Jump to content

Talk:Parga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Map

[edit]

As far as I know, the Kiepert/Aravandinos map from 1878 is the only ethnographic map that shows Parga. Kiepert was a respectable scholar of his day and therefore the map is due and relevant. Khirurg (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the towns and villages of Epirus not getting as much love from the cartographers compared to most other areas, especially Peloponnese, Attica, Macedonia and the islands, is an unfortunate fact. Considering how rare are to find historical ethnographic maps that actually include historical towns such as Parga, this is appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parga is depicted in many maps. If the article is to show maps, then it should include maps from different cartographers. It's selective use of maps to use just the one created by a Greek author. Non-Greek well known cartographers have different views and their ideas have to be included or the article can have no map at all like all other municipalities in Epirus. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three maps? Is this some kind of joke? The Epirus map is far better, since it actually focuses on the region, instead of being very general. The Ami Boue map is also completely ridiculous and out of the question. Also, this had better be the last time you call into question a source's reliability due to the ethnicity of the author. Khirurg (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When did I mention ethnicity? If im not mistaken the term "Greek" refers to a nationality as well as an ethnicity. The map you imposed by brute-force edit warring is clearly not neutral and will not be included, even if it "focuses on the region". You will need to come with better arguments. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly implying that the map I added is not reliable only because the data comes from a Greek scholar. This is ethnic baiting and will be brought to admin attention. Yesterday a user was topic banned for this exact reason. I will give you a chance to retract your comments before reporting you. Your call. Khirurg (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Euhmm... no, not at all. You are clearly trying to deflect from the conversation by casting aspersions and creating a very dangerous narrative. Greek ethnographic maps (as well as any other Balkan ethnographic map for that matter) from the 19th century were created in a time where nationalistic rhetoric was rampant in the Balkans. Many of those maps were used to try to justify sovereignty over disputed lands. Now, if you have a source from a modern Greek scholar that doesn't fall in WP:AGEMATTERS and is reliable, that would be perfectly fine Khirurg. I think that the intervention of an admin would be a very good idea actually. I can't wait to show them your history of profiling editors ethnically based on the articles they edit [1] (and that is just the tip of the iceberg) so go ahead I guess. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The map is actually by Heinrich Kiepert, and if he found Aravandinos' data good enough for his map, then it's good enough for us. You have no evidence whatsoever that Aravandinos is unreliable or not neutral, other than his ethnicity. This is pure ethnic profiling and will dealt with as such. Since that's your last word, admin intervention it is. Btw, if you had actually bothered to read the article, instead of just edit-warring, you would have seen that Aravandinos is a native of Parga, and his map deserves special consideration on those grounds alone. Ami Boue, not so much.Khirurg (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, I haven't mentioned anyones ethnicity did I? Maybe it would be a nice idea to stop casting aspersions. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to tell you that but being born in a city doesn't make your work as an academic automatically reliable. I thought this was common knowledge. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So now we have a map of Epirus and two maps of the whole Balkans. Maybe, at this rate, to include also maps of Europe, and why not, the whole world? Ahmet, can you please provide a cropped version? Or at least a version that concentrates on Epirus rather than the Balkans? This article is about an Epirote town, not the whole Balkans. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident I have actually made in the past a map myself, based on an ethnographic map and was centered in the region of Chameria. Maybe that would be something you are looking for? But I think prior of adding other maps, a discussion should be held here. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ahmet, a map like that will do. Is much more preferable than 2 maps showing the entire Balkans and Eastern Europe, don't you think? However your map should include Parga's location for it to be wp:relevant to the article, and must be based on reliable sources, not an original work. I take that it fullfills these criteria, right? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
❖ SilentResident ❖, you are free to crop those maps if you want to. Durraz0 (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Durraz0 but the Balkan maps arent my addition. The editor who made the addition has to deal with the issues the addition has. Editorial responsibility to take in account the concerns of other editors, belongs to those who make the edits after all. That's how Wikipedia works. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmet: Yet again, I haven't mentioned anyones ethnicity did I. Think that's clever? Let's see if they will buy that at ANI. @SilentResident, Ahmet is referring to an extreme POV map he had made that showed all of coastal Epirus as 100% Albanian inhabited. He tried to ram it through by brute force at the Chmaeria article, but failed, in large part because it was so crudely POV. Khirurg (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That map is not the best but it can serve as leverage for the other POV map that Khirurg added using brute-force, btw I have a reliable source for it: data. SilentResident I can add cities in the map, that's not a problem. Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad this is not the correct source, one minute. Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: [2].Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FIXIT "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia." Durraz0 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some WP:COMPETENCE will be appreciated, Durraz0: how to WP:FIXIT something without having the sources myself? The maps are not accompanied with any sources, as you see. The other editors who added the work, ought to make the minimal changes required to make that workWP:RELEVANT for the article. I think this is simple isn't it? I don't know for you but I do not tamper with any work without having the sources myself. I trust that Ahmet has them. :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can people here focus on those three (low quality) maps instead of redirecting the discussion to redundant accusations and continous "warnings"? If someone wants admin attention, I think they know how to get it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Khirurg: I don't think that Ahmet Q. said anything about ethnicity as a factor for including or excluding modern sources,. It is a fact, however, that 19th century authors were often under the payroll of their governments and the maps they produced were linked to territorial ambitions. In a way, you are implicitly acting under the same premise because you clarified that the information provided by Greek scholar, P. Aravandinos. Politics and cartography in the 19th century were closely linked.
  • About the maps: I don't see the need for a dispute. With some differences, they all show roughly the same thing: in the territory of the municipality of Parga two languages were spoken, Albanian and Greek. Albanian was spoken more in the villages of Parga and less in its harbour (Parga town) and Greek was spoken more in the harbour/town and less in the villages. @Ahmet Q.: can you crop the parts of the three maps which show Parga and the surrounding area and include them in a collage? --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"SilentResident I can add cities in the map, that's not a problem." Ahmet, that will be appreciated. The article doesn't need Balkan maps, only maps focusing on the region of Parga. For this reason, I am removing the 2 Balkan maps and I will appreciate if editors avoid adding too generic maps just for a small town such as Parga. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to wait until I made the additions before removing only the two maps. Or maybe just remove the three maps, and go back to the stable version in the meanwhile.That would be better I think. Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmet, I wouldn't bother making additions to your map, because it won't go in the article, for the same reason it didn't go in the Chameria article. Btw, did anyone notice that Ami Boue's map shows Kosovo entirely Serbian/Bulgarian? Just sayin' Khirurg (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't imagined that single a map can lead into a dispute like that. Khirurg, if you oppose adding any other maps alleviating the POV concerns of others, then perhaps we should just remove all the 3 maps and be happy about it? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @SilentResident. Durraz0 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Khirurg:@Ahmet Q.: What more will a map add? The article says that According to a 1877 report by the Greek vice-consul, in Parga lived 365 Christian and 180 Muslim families.[23] In 1877 the predominant language in Parga was Greek since even the local Muslim element spoke Greek, while some of them also spoke Albanian Two questions: 1) What's the difference between writing what the official Greek position was and depicting it on a map? 2)What's the point in depicting different views which are already written in the article? This dispute is not worth the hours which might be spent here. @SilentResident: Agreed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The map has nothing to do with the official Greek position. It is made by Heinrich Kiepert, the most renowned cartographer of his day. The map is in general very accurate and fair, and shows with great accuracy those areas that were mixed Greek/Albanian, e.g. Chameria. If the dispute is not worth your time, then don't get involved. Khirurg (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The three low quality maps made by apparently outdated/biased sources of the 19th century have been removed from the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ktrimi991, I think the logical step now is to open a rfc to resolve the content dispute, and it should obviously be written in a NPOV. Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first reaction of the British to the map of Kiepert (used at the Berlin Congress) was a map published by the British Stanford based on the work of Joannis Gennadios, which redrew the ethnic pattern of the peninsula according to Greek interests in order to hinder the justification of Greater Bulgaria (nevertheless it was still anti-Turkish confirming Greek claims over Ottoman territories). This attitude was repeated later at Nikolaidis (1899), Phokas Cosmetatos and Colocotronis (1919), and even Kiepert revised his views. The basic thesis of these maps was that Bulgarophone patriarchists and orthodox Albanians are Greek indeed (in contradiction to Boué‘s map, where the territory to the Gulf of Arta was considered Albanian in Epirus). All 19th century maps are informed by the politics of their era.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


 Comment: My opinion is that none here can feel happy with the talk page discussion's direction, IMO. The responses in the Talk page show that everything is being seen or turned into some sort of a nationalist competition. The discussion is disheartening. @Ahmet Q. and Maleschreiber, I am just noting that this is the second time in the past few days that I am seeing both of you involved with nationalist disputes in articles of the WP:BALKANS topic area, that came to my notice. Just in few days. First at Muhammad Ali of Egypt article, where different POVs wouldn't be tolerated by you, and then here at Parga, where the different POVs would be clumsily tolerated. I personally am in favor of covering different POVs, but double standards like the ones here and there, are just disturbing and hypocritical. @Everyone: in the next related AE discussion, I will have to notify the admins of what happened there and here in the Balkan articles. I am out. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to reflect on the meaning of what a POV is because as you saw in the previous ANI discussion, supporting Option 1 and not Option 2 doesn't make any Option - by default - part of a "nationalist dispute" . Now, I supported Option 3 which you proposed in order to avoid a dispute about either Option 1 or Option 2. It's an outcome which doesn't involve editing disputes. In my book, that's progress. Thank you for the discussion. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That last excerpt probably refers to this map, File:Ethnic map of Balkans Kiepert.1878.png, which is indeed as unrealistic as Boue's map. The map which is based on Aravantinos' data and focuses exclusively on Epirus is different, and in agreement with a number of other more neutral maps of the era. We also have other maps that focus on Epirus exclusively, and are nowhere near as good as the one based on Aravantinos' data, such as this one (based on data by Foundoulis and an anonymous Epirote). But regardless, i believe no map is required at the end of the day. No reason to have an ethnographic map of Epirus, let alone of the Balkans, in an article that focuses on a single settlement. Can't recall any other settlement having one; maybe i am wrong. Demetrios1993 (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Demetrios1993 (talk · contribs). It's interesting how cartography can change according to the criteria assigned by the cartographer. It may be an interesting subject for a future article. I think that most maps may have a "partial truth" to them, but when the scale of the discussion involves one small settlement or municipality it's very difficult and even unnecessary to try to depict ethnicity in the 19th century. You can just describe the opinions of the different reports about it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment imho, most people interested in reading this page couldn't care less about 19th century demographics. They are more interested probably in visiting Parga, a town with some places to see and a coast, etc, probably. I don't really think the map is all that relevant for our readers -- aside from the fact that I have serious doubts about the veracity of 19th century maps in the area of Balkan national movements and Great Power rivalry.--Calthinus (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

[edit]

This needs a careful explanation [[3]]: removing sourced material (Fleming) and replacing it with dubious reference (Xhufi) can be easily considered as disruptive editing.Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make out what part was removed. Afaics Cercok only added Xhufi, but didn't remove anyone. Alltan (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He changed two parts: 1. the activity of Greek rebels in Parga (cited by Vranousis): Greek -> anti-Ottoman though here is the case of Parga and that's sourced, 2. changed 'the constant state of conflict with the Albanians': "Albanians" => "Ottoman-controlled Margariti" (replaced A. Guido's with Xhufi's wording). Xhufi is wrong here since conflicts occurred not only with the Albanians from Margariti but also with Albanians with other adjacent regions (Ali Pasha for example wasn't based on Margariti).Alexikoua (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats' not removing sources though per se. I am not too familiar with the subject, so I would say it should be discussed here between those involved. However, the link about the 1570s revolt should not link as "Greek revolt" but "Anti-Ottoman revolt" instead. The character of the local rebels can be expanded on in following sentences. (Also don't remove Xhufi.) Alltan (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You had blatantly distorted Guido's wording from in conflict with Albanians to the very different subject to raids by Ottoman Albanian bands. Care to explain how that happened?
- I did not remove Fleming, that is just another untruthfulness from you.
- I did not remove Guido, I expanded on his remark with information from Xhufi2017 (primary source citation as usual). Guido says that as a border area, Parga was often in conflict with Albanians. Xhufi's more in-depth material clarifies that while under Venetian control, it was primarily a conflict with Margariti, which was just on the other side of the border (if you want to mention Albanians of Margariti, I don't mind), and the Venetian authorities planned policies to resolve such conflicts. Furthermore, the Venetians explicitly mention Albanians who were loyal to them who controlled the area around Parga. So there were Albanians on both sides. This addition clarifies the nature of the conflict and enriches the article overall.
- Ali Pasha's period is much later, after the Venetians lost the city. You can add details from it further ahead in the article if you want. Çerçok (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't change Guido's wording "with information from Xhufi". That is WP:SYNTH and falsification. The original wording from Guido will be restored. Khirurg (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restored? You mean added to the article for the first time ever, because what Alexikoua had put there had nothing to do with it. As I said, if you want to add Albanian near Margariti, that is ok for me, but otherwise the current version should not change. Çerçok (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I'm afraid there is no WP:CONSENSUS for citing Xhufi as a source. Editors are reminded that they have to take the sensitivities of others, including mine and seek consensus before reinstating such dubious sources back into articles. Considering that at least 2 editors have strongly opposed to the use of Xhufi as a reliable source, editors are called into Decision making and reaching consensus which involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines., and I am sure if WP:VERIFIABILITY of the information is not the issue here, then a solution to the problem is to have the information be verified by WP:RS, and by that, I mean actual WP:RS by independent scholars, not extremist politicians. Before I can consent to the addition of the information, and considering the nature of the particular source, I ask that the editors verify the same information by providing reliable third party independent sources. Only then I can be certain it is not a biased information and my concerns are soothed. By the way, the RSN report on Xhufi is about to be submitted soon, as I am gathering the final bits of information on Xhufi with the information on that politician by independent, third party scholars and academics. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, consensus is not based on mine or your "sensitivities", it's based on sources. You simply can not remove an author because he is infringing on your POV. That is just not going to happen. I don't agree with some authors either, but I am not going to expect of you to remove them because they are upsetting to me. Any user can have any POV he wants. Some may see him as RS, some may see him as something else.
When there are 2 RSN reports which fail to take that author down, plus admin confirmation on the matter, you can not expect other users to respect your sensitivities and try to obtain consensus on him just for that. That is not how Wikipedia works. Since you will post the RSN soon and will easily prove he is not RS (third time's the charm) I suggest you just hold off on removing him until that inevitably happens.
Besides, although I do hold off on using him out of respect for the third RSN, you can't really expect other users to be down for that. Sorry. Alltan (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You got me wrong, I am afraid. I am trying to verify the information you are trying to insert to the article, so clearly, as you see, this isn't an issue regarding POV here but an issue of VERIFIABILITY. That's why I have asked explicitely above that "a solution to the problem is to have the information be verified by WP:RS, and by that, I mean actual WP:RS by independent scholars." Please can you help us verify the information you are trying to add, by providing any third-party RS on the matter? Any independent source suffices for the verification, and would prove more than enough to soothe my concerns. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could have said that without posting an ANI. Then again the results there were pretty predictable [4]. Alltan (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is predictable: Either we can resolve the dispute by providing third party WP:RS to verify the content, or use any forms of dispute resolution. Else, any edit warring against consensus will end up on the AN/3RR. I prefer that editors refrain from edit warring, respect other's concerns, and provide third-party independent WP:RS verifying the extremist politician's claims. Any sources please? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike edit warring. But the discussion can not be based on the assumption that the source is extremist. In my opinion, the best way to go about this is to examine what Xhufi is saying. These are the sentences in question: Venetian-controlled Parga was in this period in frequent property-related conflict with neighboring, Ottoman-controlled Margariti.... The General Commander of the Venetian Fleet, Sebastiano Vernier preferred a cautious policy of conflict resolution with the inhabitants of Margariti, as well as friendly relation with the Albanians loyal to Venice who controlled the area around Parga itself. As for the first I agree with the suggestion of Cercok that we should add sth like Albanians of Margariti into it. What do you see as needing further verification in the second source? This part for example: Albanians loyal to Venice who controlled the area around Parga itself. is not that different of a view than Guido's This was a typical border town , which like so many of its neighbours , was in a constant state of conflict with the Albanians. Alltan (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet your side is edit warring without waiting for any dispute resolution on the talk page. Again, I m asking for a 3rd time: Do you have third-party RS verifying the information? For me, the following sentence is important since it is a claim not verified by Guido: "Albanians loyal to Venice who controlled the area around Parga itself." While no WP:RS is disputing Guido Amoretti, RS is disputing Xhufi's reliability who has the tedency of promoting the prominence of certain ethnic groups in areas to prove a point not verified by other scholars and this is characteristic of nationalist scholarship which is a no-go for me. If you cannot provide sources verifying this information about the X group controlled such an important strategically area, then User:Uniacademic will have to self-revert: [5] and only keep Guido in it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will say this once. I am not part of any side and will request of you to not characterize me as such further. Now, since Xhufi is RS (according to the community of Wikipedia) and the particular statement in bold of his is not disputed by any other author, he will stay in the article in Wikivoice, per standard policy, and will in the lack of opposing views not necessitate further confirmation at this time. The rest of your comment I would advise to be reserved for your RSN report. Alltan (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now, since Xhufi is RS (according to the community of Wikipedia). Can you point me to the consensus that he is RS?? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As several editors pointed Xhufi is quite popular in some Albanian TV shows for comments that fall in the field of internal national consumption: "monoscopic", "stereotypic", "nationalist", "misrepresentation of sources", "distortion of sourced material", are usual adjectives used for his work in scholarship, both inside and outside of his country, in order to promote ethnic purity scenarios. Alexikoua (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Xhufi has been used in Wikipedia since at least 2014 (as far as I have looked). Only in the past year have some editors tried to frame him as not being a RS. The onus is on the editors who claim he is NOT a RS to prove it. I will refrain from posting about Xhufi in this TP now. If you are that convinced he is not RS post a RSN. @Alexikoua same goes for you. Alltan (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this [[6]] does he state that Himara is exclusively populated by ethnic Albanians?.@Altan: Only in past have some editors tried to add his extreme views in articles that concern Himara & southern Albania. He presents a quite different picture compared to neutral bibliography. Alexikoua (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua please tag me correctly. And also please just post a RSN. Alltan (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Xhufi isn't the only part of promoting POV in a variety of articles. This kind of disruption is combined with the massive removal of several top graded scholars: Hassiotis, Vakalopoulos, Skendi and Tsiknakis among them.Alexikoua (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't discuss topics outside of the scope of this article in this TP. As for Xhufi, see [7]. Alltan (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that you read and criticize his academic work. Youtube titles and tabloid headlines are better left for their respective comment sections. Çerçok (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident Your request for third-party verification is equal to full censorship. Sources are cited when they bring new evidence, not to reinforce existing ones. Xhufi is RS until proven otherwise. Sakellariou and his co-authors, on the other hand, have been caught falsifying primary sources on multiple occasions. Çerçok (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian speakers

[edit]

@Khirurg, I am refering to page 173, "Aside from the Arvanitika settlements themselves, there are speakers of southern Albanian dialects, in particular Çamërian, in many settlements along the border region, from Florina (Alb. Follorina) and Kastoria (Alb. Kosturi) in the east, to Parga (Alb. Parga), Igoumenitsa (Alb. Gumenica), and Filiates (Alb. Filati) in the west on the Ionian Sea.". AlexBachmann (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on p. 264, he's refering to "traditional settlements of Chamerian dialect speakers". AlexBachmann (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, we all do know that more and more people from neighboring minor towns are moving to bigger cities (in this case, Parga). AlexBachmann (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: Berat and Vlore have still Greek speakers too, per Winnifrith and Petiffer. Under the same rationale those cities need to have their Greek name on 1st line.Alexikoua (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Florina and Kastoria as part of Cameria? This is complete fiction Cameria doesn't reach nw Macedonia. We need to prefer wp:SECONDARY on such cases.Alexikoua (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. There is no way that Florina and Kastoria can be considered in Chameria, and any source that does is incorrect and calls into question its accuracy. Khirurg (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't say Kastoria or Florina is in Chameria though. He says of the Albanian dialects (excluding Arvanitika), Cham in particular is spoken. But he doesn't actually specify Cham as being spoken in Kastoria etc. Besides, I don't even think those cities should have Albanian in their Lede, since they were if anything mostly Slavic speaking. The Albanian community there has never been as influential or significant as it has been in Chameria or the rest of Epirus for that matter. At least from what sources we have available. Alltan (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Florina and Kastoria do not belong to Chameria, that is clear. It has been populated by Albanians through history though. In addition, Berat and Vlora almost don't have any Greek influence (excluding the Ancient toponym Aulona, but you can't add the Ancient Greek name to Marseille only due to the Greek foundation), while the cities in Thesprotia are high Albanian-influenced (especially linguistically and historically). Should I add the Albanian name to Athens because of the immigrants and Arvanites? There is a difference between a significant population and a not so significant one. In addition, Elsie Robert is an RS. I also support Alltan's position.
Additionally, we all do agree that the towns around Parga are partly Albanian-speaking, don't we? (Agia, Anthousa, Ammoudia, etc.). And we all do know that people from minor towns move to bigger ones.
Also, do you have a source that the Greeks living in Vlora speak Greek and not Albanian?
Apart from that, you use a 1995 source to claim that certain villages are solely populated by Greeks (Kallivretakis, Leonidas (1995)) (Example: Lefterhor, Bodrishtë, Çaush, Jermë, Pllakë, Vurgu i Ri, etc.). But due to the emigration to Greece, this information may not be correct. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Elsie is incorrect that Cham Albanian is spoken in Kastoria and Florina: in particular Çamërian, in many settlements along the border region, from Florina (Alb. Follorina) and Kastoria (Alb. Kosturi). We all know this to be incorrect. "Reliable source" does not mean "infallible source". He is clearly incorrect about Kastoria and Florina, so there is no reaosn to believe this may not be the case with Parga. It is also a case of WP:TRIVIALMENTION. This clearly needs a better source. Khirurg (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alltan is still on a desperate rv only strategy [[8]]. Florina and Kastoria are not part of Chameria. In fact even in the most extreme nationalistic view in Albania does not stretch Chameria so far.Alexikoua (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about Çamërian, not Çamëria... The dialect that is spoken there may be close related to Çamërian or identical, because I can not imagine Lab-speakers in Kostur or Florina AlexBachmann (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


(unindent) Yes I know he is talking about "Camerian". That's the whole point, Elsie is incorrect that Cham Albanian is spoken in Kastoria and Florina: in particular Çamërian, in many settlements along the border region, from Florina (Alb. Follorina) and Kastoria (Alb. Kosturi). We all know this to be incorrect. The dialect spoken in the villages of Florina is NOT the Cham dialect, that is totally wrong. "Reliable source" does not mean "infallible source". He is clearly incorrect about Kastoria and Florina, so there is no reaosn to believe this may not be the case with Parga. It is also a case of WP:TRIVIALMENTION. This clearly needs a better source. I remember that very recently an academic source, definitely reliable, was removed from Delvine because it claimed that the inhabitants used Greek as their primary language. Several users thought it was incorrect and removed the source. I found it odd too, so I didn't revert. But the source was 100% reliable. So no, "reliable" does not mean "infallible". Sources can be incorrect, even reliable ones. Khirurg (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Camerian" dialect in Florina and Kastoria if you mean that because those cities are quite far from what is called Chameria (if Albanian speakers were still found they would speak another variant of Tosk). This activity constitutes wp:OWN at least.Alexikoua (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guys. It says: "Aside from the Arvanitika settlements themselves, there are speakers of southern Albanian dialects, in particular Çamërian [...] "
He says in particular. I think he connects the Albanians in Kastoria and Florina with the "speakers of southern Albanian dialects" AlexBachmann (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly it says in particular, not mainly, stating that all this settlements or supposed to speak Camerian. By the way the same work does say that southern Albania is known to Greek as Northern Epirus. I can only wonder why you and Alltan are removing N.E. in reference to this region but at the same time pushing the Albanian POV about Chameria. You are simply pushing a certain extreme national POV and that's not productive here.Alexikoua (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elsie clearly states there are "Camerian" speakers in Kastoria and Florina (not Arvanitika), which we all know is incorrect. Look, I have no issue with the neighboring settlements like Agia, Margariti, and Anthousa, but this is a real stretch. Khirurg (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"in particular" does not mean exclusively. He says that the majority speakers along the Albanian border speak the Cham-Dialect, but he does not refer the Albanians in Florina and Kastoria as Cham Speakers. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in particular Çamërian, in many settlements along the border region, from Florina (Alb. Follorina) and Kastoria (Alb. Kosturi). Forget it. Pretending not to notice is not going to help. Khirurg (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear some neutral statements, from neutral users. I am not the one who is ignoring some words, you are the one. You obvoiusly don't know the meaning of in particular. The "in particular Chamerian" is an inserted sentence. He is refering Chamerian to the majority, while other group are speakers of "southern Albanian dialects" AlexBachmann (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to take it to wp:ANI, if you believe that you need further input about this kind of Cameria POV .Alexikoua (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexBachmann Can you quote the full sentence please? Çerçok (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean this one? Page 173, "Aside from the Arvanitika settlements themselves, there are speakers of southern Albanian dialects, in particular Çamërian, in many settlements along the border region, from Florina (Alb. Follorina) and Kastoria (Alb. Kosturi) in the east, to Parga (Alb. Parga), Igoumenitsa (Alb. Gumenica), and Filiates (Alb. Filati) in the west on the Ionian Sea." AlexBachmann (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fanari

[edit]

Fanari is one of the two municipal units of Parga. 21/24 settlements in Parga municipality are part of Fanari.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current (wider) municipality incorporates also Fanari. Fanari was one of regions in Greece that suffered from several atrocities committed by Axis troops; and their collaborators. Nevertheless as a historical region is does not belong to Parga. Alexikoua (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maleschreiber, which source mentions Fanari? I searched Elsie but he does not mention it as far as a I can tell. Alexikoua is also correct that historically Fanari is separate from Parga. Khirurg (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, according to Tom Winnifrith, even by the end of the 20th century Albanian had virtually disappeared from the region. ("Badlands Borderlands, 2002). Khirurg (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Winnifrith describes a broad generalization 20 years ago. It is neither relevant today, nor applicable to all areas of Epirus. It is equivalent to using a source which describes the general reduction in the number of Greek-speakers in southern Albania as a counter-argument to the description of villages in Dropull as Greek-speaking. The sentence which describes Fanari cites Tsoutsoumpis (2016) and Baltsiotis (2014) - there are many other sources. Fanari is the largest part of the Parga municipality and I don't think that it can be argued in favor of removing information about it. Instead of excluding information about other communities, you can add information about the Greek community in the port of Parga.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "Greek community" - the town and surrounding areas, indeed all of Epirus, is Greek through and through. This is not the 19th century, there is no "millet system" and there are no "communities". This is very outdated sectarian thinking on your part. Winnifrith has the right of it, Albanian had virtually disappeared from the region. The language receives no encouragement, in fact it is actively discouraged, and the old do not transmit it to the young. If it is still spoken at all, it's only by older people at home. The fact that it's from 20 years ago is even worse for the irredentist POV: If it had virtually disappeared 20 years ago, it's even more disappeared now. NPOV requires that if Albanian is still spoken is mentioned three times, then the fact that it is spoken by only very few people should also be mentioned. I realize you may not like this reality, but it is the present reality, there's nothing else to it. Khirurg (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses just what the sources discuss which is that Albanian is presently spoken in Fanari. Your interpretation and personal beliefs are beyond the scope of WP:RS.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maleschreiber. Khirgurg needs to stop hanging continuously on a source that isn't even valid today. Aside from that, we all know that there are Chams in Epirus. If you don't like that, Wikipedia is a wrong place for you. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maleschreiber: The sources discuss that Albanian has virtually disappeared from the region. Winnifrith has traveled extensively in the region and is a top notch source. Attempts to keep this information out will fail. Khirurg (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg: You can't invoke a generic statement by Winnifrith (1992) who doesn't even mention Fanari to remove content based on sources written & published 20 years later about the region. You know how WP:RS works.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg: Hart's statement about the identification of Christian Albanian speakers fits perfectly in all cases of such communities in Epirus [[9]].Alexikoua (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of questioned quality

[edit]

There has been an addition based on offline sources [[10]] that also fail wp:VERIFY not to mention that the second citation needs also to be checked for RS, apart from that I can't see how this addition adds to the quality of the article since we have already plenty of information about Ottoman era demographics based on RS that can be verified.Alexikoua (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief search of the recently added citation I'm certain that it can't pass RS. Declarations such as this one [[11]] are not the best ones in terms of neutrality (titled: Albanian autochtony in Chameria-Epirus and concluding that the present Cham diaspora exceeds 1 million members & finally several cities in Greece are marked as 'southern Albanian' including Grevena)...Alexikoua (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure it adds to the article by mentioning the Albanian population by a contemporary firsthand source. Should we delete the writings of Ptolemy because they are old source? Southern Albanian is an ethnic subgroup and surely Chams Suliotes and Arvanites belong to southern Albanian subgroup there is no Propaganda in that. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object the addition of such kind of information but I'm concerned about the neutrality of the descriptions in the specific work. For example about Arta it's mentioned that it belongs to Albania & an important city of Chameria that was eventually conquered by Greece. Another issue is that the territory inhabited by the Mazarakii is not part of the current territory of Parga as such the region described by P. Reis isn't representative to the region described in this article.Alexikoua (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No he was refering to the mountain named Mizrak not to the Albanian tribe of Mazreku. Don't twist the information. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not found near Parga. By the way you mean Mazaraki?Alexikoua (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know its written by Piri Reis not me. A mountain named Mizrak near Parga. Its not POV pushing only when you dont like it. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Near Parga doesn't mean in Parga municipality. I also suggest to follow wp:RS, this kind of material falls clarly into partisan bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2024

[edit]

I added demigraphic info with sources but for almost no reason my edits keep getting removed by people and now the page is protected,i simply want to revert the page to my last edit Oddsourceuser (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating edits is edit warring which is not permitted. When changes are contested, it is necessary to use this page to explain why a proposed change would be desirable, and what reliable source would be appropriate. See dispute resolution. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parga&oldid=1256121286"