Talk:Peter Losha

Origin

I provided some references about the origin of Losha.They said he was Albanian.Then someone deleted them .Now there is a reference that says that Albanians consider him Albanian.In fact Albanian scholars aren't the only who "consider" him Albanian.So my references need to be restored.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please use reliable sources on the matter, and follow neutrality – include research, elaboration, explanation. It is known that the large migrant community included Vlachs. Madgearu mentions that Albanian historians view him as Albanian, while a Vlach theory exists (in non-Albanian sources), note his words. Sufflay discussed the origin of Losha, Bua and Spata and noted an "Albano-Aromunian symbiosis". Note also, that Elsie says "According to Albanian writer Ekrem bey... stemming from Albanian family", which is only a secondary citation of an Albanian historians' view, obviously redundant in the research into the origin (having no precedence over Madgearu).--Zoupan 08:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Good work Zouapan!Elsie says "One early Albanian ruler of the region was Peter Losha...".Then he says "According to Albanian writer Ekrem bey Vlora (1885-1964), Losha stemmed from a leading Albanian family that led some 10,000 Albanians to the plains to Thessaly between 1220-1235" .Obviously Elsie cites the albanian writer when says that his family led 10000 Albanians.Elsie said that Losha was Albania before he started citing Vlora. Also,you can see these :If you want more,please tell me.And my other reference,why did you delete it?Rolandi+ (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

References

I don't think you grasp the English language sufficiently, obviously not understanding the context. There is no dispute over the use of the term "Albanian" when describing this person (it is a demonym). The citations you presented do not give any insight in the question – terms such as Albanian chieftain and Albanian ruler are not to be taken literally, obviously. The elaborating, neutral, referenced sentence is not to be altered at this stage. I added information on the Albanian migration, which included Albanians and Vlachs. --Zoupan 11:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If the modern scholars want to say that Malakasi were vlachs,they say Vlachs (without demonym).If the modern scholars want to say that Losha were vlachs,they say Vlachs (without demonym) as your source does.So if they say that Losha were Albanian,it means Albanian and not Vlachs.You are working with two standarts.The claim that Losha was an Albanian tribe will be added.The claim that they were Albanians will be added.And stop deleting all my edits and working with two standarts. Rolandi+ (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Arshi Pipa (1978). Albanian Folk Verse: Structure and Genre. Trofenik. ISBN 978-3-87828-119-1. The tribe of Malakasi, an Aromunian village in the Great Vlachia 16°, played a considerable role in the history of Epirus in the 14th century

There are no standards, but guidelines and policies, which you don't respect.--Zoupan 10:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is what I'm saying.If a modern scholar (Hammond,Pipa,Fine etc) refer to Malakasi,Losha,Spata etc as Vlachs ,they use the word "Vlachs"(they are not using demonyms).So if they say Losha was Albanian,it means that they are refering to him as Albanian.When refering to Malakasi,they don't use the demonym "Albanian".When refering to Losha,Magderu uses the word "Vlach" and not "Albanian" as a demonym.It means that if a modern scholar refers to Losha as Albanian,it means that the scholar says that Losha was Albanian and it's not a demonym.It's clear!So the Albanian hypothesis will be added!And the next time try staying neutral!Rolandi+ (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As said before, you don't grasp English enough to understand what the authors and I'm saying... Do you understand what demonym means? The introduction already has "Albanian nobleman", while the biography section elaborates on the tribes and their origin. If you add "Peter Losha was (ethnic) Albanian.[ref]" before the elaborating text you are not neutral. How can't you understand this?--Zoupan 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly,don't tell me what demonym means.The reference says "the first Albanian..." and it means that he was Albanian.Obviously,the scholars who think that he was Vlach,refer to him as Vlach."Albanian tribe " means that Losha was an Albanian ethnic family.According to you,"Vlach" means Vlach,while "Albanian" means Vlach or Albanian.So the Albanian hypothesis will be added!Rolandi+ (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The term Vlach can not be used as demonym in this case. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is what I am saying,there are not demonyms here!So everything is solved finally!Both Albanian and Vlach hypothesis will be included,not just the Vlach hypothesis.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not say there are no demonyms here. I said that "The term Vlach can not be used as demonym in this case." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes ,because when refering to ethnic Vlachs these modern scholars use the term "Vlach"..Finally solved!Rolandi+ (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No doubt you know that in this context the term Albanian is frequently used as demonym, unlike the term Vlach. No doubt you know that many Albanians are of Vlach or Greek or of some other ethnicity. Somebody could see your comments as refusal to get the point. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"No doubt you know that many Albanians are of Vlach or Greek or of some other ethnicity".And what does this mean??? Don't try involving your personal views here!These modern scholars have used the term "Vlach" when referring to people of Vlach ethnicity.Rolandi+ (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources may describe Losha as "Albanian chieftain", "Albanian ruler" etc., as indeed this very article says "Albanian nobleman" in the first sentence. This is obviously "Albanian" used as a demonym. Regarding ethnicity/origin, the picture is more blurred, which again is reflected in the current text of the article, where both the "Albanian hypothesis" and the "Vlach hypothesis" are mentioned and discussed. So @Rolandi+: What do you actually mean by saying that "The Albanian hypothesis will be added!"? At far as I can see, it is already there. Could you please specify exactly what changes you suggest to make and what sources you suggest to use. --T*U (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The article says "Albanian historians consider him Albanian" which looks like that only Albanian historians consider him Albanian (origin). Elsie says that "Epirus was a mix of Albanians,Greeks and Vlachs.One early Albanian ruler of the region was Peter Losha". Also Sakellariou says "Arta and Rogoi were assigned to another Albanian, Peter Losha". Also Fine ("The Late Medieval Balkans",pp.351) includes Losha (Liosha) at Albanian tribes. The idea is to change the part that says "Albanian historians consider him Albanian".There are many non-Albanian scholars who says that Losha were of Albanian origin.Rolandi+ (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Next question, then: Does any of your sources explicitly discuss the ancestry/origin of Peter Losha? If they do, could you please present a quote supporting your claim. Or do you base your claim solely on the use of the adjective "Albanian"? If that is the case, you can not use the sources to contradict what is already sourced in the article about ancestry/origin. --T*U (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Albanian historians consider him Albanian" is well mentioned,while the fact that Madgearu is Aromanian isn't mentioned.If you look at that book,the authors clearly tries gloryfing the Vlachs,especially Aromanians.That book clearly lacks neutrality,but this fact isn't important to you! As I said,Elsie says that "Epirus was a mix of Albanians,Greeks and Vlachs.One early Albanian ruler of the region was Peter Losha". Elsie clearly separates Vlachs from Albanians in Epirus.There have been Greek,Venetian etc rulers in Epirus,while Losha was the first Albanian.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Nobody is challenging that Losha was an "Albanian ruler" (or an "Albanian nobleman" as written in this very article). But now we are discussing origins. My question was: "Does any of your sources explicitly discuss the ancestry/origin of Peter Losha?", and the answer so far is obviously negative. --T*U (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone who is of Albanian origin and lives/emigrates from Albania is called "Albanian".Scholars refer to him as "Albanian" and not "Albanian origin". However,we have to be realistic and neutral.The "Albanian" and "Vlach" hypothesis need to be deleted,unless other references will be provided.All provided references are clearly based in nationalistic sentiments.Albanian scholars are Albanians,Madgearu is A/Romanian,Destani and Jasini (co-writers with Elsie) are Albanians.In fact,the Croatian Sufflay is the only really neutral source here.So the "Albanian" and "Vlach" hypothesis need to be deleted!Rolandi+ (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No. You refuse to get the point.--Zoupan 15:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem here isn't "my refusal to get the point",but those nationalistic based references.The problem isn't me here,but your desire to use POV references as reliable ones!Oh,go to ANI and report me,this is all you can do,Zoupan!Madgearu tries glorifing Vlachs around the Balkans and that reference lacks neutrality!If you believe that Losha was Vlach,just go and find some non-Romanian sources.If you find them,it will be OK!Rolandi+ (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"All provided references are clearly based in nationalistic sentiments." Are you serious? Do you really mean that because an author is Romanian (not Aromanian, nor "A/Romanian", whatever that was supposed to indicate), he cannot be a reliable source? Or that Elsie is not reliable because he has Albanian co-writers? If you have questions about whether a source is reliable, you can raise it at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you are just grasping at straws, you would be well adviced to back slowly away from the horse. --T*U (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor:Yes I'm serious.However,since Madgearu isn't sure that Losha was Vlach,I'm trying to believe it.

Madgearu is a Romanian,so the text will be:"Many historians say he was of Albanian origin, while a Vlach (Aromanian) origin has also been given by historians".If you have sth against talk to me.Rolandi+ (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

For your information, that "ping" did not work. The ping function works only when you put it into a post that you sign and save. If you try to make a ping by editing an existing post, nothing happens. No problem in this case, since I watch the page, but good to know for later.

You claim to be serious when you say that "(a)ll provided references are clearly based in nationalistic sentiments". At the same time you want to change the text from "Albanian historians" to "Many historians" without any source.

Again: 1) If you have doubts about a source, you can raise it at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 2) If you can find sources to back up your claim that there are non-Albanian historians discussing ancestry/origins and concluding on Albanian, then we can change the text, not else. If not 1) or 2), then I suggest you drop the stick. --T*U (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Madgearu says "Albanian historians consider Gjin (or Ghinu) Buia and Peter Liosha Albanian, but it is sure that at least the Buia family was of Aromanian origin" meaning that Losha were of Albanian or Aromanian origin.The fact that Madgearu isn't sure if Losha was of Albanian or Aromanian origin doesn't mean that "Albanians consider him Albanian,while a Vlach (Aromanian) origin has also been given by historians".

Elsie cites Libohova (because he believes him) saying that he stemmed from an Albanian family that lede some 10000 Albanins to the plains to Thessaly.

Also,Fine(The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest pg.351/) says that Losha was an Albanian tribe.In pg.499 Fine says:" Liosha family (Albanian tribe)".

Many scholars (also Fine) when referring to Vlach tribes in Epirus say Vlach tribe and not Albanian tribe.

All sources refer to Losha as a Albanian family/tribe in Epirus.Rolandi+ (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Your "ping" did not work this time either. As I said: If you try to make a ping by editing an existing post, nothing happens.

I took the liberty of indenting your post, so that this sub-thread is clearly distinguished from the older posting below.

I still do not see any sources showing that there are non-Albanian historians discussing ancestry/origins and concluding on Albanian. Neither do I see any sources supporting your preferred text "Many historians..."

For fear of being uncivil, I will not even comment your "(because he believes him)". --T*U (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor:The most neutral choice is:"Albanian historians say he was of Albanian origin,while the Romanian historian Madgearu says he was Of Albanian or Aromanian origin.(As he says:"Albanian historians consider Liosha and Buia Albanian,but at least Buia was of Aromanian origin")Rolandi+ (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad that you finally have accepted the "Albanian historians" as long as nothing else is sourced. As for Madgearu, you cannot quote him that Losha is "Of Albanian or Aromanian origin", since he does not say that anywhere. Furthermore, you seem to forget that the other source (Sufflay according to Pipa) also states that the origin is disputed. Mentioning just Madgearu creates an impression that he is the only one. The current text covers both. --T*U (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Madgearu says "Albanian historians consider Liosha and Buia Albanian,but at least Buia was of Aromanian origin".He says at least Buia was Aromanian,he doesn't say that Buia and Losha were Aromanians.There is a difference between them.So the best choice is:"Albanian historians say he was of Albanian origin,while the Romanian historian Madgearu says he was Of Albanian or Aromanian origin".Rolandi+ (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

1) Please try to learn how to indent posts in talk pages!

2) I have answered this above. Nothing new here! --T*U (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Nothing new here as misinterpretation continues!Madgearu doesn't say Losha and Buia were Aromanians,he says at least Buia was Aromanian.He doesn't say anywhere that Losha was Albanian,but he doesn't say anywhere that Losha was Aromanian too.He says that at least Buia was Aromanian.It means that he says Losha was of Albanian or Aromanian origin,he isn't sure for Losha's origin.So please stop misinterpretations.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"He doesn't say anywhere that Losha was Albanian,but he doesn't say anywhere that Losha was Aromanian too." Correct! Then "he says Losha was of Albanian or Aromanian origin"??? No, he does not! That is your interpretation (or synthesis). The whole point is that that the origin is disputed, as also Sufflay (through Pipa) says. The current text covers that. Mentioning Madgearu the way you want to is misleading, since it creates the impression that he is the only one questioning the Albanian claim, which is untrue. --T*U (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Except of Sufflay,Madgearu is the only source I know that questions the Albanian claim (in fact there aren't many scholars who talk about Losha's origin).So it can be :"Albanian historians say he was of Albanian origin.The Romanian historian Madgearu says that he might have been of Aromanian origin.Croatian historian Milan Šufflay (1879-1931) spoke of an Albano-Aromanian symbiosis in the Pindus, and discussed the nationality of the Losha, Bua and Shpata".I know that it's not a very good choice but it's the only one we have to make this article as neutral as possible.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Get over it.--Zoupan 10:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zoupan: Why,because you want to misinterpret sources?Rolandi+ (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No, because you actually do, in the majority of cases, including this one.--Zoupan 10:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Except of Sufflay,Madgearu is the only source I know that questions the Albanian claim (in fact there aren't many scholars who talk about Losha's origin).So it can be :"Albanian historians say he was of Albanian origin.The Romanian historian Madgearu says that he might have been of Aromanian origin.Croatian historian Milan Šufflay (1879-1931) spoke of an Albano-Aromanian symbiosis in the Pindus, and discussed the nationality of the Losha, Bua and Shpata".I know that it's not a very good choice but it's the only one we have to make this article as neutral as possible.Rolandi+ (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It is fine that you have learned to ping correctly, but no need to ping me three times with the same message repeated twice. (I happen to have a life outside Wikipedia, too.) I do not understand why you insist on having Medgearu mentioned as if he was the only person in the world not supporting an Albanian origin, unless it is to make the (irrelevant) point that he is Romanian. And Madgearu does not say "that he might have been of Aromanian origin" either. You cannot start a sentence with "NN says ..." and then stating something NN has not said. I also do not understand what is not neutral about the current sentence "while a Vlach (Aromanian) origin has also been given", a sentence you yourself wanted to keep earlier. Please leave the poor horse alone now. --T*U (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Don't continue with these useless games.Madgearu and Sufflay doesn't say he was Aromanian.You use them as source for the Vlach claim.Why don't you use them also as a source for the Albanian origin?They put the Albanian origin in question but don't reject it!It means there isn't any specific proof for the Vlach claim.In fact no one rejects the Albanian origin.

"Albanian historians consider him Albanian" is so ridiculous.It looks like Albanians are falsificating the history.This isn't a problem for you.As Sufflay,some Albanian historians (not all Alb. historians have studied the origin of Losha) and Madgearu don't reject the Albanian origin it will be: "Beside the Albanian origin,an Aromanian has also been suggested".The Vlach claim can't be equalised with the Albanian claim.Two historians put the Albanian origin in question but no one of them can prove that he wasn't Albanian.Libohova is also cited by Elsie saying that Losha stemmed from an Albanian family.Elsie doesn't reject it.Rolandi+ (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a bit confusing that you now again refuse to accept "Albanian historians consider him Albanian", a formula you accepted earlier. Since that sentence is directly sourced and has not been refuted, I see no reason to change it. As for your current proposal for the second part, I am quite happy to change "has also been given by historians" to "has also been suggested". That would give "Albanian historians consider him Albanian, while a Vlach (Aromanian) origin has also been suggested; Croatian..." --T*U (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't have why to get confused!"Albanian historians consider him Albanian, while a Vlach (Aromanian) origin has also been suggested; Croatian..." looks like only Albanians consider him Albanian while foreign scholars reject the Alb. origin.This is not true.Madgearu+Sufflay don't reject the Albanian origin; Elsie accepts the Alb. origin as he cites Libohova about Losha's origin.The vlach origin is rejected by Albanian historians and Elsie while no one rejects the Alb. origin.This way the vlach claim can't be equalised with the Albanian claim as the first is an alternative origin which Madgearu and Sufflay fail to prove."Beside the Albanian origin,an Aromanian has also been suggested" is very good.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

My confusion was due to the fact that you first reject, then accept, and then reject again the "Albanian historians..." formula.

You argue against your own interpretation of the current text, what you think it "looks like". But the text does not say "only Albanian"; it says "Albanian". Nor does it say that "foreign scholars reject"; it says nothing about rejecting. You say that "Madgearu and Sufflay fail to prove", but they do not try to prove anything, they just report about other theories. --T*U (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"Many historians" and "Albanian historians" are not synonyms.--Zoupan 17:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)