Talk:Qeparo

There are also problems with the following: According to another theory, based on oral and written historical accounts, the original name of the village was Kiepero or Kiparos, which derives from the Greek word "kipos", meaning garden in Greek.^[2]What theory are you talking about? What original name of the village? Do you have any books on the Kiparo etymology?

Klapero (Claperus) is first mentioned in 1581, in Monumenta spectantia ad unionem ecclesiarum Graecae et Romanae. Maiorem partem e sanctioribus Vaticani tabulariis edita ab Augustino Theiner et Francisco Miklosich cum tabula. Vindobonae, Guilelmus Braumueller, 1872; p. 57 - 63 (1581. mense februario: Chimarenses a Turcis vexati auxilium petunt a papa Gregorio XIII., promittentes se sedi apostolicae esse obtemperaturos... Chimara terra et episcopatus: Heliates, Bunae, Claperus, Cudessei, Pilure etc.)

Please avoid politics here, everything seems fine. Gregoric is the one of most reliable authors on the subject. On the other hand 'Natasha Sotiri' is somewhat biased (according to Gregoric).Alexikoua (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. She is not reliable, at least in etymology. You must rely on serious, and more importantly, not self-Internet-published PDF sources from the University of 'Nova Gorica' or tourist guides. I think there are many books who cite this theory of Kiepero. Kiepero must be earlier than 1581, I think. We need to source the article properly. How is Natasha Sotiri biased? Miklosich gives Claperus in 1581. So either he must be wrong, or Gregoric is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beserks (talk • contribs) 11:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Read please wp:or. Gregoric is a specilist on the subject and this is a peer rewived phd thesis. Also official tourist guides are the best sources for tourist information. Alexikoua (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Both Sotiri and Gregoric are reliable: Gregoric widely relies on Sotiri and says that Sotiri is reliable and neutral. Grigoric says that Koci, Jorgji, Sotiri and Rusha are all four more neutral and reliable in p. 67. Dede Gjikopulli, and Bixhili are to be avoided. On the other hand "Bashkia e Himares" should be avoided because of the political controversies that seem to follow the mayor. He is not a scholar: as a matter of fact I don't even know if he has ever gone to the University. --Sulmues ^(talk) 12:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The first mentioning of Qeparo should be reflected in the article. Also Beserks can you verify Moustakidis? If you haven't read the book, you can't source him. --Sulmues ^(talk) 12:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What kind of political controversies can create a tourist guide, which is published by an official authority of the Albanian state?Alexikoua (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be ok with this version of the municipality. It stays on a "al." server, which is a stamp of officiality. Bollano has created plenty of controversies: read his article. he is an official authority, not a scholarly one. Before, the server was "eu", probably because not endorsed by the Albanian govt. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not a 'one man work', I see plenty of names that participated in this guide. As I see eu. is something else.

You are right this Is the same text as in the guide, but in Albnanian. As I see this [] contains the english version of this [] (the history sections are identical). So, per wikipedia policy we should prefer english language sources of the same quality.Alexikoua (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As I see the rest of the section seem to be also identical (monuments, climate).Alexikoua (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I'm reading it in Albanian, can't have scribd at work, and I realize that it's way offline. Not only it's controversial, but the Albanian language is not properly used. "Haonian" is not a correct version, it's "Kaonian". I wouldn't endorse it: it's way controversial. Expressions such as "Jani Kastrioti" for Skanderbeg's son, "Gjon Kastrioti", or "33 Himariote villages with Greek national conscience" are not typical of a RS. Bollano's hand. It may be used for the rest but as far as ethnicity issues, we know full well who is Bollano. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The site with the official seal of Albanian state has the same contents, it's just in Albanian (unfotrunately we have not the alternative language here. Here [] says that except Borshi all other villages are Greek-Orthodox. And here: []. Tourist guides are in general usefull for tourist stuff.Alexikoua (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe you that the contents are the same. They are all coming from the Himara municipality in two languages. However I know that you would might not accept scholars such as Sherif Delvina or Rami Memushi who say that Bollano himself is not a Greek because he comes from Kurvelesh, let alone the whole region . Bollano is not balanced but we may safely use some information on the touristic guide, but not for the ethnicity and historical claims.--Sulmues ^(talk) 15:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what I said, such guides in general are good for tourist/culture/geography stuff. This isn't related with Bollano.Alexikoua (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit by User:Beserks is completely unacceptable. The source clearly says that the village has a mixed Greek-Albanian population, NOT just bilingual. This is a clear example of source falsification by the above-mentioned user and thus unacceptable. Moreover, he made this edit without using an edit-summary, which is also unacceptable. I am storing the diff for further use, and if such instances of intellectual dishonesty and attempts at deceit persist, a report will be filed in due time. Athenean (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a travel journal source, and in my opinion we have better sources than that. You may label that intellectual disonesty, but I think Beserk just wanted to add that in the language section and reference it as such. --Sulmues ^(talk) 17:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Beserks campaign of disruption seems to be endless. This time he 'attacked' Gregoric, in an attempt to disrupt the concensus.Alexikoua (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Very disruptive indeed, though not surprising. But it will end, one way or another, and soon. As for Reed, he is a perfectly good source, published by a reliable publishing house, so he fully meets WP:RS. He is also a good deal more neutral than Sotiri, and moreover available online and easily verifiable. He also unmistaably says that village is inhabited by both greeks and albanians, rather than just bilingual. I don't know how much more clear it could be. Athenean (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You may not say that the Reed travel journal is better than the monography on Qeparo of Sotiri, several times cited by Gregoric. In general a travel guide may not replace monographies on ethnographic studies as a source. A travel guide has no ethnographic scope and is an inferior source. --Sulmues ^(talk) 12:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually we have Hammond, who made a very detailed research in the region: []. Even Pettifer a pro-Albanian author confirms Hammond []. Seems that except some Albanian authors noone else agrees with the pure Albanian version.Alexikoua (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually all four authors (Hammond, Pettifer, Sotiri and Gregoric) agree that the Greek is also spoken in Qeparo, but none of them is saying that the Qeparo people are Greek. There is a big difference. Show me who of these four say that the people are Greek. Saying Greek speaking isn't equilalent to being Greek. For that matter Sarandioti and ZjarriRrethues should be part of WP Greece. Pettifer is comparing Kudhes, a settlement with no Greek schools to Qeparo, which has had Greek schools and a Greek culture in the past. There were heavy cultural differences between the two settlements, but the ethnographic research of Pettifer and Hammond on Qeparo is way smaller than that of Sotiri and Gregoric, thus the info that they give (2 lines) cannot be compared to a full monography on the village (Sotiri) or region (Gregoric). Still, again Hammond and Pettifer are not saying that they are Greek, they are saying that the village is Greek speaking, meaning there are people who speak Greek in the village. Pettifer is addressing a comparison between Qeparo and Kudhes: in the latter Greek is not spoken at all, since there have never been any Greek schools in it. Gregoric endorses Sotiri by the way, and says that Albanian is spoken in the village in p. 63, so we have English speaking sources who say that Albanian is the main language. --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have the feeling that your comments are simply the definition of wp:OR.

• "During this period, some Albanian-speaking villages in Epirus fought for the Turks against the Greek-speaking villages (eg Kudhes against Qeparo"(Petiffer)
• "the Greek speaking village of Qeparo"(Hammond)

No school stuff at all: Greek-speaking means Greek-speaking. Also Gregoric says mainly (not entirely).

It's more than clear that not a single human there is monolingual (and the rest of Himara). So I'll remove this monolinguality nonsense since we agree on that.Alexikoua (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No OR on my side, I'm trying to be precise: "In their day-to-day conversations locals of Dhermi, Palase, and Himara mainly use a Greek dialect and partly a southern Albanian (Tosk) dialect, while the locals of Ilias, Vuno, Qeparo, Kudhes, and Pilur mainly speak the Albanian tosk dialect" This is Gregoric p.63 , however as far as the monolingual claim is related that is in a historical sense, and endorsed by fully quoted Sotiri, a reliable source. --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Also Alexi, when I make a full discussion on the values of one author versus another, such as Hammond who writes two lines and Gregoric-Sotiri who together write 300 pages on this issue, please don't label my discussion as OR: I am pointing that the value of one scholar may be superior to that of another and that's not OR, that's commons sense and proper use of source. In addition when I say that a travel guide is no better than a monography on the ethnographic issues of a region that's not OR either. Claiming that that's OR is disruptive. Please read well what I say. --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually: not a single non-Albanian scholar says that this village is monolingual. Everything about monolinguality or ethnic purity is simply wp:or.

Two language exist the one is more common than the other (Gregoric). Suppose we agree on that.Alexikoua (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sotiri says "njegjuhesh" (english:monolingual) in a historical sense, but I could live with your edit. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have undone Bserks source falsification for the last time. Reed is pretty unambiguous when he says that the village is inhabited by both Greeks and Albanians, I don't know how much clearer it could be. Further disruption will be reported. Athenean (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My brain melts when I read the last version after your edit: it made the article quite confusional. Did you just ignore all we said about Reed above? --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All I know is that Reed is a perfectly good RS. Your labeling him a "travel journal" means nothing. No serious arguments have been brought against him, and Bserks removes him without so much as an aedit-summary, let alone a decent argument. If you think he isn't, take it to WP:RSN. But I have a feeling you will be coming back empty handed. Athenean (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I may have to take it there, but I have to rely on your good judgement. Besides it's because of you that I have learned sometimes the hard way several issues. I'm not labeling Reed: In this link to Reed the publisher himself specifically says that the book is ...a vivid, contemporary travelogue. Travelogue means travel journal, if you click on the related article in WikiPedia. Please revert that edit, as it is not an improvement of the article.--Sulmues ^(talk) 23:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Brought to Alexi's version . Beserk, please don't make mass reverts to prior versions, they are not welcome. And take it easy. Btw RfC is the right step to take. The phrase that I contest is "The village is inhabited by both ethnic Albanians and Greeks." taken at face value from a travel journal from Reed that is mainly based on other areas (Thessaloniki) and ignoring much deeper scholarship involved directly with the village (Sotiri) and its region (Gregoric). I would invite everybody to give at least 10-15 days to several non-Balkanic editors to intervene with their thoughts. Before that please don't make any changes to the areas of the article connected to the RfC broadly construed. --Sulmues ^(talk) 12:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Too bad Beserk insists on this []. The situation is out of control [], even reference management is blindly reverted by Beserks.Alexikoua (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Alex, if you want to experiment further, go to the Sandbox page. Also, use < and > before book titles. Beserks (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Beserks had horrendously messed up a whole bunch of references, which I have tried to clear up. The OR using a source from 1587 also needs to go. Athenean (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In p.482 Leunclavius doesn't say what you are quoting him to say Beserks. Can you please double check? --Sulmues ^(talk) 12:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, in Wikipedia we reference only from contemporary sources, I might say all sources after WWII are in general contemporary, so please try to move Leunclavius to a Further Reading section and not use it as a reference, because it's a primary source: Wikipedia is nothing else but a collection of secondary sources information. Primary sources can safely go down to "Further Reading". --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with this map . The Guide of Himara is not a reliable source. You can check it yourself by right-clicking with your mouse to "View image" then zoom on page 3 of the PDF Guide of Himara. The Greek placenames simply aren't there. Bollano has hit again.Beserks (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

May we or may we not use the Greek version of the name in the article? What kind of sources do we have to use, in what number, for us to call them significant? What is significant? Mentioned or used? Snippets only are allowed? A travelogue^[1] qualifies as a good source regarding the villagers' ethnicity? Beserks (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds that we should remove every non-Albanian author that does not support the national purity of the village. Additional top graded authors the say that this village is Greek speaking: [][]. Gregoric gives also the Greek origin of the name.Alexikoua (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The oral as well as written historical accounts (Leake 1967: 79) suggest that the original name of the village was Kiepero or Kiparos, which derives from the word kipos, meaning a garden. Should we include Leake's erroneous etymology, since Claperus is documented from 1581? I asked you before, what oral and documented historical accounts? Beserks (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@Beserks: You should wait for an input before perfoming such disruptive removals. Also please avoid edit-warring (continuing with 3rr vios isn't a sound approach)Alexikoua (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the proximity of the town to Greece, it seems eminently fair to provide the Greek name. Including names in multiple languages is common practice for settlements in Europe, particularly those near national borders. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 04:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the alternative name (Beserks recently removed it), since there is a concensus about it.Alexikoua (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You are lying. I just put it under Qeparo#Location. Beserks (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What is this "alternative theory" business? I only see one etymology, that of Gregoric. Until an actual "alternative" etymology is presented, this is the only one we have. Athenean (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Gregoric's theory is based on William Martin Leake, a 19th century traveller who happened to visit the village and made an assumption about its name, so if some users continue to misuse the policy about reliable sources while they have dealt with rs issues many times the situation is to be labeled as disruptive.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A secondary source (Gregoric) is based on a primary (Leake), quite reasonable. What's exagerrated here is that the 'Clapero' theory is based only on, hard to explain 'snippets'.Alexikoua (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't have two etymological explanations for one place-name. That is somewhat absurd.Beserks (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Gregoric is the only descent version in this section. On the other hand we have some snippets we can't conclude something. But, both version can stay provided we see the context of these snippets.Alexikoua (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is the "second" etymological explanation? I only see one, that of Gregoric. Athenean (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua, reliable sources say: The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). I don't see why we should fail to mention Gregoric in the article for her contributions.Beserks (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is according to 'oral and written accounts'. Please give a specific argument instead of generalising the discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems disruption is endless here. I'll restore what's on the official guide of the municipality on how the villages are called in Greek language (the region is bilingual). Hope we don't have again the same racial arguments (eg. since the mayor is Greek the guide isn't rs).Alexikoua (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, when you do, be sure to cite properly, including the page number. Please, can you give me the page number where Ano Kiparo/Kato Kiparo are mentioned in the Official Guide of Himara? Beserks (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I happy we agree on that (or not?).Alexikoua (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone applying for a GA? As soon as the lede is better worded, possibly in two large paragraphs, I don't think that a village of 300 souls needs more content and citations than this to go to GA status. --Sulmues ^(talk) 17:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to make some MOS fixes using Peer reviewer. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 17:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It'll just tell you to increase the lede, :-). What I want is Alexi & Beserks work together and split the star award, like I already did with Alexi. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What's really weird is that Ceasar landed in Palassa []. Also none of the 3 sources mentions Qeparo.Alexikoua (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. None of the sources mention Qeparo. They are also all extremely old, withe the exception of the Albanian academy of sciences, which also does not mention Qeparo. Also, I have yet to see a reference to these "Germinii" in modern literature. I am thus removing the stuff about them and Caesar. Athenean (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is in terrible shape, using sources that are either extremely old (one from the 1500's) or else blatantly falsified. Examples below.

• The claim that Qeparo has "historically" been inhabited by Albanian speakers is sourced to a source from the 16th century, which is major OR and misuse of primary sources, and another source that makes no such claim at all.
• It is claimed that the proof that Qeparo was historically inhabited by Albanian speakers is a letter from the inhabitants of Himara to the Czarina Elizabeta Petrovna. This is sourced to a 1955 source of the Albanian academy of sciences (Hoxha-era), yet Qeparo isn't mentioned anywhere. The second source appears to be some delightfully fringe newspaper (one article in the paper hypothesizes on the possible descent of Albanians from Atlantis). I am providing a link for readers' amusement here .

I did a major cleanup of the article, removing all heavily outdated, fringe, or irrelevant sources, as well as some major re-arranging of information for better flow. Hopefully now that the main troublemaker (a sock of a banned user) has been dealt with, this article can have some peace and quiet. Athenean (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Qeparo. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110610025500/http://www.p-ng.si/~vanesa/doktorati/interkulturni/3GregoricBon.pdf to http://www.p-ng.si/~vanesa/doktorati/interkulturni/3GregoricBon.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110610025500/http://www.p-ng.si/~vanesa/doktorati/interkulturni/3GregoricBon.pdf to http://www.p-ng.si/~vanesa/doktorati/interkulturni/3GregoricBon.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A source published by the Greek army was used in the article for the typical nationalist claims. Nowhere else on wikipedia would a source literally published by the army of a state faction be used as a source for an issue that involves the territorial claims of that state. It's a very heavy violation of WP:NPOV.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• From the article: The village of Qeparo contains both an ethnic Orthodox Albanian population inhabiting Qeparo Poshtme (lower neighbourhood) and Greeks living in Άνω Κηπαρό/Ano Kiparo (upper neighbourhood).
• From the same article:The village is composed of the following neighbourhoods or brotherhoods (Albanian: vëllazëri): Ballëguras, Bragjint' e Poshçërë, Bragjint' e Sipërmë, Dhimëgjonas, Gjikëbitaj, Mërtokaj, Ndregjin, Peçolat, Pogdan and Rushat. Every brotherhood had its own patron saint
• The reader who has an understanding of what he's reading and doesn't just use bibliography as a means of legitimizing his own OR, understands that the same group of families who inhabit the lower part and the upper part of the village can't be both Albanian and Greek.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Giakoumis is definitely a reliable source, therefore his view can and should be included in the article. If there are other views that disagree with him, they can be added too. But Giakoumis should not be removed. Saying "it's only one view" is not a reason for removal, especially when it has been in the article for years. All views can and should be included Khirurg (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

All views should be included and Giakoumis is under WP:RS. I don't think that this is under debate. The point raised has to do with the statement According to Georgios Giakoumis the name of the village points to a Greek settlement in the past.. Giakoumis is a historian and not a linguist, which means that his statement about linguistic arguments may not be as accurate. The paper in question was published 6 years before the author published his PhD thesis. The argument is based on the assumption that Qeparo < kipos, but this statement contradicts the first section of the article Qeparo#Name where it is directly stated that a)archival sources show that the name was first recorded as Clapero b)Qeparo < kipos is a folk etymology. This is what makes the inclusion of such a statement difficult. It's not something which we can just skip over via the disclaimer According to X. --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That Qeparo < kipos is a folk etymology is only according one source, Kyriazis. In other articles, such as Dropull, you insisted that Kyriazis be qualified ("According to Kyriazis"), yet here you are content with phrasing it as ground truth. But it's just a case of one source conflicting with another. Hence, both views should be included. Saying "it's difficult" is not enough. Can you propose a way of including Giakoumis that would be satisfactory to you? Or maybe I can seek outside mediation via WP:NPOVN or WP:GEOGRAPHY. This is a pretty clear-cut case of WP:NPOV. Giakoumis is an expert in the region, he can't just be summarily dismissed like that. Khirurg (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

In other articles, such as Dropull, you insisted that Kyriazis be qualified ("According to Kyriazis"), yet here you are content with phrasing it as ground truth. In the case of Dropull Kyriazis was in disagreement with other linguists. Here Giakoumis is not a linguist. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

We should not ignore the fact that Qeparo was actually attested as being an Albanian village in 1722, which directly contradicts the speculation made by a non-linguist only on the basis of etymology. But also, the wording "in the past" without proper context is unencyclopedic. – Βατο (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That is already mentioned. No one is ignoring it. The only thing that is being ignored (or rather, suppressed) is Giakoumis, who is WP:RS and an expert in the history region. The account form 1722 is a primary source and cannot be used to suppress modern scholarly sources. Both views need to be accomodated. Khirurg (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that a specific view is being suppressed, but compared and contrasted with other sources - some of which refer to linguistic arguments - and archival documentation. The article cites Kyriazis about the etymology, but all recent linguistic sources I've read repeat the same view. There are two parts in the statement by Giakoumis: one which is contradicted by linguistic sources and another one which heavily relies on the first one(points to a Greek settlement in the past) which itself is contradicted by historical sources because we do know the language spoken the inhabitants of Qeparo in the last 400 years. We know even where each family of Qeparo comes from and it's certain that none of them lived in Qeparo or the Himara coast before 1400. The difficulty I have in including the statement by Giakoumis (1996) is that it doesn't hold up as a minor viewpoint when compared & contrasted with other sources.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This view is attributed to Giakoumis as such there is no issue against inclusion. The problem would be to present this view without attribution (as in the case of the contradictory views of Jaupaj in Chaonians article for example).Alexikoua (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Alexikoua has added again another non-linguistic source to include an etymology which the available linguistic sources in the article explicitly consider a folk etymology. I have removed it as arguments about etymology require works written by linguists.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There is one source that mentions some local members of this family but without the ethnonym Albanian. Then another source is added which does not even mention Qeparo or the Himara region. By checking the relevant article the identity of the family is not that clear: either Romanian or as part of the Phanariote Greek community. Nevertheless to name them simply Albanian here in the case of Qeparo falls to wp:SYNTH to say the least.Alexikoua (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If this is the case this would create an endless chain of edits, to keep it equal because as far as i am aware there are a lot of sources mentioning Macedonians Phanariotes Pontids but skipped the word "greek" and on the article are written as "greek macedonians" etc. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the Phanariote subject but fact is that that can't be labelled as Albanians. Since we have no clear reference of the ethnic background of the local branch of this family it would be better to avoid any ethnonym.Alexikoua (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't your most recent edit technically the same as my last edit? There are 2 references one which mention mycenean greek but no Qeparo and the other mentioning Qeparo and Mycenean but no "greek" after Mycenean? So which way is it? Also if it is on the ethnic background and not on the nationality as an overall why arent Arvanites labelled as Albanians even when the references clearly state them as such? RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Off course they aren't: the full name of the civilization is 'Mycenaean Greece'; adjective is 'Mycenaean Greek'. 'Mycenaean' makes a short form adjective of 'Mycenaean Greek'. When a paper is dedicated to a subject its unnecessary to repeat the full form everywhere. In the case of Qeparo this is the first and only mention and as such we need to have the full form. In case this needs to be repeated then simply 'Mycenaean' would be ok.

On the contrary there were branches of the Gikas' that were not identified as Albanian: no wonder the relevant article describes most members as Romanian. The Gkicas that lived in Qeparo are not described as Albanian in the reference (and as I see nowhere in the rest of the specific reference).Alexikoua (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It's like saying the Castriota family in Italy isn't Albanian because the source fails to mention "Albanian". That's WP:BLUESKY. And I don't know if you have noticed that the Gjika family's presence in Romania only started centuries after the timeline we're talking about here? Why would they identify as Romanians before they even got there? And even if they did in some parallel universe, they're still Albanian. It's kind of similar to the Arvanites and Suliotes. AlexBachmann (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No it's not: the relevant article does not make any mention of the Ghica family as Albanian & the majority of the family members mentioned in the list section aren't Albanians. On the other hand the Kastrioti family is considered Albanian. Some families tend to be associated with a certain ethnic backgrounds entirely: Ghica's are not one of them.Alexikoua (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Just look at it and the first thing you'll see in the history is that they're Albanian. Everybody knows that. AlexBachmann (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: This Gjika family is unrelated to the well-known Ghica family in Romania. The Ghica family itself is of Albanian origin. There are no branches of the Ghica family which are not of Albanian origin as all of them as descendants of George Ghica. Not all Gjika are the same Gjika and even within Himara there are Gjika who are unrelated to each other. The Gjika family of Qeparo still exists and they are Albanian.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for clearing up the confusion, Maleschreiber. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Just as a side note, the surname ‘Gjika’ derived from the Albanian name ‘Gjik’. Botushali (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This claim [] is in full contrast to the reference provided. The academic paper mentions Qeparo and as such we have no reason to refute that statement. Bejko is among the most specialized Albanian scholars on the subject as such it would be too childish to remove him simply because of a personal judgement. The paper was published in 2002 as such it is unacceptable to replace it with obsolete archaeological data of the totalitarian era (1970s). Bejko also mentions Qeparo 3 times in his paper among the location with Mycenaean findings. Alexikoua (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Bejko isn't the only one that makes mention of Mycenaean findings in Qeparo (the list is growing). Also some additional context is needed in this part.Alexikoua (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Also in the same fashion that architectural similarities of the Kukum fortifications have been added, I assume a similar addition of the Mycenaean double-axe distribution are quite relevant here.Alexikoua (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There are no Mycenaean findings in Qeparo because Qeparo is a medieval village. It's not a settlement which has any sort of such continuity - there are very few such settlements in the Balkans and the Aegean area. The site location is Shafka e Kudhësit between Qeparo and Kudhës. This item was found in 1978 and an excavation site isn't something which can be updated via more recent data. Bunguri (2012) discusses all such findings in Albania. The item itself is not unique. It comes from a period where such items were imported throughout the western Balkans as north as Dalmatia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Using that as an excuse to suppress sourced material is not going to fly . There is not a single source to suggest that there are no more ethnic Greeks left in Qeparo. Both Kallivretakis and Giakoumis are high quality academic sources. Kallivretakis is the only one who has done fieldwork in the area. That some sources describe the village "Albanian-speaking" does not mean that there are no Greeks left. The same user that complains of "sources from the 90s" has no problem using...sources from the 90s in other contexts. There is a word for that. Khirurg (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nitsiakos (2010) reports the same information from Kallivretakis (1995). Every source from the 21st century describe Qeparo as an Albanian-speaking village. And they regard this as an indication of the ethnolinguistic situation of the area. The sources and relevant quotes are into the article. You have to find a recent publication that contrast with them, and add new content into the lede with consensus, not through edit war. – Βατο (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nitsiakos was published in 2010 and evidently he found the conclusion that Upper Qeparo is Greek speaking still applied. If it was no longer Greek speaking, he would not have included it. It's an academic source from 2010. None of the sources you have used mention that there are no more Greeks left in the village. Lower Qeparo is larger and newer than Upper Qeparo, which is why they describe Qeparo as Albanian-speaking. Khirurg (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nitsiakos was published in 2010, but he reports Kallivretakis' 90s information: The exclusively Greek-speaking villages, apart from Himare, are Queparo Siperne, Dhermi and Palase. The rest are inhabited by Albanian-speaking Orthodox Christians [Kallivretakis 1995:25-58] All recent sources contrast with it, because they describe Qeparo as an Albanian-speaking village:

• Joseph et al. (2018) p. 70: The ethnolinguistic situation of the region of Himara is best described in terms of the languages spoken in the villages in the area, namely the vernaculars of the Albanian speaking villages of Vuno, Qeparo, Kudhës and Pilur (Memushaj & Grillo 2009),1 but also Drymades (Dhërmi in its Albanian name), Palasa, and Himara itself, where, according to Albanian researchers, alongside Albanian, Greek is also spoken (Memushaj 2004: 180, Demiraj 2006, Sotiri 2006: 264).;
• Sotiri (2001) p. 13: banorët e Qeparoit janë njëgjuhësh, shqipfolës, megjithëse janë fare pranë me qytetin e Himarës, banorët e së cilës janë dygjuhësh (shqip dhe greqishtfolës). Në krahun tjetër të Himarës vjen fshati Vuno, i cili edhe ai është shqipfolës; pas Vunoit vjen Dhërmiu, që është shqip dhe greqishtfolës [the inhabitants of Qeparo are monolingual, Albanian-speaking, although they are very close to the city of Himara, whose inhabitants are bilingual (Albanian and Greek-speaking). On the other side of Himara comes the village of Vuno, which is also Albanian-speaking; after Vuno comes Dhërmi, which is Albanian- and Greek- speaking];
• Memushaj & Grillo (2009) p. 29: In order to decide the ethnic origin of a given community, language may be used as an important element. Comparing the speech of a given community with the speech of its neighbouring communities makes it possible to answer the above question. If the majority of linguistic features of a territorial variant is found in other neighbouring variants, than this is a proof that these communities are of the same ethnic origin. This is the path we have traced in our article to determine the ethnicity of the Himara municipality, which comprises the Himara town and Palassa, Dhermi, Vuno, Ilias, Pilur, Kudhes and Qeparo villages. The Himara town, Dhermi and Palassa villages are bilingual in Greek and Albanian, while the other villages are monolingual, but either in bilingual villages Albanian is the mother tongue of their speakers.

You should understand that a report from the 90s can't be used as a description of the present-day situation, it would not represent reality. – Βατο (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You are assuming that the Greeks of Qeparo magically vanished between 1995 and now. That is nonsense. None of those sources have performed in-depth fieldwork in the region. Kallivretakis and Nitsiakos on the other hand, have conducted field work. Your sources are not on the same level. They don't even distinguish between Upper and Lower Qeparo, which shows low attention to detail. It's also ridiculous that you are using the factually incorrect Sotiri from 2001 as describing "the present-day situation". Khirurg (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, all of them have conducted field work in the area. As for your arguments, find new publications, it would not be difficult if you believe your addition reflects reality. But the lede can't describe the present-day situation based on a 30 years old report, which is clearly contrasted by recent scholarship. – Βατο (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not "contrasted" by anything. None of your sources even mention Upper Qeparo, or mention the distinction between Upper and Lower Qeparo. That's poor quality fieldwork, if it can can be called that. The fact remains that Kallivretakis and Nitsiakos are the only sources we have on Upper Qeparo. Khirurg (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Because they describe the whole Qeparo village as monolingual, clearly contrasting with the 90s report. Again, with the current bibliography your addition do not reflect reality, and can't stay like that in the lede. – Βατο (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Because they are low-level generalist publications that don't distinguish between Upper and Lower Qeparo. Upper Qeparo has always been Greek-speaking, and you know that. The "90s report" as you derisively call it, is the only in-depth academic fieldwork on this village. Khirurg (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

They are low-level generalist publications according to whom? You or actual academics and scholars?

Besides, none of what you said there changes the fact that it is outdated. Again, it does not reflect the current situation. Botushali (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Because they fail to distinguish between Upper and Lower Qeparo. Poor quality scholarship. Khirurg (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe there is no distinction to make anymore… Botushali (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Now the works of present-day most expert scholars about the linguistic situation of the area are "low-level generalist publications" because User:Khirurg doesn't agree with what they say. This: Sotiri, Natasha (2001). E folmja dhe toponimia e Qeparoit. Academy of Sciences of Albania. p. 13. ISBN 9789992775905. banorët e Qeparoit janë njëgjuhësh, shqipfolës, megjithëse janë fare pranë me qytetin e Himarës, banorët e së cilës janë dygjuhësh (shqip dhe greqishtfolës). Në krahun tjetër të Himarës vjen fshati Vuno, i cili edhe ai është shqipfolës; pas Vunoit vjen Dhërmiu, që është shqip dhe greqishtfolës [the inhabitants of Qeparo are monolingual, Albanian-speaking, although they are very close to the city of Himara, whose inhabitants are bilingual (Albanian and Greek-speaking). On the other side of Himara comes the village of Vuno, which is also Albanian-speaking; after Vuno comes Dhërmi, which is Albanian- and Greek- speaking] is one of the most cited sources about Qeparo, because it is one of those publications that entirely focus on the speech of Qeparo, and it is more recent than Kallivretakis (1995). But there are also Joseph-Novik-Sobolev-Spiro (2018), and Memushaj & Grillo (2009), that are even more recent. – Βατο (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sotiri is from 2001, and according to you represents "present reality", but a source form 1995 is "outdated"? The fact remains that none of these are even aware of the distinction between Upper and Lower Qeparo, which is fundamental. What kind of scholarship is this? Khirurg (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"present reality" is represented by the multitude of 21st century sources, from 2001 to 2018, all agreeing with each other. – Βατο (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

An academic source from 2010 describes Upper Qeparo as Greek-speaking. That is the "present reality". Khirurg (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

But it’s based on a report from 1995. One source based on a report from decades ago versus numerous sources from recent times that do not describe the same situation as was given in that report from nearly three decades ago. The latter is the present reality. We do not live in the 90’s anymore. The scholarly consensus goes against what a source from 2010 writes based on a report from 1995. Scholarly consensus determines articles. You can choose to just not listen and vehemently deny everything else whilst ignoring that the source from 2010 is flawed because it’s based on a report from a while ago, but that doesn’t mean you will achieve consensus to add content on this article that goes against the general scholarly consensus. Botushali (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

But it's based on a report from 1995 he keeps repeating. All sources cite previous sources. That's how scholarship works. There is no "scholarly consensus", you need a source that says so, and you don't have that. WP:RS/AC is pretty clear about that. And even one of your sources, Grillo 2015, says the village is mainly Albanian-speaking, not completely Albanian-speaking, but you removed that from the article because reasons. Khirurg (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's very weird to remove the first word while several publications mention it as 'mainly Albanian speaking', to name a few authors: Gregoric, Giakoumis, Nitsiakos, Kallivretakis, Grilo.Alexikoua (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I know, it's incredible, right? No matter how many high quality academic publications are brought, there is always some excuse for removing them. Khirurg (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Qeparo along with Iljas, Vuno, Kudhës and Pilur, are always described in current scholarship as the Albanian-speaking villages of Himarë municipality, while Himarë (town), Dhërmi and Palasë are described as the bilingual villages of the municipality. No recent source describe Qeparo as one of the bilingual villages. You can't introduce it as the current situation based on a 30 years old report. – Βατο (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

My concerns is why you forget the word 'mainly'. Qeparo is a mainly Albanian speaking village and we have plenty of scholarship (at least 10 specialized authors) describing it as such. There is a specific part of Qeparo (the old part of the village) which is described as 'exclusively' Greek speaking. This can't be neglected. Alexikoua (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "thirty year old report", it's an in-depth academic fieldwork and the only source on its kind. The rest is just word-games. Khirurg (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It quite literally is a nearly thirty year old report. Things change, believe it or not. It doesn’t reflect the current situation in the village. Botushali (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the only in-depth academic fieldwork of the region. Dismissing it as a "thirty year old report" doesn't change that. Khirurg (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s not being dismissed, it’s being appropriately designated as having described the situation in the 1990’s and not the modern day. There is nothing wrong with that. Botushali (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The only source from recent times that talks about Upper Qeparo being Greek-speaking is Nitsiakos, and he bases his claim on a report from decades ago. Current sources describe the village as being Albanian-speaking and do not make any distinction between Upper and Lower Qeparo. Botushali (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If they fail to distinguish between Upper and Lower Qeparo, that's just indicative of poor quality sourcing. You yourself have no problem using "reports from decades ago" when it suits you. Khirurg (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Aspersions, personal attacks and uncivil remarks have no place here, Khirurg. If I use reports, I date them as such. I don’t use reports from thirty years ago to talk about what’s happening now. Regarding the matter at hand, there is no distinction to make. Upper Qeparo is no longer be Greek-speaking, hence why the only source which says as such in recent times is based on a report from thirty years ago. Botushali (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Upper Qeparo is no longer be Greek-speaking is your own original research. Khirurg (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali: your comments fall into OR, Upper Qeparo is no longer be Greek-speaking: that's nowhere written. We have dozens of publications that are clear that this isn't an exclusively Albanian speaking settlement Gregoric, Giakoumis, Nitsiakos, Kallivretakis, Grilo etc. use: "mainly" Albanian-speaking which you removed without taking time to check out. You need to self-rv and owe a sincere apology for this kind of disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Also Upper Qeparo is Greek-speaking for the present-day situation is WP:OR. Qeparo is an Albanian-speaking village, on the other hand, is supported by multiple recent sources. – Βατο (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not OR, it's sourced to a high quality academic source from 2010. Khirurg (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You’re forgetting that it’s based on a report from 1995. Almost thirty years difference from until now. Why do you keep ignoring that? Botushali (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Botushali you are forgetting that Grilo is a 2015 publication and it adds the word 'mainly Albanian speaking' which you remove without excuse. By the way Grilo doesn't cite a report from 1995. This needs to be portrayed in the text.Alexikoua (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

That's ok - I scanned through the sources and notice that a few say "mainly" whereas others simply say "Albanian-speaking" with no "mainly" out the front of it. I wouldn't be opposed to adding mainly if it is the scholarly consensus. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Also it is extremely childish to claim that the Greek speaking Upper Qeparo (based on a fieldwork of 1990s, but also noted as exclusively Greek speaking in a 2000s publication) changed from Greek to Albanian speech today without any wp:RS stating this linguistic shift. Kallivretakis' data is also widely respected in scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd caution you against using remarks such as it is extremely childish... I'll assume good faith here and chalk it up to a language barrier unless you truly mean what you say? Botushali (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: About historical demographics (apart from Urban) some information have been provided by Petiffer: [] (Balkan Wars era) and Hammond (1930s) [].Alexikoua (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you seen Upper Qeparo? It's almost completely abandoned, and I wouldn't be surprised if Greek in Qeparo is as seldom as Albanian in Nish. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any RS explicitly rejecting a language shift? Let's turn this around. Meanwhile there are newer sources stating Qeparo is Albanian-speaking. So yes, there is evidence to suggest thtat the language has shifted. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If that's your best argument then it's extremely weak since you haven't provided the slightest evidence (You insist on those abstract thoughts that... there is evidence but we are still waiting for it, but then even when assuming that there is something Greek the settlement is abandoned).

Now on our subject: based on quite recent scholarly accounts Old Qeparo is an active settlement (Triantis etc), also no reference about a language shift. No wonder Nitsiakos presents data from Kalivretakis as reflecting the present situation (he uses present tense on the demographic condition and doesn't hesitate to include the specific settlement in the list of the exclusively Greek speaking settlements of Himara).Alexikoua (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nitsiakos is pushing a POV, because his best evidence for Upper Qeparo being Greek-speaking is the report from Kalivretakis in 1995. Nothing modern, nothing new, nothing original - he bases his "present" data off data from the 90's. If sources describe Qeparo as Albanian-speaking (mainly or exclusively), and no modern sources discuss Upper Qeparo as being Greek-speaking, then I do not see why we should use outdated information. Botushali (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You name it: plenty of brand new sources are stating that it is mainly Albanian speaking, no reason to hide that word. Also note that Nitsiakos uses present tense (he obviously also agrees that it is mainly Albanian speaking taking in account that the lower/the Albanian speaking part is more numerous, as such there is nothing POV about him)Alexikoua (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless you have better sources that state Greek is still spoken in Upper Qeparo (even though Albanian brotherhoods make up the village's traditional inhabitants), then Nitsiakos' source is simply not good enough to support such a claim on its own. As mentioned multiple times now, Nitsiakos' work is based on a report from 1995.

In regards to placing "mainly" in the appropriate sections, I don't think it's required. I have seen some sources use mainly, while plenty also just refer to Qeparo as simply Albanian-speaking without "mainly". Unless there was a general scholarly consensus on Qeparo being "mainly" Albanian-speaking (which there isn't - I looked into further sources and most just list it as an Albanian-speaking village without the attribution of "mainly"), then it should not be described as such. Botushali (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Whats makes Nitsiakos not good? Simply by not liking him doesn't make the trick. No wonder the vast majority in scholarship agrees on the 'mainly' and removing it falls simply into wp:OR. Unless there is a consensus for an 'exclusively' Albanian Qeparo which so far lies into wp:FRINGE we can't ignore this essential fact. Qeparo (considering both parts) is not exclusively Albanian speaking. That's a consensus in scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What makes Nitsiakos “not good” is that his work is based on a report from 1995, as has already been mentioned to you over and over again. I don’t have any personal feelings regarding the author, I don’t dislike him nor do I like him. It’s best not to insinuate that I have some kind of personal bias towards the matter.

I am not sure where you got the “no wonder” from in your second point, but I’ll just chalk it up to a language barrier. Let me reiterate; some sources use the term “mainly Albanian-speaking”, but many more sources use the term “Albanian-speaking” without putting the word “mainly” in front of it. That trend is not limited to the sources on the article, but sources in general as well. More sources can be brought into the article that describe Qeparo as simply “Albanian-speaking” without using the word “mainly”.

Nothing about this matter is WP:OR, and Qeparo being simply “Albanian-speaking” (as a multitude of sources describe without using the word “mainly”) is not WP:FRINGE. Please refrain from mis-using wiki policies.

There is only one source from recent times (2010) which states Upper Qeparo has Greek speakers, and that’s based off of a report from 1995. None of the other sources, even the ones that use the term “mainly Albanian-speaking” talk about Upper Qeparo being Greek-speaking. Botushali (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Both Nitsiakos and Kallivretakis are reliable academic sources that have conducted fieldwork in the area. Any neutral user who saw this discussion would agree to their inclusion. Khirurg (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Kallivretakis may indeed have his work included to describe the situation in 1995, and not the current situation in 2023, where sources refer to the whole village in general as Albanian-speaking. Botushali (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Mancini, Gamberini & Aleotti 2020, p. 45 reads: "the belonging of the Chaonians to Greek culture and ethnicity could hardly be denied by present scholarship. Were the Chaonians in ancient time Qeparo a different case? Alexikoua (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Koçi does not imply what you are trying to add in a WP:SYNTH manner by using a source written by Master's students who report a dubious general statement without even citation ("the prehistoric^[when?] castle of Karos, which was built by the Greek Chaonian tribe."). Koçi does not imply that conclusion, he relates those Bronze and Iron Age fortifications to those of the same period in other areas in northern and south-eastern Albania, and he states that determining the ethnic belonging of the fortificatons in the Albanian Riviera is problematic. Furthermore, this is not the place where to discuss the Chaonian ethnic belonging in the Early Iron Age, the relevant article, Chaonians, reads: The formation process of the Chaonians remains an unsolved complex problem. [...] There is a lack of attestation of a certain continuity between the facies of the Late Bronze Age and of the Early Iron Age, which is documented by the tumulus necropolises and by populated areas that sometimes appear to be enclosed, and the more organized settlements of the late Classical and Hellenistic periods. (based on De Maria & Mancini 2018 p. 202). Btw, the scholarly consensus is about Chaonians being Greek-speakers in Classical Antiquity. Not about considering those Bronze and Iron Age fortifications as built by Greeks, which is obviously inaccurate original research. – Βατο (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I expanded the content as per Çipa & Meshini 2016, which is in perfect agreement with De Maria & Mancini 2018. – Βατο (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The fortifications which show similarities to the one from LBA/EIA Qeparo are found in northern Albania and they're related to Cetina and Glasinac-Mati cultures. As such, they shouldn't be discussed in connection to Greek settlements as these are Proto-Illyrian formations. I think that there's an emerging shift about Chaonians who (IMO) in the next 20 years will be discussed as a group which which simply adopted Greek as its prestige language in the Classical era and was very different to groups like the Molossians . The archaeogenetic record will likely go hand-in-hand with the archaeological record. Chaonians (or at least their leading faction) will be shown to have been an Illyrian-like/descended group which moved southwards, while Molossians (or at least their leading faction) will be shown to have been a Mycenaean-like/descended group which moved northwards. In any case, the discussion about the cultural background of the Chaonians is out of the scope of this article and it irrelevant to it in many ways. Not a single family from modern-day Qeparo descends from anyone who might have lived in the vicinity of the LBA/EIA fortification. In fact, all families of Qeparo - except for one - descend from individuals who before the 16th century didn't even live in the area of Himara.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Koci has made many mistakes in his research, see Bowden on that. The general consensus is that Karos is clealry in Chaonian territory, even Bodgani, Jaupaj and Cipa place the Chaonian boundary in Shushica (Why Bato is again removing that Chaonians were a Greek tribe?).Alexikoua (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your disruptive edit that removed well sourced content based on academic scholarship and added WP:SYNTH material unsupported by Koçi but by Master's students who report a dubious general and out of context statement without even citation ("the prehistoric^[when?] castle of Karos, which was built by the Greek Chaonian tribe."). Late Bronze and Iron Age fortifications of Karos being "clealry in Chaonian territory" is your own original research contrasting with scholarship. I reverted the description of Chaonians as Greek tribe in that specific context because it would imply that Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age fortifications were built by Greeks, which is WP:FRINGE original research. Read our previous comments and don't ignore them. As for Koçi, report here his mistakes commented by Bowden and then we can discuss if what he states for this case is erroneous. However you did not even remove Koçi, but Çipa & Meshini 2016. Also, what does this statement Bodgani, Jaupaj and Cipa place the Chaonian boundary in Shushica have to do with this discussion? Your whole comment definetly provides no argument to justify you revert. – Βατο (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The Chaonians are attested for the first time around 500 BCE. The fortification is ~500 years older than the first attestation of the Chaonians. Whether the Chaonians descend from the same (Illyrian) group which moved from the north to this region and built this fortification or from a (Greek) group which moved from the south to this region or from both is a different topic which is unrelated to the fortification itself. Alexikoua's statement is equivalent to stating that Byzantine fortifications in the Aegean around 1000 CE were built by Turkic tribes because the Ottoman Empire controlled the region 500 years later.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Çerçok: Why are you constantly removing sourced information ? "Unnecessary" is not going to cut it. Khirurg (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not removing anything. That information is welcome on the page. Only the new subsection is unnecessary since its content is in the History section. Çerçok (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not in the history section. You are literally removing sourced material and then claiming you aren't. The diff is plain as day. Do you want me to contact an admin to see what they think? Khirurg (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The history section already discusses historical demographics. 2/3 sources in that unnecessary subsection you want are already there. You can add the third one too, no problem, I will not remove it. But you cannot add a whole subsection to emphasize your favorite pov. Contact whoever you want. Çerçok (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This addition is WP:OFFTOPIC. The line Modern scholarship hardly denies the belonging of the Chaonians to Greek culture and ethnicity, has nothing to do with Qeparo, and so it is WP:OFFTOPIC. This information is more suitable for inclusion in the Chaonians article. Compare it to putting information regarding the Albanian origin of the Arvanites in the article of every village that has historically been inhabited by Arvanites; there's a time and place for such information, and the articles of villages is not one of them.

Without casting WP:ASPERSIONS on any particular editors, it's as though the inclusion of this content is trying to establish an unbroken line of descent and habitation from the ancient Chaonians to the modern Greeks, which is simply not the case.

Keep in mind that WP:ONUS states The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So I will once again remove the content and ask that the editors who wish for its conclusion proceed to actually provide valid reasons as to why such content is useful on an article on the village of Qeparo. Botushali (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It's already mentioned that Qeparo was part of the Chaonian coast and as such the classification of the Chaonians makes an essential addition for the understanding of the antiquity section. By the way the paper titled 'Immersing the landscape in its music: The case of iso-polyphony in South Albania' is RS and focused on local anthropology and culture. It clearly provides the information that the entire are of Himara was inhabited by Greek populations in antiquity in the context of Qeparo. I can't see what's the meaning for it's removal []. Alexikoua (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Not only its Offtopic. But neither is the precise quote from the source which says "If the belonging of the Chaonians to Greek culture and ethnicity could hardly be denied by present scholarship, the literary sources of Classical times regarded them as barbarians (non-Greeks)." RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh it's "off-topic" is it? If we're going to apply such a strict definition of what is on and off-topic, I can think of several other articles where that can be applied to. As I recall, you consider cross-article consistency very important. Khirurg (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Either everything must be included or nothing at all. If the information about chaonians directly contributes to the information about Qeparo i would agree for the information to stay. I recall that we had the same conversation on Palasë article. The name Palaeste directly contributes to the name Palasë. What does this information about chaonians contributes to Qeparo? RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Palaeste has nothing to do with the modern village of Palase. It hasn't even been located. It seems that you have a very strange and convenient definition of what is and isn't off-topic. Khirurg (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Why aren't you removing the whole palaeste sector then? Every information about Palaeste. Seems that you only remove what you don't like. Also saying that they have nothing to do falls under WP:OR.RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The statement Modern scholarship hardly denies the belonging of the Chaonians to Greek culture and ethnicity, as such the region of Himara in general was inhabited by Greek communities in antiquity is off-topic for Qeparo because didn't exist before the late Middle Ages. The statement itself would be debatable in any article because it doesn't represent the source accurately: If the belonging of the Chaonians to Greek culture and ethnicity could hardly be denied by present scholarship, the literary sources of Classical times regarded them as barbarians.. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

In the vicinity of Qeparo there were ancient settlements as in the case of Karos. As such it's on topic especially in this case where it is confirmed that Karos belonged to the Chaonian coast.Alexikoua (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What about the rest of the quote "the literary sources of Classical times regarded them as barbarians."? Should that be included as well? How come only one part is proposed for inclusion while the rest is left out? RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure no problem for addition. By the way information about Palermo should also be included here. It lies in Qeparo's vicinity.Alexikoua (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I think maybe it's better to create a new article about Porto Palermo to avoid confusion and consistency with another articles on the towns in a similiar distance because it lies on the ancient trading post of Panorma but surely is closer than the distance between Upper Qeparo and Lower Qeparo. But that is only because the Lower Qeparo is built in the middle of the two places. So the important thing is to keep consinstency on every article even if we include it or not. So if we take the History of the places they are two completely different places but if we see it on the modern sense they belong on the same area. The situation is more or less like the Athens and Plaka articles. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit by User:Alexikoua introduces content by WP:cherrypicking some parts of the provided quote, but also including other parts that can't be seen in that quote. Alexikoua should provide the full quote before restoring that content, but he should also explain why that addition is not offtopic or undue for this article, because the description of rubble masonry as cyclopean masonry seems to have been added just to make an exclusive connection of the Early Iron Age fortification of Karos with Mycenae, which is misleading. – Βατο (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of rubble masonry as cyclopean masonry is essential to describe the fortification of Karos. Scholarship agrees the connection to the Mycenaean civilization and as such removals of that kind of information fall into wp:IDONTLIKEIT. Alexikoua (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary what is really highly dubious is to claim that: Determining the ethnic belonging of these fortifications is problematic, and it should be associated to the study of the culture of these fortifications, in relation to the culture of the same period discovered in the area of Shkodra, Mati and in eastern Albania. Karos shares architectural patterns with Mycenaean civilization. As such considering that the source is also severely outdated (1991) compared to available scholarship such kind of extraordinary speculation should be removed.Alexikoua (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

So I was right in thinking that you made that addition "just to make an exclusive connection of the Early Iron Age fortification of Karos with Mycenae, which is misleading." Your personal claim to present those buildings as made by Myceneans while ignoring the doubt presented by scholars is very problematic. No reliable source supports that they are Mycenaean cyclopean masonry, they are rubble masonry found throughout the Adriatic sea, but you omitted it and cherrypicked the source to introduce a misleading narrative just to push, as many times now, a certain unfounded POV. Since the source is not accessible, you have to provide the full quotes from that source so all editors here can evaluate what to include or not into the article. The content added by you clearly misrepresents the quote you provided from that source, hence you can't reintroduce it without proper rewording. – Βατο (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The architectural pattern of Karos belongs to cyclopean masonry and is presented in available mainstream scholarship. On the other hand extraordinary and POV is to search about the ethnic belonging of these fortifications: that's very bad wording, don't ever say that again about Bronze Age architecture. If you need to search about the ethnic belonging of prehistoric Albanian homogeneity then wikipedia is not the right place.Alexikoua (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Alexikoua has not yet provided the full quotes as requested, I reverted his addition again on grounds of WP:cherrypicking and WP:original research. He added this content: "The fortifications of Karos were part of rubble masonry garrisons network located along the Ionian coast in Greece and Albania, including constructions in Ephyra and Badhër. Those rubble masonry enclosures are defined as cyclopean in order to emphasise the technical similarities to the Mycenaean fortifications and the predominance of the large-sized rubble masonry." which is supposed to be supported by these cropped quotes: Lera, Papayiannis, Oikonomidis (2009), pp. 325, 331-332: Strong fortifications of rubble masonry are also located along the adriatic coast, on plateaux near the creeks of the well-protected bays of the albanian and epirotic coast.... and of Karos.... The appearance of the strong dry-stone rubble masonry in the form of an enclosure... the term used to define this type of masonry is cyclopean, in order to emphasise the technical similarities to the mycenaean fortifications and the predominance of the large-sized rubble masonry. As can be seen, Alexikoua's wording is misleading because it cherrypicks some parts from the source, while omitting others, even from the cropped quotes he selected, and partially introduces original research that is not directly supported by the provided cropped quotes. I ask him again to refrain from edit warring and to provide full relevant quotes so the proper wording can be discussed and thereafter added into the article. As it is, his addition will be reverted again as per the above reasons, and if he persists in introducing original research and cherrypicked material through edit warring he will be reported. – Βατο (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment:The term cyclopean is used commonly to refer to the size of fortifications. It doesn't refer to masonry techniques commonly used in the Aegean region, which themselves are not unique - they're often known as "Mycenaean" because they became popular in the Mycenaean area which also used rubble masonry in a previous period just like most of the central Med region. The point is that masonry techniques in the ancient world - with some notable exceptions like the nuraghe - had no particular links to just one specific geographical and/or cultural area. Such statements are equivalent to stating that there's ethnic engineering or that skyscrapers are uniquely American. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Those edits removed the wordings used by scholars, while using wordings based on unreasonable personal opinions. Bejko provides a study for Albania, not "the area", and Gjipali clearly states: "Në faktorët e jashtme mund të shënojmë presionin që vjen nga territoret fqinje të Greqisë". – Βατο (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Alexikoua should explain why he is removing the information provided by scholars and adding an WP:original research (). – Βατο (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As this is an Albanian speaking village in the country of Albania, there shouldn't be a Greek name there it makes no sense and should be removed Cool Creative Name (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)