This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albania Mid‑importance Anti-Ottoman revolts of 1565–1572 is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries: Ottoman Empire This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire (assessed as Low-importance). Military history: Balkan / European / Ottoman This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force Ottoman military history task force

This was not a Greek revolt. Only because several Greek historians have falsified descriptions of real events does not mean that the whole world should be presented this nationalistic false narrative. Either the article's title should be change to "Anti-Ottoman" revolt of 1567-1572, or the article needs to be significantly trimmed down, with the events between Himara and Arta entirely removed, because most of the participants certainly cannot be described as Greek. Çerçok (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why too much accusations without evidence... the mixed community of Himara played a tiny part in the movement, which spread in all of Greece: Mani, Galaxidi, Patras, Aegina. Mainstream bibliography is in agreement with the present title.Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than sufficient evidence. Anyway, since they are insignificant, please remove the parts about referring to the region from Himara to Preveza. The rest can remain. If you want to keep these non-Greek revolts in the article, the title has to change. Çerçok (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the bibliography in order to limit the information to Greek involvement (Papagianis, Melisinos, Greeks from Corfu etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take note of these excerpts from Xhufi 2017 referring to the events in Himara:

- Zorzi Marmori, Manol's brother, explains in a letter to the Venetian Senate that he participated in the battles as part of the army of the Albanians: nella prossima passata guerra nelle imprese della Zimara e di Sopoto con il carico che avevo dell'esercito di Albanesi, a qulle di Nivizza et Gardichi con il governator mio fratello et con l'Eccellentissimo Venier e quella di Margariti (p.845)

- According to Antonio Longo, Manolo Marmori was credited with the rising of the Albanians against the Turks: per buona causa della solevatione delli Albanesi contro Turchi (p.844).

- The assault on the Nivica castle was started by Manolo with a small number of Venetian mercenaries and a large number of Albanians: tolte alcune poche militie pagate di quelle di Soppoto e grosso numero d'Albanesi (p.846).

- The subsequent assault on Kardhiq is also described as an Albanian army, aided by the Venetian mercenaries of Sopot Castle: li Albanesi hebbero aiuto di quelli di Soppoto (p.848).

- Manolo Marmori himself describes the events as happening not in Greece, but in the Castle of Himara and other parts of Albania: castello della Cimerra et altri luoghi di Albania (p.851).

This was an Albanian anti-Ottoman rebellion, instigated and led by the Venetians. I don't think this can be part of an article titles "Greek revolt". Çerçok (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If these are notable enough revolts related to the one in question they shouldn't be removed to fit the title, rather the title should be changed into something in line with what research discusses. Alltan (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cercok: Can you provide the full quotes from the above? In letters written by Mormori as displayed in Venetian sources (given by Hatzopoulos, Setton and other 16th century specialist which are online and verifiable) he declares himself as being very proud Greek. Your sources above are offline so I can't wp:AGF for now.Alexikoua (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the many online reference about Mormori: Setton, Kenneth Meyer (1991). Venice, Austria, and the Turks in the Seventeenth Century. American Philosophical Society. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-87169-192-7. "Mormori , who was apparently of Greek origin , frequently praises the Greeks , and mentions members of his own family in the struggle against the Turks". Mormoris played a minor part in those revolts and his activity was geographically restricted (though neutral sources do not name him Albanian), we had several leaders in this incident, from southern to western Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua You are repeatedly unwilling to improve Wikipedia. First, the most politically charged source of nationalistic propaganda which you frequently cite here is offline (Epirus: 4000 years...). Should we remove all material from this source? Second, it is an unbelievable manipulation to transform Mormori , who was apparently of Greek origin , frequently praises the Greeks , and mentions members of his own family in the struggle against the Turks' into declares himself as being very proud Greek. Zorzi Marmori praises the Albanians and mentions his family members in the struggle against the Turks. Maybe it means he declares himself a proud Albanian? I do not think you believe that.

Third, most importantly for this article, Mormori's account that you mentioned does not refer to the 1567-1572 events: it was written in 1563. The quotes I brought are all in reference to the events in Himara, Sopot, Nivica and Kardhiq during the period in question. I have already given you the quotes, I don't know what else there is to verify in this case.

The title of the article should be changed to "Anti-Ottoman revolts of 1567-1572', and a few improvements can be made to the paragraphs. Çerçok (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Setton is online (the one that confirms that Mormoris declared himself a proud Greek) and Vranousis can also be verified from snippets through gbooks. Well, such comments the most politically charged source of nationalistic propaganda which you frequently cite here is offline are not productive. No, it is a collective work by top scholars on the field (Cabanes, Hammond, Kondis etc.) awarded by the French Academy and other high-quality educational institution (Athens Academy). We should be careful when posting such claims. You provided unverified and partial quotes that contradict existent bibliography. It is up to you to prove that everything involved as south as Preveza was purely Albanian, as you claim. So far the correspondent bibliography is against this claim. Alexikoua (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the revolts of 1567-1572 here, and I have provided all the necessary evidence to show that the Himara events were Albanian revolts in Venetian records, including as seen by the leaders themselves. You have failed to quote any relevant material to show that they were Greek revolts (the Marmori discussion belongs in the Marmori page). This article cannot stay in the current form. Çerçok (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the fact that the region between Himara and Arta/Preveza has been a traditional area of Greek settlement for millennia, including the historical period in question, you are contradicting yourself. First you say that this wasn't a Greek revolt, then you say that "the rest can remain" as long as references to the territories coveted by Albanian irredentists are removed. Which is it? And you have yet to demonstrate that your sole Albanian author is a reliable source. •ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ• 19:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking with sources, not personal opinions. Bring sources to contradict mine or accept the truth. Çerçok (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your guy? Your distinguished Albanian “scholar” who claims that Greek foreign minister Nikos Dendias is actually an Albanian due to a vague similarity between his surname and a random Albanian word? I think we can safely disregard anything he has to say (or write) about anything, since it is patently obvious he is ****. Cite a reliable source or go away. •ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ• 21:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting our time and present sources. Çerçok (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is really weird. We should use heavy precaution on dealing with what passes wp:N.Alexikoua (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alexikoua@ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ you are opposing the changes but in 4 days you have brought no evidence against them (besides one source that refers to different, earlier events). When I was asked to provide evidence for my initial comment, I did so. Please do the same, otherwise this is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Quote your sources and show how they contradict what I have written above. Çerçok (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cercok: This was a Greek revolt, even the titles in the correspondent bibliography point that this is known as such. There is a mountain of evidence don't use wp:IDONTHEARTHAT.Alexikoua (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So your only evidence is your repeated opinion, which is irrelevant. I will edit the article now based on sources, not opinions. Çerçok (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are based on the available bibliography. I will ask users to present sources to their claims, preferably comparable to prominent academics such as Xhufi. Alltan (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits such as this one [[1]] will be reported. The concept that Epirus consist de-facto non-Greek history even if there is a mountain of sources that supports the events is non-productive. Removing even events that occurred in Ioannina snd its surroundings with the excuse that the settlement was ... inhabited by non Greeks equals disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Çerçok, I will suggest you first add the proposed additions to the tp along with the quotes/references. If this was coordinated revolt by Greeks/Albanians/Vlachs/Slavs etc. then it should be stated as such in the article (if backed by sources). After that one can file a move request for the article into a more inclusive/properly descriptive title (for ex: Christian revolt of 1567-1572", or the like). You already have added quotes from one of the best specialists on the topic, Xhufi. You can start with him. The title changes to match the event, not vice-versa. Alltan (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

per wp:BRD all additions should be first discussed here and in case consensus is reached we can proceed to the addition. @Altan: we should be careful on the procedure and not simply proposing vogue additions of unverified material.Alexikoua (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I see even Muhaj Ardian cites the revolt in Northern Epirus (he uses the Greek form here) as incidents in Greek lands. Malcolm who follows a pro-Albanian approach on the events doesn't hesitate to name Mormoris primarily of Greek origin. As such we have concrete evidence that the events described here are parts of Greek revolts. Nevertheless various non-Greek individuals participated such as Venetians, Spaniards, and in some sporadic occasion Slavic and Albanian elements in various units, but claiming that everything north of Preveza is defacto non-Greek equals disruption. In simply words it completely un-historical.Alexikoua (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Malcolm claimed Mormori (not Mormoris, stop falsifying) was 100% Greek, which he did not, that would not change the fact that it was not a Greek revolt. I am not saying that there was not a single Greek person who participated, but that the revolt in Himara, Sopot, Nivice, Kardhiq, etc. was certainly not Greek overall. As such it cannot be included in this article, under this title.

You have stalled for one whole week, during which you provided a false source and long pages of personal opinions. This article cannot be hostage to nationalistic boycotts to truth and verifiability.

ps: after decades of editing you should know to quote link to sources properly rather than throwing names around and twisting authors' words. Such stalling methods will not work. Çerçok (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is a mountain of falsehoods in this article and I can only try to clean some of it. Çerçok (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to present decent arguments and in fact you need to prove that in these operations Greeks do not participated. So far everything is against this extreme point and Greek involvement is well attested north of Preveza. We need to avoid wp:NPA, not helpful at all. Lots of Corfiot Greeks and locals participated in the operations in the Ionian coast. I don't know why you are so eager and can't see the correspondent bibliography. The fact that some non-Greeks participated (Venetians etc.) doesn't change the topic.Alexikoua (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have the burden to present evidence in favor of the Himara rebellion being Greek because it was you who put it in the article. Anyway, I have wasted enough time with you. You obviously are stalling, you have no evidence whatsoever. Çerçok (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence that the revolt in Himara, an overwhelmingly Greek region even today, was anything but Greek?  •ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ• 16:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In front of your eyes, above. I am not wasting anymore time with you. Tell your opinions to each-other all you want, the verifiable truth remains clear. Çerçok (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Çerçok: Those 16th century events do not had a national character if you mean this you are correct. The uprising had no central authority as many other Balkan uprisings up to the 19th century in the Balkans. Nationalism came quite later, but in this case the ethnonym "Greek" is representative for those events and -most important- supported by the entirety in scholarship. I'm also afraid that expressions like "I'm wasting my time with you" are the definition of not assuming good faith. We shouldn't say that here since we are contributors to the project.Alexikoua (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My eyes can see your citation of a single author who in no way constitutes a reliable source. And your translation of his work is even less reliable.  •ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ• 10:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Xhufi, I would not worry much. Xhufi is one of the utmost authorities on Epirote studies, and we should strive to find sources comparable to his standards. @Çerçok, you so far do not appear to have presented sources for why revolts in Ioannina, Arta or Preveza should be removed. I can however agree to removing Himara, Sopot and Nivica. For the rest I'm afraid sourcing demonstrated so far makes their inclusion necessary. Alltan (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is going to get removed without consensus, which you do not have. Khirurg (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However I will have to remind editors consensus does not need to be unanimous. Alltan (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that there is anything resembling consensus, it is to *not* remove anything. Khirurg (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the activities of Greeks in Himara although we have a tone of evidence is unacceptable. If some editors need to present a entirely non-Greek Himara that's not the place for nationalism.Alexikoua (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you were never able to address the points made by Çerçok. Instead you made multiple outrageous personal attacks against this user. If we are going to include content about Albanian rebellions in this article then the name will be changed. Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were no Albanian rebellions. No reliable sources to that effect were brought. Attempts to change the name are a waste of time. Khirurg (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmet: Are you certain you are talking about this talkpage? Pretending that I launched NPA vios is quite disrupting. Can you became more specific please. Simply saying to a 3rd person to remove Himara since it's completely non-Greek no matter there is a mountain of bibliography equals nationalism. Alexikoua (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Xhufi is one of the utmost authorities on Epirote studies…"

Says who? Vizion Plus TV, of Xhufi: Dendias në të vërtetë është Dedja! Është arvanitas fame? ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I see Xhufi is an active politician and well known for his extreme anti-Greek positions. His views have been heavily criticized by mainstream historiography. As such additions based on the specific author/politician should be accompanied with the necessary contribution.Alexikoua (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Such nationalist authors are a dime a dozen in the Balkans, especially in Albania which is a notorious hotbed of historical revisionism and irredentism. While they may provide a certain level of amusement, they should not take precedence over established academic sources of international significance. ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I just added sourced content for related revolts in Ulqin, Shkoder, Lezhe, Dukagjin, Mat and Himare. It is not only Xhufi (RS anyway), but also Malcolm, Shabani, Muhaj... It was not a Greek revolt. The article title will be changed to "Anti-Ottoman Revolts". Verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you are re-adding Xhufi because it fits your national narrative.Alexikoua (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It fits verifiable truth, accept it. Also stop presuming my intentions. Çerçok (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:TRUTH. If you take your time studying it you can understand that you participate in this project in a completely wrong way.Alexikoua (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This [2] isn't acceptable. Pellumb Xhufi has been criticized as "virulently anti-Greek" by scholars such as David Ramet [3]. His work has also been criticized by D. Kyriazis [4]. There is simply no room for such a source in a neutral encyclopedia. Even worse, in the edit I reverted, reliable sources were removed without any explanation (Kotzageorgis, Vranousis), as was the word "Greek" in multiple instances, again with no reason and explanation [5]. This needs to stop. Khirurg (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I see even publications by the "Albanian Institute for International studies" mentions his work as "ethnocentric and monoscopic". Well politicians always tend to exaggerate as Theodoros pointed, that's no news to me. We should use heavy precaution when internatinal scholarship doesn't hesitate to adopt such views towards him [[6]] Schmitt seems quite certain about. Alexikoua (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has also been criticized by at least two Albanian historians of "changing the meaning of words" [7] According to Mr. Klosi, the historian Xhufi has completely changed the words found in the original, where the inhabitants of Shkodra were distinguished from "Slavs and Albanians", a passage translated by Xhufi as "farmers and mountaineers". Rightfully so, the publicist Ardian Vehbiu used this as an example of the damage that the "nationalist pledge" brings to the historian., in other words, falsifying sources. This is a pretty serious charge. Khirurg (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with these falsehoods. Neither one of them was a historian and you know it. Even if they were it would not matter: these are all RS secondary source citations of Venetian documents (+ a PhD dissertation). If you want a critique from a historian, here is a good one about a book which shamelessly falsified history. The time when such nationalistic lies could stay here is gone. Accept verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Accept verifiable truth" is not an argument. You have not addressed the criticisms of Xhufi by multiple scholars. He will be removed from the article, and in due time form elsewhere in the encyclopedia. As for Frasheri, his work is self-published, and not in a peer-reviewed publication. Khirurg (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been weeks since I have presented the evidence, and absolutely nothing has come from you or anyone else against it. It is time to purge wikipedia from nationalistic falsehoods. Accept verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way @Khirurg, you opened a discussion board on Xhufi, and nothing came out of it (for the 2nd time). Editing out citations from his book now is simply disruptive editing, and if you continue you will be adequately reported. Çerçok (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cerkok, sorry but Xhufi should be treated with caution. While academic bias is allowed in sources, this is not true for Wikipedia as well. Xhufi unfortunately is characterized by nationalist tendencies in their work and our role as editors in Wikipedia is to be careful when citing such nationalist sources. In your edit summary you asked for the article to be renamed into "Anti-Ottoman Revolt of 1567–1572". I don't mind that. It is important that the Albanians who participated in the revolt, are represented in the title. However I do not agree with using Xhufi as a source. Seeing Xhufi replacing a more neutral source from the Oxford University Press, makes me feel really unease and express my serious concerns here. Xhufi may not be as nationalist as Arben Llalla and others but that doesn't make him any more objective and their work ideal for use in Wikipedia. I strongly oppose replacing Oxford source with the work of a nationalist historian whose work also was not only criticized by other authors, but I am seeing other editors as well expressing serious concerns about. I understand that, for you and perhaps Maleschreiber, from what i see in the RSN, Xhufi seems good, but remember that in Wikipedia, in politically sensitive historical topic areas, we are careful to prioritize reliable sources by non-questionable scholars. I recommend that unless you can provide stronger sources than just Xhufi, to proceed with the other sources such as Psimouli if you are ok with that. Since I haven't heard anything bad about her work so far and she appears to be a well-respected author who lacks nationalist tendencies. What do you think? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident First of all, thank you for keeping an open mind and especially for engaging with my proposals. Every author should be treated with caution, including Xhufi of course. However, I have only added parts of his book that are also supported by archival sources, and I also brought evidence from Malcolm, Shabani and Muhaj. Nonetheless, I would gladly discuss how this content compares to Psimouli and the Oxford Press source and see if I missed something. Would you like to bring a citation from them which contradicts or expands on what I wrote? Çerçok (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident I removed one of the unreliable source?-s after adding Malcolm, who also cites the primary archival source in the same manner as Xhufi. I would rather not remove the other unreliable source?-s unilaterally , but please read Malcolm's pages 123-128 and 136-137. It is not a long read and you will see that every sentence of that paragraph is supported by Malcolm (who actually wrote it earlier). Çerçok (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm, Shabani and Muhaj would be even better! Citing any other scholars is fine by me and I don't see any problems with them. To clarify myself: the issue here for me isn't bias in sources, is about a very specific scholar being cited. Citing biased sources, is permitted in Wikipedia per WP:BIASED. Just it is the citing of nationalist scholars which is not. So feel fee to cite any scholars you may like, as long as Xhufi is replaced by them. The editors have to be careful with what historians they cite because this isn't the first time Wikipedia had to remove them. For example, in 2019, sources by Llalla (who is a much more obvious case of unreliable scholarship) had to be removed too. And many more in the Serbia and Turkey topic areas (with many being related to Kosovo). These topic areas in the WP:BALKANS are plagued by an ultranationalist fever and that's why it is required that editors are careful.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your stance on Xhufi and I believe sources should be judged by content. For example, I have seen several cases of Vranoussis manipulating the primary material, however I would only remove content added from Vranoussis if I have evidence against that particular content, not against him personally. Anyway, since you regard Malcolm more reliable, I added Malcolm citation to the relevant sentences. Çerçok (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for engaging with the issue. If you agree, we can change the title to 'Anti-Ottoman Revolts of 1567-1572 now. Çerçok (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not have a content dispute, and the same information may be verified by other scholars, then the usual practice in Wikipedia is to use these other scholars rather than the unreliable one. The unreliable one has to go. Period. Yes feel free to initiate a move request. I see no problem with that. You have my support vote. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 2 RSN reports on Xhufi. Both went nowhere, so I would advise editors to just present differing accounts which are on the same academic level as him. . Alltan (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xhufi's version is not confirmed by the rest of the bibliography. At the same time Malcolm is massively falsified in the recent additions. Moreover Kotzageorgis, Vranousis, Hasiotis, Tsiknakis etc. provide a quite different version and they are all authors who write in well respected international scientific publications .Alexikoua (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually most of your nationalist additions come from the books of M. B. Sakellariou on Epirus and Macedonia. I tried to search for any scientific publications of his and could not find any at all. Please correct me if I missed them. Çerçok (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A work awarded by the French Academy and composed by various top graded scholars (Cabanes, Hammond, Kondis, Vranousis) can't be nationalist. Tsiknakis (in various Italian papers) is also very clear on the Greek participation. Cercok: You are extremely disruptive in this case. If we have an author / policitian whose work is wp:POV according to Schmitt & the Fredrich Ebert Institution that's Xhufi'.Alexikoua (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question which you did not answer, what has Sakellariou ever published besides his two nationalistic books? Nothing? His work will be removed from wikipedia then. It belongs to fiction websites maybe, not here. Çerçok (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot provide an answer I guess all content coming from that book should be immediately deleted from Wikipedia. Çerçok (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alltan, when the RSN cannot conclude whether a source is reliable, then it befalls upon the editors to agree upon using that particular scholar: when there is no objection to using them, then the editors proceed with citing them cautiously. However that's only in the case where there aren't any concerns on reliability expressed around. In our case here with Xhufi, Other scholars criticised Xhufi's reliability, and editors (including me) also expressed their serious concerns about the scholar's reliability and for being ultranationalist, then the usual practice is to pick another scholar who can verify the same or similar information. By exercising caution and listening to the other's concerns, we ensure that the sensitive articles that concern both the Albania and the Greece topic areas are stable, neutral and have accurate information that none can arrive later and challenge, plus, importantly, the readers get access to reliable bits of information, knowing that it is real information about an event that really happened, which is the Wikipedia's ultimate goal here.

I understand that some editors may be OK with Xhufi, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he really is for everybody here. Like the RSN Volunteers stated in past Dispute Resolutions: its ultimately upon the editors to agree upon what sources to use. The more reliable, the better for us all.-- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone look at this paragraph? [8] It causes at least 5 CAT:REF errors on the article. The CAT:REF error messages can be viewed at this revision, near the bottom: [9] if this helps. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I think you saw this was fixed a few days ago (not by me), but the cause of the errors was that {{sfn}} templates don't need ref tags round them (they create their own references). If you prefer to use ref tags a similar effect can be created with <ref>{{harvnb|...}}</ref>. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents in other Balkan regions can also be mentioned, though they chronologically do not coincide with 1567-1572 (Dukagjin rebellion broke out in 1565 that's out of the scope of the Lepanto victory and the events in southern/Greek regions) and should be treated per wp:UNDUE. Possible contributors can create a separate article in case enough details can be found about those events since they are treated in a different.Alexikoua (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Himara started in 1566. You cannot frame this into a Greek revolt in any way you try, because it simply was not. I am reverting your edits and starting a move request (read the discussion in the section above). Çerçok (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to add verifiable content to the "Events in Greece" subsection, I will support it. Çerçok (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Can someone fill me about the sources? What do the sources do state about this? Aren't these developments part of the same revolts? Im asking coz I don't have free time to check thoroughly all the sources about this aspect yet. This will have to wait until the weekend.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you read the first half of the chapter Rebellion and Ottoman Conquest by Malcolm for the events from Kotor/Bar to Margariti. The local revolts were not coordinated amongst themselves, the only connection being Venetian or Spanish/Napolitan support and instigation. Çerçok (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the revolts weren't coordinated, it would be best to create a separate article for the events in Albania, e.g. Albanian revolts of 1565-1572. Khirurg (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was thinking the same thing actually. It would be nice to hear what user @Çerçok has to say on the matter. Alltan (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They were uncoordinated amongst themselves, but tied through their western supporters. Rebels in Ulqin did not coordinate with those in Mat or those in Himare, and the ones in Mani did not coordinate with the ones in the Aegean islands, etc. They all coordinated with the Venice and Naples. There was no Albanian revolt, no Greek revolt, no Bulgarian revolt, etc., but a series of local revolts instigated or supported by the Catholic powers. I think the title I proposed (the added s in revolts was intentional) captures the fact that they different revolts but all connected to the same conflict and supported by the same external powers. Çerçok (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the sources do not connect them, unless you can show otherwise. Of course the rebels sought outside assistance, all rebels do that. But to lump a series of unrelated events into a single article is un-encyclopedic. Khirurg (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you bother to read the sources you would know. But just to apply your logic fairly, if they are entirely unrelated events then there is no justification for an article such as this one in the first place. Where was this refined criticism before it became clear the article lies about Himara (among other things)? Çerçok (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A connection of the events seems to have been the Venetian instigation of the revolts in different regions. For instance, Giorgio Renesi was a stradiot sent by Venice and the Holy League (1571) in the region, and according to some sources he participated in several revolts, and in different areas. However further analysis of the primary sources through reliable secondary publications should be made for the accuracy of the content. – Βατο (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to do one of the following options: 1) provided that the sources do explicitly mention a common instigator behind both revolts: add a mention of that common instigator to the article, and proceed with the article's move into "Anti-Ottoman revolts" for better representation of the multiple revolts, or 2) provided that the sources do not clearly mention a common instigator behind the revolts nor directly links the revolts to each other: split the article to avoid potential wp:or issues and maintain the 2 events separately to each other until more light is shed on it by a new bibliography.

If Bibliography expands further later on the matter of the revolts, then Wikipedia can adapt to, by merging separate articles or splitting merged articles. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what are these two revolts? You mean one Greek and one Albanian? Those did not exist. There was one from Ulqin to Lezhe, one in Mat, one in Himare, one in Mani, one in the Aegean, etc. Please read the sources. Çerçok (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, I am tying to be helpful as to encourage people present their sources so that we can compare them and see what is really going on there with the disagreements. I still plan to read the source you pointed me this weekend, but I still do have to see what others got - precisely these very bits of information that will help us filter through the comments and conclude safely about what really is true about these events. What I am doing here, is, practically no different than what should have been done in a dispute resolution. This wont help just me, but any third-party editors who may be following the debate and would like a section without the usual editor comments, just the sources. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is notoriously difficult (and usually impossible) to prove a negative (that the revolts were not related). The burden of proof is on those who claim that the revolts in Greece and Albania were part of the same larger revolt. So far I have failed to see evidence of that. I would like to remind everyone that the events in Albania were not part of the article until Cercok added them a few days ago (likely for the purpose of changing the article title, as evidenced by the title of his original talkpage post). Khirurg (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The revolts are related

There, sources confirming the connection between the revolts are listed for evaluation.

• List of sources and their quotes ^{(edit here by yourself to add the WP:RS)}

The revolts are not related

There, sources are not confirming the connection between the revolts, are listed for evaluation.

• List of sources and their quotes ^{(edit here by yourself to add the WP:RS)}

The main prose is divided into 3 main category based on events prior - during and after the major event which decided the fate of the revolts, which is the Battle of Lepanto. Recent activity by Cercok falls clearly into wp:NINJA and creates serious structural inconsistencies.Alexikoua (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why Malcolm is falsified in the case of the Himara events. It appears that a good cleanup is needed to deal with this new kind of OR additions. Moreover, the author uses brackets when using certain descriptions in various occasions which Cercok neglected.Alexikoua (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Falsified? What do you mean? Çerçok (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. The supposed participation of an Albanian army you added about Kardhiq for example. Malcolm doesn't mention that, he just mentions that Mormoris took Albanian hostages.
2. Malcolm uses brackets when he states about "a large number of Albanians", when an author uses brackets that's a clear that he doesn't agree with this version. We shouldn't change the meaning of the source.
3.Malcolm also primarily points to Mormoris' Greek origin though he doesn't exclude a "possible" Albanian origin. wp:OR is extremely disruptive in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. That was not attributed to Malcolm but to the full letter of Zorzi Mormori published by Xhufi.

2. He uses quotation marks because it is a direct quote from the primary source. Nice try to wp:OR btw, but failed again.

3. He says Greek or possibly Albanian, neither is primary (that's just wp:OR on your side again).

Is this all you had? Just accept verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, remember: Xhufi is removed, if the information published by Xhufi isn't supported or verified by reliable scholars, then the information is not reliably verified and ought to go. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we should remove all information by Sakellariou's fictional books. Since all is needed for a source to be deemed unreliable is opposing editors and authors, and I have already provided both in the case of Sakellariou, all his citations should be removed. I would however advise a more cautious approach that looks at each case separately rather than ban/cancel authors outright. We may end up with no reliable authors at all. Çerçok (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xhufi is very much reliable. 2 RSN reports attest to that. Alltan (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply claiming that Xhufi is very much reliable, won't make him reliable. So far experts in the field are stating about his "ethnocentric and monoscopic works" (that's the Albanian Institute for International studies), and virulent anti-Greek narrative which does not differ from the Enverist narrative (per Schmitt). If claiming that such works are reliable then all mainstream scholarship gets useless. As such he is the definition of wp:POV, we should avoid in general policians who publicly display such a pattern. On the other hand if you insist on Xhufi there are also plenty of Greek authors of the same valueAlexikoua (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Greek author who does not meet Xhufi's standard is Sakellariou for example, who is only known on wikipedia and nowhere else, especially not in academia. I also know many Albanian authors who mirror Sakellariou's fairy tales of manipulation but I would rather not lower wikipedia down to that level. Çerçok (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off course he doesn't meet the same standarts as Xhufi, he is an editor of an internaniotally awarded publisher and cooperated with top graded authors (Cabanes, Hammond, Kondis, Nicol, Vranousis etc.). He isn't accused as "monoscopic and ethnicentric" or for hist "virulent national narrative", as Xhufi. It appears you need to follow wp:POV in future.Alexikoua (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just answer, what academic publication does Sekallariou have? Can you provide just 1 or 2? It's OK to say no. Çerçok (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alltan, the RSN did not conclude in favor of Xhufi. There was a discussion among Balkan topic area editors of different sides, whose views coincide with their positions in the topic area's disputes, but that doesn't mean "Xhufi is very much reliable. 2 RSN reports attest to that". Sorry but no. Wasn't an objective approval or dismissal of Xhufi's nationalist work by the RSN, and i would have been surprised if there was any endorsement, because the use of ultranationalist authors would spell unprecedented instability for the Wikipedia Project overall. You may argue as much as you want, but Xhufi is not accepted will never be. Is a red line for me and from what I see, the other editors as well, and had this been a different topic area, not Balkans, the other editors would be quick to acknowledge that instead of insisting as much as you do. As for "Sakellariou", can someone update me? Frankly I never read about this scholar nor I have cited their work in Wikipedia. Looking abit around, I don't find that Sekallariou cited in this article about the anti-Ottoman revolts nor on Souliotes. Can you people enlighten me about who and what has Sekallariou to do with all that? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Xhufi is an ultranationalist then Sakellariou must be Hitler, not only for being much more manipulatively nationalistic than Xhufi, but also for never having published anything scientific compared to Xhufi's hundreds of academic publications. Sakellariou's fictional book on Epirus has been cited across multiple pages here, Alexikoua even creates pages based on it. If you want we can discuss at length about how this has lowered Balkan history articles even to the point of reflecting simple lies, although this was not the reason I mention it. The important thing for me is that no author can be outright banned, each argument has to be evaluated fairly. Çerçok (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that each argument has to be evaluated fairly. But per WP:QS, such sources may only be used to verify information relevant to that scholar, usually in biographical articles about these persons, not meant to verify information in historical articles. Please read carefully what WP:QS states: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves." So yes, you may argue about using Xhufi, but only if an article is about Xhufi himself. Nothing more, nothing less. Xhufi is a politician who has expressed extremist views against certain nationalities, the other scholars criticized him heavily for that, and to make things worse, Xhufi isn't an independed scholar, but a politician in Albania whose political biography includes working for governments and advocating political propagandas. All these aren't helpful to their case here. Sorry. I hope I made myself clear here because I hate repeating myself about the project's core policies which all editors have to follow unconditionally: Wikipedia's WP:QS is part of the Wikipedia's core content policy, WP:VER. If you are unhappy with how the project works, then take your complaints to the WP:VERS talk page, not here. Given the rules, we editors are duly dismissing or have already dismissed dozens of such nationalist politicians as sources not only the Greece topic area, but even in the Macedonia, the Italy, the Serbia, and the Turkey topic areas, which mind you, coincides with the fact that these countries had a rich history of political nationalism and extremism which the editors have to shield Wikipedia from. About that Sakellariou one, did you ever ask at the RSN? Looks like none has asked at the noticeboard about them. You probaly won't even have to ask there if they meet any of the conditions the WP:QS has set for unreliable sources: if a scholar is extremist, or their work is unsubstantiated gossip and the author has been questioned by other scholars, then I advice that they are removed from Wikipedia. Or if you are uncertain, then ask about Sakellariou at the RSN (without clogging the discussion please!). Now, back to our subject: this talk page is about the present article's issues. Xhufi has been removed and any information citing them may stay only if verified by WP:RS. What I am saying here is not the unusual, just the obvious. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Çerçok, does not only promote sources that do not meet wp:RS (monoscopic, stereotypic as scholarship labels them) but at the same time removes top-graded scholarship in case it doesn't meet his personal POV, to name a view removals: Hasiotis (1980), Hasiotis (1970), Vranousis (1997). This kind of disruptive editing should end.Alexikoua (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remove wrong statements, not authors, as you try to do. Vranousis has intentionally falsified primary material, so I remove citations of this falsification. Non-falsified citations I have not removed. I think this is constructive rather than disruptive. In terms of disruptive, you even managed to cut off a sentence mid-way here just to remove the word Albanians. I have not seen anything more disruptive than that. Things will be a lot easier once you accept verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: It is unfortunate that despite Wikipedia's rules being clear that extremists cannot be cited as sources in Wikipedia, and despite there being no consensus for using such a problematic author as a source, the editor User:Ahmet Q. proceed with reinstating the unreliable sources without achieving consensus and in violation of Wikipedia's core policies. This leaves me no other option but to notify the admins and take any other appropriate actions if needed. I am sorry to see this article falling as low as to see unreliable sources being reinstated using brute-force. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, refrain from removing reliable content from the article again without consensus. Xhufi is a reliable historian and has made multiple important works as has been already explained by other editors. Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you ought to seek WP:CONSENSUS for your additions and provide strong sources supporting Xhufi as a reliable author, to counter the other scholars who discredited Xhufi, something you haven't done, besides sharing with us your personal editorial opinions about that author being reliable. Sorry but an author's reliability is not something based on what you say as an editor, but based Wikipedia's criteria for WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Nothing less, nothing more. Revert your additions to the article, present evidence in the talk page confirming Xhufi as a reliable author, and seek WP:CONSENSUS before re-adding them to the article. I am waiting. No rubble please, I m waiting for sources. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xhufi's paper (2019) is published in a peer reviewed top graded source, which explicitly certifies the scientific validity of the content. @SilentResident you have no reason to remove it. – Βατο (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid this is not enough. Wikipedia never cites extremists as reliable sources no matter what editors may argue. Extremist authors are not reliable sources. I am vehemently against the use of nationalist politicians such as Xhufi [10] for politically sensitive articles in the WP:BALKANS topic area. I strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with WP:VERIFIABILITY, which, states: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves." I am not here to discuss about how to circumvent WP:VER and WP:CONSENT to the use of such an author, so I will be straightforward: Unless you provide here WP:RS countering or dismissing the WP:RS containing the allegations against Xhufi, then the extremist may not be considered a reliable source. Please, don't expect me to change my position on this as no editorial arguments may change my mind. Wikipedia doesn't rely on editorial views, only on WP:RS. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident Note that the part you cited never refers to an author, only a source. Iif you have any sources disputing the specific parts I have cited from Xhufi, please present them, otherwise this is rs. Çerçok (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry SilentResident, but this publication [11] is peer reviewed by a scientific commettee of numerous scholars, and it is explicitly stated that its scientific validity is certified by them. It can't be considered a "questionable source". – Βατο (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Çerçok this doesn't address the problem with Xhufi being an extremist politician. Since it is you who is adding the content to the article, it is your duty to present facts on why an extremist may be cited, not me. I am not the one trying to add content to the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is not an extremist, and not that it matters, but he is no longer a politician. He is a historian of the middle ages, member of the Albanian Academy of Sciences, with dozens of peer-reviewed publications. This has been discussed many times, it is clear already. Çerçok (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you found some time to read Malcolm's chapter during the weekend. Çerçok (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xhufi is an extremist per Schmitt and Schmitt is a respective historian in the field, you need to avoid wp:IDHT.Alexikoua (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cercok removes even Albanian authors [[12]]. Skendi is a respected author. I assume that everything that contradicts his personal POV, to name a few examples: Vranousis, Tsiknakis, Hasiotis (1980), Hasiotis (1980), and now Skendi, on the other hand Politian/historian Xhufi does the job. No that's wp:OWN and is extremely disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It will soon be a month since I first corrected nationalistic falsehoods from this ficticious article. I presented all necessary evidence from 4 different authors. In almost one month, not once has any of the opposing editors tried to assess the merit of the evidence I brought, not even once (SilentResident promised to read, still waiting on that). One month of excuses to avoid facing the truth. Let's see if you can make it a year. Çerçok (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia advices the opposite of your "truth", I am afraid. Wikipedia explicitly tells you that verifiability and NOT truth is what matters here. Also, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For as long as you are attempting to cite extremist authors such as Xhufi on the article, then any consensus-building process will not be possible and the article will have to be reverted to its last stable version. WP:VER is a non-negotiable policy.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 08:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the verifiable part? It is verifiable truth, not non-verifiable, so just accept it as it is plain to see. I see we have resumed non-content related excuses. Did you read Malcolm's chaper or not?Çerçok (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm doesn't verify everything Xhufi claims. You still need more authors than just Malcolm if you want to verify every bit of Xhufi's information. Xhufi has to go. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I've removed Xhufi from the article. "Virulently anti-Greek" (per scholar David Ramet) Balkan politicians should not be used as sources anywhere on what is meant to be a neutral encyclopedia. Khirurg (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Çerçok, @Khirurg, @SilentResident, @Βατο Xhufi can be used:[13]. Any editor who wishes to remove him will have to do so through the relevant channel, i.e RSN. To quote the admin: "Suggestion: try again. At RSN." Of course I had already mentioned this before [14], but its good to have further confirmation. Also, SilentResident, you should probably avoid making comments akin to: "For as long as you are attempting to cite extremist authors such as Xhufi on the article". The admin in question removed [15] and corrected previous such characterizations of yours' [16]. To quote him yet again: "so that, no, you may not do that, User:SilentResident". Can't get no clearer than that tbh. Alltan (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patience. There will be developments soon and the extremist (and revisionist according to the new sources and evidence which I am collecting) Xhufi will be removed from the article. Just patience. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, what you are trying to do goes against all Wikipedia guidelines. If you know any that permit banning an author, not his arguments or statements, please present it. Otherwise I will seek admin intervention against you. Çerçok (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you feel I have violated any guidelines in trying to remove a nationalist far-right politician as a reliable source, then please inform the Admins. Or even the ANI and AE. However, if you excuse me, I may not water down my opposition to propagandists in Wikipedia. I reassure you that a new discussion about Xhufi will open at the RSN, like it or not. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SR is free to post RSN's on Xhufi every day if she wants to. However, until one such RSN decided that Xhufi is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, users are free to reference him as much as they like. You don't have to wait until a RSN is concluded to be able to use him. Just an FYI. Alltan (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a certain procedure known as wp:BRD, in the same way that Hasiotis, Skendis, Tsiknakis are removed (although fully wp:RS) there's no problem to remove Xhufi (propagating national stereotypes as scholarship states). It appears wp:OWN it's quite disruptive here.Alexikoua (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, @Alltan, is there a reason you place Ulqin as part of Albania? [[17]] Perhaps a Montenegro section is appropriate here.Alexikoua (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, I advice you against following WP:WP. The repeated citing of random Wikipedia policies and the unnecessary use of Wikipedia jargon do not make your arguments stronger. Just saying because I've noticed many accussations from you to other users of being disruptive, of WP:IDHT, personal attacks and others. I do not believe this contributes to constructive debating. Super Ψ Dro 23:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to comment on content, simply being aggressive against me without any knowledge of the topic falls into wp:npa, just be careful about that.

As I see scholarship does not hesitate to name Xhufi as "Albanian nationalist" in the context that he personally attacked archbishop Anastasios [[18]] in various papers. Actually Xhufi (in various articles as Schmitt states) propagates in favour of a purely national Orthodox church. Alexikoua (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here he states that the national self-identification of the minorities in the Albania [[19]] will turn the country into a battleground. I have nothing to say. Alexikoua (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see he has wisely argued in favor of the progressive policy of an open minded EU member state such as Greece, which never allows ethnicity in the census. A very progressive stance by Xhufi here. Çerçok (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historian Pullumb Xhufi has accused Albania’s political class of selling out the country to Greek interests regarding the question of ethnicity in September’s planned census. Well this doesn't sound neutral.Alexikoua (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this quote, it refers to a work that's focused on 15th-16th century history. [[20]]

Pellump Xhufi, Dilemmata von Arberia. Studien zum mettelarlerlichen Albanien. Tirane 2006, bietet gesammelte Schriften mit telweise nationalistischer Polemik gegen griechische Historiographie.. I assume there is no need to translate "telweise nationalistischer Polemik". The description reveals that there is some kind of obsession against Greek historiography.Alexikoua (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the work Xhufi, P. 2016. Arbërit e Jonit. Tiranë: Onufri. (which is added here) the author attempts to ignore, distort or make selective use of the linguistic data; [[21]] and aims at degrading Greek history in southern Albania. It appears we have a clear case of POV.Alexikoua (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So many academics do not hesitate to question the validity of Xhufi's research. Here is another quote by an academic from an Albanian institution: According to the Albanian historian Pellumb Xhufi, who misinterpreted Ottoman registers and a Greek chronicle, Dropull was colonized by Greeks not earlier than the beginning of the seventeenth century.Alexikoua (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Alexikoua I am afraid that there is a better place for challenging the author and exposing them to the Wiki community. Have patience because there is the RSN where everything can be presented against the extremist politician. Not only these WP:RS facts degrading Greek history, but alot more, even public statements full of propaganda from revisionist remarks and even degrading claims about the Greek ancestry of notable and respected public figures, such as Nikos Dendias who is the current Foreign Minister of the Hellenic Republic. Remarks of racist historical revisionism none would have expected from a supposedly reliable and serious author who is supposed to have the bare minimum ability of seeing facts straightforwardly and objectively. Please, patience for the RSN. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are claims that someone has Albanian ancestry degrading? Çerçok (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Çerçok, my recommendation for you is the same as for Alexikoua: that you wait for the RSN. This helps to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues across multiple talk pages (especially since Xhufi is cited in more than just one article), and to raise awareness among editors across the Wikipedia project of the status of the sources in question. Now, if you excuse me. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As part of Cercok's disruptive pattern on removing an endless list of top graded authors (Vranousis, Tsiknakis, Hasiotis (1980), Hasiotis (1980), Skendi) he know initiated removing Vakalopoulos [[22]] obviously with the excuse that he is contradicting Xhufi.Alexikoua (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[[23]] It appears that this kind of disruption removing source per wp:POV is still active. Vakalopoulos is among many other top graded authors that must be removed on sight. On the other hand nationalist-politican Xhufi (as stated per Schmitt and several other academic institutions) is still part of this article. That's not cool.Alexikoua (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chasiotis (1970) describes the inhabitants of Himara who engaged in military activities in this period as Greeks, but the primary sources and contemporary historiography doesn't describe them as such. It's WP:UNDUE/WP:POV to use a description favored in an older school of the historiography of a specific state.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chasiotis is a top-graded scholar and professor. I'm sorry but a Greek community is well attested in primary sources. Himara had also a Greek community and this falls into wp:NPOV. It wasn't a purely Albanian community if you mean that. There is also Chasiotis (1980), Vakalopoulos (2008), Tsiknakis (2013), Vranousis (1997) that confirm local Greek participation from Himara region in this revolt.Alexikoua (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use old sources to suopport dubious statements. Himara region at that time was very large, and the Albanian population of the area had not yet embraced the Muslim faith. For the self-identification by Himariots in that period, see Giakoumis (2016). – Βατο (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in full agreement with Giakoumis (there was indeed a Greek community there) while Bato I see you are quite confident to use sources of the 1970s (Stipcevic etc.). I don't understand why you are into wp:NPA violations against me again. Please follow wp:CIVIL.Alexikoua (talk)

Βατο: You removed even Hasiotis (1980) as beeing supposedly old. Well that's not cool, I assume you need to take a deep breath and apologize.Alexikoua (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize for what? Where do you see a wp:NPA violation? My comment was clearly focused on content. The "decisive" role you added is not accurate. – Βατο (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm for pretending that scholarship published at 1980 is old and should be de-facto removed as you did. If you personal disagree with scholarship that's another issue, but simply removing facts that simply don't like is not called productive editting.Alexikoua (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modern scholarship clearly shows he is outdated and inaccurate, to put it mildly. Btw, I notice you added a 19th century quote from Finlay. When I corrected a blatantly falsified citation from him about the population of Athens during his time, you wanted him removed. Now you add his 200 year old quote about events centuries before him. Funny how things turn, but of course it will have to go. Accept verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again wp:OR, you should avoid that. Hasiotis is an active scholar and quite accurate in his descriptions and 1980 isn't outdated (you mean your addition of the modern Albanian name of Athens, you should also follow wp:NC in this case). We should avoid on the other hand active politicians that tend to publish various viral nationalistic videos, let's say in youtube.Alexikoua (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is more OR than never discussing content? You removed Finlay, now you cannot have him back. Çerçok (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like your continuous removal of Vakalopoulos [26]? "Falsification" is a serious charge. As far as I can tell, there is no falsification whatsoever, only reliably sourced material you keep removing. Khirurg (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These events have been fully enlightened by RS sources that directly cite primary documents. This fiction will not stand. Answer about Vakalopoulos in the section below if you want. Çerçok (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have the original document cited by Vakalopoulos in supporting his claim that the Greek units of Sopot had to flee following the Ottoman-Venetian peace treaty of 1573? A direct quote would be great and essential in verifying this. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lezhjani1444: extra care should be applied when using that author. In another case [27] he claims "6000 Epirotes" while a non-Balkan academic says "6000 Albanians". Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua: even that pic mentions Mormoris and Albanians, not "Greeks of Sopot". It would not be an issue if Vakapoulos did not talk about "6000 Epirotes" in the 1596 Himara revolt, while primary documents provided by Floristan memtion 6000 Albanians. On Xhufi, he is a controversial source so whenever reliable (not of the Vakapoulos kind) sources say the opposite of what he claims, he should not be used. Extra care should be applied when using such sources as Xhufi, Vakapoulos, Spiro (Spyrou) etc. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's far too weak for an argument to use contemporary 16th century inscriptions as an excuse for removing Vakalopoulos. Spiro & Vakalopoulos are University professors. Politician Xhufi has been rejected by several academic publications. We need to be careful on that.Alexikoua (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The primary documents are the most important thing. How does Vakalopoulos know what happened there without the primary documents? Vakalapoulos in two cases counters with what both other academics and primary sources say. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm per wp:PRIMARY we should use heavy caution on the use of primary. We should mainly rely on wp:secondary and wp:academic. You remove Vakalopoulos on sight because he offers another view from Floristan, while in the case of Xhufi [[28]] you are very convenient to leave him in the text no matter he presents a completely different picture. That's double standards.Alexikoua (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A primary document that can be verified, the pic in the article, mentions Mormoris and Albanians. If you find the primary document where Vakalopoulos does see the Greek units, then the content I removed should be added again. On Floristan, he does not offer just another view. He offers primary documents that can be verified by his readers. Vakalopoulos offers what? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the fact that the siege that's depicted in the drawing occurred at 1570, while the information you removed refers to the surrender of the castle at 1573 [[29]]. I wonder if this inscription (that refers to an event 2 years previously) is the real reason you removed Vakalopoulos. Alexikoua (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I do not care about what you wonder about me. Second, if the Greeks of Sopot had to leave, what happened with Albanians? Does Vakalopoulus say sth or does he elaborate on Greeks only? If so, why? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venetians used units of Greeks or Albanians in various operations. In this specific one it happened to be Greek units. It's part of a military operation which specific units should be used. So, why this sourced description is not accepted by you?Alexikoua (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is not directly citing a primary document, but a secondary source which uses primary documents. The is as reliable as it can be. Çerçok (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it definitely meets wp:RS. No issue on the event of 1573 as described by him.Alexikoua (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the whole quote by Vakalopolous? There have been issues in the past similar to this, so the whole quote preferably with the primary document which he cites will be useful to clarify this. Alltan (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered full citation [30]] some additional text based on the information offered by Vakalopoulos can also be added (for example the surrender of Sopot by its Greek garrison led under orders by Venice led to the worsening of the Himariote-Venetian relations etc).Alexikoua (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]