Talk:Epirotes

message: What's the deal with adding Albanians as Epirotes?  To my knowledge, Albanians never identify as such, but solely as Albanians, Epirus being equated with Greek irredentism in their minds.  I have consequently removed them.  --Athenean (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I don't believe that there is anyone even in Albania that is thinking Ali Pasha as a "famous Epirote" and I don't believe that there is anyone even in Albania that is thinking Beçisht as "part of Epirus". Same with the others. I consequently agree with Athenean. --Factuarius (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Find me some sources that describe Ali, Qemali, Frasheri as "Epirotes", then we can talk, OK?  --Athenean (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Really?  "The Epirotes, better known as Epirote Greeks, are a Greek speaking people..." from The Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations, James Minahan, p. 577 .  --Athenean (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Some more:.  --Athenean (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Like I said, bring sources that describe Ali, Qemali, and Frahseri as "Epirote", then we can talk.  I am not interested in your OR.  And will you please learn how to indent properly?  --Athenean (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The sources are 100% reliable.  You just don't like them, and have brought none of your own.  I am not interested in your OR arguments.  This is getting old.  --Athenean (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Now you are just repeating the same old OR arguments, as well as engaging in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.  I've had enough of this nonsense.  You have failed to make a case, and this discussion is over.  --Athenean (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albanians 

message: The solution to all these problems is simple: Get rid of the article. I keep saying this whenever these kinds of articles come up: sub-national and cross-national regions don't need separate articles about their inhabitants. "Epirotes" are people from Epirus, period. Everything that needs to be said about them can be said just as well, or better, in the articles about the region and its history. We need separate articles about Epirotes, Peloponnesians or Cretans just as much as we need separate articles about Texans, New Yorkers, Sicilians, Lower Saxonians, or Yorkshireans: namely, not at all. There is not a word of any encyclopedic value in this article, at all. Get rid of it.
No other region in the world has this kind of double coverage through geographic articles and "people of" articles. It is only Greek editors that, for some – to me – unfathomable reason, have developed a fondness for this pattern. It is unhealthy.
Incidentally, in the version I just found , the intro is ridiculously mangled, with modern and ancient coverage mixed up to the point of making no sense at all. I don't know, and hardly care, what the edit-warring issues were that led to this result, but please somebody remove it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree with Fut here, get rid of this article, it brings absolutely no new info, it makes no sense and gives only nationalistic disputes and headaches. Aigest (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: OK then, I agree too. Get rid of the article. Must one have admin rights to remove the article?--Sarandioti (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we can get consensus for it, we can just redirect it to Epirus (region), and merge any worthwhile material there or to some other article. I wouldn't propose outright deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: May be I am not sure, by doing so we can just export the headaches there. Since there were a lot of population movements in that area, Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs, Slavs, Latin Franks, Venetians, Jews even some Turk colonists this will lead nowhere. Maybe it is better if we desperately want this article to mention only the original Epirotes of the Ancient times and the story ends there. This can make some sense of connection with old Epirus kingdom but that's all.  Aigest (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe yes, maybe no. Many additions should be made in the Epirus article in order to present all aspects(aromanian, albanian, greek) neutrally(as neutral a consensus we can reach at least). Too many additions. Btw we have to remove the "epirotes" from the greece article linking here. Aigest that has already been done in the Epirus(region) article. --Sarandioti (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree we should get feedback from Athenean. As for the parallel cases, having the "Macedonians" article wasn't a good idea either, in my view. There's been pressure to have one for purely ideological reasons – in fact, most of the motivation was not much more than to have a pretext for colouring certain words blue in other articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All eras are explained in the articles: despotate of epirus, epirus(region) etc. We already know what Athenean will say, so there's no point waiting. He will disagree with the removal of the article. Nothing more, nothing less. Let's move on, that's what I believe. --Sarandioti (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: That is, I consent to the deletion as long as similar articles (see above) get deleted. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Suliotes and Arvanites are linguistic groups. Maniots should indeed be merged with Mani Peninsula.  Andreas  (T) 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The language of the Arvanites is nearly dead. Suliotes were Greek speaking as stated by most primary sources (i.e. sources by people who got to know them face to face) I've come across. All else is politically motivated fairytales. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: What I am here to, is my business. Got that? Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Nothing is over. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have blocked you back then instead of just banning you from the Macedonia discussion when you were causing problems. I will not make the same mistake twice. You were not involved in this discussion before, and I will not let you disrupt it now when it is almost at a conclusion. Tell me what your previous accounts are, or I will block you now. J.delanoygabsadds 16:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn... Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I decided to let you know of my previous accounts, here: User:I_Am, User:A_Grocery_Clerk, User:A_Good_For_Nothing_Yank, User:Who_Thanks_To_WP, User:Got_Some_Self-Confidence, User:AND, User:Did_Not_Commit_Suicide. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All right then, you can tell me who you are via . J.delanoygabsadds 16:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I need to think about the merge proposal.  The question is, do the Epirotes possess a sufficiently strong regional identity that differentiates them from other Greeks to warrant a seaparate article?  Whether or not a tag-team of nationalist edit-warriors does not like the article is irrelevant.  However, until a consensus on this matter is reached, I will undo the highly disruptive changes by sarnidioti.  He has removed sources, and generally messed up the article to the point that it is unreadable.  It is impossible to have a meaningful debate on the merge/delete proposal as long as the article is in such a state.  --Athenean (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree that the question of "separate identity" can be the criterion here. Berliners, Texans, Bavarians and Yorkshiremen also have highly distinctive regional identities. That doesn't change the fact that separate articles on any of these groups would be, at best, a duplication and, at worst, a POV fork of their respective region articles. Especially when the focus of the article is history. The history of the region is the history of its people; there's no sensible way of separating the two topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about the history.  I did notice that the history section here is essentially a duplicate of the history section over at Epirus (region), and that it would be impossible to differentiate the two.  What about local folklore, customs, dialects, i.e. local culture?  I feel an "Epirotes" article would be a more appropriate place for those rather than the "Epirus" article.  --Athenean (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Folklore and culture, too, can easily be treated in the region article; in the highly unlikely event that it should grow enough to require factoring out, it can go into sub-articles like "folkore of...". Dialect articles would better exist as standalone articles focussing on linguistics alone, but it's unlikely such will be written – so far, we have no dialectological coverage of any region of Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, and it is a good one.  I also noted that there is no Bavarians, or Yorkshireans article, and I can see why, but then again we have Greek Cypriots and Pontians articles.  Merging those into Cyprus and Pontos wouldn't make sense, would it?  So my question is, what are the criteria that a subnational group needs to satisfy in order to have its own article, separate from that of its homeland?  Why would subnational group X have its own article, but subnational group Y be merged in the article on its homeland?  Why have Pontians and Chams but not Epirotes?  If we could clarify this issue I wouldn't be opposed to merging.  --Athenean (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The common practice is, I think, that we have articles for nation-level groups, and then again for ethnic/linguistic/whatever minorities, but not for regional subgroups of dominant majority populations in their own nation-states. The former usually have enough specific issues to be described that are distinct enough from the treatment of the territory they inhabit; the latter usually don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That certainly seems to be the case for most western european ethnicities, although I don't think it's quite that clear cut.  We don't have "Sicilian people" or "Bavarian people", like you're saying, but we do have an Aragonese people, Andalusian people and Tsakonians.  These are subroups of the dominant ethnic group, and they do have their own article.  You could say that Tsakonians and Aragonese speak a different language, but like you've said, there's no reason that can't be treated in a language article.  Same goes for Pontians (formerly a  minority but nowadays found mostly within Greece).  So it seems to me that some subgroups of the dominant ethnic group are sufficiently different from the majority to warrant their own article, while are not and do not.  And what about Cham Albanians and Chameria and Northern Epirus and Greeks in Albania?  In the former case, I think it would make sense to merge the homeland article into the "people" article, as it is essentially a content fork.  Last question:  The text string "Epirote" appears in wikipedia text.  Where should it link to?  Epirus (region)?  Periphery of Epirus? Greeks?  It's not clear to me.  That's why I'm still not sold on merging just yet.  --Athenean (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the Aragonese and Andalusians seem to have their articles because of their separate linguistic status. The Aragonese article defines them as a "nation or ethnic group" – I don't know if that's consensus or somebody POV-pushing, but if that's how they are generally viewed, having an article for them would be standard. The Andalusian article has less of a clear motivation, and doesn't seem to be very good. Pontians are clearly a minority (though not a national minority in Greece, obviously) – the point is there are plenty of things to be said about their social status, political status, history etc. that can neither be reduced to the history of any particular place they inhabit, nor does it belong into the article on their language. "Cham Albanians" and "Chameria" could probably be merged easily, as could "Northern Epirus" and "Greeks in Albania". As for linking "Epirote", those can easily be linked to the region, just as you would link "Texans" to "Texas" (if you needed a link at all, because an uncommon term like "Epirote" should generally be used only after "Epirus" has already been introduced in an article; otherwise "...from Epirus" would be preferable in most cases.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having slept on it, I am no longer opposed to merging, provided we also merge Chameria into Cham Albanians.  However, I would request that we wait till Alexikoua can weigh in on the debate a little more meaningfully.  He is the main contributor to these articles, and I would like to know if he could elaborate a little on his position.  --Athenean (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I'm open to considering the Chameria case, personally; however, I don't do conditional "deals" across articles like that, as a matter of principle. Let's first get the one article right, and then the other, independently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh, my previous post came out totally the wrong way.  I didn't mean a quid-pro-quo or any such "deal", of course.  What I meant was, after this, let's take look at Chameria.  Which is what you're saying, so we're OK. Athenean (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, great. Shall we call it a consensus for merging, and ask an admin to redirect the page then? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't mind, I would just like to wait until Alexikoua can weigh in a bit more and give us his opinion.  He appears to be away but I will send him an e-mail.  --Athenean (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Do you understand that is not a trade market? Chameria and Cham Albanians offer different information, while Epirotes offers nothing new. I knew from the beggining that you would act on greek nationalism basis. We agreed on its redirection. End of Story. --Sarandioti (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Consensus?  Of the users in good standing (which does not include you and I pakashem by the way), we have 4 agree (Future Perfect, PMAnderson, Andreas, and Aigest), one against (Alexikoua), and one on the fence (myself).  What's the hurry anyway?  I also suppose you wouldn't be opposed to merging Chameria into Cham Albanians.   --Athenean (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Sarandioti, please take it easy. Athenean and I are trying to discuss stuff constructively, and we're going to finish off this discussion calmly and taking our time, before anything is done about moving the page. You are not helping. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Then tell him to stop reverting the consensus with Factuarious--Sarandioti (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Get rid of the article

message: Quoting single sentences is OK because this is regarded as fair use, but quoting whole paragraphs is against copyright rules. Also, this is not encyclopedic, we need concise information. I am going to remove the quotes.  Andreas  (T) 16:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: With Factuarious we agreed on the ethnic groups mentioned in the article. Someone removed them.
 Could some run a checkuser on him. I think he may be this Spis Ikke Gul Snø or Athenean.--Sarandioti (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unknown Ip editor vandalising reached consensus

message: I see Nishkid64 just protected the page, obviously on the wrong version, as always. I think we should nevertheless agree with AndreasJS that the overlong literal quotations in the footnotes need to be removed for copyright reasons. I don't know why, but Athenean apparently reinserted them in his latest revert. 
Unless some good argument is brought forward why these overlong quotes are not a breach of our non-free content rules, I'll ask an admin to remove them while the page is protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a law of nature that the version protected is ALWAYS totally wrong. So far, that law so inevitable it's not much use protesting against it. However, removing copyright violations might make a small exception from the rule of keeping the wrong version legitimate, I hope. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't you get an admin to revert it to the correct version?--Sarandioti (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hardly, because the Laws of Nature are such that that version would then immediately, by definition, become WRONG too. It's a strange and wonderful world, Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Athenean and that IP editor should be blocked for 1 week, for ruining our consensus and edit-warring. --Sarandioti (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, except for the overlong quotes, both versions actually seem to be equally bad, so in this case it really didn't matter overly much which got protected. And the most desirable outcome of the whole thing will be redirection anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still it was a consensus and the overlong quotes justify it. Either way, don't you think that we should move to redirection? Athenean just repeats his first arguments now,just to postpone the process.--Sarandioti (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the quotes. Anything else? Dbachmann, might I remind you that the Arbitration Committee found your "justification" for using the admin tools was just a bunch of malarkey. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1st part of consensus restored. 2nd part remains to be restored. Basically what the version above said about aromanians-albanians, we reached that agreement with Factuarious. --Sarandioti (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection and copyvio removal