Talk:Dropull

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dropull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090319183113/http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/minorities/2._framework_convention_(monitoring)/2._monitoring_mechanism/3._state_reports_and_unmik_kosovo_report/2._second_cycle/PDF_2nd_SR_Albania_Annexes_en.pdf to http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/minorities/2._framework_convention_(monitoring)/2._monitoring_mechanism/3._state_reports_and_unmik_kosovo_report/2._second_cycle/PDF_2nd_SR_Albania_Annexes_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Demiraj
The newly added content describing Demiraj's position will have to be considerably reduced in size, per WP:WEIGHT. The position of Çabej is 169 bytes, of Kyriazis 505 bytes, while of Demiraj 2290 bytes. A paragraph between 500-1000 bytes is more than enough to summarize his position. The rest can be included either as a quote or an efn note. Aside of all that, Demiraj's view is not only earlier than Kyriazis', but also doesn't consider at all earlier recorded attestations of the name. He jumps from Αδριανούπολις to Dropull. Suffice it to say that his emphatic comparison to Greek, in order to justify earlier stages of evolution for this name, while ignoring the presence of Aromanian and South Slavic dialects in the region, makes his whole approach quite incomplete. Personally, i believe that there was an intermediate form prior of the recorded Αdernoboli and Δερνόπολη (Dernópoli) that can be explained convincingly through Eastern Balkan Romance at a first stage, and Slavic ( local dialects, like for example the one of Boboshticë and Drenovë; as recorded by André Mazon ) or Medieval Greek at a second stage. Even his statement about the evolution /-o-/ > /-u-/ in the last syllable of Dropull specifically, can also be explained through Northern Greek (e.g. Θεσσαλονίκη > Σαλονίκη > Σαλουνίκ΄, ἄνθρωπος > άνθρουπους) and Aromanian (e.g. cognatus > cumnat, orationem > uratsiune, leporem > ljepure), aside of Albanian (e.g. collare > kular, cognatus > kunat, leporem > lepur). I could elaborate further on all that, but there is no reason. The issue is the depth of detail for his position. Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The depth of detail is because you added an unlikely and uncomplete explanation for the phonological evolution of this toponym. All the letters of the current name are explained by Demiraj, if there are other opinions, add them. And if the section becomes too large, we can reduce it consequently. – Βατο (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I added one part to a note. – Βατο (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Even with the new edits, the text remains too large; 2050 bytes. That is approximately 12 times the size of Çabej's view, and 4 times the size of Kyriazis' view. This is not a matter of adding other opinions, but of dealing with the disproportionate size of Demiraj's coverage in comparison to the views of others; his is not a majority view to justify so much detail. I don't understand what you mean by "unlikely and [i]ncomplete explanation for the phonological evolution of this toponym"; Kyriazis gave a phonological explanation based on the historically attested forms of the name, while the latter expanded without considering any of them. Demiraj ignores that we have a historical form Δερνόπολη (using /ð/ or /dh/), which cannot be derived from either Dropull or Δερόπολη/Δρόπολη, thus pre-existing both as a form. In any case, it doesn't matter whether Kyriazis' or Demiraj's own views are incomplete (i know they are, as aforementioned in my first comment); these are their views and they are presented with in-text attribution as opinions, not facts. Furthermore, with the exception of the first sentence, your text describing Demiraj's view, is in its entirety a direct translation of the original French text; this is an additional issue per WP:PARAPHRASE. We should provide a proper summary of our own, that also respects WP:WEIGHT. This literally shouldn't be an issue. I have no problem with Demiraj's view, but it cannot overshadow the viewpoints of others. Demiraj could have even written a whole book (not just a few pages) on the etymology of Dropull; it would still not justify so much detail per WP:WEIGHT. I tried summarizing it by focusing on his conclusion, and included his reasons in the note. It is now 918 bytes, without counting the note. Feel free to reword it, but please don't exceed 1000 bytes; this is meant to be a summary. Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your edit. The fact is that Dropull can't be derived from Dhernopoli (is this a 15th century attestation?), also retaining the original /d/. It is very unlikely that Albanian-speakers restored the old sound /d/ after a Greek form with /ð/ or /dh/. – Βατο (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are my thoughts. Τhe first and oldest stage in the evolution of the name is Αδριανούπολις > Adrinopoli. This development wasn't made by either Greek-speakers or Albanian-speakers. The language that made this development is the same language that changed the Roman fortress Florentiana to Flortin, on the Danube, and the language through which the Slavic ancestors of the Bulgarians learned to say the Adrianoúpolis of Thrace, Odrin ( -Cʲan-> -Cʲen-> -Cʲin-, is the Eastern Balkan Romance (E.B.R. henceforth).
 * Lat. Christiānus > cristʲanu > E.B.R. cristʲenu > criștenu > criștinu
 * Lat. glāns/glāndem > Vulgar Lat. glānda > glʲanda (cf. Italian ghianda) > E.B.R. glʲendă > glʲindă
 * Once the first change from Αδριανούπολις > Adrinopoli occured, the next steps are quite simple, and there are two candidates that can make the change that would give us the historically attested form of Δερνόπολη. By the way, that's why Demiraj's point for the different evolution (in a Greek context) of the two Adrianoples (in Epirus and Thrace) is wrong; the name from Epirus was inherited through an intermediate language or languages (not Albanian though), while the one from Thrace wasn't. Also, to answer your question, this form is attested in the Chronicle of the Tocco; written sometime between 1425-1429, in vernacular Medieval Greek (meaning the dialect of the ordinary people). Though, we also have the foreign rendering Adernoboli, recorded by the Arab traveler Muhammad al-Idrisi in the 12th century. Here are the two possibilities for the second stage:
 * Via Greek: E.B.R. Adrinopoli > Medieval Greek Αδρινόπολη > Δρινόπολη > Διρνόπολη (cf. κίτρινος > κίτιρνος) > Δερνόπολη (in Greek there is the tendency ir > er / in > en, e.g. χείριον > χέρι, κηρίον > κερί, γίνω > γένω, σύρω > σύρνω > σέρνω)
 * Via Slavic: E.B.R. Adrinopoli > Drinopoli > Proto-Slavic Drĭnópolŭ > after the loss of yer (10th-11th century) Dr.nópol > Dərnópol/Drənópol – Sidenote: I added a strikethrough to the reference of the Slavic dialects of Boboshticë and Drenovë in my first comment, since i forgot that in that particular dialect this secondary /ə/ further evolved into ə > a, e.g. vlĭkŭ > vl.k > vəlk > vałk 'wolf', and likewise, pałn, sedam, osam, dobar).
 * Now, Demiraj is correct when he says that Albanian renders the modern Greek /δ/ as /dh/ (e.g. Δημήτριος > Dhimitër), but, if the local Greek speakers received the toponym Drinopoli with /d/ from the E.B.R speakers (or Dərnópol from Slavic speakers; assuming the Slavic etymology of the second-stage above), then we do not know how long it took them to make the change /d/ > /dh/ in their vernacular, and we could even hypothesize that the Greek term was borrowed by Albanian during this phase. Furthermore, in the Modern Greek dialect of Roumlouki, we see words that were inherited from Ancient Greek and kept the same pronunciation for the letters Δ/δ and Γ/γ, as /d/ and /g/, similar to how Ancient Greek would sound; e.g. Ancient Greek δραγάτης/δραγατεύω > Rouml. dραγάτ΄ς/dραγασιά. In modern Greek this would be rendered with the diphthong ντ; thus ντραγάτ΄ς/ντραγασιά. Another interesting example, is that we have a parallel form for the Αδριανούπολις of Thrace, aside of Adhrianoúpolis. This is recorded in the Greek folk song "Το κρούσος της Αντριανούπολης" (To kroúsos tis Adrianoúpolis), which is considered the oldest Greek folk song, and refers to the Ottoman conquest of Adrianople in the 1360s. It seems to have evolved via the nasal infix; Αδριανούπολη > Ανδριανούπολη > Ανdριανούπολη = Αντριανούπολη.
 * Thus, it isn't unrealistic to consider that we might once also had a Dernópoli form in Greek; meaning with a /D-/. However, if we assume the Slavic etymology that was aforementioned for the second stage, then there is also the possibility that Albanian Dropull could have evolved directly from Slavic Dərnópol, without any mediation from Greek; namely that Albanian Dropull and Greek Δερόπολη evolved independently of each other. Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The evolution of Albanian Dropull from Slavic Dərnópol may be a probable hypothesis. – Βατο (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Great discussion. I'm fairly certain that Dropull/Dropoli are Slavic-derived based on the demographic history of the region. After the Slavs settled in the 7th century, they very quickly must have had contacts with Albanian- and Greek-speakers which also influenced each other. Slavic was last spoken in the 14th-15th centuries. The interesting questions are: why Bodrishta but also Vanist(r)a? why Zervat, Terihat but not Terichades or Zervades? who founded Radat (Slavic name Rado, Albanian suffix -at)? how did Slavic Vodeno become Greek Vodhino which was learnt from Greek by Albanian-speakers as Vodhina? but why did Albanians not learn Derviçan as Dhervitsan? and how did Greek-Slavic-Albanian Jorgucat came to be? --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Korre (2013)
While Katerina Korre does describes the villages of Dropull as Greek-speaking during the early 16th century, her claim is not supported by the archival material that is referenced and is simply an addition of her own. The Ottoman register of 1520 did not record the spoken language of the villagers and thus definitive statements in regards to linguistic character cannot be made. At most, inferences can only be made based on the attested anthroponyms, which were largely Albanian in character as opposed to discernibly Greek. On top of the majority of anthroponyms being from the Albanian onomastic sphere, many also depict characteristics suggesting the usage of Albanian as a spoken language; for example, the diminutive suffix -ush and the personal name Progor which shows Tosk rhotacism from Progon. As such, Korre's claim cannot be held as reliable - as it has no clear evidential basis - and thus should not be used in the article in the context in which it has. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Research on the archival material clearly points that the local settlements were Greek speaking. Duka's interpretations are outdated as recent scholarship reveals (not to mention that Duka's paper was published under a totalitarian regime and this should be strictly avoided in wikipedia, and in 1990 Albanian was still under PRA status). Local topology reveals strong Greek elements and archaic in nature, while some Slavic names are based on the Greek names. The absence of -s in the Ottoman register proves nothing.Alexikoua (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide some examples as to how archival research proves that the locals were Greek-speaking? Duka's work is not an "interpretation" it is a literal transliteration of the register from Ottoman Turkish and can be accessed via the paper, as is Selami Pulaha's work on the register of 1485-97. This is pure bad faith and distortion. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To sum up Duka wrote in 1990 that the absence of -s- in Ottoman registers means that there is an absence of Greek names. Recent research (published under a non-totalitatian regime) pointed that the absence of -s- in Ottoman registers is quite typical concerning Greek speaking areas. That's no bad faith.

Korre meets both SECONDARY & ACADEMIC, and she is really careful with the presentation of 16th century events in the region. In fact even Albanian editors here used her works quite frequently.Alexikoua (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What was bad faith on your behalf was implying that Duka only "interpreted" the dominance of Albanian anthroponyms in the register, and even if we take into consideration the Greek names without the suffix, they still do not represent the majority (Albanian anthroponyms do). I have kept your recent edits on the -s suffix in good faith as it is a good counter-argument, so that is not an issue. Sure, Korre may be a reliable academic as a whole, however, her claim that the region was exclusively Greek-speaking is baseless and has no support in the register which she references - it is contradicted by the archival evidence, which not only shows Albanian personal names in large numbers, but also evidence of Albanian linguistic influence/use. The relevant excerpts from the register can be accessed in Duka's paper and seen. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Duka's paper was published in 1990, while up to date research has questioned some of his conclusions. Scholars use to interpret primary sources and in this case Duka made an interpretation which is contested by recent research (i.e. that there is no trace of Greek name in Dropull). Moreover, onomastics can't always provide a clear picture on ethnicity and demographics. Korre is based on several primary and secondary evidence on the subject (note that she doesn't use the word 'exclusively') Alexikoua (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide examples from the archival material or the aforementioned secondary sources which show evidence contrary to Duka's transliteration of the register? Simply stating so is not enough. That a predominance of Albanian anthroponyms was recorded in the register is a simple fact - registers were transliterated quite literally and not manipulated. As noted prior, Korre references the registers which themselves do not support her claim. If I am wrong then please provide the evidence rather than making claims. She did not have to explicitly state "exclusively", the implication was fairly clear and incorrect. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if you add an "-" to the end of the defter, the majority of them would just be "Bardas, Ukçis, Lekas, Gjikas, Gjonis, Gjekas, Lulaços, Djaloshis, Progoris, Dedas, Priftis, Zotos,Kalis etc. Suppose the village was Greek, then basically you would end up with a population which for some reason decided to universally use Albanian names, including the literal Albanian words for white, horse, cowboy, hell, flower, elder, stone, priest, God and so on. Alltan (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. We stick by what reliable sources say. Khirurg (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have to be in agreement with the modern consensus on the matter, not make WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims which directly oppose it. Alltan (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, all reliable sources agree that the region is ethnographically Greek. What's extraordinary, is that it wasn't so a few centuries ago, which is contradicted by sources such as Korre and Kyriazis. Khirurg (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is Greek. Present tense. It being a case of say assimilated Albanians/Slavs/Vlachs into the Greek nation is nothing extraordinary, as was recently demonstrated in the Souliotes article. Kyriazis may have a point, Korre does not and I don't think the two should be put in the same category. Alltan (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It being a case of say assimilated Albanians/Slavs/Vlachs into the Greek nation is WP:OR. Khirurg (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment - Katerina Korre on the linguistic character of Dropull
In her paper 'Συμβολή στην ιστορία του βορειοηπειρωτικού ελληνισμού τα τέλη του 16ου αιώνα: Ματθαίος Παπαγιάννης' (2013), Katerina Korre - who references archival materials such as the Ottoman registers - states that the region of Dropull was Christian and Greek-speaking during the early 16th century. While it is clear from the archival evidence that the region was Christian, they do not comment on the linguistic character of the region - be it Albanian or Greek. As such, there is no evidential basis for her claim and I propose that it should not be used on the article. Her claim is further contradicted by cited paper by Duka (1990) who transliterated the register of 1520 and noted that there was a predominance of Albanian personal names in the region - many of which can only be explained through Albanian (e.g., Djalosh, Progor, Bardh) and show Albanian linguistic influence (e.g., the suffix -ush). This makes Korre's claim that the region was exclusively Greek-speaking during the 16th century even more unlikely.

As for Duka's claim that the lack of names ending in the -s suffix indicating no Greek linguistic influence in the anthroponyms, I am okay with either removing the statement or keeping the counter-argument presented by @Alexikoua. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. Any source which says that a village having names such as Gjon, Lekë, Lalë etc means it is Greek speaking is absolutely WP:FRINGE. No serious scholar has ever suggested this in modern ethnographic discourse. In the middle ages these names are found over the entirety of modern Albania, Montenegro, Kosovo, South Serbia, 2/3 of North Macedonia along with pockets of groups in Bosnia, Croatia and Italy. With that logic all these places along with every single medieval Albanian ever is in fact a Greek. Alltan (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Nothing fringe at all. First of all the region is inhabited by ethnic Greeks, so these are not unusual findings. In the previous version of the article, it was made to seem as if the Greek inhabitants magically appeared out of nowhere. Regarding the names, Doris Kyriazis is a top notch source, it doesn't matter if you think it makes no sense. I encourage you to read the source in its entirety. Khirurg (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you bring forward sources which state how/why Albanian given/clan names are indicative of being ethnically Greek? Until you do, it is fringe. The region being inhabited by Greeks in antiquity and in modern times does not mean it was inhabited by them in the Middle Ages. I also think you are confusing Korre with Kyriazis. I was referring to the former. Alltan (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What's actually fringe is the claim, based on an obscure outdated 1990 paper, that a region that everyone agrees is entirely ethnographically Greek, was somehow not at all Greek a few centuries ago. This claim is further is further contradicted by two reliable source (Korre and Kyriazis). So if anything is fringe, that would be it. Khirurg (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Duka is simply giving the direct transliteration of the defter. The names being identical to all registries of Albanian villages is not fringe, it is easily verifiable. What is fringe is to use the exact same defter to claim it supports a Greek presence. Again, the fact that it is populated by Greeks today has nothing to do with whether or not it was inhabited by Greeks 500 years ago. Alltan (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, you can selectively quote sources, and only remove the bits you don't like. Doesn't work like that. Khirurg (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted to the material on which both parties agreed on, depending on how the RfC concludes I think there might be reason to exclude the reference from Korre in its entirety. However I have to ask, what exactly do you mean by like? What is there to like/dislike here exactly? Alltan (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As explained earlier, you can't selectively quote from sources. Either all of it, or none of it. The source is reliable so it can't be removed, and must be quoted in full. Anything else would not be honest. Khirurg (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen both done on Wikipedia, but could you please answer my question above? "what exactly do you mean by like? What is there to like/dislike here exactly?" Alltan (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's quite weird since in the earlier campaign of 1399 (against Zenebishi) the population of Dropull was described as Greek-speaking. I wonder what makes academics such as Korre less reliable, especially when the argument that the lack of suffix -s- in the Ottoman registers equals non-Greek onomastics has been easily dismissed in scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We are talking about 1520 here. The problem is that even if you add the -S suffix the names are still Albanian renderings of Christian names/literal Albanian words which just have the suffix attached to them. Alltan (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Korre mentions the demographic situation in the beginning of the 16th century and she takes into account a variety of available evidence, not just the records of the Ottoman registers. As such she concludes that the valley of Dropull consisted of Greek speaking settlements that time. There is nothing wrong on that. Names such as Dhima/ Dhimo / Niko / Jani etc can be also Greek as well no matter if the Ottoman register missed their suffix. Selectively removing top-graded academic on the subject like Korre constitutes wp:IDONTLIKEIT. Alexikoua (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The presence of forms influenced by Greek (though still in their Albanian rendering) has been explained as being a result of the Greek Orthodox faith of these inhabitants. This has been also observed in defters in Kosovo, where children would receive Slavic renderings of Christian names, this of course happening due to the fact that the liturgical language was Slavic. Alltan (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is that Korre does not present these new insights or findings as it is being made out, in fact her paper does not even focus on Dropull and, if I recall correctly, only mentions the region in a single sentence to state that it was Christian and Greek-speaking - referencing the Ottoman registers of the 16th century which do not even support her latter claim. The point still remains that based on a literal transliteration of the register of 1520 (there is no other way to read it), the vast majority of personal names were Albanian, and the anthroponyms that you yourself have mentioned were/are not exclusive to Greek-speakers. What further disproves Korre's claim is the fact that the register itself tells the reader that Dropull was also inhabited by Aromanians. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ferit Duka, based on the Ottoman defter (official name list) concludes that the majority of the names were Albanian and that no Greek names were present. Doris Kyriazis, IMO very convincingly, rejects Duka's claim about an absence of Greek names. But Kyriazis does not reject or even put into question Duka's conclusion that the majority of the names were Albanian. On Korre, I have to carefully check what that source says. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Duka appears quite problematic one in mainstream scholarship, yet another recent publication declares about his work that: the presence of minorities was interpreted by him as an outcome either of colonization from neighbouring kin-state territories. The work points directly to Duka, F. 1991. “Realiteti Etnik i Dropullit në Burimet Historike të shek. XVI. Definitely it's not the best work to choose in wikipedia in terms of wp:POV.Alexikoua (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, I agree that Duka's claim that there were no Greek names is obviously untrue. However, at the same time, his conclusion that the majority of the names were Albanian is not rejected by other scholars. One can see the defter data and see the names, after all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The RfC is malformed, as it does not ask a simple, properly phrased question. As such it won't be closed. If there is no quick resolution to this issue I will seek admin assistance to close it. Οn a procedural note, Korre was added to the article before the RfC, so it should stay in the article until the issue is resolved. Khirurg (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Korre was added, Korre was immediately removed. Korre was added again, Korre was immediately removed again. Then the RfC was open. The addition of Korre is what caused the dispute, so its addition needs consensus. I am sure you know this very well. In any case, admin intervention will be requested to clarify this if need arises. Ktrimi991 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Korre was not "immediately removed", it was modified by another user, and then removed by you a day later. It was in the article when the RfC was started, you removed it several hours after the RfC was filed . Admins can easily see this, and they will. Khirurg (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I will not waste time with this non-sense. Korre was first added to the article on August 3, it was not there before . Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * At the time of writing I was not aware that the RfC must be phrased as a simple question, and I apologise to those editors who are having an issue commenting due to this. I am not against admin intervention if this discussion does not reach a conclusion anytime soon. And to be clear, my argument is to remove Korre as a citation as she is not reliable in this context and only mentions Dropull in passing with no real evidential support or explanation. Comparing her work to Duka's - a paper focusing specifically on 16th century Dropull - is not honest. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Korre's statement in passing is unreliable. So far the only evidence provided by historical sources for the 16th century, in this case the Ottoman defter, witnesses the presence of Albanian-speakers. It is also highlighted by Shaban Demiraj. – Βατο (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Korre (2013) should be removed for a simple reason: the citation does not support the statement: . Korre (2013):
 * Translation: '  '  
 * The source mentions that at the beginning of the 16th century Albania was divided in several sanjaks. Gjirokastër was part of the sanjak of Vlora from the 16th to the 19th century and the city faced a recession between 1432-1507 but after 1583 its population increased. Hence it became "one of the big vilayets". The citation in this section is Kokolakis (2003) which discusses the late Pashalik of Yanina (19th century). The information about the villages of Dropull - which is correct - is not related to the information about the administrative divisions in Ottoman Albania at the beginning of the 16th century. I linked Kokolakis (2003) and all editors can verify themselves that indeed the author writes that the villages of Dropull were Greek-speaking but this section refers to the late 18th and 19th centuries.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As already translated Korre reads: It was surrounded by Christian and Greek-speaking villages which were located in the valley of Dropull on the two sides of the Lesser Drin That's an excellent addition for this article in the context of early 16th century history of Dropull.Alexikoua (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way I don't feel that it's sound to defend totalitarian-era works. In our case Albanian state institutions in 1990 functioned under the authority of a non-demogratic regime. As such everyone should use heavy precaution on such works (Duka, 1990). No wonder there is a mountain of bibliography that criticizes the neutrality of this work.Alexikoua (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Korre does write that but this statement is not about the early 16th century which is what was disputed by several editors. I don't think that anyone is disputing the assertion that by the 19th century, many villages of Dropull were Greek-speaking.  Since there is no dispute, you may close the RfC. I checked the defters themselves and it's clear that the people who lived in Greek-speaking Zagori from a linguistic perspective can't be the same as those of most villages of Dropull. There is an overall sharp difference in anthroponymy. I do think that some parts can be expanded as there are inner differences as well. There is a distinction between Vrahogoranxi and Goranxi. Vrahogoranxi has predominantly Albanian names, while Goranxi has some Albanian anthroponymy, but here there are many more Yianni than Gjon/Gjin combined. It can't be a coincidence that all the Papadopullo (even though one of them is named Gjon), Despoti, Manodoris, Yorgec are in this village, but nowhere else in Dropull a Papadopullo or a Despoti is found. This can be interpreted in many ways but in the context of the defter it has to be noted that at least one village in the region did differ from the other ones. It's clear that there is a population difference between a village like Zervat where Gjin/Gjon/Deda are found in all kinds of combinations and Goranxi. A statistical example is the name Deda. There are 20 Deda (personal name or patronymic) in ~200 household heads of Zervat = 1/10 adult men who had their own household in Zervat was some sort of Deda. In Goranxi, there are 4 Deda in 152 households = ~2.6%. The ratio is about the same for all Albanian names. There are 40 Gjin (or derivative compounds like Gjindonati) in 200 households of Zervat = 20% of all household heads, but in Goranxi there are 6/152 Gjin = 4%. Hence, just the names Gjin + Deda are found in 30% of Zervat, but in 6.6% of Goranxi. This highlights a sharp inner distinction in the region.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Korre does write that but this statement is not about the early 16th century which is what was disputed by several editors. I don't think that anyone is disputing the assertion that by the 19th century, many villages of Dropull were Greek-speaking.  Since there is no dispute, you may close the RfC. I checked the defters themselves and it's clear that the people who lived in Greek-speaking Zagori from a linguistic perspective can't be the same as those of most villages of Dropull. There is an overall sharp difference in anthroponymy. I do think that some parts can be expanded as there are inner differences as well. There is a distinction between Vrahogoranxi and Goranxi. Vrahogoranxi has predominantly Albanian names, while Goranxi has some Albanian anthroponymy, but here there are many more Yianni than Gjon/Gjin combined. It can't be a coincidence that all the Papadopullo (even though one of them is named Gjon), Despoti, Manodoris, Yorgec are in this village, but nowhere else in Dropull a Papadopullo or a Despoti is found. This can be interpreted in many ways but in the context of the defter it has to be noted that at least one village in the region did differ from the other ones. It's clear that there is a population difference between a village like Zervat where Gjin/Gjon/Deda are found in all kinds of combinations and Goranxi. A statistical example is the name Deda. There are 20 Deda (personal name or patronymic) in ~200 household heads of Zervat = 1/10 adult men who had their own household in Zervat was some sort of Deda. In Goranxi, there are 4 Deda in 152 households = ~2.6%. The ratio is about the same for all Albanian names. There are 40 Gjin (or derivative compounds like Gjindonati) in 200 households of Zervat = 20% of all household heads, but in Goranxi there are 6/152 Gjin = 4%. Hence, just the names Gjin + Deda are found in 30% of Zervat, but in 6.6% of Goranxi. This highlights a sharp inner distinction in the region.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I had to remove because Duka (1990) doesn't support the statement that the Greeks of Dropull come from "outside colonization". Duka (1990) writes  (translation: (..) in no case can we find traces of the move to Dropull of inhabitants from regions of Greece. I'm not sure if the original paper which I can't check right now has been cited correctly or if this statement refers to another academic discussion. In any case, it is not pertinent to the discussion about the 1520 defter of Dropull as Duka doesn't argue in favor of any colonization from any area of Greece.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested quotes
Liço, Filip (2009). Probleme të marrëdhënieve greko-shqiptare:

p. 452: Për këtë ai sjell disa shembuj nga regjistrimet turke të 1431, 1520 dhe 1583. Por në regjistrimet turke që trajtuam në fillim dalin dy konkluzione kryesore: E para se shumica e antroponimeve janë greke. E dyta se pakica e emrave janë shqiptare, si: Gjin, Gjon, Dedë, Martin etj. karakteristike e malësorëve shqiptarë që emigruan drejt Thesalisë dhe Epirit në shekujt XII-XV.

pp. 459–460: Mirëpo, nëse analizojmë me kujdes këtë kategori të antroponimeve, konstatojmë: Së pari: këto antroponime janë karakteristike të Shqipërisë Veriore, gjë që autori nuk e përmend fare... Së dyti: këto antroponime jo vetëm që nuk kanë ndonjë superioritet, por paraqesin një përhapje që vërteton preferencën e tyre për t'u vendosur në fshatra malore e veçanërisht të Dropullit të Sipërm.

pp. 466–467: Historikisht është i njohur fakti i shpërnguljes valë-valë i banorëve të Shqipërisë Veriore gjatë shek. XII-XV në drejtim të Epirit e Thesalisë dhe, më pas, të Greqisë Jugore. Nga këto dhjetëra mijë shqiptarë, një pjesë e vogël mbeti në Dropull. Kush ishte fati i këtyre malësorëve shqiptarë? Përse nuk mbijetuan në krahinën e Dropullit? Si shpjegohet fakti se kemi shumë mbiemra dhe shumë pak toponime me prejardhje shqiptare? Dy janë shkaqet kryesore: 1) Një pjesë e familjeve shqiptare, që zbritën nga Shqipëria Veriore, kanë emigruar në Greqinë Jugore, duke ndjekur shembullin e shqiptarëve që ishin vendosur në Epirin Juglindor dhe në Thesali. 2) Pjesa që mbeti në fshatrat e Dropullit u asimilua mbi bazën e parimit: shumica asimilon pakicën.

pp. 467–468: Në historinë mijëravjeçare të popujve e veçanërisht në Perandorinë Bizantine dhe në përgjithësi në mesjetë, kishim periodikisht zhvendosje dhe emigracione të popujve. Defteri i Sanxhakut të Vlorës i viteve 1519–1520 është një dokument i padiskutueshëm. Këtë regjistrim duhet ta analizojmë me kujdesin dhe seriozitetin e duhur, pa paragjykime dhe me objektivitet shkencor. U përpoqëm t'i analizojmë antroponimet e fshatrave të Dropullit në fillim të shek. XVI, pa nënvleftësuar e pa zvogëluar çdo gjë që ka prejardhje shqiptare dhe pa hiperbolizuar çdo gjë që lidhet me prejardhje greke. Për të evituar përsëritjen e konkluzioneve të çdo pjese, dëshirojmë të theksojmë dy probleme: 1. Duke pranuar se antroponimia e Dropullit pa fundoren "s" është shqiptare, jemi të detyruar të pranojmë se popullsia grekofone e Dropullit ka ardhur në këtë trevë pas vitit 1520. Por shkencërisht kjo është e papranueshme. Analiza e antroponimive të Dropullit vërteton se fundorja "s" nuk ka asnjë lidhje me prejardhjen shqipe të tyre. 2. Regjistrimi i 1520-ës nga ana e pushtuesve turq vulos faktin se shumica e banorëve të fshatrave të Dropullit është grekofone, se para pushtimit turk Dropulli kishte karakter etnik grek.

Demetrios1993 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Filip Liço (2009)
Probleme të marrëdhënieve greko-shqiptare (2009) by Filip Liço has been cited a number of times on this article, especially in relation to onomastics and toponymic analysis. This is an issue since Liço's work contains a number of errors and misinformation on those specific topics/fronts and does not pass as RS:

1) Liço argues that the Albanian anthroponymic element represents a minority in Dropull and that they are only really concentrated in the villages of Upper Dropull (). This is demonstrably erroneous. For example, in the village of Terihat in Lower Dropull, 52/56 (92.85%) of household heads bore typical Albanian personal names. Similarly, in neighbouring Jorgucat, at least 45/57 (78.94%) of household heads bore Albanian anthroponyms.

2) Furthermore, Liço makes the extremely incorrect and misleading claim that the recorded Albanian element of Dropull was primarily represented by settlers from the northern highland territories of Albania. This, Liço argues, being suggested by the presence of names such as Gjin, Gjon, Dedë, and Martin. It is common knowledge that these names were/are pan-Albanian names found across the country since the medieval period. There is no 'northern' character. As such, there is no evidence for this fanciful migration from the north, it is Liço's own unsubstantiated belief.

3) There are RS implications about the source because it does not seem to be published in a scientific (WP:RSCONTEXT) but as a general anthology of essays on 'Albanian-Greek Problems' and it might be self-published to a degree.

Due to this, I suggest Liço (2009) be removed, at the very least on the occasions where his claims are verifiably incorrect. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Research by Lico appears in accordance with modern scientific methods. By the way what do you mean by saying "were / are Pan-Albanian names"? I'm afraid that scholarship does not accept arguments on the "common logic" rationale without proper research. I'm afraid that sentences like "that's common knowledge" or "we all know that .... " simply reveal a lack of real arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * have you any information about the toponymity of Dropull?Alexikoua (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Liço writes that Translation: A minority of names are Albanian like: Gjin, Gjon Dedë, Martin etc. - [names which are] characteristic of the Albanian highlanders who migrated towards Thessaly and Epirus in the 12th-15th centuries. If this statement is correct or not only requires a routine WP:CALC investigation which involves simply counting the names which have an unambiguously Albanian component - what the author himself describes.  what do the defters per settlement show? I'm all for comparing and contrasting sources, but there has to be some contextualization of the claims of each author. I did something similar in the past . I think that if we examine the issue in this context we may find out that there are sharp differences between the settlements of Dropull.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have managed to gather statistics (percentage of clearly Albanian anthroponyms among male household heads) for some of the settlements of Lower Dropull and, currently, they do not align with what Liço claims in his paper. So far I have compiled the statistics for the following villages: Terihat with ~92.85% discernibly Albanian personal names; Lugar with ~92.64%; Lower Frashtani with ~92.22%; Grapsh with ~88.23%; Upper Goranxi with ~82.92%; Goricë with ~66.66%; Koshovicë with ~61.76%; Dhuvjan with ~52.74%; Lower Goranxi with ~25.17%; and Derviçan with ~13.89%.
 * For clarification, in this analysis I considered personal names such as Bardh, Leka, Deda, Gjin, Gjon, Kola, Nika, Dusha, Muzhaq, Pal, Martin/Mërtir, Progon/Progor, Me(n)ksh, Lal(uç), among others, as Albanian. However, I did not count kinship ties and this should actually make the Albanian element appear weaker than in reality if such relationships were accounted for. Same goes for general Christian names. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder if similar statistic can be provided for Bodrisht and Sotire. Thank you in advance.Alexikoua (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now managed to come up with statistics for each of the settlements recorded in the register, however, Sotirë does not appear to even be included - at least not in my copy, although mine should be the complete register. Anyhow, these are the statistics in descending order:
 * 1) Asharat (Isharat-trad): ~94.17%
 * 2) Terihat: ~92.85%
 * 3) Lugar: ~92.64%
 * 4) Lower Frashtani: ~92.22%
 * 5) Haskovë: ~91.42%
 * 6) Grapsh: ~88.23%
 * 7) Upper Goranxi: ~82.92%
 * 8) Letovinë: ~82.5%
 * 9) Gjerkucat (Jorgucat): ~78.94%
 * 10) Zervati: ~71.42%
 * 11) Goricë: ~66.66%
 * 12) Koshovicë: ~61.76%
 * 13) Dhuvjan: ~52.74%
 * 14) Bodrishtë: ~50.34%
 * 15) Vanishta (Vanister): ~47.36%
 * 16) Lower Goranxi: ~25.17%
 * 17) Krina (Krioner?): ~22.22%
 * 18) Sofratikë: ~20%
 * 19) Vodhinë: ~20%
 * 20) Derviçan: ~13.89%
 * 21) Llovina: ~10.4%
 * As such, not counting kinship ties and more ambiguous anthroponyms, the Albanian onomastic element predominates in 14/21 of recorded settlements in Dropull, with it representing the minority in only 7/21 villages. Liço's claims can easily be demonstrated as false. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you, apart from Sotirë are there any other settlements we lack statistics? 21 settlements appear to be nearly half picture of Dropull. : on which rationale does Lico offer a different picture from the above (though somewhat partial picture)? Apart from the migration from north to south and the short-term character of the Albanian presence does he provide additional arguments? I understand that in the case of the -s suffix argument he is fully correct. Douka(s) for example is a widely known Byzantine name. Also Duka's approach is heavily questioned in scholarship and I fail to see similar negative comments for Lico. Alexikoua (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I know your question was aimed towards @Demetrios1993, but I can offer some input until Demetrios is able to reply. Liço claims outright that the Albanian onomastic element represents a minority, while the Greek element represents the majority in Dropull: (p. 452).
 * As I have demonstrated above, the Albanian element appears as a majority in 14/21 of the recorded villages. Thus, Liço's claim can be demonstrated as incorrect by reading the register.
 * I can also try and come up with statistics for the percentages of discernibly Greek names per village if that would help with the discussion. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Very interesting information. Good job on going through the necessary details. I had noticed that there was a clear difference between villages like Zervat and Derviçan, but it's much clearer when we can see the differences in the form of stats. We can work with two possible solutions: we either remove this statement by Liço which by definition is mistaken for many settlements of the defters which are under discussion or we can revise the section which discusses Duka and Liço in order to be close to the the actual data. Kyriazis definitely seems to be closer to an approach which reflects the data of the defters: --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest not to rush and perform removals asap. After all scholarship has never criticized Lico's research negatively as in the case of Duka (see Schmitt, Kyriazis etc. on Duka). Nevertheless Duka view is still part of the text in its entirety. I see a reason why Lico shouldn't. Alexikoua (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, however, it has been four days since the discussion was opened and @Demetrios1993 has yet to reply/contribute. I think it would be beneficial if we could come to an agreement when it comes to Liço soon, be that the removal of some of his statements or a rewording in light of the data/stats presented above. As for Duka's criticisms, those are due to the fact that Duka's work represents a more 'important' one as it was the first translation of the defter and was published in an academic journal. Also, the criticisms are not really surrounding the ethnic character of the anthroponyms, but rather regarding his claims that there, essentially, was no true Greek onomastic element present on the basis of the lack of the suffix -s. I am okay with those criticisms being in the article, but claiming that the Albanian element was a minority as Liço does is simply incorrect and misleading.
 * Also, I do not see why the request for quotations from Kyriazis (2022) should be removed. His claim needs verifying and is itself rather problematic. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I would like to thank everyone for their comments and for waiting until I was able to respond. For the record, you didn't have to ping me five times; one was enough. I should also clarify that due to the nature of my profession, my time is extremely limited; so please, bear with me.

Liço doesn't claim that the Albanian anthroponymic element is to be found only in the villages of Upper Dropull. He simply says that the distribution of these names indicates the preference of their bearers for mountainous settlements, especially in Upper Dropull. The fact that he doesn't exclude Lower Dropull is further confirmed by his presentation of precise figures – concerning such anthroponyms – in settlements that are to be found in both subdivisions. Take for example the following excerpt:

p. 460: Në Dropullin e Sipërm: a. Në Goranxinë e Sipërme me 131 familje, afërsisht gjysma e antroponimeve janë nga Shqipëria Veriore, një pjesë – të përziera dhe të tjerat janë greke. Sot ky fshat me emrin Krioneri është i vogël dhe me një sipërfaqe të kufizuar, që ishte e pamundur të përfshinte 131 familje. Ky fakt na imponon hipotezën se atëherë Goranxia e Sipërme shtrihej në drejtim të Selos ose akoma edhe drejt Klisarit, gjersa që të dy këto fshatra nuk përmenden fare. b. Në Zervat me 178 familje, 37 nga të cilat me prejardhje nga Shqipëria Veriore, një pjesë kanë antroponime të përziera dhe shumica janë greke. c. Në Bodrishtë me 147 familje, 15 vinin nga Shqipëria Veriore, një pjesë kanë antroponime të përziera (veçanërisht me emra dhe mbiemra të Shqipërisë Jugore) dhe pjesa më e madhe e tyre janë greke. Në Dropullin e Poshtëm: a. Në Goranxinë e Poshtme me 142 familje, 10 kishin prejardhje nga Shqipëria Veriore, të pakta ishin antroponimet e përziera dhe shumica e tyre greke. b. Në Derviçan me 298 familje, 3 ishin nga Shqipëria Veriore, me pak antroponime të përziera, numri më i madh i të cilave ishin greke.

It would be interesting to know the frequency of Albanian names if we were to also consider kinship ties and Christian names; the inclusion of the actual size of each settlement would also allow for easier comparison. However, the above shows that WP:CALC cannot be applied here without difficulties, as the author uses a different methodology and categorization scheme. For example, when he refers to clearly Albanian anthroponyms, he doesn't seem to include mixed cases among them. Then there are also names such as Nika – included in Lezhjani's statistics – which Liço views differently. For example:

pp. 462–463: Me antroponimet Niko, Nikolla dhe Nika, para se të shohim paraqitjen e tyre në defterin e vitit 1520, është e domosdoshme të përcaktojmë prejardhjen etimologjike të fjalës. Kjo kategori antroponimesh mund të shpjegohen vetëm nëpërmjet greqishtes dhe jo të shqipes, duke përfshirë edhe tipin Nika. Prejardhja e tyre vjen nga rrënja e emrit Nikollaos-Nikollas, tipi i shkurtuar është Nikos-Niko. Nikollaos (niqi tu llau), sepse kjo fjalë e përbërë vjen nga niqi 'fitorja' dhe llaos 'popull'. Nga shqyrtimi i kujdesshëm i regjistrimit të 21 fshatrave emri Niko përmendet 43 herë. Pra, nuk është eklipsuar nga antroponimi Nika. Gjithashtu antroponimi Niko përmendet 11 herë si mbiemër. Si pasojë, duhet të arrijmë në konkluzionin se kemi të bëjmë me një gabim. Sepse nuk e kemi Niko si mbiemër as në greqisht dhe as në shqip.... Tani le të vazhdojmë me dy tipa të tjerë: Nikolla dhe Nika. Antroponimi Nikolla përmendet 33 herë si emër dhe 21 herë si mbiemër. Antroponimi Nika përmendet 93 herë si emër dhe 41 herë si mbiemër. Antroponimi Nika etimologjikisht nuk shpjegohet nëpërmjet shqipes. Të marra prej antroponimeve të Shqipërisë Jugore antroponimi Niko u përdor në Shqipërinë Veriore me formën e pashquar Nik dhe formën e shquar Nika. Prandaj nuk dyshojmë se një pjesë e kryefamiljarëve e këtij regjistrimi janë familje shqiptare. Megjithatë kemi edhe familje me antroponime të përziera si: Nika Vasili, Nika Dhima. Nika Papa, Nika Minguli (e fundit me prejardhje nga fshati Minguli e Lunxhërisë) etj. Akoma konstatojmë se kemi edhe fshatra të Dropullit që nuk kanë asnjë kryefamiljar me mbiemër Nika. Kështu p.sh. në Goranxinë e Dropullit të Poshtëm nuk kemi Nika as si emër dhe as si mbiemër; në Bodristë nuk kemi asnjë emër Nika, por vetëm 3 si mbiemër; në Vodhino nuk kemi asnjë emër apo mbiemër Nika etj. Gjithashtu duhet të theksojmë se Nika si mbiemër ka ekzistuar edhe në të kaluarën edhe sot në Dropullin e Poshtëm dhe atë të Sipërm. Po kështu me mbiemrin Nika kemi familje shqiptare gjithnjë në këtë regjistrim, si: Gjon Nika, Kont Nika, Gjin Nika etj. ashtu siç kemi edhe familje greke siç janë: Qira Nika, Qirjaqi Nika, Andrea Nika etj.

He has analyzed some additional names, but regardless, having said all that, i am still open to a compromise solution. We could for example replace the sentence that concerns Liço's general view about the frequency of Albanian anthroponyms in all of Dropull, with something more specific, such as a summary of the figures for the five aforementioned settlements of Goranxi e Sipërme, Zervat, Bodrishtë, Goranxinë e Poshtme, and Derviçan; in-text attribution goes without saying. I also have no problem removing his view that these names were characteristic of northern Albania; though even if we accept that such names were pan-Albanian, by that time at least, it doesn't really exclude the possibility of a northern Albanian origin. Personally, i do not know much about this topic, but Liço added the following: "pakica e shqiptarëve vinte nga emigracioni i malësorëve shqiptarë në shekujt XIV-XV, që e trajtuam më sipër në bazë të dokumenteve bizantine." This indicates that he might have included relevant information in a prior chapter titled "Principatat shqiptare në shekujt XIV-XV" (pp. 44–66); unfortunately i do not have access to it. Something else i found interesting from Duka's work, is that in the neighboring town of Gjirokastër, names such as Gjin, Gjon, Gjoka, Leka, etc., aren't attested in the defter of 1520; Duka tries to explain this, but there are some flaws in his reasoning which i don't want to expand on. By the way, why was the sentence about the surnames which Liço considers characteristically Greek, removed? I don't agree with the removal of that sentence, which even includes examples mentioned by Schmitt (2015).

Alexikoua, the fact that Duka's article doesn't include all settlements of Dropull, is also mentioned by Liço:

p. 459: Në bazë të këtij defteri analitik (musafal) fshatrat e Dropullit, pa ndryshuar renditjen e tyre, janë si vijon: Goranxi e Sipërme, Zervat, Asharat (Isharat), Goranxi e Poshtme, Vodhinë, Koshovica, Gergucat, Bodristë, Terihat, Lugari, Gorica, Grapsh, Letovinë, Dhuvjani, Llovina, Frastani i Poshtëm, Krina, Derviçan, Haskovë, Vanista, Sofratika. Nga Dropulli i Sipërm nuk përmenden: Bularati, Kra, Klisari, Selo, Sotira, Longo, Kakavia dhe Ai-Nikolla. Gjithashtu duhet të verifikojmë dhe të përcaktojmë emrin dhe vendin e fshatrave Asharat dhe Krina. Sa i takon emrit Letovinë është fjala për fshatin e vogël Letovishtë perballë Derviçanit dhe poshtë nga fshati Suhë.

This should probably be included in the article. Furthermore, to answer your other question, the toponymy of Dropull is available in a ten-year study by Liço, which is titled Dropulli – studim historiko-gjuhësor (1990); it was approved by the Institute of History of the Academy of Albanological Studies, and is available for study in their archive in Tirana, but remains unpublished. The toponymy of Dropull is also available in the book Τα τοπωνύμια των πανάρχαιων ελληνικών χωριών του νομού Αργυροκάστρου (2005). As for the toponymy of northern Pogoni, it is available in the book Πωγωνύμια: Ονόματα και ταυτότητες από το Bόρειο Πωγώνι της Ηπείρου (2021); southern Pogoni is excluded from that work, but is available in another book titled Τα οικωνύμια του Νομού Ιωαννίνων: γλωσσολογική εξέταση (2002).

Lezhjani, here is the excerpt you requested from Kyriazis' article.

pp. 42–43: Η δεύτερη ένστασή μας σχετίζεται με το γεγονός ότι, με βάση ξανά τη μεθοδολογική αρχή για συνολική και πολυεπίπεδη εξέταση των δεδομένων, περνώντας τώρα από τα ανθρωπωνύμια στα τοπωνύμια της Δρόπολης, δεν μπορούμε να μη διαπιστώσουμε την απόλυτη κυριαρχία του ελληνικού στοιχείου και δευτερευόντως του σλαβικού. Το εύρημα αυτό σηκώνει συζήτηση και εγείρει σοβαρά ερωτηματικά. Ο Φ. Λίτσιος έχει υπολογίσει ότι από 2.778 τοπωνύμια των χωριών της σημερινής Δρόπολης (ονομασίες οικισμών και μικροτοπωνύμια) 2.324 είναι ελληνικής αρχής, 57 σλαβικής, 184 αλβανικής, 90 τουρκικής και 123 άγνωστης προέλευσης. Παρότι δεν έχουμε συντάξει παρόμοιους πίνακες, ξεκινώντας από το πολύτιμο υλικό ενός αξιόλογου βιβλίου για τα τοπωνύμια της Δρόπολης, καρπού αφοσιωμένης εργασίας των συνταξιούχων δασκάλων της περιοχής, φτάνουμε λίγο πολύ στα ίδια συμπεράσματα, έχοντας ορισμένες επιφυλάξεις για την πιθανολογούμενη συχνότερη παρουσία των σλάβικων τοπωνυμιών, που τη διαπιστώνουμε και στα ονόματα των χωριών της Δρόπολης. Προς επίρρωση της ιδέας για μια πιο σύνθετη ανθρωπωνυμική εικόνα της Δρόπολης γύρω στα 1500, αναφέρουμε και άλλο ένα εντυπωσιακό εύρημα. Στα οθωμανικά κατάστιχα των οικισμών της Δρόπολης, του 1520 και 1583, εμφανίζεται αρκετά συχνά το όνομα/επώνυμο Martin / Martini και σπανίζει ο τύπος του επωνύμου Mërtiri. Το στοιχείο αυτό είναι ένα σημαντικό και ισχυρό επιχείρημα, που επιβεβαιώνει το ότι, μετά τουλάχιστον τον 10ο αιώνα, όταν είχε ολοκληρωθεί το φαινόμενο του ρωτακισμού της αλβανικής, βάσει του οποίου, για παράδειγμα, στα τόσκικα το Martini τράπηκε σε Mërtiri, συνεχίστηκε η κάθοδος από βορρά προς νότον αλβανόφωνου στοιχείου. Λογικό να υποθέσουμε ότι τα άτομα με το όνομα Martin ή το επώνυμο Martini κατεβαίνουν στη Δρόπολη κατά τους πρώτους αιώνες της δεύτερης μεταχριστιανικής χιλιετίας και συνεχίζουν την πορεία τους νοτιότερα, για να αποτελέσουν τμήματα του σημερινού ελληνικού πληθυσμού, που ονομάζονται (ή έλκουν την καταγωγή τους από τους) Αρβανίτες. Έχοντας υπόψη ότι η Δρόπολη αποτελούσε ανέκαθεν ένα, και μάλιστα το μοναδικό, πέρασμα από βορρά προς νότον, πιστεύουμε πως μια τέτοια προσέγγιση γεφυρώνει την αντίφαση των τοπωνυμικών και ανθρωπωνυμικών δεδομένων της περιοχής. Οι πρόσκαιρες εγκαταστάσεις αλβανοφώνων στη μεσαιωνική και υστερομεσαιωνική Δρόπολη αναστάτωσαν εν μέρει τον δημογραφικό της χάρτη, αλλά δεν κατάφεραν να αλλάξουν την τοπωνυμική της ταυτότητα και σφραγίδα. Επίσης, το ότι σε βάθος χρόνου βλέπουμε να κυριάρχησε η ελληνική και να διασώθηκαν επώνυμα αλβανικής αρχής, σημαίνει ότι οι εγκατεστημένοι τότε αλβανόφωνοι βρήκαν στη Δρόπολη ελληνόφωνο πληθυσμό από τον οποίο αφομοιώθηκαν γλωσσικά. Το ίδιο είχε συμβεί νωρίτερα και με τους σλαβόφωνους πληθυσμούς, τα ίχνη των οποίων είναι παρόντα τόσο στα ανθρωπωνύμια (επώνυμα) όσο και στα τοπωνύμια της περιοχής. Ο συλλογισμός μας αυτός βρίσκει γερό πάτημα όταν εξετάσουμε την ανθρωπωνυμική και τοπωνυμική εικόνα μιας γειτνιάζουσας με τη Δρόπολη περιοχής, του Πωγωνίου. Που ήταν και τότε (αλλά και τώρα) απομονωμένο γεωγραφικά και επομένως γλωσσικά πιο συντηρητικό. Αν συγκρίνουμε τα αντίστοιχα, από άποψη χρόνου, οθωμανικά κατάστιχα των δυο περιοχών, θα διαπιστώσουμε έκπληκτοι ότι στην περίπτωση του Πωγωνίου ο ανθρωπωνυμικός χάρτης δεν περιέχει καθόλου ή περιέχει ελάχιστα ίχνη αλβανικής ονοματολογίας. Που σημαίνει ότι εδώ δεν είχαμε μόνιμη ή πρόσκαιρη παρουσία αλβανόφωνων πληθυσμών.

Concerning the defter of 1519–1520, as an example for the anthroponymy of Pogoni, Kyriazis included a page showing names from the settlement of Poliçan, which is also included in the article Gjendja administrative e zonës së Shqipërisë së Jugut në periudhën klasike dhe mënyra e drejtimit të Perandorisë osmane në Shqipëri by Önder Bayır, published in Kumtesat e simpozjumit "Toleranca në aktet administrative osmane" (2005).

Last, it should be noted that the criticism on Duka's work isn't just limited to his claims concerning the suffix -s, but also extends to other aspects of his approach and methodology; see Giakoumis (2002a, pp. 790–791) for example.

I would like to close this comment by emphasizing again that i am open to a compromise solution; as a sign of good faith, i will remove Liço's view about the anthroponymy that concerns the entirety of Dropull, but i would appreciate reasonable suggestions that can be added as replacements in its stead. Demetrios1993 (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Excelent description. WP:CALC seems problematic indeed since we have various interpretations of the primary material which offers a partial picture: 8 villages are missing completely. Remember also that the article concerns both Dropull and Pogon. As such Pogon statistics should be also part of the prose.Alexikoua (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thorough reply Demetrios and I greatly appreciate your removal of the statement by Liço, hopefully this will allow us to discuss the issue at hand without having to deal with editing at the same time. Regarding Liço's figures, he describes Zervat as . This is incorrect as even if we were to only count the names (e.g., Gjin, Gjon, Leka, Deda, Mirash, Martin/Mërtir, Progon/Progor) or surnames (e.g., Dorgjati, literally meaning 'long-hands') which are unquestionably Albanian, over 80/178 of household heads are in this category. This is without counting their relatives or names which are more likely than not to have been used by Albanians. For example, the Kond family includes the household heads: Gjin, Gjon, Deda, and Kosta Kond, but I have not counted Kosta in the list of likely Albanian households. Liço seems to be counting as non-Albanian or 'mixed' names/household heads such as Deda Kosta or Gjin Kosta, which are neither mixed nor non-Albanian. He also seems to be counting some general Christian names as Greek (e.g., Andrea Nika). The names which are Albanian are not so just because etymologically they happen to be Albanian, but because they developed in and were a part of a specific culture/ethno-linguistic group. Otherwise we would have to consider all household heads bearing the name/surname Kosta as Latin in origin due to an ultimate etymology from Constans.
 * A recent northern Albanian origin is very unlikely for two reasons. Some of the Slavic toponyms of Dropull like Koshovica did not enter the Albanian language after the 11th century, so a presence of Albanians either in Dropull or near Dropull is required for this development. Secondly, Albanians in the Middle Ages are attested by name at least since the 13th century in Gjirokastër, so by the time of the defter they were there at least present in the wider region for 300+ years. The argument about Martin/Mërtir (or others names showing rhotacism) seems to be based on the misconception or assumption that the rhotacised forms of typical Albanian names in Tosk dialects substituted non-rhotacised forms, but in reality non-rhotacised variants continued to be the norm in Tosk dialects too. Most Arvanites who have this name in the defters from Greece carry the form Martin, not Mërtir. That being said, it is interesting that there are some Mërtir in Dropull.
 * A compromise may be one which reflects the fluctuation throughout Dropull: . This is a provisional draft which is open to change, so change it per your own suggestions and we can start working on it. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Lezhjani1444: I have a question about your claim on the attested Albanian presence in Gjirokaster which you date at least since the 13th century in Gjirokastër. Literary evidence shows that Albanian presence in Gjirokaster area is attested since c. 1330 this makes it 14th century (see Giakoumis, 2003, p. 179) . Can you present precise literary evidence on your claim about 13th century Gjirokaster area?Alexikoua (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, Giakoumis (2003) reports: . I have not access to Liço's publication, is it peer-reviewed? – Βατο (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well actually the above quote is unrelated to the region of Dropull and Gjirokaster. Giakoumis in this paper states clearly that an Albanian presence in "Gjirokaster region" is attested from 14th century. By saying something about the "continent facing the island of Corfu" and interpeting it as Dropull equals wp:OR. Dropull is not a coastal region opposite Corfu. As such we can't assume that the Albanian presence in Dropull was long established during the 15th- 16th century. To sum up: an Albanian presence in Dropull/Gjirokaster region is not recorded since 13th century, but since 14th century. Giakoumis, about Albanian presence in Dropull/Gkirokaster area:
 * Alexikoua (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy new year to everyone!

Lezhjani, your suggestion is essentially already included in the article; it's pretty much what Kyriazis wrote a little more concisely, so there is no need to repeat it again. However, i do not recall any source explicitly stating that names of Vlach or Slavic origin formed the majority in any settlement; i would need to check again. There is of course the classification of some settlements as Vlach, which is indicative of the dominant ethno-linguistic group in them; but even in those settlements, at least in terms of anthroponyms, we have Duka and Schmitt claiming a strong presence of both the Albanian and Greek elements.

Also, are there any objections for the inclusion of a sentence that will mention the absence of the eight aforementioned settlements? Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Demographics
The data on births and deaths are public. . There is no reason why they should not be published here, except that some might not like the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HokutoKen (talk • contribs) 18:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)