period, where parts of Albania were inhabited by Byzantine Greeks, but obviously the labels "Epirotes" in the ancient sense and "Greek colonists" no longer applies. Khirurg (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Controlled" fits better. "Inhabited" is misleading and implies that Albanians were not living in that area "over time". Especially starting with "civilisations". Controlled would not be possibly misleading. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Controlled is extremely misleading, because all those people mentioned, Illyrians, Greeks, Bryges, Romans etc. lived there, they didn't just control the place. Khirurg (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Epirotes, Romans, Illyrians, Venetians and the like have indeed inhabited Albania at different points in history, so it’s only right to add a similar line to the article on Greece - “Greece has been inhabited by various civilisations over time, including Greeks, Albanians, Romans, Byzantines, Ottomans and Venetians”, or something along those lines. Perhaps the wording should be changed, as the whole of Albania was not inhabited by Greeks or Venetians, for example. Also, I am not sure why the Thracians are mentioned in this line. Botushali (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. AlexBachmann (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- This whole "if you mess with our article, we will mess with your article" is straight out of the WP:NOTHERE playbook and will go nowhere except a likely topic ban for those involved. Khirurg (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Who said we're messing with articles? Did you just admit that you're messing with this article? AlexBachmann (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have any clear and convincing reason to not include the suggested sentence? AlexBachmann (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder why the Chaonians being a Greek tribe should be hidden in this article. We have Illyrian tribes that are named as such in the text, and there is no reason to selective hide information about the identity of those ancient tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) First of all, stop accusing others of "hiding". You did that here, and did the same accusation within minutes at the RfC. You have that many times. It seems you have learnt some accusations and repeat them without thinking much whenever you want to accuse someone. AlexBachmann, User:Iaof2017, User:Botushali and Βατο have opposed your edit, why keep trying to push it through edit warring? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder why the Chaonians being a Greek tribe should be hidden in this article. We have Illyrian tribes that are named as such in the text, and there is no reason to selective hide information about the identity of those ancient tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have any clear and convincing reason to not include the suggested sentence? AlexBachmann (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- So you admit you're messing with this article? I wouldn't phrase adding that line to the articles as "messing with your article" or "our article", rather, I'd consider it as contributing to the article. If you have a problem with adding a similar line to the article of Greece for the sake of consistency, then I don't know why you would support such a line here. The reason I bring this up is because consensus on certain types of articles usually sets the precedent for similar articles; see the TP of Kos when it came to the use of names and how it set in motion a variety of changes across similar articles. Furthermore, no one owns articles here on wiki, contrary to what you have stated here. If you believe that you own articles on wiki, or that anyone else has any sort of ownership over articles, then I believe you are more deserving of a topic ban. Botushali (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Where did I say I owned any articles? Keep making false accusations like that and yes, I will push for you to be sanctioned. And read WP:BATTLE, because trying to get your way by holding other articles hostage is WP:BATTLE behavior, and it's not the first time you've done that. Khirurg (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- And I quote from you directly:
This whole "if you mess with our article, we will mess with your article"...
You are implying that people have ownership over articles. No one is messing with "your article", you do not own Wikipedia. - Furthermore, stop making false accusations against me. You have been doing that during my entire time on Wiki, from supposed WP violations to WP:ASPERSIONS, to false tag teaming reports, and the list goes on and on. I do not appreciate you besmirching my name at every possible turn. I do not "hold articles hostage", that is a very false and ridiculous claim to make. I am simply saying that consistency across articles is important. If you have such an issue with adding the same thing to another article, why would you push it on this one? You cannot be selective. Botushali (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "consistency across articles". No two country articles have identical sentences in the lede. Each country article is different. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Greece and Albania are completely different countries, with different histories. Bringing Greece into this is disruptive, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I see it as an attempt to intimidate. I can't help but get the impression that what I'm hearing is "If you add something we don't like to our article, we will add the same thing to your article". And it's pretty obvious, if you ask me. Khirurg (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Again, you are claiming people have ownership over articles.
You're basically saying "If you add something we don't like to our article, we will add the same thing to your article"...
There is no "our article" or "your article", this is Wikipedia. - I see nothing wrong with drawing parallels to other similar articles. Albania and Greece are not the same, but they are two established countries, and they have corresponding articles that function as an overview of both nations. If it is such a huge problem to add the same line to Greece when Greece has also been inhabited by other civilisations, why are you so adamant to have it on Albania's article? I am not threatening to vandalise or disturb the article on Greece as you would like to think, I am simply drawing parallels. Accusing me of "taking articles hostage" and other ridiculous statements is not productive to this conversation in the slightest. Botushali (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- There are no parallels of any kind. And no, I'm not claiming to own articles, if you read what I wrote it's in quotes as a way to describe the behavior I'm seeing from you. I am increasingly having a hard time assuming good faith here. Anyway, I consider this matter of "parallels" closed, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Khirurg (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- That does not apply to this case. The site is called: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Is that a deletion discussion? It is a fact that you don't have a reason for avoiding this sentence in the very top of the article of Greece. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- There are no parallels of any kind. And no, I'm not claiming to own articles, if you read what I wrote it's in quotes as a way to describe the behavior I'm seeing from you. I am increasingly having a hard time assuming good faith here. Anyway, I consider this matter of "parallels" closed, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Khirurg (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Again, you are claiming people have ownership over articles.
- There is no such thing as "consistency across articles". No two country articles have identical sentences in the lede. Each country article is different. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Greece and Albania are completely different countries, with different histories. Bringing Greece into this is disruptive, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I see it as an attempt to intimidate. I can't help but get the impression that what I'm hearing is "If you add something we don't like to our article, we will add the same thing to your article". And it's pretty obvious, if you ask me. Khirurg (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- And I quote from you directly:
- Where did I say I owned any articles? Keep making false accusations like that and yes, I will push for you to be sanctioned. And read WP:BATTLE, because trying to get your way by holding other articles hostage is WP:BATTLE behavior, and it's not the first time you've done that. Khirurg (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Who said we're messing with articles? Did you just admit that you're messing with this article? AlexBachmann (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- This whole "if you mess with our article, we will mess with your article" is straight out of the WP:NOTHERE playbook and will go nowhere except a likely topic ban for those involved. Khirurg (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. AlexBachmann (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Epirotes, Romans, Illyrians, Venetians and the like have indeed inhabited Albania at different points in history, so it’s only right to add a similar line to the article on Greece - “Greece has been inhabited by various civilisations over time, including Greeks, Albanians, Romans, Byzantines, Ottomans and Venetians”, or something along those lines. Perhaps the wording should be changed, as the whole of Albania was not inhabited by Greeks or Venetians, for example. Also, I am not sure why the Thracians are mentioned in this line. Botushali (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Controlled is extremely misleading, because all those people mentioned, Illyrians, Greeks, Bryges, Romans etc. lived there, they didn't just control the place. Khirurg (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Controlled" fits better. "Inhabited" is misleading and implies that Albanians were not living in that area "over time". Especially starting with "civilisations". Controlled would not be possibly misleading. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- My point is that Epirotes and ancient Greek colonists can be simply referred to collectively as ancient Greeks. Then there is the Roman and Medieval period, where parts of Albania were inhabited by Byzantine Greeks, but obviously the labels "Epirotes" in the ancient sense and "Greek colonists" no longer applies. Khirurg (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- As pointed out by Khirurg, I think it should include both Epirotes and ancient Greek colonists. And Bryges, which are inaccurately referred to as Thracians into the article and in that sentence, were an obscure people whose location is very speculative and mainly placed in south-eastern Illyria and western Macedonia in current scholarship, probably even outside present-day Albania, so their inclusion may be undue for this article. – Βατο (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- First of all it should be "inhabited" instead of "controlled", you just changed that without consulting anyone. Second, it wasn't just Epirote Greeks, but also Greek colonies like Apollonia and Epidamnos, which weren't Epirote. Khirurg (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- One more thing: The past where it says "has been controlled by [...] ancient Greeks". Should we leave it like this or write Epirotes? Both is convenient in this case. If we would place Epirotes in put in brackets it would just get too complicated. So it's this or that. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with AlexBachmann's and Khirurg's proposal, and disagree with Alexikoua's reasoning. Epirotes had their own identity, and Chaonians are mainly described as an Epirote tribe, both by ancient and modern sources. – Βατο (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I believe we should be simple on the descriptions of those tribes: Epirote is a subdivision of the northwestern Greek group (and among the Epirotes we have Chaonians). Well we have Illyrian and Thracian tribes, we should be also consistent on naming the Greek ones in the same fashion.Alexikoua (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Khirurg (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- A more comparable situation would be the Galabri and Thunatae of Dardani. So are we fine with Epirote? AlexBachmann (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Epirotes" will do, but for the record, the terms "Illyrian" and "Thracian" are ethnic designations, whereas "Epirotes" is just a regional designation, it's not on the same level. Khirurg (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not to mention the WP:UNDUE that is present in the article. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I think proper contextualization should be provided for the information. The lede part before the declaration of independence could be reformulated like this: "In ancient times Illyrians inhabited northern and central Albania, Epirotes inhabited the south. Three important ancient Greek colonies were established on the coast of Albania. In the 2nd century BC the region was annexed by the Roman Republic, and after the division of the Empire it became part of Byzantium. The first known Albanian autonomous principality – Arbanon – was established in the 12th century. The Kingdom of Albania, Principality of Albania and Albania Veneta were formed between the 13th and 15th centuries including different parts of the country. From the late 15th century Albania became part of the Ottoman Empire, until the early 20th century." – Βατο (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is no reason to hide that the Epirote tribes were Greek in particular belonged to the northwestern Greek group. This should be underlined. There is an overall concensus in sholarship on this as such it needs to be stated.Alexikoua (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Greet you Βατο, regarding the lead, I believe it is succinctly formulated. No update is actually necessary. The first sentence in the lead briefly mentions the ancient civilizations that inhabited various parts of Albania without favoring one over the other. I think it helps to avoid potential edit wars. Iaof2017 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is no reason to hide that the Epirote tribes were Greek in particular belonged to the northwestern Greek group. This should be underlined. There is an overall concensus in sholarship on this as such it needs to be stated.Alexikoua (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Personally, I agree with Bato's proposal; it is a more descriptive and informative explanation that solves the concerns I raised previously. I suggest we follow through and make this change on the article. Botushali (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- The current version is misleading. Support a reformulation. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)