| Revision as of 10:33, 6 September 2005 editShqiptar nga Kosova (talk | contribs)2,151 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:35, 6 September 2005 edit undoTheathenae (talk | contribs)2,901 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| If you persist in removig these facts without justification, I shall report you to the Arbitration Committee. ] 10:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC) | If you persist in removig these facts without justification, I shall report you to the Arbitration Committee. ] 10:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :There is no such thing as unquestionable scholarly evidence. All scholarship is open to interpretation. Furthermore, I am not saying anything that contradicts your sources, I am simply saying it in a way that takes the Arvanites' sensitivities into consideration. And I will not allow them to be ignored.--] 10:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:35, 6 September 2005
Theathenae,
I am writing to you now not out of ill will but to plead for your cooperation. Regarding the page Arvanites (Talk), I believe that it is abundantly clear that Arvanitic is (at least for linguistic purposes) an Albanian dialect. Otherwise UNESCO, Ethnologue and Encarta wouldn't say so. So, I am asking you to reconsider accepting the phrase Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk, not dialect, variety. I believe that this phrasing is better than dialect (we could use dialect though) because it acknowledges the possibility of Arvanitic being a language in its own right. Your phrasing has the obvious defect that it implies that Arvanitic is a language in its own right. Something that UNESCO, Ethnologue and Encarta directly contradict. I know that many Arvanites dislike being called Albanians, but that does not change the fact that at least linguistically Arvanitic is an Albanian dialect. So naturally, we will have to make it clear that many Arvanites dislike being labelled that way. You do realise that UNESCO, Encarta and Ethnologue probably represent the NPOV. Let’s use that NPOV. OK? If you continue not adhering to Misplaced Pages policy by continuing to edit the article you may have committed vandalism (removing accurate data is vandalism) and that would have to be dealt with under WP’s disciplinary procedures. I sincerely hope that things work out between us. REX 10:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think they can, I'm afraid.--Theathenae 10:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
And why is that? Do you enjoy ignoring Misplaced Pages policy. That is the system. That is how thing work here. You are not cooperating. There is no scholarly evidence to support you arguments. REX 10:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I have seen it. It has me providing unquestionable scholarly evidence to support my arguments and you have provided no evidence. According to Talk:Arvanites my views (and UNESCO's) are NPOV while yours are POV. REX 10:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
If you persist in removig these facts without justification, I shall report you to the Arbitration Committee. REX 10:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as unquestionable scholarly evidence. All scholarship is open to interpretation. Furthermore, I am not saying anything that contradicts your sources, I am simply saying it in a way that takes the Arvanites' sensitivities into consideration. And I will not allow them to be ignored.--Theathenae 10:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)