Talk:Zagori

Photo request

Image:Vikos-gorge-copyright-onno-zweers.jpg looks great, but it's copyrighted. —Keenan Pepper 22:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations, expanded the article and added a photograph. If no one disagrees, I will remove the request for citations, dated from 2006. Skamnelis (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion on name and scope of article

The region of Zagori extends in both Albania and Greece. Either this article covers the entire region, or we have to move it to Zagori, Greece. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sulmues, you should check again your sources. There are two diferrent regions without common borders, one in Greece the other Zagorie in Albania. I believe there is in Bulgaria a similar place too (stara Zagora).Alexikoua (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one in Albania is officially called Zagori, not Zagorie. Zagorie is dialect. I doubt that there are two adjacent regions with the same name, and I'll find you some sources that the region is one whole, which got separated when Albania was created in 1912. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, so far I didn't find anything. I admit my ignorance in the subject. My impression was that the region extended between the two countries, but I'm probably wrong. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 14:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relation between the two regions. Zagori was an autonomous region during the Ottoman period and it was confined to the area discussed in this article. Neither the Albanian language nor the Turkish language were spoken. There were only Greek schools. If there is another Zagori in Albania, it is not related to the Greek region. On a somewhat related possible confusion: I have found a comment in the article that there are Albanian placenames in Western Zagori. Specifically which?Skamnelis (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

A few days ago I finally managed to review Alexikoua's latest edits. Alexikoua claims that Oikonomou (1986) has gathered statistics about toponymy in the Zagori region on p. 869. The author provides no statistics on p.869, but he does so on p.970. This was particularly difficult to verify because the editor (Alexikoua) didn't provide quotes in their native language, nor does the file have a pdf version available. So, unless you go through the process of converting to a pdf file and then searching from page to page until you stumble upon statistics, no editor would ever be able to verify it. I can WP:AGF but there have been too many source mistakes by the same editor who has regularly made such use of bibliography. A wrong page was provided, but the information on the correct page doesn't confirm Alexikoua's claims. Oikonomou doesn't even classify toponymy in terms of simple, linguistically unmediated etymology.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua: I have asked for a quote from the thesis. I have downloaded the thesis, I have converted it to pdf (translation purposes) and now I'm looking at pages 970 (information on toponymy), and 971 (information on microtoponymy). You have to provide a full quote which verifies that In a 1986 study on the local toponyms c. 70% are Greek, 13% Aromanian, 8,3% Slavic, 5,2% Albanian and 2,2% Turkish--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not exactly the best agf pattern: getting rid of the entire part with a summary that this is not found in source. Anyway, the source is online, page has been corrected and quote has been provided now. Alexikoua (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You provided a half quote - the full quote says something else. It says that 70% of toponyms used today are mediated via the Greek language, 30% are mediated via other languages and 0.5% are mediated in a hybridized form. That's this first order of categorization. Then in the second order of categorization, he examines their origin/etymology - of which 56% Greek, 14% is Aromanian, 11.5%% Slavic, 6% Albanian, 2.5% Latin, 4.8% Turkish, 3.3% of mixed linguistic origin. You took the mediation percentages and applied them to the linguistic origin percentages. It's wrong.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you completely misunderstood the sourced text, those percentages include loanwords that were already part of the Greek language. Good job by doing the math yourself but no wonder the source does not even mention those percentages.Alexikoua (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't - the page has a table with linguistic origins [1] 56,05% Greek. So far, you quoted the wrong page, then you quoted a cropped quote and now you're actively claiming that the source puts forward something which it never does the local toponyms c. 70% are Greek, 13% Aromanian, 8,3% Slavic, 5,2% Albanian and 2,2% Turkish.

@Macrakis: @Cplakidas: great editors and native Greek speakers. I apologize for the abuse of your time, but Alexikoua (a native Greek speaker) claims that the toponyms of Zagori the local toponyms c. 70% are Greek, 13% Aromanian, 8,3% Slavic, 5,2% Albanian and 2,2% Turkish. This is a false claim as a continuation of bad use of bibliography (wrong page, cropped quote). I'm not interested in showing that X percentage of Y language was present in Zagori, it would be a very petty point to go through the verification process which I have described in order to show that Albanian toponyms are 6% instead of 5% as in Alexikoua's claim. My insistence has to do with the fact that bibliography is being used in a way that misleads the readers.

The source categorizes (1) language mediation (70% Greek/30% non-Greek) and then (2) language of origin for (a) toponymy and on page 972 does the same for (b) microtoponymy. Can you please do a verification? --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are kidding me. You did the math yourself for all non-Greek origins, that's not an excuse to replace the sourced material.Alexikoua (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oikonomou (1986) says "56.06% Greek", not I. Also, if by "you did the math" you mean that I added (that's not "math") the Turkish toponyms (2.62%) which are found via Greek mediation with the 2.23% Turkish toponyms which are unmediated then read WP:CALC. And I can break them down in their two respective categories per the two tables which Oikonomou (1986) has produced, the figures are still the same. The only thing that appears nowhere is your claim that c. 70% are Greek, 13% Aromanian, 8,3% Slavic, 5,2% Albanian and 2,2% Turkish.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maleschreiber and Alexikoua: Per p. 971, the total percentages for the toponyms originating in each language are: Greek 56.06%, Latin 2.59%+0.99%, Slavic 3,33%+8,29%, Aromanian 1,18%+13,06%, Turkish 2,62%+5,19%, mixed 3,33%+2,23%. Constantine ✍ 23:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed both percentages for a better understanding. Loanwords that are part of the local Greek idiom need to be stated as such.Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thank you, Constantine. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Constantine. It appears that I was correct and some math was needed as I've stated. They can stay next to the initial data.Alexikoua (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You put forward something that is not at all in the source and then added the wrong page and a cropped quote which mislead the readers.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand this new accusation you launched against me. About my addition: Everything about those numbers (without doing calculations) is clearly stated in the source and no wonder the quote I provided is still here [[2]]. So it's up to you to exlain the reason for this removal.Alexikoua (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]