text:
Bicycle lighting

Bicycle lighting is illumination attached to bicycles whose purpose above all is, along with reflectors, to improve the visibility of the bicycle and its rider to other road users under circumstances of poor ambient illumination. A secondary purpose is to illuminate reflective materials such as cat's eyes and traffic signs. A third purpose may be to illuminate the roadway so that the rider can see the way ahead. Serving the latter purposes require much more luminous flux and thus more power.

Many jurisdictions require one or more bicycle lights to be fitted to bicycles ridden at night — generally a white light in the front and a red light at the back, like with other vehicles.

Fire
The earliest bicycle lamps were oil-fueled and started to be manufactured in 1876 for the Ordinary (High-Bicycle) and solid-tired tricycles. From 1896, acetylene gas lighting for bicycles started to be introduced and later in 1899, acetylene gas lamps for the motor-car became popular. Their carbide lamps were powered by acetylene gas, produced by combining calcium carbide with water. The light given was very bright, often called artificial daylight but the lamps required regular maintenance.

Electricity
From as early as 1888, electric-powered bicycle lamps were manufactured but did not become a viable proposition until 1898. They comprised an incandescent bulb and either a lead-acid battery or a dynamo. Lead-acid batteries were replaced by dry cells and later by alkaline batteries. Dynamos improved in efficiency and reliability, recently being incorporated into the wheel hub, for example. Moulding techniques for plastics also improved, allowing lens optics to be improved and cost reduced. Incandescent bulbs were replaced first by halogen lamps and later by light emitting diodes (LEDs).

Halogen lights
Although these lights were originally designed for off-road use, where they were almost universal, rechargeable halogen lights became popular with commuter cyclists.

The lights used by most halogen rechargeable systems were cheap and bright, but fairly simple: they projected a cone of light (wide and narrow beam options were available) which is good for off-road use but not ideal for road use as it can dazzle oncoming road users. This is why halogen lights do not meet legal requirements in some jurisdictions.

Many systems used standard commercial prefocused optics, making a wide range of power and beam width combinations available. Most systems allowed simultaneous connection of different lamps - for example, a wide and a narrow beam for off-road riding, or a high- and a low-power beam for road riding.

HID lights
High-intensity discharge (HID) lights were a brighter/more efficient alternative to filament bulbs prior to the widespread adoption of LEDs. Like halogen systems, they were designed primarily for off-road use, having rotationally symmetrical beams which cast as much light up as down. HID lamps were susceptible to damage from repeated strikes, and in many cases did not relight immediately after shutting down. Likewise, should the battery level fall too low, the lamp would shut down rather than dimming. But the longer battery life than halogens tends to negate these problems, as many riders would simply switch the light on and leave it running throughout the ride.

Xenon strobes
Xenon strobes were an innovation in bicycle lighting; previously common in industrial applications. They were brighter than LEDs and sometimes used as rear lights.

Electrical system
Batteries, either rechargeable or disposable, are often used to power electric bicycle lights. Where batteries are unwanted a magneto is used. In cycling circles the device is called a dynamo even though the device does not have a commutator. See section Dynamo systems for details.

Voltages
3 volt: Often supplied by 2 AA or C/D cell batteries.

6 volt: Sometimes 4 AA batteries or lead-acid batteries are used; also supplied from a bottle- or hub dynamo.

9 volt: Sometimes supplied by a PP3 battery

12 volt: Mostly supplied by sealed lead-acid batteries. The main advantage with this voltage is versatility of the electric system, such as the ability to charge a cell phone battery, though 5 volt USB is also used for that purpose too. It also allows electric air compressors to inflate tires. Some 12-volt dynamos are available too, though their watt rating is underpowered for medium to high watt applications.

Light sources
Virtually all bicycle lights on the market today, from the cheapest to the most expensive, are based on LEDs.

Legal requirements

Under the International Vienna Convention on Road Traffic (1968) of the United Nations, a bicycle is a vehicle. Article 44 of the Convention stipulates that: "Cycles without an engine in international traffic shall: (c) Be equipped with a red reflecting device at the rear and with devices such that the cycle can show a white or selective-yellow light to the front and a red light to the rear." In some countries, for example France, it may be an offence even to sell a bicycle not fitted with legally compliant lighting system. However, not all countries impose this requirement on cyclists.

Many jurisdictions require bicycles to be fitted with reflectors at the point of sale. In the United States this is regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. CPSC compliant reflectors (also commonly fitted in other markets) have three retro-reflective panels positioned at 30° angles. The standard requires a forward-facing white reflector on the front of the bicycle, sideways-facing white reflectors on each wheel, a red reflector mounted on the rear, and yellow reflectors installed on the front and back of each pedal. Some interpret this as an endorsement of reflector-only night cycling.

Many jurisdictions require the use of a headlight and a rear light or reflector after dark. Most European countries and some US states require front and rear lights at night, while others allow reflectors only at the rear. Some jurisdictions impose requirements on light output and the size of lamp and reflector lenses; some require compliance with standards defined by third parties; some stipulate a minimum distance from which any lighting device should be visible. In some jurisdictions such as Germany and the Netherlands, flashing red tail lights are illegal, in others, they are allowed.

In the UK, the regulations governing bicycle lights are set out in the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 and their subsequent amendments, summarized in the Highway Code. The regulations require a white front light, a red rear light, a red rear reflector, and amber/yellow pedal reflectors on the front and rear of both pedals. Reflectors must conform to BS 6102/2 or an equivalent European standard. The situation for lights is more complicated: The majority of LED lights available are not approved for UK use since they have steady modes that do not conform to BS 6102/3. It is, however, legal to fit additional lights providing that they are of the correct colour, they do not dazzle other road users and that if they flash, they do so at a constant rate of between 60 and 240 flashes per minute.
 * a light with a steady mode is considered approved only if it conforms to BS 6102/3 or an equivalent European standard;
 * a light without a steady mode is considered approved only if it flashes at a constant rate of between 60 and 240 flashes per minute and has a luminous intensity of at least 4 candela;

National cyclists' organisations such as LAB (US) or CTC (UK) are a source of lighting information.

Safety
The use of lights for night riding is generally recommended or required by authorities as a basic safety precaution, even in a well-lit urban context. show a correlation between collisions and failure to use lights even during daytime.

In countries where bicycles are used widely for commuting and short trips, such as the Netherlands and Scandinavia, bicycle head- and tail lighting regulation is strictly enforced by the authorities. However, a study from 2013 shows that different lighting regulations seem to have little influence on bicycle accident rates, and points out a lack of studies into the safety benefits of bicycle lighting.

Front lighting

White LEDs are available with output ranging from a few lumens to high-powered units producing about as much light as an automotive headlamp, suitable for high speed use on unlit trails.

LED systems often include an option to dim the LEDs, or to provide a flashing light.

Low-cost battery lights can be a good choice for occasional use, and usually meet legislative requirements. However, regular bicycle commuters would probably find it cost-effective to use rechargeable cells. Some headlamps use lithium-ion rechargeable battery packs, which may be recharged from a USB port.

Flashlights
Flashlights, although not specifically designed for bicycle use, are a viable alternative. They can be fastened to the bicycle handlebars with various mounting devices such as a lock-block. The round light pattern of a general purpose flashlight is inferior to the beam of a bicycle headlamp properly shaped to illuminate the roadway and not provide excess glare to oncoming traffic.

Rear lighting

Most LED lights will work in either flashing or steady modes. Some LED lights have multiple banks of LEDs allowing both flashing and steady light at once. This can also be achieved by having one flashing light and one steady.

In many countries, LED flashers are the norm for rear lights. In others such as Germany and the Netherlands flashing lights are forbidden by law. In the UK flashing LEDs (front and rear) are legal from October 2005, provided that the lights conform to the requirements of the current Road Vehicles Lighting regulations. Many vendors claim EU compliance, however, this provides no consistent safety or legal value across the Union.

The most common power source for rear LEDs is a set of alkaline cells and rechargeable cells. In both cases the battery tends to fail quickly when it goes; it is widely considered a good practice to have two rear lights in case a battery fails en route.

Low power lights are mainly for being seen, or as an emergency backup, and are the dominant choice for rear lights. Rear marker LED lamps may be operated on disposable coin-sized cells.

Some high-end rear lights incorporate turn signal and brake light functions, switched via a handlebar control via radio frequencies.

Batteries
The introduction of the Low self-discharge NiMH battery (LSD-NiMH) in 2005 made rechargeable AA and AAA sized batteries more viable for powering LED bicycle lights. Previously, the self-discharge effect of NiCAD and NiMH batteries caused the battery to run down over a period of weeks or a few months, even when not in use. This was particularly a problem for low powered LED lights, and for users who only used their bicycle lights occasionally. The LSD-NiMH battery greatly reduced the self-discharge effect, allowing the battery to keep its charge for a year or more.

For higher-powered lights, an external battery pack of 12V VRLA battery is often required. These battery packs usually strap to the top tube of the frame, or come in the shape that fits in a water bottle cage, or can be placed in a basket. A cable connects the battery pack to the light. Another advantage with battery power (especially with 12 volt) is the ability to power other components outside of lighting, as well as all from one battery (as long as they run safe on 12 volts) though wire spaghetti from splicing can be a setback depending on how complicated the electric system is.

Alternatively, Li-ion and LiPo batteries have been becoming more popular with bicyclists due to their higher capacity and lighter weight compared with conventional batteries. More specifically, the 18650 battery, which has been popular with electric car manufacturers (for the same reasons) and are commonly found in laptops and flashlights.

Dynamo systems
Dynamo systems require no batteries and may be permanently fitted to the bike.

Bicycle dynamos are actually magnetos and produce alternating current.

Types
There are three main types:

 * Hub dynamos are built into the front or rear wheel hub. These are generally the most reliable and most efficient of the three types.
 * Bottle dynamos (or sidewall dynamos) attach to the seatstay or fork and are rotated by a small wheel in contact with the tire sidewall. These are easier to retrofit than hub dynamos, but are prone to slipping, especially in wet conditions.
 * Bottom-bracket dynamos are attached between the chainstays behind the bottom bracket and are powered by a roller against the center of the tire. These are easy to fit and do not wear the tire sidewall.

Other types of dynamos exist, but are less common. For example, there are dynamos that are attached to the fork and driven by the wheel's spokes.

Output and optics
Dynamos are generally limited to about 3 W of output power, although the best 12 V hub dynamos can produce 6 W at speed A bottle dynamo is likely to slip if run at twice the nominal power, a hub dynamo does not have this problem.

At speed a dynamo can overpower the lamp, causing it to fail. Historically this was a nuisance, but modern lamps and dynamos often incorporate Zener diodes to prevent overvoltage, and dynamos can be designed to saturate beyond a certain voltage to protect the lamp.

Good dynamos can achieve efficiencies of up to 70% (i.e., under 5 W of the rider's output is diverted to produce 3 W of electricity) and provide good light output at low speeds.

To produce light when the bike is stationary, some dynamo lights have a stand light facility, usually a single blue-white (front light) or red (rear light) LED powered by a capacitor, which runs for around five minutes.

Advantages of dynamo lighting

 * Usage time not limited by battery life
 * No recharging or change of batteries necessary
 * More environmentally friendly and inexpensive to run than battery-powered lights
 * Typically do not have to be removed when the bicycle is parked

Disadvantages

 * Provide no lighting when the bicycle is moving very slowly or is stopped, unless the system is equipped with capacitors or back-up batteries
 * Maximum power output obtainable is lower than with batteries
 * Difficult to remove by the owner if this is necessary to thwart theft or vandalism, or to use them on more than one bicycle
 * Retrofitting a bicycle is more difficult because mounting is more difficult (due to lamp and power source being separate)
 * Cheap or poorly aligned dynamos produce noticeable drag
 * Old dynamos and lamps did not limit their output voltage, leading to early failure of the incandescent light bulbs in the lamps. Modern lamps and dynamos contain voltage limiters to solve this problem.
 * Not suitable for high-power applications outside of lighting, unless designed to recharge an on-board battery.
 * Bottle dynamos may be noisy, can be difficult to adjust, can slip under wet conditions, and may wear the sidewall of the tire

Magnetic lights
Lights can be self-powered via electromagnetic induction, eliminating the need for batteries or dynamo systems. The advantages are similar to those of dynamo lighting. The most common design includes a magnet on the wheel spoke and lights with a coil in them, mounted on the frame or fork of the bike. More exotic designs also exist; some have frame-mounted magnets and wheel-mounted lights, or a magnet and an inductor in one casing, using eddy currents.

Headlamps
Headlamps are a useful adjunct to bicycle lights. They can be pointed without steering the bike, giving useful fill-in lighting especially on poor or very dark roads. They have the added safety benefit of positioning the light higher on the cyclist for increased visibility. They also allow the wearer to read road and directional signs placed on high signposts. However, due to the high position of the light the glare may dazzle oncoming traffic.

Some rechargeable systems offer a headlamp option powered from the main battery pack.

Reflective and high-visibility materials
Retro-reflective materials, in the form of fixed reflectors, reflective tape, and reflective clothing, are useful in making a cyclist visible to other road users. Reflective materials can be applied to bike, rider, or luggage; also, tires are available with reflective sidewalls. Reflectives are visible only when in the beam of a headlight, and even then only within a narrow locus. Importantly, they do nothing to light up the road. Reflectors are not a substitute for lights, but are an important supplement to portable lighting.

On the bike
Reflectors and reflective tape provide additional visibility (especially when applied to moving parts of the bicycle) and are mandatory in many jurisdictions. Pedal reflectors in particular are very visible to following traffic as they move up and down; unfortunately they are not compatible with most clipless pedal systems, although adaptors are available for some, mainly older SPD models, and a few single-sided designs are available with built-in reflectors. In the UK, where front and rear pedal reflectors are compulsory after dark, most cyclists with clipless pedals are therefore riding illegally. The law is rarely if ever enforced, but could potentially be used in court to reduce financial compensation if the cyclist were to be hit by another vehicle. The CTC have suggested that the requirement should be waived if the cyclist fits an additional rear reflector or lighting, but this was not changed in the last revision of the UK vehicle lighting laws (which permitted flashing LEDs). Riders of recumbent bicycles have pointed out that the pedal reflector requirement is nonsensical for them, since the reflectors point straight up and down in use, and are invisible from other vehicles. As of 2008, California law allows white or yellow shoe reflectors (front and back), or reflective ankle bands, in lieu of pedal reflectors.

Clothing
On dark roads, retroreflective materials such as 3M's Scotchlite will show up boldly in car headlights.

The colour of lighting should be checked in the rider's surroundings. A single solid colour can disappear under artificial light, particularly yellow sodium vapour lighting, and colour blindness is common; red/green colourblindness can make yellow fluorescent vanish against a green background (hedges or grass), although people with red/green colourblindness dispute this. Vests with both yellow and orange fluorescent areas plus wide strips of reflective may be the best solution.

In recent times electroluminescent clothing has become available to add to the existing array of LED-illuminated armbands and helmet blinkies.

Wheel-mounted lights
Wheel-mounted lights are used to improve the visibility of a bike from the side. Due to persistence of vision, individual lights mounted on the moving bike’s wheel spokes are perceived as glowing arcs or circles. There are lights controlled with MCU that are capable of rendering colorful patterns or animations. The glowing rims or wheels can isolate the bike from the visual noise of the city lights and help drivers see and immediately recognize a cyclist. Such lights are mainly battery-powered, but battery-free designs also exist.

Electric power consumption in watts
The watt (W) is the unit of power, and is usually quoted for the electrical power input, not the light power output. Electrical power is the product of voltage and current (watts = volts × amperes). Input power is only useful when comparing lights of similar technologies.

Luminous intensity in a given direction in candelas
The candela (cd) is the SI unit of luminous intensity, that is power per unit solid angle in a given direction, weighted according to the sensitivity of the human eye to various colours of light. A typical candle produces light with about 1 candela of luminous intensity in all directions. A lamp can produce higher luminous intensity either by producing more light, or by focusing it tighter. The luminous intensity of a light depends on many factors, including the colour of the light and the eye's sensitivity to that colour, the optics involved, reflector and lens. Despite its complexity, it is a more useful measure than watts, because it defines how much usable light is shed in a given place: a dynamo headlight designed for road use and focused for seeing the road makes more efficient use of the power of the lamp than lights using rotationally symmetrical optics.

Total luminous flux in lumens
The lumen (lm) is the SI unit for luminous flux, the total amount of light emitted by a source, weighted according to the sensitivity of the human eye to various colours of light. Lumens per watt is a common measure of the efficacy of a light source. The luminous flux is of less value for bicycle lighting due to the importance of directionality. Luminous intensity is much more useful, but lumens per watt is a handy way to compare the output of otherwise similar lights.

Illuminance at a given distance in lux
The lux (lx) is this SI unit for illuminance, that is the amount of light that illuminates a surface (the road, in the case of a bike light) per unit area at a given point, weighted according to the sensitivity of the human eye to various colours of light. Some manufacturers indicate the illuminance their front lights provide to the road at a point located a standard distance right in front of the bicycle.

title: Bicycle lighting


text:
User talk:0101PIAOJw

Hello, "0101PIAOJw" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

 * Peruse Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Sign talk page entries with Catapult 03:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC), which is automatically converted to a name and date.
 * If you have any questions, see Help, or you can a question at the Help desk.
 * I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian..

Note: Do not create articles with an external link only. If it's worth starting an article, please have at minimum one full sentence explaining the topic of the article. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:0101PIAOJw


text:
Bois de la Cambre

The Bois de la Cambre or Ter Kamerenbos (Dutch) is an urban public park in Brussels, Belgium. It lies in the south of the Brussels-Capital Region, in the City of Brussels, and covers an area of 1.23 km², forming a natural offshoot of the Sonian Forest, which penetrates deep into the city in the south-east of Brussels. It is linked to the rest of the municipality by the Avenue Louise/Louizalaan, which was built in 1861, at the same time the park was laid out.

The park consists of two large, slightly oval parts. The northern part is the most wooded and is home to some 19th-century buildings. The southern part comprises a 6 ha large artificial lake with an island in its centre, called Robinson Island, home to the Chalet Robinson.

Early history
As an offshoot of the Sonian Forest during the Ancien Régime, the wooded area where the Bois de la Cambre is located today belonged to La Cambre Abbey, located just north of it, and was called the Heeghde or Heegde, an Old Dutch term possibly meaning "seigneurial wood". In 1840, it was given its current name after the abbey.

On 17 June 1815, on the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, English soldiers played a cricket match on a ground located in the area currently covered by the park. Ever since, this area has been called la Pelouse des Anglais ("The Englishmen's Lawn"), although few are aware of the name. In 1965, the then British Ambassador in Belgium planted an oak tree and unveiled a bronze plaque to commemorate the 150th anniversary of this sporting and historical event.

19th-century development

From 1846, the Brussels authorities wished to provide the city with a large wooded park and proposed a development plan for La Cambre by converting an area of 107 ha of the Sonian Forest. The condition was that two-thirds of the trees would be preserved and a 100 m zone around the park would remain undeveloped. The decision was prompted by the popularity of the place among well-to-do walkers, who were increasingly less fond of the industrialising Allée Verte/Groendreef in northern Brussels.

The Bois de la Cambre was laid out starting in 1861 by, a German architect. His project, relating to English landscaping, was characterised by an irregularity in the plantations and roads, by alternating massifs and clearances allowing beautiful visual escapes, and by the creation of picturesque scenes. The park, property of the Belgian State since 1843, was granted through a royal decree issued on 21 April 1864 to the City of Brussels, which is responsible for its development and maintenance. In 1863, the two neoclassical former toll pavilions of the Namur Gate by the architect Auguste Payen from 1836 were moved to the entrance of the Bois de la Cambre. In 1866, the park, largely landscaped, was open to the public and aroused considerable enthusiasm.

The place quickly became a popular recreational area for the people of Brussels, comparable to the Bois de Boulogne in Paris. In addition to its many promenades, it hosted a dairy, a velodrome, a theatre, an artificial boating lake, as well as a racecourse. Queen Marie-Henriette, wife of King Leopold II, often went riding in the park. The horsemen's battle bronze sculptural group at the entrance is the work of the Anglo-Belgian sculptor Jacques de Lalaing.

20th and 21st centuries
With the rise of motorised traffic in the early 20th century, the Bois de la Cambre's avenues were increasingly turned into thoroughfares fragmenting the park. The park was protected as a landscape in 1976 and was designated a special protection zone within the framework of Natura 2000 in 2004. Since 1985, it has also hosted a cycling event every spring for scout groups, the 24 heures vélo du bois de la Cambre.

Nowadays, the question of the park's closure to motorised traffic is regularly raised. The main road around the lake has been closed to traffic on Saturdays and Sundays since the 1990s. In April 2012, a new mobility plan, drawn up at the request of the City of Brussels, proposed a partial closure of the park to motorists, and the requalification of the public space for cyclists and pedestrians. In March 2020, traffic was temporarily banned from the park due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium. At the end of May, cars were allowed again in its northern part. As of 14 December 2020, a new traffic plan has been in effect with access for cars in the northern and southern parts on weekdays, and only in the northern part on Saturdays and during school holidays. The park is car-free on Sundays.

The Chalet Robinson

In 1877, the Chalet Robinson, a tea-room café designed in picturesque Swiss chalet style, was built on the lake's island, known as Robinson Island (Île Robinson, Robinson Eiland). The chalet was twice destroyed by fire; the first time in 1896, and the second time in 1991. The decision was made in 2006 to rebuild it and it reopened to the public in September 2009. The surface of the wooden building is approximately 300 m², with a restaurant on the ground floor and a ballroom on the first floor. An electrical ferry boat links the island to the shores of the lake.

title: Bois de la Cambre


text:
Roger Tonge

Roger Tonge (30 January 1946 – 26 February 1981) was a British actor.

Biography
Tonge was born Anthony Roger Tonge in Birmingham where he attended Lordswood Technical Grammar School. He was working as an £8-a-week post office clerk and performing in amateur dramatics in the evenings when he landed the role of Sandy Richardson, the son of motel owner Meg (Noele Gordon) in the ATV soap opera Crossroads, which he would portray for 17 years. Tonge won the role by accident. Having dropped in at ATV during his lunch break to enquire about acting parts, a cleaner directed him to a meeting where production manager Margaret French handed him a script and invited him to return for an audition. Reg Watson, the producer, had already interviewed several actors for the part but was unsatisfied; after Tonge's audition, the producer offered him the role.

Crossroads was routinely assailed by TV critics for what they saw as its low quality, and Tonge was one of the members of the cast who was regularly criticised. He was reported as having laughed off the jibes of journalists, by saying: "I'm allergic to criticism".

Tonge's struggle with Hodgkin's Disease impacted his role in the programme. During his tenure in the series, his ill health left him increasingly immobile. To accommodate his disability and not lose an original character, a story was developed in which Sandy became paralysed and a wheelchair user through an accident. Prior to the 'accident' storyline, Tonge had for many months only been seen in seated scenes, standing rigid or lying in bed. Following the accident, the character of Sandy was predominantly a wheelchair user, though he was able to stand and move upright with the aid of crutches. Tonge thus became the first disabled actor in a soap; however, it was something he always played down and his illness was never talked about. In a 1981 interview with Angela Rippon, Tonge claimed that viewers were often astonished to encounter him off-screen and discover he did not use a wheelchair or crutches, despite him having been a wheelchair user for many years. The claim was not challenged on air.

Although he was a regular in the soap opera, Tonge found time to appear on other television programmes, including Z-Cars, Nearest and Dearest and Detective. He was also in the film Catch Me Going Back.

Death
In 1981, after a long fight with Hodgkin lymphoma, Tonge died aged 35. He had caught chicken pox and died of heart failure, his system unable to cope with the infection.

His absence and death were mentioned in an episode of Crossroads between his character's mother Meg and sister Jill and again in the episode featuring Meg leaving for a new life on the QE2.

title: Roger Tonge


text:
Talk:Origin of the Albanians

Orel (2000)
Maleschreiber, here are the two relevant pages for more details on what Orel wrote: This is the complete "4.2.1.0. Kinship terms" subsection. I have access to the full book; if you need any other page, don't hesitate to ping me. Demetrios1993 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Page 261
 * Page 262

New map
Oh boy. Here we go again. First of all, the map is WP:SYNTH, as it is based on a multitude of sources or so it is claimed. Second, for three of these, no page numbers are given, so impossible to verify. Third, the two Albanian language sources appear to be highly partisan. They are not peer-reviewed English language sources. Then there are obvious errors, for example, the area around the city of Apollonia and the city of Epidamnos were Greek-speaking, but are not shown as such in the map. In general, it has a very strong "we was autochthnous" whiff to it. This time, I will seek outside mediation, because the situation in these articles has generally gone out of control. Khirurg (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apollonia was abandoned in the 4th century and Dyrrhatio was Latin-speaking. The sources used are all reliable. Shaban Demiraj is an acclaimed linguist who has written numerous entries in international publications. Eric Prendergast has written about what is a broad consensus about the approximate region Albanian was spoken.

 * Ahmet Q. (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 * The quote from Prendergast has absolutely nothing to do with the map. Prendergast only mentions a few toponyms, he doesn't say these areas were proto-Albanian in the 4 century AD. And he says absolutely nothing about the southern area. He also mentions the Jirecek line, which your map ignores and contradicts, as it shows the Greek-speaking area far to the south of the Jirecek line. In any case, the map is contradicted by the (sourced) contents of the article. You are trying to prejudge the outcome of the Illyrian vs. Thracian debate, as well as the place of origin, by placing such a map in the lede, without even a qualifier. Btw can you translate into English the title of one of Demiraj's works: "Epiri, Pellazgët, Etruskët dhe Shqiptarët"? Thanks in advance. Khirurg (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Much of the sourced content of the article has been written by me, so I feel that I should say something about what is not "controversial" at all in linguistics in 2021, but "controversial" according to some users of wikipedia. Thank you for the interesting map. I'm sure that it took a lot of time, reading and effort to make.
 * The debates about the exact categorization of Albanian involve a very early period. Debates about Illyrians and Thracians are not related to it. They don't involve the 4th century AD. All contemporary reliable sources agree that in the 4th century AD, Proto-Albanian was spoken in Dardania, Praevalitana, Epirus Nova and western Macedonia. Prendergast refers to the area Proto-Albanian was spoken. I've written about most toponyms linked to Albanian Origin of the Albanians. Even for those which are under heavy discussion, the debate involves whether Albanian got a toponym like Durrës from a late antiquity form or if it evolved from Dyrrhachium. Regardless of where linguists stand on the debate, they all agree that by the 4th century, this had happened.
 * If editors want to get involved in a discussion, they should do the reading which the discussion requires. Khirurg mentioned a book by prof. Shaban Demiraj whose son Bardhyl Demiraj is a linguist and professor of Albanology at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and asked Ahmet Q. to translate the title for him. The implication by Khirurg is that the title reveals something which should tell us something about prof. Demiraj. The title of the book is "Epirus, the Pelasgians, the Etruscans and Albanians". Khirurg who hasn't read the book because it is in Albanian and only a very poor non-OCR pdf file exists online, if he could read it, would learn that this is a book which dispels myths about the "Pelasgians" and resets the public and academic discussions about the pre-IE Balkans to a scientific foundation. The book has as a subject the opposite of what Khirurg tries to imply with his question. Prof. Demiraj is more than WP:RS. His work is part of the bibliography for all publications about the Albanian language.
 * The map is suitable for an approximate visualization of where Proto-Albanian was spoken in that era, it can be added to the article. Side comment: Individuals who want to know more about the conceptualization of the Jirecek line and its evolution - and why it has nothing to do with where any language was spoken - can go to p. 182 of Ismajli (2015). Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Problem is, the map is anything but "approximate", in fact it shows clear, hard boundaries as if showing nation states. The other problem of course, is that it is impossible to verify (and good faith, especially with regards to the map maker's past behavior, is unfortunately in very short supply). The quote from Prendergast provided by Ahmet Q, for example, says nothing about where proto-Albanian was spoken. It is even debatable if there was a proto-Albanian that far back. Much of the area shown as "proto-Albanian" was in fact Romanized, but the map leads the reader to believe that this is not the case. Now, you could make a case for this map further down in the article, with the qualifcation "Proto-Albanian area in the 4th century BC according to Shaban Demiraj and the Kosovo Academy of Sciences", but for some reason I think you would reject such a qualifier. Wonder why. And regarding Demiraj, if you could share that book with us, that would be wonderful, but I remain skeptical of just how critical of those views it is. Where his son works is of no relevance to this discussion, so please don't bring that up again. WP:BRD applies. If you want you can start an RfC. But hardcore edit-warring will lead nowhere. Khirurg (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * : All periodizations of the Albanian language presuppose that the phase called Proto-Albanian language began long before the 4th century CE. It's common knowledge. RfCs presuppose that a debate exists in bibliography. I think that your belief about what is under debate has to do with how familiar you are with what bibliography discusses. We don't all have to be familiar with the same fields, but in this case there's no reason to go to RfC about a very basic approximation which isn't under debate. I'm telling you all of the above to help everybody involved avoid a very, very unnecessary procedure. Nobody thinks that Albanian wasn't spoken in the Mat river valley in the 4th century CE and they agree that Albanian was spoken as far south as Vlora in this era because if it didn't Albanian wouldn't have two toponyms (Geg/Tosk) which evolved in the pre-Slavic era for the same settlement. Side comment: This is under debate Dropull, what Ahmet's map depicts is a rudimentary description of the basics about the Albanian language just before the end of late antiquity. --Maleschreiber (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * RfCs presuppose that a debate exists in bibliography? Can you quote from WP:RFC where it says that? No, RfCs are for when there is a dispute between users. Especially when there are users who use language such as Nobody thinks..., it's common knowledge, they agree, etc. Who agrees? Nothing is "common knowledge" as far as the contents of this article are concerned. There are no records, nothing. The language wasn't even mentioned in records until the 13th century. The fact that you describe an RfC as a "very very unnecessary procedure", speaks volumes. You sound very keen on avoiding it. And you have not responded to my criticism that the map is not approximate, but rather the exact opposite. Nor did you respond to my proposal regarding placement lower down in the article, with qualifiers (I presume you reject that out of hand). This is a controversial subject. We can't have maps like that, with crisp boundaries as in the 20th century, and especially not in the lede. Khirurg (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We'll go to RfC, if no other solution is found. But I want to avoid RfC because I think that everybody's time and efforts can be well spent in many other things. Boundaries are not crisp in this map. It has large areas depicted as contact zones. The issue has to do with lack of familiarity with bibliography in this field. Vladimir Orel wrote two textbook publications about the periodization of Albanian, so we can't go to RfC to have a discussion about the existence of Proto-Albanian in the 4th century. I reply to you with such certainty because it is in linguistics that Proto-Albanian did exist in this specific era and was spoken in the western Balkans between these points - north-south and west-east. How it expanded or contracted or where exactly it was spoken 5 centuries before the Proto-Albanian phase might be a subject of discussion, but it isn't related to the era of this map. Even for someone like Huld (1986), Accentual Stratification of Ancient Greek Loanwords in Albanian, - an outlier - there's no doubt that these general points were a common foundation: (Map 1). It's better to move on and have a disagreement in a discussion where a disagreement can be based on a fundamental dispute.--Maleschreiber (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It leaves no doubt that the specific map is deep into wp:POV, wp:SYNTH, wp:OR based on speculation and partial interpretation of specific quotes. It has not place in academic literature.Alexikoua (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * there was never such a thing as certainty of proto-albanian language being spoken in the balkans, it is merely a hypothesized theory that had not been proven and cannot be proven without evidence, in that very same way the Greek language can be said that is came from the proto greek dating back more than 9000 years ago. And that would be tied to actual archeology of the minoans who date back to 7000bce. So to say it is common knowledge that proto-albanian was spoken in a region 2000 years before albanians appear in history is absolutely unacceptable. 2001:1C00:F14:4900:6542:3FC0:4C7B:20BE (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not correct though. Matzinger, who is cited in the article, doesn't support that by the 4th century this had happened. In fact, he describes it as a loan via two candidate intermediaries; Romance and Slavic (1, 2, 3). This points to a period between the 5th and 7th c.; Slavs first reached the area at around 600, and the first Slavic loans in Albanian are from the 7th century.

What was aforementioned also relates to Vlorë by the way, which is indeed pre-Slavic due to the Tosk-Gheg split predating Slavic contact, but this doesn't translate as 4th c. (300-400), it simply means sometime prior of the Slavic-Albanian contact in the 7th c.

Another issue is that the map implies that the Komani-Kruja culture existed during the 4th century and is associated with proto-Albanians, but it is only dated from the 6th c. and associated with a Latin-speaking population. The map also implies that there was no Greek-speaking or Latin-speaking presence within the "red zone", which is not correct.

Sidenote: Matzinger is currently leading a project that will shed more light on all these. Demetrios1993 (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Demetrios: That's a very strong point. By the way the most weird feature is the so-called reuse of Bronze Age tumuli by the Komani-Kruja (though out of the K-K indicated area) in a way that this might be connected with the use of proto-Albanian.Alexikoua (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some scientific evidence reached until today in scholarship:
 * Shaban Demiraj (2006):
 * Douglas Q. Adams (1997): ;
 * Benjamin W. Fortson (2004):
 * Bardhyl Demiraj (2010): and about Durrës:
 * Vladimir Orel (1999): ;
 * Agnija Desnickaja (1973):
 * Joachim Matzinger (2009):
 * The map seems to be in agreement with current scholarship, but I think that the date should be changed to "around 5th–6th century A.D." and the statement "including the possibility of the presence of other languages (such as Latin and Greek)" should be added as well. – Βατο (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also take into account that this discussion concerns the Post-Roman period of Albanian, hence the Jireček line and the various theories on the Pre-Roman ancestor of Albanian are unrelated. – Βατο (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Agree re 5-6th century AD. Also what Demetrios said about contact with Greek and Latin, and Komani-Kruja. The area south of the Shkumbin was Hellenized, and this part of the map should "Contact area between Proto-Albanian and Koine Greek". The area north of the Shkumbin was Romanized, and should be shown in the same color as the "Proto-Albanian and Eastern Balkan Latin contact zone". The caption should also be more hypothetical, e.g. "Possible location of Proto-Albanian in the 5th-6th centuries AD, prior to the Slavic invasions". Khirurg (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Matzinger's argument concludes that [The toponym can't have been transported to the Albanians much earlier than the 5th century] If in the map I adopted only one viewpoint, it would show Durrës as proto-Albanian speaking in the 4th century AD. It shows Durrës in the Balkan Latin area in the 4th century because I haven't adopted one or the other opinion. Komani-Kruja started in late antiquity. Nallbani (2017)  and Winnifrith (2020) :   As you can see, the map doesn't show something which adopts one viewpoint over another. The 4th century AD is correct for this geographical setting. Ahmet Q. (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * agree about "Contact area between Proto-Albanian and Koine Greek" south of the Shkumbin. I proposed the change to "around 5th–6th century A.D." because it is the most certain date about the position of Albanian as depicted on the map, i.e. after the Roman-Period (after 4th century A.D.) but before the Slavic-Period (before 7th century A.D.). This dating is accepted by most scholars. – Βατο (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bato: Nice job by providing those quotes but we simply cann't compose a map with the provided material. There is absolutely nothing about where this hypothetical language was spoken in geographic terms: especially the quotes you provided by Douglas Q. Adams (1997), Benjamin W. Fortson (2004), Vladimir Orel (1999) don't say a word about locations.Alexikoua (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Alexikoua, read those quotes again. In current scholarship there is enough evidence for the Post-Roman and Pre-Slavic location of Albanian, and the unquestionable fact is that already in Pre-Slavic times Gheg was spoken north of the Shkumbin and Tosk was spoken south of the river. Btw, there are also:
 * Eric P. Hamp (1963): ;
 * Harald Haarmann (2021): – Βατο (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ehhm, what makes you believe that the "Balkan Adriatic contact area" is specifially the Shkumbin river and its surroundings? Pardon me but if this is the best you can present that's far from unquestionable fact.Alexikoua (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe a change to 5th-7th c. is more inclusive, by also accounting for the Slavic possibility that Matzinger describes for Durrës. Then there is also the period of the Tosk-Gheg split for the case of Vlorë, that predates the 7th c. Slavic contact, but postdates the 4th c. Christianization of the region per Fortson (2004); meaning 400-700 (5th-7th c.).

As for Komani-Kruja, i just refreshed my memory. It was usually dated to the late 6th/early 7th c. lasting until the late 8th/early 9th c., but Nallbani had convincingly proposed a re-dating from the late 5th to the 9th c.; as Džino (2010) had written. I was unaware of the updated paper, but still, even that statement of Nallbani (We recognize a first structuring of the site in the late Roman period, probably around the 4th century.), doesn't support the shown boundaries of that culture during the 4th c.; it only pertains to the initial stage of the Komani type site, albeit "probably around" the 4th c. Furthermore, Nallbani also says the following:

Didn't read the whole paper, just the relevant chapter. John Wilkes also in his book "The Illyrians" accepts Popović's view that the populations of the Kruja-Komani culture were "Romanized", and that the ancestors of the Albanians during that time were still shepherds at higher altitudes who later began to settle slowly on the plateau of Mat. Then there is even Curta (2006) who considers an Avar association. Magdearu (2008) also wrote the following:

Last, as aforementioned, another thing that has to be fixed is the presence of Greek and Latin within the "red zone". For example, Curta (2006) writes:

 * Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Gheg-Tosk split started before the 7th century A.D. because the evolution /a-/ > /ë/ in front of a nasal consonant in Tosk occurred even earlier than rhotacism. And since Post-Roman is after the 4th century and Pre-Slavic is before the 7th century, I think "around 5th–6th century A.D." is more correct for Proto-Albanian as depicted on the map. About Durrës the Romance intermediary */'duratso/ proposed by Matzinger has been accepted by Bardhyl Demiraj (2010), anyway, this is less important since the hinterland of Durrës was already inhabited by Albanian-speakers (Mathis/Mat attested by Vibius Sequester). – Βατο (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I wrote a draft on the origin of the Albanian language some months ago, but never published it. To sump it up, no reliable map of the Proto-Albanian linguistic area can be drawn simply because there's no scholarly consensus. While the map is very roughly in line with current theories (despite some aberrations like this "Dalmatian–Albanian contact zone" – there's no Old Dalmatian influence on Albanian), it is mostly based on conjectures. Here are some conjectures that are generally agreed on in scholarship:
 * 1. An early stage of Proto-Albanian (called 'pre-' or 'early') was most likely spoken in the Balkans, near (or not so far from) the Greek-speaking region, since the Albanian language contains an early layer of Archaic Greek (especially Doric) loanwords
 * 2. Proto-Albanian was most likely spoken in inlands areas since (1) Albanian was not replaced by Latin like it happened in the Dalmatian-speaking coastlands and (2) it was at the same time heavily influenced by Latin, which went as far as replacing basic vocabulary like "uncle", "aunt", "niece", or "nephew".
 * 3. While this doesn't mean that Proto-Albanian has never been spoken on the seacoast in ancient times, we know that (1) Albanian speakers were not the predominant population in coastal cities like Durrës, Shkodra or Vlora in 11–12th century AD – although Albanian-speaking communities did already exist at that time in those settlements (and others like Dubrovnik), and were possibly predominant further south on the coasts of Epirus (the historical region of Epirus in the wider sense, I'm not talking about the current Greek region) at that time (11th–12th c. AD) (2) nearly all lexemes related to seamanship in the Albanian language are loanwords, which is a strong (although not definitive) indication of an inland origin
 * 4. Based on linguistic evidence, it is likely that (1) the distinction between Tosk and Gheg dialects already existed during the Latin influence (e.g. arena > ranë/rërë; vinum > venë/verë) (2) Slavic influence did not reach all Albanian dialects, and at any rate probably entered the region (they reached Durrës in 548 AD) after Tosk and Gheg had already diverged (the evolution of stressed /a/ to /ë/ in front of nasal consonants – such as in *alanā > llanë/llërë – is notably usually absent from Slavic loanwords).
 * 5. From the 11–12th century AD onward, Albanian speakers became progressively predominant in both the coastal settlements and the inland areas of present-day Albania that had been 'colonised' by Slavs, following their expansion from an inland territory (see Principality of Arbanon). It is likely that part of the Albanian speakers had been previously 'pushed' towards mountainous areas during the Slavic invasion, where the Albanian language was able to survive the Slavic influence (unlike in most the Slavic-occupied Balkans). In the words of Shaban Demiraj, "the foreign conquerorsn by their organization and their armies, could more easily settle and dominate in the coastal and flat regions, but they could hardly penetrate into the deeply isolated mountainous areas." Alcaios (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 * The Komani-Kruja excavations happened after 2009, we should use sources which were published after the excavations. Nallbani is an archaeologist. She found in the stratigraphy that the layer of settlement begins in the Hellenistic era but development of what would be known as Komani-Kruja began in the 4th century CE. It's not a hypothesis, it's what happened in this material culture. The map depicts Komani-Kruja - as it should - because it is significant for early medieval Albanian history, but it doesn't propose or imply a specific theory. Readers can consult the relevant articles about complex questions.

 * Curta discusses the finding of two hoards which contained artifacts with Greek inscriptions. They are two Avar-Bulgar hoards which were buried in Albania. These were items which the Avars or the Bulgars took from a production center in the Byzantine Empire and during a retreat, they buried them in Albania. They are never discussed as evidence of any Greek presence in any of these regions. Now, if Ahmet Q. referred to all discussions about the language spoken south of the Proto-Albanian region, Latin would be placed in coastal Epirus: (Filos p.242)
 * There is no Albanian-Greek contact zone in late antiquity, at least for the Albanian and Greek languages as they exist today. There are maybe 30 ancient Greek (Doric and Macedonian) loanwords in Albanian before medieval times and 8 proposed loanwords from Pre-Proto-Albanian to Doric Greek. Hence, to depict. A hypothesis is that Albanian and Greek communities which had direct contact to each other were wiped out by the Slavs or that they retreated to other areas. It may be a plausible theory because Slavs were the dominant population in Epirus and Macedonia for many centuries.
 * The north-south/west-east approximate position of Proto-Albanian is discussed in many publications which were cited. It's a geographical placement which corresponds to the linguistic data - broadly. I don't think that meant for it to be used like a modern linguistic map - even if they wanted to, such a thing for maps of antiquity is near impossible. Lithuanian - like Albanian - was not a written language until the middle ages. Its first grammar was published 30 years after the first grammar about Albanian (Lietuvos kalbų visuma) but the approximate position of the historical phases of Lithuanian is known. Albanian is not different from Lithuanian.
 * what Bato suggested is that the timeline be moved to the 5th-6th century. Such a move likely means the addition of Labëria which the Slavs found as a toponym in the region in the 7th century. The 4th century avoids all disputes which may emerge. Ahmet's map depicts only areas where Proto-Albanian had to have been spoken in late antiquity. It even treats all areas south of the Proto-Albanian-speaking area as unambiguously Greek-speaking which is not a proven hypothesis. Now, based on the discussion, I don't think that we have to discuss via RfC a map which depicts an approximate position for generally accepted locations.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Read what Alcaios wrote. And read it well. There is a reason no such map exists in the literature. We are not going to make one up out of thin air in wikipedia to push an "autochthonous" POV. You are making wild conjectures based on single toponyms (Laberia), and then making implicit threats ("accept the current map or the next one will be even more POV"). And if you are thinking of ramming it through by force, the article will be tagged. You've already made a series of POV edits, this would be the lasr straw. Khirurg (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, i did read Nallbani, but the 4th c. only pertains to the type site of Komani; it doesn't pertain to all of the sites where the culture is identified (which by the way aren't limited to Albania). And even though i agree that we should use sources after 2009 for the archaeological aspect of the culture, this doesn't negate what earlier authors have written about its identity. We have sources after 2009 that cite exclusively pre-2009 texts. For example, Vroom (2017) (p. 345):
 * Also, the statement that the current map "doesn't propose or imply a specific theory" (in terms of their identity), is wrong. The whole "red zone" implies that this region was inhabited by a majority proto-Albanian population, and includes the Komani-Kruja culture within it. It's not as if we remove the Komani-Kruja culture, the "red zone" will get smaller; this is simply a matter of relevance and WP:NPOV. By the way, Winnifrith (2020) that was cited above as supposedly supporting an association of the Komani-Kruja culture with Albanians, actually emphasizes that "[t]he language and the religion of this culture remains uncertain".
 * – That's not what the title of the map implies though; "Linguistic situation of the western Balkans in the 4th century CE (approximation)". It implies that the main language of this "red zone" (approximately) was proto-Albanian. It even encompasses Vlorë, simply because the toponym was adopted by Albanian speakers sometime between the 5th-6th c.; a toponym being adopted doesn't imply anything about the population of the broader region, let alone of the actual city. Also, the quote of Filos (2018) that you shared doesn't imply that the main language of coastal Epirus was Latin; he simply says that Latin influence was more common along the coastline, but not more than that of southern Illyria as he writes (citing Shpuza [2016]). Generally, Greek and Latin were used as lingua francas in the east and west of the Empire, respectively; i am not saying that the map has to be perfect, but certainly both Latin and Greek were used within this "red zone", especially in the urban centers of the region (which is also what was used to synthesize this map).
 * A dispute has already emerged due to the use of the 4th c. Also, how is Labëria going to be included for a map of the 5th-6th c. when it had no recorded boundaries during that time? This would be anachronistic. Even during the Late Middle Ages the only name/region that relates etymologically is the Principality of Arbanon, further north; which is where ancient Albanopolis is commonly believed to have been located as well, and likewise relates etymologically.
 * Last, what is the relevance of these tumuli outside the "red zone"? Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that something close to Albanian was spoken around the Shkumbin in 4th-6th centuries. Wilkes states that during this period Shkumbin formed the border between the Greek-speaking and Latin speaking area, while Winnifrith adds that in the sixth century Epirus as far as Dyrrachium was Greek speaking. As such we need solid clear evidence not abstract theories.Alexikoua (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Alexikoua those statements do not exclude the possibility of the presence of Albanian-speakers and Latin-speakers. The evidence of Albanian spoken around Shkumbin in the 5th-6th century is the fact that the dialectal split Gheg-Tosk occurred before Slavic arrival, and as stated by Bardhyl Demiraj (2010): Almost all current Albanologists (Matzinger, B. Demiraj, etc.) agree on the fact that in the 2nd-4th century AD Albanian-speakers already inhabited northern and central Albania (several toponyms and hydronyms of Albanian origin or through Albanian phonological evolution), as well as that after the Roman period (4th century AD) and before Salvic contacts (7th century onwards) the situation was similar to the contemporary one, with Tosk spoken on the south of Shkumbin and Gheg on the north. Some inscriptions in Greek and Latin in some urban centres do not indicate that all the pepoples of the region spoke those lingua francas.  I agree with the consideration that the situation was ethno-linguistically heterogeneous, that's why I firstly proposed to add the statement "including the possibility of the presence of other languages (such as Latin and Greek)". About Labëria, Desnickaja reported that Slavic influence is nearly lacking in this region, and in particular in the Kurveleshi highlands, and also in the Lab-speaaking villages and Greek-speaking ones on the Ionian coast, which provides evidence that Slavic expansion did not reach that area. Also Labëria deriving through Slavic metathesis of Albëria provides evidence that when Slavs settled on the lowlands surrounding this region considered its inhabitants to be Albanians, and the tribal system and customary law found in the area was similar to those of the northern Albanians. But I think further analysis from recent publications is needed for this specific topic. – Βατο (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Alexikoua those statements do not exclude the possibility of the presence of Albanian-speakers and Latin-speakers. The evidence of Albanian spoken around Shkumbin in the 5th-6th century is the fact that the dialectal split Gheg-Tosk occurred before Slavic arrival, and as stated by Bardhyl Demiraj (2010): Almost all current Albanologists (Matzinger, B. Demiraj, etc.) agree on the fact that in the 2nd-4th century AD Albanian-speakers already inhabited northern and central Albania (several toponyms and hydronyms of Albanian origin or through Albanian phonological evolution), as well as that after the Roman period (4th century AD) and before Salvic contacts (7th century onwards) the situation was similar to the contemporary one, with Tosk spoken on the south of Shkumbin and Gheg on the north. Some inscriptions in Greek and Latin in some urban centres do not indicate that all the pepoples of the region spoke those lingua francas.  I agree with the consideration that the situation was ethno-linguistically heterogeneous, that's why I firstly proposed to add the statement "including the possibility of the presence of other languages (such as Latin and Greek)". About Labëria, Desnickaja reported that Slavic influence is nearly lacking in this region, and in particular in the Kurveleshi highlands, and also in the Lab-speaaking villages and Greek-speaking ones on the Ionian coast, which provides evidence that Slavic expansion did not reach that area. Also Labëria deriving through Slavic metathesis of Albëria provides evidence that when Slavs settled on the lowlands surrounding this region considered its inhabitants to be Albanians, and the tribal system and customary law found in the area was similar to those of the northern Albanians. But I think further analysis from recent publications is needed for this specific topic. – Βατο (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Why are you using archaeological arguments about a map of the Proto-Albanian language ? They are here to confirm the linguistic evidence, not the other way around; they have no intrinsic value in this discussion. How would you explain the linguistic situation of present-day France from the mid-1st millennium AD, with an original Gaulish-speaking population, a Latin superstrate, and a Frankish-speaking ruling elite, based on pottery? Alcaios (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, the discussion should be focused on the linguistic evidence. – Βατο (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, i spared some time to look better at the sources. First of all, this section of Demiraj (2006) shared above, is irrelevant to the evolution of Durrës and Vlorë. Furthermore, the issue of Tosk rhotacism with Vlorë is more complicated than what i initially thought; there is dispute among scholars. For example, Demiraj (2006) simply believes that this phonetic process should have ceased acting prior to the penetration of the Slavic loans into Albanian, essentially agreeing with Meyer-Lübke (1914) who first proposed it; i don't know when he dates them, but Curtis (2012) estimates that the earliest Slavic loans enter Albanian from around 700. Then as Demiraj explains, there are also scholars such as Jokl (1916, 1923) and Çabej (1964) who believe that rhotacism also appeared after the 10th c. More recently, Janson (1986), after a series of arguments pointed out that this Albanian phenomenon occurred approximately between 800 and 1000. See here. Janson is also cited by Michiel de Vaan (2018), here. Last, we have the aforementioned Fortson (2004), who claims that Tosk rhotacism postdates the 4th c. Christianization of the region; essentially providing us with a terminus post quem; but he does not bother to look for when exactly it happened. After the 4th c. we have 500, 700, 900 and 2021; therefore he does not contradict any of the aforementioned scholars. Essentially, Vlorë evolved sometime between the 5th and after (didn't check for more details) the 10th c.
 * Indeed, Slavic loans are considerably fewer in the region of Labëria, compared to other regions of southern Albania, but i don't see how this relates to the map we are discussing. Agnija Desnickaja (1973) makes a very general conjecture without providing any date. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Demetrios1993, rhotacism was not the first dialectal divergence, because it occurred after the earliest evolution /a-/ > /ë/ in front of a nasal consonant in Tosk (the phenomenon /a-/ > /ë/ couldn't have occurred in front of a /r/), and since the overwhelming majority of Slavic loans are not interested by those phonological phenomena, the split Gheg-Tosk occurred before intense Albanian-Slavic contacts (B. Demiraj (2010): ) Hence Proto-Albanian as depicted on the map, but for the period 5th-6th centuries, is a likely scenario. As for Vlora, it is relevant that the Gheg Vlonë indicates that this toponym was used by Albanian-speakers predating the Tosk rhotacism, also B. Demiraj (2010) states:
 * @Maleschreiber, @Khirurg, an Albanian-Greek contact zone should have been existed at least since the Early Middle Ages, Bardhyl Demiraj (2010) also states: – Βατο (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * About rhotacism, I would also add Elsie (2015), "The Early History of Albania", p.8: The rhotacism of southern Albanian is a very ancient development because it occurs in Latin loanwords, too, e.g. Lat. arena “sand” became Gheg ranë but Tosk rërë; Lat. vinum “wine” became Gheg venë but Tosk verë. However, rhotacism does not usually occur in Slavic loanwords, that obviously entered the Albanian language after the Slavic invasion of the sixth century. As such, the sixth-century Ghegs and Tosks must have been geographically more or less where they are today. The earliest linguistic contacts with the Slavs are difficult to date. All we know is that a small group of around 20 Slavic loanwords entered the Albanian language quite early; they are generally related to political organization/justice, dwellings, agriculture, cattle-rearing, and also include some plant names. (Rusakov 2017, p. 557; Orel 2000, pp. 40–41; Wilkes 1992, p. 279). Alcaios (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Ahmet's map is about the 4th century CE. We are discussing about this specific map.  asked about Durrës and  cited Matzinger:   [The toponym can't have been transported to the Albanians much earlier than the 5th century] For the level of detail the map seeks to depict, its bibliography and other sources were discussed. If this becomes a discussion at RfC, editors who oppose its inclusion as "controversial" need to explain why they !oppose inclusion of a map which depicts Proto-Albanian in the 4th century spoken near Durrës and Vlora, but don't oppose a map which depicts Proto-Albanian in the 3rd century spoken as far south as Greek Western Macedonia. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber: A map published in 1941 raises serious issues in terms of wp:AGEMATTERS. I really doubt if we can seriously take such outdated data to draw something in agreement with modern scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Who said nobody is opposed to this map too? This is obviously controversial to feature a map of Proto-Albanian spoken in Late Antiquity in Kosovo, Southern Serbia and most of Northern Macedonia only based on conjectures. It's a map from 1941 though, not a reliable source. At best you could draw a map of the various homelands proposed by scholars in the inner Balkans. See also those maps of the Proto-Greek homeland(s); although not perfect, they are clearly approximative, as they should be. Alcaios (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Proto.Greek.Area.220.1900.svgProto Greek Area reconstruction.png
 * It is becoming increasingly obvious that the map serves a two-fold POV purpose: To establish the Albanians as "autochthonous" to Kosovo and further north and east, and imply continuity with the Illyrians. This can also be seen in edits such as this and this . The Komani-Kruja culture in particular, is the favored vehicle for implying continuity. This is done by selectively quoting the literature, while removing literature criticizing these views as "outdated", as done here . In talkpages, an air of inevitiability is used ("Nobody is opposed", "everybody knows", "contemporary bibliography", etc.). Community scrutiny is going to be increasingly necessary to maintain NPOV. Khirurg (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss Komani-Kruja, you should discuss about it with sources which refer to excavations - they occurred after 2009-10. What is the POV in saying something so obvious about archaeology?--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not favoring this map, I'm saying out that the editors who are opposed to Ahmet's map because it shows Albanian spoken around Durrës in the 4th century AD (sources agree about that), do not oppose a map which shows Albanian in Kozani and Kastoria in the 3rd century AD. I think that Ahmet's map is as approximative as the Proto-Greek maps - about which very different scenarios exist.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is serious POV about using glass necklaces, brooches, and other knick-knacks to imply continuity. That's what's "obvious". Just like there is with using archeology to draw the map, as Alcaios told you. Btw, there were sources criticizing the Komani-Kruja hypothesis in the article, but you removed them in this edit (e.g. Curts 2013, Wilkes 2013 stating there was massive depopulation in the western balkans, etc.). I'm a bit busy now, but no worries, they will be re-added soon. Khirurg (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I removed what was outdated. Sources published before 2009 discuss competing hypotheses which were based on 0 excavations. If there are post-2009 sources which discuss the excavation results which were published in 2014-2018, they can be added. If you want to learn more about Komani-Kruja start with the following quote from Nallbani (2017)  And then read contemporary bibliography.  are not what archaeology discusses. Everything written before 2009 about Komani-Kruja is outdated - one way or another - and I have divided the discussion in a pre-excavation vs. a post-excavation period. These are complex topics and require from editors who want to be involved to do a lot of reading and understand how bibliography has evolved.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Those maps are not appropriate examples indeed. I was trying to find a map that displays different scholarly scenarii for a linguistic homeland, but couldn't find a good one. To go into concrete propositions, I would:
 * 1.Improve the subsections /endonyms/ and /languages/ (which should be merged imo). If you find my draft interesting, you are all free to contribute and add content. When everybody is happy with the draft, we can merge it into the main article. This method has worked on controversial subjects like Germanic_peoples.
 * 2.Once every major theory/conjecture is clearly explained in the body of the article, we can think about drawing a map that would summarise these proposed homelands. Not a WP:SYNTH, but rather different areas corresponding to different propositions. Demiraj has made a good work at describing the various theories that had been suggested before his own work. Alcaios (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How would you change Ahmet's map? --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of a synthesis of 4 articles, which may be misleadly interpreted by readers as a scholarly consensus, I would draw different areas, which may sometimes overlap, based on the major homeland hypothesis proposed in scholarship. Alcaios (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But that's a different map subject. Ahmet's map depicts Albanian in the 4th century CE. It doesn't propose a homeland. Side comment: In your draft, you write that The ethnonym shqiptar was first used as an ethnonym in the early 18th century.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Alcaios, I agree with your proposals, but it seems you are referring to the various Paleo-Balkan theories on Albanian. The map of this discussion postdates the settlement of Albanian-speakers in contemporary Albania, and even those scholars who support the immigration theory like Matzinger, regardless of who was the Pre-Roman ancestor of Albanian, state that proto-Albanians started their expansion from Northern Albania approximately in Late Antiquity. As for Gheg-Tosk situation in the 1st millennium AD, Matthew C. Curtis (2018) states: The main isoglosses separating Gheg and Tosk were already formed on the Shkumbin before Slavic contacts. – Βατο (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber: Well, any map of the Proto-Albanian language between roughly 2500 BC and 1500 AD displays, by definition, a linguistic homeland, that is the area where the proto-language was thought to be spoken before its daughter dialects are historically attested. Regarding the ethnonym shqiptar, that's indeed a typo for '16th century', I've clarified in the draft, thanks. This name is derived from the verb shqiptoj (‘to speak clearly’, earlier ‘to under- stand’; see B. Demiraj 2010); it was first registered in the 16th century (at the beginning in its adverbial form) and consolidated in the 18th century. The ethnic name change was triggered most likely by the Ottoman conquest (end of the 14th century–second half of the 15th century), which led to deep changes in the structure of the Albanian nation. (Rusakov, 2017, p. 555).
 * @Βατο: I agree with everything you said. The major issue is that scholars do not agree on the details. Matzinger writes that there is no Old Dalmatian influence on Albanian; he would disagree with such a "contact zone" displayed on the map. Some scholars explain the Albanian–Romanian correspondances through the movements of transhumant shepherds in the inner Balkans, not a contact zone. Some scholars like Cimochowski explain that Albanian was already spoken in a mountainous area, farther from the sea, during the Latin influence (which is a good argument for the absence of the Albanian language from historical records before the Middle Ages, contrary to other Paleo-Balkan languages which are at least mentioned by Greeks and Romans), while others think that they lived in plains before being relegated to mountainous areas during the Slavic invasions. The main question remains: if Proto-Albanian was spoken in such a wide area around 350 AD, close to coastline cities and Greek-speaking areas, why is it never mentioned by their literate neighbours ? This map implies that (1) Latinization did not occur in the hinterlands of present-day Albania (2) Illyrian was literaly 'replaced' by Proto-Albanian by the 4th c. AD, but nobody ever mentions once that a new language (or a successor of Illyrian as it is implied) is spoken in the area until 1308! Do you really think this is possible? Alcaios (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that we should discuss what bibliography discusses. I suppose that you mentioned 1308 because you read in Elsie (1991) that . Elsie writes per se because he refers to the mention of the language itself. Albanians are mentioned in the 11th century in the theme of Dyrrhachium and the language is mentioned indirectly in 1000-1018 Side comment:  If you have access to CUP journals, read  --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm talking about the earliest attestation of the Albanian language in the region, which is in 1308. Thanks for the reading, I've bookmarked it for later! Alcaios (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To sum up, are there any published maps about areas of Proto-Albanian? So far we have a Romanian work from 1941, but I hardly believe that's something we can rely on.Alexikoua (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Βατο, i know rhotacism postdates the evolution /a-/ > /ë/ in front of a nasal consonant in the southern dialect (Tosk), per what Demiraj wrote; i am just emphasizing that this has nothing to do with the evolution of Vlorë as a name. Furthermore, i see that in this later publication even Demiraj (2010) retracted some of his earlier statements, by adopting a period of 6th-9th c. for the Tosk rhotacism (namely he considers a post-Slavic period as well); this means that all of the scholars shared above agree that it occurred after the 6th c. Tosk rhotacism is a dialectal phenomenon that occurred only in Tosk after the Gheg-Tosk split. This means that Tosks would have also used Vlonë, and sometime during the 6th and at least the 10th c., it was changed to Vlorë. The thing is that if we go by Janson's and Michiel de Vaan's 9th-10th c. rhotacism period, the name could have theoretically entered Albanian speech even from 799. That's why i think that the 5th-6th c. proposal is not that inclusive of other views as well; without rejecting an earlier adoption, a safer and more ideal period would be 599-799 (7th-8th c.). Then again, i also agree with the points and concerns put forward by @Alcaios.

@Alcaios, what Elsie writes doesn't affect the chronology of the aforementioned linguists. In fact, the example he gave (Lat. arena "sand" became Gheg ranë but Tosk rërë), is also mentioned by Michiel de Vaan (2018) who adopts Janson's date of 800-1000, here. De Vaan also mentions Lat. inimicus becoming Tosk armik. Some pages prior of the one that i shared, he dates the Latin loanwords between 167 BCE and 400 CE.

By the way, regarding the attestation of the endonym, i had addressed the subject in another thread further up. "Shqip" with the meaning of Albanian was first recorded by Gjon Buzuku in 1555; so yes, from the 16th century. Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, after the Gheg-Tosk split (and after even the evolution /a-/ > /ë/ in front of a nasal consonant), with the main isoglosses on the Shkumbin, hence Common Albanian predates 6th-9th century, i. e. Slavic contacts. While 5th-6th century does not give problems for a scenario like that depicted on the map, 7th century (i.e. until 700 AD) implies that Common Albanian was spoken also after Slavic contacts, and that the split followed it, which contrast with the mainstream views and with the clear phonological evidence. – Βατο (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the inclusion of the 7th century AD would depict a completely different situation, with the presence of speakers of ancient Slavic dialects as well, and this specific map is not intended for it. I agree that there are some inaccuracies, in particular the contacts between Albanian and Balkan Latin. I think that they can be fixed according to mainstream views if a proper periodization is established. That's why I proposed the Post-Roman – Pre-Slavic period. – Βατο (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from the absence of a proto-Albanian map in literature it appears that modern scholarship questions the uniformity of the (so-called) Komani-Kruja culture:

It's also interesting that modern scholarship strongly refutes the view that the Komani-Kruja findings belong to a certain ethnic group. As such the depiction of such a map on the hypothesis that Proto-Albanian speakers were the bearers of K-K culture falls clearly into wp:OR.Alexikoua (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (conclution about the Komani material):
 * I think that you should not cite whatever you find on the internet out of context. --Maleschreiber (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Even maps of the attested Principality of Arbanon are disputed: some scholars write that it didn't have sea access, others that it did. Sometimes the best answer is: "we don't know" or "we're not sure". Alcaios (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Βατο, Slavic contacts couldn't have began from the 6th century (500-600), because it is around 600 that Slavs settled in the area, and it is expected that contact began only after some generations; hence what Curtis (2012) writes for 700-1500 (citing Svane [1992]). So, we have an approximate date of 700 for the earliest Slavic loans; even though as @Alcaios wrote, the earliest linguistic contacts with the Slavs are difficult to date. At least the 7th century (600-700) though is justified. Thus, i would be ok with 5th-7th c. for the aforementioned reason and by taking into account the split that is considered pre-Slavic (in terms of contacts). You do have a point that the inclusion of the 7th c. would also require the presentation of some Slavic presence in the region, but this can't influence our discussion on proto-Albanian. The Slavic presence can also be omitted and instead we can use a small note saying that after 600 Slavs settled in the region. But regardless of all that, i must agree with other editors at this point; this discussion inevitably leads us to WP:SYNTHESIS. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Proto-Albanian speakers didn't even live in the plains at the time of the Slavic invasion. Slavic topnyms are widespread in the region ; yet the Slavic influence on Albanian remained limited. My personal opinion (which of course has no value here, although it is shared by a number of scholars) is that Proto-Albanian was spoken in the 1st millennium AD in the mountainous/hilly regions roughly located between Lake Ohrid and the Drin river, along the Black Drin river, which, by the way, more or less corresponds to the area of the Principality of Arbanon. Alcaios (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

New genetic study on the origins of the Albanians
There is a new genetic study on the origins of Albanians concluding that they derive from ancient Illyrians. The study is still in preprint and can be found here (for anyone interested)

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.05.543790v1.full Aigest (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Since it's in preprint, it's not of any academic value as of now (per WP:PREPRINT). StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a pre-print hence it can't be used but it's not a particularly academic study in any case. None of the authors have any relation to Albanology, social sciences or even Humanities.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Origin of the Albanians


text:
D.D.E. (band)

D.D.E. is a Norwegian pop/rock group founded in Namsos in 1992. The members were previously in a band called After Dark.

Biography
D.D.E. is a Norwegian pop/rock band that was formed in the small town of Namsos in 1992.

D.D.E.'s music is heavily influenced by traditional Norwegian folk music and rock, resulting in a unique sound that has garnered a dedicated following in Norway. The band has released over 15 albums since their debut in 1992, with their most popular songs including "E6", "Rai Rai" and "Det går likar no".

D.D.E. has won several awards throughout their career, including the Spellemannprisen (Norwegian Grammy) for best group in 1998 and 2000, and they have also been nominated for the award numerous times. The band has also been recognized for their contributions to Norwegian culture and music, and in 2016 they were awarded the prestigious King's Medal of Merit.

D.D.E. continues to tour and perform throughout Norway, and their music remains popular with audiences of all ages. With over three decades of experience in the music industry, D.D.E. has solidified their place as one of Norway's most beloved bands.

Band members
Current members
 * Bjarne Brøndbo - Lead vocals, accordion (1992–present)
 * Daniel Viken - Guitar, backing vocals (2018–present)
 * Arnt Egil Rånes - Guitar, backing vocals (1992–present)
 * Eivind Berre - Bass, backing vocals (1992–present)
 * Bård Jørgen Iversen - Keyboards, accordion, backing vocals (1992–present)
 * Eskil Brøndbo - Drums, percussion (1992–present)

Former members
 * Terje Tranaas - Keyboards, accordion, backing vocals (1992–2002)
 * Frode Viken - Guitar, mandolin, backing vocals (1992-2018; died 2018)

Studio Albums

 * Rai-Rai - 1993
 * Rai 2 - 1994
 * Det E D.D.E. - 1995
 * Det Går Likar No - 1996
 * Ohwææææh!!! - 1998
 * No E D.D.E. Jul Igjen! - 1999
 * Jippi - 2000
 * Vi Ska Fæst - Aill' Mot Aill' - 2001
 * Vi e konga - 2003
 * Næ næ næ næ næ næ - 2005
 * No Går Det Så Det Suse - 2008
 * Frelsesarmeens Juleplate - 2008
 * Ut av kotroll - med sola i auan - 2009
 * Energi - 2012

Live Albums

 * 15 år (Live) - 2007
 * By'n vi bor i - all de fine sangan - 2014 (Separate deluxe edition released)

Singles & Ep's

 * Lykka Kjem Itj Rækans På Ei Fjøl - 2005
 * No Går Det Så Det Suse' - 2007
 * Du Vekke Dyret . 2007
 * Energi - 2012
 * Æ va aldri der - 2012
 * Ingen verdens ting - 2012
 * Damer i solnedgangen - 2014
 * Sleike sine sår - 2015
 * Nabo'n min - 2017
 * La det gro - 2019
 * TATTA TE TU - 2019
 * SÅ MANGE MIL, SÅ MANGE ÅR - 2021

Compilations

 * Her bli det liv de beste [1992-2002] (2002).
 * EMI gull (2004)

title: D.D.E. (band)


text:
Gary Fencik

John Gary Fencik (born June 11, 1954) is an American former football safety who played in the National Football League (NFL) for 12 seasons with the Chicago Bears. He played college football for the Yale Bulldogs and was selected by the Miami Dolphins in the tenth round of the 1976 NFL Draft. He was a once first-team All-Pro and twice Pro Bowl selection. Fencik is the Bears all-time leader in interceptions and total tackles. He was also part of the 1985 Bears team that won the franchise's first Super Bowl title in the Super Bowl XX.

Playing career
He played college football at Yale University, where he received his bachelor's degree in 1976. In 1986, he received an MBA from Northwestern University. John Madden once said in a broadcast that "Gary Fencik played football at Yale; that is like saying clean dirt". At Yale, Fencik played wide receiver, catching 86 passes for 1,435 yards and 7 touchdowns from 1973 to 1975. In his senior season, Fencik caught 42 passes and led the Ivy League with 729 receiving yards.

Considered too slow to be an NFL receiver, the Miami Dolphins drafted Fencik in the tenth round of the 1976 NFL Draft with the 281st overall selection, intending to convert him to defensive back. After rupturing his left lung in a preseason game against the New Orleans Saints, he was released in September and headed home to Chicago, planning to start a banking career until he received a job offer from the Chicago Bears.

In Chicago, he was the team's defensive captain through the 1980s including the 1985 Super Bowl championship season. He made two Pro Bowl appearances (1980, 1981). He was also awarded a gold record and a platinum video award for the 1985 Super Bowl Shuffle. Fencik and Doug Plank were dubbed "The Hit Men", a fact referenced by Fencik in The Super Bowl Shuffle.

In September 1986 he was featured on the cover of GQ magazine. His picture also appeared on the reverse side of a Playboy centerfold, showing him and the December 1982 Playmate Charlotte Kemp, shopping at the Old Town Art Fair.

Fencik finished his career with 38 interceptions, which he returned for 488 yards and a touchdown. He also recorded 2 sacks and recovered 13 fumbles, returning them for 65 yards.

Retirement
Following his football career, Fencik has worked in the finance industry. Fencik worked with Wells Fargo and UBS before joining Adams Street Partners in 1995. He has also worked as a sports commentator, mainly on WGN radio where he was a color commentator on Bears radio broadcasts from 1990 to 1993. During the 1988 NFL season he paired with James Brown as an NFL television commentator on CBS.

Personal life
Fencik and his wife Sandy have two children, Garrison and Evan. He is of Polish descent.

title: Gary Fencik


text:
Talk:Ernst Hinterberger

Comment
"From 1950 to 1952, he visited police school, due to a weak sight he worked however as a librarian during the Viennese national education."

Whoever wrote this, could you please rephrase it? What on earth is the "Viennese national education"? Did he go to / attend police school?  17:07, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ernst Hinterberger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930211615/http://www.falter.at/web/print/detail.php?id=365 to http://www.falter.at/web/print/detail.php?id=365
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226055129/http://www.datum.at/0508/stories/4882913 to http://www.datum.at/0508/stories/4882913
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304001954/https://portal.d-nb.de/opac.htm?query=Woe%3D11560524X&method=simpleSearch to https://portal.d-nb.de/opac.htm?query=Woe%3D11560524X&method=simpleSearch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ernst Hinterberger