Talk:Filiates

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albania Mid‑importance

	Filiates is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Untitled

Since no discussion has been initiated for this massive additions [[1]] which are extremely POV, they should be removed as per Talk:Igoumenitsa's concensus which was to avoid any comment that isn't precisely related with the town. Also to claim that the town's modern history section links to Cham Albanians (as its main article) is the definition of POV.Alexikoua (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show clearly where that consensus is reached? A diff, for example? I don't see anything there. --sulmues talk contributions 06:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version you provided is clear POV and historically wrong:

Weird claim that the town's modern history main article is Cham Albanians...
Vicker's claims are simply based on oral testimonies of local Chams (Cham memorandum.... anonymous eyewitnesses after several decades), and non-verifiable as he says in this paper. Vickers also mystiriously claims that the english bibliography (p. 11) adopts a more pro-Greek approach.
You completely ignored collaboration of Chams with Nazis but on the other hand you like detailed descriptions on the expulsion.

If a desent version of the wwii events is presented we will have some brief version of the articles: Axis-Cham Albanian collaboration&Expulsion of Cham Albanians. I suggest to adopt Igoumenitsa's version as Cplakidas suggested: [[2]].Alexikoua (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are basically telling me that no consensus was ever reached, because all you are bringing is a Cplakidas' suggestion. Would you agree that we put both nazi collaboration and expulsion? To me a collective expulsion (including women and children) equals Genocide. --sulmues talk contributions 03:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language such as "brutal ethnic genocide" has no place on an encyclopedia, particularly if there never was such a genocide. As for the IPs, we have ways of dealing with them. Athenean (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Genocide, and Expulsion of Germans after World War II it's something completely different. I suggest to add this one:

Until the Second World War the town had a mixed population of Greeks and Cham Albanians.

or

Until the Second World War the town had a mixed population of Greeks and Cham Albanians. In 1944 the Cham community fled to Albania as a result of collaboration activity with the occupation forces during the war.Alexikoua (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the usual ip army strikes again. Off course ip disruption isn't an argument to support your version like you already claimed in Pyrros Dimas.Alexikoua (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also added the second burning down by the greek forces and I am going to attach a source to it very soon. I just can't wait for Alexikoua( or the other greek editors) to delete it by bringing a bullshit excuse just because they don't like it and it does not suit greece or its agenda 😂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.136.77 (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protected 3 days

Because of the strong edit-warring amongst all parties, I have fully-protected the article for 3 days. Please discuss and negotiate the issues on this talk page and/or utilize dispute resolution. Regards, –MuZemike 00:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second burning of the town

Some of the wording in the previous version was a strong, but I don't see how the fact that Greek bands burned the town is something that should be ommited. After all the fact that parts of the town were burnt by Albanians is mentioned, so I don't see why the fact that Greeks also burned the town shouldn't be mentioned.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demi family

Does anyone have a record of the all the known members of the Demi family?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4000

According to th WP:RS policy Sakellariou isn't a reliable source and it is to be removed. Also there are many factual errors like the fact that Filiates didn't convert in the 18th century.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Copying from the parts avaialable at google search: Michael Sakellariou embarks on a more extended and useful tour: In my opinion he is wrong on all three counts.
Also many writers seem to consider him unreliable and mistaken on many accounts [4]

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek population displayed toleration whenever the action taken did not reveal chauvinist inclinations, as in the case of estamblishment of Albanian "clubs" (in Konitsa, Philiates...

That is just a small part from a book with nationalist tendencies. After searching about it a bit it seems that this book was followed by "Macedonia: 4000 years of Greek history and civilization". No, such sources aren't reliable and are full of nationalist tendencies like the above mentioned phrase.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after searching more he isn't WP:NPOV and the second sentence was against WP:LABEL and WP:EXTREMIST.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this book is the definition of wp:rs and I wonder why you are so hostile against every source published by presigious Greek istitutes (same strategy followed in Laiko Vima):

The book is published by a higly presigious publishing house Ekdotike Athenon, awarded by Academy of Athens (modern) (...the highest research establishment in Greece) and French Institute of Paris.
These: [[5]], [[6]] don't say a word about Sakellariou being non reliable. You mysteriously mysinterpreted this [[7]] by wrongly concluding that... writers seem to consider him unreliable and mistaken on many accounts.
When a book says 'X years of Greek history and culture' this doesn't mean that Greek history and culture was in the only one that existed in the region for X years.
If you disagree with the '4,000 years', [[8]] there were lots of Mycenean settlements in the region.
There isn't a single nationalist tendency in this quote:
About the islamization, on p. 315: it doesn't say that it started on 18th cent. it says that a large part of the population converted during 18th cent. (no wonder this is in full accordance with this: Cham_Albanians#Islamization_.2816th.E2.80.9319th_century.29)

The Greek population displayed toleration whenever the action taken did not reveal chauvinist inclinations, as in the case of estamblishment of Albanian "clubs" (in Konitsa, Philiates...

We have a town with two ethnic communities: the one forms armed groups and the other displayes toleration towards this actions since this doesn't reveal any chauvinist inclination. Ok, this is fine, I don't see anything wrong on that.

It's simple, we have a completely wp:rs.Alexikoua (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't check the article, but I have added the islamization part back. Per WP:EXTREMIST the wording "chauvinist groups" can't be used. I have no problem with Greek books in fact I have used some Greek authors as a source in the articles I've written, but this particular book is not rs. And I explained above my reasons for this.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that's your personal opinion. I'm not in the one to judge top grated institutions. Moreover, it says 'chauvinist inclinations', which the specific 'clubs' had not, as per Sakelariou. You misintepreted the quote and it has nothing to do with wp:extremist.Alexikoua (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After searching more I think that WP:EXTREMIST, WP:EDITORIAL, WP:LABEL apply to it. But I don't want to have a long-lasting argument about it, so we could request from someone uninvolved to help us resolve this.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Searhing more' without presenting arguments means nothing. I suggest you fill a case in rs noticeboard, but I see no meaning in all this since the book fulfills all wp:rs aspects (same with Antzeia in Laiko Vima)Alexikoua (talk)

As I see the book is written by 4 professors, who are among the top in their field [[9]]. We have just another WP:IDONTLIKEIT case.Alexikoua (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 policies I posted above still apply. I'll wait for a reply from a non-Balkans editor until I reply again.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdotike Athenon is a very prestigious publishing house. I can understand that you don't like the title, but that doesn't make the source unreliable, and labels such as WP:EXTREMIST certainly do not apply. That is just your own POV. Athenean (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not judging the publishing house.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If something is published by a reliable publishing house, then it meets WP:RS. And it seems you either haven't read or understood WP:EXTREMIST, WP:LABEL, or WP:EDITORIAL, because they do not apply here. Athenean (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo needs verification

I have added a vn tag to photo of the school. We have absolutely no way of knowing whether the photo actually represents what it is claimed. It's obviously a school, but there is nothing to prove that it is the school of Filiates. It could be a school anywhere in the Ottoman Empire. Also not sure if it is a copyvio. Athenean (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic source

How can be a book titled "4000 years of Greek history" an NPV? Despite the "academic" element which still remains to verify. The topic is very sensitive and a book with that title is clearly not NPV, the statement provided as reference denies itself. The fact is that there is not a single Muslim left in Filiates. The "generous or tolerant" notes that Sakellari is trying to pass arenot based anywhere. Mondiad (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can bring Albanian articles that state the contrary.Mondiad (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the book is fine. The source seems reliable. Perhaps we can have a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard to see what they think. In the meantime I would appreciate no edit-warring. The reference says:

"The Greek population displayed toleration whenever the action taken did not reveal chauvinist inclinations, as in the case of establishment of Albanian "clubs" (in Konitsa, Philiates...".

This means that there was tolerance if Albanians were allowed to open clubs. So if the source is reliable and the clubs existed, I think the information should remain in the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sakellariou is an academic working at the Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, National Hellenic Research Foundation. Sakellariou therefore appears to be a very reliable source. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sakellariou is also used as a source in many Wikipedia articles. So your removal of this source seems to be unwarranted. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sakellariou's book may be used as reference in many places. Because he is Greek, it does not mean his book cannot be used. But within this article, and for this topic, no. This is a sensitive issue and cannot pretend that he is NPV. It is like me bring in articles from Cham authors stating how the Zervist army did this and that. Also, I remember adding some editing long ago, and Edith Durham, Stavro Skendi, Person, Robert Elsie were considered not "NPV", just because they stated things the Greek editors would not prefer to include. And Elsie and Pearson are used much more than Sakellariou, you can easily check.Mondiad (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.K, thank you for threatening me. At this point I am getting used. Everytime there is some edit which the Greek editors don't like, I am being left a message in my talk page. As per your suggestion, I already had opened a talk section for discussion as you can see. Meanwhile I would strongly suggest you go on and revise the neutrality of the references provided as NPV by my Greek colleges. Seems that no one is worried about the neutrality of the article, but rather defending what Sakellariou wants to say.

Also, If you check the page's history, you will see that Alexihoua reverted my edits first. So try to talk to him too.Mondiad (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.K, thank you for threatening me. Please do not misstate my actions. You were reverting like there was no tomorrow, so I gave you a 3RR message to let you know about the rule, just in case you did not know about it. Leaving a standard message to you is not threatening. So, please no more of this hype. Thank you. As far as the reliability of the source, let's go to RSN. This is a community project after all and I will abide by whatever the community consensus may be. How does that sound to you? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.K., why on earth do you keep on hitting the revert button whilst using edit summaries like "Please discuss first, then come to a consensus. No need to edit-war."? Perhaps you should consider following the same principles that you expect others to follow; if you do the opposite, it reflects very badly on you. bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobrayner: Dr.K., why on earth do you keep on hitting the revert button... As far as rhetorical questions go, yours is a very unfortunate one. First, I only reverted once, so your expression keep on hitting is way over the top, as it implies "continuously hitting" which is obviously misleading. As far as the rest of your comment, I have explained clearly on the talkpage that the source is reliable and thus it is not supposed to be removed. As far as I can see, apart from your personal comments about me, you have done nothing to support your revert, which is based on the rather obtuse and unclear edit summary "not an improvement" which is not satisfactory and does not explain your revert. So, please leave your unjustified admonishments to me and justify your position using clear arguments based on policies and not on personal comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I see Dr.K restored the last stable version. On the other hand edit-summaries such as this one [[10]] clearly reveal a battleground nature, i.e. the editor removes everything per wp:idontlikeit as "Greek propaganda", although in this case we have academic level rs.Alexikoua (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Stable" is not a synonym for "Revert everyone who disagrees". bobrayner (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that simply removing sources because the author or the publisher are Greeks isn't a serious argument, and especially without providing the slightest argument. For example Mondiad also rejected almost everything published from Greece (although it's also in English and can be verified): such as the Academy of Athens [[11]] and academic Basil Kondis (& CUNY graduate in history) [[12]].

As for Sakelariou, I've also noticed that the specific work was published by a publishing house awarded by the French Academy [[13]]. So taking also this into account we can't have doubts about being non-rs.Alexikoua (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Stable" is not a synonym for "Revert everyone who disagrees". Neither is reverting without clear explanation. You have not clarified why you disagree with the passage that is supported by the reliable source and why you want to remove it. If you read my comments above, I supported my revert by defending the reliability of the source you tried to remove. If you read further, I also mentioned going to WP:RSN for further clarification about the status of the source. This means that I am open to suggestions and input from the wider community. So far you have tried to remove it, without providing any justification, other than personal comments about me. This is not how discussions are conducted. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303183824/http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00086.pdf to http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00086.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Filiates. 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/20150921212047/http://dlib.statistics.gr:80/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf to http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.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) 13:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Filiates

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Filiates's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "census11":

From Elis (regional unit): Detailed census results 2011 Archived December 25, 2013, at the Wayback Machine (in Greek)
From Durrës: 2011 census results
From Markat: 2011 census results
From Milea, Thesprotia: "Απογραφή Πληθυσμού - Κατοικιών 2011. ΜΟΝΙΜΟΣ Πληθυσμός" (in Greek). Hellenic Statistical Authority.
From Dropull i Sipërm: 2011 census results
From Aetolia-Acarnania: Detailed census results 2011 (in Greek)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Filiates. 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:

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) 16:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kahn

The citation lacks quote and url [[14]]. In general the addition of Qn/Vn tags means that this information is needed. By the way the placing of those tags is a much more productive way compared to the full removal of the cited information under the same rationale like in this case [[15]]. All editors are encouraged to make use of them in case of poorly cited reference addition as in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[16]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]