Talk:Himarë

message: "Traditionally perceived borders" is a slippery and unhelpful phrase: what "tradition" is being talked about? who is "perceiving" them? For that matter, is it clear that there were actually well-defined "borders"? Are these administrative borders defined by tax collectors? Are they defined by local kinship customs? Are we talking about the 16th century? the 19th century? Are they the limits of the area as described by Albanian or Greek schoolbooks of the 1920s? Are they claims made as part of some diplomatic negotiation? etc.
I submit that clarifying all that will both improve the article and help it conform to WP:NPOV. If it reads, say, "Ottoman tax collectors in the 16th century defined Himara as ..." and "The Kingdom of Albania defined Himara as ... in 1934", those are clear, verifiable, NPOV statements in a way that "traditionally perceived" is not. --Macrakis (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this needs to be explained in more detail in a paragraph below. I will gather sources and make a proposition soon. Çerçok (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cercok: Can you explain what you mean with this accusation []: articles about regions usually begin with their current geographical definition and off course if this was different in past this can be mentioned. Using simplistic words such as 'disruption' for such productive initiative isn't cool.Alexikoua (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant that a long discussion already took place days ago in this talk page to arrive to the agreement that produced the current version. Improvements can be made, but they should be informed by previous discussion, not simply inserted. Furthermore, the source you placed there has nothing to do with the borders of the region. Çerçok (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 
*Comment Agreed with  and the critique to essentialism. Some of the problems of the article are related to conceptual issues. The article is about Himara but the term refers to the municipality of Himara which includes the region of Himara and two other areas which are considered part of Labëria. The distinction Labëria : Himara dates to the 18th century. --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

text: The article is about the municipal unit of Himara (and the former municipality), which happens to coincide with the traditional region of Himara. Changes of administrative nature can't change borders of historical regions. For example we have Dropull, but since 2015 Pogon is also incorporated in Dropull. Two different regions but one municipality. Similar situation occurs here. A new article about the new administrative units might be needed.Alexikoua (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it clear that there is exactly one definition of the "traditional region of Himara", agreed on by all Albanian and Greek scholars and politicians? --Macrakis (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "Traditionally perceived borders"

message: On September 20, 2020 I started a discussion at Qeparo (Talk:Qeparo#The contortions of SYNTH) about how ethnicity is discussed in all Himara articles. Ethnicity is discussed as something that is , not as something that is a matter of choice. The sentence  will make readers think that two groups live in Himara. One population lives in Himara, but members of the same families identify differently and their decisions are informed by their political and social preferences.
*Proposed change: --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 2010 is not 20 years ago. As for the census, I wouldn't be so excited about it if I were you, given the extremely poor track record of the previous census. Now, what you are proposing can be added somewhere else in the article, without altering the lede sentence. Provided, of course, we also add the material for Nitsiakos. Khirurg (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If Maleshreiber wants to dig into "", this is none of our concern here. However seeking to pass non-neutral changes on a very sensitive topic, changes which are attempting to portray a persecute minority in Albania in a less prominent light using exactly this kind of argument, and this at a time where the hardships this minority is facing, are undergoing, are extremely POV and unhelpful changes. Everyone should refrain from instigating problematic voting-based progresses that may seek to violate exactly this wp:neutral rule which tells us that neutrality cannot be superseded by editor consensus. Imagine if editors have tried to start a voting progress to do the same about minorities in i.e. North Macedonia's Albanian and Bulgarian minorities or Greece's Pomak and Roma minorities in favor of other communities in the same regions (i.e. Macedonian or Turkish), using such faulty arguments like " like Maleshreiber did. If I were you I wouldn't go down this dangerous route. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are exactly the same families. You'll understand that if you examine bibliography carefully. I can start a discussion at RfC if you are opposed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed text has several issues, not to mentioned that it's not supported by a single reference. I assume Mschr. needs to  provide it else this discussion has no meaning. wp:OR additions are problematic by definition.Alexikoua (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Maleshreiber let me be clear: the text you proposed isn't backed by strong references, and will require WP:EXTRAORDINARY sources to support claims that the minority's prominence is result of a political bloat among "wannabe" within families like as your arguments in your proposal are suggesting. Sorry but no way. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contortions of SYNTH - the sequel 

message: the first word used to describe himara in the first sentence of the lede should not be that it is bilingual. the fact that it is bilingual should be addressed later in the lede. Durraz0 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the municipality of Himarë is not defined as a bilingual one.--Lorik17 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read all the discussions at Talk:Himara/Archive 1. It'll take you about 2 hours to understand who said what and why but in the end you'll understand - as I did - that most problems of the article are very old and haven't been solved because particular editors promoted the use of bad bibliography and others allowed it, because they did the same thing in other articles on opposite sides.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: An abandoned tourist guide which only exists on scribd, written by the former mayor Vasil Bollano (who got less than 100 votes in the last elections they tried to get elected) was used for the claim that 85% of Himara spoke Greek as their mother tongue. Abandoned tourist guides with specific political narratives written/promoted by former mayors who are not linguists and have no links to academia whatsoever aren't RS - and I don't think that anyone can find support for the use of such publications in any guideline. (Side comment:  Reading 11-year-old "justifications" for its use is very interesting - the problem doesn't lie in those who added it, but in those who accepted such bad use of bibliography) A new 2021 study written by Andrey Rusakov for Sobolev's Between Separation and Symbiosis:
 The difference with what the article is discussing is jarring. I have added a summary of the paper, but I used a full citation for editors who want to expand it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: (By the way wikipedia is not a political forum to question publications by democratically elected regional authorities) As I see this work is published by the municipality of Himara, that's an official authority in Himara, Albania. The claim that this is found in scribd can't be an argument for removal or to claim that it's abandoned now. Abandoned? by whom? I don't think so, everyone that visited Himara can find it. The text reads "data according to the municipal authorities" and yes this is published by the specific authorities. I wonder how Rusakov can be used as an alternative to demographic estimates by the local authorities.Alexikoua (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, one of the reasons for such things might be that the demographics of Himara have changed a lot in recent decades. Look at the list of the members of the Himara municipality council. Rather strangely, half of them have typical Muslim and Catholic Albanian surnames. The rest are Orthodox, some with typical Albanian names and others with Greek ones . Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there is anything on the official website of Himara which corresponds to the abandoned pdf on scribd, you can update the article with information from the source. But you can't pick an abandoned pdf and claim that it represents the official position of the municipality.  We shouldn't classify people by their names. We can't use side by side peer-reviewed publications and old pdfs with political talking points. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I m not sure if you have realized it but a decent ammount of the world's WP:PRIMARY sources are no longer found on official or original websites, yet there wasn't any problem using them to inform the readers that the authorities said this or that at the given time, since this doesn't cancel the fact that the assertion was indeed made. Using the description "abandoned" is a red herring since Wikipedia reflects on sources, not on whether the source was moved or archived since then. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

text: "" A question. Can you point me to any policy here in Wikipedia which states that primary sources are dependent on whether the authority of the time, was re-elected or not? Because with this problematic reasoning, is like as if Wikipedia should only use statements and claims by dictators such as Lukashenko who stayed in power forever, while claims by democratic authorities shouldn't because -according to your logic- "opinions as Mayors were reversed by later defeats in elections". --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. BalkanInsight is a reliable news site and I am citing it as a source for my own additions. Considering its reputation, I have no reason to believe that BI would lie. In this case, I am ok with the document being removed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistics vs  tourist guides issued by municipal authorities 

message: I have tagged as dubious a statement from Hammond (1994):  This statement refers to the Arbëresh village of Villa Badessa founded by refugees from Piqeras. It has an Arbëresh/Albanian identity and today the local Albanian variety has official status. Hammond's statement contradicts everything else that we know about this community which still exists. Even more problematic: We are discussing Hammond's statement as a real event in Piqeras and presenting it as if two attacks occurred which displaced two different groups: . In my opinion, Hammond (1994) - a republication from Hammond (1967) - should be removed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you need to be more precise on why Hammond is wrong. By assuming that this is about Villa Baddessa it isn't enough to render him useless in this case. Hammond's statement contradicts everything else that we know about this community which still exists is also purely explained. What do you mean it contradict "everything else"? In my opinion Hammond is a top graded scholar. We can't simply remove academic scholarship because there is a disagreement. All views should be part of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood it perfectly. The article should not contradict itself. Çerçok (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of views. It's an opinion written in 1967 which contradicts reality itself. I'm removing this statement.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hammond (1994) 

message: I wonder why the results of a controversial census that have been widely affected by boycott should be part of the lead. Its the first time in wikipedia that the results of a census are placed in introduction, even worst those data are not representatives in terms of local demographics. On the other hand there is enough material in scholarship that provides input about the demographic situation.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because for you it is absolutely crucial to have demographic data in the lede everywhere you think there are Greeks. That is what the census is. Çerçok (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I could remove all sources which describe Himara as "predominantly Greek" because they contradict modern self-identification and describe what authors thought 20 years ago, but I'm not doing so until the next census. But the intro shouldn't: 1)Include this sentene:  This refers to the former municipality of Himara, not to the new municipality of Himara. It misleads the readers into thinking that the authors discuss a region which didn't exist when these sources were published 2)We can't exclude information about 2/3 of the municipality from the lead.  Do not remove information about 2/3 of the municipality again from the lead. Alternatively, we can remove all information and discuss the issue simply as  which is what I would prefer in the first place, but since the community has decided that we should mention every little detail about ethnicity in the intro, at least we should do it in an inclusive way. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In general a widely disputed census affected by boycott is not a cool initiative to have it on lead. Academic scholarship "contradicts modern self-identification"? modern self identification based on what? Instead of adding controversial number I don't object the inclusion of similar estimated for the other two municipal unit. Simply adding controversial data (2011 census) without saying a word about their questioned quality falls into wp:POV. I would prefer your alternative proposal by providing an explanation for each municipal unit, since inline reference refers to the pre-2010 'Himara region' considering that this article refers to the wider municipality and not the municipal unit. Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Lukove and Hore-Vranisht have their own articles, their demographic information belongs there, not in the lede of this article. This article is about the municipal unit of Himara. It seems another article should be created, Himara (municipality) that describes the post-2015 municipality that includes Lukove and Hora-Vranisht. This article is about something much older than the 2015 municipality created by the Albanian government. Khirurg (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article says: "Himara is a 'municipality and region in Vlorë County, southern Albania. The municipality has a total area of 571.94 km2 (220.83 sq mi) and consists of the administrative units of Himarë, Horë-Vranisht and Lukovë". There are already two articles on Himara, this one and Himarë (town), adding a third one would just confuse readers. There is nothing special about Himara to have three articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very common for administrative units not to coincide with the traditional/historic region that bear the same name.  It's also very typical in wikipedia to have multiple articles of this kind. Since in literature Himara refers primarily to the region, not to the post-2010 municipality, an article about the traditional Himara region is warranted.Alexikoua (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be too complicated to include information about regions that are traditionally/historically not part of Himara and transform the article in order to match to the wider area of the municipality. In the case of Dropull for example imagine including also information about Pogon or in the case of Konispol to include information from the nearby mixed settlements of Xarrë. Traditional regions deserve their unique article, no matter how many administrative occur.Alexikoua (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not be complicated at all. Information about Pogon can be included in the Dropull article, and information about Xarra to the Konispol one. For years there have been two Himara articles: one for the town and one for the municipapity and region. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears it's time for a third article about the wider (current) municipality. In general changes in the administrative units does can't change the area of historical regions.Alexikoua (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need for a third article. There is nothing special about Himara to have 3 articles. It would be confusing for readers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial census in lead

message: Until now the article stated:
:In one occasion, in 1577, the chieftains of Himarë appealed to the Pope for arms and supplies promising to fight the Ottomans. They also promised to transfer their religious allegiance to Rome, provided that they would retain their Eastern Orthodox liturgical customs "since the majority of the population was Greek and didn't understand the Frankish language" the letter concludes with "From Himarra, i.e. Epiros of the Arvanids [Albanians], on July 12th 1577".
The statement by Frazee from 2006, however, is not supported by the literature. Since then Giakoumis, Tudorie, Frasheri and Xhufi have all discussed the letters and not found anything similar. Thankfully the letters were published in full by Tudorie's restitution of Laurent's work here:. Correct me if I am wrong, but the statement by Frazee is nowhere to be found.
I am now correcting this part of the article. Çerçok (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Giakoumis does not offer the letter in full so he can't be used as an excuse to remove Frazee. Xhufi falls into wp:POV and the rest are offline. I also fail to see where Laurent states that he displays the entirety of Himariote correspondence with Pope. On the other hand I wouldn't turn unreliable a publication of the University of Cambridge. Such a removal falls into disruptive editing. Alexikoua (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll provide the full quote to avoid any further misunderstanding on this:. We should be extremely careful when claiming that works published by top graded academic institutions are simply wrong. On the other hand Xhufi's work has been widely rejected in modern scholarship. That's actually a good argument to remove information by the later but not from a Cambridge Univ. publication.Alexikoua (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your time of cherry-picking wrong sentences here and there from works that mention Balkan history only in passing is over. The discussion has already moved beyond this already debunked sentence. The full letters are published here: . Read them, and accept verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Actually Frazee 2006 is an updated version of 1983. University of Cambridge publications are of top quality on the field it's not cool to dismiss scholarship of this kind by presenting offline claims. Also, there is nothing to contradict this statement: neither Giakoumis, Tudorie, Laurent nor anyone else (Xhufi doesn't meet RS anyway).Alexikoua (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see any "update", if you can show it here. Until then Frazee is a 39 years old source. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

text: 2006 or 1983, more recent publications have debunked that claim. Accept verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm asking you again: provide us the precise quote that claims that this statement is fictional. So far you presented nothing that support the removal.Alexikoua (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They asked only that their priests be allowed to retain their Eastern liturgical customs, 'since the majority of the population is Greek and they do not understand the Frankish language. The letters are available to you in full now through a more recent RS publication and no such quote is found there. There are many publications that deal specifically with this issue and none of them mention anything like that. You ask questions for which I have already provided answers in my first comment. Çerçok (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Well, it appears that this part was not fictional. As such I see no problem with it staying in the article.Alexikoua (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As fictional as fiction itself. Read the letters before commenting here. Çerçok (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letters to the Pope 1577 

message: I will just provide the quote from source and the text that was supposed to be based on this quote in order to focus on the discrepancy here:
Quote: "the Albanian population, from the lake of Shkodra to Kosova, were one with the other Christian populations. At the time of the Ottoman invasion of 1389, Greek authors mention, after the Serbs and the Bulgarians, the Northern Albanians, those of Himara, Epyrus and the coast."
Text supposed to be based on this quote: "Himariotes and other Albanians from Epirus and the coast participated at the Battle of Kosovo.
 
Alexikoua (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "the Northern Albanians, those of Himara, Epyrus and the coast." What are "those"? Albanians, like those Northern Albanians. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned previously, from my understanding the grammar and syntax used indicates that the author is talking about Albanians from Himara, Epirus and the coast. Botushali (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: For an unexplained reason you erase the fact that this was claimed by contemporary Greek authors. Why you hide that the author does not accept this as a fact? If the source is that "X author mentions Y fact" we have no reason to state that this is generally accepted why the cited source. Alexikoua (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop making aspersions against other editors. The author wants to make the case for an old Albanian presence in Kosovo, and mentions the Greek authors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Kosovo

message: A full quote of Hammond is needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've provide full paragraphs on both occasions.Alexikoua (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Kaser 1992 does not refer to Greeks in Himara, anyways if you can provide here the quote for the contrary. On Hammond, he is in "snippet view" format on GB, hence the full quotes are needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article for Kaser 1992 you provided a very short and misleading quote  Then the source goes on to give say . They are not "Greeks in Himara" as your own conclusion is: Nikaj, Kushtaj and Kalcuaju obviously are Albanian family names. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

text: About Hammond the work appears accessible in gbooks here [], quotes: 
*see p. 215: Society was organized entirely on the basis of kinship with male dominance. The smallest unit was the family household , and a group of related households made a " brotherhood " (vllazni , and in Greek - speaking Himarë phratria ) Next a group of " brotherhoods " made a " kin " ( fis ) .
*:p. 405: When Colonel Leake visited Himarë in 1805 , he was astonished to find that the whole population was organised on a familial basis in tribal groups and that the name of a large subgroup was a " phratria " . This ancient Greek term is not in use elsewhere in the Greek peninsula It is probably a case not of survival from ancient times but of similar conditions producing a similar system a name which is natural to the Greek language".
Both Hammond and Kaser mention the Phratria based structure. As such it can be part of the social analysis of the population.Alexikoua (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Kaser 1992 does not refer to Greeks in Himara. Based on Hammond, it is obvious that among Greeks in Himara it is known as "phratria". That can be added to the article, ofc. Hammond's claim that Himara's phratria comes from ancient Greeks is unreliable. Kaser 2012 explains that "fara" means "common thing"  and it is spread among Albanians in all of southern Albania and northern Greece. If fara is found among Albanians in all of southern Albania, while phratria is found only in Himara among Greeks, then Hammond's claim is very dubious. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I saw it more carefully, even Hammond himself doubts that: . But you wrote in the article . Your edit was not in line with Hammond. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hammond 

message: That addition  is very redundant. I do not know other similar articles of Balkan cities having stuff of the kind "X leader from Y country visited Z place for the first time". For instance, I do not see in the History section of Athens sth like "The Albanian PM visited for the first time the Albanian community of Athens". Aditions of such content that make the article look like a news collection site should be reverted Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an important event in the history of a small place like Himara,  a historic first, and was widely covered by the news. I can produce multiple sources to that effect. It is not "very redundant" at all, since it's not mentioned elsewhere in the article. If/when the Albanian PM visits somewhere in Greece and meets with Albanians, you can add it too. Khirurg (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You can produce as many sources as possible, still it is just a visit like many others. It is not "an important" event in the history of Himara. When academic sources judge it as sth of historical value, then add it. Until then we will not have in the same history section Mitsotakis' short visit to attract attention before Greek elections together with Himara's ancient history, anti-Ottoman revolts and post-Ottoman conflicts. Mitsotakis does not have that importance for Himara's history. Election campaigns are not a "historic first". Every city in the world has been or will be visited by some political leader at some point in time, their articles do not mention those visits as "historic firsts". Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

text:  It's WP:NOTNEWS:  If you can place it in a broader narrative as part of bilateral relations between Albania-Greece, agreements etc, definitely add it as part of this narrative on Greeks in Albania. A particular event may receive media attention but this doesn't make it particularly relevant as encyclopedic content. I can see as valid the addition under a contextualized narrative in the article Albania-Greece relations. The point is to include news items in a broader context in relevant articles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's notable enough for Greeks in Albania and Albania-Greece relations, then it's certainly notable enough for inclusion here. For such a small place as Himara, an official visit by a foreign head of state is a major eveng. It's the first time in the entire history of the region that a foreign head of state has made an official visit. It was widely covered in international sources too, so it's definitely notable. Khirurg (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTNEWS: . The event by itself is not something which would be covered on wikipedia, but I suggested that you can place the event and other such events during this series of visits (Dropull, Finiq) in a broader narrative in these two relevant articles not as a separate news item. Nobody is saying that it shouldn't be discussed in general, but that an encyclopedia may discuss it in specific narrative/articles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kosovo's President was in Himara years ago . Croatia's President too . Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kidding right? Kosovo is hardly "foreign", and the visit by the Croatian President was of an entirely different character. There is no Croatian population in Himara. Not that I see any mention of Himara in the article about the Croatian President. @Maleschreiber: You are avoiding saying why it should not be mentioned here. I will add it to several other articles such as Greeks in Albania and Albania-Greece relations, but you have not properly explained why it should not be mentioned in this article. It's as if you really do not want readers to know this information. That it's "not news" is not a convincing argument, and you should know that it will not convince neutral users at an RfC. Khirurg (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then read it again.  If you think so, feel free to open an RfC. After all it is clear you can't convince us to agree with the change you want to make. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  News 

message: This Muncipality of Himarë is created in 2015.
So the references that are pre 2015 and contributed to this sentence "The municipal unit of Himarë is predominantly populated by an ethnic Greek community." automatically lose their value in this aspect. Feel free for any discussions i wont change anything yet. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old references 

message: Alexikoua added this abstracted single phrase based on Floristan:  I have removed his edit as it refers to anti-Ottoman activity in 1571-73, the Himara Revolt of 1596 and more distantly to the Epirus revolt of 1611. All articles discuss these events as involving Albanians in Himara in line with archival sources and in line the consensus in bibliography - including Floristan who explicitly and repeatedly has described these events as involving Albanians. The sources which describe the demographics of the region during this period in the article at most describe only three villages as being Greek-speaking in 1722 - 150 years later than the statement under discussion. As such, Alexikoua's edit contradicts multiple other articles/sources and the content of this article. It is an abstraction from a single phrase which doesn't reflect even the work of the author who was cited.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be carefull about posting ahistorical comments such as  Floristan who explicitly and repeatedly has described these events as involving Albanians. Himara was not exclusively Albanian inhabited if you mean that, as such there is no contradition on Floristan's statement. Floristan is also not contradicted by any other source (apart from partisan author Xhufi who doesn't qualify as RS) and he describes Greek activity in Himara on various works. As such I suggest that additions on local Greek activity based on Floristan's works are needed  and will undoubetly greately improve the article. Alexikoua (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also by checking various works of the same author he also mentions ethnic Greek revolutionaries by name. We need to be careful when making such declarations and remove top graded authors on sight.Alexikoua (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit cannot be re-included. If you want to add this edit back, you'll have to change the three articles I linked as well as change the section about demographics.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine: adding text cited by top graded material based on archival records (from Madrid) is a great addition for those 3 articles. Floristan has published several works based on research conducted on this topic.Alexikoua (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Here Alexikoua inserted again abstracted information just to display the unfounded narrative that Himariots were Greeks in a period when no evidence about it exists. It's like adding, according to some reliable sources, information that describes the ancient and early medieval population of southern Epirus proper as Albanians. Himariots who were recruited in the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily and settled there are part of the Arbëreshë people, not Griko people. – Βατο (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Bato considers information about Himariotes being Greeks (rendering useless top graded authors like Floristan, Papas, Hasiotis) as abstracts but on the other hand considers information about Himariotes as Albanians as non-abstract []. There were also Himariotes that were self declared Greeks and later participated in the Greek national movement (generals & ministers in Greece). Definitely this needs expansion since more context is needed to resolve the issues.Alexikoua (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There were Himariots that self-declared Greeks specifically in ethnic and not religious terms, but the earliest evidence for that was provided in 1722 by Arbëresh Giuseppe Schirò ("di natione greci"). As for "top graded authors", there are several who claim Albanian presence in southern Epirus from antiquity, but they should not be used because the earliest evidence for that was provided in 1210 by a Venetian document. – Βατο (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: the earliest evidence for that was provided in 1722 by Arbëresh Giuseppe Schirò? I'm afraid you are deep into OR territory. By the way you removed information about the 1730s with the excuse that Himariotes were purely Albanian, your argument doesn't make sense at all and you need to avoid abstract thoughts irrelevant to this region (southern Epirus?). Alexikoua (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your latest edit. The article already discusses the correspondence between Himariotes and the rest of the world with the terms that they themselves used. Hassiotis can interpret their correspondence as the correspondence of Greeks but this interpretation by a modern Greek historian doesn't correspond to what all other reliable sources discuss or the content of the correspondence itself. The work of Hassiotis has been discussed in other articles as well and it has been removed as unreliable.-- is absolutely right. The first time any part of Himara is mentioned as Greek-speaking is 1722.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasiotis & Floristan have conducted a detailed research on the archival records in Madrid: publishing houses and academic institutions that can't be considered useless have suppported their works. On the other hand argument such as: The first time any part of Himara is mentioned as Greek-speaking is 1722. (you need to avoid this kind of national POV agenda since Himariote correspodence was written in the local Greek idiom since the 16th century) or The work of Hassiotis has been discussed in other articles as well and it has been removed as unreliable.. It don't thing that you can so easily turn useless works published by the Universities, simply because you personally prefer a specific national POV here. Hasiotis & Floristan are not contradited by RS.Alexikoua (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your POV agenda is to make the unfounded narrative that the Himariots and the Himara region was Greek before actual historical evidence of some Greek presence ("Himara was among the Greek inhabited regions where revolutionary activity was mainly reported during the period 1571-1621" is false, the population of Himara at that time is documented to have been Albanian; "Himariots... those Greek communities remained loyal to the social and political regime of Naples and Sicily, especially during the 17th and 18th centuries" those who remained loyal to Naples and Sicily were Albanians, who also settled in Italy as Arbëreshë). Evidence about ethnic Greek presence does not exist before 1722 ("di natione greci" is mentioned for the first time by Giuseppe Schirò for three villages of the whole Himara region). Refrain from edit warring, please. – Βατο (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you translate this quote from Floristan, which you are eager to remove on sight: . I don't believe that Floristan has a POV agenda since you are against inclusion of such views. If we need to name some POV authors that have been accused for promoting nationalism I can name a few, but Floristan isn't among them.Alexikoua (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another part by Floristan which (most probably) according to the usual national-pov should also avoid inclusion in the text:  The paper is titled: The Greek diaspora of the Renaissance in the territories of the Spanish Monarchy, on the other hand some abstract argument that those statements are "abstract", that Himara was "purely Albanian", non-Greek at all before 1720 without providing the slightest piece of scholarship. Alexikoua (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edit