Talk:History of Niš

Alleged Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology

Recently an edit by @Ktrimi991: was reverted by @Antidiskriminator: with the reason given: undo POV pushing of Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology per WP:BRD. Take it to the talkpage to gain consensus. Looking at the content added: Linguist Radoslav Katičić proposed that the placename Niš is a Slavic and Albanian toponym that evolved from the Ancient Greek Ναισσός. According to Katičić, only mediation through the Albanian language could give the final phonetic form as Niš reflecting the sound changes that Albanian underwent and was later borrowed into Slavic, indicating that at the time of arrival by Slavs (7th century) a historic (proto)-Albanian presence existed in the area. and when compared this is what Maynard and Serife notes on page 557: There is also philological evidence that Albanians had inhabited the region for centuries if not millennia. According to Katičić (1976), Nish is an Albanian and Slavic toponym that developed from Ancient Greek, which presupposes Albanian language mediation. In other words, based on the strict rules of sound change the only way the Greek City Ναισσός (Naeisu) could have the phonetic outcome Nish (niš) is via the sound changes which Albanian underwent. It was then borrowed from Albanian into Slavic. This means that when the Slavs arrived in Nish (seventh century) there would have already been a historic (proto)-Albanian presence. The journal article [1] by Maynard and Serife is peer reviewed meeting the requirements of wp:reliable and wp:secondary. As the journal article makes reference to the etymology of toponym Nis, isn't it relevant to the article which refers to the history of Nis about citing it? So in that context Antidiskriminator can you elaborate on what is meant here by Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology, as the scholarly source in question makes no such claim (nor is there a critique of Serife and Maynard by other scholars that they did so -unless you have something)? Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- not only are these RS, there also not the only ones saying this in the field of Historical Linguistics. Which is the claim more likely to arise from, Albanian nationalism or scrupulous Historical Linguistic research? Well, Eric Hamp used the Albanian character of the Nish toponym to argue Albanians came from "old Dardania", noting in particular the ai>i: development (favoring the second character just like contemporaneous padu:lem>pyll, where Albanian as it typically does fronted long u:>y: like French). Others might note the characteristic backing of the s into the postalveolar 'sh'-- a typical Albanian development for words that entered the language during the Roman era, during which Albanian had no 's' but did have 'sh' (the former 's' had become a dorsal fricative, while palatalized 'kw-' segments eventually shifted into the new 's' sound). This is a very regular development for Latin loanwords that became Albanian words, i.e. summus>shume, piscis>peshk, etc; Vlad Orel, Shaban Demiraj etc etc all talk about this. Especially seeing how rare 'sh' was among the other languages spoken there in antiquity (Latin didn't have it, Celtic didn't have it, Greek didn't have it...), it's hard to see this claim as arising from "Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology" rather than scrupulous historical linguistics research, and accusing the authors as such seems libelous and unfounded. --Calthinus (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe some of those sources too like Hamp could be added in addition to the Maynard one. Still Maynard is recent and looked at past scholarship citing it in her article which meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary criteria. That's why i am somewhat perplexed at Antidiskriminator's reason for reverting the addition of that content, as it relates directly to the history of Nis.Resnjari (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It was a very poorly justified, and now reverted, edit. --Calthinus (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That work is a monograph on Albanian diaspora in Turkey. Katičić suggests it, but it is in no way concluded. Note could and would. For this matter, which indeed is in "autochtonous" waters, far better sources are needed. Removed until discussion leads to conclusion.--Zoupan 08:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

@Zoupan: It's not just the diaspora Turkey work and Katichich that are behind this. There's also Eric Hamp, Eqrem Chabej, Shaban Demiraj, Basich, Curtis,... the list goes on. Naissos > Nish is widely considered to be a toponym showing likely Albanian influence. What is bizarre is that Antidiskriminator accuses these scholars of "Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology" but actually many of htem were using the point that Nish shows Albanian influence to argue against Albanian autochtony, arguing that they lived in teh area of Nish and Shtip originally where they had lots of contact with the original speakers, and then invaded what became Albania and mixed with/Albanized its previous Latinate population. Hamp on Origin of Albanians, currently under the section which advocates "Thracian or Dacian origin" (which btw happens to be the fall back of nationalist Serbs, once they give up on the Caucasus theory that is):

Cities whose names follow Albanian phonetic laws – such as Shtip (Štip), Shkupi (Skopje) and Nish (Niš) – lie in the areas, believed to historically been inhabited by Thracians, Paionians and Dardani; the latter is most often considered an Illyrian tribe by ancient historians. While there still is no clear picture of where the Illyrian-Thracian border was, Niš is mostly considered Illyrian territory.

Also, here's Curtis -- Ktrimi991 and maybe Resnjari might want to save this one -- on proto-Albanian (not modern Albanian) toponymic influence on Kosovo and SE Serbia [[2]]:

... Toponymic evidence suggests that Albanian likely was spoken in Metohia and Kosovo before the Serbs' settlement there, as Albanian historical phonology helps explain several place names in the area, such as Prizren and Prishtina, as well as Nish < Naisssus somewhat to hte northeast (Chabej 1961, Stanishich 1995: 10). In footnote: Hamp (p.c. to Joseph) has expalined the origins of the names Prizren and Prishtina as containing the IE root per 'ford, ferry, with Prishtina having an etymology roughly equivalent to 'ford-stone' (parallel to Stanford and Prizren roughly 'ford-horned animal'...

Actually a lot of these guys are not advocating continuous Albanian settlement in the area so connecting the view to "Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology" is wrong. They're arguing the placenames passed in to Slavic from Albanian, but some also say Albanians were absent from the area of Nish and Eastern Kosovo (not as much Metokhia) for a long time afterward. In the case of Nish, it is argued it is not originally Albanian-- it passed into Albanian in turn from either Greek or Latin, this is explicitly stated. And I mean, come on, accusing tons of authors of irredentist "autochtonous mythology" is just low -- Serbs would never tolerate Albanian editors accusing every author that said something they didn't like of nationalist extremism. And yes, some sources do not say that it was proven or anything, only that it is the best explanation -- but that still makes it worth noting. Sorry for the length. --Calthinus (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The work of Katičić treats as a fact the theory about pre-Slavic (proto)-Albanian presence on the Balkans (diff). This theory is rejected by modern scholarship. By giving undue weight to work of Katičić written more than 50 years ago this hypothesis would be presented as a fact to the readers. The same goes for Illyrian hypotesis based on Čabej and other authors who parrot it ("The Albanians continue the habitat of Illyrian"). Including this text would be violation of WP:NPOV and that is why this text has no place in this article, unless consensus is reached to include it. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

What the ... as a fact the theory about pre-Slavic (proto)-Albanian presence on the Balkans ... dude the "theory" of pre-Slavic proto-Albanian presence in the Balkans is a field wide consensus in Balkan linguistics. The only three accepted legitimate theories of Albanian origins are the Illyrian, the Thracian and the Dacian (and their variants). All three have proto-Albanians in the Balkans before Slavs though they diff on where exactly they were. The only objections to this have come from the totally forgotten Byzantine Italian theory, and the theory that Albanians came over from the Caucasus, or the Mid East in Ottoman times. The latter one is found not in academia (aside from smth from some French guy 1.5 centuries ago), but instead in Serbian national mysticist circles and sites like Stormfront. I really hope you don't mean to imply that the fact that Albanians were somewhere in the Balkans in the late Roman era is not acceptable(?!) to you. --Calthinus (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. There are scholars who support Dacian theory who believe that "Albanian language formed between the 4th and 6th centuries in or near modern-day Romania, which was Dacian territory". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes-- in the Balkans. Dacian is one of the Paleo-Balkan languages.--Calthinus (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No. Modern-day Romania is not on the Balkan peninsula and far from Niš.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

In linguistics, Romania is unambiguously considered Balkan, Romanian is an integral member of the Balkan sprachbund, while Dacian is a Paleo-Balkan language. This is a very slimy way to say that "Albanians were not in the Balkans" since that has a lot of other interpretations, but I am glad that you are not saying what I feared you were.--Calthinus (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: can you provide sources to back up your comment about specifically the Nis toponym issue being "rejected by modern scholarship". So far all i can see here is comments and personal opinion (ok, fine) but to omit something based on scholarship in the article you need something more (as i noted in my above posts). @Zoupan: Maynard and Serife (non-Albanian scholars as well) are the most recent to look at the Nis region and its past with their journal article published in wp:reliable and wp:secondary criteria. They cite it because it is not a obsolete conclusion. The your initial reasoning of undo POV pushing of Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology falls within the wp:idontlikeit category. For all of us in here lets just stick to the issue of the source as this article talkpage not a discussion about the origins of the Albanians, but about this piece of information on the toponym of Nis and its citation in the article. @Ktrimi991: and @Calthinus: as i said previously, i am still preplexed by Antidiskriminator's reasoning for the removal of content.Resnjari (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I am still perplexed that Antidiskriminator has only discussed Katicic, but he removed text that had Katicic as well as Hamp, Curtis, Pacarizi as well as points taken from Cabej, Baric, Weigand, Jokl and many others... --Calthinus (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Only Katičić spoke about etymology of Niš, which is in topic of discussion here. The other authors were added to support (one of many) hypothesis that Albanians lived in the Balkans before Slavs. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree @Calthinus:. Experience with these articles some editors have disbarred sources due to age, or due to them being Albanian. Hence my focus on Maynard is as its most recent, meeting all Wikipedia criteria and also the basis of Antidiskriminator's initial serious charge of it falling within the context of Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology. So far its baseless having providing nothing that discredits Maynard and Serife as scholars yet alone their scholarship (from critiques by other scholars within the scholarly community etc). If he was at least to provide something like that then i could see where he is coming from. To date nothing apart from personal opinion.Resnjari (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anti, If you read what the references say that I posted, which you deleted while only talking about Katicic, you will see that every single one of them mentions the etymology of Nish. Not only that, but I'm astonished that after you lectured me on my talk page about discussion etiquette about "personalization" twice, you are now hypocritically making assertions that I only added the other authors to "support ... hypothesis [sic] that Albanians lived in the Balkans before Slavs". Don't presume to know why I edit. In fact I think it is an interesting debate and the role of Nish in the debate is notable and informative, in addition to the fact that there are implications there for Nish's own history. I don't have a specific goal to show that Albanians lived anywhere before Slavs, for your information. --Calthinus (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The source that supports my position is WP:NPOV. Do you really expect me to find a scholarly source about addition of text about Pre-Slavic Albanian presence on the Balkan peninsula to wikipedia article about History of Niš? At the same time nobody is able to cite any other more modern work which says that the name of Niš is indicating that at the time of arrival by Slavs (7th century) a historic (proto)-Albanian presence existed in the area.

No doubt you know there is no evidence about Albanian existence on the Balkan peninsula before 11th century, which is at least five centuries after Slavs first entered Balkans. Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian, Moldavian or any other hypothesis about origin of Albanians is not scientifically proven. That is why all of them are only hypothesis. Katicic believed in Illyrian hypothesis. Presenting text based on Katičić's more than 50 years old work about name of Nis indicating pre-Slavic (proto)-Albanian presence on the Balkans as a fact would be wrong and against WP:NPOV. The same goes for other authors who support Illyrian hypothesis. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes @Antidiskriminator:, you need to find something within the scholarly community etc that disbars Maynard and Serife and their work. Sure Katičić made such a assessment some decades back, however its not considered obsolete within scholarly circles as Maynard and Serife cited it in their recent work. You made comments to the effect that their work equates with Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology yet offering no evidence except personal views in here on what you think Albanians are or are not regarding their origins. Now that's fine in that context, but for here wp:idontlikeit is not sufficient as Maynard and Serife met wp:reliable and wp:secondary criteria.Resnjari (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: "No evidence"? No, there is only no proof of Albanian presence before the 11th century. But there's plenty of evidence -- toponyms, language contact effects traced to that period, reconstruction of when Latin and Greek words entered Albanian, Albanian-Romance contact... whole careers of people revolve around discussing the evidence, although it is of course subject to interpretation. Of course there is no hard proof to any of this -- and that applies to everyone not just Albanians. It's also pretty shocking to see the careers of countless linguists defamed as nationalist "autochtonous mythology" when most of them aren't even Albanian. These are well-regarded and scrupulous men and women, and while you may not like or agree with their findings, they deserve your respect or at least they don't deserve to be tarred by attempts at association with nationalist mysticism. Also you say "the source that supports my position is WP:NPOV but .... don't list a source... --Calthinus (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

All he has done is give his personal opinions here. @Calthinus: you cited a whole host of sources on the Nis issue and scholars like Hamp etc and it not being obsolete with Maynard (2009) being the latest within a scholarly context to cite on the matter.Resnjari (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Calthinus,

• they don't deserve to be tarred by attempts at association with nationalist mysticism This is not the first time you use straw man fallacy here. I never wrote a comment which implies that the authors who support Illyrian hypothesis should be tarred or discredited in any way. By doing this you are misusing article talkpage to create false narrative about me which can be misused against me at some noticeboard. Please stop with wp:battleground behavior. I am writing this comment here because you complained about me leaving comments about your conduct at your talkpage.
• The topic of this discussion is ethymology of Niš. Not who came first, (Proto)-Albanians or Slavs. I think that insisting to misuse the ethymology of Niš to give undue weight to one (Illyrian) of many hypothesis about the origin of Albanians is violation of WP:NPOV. There is separate article about the Origin of Albanians where such additions belong. In this article this addition is simply offtopic (WP:OFFTOPIC). My position can only be grounded in wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please do not continue to insist on RS here. This talkpage does not attract attention of wide audience, so with 3:2 !votes are not enough to readd this bold addition. So, if you insist that text about the ethymology of Niš should give (I think undue) weight to offtopic hypothesis that (Proto)Albanians lived in Niš before Slavs, do not edit war but initiate RfC and gain consensus.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No, my goal is not to create a false narrative about Antidiskriminator, and contrary to what you apparently believe, I am not planning to take you to any noticeboard. Even though you may not think so I actually admire a lot of the work you've done on wiki and I wouldn't want to see you prevented from writing pages you did like Nationalization of history, a good page and a very interesting concept.

However, sadly there was no strawman fallacy because the man was flesh and blood, and you have made statements on this page that I find unacceptable. There is the episode where you accused me in an (immutable) edit summary of ["POV pushing of Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology"]. "POV-pushing" attributes a motive to the editor -- as I said before I find it hurtful because it feels like you're attributing motives to me that I don't have. My interest here is linguistic. And please don't call decades of scholarship "Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology" especially when Resnjari and I have produced quite a few reliable and secondary sources while you have produced ... zero. We earlier saw the smear of Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology [[3]]. Now, basic linguistics : every symbol has a referent -- and what does the symbol string POV-pushing of Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology refer to? Two possibilities: one is the well-cited block of text that Ktrimi991 added which you reverted, the findings of which were the result of decades of honest scholarship that indeed cannot be called Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology under any grounds (an acceptable referent of this would be the output of slimy nationalist websites that might make outrageous claims like Socrates being Albanian and Serbs coming from Kazakhstan, but nobody has touched those). But that it was the scholarship you were referring to is the generous interpretation -- because the other possibility means that you think Ktrimi, who seems an honest editor as far as I've seen, is bent on pushing the infamous Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology. He probably deserves an apology from you for the possible implication.

Normally I am fine with users posting on my talk page if they have a problem with something I said so we can work it out. But throughout most of our interaction, despite the fact that you have done work that I appreciate, whenever we have had a serious disagreement, you have posted to my talk page with a tone that I find to be the polar opposite of productive. So while if I sense that you seriously want to help us get along better you are welcome to leave me a message, I have not appreciated your messages a bit. As I said, this will change in a second if your behavior does, as I would much rather work with you.

On that note, your central issue with the text seems to be that " I think that insisting to misuse the ethymology of Niš to give undue weight to one (Illyrian) of many hypothesis about the origin of Albanians". Now does the text do that? Here is the text that you removed:

Linguist Radoslav Katičić proposed that the placename Niš is a Slavic and Albanian toponym that evolved from the Ancient Greek Ναισσός.[1] According to Katičić, only mediation through the Albanian language could give the final phonetic form as Niš reflecting the sound changes that Albanian underwent and was later borrowed into Slavic, indicating that at the time of arrival by Slavs (7th century) a historic (proto)-Albanian presence existed in the area.[1] The presence of toponyms following Proto-Albanian phonological rules in Southeastern Serbia and Northeastern Macedonia has been used in the debate about the origin of Albanian to argue that Proto-Albanian came from a Daco-Moesian area which included Niš as an argument in favor of the Thracian theory, although later commentary in the linguistic debate has included views that hold that Naissus could have been Illyrian territory instead, consistent with the rival Illyrian theory.[2][3][4]

I don't think it's fair to say that this is pushing the Illyrian theory-- actually it says that the Nish toponym has been argued to favor either the Thracian or Illyrian hypotheses, so on this it seems quite neutral. The part of this text that Ktrimi added was quite clearly about the etymology of Nish which, as it is in an etymology section, is definitely not WP:OFFTOPIC. The part that I added was about the significance of the toponym to other topics including the Albanian origins dispute. In my view this is notable, interesting and informative. But if your issue is the discussion of the origins of Albanians, I personally (can't speak for Resnjari, Ktrimi) would be willing to accept a compromise where we remove only the part about Historical Linguistics disputes, and leave the part that pertained specifically to the etymology. What do you say to that Antidiskriminator? --Calthinus (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC) PS sorry for the length

• I caught three of you with your hands in the cookie jar. This addition (diff) on which you three so much inssist is not only offtopic POV pushing of Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology, but also based on blatant source misinterpretation. Everybody can look at page 186 of work of Katičić (Katicic, Radoslav (1 January 1976). Ancient Languages of the Balkans. Walter de Gruyter. p. 186. ISBN 978-3-11-156887-4.) and see that it does not mention (proto)Albanians coming to Niš before Slavs. Şerife Geniş & Kelly Lynne Maynard also never said he did. He used Niš only to explain that "some scholars" (not him) concluded that Albanians in the past did not live "in the maritime regions of present-day Albania". He did not wrote that he supported the view of this scholars or the hypothesis that this phonetic change is originally Albanian. He wrote "The answer to this is that in judging whether a sound change is originally Albanian or not...." He even emphasized "The change of initial sk- to h- is very old in Albanian, perhaps even pre-Balkanic". At the end of this chapter Katičić concludes " Some topo-nyms came to Albanian through Romance or Slavic mediation or even through both. But on the main Albanian names such as Lesh, Drisht, Kunavja, Drin, Buene , Mat ', and Ishm can be derived from their ancient forms Ussus, Drivastum, Candavia, Drinus, Barbanna, Mathis, and Isamnus only by Albanian sound changes, and by no others. Niš is not in the list of toponyms which are formed only by Albanian sound changes. You three are lucky that I am busy in real life and do not have enough time to file reports at appropriate noticeboard. Tsk tsk tsk.....
• To answer your question, please propose the text that refers specifically to the etymology, without misinterpretations, preferrably within some subsection of this section not to be distracted with huge wall of text created here, and try to gain consensus from there. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: your reason for removal are problematic as you have infered that the addition of text is toward Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology. You have thus far shown no evidence that Maynard and Serife are flawed or that they have been viewed or critiqued as such within the scholarly community. Now you may continue to insist or others that their work is just a monograph on Albanian diaspora in Turkey (ignoring that its on Albanians whose heritage is from Nis) and that somehow that disqualifies them on the matter. Well what about Russian linguist Aleksander Rusakov in his chapter [4] (published in 2017 by Routledge in a book about Indo-European languages) on the Albanian language. On page 556 he writes the following: By contrast, in the inner Balkans there are some geographic names that show a phonetic development according to Albanian "sound laws" (see e.g. Nish < Naissus Ναισσός). Now i just want to know clearly here whether this too would fall under POV-pushing of Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology or not (considering the source meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary wiki requirements and is from this year, hence very recent and not obsolete by any means in the scholarly community)? I will wait for your response before i agree to other suggestions here about going beyond this talkpage. Calthinus i agree on removing the bit about Historical Linguistics disputes. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The quote from work of Rusakov is cherry picked. Rusakov did not deal with ethymology of Niš. What Rusakov actually did was to present contrasting views about linguistic evidence of the origin of Albanians and different views on the phonetic connection of Albanian and Illyrian. Only to conclude : ("All these pieces of evidence indicate, although somewhat indirectly, that in the époque of late Antiquity the ancestors of Albanians did not live on the Adriatic coast or in close proximity to it.") Nothing else. He clearly explains that lexical data is insufficiant for conclusion about connection between Albanian and Illyiran or Thracian. Does Rusakov say that all toponyms that follow show a phonetic development according to Albanian "sound laws" (like Niš) are necessarily of Albanian origin. No. As Rusakov points at the example of Shokdra on the same page. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

If the removal of the bit about Historical Linguistics disputes can serve as a solution to the dispute, I support it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: one can use the cherry picked argument for many edits done by everybody if we go there. The section that contained the information about Naissos began with There are, however, other pieces of linguistic evidence that may be relevant for the determination of the place of the "intermediate Balkan Urheimat" of the Albanians, regardless of whether or not the Albanian language originates from the Illyrian language. The sentence on Naissos is within that context of linguistic evidence (note the sentence for Naissos starts with "In contrast"), not one treated as with disapproval (as with Shkoder on sound laws -of which you cite on geography but does not refer Nis) or it being obsolete in relation to Albanian. That is clear. Rusakov was not the first in regards to the Nis matter, so its not some new thing or fringe and as @Calthinus: showed with other scholars discussed/highlighted over a period of time of some decades. You have still not provided evidence that these scholars (who meet Wikipedia criteria) as pushing some "Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology". My solution for this is we have a sentence on this with a note that states part of what Calinthus had about it being in the context of scholarship discussion so things are clarified and it avoids for some what they might view as POV issues. You can continue too insist that there is no confirmation etc, but scholars don't also agree with the origin of the placename itself (with debate about it being Celtic or Paleo-Balkan -yet that is cited in the article). Lets work on a sentence as well and we get this done and dusted. @Ktrimi991: you agree as well ?Resnjari (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: personal request-- can you please not attribute Resnjari's reading of Rusakov to myself and Ktrimi as we are quite different people, and likewise not Ktrimi's reading of Katicic to me and Resnjari? Additionally, musing about reporting us to noticeboards is..... yeah. Anyhow I think you greatly misunderstood my position and probably Resnjari's as well. Neither of us is arguing in favor of the Illyrian theory on this page, and neither of us is arguing that Nish backs the Illyrian theory -- actually as I've said before due to Nish's distance from the Adriatic it's often used to buttress the rival Thracian and Dardanian theories of Albanian origins and I actually added that to the page here (i.e. info on scholars arguing against the Illyrian theory) so please do not misrepresent mine or anyone else's position. Btw on -sk- to -h- in Albanian that is for the oldest words but words dating to the Roman period show a different pattern: words that entered the language at that point with -sk- clusters now represent them regularly as -shk- clusters (palatalized to -shq- before front vowels-- this is exactly the case with the very name of the language, shqip), although I'm not sure why you're talking about that derivation as it doesn't apply to Naissos>Nish which lacks the cluster. Anyhow I propose this : 1) reinstate the removed text but 2) remove the part about origin of ALbanians. Thanks all. Oh yeah, also Antid, I really appreciate that you're trying in some ways to be conciliatory but as pretty much everyone here has been saying, quit throwing around fiery phrases like POV pushing of Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology. As has been explained that comes off as very accusatory and whoever the target is (users, authors), it's not cool. Cheers. --Calthinus (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the quoted text that Ktrimi991 had to support his text: There is also philological evidence that Albanians had inhabited the region for centuries if not millennia. According to Katičić (1976), Nish is an Albanian and Slavic toponym that developed from Ancient Greek, which presupposes Albanian language mediation. [16] In other words, based on the strict rules of sound change the only way the Greek City Ναισσός (Naeisu) could have the phonetic outcome Nish (niš) is via the sound changes which Albanian underwent. It was then borrowed from Albanian into Slavic. This means that when the Slavs arrived in Nish (seventh century) there would have already been a historic (proto)-Albanian presence. -- this pretty clearly seems to support what he wrote to me, so I'm not sure the charge of source misinterpretation against him is accurate. --Calthinus (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• we are quite different people All three of you insist on addition of offtopic missattributed and misinterpreted pov text either by adding it to the article (diff and diff and/or by writing huge walls of text on this page trying to support this offtopic pov addition. I can not see any other reason but to push Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology on wikipedia. By three of you of course, not by authors, like you try to misinterpret my position in futile attempt to create false narrative about me.
• I will underline the most important points in this discussion:
  1. WP:OFFTOPIC- This discussion is about ethymology of Niš. Not about the Origin of Albanians. It has its own article. The text about who came first, Slavs or Albanians does not have its place in the ethymology of Niš.
  2. WP:NPOV - There are three types of sources on wikipedia: Primary, Secondary and Tertirary. Are there primary sources for origin of Albanians? No. Are there reliable secondary sources, based on primary sources as requested by wikipedia rules? No. Are there tertiry sources that summarize primary and secondary sources? No. Is there scientific consensus about the origin or Albanians and when and from where they came to Balkans? No. Why not? Because there are no sources about it. No historical sources nor material evidence. Nothing. At least for now. What is there then? Only futile attempts to use unreliable and controversial lexical data to set hypothesis about it. Are such studies of traces of lexical data sufficiant for any conclusion or scientific consensus. Not at all per above mentioned Rusakov, except that ancestors of Albanians did not live on the Adriatic coast or in close proximity to it. Should such futile attempts to determine the origin of Albanians be used in article building on wikipedia? I think not, except in article about the origin of Albanians.
• I think I clearly explained misinterpretation and do not have anything to add to it now, except that the issue here is not only misinterpretation but also misattributtion. It seems that the real authorship of Naisuss → Nishi hypothesis belongs to Gustav Weigand (1927) and Eqrem Cabej (1958: 59), who belong to "some scholars" cited by Katičić. Outdated work citing even more outdated sources, all written by proponents of Illyrian hypothesis whose hypothesis about Albanians being descendants of seafaring Illyrians have been refuted in the last century. In order to be constructive it is necessary to proceed with proposing the text that refers specifically to the etymology, without misinterpretations, preferrably within some subsection of this section not to be distracted with huge wall of text created here, and try to gain consensus from there. No doubt that, if this Naisuss → Nishi hypothesis of Weigand/Cabej is correct, there will be plenty of sources which support it, other than studies of lexical data aimed to prove one or another hypothesis on origin of Albanians.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator:, you continue to insinuate with the allegation that all three of us are pushing Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology without evidence. So much for good faith. All three of us have kept to the scholarship (which passes the wp:reliable and wp:secondary criteria) in this discussion (something which continuously ignore), with you presenting nothing apart from personal opinion and making this discussion go into one on the origin of Albanians and your prefered theory and it is you who have continuously gone off topic about Thracians and Dacians etc. Weigand/Cabej were some of first to make the connection on Nis and Albanian and other scholars have not been dismissive of that position (like Hamp, Katicic) until even this year (Rusakov) with apart from yourself in here. Since you claim its all "outdated", why Tomaschek (19th century), Holder (1940s), Detschew (1950s), Georgiev (1960s-1970s) is considered current by you (or should be cited in the article) in reference to the section on the etymology of Nis ? Antidiskriminator, please give an answer on this ? Am i wrong in asking this Ktrimi991 and Calthinus?Resnjari (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What i find it curious here is that the article has content on the etymology/origin of the toponym of Nis citing scholars like Wilhelm Tomaschek who was active [5] in the 19th century, Holder active in the 1940s [6] (on the Celtic position); Detschew active in the 1950s [7], Vladimir I. Georgiev who was active in the 1960s and 1970s (Dacio-Thracian position), are ok to cite with issues of age or what is most recent in scholarship (things that Antidiskrimiintor refered to for other sources here) are not taken into account. So i ask @Antidiskriminator:, why is it ok for that to be cited within the context of Nish's history, yet scholars (provided by Ktrimi991 and Calthinus) who for the past few decades have repeatedly cited the Nis-Albanian matter (until even this year) are to be ignored and not cited in this article for reasons that that are anything to do with scholarship? Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Every time Antidiskriminator is involved in a content dispute with one or more editors they always make threats with reports, blocks and bans. Such a behaviour is not acceptable and editors that choose to do so are very good candidates for a block or other sanctions. Antidiskriminator should present sources or accept the truth. Otherwise nobody will let them game the system. Antidiskriminator's position is a dead horse, nobody can help it stay alive. Resnjari and Calthinus your final opinion on what we should add/remove from the content I added? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 It's hard for me to justify to myself spending more time in this discussion. Two editors argue with sources and pragmatic, policy based arguments, to reinstate the well-sourced edit done by yourself, while one other just misrepresents their positions at every turn and doesn't seem to be engaging in real dialogue. While I do appreciate that Antidiskriminator has toned down some annoying behaviors, the accusations of "POV pushing of Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology" have continued, which isn't conducive to respectful discussion, to say the least. As for my final opinion, Ktrimi991 -- I support an effort by yourself to reinstate it. Discussion on my compromise proposal has fizzled out and been replaced with more redirection of the conversation onto the Origin of Albanians and the previously mentioned accusations which is really disappointing to me. --Calthinus (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator .... always make threats with reports, blocks and bans This is another misinterpretation. Here is what I really wrote you three are lucky that I am busy in real life and do not have enough time to file reports at appropriate noticeboard (diff). If three of you want to reinstate bold addition of Ktrimi991 without following WP:DR and gaining WP:CONSENSUS, contrary to WP:BRD, based on 3:2 !votes, without addressing any of valid concerns presented on this page, don't be afraid that I will report you. I promise I will not.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm reproposing the compromise attempt from before. To make things clear, as apparently they weren't, compare these two blockquotes. First is the text that was deleted:

Linguist Radoslav Katičić proposed that the placename Niš is a Slavic and Albanian toponym that evolved from the Ancient Greek Ναισσός. According to Katičić, only mediation through the Albanian language could give the final phonetic form as Niš reflecting the sound changes that Albanian underwent and was later borrowed into Slavic, indicating that at the time of arrival by Slavs (7th century) a historic (proto)-Albanian presence existed in the area. The presence of toponyms following Proto-Albanian phonological rules in Southeastern Serbia and Northeastern Macedonia has been used in the debate about the origin of Albanian to argue that Proto-Albanian came from a Daco-Moesian area which included Niš as an argument in favor of the Thracian theory, although later commentary in the linguistic debate has included views that hold that Naissus could have been Illyrian territory instead, consistent with the rival Illyrian theory.

And second is the proposed compromise of reinstatement of part of the above, leaving the stuff about the etymology but removing material about wider Historical linguistics disputes:

Linguist Radoslav Katičić proposed that the placename Niš is a Slavic and Albanian toponym that evolved from the Ancient Greek Ναισσός. According to Katičić, only mediation through the Albanian language could give the final phonetic form as Niš reflecting the sound changes that Albanian underwent and was later borrowed into Slavic, indicating that at the time of arrival by Slavs (7th century) a historic (proto)-Albanian presence existed in the area.

The remainder above deals with the proposed etymology by Katicic, and the proposed contexts of the development, which is relevant. The removed material (Hamp, Curtis, Jokl etc...) although it does demonstrate that Katicic is not alone in his claim about Nis is interesting imo and shows outside relevance of the topic but is not essential, and since complaints have been made about its presence, I propose reinstatement of the text including Katicic but not Hamp, Curtis, etc as a compromise solution. This way we talk about the etymology mainly, without delving too deep into controversial matters, and keep the text on this issue relatively short. Is this or is this not acceptable Antidiskriminator Resnjari Ktrimi991? Also please, everyone, do not keep talking about Origin of the Albanians because our topic here is the Nish etymology and people who have the similar views on that (Hamp, Katicic, etc...) happen to have very different views on that other topic with little correlation, so diversion is off-topic at best. --Calthinus (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

We add Rusakov too, as its most current (2017) on Nis and Albanian. @Antidiskriminator:, when i started this thread i thought you were going to provide that scholarship and scholarly critiques to back your positions. You have not provided any scholarly critique (apart from your own personal view that it has to do with some "Great Albania mythology") that states the Nis-Albanian matter is obsolete. So far you still have not provided a reason as to why Tomaschek (19th century), Holder (1940s), Detschew (1950s), Georgiev (1960s-1970s) is considered current by you (or should be cited in the article) in reference to the section on the etymology of Nis while all these others are to be excluded? Additionally Antidiskriminator, i would like to remind you that something similar occurred in regards to Mataruge when you opposed additions of scholarship and the discussion had there on the talkpage resembles in many aspects the discussion here by you. I am also going to say this, if you think that any of us have contravened policy file reports at the appropriate noticeboard. Editors here have extended their hand out in good faith to you and based their discussion on scholarship, in particular relating to NIs-Albanian matter.Ktrimi991, Calthinus I think we can kind of shrink the sentence to: The toponym Niš has been proposed in scholarship to be a Slavic and Albanian toponym that evolved from the Ancient Greek Ναισσός through sound changes in the Albanian language and later borrowed into Slavic. (sources: Maynard -citing Katicic, Hamp, Curtis, Rusakov) A note can be added to the section saying that scholars like Hamp, Katicic, on the indication of an existing (proto)-Albanian presence in the area at the time of arrival by Slavs (7th century) and the Nis toponym entering Slavic. Your thoughts?Resnjari (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari well despite the tough talk, your proposal actually goes further than mine to compromise. I wasn't sure you'd support something like that. But sure, if Antidiskriminator is agreeable to that.--Calthinus (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Calthinus, we now have an abundance of scholarship for this brought by yourself and Ktrimi991, so the sentence can be shrunk a bit. A note can kind of cover the rest within the space of like 2 or 3 sentences. Your thoughts guys ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

What is here presented as the compromise of reinstatement (diff) is actually poorly disguised attempt to reinstate bold addition of Ktrimi991 without addressing any of valid concerns presented on this page.

• Here is text the bold addition of Ktrimi991:

Linguist Radoslav Katičić proposed that the placename Niš is a Slavic and Albanian toponym that evolved from the Ancient Greek Ναισσός.[4] According to Katičić, only mediation through the Albanian language could give the final phonetic form as Niš reflecting the sound changes that Albanian underwent and was later borrowed into Slavic, indicating that at the time of arrival by Slavs (7th century) a historic (proto)-Albanian presence existed in the area.[4]

• Here is text of the compromise of reinstatement (diff):

  Linguist Radoslav Katičić proposed that the placename Niš is a Slavic and Albanian toponym that evolved from the Ancient Greek Ναισσός.[1] According to Katičić, only mediation through the Albanian language could give the final phonetic form as Niš reflecting the sound changes that Albanian underwent and was later borrowed into Slavic, indicating that at the time of arrival by Slavs (7th century) a historic (proto)-Albanian presence existed in the area.[1]

The masks have fallen off. Its obvious that all you three want here is to misuse etymology section to push Illyrian hypothesis POV indication that Albanians came to Balkans before Slavs. I can not see any other reason for this other than to to give undue weight to Illyrian hypothesis of the origin of Albanians to promote offtopic Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology. You completely ignored valid concerns presented on this talkpage and now you three are going to faign consensus building. There is no honest and serious effort by three of you to respect wikipedia dispute resolution policy. If I have to choose between text of the bold addition of Ktrimi991 and compromise of reinstatement (diff) I choose not to participated in this charade anymore. This is my last comment in this discussion. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

"The masks have fallen off." ??? What do you mean ? Antidiskriminator your persistence with the "to promote offtopic Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology" thing is doing you no favours in the area of good faith -especially without evidence. Now you refer to "misuse etymology" as well. You have not provided any evidence (which was repeatedly asked of you) that the scholars in question have promoted some kind of Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology and the main thing here that has been off topic is discussing the origins of Albanians and what your favorite theory is. You also have not given answer as to why the article is allowed to have something on Celtic and Paleo-Balkan etymology Nis content based on Tomaschek (19th century), Holder (1940s), Detschew (1950s), Georgiev (1960s-1970s), but a no to these other scholars who are respected in the scholarly community (i.e: Hamp, Katicic etc). The version of Ktrimi991 for reinstatement is not a final and done thing but one option proposed by him. Calthinus proposed shrinking it as a compromise and i placed a much more condensed version of the sentence (i hope you saw it) as Calthinus provided a whole host of other scholars that can be added as references. A note also will be needed of 2 or 3 sentences to explain its context based on some of what Calinthus wrote when he added content to the article. Now either we can work together toward some wording that takes in the scholarship or we can persist with unfounded charges of "Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology". Your choice if you want to participate on how you proceed. Other editors here will work toward something that can be added to the article in the context of good faith and basing content and discussion solely on the scholarship. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

the masks have fallen off ... did I seriously just read that? Wow. I thought we were making progress toward being able to get along. I have been trying for days to be conciliatory here. With sources. With compromise proposals. With attempts to address your concerns that there was too much about other than the etymology. Forgive me, it seems I'm a naïve little kid at heart as always. And I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, if you actually intend to report us, but I'm worried that if you do we will lose a valuable editor-- what I mean is that, I've heard that in Australia there is this very interesting weapon that can come back and hit you in the face when you throw it and aren't careful. I would rather there not be any injuries, because you are actually a useful editor I'd rather keep around, despite our differences (sincerely). --Calthinus (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Leave said hypothesis on Albanian proto-history and etymology of Niš out of the article. The etymology would be plausible only when assuming that the Albanians originated in Moesia, which is not concluded in scolarship. What is concluded, however, is that Celts, Thracians and Illyrians lived in the area and left toponyms after them. By adding the "Albanian etymology", one gives undue weight to one of the theories of Albanian proto-history. Simple as that.--Zoupan 20:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Zoupan have you read the sources? They argue in favor of the name passing into Slavic from Albanian and previously into Albanian from Greek. While some (which support the Daco-Moesian or Dardanian theories of Albanian origins)) claim that Albanians originate in Moesia, stating that the name went passed from Greek to Albanian to Slavic is not your classic "Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology"-- indeed to take that line of argument to its logical conclusion, we end up with a claim that it instead supports "Greater Greek autochtonous mythology".--Calthinus (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Zoupan a similar question i put to Antidiskriminator now i am going to put to you. Why is Tomaschek (19th century), Holder (1940s), Detschew (1950s), Georgiev (1960s-1970s) ok to be cited in this article on etymology (Celtic and Paleo-Balkan issues -and they are not conclusive) while all the others which refer to Nis and Albanian ought to be excluded (which outnumber the Celtic/Paleo-Balkan sources)? Calthinus makes valid points on sources and and arguments made.Resnjari (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Because it is known that Celts and Paleo-Balkan peoples inhabited the region–the Albanian urheimat is not. Don't see any "outnumbering". Papazoglu's summarization in monograph > Geniş&Maynard's "philological evidence" in off-topic work. Do I need to reiterate the inconclusion (the or-or-or) in scholarship on Albanian proto-history? Albanian urheimat in Moesia=due weight→inclusion.--Zoupan 02:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

"Albanian etymology" is not logically equivalent to "Albanian urheimat". Why is this continually being conflated? The sources don't do that. --Calthinus (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion leads nowhere. Simply put, leave what we know for sure (the history of Niš) in the article.--Zoupan 02:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

It leads nowhere because one side refuses to compromise, and worse, still hasn't apologized for calling a host of reputable authors and/or the Wikipedia editors (myself, Resnjari, Ktrimi991) on the other side (this was never specified whether he meant the authors or the editors...) as pushers of Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology", a vile insult which we still have not received an apology for. We're still waiting. --Calthinus (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"Because it is known that Celts and Paleo-Balkan peoples the region", Zoupan not really because with the first we don't know if it was a permanent presence (or part of the Celtic invasions i.e temporary) and with the second scholars have offered diverging points of view about whether Nis fell in Dacian, Thracian, Dardanian, Illyyrian territory etc (having Georgiev could be considered undue if one takes on board your point and should not be in the article as well). All those scholars on the Celtic/Paleo-Balkan matter are also in the realm of hypothesis and not outright certainty. Additionally the Nis Albanian matter has been continuously cited in scholarship to date and is not fringe. On many articles in Wikipedia about cities, towns, villages (do i really have to provide examples of this as there are many if need be) etc, the section of name etymology often cites scholars who give a range of views. Here as presented so far is a great many on one particular matter. Maynard is not off topic, but on topic as that section cites Katicic and the toponym matter direct. Calthinus, Ktrimi991 with Anti whether he apologises or not is his deal, but had someone like me said just a smattering of the sort as he did, i would not be surprised that some editor out there would have taken me for disciplinary action.Resnjari (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Radoslav Katičić, again

I just noticed Ktrimi991's revert of this edit by Sadko; the edit summary tickled my fancy, as did Sadko's edit summary: "'proto-Albanian' is this linguist's personal viewpoint and scientific research, a hypothesis which is given undue weight here". As an academic, I'd like to make a few notes: "personal viewpoint" is not appropriate here, and is actually contradicted by "scientific research". Now, the citation is messed up (footnote 4, which links to footnote 41, and there's no clear indication that this is Katicic cited in Genis and Maynard--can't we cite the original as well, with the later citation to indicate the statement still has currency?), but this is a reliable source, precisely the kind of thing we should be citing in Wikipedia. I read over the (tedious) discussion above, where Resnjari and Calthinus convincingly counter the arguments of the now-topic banned Antidiskriminator (that's why I am not pinging them, no need to rub salt in a wound), and explain for instance that "rejected by modern scholarship" shouldn't be said without citations to such scholarship. Sorry, Sadko, but your argument is not stronger than that made by AD three years ago. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

GoogleBooks has a 2012 copy of Katicic' book (page 186). On my edit summary, frankly, edit summaries are one of the most interesting things on Wikipedia :P . And in some cases the funniest at the same time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, i have the PDF but i don't know how to send it to you, as going from memory wiki email doesn't allow for attachments. I uploaded the two pages (on one of those free image hosting sites) where Katicic is mentioned [8] and where it is referenced [9] in Genis and Maynard. I used that source because its not an old study and their use of Katicic meant that within scholarship when they do bother with with the topic of Albanians and the Nis area, Katicic still has relevance among the modern scholarly community. Hope it assists. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, i accessed your link, its not giving the page. I redid it so the page from Katicic direct comes up: [10].Resnjari (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice, Resnjari. Thanks. Matthew C. Curtis too says the same thing as Katicic, but I can not post a link to him at the momemt. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Resnjari, my problem wasn't accessing the material, at least not the material that I needed for this assessment: the doi link to Genis and Maynard gives me the footnotes and that one note is clear enough to prove their citation. The problem was how it was represented and linked in the article--the first footnote links not to the bibliography but to another note, which is awkward, and the text should make clear what's going on. Like, "Genis and Maynard, in a [year] study, cite the work of Katicic, who argues that blah blah". Drmies (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, back in 2017 when the content was in the article, it was based on a couple of reliable sources, though it was a bit wordy. @Antidiskriminator removed it [11] and as the above thread shows it devolved into a toxic discussion. As edit wars do no one any good, most editors who partook in that thread did not readd for years anything to do with that. Looking at the article edit history, it was Ktrimi991 who readded the content [12] in late 2019. Sadko then slimed it down [13] by removing much of the sources and some content. I don't doubt that in that trimmed downed version some textual readjustments of the kind your saying were needed but were not undertaken because of reigniting the usual bs that follows. I am ok with what your proposing as an addition to clarify the sentences.Resnjari (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Resnjari, thanks--I propose you restore that, maybe trimmed down a bit. If you are sure the sources are good, go for it. I really don't want to speak out on content; I'm a linguist but have no specific knowledge of these matters. The discussion above suffered from a lack of arguments supported by reliable sources, as I indicated above, and I trust any discussion now will not devolve like it did. I am not loath, as an administrator, to act on personal attacks, for instance, since I consider myself completely neutral when it comes to content here, which is also why I am not commenting on the specifics of any kind of content argument. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Drmies @Anti wasn't the only one with that editing style or rapport, a similar few still roam around that edit toward the Aegean/Ionian spectrum of the Balkan topic area. The Balkans topic area is not for the faint hearted and I appreciate your neutrality. On readds, though my contribution was the Genis & Maynard source, the rest was Calthinus who was on top of all the scholars who have mentioned this matter. I pinged the editor who has indepth knowledge of Balkan linguistics. Whenever the editor can edit (and if they still want to engage with this article), hopefully this issue can be dealt with. Otherwise, i'll have a crack at it in a few days time if nothing is done. My background by the way is in history and anthropology. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Resnjari I have patchy knowledge of Albanian linguistics, but I'll take the compliment :). If I add something on the matter, it'll probably be on how evidentiality (i.e. the admirative qenka/paska/etc) arose in Bulgarian, Macedonian and Albanian in tandem with lang contact with Turkish/-ic citing Friedman etc etc (i.e. the relevance of this is broader than "who lived where when" as it is relevant to theory regarding contact generally). Time constrained but I can definitely look through anything you produce for such a section if you give me a ping. --Calthinus (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

PS a lot of the relevant sources for the Naissos > Nish thing are cited in Hamp's "The Position of Albanian": Baric, Jokl, Cabej, Cimochowski, basically. Of course these are all old, so the best way to do it is discussing them via later sources like Katicic and of course Curtis. --Calthinus (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus, i went with the slimmed down version of the sentence, as present in the main Niš article. As there are a whole host of RS scholars backing this now, i thought the wordiness might not be needed, but who knows. For refs, Geniş & Maynard is used along with Ph.d theses i.e Prendergast from Berkley University and Curtis from Ohio University which discusses the matter in a wider context and other RS linguists who come to the same conclusion. Plus, they are more recent scholarly works are well so apt for citations. If this content is challenged i think then Hamp and others can be used for the discussion that hopefully will not be a repeat of the talkpage farce from 2017. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Resnjari looks good. I'll maybe come back and add citations inline at some point. Cheers! --Calthinus (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Restore content removed without explanation

Please see this edit and its edit summary. The formatting isn't great (but blockquotes don't need italics or quotation marks anyway) and the citation needs to be cleaned up and done properly, and I also removed a short and unverified statement, which editors are free to restore if they have a source. Please note also that the entire section has problems--unverified paragraphs, missing page numbers, lack of clear topic sentences that establish chronology, etc.

I see now that that very problematic, not to say amateurish, edit was made by a sock of User:Zoupan. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)