Jump to content

Talk:Janina vilayet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Ioannina Vilayet)

Demographics

[edit]

What Greek writers think and consider official isn't related to the article, so please don't add their pov again, while removing non-Greek ones. If you want to add them as what the Greek writers consider to be official do so, but not by removing everything else. Btw at the same time the Greek writer considers the Ottoman census as favouring the Albanians and then he creates his own estimates about the true numbers[1], so please don't add again his estimates.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Alexikoua Sakellariou's works are just the Greek perspective(i.e pov) [2].---— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zjarri plz avoid massive reverting full sourced material with highly ultranationlistic arguments: 1. This is not what Greek writers believe but about the official Ottoman census. 2. Plz avoid nationalistically addicted comments like: 'what Greeks writers believe'.... In fact this is what top graded academic& off course reliable material descibes a situation, 3. The map you removed should stay since its about education in this Vilayet.

In fact if someone wants to add also non-official statistics we have some 10-15 of them. But removing an official census is the definition of desruption in wikipedia.Alexikoua (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sakellariou is 100% neutral (I remind you that in past you admitted that this work is fine) and is awarded by top graded international institutions. Please read what wp:pov is.Alexikoua (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Sakellariou thinks the census meant to say and his own estimates are irrelevant and please read the above review of his work about his neutrality. If those 10-15 statistics exist why don't you add them on the talkpage(and the map is on the article)? Btw please don't lower the lever the debate with comments about ultranationalism since you're the one trying to prove that there was dominant ethnic group in a vast area, while at the same time diminishing every other ethnic group. The official figures have Albanians, Aromanians, Bulgarians, Turks, Romani and Jews and all of them have been removed from the Greek author(whose books are labeled as a nationalist perspective), while the Greeks became 300,000 --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They should be mention on a diferrent paragraph. Actually the source you insist on [[3]] is based on a dubious primary. I wonder where are these 25,000 Catholic Albanians located in southern Albania/nw Greece. In fact nowhere there.Alexikoua (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are completely oring here: 'all of them have been removed from the Greek author'? 'whose books are labeled as a nationalist perspective'?. Please read what wp:pov is. You cited another book, which is also wp:npov (off course the url you gave doesn't claim that the author is pov, but that it mention, among others, this view, and doesn't adopt it).Alexikoua (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise the author of this part of the book (it's a collective work) is B. Kondis.Alexikoua (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua it seems that you can't even understand basic geography of the Balkans, since those northern parts are catholic Albanian areas.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are wrong, south of Shkumbin river (the northern border of the Vilayet) there are not catholic Albanian areas.Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua do you even know where Shkumbin is or the fact that catholic Albanians live below Shkumbin too?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the map I've provided. Off course claiming that there are Catholics in this area is complete science fiction. Also please do not remove official statistics provided be reliable sources. In general if we don't like a work it doesn't mean it's non 'rs'. In fact this work is rs.Alexikoua (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sakellariou seems like a perfectly good source. If anyone think he isn't they should post at WP:RSN, but I doubt they will get the answer they want. Athenean (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If his works were such good sources then why did you make this comment [4]? As on Byllis and Krokodil Klada only RfC or RSN will make you not revert everything that doesn't support Greek nationalist theories.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 06:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Statistics

[edit]

In order to estimate the population composition ,according to the official ottoman statistics, we have to take into consideration what does the terms used to mean. The term "Greek" doesnt mean necessarily those who were greek speaking,but those who were subject to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and used to have ,more or less, a greek consiousness.But judging by what language used to speak , no matter consiousness,education language or religious subordination,the numbers are not the same. So,what are we talking here about? About Albanians or albanian speaking, about Greeks or greek speaking, about orthodox christians or muslims?Lysus.KT (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

[edit]

Please be precise since no Ottoman census ever documented its population's ethnicity but only the Millet (Ottoman Empire) i.e please be precise and attribute the views of the various scholars to them not to the Ottoman statistics. Btw there was no Albanian millet, so it's impossible for anyone to find any Albanian population documented in any of the 19-20th century censi i.e Athenean please don't attribute to Sakellariou issues that don't exist.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[5] you can find the whole section on google books or read Schwanders brief section about the millets [6], so please don't make attributions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why a 'census' that counts so many thousands of catholic Albanians in southern Albanian nw Greece should be taken into account. In case this can't be confirmed the specific source should go, per latest wp:ani.Alexikoua (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You and Athenean are ignoring every basic issue about the Ottoman Empire statistics. Btw in your blind revert you removed Golen too, although I had fixed the link. I'm going to ANI because you and Athenean are edit-warring together for the usual reasons.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but on the one hand you claim that Ottoman Empire didn't count ethnicities but on the other hand add supposed statistics that are based on ethnicity. You have to became precise on your arguments, also Iremind you that the latest wp:ani you filled was very clear, recycling again and again the same discussions can not lead somewhere.Alexikoua (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to that discussion we should add all views and Sakellariou's is a view, because there was no Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian or Aromanian millet. Btw Sakellariou is the only one who says that Greeks were 300,000, while all the others put the number of the Greeks between 110,000 and 118,000. In 1908 the year of the census the Ottoman empire also held elections. For example according to Sakellariou Preveza was predominantly Greek sanjak, however, of the two deputies of Preveza, one was Hamdi Çami and the other Azmi Akalin, who took the Turkish citizenship after the war.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All other put the Greeks between 110k and 118? I don't thing so [[7]] [[8]], and the wp:ani you filled 2 months ago was quite clear. As I see the 'Albanian Catholics' estimation in the region is just science fiction, so this estimate has to go.Alexikoua (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua for the usual reasons you're WP:IDHT and you'll keep revert-warring. Btw you're confirming the millet system with that link.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please respect the latest wp:ani, which has ignored your suggestion 2 months ago. Btw "Gibb, Hamilton" doesn't mention the 1908 census, so it has to be removed.Alexikoua (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua Gibb gives information about 1895 and btw according the discussion all views are presented as views.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you are wrong in Preveza too [[9]], there was a 2:1 Greek majority.Alexikoua (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I see this "Andonyan and Biberyan" is contradicting by far in other estimation [[10]][[11]]. Numbers of Bulgarians and Albanian Catholics are far from being considered part of a historical reality.Alexikoua (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua you're IDHT your own sources now(they're religious statistics Muslims etc.), so I won't keep refuting the same IDHT until someone who doesn't have a nationalist COI joins the discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't attribute motives on other users, and be precise on your arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Schwanders says 'Greek dominated', since Greek is an ethnicity, I really don't understand what you mean. Please become more precise.Alexikoua (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kostja I added the Ottoman censi information i.e Alexikoua don't label again Greek views as part of the Ottoman censi. Btw I added Chasiotis and Golen view.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zjarri: please do not remove (again) without explanations essential parts of the article. You still need to explain why you removed detailed data about each like: [[12]].Alexikoua (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics 2

[edit]

According to an ANI agreement about the demographics all views should be added as views but some users want the Greek view to be labeled as the official one while removing other views, although the Ottoman Empire never collected information about the ethnicity of its citizens, but only about their religious millet.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked from some of the most experienced Balkans editors to respond to this discussion, because such views are important.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zjarri: You need to explain why the Greek view is presented as official, in fact it is included only inside the table [[13]] among many other estimates.Alexikoua (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the important fact that the Ottoman census counted millets and not ethnic groups is not mentioned in the article, as it's usually done on other similar articles, such as Demographic history of Macedonia. The relevance of such information is obvious. Also, it shouldn't be assumed that all readers know that Sakellariou is a Greek author.
I also agree that the Greek view seems to be given too much weight. The phrase "even so" is rather blatant POV, presenting a possibly biased (after all it comes from a book called "Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization") opinion practically as the article's official interpretation of the census. Considering that the demographic estimates by Aram Andonyan and Zavren Biberyan are used by a respected source, which is in turn widely used in Wikipedia, these estimates shouldn't be thrown out of hand and perhaps should be given more weight in the article. Kostja (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kostja: after all it comes from a book called Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization means nothing, please be more precise about sources awarded by top graded institutions. Not to mentions the usual pro-Bulgarian bias in a wide variety of Balkan topics. Can you please confirm the 20,000 Bulgarians number in this region about 1908 by Aram Andonyan and Zavren Biberyan? (take into account the Kastoria wasn't included in this region) Guess not.

On the other hand the millet argument should be added in the main text.Alexikoua (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua: please do not try to shift the subject to discussions of other users. What pro-Bulgarian bias are you talking about? Aram Andonyan was an Armenian in Ottoman service when he wrote the book; what has he to do with the Bulgarians?
As for "Epirus, 4000 years etc" I am not against its inclusion, I only think it would be better to clearly indicate his nationality. He's probably correct when it comes to the census exaggerating the number of Muslims, but he's not exactly neutral on the subject, so it should be mentioned just for the sake of balance. Kostja (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do not know that he is not neutral. You are just assuming that because of his ethnicity "He is Greek, therefore he is biased." Come on now. I will mention that he is Greek and will remove the "even so", but that should be enough. Athenean (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I feel that adding "greek author sakellariou" reads like an attempt to undermine the source and a *little* to close to weasel wording. Sakellariou is a very known greek name and it is obvious from the citation info that he is greek, so that should be enough. Athenean (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sakellariou is a view so he is labeled as a view, as all the others. Btw Alexikoua should be precise because Schwanders sentence about domination make no reference to ethnicities, but to educational institutions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After Zjarri's canvassing attempts we have now several unexplained removals in this [[14], seems Zjarri needs to explain why he removed from table the estimates in order to leave only these the present overinflated number of Albanians. The latest wp:ani suggested that all estimates should be included.Alexikoua (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All estimates as estimates Alexikoua and now you're WP:IDHT again, while in fact you removed Golen again with your blind revert and Scwhanders section.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to understand that when a region is dominated by an ethnic group (Greek dominated), this group is the majority in this area, please avoid wp:ninja edit and focus in the discussion by presenting precise arguments. Unfortunatelyt, WP:IDHT, applies to you, since you remove statistics and sourced comments without giving the slightest explanation.Alexikoua (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua Scwhanders mentions a single phrase without any references to ethnicity in a section about education, which you removed. since Greek means ethnicity is your WP:OR like heavily being, which you consider to mean Greek. Btw Ergiri is Gjirokastër and btw However, there were also regions, such as the province of Kossovo and Janina where the population was predominantly Albanian i.e all views contradict each other and none is according to the Ottoman census. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zjarri: please be carefull with the national enthousiasm. I understand you wish to present your ethnic group as victims (we are the good but the rest is villains). But a culture section like this [[15]] is completely pov presented.Alexikoua (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Schwanders says 'Greek dominated', since Greek is an ethnicity, I really don't understand what you mean. Please become more precise. We have also additional sources that support this like [[16]] Also take in account that part of the Ergiri sanjack came also to Greece, so we are in full agreement with Sakelariou.Alexikoua (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latest revert performed needs some explanations [[17]] seing that the title of the table is wrongly reverted to "Official census of 1908" it makes me conclude that we had just a blind revert.Alexikoua (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


McCarthy

[edit]

Like the rest of the scholars of the article McCarthy's view is yet another opinion. Btw if Athenean insists on not actually naming the source of that view then he should use the same book to add details in Greek-Turkish War of 1922 like [18] as a fact.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw please don't start the WP:IDHT again Alexikoua, because you added the McCarthy quote[19] and his name as the author of that quote, so you can't say that it's not his quote..--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You were also moving Schandner and Fischer without giving an explanation yet, per my edit summary.Alexikoua (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Her name is Schwanders and I moved the source back to its sentence.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Schwandner-Sievers clearly says the Vilayet was Greek dominated. Yet, when you "moved" McCarthy, you left the Schwandner ref attached to another sentence, that had nothing to do with that. Clear source falsification for the umpteenth time. Both Schwander and McCarthy say the vilayet was Greek dominated, so they should be given more weight, and there no need for your tiresome "according to". Don't falsify sources again. Athenean (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Schwanders doesn't mention ethnicities and McCarthy's view is his view, but now that you removed that it's his view I suppose that you won't mind it if he's added as a source for massacres of the Greek army in Turkey without the according to, which you consider tiresome.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Schwandner-Sievers (that's her name btw) clearly says the vilayet is Greek dominated, so yes she does mention ethnicities. Duh. And the "according to" was removed because there are two sources that say the same thing (Schwandner-Sievers in addition to McCarthy), so stop playing games. But what's really tiresome is your constant POV-pushing, source falsification and word games, which need to stop, one way or another. Athenean (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean I'll expand the Greek-Turkish war with McCarthy as a source and since you find theaccording to tiresome I won't use it. She doesn't mention Greek ethnicity because [20] what's included about the population in her work says Albanian-speaking majority and Greek-financed schools dominance. Btw I should edit some of those Turkish-related articles, because it seems that although it's such a large country too few Turkish users edit topics related to their own state.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good idea. Is that a declaration of war or something? Remember, you were already sanctioned once for wikihounding me, and now, you are stating your intention to POV-push on Turkish articles because you think that will spite me? What you have written above can and will be used against you btw. Athenean (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a quote from the work of Isa Blumi actually and not Sievers herself and in the beggining of his part Blumi is very clear about the ethnic composition when he says that Yanya is populated by a large Albanian-speaking majority[21] ---— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Btw the IDHT should stop since now you know what Isa Blumi's article in Sievers work says.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then all I can say is that Mr. Blumi contradicts himself [22]. Athenean (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a quote about education, but if you think that he contradicts then don't use him as a source and attribute views to scholars. Btw I've written a couple of Ottoman-related DYKs, so please don't attribute motives to me for editing those articles.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 06:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ioannina Vilayet → Janina Vilayet – per WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:USEENGLISH

Janina Vilayet and/or Vilayet of Janina is common name in English like Salonica Vilayet, Monastir Vilayet etc.

Takabeg (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something appears to be problematic with this:

"Vilayet of Janina" -Llc 289, since the vast majority is 19th century stuff. If we limit the search to post 1920 works the hits are:

"Vilayet of Janina" -Llc 28.

I have to note that Janina isn't the right spelling in English, but Yan(n)ina.Alexikoua (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On "Vilayet of Ioannina". If we limit the search to post 1920 works the hits are:

"Vilayet of Ioannina" 11. When we rearch "Vilayet of Janina" and "Vilayet of Ioannina" on equal terms,

Takabeg (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is confusion with the J form it appears that Janina is still the most favorable form in bibliography. It seems the move is ok, as far I checked.Alexikoua (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support.I am involved user because I created this article and named it Ioannina Vilayet. I did it because that was the form used in the literature I used as sources for this article. Now when Takabeg explained and proved that Janina is most common form used in the literature on English, I support this proposal. Thank you very much Takabeg for good observation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janina Vilayet. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janina Vilayet. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Adrianople Vilayet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Janina_vilayet&oldid=1207792228"