Talk:Epirus/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Misuse of sources

This [1] is perhaps the definition of tendentious editing and misuse of sources. A perfectly good source was removed on spurious grounds, and replaced by another one that doesn't even support the claim that is made. Moreover, this was done in an aggressive, arbitrary minor without any prior discussion whatsoever. Athenean (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how I Pakapshem misused the source since [2] unless you're claiming that 180,000 Muslim Albanians+110,000 Orthodox Albanians are less than 110,000 Orthodox Greeks. Btw an offline source from 1878(we don't use outdated sources) isn't a perfect source while Mikropoulos isn't making statements for province of Yanya but for the sanjak of Ioannina and he isn't even making any ethnic distinctions but just saying "there were x muslims and y christians"[3]. Now I'll revert you and please do verify your edits before reverting other users' edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Is that a threat to edit-war? Pakap's source does not say "was inhabited mainly by Albanians", and it only covers 1908 anyway. It also claims 250,000+ Bulgarians in Kosovo. Is this a source we can take seriously? I doubt it. Also, the Vilayet of Yanya is not co-terminous with Epirus. The vilayet includes large chunks of Albania outside of Epirus, and does not include parts of southern Epirus. This is the article on the classical region of Epirus, not the Vilayet of Yanya. Athenean (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Athenean I rephrased since you jump too quickly to conclusions and please don't reply avoiding the issue. The issue is that Mikropoulos isn't saying anything related to what he's being used to cite and that Erickson is giving the statistical material as being cited in the sentence. For future reference before making statements that show a particular lack of knowledge regarding a subject try researching about it. The Kosovo province is this [4] and as you can see it is much larger than modern Kosovo so of course it is possible there were 250,000 Bulgarians in that province--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
And the Vilayet of Yanya is quite different from the region of Epirus (which I already told you about), so please stop the WP:IDHT. Athenean (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Pakap's source seems to be completely out of reality. By the way it's the only book that gives specific numbers about ethnicities during the Ottoman times, and the inline is very suspicious.

Mikropoulos says that some pockets of Albanians remained in Thesprotia (after 14th century), that's what the article says.Alexikoua (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

i believe that i added the ODB citation when i edited here months ago or at least i remember seeing it...BUT in a section about late medieval times BEFORE the albanian migrations of the 13th-15th centuries which is what the ODB talks about so i dont know why it moved below but still its funny to see it get ignored but for the nonalbanian and nongreek populations amidst all the reverts lol..that being said most albanians moved southwards into south greece. in the last ottoman centuries (19th-20th) i wouldnt say that either albanians or greeks were 'dominant' in 'epirus' (how do we exactly want to define the region here..? from arta to narte? actually that question should be asked and answered in the article by no definitive answer..edit: i noticed that an answer but a too definitive one imo is in the intro..im not sure why eg berat is included in 'epirus' but not eg fier whats the reasoning?) based on sources ive read. perhaps someone could provide information about the whole ottoman period but i doubt the situation changed radically in the intervening centuries from the major albanian migrations to late ottoman times..also as athenean said the vilayet of yanya extended far north in albanian inhabited territory (and didnt include the small part of arta given to greece before 1908 in these statistics obviously...what i find interesting is the number of vlachs 180thousand of them versus 180 muslim albanians and 110 orthodox greeks seems just too big..and i also just noticed that there are no muslim greeks..no muslim greeks or rather greekspeaking muslims in the vilayet of yanya?). anyway i think that excess focus on which population element was bigger or smaller should stop from both sides unless we can provide good sources that make for a 'neutral' read (or tactfully skip it..its possible) and present various viewpoints so ive removed the current 'greek dominant' version..87.202.54.4 (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear 87.xx editor what's the meaning of your latest edit? By the way removing sourced material can easily considered tendentious. I suggest you read the entire page of Mikropoulos instead. Moreover, I've removed the 19th century source of Kuipert (I have the feeling this was added by you some months ago).Alexikoua (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, it would be constructive that you support your claims with something reliable not just "this sounds to me neutral".Alexikoua (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

i believe kuipert was added by olahus and i added a wiki color code that was removed by megistias for little reason along with other edits..actually i probably agree with mikropoulos comment generally but i dont think the pocket of albanian speech in 'chameria' should be called 'small' necessarily unless we compare it to the whole area of greek epirus (but there are also problems ih the article of defining the wider 'region of epirus' imo and eg compared to greek speech in albania it was a larger region). BTW you readded the ODB reference in the wrong section again...anyway please take into account what i wrote in the paragraph above theyre also more general comments87.202.54.4 (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

ODB takes into account the Turkish settlements in the area. I don't feel that it talks about another era (pre-Ottoman). However, I feel that this might need some readjustment, can you propose an alternative version here first? Alexikoua (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

@Zjarri: For the THIRD time, you equate Epirus with the Vilayet of Yanya which are two different areas. Erickson's numbers are for the Vilayet, which includes large chunks of Albania outside of Epirus and does not include parts of southern Epirus. Not only that, but his numbers are highly suspect, as it is well known that the Ottomans only gathered data on religion, never ethnicity (they didn't even have a concept of ethnicity at the time). And no, you revert was not a compromise, but a partial revert (hence a revert). All you did was simply omit the word "mainly", making sure however to mention the Albanians first, so it is identical in spirit. WP:IDHT is very disruptive, don't do it again. And since you seem not to like Mikropoulos, I will add a few more sources. Athenean (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
@Athenean, you are quoting Mikropoulos incorrectly. If you read the whole paragraph, you'll realize that the edit you made is incorrect. He is speaking about Northwestern Greece, i.e. Southern Epirus only, whereas you are quoting him as if he were speaking about the whole Epirus region. As a result, you should revert yourself. --Sulmues Let's talk 17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Do me a favor and read Clogg before telling me to do anything. Athenean (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean Richard Clogg? And why should I read him? He is specialized in Greek history, I'm not aware of his specialization in Albanian history. As soon as you will have read Aleks Buda, I will give a shot at Clogg. Before that you may revert yourself. And how is it related to your Mikropoulos reference anyways? --Sulmues Let's talk 20:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe we should specify that 15th cent. Albanian clans moved from Epirus apart from some pockets in the coastal areas. By the way the current version is ok. Since Clogg is an expert on the topic there is no problem.Alexikoua (talk)

I know that you don't have a problem with this version, but I do. And I don't understand why both you and Athenean are diverting the attention to Clogg, when I am talking about the reference of Mikropoulos. --Sulmues Let's talk 00:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

imo its unnecessary to fight over such things...whats clear is that generally the more north and west you went 'epirus' (northern borders where...?) was more albanianspeaking and the more south and east it became more greekspeaking (with some exceptions for both)..there were also pockets of vlachs in various areas. but we have to turn it into a contest of whom was more populous back in the 19th century or whenever and support it with subpar **for our purposes** sources..87.202.33.34 (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Clogg is not subpar, and he clearly supports what is being said in the article. Athenean (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

no disagreement..though even clogg can make mistakes based on the sources he follows (i believe i saw at least 1 in his population sizes for the greek refugees for example back when i read the book) and he is not a REALLY RELEVANT source for our discussion here which is why i wrote "for our purposes"87.202.33.34 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Clogg explains excactly this, seems your not 'really relevant' argument is wrong. Please focus on the topic instead of making extreme wp:or assumptions.Alexikoua (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Albanian National Awakening

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 [5], 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 [[6]] and especially this [[7]] 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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Skanderbeg conquered n. Epirus

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)

Depressing

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)

Epiri

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

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

"Northern Epirus"

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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or 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 media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Comments

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Epirus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Map game

There is no reason to add this map [[8]], 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 {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help). 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 [[9]]. 12:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)RcLd-91 (talk)All the best.

Mind to every-editor, Alexikoua is clearly a greek nationalist that, when he has nothing better to say on the issue, he will say the map is too big(had this map shown a different demographic, believe me, size would not matter). Anyhow, I am offering, as editors that we are, to zoom the map on the region of Epirus if needed, and I really believe that the reader should see different points of view and not only pictures of...let me guess... Greece, Greeks, Greece, Vorio-epirus, Greece(thank god megali idea is not here as well :/) In any case, these acusations come after seeing how alexikoua catches after small details only for albanians to appear like they never had and do not still have anything to do with epirus, adn does edits based on his personal observations instead of being objective. This is simply unacceptable and does nothing but misinforms the reader! In my view, the old map, namely this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Balkans-ethnic_%281861%29.jpg should be re-added, as it simply shows the demographic of epirus (which is not located in mars, but in the balkans, thus the size argument is redundant) in the light of the other balkan demographic. Unless you have serious, non-nationalistic reasons not to add this map, I will re-add it as soon as I can. If greeks can have a face to talk about vorio epirus in this page( let alone albanians never mention chameria here, let alone on a MAP!) I guess an objective german/french map is more than acceptable from everyone. I am waiting for an answer and then I am adding the map. Thank you. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.41.112 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Problematic map violating the updated MOSMAC

The map in question is obviously not in accord with the updated WP:MOSMAC. Therefore, it should either be removed or corrected accordingly ("Republic of North Macedonia" instead of "Republic of Macedonia").

I think the map's creator, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is active, and could do the corrections.Yannismarou (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, yes, that should be easy enough to change, since it's an editable SVG. Thanks for flagging it up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I tried to do it myself, since it seemed ideed easy, but I obviously did something wrong, and I cannot find out why. Now, in some px it looks like "North Macedonia" and in some others "R. of Macedonia". Your assistance would be much appreciated. I apologize more messing it up.Yannismarou (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can see your edit was quite right, apparently it's just a matter of the preview png's being cached. If you add "?action=purge" to the preview url, you get the newer version, but I haven't figured out yet how to also force it in the page display here. Maybe just a matter of waiting a day or two. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!Yannismarou (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise and Yannismarou:, to force the new map in the page display, can be done by Holding down SHIFT and clicking the refresh button on your web browser. This will clean up the page cache and re-download all information for display, including the new map. This works at least on Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and Opera if I am not mistaken. This way changes in display will be reflected immediatelly on the page instead of having to wait 1-2 days. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Attention needed on Konstantinos Giakoumis’ article

In the history section of Epirus, between 1204 and the Ottoman conquest, there is a sentence that misrepresents the view of the source it is based on and also distorts the position of its scholar, Konstantinos Giakoumis. After my edits were reverted twice, I would appreciate the intervention of a neutral admin, who can possibly thoroughly read the 12-pages long article of Giakoumis, or at least, the below description and make the necessary changes.

1. Here is the existing sentence of the wiki article (in bold, the words that differ from the source):

The oldest reference to Albanians in Epirus is from a Venetian document dating to 1210, which states that "the continent facing the island of Corfu is inhabited by Albanians" though a pre-14th century Albanian migration cannot be confirmed.[1]

2. Here is my 2nd edit that was completely reverted ([10] and [11])

Two documented sources from this period mention the presence of Albanians in Epirus, one of which – a Venetian document dating to 1210 – states that "the continent facing the island of Corfu is inhabited by Albanians".[2] According to recent linguistic and historical studies, the Greek and the Albanian-speaking communities have all along been living together in Epirus, [3] while in the 14th century there is an Albanian mass migration, confirmed by historical accounts.[4]

1. A) Nowhere in the article does Giakoumis mention that the Venetian document is the “oldest reference” to Albanians. Instead, he mentions “two documented sources” that also attest the Albanians’ presence in the area, after having mentioned in the previous page “the perennial coexistence of Greek-speaking and Albanian-speaking populations” (quote: The presence of Albanians in the Epeirote lands from the beginning of the thirteenth century is also attested by two documentary sources: the first is a Venetian document of 1210, which states that the continent facing the island of Corfu is inhabited by Albanians and the second is letters of the Metropolitan of Naupaktos John Apokaukos to a certain George Dysipati, who was considered to be an ancestor of the famous Shpata family.)

Moreover, he adds 13 Albanian names that are mentioned in an Angevin document of 1304; thus citing 3 references of this people that predate the migrations of the 14th century.

2. B) The subordinate conjunction though (needs a comma before), here used to question the credibility of the above mentioned document and the clause it adds, further implies that a previous migration would be the only way for the document to be true (but that is improbable). Whereas Giakoumis writes (quote from page 176): "Are we obliged to see in this a possible earlier Albanian immigration in the Epeirote lands, as Kostas Komis did in the case of the etymology of the toponym 'Preveza'? I believe that the use of hypothetical immigrations as a basis to interpret sources that indicate the presence of Albanians in the Epeirote lands prior to the thirteenth-fourteenth century is somewhat arbitrary. For it serves the concept of national purity in zones with clear lines of communication, mutual relations (as linguistic research has proved) and common traditions, religion as well as principal language of communication. It is evident that this was the case in a period when co-existence and understanding among people of different nations (in the modern sense of the term) were far better than they are today." Instead of questioning the credibility of the documents, Giakoumis disagrees on using the possible earlier hypothetical migrations, that he sees as serving nationalism (national purity) and stresses on the lines of communication, mutual relations, common traditions and simply put: co-existence.

Even in the very beginning of the article he writes, I quote: "The purpose of this article is to put together recent linguistic and historical studies, in order to challenge the views of 'older' Greek and Albanian scholarship with respect to the presence of a solely Greek or Albanian population in the regions of Epeiros, with specific reference to the district of Dropull in the light of primary sources dealing with the Albanian immigrations of the fourteenth century. It will show that Greek and Albanian-speaking populations had all along been living together in Epeiros, while in the fourteenth century immigrant Albanians migrated into the regions of Gjirokaster."

And in the end he concludes that, I quote: "in the fourteenth century immigrant Albanians taking advantage of the decimation of the local Epeirote population by the Black Death also migrated into the regions of Gjirokaster. Moreover, I suggested that the reactions of local milieux against the new settlers, as expressed by their participation in the campaign of Isau against Gjin Zenebis (1399), should be attributed to the disintegration of the previous local elites rather than to resistence against a 'foreign' invasion."

Thus Albanians seems to have been no foreigners in the area, and the migration is presented as an event that happened due to certain reasons, after a prior presence (all along). The conjunction “though”, used in the sentence of the wikipedia article, gives a disfigured meaning and simply implies that the 14th century migration is actually the first “confirmed” presence of the Albanians in Epirus. An analysis that implies a conclusion not stated by the source. Besides distorting the source, it violates the neutral POV, as it clearly falls in one of this categories that Giakoumis himself mentions in the beginning of his article, I cite: “The issue of the Albanian presence in the lands of Epeiros has long been a point of contention between Greek and Albanian scholarship. On the one hand it is claimed that only in the thirteenth and especially the fourteenth century Albanians originating from the Elbasan region migrated to Epeiros, Macedonia and Thessaly and from there to more distant districts, including Roumeli (central Greece) and the Peloponncse, regions inhabited by Greek populations, and on the other hand that the Albanians have been the indigenous population in Epeiros. It is needless to analyse how this scheme served the idea of national purity in zones claimed by both Greece and Albania in the beginning of the 20th century. [...] The first viewpoint was upheld chiefly by 'older' Greek scholarship, which either disregarded much of the evidence presented in support of the second viewpoint or even manipulated it to fit into its ideological position. [...] The second viewpoint was mostly supported by Albanian historiography which, in contrast, alleged that Epeiros was solely inhabited by Albanians."

2. A) In the light of the content of Giakoumis' article, I would re-frame the wiki article's sentence into this paragraph, with the citations I have attached in the beginning:

Two documented sources from this period mention the presence of Albanians in Epirus, one of which – a Venetian document dating to 1210 – states that "the continent facing the island of Corfu is inhabited by Albanians". According to recent linguistic and historical studies, the Greek and the Albanian-speaking communities have all along been living together in Epirus, while in the 14th century there is an Albanian mass migration, confirmed by historical accounts.

If, according to the last edit, the clause "According to recent linguistic and historical studies, the Greek and the Albanian-speaking communities have all along been living together in Epirus" still is problematic, we can vaguely define it as "According to recent linguistic and historical studies, the Greek and the Albanian-speaking communities have been living together before 1210 in Epirus".

Empathictrust (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You have yet to explain what "all along" means. All along since when? Antiquity? Prehistory? The Big Bang? It is my impression you are selectively highlighting a phrase a source uses in passing to push a primordialist POV. Khirurg (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with EmpathicTrust. This RS supported material deserves inclusion. Also the wording of "all along" can easily be fixed, no need to remove all the content. N.Hoxha (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
"I agree" is not an argument. You did not address my concern above. You are just edit-warring and giving only token talkpage participation to create the illusion that you are discussing. Khirurg (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
As I previously said, you just could have reworded that one sentence instead of removing all the RS content the user @Empathictrust: added. It's really bold of you of accusing users of edit-warring, please don't make personal attacks and keep the discussion civil. N.Hoxha (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I see that a reworded statement was already in the article. Well saying that they lived "all along before" offers nothing to the article. "Since when?" Alexikoua (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @User:Khirurg: I have already addressed your concern in my long description above and even suggested my solution in the end. Thus, your repeated questions of pre or post Big Bang seem quite cynical. I hope to be wrong and suggest you read all of the article of Giakoumis to understand what he has to present. In the above description I have highlighted several phrases from him and not "a phrase a source uses in passing to push a primordialist POV". Sounds like a slope of strawman fallacy. What do you mean by primordialist POV?

This current line in the article "The oldest reference to Albanians in Epirus is from a Venetian document dating to 1210, which states that "the continent facing the island of Corfu is inhabited by Albanians" though a pre-14th century Albanian migration cannot be confirmed." is a serious misrepresentation of Giakoumis' study and falls in what he dismisses as – I quote: the "scheme served the idea of national purity" on the pages 171-172 [12]: "The issue of the Albanian presence in the lands of Epeiros has long been a point of contention between Greek and Albanian scholarship. On the one hand it is claimed that only in the thirteenth and especially the fourteenth century Albanians originating from the Elbasan region migrated to Epeiros, Macedonia and Thessaly and from there to more distant districts, including Roumeli (central Greece) and the Peloponncse, regions inhabited by Greek populations, and on the other hand that the Albanians have been the indigenous population in Epeiros. It is needless to analyse how this scheme served the idea of national purity in zones claimed by both Greece and Albania in the beginning of the 20th century. [...] The first viewpoint was upheld chiefly by 'older' Greek scholarship, which either disregarded much of the evidence presented in support of the second viewpoint or even manipulated it to fit into its ideological position. [...] The second viewpoint was mostly supported by Albanian historiography which, in contrast, alleged that Epeiros was solely inhabited by Albanians."

Maybe Giakoumis' views disagree with some other sources of this article, that's why my edit included quotes and expressions such as "according to". "According to recent linguistic and historical studies"... "all along" is what the author calls the timeline of the Albanian and Greek-speaking communities' coexistence. Changing it could be WP:OR, but what he means is that Greek and Albanian coexistence in Epirus predates 1210. Thus you can adapt it better if you see it reasonable and to the point. Whereas the current form falls into source falsification. Unfortunately [13] and quasi ad hominem accusations of other users like above, don't help, though their edit might be disruptive. And if my edit is not the best, you can improve it. Let's try to find a common ground that will improve this section. Empathictrust (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverted while still writing: [14]! Is this "my way or the highway"...? Empathictrust (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid you missed the following part where Giakoumis offers a clear conclusion (not just presenting various viewpoints which he does not accept) :Nevertheless, the immigration movements of the fourteenth century are documented facts, as I shall point out below.
Thus Giakoumis concludes that he isn't sure about pre-14th century Albanian movements (by saying also: "hypothetical migrations", "possible arbitrary presence" all this also points that Giakoumis isn't sure about pre-14th c.). There is nothing OR on this & the text is presented without change based on Giakoumis' statement. By the way Osswald is clear that the 14th century migration was the first time Albanian tribes moved south to Berat and Vlore. He also states that there were no Albanians in Epirus in early 13th century.Alexikoua (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Osswalt reads:

So after 1204, the Albanians naturally followed the successor of the Byzantine Empire that was the Greek state of Epirus56. Faithful allies, they helped the Greeks to take back Dyrrachion from the Latins, and then to capture the Latin emperor of Constantinople, Henry of Courtenay, in the territory of Arbanon. In 1252, Prince Golem of Arbanon submitted to the empire of Nicaea58, but this did not last, since, in 1257/58, the Alba-nians rebelled again and rejoined the party of Michael II, ruler of Epirus59. In the same period, the Italians from Naples took the coastal zone from Dyrrachion to Valona and started to colonize Albania. This was the provisional end of contacts between Albani-ans and the Greeks of Epirus. There is no evidence that Albanians came southwards to Epirus in this period.... The Albanians arrived in Epirus from the north, but also from Thessaly, where some clans had settled in the first decade of the 14th century, perhaps employed by the Byzantines in their war against the Catalan Company66. In 1334, the three clans of the Malakasaioi, Boua and Mesaritai were reported in Thessaly. It is interesting to note that these three clans would later be present in Epirus. In 1337, the Albanians of Epirus Nova invaded the area of Berat and appeared for the first time in Epirus, seizing the fortresses of Skrepario, Timoro and Klisoura

Well both Giakoumis& Osswalt conclude that the first clear evidence of Albanian appearance in the region occurred in 14th century. Alexikoua (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Alexikoua thank you for your contribution and providing more information! I will address your points shortly and meanwhile, since the discussion is getting longer, I am inserting below the links of our quoted studies/books + a new one I was introduced to and was reading:
Please note, the McIlvaine study is about Illyrians, and has nothing to do with Albanians. The two are not the same. Also, Apollonia is generally considered to be outside of classical Epirus, as it is north of the Aoos/Vjose. It's not mentioned even once in the article. Khirurg (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Returning to Giakoumis – if one is looking for quick empirical answers, Giakoumis may be not easy to grasp, since as serious historians do, he cites sources that sometimes are scarce, other times disagreeing and has to make a careful study to fill the void in-between them. This is my view, of course, and yes, I had read his study a good three times from beginning to the end, by the time I made my first edit on his source in the article and was reverted with an edit-summary “nonsense add”. I also read several times few points of his article to fully understand them and didn’t miss the sentence you have provided in bold from p.177 - as it comes right after the quoted material I cited on my first comment of this section [paragraph 2. B)], where Giakoumis mentions 2 documents of Albanians being present in Epirus in the beginning of the 13th century and cites 13 Albanian names of 1304 in the area.
He also believes (p.176): “that the use of hypothetical immigrations as a basis to interpret sources that indicate the presence of Albanians in the Epeirote lands prior to the thirteenth-fourteenth century is somewhat arbitrary.” (a.k.a. non scientific or based on reason). “For it serves the concept of national purity in zones with clear lines of communication, mutual relations (as linguistic research has proved) and common traditions, religion as well as principal language of communication. It is evident that this was the case in a period when co-existence and understanding among people of different nations (in the modern sense of the term) were far better than they are today. Nevertheless, the immigration movements of the fourteenth century are documented facts, as I shall point out below. Testimonies from the fourteenth century narrative sources not only confirm the population movements, but also describe the nature and character of the Albanian social immigrant groups. Byzantine sources present the Albanians as nomads, poor and autonomous, who attempted predatory raids against fortified cities. The first appearance of the Albanians 'en masse' is recorded in a letter of Marino Sanudo Torsello who mentions the presence of large Albanian crowds in Thessaly, who, moving from place to place, had destroyed the lands outside the castles.”
Giakoumis seems to disagree with a previous migration wave, because it serves the concept of “national purity”, as the Albanians weren’t aliens in this region with clear lines of communication, common traditions, religion and mutual relations, as he says – “linguistic research has proved”.
What is this proof? He writes this in the previous page (p.175), and to avoid any allegations, allow me to fully quote it: “From a linguistic point of view, toponymy, as well as other acknowledged linguistic features, such as the archaic elements in the Greek and Albanian idioms of Epeiros, reveal not only the 'relative autochthony' of the Albanians, but also of the Greeks themselves in the same lands. In connection with Albanological studies on linguistics, it is important to mention a recent and impressive doctoral thesis by the Albanologist Aristotelis Spyrou on the Greek linguistic idiom of the regions of Delvine and Sarande. Since this doctoral thesis is still unpublished, it is worth mentioning his basic conclusions so far as they relate to the present a:rticle. The author confirms that the idiom in question, together with those of DroPull' Pogon and Thesprotia, constitute a clear continuum between the idiomatic conventions of Ioannina on the one hand, and those of Himarre, Corfu and the other Ionian islands on the other.Spyrou has also discovered certain genitive singular nouns which are very close to ancient Greek forms. Additionally, he not only traced the influences of the Albanian language in this idiom, but also influences of Greek in Albanian idioms of the same region which he attributed to the perennial coexistence of Greek-speaking and Albanian-speaking populations in the same region. Furthermore, he has located certain ancient Greek words in the Delvine-Sarande Greek idiomatic vocabulary, which had not been preserved in any other Greek dialect or idiom, apart from occasional appearances in the neighbouring idioms of Dropull and Pogon. Important work of this kind, undertaken by serious scholars who distance themselves from the old stereotypes of the nationalistic ideologies constitute the most stable foundation not only for the promotion of related studies, but also for the peaceful coexistence of both nations in regions of Epeiros and Albania where they have lived for centuries.”
To summarize we have a ‘relative autochthony’ of the Albanians , but also of the Greeks themselves in the same lands; “influences of the Albanian language in this idiom, but also influences of Greek in Albanian idioms of the same region which he attributed to the perennial coexistence of Greek-speaking and Albanian-speaking populations in the same region.” What about the sentence “Nevertheless, the immigration movements of the fourteenth century are documented facts, as I shall point out below.”? Well, Giakoumis never says that these well ascertained emigrations are contradicting any of the facts he gives for a prior Albanian presence. Instead, this part is a complementary large portion of his study, where Albanians are moving ‘en masse’ southwards.
For analogy, allow me to quote here another passage of Osswald, from the book you have presented. Osswald writes (p. 132, at the very beginning of the chapter “The influx of Greek refugees after 1204” [15]): “Before the 4th Crusade, Epirus was an obscure and forgotten region in the Byzantine world. But the fall of Constantinople to the Franks on 13 April 1204 and the subsequent creation of the state of Epirus by Michael I Komnenos Angelos Doukas (1205-ca.1215) made it a destination for a lot of Greeks who wished to escape Latin rule, to join the struggle against it, or who more simply wished to find conditions of stability. So our sources mention this influx of refugees, coming from Constantinople.” Then, in the end of the same page: “The Greek population of Ioannina nevertheless was and remained different from the rest of the Greeks of Epirus, and notably from Arta. A large part of them originating from Constantinople, the refugees were disdainful of Epirus” Here, there is a documented Greek emigration to Epirus after 1204. If one can cherry pick the first paragraph, would run into the fallacy of making them newcomers and aliens in the region. But that isn’t true, for the Greeks were already in Epirus prior to this time. The emigration influx is only a complementary account adding to the whole picture.
And to conclude with Giakoumis - he opens his study with this paragraph (p.171): “The purpose of this article is to put together recent linguistic and historical studies, in order to challenge the views of 'older' Greek and Albanian scholarship with respect to the presence of a solely Greek or Albanian population in the regions of Epeiros, with specific reference to the district of Dropull in the light of primary sources dealing with the Albanian immigrations of the fourteenth century. It will show that Greek and Albanianspeaking populations had all along been living together in Epeiros, while in the fourteenth century immigrant Albanians migrated into the regions of Gjirokaster. The reactions of local milieux against the new settlers shall be attributed to the disintegration of the previous local elites. The issue of the Albanian presence in the lands of Epeiros [footnote 1. The term 'Epeiros' is used for historic reasons and in strictly geographic and cultural contexts (the northernmost limit being the River Vjose). As will be shown, Epeiros was inhabited both by Greeks and Albanians (Illyrians); hence, there is no relation here with the political implications given to this term from the end of the nineteenth century onwards. Nowadays parts of Epeiros belong both to Greece and Albania.] has long been a point of contention between Greek and Albanian scholarship."
He challenges the nationalistic views of a solely Greek or Albanian presence in Epirus by:
1. Showing three documented evidences of a pre-14th century presence. Also recent linguistic and toponymy that suggests a much earlier Albanian presence and not only a relative Albanian, but also a relative Greek autochthony.
2. Giving complementary details of the 14th century migrations and that the migration wave was taking advantage of the decimation of the local Epeirote population and that it was no foreign invasion (p.182): “the reactions of local milieux against the new settlers, as expressed by their participation in the campaign of Isau against Gjin Zenebis (1399), should be attributed to the disintegration of the previous local elites rather than to resistence against a 'foreign' invasion.”
My opinion - history is not a point or even making a point – for it is a flow. I invite all of you who have edited this section and everyone who can positively contribute, to leave aside the nationalistic sentiments and objectively analyze and carefully introduce such sources, for they are useful to history and this article in particular. Enjoy the read as I will continue with Osswald below. Empathictrust (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Osswald p. 133, Chapter “Albanian immigrations into Epirus (14th – 15th centuries): “The Albanians appear in the sources in the 11th century, but this does not mean that they were newcomers in the Balkans, since they may be heirs of the ancient Illyrians. In any case, although their original territory is still not precisely known, we can be certain that there existed no large Albanian population in Epirus: their heartland in the 11th and 12th centuries was the small territory of Arbanon, between the rivers Devolli and Shkumbi.”
Something doesn’t figure out here; if Osswald considers the heartland of the Albanians a region bordering Shkumbin and Devoll rivers, how come that in the same time, the capital of their autonomous Principality of Arbanon, Kruja, is as far from the northern border of the described heartland (Shkumbin), as almost twice the distance between the heartland’s extremities (rivers Shkumbin and Devoll) itself? Quite a discrepancy and anyone can check the congruency of this.
Next, Osswald writes “that there existed no large Albanian population in Epirus” at this time. You, (Alexikoua) have written that “He also states that there were no Albanians in Epirus in early 13th century.”. “no” and “no large” are two different things. Please correctly cite the material next time. Removing or adding a word may result in the corrupted meaning of a text.
Osswald then continues in the middle of the next page (p. 134): “For various reasons, some elements of the Albanian population, which was probably sedentary initially, then began, in the late 13th and early 14th centuries, to emigrate.” And, after citing the reasons of such emigration, continues with what you have well mentioned he writes: “In 1337, the Albanians of Epirus Nova invaded the area of Berat and appeared for the first time in Epirus,”
Appearing for the first time in Epirus in the 14th century, while there existed a “no large” population in Epirus (11th-12th centuries (?)) seem not very congruent. Let’s confront that with the description of Giakoumis for the same historical account (p.177): “The first appearance of the Albanians 'en masse' is recorded in a letter of Marino Sanudo Torsello who mentions the presence of large Albanian crowds in Thessaly, who, moving from place to place, had destroyed the lands outside the castles.” Here we have some more detail, where the record comes from and... so similar to Osswald; yet, is this ‘on masse’ that is missing in Osswald’s account. And the devil lies in the details... Well, not surprisingly, as there appear to be more sources, as Giakoumis points out in his article, that document this presence, other studies on the way (this in 2002), also historical, linguistic and onomastic evidence.
Osswald doesn’t seem very reliable when talking about “the first appearance of Albanians in Epirus” but then gives an interesting and vivid account of the then reality of the Albanian migrations, especially judging from then-geopolitical atmosphere and clashing of interests. In the end of the chapter, he closes it with this sentence (p.139): “The image of the Albanians in Epirus and of their relationship with the Greeks as outlined in our sources should therefore be approached with caution.” Empathictrust (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I assume that something to reflect more clear Giakoumis' statement "Nevertheless, the immigration movements of the fourteenth century are documented facts" is needed here, right?Alexikoua (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
About the 'other sources' I'm very reluctant: Giakoumis cites a couple of them but is very careful on that. No serious scholar will agree with Kollias' Pelagian origin and Greek-Albanian symbiosis since prehistory.Alexikoua (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Giakoumis, 2002, p. 176". researchgate.net. Retrieved 2020-04-17.
  2. ^ "Giakoumis, 2002, p. 176". researchgate.net. Retrieved 2020-04-17.
  3. ^ "Giakoumis, 2002, p.171, quote: The purpose of this article is to put together recent linguistic and historical studies, in order to challenge the views of 'older' Greek and Albanian scholarship with respect to the presence of a solely Greek or Albanian population in the regions of Epeiros, with specific reference to the district of Dropull in the light of primary sources dealing with the Albanian immigrations of the fourteenth century. It will show that Greek and Albanian- speaking populations had all along been living together in Epeiros, while in the fourteenth century immigrant Albanians migrated into the regions of Gjirokaster". researchgate.net. Retrieved 2020-04-17.
  4. ^ "Giakoumis, 2002, p.177-180". researchgate.net. Retrieved 2020-04-17.

Non-rs map

I believe its time to change the green area with LeMondeDiplomatiques map [[16]]. As I remember the map was created by Fut.P., but an updated is needed, Sotiriadis is outdated. .Alexikoua (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That map is absolute poison within the topic area, with "Greeks" mysteriously in Kurvelesh and Erseka, and the tiny region of Vraka somehow going on steroids to include all of L. Shkoder's shores. Also, it is a map covering Albania not the topic of this article, a region of which 2/3 ish lies outside Albania. --Calthinus (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
IMO, best focus on other things. The map is very disputed, and I predict that any attempt to insert that map will immediately result in an edit war. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Map

@Ahmet Q.:@Khirurg:

State of Epirus

Ahmet's map is probably the best map in the article right now and I'm sure that he did a lot of work to get it done. Khirurg's concern is that it doesn't show the State of Epirus in bold letters, but the infobox says "State of Epirus". It doesn't leave any gaps for misreading it. Side comment: There have been several back to back disputes today. I think that the situation needs to cool down and avoid a revert war over a great map that does justice to the extent of the medieval Epirote state because one of its labels is not bold enough.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Map of the Balkans, with the original core of Epirus and its conquered territories shown in various shades of green
Expansion of the Despotate of Epirus in the early 13th century.
Ahmet's map is problematic for the reasons I mentioned: Namely, "State of Epirus" is almost invisible, while the rather insignificant "Principality of Arbanon" is much more prominent. This just doesn't make sense. Second, the previous map is actually better because it shows the temporal evolution instead of a single snapshot. Ahmet should seek conensus instead of brute-force edit-warring. And speaking of "cool down", you might want to tell him to cool it (since you seem to follow him and back him in literally every single dispute he gets involved in, e.g. Talk:Greek Cypriots). Because as we saw in a recent arbitration case, the standards are stricter now, and edit-summaries like these [17] ("know your place") are going to get Ahmet in a lot of trouble very quickly. Khirurg (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
First, the side comment: you called his edits aggressive POV-pushing. This sort of thing will get many people frustrated and it evolves into a cycle of personalized disputes Now, the content dispute: Both maps can be used. Nobody forces us to use only one map. Ahmet's map is good because it has more detail and it allows the reader to understand the international context. You want him to change a label. Isn't it easier to just ask him to change it instead of removing it?--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The source from Osswald writes Arbanon in bold and it isn't centered because of the limited space, I have followed what the source depicts to avoid OR. Fact of the matter the source actually doesn't even label on the map the territories in yellow as "Empire of Thessalonica" or even "State of Epirus", that's something I have added myself in order to avoid confusion. On Wikipedia we should look at what reliable sources write or illustrate, so maybe we should just fellow the source completely and thus remove the term "State of Epirus" altogether from the head of the legend and from the territories on the map. In this way we would be completely sure that there are no OR and POV issues. Also, can you explain why the principality of Arbanon is "rather insignificant"? From which sources do you conclude this? Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Ahmet's map cannot be used in its present form, for the reasons I have mentioned. "Despotate of Epirus" should appear in much darker font. "Principality of Arbanon" should appear in smaller font and in the correct location to avoid misinformation. I will also contact the author of the original map. He put a lot of effort into it and may not take kindly to his being summarily removed by Ahmet. And yes, his behavior is becoming increasingly aggressive. As his mentor (I'm sensing that kind of relationship), you may wish to have a word with him, before things escalate to the point where he may be sanctioned. Khirurg (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
You still haven't given any good reason to remove the map other than your own personal preferences. Also you label my behavior as "increasingly aggressive", what I consider to be aggressive is the fact that you followed me and reverted me multiple times on four different articles in less than 24 hours, even on articles you never edited before, like Feta and Greek Cypriots. Do you think this kind of behavior is acceptable on Wikipedia? Why did you do this? Considering that many decade-long POV-pushing editors have been sanctioned recently, I would advise you to "cool down" as well and to refrain from giving orders to other editors as you have done lately. If you continue on this path, I'm afraid nothing good will come from it. I would also appreciate if instead of edit-warring and using tag-teaming tactics (as one respectable admin has pointed out not so long ago [18]) you could debate respectfully. Lastly, refrain from qualifying my "relationship" with user Maleschreiber as a "Mentor"-like relationship. How did you even think this was even remotely acceptable to write? Do you think it would be okay for me to fantasize over the relationships you have with other users on this platform? Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
When I looked at the map, I felt the "State of Epirus" became a geographical term or something, and the Principality of Arbanon being the name for the whole yellow territory. Those who made the map should bear in mind that darker bold is for states, while lighter colors are usually for geographical names. The map could really see some improvements addressing the issues mentioned so far, before making its way back into the article.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
There was no Despotate of Epirus. Ahmet and Constantine know that it's a historiographical term about the state of Epirus. Both maps can be used.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Despotate of Epirus is the most widely used term in modern bibliography. You should know that. Ahmet's map cannot go in the article in its present form, unless the issues I've mentioned are addressed. Khirurg (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Really, there is nothing wrong with this map. It is well sourced. Dare I say, perhaps it is blasphemous to show Arbanon existing? Sure hope not.--Calthinus (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Arbanon? The problem is Epirus, not Arbanon. Why, although the article here is about Epirus, the name of the state of Epirus is hard to see on the map. If every other neighbor has solid letters, including Arbanon, then why can't Epirus too? This was a rhetoric question and I do not expect an answer. The only answer here, can be one: to fix this cheap POV. The ideal is: change the state's name from "State of Epirus" into "Despotate of Epirus" and change transparency of text to make it as solid, on par with the transparency for every other state. I am sure third party editors are scratching their heards why we are... discussing this. The solution is reasonable and shouldn't take more than 5 minutes for the map's creator to fix. Edit: the state's name may remain "State of Epirus" and this is in line with the complicated background of the name which is covered in the article. For this reason, nevermind about what I said above - I have striken it.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
In addition to the font for "State of Epirus" (I don't care if it's "State" or "Despotate"), the other issue is that as a vassal state, the label of the Principality of Arbanon should be in somewhat smaller font, considering that the other states in the map were independent, but Arbanon was a vassal of Epirus. The label should also be placed within the territory of Arbanon, not outside of it. Khirurg (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I tend to assume our readers have enough intelligence to infer that "Principality of Arbanon" refers to the entity that would otherwise be unlabeled, and not to the entire State/Despotate/Whateverdom of Epirus, for which it would be quite uncentered. Yes, the text for "State of Epirus" should be darker, the same darkness that not only Arbanon but also Serbia, Bulgaria etc have. --Calthinus (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ahmet Q: Several editors have objected to your map and explained the reasons. The onus is on you to make the necessary changes and get consensus. You will NOT ram it through with brute force edit warring, especially with disingenuous edit summaries. Khirurg (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if you would have actually watched the edit I made instead of simply reverting, you would have seen that I didn't re-add my map but another map of Constantine which was removed without consensus. As for my map, I have already stated above which changes I was willing to make. Ahmet Q. (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I saw that, but reverted because you are still trying to add something without consensus, all the while trying to reverse the burden of seeking consensus. I searched through the article but was unable to find when that map was added and removed. If the map had indeed been in the article for a long time, I would be willing to self-rv. Khirurg (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE addition in lead

The selective addition of short-term entities that existed during 1359–1416 falls clearly into UNDUE. Even if we want to overemphasize those 65 years the Albanian entities were not the only ones that existed in Epirus: Ioannina-Zagori-most of the coast (Venetian presence, Butrint etc) were not under the control of Albanian entities during this short period & Argyrokastro was controlled by Zenebishi after 1380. The concept to mention the Albanian presence in reference to this short period is clearly against a neutral lead presentation of the history section.Alexikoua (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, there were other political entities that existed, and they deserve mention as well. The role of the Albanian tribes in Epirus during that time is major, because it caused a collapse of local power structures, and this fragmentation made it easier for the Ottoman conquests (as is sourced in the article). As is discussed by sources, the Albanians in particular played a major role during that specific time frame, more so than the Venetians and the very short-lived Serbian empire (who were also heavily aided by Albanian mercenaries), and so it is not undue. Furthermore, these Albanians were the predecessors of the Chams and the other southernmost Albanian groups, such as the Suliots and the Arvanites, who played an integral role in Greek history. Those “small entities” were characterised by the region being overrun by Albanians, and as it was a crucial part of Epirus’ history, it should be covered in the lede. Trying to limit the role of Albanians in the region’s history is not very beneficial to the article. Botushali (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Trying to partially present 65 years of 14-15th century history is not beneficial indeed regardless of the ethnic group. However, I agree that all entities/groups should have a fair presentation. Alexikoua (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Epirus/Archive_3&oldid=1185011782"