Talk:Peloponnese

message: This sentence contradicts the map:
The prefectures of Achaea and Ilia are also part of the peninsula, but are part of the West Greece periphery.
The map
shows Achaea shaded as part of the periphery but not Ilia (aka Elis).
West Greece also lists Ilia as a constituent but the map does not.
The German article] lists all the regions as belonging to the peninsula, so it's not clear which is correct or what is meant. -Wikibob | Talk 11:05, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
I corrected the map, see above. Markussep 07:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Peloponnesos → Peloponnese.  The latter is the traditional name in English, and gets the most inward links.  Just requires deletion of a history of redirects, but as I suggested this (15 Sep 2004), it might be better if somebody else did it.  --Henrygb 09:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Google count is way off.  And the vast majority of the "Peloponnesus" hits come from pages from Germany.  Try a search restricted to site:.com, site:.edu, site:.uk, or site:.gr.  Then compare with site:.de. Or compare  with --Henrygb 15:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: As there is the Corinth Canal accross the Isthmus of Corinth I think that Peloponnese is an island not a peninsula.  Jon513 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says the same thing.  But we do not usually call places islands just because of canals, any more than we stop calling them islands because of a bridge. --Henrygb 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: in Corinth Canal it is called an island.  Jon513 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  peninsula or island 

message: This article clearly needs to be split, creating a Peloponnese (periphery) article, just like is the case for Epirus; this because there is a clear distinction between the borders and the extension of the peninsula and those of the periphery.--Aldux 13:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: The pensinular is called the Peloponnese. That is the first thing to teach and explain to someone who reads the article. That is what should be highlighted on the map. Later the different districts can be discussed and govt divisions with Western Greece ect.  Anyone looking at the stupid map at the top page and not knowing the region would believe that Patras is not in the Peloponnese. Reaper7 03:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid 

message: Surely the article doesn't need six maps and no other sort of pictures.  I think the first one should stay, but I sort of arbitrarily chose which two other ones to replace.  If anyone wants to put back those two particular maps, please consider whether it might be better to replace the remaining maps with them rather than take out the pictures.  Personally, I think two maps total would be sufficient.  Strawberryjampot (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps and Pictures 

message: I see that the current version now has six images, five of which are maps.  I think this is still vastly overbalanced for maps, and would like to reach a consensus on what images should be in this article.  As a proposal for discussion, I suggest the article should be illustrated by two maps (including satellite images), the current image of Arcadia, and from two to four other images illustrating things that are characteristically or uniquely Peloponnesian, such as Monemvasia, Nafplio, the Mani towers, the Methoni fortess, or the Battle of Navarino, all of which have images available on Commons.  I'm not sure how many people look at this page, so it may take a while to have the discussion, but if anyone reads this, even after some time has passed, please feel free to contribute.  Strawberryjampot (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for discussion on images 

message: First encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936 By M. Th Houtsma contain text about Turakhan Beg subduing Peloponnese for Ottoman Empire in 1423, not in period between 1458–1460, like written in the text of the article. I propose to double check the year of Ottoman Conquest of the Peloponnese. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect. Turakhan first invaded the Morea in 1423 and the Despotate became a vassal state thereafter, but it was not conquered and annexed to the Empire until 1458-60. 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After I wrote comment here, I red in the same source how he later again attacked Peloponnese. I obviously did not understand the word subdue correctly. Thanks for reply and sorry for my mistake.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, the phrasing can easily mislead you there. Constantine   ✍  09:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman period 

message: I have done some significant changes to the images in the article. I removed five of them, and replaced them with another four. Reasons are as follows. The images I removed were either poor quality or uninteresting or both. The image of Chelmos was terribly overexposed (white sky), the image of the forest was underexposed and generic (could be anywhere in Greece, or the world for that matter). The image of the spring was also rather uninteresting and generic (and again could be anywhere in Greece). I also removed the landscape near Karytaina, because we already have an image from Arcadia, and it is better. Lastly, I also removed the map of the French expedition since it had nothing much to offer and we already have two maps. I replaced the images I removed with an image of the Corinth Canal (which is important for obvious reasons), an image from ancient Sparta (since we have no images with something "ancient"), an image of the Mani Peninsula, since it is mentioned in the text, and an image of the Rio-Antirrio bridge (again, important for obvious reasons). I am sorry if that seems harsh to the editor that uploaded most of the images I removed, but the purpose of images in an article is to convey to the reader what is interesting, unique, and important about the subject of the article. I feel the current images accomplish that much better than the previous batch. Athenean (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your pictures are awful. Post them somewhere else, not here. They are not fit for an encyclopedia. By the way, this  is you, isn't it? Athenean (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No its not me..Why are you like that? I really dont understand. I have no megalomania trying to fill in everywhere "my photos", on the contrary. I had some nice photos, and I thought they would be helpful to add them in some Greece related Wikipedia articles. I havent seen new photos lately (related to those articles) so I only try to help here. Why are you so negative?...Nochoje (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, your photos are not nice. They are terrible. The one from Chelmos with the white sky? Come on now. And they contain very little information, so they do not belong in an encyclopedia. If you have no "megalomania" and all you are trying to do is help, why are you edit-warring over them? There are plenty of very nice photos about Greece on Wikimedia Commons (much nicer, interesting, and of encyclopedic value, like the ones from Sparti and Mani that you keep removing), so what is it exactly you are trying to do here? Athenean (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Nochoje, please understand. You cannot edit-war your pictures across multiple Greece-related articles against consensus. The pictures you are trying to add diminish the value of the article. Further you are replacing important landmarks of the Peloponnese with your own pictures and edit-warring to achieve it. Your edit-war fuelled editing is not sustainable in a consensus-driven environment such as Wikipedia's. Please change it. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  15:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Why dont you understand that what you are doing is wrong. The photos you keep adding are not EVEN in Peloponnese! What has the Corinth Canal and the Antirio bridge got to do with Peloponnese???? And what is wrong with showing the nature in Peloponnese!??? Especially the first photo with the Canal is what someone would call an awful picture!....Nochoje (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Athenean and I have explained this to you multiple times. I think you suffer from a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are removing important landmarks of Peloponnese and adding technically inferior and meaningless pictures. Please stop the edit-warring which got you blocked four days ago for similar reasons. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  16:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Athenian and you explain the wrong stuff. Unfortunately. Can you please answer me if the rio-antirrio bridge is part of Peloponnese? Can you also answer me if the Corinth Canal is part of Peloponnese??? If yes the English Channel part of England of France?.....Truly unbelievable that we need to go to this kind of discussion. You are clearly wrong here, regardless if you like my photos or not (which is obviously subjective)...Nochoje (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I have lost all hope of trying to persuade you that you are wrong but I will agf and try to explain this one more time. You want to erase the pictures of two engineering marvels of the modern era of immense encyclopaedic value and interest, the Canal of Corinth and the Rio-Antirrion Bridge, both of which define crucial passage points of the perimeter of the Peloponnese peninsula to mainland Greece and want to replace them with pictures of a car while some guy, maybe you, is drinking water from a fountain. You have to realise that this article is not your personal picnic or family album and certainly it is not a depository of boring and technically-challenged pictures from a picnic. Neither is the great peninsula of the Peloponnese some kind of a neighbourhood park. The second picture you want to replace these engineering marvels with is a hopelessly underexposed picture of some non-descript road with some darkened and non-discernible trees, again from the same picnic probably on the way home. The third picture is an overexposed, foggy picture of some landscape, completely redundant and not up to par with the other landscape pictures already existing in the article. If you don't understand that this is wrong there is no purpose in talking to you further. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  20:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to try one last time to explain things to you Nochoje. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform readers about the subjects they read. The purpose of the article on the Peloponnese is to inform readers who want to learn about the Peloponnese, and nothing more. The purpose of the images in the article is therefore also to inform readers who want to learn more about the Peloponnese. Now, it is mentioned in the article that the Corinth Canal separates the Peloponnese from mainland Greece. It is reasonable to assume that readers might wonder what this Corinth Canal looks like. Is it big? Small? How deep is it? Is it like the Panama Canal? So the picture answers these questions better than any text could. Same with the Rio-Antirrio bridge: It is mentioned in the article that it connects the Peloponnese to mainland Greece. So again readers might wonder what it looks like. These pictures inform readers about the Peloponnese. By contrast, your pictures don't. Let's take the picture of the spring: That spring could be anywhere in Greece or Europe or the world. There is nothing "Peloponnesian" about it. By looking at it, readers learn nothing about the Peloponnese. Aesthetically, it is also poor, as it is shot on a cloudy day and there is very little color, it contains a piece of a car, and it shows someone bending over. The spring is also small and hard to see. If you want to take a picture of a spring, focus on the spring. Do not include cars and people. Same with the picture of the forest. It tells the reader nothing about the Peloponnese. It could be anywhere in Greece, the Balkans, or Europe, or the world. Aesthetically, it is gloomy and depressing and also "underexposed", i.e. too dark, and with almost no color. It's not even possible to tell what kind of tree those are. Similarly with the Karytaina picture: It tells the reader very little about the Peloponnese, it is "overexposed" (too white"), and there is very little color, although it is marginally better than other two. If you want to include pictures in wikipedia, I suggest you read WP:MOSIM and also search the Wikimedia Commons, there are plenty of nice images of Greece there. And stop edit-warring once and for all, otherwise the blocks are going to get very long very quickly. Athenean (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit. This is a very accessible, detailed, practical, understandable and all-around useful reply. I am afraid however that never mind Athenean's response or mine the ship has sailed so to speak. I am not at all sure that these eminently sound arguments will have any positive effect. I hope, against hope, that I will be proven wrong. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  03:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: It should be mentioned at the introductory paragraph that it is a hand-shaped peninsula. Ssredg (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are hand-shaped peninsulas a specific sub-category of peninsulas? Otherwise, a look at the map will suffice. Constantine   ✍  07:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Shape

message: The article 'the' seems to sometimes be added before the name Peloponnese when it shouldn't grammatically be there, much like people sometimes erroneously do to 'The' Ukraine.  I'm not sure if this is a standard thing or not in English, but I'd like to argue against the use of 'the' in this article.  It feels like very archaic/colonial British vernacular and I think it should be discouraged. Based on the bolded text in the opening sentence and the name of the article itself, the official English name of this region according to Wikipedia is not "The Peloponnese" and  so there's no grammatical reason to say something like, "Sparta is located in The Peloponnese."  We don't say this about any other part of Greece (ex: Athens is located in The Attica) and we don't generally talk this way in English.
I propose the removal of all the's before the word Peloponnese unless they serve an actual grammatical function. Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no. Peloponnese is virtually always used with the definite article in English. Nothing either "erroneous", "archaic" or "colonial" about it; it's just English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "The" Before Peninsula's Name 

message: πέλλος (péllos, “grey, dark”) + ὤψ (ṓps, “eye”) + nēsos "island" as per [wiktionary] 
 ? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology Peloponnesos? 

message: I'm struggling with this sentence
:Indeed, the Peloponnese is rarely, if ever, referred to as an island
given that the name literally means island of pelops. Maybe English speakers won't get that meaning. How about in modern greek, does it sound like you're referring to it as an island when you call it peloponnesos? -lethe talk [ +] contribs 11:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  pelops' island is rarely if ever referred to as an island 

message: user:Ohnoitsjamie In the name of good faith, I am interested in your justification for distorting the source. 
:The source says: "Albanians"
:You wrote: "Arvanites"
Could you please explain why the distortion? Thank you. Çerçok (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The target article is Arvanites. There is a different article for Albanians; the former is clearly identified as a subset of the latter. There's no reason to pipe that; see WP:EASTEREGG. This should be pretty obvious. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, it should be redirected to Albanians then. Thank you for the explanation. Çerçok (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it shouldn't. You're going to get blocked it you keep redirecting it. Arvanites is properly sourced. There's no reason to link to a broader target when a more specific one is sourced. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  From your first answer I got the impression you only had an issue with the pipe link, not the correction itself. Now you are defending the distorted citation. Why would you defend this inaccurate citation? Çerçok (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no "distorted citation." I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK if you'd like to keep editing.  OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Source says "Albanians". Article says "Arvanites". This is a distortion. Since you refuse to agree that "Arvanites" is not the same as "Albanians", I think there is no way to reach an agreement here, so I will ask for dispute resolution. Çerçok (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ohnoitsjamie I was going to seek a third opinion here but your new edit of the section makes me think you did not understand the problem with the terminology. So I will try to explain one more time. Using Arvanites instead of Albanians, in addition to not being faithful to the source that was cited (as well as the one you added), is anachronistic. In the 14-15 centuries, the group of people the article refers to, was just Albanians. The distinction between Arvanites and Albanians is a much later phenomenon. Using the wrong term is not only misleading to the reader, but also unfair to the author, who was careful enough to recognize the distinction. Even the source you added uses "Arvanite" to refer to today's group, and "Albanian" to refer to the Late Medieval one (quoting: "The Arvanite presence in Greece resulted from migrations of Albanian Christians from Albania..."). Hopefully now you understand the problem with changing the source material here. Çerçok (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  What if the wording was changed to something like "The same period was also marked by the migration and settlement of Christian Albanians to parts of Central Greece and the Peloponnese, a group that become known as the Arvanites." OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that is much better. I would suggest only adding "later" or "eventually" to clarify the temporal transition. Çerçok (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Thank you for clarifying that and working with me toward an agreeable resolution. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for keeping an open mind as well. Çerçok (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

text: This is a different issue and has been resolved already. What you reverted has to do with the section above this one. Çerçok (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So you maxed out your reverts at other articles, and now you think you will max them out here? Or is this retaliation for this ? As explained already, this information is incomplete, and presents a misleading picture. Also, this is an overview article and is only meant to present an overview of the history, not go into this level of exhaustive detail. Khirurg (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

text: The content added is obviously relevant to the article, and there is just nothing misleading about it. Much more should be added to the section, after all Albanians formed the second largest ethnic group in the Peloponnese, so more content is needed considering how small the current section is. Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a geography article, so there's already plenty per WP:SS. In fact way too much already. So, don't push it. Khirurg (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So let me get this right, you removed content, which only states facts without making any assumptions, under the ridiculous excuse of it "being misleading", which it is not and any admin can check that for themselves. You also used the excuse that it is too much info for the article but you then proceeded to add 3k of content... yeah not gonna happen. Ahmet Q. (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you complaining about? You said you wanted to add more on Albanians, so I did. You don't like it now? Khirurg (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I don't think so. All of this information is primarily of historical, not current, relevance. As such it should stay in the History section. Khirurg (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles about regions have information about historical demography in a demographics section. That Albanians were ~10% of the population of the Peloponnese in the late 19th century certainly doesn't belong to a section about the Middle Ages.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Population movements of centuries ago are not "Demographics", they are history. And that's where they will stay. I also recommend not trying to impose changes by brute-force. Khirurg (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if you could give any valid arguments for the removal of such important content. Because as of now, nothing you said justifies removing crucial information about the main subject. Ahmet Q. (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the history section is long enough to warrant expansion of the 1770-9 era of massacre, anarchy, enslavement and depopulation (Alvanokratia). Perhaps a separate section.Alexikoua (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexikoua, that is an excellent suggestion. Khirurg (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Here's an excellent new source I just found . Would make a great addition. Khirurg (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Albainans" in the cited source - "Arvanites" in the article? 

message: The article seems to make no mention about its name coming from Pelops, son of Tantalus and progenitor of the Spartan Atreus bloodline 2A02:AA7:4604:9116:49ED:5F7D:2CB5:AD73 (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking etymology 

message: The lengthy discussions here on the talk page give two (wildly different) meanings of the name, but the article gives NONE, and that really should be changed by someone who knows what the Greek words translate to, please. Best would be in the beginning, so people no longer have to scroll through/over absolutely everything in the article anymore just to come to the conclusion that it REALLY isn't anywhere in there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3038:61B:9C6:9728:2788:D0B:F7DB (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology?