Talk:Magouliana

Etymology

[1]I will revert to the sourced version. You just don't provide any secondary source to back your claims, which contradict the source given. The links you added don't support your claims, they are only related to the subject. By the way you are breaching wikipedia principles (even if obviously i am an ugly fallmerayerist with a well-known mishellenic and panslavist agenda, as demonstrated by my contributions here and there, in contrast to your perfectly neutral improvements of these articles, solidly founded on reliable secondary sources).--Phso2 (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say any of those things about agendas etc, although I am concerned about the tone of the article. Lets assume good faith. Why in an article with the heading Geography and History is there only one small paragraph of which 25% is devoted to a statement that "according to several sources (which ones?).....etc." and 75% is devoted to etymology, naming and renaming, with references to Max Vasmer? If the heading is really about the etymology of the term "magoulo/a" then the dictionary entries related to the languages of peoples that are known to have settled in the Peloponnese are valid and there is no wiki rule being breached in quoting them. We do not have to rely on the views of Vasmer and his dictionaries alone, who by the way, wrote during a very politically charged time in Greece and the Balkans.

However, if the article heading is really about geography and history then surely there are more details than this that would be of interest to the readers searching information on Magouliana? I don't know who is responsible for these minor articles that was why I asked the question about them being loaded with slavic connotations and not much else.

The current version is a reasonable compromise but is still lacking in any meaningful material.--Apollo Helios (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]