Talk:Peloponnese

Map

This sentence contradicts the map:

The prefectures of Achaea and Ilia are also part of the peninsula, but are part of the West Greece periphery.

The map

shows Achaea shaded as part of the periphery but not Ilia (aka Elis).

West Greece also lists Ilia as a constituent but the map does not.

The German article] lists all the regions as belonging to the peninsula, so it's not clear which is correct or what is meant. -Wikibob | Talk 11:05, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

I corrected the map, see above. Markussep 07:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Peloponnese or Peloponnesos

I would have thought the English name was usually the Peloponnese. --Henrygb 23:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You'd be right. This is pedantic. Athens isn't under "Athina" or "Athinai", Corinth isn't under "Korinthos" and Cyprus isn't under "Kupros." Looks like a prime candidate for a page move to me - but that's already gotten me in hot water recently. --Jpbrenna 04:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's on the borderline. "Peloponnese" and the sum of "Peloponnesus" and "Peloponnesos" get approximately the same number of English-language google hits, while e.g. Corinth/Korinthos aren't even close. This would indicate that English usage is shifting to use the Greekthis articke SUZCZKS

name, much like Peking/Beijing and Bombay/Mumbai. --Delirium 23:16, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

But you have given greater empghasis to the Latin name. Why?--Henrygb 10:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia articles don't usually bold non-English scripts; for example, Russia doesn't put Росси́йская Федера́ция in boldface. I've left the transliteration bolded though, since it does seem to be used in English. --03:07, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

You mean non-Latin scripts? But you'd bold Latin-alphabet foreign language titles? I really think it's ludicrous to express preference for the "native" name and then fail to bold the name in the native alphabet. And you know what? Greeks don't call England το Ίγγλαντ, they call it Αγγλία, from the ancient Roman name. The call France "Gaul" and Deutschland "Germany" and Nederland "Holland" (Γαλλία, Γερμανία, Ολλανδία) and they smoke wherever the fuck they please and murder all the animals they want and eat them (except on Orthodox fasting days). They are generally a lot less PC than the US & UK, which is one of the things I like about the place. Notice that there aren't any Greeks here protesting this. This direct transliteration stuff is just nonsense. If we wanted to do a true phonetic transcription, we'd call it Peloponnisos. I guarantee you that won't get a lot of Google hits. One of the reasons Peloponnesos got all those hits is because every hotel owner and his uncle starts a webpage describing "Scenic Peloponnesos coast" and "Ego Fuit in Arcadia, Peloponnesos." Peloponnese is the English-language name for Πελοπόννησος. If you don't like it, stop speaking English. If you want to display some genuine cultural sensitivity, go cast your vote at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate/Votes --Jpbrenna 04:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the tone of that. I've been involved in too many page moves recently. I think I need a Wikibreak. --Jpbrenna 04:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Except that Peloponnese isn't clearly the English-language name. It is the historical name, but is falling out of English-language usage. Most modern English-language articles, both scholarly and in the popular press, use Peloponnesos or Peloponnesus or some variant of a Latin or Greek transliteration. See for example the Columbia Encyclopedia's article, among many others. You'd be correct if this were 1850 though, as at that time Peloponnese was indeed the predominant usage. --Delirium 00:36, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

You say Peloponnese or Peloponnesus. A lot of people know this place as the "Peloponnesian Peninsula", and this gets approval from my online dictionary. In most places this implies the name "Peloponnesia", and I remember that one from junior high school in the 1960s. Just look at these pairs: Macedonia <--> Macedonian; Sparta <--> Spartan; Ionia <--> Ionian; Lycia <--> Lycian; Lydia <--> Lydian; Mycenae <--> Mycenaean; Olympia <--> Olympian; Pythia <--> Pythian; Austria <--> Austrian; Babylonia <--> Babylonian; Bosnia <--> Bosnian; Croatia <--> Croatian; Dalmatia <--> Dalmatian; Galatia <--> Galatian; Helvetia <--> Helvetian; Parthia <--> Parthian; Romania <--> Romanian; Assyria <--> Assyrian; Albania <--> Albanian; Caledonia <--> Caledonian. When you have a massive pattern like this to follow, then follow it rather than making things up on a case-by-case basis.47.215.211.115 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the community consensus was on this issue of name, but I notice that the two currently bold names at the top of the article are Peloponnese and Peloponnesus. Peloponnese is clearly the most common English name (as far as I can tell), so it makes sense that this is the main name used in the article... But I'm confused why the alternative is "Peloponnesus" and not Peloponnisos. Peloponnisos is the modern transliteration of the Greek name and, I think, the alternative name that should be used on this article. The "-esus" version is a latin transliteration, whose use here I believe to be inappropriate. The use of "-esus" does not encourage the native pronunciation as well as the "-isos" version, does not follow any of the formal modern guidelines from the romanization of Greek, and from what I can tell gets far fewer results on google than the "-isos" version.

I propose making the second bolded name on this page Peloponnisos instead of Peloponnesus because it seems to be more commonly used, is a more modern and accurate rendition of the Greek name, and because I can find no specific reason why the "-esus" name is being used currently. I'm going to go ahead and make the change because it seems rather minor. Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

Peloponnesos → Peloponnese. The latter is the traditional name in English, and gets the most inward links. Just requires deletion of a history of redirects, but as I suggested this (15 Sep 2004), it might be better if somebody else did it. --Henrygb 09:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looking at the "What Links Here" section, I find that the vast majority of articles link to "Peloponnese" and are redirected here. It wouldn't be terribly disruptive to move this, and it really does belong at "Peloponnese." --Jpbrenna 22:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 11:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. Peloponnese is a legacy usage, common in the 19th century but uncommon today—Peloponnesus gets over 1.1 million google hits, while Peloponnese gets under 300 thousand. No other major encyclopedia uses it, unless we count EB 1911, which incidentally is where many of those incoming links to Peloponnese on Wikipedia are from. We might as well move Beijing to Peking while we're at it. --Delirium 00:41, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your Google count is way off. And the vast majority of the "Peloponnesus" hits come from pages from Germany. Try a search restricted to site:.com, site:.edu, site:.uk, or site:.gr. Then compare with site:.de. Or compare [1] with [2]--Henrygb 15:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

peninsula or island

As there is the Corinth Canal accross the Isthmus of Corinth I think that Peloponnese is an island not a peninsula. Jon513 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article says the same thing. But we do not usually call places islands just because of canals, any more than we stop calling them islands because of a bridge. --Henrygb 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

in Corinth Canal it is called an island. Jon513 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Split

This article clearly needs to be split, creating a Peloponnese (periphery) article, just like is the case for Epirus; this because there is a clear distinction between the borders and the extension of the peninsula and those of the periphery.--Aldux 13:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The Penisular named the peloponnese should be the first article, the political divisions and seperation of taxation zones such as Western Greece should be the second article. Reaper7 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Stupid

The pensinular is called the Peloponnese. That is the first thing to teach and explain to someone who reads the article. That is what should be highlighted on the map. Later the different districts can be discussed and govt divisions with Western Greece ect. Anyone looking at the stupid map at the top page and not knowing the region would believe that Patras is not in the Peloponnese. Reaper7 03:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Maps and Pictures

Surely the article doesn't need six maps and no other sort of pictures. I think the first one should stay, but I sort of arbitrarily chose which two other ones to replace. If anyone wants to put back those two particular maps, please consider whether it might be better to replace the remaining maps with them rather than take out the pictures. Personally, I think two maps total would be sufficient. Strawberryjampot (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Call for discussion on images

I see that the current version now has six images, five of which are maps. I think this is still vastly overbalanced for maps, and would like to reach a consensus on what images should be in this article. As a proposal for discussion, I suggest the article should be illustrated by two maps (including satellite images), the current image of Arcadia, and from two to four other images illustrating things that are characteristically or uniquely Peloponnesian, such as Monemvasia, Nafplio, the Mani towers, the Methoni fortess, or the Battle of Navarino, all of which have images available on Commons. I'm not sure how many people look at this page, so it may take a while to have the discussion, but if anyone reads this, even after some time has passed, please feel free to contribute. Strawberryjampot (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman period

First encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936 By M. Th Houtsma contain text about Turakhan Beg subduing Peloponnese for Ottoman Empire in 1423, not in period between 1458–1460, like written in the text of the article. I propose to double check the year of Ottoman Conquest of the Peloponnese. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Turakhan first invaded the Morea in 1423 and the Despotate became a vassal state thereafter, but it was not conquered and annexed to the Empire until 1458-60. 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

After I wrote comment here, I red in the same source how he later again attacked Peloponnese. I obviously did not understand the word subdue correctly. Thanks for reply and sorry for my mistake.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, the phrasing can easily mislead you there. Constantine ✍ 09:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Images

I have done some significant changes to the images in the article. I removed five of them, and replaced them with another four. Reasons are as follows. The images I removed were either poor quality or uninteresting or both. The image of Chelmos was terribly overexposed (white sky), the image of the forest was underexposed and generic (could be anywhere in Greece, or the world for that matter). The image of the spring was also rather uninteresting and generic (and again could be anywhere in Greece). I also removed the landscape near Karytaina, because we already have an image from Arcadia, and it is better. Lastly, I also removed the map of the French expedition since it had nothing much to offer and we already have two maps. I replaced the images I removed with an image of the Corinth Canal (which is important for obvious reasons), an image from ancient Sparta (since we have no images with something "ancient"), an image of the Mani Peninsula, since it is mentioned in the text, and an image of the Rio-Antirrio bridge (again, important for obvious reasons). I am sorry if that seems harsh to the editor that uploaded most of the images I removed, but the purpose of images in an article is to convey to the reader what is interesting, unique, and important about the subject of the article. I feel the current images accomplish that much better than the previous batch. Athenean (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes done by Athenian for the following reasons: The Rio-Antirrio bridge, to begin with, is not part of Peloponnese. This article is about Peloponnese, not bridges connecting Peloponnese. Also this Bridge is part of the Greece article, should we have it AGAIN here? Second, the Corinth Canal is again not part of Peloponnese. Its a Canal seperating mainland and Peloponnese. What is unique and what is not, is something subjective. Presenting nature in Peloponnese is something great, while presenting the Corinth canal and the Antirrio bridge (once again, as if Greece has nothing else to present than this bridge) is tragic, plus they dont even belong to this article.Nochoje (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your pictures are awful. Post them somewhere else, not here. They are not fit for an encyclopedia. By the way, this [3] is you, isn't it? Athenean (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No its not me..Why are you like that? I really dont understand. I have no megalomania trying to fill in everywhere "my photos", on the contrary. I had some nice photos, and I thought they would be helpful to add them in some Greece related Wikipedia articles. I havent seen new photos lately (related to those articles) so I only try to help here. Why are you so negative?...Nochoje (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, your photos are not nice. They are terrible. The one from Chelmos with the white sky? Come on now. And they contain very little information, so they do not belong in an encyclopedia. If you have no "megalomania" and all you are trying to do is help, why are you edit-warring over them? There are plenty of very nice photos about Greece on Wikimedia Commons (much nicer, interesting, and of encyclopedic value, like the ones from Sparti and Mani that you keep removing), so what is it exactly you are trying to do here? Athenean (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Nochoje, please understand. You cannot edit-war your pictures across multiple Greece-related articles against consensus. The pictures you are trying to add diminish the value of the article. Further you are replacing important landmarks of the Peloponnese with your own pictures and edit-warring to achieve it. Your edit-war fuelled editing is not sustainable in a consensus-driven environment such as Wikipedia's. Please change it. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Why dont you understand that what you are doing is wrong. The photos you keep adding are not EVEN in Peloponnese! What has the Corinth Canal and the Antirio bridge got to do with Peloponnese???? And what is wrong with showing the nature in Peloponnese!??? Especially the first photo with the Canal is what someone would call an awful picture!....Nochoje (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Athenean and I have explained this to you multiple times. I think you suffer from a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are removing important landmarks of Peloponnese and adding technically inferior and meaningless pictures. Please stop the edit-warring which got you blocked four days ago for similar reasons. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Athenian and you explain the wrong stuff. Unfortunately. Can you please answer me if the rio-antirrio bridge is part of Peloponnese? Can you also answer me if the Corinth Canal is part of Peloponnese??? If yes the English Channel part of England of France?.....Truly unbelievable that we need to go to this kind of discussion. You are clearly wrong here, regardless if you like my photos or not (which is obviously subjective)...Nochoje (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I have lost all hope of trying to persuade you that you are wrong but I will agf and try to explain this one more time. You want to erase the pictures of two engineering marvels of the modern era of immense encyclopaedic value and interest, the Canal of Corinth and the Rio-Antirrion Bridge, both of which define crucial passage points of the perimeter of the Peloponnese peninsula to mainland Greece and want to replace them with pictures of a car while some guy, maybe you, is drinking water from a fountain. You have to realise that this article is not your personal picnic or family album and certainly it is not a depository of boring and technically-challenged pictures from a picnic. Neither is the great peninsula of the Peloponnese some kind of a neighbourhood park. The second picture you want to replace these engineering marvels with is a hopelessly underexposed picture of some non-descript road with some darkened and non-discernible trees, again from the same picnic probably on the way home. The third picture is an overexposed, foggy picture of some landscape, completely redundant and not up to par with the other landscape pictures already existing in the article. If you don't understand that this is wrong there is no purpose in talking to you further. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to try one last time to explain things to you Nochoje. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform readers about the subjects they read. The purpose of the article on the Peloponnese is to inform readers who want to learn about the Peloponnese, and nothing more. The purpose of the images in the article is therefore also to inform readers who want to learn more about the Peloponnese. Now, it is mentioned in the article that the Corinth Canal separates the Peloponnese from mainland Greece. It is reasonable to assume that readers might wonder what this Corinth Canal looks like. Is it big? Small? How deep is it? Is it like the Panama Canal? So the picture answers these questions better than any text could. Same with the Rio-Antirrio bridge: It is mentioned in the article that it connects the Peloponnese to mainland Greece. So again readers might wonder what it looks like. These pictures inform readers about the Peloponnese. By contrast, your pictures don't. Let's take the picture of the spring: That spring could be anywhere in Greece or Europe or the world. There is nothing "Peloponnesian" about it. By looking at it, readers learn nothing about the Peloponnese. Aesthetically, it is also poor, as it is shot on a cloudy day and there is very little color, it contains a piece of a car, and it shows someone bending over. The spring is also small and hard to see. If you want to take a picture of a spring, focus on the spring. Do not include cars and people. Same with the picture of the forest. It tells the reader nothing about the Peloponnese. It could be anywhere in Greece, the Balkans, or Europe, or the world. Aesthetically, it is gloomy and depressing and also "underexposed", i.e. too dark, and with almost no color. It's not even possible to tell what kind of tree those are. Similarly with the Karytaina picture: It tells the reader very little about the Peloponnese, it is "overexposed" (too white"), and there is very little color, although it is marginally better than other two. If you want to include pictures in wikipedia, I suggest you read WP:MOSIM and also search the Wikimedia Commons, there are plenty of nice images of Greece there. And stop edit-warring once and for all, otherwise the blocks are going to get very long very quickly. Athenean (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit. This is a very accessible, detailed, practical, understandable and all-around useful reply. I am afraid however that never mind Athenean's response or mine the ship has sailed so to speak. I am not at all sure that these eminently sound arguments will have any positive effect. I hope, against hope, that I will be proven wrong. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Notable Shape

It should be mentioned at the introductory paragraph that it is a hand-shaped peninsula. Ssredg (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Are hand-shaped peninsulas a specific sub-category of peninsulas? Otherwise, a look at the map will suffice. Constantine ✍ 07:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of "The" Before Peninsula's Name

The article 'the' seems to sometimes be added before the name Peloponnese when it shouldn't grammatically be there, much like people sometimes erroneously do to 'The' Ukraine. I'm not sure if this is a standard thing or not in English, but I'd like to argue against the use of 'the' in this article. It feels like very archaic/colonial British vernacular and I think it should be discouraged. Based on the bolded text in the opening sentence and the name of the article itself, the official English name of this region according to Wikipedia is not "The Peloponnese" and so there's no grammatical reason to say something like, "Sparta is located in The Peloponnese." We don't say this about any other part of Greece (ex: Athens is located in The Attica) and we don't generally talk this way in English.

I propose the removal of all the's before the word Peloponnese unless they serve an actual grammatical function. Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Peloponnese is virtually always used with the definite article in English. Nothing either "erroneous", "archaic" or "colonial" about it; it's just English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Etymology Peloponnesos?

πέλλος (péllos, “grey, dark”) + ὤψ (ṓps, “eye”) + nēsos "island" as per [wiktionary] 
? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

pelops' island is rarely if ever referred to as an island

I'm struggling with this sentence

Indeed, the Peloponnese is rarely, if ever, referred to as an island

given that the name literally means island of pelops. Maybe English speakers won't get that meaning. How about in modern greek, does it sound like you're referring to it as an island when you call it peloponnesos? -lethe ^{talk + contribs} 11:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Omission of Albanians from the history of the Peloponnese

Yesterday I added two paragraphs on the settlement of the Albanians in Greece (specifically in the Peloponnese), which once again are deleted by user Othon I. I do not think there is any reason for these two paragraphs to be reverted, so I would kindly ask Othon to validate his objection. Othon I, you mention that "90% of the villages being Albanian" is Fringe and that "this part of the history of the Albanians can go to the respective article since it is not notable" None of these arguments stand.

The Ottoman register labels each village as either Albanian, or Greek, or mixed. It's just how it is, and that is what my edit states. Each and every sentence I added is properly sourced (please do read the source this time), and this scholarly work is WP:RS of the highest order. How would you justify deleting info from such scholarly research?

As for this part of Peloponnesian history not being notable, I have first to ask you to read the section on Slavic settlement. The Slavs, who do not exist in any form in the Peloponnese today, are dedicated 8 paragraphs, while the Albanian settlements, whose impact we can still see today in those remaining Albanian/Arvanitka speakers, had only one sentence in the previous version, and prohibited just 2 paragraphs that I added. Regardless of the Slavic section though, the academic consensus is that the Albanian settlements in the 14-15th centuries transformed the demography, social, economic and even political life in the Peloponnesus. In my opinion this double-standard and rejection of scholarly work is POV-pushing.

I welcome suggestions for improvements. Çerçok (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no any omission of the Albanians from the history of Peloponnese, that's daydreaming of yours, they even have a specific article for that Morea revolt of 1453-1454. You have inserted information from a PHD thesis that is self published (probably you just searched the keywords Albanians and Peloponnese in google scholar) that claims that 90% of the villages of Peloponnese were Albanian - WP:FRINGE - the Despotate of Morea was never Albanian. Well, this not really what the historiography says. You don't WP:CHERRYPICKING one source that fits your POV.. Your need to back it by wp:rs and wp:secondary sources otherwise you will be reverted. If you would like to add a part about the Albanians in Peloponnese find a better source (check the Morea revolt article) and not a source that get its data from the ottoman cadaster for a 3 year period (1460-1463). Othon I (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, please assume AFG and refrain from baseless accusations about what I do. Stop going around the issue and stop editing the section while a discussion is ongoing here. This is not a self-published work and not a PhD thesis. Did you even bother reading it? It is a book. The RS guidelines on scholarly work state:

-Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

The source fulfills this criterion. The pages I cited about the Albanian settlements from the 1370s to 1418 are a review of existing literature on the topic. And the part of the book that interprets the information on the cadastre is the highest quality secondary source on this matter.

-Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

This is a book by Historian-Ottomanist, Dr. Georgios Liakopoulos of the Max Planck Institute. It was published by the Royal Asiatic Academy through the Gingko Library. As part of the research for this book the author also published peer-reviewed work in journals (see [[4]], and defended his doctoral dissertation at the Royal Holloway University. This source is of highest value per Wikipedia guidelines.

Now, I opened this topic so that you could explain why you insist on the omission of this important part of Peloponnesian history. Until now you avoided the issue by pointing to the article on the Morea revolt which I had already linked to (and I would not be against calling it that here), offered a Straw man argument about the Despotate of Morea, which I made no mention of, and speculated about my daily activities. Every sentence I wrote is sourced. Once again, I invite you to pick any of them and validate your objection. Çerçok (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all I have expanded the article for the Byzantine history, nothing to do with your edits. Secondly, the history of Albanians in Peloponnese is not something as notable as you trying to present it, as a matter of fact its not at all. You need consensus for your addition, maybe you could add it to the article that I have shown you, also, you can see that it is a PHD dissertation defended by the writer. The demographics of Peloponnese with various WP:FRINGE claims such as 400 out of 500 villages where Albanian, the Despotate of Morea did not have only 500 villages. You can read first Otrogotsky, Obolensky and others who experts on the fields, not who are for 1463 is not something notable. I would suggest to stop the WP:IDHT and for your controversial addition request a WP:RFC to seek consensus. If you continue filling the article with nonsense you will be reverted from other users as well. Try to understand that WP is not battleground. Best Othon I (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

the history of Albanians in Peloponnese is not something as notable as you trying to present it, as a matter of fact its not at all Please no POV-pushing. This is only your opinion. I am not presenting anything. What I wrote is from Dr. Liakopoulos of the Max Planck Institute.

you can see that it is a PHD dissertation defended by the writer It is not. As I explained, it is a book, published by the Royal Asiatic Academy. Earlier research on this topic involved a peer-reviewed article and a dissertation, both RS, but which I did not cite.

The demographics of Peloponnese with various WP:FRINGE claims such as 400 out of 500 villages where Albanian, the Despotate of Morea did not have only 500 villages Straw man argument again. I never mentioned the Despotate of Morea and I did not say it only had 500 villages. I wrote :The 1460-1463 Ottoman Taxation Cadastre, labels 407 out of 580 Peloponnesian villages as “Albanian”, 169 as Greek, and four as “mixed”. These are only the ones included in the cadastre. I never claimed these are all the villages. If you do not think this is clear, a qualifier can be added. But the stats on the surveyed villages are unequivocally clear, nothing WP:FRINGE about it. This is what the document states, it is not up for interpretation.

You can read first Otrogotsky, Obolensky and others who experts on the fields, not who are for 1463 is not something notable. They both wrote over 50 yeas ago, when the documents we have today were not available to them. However, if you have anything from them to object what Dr. Liakopoulos states, please bring it forward since you are the ones objecting him.

I agree that WP is not a battleground, so let's have a civil discussion on your objections, if you have any. Çerçok (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Khirurg, I will reply here since this is the correct section. You are in full violation of WP:AFG speculating about my intentions. Your "criticism" of the source is invalid, and it can easily be applied to each and every sentence of the article. The source is RS, it presents the best data we have. Stop hunting down each mention of Albanians and deleting well-sourced content. Çerçok (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me? Stop hunting down each mention of Albanians and deleting well-sourced content.??? I'm not "hunting down" anything. Rather, it is you who should stop trying to turn the article about something it's not. This article is about the Peloponnese, not about Albanians. By the way, it's WP:AGF, not "AFG", and yes, you should assume good faith instead of making wild rants about "hunting down". Khirurg (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I said nothing of your intentions. It is only an easily verifiable observation that you have deleted mentions of Albanians (except when on the Ottoman side of course), in 3-4 articles in a matter of minutes. Your recent edits are something between disruptive editing and vandalism. Albanians are part of the Peloponnese and its history whether you like it or not, and this cannot be forbidden to mention. Çerçok (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Çerçok You have personally attacked someone again and you fail to recognised. It seems that a week-long block was not enough for you. A new ANI is underway. Best Othon I (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Is mentioning deletions an attack now? Stop censoring well-sourced content. Çerçok (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I said nothing of your intentions. Yes, you did, when you accused me of hunting down each mention of Albanians. There already is a huge paragraph dedicated to the Albanians (over 5kb), all I did was trim it a bit because I felt it was overly long and detailed for this article. I did not remove that info from Arvanites, but here it is a bit too much detail, because this article is about the Peloponnese, not about about Albanians. Khirurg (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The reliably sourced content you deleted does not mention only Albanians, but gives a comprehensive view of all the registered the settlements of the Peloponnese, including Albanian settlements, Greeks ones and mixed ones. Your argument does not stand. Çerçok (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

No, that's exactly the problem. It doesn't give a comprehensive view. It misses a lot of settlements, especially those under Venetian rule, so it presents an incomplete and distorted picture. That's why I removed it. Khirurg (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You are changing arguments with each comment. You said above this article is about the Peloponnese, not about Albanians. Since the source mentions all registered settlements by ethnicity, it is not about Albanians.

Now you say it is incomplete because not all settlements are included. Well, it is most comprehensive data available. With the same metric, the whole section should be erased. But you do not object the use of the same source elsewhere in the section, only where total numbers are concerned. It seems like you just don't like the stats. Çerçok (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not "changing arguments", you're just not listening. I'm saying it's both an incomplete and therefore misleading picture, AND too much detail for this article. Both are true, and you know that very well. Khirurg (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If you think this is incomplete, you can add content on the remaining parts of the Peloponnese, such as the ones under Venetian rule. Well-sourced content about the Ottoman-controlled part does not have to be erased. Çerçok (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Even for the Ottoman controlled part, the information is likely incomplete. There were for sure more than 500 villages. The Peloponnese is almost the same size as Albania. Were there 500 villages in all of Albania? I don't think so. Anyway, this article is about a geographical region, and the history section is meant to give an overview in summary style. This level of detail is not really appropriate. We could keep going into more and more detail, but at some point, you have to draw the line. We simply disagree on where that line should be drawn. You will notice that I did not remove that information from Arvanites, because that article, unlike this one, is about the people. But this article is different, it's a geography article. Khirurg (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That's just your opinion and something that can be used to delete absolutely anything you don't like. Let's be serious. The section on Albanian settlement, which happened 500-600 years ago, is very well-documented, and has had long-lasting effects and living evidence to this day, is over 50% smaller than the Slavic settlement section describing a rather poorly documented migration of which there are no traces left today. Even toponymy-based theoretical interpretations are not judged as incomplete or too detailed there, but 15th century stats by Dr. Liakopoulos on over 500 villages somehow are. The best data available is being censored. Çerçok (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed the slavic part it is large but deals extensively with the Hellenisation and in other parts the relocation of the slavic tribes. It does not deal with the demographics though as you suggested. It gives just a summary. Probably the Hellenisation of the Albanians that did not leave to Italy and became the Arvanites need to be covered as which is good expansion to the article of course with the right reference to the wp:rs and wp:secondary and also, wp:ss. To be honest though, the slavic and the albanian settlement are minor topics. The article needs to expand to the antiquity, Roman, early Byzantine and Frankokratia eras which are far more important. Othon I (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Othon I The argument that was being made here is that the data from Liakopoulos is not complete, not that it is not important. I demonstrated that that argument is invalid. Regarding your point about prioritizing Hellenization over settlement, this is only plain example of editing to fit a narrative (only add content if it can be molded and channeled into your preferred ideology). Çerçok (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Read again my comment, I said that it does not include information and suggested to write a part that deals with it not to prioritise the topic of Hellenisation. Do not falsify my words again. The slavic part deals with it the albanian not thats why is larger as well, plain and simple. Also, I said that the antiquity, Roman, early Byzantine and Frankokratia eras section should be expanded because are far more important thats why I am working on them. Othon I (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"Albainans" in the cited source - "Arvanites" in the article?

user:Ohnoitsjamie In the name of good faith, I am interested in your justification for distorting the source.

The source says: "Albanians"

You wrote: "Arvanites"

Could you please explain why the distortion? Thank you. Çerçok (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The target article is Arvanites. There is a different article for Albanians; the former is clearly identified as a subset of the latter. There's no reason to pipe that; see WP:EASTEREGG. This should be pretty obvious. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, it should be redirected to Albanians then. Thank you for the explanation. Çerçok (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. You're going to get blocked it you keep redirecting it. Arvanites is properly sourced. There's no reason to link to a broader target when a more specific one is sourced. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

From your first answer I got the impression you only had an issue with the pipe link, not the correction itself. Now you are defending the distorted citation. Why would you defend this inaccurate citation? Çerçok (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

There's no "distorted citation." I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK if you'd like to keep editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Source says "Albanians". Article says "Arvanites". This is a distortion. Since you refuse to agree that "Arvanites" is not the same as "Albanians", I think there is no way to reach an agreement here, so I will ask for dispute resolution. Çerçok (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie I was going to seek a third opinion here but your new edit of the section makes me think you did not understand the problem with the terminology. So I will try to explain one more time. Using Arvanites instead of Albanians, in addition to not being faithful to the source that was cited (as well as the one you added), is anachronistic. In the 14-15 centuries, the group of people the article refers to, was just Albanians. The distinction between Arvanites and Albanians is a much later phenomenon. Using the wrong term is not only misleading to the reader, but also unfair to the author, who was careful enough to recognize the distinction. Even the source you added uses "Arvanite" to refer to today's group, and "Albanian" to refer to the Late Medieval one (quoting: "The Arvanite presence in Greece resulted from migrations of Albanian Christians from Albania..."). Hopefully now you understand the problem with changing the source material here. Çerçok (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

What if the wording was changed to something like "The same period was also marked by the migration and settlement of Christian Albanians to parts of Central Greece and the Peloponnese, a group that become known as the Arvanites." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is much better. I would suggest only adding "later" or "eventually" to clarify the temporal transition. Çerçok (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for clarifying that and working with me toward an agreeable resolution. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an open mind as well. Çerçok (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: If I am not mistaken, there were attempted additions that have been reverted in the past, especially on the articles of Peloponnese and Morea, which have been reverted. These days similar changes were attempted again but despite a lack consensus, there has been attempt to ram them into the article nevertheles through edit warring instead of seeking consensus. This isn't a constructive approach. I have reverted the changes and editors ought to address the concerns of other editors before they are reinstated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a different issue and has been resolved already. What you reverted has to do with the section above this one. Çerçok (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

So you maxed out your reverts at other articles, and now you think you will max them out here? Or is this retaliation for this [5]? As explained already, this information is incomplete, and presents a misleading picture. Also, this is an overview article and is only meant to present an overview of the history, not go into this level of exhaustive detail. Khirurg (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The content added is obviously relevant to the article, and there is just nothing misleading about it. Much more should be added to the section, after all Albanians formed the second largest ethnic group in the Peloponnese, so more content is needed considering how small the current section is. Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a geography article, so there's already plenty per WP:SS. In fact way too much already. So, don't push it. Khirurg (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

So let me get this right, you removed content, which only states facts without making any assumptions, under the ridiculous excuse of it "being misleading", which it is not and any admin can check that for themselves. You also used the excuse that it is too much info for the article but you then proceeded to add 3k of content... yeah not gonna happen. Ahmet Q. (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

What are you complaining about? You said you wanted to add more on Albanians, so I did. You don't like it now? Khirurg (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The section is in a very awkward position in the article. Most of it should be moved to a wider section about Demographics and expanded with information about Greeks, Vlachs, Turks, Jews, Romani, Slavs - including the edit which was removed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. All of this information is primarily of historical, not current, relevance. As such it should stay in the History section. Khirurg (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles about regions have information about historical demography in a demographics section. That Albanians were ~10% of the population of the Peloponnese in the late 19th century certainly doesn't belong to a section about the Middle Ages.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Population movements of centuries ago are not "Demographics", they are history. And that's where they will stay. I also recommend not trying to impose changes by brute-force. Khirurg (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could give any valid arguments for the removal of such important content. Because as of now, nothing you said justifies removing crucial information about the main subject. Ahmet Q. (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe the history section is long enough to warrant expansion of the 1770-9 era of massacre, anarchy, enslavement and depopulation (Alvanokratia). Perhaps a separate section.Alexikoua (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Alexikoua, that is an excellent suggestion. Khirurg (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's an excellent new source I just found [6]. Would make a great addition. Khirurg (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

New map

A second map was added depicting Albanian settlements in the Peloponnese. This is WP:UNDUE and excessive. This is a main article and two maps on the same topic is WP:UNDUE. Another problem is that this map presents an incomplete and therefore misleading picture. Furthermore, it is known (and sourced) that mayny Albanian abandoned the Peloponnese during the Ottoman=Venetian Wars. The 19th century map from Philipson is better, and therefore sufficient. Khirurg (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The map depicts the extent of the Albanians in the 15th century and the other in the 19th century, needless to say that they are both important to that section and the exact opposite of undue. The map clearly says "identified" settlements, please elaborate on how the author according to you, is trying to mislead the readers? Ahmet Q. (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The map depicts only some of the settlements in the Ottoman cadastre. Since many areas of the Peloponnese were not under Ottoman control during this period, it presents a highly incomplete picture. Plus, many of these were abandoned during the course of the Ottoman-Venetian Wars (and that's sourced and in the article by the way). This is a high-level, summary-type article. We're not going to saturate it with maps about the same topic. One map, that's it. And the 19th century map is obviously better. Khirurg (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

That is no reason to remove the map. Furthermore you are hiding from the readers the Albanian extent of settlement during the Middle Ages, that is actually pretty misleading. As for the map being "incomplete", again that is not an argument and the caption clearly says it is including the "identified" settlements. If you believe you can do a better job than Liakopoulos, then please publish a better version of his work I guess. Also, I am afraid you don't have the authority to decide how many maps will be used in this article; two maps in that section is not even enough considering that it can be expanded much more. Ahmet Q. (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This will be decided by consensus, not the usual brute-force edit-warring and tag teaming. Such efforts are as futile as they are disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Honestly, I don't understand why some disputes erupt - on Sunday. Ahmet Q. just expanded content which was already discussed in the article. He just did the equivalent of Alexikoua adding to Dropull, a map which marks which villages are Greek-speaking. The readers will know which villages are Greek-speaking in Dropull by reading the article. A visualization will just provide the same information in a quicker way. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think that Liakopoulos (2019) should be removed as what is being described is fully in the context of the section. My opinion when it was decided to have such a section was that there should be just one demographic section but since all those involved argued for it, I don't think that Liakopoulos as a source is WP:UNDUE. One thing which I would change is the section title which gives the impression that most Albanians relocated to Italy. Today, we know that the ones who stayed were a more than a substantial part of the population of the Morea. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV states: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.. In this case there is no disagreeing author to contrast Liakopoulos with, and his view will stay in the article. I fail to see how an author and his map which depicting the Peloponnese as having a Greek majority is so scandalous. Alltan (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Which POV is Liakopoulos - a Greek historian - supposedly promoting? When a source is removed, there's always talk of "POV" but what is POV in the case of Liakopoulos? Liakopoulos (2019) is the result of the study which is first reflected in Liakopoulos (2015), a source which the article already includes. This is a massive study (1100 pages) which should be used by members of WikiProject Greece to expand all articles about the Peloponnese with information which no reader will be able to find online.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not a question of POV, it's a question of WP:UNDUE, and you know it. Also, many of the Albanian villages in the map have been abandoned since the 15th century, so the map has no bearing on current reaility. How would you like it if I added 2-3 maps of Greeks in Albania? Btw, there isn't a single map at Dropull, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Khirurg (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Add one then. The solution isn't to remove sources about Albanians as a means to have the same volument of content about Greek communities. The difference is that nobody has ever removed content about Greeks. --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has ever removed content about Greeks. Right, I must be crazy. Oh wait: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] (a map about Greeks in Greece, no less). Khirurg (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how it is UNDUE to talk about a community which has inhabited the regions since at least 1350 AD, with some Arvanite speakers still surviving to this day. And Ahmet's map doesn't say "current Albanian settlements", it's needed because it is relevant for the time period of the peninsula. The policy page says this: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Why don't you add a view which opposes the map/argument of Liakopolous? We can work with that. Alltan (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This is the most accurate and detailed map produced until now, based on the highest quality source on the matter. I would like to congratulate AhmetQ for the work on the map, something that wanted to do myself. This is a great addition to the article. Everyone should simply embrace verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The map does not present a neutral image of the region, Ottoman registries should be treated with heavy precaution in case we should extract a demographic image of a region. They are no neutral in the demographic depiction. It can be a good addition for the Morea Eyalet though but here it's completely UNDUE. Khirurg's example is very good about using old primary material to create maps here. Imagine this map by the Congress of Berlin [File:Ethnic map of Balkans Kiepert.1878.png] to be added in several articles about Albanian history and geography. To sum up the use of this map should be treated per wp:PRIMARY.Alexikoua (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

How is the secondary source made by Liakopoulos, a primary source? And how is his work not neutral? When you make serious allegations you should be able to explain them. It is really weird that yo want to replace a secondary source with a primary one. Ahmet Q. (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless you can prove Liakopoulos is primary or not neutral, you are wasting your time. Çerçok (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Apart from the fact that various parties might be right given that they have a certain pov, the map per se is at least misleading and this is a discussion that has been done already and I am not sure why it is ignored. It contains data for the half part of Morea and apart from that, it is presented wrongly. Having the same bubble for both Albanian and Greek settlements, is not inline with the text, it clearly states that the Greek settlements contained 3,5 times more families in respect of population. If this map is to be added this should reflected at least. But still I am not convinced. Additionally, any nationalistic comment that will contain words such as conspiracy, verifiable truth and other dumb terms as such below this comment will be reported. Thanks Othon I (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Yours is simply a POV. Liakopoulos has several maps, including one where each settlement is represented by a circle of a standard size, and one where circle size is adjusted for population size. Both maps are of value, unlike your POV. If you wish to recreate Liakopoulos' adjusted circles' map, please go ahead, I will welcome it for the article, but it does not have any relevance whatsoever for the value of the map we have, which is indisputable. Accept verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow that's a clear example of an incoherent rambling response that certainly demonstrates lack of intelligence. How can this be my PoV since it is already in the text of the very book that the map has been derived from? Oh I see, probably this does not qualify as a "verifiable truth" because you as a "verifiable truth" crusader know fully well the real "truth". Additionally, when an editor creates something that can add value and discusses it with the community, its really bad manners and lack of etiquette to reply to a suggestion, "do it yourself". You know, this demonstrates lack of interest to build an encyclopedia with the community and instead, shows interest on a personal agenda. Please don't plague my comments again with your dumb responses. Thanks Othon I (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The book has both the map with the standard size circles and the one with the different size circles. The author thought both are of value and should be included in the book. I take no stance in this by supporting either one or both maps being included, while you have chosen your favorite and accept no other - textbook POV. I hope this is clear enough for you.

As for your unnecessary personal attacks here and elsewhere, I am now submitting a report. Çerçok (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I have suggested to include the map that represents clearly the situation back then and adds depth. Now because you feel uncomfortable with it you accused me for whatever. I frankly don't care, but accusing me for textbook-pov is seriously surreal... Othon I (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Another issue with the map is that the color used for the "Cultivated Land" circles is almost identical to the color for Albanian settlements. Aside from the issue of what "cultivated land" stands for (wasn't most of the land cultivated), this is a problem. A neutral color, e.g. yellow, should be used. It would also be nice if the blue used for the Greek settlements was of a higher saturation value, as with the red of the Albanian settlement. Lastly, I also agree with Othon I about circle size. Khirurg (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe that anyone with good vision is able to differentiate the red color from the brown color. About the sizes, Georgios didn't see the need to add quantitative data to the dots on his map of all the identified settlements. Using a bigger size for all the Greek settlements is simply not correct and gives a false representation of Georgios's work. That is just not acceptable and not going to happen. I rather follow what academics do in their works. However, I am not opposed of adding the correct quantitative data to the settlements. Georgios actually made another map with the correct quantitative data per settlement! Isn't that a fantastic coincidence. Obviously, he could only do that for a selection of the settlements or else his map would become unreadable: [12]. If we look at Georgios' map I just linked, the real question arrises: why should we even include the Greek settlements in the first place? The current map is used in the Arvanites article and in the section about the Albanians of the Peloponnese article. Greek settlements are simply not needed there and undue. I suggest that we follow Georgios' source I linked and add the quantitative data as requested and remove the Greek settlements.

Also, Kirurgh. I would really appreciate it if you could refrain from intentionally deteriorating my works on Commons as you did here: [13]. Not only did you reduce the quality of the map without any permission. You also falsified the source and put all the Albanian settlements under the other dots. This is just disruptive and quite ridiculous, don't you think? If you have preferences about color choices, you are always welcome to make your own map. Ahmet Q. (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't need your permission to modify your shoddy and incompetent work. The brown color for "cultivated land" is almost identical to that of the Albanian settlements and that is unacceptable. Likewise the faint color for the Greek settlements. Liakopoulos (not "Georgios") clearly states that the average size of Greek settlements is 3.5 times that of Albanian settlements. Any map that hides is a non-starter. And two maps about Albanians in the article is also a non-starter and WP:UNDUE. Stop wasting your time. Khirurg (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

What a disgraceful and uncivil personal attack, Kirurgh. This is completely unproductive and very rude. Also, if you don't see the problem with your comment: ...two maps about Albanians in the article is also a non-starter... I am afraid you need to reevaluate your behavior very quickly. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Khirurg, I will have to ask you what makes you think that the "incompetent" Ahmet Q. is intentionally "fainting the colour for the Greek settlements" in his "shoddy" map? That's quite the accusation for source falsification, so forgive me if I want to see some proof behind it. @Ahmet Q. It seems Khirurg is insulting people at will during a content dispute, casting WP:ASPERSIONS while he is at it, I don't think this behavior is in line with Wikipedia's rules. Oversight might be needed. Alltan (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes Allan, this behavior is very problematic. Hopefully, an admin will look more closely into this. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment So it has been agreed on to change the colors of the "Greek" and "Cultivated lands" dots. However we still need to decide which one of the two sources of Georgios should be used for the inclusion of the new map. Either we can include the current map with the modifications or use the other source with the quantitative data. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope, we're not going to have two maps about Albanians in this article. That's WP:UNDUE and not going to happen. You tried to brute-force this earlier and failed miserably, so I don't recommend you try again, because the same thing will happen. By the way, map 37 in Liakopoulos' work shows a very different picture, in which the Greek settlements are much larger than the Albanian settlements. Surely you are aware of this, but pretend it doesn't exist because that would be inconvenient (to put it mildly). Khirurg (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The map is not about Albanians? I mean they mention Greeks, Tsakonians, etc. Alltan (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's obvious why you all want the map so badly. If it wasn't about Albanians, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Khirurg (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I just want a demographic map for the Peloponnese. That is this discussion, nothing else. You should keep your other beliefs... to yourself. Alltan (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Great, there's already one in the article. Case closed and have a nice day! Khirurg (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Why not have another one for 300 years earlier though? It documents the interesting ethnic shift in the area. It's useful for the reader. Alltan (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I just want a demographic map he said. Well, there's already a demographic map, and that's all you're going to get. A second map about Albanians is completely WP:UNDUE and out of the question. Especially one from 500 years ago that has no bearing on current reality. Not to mention that it's incomplete because it's missing the south and east Peloponnese (i.e. more than half). The 19th century map is much more complete and relevant to the present day, and that's it. Probably in future you will want a third map. Yeah, not going to happen. Khirurg (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Its not a map about Albanians. Alltan (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is, if it wasn't you wouldn't even be here. Khirurg (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

What does this mean? Can you clarify it or will I have to ask for admin attention for this? Alltan (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and ask for all the "admin attention" you want. But I don't think you really want that. Khirurg (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think that the 15th century map is related specifically to Albanians and we can add multiple maps for different periods and cover the entire demographic history of the region. If the issue has to do with the section, we can create a gallery section. @Khirurg: I've always told you that the best strategy to follow is to add more about your exclusive part of history without removing parts which are inclusive of the history of others. This is an article about the Peloponnese and information about Albanians is perceived by you as WP:UNDUE because nobody is willing to write about Greek history in the Peloponnese. Having at least two maps which depict Albanians and Greeks is what would be expected for this region in any comprehensive study as we would expect more maps for Greek dialects in antiquity or Greeks in the early Byzantine Peloponnese and other topics.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• You're contradicting yourself. First it's I don't think that the 15th century map is related specifically to Albanians (which is no even true), but then it's Having at least two maps which depict Albanians, so you admit it's about Albanians after all. Bottom line is, two maps about Albanians are completely UNDUE, and it's just not going happen (and it's not just me who thinks so). Khirurg (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Am I? Having at least two maps which depict Albanians and Greeks is what would be expected for this region.--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Maleschreiber seems you got caught red handed! On a serious note, Khirurgs' tone and allusions are, simply said, strange. Alltan (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Contradictions are important, because they reveal true intent. If you have a problem with my tone, you know what to do. Khirurg (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I don't get how 2 maps which show Albanians as a minority in the Peloponnese can be seen as Albanian maps. Aren't they more Greek if anything? Where can I find these Albanian maps? Alltan (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Because the map Ahmet made (in addition to the terrible choice of colors) presents a greatly incomplete picture (most of the settlements are missing) and it also incorrectly represents all settlements as being of equal size. When in fact the source clearly states that Greek settlements are 3.5 times larger. So yeah, big problem. Khirurg (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  You can just add that part to the description of the map. Something like "Greek settlements were on average 3.5 times larger." If you discuss it here first. Alltan (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, the map should show that. The visual effect is very important. No one will accept a map that inaccurately shows tiny hamlets and entire cities as being the same size. The source actually has such a map(map 37), but for some strange reason certain editors seems to pretend it doesn't exist. Khirurg (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Can you link to such a map? I can't find it. Or maybe if you can post it here somehow that would be great too. Alltan (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Map 36 in Liakopoulos. But I don't have online access. Khirurg (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  That map is in the book. You are welcome to recreate it for Wikipedia, I will support its inclusion in the article. The map that AhmetQ has created is also in the book. There is absolutely no valid reason to ask for one and reject the other since the author saw it fit to publish both (and many others). This is just POV pushing. Çerçok (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ahmet's map is problematic for a number of reasons which I have already mentioned, and we're not going to have three maps about Albanians in the article. That is POV-pushing. Khirurg (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  The map was unproblematic for the author and the reviewers. And no, the Liakopoulos maps are about the population of the Peloponnese in general so there is still only one map about Albanians. You cannot hide verifiable truth, only accept it. Çerçok (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  None here tries to hide any truth, that's a daydreaming of yours. What the editors try to do is to present your verifiable truth in a neutral way and not they way that suits you best. The map 36 from Liakopoulos is the most neutral and most appropriate that satisfies both parties so accept it. Othon I (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  The map 36 from Liakopoulos is the most neutral and most appropriate Picking your favorite map and banning all others is plain POV. Even at your low-IQ level you should be able to grasp that much. Çerçok (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well, certainly it is the most neutral and appropriate because it represents the full image with depth, even if you don't like and you feel uncomfortable with it but anyway, I mean I personally do not pay to much attention to your opinion. Today you have demonstrated that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, you are here for your agenda. PS. you reported me for personal attacks to ANI and you just personally attacked me, you realise the contradiction to this no? Othon I (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  I am not the one picking and choosing, trying to hide one and requesting another that we don't have. If someone makes the other map I will support including that one too. Çerçok (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Othon I and Çerçok: stop insulting each other with terms like "dumb" and "low-IQ". It is ugly, and such comments should be deleted and never repeated again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I was not intending to insult or insulted after he reported me and accepted my mistake about my strong language in ANI but well, as you can see he personally attacks me now himself even if he went to ANI about it. I mean at least funny. I won't pay attention to it really. Just grabbing some pop corn. Othon I (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Lacking etymology

The article seems to make no mention about its name coming from Pelops, son of Tantalus and progenitor of the Spartan Atreus bloodline 2A02:AA7:4604:9116:49ED:5F7D:2CB5:AD73 (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)