Talk:Peloponnese

Map

This sentence contradicts the map:

The prefectures of Achaea and Ilia are also part of the peninsula, but are part of the West Greece periphery.

The map

shows Achaea shaded as part of the periphery but not Ilia (aka Elis).

West Greece also lists Ilia as a constituent but the map does not.

The German article] lists all the regions as belonging to the peninsula, so it's not clear which is correct or what is meant. -Wikibob | Talk 11:05, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

I corrected the map, see above. Markussep 07:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Peloponnese or Peloponnesos

I would have thought the English name was usually the Peloponnese. --Henrygb 23:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You'd be right. This is pedantic. Athens isn't under "Athina" or "Athinai", Corinth isn't under "Korinthos" and Cyprus isn't under "Kupros." Looks like a prime candidate for a page move to me - but that's already gotten me in hot water recently. --Jpbrenna 04:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's on the borderline. "Peloponnese" and the sum of "Peloponnesus" and "Peloponnesos" get approximately the same number of English-language google hits, while e.g. Corinth/Korinthos aren't even close. This would indicate that English usage is shifting to use the Greekthis articke SUZCZKS

name, much like Peking/Beijing and Bombay/Mumbai. --Delirium 23:16, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

But you have given greater empghasis to the Latin name. Why?--Henrygb 10:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia articles don't usually bold non-English scripts; for example, Russia doesn't put Росси́йская Федера́ция in boldface. I've left the transliteration bolded though, since it does seem to be used in English. --03:07, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

You mean non-Latin scripts? But you'd bold Latin-alphabet foreign language titles? I really think it's ludicrous to express preference for the "native" name and then fail to bold the name in the native alphabet. And you know what? Greeks don't call England το Ίγγλαντ, they call it Αγγλία, from the ancient Roman name. The call France "Gaul" and Deutschland "Germany" and Nederland "Holland" (Γαλλία, Γερμανία, Ολλανδία) and they smoke wherever the fuck they please and murder all the animals they want and eat them (except on Orthodox fasting days). They are generally a lot less PC than the US & UK, which is one of the things I like about the place. Notice that there aren't any Greeks here protesting this. This direct transliteration stuff is just nonsense. If we wanted to do a true phonetic transcription, we'd call it Peloponnisos. I guarantee you that won't get a lot of Google hits. One of the reasons Peloponnesos got all those hits is because every hotel owner and his uncle starts a webpage describing "Scenic Peloponnesos coast" and "Ego Fuit in Arcadia, Peloponnesos." Peloponnese is the English-language name for Πελοπόννησος. If you don't like it, stop speaking English. If you want to display some genuine cultural sensitivity, go cast your vote at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate/Votes --Jpbrenna 04:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the tone of that. I've been involved in too many page moves recently. I think I need a Wikibreak. --Jpbrenna 04:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Except that Peloponnese isn't clearly the English-language name. It is the historical name, but is falling out of English-language usage. Most modern English-language articles, both scholarly and in the popular press, use Peloponnesos or Peloponnesus or some variant of a Latin or Greek transliteration. See for example the Columbia Encyclopedia's article, among many others. You'd be correct if this were 1850 though, as at that time Peloponnese was indeed the predominant usage. --Delirium 00:36, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Peloponnesos → Peloponnese. The latter is the traditional name in English, and gets the most inward links. Just requires deletion of a history of redirects, but as I suggested this (15 Sep 2004), it might be better if somebody else did it. --Henrygb 09:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looking at the "What Links Here" section, I find that the vast majority of articles link to "Peloponnese" and are redirected here. It wouldn't be terribly disruptive to move this, and it really does belong at "Peloponnese." --Jpbrenna 22:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 11:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. Peloponnese is a legacy usage, common in the 19th century but uncommon today—Peloponnesus gets over 1.1 million google hits, while Peloponnese gets under 300 thousand. No other major encyclopedia uses it, unless we count EB 1911, which incidentally is where many of those incoming links to Peloponnese on Wikipedia are from. We might as well move Beijing to Peking while we're at it. --Delirium 00:41, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your Google count is way off. And the vast majority of the "Peloponnesus" hits come from pages from Germany. Try a search restricted to site:.com, site:.edu, site:.uk, or site:.gr. Then compare with site:.de. Or compare [1] with [2]--Henrygb 15:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

peninsula or island

As there is the Corinth Canal accross the Isthmus of Corinth I think that Peloponnese is an island not a peninsula. Jon513 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article says the same thing. But we do not usually call places islands just because of canals, any more than we stop calling them islands because of a bridge. --Henrygb 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

in Corinth Canal it is called an island. Jon513 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Split

This article clearly needs to be split, creating a Peloponnese (periphery) article, just like is the case for Epirus; this because there is a clear distinction between the borders and the extension of the peninsula and those of the periphery.--Aldux 13:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The Penisular named the peloponnese should be the first article, the political divisions and seperation of taxation zones such as Western Greece should be the second article. Reaper7 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Peloponnese: can this really be situated south of the Gulf of Mexico?

The Peloponnese or Peloponnesus (Greek: Πελοπόννησος Peloponnesos; see also List of traditional Greek place names) is a large peninsula in southern Greece, forming the part of the country south of the Gulf of Mexico.

Stupid

The pensinular is called the Peloponnese. That is the first thing to teach and explain to someone who reads the article. That is what should be highlighted on the map. Later the different districts can be discussed and govt divisions with Western Greece ect. Anyone looking at the stupid map at the top page and not knowing the region would believe that Patras is not in the Peloponnese. Reaper7 03:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Maps and Pictures

Surely the article doesn't need six maps and no other sort of pictures. I think the first one should stay, but I sort of arbitrarily chose which two other ones to replace. If anyone wants to put back those two particular maps, please consider whether it might be better to replace the remaining maps with them rather than take out the pictures. Personally, I think two maps total would be sufficient. Strawberryjampot (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Call for discussion on images

I see that the current version now has six images, five of which are maps. I think this is still vastly overbalanced for maps, and would like to reach a consensus on what images should be in this article. As a proposal for discussion, I suggest the article should be illustrated by two maps (including satellite images), the current image of Arcadia, and from two to four other images illustrating things that are characteristically or uniquely Peloponnesian, such as Monemvasia, Nafplio, the Mani towers, the Methoni fortess, or the Battle of Navarino, all of which have images available on Commons. I'm not sure how many people look at this page, so it may take a while to have the discussion, but if anyone reads this, even after some time has passed, please feel free to contribute. Strawberryjampot (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman period

First encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936 By M. Th Houtsma contain text about Turakhan Beg subduing Peloponnese for Ottoman Empire in 1423, not in period between 1458–1460, like written in the text of the article. I propose to double check the year of Ottoman Conquest of the Peloponnese. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Turakhan first invaded the Morea in 1423 and the Despotate became a vassal state thereafter, but it was not conquered and annexed to the Empire until 1458-60. 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

After I wrote comment here, I red in the same source how he later again attacked Peloponnese. I obviously did not understand the word subdue correctly. Thanks for reply and sorry for my mistake.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, the phrasing can easily mislead you there. Constantine ✍ 09:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Images

I have done some significant changes to the images in the article. I removed five of them, and replaced them with another four. Reasons are as follows. The images I removed were either poor quality or uninteresting or both. The image of Chelmos was terribly overexposed (white sky), the image of the forest was underexposed and generic (could be anywhere in Greece, or the world for that matter). The image of the spring was also rather uninteresting and generic (and again could be anywhere in Greece). I also removed the landscape near Karytaina, because we already have an image from Arcadia, and it is better. Lastly, I also removed the map of the French expedition since it had nothing much to offer and we already have two maps. I replaced the images I removed with an image of the Corinth Canal (which is important for obvious reasons), an image from ancient Sparta (since we have no images with something "ancient"), an image of the Mani Peninsula, since it is mentioned in the text, and an image of the Rio-Antirrio bridge (again, important for obvious reasons). I am sorry if that seems harsh to the editor that uploaded most of the images I removed, but the purpose of images in an article is to convey to the reader what is interesting, unique, and important about the subject of the article. I feel the current images accomplish that much better than the previous batch. Athenean (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes done by Athenian for the following reasons: The Rio-Antirrio bridge, to begin with, is not part of Peloponnese. This article is about Peloponnese, not bridges connecting Peloponnese. Also this Bridge is part of the Greece article, should we have it AGAIN here? Second, the Corinth Canal is again not part of Peloponnese. Its a Canal seperating mainland and Peloponnese. What is unique and what is not, is something subjective. Presenting nature in Peloponnese is something great, while presenting the Corinth canal and the Antirrio bridge (once again, as if Greece has nothing else to present than this bridge) is tragic, plus they dont even belong to this article.Nochoje (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your pictures are awful. Post them somewhere else, not here. They are not fit for an encyclopedia. By the way, this [3] is you, isn't it? Athenean (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No its not me..Why are you like that? I really dont understand. I have no megalomania trying to fill in everywhere "my photos", on the contrary. I had some nice photos, and I thought they would be helpful to add them in some Greece related Wikipedia articles. I havent seen new photos lately (related to those articles) so I only try to help here. Why are you so negative?...Nochoje (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, your photos are not nice. They are terrible. The one from Chelmos with the white sky? Come on now. And they contain very little information, so they do not belong in an encyclopedia. If you have no "megalomania" and all you are trying to do is help, why are you edit-warring over them? There are plenty of very nice photos about Greece on Wikimedia Commons (much nicer, interesting, and of encyclopedic value, like the ones from Sparti and Mani that you keep removing), so what is it exactly you are trying to do here? Athenean (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Nochoje, please understand. You cannot edit-war your pictures across multiple Greece-related articles against consensus. The pictures you are trying to add diminish the value of the article. Further you are replacing important landmarks of the Peloponnese with your own pictures and edit-warring to achieve it. Your edit-war fuelled editing is not sustainable in a consensus-driven environment such as Wikipedia's. Please change it. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Why dont you understand that what you are doing is wrong. The photos you keep adding are not EVEN in Peloponnese! What has the Corinth Canal and the Antirio bridge got to do with Peloponnese???? And what is wrong with showing the nature in Peloponnese!??? Especially the first photo with the Canal is what someone would call an awful picture!....Nochoje (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Athenean and I have explained this to you multiple times. I think you suffer from a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are removing important landmarks of Peloponnese and adding technically inferior and meaningless pictures. Please stop the edit-warring which got you blocked four days ago for similar reasons. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Athenian and you explain the wrong stuff. Unfortunately. Can you please answer me if the rio-antirrio bridge is part of Peloponnese? Can you also answer me if the Corinth Canal is part of Peloponnese??? If yes the English Channel part of England of France?.....Truly unbelievable that we need to go to this kind of discussion. You are clearly wrong here, regardless if you like my photos or not (which is obviously subjective)...Nochoje (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I have lost all hope of trying to persuade you that you are wrong but I will agf and try to explain this one more time. You want to erase the pictures of two engineering marvels of the modern era of immense encyclopaedic value and interest, the Canal of Corinth and the Rio-Antirrion Bridge, both of which define crucial passage points of the perimeter of the Peloponnese peninsula to mainland Greece and want to replace them with pictures of a car while some guy, maybe you, is drinking water from a fountain. You have to realise that this article is not your personal picnic or family album and certainly it is not a depository of boring and technically-challenged pictures from a picnic. Neither is the great peninsula of the Peloponnese some kind of a neighbourhood park. The second picture you want to replace these engineering marvels with is a hopelessly underexposed picture of some non-descript road with some darkened and non-discernible trees, again from the same picnic probably on the way home. The third picture is an overexposed, foggy picture of some landscape, completely redundant and not up to par with the other landscape pictures already existing in the article. If you don't understand that this is wrong there is no purpose in talking to you further. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to try one last time to explain things to you Nochoje. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform readers about the subjects they read. The purpose of the article on the Peloponnese is to inform readers who want to learn about the Peloponnese, and nothing more. The purpose of the images in the article is therefore also to inform readers who want to learn more about the Peloponnese. Now, it is mentioned in the article that the Corinth Canal separates the Peloponnese from mainland Greece. It is reasonable to assume that readers might wonder what this Corinth Canal looks like. Is it big? Small? How deep is it? Is it like the Panama Canal? So the picture answers these questions better than any text could. Same with the Rio-Antirrio bridge: It is mentioned in the article that it connects the Peloponnese to mainland Greece. So again readers might wonder what it looks like. These pictures inform readers about the Peloponnese. By contrast, your pictures don't. Let's take the picture of the spring: That spring could be anywhere in Greece or Europe or the world. There is nothing "Peloponnesian" about it. By looking at it, readers learn nothing about the Peloponnese. Aesthetically, it is also poor, as it is shot on a cloudy day and there is very little color, it contains a piece of a car, and it shows someone bending over. The spring is also small and hard to see. If you want to take a picture of a spring, focus on the spring. Do not include cars and people. Same with the picture of the forest. It tells the reader nothing about the Peloponnese. It could be anywhere in Greece, the Balkans, or Europe, or the world. Aesthetically, it is gloomy and depressing and also "underexposed", i.e. too dark, and with almost no color. It's not even possible to tell what kind of tree those are. Similarly with the Karytaina picture: It tells the reader very little about the Peloponnese, it is "overexposed" (too white"), and there is very little color, although it is marginally better than other two. If you want to include pictures in wikipedia, I suggest you read WP:MOSIM and also search the Wikimedia Commons, there are plenty of nice images of Greece there. And stop edit-warring once and for all, otherwise the blocks are going to get very long very quickly. Athenean (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit. This is a very accessible, detailed, practical, understandable and all-around useful reply. I am afraid however that never mind Athenean's response or mine the ship has sailed so to speak. I am not at all sure that these eminently sound arguments will have any positive effect. I hope, against hope, that I will be proven wrong. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)