Talk:Demetrio Reres

Name
Searching for "Demetrio Reres" on gbooks produces 132 results against 5 for Demetrios Reres i.e. another deliberate misinterpretation of the sources by already topic-banned on certain Balkans topics Antidiskriminator.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No deliberate misinterpretation here. I created this article from redlink in Skanderbeg article which was Demetrios Reres. Please respect WP:NPA and comment the content, not the contributor. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Demetrios Reres (my "Deliberate misinterpretation of the sources") was added to the article on Skanderbeg more than four years ago by another user diff. The same user whose opinion you recently used to support your position regarding "the first name controversy". If you believe that he "deliberately misinterpreted the sources" please do not accuse me. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Demetrios Reres (my "Deliberate misinterpretation of the sources") was also added by another user to the GA article Skanderbeg's Italian expedition more than two years ago (diff). The same user whose inactivity you used yesterday as an argument in discussion to confront or inhibit my work (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Demetrius Reres" (similar to the version I initially used) is used by many authors including Robert Elsie (cited in the article) and Arshi Pipa . I don't think they "deliberately misinterpreted the sources". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How funny! A final Greco-Roman -s scares certain users!

For the Greek family of Reres I posted some sources here Mezzojuso. "Albanesi" meaned "mercenaries", as is explained in the relevant article. They were orthodox using both Greek and Albanian language, until the Pope thought that he cannot tolerated Greek spoken in his back-yard.--Euzen (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Update
The subject of the article is mentioned only in a 1665 document, which seems to have been falsified as claimed by many present-day scholars. In current scholarship the historicity of the subject is debated. Content from old publications should be replaced with more recent sources. – Βατο (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)