Talk:Parga

message: Is there any known information on Parga Castle?
D. BULL 10:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of information are you looking for? Samulili 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parga Castle 

message: The source link is dead. But, where is it stated that Parga, excactly, was home of a Cham minority? I know there were some towns in the region, but never heard of Parga. Please state the excact sentence that points the town of Parga with Cham population.Mariosbiourd (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Thimio Gogozoto, a non-notable individual added for the usual POV reasons.  His article was deleted, I see no reason whatsoever why this individual should be listed here.  Athenean (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cham minotiry

message: The text reads: "Venetians created a perfect defence plan, which in combination with the natural fortification made the fortress."
Made the fortress what? Impregnable, perhaps? Perhaps the writer means "perfected the fortress?"
The writer probably meant "The Venetians" rather than "particular unspecified Venetians?"
Poihths (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Parga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111205033146/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=20 to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=20&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110828073923/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=28&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=28&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110827130449/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=65&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=65&lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Parga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110827162735/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=44&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=44&lang=en
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110825233321/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=48&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=48&lang=en
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110828110343/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=50&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=50&lang=en
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110826024406/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=46&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=46&lang=en
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110826031730/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=1320&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=1320&lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Parga. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111102171034/http://www.parga.gr/site/?lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Balta states that he was an agha/lord of of Margariti (Ottoman territory), also Mika Suonpää, Owain Wright reads: Vlassopoulos's diplomacy focused on defending the neighbouring population of Parga, whose leader, Hasan Agha Tsapari, had sought Russian support. </br>Conclusion: Tsapari was the leader of the neighbouring population of Parga (that's Margariti&Fanari) when Parga was under Russian control. Off course it was impossible for an Muslim-Ottoman official to be at the same time governor in a Christian power. Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this is source falsification and will be removed. Hasan agha (title) Tsapari was an ally of Ali Pasha and fought against the Souliotes. He was never a leader of Parga (about the neighbouring population of Parga i.e. Margariti, Fanari that's another issue) . Note: By saying "Christian power" one can understand: Venice, France, Russia. Tsapari was not a governor in those powers. He remained an Ottoman agha (see Balta etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe it has to do with your knowledge of English, but the source says nothing that can be read as what you're trying to do. Now, don't try to do any reverts which are themselves heavy "source falsification" and about which you've already been told that there's nothing that you're putting forward that makes any sense in terms of bibliography. There's already one edit-warring report about your activity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Every single one of your posts is laced with threats and taunts. "Your knowledge of English", "there's already one edit warring report about your activity", "there'll be admin oversight". If this continues, there will be admin oversight. Discuss in a civil manner, or not at all. Khirurg (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Agha" is a title of an Ottoman official and Tsapari was one as it is obvious from his name. He was active in a Fanari and Margariti both regions next to Parga. The later was under Russian control.Alexikoua (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agha can mean both a honorific and a title, but it's an irrelevant detail because the source doesn't put forward that he was agha of Parga - just that he was leader of the population of Parga. The full quote says it all, nothing more to discuss. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Hasan Tsapari/Capari, leader of Parga?

message: One of the plans involved Theodoros Kolokotronis, subsequently leading figure of the Greek war of independence and his Muslim Albanian blood brother Ali Farmaki. According to Kolokotronis, they recruited 3,000 Chams who gathered in Parga in order to embark to Lefkas, but it was thwarted by the British occupation of Zakynthos, Cephalonia, Kythira, and Ithaca.
*The above subsection has been removed many times and it has been claimed that it is unrelated to the article. I think that everything historically notable - as established in bibliography - should be mentioned. --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnuniq, you may very well have guessed, the incident had no whatsoever effect on the town of Parga. Its just militants who got gathered using Parga as a gathering point, and that it is it. The other editors already have tried to explain to Maleschreiber that this is unrelated to Parga (see edit summary here: ), as it is just movements of troops for a warfront taking place elsewhere (in Lefkas, Zante and Peloponnesus). In Wikipedia, the common practice is to mention movements of troops, not in town articles, but in war articles. For example, you wont find in Berlin's city article any information about whatsoever Nazi German troop movements/gatherings that had occured during the World War II. Such info is more suitable for the article World War II instead, and only if necessary. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Johnuniq it is relevant because as an independent town, at the time it provided refuge for many rebels. As already stated in the article, when the town was ceded to Ali Pasha, it "ceased to provide a refuge for Klephts and Souliotes and many residents of Parga moved to nearby Corfu rather than live under Ottoman rule." Those were not  as stated above by SilentResident, but were important events closely related to the history of the town. – Βατο (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This specific plan had no effect in the town's history as the source concludes nothing came of these plans. It clearly falls into wp:UNDUE.Alexikoua (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming that the troop movements had whatsoever impact on Parga's history, (a claim is clearly not even suppported by the provided source), is crossing the lines of source manipulation and source falsification, serving only at promoting or spreading a certain historical narrative about an ethnic group's presence in a location. The essay WP:NATIONALIST explains this is: "" by "". IMO, the Wikipedia's editors' role here isn't to add blindly any information to the article solely on the grounds that the source *happens* to use 2 keywords: "Cham Albanians" + "Parga", but to provide the readers WP:RELEVANT information about the town. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

text: @Maleschreiber: A trimmed version about the French "Albanian" regiment is already present in the text: As the relations of France with Ali Pasha deteriorated over his ambitions against the mainland exclave of Parga, the French twice considered using the men of their "Albanian" regiment against the mainland, but nothing came of these plans. There is no need for further detail about specific movements (number of troops, precise destination etc, etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COATRACK to add the word "Albanian" to the article. The event described was a nothingburger. Nothing came of it, and the Albanian irregulars who gathered were not from Parga. If they were, it would be a different story. However, the whole thing as it stands falls under WP:UNDUE and failes WP:RELEVANT. We can't clutter the article with irrelevant trivia. Khirurg (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "Albanian" is already mentioned 10 times in the history section alone.  That trimmed version doesn't reflect what happened in Parga, but what happened in Corfu. How is a trimmed version which doesn't even involve Parga more relevant than events which took place in the settlement?--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, nothing happened in Parga. Those people were not from Parga. Khirurg (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

text: A quick formulation: Should the following event as discussed in the given citation  be mentioned in the article? 
*To the existing text  the following would be added --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

text: This is the question which I'm proposing: "Should the event of 3,000 troops who gathered in Parga in order to embark on a mission to overthrow the regional regime be mentioned in the article as discussed by the following citation(insert quote by Pappas)?" I'll start the RfC once there is an agreement about the question. (I'm off to do work and will be back in no less than 4-5 hours.)--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sure. Go ahead and formally ask the question in an RfC. It's fine as far as I'm concerned. Khirurg (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  is the formatting ok? If yes, I'll post it later today.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please wait until you have posted the complete text of a proposed RfC with details such as "(insert quote by Pappas)" fixed. It's very unhelpful when an RfC is started with a slightly-off question and the details (including the total length of the question) are important. Put it in a new subsection "=== Draft troops RfC ===". Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add the quote because I've placed it again. You're right about the need to check the length of the question. I'll prepare a draft.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

text: There are many involved editors so there are disputes about different parts of the article. Recent edits tried to remove a part about WWII . Maybe someone wants to address that issue in another discussion. I didn't add all possible issues in one RfC because they're not fundamentally related. I can't answer if the RfC question is the "core disagreement" but it is definitely an important part of the problem judging by the number of reverts which have involved that particular edit.  Yes, it is the proposed RfC section. I tried to be as specific as possible. It includes the proposed text which would be added to the article, its citation and its exact position in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the draft for what I hope is clarity. That's just a suggestion and the wording is up to you. There must be more to the disagreements and I find hard to imagine that settling this question would resolve much. Please wait to see what other RfC proposals arrive before starting an RfC because I'm hoping a more fundamental question can be asked. I'm not sure what I hope for but let's see. There is no rush. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kolokotronis-Farmaki plan 

message: I'm a bit confused about the proposal. Is everything in the "Draft troops RfC" section proposed for the RfC question? If so, it needs some copy editing first. I'm sorry that I haven't been able to work out what is the central point of the long-running dispute. How much of the core disagreement is covered by the Draft troops RfC? Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many involved editors so there are disputes about different parts of the article. Recent edits tried to remove a part about WWII . Maybe someone wants to address that issue in another discussion. I didn't add all possible issues in one RfC because they're not fundamentally related. I can't answer if the RfC question is the "core disagreement" but it is definitely an important part of the problem judging by the number of reverts which have involved that particular edit.  Yes, it is the proposed RfC section. I tried to be as specific as possible. It includes the proposed text which would be added to the article, its citation and its exact position in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the draft for what I hope is clarity. That's just a suggestion and the wording is up to you. There must be more to the disagreements and I find hard to imagine that settling this question would resolve much. Please wait to see what other RfC proposals arrive before starting an RfC because I'm hoping a more fundamental question can be asked. I'm not sure what I hope for but let's see. There is no rush. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft troops RfC discussion 

message: * There were several pieces of content that were removed, all of them concerning Albanian aspects of the place's history. Some of them seem to have already been clarified (though others including  might have sth different to say on them). The main concern obviously is the following  (one of the diffs concerning it for more clarity ). It is no coincidence that an important academic source on the history of the region mentions it. The article currently gives the wrong impression that various ethnic groups that lived in the region only had conflicts with each other and never cooperated. This is an extreme POV. One that suits one of the main pillars of Greek nationalism, according to which today's Greece's Ottoman period was a continuous war between the Orthodox (including Orthodox Albanians, Aromanians and Slavs who, in Greek nationalist wild claims, were all "Greeks") and "Turks" (Muslim Turks, Albanians, Slavs and, above all, Muslim Greeks). The said period was defined by many revolts, and one that serves as a notable example is the one mentioned. That 3000 people from the Cham community alone gathered in a small settlement as Parga is sth remarkable. If the history of Parga is one of revolts and struggle for freedom, the article needs to give examples. The said content that I think that should be added to the article describes an example of collaboration between various ethnic communities, and serves as an example of the revolts that defined the history of Parga. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons in favor of POV tag 

message: *1. Not relevant to Parga: The source stating: "" is not relevant to Parga for three primary reasons: a) the source must be WP:RELEVANT to the town of Parga to warrant inclusion to the article. That means, the source will have to mention clearly that this cooperation of ethnic groups relates -or- affects Parga in any way. Thing is, the source does not state that at all. b) the source speaks about ethnic group gathering at Parga to embark for distant war fronts but the source doesn't specifically state that they are from Parga that would warrant inclusion to the article. The other editorial side argues in favor of the POV tag for Parga's article on the grounds "" however, they didn't specify which region they refer to. Since the ethnic group in the dispute are the Cham Albanians, I was bold and assumed they are referring to the region of Chameria (where the Cham recruits the source mentions, are from). I argued that the present article isn't about the region and the ethnic groups which lived in it, is specifically about the town, Parga, and the municipality of same name. However Alexikoua in the discussion below:  enlightened us that there is also the "Region of Parga". This made me realize that we were debating about regions, yet the source doesn't state anything about regions at all. c) The source says the operation was to take place in far away war fronts. But it doesn't provide any info of how Parga was affected by that operation, or the war front, (economically, financially, geopolitically or socially) to warrant the source's inclusion to Parga's article.
*2. Wrong article for POV tag?: The POV tag is meant to be used to highlight POV issues presently in the article about the town. The omission of sources from the article due to it falling short of the WP:RELEVANT criteria as explained above in the #1a and #1b and #1c above, doesn't make it necessarily a POV issue related to Parga. That's not how Wikipedia works. Had the POV tag been used to highlight POV problems in other articles instead, i.e. the article about the ethnic group, then, the concerns about this ethnic group's image, would be understandably be part of the article's scope and efforts to balance it out would be absolutely logical. The other editorial team's justification of the POV tag on the grounds of "ethnic groups being portrayed as having conflicts with each other and show a lack of cooperation" would make the most sense in that case, and it would been wholeheartedly been addressed without all this edit warring that happened in Parga's article. Last, if I may add: ethnic groups do cooperate with each other, and there are many sources confirming such cases of cooperation which can be used in the appropriate articles whose subject is similar. Just it doesn't have to be Parga's article. Obviously, Parga not mentioning this mutli-ethnic cooperation, doesn't mean such cases of cooperation didn't occur, just Parga isn't the most appropriate article for that. Which brings us to the next:
*3. Why Parga?: The #2 above brings us now to the #3rd point: The Parga article is a town article, not an ethnic group article. The other side justified the use of POV Tag, on the grounds that "". Eyebrows are being raised because there are far better and more suitable articles for the particular source about "multi-ethnic cooperation" to be cited at, such as Cham Albanians (assuming that the reason of inclusion is really the "ethnic cooperation"), and Greek war of independence (in the context of the military operation), as well as Theodoros Kolokotronis and Ali Farmaki (since they are the ones who facilitated the cooperation) and Chameria (since it is the "region" the source indirectly refers to about since the Cham recruits originate there). What I do not understand is why this contested info wasn't attempted inclusion in any of these 5 articles in the first place, which would meet Wikipedia's WP:RELEVANT rules. Why Parga and why now that Parga was recently the subject of a Cham Albanian flag-planting edit war, along with 8 other town articles from the same region as Parga?
*4. Common practice in Wikipedia: Before I conclude, I can point to how things are done elsewhere in Wikipedia: for example Pristina and particularly the section about Kosovo War. I am picking Pristina for three very important reasons: a) because it is prominent town in a multi-ethnic region just like Parga was. b) Pristina has been through wars and has seen its share of wartime events. c) More importantly, there are sources about militant movements who gathered/moved from around the Pristina region to fight at other warfronts. Despite this, if one checks the actual Pristina#Kosovo War section, will notice how any info about the gatherings/movement of militant troops are totally absent from the article.
:To conclude, tags should only be used to address actual issues in the article, but without exceptions to Wikipedia's rules and without giving the ethnic groups more WP:UNDUE weight outside of the article's scope. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons against POV tag

message: *Please do not comment about other editors in this RfC! Discuss content/RS/DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you believe that I was writing my RfC response for 6 whole hours? To sort my thoughts and write everything down, resulted into this large text, and my apologies for the text size but it was necessary. I hope it is not a problem. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History RfC discussion 

message: "Tourists arriving in Parga fly in from Aktio..."
Surely not? There's no airport in Parga! Tourists either fly in to Aktio, or depart from Aktio.
Hundovir (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport 

message: As far as I know, the Kiepert/Aravandinos map from 1878 is the only ethnographic map that shows Parga. Kiepert was a respectable scholar of his day and therefore the map is due and relevant. Khirurg (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, the towns and villages of Epirus not getting as much love from the cartographers compared to most other areas, especially Peloponnese, Attica, Macedonia and the islands, is an unfortunate fact. Considering how rare are to find historical ethnographic maps that actually include historical towns such as Parga, this is appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Parga is depicted in many maps. If the article is to show maps, then it should include maps from different cartographers. It's selective use of maps to use just the one created by a Greek author. Non-Greek well known cartographers have different views and their ideas have to be included or the article can have no map at all like all other municipalities in Epirus. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Three maps? Is this some kind of joke? The Epirus map is far better, since it actually focuses on the region, instead of being very general. The Ami Boue map is also completely ridiculous and out of the question. Also, this had better be the last time you call into question a source's reliability due to the ethnicity of the author. Khirurg (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I mention ethnicity? If im not mistaken the term "Greek" refers to a nationality as well as an ethnicity. The map you imposed by brute-force edit warring is clearly not neutral and will not be included, even if it "focuses on the region". You will need to come with better arguments. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are clearly implying that the map I added is not reliable only because the data comes from a Greek scholar. This is ethnic baiting and will be brought to admin attention. Yesterday a user was topic banned for this exact reason. I will give you a chance to retract your comments before reporting you. Your call. Khirurg (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Euhmm... no, not at all. You are clearly trying to deflect from the conversation by casting aspersions and creating a very dangerous narrative. Greek ethnographic maps (as well as any other Balkan ethnographic map for that matter) from the 19th century were created in a time where nationalistic rhetoric was rampant in the Balkans. Many of those maps were used to try to justify sovereignty over disputed lands. Now, if you have a source from a modern Greek scholar that doesn't fall in WP:AGEMATTERS and is reliable, that would be perfectly fine Khirurg. I think that the intervention of an admin would be a very good idea actually. I can't wait to show them your history of profiling editors ethnically based on the articles they edit  (and that is just the tip of the iceberg) so go ahead I guess. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is actually by Heinrich Kiepert, and if he found Aravandinos' data good enough for his map, then it's good enough for us. You have no evidence whatsoever that Aravandinos is unreliable or not neutral, other than his ethnicity. This is pure ethnic profiling and will dealt with as such. Since that's your last word, admin intervention it is. Btw, if you had actually bothered to read the article, instead of just edit-warring, you would have seen that Aravandinos is a native of Parga, and his map deserves special consideration on those grounds alone. Ami Boue, not so much.Khirurg (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet again, I haven't mentioned anyones ethnicity did I? Maybe it would be a nice idea to stop casting aspersions. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to tell you that but being born in a city doesn't make your work as an academic automatically reliable. I thought this was common knowledge. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

text: So now we have a map of Epirus and two maps of the whole Balkans. Maybe, at this rate, to include also maps of Europe, and why not, the whole world? Ahmet, can you please provide a cropped version? Or at least a version that concentrates on Epirus rather than the Balkans? This article is about an Epirote town, not the whole Balkans. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  SilentResident I have actually made in the past a map myself, based on an ethnographic map and was centered in the region of Chameria. Maybe that would be something you are looking for? But I think prior of adding other maps, a discussion should be held here. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahmet, a map like that will do. Is much more preferable than 2 maps showing the entire Balkans and Eastern Europe, don't you think? However your map should include Parga's location for it to be wp:relevant to the article, and must be based on reliable sources, not an original work. I take that it fullfills these criteria, right? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

text:  ❖ SilentResident ❖, you are free to crop those maps if you want to. Durraz0 (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry Durraz0 but the Balkan maps arent my addition. The editor who made the addition has to deal with the issues the addition has. Editorial responsibility to take in account the concerns of other editors, belongs to those who make the edits after all. That's how Wikipedia works. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ahmet: . Think that's clever? Let's see if they will buy that at ANI. @SilentResident, Ahmet is referring to an extreme POV map he had made that showed all of coastal Epirus as 100% Albanian inhabited. He tried to ram it through by brute force at the Chmaeria article, but failed, in large part because it was so crudely POV. Khirurg (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

text:  That map is not the best but it can serve as leverage for the other POV map that Khirurg added using brute-force, btw I have a reliable source for it: data. SilentResident I can add cities in the map, that's not a problem. Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad this is not the correct source, one minute. Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is: .Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

text: WP:FIXIT "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia." Durraz0 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Some WP:COMPETENCE will be appreciated, Durraz0: how to WP:FIXIT something without having the sources myself? The maps are not accompanied with any sources, as you see. The other editors who added the work, ought to make the minimal changes required to make that workWP:RELEVANT for the article. I think this is simple isn't it? I don't know for you but I do not tamper with any work without having the sources myself. I trust that Ahmet has them. :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

text: "" Ahmet, that will be appreciated. The article doesn't need Balkan maps, only maps focusing on the region of Parga. For this reason, I am removing the 2 Balkan maps and I will appreciate if editors avoid adding too generic maps just for a small town such as Parga. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to wait until I made the additions before removing only the two maps. Or maybe just remove the three maps, and go back to the stable version in the meanwhile.That would be better I think. Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahmet, I wouldn't bother making additions to your map, because it won't go in the article, for the same reason it didn't go in the Chameria article. Btw, did anyone notice that Ami Boue's map shows Kosovo entirely Serbian/Bulgarian? Just sayin' Khirurg (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't imagined that single a map can lead into a dispute like that. Khirurg, if you oppose adding any other maps alleviating the POV concerns of others, then perhaps we should just remove all the 3 maps and be happy about it?  --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with @SilentResident. Durraz0 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

text: The map has nothing to do with the official Greek position. It is made by Heinrich Kiepert, the most renowned cartographer of his day. The map is in general very accurate and fair, and shows with great accuracy those areas that were mixed Greek/Albanian, e.g. Chameria. If the dispute is not worth your time, then don't get involved. Khirurg (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The three low quality maps made by apparently outdated/biased sources of the 19th century have been removed from the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Ktrimi991, I think the logical step now is to open a rfc to resolve the content dispute, and it should obviously be written in a NPOV. Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I would ask you to reflect on the meaning of what a POV is because as you saw in the previous ANI discussion, supporting Option 1 and not Option 2 doesn't make any Option - by default - part of a "nationalist dispute" . Now, I supported Option 3 which you proposed in order to avoid a dispute about either Option 1 or Option 2. It's an outcome which doesn't involve editing disputes. In my book, that's progress. Thank you for the discussion. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That last excerpt probably refers to this map, , which is indeed as unrealistic as Boue's map. The map which is based on Aravantinos' data and focuses exclusively on Epirus is different, and in agreement with a number of other more neutral maps of the era. We also have other maps that focus on Epirus exclusively, and are nowhere near as good as the one based on Aravantinos' data, such as this one (based on data by Foundoulis and an anonymous Epirote). But regardless, i believe no map is required at the end of the day. No reason to have an ethnographic map of Epirus, let alone of the Balkans, in an article that focuses on a single settlement. Can't recall any other settlement having one; maybe i am wrong. Demetrios1993 (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks . It's interesting how cartography can change according to the criteria assigned by the cartographer. It may be an interesting subject for a future article. I think that most maps may have a "partial truth" to them, but when the scale of the discussion involves one small settlement or municipality it's very difficult and even unnecessary to try to depict ethnicity in the 19th century. You can just describe the opinions of the different reports about it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Comment imho, most people interested in reading this page couldn't care less about 19th century demographics. They are more interested probably in visiting Parga, a town with some places to see and a coast, etc, probably. I don't really think the map is all that relevant for our readers -- aside from the fact that I have serious doubts about the veracity of 19th century maps in the area of Balkan national movements and Great Power rivalry.--Calthinus (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Fanari is one of the two municipal units of Parga. 21/24 settlements in Parga municipality are part of Fanari.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The current (wider) municipality incorporates also Fanari. Fanari was one of regions in Greece that suffered from several atrocities committed by Axis troops; and their collaborators. Nevertheless as a historical region is does not belong to Parga. Alexikoua (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Maleschreiber, which source mentions Fanari? I searched Elsie but he does not mention it as far as a I can tell. Alexikoua is also correct that historically Fanari is separate from Parga. Khirurg (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, according to Tom Winnifrith, even by the end of the 20th century  ("Badlands Borderlands, 2002). Khirurg (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Winnifrith describes a broad generalization 20 years ago. It is neither relevant today, nor applicable to all areas of Epirus. It is equivalent to using a source which describes the general reduction in the number of Greek-speakers in southern Albania as a counter-argument to the description of villages in Dropull as Greek-speaking. The sentence which describes Fanari cites Tsoutsoumpis (2016) and Baltsiotis (2014) - there are many other sources. Fanari is the largest part of the Parga municipality and I don't think that it can be argued in favor of removing information about it. Instead of excluding information about other communities, you can add information about the Greek community in the port of Parga.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "Greek community" - the town and surrounding areas, indeed all of Epirus, is Greek through and through. This is not the 19th century, there is no "millet system" and there are no "communities". This is very outdated sectarian thinking on your part. Winnifrith has the right of it, Albanian had virtually disappeared from the region. The language receives no encouragement, in fact it is actively discouraged, and the old do not transmit it to the young. If it is still spoken at all, it's only by older people at home. The fact that it's from  is even worse for the irredentist POV: If it had virtually disappeared 20 years ago, it's even more disappeared now. NPOV requires that if  is mentioned three times, then the fact that it is spoken by only very few people should also be mentioned. I realize you may not like this reality, but it is the present reality, there's nothing else to it. Khirurg (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article discusses just what the sources discuss which is that Albanian is presently spoken in Fanari. Your interpretation and personal beliefs are beyond the scope of WP:RS.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Maleschreiber. Khirgurg needs to stop hanging continuously on a source that isn't even valid today. Aside from that, we all know that there are Chams in Epirus. If you don't like that, Wikipedia is a wrong place for you. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Maleschreiber: The sources discuss that . Winnifrith has traveled extensively in the region and is a top notch source. Attempts to keep this information out will fail. Khirurg (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Khirurg: You can't invoke a generic statement by Winnifrith (1992) who doesn't even mention Fanari to remove content based on sources written & published 20 years later about the region. You know how WP:RS works.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Khirurg: Hart's statement about the identification of Christian Albanian speakers fits perfectly in all cases of such communities in Epirus [].Alexikoua (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanari 

message: There has been an addition based on offline sources [] that also fail wp:VERIFY not to mention that the second citation needs also to be checked for RS, apart from that I can't see how this addition adds to the quality of the article since we have already plenty of information about Ottoman era demographics based on RS that can be verified.Alexikoua (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: After a brief search of the recently added citation I'm certain that it can't pass RS. Declarations such as this one [] are not the best ones in terms of neutrality (titled: Albanian autochtony in Chameria-Epirus and concluding that the present Cham diaspora exceeds 1 million members & finally several cities in Greece are marked as 'southern Albanian' including Grevena)...Alexikoua (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure it adds to the article by mentioning the Albanian population by a contemporary firsthand source. Should we delete the writings of Ptolemy because they are old source? Southern Albanian is an ethnic subgroup and surely Chams Suliotes and Arvanites belong to southern Albanian subgroup there is no Propaganda in that. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object the addition of such kind of information but I'm concerned about the neutrality of the descriptions in the specific work. For example about Arta it's mentioned that it belongs to Albania & an important city of Chameria that was eventually conquered by Greece. Another issue is that the territory inhabited by the Mazarakii is not part of the current territory of Parga as such the region described by P. Reis isn't representative to the region described in this article.Alexikoua (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No he was refering to the mountain named Mizrak not to the Albanian tribe of Mazreku. Don't twist the information. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not found near Parga. By the way you mean Mazaraki?Alexikoua (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know its written by Piri Reis not me. A mountain named Mizrak near Parga. Its not POV pushing only when you dont like it. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Near Parga doesn't mean in Parga municipality. I also suggest to follow wp:RS, this kind of material falls clarly into partisan bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of questioned quality