Talk:Parga/Archive 1

Parga Castle
Is there any known information on Parga Castle?

D. BULL 10:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What kind of information are you looking for? Samulili 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cham minotiry
The source link is dead. But, where is it stated that Parga, excactly, was home of a Cham minority? I know there were some towns in the region, but never heard of Parga. Please state the excact sentence that points the town of Parga with Cham population.Mariosbiourd (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed Thimio Gogozoto, a non-notable individual added for the usual POV reasons. His article was deleted, I see no reason whatsoever why this individual should be listed here.  Athenean (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Meaningless sentence
The text reads: "Venetians created a perfect defence plan, which in combination with the natural fortification made the fortress."

Made the fortress what? Impregnable, perhaps? Perhaps the writer means "perfected the fortress?"

The writer probably meant "The Venetians" rather than "particular unspecified Venetians?"

Poihths (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Parga. 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/20111205033146/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=20 to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=20&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110828073923/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=28&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=28&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110827130449/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=65&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=65&lang=en

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 05:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Parga. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110827162735/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=44&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=44&lang=en
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110825233321/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=48&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=48&lang=en
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110828110343/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=50&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=50&lang=en
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110826024406/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=46&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=46&lang=en
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110826031730/http://www.parga.gr:80/site/?page_id=1320&lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?page_id=1320&lang=en

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parga. 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/20111102171034/http://www.parga.gr/site/?lang=en to http://www.parga.gr/site/?lang=en

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Claim not backed by source
I have removed this claim, as it is not backed by the source. I happen to speak French, and the source clearly does not back the claim being made. The only thing the source says about Parga is that a single medieval medieval "geographer" included it in something he called "laterae Albaniae" C’est le cas  en 1395,  lorsque  Nicolai  Marthono  situe  Parga a  latere  Albaniae. That's it. There is nothing else about Parga, and certainly nothing else about "the southermost part of Albania". The wikilink to a state that did not exist before the 20th century is especially tendentious and inappropriate. I am willing to WP:AGF on the grounds that this is not an English language source, but the claim is absolutely not backed by the source.

Regarding the Mazaraki, the same author (Osswald) clearly places them in Paramythia in his Ph.D. thesis Il s’agit tout d’abord de Torno, deuxième fils de Carlo, placé à la tête du clan albanais des Mazaraki, installé dans la région de Photikê (Saint-Donat). Paramythia is only ~20 km from Parga, practically walking distance. This is doubtless why Osswald says the Mazaraki were "near" Parga in his other publication. But "near Parga" is not "in Parga" and there is a separate article for Paramythia. The Souliotes lived even closer to Parga than the Mazaraki. Should the article also say that "The Souliotes lived near Parga"? If we start with this "near" business, there will be no end to it. Khirurg (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * About Mazaraki most authors place them even more far away to north-northeast of the Kalamas. Thevertheless this doesn't belong to Parga or its suroundings.Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Albania was a geographical region before becoming a state - Greece didn't exist either as a state before the 19th century. It wasn't invented in the 20th century. The quote is : Inversely, the term Albania was used in the late Middle Ages as a designation for Epirus, in a period during which the Albanians held a strong position in the region. As such, in 1395, Nicolai Marthono places Parga as a part of Albania. Latere is Latin for "part/side/strip" of. The Mazaraki lived just outside of Parga and they regularly provided its garrisson, but in the context of AGF, we can leave that out. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This isn't supported by the sourced material, actually the Mazaraki lived some dozens of kms from Parga. By the way whay was Flemming moved in the wrong paragraph? He clearly states that this activity started from 1401.Alexikoua (talk)


 * As for the French quote there is clear problem in the translation with this "southern part Albania" nevertheless it translates that it was used "sometimes" (fut parfois) as such.Alexikoua (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What?? This is the quote: : Inversely, the term Albania was used in the late Middle Ages as a designation for Epirus, in a period during which the Albanians held a strong position in the region. As such, in 1395, Nicolai Marthono places Parga as a part of Albania. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this was blatantly removed by Alexikoua. It just so happens that I can speak French too. Malschreiber, your translation is almost perfect except that you forgot the term "sometimes", which by the way doesn't even refer to the Albanians holding a strong position in the region, but to the use of the term Albania to designate Epirus. Ahmet Q. (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The only mention of Parga is by some medieval author in 1395. So the only thing that can be added is "In 1385, Nicolo Marthono described Parga as being in laterae Albania". That's it. Nothing more. Anything more would be stretching the source beyond its intended meaning. And the link to modern-day Albania is extremely tendentious, as that refers to a state that did not exist until well into the 20th century. Frankly this smacks very much of "flag planting". Khirurg (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The context is evidently important. "In 1385, due to the significant Albanian presence in the region, Nicolo Marthono described Parga as being located in laterae Albania.", would be far better. Ahmet Q. (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The problematic part is that this was used "sometimes" which for an unknown reason was neglected.Alexikoua (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua, Khirurg, I am glad you are finally realizing what I meant when I was talking about flag-bearing agendas. Seeing how Maleschreiber dropped the term "sometimes" from the original language to misinterpret the territory as being "always" Albanian in his English translation, is another flag-planting attempt which happens only a couple days after attempts by the same editor to place the Cham Albanian template in contemporary Greek city articles, for which I have already objected and warned against; Maleschreiber's edits clearly appear to be part of a nationalist agenda to flag areas in Greece for POV purposes. Alexikoua and Khirurg, you should reconsider your wp:consent to the template's use for contemporary city articles such as Filiates, Parapotamos and Paramythia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 06:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a typical case of wrong translation and as Khirurg noted the source states something differenet. Maleschreiber had quite recently a similar problem translating a source from Russian as well as from Greek. So I suggest heavy precaution.Alexikoua (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a typical case of "wrong translation" at all. It is well translated as it should be, your argument is extremely weak. Refrain from removing RS content without any good reason, it could be perceived as vandalism. Thanks. Ahmet Q. (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The source does not support the proposed text. If you believe that this constitutes vandalism you need to go to the appropriate noticeboard.Alexikoua (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * sorry but your edits have been reverted due to no accurate translation: . Wikipedia's WP:RSUE policy was violated when the translation was added incomplete and with the key word "sometimes" (which this Talk Page discussion pointed out to) being omitted from it. I shall remind everyone here that per wp:RSUE: "editors should be reasonably certain the translation is accurate". If editors are feeling like they can't make an accurate translation of the non-english source, then they should ask third party editors to do the translation for them. Or else, leave it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's really weird that such an obvious error isn't noticed. I doubt if those latest meatpuppet-style reverts have ever downloaded the French source.Alexikoua (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * the next WP:ASPERSION about "nationalist agenda" will bring admin oversight. I placed the full quote on the talkpage and in my hasty translation (of a quote I placed on the talkpage which everyone could verify ) I left out a a word which translates to "in certain cases", but that is related to the term Epirus, not Parga and doesn't change what is written in the article. --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Quote translation:  *alternatively, at certain times
 * Article:
 * So, regardless of that one single word (already part of the quote, it was never cropped) what was relevant to Parga never changed in any translation of the quote. In fact, its use in the translation makes the case for Parga stronger because it indicates that not all regions of Epirus were considered parts (latere) of Albania - but Parga was. Maybe it's time to add the CA template now.
 * yesterday you were caught engaging in extremely bad use of bibliography on Zagori. You basically used the wrong page and the wrong quote in order to infer from the source something that it never put forward. If you try the same here, maybe it's time for AE because on every article you're engaging in the same bad use of bibliography. --Maleschreiber (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To recap, Alexikoua/SR edit-warred and made the false claim that a word which was part of the uploaded quote - but not the translation - which didn't affect the article at all, was a falsification (Alexikoua) and that the translation should be included in the quote (SR) or else everything should be removed. Well, now it's included and it changes nothing about the sentence because it never referred to Parga. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Calm down and stop making threats. I could say the same thing about your initial edit, which falsified the sourced and linked to state that never existed until the 20th century. "Southernmost Albania" . Give me a break. Not to mention more "flag planting" about the Mazaraki, who were in Paramythia and not Parga. Khirurg (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly the editor Maleschreiber once again has restored the disputed edit despite our concerns here in the talk page. It became clear to me that this editor is incapable of addressing other editor's concerns. I took the initiative of making the necessary edits myself to address the issue in place and have the information in question reflect better and more accurately the source: . --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 16:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article has been hit by editors that do not participtate in the discussion (drive by fashion in meatpuppet style). That's quite disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is quite disruptive is the removal of sourced content and Alexikoua's continuous misuse of sources in different articles. Other editors cannot verify and fix your every contribution, Alexi. – Βατο (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * wp:npa violation is quite a typical excuse for meatpuppetry. No wonder this proves that you haven't even read this material before drive by reverting.Alexikoua (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This and this are recent corrections of your misuse of sources, it is a fact, not wp:pa. I read this discussion and the sources, SilentResident edited one information you removed here, while the other information you removed is directly dicussed in the inline citation, there is no reason for its removal. – Βατο (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No wonder yet again no argument about the content you reverted here. Excessive npa and pretending that my edits (in other articles) are not fully accepted by you personally falls clearly in wp:NPA.Alexikoua (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

My question is why the insertion of this information is even necessary. The source in question makes clear that the designation was contingent upon a specific political situation, namely the Albanian rule over large parts of Epirus. This situation lasted about half a century; idiomatic usage by one 14th-century Western author does not make this a defining characteristic of the subject. Furthermore, the quote itself does not really concern Parga, but Epirus. Parga was labelled "a latere Albaniae" not because Parga was in 'Albania', but because Epirus was sometimes (again, for a specific period) called 'Albania', in the same way that Turkish-ruled lands were labelled 'Turkey' regardless of the geographical designation. So the quote is relevant in the context of discussing a) the names and political history of Epirus during the late Middle Ages and b) what has been referred to as 'Albania' through the ages (perhaps something to consider for Albania (placename)). Its presence here, is confusing to the uninvolved reader and rather irrelevant; I must agree that this smacks of flag-planting. Constantine   ✍ 19:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Constantine, this kind of geographic terminology in contemporary bibliography is quite confusing especially with names that were not universally accepted (sometimes used). This isn't the appropriate place for inclusion.Alexikoua (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * New material cannot be added without consensus. What we have here is an obvious attempt to ram controversial material through by brute force. Some of the edit-warring editors haven't even bothered participating in the talkpage. Khirurg (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked for Admin intervention and for the article's protection level to be raised. Also, the new additions to the article which lack the necessary consensus, have been reverted and the article has been restored back to the last stable version prior to these inclusions. In mean time everyone should start using the talk page and work for compromise, or else risk being taken to the AE and have a topic ban applied on them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't understand why people try to deny or hide a historical and verified fact. Its becoming really strange here! Lorik17 (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Off course everything can be added provided that it's not falsified as in the case here.Alexikoua (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Instead of making unneeded assumptions about other editors that can serve as aspersions, such as "this smacks of flag-planting", one needs to explain why Parga's history is not relevant to Parga. That Parga was in some point in time described as part of an Albania is relevant of course to this article, and in no way does it suggest that Parga is or should nowadays be part of Albania. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with you !--Lorik17 (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To be precise a much wider region was called 'sometimes' during a specific time as such. As cplakidas explained this does not belong here.Alexikoua (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That Parga was in some point in time described as part of an Albania is relevant of course to this article. Precisely this is the fallacy: it is Epirus that was at one point described as Albania, and hence Parga was "in Albania". This is not Parga's history, it is Epirus' history. The quote proves nothing other than that "Albania" was an occasional exonym for Epirus among Western authors in the late 14th century. "Albania" in this sense is a political term, i.e., areas ruled by Albanians. This is not a geographic term, nor an ethnographic one, and a) one very transient at that and b) concerning the wider region, not Parga specifically. In the same way, "in Turchia" was used for all territories ruled by the Turks, not just 'Turkey proper', i.e., Anatolia, or "Greece" used by Westerners for the entire Byzantine Empire, from Antioch to southern Italy and Crete to the Danube. There's a reason we don't use terms by medieval authors as the medieval authors themselves used them. Constantine  ✍  21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is part of Parga's history, otherwise the scholar would not mention it. It could probably be redundant to link to an Albania placename a place in Epirus that had no Albanian population or ruler whatsoever. Hence the place in Epirus mentioned as part of Albania is a place with Albanian population such Parga rather than, say, an Aromanian-populated village in the Pindus. Your argument with Turkey does not hold. Places in the region were considered part of Turkey because officially they were under Ottoman rule. Same thing with the Greece/Byzantine Empire thing. Parga was not under Albania's rule at the time, but had Albanian population, and was part of Epirus that was either part of an Albania or next to it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that all of this is supposition: Osswald nowhere mentions Parga as having an Albanian population, and the reference we are debating about is in an entirely different context (naming of Epirus in the sources). We cannot put our own interpretations into this, pure and simple. If you want to put into the article that Parga had an Albanian population in the late 14th century, then please find a source that says that. Osswald does not. Constantine  ✍  23:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 *  Osswald chose to highlight this aspect of the settlement's history because he considered it remarkable, probably because Albanians are not a large community. I understand Constantine's argument, but no medieval author was cited - Osswald uses his work as an example in order to highlight the presence of this community and the uniqueness of the situation. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Osswald mentions this in the context of his discussion on the medieval names of Epirus, and gives this as an example from the sources. There is nothing to suggest he singles out Parga specifically due to some special relevance of the term to the history of Parga itself. This section of his work is precisely that: a study on terminology, and it abounds with hapaxes and usages that were possibly current among different authors in the Middle Ages but we have no reason to follow now, especially with terms that are open to (deliberate or not) misinterpretation. Constantine  ✍  22:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Terminology on such issues is a complicated issue especially when the sourced text states that this was not a universally accepted term in during the late medieval period. However, this can be the subject of a detailed analysis but that's not part of the history of this town.Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * What Constantine said. Maleschreiber, your edits here, and at other articles such as Sagiada, Palase seem to be an exercise in cramming the word "Albania" or "Albanian" to the article as many times as possible, to prove a point. Find some source that uses those words (no matter how obscure), and ram the material through, with no care for relevance or appropriateness. None of these additions here are really relevant to the article, and you know that. This is intellectually dishonest, and has been going FAR too long. Perhaps it is time to have a "community discussion" about this behavior. Khirurg (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The "obscure" source was written by the same author which you cited on 21 October. Maybe a community discussion could highlight the instrumentalization of bibliography: some editors are in favor of a source/author when they're using them, but are against their use when other editors are using the work of the same authors but they don't like the content. my original edit made no implication about modern state boundaries. The part was added in the context of medieval Albanian presence after a subsection about its role in Parga .--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * A Ph.D. dissertation is not on the same level as a peer-review journal publication. I thought you would know that. And yes, your original edit did make implications about the modern state . You wikilinked to modern Albania, in what amounts to an extremely tendentious misuse of a source to push nationalist POV. You should be apologizing instead of doubling down and making false statements. Otherwise, yes, maybe we should be having a "community discussion" about "instrumentalization of bibliography" for nationalist "flag planting". Khirurg (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends on the thesis and on the journal. In this case, the paper was published before the thesis and I think that a part of it, is a chapter in Osswald (2011). Albania existed before the Republic of Albania - like Greece and most other states - there's no other article which could be linked. You took issue with the wikilink and removed it. In WP:AGF your edit passed without objection, but now you're trying to create a narrative about a "nationalist POV" based on a minor edit in relation to which nobody reverted anyone. The tagged section reflects the level of consensus among editors right now.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You may think the paper is part of the thesis, but it's not. And you may think your POV-pushing was minor, but it was anything but. And now you probably think you can "forever tag" the article because you didn't get your through brute force edit-warring. But unless I see a meaningful good faith effort to seek dispute resolution via RfC or DRN or some other mechanism, I will remove the tag in due time. Khirurg (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I may tolerate many things in Wikipedia, but to take my edits as a form of final consensus from their part, while at same time ignoring my pleas for an actual consensus, is just disturbing. Ktrimi in his edit summary here: accused me that I have consented into letting the "Parga as being in latere Albaniae" sentence stay, and that I then retreated. I disagree that my actions:  in trying to deal with source falsification must be seen as an *actual* consensus to it in part or as whole. The NPOV concerns have *not* been addressed, and like how I made it clear in my other edit summary here:, the issue of non-WP:CONSENSUS *still* stands. I can't help it, but Ktrimi's and Maleschreiber's brute-force tactics to ram the content into the article while the Talk Page discussion is ongoing, is just unacceptable, and merely confirms the worst of my NPOV concerns about these additions and the flag-planting goal behind it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 04:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The part was added in the context of medieval Albanian presence except that the source used makes no reference to such a presence in Parga. To be clear: I don't necessarily dispute the presence of Albanians in Parga at that time; but the onus is on those who claim that to find a suitable source that says that. The "in Albania" claimed here, as presented in this source and put into the article, is not an intrinsic attribute of the town; it is an effect of the wider region (and Parga itself) having passed under the rule of Albanian warlords for a time. "Albania" is a political label just as "despotaton", or "the West" that Osswald also analyzes, and here it is being taken out of context to imply other things. This is source misuse. The only thing the source can actually verify is that Parga too, like much of Epirus, passed under the rule of Albanian warlords at the end of the 14th century and remained so for a few decades (in Parga's case, much less). I would support fleshing this context out in the article and adding some description like "Albanian warlord/ruler" to John Spata, but not the way it was done above, by cherrypicking a quote that is open to misinterpretations. A Ph.D. dissertation is not on the same level as a peer-review journal publication as someone writing his PhD dissertation, that is simply not true. A PhD dissertation is also peer-reviewed and nowadays possibly even more extremely vetted; in historical studies, it is quite often the basis for scholarly books. And while one must never take any single source at unquestioning face value, Osswald's study is extrelemely comprehensive and appears very thorough. Constantine  ✍  07:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally finished reading all of this (phew). I actually think makes a strong point. In fact many places in that era were named more for the ethnicity of their rulers than their population (some surviving examples -- France, Bulgaria; the name Catalonia referenced the Goths; Lombardy; Normandy...). This may be relevant on the pages for those political units and of their rulers, but it might not be for Parga. --Calthinus (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hasan Tsapari/Capari, leader of Parga?
Balta states that he was an agha/lord of of Margariti (Ottoman territory), also Mika Suonpää, Owain Wright reads: Vlassopoulos's diplomacy focused on defending the neighbouring population of Parga, whose leader, Hasan Agha Tsapari, had sought Russian support. Conclusion: Tsapari was the leader of the neighbouring population of Parga (that's Margariti&Fanari) when Parga was under Russian control. Off course it was impossible for an Muslim-Ottoman official to be at the same time governor in a Christian power. Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The source: There'll be admin oversight, if you try to add some WP:FRINGE reading of the source about a "Muslim governor in a Christian power".
 * For those who are interested in history, Parga had chosen Çapari's leadership because he was the foremost anti-Ali Pasha leader in the area. Also, the idea that the Parginots were a "Christian power" who fought against the "Muslims" is a 19th century ideological construction. In fact - to be added after the full protection - in the contemporary sources  (some of the "worst of all the Albanians" and "refuge of thieves" which Ali drove out) The Sale of Parga in the Nationalist Imaginary of 19th Century Italy: 1819-1858. I think that the British contemporary view is also an ideological narrative, but what it highlights is that Muslims and Christians in this area constantly intermingled with each other. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually this is source falsification and will be removed. Hasan agha (title) Tsapari was an ally of Ali Pasha and fought against the Souliotes. He was never a leader of Parga (about the neighbouring population of Parga i.e. Margariti, Fanari that's another issue) . Note: By saying "Christian power" one can understand: Venice, France, Russia. Tsapari was not a governor in those powers. He remained an Ottoman agha (see Balta etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it has to do with your knowledge of English, but the source says nothing that can be read as what you're trying to do. Now, don't try to do any reverts which are themselves heavy "source falsification" and about which you've already been told that there's nothing that you're putting forward that makes any sense in terms of bibliography. There's already one edit-warring report about your activity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Every single one of your posts is laced with threats and taunts. "Your knowledge of English", "there's already one edit warring report about your activity", "there'll be admin oversight". If this continues, there will be admin oversight. Discuss in a civil manner, or not at all. Khirurg (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Agha" is a title of an Ottoman official and Tsapari was one as it is obvious from his name. He was active in a Fanari and Margariti both regions next to Parga. The later was under Russian control.Alexikoua (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agha can mean both a honorific and a title, but it's an irrelevant detail because the source doesn't put forward that he was agha of Parga - just that he was leader of the population of Parga. The full quote says it all, nothing more to discuss. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
I have closed the report at WP:AN3 as no action. I am now watching this article and will monitor what happens.

Warning: Anything that looks like edit warring will result in blocks. Fast reverts, slow reverts, whatever—not going to happen.

Instead of churning the article, please calmly discuss proposals, one at a time. Don't flood the discussion; wait for others. Judging by the activity at WP:AN3, consensus will be hard to find. In that case, we will draft an RfC which will ask a very small number of simple and neutral questions. Bludgeoning the RfC or poking opponents will result in sanctions. Full protection expires at 02:38, 12 November 2020 and I suggest some preliminary discussions on what edits, if any, should occur after then. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Johnuniq! I would appreciate if can you extend a strict warning to other city articles of the same topic area (Epirus) which were very quiet before the usual suspects came to make their WP:NATIONALIST edits without any WP:CONSENSUS and while ignoring other editors' WP:NPOV concerns. This nationalist campaign started off at the Northern Epirus topic area before it was spread now to the Epirus topic area of which Parga is a prominent setlement. Right now, looks like only Parga appears to be the core heat in the Epirus topic area, but I can't hide my anxiety of the possibility that if you hadn't come, it might had spread to more city articles belonging to the same topic area.
 * I really hope to be wrong on this, but as someone who watched quietly the nationalist disputes in Northern Epirus for a very long time until now, I am not too positive and hopeful that Parga isn't but just the start for a similar phenomenon in the Epirus topic area. The nationalist flag-planting campaign in the Epirus topic area was initiated through the Template: Cham Albanians, as you can see, via this Parga diff here: . You will find the exact same kind of nationalist flag-planting diff on other following Epirote towns as well: Parapotamos, Preveza , Igoumenitsa , Sagiada , Syvota , Margariti , Ioannina , Filiates , Katavothra , Paramythia . I provided edit diffs here for you, but for more info you can check their respective article History Logs. If you feel this is too much work for you, you can ignore my reply but if you are interested into investigating the matter thoroughly, that will be appreciated. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 09:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for establishing admin oversight. We can take issues one at a time. the presence of other communities other than Greeks in the territory of present-day Greece is not "nationalist flag-planting". The human geography of the Balkans is multiethnic, not monoethnic. --Maleschreiber (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maleschreiber, I have been monitoring you quietly for a while now and I know that your work here is WP:NATIONALIST . First, you have shown little tolerance to the multi-ethnic character of Balkan towns such as Lukovë in Albania, where an ethnic Greek minority is living today, but you removed *completely* its ethnic name from the town article: . Then you went to 5 town articles of another country, Greece, and placed the ethnic Cham Albanian minority's template in them even though this isn't a common practice in Wikipedia, as the Cham Albanians have no *whatesoever* contemporary presence there: ,  . And now you come to talk to me about... multi-ethnic human geography in the Balkans? Really? I kindly ask that you cut it please, as that won't work. The admin Johnuniq ought to check the WP:NATIONALIST pattern by these editors as the problem isn't a content dispute per se; is a disruptive nationalist campaign we are dealing now with. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 15:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It's great that an admin will monitor the discussion. I strongly believe that a discussion about the sources requires that we are concise and that comments like I have been monitoring you quietly for a while now and I know that your work here is WP:NATIONALIST directed towards Maleschreiber stop immediately. There can be no discussion with personal accusations. It'll get us nowhere. Ahmet Q. (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Ahmet: SResident concern is fully justified: we should avoid using leaders of nationalist parties as RS in wikipedia. We have to be careful on such issues. Alexikoua (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahmet Q, you are right. I will retract what I said. But! The diffs will stay and they speak louder for Maleschreiber's actions than I do. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there a specific proposal about changing the article from how it is at the moment? I don't yet know what the underlying dispute is, but generally the best procedure is to pick a small number of proposed changes and discuss them (each in a new section) one at a time. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Kolokotronis-Farmaki plan
One of the plans involved Theodoros Kolokotronis, subsequently leading figure of the Greek war of independence and his Muslim Albanian blood brother Ali Farmaki. According to Kolokotronis, they recruited 3,000 Chams who gathered in Parga in order to embark to Lefkas, but it was thwarted by the British occupation of Zakynthos, Cephalonia, Kythira, and Ithaca.


 * The above subsection has been removed many times and it has been claimed that it is unrelated to the article. I think that everything historically notable - as established in bibliography - should be mentioned. --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please change the heading so it reflects the topic (Theodoros Kolokotronis?) and is more likely to encourage an WP:AGF discussion. In the interests of clarification and in my devil's advocate role, I see that the article contains "As the relations of France ... but nothing came of these plans.[14]", with [14] being the reference above. How would the proposed text work with that? Does the source imply the incident had a significant effect (WP:DUE) on Parga's development or history? Johnuniq (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq, you may very well have guessed, the incident had no whatsoever effect on the town of Parga. Its just militants who got gathered using Parga as a gathering point, and that it is it. The other editors already have tried to explain to Maleschreiber that this is unrelated to Parga (see edit summary here: ), as it is just movements of troops for a warfront taking place elsewhere (in Lefkas, Zante and Peloponnesus). In Wikipedia, the common practice is to mention movements of troops, not in town articles, but in war articles. For example, you wont find in Berlin's city article any information about whatsoever Nazi German troop movements/gatherings that had occured during the World War II. Such info is more suitable for the article World War II instead, and only if necessary. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 06:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Johnuniq it is relevant because as an independent town, at the time it provided refuge for many rebels. As already stated in the article, when the town was ceded to Ali Pasha, it "ceased to provide a refuge for Klephts and Souliotes and many residents of Parga moved to nearby Corfu rather than live under Ottoman rule." Those were not as stated above by SilentResident, but were important events closely related to the history of the town. – Βατο (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This specific plan had no effect in the town's history as the source concludes nothing came of these plans. It clearly falls into wp:UNDUE.Alexikoua (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Claiming that the troop movements had whatsoever impact on Parga's history, (a claim is clearly not even suppported by the provided source), is crossing the lines of source manipulation and source falsification, serving only at promoting or spreading a certain historical narrative about an ethnic group's presence in a location. The essay WP:NATIONALIST explains this is: "to promote ideas, without reliable sources and due weight," by "manipulating or cherry picking what sources say for content to promote or spread a certain national or historical narrative". IMO, the Wikipedia's editors' role here isn't to add blindly any information to the article solely on the grounds that the source *happens* to use 2 keywords: "Cham Albanians" + "Parga", but to provide the readers WP:RELEVANT information about the town. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 13:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * A settlement is a point in a network of human geography. The questions asked in contemporary research are both inwards- (what made an impact on the development of a settlement?) and outwards- (what wider social relations were expressed in its history?). 18th century and early 19th century Parga (until 1819) was what is now known as a transboundary space. It was a borderland contact zone where communities from otherwise somehat better defined areas interacted and produced new political and cultural norms. My original edit (a cpe from the Albanian Regiment (France) mostly) had this function: to highlight that Parga was a space where Albanians and Greeks interacted with the Western European powers and the Ottoman Empire. The full edit was: Now, it can be trimmed but I think that as an addition it's important that Parga was the starting point for such an ambitious plan.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber: A trimmed version about the French "Albanian" regiment is already present in the text: As the relations of France with Ali Pasha deteriorated over his ambitions against the mainland exclave of Parga, the French twice considered using the men of their "Albanian" regiment against the mainland, but nothing came of these plans. There is no need for further detail about specific movements (number of troops, precise destination etc, etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:COATRACK to add the word "Albanian" to the article. The event described was a nothingburger. Nothing came of it, and the Albanian irregulars who gathered were not from Parga. If they were, it would be a different story. However, the whole thing as it stands falls under WP:UNDUE and failes WP:RELEVANT. We can't clutter the article with irrelevant trivia. Khirurg (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The word "Albanian" is already mentioned 10 times in the history section alone. That trimmed version doesn't reflect what happened in Parga, but what happened in Corfu. How is a trimmed version which doesn't even involve Parga more relevant than events which took place in the settlement?--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is, nothing happened in Parga. Those people were not from Parga. Khirurg (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion: There is significant disagreement on this point with Maleschreiber and Βατο in favor of adding text relating to the Kolokotronis-Farmaki plan, and SilentResident, Alexikoua and Khirurg against (correct me if I'm wrong). Assuming that the balance of established editors for/against doesn't drastically change soon, the issue will have to be resolved by RfC. That means debating the issue any further is pointless—people might like to draft their views for the RfC but please don't post them on this page until then because that would distract from moving forward. However, my question "How would the proposed text work with that?" should be addressed. The RfC will need a concrete proposal which doesn't contradict common sense, and some kind of merging of the current and the proposed text seems necessary? Please draft such a proposal here. Those opposing it might like to point any perceived problems regarding grammar or facts, but please save commentary about DUE etc. for the RfC. Are there any other proposals for changing the article? If so, please post a new section for each. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A quick formulation: Should the following event as discussed in the given citation be mentioned in the article?


 * To the existing text the following would be added --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

What is this? Please formulate a proper RfC, per Johnuniq's request and proper dispute resolution. Khirurg (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the question which I'm proposing: "Should the event of 3,000 troops who gathered in Parga in order to embark on a mission to overthrow the regional regime be mentioned in the article as discussed by the following citation(insert quote by Pappas)?" I'll start the RfC once there is an agreement about the question. (I'm off to do work and will be back in no less than 4-5 hours.)--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure. Go ahead and formally ask the question in an RfC. It's fine as far as I'm concerned. Khirurg (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * is the formatting ok? If yes, I'll post it later today.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please wait until you have posted the complete text of a proposed RfC with details such as "(insert quote by Pappas)" fixed. It's very unhelpful when an RfC is started with a slightly-off question and the details (including the total length of the question) are important. Put it in a new subsection "=== Draft troops RfC ===". Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the quote because I've placed it again. You're right about the need to check the length of the question. I'll prepare a draft.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft troops RfC
Q1 Should the event of 3,000 troops gathering in Parga on a mission to overthrow the regional regime be mentioned in the article (per the citation below)?Q2 If yes, should the text "The first plan is ... and Ithaca." shown in bold in the following be added to the existing text?"As the relations of France whose rule was installed in the Ionian islands in 1797 with Ali Pasha deteriorated over his ambitions against the mainland exclave of Parga, the French twice considered using the men of their Albanian Regiment against the mainland, but nothing came of these plans. The first plan is related to Theodoros Kolokotronis, subsequently one of the main leaders of the Greek War of Independence: the Albanian Regiment, along with French artillerymen and Cham Albanians to be recruited by his close ally Ali Farmaki, were to land in the Morea and overthrow Ali Pasha's son Veli. According to Kolokotronis, the plan was about to be carried out in 1809 when Ali Farmaki and he recruited 3,000 Chams who gathered in Parga in order to embark to Lefkas, but it was thwarted by the British occupation of Zakynthos, Cephalonia, Kythira, and Ithaca."

~

Draft troops RfC discussion
I'm a bit confused about the proposal. Is everything in the "Draft troops RfC" section proposed for the RfC question? If so, it needs some copy editing first. I'm sorry that I haven't been able to work out what is the central point of the long-running dispute. How much of the core disagreement is covered by the Draft troops RfC? Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many involved editors so there are disputes about different parts of the article. Recent edits tried to remove a part about WWII . Maybe someone wants to address that issue in another discussion. I didn't add all possible issues in one RfC because they're not fundamentally related. I can't answer if the RfC question is the "core disagreement" but it is definitely an important part of the problem judging by the number of reverts which have involved that particular edit. Yes, it is the proposed RfC section. I tried to be as specific as possible. It includes the proposed text which would be added to the article, its citation and its exact position in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I edited the draft for what I hope is clarity. That's just a suggestion and the wording is up to you. There must be more to the disagreements and I find hard to imagine that settling this question would resolve much. Please wait to see what other RfC proposals arrive before starting an RfC because I'm hoping a more fundamental question can be asked. I'm not sure what I hope for but let's see. There is no rush. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The wording should be more precise by replacing the term "the regional regime" with "a regime in other regions", like this: "Should the event of 3,000 troops gathering in Parga on a mission to overthrow a regime in other regions be mentioned in the article (per the citation below)? because the regime in question isn't governing the region of Epirus where Parga is located. It is about a regime controlling other regions. We want to avoid giving the voters the false impression that Parga is a springboard of regional operations; Parga is just the meeting point for troops to be moved to warfronts elsewhere which are not related to this town in any way. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 15:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The RfC question should just be should the following text be added to the article? with proposed text as a quote. Questions about "regional regimes" and such will just confuse readers and are entirely superfluous. Khirurg (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

POV issues
The History section is on the path of having a growing POV problem. Content is being removed as "irrelevant", and all of that content concerns Albanian aspects of the place's history. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is really becoming a major problem here as well as in other articles. Exactly the same users are continuously involved within this issue.--Lorik17 (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody has proposed any dispute resolution - including Khirurg - in the last two weeks. So how did Khirurg decide a)that the discussion ceased long ago and b)that because of that status he specifically has consensus for making reverts? Admin oversight established that all reverts should stop until we go through dispute resolution channels and everyone followed that guideline and didn't put forward any reverts except for Khirurg and another editor. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq raised a serious concern about how all this Kolokotronis-Farmakis plan can be part of this article. In general when uninvolved administrators suggest this should go for rfc I wouldn't ignore them for too long.Alexikoua (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding tags is disruptive. Nothing is achieved by tagging an article where there are active discussions—nothing except poking the other side. If someone thinks certain text should be added or retained or removed, they need to (a) make a clear and actionable proposal (with sources), and (b) discuss it an WP:AGF manner in a new section. Obviously there will be no consensus so the aim is to work out what text would be acceptable to each faction. Once there is a small number of actionable proposals regarding Parga, an RfC can be planned. Please stop arguing about POV and tags—that is complete nonsense. I suggest leaving the tag for now because it's there. What text should be in the article? Why? What sources verify the text is correct and WP:DUE? I hope people understand that not everything known about a topic goes in the article—there has to be a reason (based on sources) to include text. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Problem is, the side that wants to add the material doesn't seem to be willing to start an RfC, because they likely know it is unlikely to succeed. None of the users that support adding this material has ever started an RfC. As you can see immediately above, the interested party keeps talking about an RfC, but doesn't actually go ahead with it . Instead now it's agreement about the question. But we all know that the two sides of this dispute don't agree on anything - any talk about "agreeing on the question" is just disingenuous filibuster. If it was possible to agree, then we wouldn't even be here to begin with. What I suspect will happen is we will keep seeing this type of obfuscation and filibuster about "agreements about agreements", without ever going to RfC, so that way the article stays tagged indefinitely. What would help would be a firm deadline from you, to either start and RfC or else the tag should be removed within e.g. a week. What I don't want to see is more articles in this topic area being "forever tagged". It's already happened to three articles and if a line is not drawn, it will keep spreading to more articles. Khirurg (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about past interactions—I won't lose interest and I will start a useful RfC. I still haven't got a clue what this is all about, and I don't know what you want (please don't tell me!). However, it's clear you have a position and I suggest starting a new section with your actionable proposal for the History section. "Actionable" means that if the proposal ended up getting consensus, it would be extremely clear what had to be done. For example, someone might suggest removing the POV or trimming UNDUE text. That would be unactionable waffle because whereas participants in the battle might understand the general intention of such language, a third-party would have no idea what text was planned for addition or removal. Please don't respond quickly—take your time and propose something that you really could live with without further fiddling. Preferably, a proposal would attempt to satisfy at least a small portion of the other side. That is not always possible in which case good reasons for the preferred version would be needed. A proposal might simply say that the History section from a particular revision in the article's history should be reinstated for [reasons/sources]. That would be very clear and actionable. If the proposed text is a bit tricky, it might be worth drafting a proposed section in a user sandbox. The proposal then would be that a particular revision of the sandbox text would replace the History section. An alternative would be to handle the problem in various stages. For example, a preliminary RfC might attempt to resolve the question "should the article mention X"? If X can be easily described, third-parties would understand the RfC and the result would set the basis for another RfC (if necessary) to decide on precise wording. I suggest that discussion about tags and obfuscation and so on is a waste of time. It would be better to focus on an actionable outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Admin, I can't blame you for not having got a clue what this is all about. I myself too am at loss here, so forgive me for not being able to help more than I already did. Otherwise I would had actively made proposals by myself, already. The only thing that is clear to me so far, is that these editors are not here to achieve WP:CONSENSUS and to seek consensus-building and dispute-resolution methods such as RFCs. This editorial arrogance can be attested by merely looking at these editor's Contribution Logs which every day shows them being involved into more and more disruption in the Balkan topic area. Some diffs for you: right now as I am writing this to you, the latest incident happened in the List of settlements in Illyria article where user Khirurg is simply trying to defend the article's last stable version:, yet Iaof reverted him and brute-forced the disputed edits into the article, even though there is no consensus for that: . Iaof's Edit Summary which states: "lets avoid an edit war, we can add them after a discussion simply leaves no doubt what it means: "I remove something, without consensus because I say so. We can return to last stable version only with discussion, or else we will edit war." and this speaks volumes. They are trying to force editors to accepting the edits like how they tried here in Parga before. This disruptive and arrogant attitude will cause the project to fall apart and is exactly the reason I am uniting now my voices with Khirurg: some lines will need to be drawn by the admins, here and there, before it is too late. I understand that the matter may not be too pressing for the Admins, but actually, is causing me and the other editors a great deal of distress and anxiety. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 07:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Another example: After warning a user that he is edit-warring, he responds with mockery and false information (I only had two reverts at the article), both of which involved removing shoddy communist-era Albanian sources . These users deride Cambridge University scholars as "outdated", while adding material from predatory publishers  or obscure, communist-era Albanian sources  without problem. Reliable sources are misused to imply things not present in the source  . They edit-war to keep POV tags they have placed , while not allowing others to do the same . This is just from the last couple of days. The list is practically endless. Khirurg (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing here a dispute with Ktrimi991 and the number of reverts you and him have made in another article? I won't reply any further because this is not a WP:FORUM but in my opinion you're misrepresenting the arguments of other editors. There is WP:RSN and other boards, if you want to ask questions about bibliography and the process via which a source becomes outdated. But it requires an editor to have a good overview of contemporary bibliography in order to answer such questions. Now, I'm preparing a draft for the RfC and like every other involved editor you too can participate in its formulation. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maleschreiber, it is best to focus on writing and improving content. You and others are doing a great job. Those two editors above have a long history of turning every dispute into a drama. They keep repeating themselves like a broken record, as if there is nothing else to do around. There is a lot of content to work on. Lets focus on that. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well said . I also must praise Maleschreiber, and of course Bato, for their significant contributions to many many articles here on Wikipedia.--Lorik17 (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's erroneous that the pov tag in List_of_settlements_in_Illyria was removed as offtopic [] but the subject of discussion is a map depicting Illyrian settlements. Indeed there is a large scale tendency to remove scholarship (in this case University of Cambridge publications and the C.Ancient History Volumes) with the excuse that this doesn't fit a personal POV and without presenting counterarguments...Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 35-year-old publications in a field which has seen just in the past 15 years enormous changes should be avoided. Most archaeology journals don't allow the use of bibliography which has been published more than 10 years before the time of submission. Editors in wikipedia needs to get a better overview of methodology and how academic publishing functions. But I don't understand why you want to discuss here your dispute with Bato. I've placed a draft RfC. Can all those who want to focus on this article address the RfC? Thank you. This message is addressed to all editors. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion about the inaccuracies of the ancient settlements of Alexikoua's map ended with this comment. All the remaining discussion is about something else (tribes and their location). POV issues were absent from the article list when Alexikoua added the tag. Also, can someone tell me on the relevant talkpage why a map that depicts only 9 selected settlements of the specific region, even excluding the capital city (Scodra), should be relevant for that article list? @SilentResident, labeling edits by one user as "simply trying to defend the article's last stable version" while other users' edits as "disruptive and arrogant attitude" when you weren't even participating in the specific discussion is not constructive for a collaborative project like Wikipedia. If you are here to build an encyclopedia, focus on content, please. I also suggest you all to WP:STAYONTOPIC and remind you that Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. – Βατο (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

POV tag
You added a POV tag to Parga on 23 November 2020. Earlier I advised ignoring that as irrelevant to resolution of the underlying issues. However, I cannot see any movement towards revealing what the underlying issues are—I was hoping someone would propose RfC questions that would make that clear. Therefore, I believe the POV tag needs to be justified. Would you or anyone else please explain what text should be removed or what text should be added to resolve the POV, with a brief justification. I see 'Content is being removed as "irrelevant", and all of that content concerns Albanian aspects of the place's history.' That needs an explanation for those of us who have not been engaged in this topic. I have named this section "Reasons for POV tag"—to keep this clean, please do not use this section to refute the claims. Also, no discussion of other editors. The idea is to get the best possible explanation from those who think the POV tag is justified. After that, we can start another section (or start it now if you like) with reasons the POV tag is not justified. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging you as the article's History log says you were the ones who tagged it:  Would you enlighten Johnuniq please? If the tag is not justified within a reasonable time, then it should be removed. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 03:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Reasons in favor of POV tag

 * There were several pieces of content that were removed, all of them concerning Albanian aspects of the place's history. Some of them seem to have already been clarified (though others including might have sth different to say on them). The main concern obviously is the following One of the plans involved Theodoros Kolokotronis, subsquently leading figure of the Greek war of independence and his Muslim Albanian blood brother Ali Farmaki. According to Kolokotronis, they recruited 3,000 Chams who gathered in Parga in order to embark to Lefkas, but it was thwarted by the British occupation of Zakynthos, Cephalonia, Kythira, and Ithaca. (one of the diffs concerning it for more clarity ). It is no coincidence that an important academic source on the history of the region mentions it. The article currently gives the wrong impression that various ethnic groups that lived in the region only had conflicts with each other and never cooperated. This is an extreme POV. One that suits one of the main pillars of Greek nationalism, according to which today's Greece's Ottoman period was a continuous war between the Orthodox (including Orthodox Albanians, Aromanians and Slavs who, in Greek nationalist wild claims, were all "Greeks") and "Turks" (Muslim Turks, Albanians, Slavs and, above all, Muslim Greeks). The said period was defined by many revolts, and one that serves as a notable example is the one mentioned. That 3000 people from the Cham community alone gathered in a small settlement as Parga is sth remarkable. If the history of Parga is one of revolts and struggle for freedom, the article needs to give examples. The said content that I think that should be added to the article describes an example of collaboration between various ethnic communities, and serves as an example of the revolts that defined the history of Parga. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful. I'll think about the next step. Meanwhile, any other opinions are welcome. I know nothing about this topic but looking around suggests other relevant links include Cham Albanians and Chameria. Perhaps the underlying issue concerns which article should carry these details. It seems there is no need for my earlier concern that this section might be overwhelmed with commentary, so if anyone wants to add reasons why the POV tag is not needed, they might like to comment here, or start a new section according to personal preference. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I had to attend a family event and wasn't active on wikipedia until now. I will provide a full reply later today.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Reasons against POV tag

 * 1. Not relevant to Parga: The source stating: "One of the plans involved Theodoros Kolokotronis, subsquently leading figure of the Greek war of independence and his Muslim Albanian blood brother Ali Farmaki. According to Kolokotronis, they recruited 3,000 Chams who gathered in Parga in order to embark to Lefkas, but it was thwarted by the British occupation of Zakynthos, Cephalonia, Kythira, and Ithaca." is not relevant to Parga for three primary reasons: a) the source must be WP:RELEVANT to the town of Parga to warrant inclusion to the article. That means, the source will have to mention clearly that this cooperation of ethnic groups relates -or- affects Parga in any way. Thing is, the source does not state that at all. b) the source speaks about ethnic group gathering at Parga to embark for distant war fronts but the source doesn't specifically state that they are from Parga that would warrant inclusion to the article. The other editorial side argues in favor of the POV tag for Parga's article on the grounds "[...] that various ethnic groups that lived in the region [...]" however, they didn't specify which region they refer to. Since the ethnic group in the dispute are the Cham Albanians, I was bold and assumed they are referring to the region of Chameria (where the Cham recruits the source mentions, are from). I argued that the present article isn't about the region and the ethnic groups which lived in it, is specifically about the town, Parga, and the municipality of same name. However Alexikoua in the discussion below: enlightened us that there is also the "Region of Parga". This made me realize that we were debating about regions, yet the source doesn't state anything about regions at all. c) The source says the operation was to take place in far away war fronts. But it doesn't provide any info of how Parga was affected by that operation, or the war front, (economically, financially, geopolitically or socially) to warrant the source's inclusion to Parga's article.
 * 2. Wrong article for POV tag?: The POV tag is meant to be used to highlight POV issues presently in the article about the town. The omission of sources from the article due to it falling short of the WP:RELEVANT criteria as explained above in the #1a and #1b and #1c above, doesn't make it necessarily a POV issue related to Parga. That's not how Wikipedia works. Had the POV tag been used to highlight POV problems in other articles instead, i.e. the article about the ethnic group, then, the concerns about this ethnic group's image, would be understandably be part of the article's scope and efforts to balance it out would be absolutely logical. The other editorial team's justification of the POV tag on the grounds of "ethnic groups being portrayed as having conflicts with each other and show a lack of cooperation" would make the most sense in that case, and it would been wholeheartedly been addressed without all this edit warring that happened in Parga's article. Last, if I may add: ethnic groups do cooperate with each other, and there are many sources confirming such cases of cooperation which can be used in the appropriate articles whose subject is similar. Just it doesn't have to be Parga's article. Obviously, Parga not mentioning this mutli-ethnic cooperation, doesn't mean such cases of cooperation didn't occur, just Parga isn't the most appropriate article for that. Which brings us to the next:
 * 3. Why Parga?: The #2 above brings us now to the #3rd point: The Parga article is a town article, not an ethnic group article. The other side justified the use of POV Tag, on the grounds that "The article currently gives the wrong impression that various ethnic groups that lived in the region only had conflicts with each other and never cooperated.". Eyebrows are being raised because there are far better and more suitable articles for the particular source about "multi-ethnic cooperation" to be cited at, such as Cham Albanians (assuming that the reason of inclusion is really the "ethnic cooperation"), and Greek war of independence (in the context of the military operation), as well as Theodoros Kolokotronis and Ali Farmaki (since they are the ones who facilitated the cooperation) and Chameria (since it is the "region" the source indirectly refers to about since the Cham recruits originate there). What I do not understand is why this contested info wasn't attempted inclusion in any of these 5 articles in the first place, which would meet Wikipedia's WP:RELEVANT rules. Why Parga and why now that Parga was recently the subject of a Cham Albanian flag-planting edit war, along with 8 other town articles from the same region as Parga?
 * 4. Common practice in Wikipedia: Before I conclude, I can point to how things are done elsewhere in Wikipedia: for example Pristina and particularly the section about Kosovo War. I am picking Pristina for three very important reasons: a) because it is prominent town in a multi-ethnic region just like Parga was. b) Pristina has been through wars and has seen its share of wartime events. c) More importantly, there are sources about militant movements who gathered/moved from around the Pristina region to fight at other warfronts. Despite this, if one checks the actual Pristina section, will notice how any info about the gatherings/movement of militant troops are totally absent from the article.
 * To conclude, tags should only be used to address actual issues in the article, but without exceptions to Wikipedia's rules and without giving the ethnic groups more WP:UNDUE weight outside of the article's scope. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 15:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * A clarification should be made here. This article is not dedicated to a town, but to a region. The region of Parga (or as it is called now, the Parga municipality) includes the town of Parga and surrounding villages. In any case, the source refers to "Parga", so even if the article was only about the town, the content would still be very relevant. If anyone wants to add the said content to other articles, they should do so. That does not in any way change the relevance of the content to Parga's history. Nor does it solve the POV problem created here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. This is a Town and Municipal article, not about the broader region. For that, there are other articles already. The source doesn't refer to the municipality of Parga specifically (which didn't exist back at the time of the Greek War of Independence), it refers just to the region at that time (and by that, indirectly. Most likely referred to Chameria, since the Chams lived here). Its wrong to claim that all these people came from the limits of the modern-day Municipality of Parga when the source doesn't make such a statement. Last, and very importantly, the Municipality of Parga and the region are not synonymous nor are one and the same thing with definitive borders, and shouldn't be treated as if they were the same. This is merely a personal editorial conclusion which is not supported by any sources and falls under WP:OR. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you are repeating yourself like a broken record, as you have done elsewhere. The source says that they gathered at Parga. I might not respond to you again, and other editors might respond to you in turns until you stop saying this article is not about a region, as the source does say "Parga" instead of "region". When you grasp it, the discussion might move on. Or better a RfC is immediately opened as it is pointless to waste time over a sentence. what do you think on opening a RfC? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Relax. You made an incorrect clarification and I ought to correct you. Don't take it personally. You gave us a source. Right? But the source only says "they recruited 3,000 Chams who gathered in Parga", not "gathered at the region of Parga" or "gathered at the Municipality of Parga". That's totally different claim which isn't supported by the source. Simple as that. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of "relax", you should give a diff where I said that the source says "gathered at the region of Parga" or "gathered at the Municipality of Parga". If you can not find one, no need to say that as it is obvious. If I correctly understand what you are trying to say, you are saying that the content is not relevant to this Parga article because the source says "in Parga". Are you trying to reduce any perceived tension between editors by making jokes? Anyways, the best path is a RfC, Maleschreiber. Otherwise the repetition of the same thing will continue for days. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarification: The region of Parga includes Parga and 3 surrounding villages, it's also called "municipal unit" in administrative terms. This was also the region of Parga in historical terms (the Venetian pocket of Parga surrounded by Ottoman territory). Alexikoua (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ktrimi, read this very carefully. You wrote in OP: the following: "The article currently gives the wrong impression that various ethnic groups that lived in the region only had conflicts with each other and never cooperated.", which you used to justify the POV tag for our refusal to consent to the addition of: "One of the plans involved Theodoros Kolokotronis, subsquently leading figure of the Greek war of independence and his Muslim Albanian blood brother Ali Farmaki. According to Kolokotronis, they recruited 3,000 Chams who gathered in Parga in order to embark to Lefkas, but it was thwarted by the British occupation of Zakynthos, Cephalonia, Kythira, and Ithaca." Am I missing something here or didn't you ask for the inclusion of the source about 3.000 Chams cooperating with Greeks because its absence from Parga's article is "extreme POV" against the Cham people "that lived in the region" and thus the article ought to be POV-tagged?
 * Thanks, Alexikoua, good to know. Still it doesn't change the slightest in my arguments against the POV tag. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There I did not say that the source says "region", so no "OR" problem exists. The region I was referring to is Parga and the other part of the current munipcipality. Parga was at the time a smaller settlement than it is now. No, I did not say there is an "POV against Chams". The POV is pro-Greek nationalism and its narrative that wants to justify the formation of current Greek identity by absorbing large non-Greek populations and expulsions and massacres of Muslim Greeks by building a "Greeks vs Turks" story. Hence in Greek nationalist circles many do not like that Orthodox and Muslim people can collaborate with each other. Anyways, I will not respond here to you anymore. What I had to say to you has already been said. Bye, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, your whole opinion against Greek nationalism is music to my ears. As someone whose life was threatened by Greek nationalists because of my centre-left opinions, my disability and sexual orientation (the Greek nationalists and the Albanian nationalists hate me for that and the AE Committee can attest to their threats against me) I can absolutely sympathize with you here. But I am afraid, that our views on nationalism (Greek or Albanian) will need to be tackled with 1) full respect to what source says, in line with Wikipedia's rules and 2) by seeking WP:CONSENSUS which is possible by making compromises and addressing other's NPOV concerns, instead of ignoring them and edit warring. The Parga article's History log, coupled with my calls for admin intervention, and the subsequent RFC here, are sad reminders that my advice wasn't followed. Well, bye to you too. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some pretty bad reasoning from Ktrimi991. There was nothing "remarkable" about this non-event, since it was a non-event. Repeating on and on how "extraordinary" it was does not make it so. His reasoning then switches that it is important to include this material to counter some imagined "Greek nationalist narrative". But the purpose of wikipedia is not to "counter narratives", it is not to preach, it is not to go on moral crusades, and it is not to "bring people together" or anything like that. This all smacks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The purpose of wikipedia is solely to present factual, relevant material to readers in a neutral way. The claim that this article is about the "Parga region" is also utterly ridiculous. The article is about the town, as anyone can see. There is no Parga region. Can something be done about Ktrimi's incivility? Comments like You are repeating yourself like a broken record and When you grasp this are extremely unhelpful to what is an already extremely tense discussion. Khirurg (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is "utterly ridiculous" is that you turn almost every discussion into an exchange of accusations. How many editors involved in Albania-related topics have you "reported" so far this year? Did anyone of them get warned (let alone sanctioned) apart from you in line with WP:BOOMERANG? Anyways, if does not open a RfC, I will do it. My time is precious and I have many interesting things to do around; hence I am not interested to get involved in another childish conflict. Bye to you too, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS. Khirurg (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a WP:FORUM. If an editor wants to report an other editor, you can go to AE and everyone's editing will be scrutinized. But the turning of every discussion into a debate about what counts as an WP:ASPERSION and what doesn't, doesn't get anyone anywhere. I have proposed a draft and I'm waiting for responses to that draft. A side comment: This article is about the Parga municipality: Parga itself and the settlements which surround it. The information under discussion so far is about Parga itself. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rude, contemptuous comments such as You are repeating yourself like a broken record and When you grasp this are highly disruptive and not conducive to a proper discussion. The one making them should be apologizing instead of getting angry for being called on it, and you shouldn't be defending them. And we keep hearing about this near-mythical RfC, and yet still...nothing. Khirurg (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The RfC question is very simple. "Should the following text be added to the article One of the plans involved Theodoros Kolokotronis, subsquently leading figure of the Greek war of independence and his Muslim Albanian blood brother Ali Farmaki. According to Kolokotronis, they recruited 3,000 Chams who gathered in Parga in order to embark to Lefkas, but it was thwarted by the British occupation of Zakynthos, Cephalonia, Kythira, and Ithaca?" Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK - I'm filing it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Problem is, the source doesn't say that. It actually says Kolokotrones claims that Ali Farmaki and he recruited 3000 Chams, who gathered at Parga to embark first to Lefkas and Zante and then hence to the Peloponnesus, only to have the whole plan aborted by the English capture of Zante. So all we know is that Kolokotronis claimed that 3000 gathered in Parga, but there is no confirmation that this actually happened. The author ascribes this claim to Kolokotronis, but does not seem to endorse it. But go ahead and "fill" it, it won't make a difference anyway. Khirurg (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the history section
Q1 Should the event of 3,000 troops gathering in Parga on a military mission be mentioned in the article (per the citation below)? Q2 If yes, should the text "The first plan is ... and Ithaca." shown in bold in the following be added to the existing text?"As the relations of France whose rule was installed in the Ionian islands in 1797 with Ali Pasha deteriorated over his ambitions against the mainland exclave of Parga, the French twice considered using the men of their Albanian Regiment against the mainland, but nothing came of these plans. The first plan is related to Theodoros Kolokotronis, subsequently one of the main leaders of the Greek War of Independence: the Albanian Regiment, along with French artillerymen and Cham Albanians to be recruited by his close ally Ali Farmaki, were to land in the Morea and overthrow Ali Pasha's son Veli. According to Kolokotronis, the plan was about to be carried out in 1809 when Ali Farmaki and he recruited 3,000 Chams who gathered in Parga in order to embark to Lefkas, but it was thwarted by the British occupation of Zakynthos, Cephalonia, Kythira, and Ithaca." --Maleschreiber (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

History RfC survey

 * Support (as nominator) The event falls within the scope of the article. It is part of the military and political events which occurred during the era of Ali Pasha of Janina and serves as a good example for the relations between different communities in the western Balkans and their interaction with Great Powers of their time. --Maleschreiber (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose for several reasons and POV concerns which I and other editors had underlined in earlier discussions, yet weren't addressed adequately by those who favor the RfC sentence's inclusion to the article:
 * 1. Not WP:RELEVANT to Parga: The source and the RfC's proposed sentence are not relevant to Parga's article for seven reasons:
 * 1a. Like User:Khirurg pointed out, there is no confirmation that the operation actually happened or that the 3.000-strong Cham Albanian militia were actually gathered and sent to perform it. The source's author ascribes a claim about an operation to general Kolokotrones: Kolokotrones claims [...]", but he not seem to endorse the general's claims. Wikipedia shouldn't portray claims about events as being actual facts. This RfC falsifies the source by misrepresenting general Kolokotrones' claim as if it is a real event that happened.
 * 1b. Nor the author of the source stated, nor has the general Kolokotrones himself claimed, that the 3.000-strong militia of Cham Albanians were related in any way to Parga. According to the claim (which we don't know if it really happened) they just gathered at Parga and left without any whatsoever info on possible interactions/impact to Parga and her citizens.
 * 1c. The source's author doesn't mention whether this operation (if it really happened) had a significant effect WP:DUE on Parga's development or history.
 * 1d. The operation, according to Kolokotrones' claim, targeted far away island territories belonging to a different region, the Ionian Islands, which are unrelated to Parga, which is both a town and area of Epirus. Had the source provided any info of how the operation, affected Parga, be it economically, financially, geopolitically, militarily or socially, then it would had warranted inclusion to Parga's article.
 * 1e. The editorial side which support the RfC sentence's inclusion to the article, and especially User:Ktrimi991, argued that the 3.000 Cham Albanian militants in Kolokotrones's claim, are relevant on the article of Parga, on the grounds that "The article currently gives the wrong impression that various ethnic groups that lived in the region only had conflicts with each other and never cooperated." however, by looking carefully at the source, we see that the author doesn't mention anything about whether these 3.000 Cham Albanians lived/originated from Parga. The source only states that "X people gathered at Parga and left for X location". Simple as that. Had the source specifically stated that these 3.000 Cham Albanian militants originated from Parga, then that would had warranted inclusion to the article which is dedicated to Parga and her people.
 * 1f. They also insisted that the RfC's sentence should be added to the article because, (in User:Ktrimi991's words), the article's POV "is pro-Greek nationalism and its narrative that wants to justify the formation of current Greek identity by absorbing large non-Greek populations and expulsions and massacres of Muslim Greeks by building a "Greeks vs Turks" story. Hence in Greek nationalist circles many do not like that Orthodox and Muslim people can collaborate with each other.. However, as User:Khirurg has reminded User:Ktrimi991: the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "counter narratives", it is not to preach, it is not to go on moral crusades, and it is not to "bring people together" or anything like that. This all smacks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The purpose of Wikipedia is solely to present factual, relevant material to readers in a neutral way.
 * 1g. A similar problem with the "The article currently gives the wrong impression that various ethnic groups that lived in the region only had conflicts with each other and never cooperated." argument I pointed out in 1e is that it too, just like 1f, is an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
 * 2. Why not add it to i.e. the Greek War of Independence instead of Parga's article?: Indeed, the source does not confirm that the supposed operation had any whatsoever wp:due effects on Parga's development or history (which otherwise would have warranted inclusion to the article), but, as a claim that it is, it may be somewhat more wp:relevant to the article Greek War of Independence (since I suspect it is related to that topic, as explained here: but that's just a suspicion until strong sources are found to permit inclusion). Therefore, I wouldn't object to the RfC sentence's inclusion there or to other articles, on the condition that it is rephrased to deal with those source falsification problems I mentioned above (1a) Other wp:relevant articles may include the Cham Albanians (the ethnicity of the recruits in Kolokotrones' claim), and the articles Theodoros Kolokotronis and Ali Farmaki (since these 2 men were the ones who facilitated the cooperation).
 * 3. Our WP:NPOV concerns were ignored: My opposition to the RfC is not only limited to these wp:relevancy and wp:due problems I have pointed to, above, but also to WP:POV problems the present RfC's voters may unintentionally be causing to the article, if the RfC sentence is eventually approved. To understand the RfC, one must understand the background of the dispute leading to it. The long history shortened goes like that: the article of Parga has recently been the battleground of an WP:EDITWAR which had characteristics of WP:NATIONALIST Albanian flag-planting by the editorial side which supports the RfC sentence, such as:
 * 3a. The inclusion of the following information: "In the late medieval period, Nicolo Marthono described Parga as being in latere Albaniae in reference to the significant Albanian presence in the region." (with the source's quote being: "Inversely, the term Albania was used in certain cases* in the late Middle Ages as a designation for Epirus, in a period during which the Albanians held a strong position in the region. As such, in 1395, Nicolai Marthono places Parga as a part of Albania"). The resulting lack of WP:CONSENSUS in Parga Talk Page about this sentence, with 5 editors opposing it for various reasons, however, did not discourage the side supporting the RfC sentence from brute-forcing it again (this and the Kolokotrones' claim) back into the article nevertheless, only to be reverted by even more editors:.
 * 3b. The addition of an ethnic-based navigation template, named "Template:Cham Albanians", on 9 separate town articles of Greece (Parga included) even though this ethnic minority has no presence there nowadays. It may had at some point in the distant past, but not anymore. The use of ethnic group navigation templates on articles this group has no whatsoever presence today, goes against Wikipedia's common practices. For example you won't see the city of New York, which was founded by Dutch settlers, featuring an ethnic Dutch nav. template, or the city of Istanbul featuring an ethnic Greek one.
 * The synchronicity of the bad use of navigation templates, in conjunction with the bad use of sources like we are seeing here in the present RfC, can't help but make me wonder if the RfC isn't part of just another WP:NATIONALIST attempt to give more WP:UNDUE weight to a particular ethnic group vs over other groups which lived or still live there. And from the looks of it, I am not the only one here to be worried about these POV issues. User:Khirurg too, in one of the previous discussions, expressed his concerns about the RfC sentence being a WP:COATRACK attempt for adding the word "Albanian" to the Parga article.
 * 4. Common practice in Wikipedia: Before I conclude (my apologies for my lengthy post), I shall point to how things were done elsewhere in Wikipedia about info on war-time operations and troop movements. For example Pristina's town article, and particularly the section about Kosovo War, has no sources/information about war-time operations taking place elsewhere or about militants gathering/moving through there to reach those distant war fronts. Another example is the Berlin city article and especially its section which covers the WWII events, which omits info on distant war-time operations even though Nazi armies were often dispatched there from Berlin. Wikipedia is full of such examples of how the city/town articles aren't supposed to be flooded with unverified claims of war-time events taking place elsewhere.
 * To conclude, I am perfectly fine with the inclusion of war-time information to any town articles, including Parga, as long as it relates to them, improves them, and meets Wikipedia's criteria and rules. Unfortunately, the RfC sentence does nothing like that; contrary, it even falsifies the source! Hence, I am vehemently opposing it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose SilentResident has said it all, but basically it fails WP:RELEVANT and WP:DUE. We don't even know if this really happened. All we have is a source from 1982 stating that "Kolokotronis claimed...that 3000 Chams gathered in Parga". Kolokotronis was the leading figure of the Greek War of Independence and is thus WP:PRIMARY. There is no confirmation from independent secondary sources that this actually happened. As the sourced material currently in the article also makes clear, nothing came of these plans. In other words, it's a nothing-burger. There is also nothing to suggest that these "3,000 Chams" were from Parga, or if this event had any impact whatsoever on Parga (if it occurred at all). The proposed text seems like a lot of space for what is literally a non-event, thus veering into WP:COATRACK as well. Khirurg (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons provided by SilentResident. Idealigic (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The source is appropriately used and the event is part of the scope of the article. The proposed text correctly attributes like the source does the memory of the event to Kolokotronis ( Some general comments made to !oppose are irrelevant with what is being discussed here like the argument "Why not add it to Greek War of Independence instead of Parga's article?" Why would an event that is not about the Greek War of Independence (it happened 12 years before that war) be added there but not in the article of its location? The event is very interesting because it shows the position of Parga in the regional struggles of the era. Ahmet Q. (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't stated that "it would be added to the article". I have stated precisely: "it may be somewhat more wp:relevant to the article". I am afraid there is a big difference between "would" and "may be somewhat". Kolokotrones' claim is problematic for a number of reasons, with the biggest of all being the lack of WP:VERIFICATION that it actually happened and will require strong sources before it can really be used, if there are any. What I know already is that, Kolokotrones' revolutionary career did not begin with the Greek War of Independence of 1821, but much sooner, at least ten years earlier, at the Ionian Islands where he got influenced by the revolutionary ideas while serving there. The revolutionary ideas shaped Kolokotrones into becoming the leading revolutionary figure of the Greek War of Independence a decades later. I will be bold here as to say that his unverified operation with Farmakis was indeed part of his career but please don't count on me for that yet. Unless I have sources in my hands, its just a personal suspicion of mine. I will need sources, especially solid ones if you don't mind, to be able to support inclusion to the article of the Greek War of Independence. Edit: I just updated my above post as well to reflect on my response here + make clear to everyone it is just an example where it may be related but not the only example in case sources are not found to back inclusion there. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 02:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports what WP:RS puts forward. You would ask for verification if a WP:PRIMARY was used but that's not the case as Pappas (1982) is a secondary source and the wording like Ahmet Q. highlighted, accurately represents it. Also, don't change your previous comments. If other editors are replying to one of your arguments, you shouldn't just go back and change it. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor took my "it may be somewhat more wp:relevant" for meaning "it would be added to the article". So yes, I had every right to make sure this doesn't happen again as this is the last thing the RfC needs. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I've been observing the page for some time and I think that RfC was a good way to proceed. Everything was explained in great detail by fellow editor SilentResident.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  23:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: A non-event in the case of Parga. It might be fine for addition in Cham Albanians article though.Alexikoua (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It is no coincidence that an important academic source mentions it. The article currently gives the wrong impression that various ethnic groups that lived in the town of Parga (or the wider region around) only had conflicts with each other and never cooperated. This is an extreme POV. One that suits one of the main pillars of Greek nationalism, according to which today's Greece's Ottoman period was a continuous war between the Orthodox (including Orthodox Albanians, Aromanians and Slavs who, in Greek nationalist wild claims, were all "Greeks") and "Turks" (Muslim Turks, Albanians, Slavs and, above all, Muslim Greeks). The said period was defined by many revolts, and one that serves as a notable example is the one mentioned. That 3000 people from the Cham community alone gathered in a small settlement as Parga is sth remarkable. If the history of Parga is one of revolts and struggle for freedom, the article needs to give examples. The said content that I think that should be added to the article describes an example of collaboration between various ethnic communities, and serves as an example of the revolts that defined the history of Parga. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Except there was no collaboration. There was nothing at all. So the "extreme POV" would be to add irrelevant material for the purpose of "flag planting". In its wild claims, Albanian nationalism claims all of Epirus as "Albanian". Khirurg (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with this? Albanian nationalists and Greek nationalists and religious fundamentalists claim the whole Epirus as theirs. There is no "flag planting" in the proposed text, but since you keep using that term around as if you do not have anything else to say, try to enrich your posts with more suitable comments. Bye, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the great points put forward by editor SilentResident. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose, per the valid points made by SilentResident. Macedonian (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

History RfC discussion

 * Please do not comment about other editors in this RfC! Discuss content/RS/DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you believe that I was writing my RfC response for 6 whole hours? To sort my thoughts and write everything down, resulted into this large text, and my apologies for the text size but it was necessary. I hope it is not a problem. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Transport
"Tourists arriving in Parga fly in from Aktio..." Surely not? There's no airport in Parga! Tourists either fly in to Aktio, or depart from Aktio. Hundovir (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)