Talk:Epirus

Map with Tribes

I removed it from the page. it's higly inaccurate. For example, Lissus, today's Lezha, way up Albanian North, is marked as a 'Greek' tribe. Let's not get involved in map making for political purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Epirus/Iberos?

Given that P/B are similar sounds, Epirus ~ Eberos/Iberos. Does this relate to the Hebrews/Apiru, and/or Caucasian/Spanish Iberians?

pure coincidence. 24.23.131.247 19:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)tsourkpk

Pindus river/mountains

Should the famous Pindus river not be the Pindus mountains? If there exists a Pindus rivier, it is not as famous as the mountains, which are an impressive border indeed. Fransvannes 14:58 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

POV "award"

Saying that northern epirus was awarded to Albania by the great powers is wrong in my opinion. That was Albanian territory, and the great powers actually wanted to split up all the lands of albania among Greece, Italy, and Serbia. There would have been no Albanian state except for the intervention of Woodrow Wilson. Albanians lost some lands during that time, they did not gain any through "awards". --Dori 00:05, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think it is an award,as it was under Greek control twice and given to Albania by two treaties, and also, as there is large Greek population in Northern Epirus, living there for thousands of years. It was not Albanian land, but Greek. What the "powers" really wanted to do, was creating states by taking land from others, to control the local area. And this practice has been followed in the Balkans many times. Michael IX the White 10:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael IX the White (talk • contribs)

You occupied it twice, and they didn't let you keep it. You mean minorities like the Albanian Arvanites?

Keep it Fake (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

60000 greeks live in Southern Albania. Go and count them if you want. The Greek Government has started giving money to the people so they can call themselves greek during the population registration. I have visited the region and they are so few that 3 schools in the Greek language that I visited had just one pupil and one teacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.242.226 (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1911 E.B. article

@Wetman. The only groups of people in Greece having to do something with Albania are the Albanian immigrands and the Arvanites whose language is close to albanian. There is no single Tsamis(=Albanian of Epirus)(<Cameria, albanian for Epirus) living in Greece since the early 50's. This is undisputable, even for Albanians. Check your sources.

These "immigrants" were mentioned in 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Has ethnic cleansing then removed all traces of them? Why then all that remains is to suppress all mention of their former existence. Not that I care one way or the other... Wetman 00:40, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Albanians in northern Greece were not immigrants. After the borders were drawn, they were left in Greece, and there was ethnic cleansing, but not to the point of denying their existance. I have no idea what this anon is talking about, but at least I, as an Albanian, dispute his "This is undisputable, even for Albanians". Dori | Talk 01:17, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

I should also add that the Greek government makes many ridiculous claims when it comes to other ethnicities. For example they claim that all Albanian nationals in Albania who believe in the Orthodox faith are Greeks. I wouldn't give much credance to them when they make such claims. Dori | Talk 01:30, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

"For example they claim that all Albanian nationals in Albania who believe in the Orthodox faith are Greeks" This is not true. Give us some sources that the Greek government has ever stated this. - George, June 28, 2004

If I could read Greek I would find them. As I haven't kept track of them, I haven't added them to the article. For more ridiculous claims by the Greek government have a look at these stats: [1]

Ethinicities: Greek 98%, other 2%

note: the Greek Government states there are no ethnic divisions in Greece

Language: Greek 99% (official)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC) If you can't speak/read greek, then how do you know what you believe that the greek government said or did is not propaganda by the media? Just curious. The number of Albanians has grown in the recent years due to work immigration. Ever since Greece has entered the EU, the country seems to have had a influx of workers from Albania. I can attest to this, I was in greece pre-EU and have visited after EU. The majority of Albanian people are not minority leftovers from 1950s, but recently legal and illegal entries. The demographics have changed considerably, since early 1990s. Also, how do you know you aren't looking at outdated data? ApplesnPeaches Applesnpeaches (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well there are between 500,000 (just illegal Albanian immigrants, admitted by the gov't, I can probably find this reference if you really want me to dig) - 1,000,000 (if you include all) Albanians living in Greece. Even if you take the number of Albanians that the Greek government says live in Greece it will come out to more than 2%. Add to that all the other immigrants (Turks, Kurds, Bulgarians, etc), and I am sure that you can come out with more than 2%. Do you need more proof that the Greek government is a pretty bad when it comes to lies? Dori | Talk 03:20, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

immigrants are not minorities! and You didn't find the claim that you have been asked.

After so much work by so many people, it does seem tiresome that User:Penfold has inserted {{1911}}. I have replaced the text with cut-and-paste from the 1911 E.B.. Then I reverted. Is there so much text remaining from the 1911 E.B. do you think? Wetman 21:39, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Dori, "immigrants" do not equal native "minority groups". Why do you insist that immigrants are similar to native minority groups? That would then mean that there are minority groups of Greeks throughout the world. So, would Australia have to claim minority groups within the migrant groups that arrived there?
Is the Australian government lying if they make no reference to any minority groups? I think this EU business is going to become very messy, esp since national sentiments are very high amongst the members. Applesnpeaches (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Map question

Do we have a map showing all of Epirus? I find it somewhat unbalanced to claim the area stretches across a border, and then show only one side of that border. Aliter 15:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POV issues of "non-Greekness"

I would like to remind to all that this online encyclopaedia is not supposed to be a means for promoting nationalistic propaganda. It is well known that many people in Albania are claiming half of the Balkans! This however does not give them the right to use history for this purpose. Even more when in their effort to do so they resort to their own, hmmmm special version of history. Some examples: 1. In previous versions of this page it is claimed that "Western sources" were considering Epirus as Albanian. Which sources and when? 2. In previous versions of this page it is claimed that the people of Epirus did not participate in the Trojan War as a proof of their "non-Greekness". However at the time of the Trojan War the term Helenes (Greeks) was not used even by the Greeks themselves. The people that participated in the war were the Achaeans, one of the Greek tribes. The Greeks of Epirus ware of the Dorian tribes that appeared on the scene a bit later. 3. In previous versions of this page it is claimed that the people of Epirus did not participate in the Persian war as a proof of their "non-Greekness". However, even the Spartans, did not participate in the battle of Marathon (in the first expedition of the Persians against Greece) for their own reasons despite the desperate calls from the Atheneans. Furthermore the Spartans did not participate at all in the whole campaign of Alexander the Great against the Persian empire although this was probably the biggest Greek campaign ever and was the reason that the Greek culture was so widely spread in antiquity. Does this make the Spartans less Greek than all the others that participated?

One can find numerous such deliberate inaccuracies but the point is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place for people that serve political purposes. So please fellow Albanians leave the ancient Greek, Roman e.t.c. histories alone. It would not help you anyway. Because even if the Greeks had not anything to do with Epirus in the ancient years the Albanians did not have anything to do with it either. In fact the Albanian nation is such a recent development (13th century BC or even later if I am not wrong) that to try to base any claims on historical facts is rather fruitless. (The desperate attempts of the Albanians to trace the origin of their nation to the ancient Illyrians did not find much support outside Albania).

Please respect the truth.

"The desperate attempts of the Albanians to trace the origin of their nation to the ancient Illyrians did not find much support outside Albania" -- that's got to be the most NPOV statement of the century. Care to back up such bold claims? Also, don't be so quick as to associate Albanians (the people) solely with Albania (the modern state whose borders were not drawn up by Albanians). Albanians are most easily identified by their language. People move around. That's why you have Albanians in Greece and Greeks in Albania. No one has any deeds to any ancient lands. Epirus was neither 100% Greek nor 100% Albanian. That's what the article should convey. If you've got any independently certified statistics showing otherwise, I'd like to see it. Dori | Talk 02:38, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Kaplan Resuli, Fatos Lubonja, Ardian Qosi and Ardian Vebiu!! and these are Albanians who reject your illyrian theory.

For some interesting readings have a read at [2] and [3]. This coming from an Aromanian site, and the Aromanians have seen no love from either the Albanians or the Greeks. Dori | Talk 03:32, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to know what does the author mean with "Greek character of towns like Koritsa (now Korçë) and Girokastron (now Gjirokastër)" Do you refer to the Greek language of the population? In that case it seems strange since nowadays I can't find this "character" and I have passed in Korçe my childhood (early 80s and my grandfathers are from there). Or do you probably refer to the religion? This is surely Eastern Orthodox, BUT NOT Greek Orthodox. I remind you that there exist many Orthodox Churches in the Balkans (the newest is the Montenegrin one) and the Greek Orthodox Church is one of them but not the only since ther are the Albanian, the Bulgarian, the Serbian ones and so on. The inability of the Greek nation to make a distintction between the Religion and the Ethnicity or Nationality has led to several, to say the least, misunderstandings if not wars and bloodshed. Orthodox=Greek is not a valid equation.

Albanian population were mostly moved? Move seems like going on a train ride. They were expelled. And that happened in 1920's with the greek-turkish population exchange. Albanians for some reason were categorized as turkish.

In his History written in 1079-1080, Byzantine historian Michael Attaleiates was

  the first to refer to the Albanoi as having taken part in a revolt against
  Constantinople in 1043 and to the Arbanitai as subjects of the duke of Dyrrachium.
  Similarly, the historian John Scylitzes refers (ca. 1081) to the Arbanites as
  forming part of the troops assembled in Durrës by Nicephorus Basilacius. It can
  be assumed that the Albanians began expanding from their mountain homeland in the
  eleventh and twelfth centuries, initially taking possession of the northern and
  central Albanian coastline and by the thirteenth century spreading southward
  towards what are now southern Albania and western Macedonia. In the middle of the
  fourteenth century, they migrated even farther south into Greece, initially into
  Epirus, Thessaly (1320), Acarnania and Aetolia.' By the middle of the fifteenth
  century, which marks the end of this process of colonization, the Albanians had
  settled in over half of Greece in such great numbers that in many regions they
  constituted the majority of the population.

http://www.elsie.de/pub/pdf_articles/A2001CountriesCultures.pdf

In the 15th century several independant princelings called "Despots" by the Greeks, were in possetion of the rich and populous district of Albania, which stretched along the coast of the Adriatic and Mediterrenean sea and corresponds geographically to the Epirus of the ancient. One of the noblest of these chiefs was John Castriot....

shopper2.123city.net/SponsorAds/586-855-1476/1263_scanderbegcatholic-world1876.pdf

The first Latin-Albanian dictioanry was called "Dictionnarium latino-epiroticum" and the Albanian langauge was called "lingua Epirotica" On top of this, a 17th century Enlightened Scholar named Joseph Scalinger stated that Albanian was spoken "In the mountains of Epirus" .

Look at this! 1761 Blaž Tadijanović Svašta po malo iliti kratko složenje imena i riči u ilirski i njemački jezik (Miscellany, or a short Illyrian and German grammar) 1803 Josip Voltiggi Istranin Grammatica illirica (Illyrian Grammar) So what? Are the Slavs Illyrians.They are both being used as geographic terms.

This article is not NPOV. I've seen this article in a Greek propaganda site. -user

The above is source is correct & not propaganda.

The region of Epirus during the middle ages was not the same as the one the article describes. Byzantine Epirus was split into two themata:

• Old Epirus (today's Greek Epirus)
• New Epirus (Northern Epirus and central Albania)

After the assimilation of Albania into the Greek Despotate of Epirus, the entire Albanian region was known for some time under that name. As for Northern Epirus, it was awarded to Albania after the Greek civil war by the Greek communist party, and not any great forces. It was the Greek army who defeated the Axis forces in Epirus during WW2, not the Albanians. History can be tricky if you only know parts of it. Miskin 09:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone read the history and say what was wrong with my edits? Someone had completly deleted them! Also, the last two rulers of Epirus (Empire of) were Serbs: List of Serbian rulers HolyRomanEmperor 16:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

POV

I've added the POV tag for the (repeated) changes by an anonymous user. +MATIA ☎ 10:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Since a couple anons keep removing the NPOV tag, I've protected this article. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but could you please revert the article to its pre-vandalised version? The current version is full of the anonymous user's untruths and nationalist propaganda.--Theathenae 13:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not propaganda. Are you saying that al that whoey about the Greater Albania is propaganda??? Rex^(talk) 13:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please. The text is a copyvio of an Albanian school textbook. Do you support the annexation of "Çamëria" to Albania, User:REX?--Theathenae 13:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

IMHO it doesn't matter, because soon both countires will be member states of the EU (see Enlarging Europe:Albania). What difference will it make then? Do you support the annexation of "Voriya Ipiros" to Greece? Rex^(talk) 14:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That isn't an unequivocal rejection of the idea. And no, I don't support the annexation of northern Epirus to Greece, nor any other dangerous border changes in the Balkans, e.g. Kosovo. However, recognising Albanian sovereignty over northern Epirus does not mean that Greece should not oppose Albania's assimilationist policy against the Greeks living there.--Theathenae 14:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, people, I asked you a question!!!! :X HolyRomanEmperor 17:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious a Greek wrote this article. It sounds as Albania invaded its own land in the south. A neutral one must be written. How can you include some "opression of human rights" in Albania and completely avoid the massacres in Janina and Filat? And what is this "Greek character" of "Korytsa" and "Argyrokastro"? No one has been able to see this kind of character. Congratulations for a new discovery. - Kastrioti, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Kastrioti is right, what the Çamë suffered under Metaxas was nothing less than genocide. The Albanians have the same right to live in Epirus/Çamëria as the Greeks and have done so. This article conveniently glosses over that fact, and instead pretends that the Greeks are the only legitimate inhabitants, whereas everyone else are unwanted foreigners. POV! 300,000 Albanians were expelled from Greece 700 women were raped, 80 children under the age of 3 were murdered, 1020 men were killed. The EU court of Human Rights is planning on looking into this in the near future. What happened the last time? Greece was convicted! Compensation should be paid and the Albanian estates should be returned. Nevertheless, the genocide aside, this article is too POV and glosses over the fact that Albanians have a significant history in this land. Rex^(talk) 15:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Who is lying on the numbers? 300,000!!!!===Around 35,000 Chams were expelled from Greece after World War II after being accused of collaboration with the Nazi occupation, they say. They were given Albanian citizenship in 1953. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4397470.stm

Metaxas died in 1941. The Chams left when the Nazi Germans left Greece around 1944. +MATIA ☎ 21:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Need I remind you of the famous (you might say infamous) Helsinki Report? Metaxas initiated a hellenisation policy aimed at all ethnic/linguistic minorities of Greece and inter alia the Chams were already subject to bad treatment. Expelling them was (not necessarily done by him) was (in my opinion) due to the fact that they were Muslims. The Christian Albanians were subject to much less bad treatment. This hypocrisy is terrible. Greece treats her own minorities like cr*p and then complains about the treatment of the Greek minorities in other countries (eg Albania). The genocide of the Pontic Greek by Turkey is another terrible example, and then Turkey has the sauce to complain about the Greek Muslim Minority. Genocide! Why can't people live and let live. Genocide is taking place as we speak in Sudan, why? I'm so glad I live in the other end of Europe from the Balkans, far away from all this hypocrisy. Rex^(talk) 21:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations against Greece are baseless. +MATIA ☎ 21:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's one for a start. And don't forget what the ECHR had to say. Rex^(talk) 22:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, would you look at that! And there's more and more and more. How's that for baseless accusations? Rex^(talk) 22:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's my personal favorite: the Court found that by both their acts and omissions the Greek authorities had violated Article 11. The Greek government is ungrateful, they have received all that money from the EU, the EU even paid for their new airport and the 2004 Olympic Games and this is how they behave, the violate the European priciples and don't respect Human Rights. Ungrateful! Rex^(talk) 23:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

POV

I think that perhaps it time people learnt to grow up! Modern Greeks and Modern Albanains and the territories they currently occupy are modern issues and have about as much relation to ancient Illyrians, classical Greek leagues and city states as I do to the people currently living in Jutland (Traditional home of the Angles supposed progenitors of the modern English, of which I am one). (Rory-rbremner)

Greek POV is everywhere in this article. The Camerian Genocide is barely discussed, the estimated 400,000 Albanian identifying Orthodox Christian Çams that have remained (and that's excluding the recent Albanian immigrants from 1990) are not even mentioned. Voria Epirus is always mentionad as being liberated, except the vast majority of the inhabitants of Voria Ipiros are Albanians. This article needs be-POVizing a lot and whatever is without source shall be removed. Rex^(talk) 09:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You have been reverting this article into a ludicrous version by User:Kastrioti where the name of the established article Comnenus is changed to Mihael Komnan (supporting that him and the Despotate of Epirus were Albanian). You knew about this article's existence and you only remembered to care about the so called "Greek POV" when a Albanian nationalist started vandalising the article. After this behaviour you're in no position to question the reliability of its content. You're hardly what is called a "well-established" operators as 99% of your edits concert ethnic debates that reach nationalist overtones. The edits of User:Kastioti (that you yourself supported) qualify as simple vandalism (section Wholesale reversions around one point). Miskin 16:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nah, it's not vandalism. It's POV pushing. Both versions are inaccurate (Kastrioti's is just a little over the top). This article is grossly POV, both ways. Why the Albanian minority is not mentioned is beyond me. Just because the Greek government pretends they don't exist? Petty Greek nationalism. PS what have 99% of your edits concerned? Rex^(talk) 18:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

REX there is no more Albanian minority in Epirus, it was long exchanged with a large Greek minority in Southern Albanian, I suppose you're already knew that. If you want to make a point to the Albanian minority that existed prior to this population exchange, then just add what you want in the article without vandalising every section of it. Read simple vandalism to find out why Kastrioti's edits were clear Vandalism that you supported. Miskin 10:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have previously admitted it: my version is mostly AlbanianPOV. The reason I put it on wikipedia is to show that more neutral articles are necessary. The current one is pure Greek nationalist propaganda and it is ridiculous how the Greek users here don't admit it. Not mentioning the slaughters of thousands of people is not simply nationalism but extremism. In conclusion, the article was already vandalized before I created my account.

I already suggested that a new neutral article about Epirus should be written. This should be done soon or we'll continue to edit and re-edit for our own interests. Kastrioti 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Kastrioti, usually I don't talk reply seriously to people like you. You obviously have no historical knowledge, all you know is that Skanderbeg was referring to his Epirote army and ancestors (that he differentiated from the Albanians), so you decided that in order to keep his Albanian identity intact, you should change any references that prove Epirus as a historically Greek region. You're so blinded by nationalism that you were stupid enough to "Albanise" the names of the Byzantine emperors in order to deny the Greek identity of the Despotate of Epirus. Reverting to your nationalist myths 30 times a day won't help you edit an article, trust me on that one. We can't be writing new articles each time an ignorant extremist can't accept history. Keep reverting as much as you want, there are already some adult admins watching over you. Miskin 10:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, you know that dismissing people because you perceive yourself to be so superior is not going to get this over with. You cannot deny that the article, in both versions, is hopelessly POV. Yes, the most common names should be used as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), but those bits about "liberating" Northern Epirus, and The Treaty of Berlin of 1881 gave Greece parts of southern Epirus, but it was not until the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 that rest of southern Epirus was returned to Greece. But the Greeks resented the fact that northern Epirus had been given to the new state of Albania, despite the mostly Greek character of the area and in big towns like Korytsá (Korçë in Albanian) and Argyrókastro (Gjirokastër). If that's not POV and a land claim on Albanian territory with the vast majority of the population being Albanian, I don't know what it is. why don't we discuss the Çam Genocide by the Greek resistance? Because the Greek government denies it? 3,000 people were murdered just because they were Muslims and the far-right fractions (EDES) wanted an ethnicaly pure border region. Even today, despite the Greek government's denials, there is a Christian Çam minority in Greece (they were not persecuted by EDES, they were just forced underground and attempts made to assimilate them). Why aren't they mentioned? What about the thousands of Albanian immigrants who live in Epirus? This article is hopelessly POV and reflects the Greek romanitic nationalist dreams on how they wish reality was. Rex^(talk) 11:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Find neutral evidence about the genocide and it will be added. Epirus as a whole has had historically predominantly Greek, this is where the 'returned' comes in, but you can remove it as much as I'm concerned. Northern Epirus was occupied (if you prefer) by the Greek army in WW2 and was part of the Greek state after the allied victory. The only reason Northern Epirus now belongs to Albania was because the Greek communist party literally gave it away as a gift to their Albanian "comrades" during the civil war. This is why Northern Epirus never remained an independent state. None of those facts were mentioned in the article, therefore it's neutral. Compare reality to Kastrioti's version of the story to realise why it's vandalism. Albanian POV is not going to pass here just because Skanderbeg wrote about the Epirotes in a letter. Nobody cares about what Skanderbeg said so you can stop fearing that he will be "stolen" from you. Miskin 11:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole Cham genocide is outlined inter alia here, by a neutral source. UNPO claims that there are currently 200,000 Cham Albanians in Greece. According to the previous document, the ethnicity of Epirus is and always has been blurred, therefore you have no right to POV push, but should state all opinions and support none (as per WP:NPOV). If you think that northern Epirus was a "gift" to Albania, how do you explain the fact that UNPO estimates 280,000 people in "Northern Epirus". If that is not a drop of water in the sea? Where is the predominantly Greek northern Epirus? It is fully Albanian now, AND the Albanian authorities actually recognise the Greek minority as opposed to the Greek authorities who pretend that the Albanian minority doesn't exist. This article should be neutral, as I have said time and time again. What is wrong with WP:NPOV? Don't you like it? All views ahould be expressed and FACTS should not be left out just because you feel like it. Rex^(talk) 13:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Northern Epirus was a gift by the communist party. Its Greek population has decreased significantly after the Albanian annexation and land claims have been withdrawn, I never claimed that Southern Albania is currently predominantly Greek, so I don't know what you're talking about. Miskin 11:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, thank you for showing your neutral POV.

As for my knowledge, I might know nothing about Athens or Thessaloniki, but I certainly know more than you about Epirus. Your arrogance does not illustrate education and you should stop it.

As for Epirus, it still is incredible how you keep denying some of the most important facts of its history. The Cham massacre is one of them. You said you want some neutral sources before adding it to the article. Here there are two neutral PRIMARY sources, undisputable too.

Colonel Chris Woodhouse, head of the British Military Mission in Greece: “Encouraged by the Allied Mission I headed, Zervas drove the Chams out of their homes in 1944. The majority fled to find shelter in Albania. Their eviction from Greece was carried out with large-scale bloodshed. Zervas’s work was followed in March 1945 with a large-scare massacre of the Filiates Chams that cannot be excused. The result was the eviction of the undesirable Albanian population from their land.”

British Foreign Office PRO/FO No.371/48094/544/R8 564

Another primary source if you are not convinced…

Joseph Jacobs, head of the US Mission in Albania: “In March 1945 units of the Zervas’s dissolved forces carried out a massacre of Chams in the Filiates area, and practically cleared the district of the Albanian minority. According to all the information I have been able to gather on the Cham issue, in the fall of 1944 and during the first months of 1945, the authorities in north-western Greece perpetrated savage brutality by evicting some 25,00 Chams –residents of Chameria – from their homes. They were chased across the border after having been robbed of their land and property. Hundreds of male Chams from ages of 15 to 70 were interned on the islands of the Aegean Sea. In total, 102 mosques were burnt down.”

Documents of the US Department of State, No. 84/3, Tirana Mission, 1945-1946, 6-646.

I think those two neutral primary sources are good enough to prove the massacre of Muslim Chams did occur. It must be added to the article because it is one of the most important events in Epirus’s history whether you like it or not.

And what do you mean when you say "Epirus as a historical Greek region"? Are baklava and byrek (spanakopita) Greek too? No, they are Turkish. And Epirus is not a historical Greek region. Your ancestors have proved it too. It is, to this day, a disputed region.

You have crossed the limit when you wrote about Korca and Gjirokastra as “cities with mostly Greek character.” Korca is the city where the first school (in Albanian language) was opened. Korca is where Germenji and Kostandin Kristoforidhi were born. Kristoforidhi is one of the most important men in Albania’s history. His contribution to the Albanian alphabet was essential. that's why the Greek Church cursed him and the Albanian language. Naum Veqilharxhi, the man who started the Albanian renaissance, was from Korca. Kristo Negovani, a priest from Korca, was translating the liturgy in Albanian. The Greek Church cursed and then massacred him. Cerciz Topulli from Gjirokastra (another city of mostly Greek character) killed Fotis, the Greek priest responsible for Negovani’s death. Ilia Sheperi, a genious of Albanian language, was from Gjirokastra. Jani Vreto, one of the five Christians who participated in the League of Prizren was Gjirokastrit. What in the world makes these cities have a mostly Greek character? All I see from their histories is the sacrifice for Albania. Your statement was pure propaganda, or maybe it came out of ignorance because you probably know nothing of Korca and Gjirokastra and it's not your fault. You're so blinded by nationalism that you are stupid enough to Hellenize these two Albanian cities that have a strong Albanian identity. History proves it.

As for Komneni: I recheked some information and it seems I misundertood one fact. Arianiti is maternaly related to Komneni and I thought he was related from his father's family. It was my mistake and I admit it.

I never quoted Skanderbeg. You are the one doing that but since you brought it up, then I must tell you that he knew what he was saying. His reference came from Stanish, his older brother, and he did not differentiate himself from the Albanians.

This is my last serious response to you because your nationalistic mind desires to select facts. You only like your POV and that is Greek only. I'm not here to convince you. You have your perspective, I have mine. The next resposes will be short, 2-3 sentences.

As for the administrators; I’m glad they’re watching over me. If they’re watching me, then they must be watching you too. This means wikipedia is supervised. Good!

PS: The reason why we got southern Albania is because international borders were already drawn. Similar to why Serbia took Kosova in 1945, even though it was united (or occupied or annexed) with Albania. Kastrioti, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok right into the point by quoting REX's own source:

• The Chams were subsequently armed by the Italians and co-operated with them against Greek villages controlled by Greek resistance fighters. During this period, atrocities were committed by a minority of Chams against Greek civilians, thousands of whom were forced to flee from their homes.

I bet you didn't read that article fully. The Albanians were on the side of the nazis and started commiting massacres against the local Greek population, who were fighting the Axis forces. That was your noble "Cham struggle" that you're asking us to honour. It continues:

• 14 In October 1944 when the Germans began withdrawing from Greece, many hundreds of Chams also fled with them into Albania. Henceforth, the remaining Muslim Albanians in Greece were regarded by the Greeks as the enemy within.

Why were those nasty Greeks seeing the Albanians as the enemy at the time? Because they joined the nazis and committed massacres while the Greeks were fighting for their freedom"'. Is that clear enough to both of you? The majority of the Chams fled Epirus. So far so good, the Greek atrocities began after the Albanian collaboration with the Axis forces: In an attempt to establish an ethnically pure border region, the Chams were evicted from northern Greece by guerrilla forces under the command of General Napoleon Zervas acting under the instructions of allied officers. In the light of recent research, wartime documents show that Greek actions against the Chams were supported and authorised by the British. These actions resulted in around 35,000 Chams fleeing to Albania and others to Turkey. Colonel Chris Woodhouse, head of the British Military Mission in Greece reported that: "Encouraged by the Allied Mission I headed, Zervas drove the Chams out of their homes in 1944. The majority fled to find shelter in Albania. Their eviction from Greece was carried out with large-scale bloodshed. Zervas's work was followed in March 1945 with a largescale massacre of the Filiates Chams that cannot be excused. The result was the eviction of the undesirable Albanian population from their land." The details that follow (about rapes and murders) cannot be taken into consideration unless quoted by an official source such as a well established encyclopedia or a neutral historical work. Assuming that those grave Greek atoricities did take place, it's not like the racist genocide that you both present it, it's about the punishment of those who took the side of the nazis. Greece lost 700,000 people during that war, defeated the Italian forces and resisted to the Germans, while at the same time the Albanians only cared about expanding their territory. I'm definitely not excusing any kind of killing of innocent people, but I'm pointing out that a post-WW2 political situation in the Balkans is too complicated and too alien to be understood so easily by a couple of internet-warriors. You can't criticise so naively the political situation of WW2. According to your patiotic logic, we should start considering the Invasion of Normandy and the occupation of Berlin as a Massacre of Germans. The Allied forces were bombing Berlin for days after the Nazis had already surrendered, but no-one dares to call this a "massacre". Make your own conclusions. Miskin 11:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

To stick to the point, my opinion is that this incident requires an article of its own where every information will be revealed, including the pro-Albanian stance of the Greek communist party during the civil war that resulted in offering Epirus as a "gift" to the Albanian state. If you insist to stick it here, be aware that both sides of the story will be stated, including the Albanian collaboration with the Axis, and the Allied "permission" concerning their punishment. User:Kastioti continues to ask simple vandalism on the article by making ludicrous edits to all of its sections. Miskin 11:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• User:Kastrioti says:And what do you mean when you say "Epirus as a historical Greek region"? Are baklava and byrek (spanakopita) Greek too? No, they are Turkish. And Epirus is not a historical Greek region. Your ancestors have proved it too. It is, to this day, a disputed region.

It means that throughtout its history it has been primarily inhabited by Greeks (though never exclusively). The Despotate of Epirus should not confuse you into believing that it included Epirus. It extended further North to include almost half of modern Albania, and further south to include western Greece. The Albanian population was allied with the Greeks at the time, but they were not regarded as Epirotes. As for "baklava", it has a turkish name, which means that it has had Turkish influence, but the origin of the sweet itself goes further back in Byzantine history. Now I don't know what "byrek" is, but Spanakopita is Greek. It's has feta cheese in it (hello!). But honestly, you don't have to be so envious, I'll say it's Albanian if that will make you feel any better about yourself. Miskin 11:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A list of quotes that will demonstrate why I considered user:Kastrioti from the start a waste of everybody's time:

• (Epirus) It is, to this day, a disputed region.

The man actually has ongoing land claims that he expects to sort out by adding nationalist myths on a Greek article.

• All I see from their histories is the sacrifice for Albania.

Nationalist views that existed in Europe over 50 years in the past.

• you are stupid enough to Hellenize these two Albanian cities that have a strong Albanian identity. History proves it.

I don't care about the personal attacks, what I'm pointing out is again your ignorance. There has actually been a medieval Greek Empire that it came under the name of Epirus but your constant reverts prove that is something you blindly deny. Do you want me to quote sources like Eric Hobsbawm on this one? Be careful because the score is increasing.

• I never quoted Skanderbeg. You are the one doing that but since you brought it up, then I must tell you that he knew what he was saying.

Limited historical history. Scanderbeg's article makes explicit differentiation between "Albanians" and "Epirotes", he never considers them the same thing. Judging by the history of region (and the region despotate), Skanderbeg's epirotes where nothing but but Byzantine Greeks. The seal of Skanderbeg which marks him as "Emperor of the Greeks" proves that. All of the above info and quotes are presented in the article. But of course I don't expect to believe that, what I do expect form you is to keep your views to yourself.

• "As for Komneni: I recheked some information and it seems I misundertood one fact. Arianiti is maternaly related to Komneni and I thought he was related from his father's family. It was my mistake and I admit it.

Right. So in your world, you just vandalise an article 24/7, realise afterwards that you were "confused", and you expect to settle this with a "sorry"? Isn't that right? Well it's wrong. You just demostrated why I looked down on you and considered you a waste of time from the beginning. You also proved why all your edits should be reverted by default, because they'll be probabilistically biased. You made my point. Miskin 11:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Both sides of the story should be present. Sources should be found, and of course we shall quote my source, which says:

Under the DP government in June 1994 a new law was passed, which proclaimed 27 June as "The Day of Greek Chauvinist Genocide Against the Albanians of Chameria" and set up a memorial to the Chams in the southern village of Konispol.

Of course this whole thing needn't be gone into in much detail. Of course the name Mihael Komnan cannot be used. The most common name used in English should be used as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Those bits about the Greek character of Gjirokastër and Korçë will have to be do-POVized until a neutral reference is found. I think that'll do for now. Rex^(talk) 11:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

PS Miskin, read Wikipedia:Vandalism:

Mistakes

Sometimes, users will insert content into an article that is not necessarily accurate, in the belief that it is. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it. If you believe that there is inaccurate information in an article, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it.

What makes an edit vandalism is bad faith. Is Kastrioti, to the best of your judgement, acting out of bad faith, or is there a serious defect in the articles "alleged" neutrality. Rex^(talk) 11:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I still didn't hear the answer to my question!!!!! Why did you delete the two last Epirotean rulers? (who were Serbs) see: List of Serbian rulers HolyRomanEmperor 19:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, right, 35000 people just fled. And all of them collaborated with nazis. And yet you forget about 1913-14 and 1922. I guess they disliked living where their ancestors had lived for centuries and they just left. And Epirus was never primarily inhabited by Greeks. Read Suflay, Fevereial, Lodge, D'Angely, Gatti etc. Even the so-called "vorioepirotes" are not natives. Ottoman records show they are from central Greece and settled in Dropulli around the 1840s. They were living in poverty and they left. They became farmers of Albanian beylers and pashas. So your claim goes down by primary source information but it is valid considering Greek sources.

Korca and Gjirokastra are pure Albanian cities with a long Albanian history. The previous comment proves it whether you like it or not. This explains why I looked down at you because you didn't know what you were talking about. Thus, the edits are completely justified.

Now you're thinking of adding the chameria genocide, after denying it 24/7. Well, that just proves my point. Thank you for crossing the limit again by mentioning the Albanian national hero, Gjergj Kastrioti.

Scanderbeg's article makes explicit differentiation between "Albanians" and "Epirotes", he never considers them the same thing. Judging by the history of region (and the region despotate), Skanderbeg's epirotes where nothing but but Byzantine Greeks.

Interesting. I just went and checked it. A passage of his letter is in front of me and it says "Arberit". And so does Marin Barleti's letter, as well as the one of Ferdinand of Aragona. Arberia was Albania between XII-XVI century. So your statement is baseless and is just a valueless argument for claiming a hero. I knew it, you were a waste of everyone's time since the beginning. I should've never posted the previous long comment.

The details that follow (about rapes and murders) cannot be taken into consideration unless quoted by an official source such as a well established encyclopedia or a neutral historical work.

My details come from Miranda Vicker's article and are accepted by most of the international experts.

The man actually has ongoing land claims that he expects to sort out by adding nationalist myths on a Greek article. Bravo, you admit your goal.

PS: Spanakopita or tiropita or however you call it is really Turkish. Bakllava is either turkish or middle eastern. Now, don't tell me Turkish coffee is really Greek coffee? Kastrioti, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Spanakopita and tiropita are two completely different things, and the only link is the feta cheese. People like Kastrioti are giving the worst image of their ethnicity. If I had never met an Albanian in my life I'd think that they're all nationalist moron who all they do is hate and envy their neighbouring nations in order to feel better about their own misery. Honestly that's the image you give. Like for example when you question the origin of two feta-based foods, that have blatantly never seen in your life. That makes you look like a sad muppet. Miskin 19:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As for you REX, I hope you're joking when you call the "Miranda Vickers" article a neutral source. You either think I'm completely stupid or you haven't read it. I read it fully last night, and I can't possible think of a better definition for the word "propaganda". I think by now my initial attitude towards people like Kastrioti is again justified. And if you can honestly not see what's wrong with that article, then unfortunately you belong to the same group of editors like Kastrioti. However if you do see what's wrong with it and yet you choose to pass such ludicrous POVs in wikipedia, then you're still at the same level with Kastrioti, except smarter (he probably believes it was actually written by a non-Albanian). Either way, you're in the black list. Miskin 19:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Summary: When Miskin dislikes what neutral sources say, he dismisses them as propaganda and people who support the said neutral source are stupid and belong on a black list. Rex^(talk) 19:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, I would really like to know how blinded by that Greek romantic nationalist fantasy you are. This is a neutral source you have no reason to dismiss it. You probably wouldn't even admit that there are 200,000 Orthodox Chams still in northwestern Greece (from UNPO), but you promote their figure of 280,000 for the Greek minority of Voria Ipiros. These double standards have got to stop! Rex^(talk) 19:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

When Miskin dislikes what neutral sources say, he dismisses them as propaganda and people who support the said neutral source are stupid and belong on a black list.

that's absolutely right. Whatever is not pro-Greek is propaganda. It must be another one of those Unholy Alliances.

again, is Turkish coffee Greek coffee? Again, byrek is Turkish food, thta's how the world recognizes it except Greek nationalists like you.

Miskin, you are actually giving the worse name to Greeks. If I had never met a Grreek, I would think they're nationalist morons who take what they like from their neighbors and say "it's ours".

But I do understand your attitude. I'm a native of Epirus and for that you consider me a barbarian. You think a lot like Gage but at least he's smart.

Since you ONLY want neutral sources, then we shall ONLY use neutral sources for "Greeks" too and that is no Greek or Albanian estimations. Kastrioti, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Why am I being ignored? I still didn't get my answer!!! HolyRomanEmperor 19:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

REX get us a real source and we talk about it later. If you do make a point, then it will probably need an article of its own which would be linked here. If that ridiculous college coursework (which as far as I'm concerned might be your own work) is the best you can do, then I provoke you to have a 3rd party decide whether it's neutral or not. Miskin 13:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait... Do you think that I am User:REX ??? HolyRomanEmperor 16:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes to the article

I've made some fairly major changes to the article; in its old version it was rather a mish-mash of different things. I've now remodelled it on the same lines as the Macedonia articles. The main changes are as follows:

• Epirus now goes to Epirus (disambiguation);
• The original Epirus article (this one) is now moved to Epirus (region);
• The content from the old Epirus article about the Greece periphery of that name is now at Epirus (Greece);
• The historical content is all in Epirus (region), but significantly revised (based partly on the old text and partly on other sources).

I'd be interested to know what others think... -- ChrisO 01:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that Epirus (region) should be moved to Epirus and have a line at the intro about Epirus (disambiguation). The way I see it the region article is a superset of all related articles. Beside that, I agree with the content splits into various articles you did, and I would have done the same in the past if I were bolder. +MATIA ☎ 11:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Etymology of Epirus

It is possible that the names "Epirus", "Europe", "Ambraces", "Bryges", "Hebrus river" are agnate. Their roots (*pr-) and (*br-) are closely akin. In the end of 3rd or the beginning of 2nd millennia BC, the original meaning of these words had to be "Western Country" or "Peoples that dwelled in country in west of Hebrus river".

Perhaps, this great river divided the eastern Thrace, the known country to Hattians, Hittites and other Orient peoples from the western Thrace and the lands beyond, the unknown country to them.

--IonnKorr 22:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Molossoi are Illyrians? Not a single ancient source points to that

Yes, the Molossoi are Illyrians. Thucydides expressingly says that they are barbarians, according to the language they speak. Dodona was the temple of the pelasgian Zeus, a word which is derived in modern Albanian as "Zot" which means God. How else could you explain that most of the Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Greece have a meaning in modern Albanian. Afrodite (Afërdita) means near the dawn, and refers to planet Venus which is shiny at that time. Read Encyclopedia Britanicca and get some real answers.

Do you read too much Hoxja fiction? According to Athenian historians the term barbarian often used not with an ethnic meaning but its related to the society's organization and education. In that way some ancient sources give the epithet barbarian to acarnaians, boetians, helians (the founders of olympic games). On the other hand their nationality was never under question. The same situation exist with the Epirot tribes too. There is not a single source poiting them as Illyrians or Thracians. As an old Epirot moto says: to know half the truth is wors than to know absolute nothing.Alexikoua (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Epirus is hellenic not illyrian and not albanian

Quote: "Speakers of these various Greek dialects settled different parts of Greece at different times during the Middle Bronze Age, with one group, the "northwest" Greeks, developing their own dialect and peopling central Epirus. This was the origin of the Molossian or Epirotic tribes."

E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 62

Quote: "We have seen that the "Makedones" or "highlanders" of mountainous western Macedonia may have been derived from northwest Greek stock. That is, northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek from which emerged the tribes who were later known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country. Thus the Macedonians may have been related to those peoples who at an earlier time migrated south to become the historical Dorians, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. If it were known that Macedonian was a proper dialect of Greek, like the dialects spoken by Dorians and Molossians, we would be on much firmer ground in this hypothesis." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 78

Quote: "When Amyntas became king of the Macedonians sometime during the latter third of the sixth century, he controlled a territory that included the central Macedonian plain and its peripheral foothills, the Pierian coastal plain beneath Mt. Olympus, and perhaps the fertile, mountain-encircled plain of Almopia. To the south lay the Greeks of Thessaly. The western mountains were peopled by the Molossians (the western Greeks of Epirus), tribes of non-Argead Macedonians, and other populations." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 98

Quote: "As subjects of the king the Upper Macedonians were henceforth on the same footing as the original Macedonians, in that they could qualify for service in the King's Forces and thereby obtain the elite citizenship. At one bound the territory, the population and wealth of the kingdom were doubled. Moreover since the great majority of the new subjects were speakers of the West Greek dialect, the enlarged army was Greek-speaking throughout."

NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Gerald Duckword & Ltd, London, 1994

Quote: "Certainly the Thracians and the Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the northwest, the peoples of Molossis {Epirot province}, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is also accepted that the Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially Greeks." Robert Morkot, "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece", Penguin Publ., 1996

EPIRUS ("Hpeiros", Mainland)

North-west area of Greece, from Acroceraunian point to Nicopolis, with harbours at Buthrotum and Glycys Limen (at Acheron's mouth); bordered on south by gulf of Ambracia, and on east by Pindus range with pass via Metsovo to Thessaly.

Three limestone ranges parallel to the coast and the Pindus range enclose narrow valleys and plateaux with good pasture and extensive woods; alluvial plains were formed near Buthrotum, Glycys Limen, and Ambracia.

Epirus had a humid climate and cold winters. In terrain and in history it resembled Upper Macedonia. Known in the 'Iliad' only for the oracle of Dodona, and to Herodotus for the oracle of the dead at Ephyra, Epirus received Hellenic influence from the Elean colonies in Cassopaea and the Corinthian colonies at Ambracia and Corcyra, and the oracle of Dodona drew pilgrims from northern and central Greece especially.

Theopompus knew fourteen Epirote tribes, speakers of a strong west-Greek dialect, of which the Chaones held the plain of Buthrotum, the Thesproti the plain of Acheron, and the Molossi the plain of Dodona, which forms the highland centre of Epirus with an outlet southwards to Ambracia.

A strong Molossian state, which included some Thesprotian tribes, existed in the reign of Neoptolemos c.370-368 ("Arx.Ef".1956, 1ff). The unification of Epirus in a symmachy led by the Molossian king was finally achieved by Alexander, brother-in-law of Philip II of Macedon. His conquests in southern Italy and his alliance with Rome showed the potentialities of the Epirote Confederacy, but he was killed in 330 BC.

Dynastic troubles weakened the Molossian state, until Pyrrhus removed his fellow king and embarked on his adventurous career.

The most lasting of his achievements were the conquest of southern Illyria, the development of Ambracia as his capital, and the building of fortifications and theaters, especially the large one at Dodona.

His successors suffered from wars with Aetolia, Macedon, and Illyria, until in c.232 BC the Molossian monarchy fell.

An Epirote League with a federal citizenship was then created, and the meetings of its council were held probably by rotation at Dodona or Passaron in Molossis, at Gitana in Thesprotis, and at Phoenice in Chaonia.

It was soon involved in the wars between Rome and Macedon, and it split apart when the Molossian state alone supported Macedon and was sacked by the Romans in 167 BC, when 150,000 captives were deported.

Central Epirus never recovered; but northern Epirus prospered during the late republic, and Augustus celebrated his victory at Actium by founding a Roman colony at Nicopolis.

Under the empire a coastal road and a road through the interior were built from north to south, and Buthrotum was a Roman colony.

Ancient remains testify to the great prosperity of Epirus in Hellenistic times. N.G.L.Hammond, "Oxford Classical Dictionary," 3rd ed. (1996), pp.546,547

The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia, suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle the Illyrian problem at its roots." Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press, 1990.

Quote: The West Greek dialect group denotes the dialects spoken in: (i) the northwest Greek regions of Epeiros, Akarnania, Pthiotid Akhaia.... Johnathan M. Hall, "Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity", Cambridge University Press, 1997

Quote: Alexander was King Philip's eldest legitimate child. His mother, Olympias,came from the ruling clan of the northwestern Greek region of Epirus.

David Sacks, "A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World", Oxford, 1995

Quote: Epirus was a land of milk and animal products...The social unit was a small tribe, consisting of several nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, and these tribes, of which more than seventy names are known, coalesced into large tribal coalitions, three in number: Thesprotians, Molossians and Chaonians...We know from the discovery of inscriptions that these tribes were speaking the Greek language (in a West-Greek dialect).

NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Duckworth, London, 1994

the Satyres by Juvenal

Quote: The molossians were the most powerfull people of Epirus, whose kings had extended their dominion over the whole country. They traced their descent back to Pyrrhus, son of Acchilles.. Page 225

"The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew

Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was nowhere suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking; Quote: Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking Page 284

"The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 6, the Fourth Century BC" by D M Lewis, Martin Ostwald, Simon Hornblower, John Boardman

Quote: however, in central Epirus the only fortified places were in the plain of Ioannina, the centre of the Molossian state. Thus the North-west Greek-speaking tribes were at a half-way stage economically and politically, retaining the vigour of a tribal society and reaching out in a typically Greek manner towards a larger political organization. Quote: In 322 B.C when Antipater banished banished the anti-Macedonian leaders of the Greek states to live 'beyond the Ceraunian Mountains' (plut. Phoc. 29.3) he regarded Epirus as an integral part of the Greek-speaking mainland. Page 443

Quote: The chaones as we will see were a group of Greek-speaking tribes, and the Dexari, or as they were called later the Dassarete, were the most northernly member of the group. Page 423

A New Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology and Geography" by William Smith

Quote: Molossi (Μολοσσοί), a people in Epirus, who inhabited a narrow slip of country, called after them Molossia (Μολοσσία) or Molossis, which extended from the Aous, along the western bank of the Arachthus, as far as the Ambracian Gulf. The Molossi were Greek people, who claimed descent from Molossus, the son of Pyrrhus (Neoptolemus) and Andromache, and are said to have emigrated from Thessaly into Epirus, under the guidance of Pyrrhus himself. In their new abodes they intermingled with the original inhabitants of the land and with the neighbouring illyrian tribes of which they were regarded by the other Greeks as half barbarians. They were, however, by far the most powerful people in Epirus, and their kings gradually extended their dominion over the whole of the country. The first of their kings, who took the title of King of Epirus, was Alexander, who perished in Italy B.C. 326. The ancient capital of the Molossi was Pasaron,but Ambracia afterward became their chief town, and the residence of their kings. The Molossian hounds were celebrated in antiquity, and were much prized for hunting.

That they [Dorians] were related to the North-West Dialects (of Phocis, Locris, Aetolia, Acarnania and Epirus) was not perceived clearly by the ancients

History of the Language Sciences: I. Approaches to Gender II. Manifestations By Sylvain Auroux, page 439

Quote: the western greek people (with affinities to the Epirotic tribes) in Orestis, Lyncus, and parts of Pelagonia; "In the shadow of Olympus.." By Eugene Borza, page 74

Quote: Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, was himself simply a military adventurer. He was none the less a soldier of fortune that he traced back his pedigree to Aeacus and Achilles Quote: He [Pyrrhus] has been compared to Alexander of Macedonia; and certainly the idea of founding a Hellenic empire of the west--which would have had as its core Epirus, Magna Graecia, and Sicily, would have commanded both the Italian seas, and would have reduced Rome and Carthage to the rank of barbarian peoples bordering on the Hellenistic state-system,like the Celts and the Indians--was analogous in greatness and boldness to the idea which led the Macedonian king over the Hellespont.

Quote: he was the first Greek that met the Romans in battle. With him began those direct relations between Rome and Hellas, on which the whole subsequent development of ancient, and an essential part of modern, civilization are based. Quote: this struggle between Rome and Hellenism was first fought out in the battles between Pyrrhus and the Roman generals; Quote: But while the Greeks were beaten in the battlefield as well as in the senate-hall, their superiority was none the less decided on every other field of rivalry than that of politics; and these very struggles already betokened that the victory of Rome over the Hellenes would be different from her victories over Gauls and Phoenicians, and that the charm of Aphrodite only begins to work when the lance is broken and the helmet and shield are laid aside. Theodor Mommsen History of Rome, From the Abolition of the Monarchy in Rome to the Union of Italy, The Historical Position Of Pyrrhus

Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was NOWHERE suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking;

Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking. "The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew ,page 284.

Quote: The Epirotes, who may fairly be considered as Greeks by blood, long maintained a rugged independence under native chiefs, who were little more than leaders in war. A Manual of Greek Antiquities Book by Percy Gardner, Frank Byron Jevons; Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895, page 8

Athenian views

"The Epirotes seem to have initially been regarded with some disdain by the Greeks of the south"

This should change to "The Epirotes seem to have initially been regarded with some disdain by the Athenians among many other Greeks when athens rose to power." the athenians called most Greeks barbarians like spartan,macedons and many others.It was a political position.Archeology has shown us they were Greek. Megistias (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I support changing the sentence to the above version. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

antiquity map

Please give the source of your map seems to me very amator and with strong bias.If the others accept such artistic work, i have nothing more to add, is very clear to me .Dodona --Burra (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The map is sourced approved,licensed and discussed in the commons.Its fully accepted and clear to all that its historical and fully correct.Megistias (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read wiki rules .Megistias (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

New add

Epirus was known as the home of the Oracle of Dodona at the time of Homer and was inhabitated by Epirotic tribes barely known to the Greeks.This was the origin of the Molosians which spoke a dialect similar to Dorians and Macedonians --Dodona (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your new add cant go on since

• Quote: "... The original home of the Hellenes was ' Hellas', the area round Dodona in Epirus, according to Aristotle. In the Iliad it was the home of Achilles' Hellenes"

A History of Greece to 322 B.C.by N. G. L. Hammond .ISBN-10: 0198730950,page 77,1986

• Quote: "these conclusions to the evidence of archaeology, the following picture emerges. The first Greek-speaking peoples settled in Macedonia, Thessaly, and Epirus after c. 2500, and in these areas they developed different dialects". A History of Greece to 322 B.C.by N. G. L. Hammond .ISBN-10: 0198730950,page 56,1986
• Quote: "... Greek gods too, especially Zeus the sky-god, were at home on Mt. Olympus and in Pieria, and the Zeus of Dodona derived his importance from the Bronze Age when he displaced a Mother Goddess and assimilated her as Aphrodite, ' Similar ...""

A History of Greece to 322 B.C.by N. G. L. Hammond .ISBN-10: 0198730950,page 39,1986

• Your first source is superseded by Hammond's later work and finds and the Yahoo encyclopedia has obviously glaring errors since and omission in this subject.You second source says they were Greeks and spoke Greek but that is already in the article.The fact that they were Ancient Greeks.But thankou for your effort. Megistias (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you and i agree with you almost, anyway i am impressed by you answer and this is a good present for me by a Greek, to day . But some sources mention in fact that hey spoke a different language or dialect, could you enlighten me more what was this dialect and if it did survive, have you got any source of this ?!--Dodona (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

They spoke Ancient Greek as the sources say.Megistias (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes they did , but did the ancient Greek speak the same language Doric Greek, why this reference says that then:

Reference :Achilles came to have divine honours in Epirus, under the name of Aspetus , in the language of the country. After these first kings, those of the following intervening times becoming barbarous, and insignificant both in their power and their lives, Tharrhypas is said to have been the first who, by introducing Greek manners and learning Life of Pyrrhus by Plutarch --Dodona (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We were discussing the same thing on Talk:Chaonians just the other day. Aspetus is a Greek word, and there is nothing in Plutarch's wording that indicates they spoke a non-Greek language there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ἄσπετος Aspetos divine epithet of Achilles in Epirus (Homeric aspetos 'unspeakable,unspeakably great,endless' (Aristotle F 563 Rose; Plutarch, Pyrrhus 1; SH 960,4) its Doric GreekMegistias (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If the albanian epirotik version "i shpejti" does not suit to him , then you may find further word similarities in this reference: Pisani is well known to be against simple "Stammbaum" connections, yet he has from time to time pointed out apparent parallels in Albanian and Illyrian. In Paideia (1958:12.271) he draws an isogloss for "Macedonia-Tracia" with the words for 'name': Alb. emen, Slavic im, Baltic emnes/emmens, Keltic ainmN, etc. Doric would also show Illyrian relics in EnumakratidaV, EnumantiadaV (both Laconian); and to these Pisani adds Laconian diza 'capra' = Albanian dhi. In Paideia (12.298) he adduces Laconian grifasqai = grafein, with "Illyrian" * > ri and Hellenized phi; and deisa 'sterco', first attested in deisozos in Leonidas of Tarentum, which he equates with Albanian dhjes 'defecate'. In his review of Volume I of A. Mayor's Die Sprache der alten Illyrier (Paideia 1958: 13.319-320) Pisani lists various Illyrian glosses, most of which show no hopeful connection with Albanian, but do show considerable philological difficulty: pelioV, pelia 'vecchio, -a' might conceivably be put in relation with plak 'old man'; we could guess at tritw 'testa' alongside trû 'brain'; medoV 'hydromel' does not occur in Albanian (see below); perhaps the most interesting is dibriV 'qalassa' ("senza etnico"), which has been suggested in connection with Albanian déet, but which Pisani thinks probably Phrygian[4]--Dodona (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian is unrelated to ancient Greek or Epirotic which is Ancient Greek and a NW dialect of ancient Greek.I suggest you read the appropriate articles.Megistias (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

which are the appropriate sources epiriotes are albanins and a dialect of greece --Dodona (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Own research

This is one of the worst own research I have seen in wiki, please read it carrefully:
"The Epirotes though apparently Greek-speaking seem to have been regarded with some disdain by the Athenians when the latter rose to power, a fate suffered by many Greek enemies of Athens or those Greeks they considered culturally inferior to themselves.The 5th century BC Athenian historian Thucydides describes them as "barbarians" due to the fact they tried to detach Acarnania from the sphere of Athenian power and allied themselves with the Spartans to do so during the Peloponnesian War.This term was used by Athenians in a pejorative and politically motivated manner against many Greeks
The author (I don`t know who is) assumes that Athenians called even greeks as barbarians, without giving a source about that, but explains his theory, by giving the historical fact that Athens and Sparta were in war. Then, he tries to explain that barbarians "was used by Athenians in a pejorative and politically motivated manner against many Greeks", giving as e reference a dictionary, where barbarians is strictly translated as "non forigniers". I removed it...(I told you this because I know that there will be a revert war). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arditbido (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not an important change but, if it matters, the word "barbarian" could be used by ancient Greeks against other Greeks as an insult. Some examples: (1) Aeschines called Demosthenes a ‘barbarian’ in his speech “On the Embassy“: “fortune cast my lot with a slanderer, a barbarian, who cared not for sacrifices nor libations nor the breaking of bread together."

   Aeschines, On the Embassy 2 183

(2) “Stratonicus, when he was once asked by some one who were the wickedest people, he said, “That in Pamphylia, the people of Plaselis were the worst; but that the Sidetze were the worst in the whole world.” And when he was asked again, according to the account given by Hegesander, which were the greatest barbarians, the Boeotians or the Thessalians, he said ”the Eleans.”

   Athenaeus Deipnosophists VIII 350a

(3) Socrates calls the Athenian Strepsiades a ‘barbarian’ in Aristophanes “Nephelae” (Clouds): “The ignorant man, the barbarian!”

   Aristophanes, ‘Nephelae’ (line 491)

If it helps, Athenians, Thessalians, Boeotians and Eleans were Greeks. Skamnelis (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

Are we serious about the map on Epirus (region)#Ottoman rule? There seems that Albanians did not existed back then. There is another map , in which seems that Greeks did not exist. Will we stop adding the most POV maps we find in order to make our POINT?balkanian (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for these old maps myself. feel free to remove it if you don't like it. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism AGAIN!

Can someone (an admin I mean) please have a look at this ravaging vandal?? (He/she reminds me of someone). [5]--Michael X the White (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Names

Since it has ro be official, can we at least have the official recognition from the Albanian state that some of Epirus is Albanian territory? Thank you.--Michael X the White (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Albanian state of course recognise that a part of historical region of Epirus lies in its territory. It would be fullish not to recognise it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the interpretation of historical though? This is just geography and the article describes the modern region geographically and not politically. Since "the term Northern Epirus is rejected for its irredentist associations", is there some form of official recognition that geographically there is a part of Epirus in modern Albania?--Michael X the White (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Northern Epirus" is rejected because Northern EPirus does not exists, like "Agean Macedonia" is rejected in Greece because it does not exists. But Epirus and Macedonia does exists as regions that have existed in the past, which means "historical regions". Today, Albania recognises new regions that are named during the Middle Ages, the same has happened in Greece. But, Greece has renamed them during its modern history in the ancient ones (Vagnetia-Thesprotia, Morea-Peloponesos) etc. This is the difference.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Regions that have existed in the past??? Have they sunk in the sea? Have they been washed off by rivers?? Is now Thessaly and southern Greece an island?? I think they exist. As both Northern Epirus and Aegean Macedonia exist. Aegean Macedonia is the part of Macedonia that belongs to the Hellenic Republic, as it is called by citizens of FYROM and those who share their views. But there is official recognition by both states that that piece of land is part of the geographical region of Macedonia, no matter who it belongs to or who is indigenous to it. Northern Epirus is the part of Epirus that belongs to Albania, as it is called by Greeks and those who share their views. Does Albania recognise N.Epirus is part of Epirus? Since the term is rejected, does it have an alternative term for it? That's what I'm asking for. By the way, I have two more questions: What is Vagnetia?? (I've never heard of that before) and where in WP:NCGN is it mentioned that archaic names should go first? Thank you.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCGN#General guidelines second part. "What is Vagnetia??" Vagnetia is the Middle Ages name for Thesprotia and adjuctant areas. "Does Albania recognise N.Epirus is part of Epirus?" Albania recognises that the region of Epirus exists, but Northern Epirus and Southern Epirus does not exists. There is a sole region of Epirus. "But there is official recognition by both states that that piece of land is part of the geographical region of Macedonia, no matter who it belongs to or who is indigenous to it." That`s exactly what I say: Macedonia is one region, all other regions are created as political ones. On the other hand Albania does not recognise Epirus as a geographical region, because there are the land of Epirus is diveded in Albania in 2 regions Laberia and Chameria.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok! Thank you!--Michael X the White (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop reordering the languages in the lead? According to WP:NCGN names that are in the languages official of the region are first and archaich ones later. Epirus lies in Greece and Albania, so both languages are official, so in alphabetical order, Albanian is firstBalkanian`s word (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

nah. the language of origin is Greek. In Albanian it's a loan from Greek. get it. or dont.CuteHappyBrute (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. But according to WP:NCGN, the name of origin is last. The first names are tho names that are official for that region. So, Albanian and Greek. Ordering them alphabetically, Albanian is first. Do you get it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ok. you care about the alphabetic order, right? and you don't have a problem with saying the truth that the Albanian name comes from the Greek name? so we should put it as such: "(Albanian: Epiri, which comes from Greek: Ήπειρος Ēpeiros, Ancient Northwest Greek: Ἅπειρος Apeiros)". so we agree? CuteHappyBrute (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"you care about the alphabetic order, right?" No i care about WP:NCGN, which states that only names should be put in the lead. The etymology of the name, is written in the article. You may add in the lead only its origin, like this: ""(Albanian: Epiri, Greek: Ήπειρος Ēpeiros, from Ancient Northwest Greek: Ἅπειρος Apeiros)"Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

lol yea it is in the etymology but i thought you didn't get it the first time.. .--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you truly care about WP:NCGN then you should stop misinterpret it. WP:NCGN mentions that all alternative names (foreign relevant alternative names) should be moved after the local official name. 1) This applies to names used by people who used to inhabit the geographical place 2)this does not apply to the archaic name 3) (in this case) Epirus is not a local official name for Albania, no matter if there is a part of the region in the country, you said it yourself.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! Albanians never use the term Epirus, yet here we have an Albanian user trying to manipulate WP:NCGN for his own ends. The term Epirus is only local and official in Greece, so it comes first. Albanian comes after. Simple. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you reading me, or somebody else? I said: " Albania recognises that the region of Epirus exists", "On the other hand Albania does not recognise Epirus as a geographical region"" In Albania Epirus is refered as a historical region. Put an end! Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Epirus (Greek: Ήπειρος Ēpeiros, from Ancient Northwest Greek: Ἅπειρος Apeiros, in Albanian: Epiri) is a region in south-eastern Europe, currently divided between the periphery of Epirus in Greece and the prefectures of Gjirokastra, Vlora, Korça, Berati, Fieri and Elbasani in southern Albania. is is present tense that means that Epirus exists. currently means that Epirus exists at the moment and the rest is the political division. Albania doesn't recognise Epirus as a geographical region means that Albania does not recognise that Epirus currently is where the lead describes. Historical region (something that does not make any sense to me) means that the region once was there, and not currently is. Check Epirus and see if this article is about history or geography. For history, please go to the relevant part.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What is all this nonsense about "historical regions" and "geographical regions"? What does that mean that "Albania recognises Epirus as a "historical region" but not a "geographic region"? That doesn't make any sense. Of course Epirus is a geographical region. What is it, an imaginary region? All regions are "geographical". The point is, Epirus is used locally and officially only Greece and not Albania, so the Greek version comes first. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

These are bsh. Epirus lies in both countires and nobody can say that Epirus is more "greek" than "albanian" or vice-versa. Epirus is a region in 2 countires and so both languages are official, for more, aromanian name should be added in the intro as an ethnic name of the region. Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Thank you for being polite". I don't see why the Albanian name should be there anyway. Per WP:NCGN it is nor official nor used by the "inhabitants". Being in both countries does not mean it is official in both countries. For example that Laberia and Chameria thing is in both countries but it is not in any way recognised by Greece and it is entirely unofficial. Not to mention that, at least "Laberia" is entirely unknown to the local people in Epirus. What I asked in the first place is a proof that Epirus is the official term for the part of Epirus that currenlty belongs to Albania. Read WP:NCGN carefully. It mentions local official name not an official language of a state being there.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The term Epirus is not used officially in Albania, that is my point, not that Albanian is an official language in the region of Epirus. It is, but that is not the point. Per WP:NCGN, local and officially used names come first. I don't think you're reading the policy correctly. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are trying to play the "moon is made from chease" game! Ok, then, find me the law that makes Epirus the official name of the "region", (not periphery, i.e. an administrative division) in Greece. These are bshBalkanian`s word (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't need the law. [6] The official site is enough. (You can find the rest in there).--Michael X the White (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That`s the name of the administrative division, not of the "geographical region".Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's so hard clicking the first link that says "more". Let me do it for you. [7]. Still, where is data for Albania??--Michael X the White (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that`s not an "geographical naming" thats "το όνομα υποδείκνυε την ευρύτερη γεωγραφική περιοχή, η οποία εκτείνεται μέχρι το κέντρο της περιοχής όπου σήμερα καταλαμβάνει η Αλβανία.". You see it is υποδείκνυε, past tense, it used to.... And by the way its not official, because it is in a page.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is official enough being in an official of the Greek government. In anyway even the perphery "Epirus" is a form of recognition that Epirus is around there. What else would you like? All the documents of the last century demanding the rest of Epirus to join Greece?

Still no data for Albania--Michael X the White (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

...All the documents of the last century... history, hisotry! "It is official enough being in an official of the Greek government" Yes it is, but it is not a geographical region.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Still no data for Albania--Michael X the White (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Still no data for Greece, none of them is officialBalkanian`s word (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

They do not seem official enough to you, that's all. By the way, "Περιφέρεια Ηπείρου" means periphery in the geographical region of Epirus. And in any way "Epirus" is used by the inhabitants. Is "Epiri" even used by Albanians??--Michael X the White (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

""Περιφέρεια Ηπείρου" means periphery in the geographical region of Epirus", no it means the periphery of Epirus, ok then, lets say that today epirus does not lye in Southern Albania. "Is "Epiri" even used by Albanians??" Of course it is.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Albanian name should be first in the lead as per WP:NCGN. why are you so nationalistic blindBalkanian`s word (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

no, you are the stubborn nationalist. bye. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, how much talk space have you guys filled up about this issue? Okay, I've been asked for an opinion, so I'll bite. Both name forms are boring. Epirus, Ηπειρος and Epir are essentially not different names but one and the same name with predictable morpho-phonological variants. The Greek form deserves preferential treatment only insofar as it is the etymon. Since there's an etymology section, the Greek orthography can go there, and stay there. The Albanian form can go there too.

As far as present-day languages go, I see absolutely no reason to treat the Greek and Albanian differently. Both are equally boring and uninformative to the English reader. I'm becoming more and more convinced that listing such name variants in the lead (when they are not substantially linguistically different) serves no other purpose than to tickle the POV sensitivities and national prides of our editors; they have no function at all in providing relevant information to our readers. The urge seems irresistible, but please, please, people, stop treating names as symbolic badges of acknowledgment of national possession. This goes to both sides here.

The issue of "officialness" is a red herring. From what I can gather, both Albanians and Greeks use the name; our observation of languages should focus on what language communities do (they are the ones that "own" a language), not what state administrations do. Thus, whether or not Albania has an actual administrative unit that is officially called Epirus is quite beside the point, especially since the administrative units are not what this article is about in the first place.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, another thing, I have no idea why the Doric form Apeiros keeps creeping back into the intro. That one is even more irrelevant. Of course, it's of some moderate interest within the etymology section, making the link between the standard Greek form and the IE reconstructed etymon more obvious to the lay reader, but that's about it. All present day forms are squarely and exclusively derived from the Koine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, the name was added there with the "excuse" of being official. (WP:NCGN says "local official name" and that is what was made refernce to.) It was said that the Albanian name is official since a part of Epirus is in the Albanian Republic. But that part is Northern Epirus and the term N.Epirus is rejected. And that is why I asked for another "sign" that Epirus is official for Albania. Since reference was made to local official name that was what the question was on. I did not imply that there was no recognition or that the name was not official or something. But, since N.Epirus is rejected I asked for some other kind of recognition, only to see if adding the Albanian name was justified (or not).--Michael X the White (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It is, of course, "official", in the sense of being the name of the region in what is the official language in it. Which is all we normally ask for, just as with names of rivers, mountains and the like, which also need not have any "official" legislated status. (BTW, it is in fact exactly as official as Macedonia is in Greece. That isn't the official name of an actual territorial unit either; and the fact that Northern Epirus is rejected in Albania is of exactly the same status as the rejection of Aegean Macedonia in Greece.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with Fut.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

yea whatev, the etymology says what there is to be said. yet still. who says the Albanian language community uses it natively (old loan) and not as a new loan to describe what the Greek guys refer to as Epirus?.. i see many sources about the Gr part and zero about the Alb part. also your Aegean Macedonia thing is wholly wrong as 1. that is a neologism and Greeks are notorious for not using them (at least when they refer to stuff that have been there for millenia); 2. It is not a "rejection". It was always useless for the Greeks to use that form because they always connected Macedonia as "touching" the Aegean sea, thus making it a pleonasm like saying "Atlantic East-Coast" (of USA). what we say is they aren't to be treated equally because as the article says the one is a loan. if you count the Albanian name as historically valuable or valuable due to the Albanian community of North Epirus, then why not include the Slavic name, Aromanian, Turkish, Roma, (who may have some people there) or whoever passed by Epirus.. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

...or its like sayig that Konica is part of the northern part of Epirus, but not of Northern Epirus, because Northern Epirus, is not exactly the northern part of Epirus, but just that part of Epirus that is under Albanian state, and that Konica, although in northern part of Epirus, actually is in Southern Epirus. (by the way I need a central Epirus).
As for the "loan" see Skanderbeg, who talks about EpirusBalkanian`s word (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Who cares whether Epir in Albanian is an old or a new loan? Totally irrelevant. It is the name in Albanian, today, period. (I'd guess it's pretty recent, but it can't be directly from Greek, probably rather through Italian or something, otherwise they it would have initial I- rather than E-, most likely.) And the concept of Northern Epirus is a neologism exactly as much as Aegean Macedonia, both are products of the carving up of territories during the early 20th century. And what are you ranting on about whether a name is "valuable" or not? That's precisely the nationalistic idiocy I've been warning against. "Values" of that sort are precisely what we ought not to be thinking about, at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

i don't know about the necessity of values, but i still don't see sources about how Albanians use the term and if they do. seriously is there any? it's just common sense to me for the Albanian language to be put second per whatwassaid. so it is valuable because of the Albanian community of Epirus? per otherstuffexists (sarcasm) you can see other (justified) examples of what we're saying. >[8][9]. and note that in Gostivar and Tetovo, Albanians form the majority; in the Region of Epirus the minority. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Othercrapexists, we know that. Albanians use Epir, for the region, so the name should be in the lead as a local official name, as per Fut. response. So, it should be first, or lets have a name section for it. What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it's reasonable enough to include it second if it is used by Albanians, but still I can't see the "local official" sense. And I don't think it's worth a name section by itself.--Michael X the White (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The sense of "official local" is clearly explained by Fut. so I have nothing to add.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fut. didn't explain official use, but "community" use. per community use see Gostivar and Tetovo. why do you make a big deal out of it? it's not an Albanian name. have you seen Greeks or anyone for that matter wanting Albanian (in the etymology) names to be mentioned in Greek- non-Albanian? ..--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS!Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only meant in article deletion discussions, not content disputes. You either haven't even read it, or are just WP:LAWYER. Of course what holds in related articles affects what goes on in this article! --Tsourkpk (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I can't believe this is still going on. I understand that the literal "namesake" of Epirus must be preserved and presented accurately, but doesn't anyone think that this debate is a bit much? Deucalionite (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's only still going on because of Balkanian's sheer persistence. Seems to have fizzled out, but you never know. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Genetics section

What is the problem with the addition of the genetics section? Athenean tries to remove it because of pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At first he tried to remove it by saying it is not reliable, then he said that the article is not about people but about region. The genetics article was refering to the area, not to people. On the European continent it has the highest concentration in north-west Greece, Albania and Kosovo [10]. It does not refer to people, but regions. --Sarandioti (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles about regions normally don't have a genetics section, i've never encountered one myself, i'd say genetics is out of this article's perspective in general. Apart from that, i can't see why you find such an addition important enough, even if there was a precedent in another article, one should expect that happening due to sources not dealing strictly with genetics noting that fact and (presumably) its implications (to give a hypothetical example: a genetic characteristic to which we can attribute a longer life span). Regarding reliability, take a look at the haplogroup's article to which you linked, there's some sourced statements there which don't specifically focus on the three regions you mention here, but that's a seperate issue.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Drakolakkos and Athenean here. I'm highly skeptical about "genetics" sections in general, because it's a topic that very few editors really understand well, but a huge lot of editors are fond of them because they associate this or that genetic finding with some ethnic/ideological agenda, and there's a hell of a lot of nationalist/racialist kookery going on out there about these findings. I don't like these sections in country or nationality articles either, but spreading them to yet smaller region articles strikes me as utterly useless. I'm also far from convinced about the reliability of the source – what sort of website is this Eupedia thing? – but that's secondary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The website is reliable, and not pov at any part.I really dont see WHY we shouldnt add the data. Our goal should be the correct expansion of the articles, without any reservations. I mean that, just because some may not like it, others may identify to obsolete racial theories, does not mean we should not expand the article. Conclusions are for readers, not for us. We should just present the data and let anyone who reads it make his own decisions. I really don't see anything wrong in the sentence On the European continent it has the highest concentration in north-west Greece, Albania and Kosovo, The extension of the sentence is: then fading around the Balkans, the rest of Greece and Western Turkey. According to the guidelines (that we should follow), there is no problem in the sentence, no pov-pushin, no synth etc. So again guys WHY shouldnt we add it? Just because 1 or 2 supporters of obsolete theories will be offended, or link to some ethnic heritage etc? That's not our problem to solve. --Sarandioti (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And we also have a gen. map in wikipedia for the E1b1b[11] We could use some of the sources of E1b1b article if there's a reliability issue for you, although eupedia is totally reliable. --Sarandioti (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, the proposed secton is irrelevant. Nobody understands what E1b1b stands for. Even going to the article about E1b1b, one would not find out what the implications of this finding is regarding Epirus. In an encyclopedic article, only noteworthy facts are included. Regarding reliability of the sources: for scientific findings, only peer-reviewed scolarly sources or invited review articles in reputed scientific journals are reliable, and web sites are unacceptable, see WP:RS#Scholarship.  Andreas  ^(T) 13:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WHy is it irrelevant?? None of you have told me WHY it is irrelevant. And this sudden influx of greek editors(invited by another greek editor) in an issue that is "irrelevant", shows that to them it is not irrelevant at all. Btw I wonder if this is meatpuppetry.--Sarandioti (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? "Sudden influx of Greek editors"? I'm seeing one Greek editor here. Andreas and I are as neutral as could be (and you invited me yourself). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think he came by himself? He was invited in the talkpage --Sarandioti (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Role of Epirus in Albanian nationalism!

What do you guys think adding a section about the role of Epirus and Epirotes in Albanian nationalism. background# This is just a random link that I found on this issue. And maybe tell about the period during communism when Albanian historians tried to make a link between Epirotes and Illyrians. I think it would diversify information on this page, and make it more rich. What do you think? AnnaFabiano (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that could be in Albanian nationalism.--Michael X the White (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But don't you think that people should know that there is a theory connecting Illyrians and Epirotes, and that Scanderbeg called himself an Epirote? AnnaFabiano (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Frine nationalist "material" like that have no place here.Illyrians are distinct from Epirotes, spend sometime reading the articles.The medieval designation for epirote was geographic in effect.Megistias (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It might go to Albanian nationalism as its truly just that.Megistias (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, there is a wast number of information that indicates Epirotes were Greeks. But there is a theory and there are published materials that give a different perspective. And not adding that material is nacionalistic. Furthermore, it would not affect the general flow of the whole text, if we just add a line or two about the issue. Also, from letter that he wrote to the Venice and the Pole, Scanderbeg considered himself an Epirote and an Arber. This is also an interesting information about Epirus. AnnaFabiano (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Its trash, Illyrians were Illyrians and Epirotes were Greeks.So you dont waste any more of your time and of ours look at the archives.There is no theory other than nationalist trash that claim illyrio-epiroto-pelasgo-Albanians.Theories fit for the circus. Megistias (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Magistias, it is a nationalistic theory. I agree! But still it is part of Epirotes history. You cannot just simply delete it. Or maybe you can - in a Greek encyclopedia. But this is Wikipedia, and it is (may I remind you) NEUTRAL! AnnaFabiano (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Its part of the article Albanian nationalism and not of any other one. Megistias (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is turning into another typical Balkans discussion! Can we please try a see this from a NPOV. AnnaFabiano (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not in any possible way part of Epirotan history! It is a nationalistic claim and should be treated as one. (For more info on Kastrioti's nationality, check his seal.)--Michael X the White (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a geographical region. Filling it with every national movement's theoretical claim is out of topic. I believe that theories and movements have their own articles, same with regions.Alexikoua (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is our duty as Wikipedians to fill it with "every national movement's theoretical claim" - considering, there is not too much natonal movment's that have "claims towards Epirus". I believe that the least we can do is add under "Ottoman rule" section that Scanderbeg considered himself an Epirotian (this is a book published in 1506) - (which is, apparently, one of the causes of the whole Illyrian-Epirotes theory). AnnaFabiano (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No no no. That's just too many assumptions packed up. First you have to assume that Illyrians=Albanians (which is pointless and unaccepted Albanian nationalistic claim). Then there is the wrong theory that Illyrians had something to do with Epirotans, and then there's Kastriotis in an age where Illyrians had long ceased to exist and the term "Albanian" had not yet been used. Personally, I don't think Kastriotis had ever heard of the Illyrians. So there is no point in saying that he considered himself Epirotan. There are even alternative theories about his nationality (again, check his seal). But still, you could include that in Albanian nationalism.--Michael X the White (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Theories that can't have a historical-scientific basis should be avoided. Imagine writing down in Shkubi and Durres articles an extremist pro-Greek approach section theory, just because it is mentioned in a number of books or it was mentioned in the past as areas of hellenism.Alexikoua (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop weaseling and removing material numbered user

Stop weaseling and removing material numbered user diff.Megistias (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

explain yourself...87.202.43.218 (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything will be reverted dont pretend you cant click the diff.Megistias (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

explain what you dont like here87.202.43.218 (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

dear i.p. user, in order to make your arguments stronger provide please a relevant source about Vagenetia (seems ok but still needs one). As per Chameria the term should be mentioned the time that was used (19th-20th cent.). It's simple, there was no reference to tsamouria in medieval times.Alexikoua (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

i wrote 'much later, chameria', i removed it anyway but vagenetia is wellknown too many sources mention it for me to pick 187.202.43.218 (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You removed these many times. diff

• "It was originally applied to the whole Greek mainland"
• External links all removed
• [Mycenaean]] sites became remains
• Your medival history editing is atrocious and as Alexikoua pointed out.
• You removed an image
• You changed Nazi collaborators to "accused"
• You butchered the Greek community section

You added this indescribably thing.Forget IIllyri it doesnt exist now and the double names are out

• The region is, geographically and physically, separated from Macedonia and Thessaly by the Pindus mountains and from Illyria, geographically, by the Aoos/Vjose river or sometimes, by Shkumbin/Genusus.
• Aoos/VjosaMegistias (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• the external links were substandard or irrelevant
• 'remains' was in the original
• no
• what image did i remove?
• accused was in the original, i changed the wording
• the greek community is better this way
• 'iillyri'? huh? the double names in that paragraph are important 10:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.43.218 (talk)

And you repeat it again!diff recentMegistias (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

if you cant explain what you dont exactly like tough luck i clearly answered87.202.43.218 (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Magistias, I do not think that we have to 'protect' all the pages blindly. Wikipedia allows unidentified users to make changes for a reason. The version the user is giving has more information, and, it does not change the concept whatsoever. AnnaFabiano (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

whats wrong with the image of 1914. Also you have a great desire to mention a specific theory of Vlach origin, which are not entirely adopted, see origins of Vlachs.Alexikoua (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

i added a note about the vlachs i think its covered well. but again kekaumenos believes in that theory and its mentioned since its the earliest source documenting vlachs in macedonia, epirus and thessaly87.202.43.218 (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stay off it.You removals and changes including you double namings are inappropriate.Megistias (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

winnifrith mentions how the region of epirus obtained its name and you quote him for the 'whole greek mainland'...87.202.43.218 (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC) and vagenetia was roughly thesprotia not the whole of epirus vetus (old epirus) you dont even understand what your sources say87.202.43.218 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Take that material what to the Vlach origin page and to where it may correpsond if it becomes acceptable.And stop trashing the articleMegistias (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You have (Tag: references removed) numbered user.Stop removing materialMegistias (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

this information is important here..when did the people who speak vlach in pindus got there? its important information plus you havent added anything 87.202.43.218 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

great the usual people who have no idea of the topic locked the article in the contentless version see when it says 'references removed' but the version is still bigger it might have useful content which you apparently cant evaluate otherwise you wouldnt have locked it so here use the talk page so i can talk to some other user than megistias who apparently cant understand jack87.202.3.215 (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

so now we learn that the whole of epirus vetus became known as vagenetia but we dont know when the albanians or vlachs started moving southwards great87.202.3.215 (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

the section needs some addition, I'll check soon.Alexikoua (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Numbered user you material is perhaps usefull in Vlachs not really here.Megistias (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

its a small sentence about when the vlachs...the third main group in epirus after greeks and albanains...appear87.202.16.81 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Take this to perhaps Vlachs please its not for this page.Megistias (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

its important to mention when the MAJOR GROUPS IN EPIRUS FIRST APPEAR IN THE REGION87.202.16.81 (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC) and no refs were removed so show what was or stop rving87.202.16.81 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You ignore us, do the same thing all the time, try to deceive on your edit summary and repeat the same actions.Megistias (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

the only one im ignoring is you since you dont seem able to discuss87.202.16.81 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC) mention here what your exact CONCRETE PROBLEMS with the additions are87.202.16.81 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

On this diff.Vagenetia is already in and properly in .Your corellations of medieval populations with ancient tribes is off-topic and with no substance, inappropriate for this article.The maps are fine without your additions and removals of the captions.You changed the last paragrpah repeatedly and in previous edits you changed Nazi collaborators.diff.You removed references,double namings is not how we do things,you used Illyria to described modern borders that is irrelevant and weaseling,epirote edits are rejectable we no they were ancient greeks,You added the correlation of medival populations with ancient peoples.And you lied in your summary on what you are doing.Take this to Vlachs or to Misnamings of medival populations.Megistias (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

youre talking bullshit as usual where did i do this for example? 'you used Illyria to described modern borders' huh?? and vagenetia was inaccurate the way you wrote it and the previous edits have nothing to do with this so mention whats your problem with this one87.202.18.98 (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC) 'your corellations of medieval populations with ancient tribes' can you read?? thats kekaumenos' opinion which i added because its the first source that mentions the vlachs in epirus not becasue its the final word...did you see my note at all??87.202.18.98 (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

why did megistias revert the article again and why has it been protected has his edits being checked by someone and believed to be better??85.73.230.150 (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Tribes of Epirus in antiquity Map - Clearly Original Research

The Tribes of Epirus in antiquity Map is clearly original research. Maps like this should not be created with original research from cherry picked sources. The listing as Macedonians as Greek is clearly POV and instead various academic linguistic sources and sources from anthropology and history should be used. And since there is not likely to be a consensus from the various scholars, a map like this which is put out as somehow fact is very misleading. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are 8 references for this map cited, all of them from well known scholars like Hammond. I'm sorry but in classical antiquity Macedonians were clearly part of the Greek word. I wonder if there exists any scholar that claims that Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom) was not part of the ancient Greek world.Alexikoua (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, this map is original research as whoever created it has made it from various cherry picked sources. Being part of the "Greek word" does not mean anything when it comes to language or ethnicity especially with the lack of much data. Azalea pomp (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources also claim that they spoke a Greek dialect on 4th c. B.C.. Where is that cherry picking stuff exactly? Can you point a specific article in wiki or else Alexikoua (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please be a little more specific about how the sources are "cherry-picked"? That sounds like a very general accusation. Can you back it up? --Athenean (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The map has claimed several sources such as John Wilkes, The Illyrians. The map has Byllis as Greek. I am reading the John Wilkes source and it states: Beginning in the south the first Illyrians near the coast were the Bylliones beyond the river Aous in the hinterland of Apollonia. Their settlement later developed later into the town of Byllis, at Gradisht on the right bank of the Aous (page 97). So according to this source shouldn't Byllis be marked as Illyrian then? Do any of these sources have actual maps which state this town or area is Greek, this area is Illyrian, this is Thracian? If this is a linguistic/cultural map, where are the academic linguistic sources? As an example, Egypt may have been under Roman control and there are for sure Roman artifacts found in Egypt, but does this mean Egypt was inhabited only by Latin speaking people? This is why this map is original resource, you find a source that states a Greek coin or a building built by Greeks was in this area so thus the area and the historic tribe in this area must be Greek. I am not taking a side if parts of Epirus were of this or that ethnicity. I am stating without primary sources which state clearly that this area was and only was ever this, how do we know? We can say for sure Epirus had several languages spoken there and surely extinct languages we know nothing about. Still, you need to accurately source and comprehend the sources. As well, find me one linguistic source which claims fully that Ancient Macedonian was an Indo-European language closely related to Greek, was Greek, or just influenced by Greek. Most academic linguistic will mentions all of the theories without stating for sure what it was. Were the Macedonians going under Hellenization? I don't think anyone would dispute that, but to claim they were Greek is not a fact and not to be found in any academic sources in the appropriate fields. Azalea pomp (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a map from a scholar: http://mkatz.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2003s/cciv110/01/draft/Background/234.DoricIonicAeolic.gif Hey, it looks a bit different from the one created by the wikipedia user. So which map is correct? Should I trust this one from an academic source or the one on Wikipedia? Azalea pomp (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a typical map that shows the concentration of the the 3 major dialect groups in both sides of the Aegean. Off course it does not include specific dialects of ancient Greek, like Achaean Doric Greek, Northwestern Greek, Arcadocypriot.Alexikoua (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As far I see the problem concerns the 'border' regions. Byllis (town) as well as Bylliones (the tribe which in the map are considered Ilyrians) depending on the source are classified whether Greeks or Ilyrians or both (like here [[12]] o. 5). I suggest a less detailed version 'avoiding', specific towns/tribes like the above. Alexikoua (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a map of Epirus with settlements is fine, but there shouldn't be ethnic markers on each because especially at the border where two (or more) linguistic/cultural groups meet, certain claims are going to be beyond our knowing and the various sources are not in agreement. The article need only mention that various linguistic/cultural groups were known to inhabit the area, but there doesn't need to be a map because the map is not going to be accurate as our knowledge is not complete. Even using the term Illyrian to mean one linguistic or cultural group is quite messy as Illyrian is very little attested and in that large geographic location, linguists do not know how many distinct languages or dialects this group spoke. As well dealing with little attested languages such as Thracian and Macedonian and sticking a label on them is not in keeping with the various theories from the academic sources which do not make such bold claims. Azalea pomp (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Byllis as a polis was ancient greek while the Bylliones illyrian tribe and later(in a few centuries) became greeks like all illyrians up to Lissus.There is no original research here. These are the facts.88.218.86.117 (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The map also includes a legend.88.218.86.117 (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing, Maps, etc. - Improving this article

From what I notice from this page, is that often there are contradictions from sources. The page is written with one source yet another source such as the map will contradict what is written. What there needs to be done is when a source is used, it needs to be quoted directly. Don't just claim a source for some blanket statement. As well, if there are other sources which contradict what another source states, then perhaps more sources are needed. Also, please no POV from either Greek, Albanian, Turkish, or whatever point of view one is trying to push. There are obvious problems with many of these maps which many of them are original resource. It is against policy to create a map based on your own research. I have demonstrated that the one Epirus map is claiming to use sources in its creation, but the sources to not back up what the map is trying to demonstrate. So what should all of us do to improve this article. As well, why is there no where on the article a discussion of the languages and dialects spoken in the Epirus region today? A mention of Epirote Northern Greek, Northern Tosk Albanian, Lab Tosk Albanian, and Cham Tosk Albanian, and I assume others should be included. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give examples of the contradictions you speak of and be a little more specific? Your comments are very general in nature and difficult to address as such. As for the languages you speak of, those aren't really languages, but dialects (or idioms, even). --Athenean (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I already given two specific examples. The John Wilkes source is claimed for the map yet the map obviously does not use the source as my example of Byllis clearly demonstrates. This is original research which is NOT allowed. The map is NOT directly sourcing any of its sources it is claiming to use. Second, the Ottoman era map clearly shows two principle ethnic groups in Epirus, Greeks and Albanians, yet in the text of this article is states many more with only Greeks as the principle ethnic group. This is a contradiction and thus not actually using the sources. OK, something not "really being a language" is not a linguistic term. My aforementioned dialects are the languages of Epirus and are only spoken in Epirus. If we are talking about languages and dialects, we should be using the terms as used by linguists. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As well the Mycenaean sites in Epirus map is claiming the David Tandy source, I am looking at the source and the map in Tandy does not exactly correlate with the map on this page. Again, this is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No original research whatsoever. Tandy points out certain locations.Its a simple map.88.218.86.117 (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a map of Tandy here: [[13]], (Figure 1, p. xii, "Map of Epirus showing the locations of known sites with Mycenaean remains"). Actually the locations are exactly the same.Alexikoua (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a map of Tandy here: [[14]], (Figure 1, p. xii, "Map of Epirus showing the locations of known sites with Mycenaean remains"). Actually the locations are exactly the same.Alexikoua (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at the map from Tandy now: http://books.google.com/books?id=BiqTCaFkvdYC&pg=PA1&dq=tandy+epirus&ei=w639St37IYjYNvif0OIO#v=onepage&q=tandy%20epirus&f=false They are for sure not the same at all. Sites 30 and 34 on Tandy don't look like how the Wikipedia map has them. If you want to create a new map based on Tandy's map that is fine, but it should be exactly the same. If you are going to alter locations, then the integrity is not there any longer. This is original research when you create a map like the one on the Wikipedia page. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In any event, the bigger problem is with the other map which is for sure original research. The ethnic identity colors need to be taken off and simply adding site/tribe names is fine. People can do their own research if they want to know the possible ethnic identity of each group if that is even known. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As well, I will work on creating a section describing the linguistic situation in Epirus with some mention of the population changes since Ottoman times in an unbiased and neutral way of course! Azalea pomp (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You keep repeating the map is "for sure" original research, but you have nothing to back it up with. The colors are not "ethnic", they are linguistic. Byllis was a Hellenized polis, that's why it is marked in black. So, no, the linguistic colors do not have to be taken off. Other than Byllis, you haven't come up with a single other mistake in the map, and now the Byllis case has been answered. What would you do, have our readers look up each city, then look up the tribe, to determine what language was spoken there? No way. Lastly, when I see people trumpet their "neutrailty" so loudly, it gives me the creeps. Especially people who can't tell the difference between languages and dialects. Just make sure that whatever you write a) is sourced, b) does not repeat what is already written in the article and disrupt the flow. Otherwise you might find that WP:OR applies to what you write as well, not just what others write. --Athenean (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not "answered" the Byllis case. Because the Wilkes which is cited as a reference for the map does not state this. This map IS original research. Where are the maps and direct quotes from the actual sources? It is against policy to create a map based on one's personal research. If one wants to create a map of such detail like that one, then one must provide direct citations from page numbers, pictures of maps from the actual sources. You can't just put an academic source on the citation list and that be good enough to back up any claim or edit. So far, I just see people writing claims, but not any citations. The burden is on the person who had created the map to show me the citations. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Back to the Tandy map, he has 37 numbered sites and the Wikipedia Map as well as 37 unnumbered sites. Their locations only correlate for some of the dots but not all. I can't correlate Tandy's 32, 15, 3, or 37 with the Wikipedia Map. Where are sites 1 and 24? Much of the northern sites don't correlate with Tandy either. The rivers have different dimensions on the Wikipedia map versus Tandy. Again, this is accuracy. If this small detail isn't accurate, why is the map here? This map is supposed to show Mycenaean sites in Epirus, but it fails to show where they are located. That is the whole point of the map. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I had some problems with the snap preview, but found another version of Tandy's map [[15]]. You are right. Actually some dots (4-5) in wiki map are placed in Thessalia. I'll have to do some 'dot play' the following hours.Alexikoua (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do fix the map to correlate with Tandy. I am just asking for accuracy. And back to the Epirus map with ethnic identities. Why are the Bryges listed as Thracians? Wilkes and in the Shadow of Olympus sources lists them as Phyrgians. I will look over that map and look through the sources and see what is accurate and what is not. Oh and trust me I know the difference between a language and dialect, a term by the way linguists are always working on trying to really define. It should be stated which dialects of Greek and Albanian are spoken in Epirus, because the dialects spoken here are quite divergent dialects and noteworthy to mention. I strive for accuracy especially when I know other people will read these pages. :) Azalea pomp (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Bryges are listed as Thracians because they are Thracians [16] [17]. That they later migrated to Anatolia and became the Phrygians does not mean they are not Thracian. --Athenean (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the Thracians and Phyrgians were two different people. And often by linguists, their languages were not closely related although some linguists have tried to make that connection. I am using the sources provided to me by the map maker and those sources state that the Bryges were Phrygians: page 145 of Wilkes and page 65 of the Shadow of Olympus. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Respected historical linguist Calvert Watkins has Phrygian close to Armenian and Greek, but no mention of Thracian there, page 33 of The Indo-European Languages, 1998. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Tribes of Epirus Map - The errors and what is correct, needed changes

OK, this section will be a work in progress. I will be looking at the sources which are cited for the creation of the Wikipedia map and what the Wikipedia map has. I will divide this section into errors and what is fine. As well as some comments.

First, here are some issues. The map needs to be dated with a date on map either an exact date or a circa date. Second, we need to distinguish "tribes" from cities clearly. Third, we need to precisely define ethnic groups this means Greek versus Macedonian. Do not conflate them. Hellenization does not mean Greek by ethnicity.

Here are some issues/errors so far: 1. Bryges listed as Thracians (Wilkes and SoO lists them as Phrygian). Thracian does not mean Phrgyian. 2. Byllis the city is said to be founded by Illyrians in Wilkes. 3. Why are regions outside Epirus shown? Shouldn't the map focus on Epirus? 4. Map is NOT dated. 5. Where does it state the Almopians are Thracians in any of the sources? Azalea pomp (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Regarding the Bryges, their identity is ambiguous. Like I've already shown you, a number of scholars consider them Thracians. So the situation is not black/white, nor are Tharcian and Phrygian mutually exclusive. 2. "Byllones the city" is in fact called Byllis. The Bylliones are the tribe. Do not confuse the two. According to this [18] source "Hammond asserts Byllis was a Greek colony...." As far was Wilkes is concerned, you should look on page 130 Perhaps the most remarkable development took place at Byllis of the Bylliones, where the original settlement of Klos...was replaced...by a new settlement on the adjoining hill that developed the imposing character of a Hellenistic city. Regarding the Bylliones, this [19] source lists them as Greek or at least Hellenized. 3. That seems like criticism for the sake of criticism. The fact that regions outside Epirus are shown does not negate the value of the map, or distract the reader. 4. You are correct that the map needs to be dated. 5. I'm looking into it. --Athenean (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If the identity of the Bryges is ambiguous or unknown then they should not be listed as Thracian nor should the Almopians be listed as Thracian since we do not know and the sources which the map uses does not state as such. Yep, sorry meant to type Byllis instead of Byllones. :) Got to love Google Books eh. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Another issue, why are Paeonians listed as Thracian? How do we know this? Where does it state that Paeonians are Thracians. Where are the sources which state Bylazora was a Thracian town? Azalea pomp (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The map indicates this as a convention(thus that there is a distinctive line but you are suppose to see the articles, its only a map).Paeonians and Brygoi are many times corelated with Thracians in modern literature.This way a more spherical view is exhibited.88.218.86.114 (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest logging in with an account. And then, instead of just making a statement without any sources to back your claim, find academic source which state this. If there are no academic sources which state this, then it will not be included. If various academic sources do not agree, then we shall state this. Azalea pomp (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The map now indicates Brygoi,Paeonians,Thracians with further detail.88.218.174.178 (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Map also stated even prior to this that its pre-Roman conquest.Its dated88.218.174.178 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is good work, the map is coming along and getting better. There still needs to be a date on the map. As well, we need to include Macedonians as a tribe as Macedonian does not equal Greek. Wilkes for example does not equate Macedonians with Greeks and neither do any of the other sources. Again, we need to take fringe theories and POV out. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

When talking about the Ancient Macedonians, it all depends on what time period one you are looking at. Whatever has been said about their origins, all historians worth their salt agree that the Macedonians spoke Greek and were part of the Greek world by the 4th century BC. I hope we are on the same page on that. Now, as you have noted yourself, the map is not dated, but if you look closely, it includes the city of Heraclea Lyncestis (denoted as Herakleia Lyncou), which was founded by Philip II of Macedon in the mid-4th century BC. So if we were to date the map, the earliestwe could date it would be to that time. By which time, of course, the Macedonians spoke Greek. Since the colors in the map denote language, not ethnic origin, I think that answers your question. --Athenean (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As for you allegations of "fringe theories" and "POV", well what can I say. The scholars that consider the anc. Macedonians of Greek origins are quite numerous, and I don't think you can call them "fringe" and "POV" so easily. Specifically:

• Borza, E. N. In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon, p. 78, ISBN 0691008809. "We have seen that the "Makedones" or "highlanders" of mountainous western Macedonia may have been derived from northwest Greek stock. That is, northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek from which emerged the tribes who were later known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country. Thus the Macedonians may have been related to those peoples who at an earlier time migrated south to become the historical Dorians, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians.
• The Cambridge ancient history [20].
• From The Penguin Atlas of Ancient Greece, Robert Morkot, Penguin 1996, page 72. In the years of Macedonian expansion under Philip II, (359-336 BC) the Athenian orator Demosthenes referred to Greece's northern neighbours as "barbarians, claiming that they had only recently ceased to be shepherds. Certainly the Thracians and Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the Northwest, the peoples of Molossis, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is now accepted that the Maceodnians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially "Greeks". The main difference between Macedonia and the city states of the south was that it was ruled by a king and powerful nobility.

Fringe? POV? Hardly. --Athenean (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fringe, no. But definitely a slanted POV. The debate over whether the Macedonians were Greek, or even spoke a Hellenic language other than Greek, has been going on for centuries and is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. It is therefore unacceptable to simply lump them in with people we know were Greeks. kwami (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly see that being the case if this were a debate about the origins of the Macedonians. But we're talking about a map which is at the earliest can be dated to the 4th century BC here. By the 4th century BC , it has been resolved that they did speak Greek, whatever their origins and original language. --Athenean (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if they spoke Greek or were bilingual in Greek that does not mean they were Greek or identified as Greek themselves. And Kwami is correct, the linguistic affiliation of Macedonian has not been settled and with the current evidence, it won't be. The only fact agreed upon by most linguists was that Macedonian was Indo-European. Also, most Copts in Egypt speak Arabic, but that does not make them Arabs. This is a map showing ethnic groups and not languages specifically. Azalea pomp (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The colors correspond to languages. Byllis is marked in black because it was a Greek-speaking city, even though it was mostly inhabited by people who were Illyrian by ethnic origin. The Macedonians spoke Greek by the 4th century BC, that has been settled. Talk about ethnic origins is not relevant. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say I decided to make a map with same subject matter as this one for the 4th century BC, and I explicitly said at the outset that colors should correspond to languages, not ethnic origin. What color should the Macedonians be shown in? That's right, the same color as all other Greek-speaking areas. --Athenean (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The map's colors can not correspond to the languages specifically. We simply don't know the languages many of these tribes spoke because the languages of many of these tribes are not attested. We have blanket ethnic designations, but that is about as exact as we can get more most of them. Azalea pomp (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Derrones are listed as Celtic. How do we know this? Can I get a source? Is there anything attested in the language of the Derrones or any other specific tribe? Azalea pomp (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Derrones are listed as Paoenians not Celtic, only the Serdi were celtic.You did not see the map correctly or meant to mention Serdi.

• The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries BC by John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, E. Sollberger, and N. G. L. Hammond, ISBN 0521227178, 1992, page 600: "In the place of the vanished Treres and Tilataei we find the Serdi for whom there is no evidence before the first century BC. It has for long being supposed on convincing linguistic and archeological grounds that this tribe was of Celtic origin"88.218.175.84 (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I see now thanks. The map needs to be redone with different colors on each tribal name. The same colors with small symbols is a bit confusing. I can work on that if I can find the original map without any writing or I can find some other free to use map. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The map backround color is a problem when different colors are used other from those seen.The brygoi could be done in Yellow in less then a minute but they will become indiscernible to the eye.88.218.201.25 (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The two main ethnic groups of Epirus

Obviously Epirus has two main ethnic groups, Greeks and Albanians. As the Ottoman era map clearly demonstrates on this page. From the map, one can not make the claim that Epirus only has one principle or significant population. As this map does not even show Armenians, Slavs, or Turks in Epirus, they are clearly in the other category. Stop the POV pushing please. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the 'Boundaries and definitions' section it mentions that 'The historical region of Epirus is generally regarded as extending from the northern end of the Llogara mountains in present-day Albania (historically the Ceraunian mountains)', this means just above the coastal town of 'Himara' (Khimarra in this map). If you check the map carefully you will see that the light yellow regions begin just above this point, which geographically isn't Epirus.

If we exclude this northern part, it's easy to see that we have hardly any only Albanian light yeallow region. There might be a ca. 1:4 Albanians vs Greeks (&Vlachs) ratio. Off course there lived Albanians but in smaller numbers compared to Greek, according to the map.Alexikoua (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A 1 in 4 ratio would still mean that those are the two principle ethnic groups (Greeks and Albanians). For example, Iraq has two principle ethnic groups, Arabs and Kurds while Turkmen and Assyrians would be additional ethnic groups. As the region may have be defined differently by different scholars, we should go by what the Ottoman era map shows us. Obviously different parts of Epirus would have had different concentrations of the various ethnic groups. This is why we don't exclude areas to try to make points. Azalea pomp (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mycenaean Map

This is NOT the same as the Tandy map as we have already discussed. Do not take the original research tag off until it is fixed. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The new Mycenaean Map is nice, thanks. Azalea pomp (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Tribes of Epirus Map - Updates and Changes needed now

So here are the Updates listed now. We have Bryges marked as Phrygian; the Almopians, Stobi, Astibus, Agrianes, Doberes, Stropaiones, Laeeans as Paeonian; Serdi as Celtic; and the Bisaltal as Thracian.

Here is what is needed to be clarified and fixed. We need a date, better yet perhaps we should decide what would be a good date for a map like this. If the Serdi came later, then we can put a date after the Serdi name on the map. We need to clarify as well that this is a map of tribes, not languages. The languages are too little attested to make any detailed linguistic map. We don't know enough of Paeonian (if anything at all) to really make any meaningful statement. We need to include Macedonian tribes and they need to be distinguished in color from the Greek tribes and settlements. Perhaps the map's date should be set before Hellenization. Or we could add notes on when Hellenization took place for some of the tribes.

Azalea pomp (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you want to include the Macedonians as separate from the Greeks as a matter of religious dogma. Why should the map's date be set to before Hellenization? The map's date should be set to the mid-4th century BC, so that important settlements like Heraclea Lyncestis be included. The Macedonians should be shown in the same color as the remaining Greek tribes and settlements because they spoke Greek and were fully Hellenized by that time. If we include Hellenization dates, it will become horrendously cluttered. Agree with the rest. --Athenean (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Religious dogma? I haven't even mentioned religion at all and I am not sure what this has to do with anything. In any event, this is a tribe/ethnic map, not a linguistic one or a religious one. Macedonians are a separate tribe from Greeks. I think a better compromise would just to not include Macedonia or Macedonians at all. This is the Epirus page and since obviously there are POV issues, let us not include it at all. Why not have a map set to 5th century BC, why is it "important" to show settlements like Heraclea Lyncestis? Important in what way? Azalea pomp (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your insistence that the map is tribal/ethnic is perplexing, especially as you do not back it up with any arguments. I've already explained to you why colors correspond to languages spoken, instead of tribe/ethnicity. But neither you nor I created this map, so I think the question is best answered by the map's creator. Your proposal to create another map that shows Epirus only, on the other hand, is not a bad one. --Athenean (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The map does shows the separate languages of the region extremely well.And the date is clearly prior to roman conquest(as it said on the map from the start, how could you not see it) and shows the status of things around the 4th century bc.This is the most consumated map of the area there is.All Paeonian tribes are mentioned as well as the two Bryges locations, the two Thracian tribes in Paeonia and alot more material.Megistias (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't know anything really about the Paeonian language to classify it in any meaningful way except that it was probably Indo-European. Show me a linguistic source which classifies Paeonian. We are not dealing with well attested languages here. I think the map really should concentrate on Epirus anyway. We should concentrate on tribes in Epirus. Linguists have not come to any conclusions on how Macedonian, Greek, Albanian, Illyrian, Thracian, Phrygian, Dacian, and Paeonian relate to each other. I have given you a source from Calvert Watkins with regards to Phrygian, Greek, and Armenian already. You can also read Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture by J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams for an overview of these languages. If you are going to claim this as a language map then you should be using mostly linguistic sources. Azalea pomp (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think having surrounding peoples to give context is nice, but not if we make claims that are not well established. Most, or at least many, of these languages were Indo-European, but that's all we really know. We don't know which names were tribes, which were ethnoi, which spoke separate languages, etc. We don't even know which were Greek or Hellenic. If people insist on adding their beliefs about who these people were, by cherry-picking the lit, then IMO it would be best to simply delete them from the map altogether so as not to have the bother. kwami (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that there is a disagreement among specific scholars, but according to wiki policy it would be better to base our conclusions on secondary sources (not tertiary). Moreover, the map in page 241 (Mallory, Adams), mistakenly excludes Epirus too from the areas that Northwestern Greek was spoken, without any explanation.Alexikoua (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is not a tertiary source. Second, this is not a mistake by Mallory and Adams. This map as well does not have Epirus in Northwest Greek: http://mkatz.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2003s/cciv110/01/draft/Background/234.DoricIonicAeolic.gif You can also check the map of Greek dialects on page 363 of Language history, language change, and language relationship by Joseph and Hock here: http://books.google.com/books?id=oGH-RCW1fzsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=joseph+hock&ei=AO0CS9SkN4GyNMbW6YIP#v=onepage&q=map&f=false As I have stated before, not all scholars are in agreement to what was spoken in Epirus 2,500 years ago. These are three academic maps about language specifically. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This map you provided does not even have a legend, it has modern borders and excludes all language indications in any place that is a mountainous region, like for example central and north central peloponese, (Ancient Greek was not spoken there?),its not serious. Delphi is also shown as an area with no ancient greek... http://mkatz.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2003s/cciv110/01/draft/Background/234.DoricIonicAeolic.gif .Your second one excludes all the Ionian islands Map 7,Joseph and Hock and vast many regions that had ancient greek cities and populations.Its also a silly crude scribbling that a two year old could make.Crete is even shaped like a sausage.Megistias (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also in page 43 page 43 it shows a map at 1000 BC but its even more crude than the aforementioned one that its unusable(though by following its artistic logic it includes epirus and macedon as ancient greek).And this is from the back of the book.

"Why does language change? Why can we speak to and understand our parents but have trouble reading Shakespeare? Why is Chaucer's English of the fourteenth century so different from Modern English of the late twentieth century that the two are essentially different languages? Why are Americans and English 'one people divided by a common language'? And how can the language of Chaucer and Modern English - or Modern British and American English - still be called the same language? The present book provides answers to questions like these in a straightforward way, aimed at the non-specialist, with ample illustrations from both familiar and more exotic languages." Megistias (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the maps that dont include Epirus, none of these 2 works explain what was possible spoken (or not) in Epirus, actually they say nothing about Epirus at all. This [[21]] doesn't mention NW dialect as well as other dialects (A-Cypriot, Achaean Doric), just includes the 3 major dialect groups.

In this [[22]], the map in p. 363, concerns obviously the period before the Dorian invasion (before the 'western migration') since it shows Arcadocypriot dialect as spoken in all of Peloponnese. On the other hand there is no Doric dialect at all in the neighborhood. However it's focused (like the previous one) on the 'migration to Anatolia' (ca. 8th c. BC) and how it affected the 3 major dialect groups, which is really an interesting historical event among linguists.

I've found several books that describe what was spoken in Epirus in classical antiquity, some of them are: [The Cambridge ancient history] (p. 284-285), [The Illyrians] p. 12 "a widespread view that they spoke a form of Greek...", [[23]] p. 25, [History of the language sciences: an international handbook] p. 439.. Alexikoua (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Something irrelevant but unique in universal bibliography: I wonder how can someone claim that there was an Albanian speaking region in 1,000 B.C. [[24]](p. 43), however in the relevant section it states that the same language was first attested in 1500 AD...Alexikoua (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, even if Albanian had a late attestation, due to loanwords in Albanian or other languages which may have loaned Albanian words, one could assume where it was spoken or its movements through history.

In any event, it is obvious from there many sources, there is not a consensus on Epirus and any statements about languages in ancient times would have to be qualified with "likely" or "possibly". But since we are dealing with an ethnic map and we aren't really disputing the ethnicity so much of the founders of Greek cities in Epirus especially circa 400 BC. To get back to the more important point, Macedonians are not ethnic Greeks ( as there is no consensus) at least as far as this map is concerned. Something should just not be stated as a fact when it is not. Thracians, Paeonians, and Phrygians should not be labeled as Thracians.

Back to the point of a new map. Although city names, have a dot perhaps tribal names and city names should be different in that perhaps the font size one could be in Italics. This would make it clearer. Although the symbols have clarified the tribes, the colors will need to be redone. Azalea pomp (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Epirus was greek speaking since the 2000-1000 BC Dialect map of Prehistoric Greece,Greeks and pre-Greeks: Aegean prehistory and Greek heroic tradition by Margalit Finkelberg.Ancient macedonians are considered ethnic(many sources have been provided) ancient greeks but there is still some debate on the particulars of their language before a certain date.And linguist org classifies it as Hellenic which is ancient Greek.Linguist org.Most if not all maps in wikipedia label ancient Macedonians as ancient Greeks and part of the ancient Greek world as their sources dictate.

It is best to just leave the Macedonians off the map I think. It is best not to have POV with regards to them either way and since they aren't really relevant to Epirus for the map's purposes. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding colors and symbols of Brygoi,Paeonians,Thracians it is quite discernible in this manner and having italics come in on other map features as well will make it confusing.But i will separate them in colors if i find a proper hue.Megistias (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)