Talk:Konitsa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Albanian Name

The source for the albanian name was given so why do you keep removing it Alexikoua and Athenian? --Sarandioti (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source says that it concerns specific villages in the region, not the town itself, u know it, if not lear SpanishAlexikoua (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, Alexikoua. --
talk) 23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Good, for the same reason then you have no objection of the removal of greek names in Delvine, Sarande, Gjirokaster as greek minority lives in village and not in the towns, do you? --Sarandioti (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the sources I have provided and you are pretending not to notice are unequivocal that Greeks live in those towns. --
talk) 07:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Your sources talk about the DISTRICT, not the towns, the articles themselves say that the majority is albanian. Do you understand the difference between VILLAGE and TOWN?--Sarandioti (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this thread here. I also saw a lot of war.... Besides the fact that I think that the name in Aromanian is less important than that in Albanian, I see that you feel very strongly about this. I saw also that you disregarded the source in spanish that Sarandioti provided here [1]. Even though I believe that very few people now in Konica feel Albanian, in the past it was not so: lots of them did (i.e. Faik Konica). This is the reason why I can't buy that right now there are not Albanians at all in Konica or they are in lesser percentage than the greeks living in
Gjirokaster (where we have a greek name of the city). I'll put this back into discussion. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Have you been ever in Konitsa? I am there (or nearby, 15' to the north -in Burasani-) every summer for some 8 years now. The only Albanian thing nowadays is the Hamko's house (mother of Ali Pasha) well preserved with municipality's money. And some very recently arrived Albanian workers used in the nearby valley usually not permanently lived there. Odd enough there are a few old families in the up (old) part of the town which, as they say, are Turks and speaking Turk and their feelings against the Albanians are not perfectly well. --Factuarius (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Factuarius, glad you joined the party!!! I have never been to Konica, and I'm not very concerned about how the Turks in Konitsa feel. Besides what do you expect them to tell you, denial is their only salvation. However leaving the turks aside, a lot of Albanians don't have enough national pride, because they are orthodox first and albanians second. And since the church tells them that they are orthodox first and hellenes second, they end up becoming greeks. However it wasn't always so and an encyclopedia should reflect it, by at least mentioning the name in Albanian. Again, if you feel strongly and if you think my logic is poor, don't change, but I would suggest a change similar to what was done with Kostur (where we have the Albanian name (and bulgarian for that matter) (not on top, but a little lower)).sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Hey sulmues!!! Do you know me?) I am afraid the scenario about the Orthodox Albanians if its right must be by now, around a century or more old. (What's Kostur?). It just happened to know about Konitsa & I thought to write that nowadays there are no genuine Albanian residents. And I can guarantee that. Accordingly cannot see your point. But let me tell you an interesting story. One of the bigger city in Bulgaria was Pyrgos (means Castle in Greek) with almost entirely Greek population until the early 20th century, but due to the historical events (see
Bulgarization) now has only a few if any. To your surprise you will find that nobody tried to put the old Greek name in the article although the current name (Burgas) means nothing to the Bulgarian. Everyone just decided to avoid an edit war for nothing, and to save himself from some possible bans in his back. Now, I agree that Sarandioti had always different opinions in similar cases..but again he is not between us to say if that was right or wrong (or he is sulmues?) --Factuarius (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Hm how do I know you: I know the triple factuarius-athenean-alexikoua, because I see your names here: [2], [3], and [4] so I see your love in all the topics involving
sarande, and albania. How can I be an Albanian, write in Wikipedia and not have to know you three? Sarandioti: Can't speak about him, 'cause I never talked to the guy. I was referring to this Kostur.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Hm that's funny, because

Now, if you want to be a little more persuasive in how you know me could you be kind enough to try again? --Factuarius (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latest
wp:NINJA

It appears the article is hit by the latest NINJA [[5]]. Even if the town's Muslim minority consisted of a minority of Albanian speakers once (as immigrants from adjustcent areas), this doesn't justify the addition of alternative names in lead per wp:NC. I'm afraid this can be easily considered disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cham Albanians

The claim that the town was "Albanian speaking" and inhabited by Cham Albanians is simply not true. Nor is it backed up by the source used. Konitsa is and always was, to my knowledge a predominantly Aromanian settlement. The history section is in general woefully underdeveloped, so over the next few days I will add to it.

talk) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I was reviewing the discussion with Factuarius almost a year ago and smiling at my words and his. Important Albanian personalities came from Konica, and the rulers (beys) were Albanian. I am not sure if they can be called Cham Albanians, but the existence of the Albanian population in this place is evident. It is not ok that the Aromanian name of the city is there, but the Albanian isn't: there are both Aromanians and Albanians in the city. In addition since we have the Greek names in Sarande and Gjirokaster, it would be necessary that a city so close to the border with Albania have the Albanian name. --Sulmues (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The only reason we have names in the lede is if many sources refer to them in that language, regardless of whether they are close to border. The distance to the border is irrelevant, otherwise we would all kinds of weird results.
talk) 19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Usually if the cities are close to the border it is a good argument to have both names. This gives some results. --Sulmues (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Not to mention that many sources erroneously point to Faik Konitsa. --Sulmues (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A really wonder why we have this disruption by adding sources of 1872 just to promote an extreme national view [[6]],
wp:or can be very usuefull.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Usual reverts from Athenean

Athenean why are you reverting [7]? A traveller's book of 1872 is a good independent source for the population in 1872. What is exactly that you want? --Sulmues (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No 19th century sources, please. Even you should know that by now.
talk) 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
What's wrong with them? --Sulmues (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL.
talk) 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm glad you have a good time, but honestly how can you make a census in the 21st century for the population of the 19th century? And if I find you censuses of the 19th century you'll fake another "ROFL" [8]? --Sulmues (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If by now you don't know what's wrong with using a source from 1872, you have no business editing wikipedia. Unless you're pretending, that is. Honestly.
talk) 20:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No I'm not pretending. I have never seen anything in wikipolicies that prohibits me from using old sources (unless a new one to contraddict it or affirms it exists). You are the only one who has these problems. If you find better sources, or contemporary ones, please enter them and change the wording. I never object to a good source: it enriches the article. Is a travellers' word the best thing we have? No! But why not bring it when we have nothing else for that period? I guarantee you that it won't be easy for you to give a pure Greek character to 19th century Konitsa. The traveller is very clear about the Albanian physionomy of the settlement in the 19th century, why hide that source and the history of Konitsa? --Sulmues (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not pretending? Good grief. You don't understand what's wrong with 19th century sources, you don't understand
talk) 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It seems like we have disagreed on this several times during the last year. IMO the policy is not very clear and each one of us has his own interpretation of it. I think Alexikoua will agree with me on this, because he consideres Stickney a secondary source for his Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, although the book was written in 1923, close to the event. Factuarius a year ago was saying the same thing, but in the sources I continuously find Albanians. There were Greeks and Aromanians but they were minorities. The sources are very clear. Besides, aren't you happy how the Englishman depicts the Albanians as "wild-looking" [9]? I thought you'd jump with joy in reading that. --Sulmues (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please choose better works from googlebooks. 19th century stuff can be added in 'further reading' section but you need to avoid using this as a source. We have plenty modern material.Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as you find it make sure to enter it. I entered a closer version to the source. [10]--Sulmues (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as you find it make sure to enter it. ? Can you please avoid sarcasm. Since there is something wp:rs I dont see a reason why you reverted. I would appreciate if you remove it youself as you did in the past in similar cases avoiding further dirsuption.Alexikoua (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the same '19th century' obsession Berat is by 2/3 inhabited by Greeks [[11]]. However, adding something like this in the relevant article would be clear 'disruption'. So I expect from Sulmues to remove this part he recently added.Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We fully well know that "Greeks" in that source means Christians Alexi, so that's not even an issue. It doesn't even mention the Albanians. --Sulmues (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also on the same logic the province of Valona had 25,000 Greeks [[12]]. Seems this 19th bibliography gives us the opportunity to write new history, but we should better avoid.

@Sulmues: That's your personal or: Greek means Greek, and Albanian Albanian (you choose 19th century stuff). Please lower down this extreme national enthousiam.Alexikoua (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your second source doesn't distinguish between Greek Christians and Albanian Christians either, so it's clearly counting the Christian population that has to pay the jizya tax to the Muslim one that doesn't have to. The jizya tax is even called a capitation tax. That too is a non issue. --Sulmues (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"We fully well know that "Greeks" in that source means Christians Alexi"? It doesn't get more OR than that.
talk) 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Noone cares about personal orings, but as you've said 19th century stuff is unreliable and has no place here (without exception)Alexikoua (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Bring it to WP:RS, so that we don't waste time here. If you revert me, I will. In a good article such as this, Polybius is used as a reference. --Sulmues (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You agreed that 19th century stuff in this occassions is unreliable. So I take it that you agree with the removal.Alexikoua (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never did, where did you get that? An admin said that it can be used [13] so your edit-warring over it is uncalled for. --Sulmues (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(you questioned 19th material since they use wrong terminology that's the same) As I see this article has became today the new wp:own target by the same user (no arguments just oring with weird 19th century cherry picking).Alexikoua (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at
talk) 22:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
A 19th century, non-academic traveler is not a reliable source for ethnic demographics, as this
WP:PRIMARY
is about: We should not interpret primary sources on our own but rather rely on expert secondary sources to do so. Not only that, but the edits were very poorly implemented. Removed. 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, I think you have a wrong perception on the use of 19th-century sources on Wikipedia. Yes, these are primary sources that have to be utilized with care, but nowhere does it say that they should not be used on Wikipedia. In this version, the source was described correctly, with a year of publication and enough information on the author for the reader to make a judgment. The reference is not interpreted or analyzed in any way and thus does not require a secondary source for elaboration; it is merely cited. It's perfectly in line with

WP:PRIMARY
.

Now, I can't access the specific Google Books page, so I don't know what Albanian characteristics the source mentions, but I think the best solution in this case would be a direct quote of the relevant sentence/paragraph from Murray. Does he simply say "Albanian town", with no further details on its inhabitants? Then that could be too ambiguous to include in the article because it's unclear as to whether it refers to ethnicity at all. But this is not a matter of

WP:PRIMARY
.

In short, "No 19th century sources, please" is a wrong argument. Citing WP:PRIMARY: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment". But in this case, the information from the source we have may well be misleading and unnecessary.

Finally, remember that we are not the ones to decide what "Greeks", "Albanians", "Macedonians" or "Bulgarians" means in a 19th-century reference. Ideally, we should avoid citing a primary source that seems to use these names indiscriminately, and any non-academic quote that uses these names should ideally be supported/elaborated by a scholarly secondary source. — Toдor Boжinov — 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exact quote is: "where the filthy streets, comfortless houses, and wild-looking population proclaim the Albanian town.. Personally speaking I dont believe that this can be considered a characteristic of a specific nation.Alexikoua (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of 19th century writers who visited it say the same thing actually [15]A town of 5000, of which 2/3 are Muslims doesn't leave much room for any kind of speculation.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually 19th century authors also argued that Berat is 2/3 Greek [[16]]. It seems that there is a high degree of incosistency with 19th century terminology (I've also multiple times heard the usual pov comment that 19th cent. Albanian means Albanian while 19th cent. Greek means something else, as part of a typical nationalistic campaign).Alexikoua (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't afford any speculation actually. Murray is more ambiguous than Hughes. I wouldn't use Murray's remark on the "wild-looking population" to deduce that they were ethnic Albanians and not Vlachs or Greeks (while it may be a strong hit, it's not a safe assumption), but Hughes' description obviously references a group of people identifying as Albanians in an ethnic sense. Of course, we cannot take more from Hughes than he says: that in his perception, the governor and at least seven six other people were Albanians.
That is... "According to early 19th-century British historian and traveller Thomas Smart Hughes, who published his impressions from a visit to Konitsa in 1820, the town had an Albanian governor and was at least partially populated by Albanians." Nowhere does he say what portion of the town's majority Muslim population is ethnic Albanian. For all we know, these may be mostly Turks, as unlikely as that would be...
Note that I'm not advocating the inclusion of this sentence in the article, I'm merely showing what I would consider a proper use of a 19th-century primary source.
P.S. I have to agree that in the 19th-century "Greek" often had a sense broader than the ethnic one, because of Greek culture's wide-ranging influence over the Orthodox Bulgarians, Vlachs and Albanians and the common Hellenization of these populations. One could be culturally, linguistically and/or confessionally Greek, but not ethnically. On the other hand, far fewer people were culturally and linguistically Albanian without being ethnic Albanians. Of course, one could be "geographically" Albanian, e.g. a Greek living in what 19th-century people perceived as "Albania" (Albanian lands). And naturally, I agree there's a lot of inconsistency in 19th-century terminology. — Toдor Boжinov — 13:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: terminology had a diferrent sense that time. The case is if its right to use it. For example an editor highly pro-x would agree to use a 19th century source in Konitsa for example, but not one in Berat. I believe we should prefer academic (secondary) sources, (if we have any) for example this [[17]].Alexikoua (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Alexikoua we're not discussing the situation after WWII so please don't bring sources that are about that era. Btw Todor [18] it's a book written by a professor of the University of London in 1955.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I would appreciate if you avoid irrelevant and misleading hints). I'm sorry but the topic is: how different were 19th century books and terms.Alexikoua (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I see Mann was a active member of a small group of British Albanophils [[19]][[20]]. Although his work might be good in his fied (literature), it's obvious that he can't be neutral on demographics analysis.Alexikoua (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Alexikoua please don't make OR deductions about albanophilia. University of London professors are RS, whether you like what they write or not.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise: the are rs on their field.Alexikoua (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would appreciate if you avoid adding Albanian alt, names on irrelevant villages of Konitsa region [[21]] while the reference doesn't confirm that. Selecting villages at random can be considered highly disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally there are more sources about the Albanian name of the town than the Aromanian one Alexikoua, which you mind don't having on the lead.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to provide urls in order to support this opinion?Alexikoua (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Konice incidents

Pearson mentions two Konice incidents in 1947 page 135. Would you guys have any Greek sources on that or are you going to liquidate me with a "Pearson is a primary source"? Any objection that I enter some content on those two incidents in the history of the town? --Sulmues (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Population exchange issues

I can only wonder why this quote is relevant with the Muslim community of this town:

Half of the Muslims of Epirus abandoned Epirus, before or during the exchange; the rest remained settled on the basis of Albanian origin. This meant that many Muslims sought to claim Albanian origin, true or false, in order to avoid being exchanged. It seems that declaring ‘Albanian origin’ was a convenient pretext for wealthy non Albanian-speaking Muslims to remain

.

The author doesn't even mention the name of the town in the entire chapter (in contrast to Albanian communities of the areas such as Chams of the coastal area, but this obviously not the case of this town). In fact there is not even evidence that Muslim Albanians were in this town after 1923. Thus, obviously this addition appears to be nothing mor than OR&POV.Alexikoua (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I assume your familiar with the exchange of populations matter. All Muslims separate to Greek Thrace were to be sent to Turkey. Due to Albanian but mainly Italian pressure and eventually a backdown by Greece and Turkey, Muslim Albanians were omitted. It was not just the Chams per se. Tsitselikis gives a overview for Muslims in Epirus that remained as a whole. Konitsa is in Epirus and a Muslim community has remained (that is fact) however small its become over the decades in a post war environment. Muslims that remained in Epirus remained so due to them either having a Albanian origins or being Albanian speaking etc. There was no special preference given for Konitsa Muslims to remain by the Greek government. Can you find me something that that is the case. How is it that such as sizable amount of people remained after the exchange of populations? They were not allowed to stay because they were deemed Greek, that for sure. Otherwise the Valades of the Grevena era too would still be there today. Tsitselikis provides information for the whole region of which Konitsa is a part. Moreover, issues of some of their members background about being of "Turkish-Albanian" origin did come up decades later. Again to cite from Tsitselikis he gives this example (p. 505 [22])

In a very interesting case, a Muslim from Konitsa (Epirus) who graduated from EPATH in 1979 provoked a furious reaction on the part of the Principal of EPATH when the latter learned that a student 'of Turkish-Albanian origins without any relation to Thrace' had graduated from EPATH with the right to be hired in the minority schools

.
Also these Muslims of Konitsa were still intermarrying with Muslim Albanians across the border until Enver Hoxha closed it. See the inlines and also check the article.Resnjari (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the entire section and unfortunately Konitsa isn't mentioned once. If a Muslim (non-Albanian) pretented to be of "Albanian origin" (even the proposed text is misleading since it claims a 'real' Albanian origin), as Tsitselikis claim, in Epirus, that's another case, not related with this town. Any other speculation about supposed origins is a product of OR.Alexikoua (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The important elements regarding the Muslim population in Konitsa are accounted for, especially in relation to its formation. Nonetheless, its not OR nor is it a claim about a 'real' Albanian origin. A number of Muslims in Epirus remained (separate to the Chams) and Tsitselikis outlines for the whole of Epirus of which Konitsa is part did so because they claimed they where Albanians or had a Albanian origin. People who made such declarations remained, otherwise there would be no Muslims in Konitsa. So far you have not provided anything to ascertain as to how these Muslims have remained in Konitsa, while i have. Its a very simple question: Why did one third of their number remain after 1923 in the town ? As for to use your words "pretended" to be an Albanian, there is nothing about that in the book so i don't know where you got that from. Konitsa is complicated as the Muslim community there was formed from two distinct groups (local Grek timar holders and Muslim Albanian refugees and by the 19th century most of them where Greek speaking, while interestingly some number where engaging in the Albanian national movement) who merged through intermarriage and had to deal with population exchanges and its aftermath. This is outlined in the research provided.Resnjari (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Muslims that remained after 1923 in Epirus weren't necessary Albanian Muslim. Tsitselikis has a good point about those pseudo-Albanians of Chameria (a good addition for the Chams article though) In the case of Konitsa you still need to present a decent reference that claims that an Albanian community still existed there.Alexikoua (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"pseudo-Albanians". Interesting language you use there Alexikoua. Talk about POV and personal opinion. Anyway, Tsitselikis in no way refers to the Chams that way. He notes that other Muslims outside the Cham area also declared a Albanian origin that were not at that point in time Albanian speaking etc but were in Epirus. Again why was there a remaining Muslim presence in Konitsa after the exchange of populations? You still have not addressed this question. Muslims in Thesprotia where allowed to stay if they were Albanian speaking, had a Albanian origin (or claimed one). The criteria for Albanian identity was extended for the whole of Greek Epirus. That is what Tsitselikis outright states. So how is it that such a sizable community of Muslim remained after the exchange ? Please i am most curious to hear your thoughts on the matter ?Resnjari (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This question is for you to answer in order to support your point. Fact is that the section you provide doesn't even mention this town once, not even indirectly. Let me remind you that Tsitselikis states that: many (i.e. not all) Muslims sought to claim Albanian origin. Thus, I assume that according to your rationale "Many" includes Konitsa Muslims too... I don't think that your argument is strong enough.Alexikoua (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was many and not all. Exactly. Those that did not claim an Albanian origin went to Turkey. There was no special omission of the Muslim Konitsiotes. Baltsiotis specifically states that the Muslim Konitsiotes where at the outset regarded as "Turks" up for exchange. As that was so why did one third remain? Tsitselikis gives a overview of those Muslims in all of Greek Epirus who were separate from the Cham area and claimed a Albanian origin. They did, they stayed. Konitsa Muslims still exist. Konitsa is in Greek Epirus right or have i got the geography wrong?Resnjari (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tsitselikis doesnt state that 'all' remaining Muslims were self-declared Albanians. I'm afraid the rest you claim is pure speculation to support a non existent fact.Alexikoua (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either way i am not fussed. Scholarship on the Konitsa Muslims is emerging. The content in the article so far addresses their existence in the town. For now it can stay that way until a source outright states the reason for them remaining as no one else has given anything as to why they had remained post 1923 and were not deported.Resnjari (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Konitsa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names

Actually there is a name section, so per wp:NC alternative names in the 1st line should be avoided.Alexikoua (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should avoid the alternative names in Greek articles but respect them on the Albanian ones? Lorik17 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we need to follow
wp:NC (If there are three or more alternative names, or if there is something notable about the names themselves, they may be moved to and discussed in a separate section with a title such as "Names" or "Etymology". Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead.) . It appears you avoid discussion intentionally for an unknown reason.Alexikoua (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Konitsa&oldid=1195474140"