Talk:Arvanites/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

General consensus and status quo

The user Ahmet Q. is violating the status quo of this article by using WP:NATIONALIST terminology such as "Albanian-inhabited areas" instead of the agreed NPOV terminology used so far "bilingual" or "and Albanian-speaking" for Athens and other Greek regions by WP:CHERRYPICKING a source that used that without agreeing it with the member of the community and achieving WP:CONS. It absurd to believe or even try to push that in 1911 Athens, the capital of Greece for about 80 years was inhabited only by Albanians or Arvanites or both and this that it is NPOV. Of course I have reverted him [[1]]. I would strongly advise to not follow the path of many balkan users previously edit-warring in this article, do constructive edits and keep the editing in the agreed WP:NPOV terminology. Best Othon I (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong and nothing nationalist about referring to those populations as "Albanians", and their areas of settlement as "Albanian-inhabited", when referring to the time period prior to c.1900. Because that's what they were, and that's what the reliable sources say. All of them. There isn't even the slightest hint of a controversy about this in the literature. What's "nationalist" is the obsession some other editors here have shown over all these years, of projecting back the conceptual distinction between "Albanian" and "Arvanite" back into a period when no such distinction existed. As for Athens in the early 20th century, as far as I know , it was still a mostly Greek-speaking enclave within an overwhelmingly Albanian-speaking rural Attica. The map Ahmet Q. added actually shows this correctly. Nobody here has claimed that "Athens was inhabited only by Albanians or Arvanites". The map clearly excludes the city of Athens, and no map of that sort ever claims or implies "only" anyway. I'm not very convinced we need that map, as it's of small scale and not very readable, but there's nothing wrong with it in principle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I partially agree with you but the map shows the Balkan area in 1911 and not prior to the creation of the Greek state and the map that he changed the name to Albanian-inhabited includes Athens. in cased you missed it. I think we had a similar discussion about Athens before more than 5 years. I don't think that the map adds any value. It is similar as the other ones. The only difference is that it is published 10 years later Othon I (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise 100% agreed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It is sad to see that the term "nationalist" has been bastardized by several POV-editors in multiple discussions related to the balkans, this is yet another example of this phenomenon. The fact that you wrote that designing Arvanites as Albanians is nationalistic clearly demonstrate your blatant POV-pushing behavior and an evident lack of knowledge about the subject. I think that Fut.Perf. summed it all, really. In my opinion, the disruptive and aggressively POV-pushing (which often collide with fringe viewpoints) editing behaviors of several editors over the past decade have deteriorated this article (and many others) to the point where users like you would think that it would be perfectly fine to write such nonsense. This is really worrisome and damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. I'm afraid that if this continues, the only way to deal with such editors will be through WP:AE.

As for the French ethnographic map, I simply wrote what the map actually depicts. "Albanian-speaking areas" is completely incorrect, there is no mention of languages in the legend. For example the source says "Turcs" and not "Turc", clearly referring to populations and not languages.

The American map I added is also an ethnographic map, I have added this one because of the more visible demarcations of the populations. The French map uses similar colors for ethnic Albanians and Greeks making it difficult to even see where those populations separate from each other. Considering that this map is also used in multiple articles like Pontic Greeks for example, I didn't see any problem using it here as well.

In lack of any actual valid argument from your behalf, I will reinstate my edit. I would also advise you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines. Ahmet Q. (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The American map doesn't show anything not shown in the other maps, I don't see any reason whatsoever why it is necessary. The resolution is very low, lower than the other maps already in the other article. Khirurg (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ahmet, 1) Reinstating the map at your own initiative without consensus is a clear example of not following the rules. 2) "The fact that you wrote that designing Arvanites as Albanians is nationalistic clearly demonstrate your blatant POV-pushing behavior" - misinterpret my words again and you will are going straight for WP:AE. I have clearly mentioned that my problem is not calling Arvanites, Albanian they are of Albanian ancestry in any case. My problem is the misuse of this fact by you and other keyboard "warriors" originated from certain places in Balkan peninsula in order to push their agendas and that the problematic and POV edit you made implicates that in 1911 Athens was inhabited by Albanians. This is not a constructive edit once again. 3) Can you elaborate more on your accusation about me being a POV editor? Is it because you feel uncomfortable? Best Othon I (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, since the map doesn't in fact imply any such thing, because it clearly shows Athens outside of that area, what's your point? The nationalist disruption here is all on your part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

1st Mind your tone, your bad manners and if you accuse me again as nationalist, I will report you for harassment clear? Did I add anything nationalistic here? Or I followed the rules about getting consensus? The map covers most of parts of Athens as Albanian inhabited, only Phaleron is out if you see it again and bits of Piraeus. Clear your eyes have a look again the part around the French map is more clear in this matter. There is no need to state the obvious. The map is not appropriate to enter. I wont support it. Othon I (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

this map is the one Ahmet inserted and you removed. It clearly shows the city of Athens (its center marked as a small circle) in the middle of a solid "Greek" enclave area, which covers pretty much all of what was then the urban area of Athens, from around Elefsina down to Glyfada, and towards the innermost of what are now the "northern suburbs" (Of course the scale is too small to talk about exact boundaries.) In contrast, this is the map that you left in the article without any complaints. This is the one that shows Athens (again, its center marked as a small circle) exactly on the boundary of a Greek and an Albanian area, with Albanian seemingly covering all the north-western suburbs but Greek covering the south-eastern ones (and, curiously, the rural areas of eastern Attica). Again, of course, the scale is too small to give too much weight to these details. But if there's any map that implies Albanian presence inside Athens, it is this one, not the one you removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see what you pointing out in this map. The orange part covers most of the Attica and nearly entire Athens only a small part toward Phaleron is not orange. Not to mention that Tsakonia and as far as Monemvasia looks to be Albanian-speaking/inhabited land. On the contrary, this map shows in light blue the parts the correct parts, only the western suburbs of Athens, Acharnes etc are in light blue which is right. Also, Tsakonia is not in light blue. But the question of reliability comes here, was entire Attica and most of Athens inhabited only by Albanians as shown in the map by 1911? I am asking because for instance, the Bavarian colony of Heraklion suburb of Athens (were I partially come from) is not shown also, the Greek element which was prevalent at that time is not shown. Othon I (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You fail to see. Yes, indeed. Maybe you will stop failing to see if you look again, and open your eyes while doing so. If you can't see that the "small part" in blue is meant to cover all of the modern urban area of Athens, with the center of Athens explicitly marked as being right in the middle of it, then I really can't help you. And where on earth is your obsession with "only by Albanians" coming from, again? No ethnographic map, ever, implies anything about "only". As for Irakleio, it would be pretty much exactly where the boundary between the yellow and blue areas is shown in the map, but of course that kind of detail is beyond the scope of the map, given its scale. As for Tsakonia, that Albanian area north of Monemvasia is also shown in the other, larger-scale map of the Peloponnese we're displaying, so I don't know why you'd doubt its reliability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am glad to hear it from you and that's the point. The American map shows as Ahmet mentioned, as Albanian (people) inhabited areas the aforementioned ones. The larger Peloponnese map as both Albanian and Greek mixed (Griechen und Albanes gemischt), the American one does not indicate that but rather only Albanian. And we are talking about the same thing for goodness sake, I only mention that It is much more difficult for the reader due to the low resolution and the small part that Athens is shown (instead of a bigger part) not only Albanian inhabited/speaking area. Do you suggest that the American map will add value? Othon I (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not making any sense right now. Try to be a bit less incoherent. BTW, if you were talking about the area north of Monemvasia in the Peloponnese map, no, that's not the "mixed" category ("Griechen und Albanesen gemischt"). These color/hatching differences are not too easy to identify in the map, but the "mixed" category only applies to a few small specks (like the one just NE of Nafplio, where the "O" of "Argolis" is). The darker pink areas, like those north of Monemvasia, belong to the category labelled "Albanesische Sprache (heutige Verbreitung)" ('Albanian language, current areas'). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Where the "O" of Argolis is and generally the light pink (3rd category) if you notice the legend is about the Arvanites hellenised in the last generation (Imletzten Menschenalter hellenisierte) and the aforementioned the part below Tsakonia is clearly lighter than the Corinth one which is fallen under the 2nd category (mixed). You can clearly see the difference. Hence why it cannot go. If it had a legend with mixed populations or language as the other ones i would of course agree to be added otherwise, showing that only Albanians existed there and not coexisting with Greeks you clearly understand that it is an example of deliberate misinformation my dear chap. Othon I (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

"My dear chap"? I'm not your dear chap, son. Here's some free advice: Dangling pronouns are your enemy. Next time you post something, try to make it at least grammatically coherent, to make it look less like gibberish, so people have the chance to figure out what you're trying to say, just on the off-chance you might finally have something logical to say. But then of course you also need to get your facts straight first. You're still misreading the Peloponnese map. You need to enlarge it and look not just at the color shades (which are difficult to distinguish), but at the structure of the printed hatching. You will then see that the second, "mixed" category is characterized by a checkered pattern, of relatively thick, widely-spaced, horizontal and vertical lines. That pattern is only found in those few small spots, like the one near the "O" of "Argolis" I pointed out. The third category, "hellenized in the last generation" has a single layer of thin, finely spaced diagonal lines. That pattern is only found in a few other, similarly small spots, e.g. the one just west of the Gulf of Navplion, where it says "Dolianon". All the other, larger pink areas, including the one north of Monevasia, belong to the first category ("current"), having a double layer of thin diagonal and horizontal red hatching. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, you can read Philippson's original 1890 article from which this map was taken here. Note the large Roman letters in the pink areas ("IX" in the one in Laconia); these are referring to the treatment of these Albanian enclaves in the article, where they are listed on p.35. He is clearly describing all of them as being currently Albanian-speaking, and in fact near-exclusively so. He's quite explicit about it that in his day, in the Peloponnese, Albanian and Greek settlement areas tended to be distinct and separate, and that what he described as "mixed" villages were exceptional and few. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Pardon for the rush and typos, I was writing from my mobile phone. Fair enough, it's your interpretation, I won't mingle with it. I was not aware that stating what i see in the map offended you. What the map shows for me is clear and in any case, I am not arguing to remove it or keep it, I am arguing that its a more concise and complete than Ahmet's addition since it has a "mixed" population category. As for your bad manners and your insults, as if I insulted Albanian people or I added nationalistic material here, well, I don't really care. Good manners indicate a person with many qualities and respectable etiquette. Of course many people lack of them. Thanks for the debate. Best Othon I (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I never meant to imply anything (and I never even thought) of what Othon is claiming about Athens. I added the map because it is an early 20th century map. All the maps in the article were created in the 19th century. I wanted to add a map which showed population concentration of Arvanites in the early 20th century. Khirurg's argument that I added a 19th century map is totally false [2] It's a 1911 map and there is no 20th century map in the article. I'm all for finding a consensus, but the counter-arguments have to be reasonable. Would you be ok with me reinstating it in the article? Ahmet Q. (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Having looked a bit further into these map issues, I've come to the opinion that we should actually exchange the currently used "Map A" (the "French" one) with "Map B" (the "American" one), or some other alternative. It's true that the screen resolution of Map B is lower than Map A. But both are identical in their original scale in print, being both 1:10,000,000, so the level of detail we can expect from them should be the same. But there are problems with Map A:

One is the treatment of Attica, as discussed above. No Arvanites in the whole of East Attica, seriously? That contradicts every other map and every other description I've ever seen.
And no Arvanites in Euboea, except in its extreme south-eastern tip? According to every other description I've ever seen, the Arvanite area of Euboea used to cover about half the island, not just such a small fraction of it.
There are also signs of sloppiness in the Peloponnese, leading to ambiguity. What about the area in Lakonia (on the southern part of the east coast of the Peloponnese), where all other old maps and verbal descriptions show Albanian presence? If you look closely, you can clearly see that this area was also meant to be included here, because its contours are printed as a black line, corresponding exactly to what is shown in other maps. But the coloring isn't there – this is evidently a hand-colored map, so the person who was brushing in the colors seems to have just missed this bit.
The coloring is also not suitable to show which of the islands were Arvanite.

On all these points, the "American" Map B is superior.

We could also consider some other alternatives. From the visual perspective, the best map I could find on Commons is the German one I've listed as "Map D" above – it is of larger original scale (1:5,000,000), of relatively high resolution, has reasonably clear color contrasts, shows a good lot of detail and seems to generally agree with what can be found elsewhere. The only problem I have with it is that we lack authorship information.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Think adding "Map D" is a very good alternative. I was not aware of it and if I was, I would agree. It accurately illustrates the languages spoken at that time. Othon I (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering what you just wrote, I think that adding map B and replacing map A with Map D is probably the best solution, which I would agree with. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with replacing map A with map B and I support the inclusion of map D independently of the map A/map B dispute. If we can find author attribution, it would be the most up-to-date map for the 20th century (1924). Newer maps would be good as a means to observe the reduction of Albanian-speaking areas in southern Greece. Another argument for the replacement of map A with map B is accessibility. For older readers, it's not that easy to distinguish between the two different shades of light blue used for Albanians and Greeks.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with Map B. Map A is not appropriate for the reasons FPaS presented above, while for Map D, aside of the lack of authorship information, there is also the issue of Nafplia Province, much of which was inhabited purely by a Greek-speaking population; as shown in Philippson's map of the Peloponnese (Map C). We also have Antonios Miliarakis' 1886 work which includes a detailed presentation of the area's demographics and compliments Philippson's work. Map D, even though it shows diagonal stripes in the respective region – supposedly pertaining to a mixed area – it uses brown color exclusively, instead of brown and pink. By the way, i don't know if it helps, but we may use this version of Map B instead, for better color contrast. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Regardless, i am ok with the addition of Map D as well; for example in some cases it is more accurate than Map B, such as the island of Aegina which was predominantly Greek-speaking (aside of a couple of Albanian-speaking villages at the southern tip). No map is perfect in my opinion, thus more than one should be added to balance out the mistakes of the other. Demetrios1993 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the need for both map B and map D. They are very similar, and either of them is sufficient. Khirurg (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I am personally ok with either; indeed they aren't that different from one another. But due to the lack of authorship for Map D, as mentioned by FPaS, Map B is a little more preferable. Furthermore, the color contrast of Map B can be enhanced, as aforementioned. Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

In that case I am in favor of map B over map D as well. Khirurg (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Since we are discussing the maps in the article, I don't understand why the ethnic map of Epirus is included when the subject of the article is the Arvanites. That map should be replaced with map D. Ahmet Q. (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

There are Arvanites in Epirus too, so the map is due. Also Map D has nothing to do with it and is redundant with map B. Khirurg (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

There are no significant Arvanites in Epirus, Albanian communities in Epirus were often classified as "Arvanites" but it doesn't fall into the scope of this article. Map D should definitely be included as well, for the arguments listed above. There is nothing that hinders us of having more than three maps. Ahmet Q. (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course there are Arvanites in Epirus (Orthodox Albanian speakers in the regions refer to themselves as such). I realize you don't like the Epirus map, but it provides a level of detail not available in the other maps and as a result will stay. Map B and Map D on the other hand show basically the same thing, and there is no need to have both maps in the article. Otherwise there are dozens of similar maps; are we to include them all in the article? Of course not. Khirurg (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Your argument for the non-inclusion of map D is rather weak in comparaison with the multiple reasons pointed out by Fut.Perf. Nobody is arguing here for adding all the maps related to the Arvanites. It looks like map D bothers you for some reason, but as already explained nothing hinders us from having more than there maps in the section. Ahmet Q. (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That will be decided by consensus, not you. But at least it's good you are not trying to impose your way by brute force edit-warring, as in other cases [3]. I wonder why...Khirurg (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Minor edit to the lede

This is a relatively minor edit [4], but an encyclopedic one, because stylistically it is better than the previous version which read "a bilingual group of Albanian origin...who spoke Albanian". But apparently, even something this minor is too much for the usual tag-team of editors that has veto power over all content in these articles through well-organised WP:NINJA edits such as these [5] [6] [7]. On articles in this topic area, nothing gets added, changed or removed without the approval of these editors. The edit summaries are usually nothing more than "Seek consensus", "go to the talkpage", and other such WP:STONEWALL, while explications such as these are also just tactical excuses [8], given that if the objection is to "late Middle Ages", the way around would be to simply remove "late", or add "middle to late". But that's not the point, is it? Khirurg (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

SD's edit got consensus on the talkpage before it was reinstated. No editor forced it back to the article. I think that there are problems of historicity with this edit as not all Arvanites stem from the same migratory waves. They are not all descendants of settlers who lived in the Middle Ages. Some arrived in Greece as late as the 17th century. Semantically, there's not much of a difference in the two edits, but SD's edit is correct historically. I don't think that this should become a dispute.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Exactly Maleschreiber, the edit of Super Dromaeosaurus was a really good edit which summarizes the article pretty well. The minor-edit didn't improve his version, I really don't understand what's the issue here. Ahmet Q. (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Both of you left "settlers who came to Greece in the late Middle Ages" untouched while edit-warring [9], so "historicity" is just the excuse. So why don't you tell the community the real reason you prefer SD's version so much (for which I don't see any consensus anywhere btw)? Personally, I find that version clunky, as "group of Albanian origin...who spoke Albanian" is repetitive, redundant, and stylistically poorer. Khirurg (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

And if the mini-dispute didn't start, I would have fixed it[10] and other bigger problems like the fact that many sources have no verifiable links. Side comment: I still see it as progress that the only "disputes" (if we can call them that any more) are for such minor things. Gone are the epic 100k discussions about ancient tribes (an attempt at lightening the mood)--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You didn't fix anything, it's actually even worse now, since in the first sentence it says they are bilingual, but without clarifying what the two languages are. But that's not the point, is it? Again, why don't you tell us the real reason you and the rest of the tag-team are so willing to edit-war over one particular wording? Khirurg (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't that anyone will be confused about the languages: a bilingual population group of Albanian origin in Greece. They traditionally speak Arvanitika, an Albanian language variety, along with Greek. Population group isn't used in other articles, community would probably be a better term.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It is poor form to state that a group is bilingual in one sentence but not state what those languages are until the next sentence. It's not the end of the world, but it's a bit weird. The previous version was stylistically better, as was Deji's version. Apparently, given the willingness to edit-war, it seems you don't really consider it a minor point at all. Khirurg (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems that for certain users with elevated rights, the examples above are not of disruptive nature however, my "edits" are. As if I edited anything, I have only reverted twice stating exactly [11], what we see here [12]. However, insults and warnings are directed to me and only to me, I wonder why? Othon I (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the current version (my edit, but not because I was the one that did it or something like that). I do not see why to reveal that the Arvanites have Albanian origin sentences later in the text and in a more vague way. It seems to me as an unnecessary twisting of things. I don't see any redundancy problem, if we considered words redundant after writing them twice it would be impossible to write articles (or maybe they would look like poems in Old English). I also don't see a problem with mentioning the languages that the Arvanites speak a sentence after saying that they are bilingual (which is by the way not common to see them referred as such so early in articles about ethnic groups), but this can be solved simply by merging the sentences "Arvanites are a bilingual population group in Greece of Albanian origin who traditionally speak Arvanitika, an Albanian language variety, along with Greek.". I also see nothing wrong with "population group", but it's also uncommon. Super Ψ Dro 09:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

New map

I believe the Liakopoulos 2019 book on the early Ottoman Peloponnese settlements provides an great opportunity to add details to the history of the settlement of the Arvanites in southern Greece. I made a new map depicting all settlements in the southwestern part of the Peloponnese by ethnicity. A similar map is possible for the whole peninsula, and I believe it would enhance the demographics section of the article. I would ask for the opinion of other editors interested in this page. Here is the new map. Çerçok (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice proof-of-concept, I'd be happy to have something like that if it could be done for the whole of the peninsula. Let's make sure to make the caption clear, maybe something like "Settlements designated as 'Greek' and 'Albanian' in Ottoman documents of the 1460s". How certain is the mapping of placenames in those historical documents to modern locations and geographical coordinates? Does Liakopoulos himself provide that? BTW, please add the full biographical reference to Liakopoulos to the file description. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Future Perfect, there is map about the whole region by Liakopoulos [13] however, the mapping with modern locations seems to not coincide The identification of the 667 place-names contained in the cadastre has been hindered by the fact that many of the settlements are now abandoned and others have been renamed, particularly the toponyms of non-Greek etymology, i.e. Albanian, Slavic or Turkish.. In any case there are some villages that coincide as I can see such as the villages of Dimitsana, Stemnitsa and Karytaina for instance, you can see them as blue. Also the data are mostly for Western Peloponnese, not for the Eastern. Othon I (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

To make the map, I used the book info and maps, which are very similar, but not 100% identical to the one Othon I linked. The latter would be great too, but I was not sure it is permissible to use it. As for the mismatch between the settlements in the map and those of today, it is only expected from almost 6 centuries ago. It should be noted of course that these are 15-th century settlements. Liakopoulos did a great job placing so many, as quite a few (especially Albanian ones) have been abandoned since then. Whether a new map similar to the one I made, or the ready one that Othon provided, I think the map would be a good addition here. Çerçok (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Well since nearly most of the settlements have been abandoned, it could be used perhaps (consensus should be achieved of course) in the context of the the gradual decline of the Albanian settlement in the region complemented with other maps later on otherwise, I am not sure if it will be notable to add a map of nonexistent settlements (the Greek settlements exist however most of the Albanian or others don't according to Liakopoulos). The data in the demographics section will probably suffice. Othon I (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I also don't see the point of a map of mostly abandoned settlements, and what's in the text is sufficient. What's also strange is that the map of Liakopoulos has huge gaps, showing regions that appear without any settlements (e.g. Lakonia), as if they were uninhabited. This shows the 1460 cadastre presents a very incomplete picture. Khirurg (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The map off course does not display several setlements in the region, its obvious that the southern shores of Messenia were not abandoned. This is only a partial picture and not a representative one in the field of historical demographics.Alexikoua (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, sure, for one thing, some parts of the Peloponnese were still Venetian at the time, if I'm not mistaken, so of course they wouldn't be in the Ottoman cadastre. Doesn't diminish the value of the information for the remaining parts, as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why the data are included in the Demographics section however, as a map though it does not represent the state of affairs at that time. Additionally, after the fall of Constantinople the only parts of Morea ruled by La Serenissima were Modon, Koron (both until 1510), Monemvasia and Nauplio. If you look the complete map and not the custom made by Cercok, it contains information only for North and Western Peloponnese and not for the rest e.g. South Messenia, Laconia, Argolis and Eastern (NE and SE) Arcadia. Hence, I believe that it represents partially the demographics of that time. Othon I (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I could cover the other parts too, this was just a first step. Of course not every settlement was recorded, but this is the best survey available. Çerçok (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You cannot cover the other parts which I have mentioned in my comment because there are no data. If you want to present a map constructed by Liakopoulos here you should probably follow what Demetrios1993 said below which I fully agree as well. The bubbles for the Greek villages should 3.5 times larger than the Albanian ones as per Liakopoulos The average number of families residing in Greek villages is 41.29 and the Albanian counterpart is 11.86. This goes inline with the data already in the article and presents the information in the right way, otherwise, it is like misunderstanding the source (I do not want to use the word distortion that you usually use). Othon I (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I also do not agree with a map that would be based on the 1460-1463 Ottoman taxation cadastre, mainly because of the incomplete identification of the settlements; which Liakopoulos has emphasized. But even if i did agree with such a map, i would like to see the respective differences in population size for each depicted settlement, by using a relevant variable (e.g. different sized circles).

@FPaS, as far as i know, at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th century, Venetians were limited to a few cities/ports; such those of Naflion, Argos, Methoni, Koroni, Monemvasia, and Patras. So, their possessions aren't that significant in terms of geographic extent; and as a sidenote, in terms of the population they would be mostly Greek per the description of Liakopoulos and others; Greeks tended to live in large villages and cities, while Albanians in small villages. Demetrios1993 (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment I think that the map should be included and titled for what it depicts per Liakopopoulos (2019): Ethnicity Distribution of identified localities after the Ottoman cadastre of 1460-63 in the Peloponnese It's not a map of the entire Morea or a map about population size. This title represents the original map for what it is and we don't have to begin a discussion about what else it should depict or how it should depict it. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree, what you proposing does not add any value, it will even mislead the readers assuming that the Albanian population was more than the Greek whereas this is not the case as per Liakopoulos. A map with the propositions above will add value and will reflect what is written in the demographics section in case we agree on this but, again, a map that presents abandoned settlements and not about Peloponnese but about North and Western Peloponnese I highly doubt that will add value to the article. Othon I (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I also think it would be fair to use the original title. No claims about population size need to be added. On a sidenote, Othon I, your statement that per Liakopoulos, the Albanian population was not larger than the Greek one, is not correct. There was no population count. The number of households in Greek villages was higher than in Albanian villages, but we have no details on average household size. You could argue that the more pastoral and tribal Albanians lived in larger households, but as there is no data for this, population size remains unknown. Regardless, more important than that, I believe, is to visually demonstrate the spread of the settlements in the map. Çerçok (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

That’s WP:OR, of course there are data 6,551 (58.37%) Greek and 4,672 (41.63%) Albanian households, 909 (66.25%) Greek and 463 (33.75%) Albanian bachelors, and 562 (72.05%) Greek and 218 (27.95%) Albanian widows. Except if you believe that 2k more families were childless… on the other hand, your propositions serve a certain POV and not what the source says, and may I remind you that you made a fuss about distortions and not following exactly the sources… Perhaps now we shouldn’t? I wonder..Othon I (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course I insist on sticking to what the source says every time, as I do for this source (which you criticized until other Greek editors cited it as well). There is no population data, only household data. I don't know how this is disputable. Childless households are not so relevant but a difference in average number of children would be. Furthermore, it depends how "household" was measured. In many Albanian regions, for example, households of up to 100 members were not uncommon until the 20th century. So we do not know exact population numbers, we only know number of villages, households, bachelors and widows. That is what the source says, anything beyond that is only your own opinion. Anyway, this fictive population count you started is completely off-topic. This discussion is about the map. Çerçok (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Çerçok: If you use the same title as Liakopoulos (2019) and add it with no other narratives about its meaning, there is no guideline which can be invoked to remove it - it is WP:RS and it's not POV use of the source.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

We're not going to add a map of incomplete information that is intended to present a misleading picture. I recommend not wasting time and finding a more productive use of one's time. Khirurg (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the map proposed by Cercok and backed by Malescreiber will be at least misleading so it does not have a place here. @Cercok firstly, refrain for commenting the nationality of other editors, you have been banned for that. Secondly, I am not sure what are you trying to say but it is your original research none of what you stated is mentioned in the source. The source clearly states that the Greek villages were three and a half times larger than the Albanian ones and that the Greeks lived in large villages and cities whereas the Albanians in small villages and of course, gives numbers about this which is sourced in the article. No reason to dispute the data on the source. If a map is created, this difference should be shown otherwise, putting plainly the map there just does not add value and do not coincide with the quantitative data. Othon I (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the word "Greek" is offensive and I did not use it in an offensive manner. Please discuss the map. The part you cited does not say refer to population, but households. Çerçok (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you kidding me right now? The map is made from the data on the households, the propositions are for the households to be shown in the map. Please stop the WP:IDHT behaviour. Also, It is offensive to comment the nationality of the other users yes on that manner, in WP we are all equals. Othon I (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Great job on the map @Çerçok:, this map will be much needed in the article. I suggest that you follow the mentioned source for the settlements and thus do not use bigger or smaller points for the villages. Ahmet Q. (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Any justification of why not use bigger circles since we have the data? Othon I (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I think WP:OR, the map as depicted by the original source would not be affected by it. – Βατο (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it OR to illustrate the quantitative data that the very map is made of? Or custom made maps based on the parent source are not allowed in WP? Othon I (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the cited source doesn't say anything about the number of inhabitants per settlement, making bigger points would be WP:OR. That is the reason why the author did not do it himself and used same sized dots for all the villages. Ahmet Q. (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It isn't WP:OR to depict Greek settlements with dots that are 3.5 times larger; this is mentioned by the author himself (The average number of families residing in Greek villages is 41.29 and the Albanian counterpart is 11.86; 41.29/11.86=3.48) and already included in the article anyway. His book even expands on each settlement specifically. Quantitative variables are not uncommon for such maps. But this is all secondary. The primary issue is that the proposed map is largely incomplete in terms of the identification of settlements (either because they have been abandoned or renamed); hence the objection for its inclusion. Something might be verifiable, but this doesn't mean it has to be included; WP:VNOT. The purpose of an image is to increase the readers' understanding of the article's content; WP:IMGCONTENT. Such an image wouldn't reflect the already stated facts of 580 villages and the difference in settlement sizes; it would even confuse the reader by presenting a big chunk of the Peloponnese as completely uninhabited. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It is OR to depict every Greek village 3.5 times larger than the Albanian ones when the source clearly talks about an average, making all the dots 3.5 bigger would be erroneous and misleading to the readers. If the dots have to be sized according to the number of citizens per village, then it should be done for each settlement individually. This is obviously very time-consuming and it's why I wouldn't connect any quantitative data to the dots altogether, just as the author did in his map. But if someone wants to do it in the future, well feel free to do it I guess. The map would be extremely useful to the readers who will have a better understanding of the geographical extent of the migrations of the Albanians in the late Middle ages. The author did an excellent job on collecting so much data, devaluating his work by saying that it is not complete is ridiculous considering that such maps may never be complete in the first place. Eitherway, all the information related to the Venetian regions and the number of citizens can easily be depicted in a caption at the bottom of the map. Ahmet Q. (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Çerçok: Add the map. The original source doesn't see any "concerns" about the size of Albanian communities. These concerns exist only in the narrative of some wikipedia editors. RS guidelines allow you to add the map and provide no reason of anyone to dispute it. If it is disputed, it can be discussed via RfC.--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't clear enough. When i wrote that his book expands on each settlement specifically, i meant that his chapter "The Historical Geography of the Peloponnese" (pp. 11-210) analyzes the historical toponymes and the location of the settlements that are depicted as dots on the map; but, if i recall correctly (i do have a hard copy of the book, but not currently with me), in the same book he does include a map that shows quantitative variables that represent the size of each identified/localized settlement. Thus, it isn't WP:OR nor time-consuming. Furthermore, a 3.5 times larger symbol that is meant to represent the average size of Greek villages in relation to the Albanian villages, wouldn't be WP:OR either, if stated as such on the map. Last, i am not devaluating the author's work (for whom i have great respect and have been in contact with since August 2020) just because i state the obvious. This is an incomplete map (forget the few Venetian possessions, i am referring to the settlements that were under the Ottomans and are listed in the cadastre), and honestly i don't see how it would improve the article by reflecting on its content; it would only confuse the reader, and that's my opinion. Demetrios1993 (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Image caption

I have made the caption of the image more inclusive to show the coexistence of both Greeks and Albanians in Nafplio and Βατο has reverted me. The captions was previously this Case di Albanesi (lit. Houses of the Albanians) outside the Venetian walled city of Napoli di Romania, early 16th century. and I have edited it to this

The Venetian walled city of Napoli di Romania were the Castel di Greci (lit. Castle of the Greeks) can be seen within the walls and outside the walls, the Case di Albanesi (lit. Houses of the Albanians), early 16th century. An example of the coexistence of both Greeks and the Albanians who where invited to serve as soldiers and/or cultivate the land.

. I have been reverted as off-topic which it does not make sense since I have just expanded the explanation of the image. Is there a problem to have an inclusive description? If there is a problem with inclusivity I will leave it as is. Othon I (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Great addition, it actually adds essential information about the subject, per wp:MOS.Alexikoua (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, and it indeed follows the WP:MOS and WP:CAPTION guidelines now that I read them plus, the WP:NPOV policies. Most importantly, it is inclusive for both. Othon I (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously that addition has nothing to do with the subject of the article and is off-topic, don't add it back. Ahmet Q. (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

And goes to WP:DR you cant force remove the description of the image as off-topic especially when it is inclusive and dictate the users what to do. Best Othon I (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I restored the version as trimmed by @Khirurg, with the caption that includes content directly related to the subject of this article. – Βατο (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Βατο: Agreed. The article is about the Arvanites, not about other communities - WP:OFFTOPIC.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Side comment: Castel di Greci (Fort of the Greeks) is not in the walled center, it's a fort outside the center which is Castel di Fra(n)chi (Fort of the Franks).--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Just for your information, castel means castle, fort is forte or fortezza in Italian. The image descriptions are surrounding the castle if you noticed and are not within, probably because they’re is no space. Best Othon I (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems like some editors who have a tendency of POV-pushing are edit-warring again about the content added in this caption, which has clearly nothing to do with the article. It is getting really embarrassing but it provides for some interesting diffs. Can someone explain to me why we are first adding information about the Greeks in the caption when multiple other communities are pictured in the image as well, and more importantly, when it is completely unrelated to the ethnic Albanians in the city? Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You must be taking the piss seriously. I am not sure if you have read the article, It bloody deals with the coexistence of Greeks and Arvanites especially in the demographics and you labelling the caption off topic? Just because you feel uncomfortable with it? You prefer edit warring on this with other users instead of making a argument for your case to the DR that you have been notified. Oh and just for the record, this article is about Arvanites not about ethnic Albanians, there is an article about ethnic Albanians. You are not here to build an encyclopaedia that’s certain!!! Othon I (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Well you sure seem to be extremely aggressive right now, this is not the way to have a civil discussion Othon. The article deals about many aspects of the Arvanites but guess what? The main subject is the Arvanites, not the coexistence between them and Greeks. If you can't comprehend such an obvious statement, I'm doubting your ability to contribute to Wikipedia in a neutral way. Btw, guess what the Arvanites were called in the 16th century? Albanians, because that is what they were. Ahmet Q. (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

So the don’t add that again above that you wrote was not aggressive? The article is about Arvanites not about Albanians. The article deals with the coexistence with the Greeks e.g their common revolt with Manuel Kantakouzenos as their common leader. Not to mention their assimilation. It’s really a disappointment, editors nowadays to resort to polemics and turn the back to constructive dialogue. Othon I (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I had the impression that the description of the pic on Commons said "House of the Albanians" or that was the name of the pic. I now see that the names "H. of Albanians", "H. of Greeks", "House of Franks" etc are in the pic itself. Not a thing to argue over and give time to. It is a tiny detail. I agree with whatever caption. In any case, this article is about the Arvanites and the history section concerns their Albanian ancestors in Greece. A natural caption would be either "The house of the Albanians" or "The house of the Albanians and other houses of neighbouring communities (Greeks and Franks)". If the House of Greeks is mentioned but not that of Franks, it is a sign that in a naive way editors want to make sure that the Greek presence is not "forgotten". Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bato and Maleschreiber that the additional text in the caption is off-topic. It should not be included. Excine (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, it is a childish dispute. Will the world change if a caption is chosen over the other? "The House of the Albanians near houses of neighbouring communities, Greeks and Franks" probably could "satisfy" everyone interested in this silly edit warring. I thought that the issue was the description on Commons and WP:OR. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991 I am really flabbergasted from your comment. A voice of logic after quite a while to be honest. And not petty chit-chat like above. My intention was to write an inclusive caption, that shows the coexistence of both people since the pictures offered that. Nothing more nothing less since the very article deals with it. Of course the castle of the Franks can be added as well to show the coexistence of everyone. But labelling it off-topic is as weird as it gets. There is a DR ongoing for this but a caption for the Castle of the Franks, the Castle of the Greeks and the Houses of the Albanians is the most inclusive caption of the image. Thank you. Othon I (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, inclunding only the House of the Albanians in the caption is not wrong at all, be cause the History section is about the Arvanites and their Albanian ancestors, not about the entire city. Having in the caption only Albanians and Greeks is without a good logic, unless one wants to make sure the Greek element is not "forgotten". If one is concerned about inclusive issues, one would not forget to add Franks together with Greeks. And indeed wasting time to open a DRN and waste DRN's volunteer community's resources for such an obsure detail that nobody on Earth gives a f about is weird. Btw, at the time of Manuel Kantakouzenos there were no Arvanites. There were Albanians, whose distant descendants, as widely happened with many communities in the Balkans in Ottoman times, gradually lost the memory of their ancestors. Anyways, do whatever you want with the caption. I hope the time spent on it was worth it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(←) I have changed the caption to this The Venetian walled city of Napoli di Romania where the Case di Albanesi (lit. Houses of the Albanians) can be seen outside the walls and the castles of their neighbouring communities 'Castel di Greci (lit. Castle of the Greeks) and Castello di Franchi (lit. Castle of the Francs) can be seen within. Early 16th century. Othon I (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice way to ignore what other users previously wrote, which is that such additions are off-topic. You clearly seem to know that it is off-topic, considering your recent edit summary [14]. This is, again, a blatant demonstration of your disruptive behavior. I'm afraid your editing behavior is getting out of hand and that some admin oversight is needed here. Ahmet Q. (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh really? I have already requested admin intervention, there is a DR running which I have asked if the caption is off topic or not. Additionally you will be reported for harassing me if you continue to stalk my edits. And also, the edit has been fixed by the user to the page that you posted. By the way, the pattern of your insults look very familiar to me from another instance. That’s interesting.. Othon I (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The image caption proposed by Othon is WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:UNDUE and disputed by many editors. The caption should be the bare minimum which hasn't been disputed: Case di Albanesi (lit. Houses of the Albanians) outside the Venetian walled city of Napoli di Romania, early 16th century.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree Maleschreiber, to think that some users would want to contest should an obvious statement is really worrisome. Ahmet Q. (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The question here is why existence of Castel di Greci which is found in the center of the specific drawing should vanish from caption. So far no explanation is offered.Alexikoua (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually the question is the exact opposite, why should we add information that is completely unrelated to the subject of the article? Ahmet Q. (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

So apparently according to Othon the image reflects some kind of "symbiosis" between the Albanians and Greeks because of the section it was placed in. The section doesn't actually describe anything about any kind of "symbiosis"(?) Have you even read it? And needless to say that I will need a source that backs those claims because the simple fact that those populations living around the same city doesn't constitute anything near a reliable source. If you can't find any source I'm afraid your claims are completely invented and in deep WP:OR territory, which makes the caption completely off-topic as already explained. And by the way what you are writing in the caption is not even correct, the tower of the greeks was not in the city. Ahmet Q. (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Not really, maybe have a look again. All the descriptions of the castles (castel=castle) and (tor or torre=tower) are in the perimeter of the inner city walls same as the castle of the Franks because its easier to see it. I had the same discussion above. Additionally, the section presents to the reader information for the Albanians and the Greeks rising together for a rebellion having a common (Greek) leader Manuel Kantakouzenos. Additionally, shows information that the same Greeks invited the Albanians to settle to their lands in order to cultivate the land and serve to the army. Furthermore, explains why the Albanians became the Arvanites stressing their identity as Greeks and not Albanians from the 19th century onwards and of course that lead to their cultural assimilation. If you cannot see it or read it then you should pose a rhetoric question related to the capability of perception in general. Merry Christmas Othon I (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

As expected, you have no source whatsoever to justify your claim of "symbiosis" about the caption. I'm sorry to tell you this, but the fact that some populations fought wars together is not a marker for any symbiosis. It was not the Greek population that invited the Albanians to come to the lower lands, they were invited by local rulers because they needed mercenaries and because those lands were depopulated. The claim of symbiosis about a 16th century image, in a period where there was no assimilation of the ethnic Albanians, simply because said populations are depicted in it is ridiculous. Fact of the matter there are multiple sources that show the disdain the Greek population had for the Albanian settlers during the Middle ages and later on. Considering you have no sources to back your edit and that your reasoning can be described as wishful thinking, I would advise you to revert yourself. Ahmet Q. (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you really want me to paste all the sources that the section is sourced here? Also, since it’s Christmas, I would advise to lower a bit your tone. Aggressiveness shows quite a few signs of stress. In any case, i am not going to continue this surreal debate. You have an opinion that’s fine, that is not though what is reflected in the sourced text even if you feel uncomfortable with it. The Byzantine Greek/Romioi archons and despots invited the Albanians to settle, not sure what do you mean with the local archons because they were the families of Palaiologos, Kantakouzenos, Daimonoioannes etc. please read again about the rise of the Albanians and the Greeks with a leader from the Kantakouzenos family. Also please see the book of Liakopoulos (2019) about how the Albanians and Greeks lived near each other. The caption of the image just confirms that I really don’t see why you fighting this as if not the reality which the same picture depicts. Othon I (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Symbiosis is an important thing, the article should mention it. I don't see why it shouldn't. Khirurg (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by symbiosis? Are you sure you're not confusing that word with the Greek word συμβίωσις? They don't mean the same thing. In English, "symbiosis" is only used as a technical term in biology (and maybe, ocasionally, in some other fields such as psychology, as a metaphor based on the biological concept). It's not normally a concept in history or sociology. Are there English-speaking sources that use the term here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Living side by side or coexistence is the “translation” of what I meant but indeed, I thought that it could be described with that word, my bad. I believe also Khirurg points out that indeed we need to mention in the article that Albanians and Greeks coexisted in regions together peacefully. This is what I am explaining as well, as Liakopoulos points out at his book, they often rose together to rebellions such as the Morean revolt and also it is what the picture shows, Albanians, Greeks and Franks coexisting in the Medieval Nauplio. Othon I (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That is absolutely not a reason to overload the caption of the image with off-topic content. There is a section in the article that exclusively deals with the inter-community relations of the Arvanites. You have not provided any source that directly links the 16th century image with any kind of "coexistance". The section is about the history of the Arvanites and not about any other ethnic group, be it the Greeks or the Franks. Refrain from adding back off-topic information since you have no consensus for that. Ahmet Q. (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Indo not see why not to present to the reader that Albanians and Greeks lived peacefully together and even the Albanians chose a Greek archon for their leader (despot) e.g. Manuel Kantakouzenos (usurper). Liakopoulos and Miller deal with this matter extensively and they mention about Nauplion as well so I think that it is a good addition. The fact though that you don’t like it is not acceptable to label it off-topic. It is in essential for the article so the reader can get the full understanding of why the Albanians have chosen assimilatory stance, apart from the religious factor which is not mentioned as well. Othon I (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a section dedicated to the relations of the Arvanites with other groups, if you want an image that stresses coexistence you should add it there not in the history section. And yes it is off-topic for obvious reasons as already mentioned above. Ahmet Q. (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You still fail to understand that the description of the image describes its contents. Anyway, I am not here to explain to you nor anyone else who fail to understand intentionally or not the scope of article. I am preparing text for the Nauplion part and for for the Albanians that they chose Greeks for their leaders as mentioned that will be good additions and frankly, you need to stop this WP:OWN behaviour. Best Othon I (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It's actually hypocritical to claim that this version [[15]] can be a concensus version. I assume the edit summary is a mistake in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Sourced map about migrations restored

The specific map [[16]] (migrations in Epirus Nova) is sourced and I wonder why someone should remove him. If there is an objection about the specific source this should be discussed first before any further removal per NINJA fashion.Alexikoua (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

What particular map are you talking about, when and for what was it used in this article, when was it removed, and what is it sourced to? You ought to know better than to throw random search links from Google Images around, linking to some random blog or whatever it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The map that was removed is this one File:13001350ALBANIANMIGRATIONS.png and it's based on Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas by Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, 1976, ISBN-0815550472, MAP 11, as shown in the link above.Alexikoua (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

And what was it used for? I have to say I struggle to understand what it's even supposed to show, not to mention how whatever it shows is related to the topic of this article. What exactly do those arrows mean? Without some context in its original source, this map seems pretty useless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, just one other detail: at what times and in what sense was that dashed line through northern Albania the "Byzantine frontier"? I notice that line is also on the source map from Hammond, but in a very different sense. There are two lines there labelled "Byzantine frontier", to the north and to the south of "Epirus nova", but Hammond is using that caption as a generic term in the sense of "frontiers in Byzantine times", as opposed to "modern frontiers" (which are also shown). What were they the frontiers of? I suppose they are meant to be the boundaries between "Illyricum", "Epirus nova" and "Epirus vetus" respectively. The way the map is presenting it clearly implies this one line was the "frontier of the Byzantine Empire". If this is meant to reflect Hammond's source map, it's highly distorting. (Oh, and, as a basic courtesy to fellow editors, when you start discussing an image in a talkpage, would you care to actually insert the image and link to it, so people have an idea what you're talking about? It's really not that difficult.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:, isn't that map showing the area of present day Albania and nothing about how the ancestors of Arvanites got to Greece from Albania. I thought scholarship always referred to the process of population movements of Albanian speakers from the rough contours of present Albania to what is now modern Greece (and not population movements within Albania) that led to the formation of the Arvanites. Have i got this wrong? It also begs the question, how is the map relevant to this article?Resnjari (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If anything, this map from Hammond [17] makes sense for the Arvanites page -if someone wants to make one based on it. It shows the routes Albanian speaking people took to get to southern Greece from Albania in the medieval period.Resnjari (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2022

This edit request to Arvanites has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Kosta vreto (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Is something wrong writen to arvanitas and i can put more information about the culture Kosta vreto (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Arvanites of Albanian origin

I see this discussion unnecessary but alright. So the first line of the main body of this article states Arvanites are of Albanian origin, which is backed by two sources. I don't see anything wrong with saying this in the lead. Right now the lead is vague about who the Arvanites are and only says they are a bilingual group in Greece. "RV good faith edit as per MOS:ETHNICITY - ethnicity is not something that is is covered in the lead." this doesn't make sense. This article is about an ethnic group. To not mention ethnicity is impossible. MOS:ETHNICITY is for biographies. Super Ψ Dro 14:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. There is of course nothing in the least controversial about the fact that Arvanites are of Albanian origin – except in the minds of certain Greek users who don't like to hear that said aloud. Nowhere in the reliable literature has there ever been even the slightest expression of doubt about the obvious, self-evident fact that they are of Albanian origin, and nobody here on Wikipedia has ever made as much as an attempt at citing any source to that effect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

What certain Albanian users would like the rest of us to believe is that "Albanian origin" means "ethnic Albanian origin" which is not what most of the sources claim. Instead, to those with average education, "Albanian origin" means "from geographic Albania", a traditionally multiligual area where many could speak Albanian, Greek, Serbian and Vlach in various degrees. Therefore, speaking the 1000 Albanian words doesn't make anybody ethnic Albanian, except in the minds of certain users.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. Too stupid to respond to. Albanian origin means just that: ethnic Albanian origin, and there is not a shred of doubt about that, anywhere in the reliable literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. There is nothing controversial in writing something as obvious as the fact that the Arvanites are of Albanian origin and they were called Albanians without any distinction from other ethnic Albanians before the establishment of Albania as a modern state. @Super Dromaeosaurus: MOS:ETHNICITY is about biographies. Your edit can be re-added.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

My bad, thought that MOS:ETHNICITY covers the lead in articles in general. Apologies for that. You can reinstate your edit because of course, the Greek Orthodox Arvanites are of Albanian origin, none denies that in contrast to the usual rant that some users with elevated rights and terrible manners banging on about as if they can get something from it. But, today, the consensus as well is that they self identify as Greeks, they have assimilated to the Greek nation and they find the designation Albanian offensive. This should also be reflected because keeping only their origin does not follow the WP:NPOV. Best Othon I (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Just restored the edit. I forgot to explain, by this edit [18] I refer to myself, the two editors below my first comment, Iaof2017 who thanked my first comment and Jingiby who previously reverted Othon. Just in case. Super Ψ Dro 21:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Othon |, I find it rather suspect to claim that nowadays Arvanites find the term "Albanian" offensive. How is it possible to speak for all Arvanites? Just because some historians with nationalistic views and intentions sell such things to the public? I speak now from my own experience. I was born in Germany. My parents are Albanian, my mother from Skopje and my father, an Arvanite whose family still has a strong "Albanian" identity, from a small village near Hydra in modern Greece. My grandparents from my father's side were aware of their Arvanite-Albanian identity and culture and taught us not to either deny or forget our origin. So from my own perception, my family falls not within the category that supposedly considers the term "Albanian" as an insult! Lorik17 (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

You personal experience, while fascinating, is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. Please do not clutter the talkpage with personal comments. Khirurg (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iaof2017: Thank you for the personal comment :) I think that this sentence relies on a specific reading: Moreover, and more important for the survival of their language, they have distanced themselves from the Albanians to the extent that most consider today offending to be called Albanians: they have preferred the term Arvanite (Arberor in their own language) for the people and Arvanitika (Arberichte) for the language, as opposed to Albanian (Shqiptar for the people and Shqip for the language) that Albanians use for themselves and their language -with the exception of the Arvanites of Northwestern Greece, as mentioned above. A problem is that it refers to what some Arvanites think about being called Shqiptarë and how not using the terming Shqiptar relates to assimilation of their cultural identity. But not using the name Shqiptarë doesn't contradict having a distinct cultural identity and maintaining links with the broader cultural sphere of Albanian communities. All Albanian communities which migrated from core Albanian areas before the 18th century call themselves some variant of Arbëreshë and they're not called by anyone Shqiptarë. Different ethnographies have encountered different approaches:

Angélique Athanassopoulou (2005), « Nos Albanais à nous » Travailleurs émigrés dans une communauté arvanite du Péloponnèse: This situation changes from the 60s and improves during the following decades. In the 70s and 80s appear publications relating to the Arvanites or on the Arvanites of certain regions, treating this problem in a regional or national context. At the same time, cultural and ethnographic associations are born. At the beginning of the nineties, the arrival of Albanian emigrants raised fears of a real minority problem. Members of Arvanite communities take a stand and try to differentiate themselves from “their immigrants” [Kazazis, 1998; Velioti-Georgopoulou, 1998]. On the other hand, in the Arvanite agricultural commune to which I am referring, the inhabitants continue to define themselves as "Arvanites" and not as Greeks coming from North Epirus [Gefou-Madianou, 1998; 1999] and some of them began to consider their identity more seriously, searching for evidence that would consolidate their kinship with the Albanians.
Pierre Sintès (2010), Construction des discours d’appartenance en migration : l’exemple des Albanais en Grèce:

Indeed, the Arvanites encountered never question their belonging to the modern Greek nation. In this regard, they always call themselves Greeks without the slightest doubt and recognize an Albanian as a non-Greek, a foreigner. Nevertheless, the Arvanites of the area sometimes speak of having been received as foreigners, "like Albanians" in their own words, when they arrived in the Corinthian Plain, even if they are no longer. Through these declarations, otherness here seems to be measured still locally, in terms of the small homeland more than the nation. If these exchanges between Albanians and Arvanites do not confirm the track of the possible resurgence of a minority consciousness, they nevertheless allow us to measure the significant gap existing between the encompassing ideology of the Greek nation and the way in which it is. reinvested in practice. The Albanian-speaking Greeks referred to here and for whom integration into the national body had never been in doubt, therefore find themselves in a unique position35. Migration served as a catalyst for a new kind of self-representation that prompted them to revisit their history.

Spyros Magliveras (2010), The ontology of difference: Nationalism, localism and ethnicity in a Greek Arvanite village:

I then investigate the Arvanites’ relationship to Albanian immigrants, and to the state to better qualify the Arvanites as Greeks or as ethnic Albanians. I conclude that the Arvanites consciously embrace and maintain their Greek identity through banal processes while having an alternative outlook with regards to the Albanians whom the Arvanites envisage as representations of their past selves. Thus, instead of seeing them as a threatening ‘others’ or simply as sources of cheap labour, they see them as part of their own village, representing future villagers, future Greeks, and future memories.

Hamish Forbes (2014), Archaeology and the Making of Improper Citizens in Modern Greece:

Official Greek rhetoric clearly differentiating Arvanites from modern Albanians (Alvani) (e.g. Bintliff 2003: 139; Forbes 2009: 102) only developed in the later 19th century as an artefact of the state’s Hellenisation policy. Previously, Arvanites and their language were simply considered Albanian (Greek Helsinki Monitor Minority Rights Group n.d.). In contrast to official differentiation between Arvanites and Albanian nationals, recent ethnographic studies describe Albanian migrants being recognised and accepted by Arvanitika-speaking villagers as culturally related (Athanassopoulou 2005; Magliveras 2009; 2013). I have observed elderly inhabitants on the Methana peninsula conversing with Albanian migrants using Arvanitika in preference to Greek. (..) When I started conducting ethnographic studies and they knew I was sympathetic, Methanites soon made me aware of their Arvanitic identity, emphasising that they were better Greeks than those from some other parts of Greece, whom they considered uncivilised, badly-behaved and violent. In Attica, while Arvanites highly value their distinctive language, culture and origins, directly challenging the dominant national discourse on ‘true’ Greek identity, they prefer to hide it from non-Arvanites because of hostile reactions (e.g. Gefou-Madianou 1999: 416). (..) It is evident from these examples and the substantial ethnographic and ethnolinguistic literature on Greece’s Arvanites that there is considerable variability in the readiness of people in different Arvanitic communities to identify themselves, which may sometimes be affected by very short-term political considerations (e.g. Gefou-Madianou 1999: 416).

Non-ethnographic observations in bibliography:Being Greek didn't come into opposition with being Albanians, namely ethnic Albanians [..] The conceptual identification of the terms "Albanian" (Alvanos) and "Arvanite" (Arvanitis) is the result of Greek linguistic digglosia and will start to change only in the beginning of the 20th century after the creation of the Albanian state, and will gradually prevail, in official use and later (after WWII) in colloquial use. (Baltsiotis 2010)
By comparing and contrasting these encounters, we can possibly describe the plurality of opinions within Arvanitic communities.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Very impressive work (you must really really want this - 7 kb of formatted text!), but not one of these sources contradicts the fact that the Arvanites do not identify as Albanian nowadays, in the sense of any kinds of association with or positive feelings towards the Albanian state. In fact they reinforce the notion that Arvanites identify as Greeks. Nor do they contradict the assertion that many Arvanites (not all), find the designation "Albanian" offensive". The rest is vague stuff about "past selves" and "revisiting history". Nothing concrete, in other words. A lot of that is already in the article ("Intercommunal relations" section) anyway, especially the relationship with recent Albanian immigrants. Anyway, it would be best if concrete proposals were made and discussed here, without any edit-warring attempts. Khirurg (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I find the edit that Super Dromaeosaurus made perfectly fine. I'm not sure why some editors would even want to edit-war about it. Ahmet Q. (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

SD's wording is correct in terms of historicity because not all Albanians settled in Greece in the late Middle Ages in one migratory wave.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

When a source is "irrelevant" and "ridiculous"??

Article includes a section titled "Language use". I improved it by adding a paragraph from [www.zeitschrift-fuer-balkanologie.de/index.php/zfb/article/download/390/411 Zervas Theodore G., "Learning Arvanitic in late 19th and early 20th century Greece: Linguistic maintenance and cultural idiosyncrasies in Greece's Arvanitic speaking communities", Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 50, 2 (2014) - JSTOR, p.270] which is exactly on the use of language (i.e. bilingualism in historical context etc). Obviously some got nervous and blatantly deleted the info and source, and as is expected is helped by the usual team. I requested explanation why this article is "irrelevant" and why it is "rediculous", and am still waiting. Skylax30 (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The text was rejected, prob due to many reasons. I spotted: out of context, copyright and you are skewing what author of the article actually says. End result is a ridiculous conclusion. You are POV pushing and accusing others for doing just that. Cinadon36 15:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

One-fit-all aerology meaning "i don't like it". Non-partizan opinions needed.--Skylax30 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)