Talk:Korçë/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Political landscape

I am terribly sorry, but I think that in the section reading that Korca was a "bastion" of the Democratic Party, some wishful thinking of a DP follower was involved (btw: the use of "bastion" for stronghold is a typically Albanian thing). Whereas Korca region has had a left wing domination after 1997 that was continuosly and constantly eroding from its peak in 2000 until the 2005 general elections (Kolonja district being an exception), Korca town has had both left and right wing mayors and elected MPs. Hence this section should be edited without political motivation (which is a hard thing to do in Albania, admittedly).

Name in Vlach?

No idea what the name is in Vlach, but the NGA geonames server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp returns all of these alternative names:

• Korytsa
• Korrçë
• Korrça
• Koritza
• Koritsa
• Körice
• Korica
• Korche
• Korcha
• Korça
• Goritsa
• Gorica
• Ghiortsa Corcia
• Corriza
• Corizza
• Coriza
• Coritza
• Coritsa
• Corcë

Vlach might be in there somewhere but don't ask me which one it is! ;-) -- ChrisO 20:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proof?

As far as Korce is concerned there has always been a large Aromun minority but never in its records have there been Greek names in the area. Does anyone have any proof of it's large "Greek minority" Or is this another case of "Their orthodox, their greek"?

The fact that there's a newly-opened Greek school, Greek consulate and Greek library in the town, built for "the promotion of Greek culture, Greek literature and Greek language" [1], suggests that there are people there who just might possibly identify themselves as Greek... -- ChrisO 06:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Greek school, consulate or library is something you can find even in Tirana, Vlora or Durres. it does not mean it has a large Greek minority. Actually there a huge TV conflict between Aromanian church in Korca and the former Greek counsel, due to this last's attempts to urge as many Aromanians to to just register as Greeks and not Aromanians.

Having lived in Korce for several years I myself have noticed these schools. Schools dont constitue a large minority... The Greek government likes to be appeased and so it happens. Check the records of these schools. The majority of attendees are Albanians with ambitions of moving to Greece. The Greek government demands schools for every single Greek. That means if there is two to three families of Greeks in an area, they must build schools. If not, more stuff comes out that Albanians are mistreating Greeks. This is actually a current issue of discussion as the schools are expensive. Theres no denying that there is Greek, just what does "large" or "significant" define? But... whatever.... Iskenderbeg

This article is not NPOV. In the Culture section, it mostly informs about how it is a Greek Orthodox center but no hint about Korca being a cradle of Albanian culture and having the first Albanian school. There has been no Greek presence in Korca except that it has an Orthodox minority. But nowadays Greeks think that all Orthodox peoples are Greek, what a laugh. - UsUnknown Soldier

There's nothing to stop you adding information... but I've added the point about the school(s), anyway. -- ChrisO

just added!

Just added a link to Albania in the first part of the topic.

Name

Seriously, just have a name section so you can put all the different languages in. The intro looks like shit with all of them. And no, culling some probably won't be a good idea. BalkanFever 06:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree! The intro is terrible. What if we add a "Name" section? balkanian (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No response to my proposal so I am creating it. balkanian (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Minorities??

There is [www.southeasteurope.org/documents/0009albminorities.pdf no] minority in Korce, if you find a reference that there is, feel free to add it. balkanian (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have this reference right here, [2], which is far more reliable than that suspicious "southerastern europe.org" random website. So I have re-added the sentence. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry, but please see this [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arditbido (talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Supposed sources that claim that there is no Greek minority in northern epirus are immediately deemed Questionable sources as there is abudance to the contrary since 1913 and before that and even the Albanian state admits it though it reduces the numbers and the area to 99 villages(a goverment pov).Megistias (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No this map shows that there is a minority in Saranda, Delvina and Gjirokastra, but not in Korca. 77.242.19.9 (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added references by INSTAT, Albanian Institution of Statistics, retrieved by Albanian report for minorities, in Council of Europe. balkanian (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Le monde diplomatique

Please see this [4]. It is another map of Le monde diplomatique, which does not include e greek minority in Korca. So, we should remove the Le Monde diplometique references. balkanian (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC) There is not any greek minority in Korca so I am removing the greek toponym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdreni (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A biased statemenet concerning Enver Hoxha

The text which was devoted to early career of Enver Hoxha, states the former as the "future dictator". What kind of an objectivity is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.199.165 (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Antzias

Who's this guy? I'm from Korçë myself, never heard of him. [5] Guildenrich (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A local benefactor & merchant. He paid a a lot for the constructions of schools in 1817. This is not an argument to delete some notable due to wp:or [[6]].Alexikoua (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed him. Not notable. There is no article in wikipedia with his name. If he is notable, then we can enter him in this list, otherwise, he should stay out. user:sulmues --Sulmues 20:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Totalitarian census

Seems a totalitarian census of 1989 has no place on a encyclopedic article, especially in the lead (really misleading). I see that a number of authors, like Vickers who is considered clearly pro-albanian describes the Korce region as minority region[7]] p.178 (although official not called that way by the totallitarian regime).Alexikoua (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. The 1989 census needs to go. --Athenean (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua, do you comprehend english or what? This is a city within the district, not the district itself and your citations mentions the district and not the city. If you want to add something about the Korce DISTRICT, then add it to the DISTRICT article.--I Pakapshem (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are afraid to mention that the city is inside a 'minority region'? There live Greeks, slavs, Vlachs. It's simply reasonable to add it on the lead.Alexikoua (talk)

You are totally laughable. There is no such thing as a minority region in the county or Distric of Korce.--I Pakapshem (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you read or not!!. Yeah there live so many greeks that the greek party got about 0,95% of the votes in whole Korce district. That much! Now dont add again that nonsense about city districts when it refers to Korce district.--Sarandioti (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How interesting that I Pakapshem and Sara use the same type of language ("do you comprehend english..." "Can you read..."). --Athenean (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't answered me Athenean, and I have asked you twice. HOW IS PONTOS?. Please answer (at last) when you have free time. I would really like to listen to your answer. --Sarandioti (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Btw I would gladly talk to any of you guys in msn if you ever want to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarandioti (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You re-added the totallitarian stuff. Tell me one reason not to report you? You are not carefull on adding stuff inapropriate for an encyclopedia.Alexikoua (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly is it inappropriate?? It is official, fully sourced etc. --Sarandioti (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your obsession with Pontos is amusing. The 1989 census is conducted by a toatlitarian regime, is 20 yrs old, and as such is not worth the paper it is printed on. --Athenean (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Totalitarian? and what does that mean? unreliable? I havent seen any wiki guideline saying that. I really like Pontos, great area, great things have happened there, even rivers created in eras where rivers could only be of white or slightly blue colour. Too bad no bright minds exist nowadays to create rivers again. Why wouldn't anyone like it?--Sarandioti (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused: what color rivers are you talking about? --Athenean (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

::0 imagination? --Sarandioti (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How interesting that you guys can't seem to comprehend English. If the census is not worth it, neither are vague statements that you guys try to pass off as reliable data.--I Pakapshem (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

People, I think you need to calm down. For one, I fail to see why demographic data is so important as to be in the lead. Second, if it is so contentious/variable then why isn't there a "demographics" section to adequately detail the problem using many sources? Third, as long as the Albanian census data is referred to as Albanian census data and not cited as fact, then I don't think it is a big problem. There are always claims that a census by a Balkan government contains false data: Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria... it doesn't mean that the census should be ignored outright. BalkanFever 04:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There are censi and censi. A census from 20 years ago conducted by one of the world's worst totalitarian regimes at the time should not be passed off as a reliable source. Which is exactly what these people are saying. No way. --Athenean (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In a demographics section, where multiple conflicting viewpoints/sources can be discussed, the Albanian census obviously has a place. BalkanFever 05:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A demographic section might not be a bad idea, especially as other city articles have one as well. As long as other sources are discussed, it should be ok. You will also note that this article is in terrible shape. for example, the lead says 58,000, while the infobox says 80,000. Neither is sourced. I will try to find some demographic information, however, in the meantime i will remove the 1989 census from the lead. --Athenean (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed. Sourced both. The last census was held in 2001 and the population is so steady that there is no need to adjust it. The next census will be held in 2011 per Government declaration. Instead of doing an edit-war, wait till the next official census. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 21:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Either we say that the notable people were Greeks, Albanians, Albanian-Greeks, Albanian-Turkish, Albanian-Romanian, or we mention no Albania or Greece here. And if you call my edits tendentious, you are in bad faith. Luan Shabani was European Champion for Albania, had an Albanian passport and you are calling him Greek only? sulmues --Sulmues 21:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to mention everyone's ethnicity. These Albanian vs Earth strategy leads to nothing.Alexikoua (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Like your idea and removed every lead to nationality. Good job! sulmues --Sulmues 21:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, liked Jani Melka, I actually knew him personally. I think the list will grow very fast now and we should be building a category instead. sulmues --Sulmues 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In 1914 the 3/4 of the population were Greeks. Le voyage du diadoque en Epire, 1914.

Incorporation into Albania controversial???

The article says

Its incorporation into Albania in 1913 was controversial, as Greece claimed it as part of a region called 'Northern Epirus'. However, in accordance with the Corfu Protocol signed between Greece and Albania in 1914 and the ethnographic survey held by the Greek army, the city was included in the newly formed Autonomous Northern Epirus zone, the autonomous status of which, however, never came into being. Northern Epirote forces took over the city on 10 July 1914.

How could incorporation of the city into Albania have been controversial in 1913 if Albania was declared independent in 1912? Let's say that Albania's borders were delineated in 1913. How could it have been controversial because of the Protocol of Corfu which occurred in 1914? In addition, what are the Northern Epirote forces? I'll change that into Greek Northern Epirote forces. As a result I'll change the article's paragraph into the following:

After the proclamation of the Albanian independence, Greece claimed the city as part of a region called 'Northern Epirus'. In accordance with the Corfu Protocol signed between Greece and Albania in 1914 and the ethnographic survey held by the Greek army, the city was included in the newly formed Autonomous Northern Epirus zone, the autonomous status of which, however, never came into being. Greek Northern Epirote forces took over the city on 10 July 1914.

Thank you! --sulmues (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to tell you, and resent that I have to waste my time doing so, but there is a difference between when independence was proclaimed and when the borders were delineated. Independence was proclaimed in 1912, the borders were not delineated till 1913. So, nothing wrong with the previous version of the history section. Suppose I could love with "Greek Northern Epirote" forces, though I don't think that there are any other kind of "Northern Epirote forces". And that's quite enough with the trivial soccer players from 1931, I mean, really. Athenean (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please revert yourself. As it is the first sentence says that the incorporation is controversial. The second sentence tries to rebut the first with a "however", trying to say that the city was included in the Autonomous Northern Epirus. It doesn't make sense. The "however" leads to nowhere. The soccer players that I mentioned were the leading goalscorers of the second and the third Albanian championship in 1931 and 1933 respectively. Per wp:athlete they are notable and it's not up to you to decide from which year onwards should the Albanian champions appear in Wikipedia. --sulmues (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

How about I change "controversial" to disputed, and get rid of the "However"? Regarding those soccer players, I know you think they are very important, but if we did that for every city, we would drown in a sea of soccer players. I can understand someone recent and important, but soccer players from the 30's are a dime a dozen these days. Athenean (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed for the change. Please do. Soccer players: They were national league leading scorers as per wikification. Sooner or later I'll have articles on them. And they pass wp:athlete. See also Serie A goalscorers who start from 1924 or Greek goalscorers from the 50's and the Albanian one. Not to mention the English ones who start from 1888 (See here). For them I'll do the change myself. --sulmues (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the soccer player, if we included every athlete that passed WP:ATHLETE in the Notable People section of their hometown, we would drown in a sea of soccer players. Can you imagine how many there would be in articles like London or Paris? And if we included players from all other sports? Just because someone passes WP:ATHLETE is not reason to include him in the notable people section. The Notable People section of this article is already ridiculously inflated (I can only guess why). But I see you feel extremely strongly about this, and I'm not that interested. Athenean (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

When you have too many notable people from one city usually you'll redirect into a category page or will open a new article (see this for instance). Not the case of Korca, a city of 60k. The list can't be that long, especially because Skenderbeu has won only one championship in the entire history of Albanian soccer, :-).--sulmues (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Made the change ("here") as per consensus above. --sulmues (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pearson

I don't understand why Pearson is considered by Alexikoua a dubious source so if you consider him dubious then bring some evidence that proves that claim, but don't remove him arbitrarily.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pearson is not tertiary but secondary. Alexikoua has disputed him several times saying that he was friends with Zogu. The Centre for Albanian studies IS reliable and has neutral expertise on Albanian issues. IB Tauris Publishers is the best publisher out there for international regional studies therefore please do not remove things. Pearson is EXACTLY the scholar to be published as per wiki policies which I will quote:

Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[3] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[4]

Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.

--sulmues (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pearson is historically wrong in several historical issues. For example Sulmues already knows that Pearson claims that the Protocol of Corfu wasn't ratified by the interested parts, but mainstream bibliography contradicts this claim. Arguments like: the publisher is reliable or Pearson is a secondary, while he states the he is the definition of tertiary (p. xi ...he assembled a library of over 300 books...) source, is really weak and misleading. Pearson' s work is a collection of sources that were assembled in 1947 by him. So, as per Wikipedia:Rs#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources:

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.

As per wp:rs this detail [[8]] should go. Thank you. Alexikoua (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

He isn't summarizing other works or using them by copy/pasting their work. As all scholars he uses other scholars as a source he doesn't assemble sources. Also personal opinions about right and wrong etc. shouldn't be used to evaluate the credibility of a scholar.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This book has been selected by Yale University to be part of their selected bibliography for Albania.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly stated in this book: ...he assembled a library of over 300 books... I agree that this is a fine tertiary source. Also, I advice you to check Pearson's secondary source on that.Alexikoua (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That means that he used 300 sources not that he copy/pasted 300 books. So you agree that he is a reliable source.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is a copy-paste job, here a nice example [[9]] (100% identical paragraphs).Alexikoua (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You are ommiting the fact that after that there is an analysis. Alexikoua at the beginning of the discussion you were saying that Pearson isn't reliable, 2 hours later you said that he is reliable but a tertiary source. His book isn't just a copy/paste job:

• Comprising original research, and excerpts from rare Albanian sources, this is a compendium of primary source material that provides a year-by-year and sometimes day-by-day account of Albania's modern history.

Now we have agreed that it is reliable so now since there are no real arguments for non-addition, can we reach a consensus?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said that he is reliable, that's your personal view. He is neither reliable nor secondary. He is just the definition of tertiary and highly dubious. Off course you can check the secondary in which he is based on the specific event you are interested.Alexikoua (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua, I'll need a specific answer as to why Pearson is non-reliable. You have 24 hours. DS (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The author was personally member of Albanophil cycles and involved on political issues:

During this period, Owen Pearson became a member of the 'friends of Albanian Committee, a small group of British Albanophils who lobbied in behalf of the national cause and called for British recognition of the exiled King Zong [[10]].

Furthermore, the amalgamation of a huge library [[11]], by Pearson, mostly copy-pasting paragraphs [[12]], creates historical innacuraccies and contradictions. For example: on p. 64 "the Protocol of Corfu was not ratified by any parties concerned" [[13]], but on p. 70 ...it was ratified by the Albanian government...[[14]]. Typical example of a tertiary source based on contradicting secondary sources.

I've advised Zjarri. to check the secondary source in which the specific event he is interested is based on. Furthermore, it's better to avoid authors that were personally involved in local political issues (here Pearson a declared Albanophil pro-Zogist royalist). Adopting works that are pro-this or pro-that (like a professor's work [[15]], who seems to favour the other site, or some additional published pro-Venizelos or pro-Zographos works) would lead to nothing.

I also find Zjarri.'s view about wp:rs really weird, since on Talk:Skanderbeg he rejected a bibliogrpahy of 8 books [[16]], and then an additional bibliography of 6 books [[17]] with explanations that seem virtually wrong [[18]].Alexikoua (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua don't divert the conversation, because this is not a source discussing myths or fictitious stories or Yugoslav textbooks of the 1910s. When Pearson claims that "King Zog was unpopular in Albania" I don't think that this is a "pro-Zog statement". And Pearson isn't involved in any political issue of Albania, because you claim that he is but no evidence has been brought.

Those 2 links lead nowhere, because in both instances all you get is "No results have been found".

DS told you to bring proof that he is biased etc. and you still haven't brought anything.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I finally managed to check those 2 links. They are not contradicting each other because they are refering to different dates. If they were referring to the same date yes it would be contradicting, but they're not referring to the same date.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If the book itself states from introduction that the author is Albanophil (pro-Albanian)[[19]] and pro-royalist there is simply something wrong in his reliability. I suggest to initiate a case here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

About Skanderbeg, I wonder why you are claiming that the bibliography is from 1910s since most of the 14 books are from 90s-80s.Alexikoua (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't divert the discussion, you know very well that some of those books were about textbooks of the 1910s and they copied text directly from them. Being chosen by Yale is a major sign of credibility. You didn't bring anything that could prove that he is in fact biased.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer is given by the book's introduction itself. Can you please support the Yale credibility claim with an appropriate link?

Because this list [[20]] doesn't say something about credibility, in contrary some of the books listed are completely biased like this [[21]] (Many Albanians, who are descended from the Illyrians and Pelasgians...) it's obvious that this has nothing to do with real history but it's included in the list like Pearson's book too. Alexikoua (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Selected Bibliography of English-language Print Resources for Albania:

The Research Guide contains selected bibliographies of English-language print resources for Slavic and East European regions. The bibliographies are not meant to be comprehensive, but rather as starting points for researchers. The resources listed are available in the Yale University Libraries.

• If Yale considers Pearson credible enough to list him in their selected bibliography and "a starting point for researchers" then that's good enough for wikipedia. Maybe you don't like the source, maybe you think that it isn't "right", but what matters is that Yale considers him "good enough".--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Noel Malcolm's Review about Pearson's book[22]:

"This is an extraordinary achievement. Owen Pearson has produced a chronicle of modern Albanian history which will be an indispensable reference work for anyone working in this field. This book is a veritable treasury."--Noel Malcolm, All Soul's College, Oxford. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually the list includes works that are far from being considered credible. As I stated this [[23]] which is part of the same list has been considered highly biased [[24]] ..."be warned to use this book only in conjunction with a more cautious and scholarly monograph on the subject," seems this list isn't exactly a credibility list as you claim.Alexikoua (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Research Guide contains selected bibliographies of English-language print resources for Slavic and East European regions. The bibliographies are not meant to be comprehensive, but rather as starting points for researchers. The resources listed are available in the Yale University Libraries. Add to that Malcolm's review about Pearson. That's good enough for wikipedia policy.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oxford Scholar Review is good enough; if you can formulate a reason why Pearson is unreliable, you can include it in the article as a counterpoint to statements citing Pearson. However, this is not a valid reason to exclude statements citing Pearson. DS (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, for those who don't know, Noel Malcolm is a highly partisan, pro-Albanian author. Though a historian, he is not a Balkanologist. He first ventured into the Balkans area in 1998, when he wrote the highly partisan A short history of Kosovo. He displays a marked pro-Albanian, pro-Bosniak slant in his work, which has been roundly criticised as a result. An endorsement by Malcolm does not mean this work is objective, and should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Athenean (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo.net and other sites or scholars like them aren't the best sources to base such statements on. Since this is discussion was productive, I suggest focusing on improving the article and not spending any more time on recycling invalid arguments.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Kosovo.net and other sites or scholars like them"? What on earth are you talking about? Did I mention Kosovo.net? Stop distorting my words. Malcolm is very partisan and pro-Albanian, and you know it. Also, you don't get to decide when a discussion is over. Athenean (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not distorting your words and I don't have such an intention, I'm just pointing out that the vast majority of those to whom you refer to are the likes of kosovo.net etc.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't pretend. I said Noel Malcolm is partisan, and you said Kosovo.net is not the best source to base such statements on, implying that I got my information from there. Athenean (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not, that is your conclusion of what I said and I don't think that getting in personal disputes is helpful for the article.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Tefta Tashko-Koço

Although she was born in Egypt, her family was originary of Korca, in addition she was a long time resident there. I entered her in the list of people notable from Korca, because in that list are included "People who were born or were long time residents in Korca". Thanks --sulmues (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Better leave things simple, the addition of "long-time residents" makes the definition of 'notable people' much more complicated.Alexikoua (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you in theory, but I have seen this practice here Flushing,_Queens#Notable_residents, and Little_Neck,_Queens#Notable_residents, where I found your George Tenet that someone had placed in Himara, hihihi. Anyways, for now I expect the list to grow so much that we may leave her aside. --sulmues (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Tenet isn't found in Himara any more.Alexikoua (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, because I took him out of there. --sulmues (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, but you should exclude ethnic Albanians too, according to this definition you claim about local notability.Alexikoua (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Only people born in Korce will be in the article. --Sulmues _talk 20:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird adjustments

I see that some recent 'adjustments' where really weird and contrary to what the sourced material supports:

1. Moscopole was raided by Muslim Albanian troops of Ali Pasha (Vagias is irrelevant with Moscopole [[25]]), the removal of this remains unexplained.

Fleming isn't credible. In that same page she says that Korce was founded in 1700 which makes her ridiculous. Korce was founded two centuries earlier, see history. We can keep her for now, but she sucks. My dog knows Korce better than her.--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 02:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Fleming isn't credible? What's this? Actually Fleming is one of the most credible sources about Ali. By the way you said something about Vagias? Can you explain it please... But if you feel Fleming isn't ok there is also this [[26]]Alexikoua (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the history of Korce, you'll see that it was founded earlier, not in 1700 like Fleming says. Fleming might know Ali Pasha, but not Korce. Since you have many references saying "muslim Albanians" I won't fight it very much, until I find a better reference that will dispute that. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 17:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

2. Giannis Melkas had became Jani Melka in the usual wp:or fashion [[27]].

And there was a reason for that. He is part of Albania's national team. [28]--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 02:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand since when a forum is a source in wikipedia? Suppose you need to find something reliable, else it has to go.Alexikoua (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok Alexi, keep Giannis Melkas until 5 years from now the Voleyball Association of Albania will have a website and I'll revert you then. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 17:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

@Sulmues, if he plays in the Albanian National Team, I'm sure there is at least one desent website that confirms this.Alexikoua (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your faith in the Albanian Volleyball Federation. Actually the Players' list is empty. Look at "Lojtaret" on the left here. Volleyball in Albania has been dead for the last 20 years, I have to admit. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This link is dead [[29]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Try again, I fixed earlier the link, if you still have problems, try going here, click on volejboll and then Ekipet Kombetare (meaning National Teams) in the drop down menu.--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Since there is still not a single decent site that confirms participation in Albanian national team, I've removed the irrelevant url (albanian soccer forum). But if something is to be found in the future feel free to make the rewording. I still wonder how participation in a national team can not be confirmed via internet today.Alexikoua (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Found you decent. Please don't move it again. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

3.Also I have made an addition to this [[30]] When the city was under French administration in 1916 (the Republic of Korce), Greek schools were closed and 200 Albanian language schools immediately proliferated. I've added that...however several months later Greek schools reopenned as result of Greek influence in the city, according to the same source (it's in the next page, since the editor read only half the event [[31]]).Alexikoua (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing confirming what you added in page 69-70 or in the rest of the book. If you don't come up with a source confirming this I'll remove it as WP:OR(the whole paragraph, not just your edits).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is already sourced and in fact the source was given by Sulmues [[32]]. Please before making any accusation see first what's going on (?). Since this is well sourced thanks to Sulmues (although he wrote down half the story) in p. 69-70. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I had to change from .com to .de to be able to read it and Alexikoua you extracted your own context from the source contrary to the source itself. There is nothing about a Greek influence in the city but(copying from the source)[33]:Several months later Greek schools were reopened as a result of Greek influence; the fact that the French administration of the town was forced by order from Paris to apply measures which were in flagrant contradiction with the wishes of the population was explained by the growing influence of Venizelos whose adhesion to the Entente must be rewarded

• That's completely opposite to what you wrote.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's taken word by word by the source [[34]]. You just gave further explanation on the influence. No contradiction at all (?) Alexikoua (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Survey of the Greek Army and misleading synth

It is obvious that this book (Rudometof) [[35]] talks about a survey conducted during the Oct. 1914-Sept. 1916 period, while this [[36]] is the 1913 survey as stated in the document.Alexikoua (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua the survey was conducted in this period and you can't remove that. That was the survey and there wasn't conducted a second survey, unless you can bring information that state there were conducted 2 surveys. If you read the first page of the survey, you'll realize that it was published in 1919 as the survey Rudometof examines.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read both the survey and Rudometof before making any comments (what is & what isn't). It's up to you to find that the 1913 (during the 1st period of Greek administration) survey was accidentally mentioned by Rudomentof as survey conducted during sept. 1914-oct. 1916 (2nd period of Greek administration). By the way: the date that a survey was conducted is something diferrent from the publication date.Alexikoua (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can't bring sources that state that this is a second survey published in the same date with the same content with the same map, please don't make any further statements based on your assumptions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

same date, same map, same content? Why I have the feeling that all this is wp:or. As I said the year that each survey was conducted was diferrent.Alexikoua (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not WP:OR and 1913-14 is the same period, this is an ethnographic survey conducted by the Greek army, in the same region, with the same contents with the same ethnographic map published in the same year. These are the sources-backed up details and you can't back up your assumptions with any kind of source stating that the Greek army conducted two different surveys in the same region, with the same contents with the same ethnographic map published in the same year. This lack of sources is exactly what leads you to rely on the assumption that 1913-14 is a completely different period and that Rudometof is making statements about a different survey.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems you have a real problem checking each source about two different surveys conducted a different chronological periods. Off course the 1st and 2nd Greek administration in the region where chronological different. I'm sorry your arguments seem too weak (weird wp:or&synth combination).Alexikoua (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Pearson (a source that you used in past) [[37]], there was a survey conducted with results different than the 1913 survey (112k Greek, 80k Albanians, while according to the other survey [[38]] 116k Greeks, 111k Albanians) ... and we have two different surveys with different results.Alexikoua (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FutureP has warned against the use of snippets without context yet you still insist on using them despite the fact that this one doesn't even state anything remotely similar to a survey. Even if it did it is common different authors to have slightly different numbers on early 20th century surveys. Thus you can't provide sources that state there was a second survey.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you avoid this strategy of misinformation: The specific book was repeatedely used by you [[39]][[40]][[41]] in this article and of course it’s not a snippet but in limited preview in googlebooks. I suggest to use Pearson’s approach, since in past you hadn’t problem using it [[42]] p. 125.Alexikoua (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The part you're citing is a snippet not even stating that there was a second survey and I have asked you too many times already to bring a source stating that there was a second census.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is really funny: We have single book, which is in limited preview in googlebooks. One editor has already used as refereces p. 35, and p. 63, but insists that we should not use p. 122 of it [[43]]. Unless a serious argument is provided I feel there is no real problem on using p. 122 too.Alexikoua (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua, can you bring at least one source stating that there was a second census because that snippet verifies that there was a census not that there was a second census different from the one one published in 1919, while you're applying personal deductions based on personal assumptions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

To sum up: we have surveys conducted in diferrent chronological periods and with diferrent results. It's up to you to find out that one survey can lead to diferrent results (?) and can be conducted on diferrent periods, something that I really doubt. Moreover, you seem to be sure that there was 'only' one survey conducted, something that's also wp:or.Alexikoua (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the survey was nothing more than a weird wp:SYNTH of irrelevant primary&secondary sources, and a completely unhistorical description (Protocol of Corfu didn't gave the region to the Greek state but under nominal Albanian sovereignty inside an autonomous Northern Epirus), I've changed the meaning into a more simple version describing the historical facts. Moreover, made an addition in the paragraph about the R. of Korce based on a wp:rs.Alexikoua (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua I will revert at least one source for your edits. There weren't two surveys with the same map published in the same date by the same organization with the same content, please don't or.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcomed to source your claim, but by now we have nothing. If you noticed I've completely removed this 'survey' wp:synth theories that apart from synth aren't necessary for the historical context of the city.Alexikoua (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You removed two sources with this edit so avoid WP:IDHT [44], you are being disruptive, while you have no sources for your edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To sum up: You added a primary (a 1913 conducted survey) and a secondary (about a oct. 1914- sept.1916 survey) creating a unhistorical wp:synth in order to create the usual pov results. I've replaced it with a simple sequence of historical events with the appropriate source (Valeria Heuberger, Arnold Suppan, Elisabeth Vyslonzil). I don't understand why you try to misinform everything, while things are simple. Suppose wp:IDHT applies to you (apart from wp:NPA, typical disruption as in Preveza)Alexikoua (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Kalpidis?

I made this revert to take out unsourced Fotios Kalpidis, supposedly Greek Orthodox Bishop, by a new account. I find 0 google hits on Kalpidis, and of course, an article on him doesn't exist. Removal is a consequence. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's very weird he has some googlehits [[45]] and in fact he has thousands of googlehits in Greek [[46]]. For future reference if a new account makes specific additions it doesn't mean we should misuse google in order to get rid of them immediately.Alexikoua (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to bring him back although we don't have an article, but put a reference. I found nothing. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 05:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Zeusdeus about additional info about him. No reason to engage in blietzkrieg initiatives.Alexikoua (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like Zeusdeus is a little confused because he also entered Kalpidis in the Pontic_Greeks here. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 05:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that, being of Pontic origin doesn't mean you weren't born somewhere else, but we should confirm that before restoring his name here.Alexikoua (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record Kalpidis was from Trabzon and was appointed by the patriarchate of Constantinople bishop of Korçë and Përmet, while until then he lived in Samsun.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't confirm this in gbooks. I see that he was assasinated by irregular bands, nothing about birthplace.[[47]]. I'll ask Zdeus about, might know something.Alexikoua (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes he was assasinated after Kristo Negovani's assasination by bands sent by Kalpidis. Generally most Greek historians view him as a person related to the Macedonian struggle although his activities weren't related at all to it except the fact that Negovan is in Florina. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Any source to link him to the killing of Negovani? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 16:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)[48] I searched using only this version of his name, so if you search for the incident using other versions(Fotios, Fotis, Photios, Photis, Photius) I'm sure you'll find more.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Revert

This revert I made has two reasons: First, the claim is unsourced, and second is highly controversial. Korce is a pluricultural and multireligious city, and these kind of edits bring nothing to the table if incorrectly placed and if unsourced. Hope I have the editor's understanding. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 05:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Dirsuption (again)

About Pearson (an self-proclaimed Albanophile[[49]]) the entire book is full of errors. Typical incosistency in Vasilis Sahinis p. 306 (killed by the Albanian communists) [[50]], p. 338 (kiiled by the Germans [[51]]). Althought Zjari. was full aware of the incosistency [[52]] he performed another blind revert.

So if something else can't support this fact in the article, this should be removed.Alexikoua (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This was resolved several months ago. Btw if you can't prove that there weren't two people of the same name or that one of the theories is correct etc. there's nothing to discuss and please don't label edits that disagree with yours as disruption.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And several incosistencies have been revealed in the meantime, which you are aware (as above).Alexikoua (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Census"

Does Korçë have really more than 100,000 inhabitants? Please have a look at the source, mentioned in infobox and introduction: this number is about the population in all the cities in the prefecture together! (That is at least what I am reading.)

Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Irc misinformation campaign

Since a specific user is launching a irc misinformation campaign, I say one more time that Koulis Sterikas was one of the most famous and internationally recognized post war painters in Greece. Everyone who knows some Greek can conclude this just be gsearching [[53]]. A brief bio. is also here [[54]], [[55]]Alexikoua (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Misinformation campaign? Alexikoua please don't make npa comments. There are too few results even in Greek for this person(in fact there are more results for too many other Greek artists that are also not notable). That's a tourist guide website and all of what's mentioned fails WP:ARTIST.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope that's cultural web site. You need to read it once again it says 'πολιτισμός'. Needles to say that is passes wp:artist. Alexikoua (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what: first you write the article about Sterikas - source it properly and show notability - and once that's done, you can add him to this article. Otherwise he stays out - too many redlinks otherwise. DS (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As I see he isn't the only guy without an article in this list (+4). @DS, why Sterikas should be an objection on this? According to this approach all red links in this section should be removed and readded when they have an article.Alexikoua (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)If he's notable then please create the article since you seem to insist on his notability although it doesn't pass WP:ARTIST. You can remove all redlinks from the notable people section and I'll start articles on them too at the same time.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A proposal: we remove the redlinks and once they have their own articles we add them again. In case they will be deleted after an afd proccedure the links will be removed again.Alexikoua (talk)

Done! This criterion should be applied to all lists of "notable people from (place)", in fact. DS (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Now the really notable articles(like Athanas) have to be written and not just mentioned.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Antiquity dispute

I was the first to erase your sentence, but not your reference, that is why I see it necessary to get involved in here and explain myself. I really don't understand why you called ZjarriRrethues's edit disruptive, irrelevant and snippet abuse claiming, while such language was an overeaction. Actually your edit seemed really disruptive by being tendentious, and almost ignoring the "editors’ community input", because:

• 1. It ignored and contradicted a triple-referenced sentence "The area was on the border between Illyria and Epirus and according to a historical reconstruction was ruled by an Illyrian dynasty until 650 BC, while after 650 BC a Chaonian dynasty" accepted as neutral, though your reference was on the same book source, just 3 pages below (!).
• 2. Don’t know why you misrepresented the title of that section from Illyrian and Epirotic tribes from Illyris to Macedonia to this[56]. Thus you have made up on the title a timeline “tenth to eighth centuries BC” and contradicting the mention that an Illyrian dynasty existed during that time (before 650 BC). So you firstly say "during the Iron Age" there is an ancient Greek presence[57], then "From ca. 8th to 6th century B.C."[58] (something not mentioned and still in contradiction to the source) and lately you change to "during this period"[59], implying the post 650 BC. A truly time-disruption in the whole meaning of the word. The only thing new you bought on your was the hypertext "ancient Greek" instead of "Epirotic" the book mentions instead. If you're concerned about the readers who want to know more about Molossians and Chaonians they can just click or read on their own. Then if you are up to implying some irredentist sub context, I advise you not to bother with such things here in wikipedia it's profane, a real vanity.

We accepted Cambridge ancient history's 650 BC as a common "threshold" in order not to have disputes with Korca's antiquity, since other undeniable versions are available, that I suppose can somehow disrupt the article. Korca is mentioned as part of the Illyrian Dassaretae by the respectable scholar William Smith in his Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography[60]. It's a XIX century (yes, 19th century source used in many articles here and not omitted like some totalitarian edits' attitudes towards this time's sources) valuable secondary source found in Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource and its articles are incorporated in Wikipedia's public domain. Same thing does Nicholas G. L. Hammond in his A History of Macedonia: Volume III[61], page 41 by defining Dassaretis and the plain of Koritsa as an Illyrian canton in the late 4th century during the battle of Pelion between Alexander the Great and Glaukias with Cleitus the Illyrian's aleance. There's a real mess in Dassaretae here in Wikipedia since some modern historians have probably disregarded the primary sources and this has lead to an ambiguous origin of the tribe, even telling that there are two of them with the same name (!), but this is for another time to improve, that's why I didn't want to open the origin issue. Anyway if you find any line or sentence of an unbiased regarded historian or scholar that mentions this town as an Ancient Greek one, you are encouraged to insert it, otherwise leave what the source say.

You kindly oblige the readers, me and why not yourself by at least reconsidering your edit. Anyway it's you and your commonsense to decide. Have a good time! Empathictrust (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Suppose this means you agree with the current version I've presented. Actually its all from the same book. In general if you disagree with a specific detail in the sentence, instead of removing it entirely it would be better to make this tiny adjustment (it claimed about Molossian of Chaonian control while Illyrians were further north).Alexikoua (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If I agreed with that version, how could I have added a whole new section full of arguments in this discussion?! I know it's all from the same book, I told that previously, but the way you present it lacks impartiality and neutrality. The phrase "during this period" is very vague and its generalization-assumption may imply whole post 650 BC period up to a given date in the section (which is wrong since it contradicts 4th century BC Illyrian Dassaretae's control stated by Smith and Hammond). And one thing: in western and southern Balkans (or the peninsula of Haemus, Chersónēsos tou Haímou) there was Illyria, in the middle Epirus, furthter south ancient Greece: three distinct regions with their own particular/different/similar/controversial characteristics and ethnic characteristics. Let the problem to some more professional historians and experts. If it states there Epirotic tribes, leave it as that, don't allegedly imply something on your own that's not stated there. Such edits will deteriorate the section, so please no further pushings on own explanations. Empathictrust (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid extreme wp:npa violations and oring, also please read wp:battleground, wikipedia isn't a ground for that kind of activity.Alexikoua (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing personal on what I said and I never intend any wp:npa violation. (oring??) I have read wp:battleground but thank you for reminding me. Of course there's no ground for it in here and I have only been focused on the antiquity section and cited what you had edited and commented on the phrases included, nothing more, so please don't overreact on that just discuss in topic don't go off it. Furthermore I didn't even change your edit, just gave my arguments on that. But didn't get any explanation from you. All the best. Empathictrust (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this seems to be wrong since you continue to comment on users and not on content. Same situation with wp:or (no wonder not the slightest source is presented). The article is fully sourced by top graded references, there is no need to add frindge stuff like that Illyrians conquered all of Epirus.Alexikoua (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't avoid the topic by saying inconsistent things I never said like Illyrians conquered all of Epirus this is an invention for wp:battleground.

• (no wonder not the slightest source is presented)...? Are you talking about William Smith in his Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography in this[62] or Nicholas G. L. Hammond in A History of Macedonia: Volume III in this[63]? Or about the fact that ancient Greek is not mentioned in the line of your citation? Or about the timeline disrupt I explained you in details by mentioning the links to your edits? Empathictrust (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have not stopped oring yet. In general 19th century crap can't be used as a source in this project and unfortunately the same sources used in the article (you should read the entire page, not just the specific line) claim that Chaonians and Molossians were Greek tribes [[64]]: please use precise arguments backed by contemporary academic material.Alexikoua (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you Alexikoua, but what is oring? I am looking all over the internet and wikipedia, and not finding anything. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oring means in this case that Chaonians etc. were not Ancient Greeks. Sounds very easy to understand from the discussion.Alexikoua 14:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you had to use such a derogatory language on Sir William Smith's work, Alexikoua. You really didn’t have to go that far as to denigrate the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, when there are hundreds of articles[65] that link to it here in Wikipedia, or even incorporate its text which is in the public domain. This is not a trash-talk. By the way N.G.L. Hammond states the same on Dassaretis, where Korca lied, at page 41[66]: I hope he won't be targeted with a dirty word. Please, WP:FAITH and don't abuse with extreme WP:POV. Anyway, there's not a single policy in here for 19th century sources. You asked for references on my statements, I brought them and got back "crap" as a counter-argument. This is insulting! You removed my comment on your discussion page on wp:soap claims, despite I referenced my comments; anyway that's of course your right, but isn't WP:SOAP in terms of "opinion pieces" when using such pejorative epithet on a worldly acclaimed Encyclopedia? And "oring"?! There's no need for inventing words. Nevertheless I repeat: I never want an objective discussion to fall into a battleground quicksand, I'm always distantiating from this and despite what I mentioned previously, I appreciate your seemingly good intention of lowering the tone in the last part of your comment.

To stick to the objective: I read the entire page and more than that, not only a specific line, and it basically says that north-west Greeks occupied whole Epirus, it's written black on white. Nevertheless I won't swallow what I did say in the first place but repeat it again without removing a single comma and explain you why: "...in western and southern Balkans (or the peninsula of Haemus, Chersónēsos tou Haímou) there was Illyria, in the middle Epirus, furthter south ancient Greece: three distinct regions with their own particular/different/similar/controversial characteristics and ethnic characteristics."

Whereas the "Cambridge ancient history" writes 3 pages below you citation (on page 433) this about Epirus and Epirotic tribes:

• "The tribal way of life which we have been describing was entirely different from that of a Greek city state."[67]
• as well as…"On the other hand, they never called them Illyrians."[68]
• and to conclude...Rather, the distinction was clearly maintained between three groups of people: Illyrian tribes, Epirotic tribes and Greece proper, ‘Hellas’, which began with the Ambraciotes and the Acarnanians[69]

The strong Greek influence on Epirus is a fact I know, but a clear distinction is made and Epirus is Epirus. As for contemporary academic material, Wilkies writes:"Periplus sets the southern limit of Illyrians around Apollonia, where Chaonia began, but offers no ethnic definition for several groups between Illyrians and Greeks, including Chaonians, Thesprotians, Cassopaeans and Molossians"[70] I know the proGreek view of several contemporary scholars, but when even the highly acclaimed source you brought is ambiguous about Epirotans' ethnicity and keeps a neutral side by citing the ancient authors, why do you have to push on your pov? In latest pre-Roman centuries Korça is mentioned as part of Illyrian Dassaretis, or the Epirotan Chaonians (in sources when Korça's name is at least mentioned). Please, do not use this encyclopedia as a means of appropriation. You read what else was stated in CAH, so try to understand. But if you want to boast with the "ancient Greek" pov in here, as in order to further magnify the pov all over south Albania, carry on, as far as wikipedia permits. Just WP:AGF and WP:RELAX. That's all I had. Empathictrust (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately what you try to claim isn't supported by any source you quote, in fact that the Epirotes lived a tribal way of life means nothing about their ethnicity. Hammond (and the rest of the material presented in this article) for example is clear when he says that they were Greeks. Please avoid wp:POV and stick to the sources.Here is the political organization of ancient Greeks (Korce is near the border of the purple area):

Don't worry about wp:relax, and wp:agf, also please avoid personal comments as you did from the very start of this discussion. Also it seems you are right about the Greek tribe Dessaretai, this region was also inhabited by them (please respect CAH and Hammond about that, if you disagree with them about their approach I'm sorry).Alexikoua (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one of Megistias's many or maps, so plese don't use it as a source. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

lol, please Zjarri. its a perfectly referenced map. Check the sources before launching accusations as part of a national agenda.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The territories of the Bylliones, the Enchelei and ancient Macedon were part of ancient Greece?

Alexikoua it's an or map like most of his maps.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid empty accusations against non-coethnics, like Megistias. It's a perfectly cited map, no wonder the case you raised about Megistias' maps at ani was completely ignored, something you should respect now.Alexikoua (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

About the Enchelei & Bylliones, they were just over the purple area (per sourced material).Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexikoua I didn't ask any kind of admin to check Megistias's maps, since I can change them myself and btw don't edit-war when I do that. Also please don't attribute motives to me. Per sourced material the Bylliones lived in the Vlorë region.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, this doesn't mean this map is wrong. About the Enchelei & Bylliones, they were just over the purple area (per sourced material). Moreover, unfortunately Megistias isn't the only one with similar maps we have: [[71]] and [[72]] [[73]] [[74]][[75]] and many more. Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Per sourced material i.e Wilkes they lived in the Vlorë area. Btw you may want to check another one of Hxseek's map since you're actually quoting his maps[76]. Btw by quoting maps of the Persian Wars, you're just showing the greatest extent of the state of Epirus and not the position of the Bylliones.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)For future reference the Peloponnesian War didn't start in 490 BC, so don't compare it with 490 BC maps.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Vlore is in the boundary area so I really don't understand what's your obsession with this maps (Bylliones lived on the border of the Greek world). Morevoer, please stop trolling and preseting unsourced maps {Bylliones should be placed north no wonder not a single source claims this).Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

490? I'm sorry we are talking about antiquity, please focus on the subject and avoid misleading advices.Alexikoua (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The source that is used on most Illyrian-related articles on Wikipedia does place them on the Vlorë area p.6. Btw I've shown you this map more than 5 times and you keep your IDHT attitude towards Wilkes as if you've never even read his work.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that I finally learned how to create precise maps, I'll make the changes per Wilkes so then please don't IDHT his very precise maps about the territory of Illyria. Btw why don't you add Megistias's map on Macedonia as a fact about it being Greek in 750 BC?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately wp:IDHT applies to you not me, since you disagree not only with Wilkes, but also with Hammond, Boardmann, CAH, Roisman, Worthington and the rest of the arheological community. No wonder any attempt by your side to raise such extreme issues on wp:ani were immediately ignored.

Please see carefully also this map [[77]] (it's kind of irony you didn't believe an entire gallery of maps.)Alexikoua (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Per all these sources the rouph boundary of Illyria was a line strething [[78]]: from Vlore, Mt Queles to lake Ochrid. Seems that Megistias' maps need to reduce the Illyrian areas further north.Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexikoua please don't attribute motives to me, don't quote archaeological sources that simply say the opposite like Wilkes, whose map you can see on page 6. Btw the rough boundaries don't refute Wilkes, although I can use this map to correct the location of Chaonia, which Megistias has placed as north as possible for the the usual reasons.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't attibute motives to you (please avoid repetition of misleading comments). Actually noone refutes Wilkes, the only one that refutes every single source is unfortunately you, something you need to explain at least now (since any attempt you made in past on ani was completely ignored but you still instist like nothing happened).Alexikoua (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

To sum up Wilkes, Hammond, Boardman, CAH, Roisman, Worthington are very clear: the boundary was on the mouth of Vjose. You still need to explain why you object this fact.Alexikoua (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

p.6 is the map of Illyria i.e please stick to it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually Wilkes disagrees with what you try to claim here. I'm sorry but your behavior is unexplainable per wp:idht. For future referenes all these authors (Wilkes too) claim that Illyrian boundary reached Gulf of Vlore. So, you owe an apology to Megistias.Alexikoua (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wilkes's map are precise, so please don't attribute to them your or.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong again, none is precise, all authors present rough borders according to Megistias' maps. Please be precise on your arguments.13:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable peoples madness

It would be fine to have an explanation why every single person should have his nationality noted in the notables section [[79]]. Unless there is no connection with a specific state (i.e. minister, national benefactor etc.) it does not appear to be essential piece of info.Alexikoua (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think nationality should be put for anyone. Nationality and ethnicity should be included in the respective article and that's it. I noticed that some people had the nationality and some didn't, so I was being consistent. In general, every figure is connected to a specific country (some are connected to both), but the common ground should be to either mention for all or to mention for no one. Again, I would prefer to mention nationality for no one, but I'd be interested to know your opinion, of course. If nationality oughts to be mentioned, then what would be the criteria for mentioning nationalities, i.e. what profession should the person have to be mentioned the nationality/ethnicity? PaqedashesNumber2 (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

And this edit removed a bunch of people who were in the article and now they no longer are. What's this removal frenzy? It's the second time that I see my work destroyed in 24 hours. PaqedashesNumber2 (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

One more thing. I suggest we have included in this section, in addition to Notable people, who were born in the city, also notable residents, such as Photios Kalpidis, which I just wrote. In general people whose life is intrinsecally connected with the city, deserve to be included in the notable people and residents, in my opinion. This is what the NYC does (List of people from New York City, which merely divides into Native New Yorkers, and Non-Native New Yorkers). I would split that piece into a separate article, as it's too long now. Penny for your thoughts? --PaqedashesNumber2 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

According to your last proposal the criteria will become very complicated. Korce, as well as the rest of the urban centers in the Balkans, can't be compared with global centers as NYC after all. As for your first proposal, removing nationality, I agree.22:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, made the change. What about moving that piece into a list-like article? It will shorten the article and make it more readable. There are 73 people and the list will grow over time. PaqedashesNumber2 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Until we reach 100, I believe it's no problem leave it as it is. By the way, almost half of them need to be checked if they were really born there, as I see in the correspodent articles their place of origin isn't referenced.Alexikoua (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Greek vs Epirotes

Why pushing the name Greek for the Chaonian tribes, the reference (at least the one you have provided) clearly mentions and distinguishes Epirote tribes, Illyrian tribes, Greek colonies, Liburnian colonies. He says Chaonian tribe, not Greek tribe of Chaonians. Please stop with this intentional historical contraband, and moreover, the article is about Korca. Find what the reference says about the Korca region. There are Illyrian tumulis which stop at a certain point after Epirote domination. There are no amphitheaters, or Greek statues found in the area.
The Greek colonies, clearly mentioned by name and history of foundation in the source, were as always close to the shore.
How is it possible that there is not a single Albanian article that the Greek editors don't go and turn around the way it fits their nationalistic appetite.
You provided a reference, which does not support your appetites though.
Mondiad (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The word "Greek" is mentioned 60 times in the article. I guess repeating it pleases the writers of wikipedia. PaqedashesNumber2 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the Chaonians were a Greek tribe of Epirus and this is a historical fact generally accepted. The only reason to dispute it is because of irredentist claims associated with the Albanian nationalism. Secondly, about the word "Greek" (which is clearly not mentioned 60 times) I have to say that it's completely fine as the Greek presence in the area is dated for at least three thousand years. For all these you can also consult the corresponding wiki articles. Thanks! Greek Macedon (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Korçë. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100117025025/http://www.bashkiakorce.gov.al/frontend/article.php?aid=140&cid=51 to http://www.bashkiakorce.gov.al/frontend/article.php?aid=140&cid=51
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150816171356/http://kfskenderbeu.al/index.php/historik to http://www.kfskenderbeu.al/index.php/historik
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090331054219/http://www.thessalonikicity.gr/English/twinning-cities.htm to http://www.thessalonikicity.gr/English/twinning-cities.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic politics in Eastern Europe

Well, this page has sure seen some activity lately. One comment: currently the page says that "The city of Korçë is heavily populated by Greeks", and uses the book titled above as a source. However, I have access to the sourced book, and the line that states that Korca is heavily inhabited by Greeks in fact reads like this : "Greek educational and linguistic rights were largely absent in several cities populated by Greeks, such as Korçë, Himarë, Tepelenë, Fier, Vlorë, Shkodër, Berat, Përmet and Elbasan". Whereas someone is likely to read that and believe that Greeks are in fact the majority in the city, the actual source seems to have a much lower threshold for what counts as "heavy" presence, given the inclusion of cities like Shkodra where the Orthodox are less than 1% and many of those even are not Greeks but either Albanians or Serb/Montenegrins. I'm not sure what the best solution is here, but in a moment I'll be changing it to notable as that sounds fair as it notes heavy presence (numerically) while not implying percentage-wise dominance, as the actual source doesn't. On a side note the page has the word "Greek" 70 times but "Albanian" 67, a bit bizarre for a city geographically in Albania. This is in fact the case, and much more drastically, for a wide array of cities in Southern Albania... Comparison: Nicosia/Lefkosia, a city with a looong Greek history and significant modern issues where the word "Greek" should absolutely be mentioned, has a measly 18 "Greek" hits versus a whopping 63 "Turk" hits, which is actually a bit sad --Yalens (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The source actually does say "heavily populated", not just "populated". Now, don't get me wrong, I trust your impartiality, but in my experience in such heavily contested articles, it's best we stick to the wording used in the source, otherwise it will result in a circus. I also don't think "heavily" implies Greeks are a majority, so I don't see an issue there. Khirurg (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Khirurg Fair. Re 'heavily': I meant to type that in there too but messed up; I also messed up my edit summary on the page later, sorry bout that. The point of what I was saying has to do with the context, not the presence of the adverb. Ironically if it said just the verb "populated" it would imply (to me at least) a majority even more than "heavily" would. I.e. "Korca is populated by Greeks" would imply to me that Greeks and only Greeks are the ones that live there, unless other groups were mentioned in the same sentence. Heavily also does imply a (weaker) majority in my mind if it's taken out of the context it was written in, but I suppose it could be seen as an issue of (cognitive) intension. If we're going to be faithful to the original, we could say : "Like other cities in Albania such as Vlore, Shkoder and Berat, Korca is heavily populated by Greeks" (or we could even list them all but I don't think that's necessary). Alternatively, an option that I think could also work: "Korca has a heavy Greek population" ('large' sounds less weird but I'd be fine with saying heavy there). --Yalens (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Yalens. I added the exact quote to a newer version of the book. As far as the expression "Korca has a heavy Greek population", I hope it is clear that it doesn't imply that the Greek population of Korca may be overweight. But I leave it up to you. :) Dr. K. 02:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"Large Greek population" then? not trying to imply they're tall either... --Yalens (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It is always good to see that good editors have also a great sense of humour. In any case, I think "Large" is good, but I leave it up to you. Dr. K. 02:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Yalens' proposal. Also as the countryside is Albanian (De Soto), during the communist and post communist era the influx of rural people into Korca, are there sources for that considering that the populace in now at around 60,000+ and the Greek community was traditionally made up of Aromanians who now just inhabit one neighbourhood (as noted by Schwanders)?Resnjari (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue of the heavyness/largeness (/highness??? Definitely no way that could be misconstrued...) of the Greek pop'l has been resolved. Some other things I've noticed I've placed below in subsections here.--Yalens (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"Vekilcharje"

I've asked someone else this already, but this "Vekilcharje" mentioned on the page sounds a lot like "Veqilharxhi" both in his actions and his possibly mangled Anglified name. Is he the same guy or was there another guy in Korce who also made an alphabet named Vekilcharje? --Yalens (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

After looking into it, yes its Naum Veqilharxhi. His surname in Palairet is a Anglified variant. Veqilharxhi was the only one to come up with a alphabet during that time and it being used in some books etc around Korca.Resnjari (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Avramidis-Liaktsis

Previously the page had used the same work by Palairet to cite that Avramidis Liaktsis had a "Greek national consciousness" (in an intermediate edit I made it identity since the word is more commonly used), but Palairet never said that in the text -- he instead says A-L had "learned to 'act according to a purely Greek consciousness" -- which is much more vague, especially given that the verb "act" bears two possible meanings, one being "to behave" and the other, "to play a role that is not representative of one's true feelings" (metaphoric use of the other sense of the verb, acting in a play). Avramidis-Liaktsis, as Avramidhi-Lakce, is in fact known as an Albanian activist. In 1888 for example he explicitly identifies as an Albanian (even if apparently he has a Vlach origin) : he publishes "To Albanians from an Albanian" (ironically, yes, written in Greek not Albanian), which argues in favor of Albanian-language education in the region. But I learned today his Albanian activity goes further back-- for example in 1885 he's a founding member of Drita, the same organization that is challenging Greek dominance in education. As Palairet himself notes the context of Greek-Albanian rivalry where Greeks held positions of authority and used them to block Albanian attempts to teach in their language. Given this, the second interpretation becomes the more likely one, but I would argue, some might disagree, that we can't say that, as it would be essentially OR. I've currently left the direct quote of the source "had learned to act 'according to a purely Greek consciousness'" (nested quote in source), but perhaps it should just be removed, as it's only confusing due to the double entendre? --Yalens (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I was a little thrown off too so that is why i wrote the sentence they way i did, to prevent the usual this that or other from some editors. Not sure what to do there. The passage in Palairet kind of shows that Avramidhi-Lakce was in two positions at that point in time during the schools debate. See what others say before proceeding.Resnjari (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That A-L was on the Albanian side in 1885 and onwards isn't disputed. But Palairet says nothing about him switching sides (as I had earlier erroneously inferred he had, I corrected myself) or that he had ever had 'two positions'. All Palairet ever said that was taken to imply a "Greek consciousness" was that he had "learned to act" according to one, which could mean he had been taught to have one (by his parents? That would support swithcing, but however..) or that he was pretending to have one (because of pressure from Greek/Grecophile authorities? Also ambiguous.) so it's vague at best. --Yalens (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually Palarait states that he initially agreed to support Albanian education, then limited his offer to the introduction of some Albanian classes in Greek schools but finally this didn't happen either. As I see he still financed the Greek schools of the city in 1887-1888 per this source [ikee.lib.auth.gr/record/104814/files/KOLTSIDA.pdf] (for example in p. 287 states that in 1887 he transferred huge sums of money to the Laso community fund).Alexikoua (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A similar paper (in English language) [[80]] confirms Palairet and offers some additional detail (states that Avramidis-Liaktsis’ endowment amounted to 203.165 dr. in Greek government bonds....Avramidis-Liaktsis had decided to deposit 500.000 francs in the National Bank of Greece as a donation to the community of Koritsa for educational and charitable purposes.... (p. 248-9).Alexikoua (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

What Palairet said:

In the early 1880s, a rich Vlach emigre named Anastasios Avramidis-Liaktis announced his intention of making over his fortune for the benefit of people of Korçë, and Albanians (presumably the Committee) approached him for funds to open an Albanian school there. The project caused inter-communal tension which led to the donor proposing instead a Greek school with Albanian teaching twice a week. Even this diluted scheme was dropped, as Avramidis-Liaktis learned to act "according to a purely Greek consciousness".

From this it clearly says that "inter-communal" tension is why he modified his offer. Clayer also portrays a complicated picture : [[81]], he's clearly friends with Greek donors but on the other hand he had been "ready to will (vb) his fortune in favour of the Albanian Committee" the lasso and the elites in Korca block him and then he is convinced by probably the same group of Albanians in Romania to make a "lasso albanais", his work is "blocked" (Fr: bloqua) by the Metropolitan, and the Metropolitan and the Mufti say some pretty negative things about the Albanian language in response to it. Even if he also donated to Greek causes, all of this still undermines the view of his supposedly "purely Greek consciousness". It doesn't sound like someone who was at any point unwilling to support Albanian language education. Of course this is all tangential to the page-- do his personal sentiments really need to be here? I'm saying they don't.--Yalens (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

He was initially ready to offer his fortune for the Albanian Committe but this wasn't his final decision as Palairet suggests (+Ismyrliadou something similar). His initial intentions changed and he finally supported the Lasso Christian community fund that supported Greek cultural activity.Alexikoua (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The question is if the line about "learning to act according to a purely Greek consciousness" should stay in there or if its too murky and tangential. Do you think it should stay? --Yalens (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears he definitely chose such a consciousness/identity, per available reference. I also believe that his contribution to Greek education should be added especially about the period 1887-8.Alexikoua (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As per Clayer: 1888, when A-L publishes "To Albanians, from an Albanian", calling himself an Albanian (though being a Vlach?) and getting censored by the Metropolitan as a result? Sounds like a murky case at best, and I'm still not sure why his personal identity matters to a page about Korce. --Yalens (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Lakce seems to have been in-between identities during that time. His identity sort of played a role at the time as he was more in favour of the Greek position regarding the school. Having that bit there kind of explains why the Albanian school proposal in Korce floundered in the end. Its later that he joins the Albanian side by bequeathing his fortune to Albanian interests.Resnjari (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe he died a staunch Vlach independence nationalist or Romanian nationalist. But is his identity, one man in a small part of Korce's history, really relevant to the page about all of Korce? --Yalens (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, its your call on how you what to go about it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Aromanians: stats don't add up

So Palairet says Aromanians were "probably the majority" of 14,000 Christians in the city in the late Ottoman era. The last Ottoman census as analyzed by Virgili shows only 1214 Aromanians, in the entire kaza which of course also includes the major Aromanian center of Moscopole and other areas where Aromanians have been present (Voskop, some town around Drenove, etc). Destani shows more but still it's only 3190 for the entire kaza-- which once again also includes the Aromanian "capital" which isn't Korce. Yes, I see they got moved because they dealt with the entire kaza but this doesn't change the fact that basic math implies a flagrant contradiction. Obviously we have a problem here-- can we really say that there is a majority of 7000+ Vlachs when hthat's clearly excluded elsewhere, while not mentioning the contradiction? Thoughts on how to deal with it? --Yalens (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Those other statistics have their issues as even Psomas notes. On Ottoman statistics they under-counted the Orthodox element while providing Muslim statistics that often undercounted males becuase many wanted to doge conscription). Palairet is the most recent Western academic who examines the late Ottoman period ethnolinguistic millieu of Korce in a non-biased way. Aromanians from Korce were also becoming Albanianized in some ways. I wasn't sure about whether to include it in this article as events happened in the USA, but Arshi Pipa has noted that the Albanian Orthodox Church founded in the USA that congregated around Fan Noli were to use his words "Albanianized Vlachs" from Korce (i am far from home so i cannot get the page number until some days time with quote). A sizable chunk of Korce's population in the past was Aromanian, like Bitola except there many left for Greece after the Balkan wars and resettled in Florina and Salonika, etc. Palairet's deduction of the situation in Korce is an expansion on Psomas' work which was done almost a decade ago and did not fully look at the city in its own right. The dubious tag is probably not needed. Still there might more info that supports something else ? Your thoughts, guys ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

1) I see no indication that Palairet "examined" the late Ottoman ethnolinguistic milieu at all, he seems to just base it off of them coming from Moschopole.

2) If I'm not mistaken (I should reread him but I'm busy and this is my memory) the source Palairet is using for the 18,000 people in Korce, 14,000 of htem being Christians is in fact the Ottoman census, so criticism of the Ottoman census placing him above it is null. He seems to just assume the majority of Korce's 14,000 Christians as per the census are Aromanians.

3) Psomas criticizes Virgili (the one who came up with the number of Aromanians) for underrepresenting them, and worse, for wiping the Bulgarian population completely off the map. However, he notes that both of these problems were absent for Destani. The problems he has with Destani are underrepresenting the Greek population but Psomas concedes there aren't large numbers of Greeks in Korce at the time anyways [nowadays there are probably more Greeks-not-counting-Vlachs than there once were, because of internal emigration, forced or not].

4) The term "Vlach" is actually really confusing because it is used historically in the Western Balkans to mean any poor shepherd who is Orthodox.

5) Researchers of Aromanian issues like Thede Kahl have noted that, depsite the stereotype, Aromanians in various areas did Islamize, such as Notia/Nanti (where in fact the vast majority turned Muslim) and "particularly in Southern Albania". Another issue complicating the "ethnolinguistic milieu" since that doesn't immediately change your ethnicity.

6) Although possible imo, any statement on Albanization processes of Aromanians in the region that could ever get onto the page would need to be thoroughly and neutrally sourced, given the general hysteria in all Balkan countries where they each thinks that their people in disputed areas have been assimilated en masse and very recently by other groups, robbing them of their rightful territories and whatnot. Just my two thousand cents on the matter. Sorry this got long. Ciao. --Yalens (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

On Islamised Vlachs Kahl (The islamisation of the Meglen Vlachs (Megleno-Romanians): The village of Nânti (Nótia) and the “Nântinets” in present-day Turkey) [82] writes on p.75. "The case of the islamisation of Naˆnti appears to be the only example of conversion that involved an entire Vlach village. Apart from this occurrence, only a few smaller groups and some individuals among the Vlachs, particularly in southern Albania, converted to Islam." For Kahl that is a reference to individuals like the Frasheri brothers [83] wwhich has been refuted by Gawrych who actually looked at their origins [84]. Kahl never specifies anything about this in his PHD thesis which i have a copy or on other works and the groups thing is vague. Kokolakkis [Το ύστερο Γιαννιώτικο Πασαλίκι: χώρος, διοίκηση και πληθυσμός στην τουρκοκρατούμενη Ηπειρο (1820-1913) [The late Pashalik of Ioannina: Space, administration and population in Ottoman ruled Epirus (1820-1913)] who to date has done one of the most extensive studies of late Ottoman Epirus demography (covers part of Albania and Greece) notes the following: p.53. "Με εξαίρεση τις ολιγομελείς κοινότητες των παλιών Ρωμανιωτών Εβραίων της Αρτας και των Ιωαννίνων, και την ακόμη ολιγομελέστερη ομάδα των Καθολικών της Αυλώνας, οι κάτοικοι της Ηπείρου χωρίζονται με το κριτήριο της θρησκείας σε δύο μεγάλες ομάδες, σε Ορθόδοξους και σε Μουσουλμάνους. [With the exception of a few members of the old communities such as Romaniote Jews of Arta and Ioannina, and even small groups of Catholics in Vlora, the residents of Epirus were separated by the criterion of religion into two major groups, the Orthodox and Muslims.]"; p. 54. "Η μουσουλμανική κοινότητα της Ηπείρου, με εξαίρεση τους μικρούς αστικούς πληθυσμούς των νότιων ελληνόφωνων περιοχών, τους οποίους προαναφέραμε, και τις δύο με τρεις χιλιάδες διεσπαρμένους «Τουρκόγυφτους», απαρτιζόταν ολοκληρωτικά από αλβανόφωνους, και στα τέλη της Τουρκοκρατίας κάλυπτε τα 3/4 περίπου του πληθυσμού των αλβανόφωνων περιοχών και περισσότερο από το 40% του συνόλου. [The Muslim community in Epirus, with the exception of small urban populations of the southern Greek-speaking areas, which we mentioned, and 2-3000 dispersed "Muslim Romani", consisted entirely of Albanian speakers, and in the late Ottoman period covered approximately 3/4 of population ethnic Albanian speaking areas and more than 40% of the total area.]" On Aromanians becoming becoming Muslim in southern Albania its very vague at best. There are no Aromanian speaking Muslims in Albania today, nor even during the late Ottoman period were any recorded (and its just based on conjecture that there must have been, but evidence is required not guesswork) and Aromanians lived in sizable numbers in many places. Resnjari (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Also something similar can be said of Bugajski and his "heavily populated by Greeks" thing. Some Vlachs have come out as "Helleno-Vlachs" in recent times and constitute the revived Greek community in Korce. Palairet meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary and is the only academic source covering Korce's past population in any way. Other sources are lacking to be able to have that discussion. Even on internal communist era Greek internal migration those numbers are small, based on district, [85]] p. 432. numbers for Alb. gov numbers in Korce (1987-1992): 167. from Alb. election results etc: 926. Greek sources on one hand claim is very large population of Greeks in Albania and on the other they also note the large scale migration to Greece of those people and other of an Orthodox background that claim Greek. Where have these Greeks come from ? Schwanders sort of goes into the matter regarding Korce in that Aromanians are divided between pro-Romanian and Greek factions. During the whole census affair of 2011, it was no secret that the Aromanian population of Korce stated the wish for wanting to delcare thesmelves as Greeks [86], [87] -use google translate to read articles. The Greek community in Korce once agian as in times past comes from the Aromanian community of the city however big or other it is. More to follow on other stuff when i get a few other sources like Pipa.Resnjari (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

offtopic on Muslim Vlachs, click show to read

On Muslim Vlachs in Southern Albania (offtopic): Kahl never mentions the Frasheri family in his paper; I doubt he’s referring to them. Whether the town was mainly Vlach once is even disputed in some sources. But there are indeed sources that talk about Muslim~Bektashi Vlachs in Albania: ([[88]]) -- “ Part of the Aromanians from the present Bulgaria, Greece and Albania are Muslims too... Probably, some Vlachs from Albania are...Bektashi”. Friedman ([[89]]): there was another pocket besides Meglen of Muslim Vlachs, and then there’s Islamized Vlachs in West Macedonia that got Albanized: “There were also Aromanian-speaking Muslims in the village of Dolna Belica, which is now entirely Albanian-speaking. It is thus the case that those Vlachs who converted to Islam have ended up with Turkish or Albanian identity”. One day someone may release a comprehensive treatise on Vlach Muslims but there isn't so sadly we can't really talk about them in the mainspace. I was just pointing this out as a complicating factor and didn’t expect it to get harped on. Anyhow.

Now the real issue: the Orthodox Vlachs, the majority of Christians in Korcha in 1905? The only stat cited in Palairet is the number of Christians. His statement implies there must be at least 7,000 Orthodox Vlachs. For the same 1905 Ottoman census, Virgili shows 1214 Aromanians for the entire Korce kaza including the city plus other known Vlach areas; Destani shows 3190 for the kaza at a slightly later date. Obviously there is some variance, but obviously 7000+ Orthodox Vlachs in Korcha alone for the same year is a massive contradiction. No, Albanization of Aromanians can't be used to explain the disparity as it would be SYN anyways, and of course, we’re talking about the same year. Imo people who give and analyze actual stats should have precedence on “majority” claims. At present the page gives a lopsided portrayal of 1905 demographics. Other sources that are more statistically sound clearly contradict it, so the page should either note the discrepancy, or remove the "Aromanian majority" statement entirely (preferable).

Another important topic raised here -- the size of the Greek minority in Korcha; you link Berxholli-Prifti-et-al. Relevant personal opinion: in the Balkans every group has some paranoia toward their neighbors and in Albania one aspect is a narrative of Greece Hellenizing people via economic incentives (they’re not the only ones), whereas Greeks tend to fear Albania marginalizing/oppressing its Greek and Vlach (“funny-speaking Greeks”) minorities. Both views (and others) have a degree of historical justification but get taken to absurd extremes and actually feed off each other. Berxholli/Prifti sadly seems to fit in with this: they say the Greek minority are colonists who settled in Albania 2-3 centuries ago (unbelievable) and they only live in Vurg-Dropull-Pogon (hogwash, Himare? Narte? And there are Greeks in Tirane), people saying otherwise is typically “Greek propaganda” which they connect to militant irredentism and they also offtopically bemoan how the Albanian vilayets were dismembered by London 1913 although their, observation that Orthodox Albanians get erased in this polemic is worth noting. Of course it could be worse, it’s good to see that Albanians have mostly stopped bringing up “Pelasgians”. To be fair, Greece has its own share of bullshit. Sometimes if you say anything that varies from any country's narrative, you get accused of having sympathies to some threatening rival nationalism; I’m sure you’ve encountered this as your apparent views as a whole don’t fit will into any nationalist narrative. Do part-Hellenized Vlachs “constitute the Greek community” of Korche? Maybe a significant part of it but of course its more complicated. Many nomadic Vlachs in Albania were forced to settle by Hoxha, and some did have Greek geographic origin (I believe I can dump sources if anyone cares). Disclaimer in case necessary: I can tell that all the editors currently here are not insane nationalists (yourself included, I’m sure actual hardcore Albanian nationalists would love to strangle you). That said, the “Korca as majority Vlach” narrative, with reference to the 1905 demographics, seems dubious at best. Palairet and Bugajski both give stat-less speculation, but at least Bugajski’s “heavily populated” is also applied to places like Shkoder where Greeks also moved during communism, so as long as that is made clear (I think it is right now?), I don’t see it as as much of a problem. --Yalens (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Antiquity

Does anyone having a source asserting that Korca existed as a town and had a history in antiquity? Because if it didn't exist I don't see any reason to have all this Illyrian Greek Chaonian et cetera antiquity stuff on the page for the history of a town that likely didn't exist in antiquity. We have that sort of stuff on the pages of Shkodra, Durres, Vlora, Thessaloniki et cetera because they actually did have ancient histories, and only because of that. Such stuff would be better on the page of the district, not the town itself, if no one has a source to show an ancient provenance for Korca.--Yalens (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

No, not that i have come accross though i could be mistaken if shown otherwise. Sources regarding Korce attribute a Slavic etymology for its name, replacing a obscure Byzantine ecclesiastical centre with the name Episkopi and nothing going further back on that settlement. Mirahor bey is. mainly credited with laying the foundations of what is Korce today. On some Albanian settlement articles there is material on ancient this or that without it being relevant to the article. Not sure if in those contexts it is POV or not. One off the editors who has edited this article usually adds that kind of content.Resnjari (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

From the linguistic point of view : haven't seen a citation for Korca's etymology atm but Goritsa is a classically Slavic toponym, while the diachronic mutation of Gorica into Korcha would likely be analyzed to imply the name has continuously existed in the Albanian language for a considerable time, so a linguist would guess the town was originally a Slavic settlement that was Albanized (or Vlachified??) ages ago like maybe in the late Middle Ages. The entirety of Epirus, North/South/whatever, had a lot of Slavs all over the place at one point (see Osswald: [[90]]). Slavic speaking pockets were still found in the district in the 19th century tho, notably, and there is evidence they used to be bigger in the Middle Ages though still surrounded by Albanophones on all sides (for example Opar was once heavily/largely/highly Slavic as per Anamali). If the town was founded by Slavs it would preclude an ancient history as Slavs in the Balkans only date back to the 6th century and probably came later to this specific area. Historically we have an Ottoman foundation, which leads to the same conclusion. Even if it turns out it was founded by ethnic Greeks in the Ottoman era, conclusion is the same-- no ancient history. I don't care if its POV, if its off topic it gets removed even if it's favorable only to Martian nationalism. --Yalens (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I see where your coming from. On Korce name etymology, see Gwillim Law, p:22. > [91]. On Slavic pockets and other content unless they cite Korce, otherwise like you say no need for extra content on the region in ancient times, when there was no Korce.Resnjari (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As the article already states antiquities are found in the urban area and its vicinity (suburbs) and off course inside the municipal unit: The Mycenaean site of Brac for example next to St. Athanasios hill. Thus at least the Mycenaean/Late Helladic findings in antiquity section are integral part of the history of this city.Alexikoua (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I trust I guy who thinks that Tirana comes from Tehran (seems a bit fantastic lol), but sure I guess we can use this for Korce. Re Slav pockets, none of them have been cited to include Korce in attested times so yes they're also offtopic. Re Mycenaeans: sure, we can add that if we have a good source that connects it to the city of Korce, otherwise it's also fine to go in the region page rather than the city page, as I intend to move all the stuff currently here in the "Antiquity" section. --Yalens (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Law checks out. He is good. He just lumps for Tirana the various proposed etymologies regarding the city. The Tehran one has been debunked though [92], its still sometimes lingers out there in literature on Tirana due to "legend".Resnjari (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That's good then.--Yalens (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Since Tirana name theory is mentioned: For some reason, an editor has removed (at least last time I checked it) all theories about Tirana's name origin, including the Tehran theory which was among them. Perhaps can it be re-added to the Tirana article, provided that it is well-sourced? --SILENTRESIDENT 22:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if it was there in the first place. Obviously theories and alternative names like say the Ottoman Turkish one would need to be accounted for in an etymology section to have balance, of course through well sourced data.Resnjari (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As per the precedent set by previous such moves, as it has been established that the antiquity section is dealing with the history of the surrounding area and not the city, I am moving it to the district's page. If anyone objects I welcome discussion here. --Yalens (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Antiquity site 800 m. from the urban area

Important antiquities that have been found in the present urban area need to be part of the history section. The site of Barc lies on the peripheral road that connects the hill of St. Elias with the center of the city [[93]]. Thus I see no reason why this important piece of historical info about the city's past needs to be removed from the article.Alexikoua (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Barc is not Korce but in the district of Korca. On maps and road connections, though interesting, saying X is connected to Y is wp:synthesis and wp:original. Much information was transferred to the Korca district article that dealt with Korca district content. Unless your source says Korce outright only then. Otherwise all the other information would need to come back.Resnjari (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually Barc lies 800 metres from the urban area and is located much closer than St. Elias hill (the later being an important landmark of Korca too). There is nothing original with googlemaps.Alexikoua (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've also noticed that much information that concerns the surrounding area, for example The plateau on which the city stands or the industrial area that lies next to the urban area (let's say Birra Korca), is already part of the article. Thus the idea to selectively remove such an important piece of archaeological info about a site that lies next to the urban area can't be but wp:IDLI.Alexikoua (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I think having the archaeological Mycenean finds in the History section could be making a subtle claim that Korcha "comes from" the town that produced such finds-- i.e. the town itself is of Ancient Greek (Mycenean) origin. If it's in the History section, it's making an assertion that such finds are in the timescope of the history of the city of Korcha. We of course know this isn't the case-- most sources are saying the town itself was founded much, much later. Sadly, a claim possibly being made when sources say differently is sensitive especially in the WP environment given unfortunate factors of Balkan polemics. Not the same sort of issue found with Birra Korcha (which also has the name, clearly associating itself with the city). Perhaps this can come off as very nitpicky. Perhaps a 3O from someone who doesn't usually edit these pages would be good? --Yalens (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The existent of antiquities does not necessarily mean that there was a continuous settlement there. A history section should deal with the past of the certain location even if there was once a settlement but it was abandoned. That's still important to the history section. Moreover, this article should be consistent with the rest of articles about modern settlements: for example what is today Tirana there was a house in the Roman era, similarly in New York there were various pre-colonial settlements, etc. I see no reason why Korce should be an exception on this.Alexikoua (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any reader would interpret that to mean that New York "came from" native American settlements. But I think many could interpret in such a way for Korçë. --Yalens (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There would be no such interpretation if its stated that the last burial in the Barc tumuli occurred at c. 850 BC.Alexikoua (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

800 meters or other, that still does not discount that Barç is a separate village [94] of the administrative unit of Qendër Bulgarec, and not a Korca neighbourhood/suburb. There is nothing out there that says Barç was annexed by Korca some while back making it part of Korce city. It being 800 meters away is still original reserch and synthesis. You are welcome to create a article page on the village of Barç and add the subsequent information there.Resnjari (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to claim that googlemaps can be considered original reserch or synth. A significant archaeological site should have a place in this article, especially if this is the only one. Considering that the "mines of Mborje-Drenove", as well as info about the surrounding plateau etc. etc.. already exist I can only imagine why there is a obsession to remove important historical data about the region's past. Thus, per wp:BLP this part about prehistory returns to the article.Alexikoua (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why something significant should be in an article if it does not relate to the subject matter in question. The article is about Korce. Your source states Barç, not Korce. On removing "important historical data about the region's past" i would have preferred to have all that district stuff back in here, but other editors viewed the matter differently and removed it because it did not pertain to the city but surrounding district. So once again Barç is not Korce, but a nearby village. You can add that information in to article > Qendër Bulgarec where it is applicable or you can create a new page on the village. Also thank you for pointing out the mines of Mborje-Drenove. That too must go from here. Belongs in district of Korce page, not here.Resnjari (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I transferred it. Any other quirks you have come across point it out and off it goes to the other page.Resnjari (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

DRITA = THE LIGHT

@alexwhatever drit-A >> is >> [THE light]. NOT just "light". Learn albanian before you try to "translate" albanian words. Rookie. ILYHDRAB (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, true.  Done --Calthinus (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

(ignore trolling)It appears that S. Skendi had a bad knowledge of Albanian [[95]], not to mention Gawrych and some dozens of academics.Alexikoua (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Alexikoua Really it's not a big deal. The literal translation is "the Light" since it's in definite but just "Light" could also be an acceptable translation given that Albanian and English conventions about when to use definite and indefinite forms differs somewhat. As for Gawrych yes he was quite clumsy including when he misread "Naum Veqilharxhi" as "Naim Veqilharxhi" and published a book that called him this and presented him erroneously as being Muslim. --Calthinus (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It depends in what context, it can be translated as "the Light" or "Light". Its more a personal taste thing here.Resnjari (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Korçë. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924085559/http://www.reformaterritoriale.al/images/presentations/Ligji%20ndarja%20territoriale_Fletore_zyrtare.pdf to http://www.reformaterritoriale.al/images/presentations/Ligji%20ndarja%20territoriale_Fletore_zyrtare.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924035505/http://www.instat.gov.al/media/195826/7__korce.pdf to http://www.instat.gov.al/media/195826/7__korce.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121127030314/http://www.bashkiakorce.gov.al/frontend/articles.php?cid=64 to http://www.bashkiakorce.gov.al/frontend/articles.php?cid=64

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korçë. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718194239/http://www.albanien-dafg.de/downloads/AH-3-2005.pdf to http://www.albanien-dafg.de/downloads/AH-3-2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)