Talk:Himarë

"Region" of Himara

This article refers to both the "region" of Himara and the municipality. While the municipal borders are clear, the regional ones have changed over time, thus users have been deleting well-sourced content with the excuse that it is not included within the very subjectively defined borders of the region. The article previously defined the Himara region as including only the town of Himara, and the villages Dhermi, Pilur, Kudhes, Qeparo, Vuno, Ilias and Palase. This is not only wrong, but source that was cited [1] says absolutely nothing on the topic. Those settlements only match the previous municipality of Himara, before the merger with Hore-Vranisht and Lukove. This has nothing to do with the traditional region of Himare. Traditionally, Himare was a broader region which included the hinterland villages of Laberi. This gradually changed as the latter islamized, thus creating two regional identities based on religious differences, and Himare region, or "Bregdet", was restricted to the Orthodox villages of the coast. Please see here [2] for more. Please do not force edit your own views on what the region should or should not be, this is well-established academic knowledge. Çerçok (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Your edit doesn't make sense. You mention that the region "shrank" without mentioning what the region is. The first thing is to define the region, then you can say it shrank. Khirurg (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That is what Dr. Giakoumis says. It is not my opinion. Check the article if you want, I provided the link. Meanwhile the source that was there before made no mention of the region of Himara or Himara at all. Çerçok (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It's very easy to find sources that define the region [3]. I will add this back in the article. Khirurg (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Çerçok: do not revert again. After all, it is you who wants to add new content and change the article. Be patient, discuss here, and if necessary, seek more community attention through an RfC. I am staying away from Wikipedia until November 25 due to being away from home. So I can't give much input here at the moment. @Khirurg: the article is about the municipality of Himara, which includes the former municipalities of Himara, Lukove and Hore-Vranisht. This article needs to be updated. In the end I note that the content you are in dispute on is, in other words, already in the article. I added yesterday information on the Arberesh from Himara. In this context, your dispute is of trivial importance. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I checked the Piqeras article, since it is one of the villages listed in the content you disagree on. The Piqeras article says that: "During the Ottoman period (15th–1912) the village enjoyed a special administrative status as part of the Himara region.". The source, Sakellariou, lists other villages you disagree on too: Nivica, Lukova, Shen-Vasil. No doubt they were part of Himara at the time of the Arbereshe migrations, and they are now part of the new borders of the Himara municipality. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Khirurg That source says Himare has 7 villages, but it is not clear if this refers to the region or the municipality. As I mentioned above, borders have changed over time, so it is not a straightforward statement to make. Each source may have a different definition. I would suggest referring to the municipality in the first part of the article, and then discussing definitions of the ethnographic region in a section below, where both the gradual change in borders and the different viewpoints can be presented. Çerçok (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope, the source is very clear. He doesn't mention the "municipality", and it's also published in 2010, well before the changes in municipal borders in 2015. I would appreciate some intellectual honesty here. But like I said, it's very easy to find more sources that define Himara as the town plus the 7 villages [4]. Khirurg (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That is exactly what I said, that used to be the municipality, so it is not clear if it is referring to a traditional region or to the municipality. The second source refers to it as a region. However, this is not definition all authors agree on. Rrok Zojzi, the most respected Albanian ethnographer, says in this book on p.23-24 that the Bregdet villages form one of the subregions of Laberi, including: the Grecophone villages Dhermi and Himare, the Albanian villages Piqeras, Lukove and Qeparo, the villages of the Kudhes valley Kudhes, Pilur, Kala e Kucit, and finally the isolated Borsh village. So here we have a region whose borders have changed throughout history, and even today are not agreed upon. It just does not make sense to have several points of view on this issue at the top of the article. A few sentences explaining the evolution of the region in a section below are much more appropriate, while the first paragraphs should refer to the municipality. Çerçok (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so first it was "unsourced", then it was "the source is not clear", now it's "not all sources agree". The excuse keeps changing. The clear majority view is that the region consists of the 7 villages plus the town. I can produce many sources that define the region as the seven villages plus the town. Anything else is WP:FRINGE. The lede should refer to the region, because that is what the majority of sources refer to when referring to "Himara". By the way, the link you gave does not work (not that it makes any difference). On the other hand, the changes in the region's definition do not belong in the lede. Btw, it's plainly obvious why you're so interested in changing the definition. Khirurg (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I explained quite clearly, and I will explain again. The first source (the German one) said absolutely nothing about the region. The second one you provided was not clear in its reference to the region or the municipality. The third was clear, but it one viewpoint out of many. You can find many sources mentioning 7 villages, but there are also many sources defining it more broadly (I will provide more of these below - you can also retry the link above now). This is what I said before and this is what I am saying again. Nothing is changing. And these are not excuses but valid concerns. Çerçok (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

There's literally dozens of sources that define Himara as the town and the 7 villages [5]. You're wasting everyone's time. Btw, the municipality is also defined in the lede, so what exactly is the problem? Khirurg (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's yet another source that defines the region of Himara in the same way [6]. This is by Natasa Gregoric-Bon, who has written an entire Ph.D dissertation on Himara, and is perhaps the world's foremost expert on the region. It literally took me 5 seconds to find it. So this is the definition we have always been using, and will continue to use. If you want to change it, you could try a WP:RFC, but given the sources I doubt it will be successful. Khirurg (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, the Himare region has been a gradually changing notion that has no consensus even today. Here are some sources that do not define as town with 7 villages.

1- Schiro, 1730-1735: '"Himara, the province of Epirus that stretches from Vlorë and Delvina, above the abyss where many villages are situated, through the bishopal city of Himara (after which the whole region is called), Dhermi or Drimades and Palasa that are inhabited by Greeks, while the other are Albanians obeyed by the Ottoman rule’. see p.139-140.

2- Mystakidis, 1904: Himarra province is divided in two parts, the first of which is called Bregdet and the other Kurvelesh". In MYSTAKIDIS, N. (1904), «῾Ιστορικαὶ σελίδες. ῾Η Χειμάρρα», in: Λ. Μ. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΔΗΣ(ΕΚΔ.), ᾿Ηπειρωτικὸς ᾿Αστήρ, ῾Ημερολόγιον Εἰκονογραφημένον τοῦ Βισέκτου Ἔτους1904, Αθήνα: Βεργιανίτης Press, pp. 272-5.

3- Mystakidis, 1905: In another account, Mystakidis considers Kurvelesh, Himarra or Bregdet andDelvina as parts of a single province, which in this case do coincide with theborders of the kaza of Delvina from here, p.219

4- Coco, 1921: Listing Himariot officers who were part of the Macedonian Regiment of the Kingdom of Naples, he includes the ones from Nivica, Shen-Vasil, Lukove, Piqeras, Qeparo, Dhermi, Palase, Vuno, Piluri, Kuci, Likursi, Himara. see here

5- Zojzi, 1950: The Bregdet region of Laberi includes Dhermi, Himare, Piqeras, Lukove, Qeparo, Kudhes, Pilur, Kala e Kucit and Borsh see here

6- Leake, 1967: "The name Khimára is generally applied to the whole of the ancient Acroceraunian ridge, from Cape Kefalí to Cape Glossa, including the valley of Oricum. The towns are in the following order from south to north: Nívitza, Lúkovo, Pikérnes, Sopotó, Kieperó, Khimára, Vunó, Dhrymádhes, Palása and Dukádhes". see p.138.

7- Sakellariou, 1997: Cheimara and the villages of its region (Nivitsa, Hagios Basileios, Loukovo, Keparon, Drymades, Vounos, Pikerni), the court consisted exclusively of elders...see here

8- Gregoric-Bon, 2008: Throughout the history the size of Himarë/Himara area has been continuously changing. The number of villages has varied from 8 to 50. From 15th until 18th century the area conjoined around 50 villages that were scattered throughout the south-eastern plains of Labëria and the southern Ionian coast. In the middle of the 18th century, during the period of Ottoman Empire, Himarë/Himara area was reduced in size. Because of the islamisation process of Labëria it comprised only 16 villages that were spread along the Ionian coast from Palasa to Saranda. A century later, in the period of Ali Pasha (1830) the area got the configuration which was kept until present, extending from Palasa to Qeparo p.44

Please note that I am not claiming that there are no valid sources that define it as 7 villages, so there is no need to reply with an opposing list. I am only saying it more complicated and more contested than a straightforward line at the top of the article. That's why this should be moved to a section below, while the introduction part of the article should refer to the very clearly defined municipality. Çerçok (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. All the sources you present are old and outdated except Gregoric-Bon. And you are deliberately misrepresenting Gregoric-Bon, because you left out the crucial part: It encompasses 8 villages and the municipal town that bears its name. Everyone can see that right here: [7]. But you left that sentence out. I even linked that source in one of my previous posts [8]! Did you think I wouldn't notice? Did you think that would fool anyone? This is proof of extreme intellectual dishonesty. We are absolutely not going to remove the traditional definition from the lede. But even if, for the sake or argument only, we accept your argument that the definition has been changing, why remove the traditional, and very solidly sourced, definition from the lede? We can just say that the definition has changed over the years. Why remove it altogether? Why hide it from our readers? So, why don't you tell us the real reason you are so determined to erase the original, traditional definition? Why? Khirurg (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, take it easy and stop the insults. I did not include that part because you had already mentioned it, and because as I already said so many times, I am not denying that the definition of a town + 7 villages exists. Take some time to read to sources please. Many actually post-date the conversion of Kurvelesh. As for the article, the definition of town + 7 villages is not traditional, since it only became more prominent after Ali Pasha's time and especially in the 20th century, and most certainly not original. Still, I am not arguing to remove this definition, only to move it to a section where the evolution of the notion can be explained, which I think is very important. Çerçok (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

But why remove it? The "explanation of the evolution of the notion" can be done without removing it from the lede. Since the traditional definition has been there pretty much forever, is useful to our readers, and is very solidly sourced, it should not be removed. In fact it can't be removed, except via WP:RFC. So again, since you didn't answer my original question, tell us the real reason you want so badly to remove it from the lede? Come on, tell us. Khirurg (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Because in its current form it is not correct. If you really want to keep it, changing it to something like The traditionally perceived borders of the Himarë region gradually shrank during the Ottoman period, being reduced to the town of Himarë and the villages of the coastline (Bregdet in Albanian), often including only Palase, Dhermi, Pilur, Kudhes, Vuno, Ilias and Qeparo. would be more acceptable. Çerçok (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

But it is correct, because it's what the sources say. The article currently states: The region traditionally consists of the town of Himarë and the villages of Palasë, Dhërmi, Pilur, Kudhës, Qeparo, Vuno, and Ilias. The traditionally perceived borders of the Himarë region gradually shrank during the Ottoman period, being reduced only to the town of Himarë and the villages on the coastline (Bregdet in Albanian). That's the same thing. Khirurg (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Now, if you want to change the sentence order, that's a different thing. I'm not convinced that what you're proposing is logically better than what's in there now. Khirurg (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The specific part is also cited by Pappas: Ottoman reprisals depopulated the area and led to forced Islamizations which finally limited the area's Christian population by the 18th century to the town of Himarë and six villages.Alexikoua (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Khirurg What I proposed is similar to the current version because it is a compromise on my part. It keeps the 7 village definition in the lede but the two small differences are that: in the beginning it is mentioned that the borders were historically in evolution, and in the last part the word "often" leaves open the possibility of alternative definitions. I would be willing to leave this in the lede without further elaboration on other definitions, which we may discuss in relation to the sections below. Çerçok (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that could work, and I do appreciate the willingness to compromise. Only thing is, how about "generally" instead of "often", since there is a multitude of sources for the 7 village definition? Khirurg (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. Thank you too. Once I find a few more sources I will make a proposition to expand on the evolution of the notion of the region in one of the sections below. Çerçok (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree too. Administrative division have changed throughout times and will change again in future but the 7 villages are always known as Himariot villages.

Also, with this attitude to add sentences here and there the history section is going to need its own page. Bes-ARTTalk 18:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we do need to be careful with additions, and always try to maintain readability. Otherwise the articles quickly become very cluttered and unreadable. Khirurg (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, the intro should be clear in how the region is today defined.Alexikoua (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"Traditionally perceived borders"

"Traditionally perceived borders" is a slippery and unhelpful phrase: what "tradition" is being talked about? who is "perceiving" them? For that matter, is it clear that there were actually well-defined "borders"? Are these administrative borders defined by tax collectors? Are they defined by local kinship customs? Are we talking about the 16th century? the 19th century? Are they the limits of the area as described by Albanian or Greek schoolbooks of the 1920s? Are they claims made as part of some diplomatic negotiation? etc.

I submit that clarifying all that will both improve the article and help it conform to WP:NPOV. If it reads, say, "Ottoman tax collectors in the 16th century defined Himara as ..." and "The Kingdom of Albania defined Himara as ... in 1934", those are clear, verifiable, NPOV statements in a way that "traditionally perceived" is not. --Macrakis (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this needs to be explained in more detail in a paragraph below. I will gather sources and make a proposition soon. Çerçok (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Cercok: Can you explain what you mean with this accusation [[9]]: articles about regions usually begin with their current geographical definition and off course if this was different in past this can be mentioned. Using simplistic words such as 'disruption' for such productive initiative isn't cool.Alexikoua (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant that a long discussion already took place days ago in this talk page to arrive to the agreement that produced the current version. Improvements can be made, but they should be informed by previous discussion, not simply inserted. Furthermore, the source you placed there has nothing to do with the borders of the region. Çerçok (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Agreed with Macrakis and the critique to essentialism. Some of the problems of the article are related to conceptual issues. The article is about Himara but the term refers to the municipality of Himara which includes the region of Himara and two other areas which are considered part of Labëria. The distinction Labëria : Himara dates to the 18th century. --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is about the municipal unit of Himara (and the former municipality), which happens to coincide with the traditional region of Himara. Changes of administrative nature can't change borders of historical regions. For example we have Dropull, but since 2015 Pogon is also incorporated in Dropull. Two different regions but one municipality. Similar situation occurs here. A new article about the new administrative units might be needed.Alexikoua (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it clear that there is exactly one definition of the "traditional region of Himara", agreed on by all Albanian and Greek scholars and politicians? --Macrakis (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"though Himare's population is not entirely Greek-speaking"

I reverted its addition, because it is very obviously a POV statement. The article so far, based on a mixture of sources, gives a much more nuanced identity. Some mention an Albanian identity and language among local people, others a Greek identity and language. The Demographics section even, correctly, says that the identity of the population is colorful and fliud. Indeed, that is Himara: a place with a mixture of origins and identities. I do not agree with that addition to make a summary of the situation. One can open an RfC if they wish, I myself just do not agree with that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert Ktrimi991. It was once again a POV move by Alexikoua who tried to pass it as legit by stating its "based on widely used reference".--Lorik17 (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nitsiakos is wp:RS and has been used by several Albanian users as well. The source reads: Indicatively, even though Himare's population is not all Greek-speaking, the area had made an impression to foreign visitors in the past, because of the Greek sentiment of its people.]]

Well if there is a tendency to remove Nitsiakos altogether as POV I suggest to remove him in Vuno too as well as elsewhere. Partially use of specific works with the excuse ... I dont like it or ...very POV statement I myself just do not agree with that can be disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, Alexikoua. Either they will be removed from all articles, or be reinstated back. Certain editors appear to be rather fond of double standards but I am afraid that's not how things work here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, it doesn't appear to be anything more than WP:JDL at this point. It could be added with attribution ("According to Nitsiakos"), but wholesale removal because the "article is nuanced" and "colorful and fliud" (sic) is out of the question. Khirurg (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I shall remind Ktrimi that this: "One can open an RfC if they wish, I myself just do not agree with that." attitude constitutes WP:STONEWALLING which goes against the spirit of good faith and harms the consensus building. Furthermore, a RfC's role is to help towards a consensus building, not meant to be used for disruptive cases like this where there was deliberately no effort in building a consensus due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@SilentResident: The quickest way to understand if something is problematic is to reverse the situation and ask yourself: would the opposite be acceptable? Say someone picked one academic work published in Albania and said publication had a quote which said "It was known to all travelers that <insert Albanian-speaking settlement in Greece> had Albanian sentiments". Would that quote make sense in any encyclopedic context? No, it wouldn't. And I'm certain that neither you nor Khirurg - despite our many differences - would ever write such a thing because you understand what is encyclopedic and what isn't. If Alexikoua chooses every time to go down that path, let it be his choice - it doesn't have to generate a dispute among many editors.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber:, firstly, I want to express my appreciation that you haven't gone down the path of stonewalling like some other editors did. Secondly, I can't help but show scrutiny for the inconsistent approaches regarding various articles of the Serbia, Greece and Albania topic areas, and other areas related to them (i.e. Arvanite topic area). Personally, I am not against using/not using a particular source, I am against cases where an editor wouldn't mind using or tolerating sources that suit them in one article, and yet, oppose them elsewhere on WP:DONTLIKEIT grounds. I remember that in similar disputes in the recent past, workarounds were achieved for such quotes, like making more specific attribution of sources and mentions of their authors. Yet when the same can be done here, all I see is the editor stonewalling and pointing to RfCs right from their very first comment. If I am not mistaken, I recall how an admin noted how mentioning RfC outright when a dispute emerges and asking for the community to solve it for you just because the lack of consensus building is your own fault, not only is highly disruptive, but also frowned. Because I give great attention to advises of experienced admins, volunteers and editors, I am mentioning this here just in case the editors here also value these opinions and reconsider their positions so that a solution is found on the issue without calling others to do it for us. The last we want here is to see topic bans due to our incompetence and incapability in finding solutions by ourselves. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment To pick one quote by one source (Nitsiakos) and add it at random in the article is WP:UNDUE and goes against simple guidelines in writing a good article. We compare & contrast sources, we don't pick single quotes from publications which are culturally informed by a single narrative produced in country. And we strive for writing articles in an encyclopedic style. Quotes about "sentiments" reflect political narratives and talking points. The quote shouldn't be added.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec) There is nothing wrong with Nitsiakos. We can keep both sentences, and attribute to Nitsiakos. How about Historically, there have been several theories about the ethnicity of the Himariotes. According to Vasilis Nitsiakos, though the population is not entirely Greek-speaking, foreign visitors were impressed by the Greek sentiment of the Himariotes.. I see no reason to exclude Nitsiakos. Khirurg (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Khirurg: I'm certain that you would never choose to write anything based on this quote because you know that it's not meant for that sort of thing. And I understand that you're trying to manage a situation which was not created by you - everybody's been there. My opinion is that trying to make this quote into something encyclopedic is awkward and doesn't add anything of value to the article because of the limitations of the quote itself. It doesn't say anything which isn't already there and it would be confusing to write down that one author thinks that foreign visitors had a common impression of the region. The ethnographic visits and travelogues are themselves significant and/or may be of value.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment When scholars use "Greek-speaking" in topics like Himara, they do it on purpose knowing that it is difficult to distinguish between ethnicities. Knowing that the Greek language was the official language in the Roman Empire and later in Byzantium, it is understandable that many may have known it and passed it on to their childrens. Knowing that Greek schools, unlike the Albanian ones, in the time of the Ottoman Empire were allowed, many may have learnt that as the only way to be educated. We have thousands of cases of prominent Albanian figures who have been educated either in an Ottoman or Greek schools, such as Zosimea. So it would be better to avoid these phrases because most people use them as indicators of ethnicity, which is not at all true when it comes to the context in which academics use it. Bes-ARTTalk 17:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec) This is stonewalling of a high level. Misusing WP:UNDUE and excuses about "not adding anything to the article" can be used to stonewall and prevent the addition of anything. I could just as easily claim that stuff you add "doesn't add anything to the article" and is "encyclopedically awkward". With excuses like this, anything can be prevented from being added. For example, Ktrimi made a whole bunch of additions recently intended to prove to the world how Albanian Himara is. Using your reasoning, I could easily have removed them but I didn't. If you choose to go down this route, expect to encounter similar resistance when you try to add material to articles. Now, unless I hear valid objections, the two sentences I am proposing will be added back, and if the stonewalling continues, admin intervention will be sought. The stonewalling needs to, and will, stop, one way or another. Khirurg (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This is stonewalling of a high level. Misusing WP:UNDUE and excuses about "not adding anything to the article" can be used to stonewall and prevent the addition of anything. I could just as easily claim that stuff you add "doesn't add anything to the article" and is "encyclopedically awkward". With excuses like this, anything can be prevented from being added. Please re-read your comments on the Peloponnese article. The difference is, this is about impressions, that one is about measured statistics.

Btw, the sentence "Historically, there have been several theories about the ethnicity of the Himariotes." is entirely unsourced and should be removed. I am willing to let it stand as a compromise, but if this uncompromising attitude continues, I will simply remove it. Khirurg (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Historically, there have been several conflicting theories about the ethnicity of the Himariotes. It should be removed, not because it's unsourced but because it's meaningless. Contradictions are related to how they perceive their ethnicity which has been very fluid in contemporary times. Both the quote and this sentence are without functional meaning in the context of how we should be trying to write an encyclopedia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, one is free to remove unsourced sentences without the need for "compromise", whatever it means. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Contortions of SYNTH - the sequel

On September 20, 2020 I started a discussion at Qeparo (Talk:Qeparo#The contortions of SYNTH) about how ethnicity is discussed in all Himara articles. Ethnicity is discussed as something that is , not as something that is a matter of choice. The sentence Qeparo is inhabited by both Albanians and Greeks will make readers think that two groups live in Himara. One population lives in Himara, but members of the same families identify differently and their decisions are informed by their political and social preferences.

• Proposed change: Many people in the region of Himara identify as Greeks. In particular, in the town of Himara and the villages of Dermi and Palasa most identify as Greeks, in the villages of Iljas, Lukovë, Kudhës, Pilur and Vuno as Orthodox Albanians, while the people of Qeparo identify in a mixed manner as Albanians or Greeks--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. The original statement, The region of Himara is populated by a predominantly ethnic Greek community. is very strongly sourced to a multitude of reliable, international sources that directly back the statement, there is no synth whatsoever. What you are proposing is not. This is a red line. No word games and gimmicks, please. Later on, I suspect you will use similar tricks to remove that they identify as Greeks altogther ("ethnicity is complicated, it's best not discussed in the lede", "muh nuance", and the usual). No way. Khirurg (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  If I wanted to remove the sentence, I could do so because its sources were published 20 years ago. And they'll be changed with the results of the new census. My proposed change refers to the fact that it's the same people from the same families who either identity as Albanians or Greeks in Himara. There aren't two different populations who live in Himara.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

2010 is not 20 years ago. As for the census, I wouldn't be so excited about it if I were you, given the extremely poor track record of the previous census. Now, what you are proposing can be added somewhere else in the article, without altering the lede sentence. Provided, of course, we also add the material for Nitsiakos. Khirurg (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If Maleshreiber wants to dig into "members of the same families identify differently and their decisions are informed by their political and social preferences.", this is none of our concern here. However seeking to pass non-neutral changes on a very sensitive topic, changes which are attempting to portray a persecute minority in Albania in a less prominent light using exactly this kind of argument, and this at a time where the hardships this minority is facing, are undergoing, are extremely POV and unhelpful changes. Everyone should refrain from instigating problematic voting-based progresses that may seek to violate exactly this wp:neutral rule which tells us that neutrality cannot be superseded by editor consensus. Imagine if editors have tried to start a voting progress to do the same about minorities in i.e. North Macedonia's Albanian and Bulgarian minorities or Greece's Pomak and Roma minorities in favor of other communities in the same regions (i.e. Macedonian or Turkish), using such faulty arguments like "members of the same families identify differently and their decisions are informed by their political and social preferences. like Maleshreiber did. If I were you I wouldn't go down this dangerous route. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@SilentResident: They are exactly the same families. You'll understand that if you examine bibliography carefully. I can start a discussion at RfC if you are opposed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The proposed text has several issues, not to mentioned that it's not supported by a single reference. I assume Mschr. needs to provide it else this discussion has no meaning. wp:OR additions are problematic by definition.Alexikoua (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Maleshreiber let me be clear: the text you proposed isn't backed by strong references, and will require WP:EXTRAORDINARY sources to support claims that the minority's prominence is result of a political bloat among "wannabe" within families like as your arguments in your proposal are suggesting. Sorry but no way. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Lede

the first word used to describe himara in the first sentence of the lede should not be that it is bilingual. the fact that it is bilingual should be addressed later in the lede. Durraz0 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, the municipality of Himarë is not defined as a bilingual one.--Lorik17 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Durraz0:@Iaof2017: Read all the discussions at Talk:Himara/Archive 1. It'll take you about 2 hours to understand who said what and why but in the end you'll understand - as I did - that most problems of the article are very old and haven't been solved because particular editors promoted the use of bad bibliography and others allowed it, because they did the same thing in other articles on opposite sides.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Linguistics vs tourist guides issued by municipal authorities

An abandoned tourist guide which only exists on scribd, written by the former mayor Vasil Bollano (who got less than 100 votes in the last elections they tried to get elected) was used for the claim that 85% of Himara spoke Greek as their mother tongue. Abandoned tourist guides with specific political narratives written/promoted by former mayors who are not linguists and have no links to academia whatsoever aren't RS - and I don't think that anyone can find support for the use of such publications in any guideline. (Side comment: [10] Reading 11-year-old "justifications" for its use is very interesting - the problem doesn't lie in those who added it, but in those who accepted such bad use of bibliography) A new 2021 study written by Andrey Rusakov for Sobolev's Between Separation and Symbiosis: The “Greek” population of Himara demonstrates also near equal proficiency in Greek and Albanian (although there are now some “Greek” monolinguals among the older generation). This fact may be explained by the presence of Albanian elements among the ancestors of Himara “Greeks”, i.e. by mixed marriages (Sobolev 2017). The participation of the Albanian elements in the formation of the contemporary Himara population is confirmed by his-torical data and by testimonies of individual speakers. However to answer the question of the role of mixed marriages in the formation of the current linguistic (and ethnic) landscape of Himara will be possible after a more detailed study of this problem.24 Another source of continuous preservation of a situation with a high level of mastery in both languages might be the processes of Hellenization of the Albanian population encouraged by the Orthodox church till the time of the founding of the Albanian independent state and supported in some way by the cultural differences between the Orthodox and Muslim parts of the Albanian population The difference with what the article is discussing is jarring. I have added a summary of the paper, but I used a full citation for editors who want to expand it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(By the way wikipedia is not a political forum to question publications by democratically elected regional authorities) As I see this work is published by the municipality of Himara, that's an official authority in Himara, Albania. The claim that this is found in scribd can't be an argument for removal or to claim that it's abandoned now. Abandoned? by whom? I don't think so, everyone that visited Himara can find it. The text reads "data according to the municipal authorities" and yes this is published by the specific authorities. I wonder how Rusakov can be used as an alternative to demographic estimates by the local authorities.Alexikoua (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: well, one of the reasons for such things might be that the demographics of Himara have changed a lot in recent decades. Look at the list of the members of the Himara municipality council. Rather strangely, half of them have typical Muslim and Catholic Albanian surnames. The rest are Orthodox, some with typical Albanian names and others with Greek ones [11]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: If there is anything on the official website of Himara[12] which corresponds to the abandoned pdf on scribd, you can update the article with information from the source. But you can't pick an abandoned pdf and claim that it represents the official position of the municipality. @Ktrimi991: We shouldn't classify people by their names. We can't use side by side peer-reviewed publications and old pdfs with political talking points. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I m not sure if you have realized it but a decent ammount of the world's WP:PRIMARY sources are no longer found on official or original websites, yet there wasn't any problem using them to inform the readers that the authorities said this or that at the given time, since this doesn't cancel the fact that the assertion was indeed made. Using the description "abandoned" is a red herring since Wikipedia reflects on sources, not on whether the source was moved or archived since then. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

How was this even used in the first place? This is not a reliable source because it expresses one person's opinion who happened to be mayor and his political opinion was reversed after he lost the elections. @Maleschreiber: He got <70 votes. If we're going to say that a big or small percentage speaks a language in Himara then it should be a modern source which is reliable. Ahmet Q. (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ahmet Q.: "it expresses one person's opinion who happened to be mayor and his political opinion was reversed after he lost the elections." A question. Can you point me to any policy here in Wikipedia which states that primary sources are dependent on whether the authority of the time, was re-elected or not? Because with this problematic reasoning, is like as if Wikipedia should only use statements and claims by dictators such as Lukashenko who stayed in power forever, while claims by democratic authorities shouldn't because -according to your logic- "opinions as Mayors were reversed by later defeats in elections". --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Look at what BalkanInsight says about Vasil Bollano [13]: "Bollano, who is currently on trial on charges of abuse of power, has often enraged Albanians with his rhetoric and nationalistic stunts. He was charged in 2009 with abuse of power and falsification of official documents, accused of issuing a series of illegal building permits along Albania’s southern coast" and "The mayor is often seen as maverick, who uses inflammatory nationalist rhetoric to galvanize his power base. He has previously declared large areas of southern Albania as ‘Greek land’ and claimed autonomy for the region. Only a few days ago, Tirana’s right-wing parties were enraged to learn that the official Web site of the municipality of Himara describes Albania itself as an occupying force in the history of the region". Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. BalkanInsight is a reliable news site and I am citing it as a source for my own additions. Considering its reputation, I have no reason to believe that BI would lie. In this case, I am ok with the document being removed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Albanian lordship in 1532 ?

wp:EXTRAORDINARY claims need strong reference and off course one wp:OFFLINE non-English reference isn't a strong argument for such a claim. There was no Albanian political entity that time.Alexikoua (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop making excuses to delete well-sourced content. The source comes from a book of Kristo Frasheri, a respected historian in Albania. This book has been cited in many of the other works that this article references. The original document from 1532 which the book presents, says: la troisiesme est en la seigneurie des Albanoys. I already put this in the quotation (did you even read it?). Your personal opinion about Albanian political entities is irrelevant. Please stop censoring well-sourced material just because you do not like the truth. Çerçok (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The so-called well sourced content is wp:OFFLINE. No wonder you need to provide something solid that Ottoman territory was under "Albanian lordship". You also need to stop removing well sourced and ONLINE sources by well-sourced content by Nitsiakos.Alexikoua (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the link you are providing says: Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Second, I have provided the exact quotes in the reference. Third, I said before, this is a book by a reputed author who has been cited by the other authors in this article. You can even find a big part of the book online if you just try. Finally, please be specific about what you claim I have deleted. Çerçok (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm astonished for all your accusations especially that I'm supposed to have claim that about deletion (?). Since K. Frasheri even offline extraordinary suggestions can stay I assume there is no objection to restore Nitsiakos. You don't believe that only Albanian authors are well respected right?Alexikoua (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Alexikoua: I'm astonished for all your accusations What accusations are you talking about? Please be specific. And if I am not mistaken, I did not delete anything.

It is not my job to teach you how to google things, but since you refuse to try, here, check out the first part of the book and see if any of the quotes are not correct: [14]. Çerçok (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

No wonder Frasheri has been widely criticized for his work about Himara. For example even Gregoric does not hesitate to declare that: Frashëri’s writings which like the rest of Albanian historiography favours only particular kinds of data and disregards all other. , Kristo Frashëri, another pro-Albanian writer. We need to follow strictly wp:RS. Biased conclusions and testimonies should be contributed to the specific author. Works and authors that have been described as pro-Albanian or pro-Greek or reveal certain biases in their work should be treated with heavy precaution. Alexikoua (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cercok for the link. Though I am still very reluctant with the heavy criticism the specific author received outside Albania. Declarations such as that "Himariotes belong without any doubt to Albanian nationality” (Frashëri 2005: 5) and representing the typical stereotype that the Chaonians were Illyrians (Frashëri 2005: 17) make me very skeptical.Alexikoua (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Pro-Albanian does not mean dubious. Gregoric does not criticize Frasheri's credibility at all, only says there is other data he does not utilize. You may or may not agree with Gregoric on that point, but when it comes to the veracity of Frasheri's documents and primary sources, that is not brought into question, as far as I know, by any author ever. And if it was, then I would welcome an alternative view, although when the source says seigneurie des Albanoys there seems to be little room for interpretation. Çerçok (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Gregoric clearly states that the specific author is pro-Albanian writer among Frasheri's pov she mentions statements as: Himariotes were always Albanians and Chaones were Illyrians. No wonder if Himara was part of Albania in 16th century that's Frasheri's personal opinion. Mainstream bibliography simply rejects such extraordinary views and Gregory does critisize Frasheri's credibility in a very straight way. Those views have been summarily rejected.Alexikoua (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Alexikoua:No wonder if Himara was part of Albania in 16th century that's Frasheri's personal opinion. Once again, this is not his opinion or conclusion (which would still be respectable), this is him quoting 15th and 16th century documents. I am sure you understand the difference so this is just disruptive editing on your part, and next time you claim it is his opinion I will have to report it. On the other hand, if you have another source that cites the same documents in a different manner, please present it. Çerçok (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be the epitomy of disruption if we avoid to mention that this information is based on a pro-Albanian author. The reader should we provide reference that does not offer a neutral picture of the subject. Frasheri offers a partial picture about Himara and this is a sourced fact. If that's the best picture we can provide its a poor one.Alexikoua (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the last time I am saying it: the information comes from 15th-16th century documents. Either bring alternative academic interpretations of those documents, or accept the current version. Çerçok (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hammond (1994)

I have tagged as dubious a statement from Hammond (1994): It was at this time (18th century), that many Himariotes emigrated to Italy as a result of frequent attacks by Lab Albanians, on the grounds of ethnicity and religion; they still maintain their Greek identity. This statement refers to the Arbëresh village of Villa Badessa founded by refugees from Piqeras. It has an Arbëresh/Albanian identity and today the local Albanian variety has official status. Hammond's statement contradicts everything else that we know about this community which still exists. Even more problematic: We are discussing Hammond's statement as a real event in Piqeras and presenting it as if two attacks occurred which displaced two different groups: In 1742 the neighbouring Muslim Albanian village of Borsh attacked Piqeras making some Albanian speaking Orthodox Christians flee abroad to southern Italy where they founded the village of Villa Badessa. In 1744 an attack by Muslim Albanian groups forced the Greek-speaking inhabitants in Piqeras to leave the village. In my opinion, Hammond (1994) - a republication from Hammond (1967) - should be removed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears you need to be more precise on why Hammond is wrong. By assuming that this is about Villa Baddessa it isn't enough to render him useless in this case. Hammond's statement contradicts everything else that we know about this community which still exists is also purely explained. What do you mean it contradict "everything else"? In my opinion Hammond is a top graded scholar. We can't simply remove academic scholarship because there is a disagreement. All views should be part of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I understood it perfectly. The article should not contradict itself. Çerçok (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not a matter of views. It's an opinion written in 1967 which contradicts reality itself. I'm removing this statement.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Controversial census in lead

I wonder why the results of a controversial census that have been widely affected by boycott should be part of the lead. Its the first time in wikipedia that the results of a census are placed in introduction, even worst those data are not representatives in terms of local demographics. On the other hand there is enough material in scholarship that provides input about the demographic situation.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Because for you it is absolutely crucial to have demographic data in the lede everywhere you think there are Greeks. That is what the census is. Çerçok (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

In general, I could remove all sources which describe Himara as "predominantly Greek" because they contradict modern self-identification and describe what authors thought 20 years ago, but I'm not doing so until the next census. But the intro shouldn't: 1)Include this sentene: The region of Himara is predominantly populated by an ethnic Greek community This refers to the former municipality of Himara, not to the new municipality of Himara. It misleads the readers into thinking that the authors discuss a region which didn't exist when these sources were published 2)We can't exclude information about 2/3 of the municipality from the lead. @Alexikoua: Do not remove information about 2/3 of the municipality again from the lead. Alternatively, we can remove all information and discuss the issue simply as The inhabitants of the region identify themselves as Albanians or Greeks and are bilingual which is what I would prefer in the first place, but since the community has decided that we should mention every little detail about ethnicity in the intro, at least we should do it in an inclusive way. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

In general a widely disputed census affected by boycott is not a cool initiative to have it on lead. Academic scholarship "contradicts modern self-identification"? modern self identification based on what? Instead of adding controversial number I don't object the inclusion of similar estimated for the other two municipal unit. Simply adding controversial data (2011 census) without saying a word about their questioned quality falls into wp:POV. I would prefer your alternative proposal by providing an explanation for each municipal unit, since inline reference refers to the pre-2010 'Himara region' considering that this article refers to the wider municipality and not the municipal unit. Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Lukove and Hore-Vranisht have their own articles, their demographic information belongs there, not in the lede of this article. This article is about the municipal unit of Himara. It seems another article should be created, Himara (municipality) that describes the post-2015 municipality that includes Lukove and Hora-Vranisht. This article is about something much older than the 2015 municipality created by the Albanian government. Khirurg (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This article says: "Himara is a 'municipality and region in Vlorë County, southern Albania. The municipality has a total area of 571.94 km2 (220.83 sq mi) and consists of the administrative units of Himarë, Horë-Vranisht and Lukovë". There are already two articles on Himara, this one and Himarë (town), adding a third one would just confuse readers. There is nothing special about Himara to have three articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It is very common for administrative units not to coincide with the traditional/historic region that bear the same name. It's also very typical in wikipedia to have multiple articles of this kind. Since in literature Himara refers primarily to the region, not to the post-2010 municipality, an article about the traditional Himara region is warranted.Alexikoua (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It would be too complicated to include information about regions that are traditionally/historically not part of Himara and transform the article in order to match to the wider area of the municipality. In the case of Dropull for example imagine including also information about Pogon or in the case of Konispol to include information from the nearby mixed settlements of Xarrë. Traditional regions deserve their unique article, no matter how many administrative occur.Alexikoua (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not be complicated at all. Information about Pogon can be included in the Dropull article, and information about Xarra to the Konispol one. For years there have been two Himara articles: one for the town and one for the municipapity and region. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It appears it's time for a third article about the wider (current) municipality. In general changes in the administrative units does can't change the area of historical regions.Alexikoua (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for a third article. There is nothing special about Himara to have 3 articles. It would be confusing for readers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Letters to the Pope 1577

Until now the article stated:

In one occasion, in 1577, the chieftains of Himarë appealed to the Pope for arms and supplies promising to fight the Ottomans. They also promised to transfer their religious allegiance to Rome, provided that they would retain their Eastern Orthodox liturgical customs "since the majority of the population was Greek and didn't understand the Frankish language"[15] the letter concludes with "From Himarra, i.e. Epiros of the Arvanids [Albanians], on July 12th 1577".[16][17]

The statement by Frazee from 2006, however, is not supported by the literature. Since then Giakoumis, Tudorie, Frasheri and Xhufi have all discussed the letters and not found anything similar. Thankfully the letters were published in full by Tudorie's restitution of Laurent's work here:[18]. Correct me if I am wrong, but the statement by Frazee is nowhere to be found. I am now correcting this part of the article. Çerçok (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Giakoumis does not offer the letter in full so he can't be used as an excuse to remove Frazee. Xhufi falls into wp:POV and the rest are offline. I also fail to see where Laurent states that he displays the entirety of Himariote correspondence with Pope. On the other hand I wouldn't turn unreliable a publication of the University of Cambridge. Such a removal falls into disruptive editing. Alexikoua (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll provide the full quote to avoid any further misunderstanding on this:
In 1577 thirty-eight chieftains of the Orthodox Himare region of Albania appealed to Pope Gregory XIII for arms and supplies sufficient to fit out an army of ten thousand. They promised to transfer their religious allegiance to Rome and to recognize Philip II of Spain as their sovereign. They asked only that their priests be allowed to retain their Eastern liturgical customs, 'since the majority of the population is Greek and they do not understand the Frankish language. Philip II also received a personal communication from them, but was hardly willing to become king of Albania. From this time the Himarens accepted the pope as religious head and identified themselves with the Catholic church..
We should be extremely careful when claiming that works published by top graded academic institutions are simply wrong. On the other hand Xhufi's work has been widely rejected in modern scholarship. That's actually a good argument to remove information by the later but not from a Cambridge Univ. publication.Alexikoua (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Your time of cherry-picking wrong sentences here and there from works that mention Balkan history only in passing is over. The discussion has already moved beyond this already debunked sentence. The full letters are published here:[19] . Read them, and accept verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Frazee 2006 is a reprint. The book was first published in 1983, i.e. the source of that statement in the article is almost 40 years old. Much newer sources need to be carefully evaluated. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually Frazee 2006 is an updated version of 1983. University of Cambridge publications are of top quality on the field it's not cool to dismiss scholarship of this kind by presenting offline claims. Also, there is nothing to contradict this statement: neither Giakoumis, Tudorie, Laurent nor anyone else (Xhufi doesn't meet RS anyway).Alexikoua (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not see any "update", if you can show it here. Until then Frazee is a 39 years old source. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

2006 or 1983, more recent publications have debunked that claim. Accept verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm asking you again: provide us the precise quote that claims that this statement is fictional. So far you presented nothing that support the removal.Alexikoua (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

They asked only that their priests be allowed to retain their Eastern liturgical customs, 'since the majority of the population is Greek and they do not understand the Frankish language. The letters are available to you in full now through a more recent RS publication and no such quote is found there. There are many publications that deal specifically with this issue and none of them mention anything like that. You ask questions for which I have already provided answers in my first comment. Çerçok (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I think that many problems start from the fact that we first form an opinion about certain subjects and then do the required reading. There are two versions of this letter: one - the original - in Greek published in Laurent (2013) and another version which was written in Latin by the Corfiot (ex insula Corcyrae) scribe Michealis Argiro. The Latin version is mostly the same but has some additions. The full Latin version is published in Marini (1911) (p.180-83). As the version of the letter(s) in Latin was published before the original letters in Greek, Frazee (1983) [2006] had access to the Latin version. The part which Frazee (1983) [2006] cites verbatim is a reference to religious rites and not to cultural or linguistic identity. Frazee translated this part: since the majority of the population was Greek and didn't understand the Frankish language. The full sentence is: huiusmodi sacri ordini homines administrent Sacramenta, et celebrent iuxtra nostrum usum et ritum; cum ut plurimum et maiori ex parte sint Graeci et latina lingua ignorent; ubi vero fuerint Latini, latino ritu celebrent (Men of this sacred order deliver the sacraments and practice them according to our custom and rite; since for the most part they are Greeks and do not know the Latin language; but where they are Latins, they practice [religion] in the Latin rite) Hence the letter refers to the religious customs of the region. The signatories are not "elders from Himara" but the villages of the Bishopric of Himara, hence it includes Kurvelesh and villages as far inland as Zhulat. Thus it couldn't be referring to linguistic identity even if the full quote wasn't as clear as it is. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, it appears that this part was not fictional. As such I see no problem with it staying in the article.Alexikoua (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

As fictional as fiction itself. Read the letters before commenting here. Çerçok (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Kosovo

I will just provide the quote from source and the text that was supposed to be based on this quote in order to focus on the discrepancy here:

Quote: "the Albanian population, from the lake of Shkodra to Kosova, were one with the other Christian populations. At the time of the Ottoman invasion of 1389, Greek authors mention, after the Serbs and the Bulgarians, the Northern Albanians, those of Himara, Epyrus and the coast." Text supposed to be based on this quote: "Himariotes and other Albanians from Epirus and the coast participated at the Battle of Kosovo.
Alexikoua (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"the Northern Albanians, those of Himara, Epyrus and the coast." What are "those"? Albanians, like those Northern Albanians. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, from my understanding the grammar and syntax used indicates that the author is talking about Albanians from Himara, Epirus and the coast. Botushali (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

For an unexplained reason you erase the fact that this was claimed by contemporary Greek authors. Why you hide that the author does not accept this as a fact? If the source is that "X author mentions Y fact" we have no reason to state that this is generally accepted why the cited source. Alexikoua (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Stop making aspersions against other editors. The author wants to make the case for an old Albanian presence in Kosovo, and mentions the Greek authors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hammond

@Alexikoua: A full quote of Hammond is needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: I've provide full paragraphs on both occasions.Alexikoua (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This edit summary is quite weird and needs explanation [[20]]. It appears that we have massive removals of well cited information while the edit summary is complete wrong in this case: Kaser 1992 does not refer to "Greeks of Himara". in fact he refers in detail to Greeks in Himara, Kaser 1992 is refuted by Kaser 2012 where does he refute himself? actually nowhere in the case of the Greeks in Himara. Also a productive editor can't perform massive removals with the excuse of a source being offline, which in fact is not. But if this is the real case I can add additional information on the issue of how Karl and Hammond describe the phratria system with quotes included.Alexikoua (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Kaser 1992 does not refer to Greeks in Himara, anyways if you can provide here the quote for the contrary. On Hammond, he is in "snippet view" format on GB, hence the full quotes are needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

In the article for Kaser 1992 you provided a very short and misleading quote Die Teilgeschlechter hießen hier nicht » Fis « , sondern » Phratrien « Then the source goes on to give say In Kudhës teilte sich das Geschlecht Kongjinaj beispielsweise in die Phratrien Nikaj , Kushtaj und Kalcuaju. They are not "Greeks in Himara" as your own conclusion is: Nikaj, Kushtaj and Kalcuaju obviously are Albanian family names. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

About Hammond the work appears accessible in gbooks here [[21]], quotes:

• see p. 215: Society was organized entirely on the basis of kinship with male dominance. The smallest unit was the family household , and a group of related households made a " brotherhood " (vllazni , and in Greek - speaking Himarë phratria ) Next a group of " brotherhoods " made a " kin " ( fis ) .

• p. 405: When Colonel Leake visited Himarë in 1805 , he was astonished to find that the whole population was organised on a familial basis in tribal groups and that the name of a large subgroup was a " phratria " . This ancient Greek term is not in use elsewhere in the Greek peninsula It is probably a case not of survival from ancient times but of similar conditions producing a similar system a name which is natural to the Greek language".

Both Hammond and Kaser mention the Phratria based structure. As such it can be part of the social analysis of the population.Alexikoua (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, Kaser 1992 does not refer to Greeks in Himara. Based on Hammond, it is obvious that among Greeks in Himara it is known as "phratria". That can be added to the article, ofc. Hammond's claim that Himara's phratria comes from ancient Greeks is unreliable. Kaser 2012 explains that "fara" means "common thing" and it is spread among Albanians in all of southern Albania and northern Greece. If fara is found among Albanians in all of southern Albania, while phratria is found only in Himara among Greeks, then Hammond's claim is very dubious. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Now that I saw it more carefully, even Hammond himself doubts that: This ancient Greek term is not in use elsewhere in the Greek peninsula It is probably a case not of survival from ancient times but of similar conditions producing a similar system a name which is natural to the Greek language. But you wrote in the article Phatria comes from ancient Greek and has not survived elsewhere among the later Greek communities. Your edit was not in line with Hammond. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

News

That addition [22] is very redundant. I do not know other similar articles of Balkan cities having stuff of the kind "X leader from Y country visited Z place for the first time". For instance, I do not see in the History section of Athens sth like "The Albanian PM visited for the first time the Albanian community of Athens". Aditions of such content that make the article look like a news collection site should be reverted Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It was an important event in the history of a small place like Himara, a historic first, and was widely covered by the news. I can produce multiple sources to that effect. It is not "very redundant" at all, since it's not mentioned elsewhere in the article. If/when the Albanian PM visits somewhere in Greece and meets with Albanians, you can add it too. Khirurg (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You can produce as many sources as possible, still it is just a visit like many others. It is not "an important" event in the history of Himara. When academic sources judge it as sth of historical value, then add it. Until then we will not have in the same history section Mitsotakis' short visit to attract attention before Greek elections together with Himara's ancient history, anti-Ottoman revolts and post-Ottoman conflicts. Mitsotakis does not have that importance for Himara's history. Election campaigns are not a "historic first". Every city in the world has been or will be visited by some political leader at some point in time, their articles do not mention those visits as "historic firsts". Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Khirurg It's WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). If you can place it in a broader narrative as part of bilateral relations between Albania-Greece, agreements etc, definitely add it as part of this narrative on Greeks in Albania. A particular event may receive media attention but this doesn't make it particularly relevant as encyclopedic content. I can see as valid the addition under a contextualized narrative in the article Albania-Greece relations. The point is to include news items in a broader context in relevant articles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's notable enough for Greeks in Albania and Albania-Greece relations, then it's certainly notable enough for inclusion here. For such a small place as Himara, an official visit by a foreign head of state is a major eveng. It's the first time in the entire history of the region that a foreign head of state has made an official visit. It was widely covered in international sources too, so it's definitely notable. Khirurg (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS: most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. The event by itself is not something which would be covered on wikipedia, but I suggested that you can place the event and other such events during this series of visits (Dropull, Finiq) in a broader narrative in these two relevant articles not as a separate news item. Nobody is saying that it shouldn't be discussed in general, but that an encyclopedia may discuss it in specific narrative/articles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's the first time in the entire history of the region that a foreign head of state has made an official visit. Kosovo's President was in Himara years ago [23]. Croatia's President too [24]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You're kidding right? Kosovo is hardly "foreign", and the visit by the Croatian President was of an entirely different character. There is no Croatian population in Himara. Not that I see any mention of Himara in the article about the Croatian President. @Maleschreiber: You are avoiding saying why it should not be mentioned here. I will add it to several other articles such as Greeks in Albania and Albania-Greece relations, but you have not properly explained why it should not be mentioned in this article. It's as if you really do not want readers to know this information. That it's "not news" is not a convincing argument, and you should know that it will not convince neutral users at an RfC. Khirurg (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Not that I see any mention of Himara in the article about the Croatian President. Then read it again. and you should know that it will not convince neutral users at an RfC. If you think so, feel free to open an RfC. After all it is clear you can't convince us to agree with the change you want to make. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Old references

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

Latest edit

Alexikoua added this abstracted single phrase based on Floristan: Himara was among the Greek inhabited regions where revolutionary activity was mainly reported during the period 1571-1621. I have removed his edit as it refers to anti-Ottoman activity in 1571-73, the Himara Revolt of 1596 and more distantly to the Epirus revolt of 1611. All articles discuss these events as involving Albanians in Himara in line with archival sources and in line the consensus in bibliography - including Floristan who explicitly and repeatedly has described these events as involving Albanians. The sources which describe the demographics of the region during this period in the article at most describe only three villages as being Greek-speaking in 1722 - 150 years later than the statement under discussion. As such, Alexikoua's edit contradicts multiple other articles/sources and the content of this article. It is an abstraction from a single phrase which doesn't reflect even the work of the author who was cited.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You need to be carefull about posting ahistorical comments such as Floristan who explicitly and repeatedly has described these events as involving Albanians. Himara was not exclusively Albanian inhabited if you mean that, as such there is no contradition on Floristan's statement. Floristan is also not contradicted by any other source (apart from partisan author Xhufi who doesn't qualify as RS) and he describes Greek activity in Himara on various works. As such I suggest that additions on local Greek activity based on Floristan's works are needed and will undoubetly greately improve the article. Alexikoua (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Also by checking various works of the same author he also mentions ethnic Greek revolutionaries by name. We need to be careful when making such declarations and remove top graded authors on sight.Alexikoua (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The edit cannot be re-included. If you want to add this edit back, you'll have to change the three articles I linked as well as change the section about demographics.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fine: adding text cited by top graded material based on archival records (from Madrid) is a great addition for those 3 articles. Floristan has published several works based on research conducted on this topic.Alexikoua (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Here Alexikoua inserted again abstracted information just to display the unfounded narrative that Himariots were Greeks in a period when no evidence about it exists. It's like adding, according to some reliable sources, information that describes the ancient and early medieval population of southern Epirus proper as Albanians. Himariots who were recruited in the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily and settled there are part of the Arbëreshë people, not Griko people. – Βατο (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Bato considers information about Himariotes being Greeks (rendering useless top graded authors like Floristan, Papas, Hasiotis) as abstracts but on the other hand considers information about Himariotes as Albanians as non-abstract [[25]]. There were also Himariotes that were self declared Greeks and later participated in the Greek national movement (generals & ministers in Greece). Definitely this needs expansion since more context is needed to resolve the issues.Alexikoua (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

There were Himariots that self-declared Greeks specifically in ethnic and not religious terms, but the earliest evidence for that was provided in 1722 by Arbëresh Giuseppe Schirò ("di natione greci"). As for "top graded authors", there are several who claim Albanian presence in southern Epirus from antiquity, but they should not be used because the earliest evidence for that was provided in 1210 by a Venetian document. – Βατο (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

the earliest evidence for that was provided in 1722 by Arbëresh Giuseppe Schirò? I'm afraid you are deep into OR territory. By the way you removed information about the 1730s with the excuse that Himariotes were purely Albanian, your argument doesn't make sense at all and you need to avoid abstract thoughts irrelevant to this region (southern Epirus?). Alexikoua (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted your latest edit. The article already discusses the correspondence between Himariotes and the rest of the world with the terms that they themselves used. Hassiotis can interpret their correspondence as the correspondence of Greeks but this interpretation by a modern Greek historian doesn't correspond to what all other reliable sources discuss or the content of the correspondence itself. The work of Hassiotis has been discussed in other articles as well and it has been removed as unreliable.--@Βατο: is absolutely right. The first time any part of Himara is mentioned as Greek-speaking is 1722.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hasiotis & Floristan have conducted a detailed research on the archival records in Madrid: publishing houses and academic institutions that can't be considered useless have suppported their works. On the other hand argument such as: The first time any part of Himara is mentioned as Greek-speaking is 1722. (you need to avoid this kind of national POV agenda since Himariote correspodence was written in the local Greek idiom since the 16th century) or The work of Hassiotis has been discussed in other articles as well and it has been removed as unreliable.. It don't thing that you can so easily turn useless works published by the Universities, simply because you personally prefer a specific national POV here. Hasiotis & Floristan are not contradited by RS.Alexikoua (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Your POV agenda is to make the unfounded narrative that the Himariots and the Himara region was Greek before actual historical evidence of some Greek presence ("Himara was among the Greek inhabited regions where revolutionary activity was mainly reported during the period 1571-1621" is false, the population of Himara at that time is documented to have been Albanian; "Himariots... those Greek communities remained loyal to the social and political regime of Naples and Sicily, especially during the 17th and 18th centuries" those who remained loyal to Naples and Sicily were Albanians, who also settled in Italy as Arbëreshë). Evidence about ethnic Greek presence does not exist before 1722 ("di natione greci" is mentioned for the first time by Giuseppe Schirò for three villages of the whole Himara region). Refrain from edit warring, please. – Βατο (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you translate this quote from Floristan, which you are eager to remove on sight: Tres fueron las regiones griegas de mayor actividad antiotomana en el periodo analizado, las tres situadas en la fachada adriática de los Balcanes: en el norte, la Chimarra (Cimara, Himarë), en el Epiro septentrional, con una ramificación interior hacia el arzobispado de Acrida.. I don't believe that Floristan has a POV agenda since you are against inclusion of such views. If we need to name some POV authors that have been accused for promoting nationalism I can name a few, but Floristan isn't among them.Alexikoua (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is another part by Floristan which (most probably) according to the usual national-pov should also avoid inclusion in the text: a participación de griegos exiliados o residentes en territorio otomano en estos enfrentamientos fue destacada. En los cincuenta años transcurridos entre Lepanto y la muerte de Felipe III (1571-1621) los contactos de las autoridades es�pañolas con diversas regiones de la fachada adriático-jónica de los Balcanes como Chimarra, Epiro y Maina, pero también con otras regiones más alejadas, como Chipre, fueron regulares The paper is titled: The Greek diaspora of the Renaissance in the territories of the Spanish Monarchy, on the other hand some abstract argument that those statements are "abstract", that Himara was "purely Albanian", non-Greek at all before 1720 without providing the slightest piece of scholarship. Alexikoua (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)