 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
No sources
editWithout sources, there is nothing to indicate that the postulated "regions" are anything other than OR. Jimmy Pitt talk 12:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- it is an arbitrary classification. what does it matter? original research. this is common knowledge. James Michael DuPont (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you have to ask, "what does it matter?", I suggest you read WP:OR and WP:V. Wikipedia is not built around "common knowledge"; it requires reliable sources for verifiability. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is reliable data. Look, you can just check this your self, look at the map, read the wikipedia articles on albania, there is no magic here. What do you contest? Everyone knows the Shumbin river is the dividing line. The Shkumbin River is the dividing line between the two dialects. from the article Albania. That is the one category I used, the other is coast. What is original about that? see also Shkumbin_River
James Michael DuPont (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Shkumbin (Definite Albanian form: Shkumbini, Latin: Genusus) is a river in central Albania, flowing into the Adriatic Sea. It is considered the dividing line for the two dialects of the Albanian language: Tosk (to the south) and Gheg (to the north).On various historical periods the river was considered the northernmost natural boundary of the geographic region of Epirus.[1] while during the 5th-6th centuries Shkumbin was the cultural border between the Illyrian and the Greek world.[2]
- This is reliable data. Look, you can just check this your self, look at the map, read the wikipedia articles on albania, there is no magic here. What do you contest? Everyone knows the Shumbin river is the dividing line. The Shkumbin River is the dividing line between the two dialects. from the article Albania. That is the one category I used, the other is coast. What is original about that? see also Shkumbin_River
- If you have to ask, "what does it matter?", I suggest you read WP:OR and WP:V. Wikipedia is not built around "common knowledge"; it requires reliable sources for verifiability. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you just don't get it. Wikipedia does not work on the basis of "look at the map" or "everyone knows"; it works on the basis of verifiability via reliable sources. I'm not saying the "regions" don't exist --though your references to the Albania article only deal with a north-south split, and, if it's covered there, this present list is redundant. What I am saying is that when someone writes "another division would be...", followed by "so combining these we get ...", that suggests either WP:OR (in the absence of sources) or WP:SYN. That is why I tagged the article, and then added an explanatory note here. As you are clearly both knowledgeable about the subject and interested in it, it would (I assume) be a simple matter for you to improve the article and I find it difficult to understand why you're so reluctant to do so: verifiability is one of WP's basic policies, so I'm not asking for anything unusual. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry to have polluted the WP with this OR> I admit, it is very hard to find any sources on albania. I have done some basic editing, will continue to try and improve. please be patient. thanks, mike 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you just don't get it. Wikipedia does not work on the basis of "look at the map" or "everyone knows"; it works on the basis of verifiability via reliable sources. I'm not saying the "regions" don't exist --though your references to the Albania article only deal with a north-south split, and, if it's covered there, this present list is redundant. What I am saying is that when someone writes "another division would be...", followed by "so combining these we get ...", that suggests either WP:OR (in the absence of sources) or WP:SYN. That is why I tagged the article, and then added an explanatory note here. As you are clearly both knowledgeable about the subject and interested in it, it would (I assume) be a simple matter for you to improve the article and I find it difficult to understand why you're so reluctant to do so: verifiability is one of WP's basic policies, so I'm not asking for anything unusual. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)