Talk:Konitsa

Albanian Name

The source for the albanian name was given so why do you keep removing it Alexikoua and Athenian? --Sarandioti (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The source says that it concerns specific villages in the region, not the town itself, u know it, if not lear SpanishAlexikoua (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point, Alexikoua. --Athenean (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, for the same reason then you have no objection of the removal of greek names in Delvine, Sarande, Gjirokaster as greek minority lives in village and not in the towns, do you? --Sarandioti (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because the sources I have provided and you are pretending not to notice are unequivocal that Greeks live in those towns. --Athenean (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your sources talk about the DISTRICT, not the towns, the articles themselves say that the majority is albanian. Do you understand the difference between VILLAGE and TOWN?--Sarandioti (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this thread here. I also saw a lot of war.... Besides the fact that I think that the name in Aromanian is less important than that in Albanian, I see that you feel very strongly about this. I saw also that you disregarded the source in spanish that Sarandioti provided here [1]. Even though I believe that very few people now in Konica feel Albanian, in the past it was not so: lots of them did (i.e. Faik Konica). This is the reason why I can't buy that right now there are not Albanians at all in Konica or they are in lesser percentage than the greeks living in Gjirokaster (where we have a greek name of the city). I'll put this back into discussion. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you been ever in Konitsa? I am there (or nearby, 15' to the north -in Burasani-) every summer for some 8 years now. The only Albanian thing nowadays is the Hamko's house (mother of Ali Pasha) well preserved with municipality's money. And some very recently arrived Albanian workers used in the nearby valley usually not permanently lived there. Odd enough there are a few old families in the up (old) part of the town which, as they say, are Turks and speaking Turk and their feelings against the Albanians are not perfectly well. --Factuarius (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Factuarius, glad you joined the party!!! I have never been to Konica, and I'm not very concerned about how the Turks in Konitsa feel. Besides what do you expect them to tell you, denial is their only salvation. However leaving the turks aside, a lot of Albanians don't have enough national pride, because they are orthodox first and albanians second. And since the church tells them that they are orthodox first and hellenes second, they end up becoming greeks. However it wasn't always so and an encyclopedia should reflect it, by at least mentioning the name in Albanian. Again, if you feel strongly and if you think my logic is poor, don't change, but I would suggest a change similar to what was done with Kostur (where we have the Albanian name (and bulgarian for that matter) (not on top, but a little lower)).sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(Hey sulmues!!! Do you know me?) I am afraid the scenario about the Orthodox Albanians if its right must be by now, around a century or more old. (What's Kostur?). It just happened to know about Konitsa & I thought to write that nowadays there are no genuine Albanian residents. And I can guarantee that. Accordingly cannot see your point. But let me tell you an interesting story. One of the bigger city in Bulgaria was Pyrgos (means Castle in Greek) with almost entirely Greek population until the early 20th century, but due to the historical events (see Eastern Rumelia, Balkan Wars and Bulgarization) now has only a few if any. To your surprise you will find that nobody tried to put the old Greek name in the article although the current name (Burgas) means nothing to the Bulgarian. Everyone just decided to avoid an edit war for nothing, and to save himself from some possible bans in his back. Now, I agree that Sarandioti had always different opinions in similar cases..but again he is not between us to say if that was right or wrong (or he is sulmues?) --Factuarius (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm how do I know you: I know the triple factuarius-athenean-alexikoua, because I see your names here: [2], [3], and [4] so I see your love in all the topics involving Cham Albanians, Northern Epirus Himare, Origin of the Albanians, gjirokaster, sarande, and albania. How can I be an Albanian, write in Wikipedia and not have to know you three? Sarandioti: Can't speak about him, 'cause I never talked to the guy. I was referring to this Kostur.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm that's funny, because

• I don't have a single edit in Northern Epirus
• I don't have a single edit in Himare
• I don't have a single edit in Origin of the Albanians
• I don't have a single edit in gjirokaster
• I don't have a single edit in sarande
• I don't have a single edit in albania

Now, if you want to be a little more persuasive in how you know me could you be kind enough to try again? --Factuarius (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cham Albanians

The claim that the town was "Albanian speaking" and inhabited by Cham Albanians is simply not true. Nor is it backed up by the source used. Konitsa is and always was, to my knowledge a predominantly Aromanian settlement. The history section is in general woefully underdeveloped, so over the next few days I will add to it. Athenean (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I was reviewing the discussion with Factuarius almost a year ago and smiling at my words and his. Important Albanian personalities came from Konica, and the rulers (beys) were Albanian. I am not sure if they can be called Cham Albanians, but the existence of the Albanian population in this place is evident. It is not ok that the Aromanian name of the city is there, but the Albanian isn't: there are both Aromanians and Albanians in the city. In addition since we have the Greek names in Sarande and Gjirokaster, it would be necessary that a city so close to the border with Albania have the Albanian name. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? The only reason we have names in the lede is if many sources refer to them in that language, regardless of whether they are close to border. The distance to the border is irrelevant, otherwise we would all kinds of weird results. Athenean (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Usually if the cities are close to the border it is a good argument to have both names. This gives some results. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Not to mention that many sources erroneously point to Faik Konitsa. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A really wonder why we have this disruption by adding sources of 1872 just to promote an extreme national view [[5]], wp:or can be very usuefull.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Usual reverts from Athenean

Athenean why are you reverting [6]? A traveller's book of 1872 is a good independent source for the population in 1872. What is exactly that you want? --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No 19th century sources, please. Even you should know that by now. Athenean (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with them? --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ROFL. Athenean (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you have a good time, but honestly how can you make a census in the 21st century for the population of the 19th century? And if I find you censuses of the 19th century you'll fake another "ROFL" [7]? --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If by now you don't know what's wrong with using a source from 1872, you have no business editing wikipedia. Unless you're pretending, that is. Honestly. Athenean (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not pretending. I have never seen anything in wikipolicies that prohibits me from using old sources (unless a new one to contraddict it or affirms it exists). You are the only one who has these problems. If you find better sources, or contemporary ones, please enter them and change the wording. I never object to a good source: it enriches the article. Is a travellers' word the best thing we have? No! But why not bring it when we have nothing else for that period? I guarantee you that it won't be easy for you to give a pure Greek character to 19th century Konitsa. The traveller is very clear about the Albanian physionomy of the settlement in the 19th century, why hide that source and the history of Konitsa? --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're not pretending? Good grief. You don't understand what's wrong with 19th century sources, you don't understand WP:RS, you don't understand WP:PRIMARY. Even after all these edits. Incredible. Btw, I'm not trying to "give a pure Greek character to 19th century Konitsa", it is you who is trying to give it a pure Albanian character. It was always a predominantly Aromanian settlement, not that I expect you to know that. Athenean (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like we have disagreed on this several times during the last year. IMO the policy is not very clear and each one of us has his own interpretation of it. I think Alexikoua will agree with me on this, because he consideres Stickney a secondary source for his Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, although the book was written in 1923, close to the event. Factuarius a year ago was saying the same thing, but in the sources I continuously find Albanians. There were Greeks and Aromanians but they were minorities. The sources are very clear. Besides, aren't you happy how the Englishman depicts the Albanians as "wild-looking" [8]? I thought you'd jump with joy in reading that. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please choose better works from googlebooks. 19th century stuff can be added in 'further reading' section but you need to avoid using this as a source. We have plenty modern material.Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As soon as you find it make sure to enter it. I entered a closer version to the source. [9]--Sulmues ^(talk) 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As soon as you find it make sure to enter it. ? Can you please avoid sarcasm. Since there is something wp:rs I dont see a reason why you reverted. I would appreciate if you remove it youself as you did in the past in similar cases avoiding further dirsuption.Alexikoua (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the same '19th century' obsession Berat is by 2/3 inhabited by Greeks [[10]]. However, adding something like this in the relevant article would be clear 'disruption'. So I expect from Sulmues to remove this part he recently added.Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We fully well know that "Greeks" in that source means Christians Alexi, so that's not even an issue. It doesn't even mention the Albanians. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also on the same logic the province of Valona had 25,000 Greeks [[11]]. Seems this 19th bibliography gives us the opportunity to write new history, but we should better avoid.

@Sulmues: That's your personal or: Greek means Greek, and Albanian Albanian (you choose 19th century stuff). Please lower down this extreme national enthousiam.Alexikoua (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your second source doesn't distinguish between Greek Christians and Albanian Christians either, so it's clearly counting the Christian population that has to pay the jizya tax to the Muslim one that doesn't have to. The jizya tax is even called a capitation tax. That too is a non issue. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"We fully well know that "Greeks" in that source means Christians Alexi"? It doesn't get more OR than that. Athenean (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Noone cares about personal orings, but as you've said 19th century stuff is unreliable and has no place here (without exception)Alexikoua (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Bring it to WP:RS, so that we don't waste time here. If you revert me, I will. In a good article such as this, Polybius is used as a reference. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You agreed that 19th century stuff in this occassions is unreliable. So I take it that you agree with the removal.Alexikoua (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I never did, where did you get that? An admin said that it can be used [12] so your edit-warring over it is uncalled for. --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Konice incidents

Pearson mentions two Konice incidents in 1947 page 135. Would you guys have any Greek sources on that or are you going to liquidate me with a "Pearson is a primary source"? Any objection that I enter some content on those two incidents in the history of the town? --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)