Talk:Palasë

A fact from Palasë appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 September 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Palasë, on the Albanian Riviera, is built around a 100 year-old platanus (plane tree), which is the pride of the village? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/September.

The cemetery as a Landmark? Are we serious here? Unless it is a very special cemetery, it and the Landmarks section should be removed.

Normally it is the cemetery of the partisans of World War II, so notable. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source? and who says it's notable?

talk) 21:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Dr. Blofeld entered it in there probably he had his reasons, I saw that it is removed now. War cemeteries are notable, I have seen lots of articles on them, this one for instance. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Btw I removed a duplicate. Some users still can't understand

It is sufficiently interesting and important to go in the lede. The lede should provide a summary of the most interesting points of the article, so of course it will include stuff that is "duplicate". Some users still can't understand

talk) 21:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Athenean, you seem to find it interesting that in some villages people speak Greek and want to put that in the lead. I was wondering if you find it also interesting to put in the ledes that in the Chameria region settlements people no longer speak Albanian because of an ethnic cleansing from the Greek governemnt. What may be interesting and important for you might not be for me so it is very discussible. The ledes should be consistent, but you insist in advocating Greek names in ledes and Greek presence in ledes, without looking at other Balkanic examples. You need to be more consistent.--Sulmues ^(talk) 22:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit which places this settlement in Chaonia is from a self-published source via the Books on Demand self-publishing platform. The book is a rip-off of a dictionary by Karl Ernst Georges (19th century) with a new foreword. In An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, 2004, published by Oxford University Press[1], this site doesn't appear at all - neither as a settlement, nor as a polis. High quality sources should be seeked for a site which a definitive modern source doesn't even mention.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology of the name of a settlement can't be "off-topic". Its removal is

Nice try. There is a separate article for

Khirurg (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Why do you consider the addition of the etymology of the name of a settlement to be POV-pushing? --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a separate settlement. That's why we have a separate article for it. You are trying to give an "Illyrian" origin to an unrelated, modern settlement.

Khirurg (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not trying to construct any ancient link - as you will notice in my next edits - but I think that the name of the settlement is basic information since such a close link exists. I have access to the genealogical studies for this village. Not a single family from Palasa - whatever identity they have embraced - comes from a "pre-medieval" Palasa. They come from three different clans from Dukat, Mirditë and Sinanaj.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology is obviously relevant, don't remove it.

talk) 18:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, look, the revert-only account showed up. Anyway,

Khirurg (talk

)

"the revert-only account showed up" weird way to describe yourself but whatever.

talk) 18:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

(Side comment: Calling anyone a "revert-only account" doesn't build a better editing environment. It should stop on all sides.)

@

WP:JDL

.

We don't know where the site of Palasa was because no archaeological excavation has taken place. Modern Palasa has nothing to do with Palaeste of antiquity, nor do its people who didn't even call it Palasa until they learned to do so.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I wonder why the reconstruction of the etymology of a possible ancient toponym is relevant here. Ideas?Alexikoua (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You today added content on a possible ancient place. Is not that relevant here? Should I remove all of that? Ideas?

Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that it should be included only a link to the ancient town. The content in this version without the information concerning Caesar and Pompey seems to be enough for the scope of this article. – Βατο (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I restored that version, it seems that only Alexikoua doesn't agree with it. – Βατο (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't thing so, Ktrimi too was quite convenient with the version you disliked without a valid reason. You removed essential information about Palaeste being part of ancient Himara and Chaonia. This info that needs to be part of the article. Even the quote was partially removed to fit your pesronal POV The sea-ward face of the Akrokeraunian range, from Hagios Basileios northwards, to Palasa, the ancient Palaiste (follows the removed from part by Bato): forms the canton of Cheimara , the ancient Kemara.Alexikoua (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my personal POV. This version clearly goes completely out of the scope of this article because it constructs a large narrative based only on the possible similarities between the toponyms Palaeste and Palasa (for now I fail to see a reliable source that gives the etymology Palasa < Palaeste). It seemed that also Khirurg was in agreement with the restoration of this version. I also removed the part about the Roman Civil War because recent publications disagree with Caesar's landing in ancient Palaeste. Let's wait what other fellow editors think about it. – Βατο (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point: either we remove everything related to the ancient settlement or we leave the latest Mschreiber's version [[2]]. It's too weird to point to something that was supposedly between Epirus and Illyria, since ancient Palaeste might habe been located further north inside Vlore bay. However, the latest version after the selective removals is severely POV.Alexikoua (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bato: you stubbornly insist that Lucan describes Palaeste as between Epirus and Illyria, nevertheless the (primary) source you provided says nothing related to that: caelo languente fretoque naufragii spes omnis abit. sed nocte fugata laesum nube dies iubar extulit imaque sensim concussit pelagi mouitque Ceraunia nautis. inde rapi coepere rates atque aequora classem curua sequi, quae iam uento fluctuque secundo lapsa Palaestinas uncis confixit harenas. prima duces iunctis uidit consistere castris tellus, quam uolucer Genusus, quam mollior Hapsus circumeunt ripis..Alexikoua (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not, that part was added by another editor. – Βατο (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link! That's the correct link: [[3]]. For future reference Lucan doesn't claim that in the link you provided.Alexikoua (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the wrong link! The statement was reworded in this edit: that he described as "between

WP:OFFTOPIC content all over Wikipedia, asks other editors to be precise when something doesn't suit him. Anyway, accuracy will make articles better, but it must always be applied. – Βατο (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

You have to be kidding if that's your best argument. Wikipedia isn't a NPA vio battlefield. Simply saying you misrepresented Lucans statement. There are also secondary  sources that place Palaeste "on the Greek mainland". Alexikoua (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've added again a source published by the Greek army. We don't have to repeat the same cycle of arguments, so do remove it - it's extremely POV. Nowhere else on wikipedia would a source literally published by the army of a state faction be used as a source for an issue that involves the territorial claims of that state.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is making "territorial claims" against anybody. And you know better than the shame tag an entire article because of a citation you don't like. Btw didn't an admin told you the source was fine? If you feel otherwise, there's always

Khirurg (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The text in question is "Palasa is included in the correspondence of the local leaders of Himara ", supposedly to be located in p. 226 in Giakoumis. However, its not in the source and there is not a single mention about the village in this event not every in p.226. For future reference saying "Himariotes" doesn't mean that it is necessary related to Palasa. Under the same rationale we can add the recently removed info about local Chaonian rule in antiquity.Alexikoua (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyriazis was the second source of the sentence - read the chapter. Giakoumis (2016) refers to the same subject in direct reference to Kyriazis. If you want to have the sentence from Kyriazis, then its content must be discussed too. A sentence which says "people from village sent a letter written in Greek" is meaningless in the context of an encyclopedia or any medium which tries to inform its readers about any subject. Sure, it might be a talking point for some people, but in the context of what bibliography discusses it's a "pointless point". It's the equivalent of writing "X village in Sweden had correspondence with the Papacy in French". What meaninful information does it convey?(You've reverted Sobolev (2017) too without marking your edit, you should probably do a self-revert there.) --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua, also the part that you added concerning the same information is not in the source: Kyriazis 2016, p. 9 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKyriazis2016 (help). I removed it, if you include a more specific source, feel free to restore it. – Βατο (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a small addition to include Sobolev's question on the issue of the resettlements that occurred over time.Alexikoua (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but he refers to it as an independent issue from that of the geographical origin of the families in present-day Palasë. @

Khirurg: That sentence doesn't mention Palasë specifically, just as the part from Giakoumis (2016) which I added doesn't mention Palasë specifically - so Alexikoua removed it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm somewhat reluctant on revealing information about specific families that live in small villages. I remember that Calthinus raised this kind of question in Selcke [[4]]. Personal surnames especially for families that live in small villages should be avoided. Kind of wp:BLP policy as he pointed. However the rest of the info is ok to stay (supposed place of origin).Alexikoua (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should ping Calthinus as I'm not familiar with your older discussions, but these are not specific families, they're brotherhoods of clans and they are a subject of anthropological research. Where someone's lineage lived 400 years ago is not personal information.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palasa is a small village and consists of a few families. I would be reluctant to point ton specific surnames not to mention that even the author states this very carefully in a footnote saying that this is not his personal opinion.Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Anthropological research on tribes, clans and respective brotherhoods, as opposed to particular families, is widely used on articles of Malesia Montenegro, Bosnia, Serbia.
  Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, I'm quoting a published paper and such papers discuss lineages. They're very interesting because they dissolve all nationalist narratives. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Off course this does not mean that specific surnames need to be included especially about persons that live in small isolated societies. The author of the sources is also careful and is very reluctant about those specific names and their supposed places of origin Alexikoua (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It means that we will include what published bibliography chooses to include. Your claims about the author's "reluctancy" and redefinition of BLP can become the basis for a discussion which you may start about the scope of BLP on a relevant page. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a discussion on sources published by official state institutions here: [[5]]. Per wp:RS admin intervention was not in agreement with Maleschreiber in cases of sources published by non-authoritative institutions. Nevertheless I'm not against removal of all this kind of state published stuff without exception.Alexikoua (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about "Nevertheless I'm not against removal of all this kind of state published stuff without exception"?--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything published by state institutions, academy of sciences etc.. Nevertheless I've replaced this part with Vakalopoulos' work and rephrased it. By the way I first knew about this book when Resnjary used it in various articles some years ago.Alexikoua (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should remove every publication that comes from a Greek (state) university too. I don't think that someone who publishes their work in a state uni publication is biased and I haven't objected to Qirjazi/Kyriazis, but I want us to agree that we won't use publications of the armed forces of any state when it involves historical territorial disputes, even if those disputes a thing of the past. We don't have to go around in circles in several issues because at the end of the day we know that we will reach a result which could have been reached immediately without the back-and-forth editing history. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Universities are independent institutions in Greece. By saying "state universities" you mean financially supported by the state, but this is a different case. There is freedom of speech in EU countries especially in high level education.Alexikoua (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly talking about military history there is a tendency of using official sources by military institutions. Can we agree that those sources can be used on such articles (battles etc.)? Otherwise several WWII articles need to be written again from scratch.Alexikoua (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply saying that works published by official Greek institutions can be used as sources the same way as Albanian ones (i.e. the Albanian academy of Science after the restoration of Democracy). Also, you need to be careful when branding as "nationalistic propaganda" official material. It's not productive to ignore El_C' statement.Alexikoua (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua:, next time my name is used extensively or invoked for your 'editing purposes', it would be courteous to ping the said editor. Like the lord, its not good to take someone's name in vain.Resnjari (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to ping you and your name was not extensively mentioned (one time).Alexikoua (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua:, i pinged you because i saw you invoked me to affirm some stance you had without pinging me (these topics are problematic as they are) and i want to to understand i don't like to be used in point scoring against other editors. If you do what you did you either involve so and so editor by making them aware (and up to them after if they partake in the discussion) or don't bother invoking them. Clear? Thanks.Resnjari (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have used a specific source and that's not bad (Vakalopoulos in this case). There is no policy that dictates what you are claiming & wikipedia isn't a battlefield to "score against others".Alexikoua (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far I know the specific author isn't a linguist [[6]]. As in the case of Qeparo non-specialist opinions can't have a place here.Alexikoua (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source from 1968 being used to claim that the toponym "Palaeste" is Illyrian does not mention Palase. As such the addition is off-topic and cannot remain in the article.

Palase is directly connected to Palaeste, so I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that it is off-topic. Nishjan (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "directly" connected to Palase? Have archeological remains been found? It's just an onomastic similaritym which could just be coincidence. The source used does not mention Palase, hence it is off topic.

Khirurg (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

On the information about Palaeste the words "may correspond" are already there. And your proposal is only on the removal of the illyrian etymology of palaeste. Its plain

WP:JDL. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]