Talk:Louros

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

Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article should really be about the municipality rather the town itself, as is done in all other Greece municipality articles. I will edit it accordingly. I also note it is in particularly bad shape, even for a Greece town article (what on Earth are "Ablafor?). Athenean (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few of points:

1. Creating a separate "Demographics" section for an article this tiny for the sole purpose of pushing the POV that that town was exclusively inhabited by Albanians, Albanians, and only Albanians, is the height (or the bottom rather) of POV-pushing and POINTy editing.

1. The source used to make the rather strong claim that the town was inhabited exclusively by Albanians is dubious. Who is Kaliopi Naska? What kind of publishing house is Dituria? Is this just some collection of primary documents? I have never heard Chams in Louros. Parapotamos, Filiates, Paramythia, sure. But Louros? We've been over this at Template Talk:Cham Albanians by the way.

1. Even if it is shown using reliable sources that Chams lived there, the name "Lure" need not be in the lead, as the name is never used by English language sources. Rather, it should go in the body text, as in Syvota. As in that article, it also makes no sense to use alternate names in the lead for municipalities that were created the day before yesterday.

1. Lastly, it would be nice if some contributors also tried to improve these articles instead of just focusing on brazen POV-pushing alone.

Athenean (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean your edits were disruptive and Naska is a top source used by many scholars who write about Cham Albanians like Kretsi and the Institute for Southeastern Studies of Munich. You can't remove something from an article because you don't like it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to take your word for it. Also I can't verify the source, and again I won't take your word for what it. What's disruptive is your agressive POV-pushing. Alternate names only go in the first line of the lead if they are used by a significant number of English language sources. You've been quite disruptive lately, so I suggest you take a deep breath and slow down. Athenean (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean disruption is constituted when someone removes from articles anything he doesn't like which hasn't been my course of action. The source can be verified and if you don't know Albanian use an online translator. Naska is used by too many other sources like Kretsi[1] and the institute of Munich[2]. I removed the alternative name from the top but the demographics section isn't something that should be removed.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's disruptive is your inane POV-pushing combined with knee-jerk reverting. Not to mention creating a POINTy "Demographics" section for such a tiny article. You see full well the article is a mess, but it seems all you are interested in is adding your irredentist POV. And no comment on the creation of stubs solely for the purpose of showcasing "Albanians lived there". At the very minimum, the "Demographics section" should be merged into the main text for such a small article. Athenean (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the municipality of Louros did not exist back in WW2. Athenean (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It did exist because the nahiye system of the Ottoman Empire was preserved and the Kapodistrias plan also preserved it(although I don't know what will happen in the future regarding the Kallikratis plan). I just began working on the article so I will expand it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Zjarri. Your so-called arguments about Naska being wp:rs is really not conveincing, please stop this.Alexikoua (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! @ZjarriRrethues, i'm a bit confused about this source and i would like for you to explain some things first. Please provide a description of what kind of work it's supposed to be: what i can understand from the title and from where it is placed in Kretsi, is that it is a recent publication of a collection of older sources (primary ? secondary ? both ?). Are we supposed to treat it as a primary source here ? Does the passage that provides the demographic information about Louros contain any original research from the author ? or is it just quoting another source ? (if so, what's the original source ?). Also, please provide a translation of the relevant passage, apart from being your obligation upon request, it's technically difficult to do the translation myself and Albanian-speaking Wikipedians are much more preferable than machine translation. If i have some answers to these questions than any issues i may have in mind can be expressed in a constructive direction. Thanks.--GroGaBa (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua Naska is RS because of the RS policy and that is not to be overriden by your preferences. GroGaba are you 87?

You have no arguments to support the reliability of this source: On the contrary, the arguments you presented are too weak to make this section stay (It was an Orthodox only region according to another Albanian author, you effectively avoid).Alexikoua (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lours part:Lure town is exclusively inhabited by Albanians, but the surrounding area also has a minority of Aromanians and Jews who don't own property--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua can you provide a quote from the source you're supposedly citing? The sources is rs as widely cited by other works and its author being a very reliable scholar. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that's what you believe. Actually the source is highly dubious, since it's based on fictional estimates. I suggest you prefer a credible source like the Institute for Balkan Studies.Alexikoua (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Institute for Balkan Studies is far from being RS especially when among its current members are people who openly support (as they label it) measures to control the Tukish minority of Western Thrace. Not all publications are unreliable because that depends on the authors but the majority promote the usual topics of national myths. One of the most interesting is a publication regarding a skeleton(of a person that lived 12.000 years ago) found somewhere in Thessaly that the institute described as the The Greek of Thessaly. Alternatively we can examine how rs the Institute is by reading some of its publications regarding the Macedonians of which 7 out of 10 contain even conspiracy theories.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A sample of the members works(this one from its president):

Kondis, Basil Resurgent irredentism: documents on Skopje "Macedonian" national aspirations. Of course Kondis compared to other (former) members like Zouraris is moderate.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme wp:oring proves nothing. Since you present a book of questionable value without citing a primary which this estimate is based on (propably some nationalistic brochures, but who knows), it's time to go. Not to mention that we have a typical snippet abbuse case.Alexikoua (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150921212047/http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf to http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]