Talk:Epirus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Depressing[edit]

Sometimes when I see this article I think: why do both the Albanian and the Greek side have to appear as victims at any cost by showing those pictures of the Epirote women full of bullets and the desperate Cham Albanians fleeing from Greece to Albania? Can't we agree to show a better picture of the region? At the end what is that we are gaining giving this photos? I know it's fine to show pics to depict a historical period, but those were some very sad periods full of war, which happened 100 years ago. Can't we give better pictures in the article and take both pics out of this article, although we may safely leave them in the respective articles? I am sure that besides those pictures, there are some more nicer ones to describe the region, i.e. in times of piece, which is also the majority of time. A tourist that sees this region will get depressed for sure. What service are we rendering to the region by showing this horrors? --Brunswick Dude (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tourist brochure. Let's remove all those shocking pictures from Armenian Genocide and replace them with pictures of Armenians and Turks drinking tea together, why not. Athenean (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a region's article, not Cham Albanians, or Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus. Even Oświęcim, just has a little picture to the entrance of the concentration camp. If the region has 4000 years of history like that Greek lady says, then it should be telling a little more about the 3999 remaining years, don't you think? --Brunswick Dude (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, this a region's article and the reader should be informed that the region had some geopolitical importance for various powers. So, those two pictures can move to the Gallery and a picture of the Greek-Italian War can be added. The latter should be more interesting for the non-local reader. For the sake of historical correctness, one or two lines should be added informing the reader that the region of Epirus has been a theater of the Albanian-Greek conflict since 19th c. and links can direct the reader to other relevant articles (Ottoman occupation, Venetian history, cryptochristians, North Epirus, Chams etc). --Euzen (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It is depressing that in almost all articles concerning Greece or Albania one make use of the works of V. Georgev, who is not even a true scholar, why? Because he holds strong anti-Albanian, pro-Greek views!! Etimo (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that like many uninvolved editors I sigh over articles about the Balkans and try and stop them getting worse. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Albanian National Awakening[edit]

The Albanian National Awakening didn't begin after 1870, so please Alexikoua don't cherry-pick quotes from general articles of non-specialist authors, but stick to published works of specialists like Schwanders. Even as a view it's a fringe one, because for example Naum Veqilharxhi, one of the most prominent early activists of the movement died in 1846.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw the usual extreme WP:IDHT must stop because Alexikoua claims that the sources I added confirm his after 1870 view [1], although he knows that the sources I added say for example Naum Veqilharxhi was the first ideologue of the Albanian national movement.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why this [[2]] and especially this [[3]] are considered 'non-specialist' sources, even their titles make this very clear that they deal with the Albanian national identity. Zjarri: please use precise quotes and focus on the topic, if a specific individual livef mid 19th century that's not an argument, avoid wp:or conclusions in order to remove reliable material.

I also note that the latest edist are written on a very povish way: i.e. "Albanian areas" while we are on a pre-1912 period.Alexikoua (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Alexikoua Naum Veqilharxhi was one the most important activists of the movement and he died in 1846. You're IDHT is again disruptive because it includes even denial of some WP:OBVIOUS events i.e he couldn't have been an activist of a movement that started about 30 years later. Btw please don't attribute to the second source your theory about the 1870s. I added Albanian-inhabited areas but you reverted it, so revert yourself if you think that it's better than Albanian areas.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
"Albanian areas" is the usual irredentist POV. The ANA is only peripheral to Epirus and was centered elsewhere. Your source doesn't even mention Epirus, so stop this. Athenean (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Central Greece Periphery - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 14:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

References in the Etymology section[edit]

References 2 and 3 in the etymology section are unverifiable and unreadable.

No references have been provided for the extract below. Please remove them or provide such references. "Epirus for the Greeks represented the epitome of a hardy, often inhospitable land that was unsuited for cultivation and therefore needed hard labor to yield a livelihood; hence it was called εὔανδρος (eúandros, i.e. "[land] of hardy", literally "good men")." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilirepirot (talkcontribs) 01:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Map game[edit]

There is no reason to add this map [[4]], since it concerns a quite wider region (the entire Balkans and not a tiny part of it -Epirus). Not to mention that such old stuff doesn't offer any trace of reliability, its simply one of many contradicting 19th era maps.Alexikoua (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

ok, if that map is unreliable or contradicting, every other map of the 19 century in the albanian or other balkan pages and topics, should be removed,(including the one who is at the moment in the page) but they are there because gives the audience an idea on how the ethnographic groups were perceived at the time.i added the map because a more neutral view is needed and at the time wasnt only the demographic map who is now in the page, there should be 2-3 demographic maps to give a better idea to the public.we dont know if actually the map of the page has actually the correct demographic, so i suggest we add this other one. the map was added days ago and noone said nothing nor removed it.RcLd-91 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)User:RcLd-91

To sum up: the article is about Epirus, not the Balkans, so geographically speaking this kind of maps are of no use for this article. An alternative option would be to present all 19th Balkans ethnological map (I can count more than 8 in commons), but that's not a solution.Alexikoua (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

For now I've added another map of the Balkans (although still unrelated to the subject of the article). Please avoid disruption in the lead, Albania was a newly established state in 1913, its declaration of Independence of signed that time (Nov.12 and recognition the next year).Alexikoua (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- The text was saying after the world war 1, so of course it was wrong as albania existed before ww1.

And second albania was not estabilished in 1913, Albania was declared indipendendet in 1912, (independence meaning peoples of a nation are not governed by another country, but by themselfs) but the ethnonym albania has existed at least since the middle ages, from venice documents, and that was also the period the first albanian principalities were formed. I am just going to say pricipality of arbanon(first albanian state during the Middle Ages ), and League of Lezhe(the first unified Albanian state)).this things are accepted today.RcLd-91 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Per Antidiskriminator, it sounds easy to understand that a state created in 1913 was considered as 'newly established' during the wwi era. To be precise, this is about the state, not the ethnic group, or any political entity created by the same ethnic group in the past.Alexikoua (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
To be completely precise, Albania as state did not exist before 1912/13. At very end of medieval times the term Albania was used as toponym and demonym. Different states which existed in medieval times in the geographical region referred to as Albania were not Albania nor they were nation states of Albanians who managed to fully ethnically possess the territory of Albania only after Ottomans captured it. The military alliance (League of Lezhe) established by noblemen from Albania and Zeta who were of Serb, Greek and Albanian origin was not "first albanian state during the Middle Ages" except in nationalistic mythology.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


Somebody, an entity of wikipedia should absolutely intervene here, who are you to say "nationalistic mythology" and why are you changing albanias history, albania whether you like it or not existed in the middle ages,its not good to have a moderator who has the slightest bias editing and creating the pages about albania here on wiki.its clearly stated that "arbanon" was the first albanian state during the medieval, and the league of lezhe was unification of albanian principalities, and if zeta was part of it, doesnt change anything, the leader was appointed skanderbeg.if serbia conquers albanian land today will it be called land of the "serbians and albanians" or will it be called just serbia?so when you say "fully ethnicly posses" it is not accurate,how many states we have today that dont "fully ethnicly posses" their lands??the albanian principalities had an albanian leader and ethnicity, and even if anyone of them didnt have an albanian ethnicity, they were ruled by albanian lords.Even if they were not ruled by albanian lords like Kingdom of Albania (medieval) they did have albanian language and were called albania. during that time it was normal that states and territories did not exist in the modern concept and albanians were not politicaly very powerful, however they did manage to create independent or autonomus principalities(inside or outside byzantine).arbanon means land of the arbanites(albanians) and principality of arbanon was the first albanian state (or indipendent ,autonomus) during the middle ages. Maybe someone else should intervene here,neutral, because might have importance even for the pages of history of albania during the middle ages.

If you want to talk about the toponym then we must say that albanopolis means city of albani, so as a toponym has existed since atiquity. In the modern concept of a state albania was formed in 1912 so at the text is wrong when it says after ww1, must be changed.RcLd-91 (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • It is not what I said. Robert Elsie said: Elsie, Robert (2010), "Turkey, relations with", Historical dictionary of Albania, Lanham: Scarecrow Press, p. 453, ISBN 978-0-8108-7380-3, OCLC 454375231, retrieved 16 August 2012, It was only during the Ottoman period that the Albanians took full ethnic possession of their country . Because Elsie benefited the positive image of Albania the President of Albania considered him "a good Albanian" and awarded him with the Medal of Gratitude in 2013.
  • Provinces of Byzantine, Serbian, Angevin, Venetian and Ottoman states in the geographical region of Albania (Kingdom of Albania (medieval), Albania Veneta, Sanjak of Albania...) mention geographical region of Albania in their names. That does not make them medieval state Albania.
  • Zeta was member of the military alliance established in town of Venetian Republic (Lezhe) by noblemen from Albania and Zeta who were of Serb, Greek and Albanian origin. This military alliance was not medieval state Albania. It did not even have Albania in its name. Majority of Zetan and Albanian noblemen who established this military alliance belonged to noble families who were not ethnic Albanians. The territory of Zeta (modern-day Montenegro) was bigger than minor part of the territory of Albania controlled by noble members of this military alliance. Therefore this military alliance was more Zetan/Montenegrin than Albanian, in terms of size of geographical region they controlled and its population.
  • Albanopolis is a good example here. This city was abandoned 1,000 years before first mention of Albanians. Just because Albanopolis contain "Alban" in its name does not mean it was medieval state Albania.
  • Don't "warn" people with someone's "intervention" here. That's simply pointless threatening, and is unlikely to lead to collegiate or positive results. You try sincerely to work things out, and if that fails you seek help, via ANI or another appropriate venue, but you don't threaten people. That shows a battleground mentality and casts doubts on your desire to actually work things out, as it reads as "my way or I'm telling!" Your behavior here has been less than exemplary. Be done with your hostile behavior, and try to AGF and work with your fellow editors. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


I didnt say albanopolis was albanian state, i just said that as a toponym albania has existed in europe since antiquty, and i meant as a "toponym", because it was actually a city.

-With what i've seen here on wiki it isnt taken as a base only the refernce of 1 author, but of many, however in middle ages, just like today, there were many kingdoms who never "fully ethnicly possesed their country", thats a fact.You are trying to imply that the foreign rulers have used term "albania" just geographicaly at the time,which is incorrect, it was called that way because the inhabitants were albanians.If it wasnt for the inhabitants, the name albania wouldnt exist in the middle ages.When serbia conqured albania , Stefan Nemanja just mentioned conquering arbanas, but it became part of the serbian empire,it didnt exist as a different state controlled by the serbs.so albania wasnt used as a geographical term bythe rulers who controlled it.this happened only latter , as the sanjak of albania.

-So what can we say about the time that William of Wied became prince of albania, was it called albania or austria?was this an albanian state that was ruled by a foreigner, or just because it has the name "albania" we cant say it is an albanian state?

-Many countries in the medieval didnt have the names they have today (italy,poland,germany,the baltics etc) but that doesnt make, example, the holy roman empire not a german state.anyways the name albania existed long before league of lezhe.

-Skanderbeg was the leader of the league of lezha, an albanian, and it is considered by many authors, as the unified albanian state,even if the montenegrin decided to collaborate.(Professor of Anthropology at Harward and University of Pennsylvania Carlton Steven Coon says that Montenegrins are slavinized Albanians,that why they collaborated with skanderbeg, but we cant be sure cane we?) How do you know that the families were more foreigner ethnicity than albanian?it was an alliance of albanian pricnipalities after all. And this pricipalities had albanian leaders of albanian origin, even though sometimes they may be leaded by another ruler. the albanian identity was often mistaken by the names and the religion in the middle ages, sometimes the orthodox albanians were called greeks, and ive also read here that albanians used to be called not only arbanite,albanoi, but also epirotes,illyrians in medieval.if someone had the name dhimiter, doesnt mean that he had greek origin, they were named often regarding religion.this is a fact today.if someone was called marin barleti, doesnt mean he was italian, it means he was probably catholic.the albanian pricipalities were actually albanian, even if sometimes they would fall into the hand of someone else. -the first cell of the albanian state is considered principality of arbanon, and it was createdby an albanian ruler.

-i called for another opinion because you are saying that albannia didnt exist in the middle ages, meanwhile by the consensus of most scholars, albania was formed during the middle ages. RcLd-91 (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

State Albania was established in 1912/13/14. It recently celebrated its centennial. If you don't believe me just google "100 Vjet Shtet Shqiptar" (English: 100 Years of the Albanian State) and see for yourself. You are, of course, free to disagree and to believe that everybody (Montenegrins, Illirians, Epirotes, Albanoi...) are equal to ethnic Albanians. I think that it is wrong to misuse wikipedia articles and even talkpages for dissemination of this kind of nationalistic mythology. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Dont missuse what i say and dont change my citations.i never said albanians are the same as those people.i said those names were used to call albanians.first we need to start by the most important thing that everyone should know already, albanoi and arbanitai (slavic:arbanasi) were the official names for the albanians in the middle ages, this is a known thing that is also referenced here.the fact that that the orthodox albanians sometimes were called greeks, is also referenced in different books,using the name arbanite for the catholic albanians.marin barleti uses very often the word epirotes, and also albanoi,(calling skanderbeg prince of epirotes)but epirotes was also by the same skanderbeg in the letter he send in italy.the name illyrians were used by different byzantine authors(see illyrians early modern usage).i was just trying to say that a single name was not always used to describe albanians in the medieval, but were used different ones, this is a known thing today, but that doesnt imply those people have a relation with albanians and i never implied that.as for the montenegrins i never said they were albanians, there have been words about that but its not sure.i explained everything, as u can see what i said has got absolutely nothing to do with "nationalistic mythology", this are things that have happend in the middle ages.albania actually existed in the middle ages and has appeared in different maps of that time [[5]]. 12:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)RcLd-91 (talk)All the best.

Skanderbeg conquered n. Epirus[edit]

I have serious objections if Skanderbeg ever set foot on Epirus or part of it. So far this part lacks a source, moreover per correspondent article nothing was under Skanderbeg's rule south of Berat.Alexikoua (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If territory of Epirus is what is defined in the second sentence of this article, then you are right. When Skanderbeg deserted Ottoman forces at the end of 1443 the territory he put under his control today belong to the Republic of Macedonia (Debar and surrounding region, Kodžadžik, Modrič...) and to Albania (Kruje and region toward Debar) which is far away from Epirus. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
After Alexikoua's self-revert, I've inserted a version that reflects what I think are definitely citable facts; Skenderbeg was elected general by the states of Epirus, he led a 23-year revolt, and his revolt was essentially in Epirus nova. I think it's still pertinent to the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Your additions (diff) are maybe citable (with outdated 1788 work of Gibbon) but they are not facts but incorrect simplification of the events. Epirus Nova did not exist in 15th century so rebellion led by Skanderbeg was not in Epirus Nova. He led rebellion against Ottoman rule. This rebellion happened in Sanjak of Dibra of Ottoman Empire. Not in Epirus Nova. There were no states of Epirus in 1444 nor there was any kind of assembly of the states of Epirus nor there were any kind of elections.... Skanderbeg's rebellion was completely unrelated to what is known as Epirus in modern language. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Describing it as "Epirus nova" seems an obvious way to locate the events in the context of the article. Skenderberg's election as general is cited. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The result is misleading and incorrect simplification of the events. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The Roman "Epirus nova" isn't the same region as Epirus in its use in modern times (to be precise from Ottoman era to today). The latter coincides roughly with Roman era "Epirus vetus" (northern border lies in the Ceraunian mountains, a region which was out of Skanderbeg's control). Moreover, some medieval chronicles, i.e. Barletti name Skanderbeg as "Epirotarum principis", but geographically speaking his activity concerned a region that's located north of Epirus.Alexikoua (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the term "states of Epirus" in the context of Skanderbeg is misleading. Most probably Gibbon termed the League of Lezhe as such, but modern bibliography avoids to make use of this.Alexikoua (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. What I'm saying is far as I can make out, Skanderbeg's revolt was in the Roman "Epirus nova", and that seems a convenient way to identify the area in the context of the article. It seems pertinent since it can hardly have failed to have any consequences for the resistance to the Ottomans in what is now modern-day Epirus. Gibbon does actually use the words "states of Epirus", but I agree that might be made more clear. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Although a brief mention appears to be fine, the geographic definition of what Skanderbeg ruled should made be clear (a region north of Epirus, known in Roman times as Epirus Nova). About Gibbon, I believe it's not necessary to mention his description about the "states of Epirus", since modern historiography tends to avoid this definition.Alexikoua (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I feel the problem with not mentioning it is, it _is_ what the source says, and if it's left out, it'll be that Skanderbeg was elected general (by whom?) Pinkbeast (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that you insist on incorrect and misleading text (which should be removed as irreparable) only because it is cited (by outdated source) ignoring explanations of other users. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I fail to understand how "what Gibbon describes as the "assembly of the states of Epirus" (now referred to as the League of Lezhë)" is remotely misleading. It states very clearly what the organisation is now called by historians. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Because it could mislead the readers to believe that what Gibbon wrote is correct. I already explained that there were no "states of Epirus" in 1444 " nor there was any kind of assembly of the "states of Epirus" nor there were any kind of elections in the "states of Epirus".... Zeta, several Venetian proneiers and a couple of stateless former noblemen and Ottoman deserters gathered (and in some cases paid) by Venice to protect Venetian Albania from Ottomans are not assembly of the "states of Epirus". Skanderbeg's rebellion was completely unrelated to what is known as Epirus in modern language. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Epiri[edit]

Albanians don't named Epirus "Epiri" but Çamëria.

ALBA-CENTAURI (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"Northern Epirus"[edit]

I agree with Lazarati. Wikilinking "northern Epirus" is not appropriate; that is clearly a term loaded with context beyond "the bit of Epirus north of the other bit", which is what we mean and not a term that requires explanation by way of a wikilink. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinkbeast Then we can remove Wikilink. Northern Epirus, a term used by Greek nationalists includes Korca which is not part of Epirus.Lazarati (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this discussion will be improved by you grinding _your_ nationalist axe. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Epirus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 10:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


Ya sou! I will take this review. I will review this article against the six good article criteria (WP:GA?). I will take 2-3 days to familiarise myself with the article and then update you on my assessment. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Pending
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Uncertain - see below
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Comments[edit]

Many thanks for your and other editors work to improve this very interesting article. It's a fascinating article and this region clearly has significance throughout Greece and Albania. Having read through the article twice, I do have some concerns with this article:

  • It is lacking sources in a relatively large number of locations
  • The primary source is Encyclopedia Britannica, which is a tertiary source (see WP:WPNOTRS). Ideally information should be based on secondary sources.
  • This region clearly has significance to Greece, however I feel that an Albanian perspective (if any) hasn't been given enough coverage
  • The article is quite scant about the current state of Epirus - it's missing things such as population and demographics, culture, trade and surviving landmarks

I do not think this article is ready for GA at present, although I am sure with some improvement it would be suitable. I look forward to a discussion with the nominator and am happy to discuss any of the issues above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No response in about 2 weeks. Many thanks to the nominator for their reviews. This article isn't yet ready, and I think it's best that we mark this review as not passed and await a future renomination. I am certain with more attention this article will be suitable for good article status, but it isn't just yet. Happy editing! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)