Jump to content

Talk:Moscopole

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

Albanians in Voskopoja?

[edit]

Macrakis, do you have any source on Albanians in Voskopoja? From the sources I read, back then there was no significant Albanian population in the city. bogdan 19:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See page 9 of [1]:

Orthodox culture in eighteenth-century Albania is intimately linked to the rise of the city Voskopojë.... Many Greek scholars of note came to teach at Voskopojë among the Aromunians, who made up the majority of the population, the Albanians and the Greeks.

The multilingual glossaries published there (Kavaliotis, Daniil) also indicate that Albanian was one of the local languages. I'd be happy to see more sources. --Macrakis 20:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the fact that there were Albanians or Greeks in Voskopoja. All Balkan commercial towns had lots of ethnicities at the time, it's just that most sources say Voskopoja was overwhelmingly Aromanian.

Johann Thunmann (1746-1778) who actually visited the town said that "everyone" in the city spoke Aromanian and many also spoke Greek.

Maria N. Todorova wrote in "Balkan Identities: Nation and Memory" (2004):

"My Aromanian interviewees referred to Voskopoja as formerly exclusively Aromanian/Vlach, highly developed, urban centre of Balkan trading."

bogdan 21:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What current Aromanian informants say isn't very helpful for the 18th century -- and we have to be careful of ethnic boosterism, as Peyfuss points out:

Peyfuß offers a refreshingly critical review of the town's rise and history, noting that much of the literature on Moschopolis is unreliable and influenced by wishful thinking on the part of mostly nationalist authors from the Balkans. As an historian he relies on the facts as far as they can be determined.

(from cited Elsie review) I have no axe to grind here. It is clear that Moschopolis was destroyed by Muslim Albanians; the role of Christian Albanians seems less clear, and I'd be happy to see more evidence one way or the other. (see also http://www.farsarotul.org/nl17_1.htm -- nothing decisive, but interesting) --Macrakis 21:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moscopole or Voskopoja

[edit]

Both the Swedish & Deutch Wiki use the Albanian name Voskopoja for the article, and not the Greek one. The Albanian name Voskopoja also have more google hits than the Greek name Moscopole! Plus the city is situated in Albania not Greece!

--Albanau 12:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albanau this article refers mainly to the 18th century commercial center not to the poor little village it is nowadays. It's name back then was Moscopole, i think we have all agreed on that. Also... uhmmm Greece? this city was MAINLY part of Aromanian history not Greek or Albanian and Moscopolea is how they call it.86.104.216.79 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voskopoja also is a Greek-origin name Voskos shepherd and poli city poja(slavicized or aromanized maybe)

Ethnic structure

[edit]

What is current ethno-linguistical of today's Voskopoja? Luka Jačov (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanians 100%--Honor et Patria (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moscopole or Voskopoja?

[edit]

Dear Alexikoua, let me remind you what you said earlier at User talk:Aqwis' talk page:

The reason why Moscopole is the article's name is because the city, a metropolis of 60,000 pop. during mid. 18th century, doesn't exist now. A village of 700 called Voskopoja on the same place is just a shadow of Moscopole.

Now, the lead page has it: Moscopole [...] is a small village in southeastern Albania. I’m perplexed, Moscopole is

1. A metropolis of 60,000 pop. during mid. 18th century, that now doesn’t exists; or
2. Moscopole [...] is a small village in southeastern Albania; or
3. A village of 700 called Voskopoja on the same place, just a shadow of Moscopole.
I think that you just don’t know what you’re talking about. I think you should let others handle this. Of course Voskopoja (Moschopolis) exists, I saw it last summer with my own eyes: it was there... at the usual place where it has been for some 700 hundred years. --User:Guildenrich 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voskopoja and is local Albanian inhabitants

[edit]

Voskopoja was an Albanian Christian city ,here a vigorous Albanian movement developed , it involved comparison of various alphabet used to express the Albanian language ..The academy of Voskopoja proved very influential in Albanian literary and of national Albanian consciousnesses …Theodor Kavalioti of Voskopoja 1718-1797 director of New Academy published a scholarly study of Albanian of 1200 Albanian words.Kavalioti wanted to setup a press in Elbasan too, he want in person to escort the heavy boxes …..Another four language vocabulary by Dhanil Mihal Adam Haxhi in 1794 included 235 sentences in Albanian regarding daily life The Albanians: an ethnic history from prehistoric times to the present By Edwin E. Jacques http://books.google.com/books?id=IJ2s9sQ9bGkC&pg=PA281&dq=voskopoja albanian culture#v=onepage&q=voskopoja albanian culture&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.29.118 (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This book [[2]] says also that Albanians trace their roots to Achilles and other heroes of the siege of Troy... How could it be historical?Alexikoua (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the author of a book about the history of some place, mentions that the people of that place hold some particular mythical belief, that doesn't necessary mean that the author of the book endorses that belief or claims that the belief is historically correct. Making such a statement in a book, does not convert the whole book into a fiction.Eregli bob (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The specific book is fiction. That's easy to understand if we take a paragraph at random.Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moschopolis and Voschopolis

[edit]

I think there should be a section on the origin of the name, which means "city of the sheppherds", voskos, moschos, in both its forms. Guildenrich 18:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

[edit]

Moscopole → Moschopolis — - [All the sources linked in the article, use the name "Moschopolis" and not "Moscopole".] -- Guildenrich (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that several of the cited sources are from the 19th century. The article title should reflect current use in English. It's very well possible that Voskopojë or Voskopoja is the most used name in English currently, also in historic context, but that should be properly researched. See WP:NCGN for ways to determine the widely accepted name. I checked Britannica and Columbia, they don't have an article about the place. Markussep Talk 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20th cent. sources using Google Books:

I love this quantitative logic! With this logic in Russia all occupied "Republics" were Russian, because you certainly would find the most hits to their names in Russian, in recent literature. Did anybody hear what was said above: this is about a major and extinct metropole of the South Balcans, which was a commercial one, with Aromanian majority, but cosmopolitan as a commercial city is. The fact can be followed also in the families of merchants that emigrated, mostly to Vienna and Budapest after the city was distroyed. Peyfuss writes about this, he himself is descendant of such a family. 79.241.128.81 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Guildenrich (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My google books search shows the following results:
  • Moscopole: 144 hits [3].
  • Moschopolis: 642 hits [4]
  • Voskopoje: 254 hits [5]
  • Voskopoja: 267 hits [6].
--Athenean (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the google hits argument, which doesn't sound enough, the move is a bit unclear. The city was an Arumanian metropolis, which played a major role in Greek Enlightenment. Since the diferrence is minimal Moscopole-Moschopolis, sounds quite the same, in contrast with the Thebes,_Egypt name case, I suggest to keep the Arumanian name. The city was inhabited by Arumanians, so this name form should preferred.Alexikoua (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is not over who inhabited what, but on the most used name in English, that is Moschopolis. Besides, the city was inhabited by Albanians also. Guildenrich (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This picture isn't an argument for this proposal. Thanks for the bla bla stuff, seems your first block made you more disruptive now.Alexikoua (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#No_established_usage that cites
No established usage
It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage. Very low google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which the entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.).
If, as will happen, there are several competing foreign terms, a neutral one is often best. For example see the suggestions in the sections "multiple local names" and "use modern names" in WP:NC (geographic names) for ideas on how to deal with this problem.
I Agree with the the move to "Voskopoje".sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 14:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone contrary or do you still like the vlach name? If that's what you think, then we should consider the move from Metsovo to Aminciu.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since Athenean is insulting me as usual [7] and the greek plethora will follow him, I'll leave it to the churme. Good luck with Moscopole. Btw, following athenean's google book's search, it should be called Voskopoje, not Moscopole.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 00:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way 'Google scholar' (suppose you mean that) prefers 'Moschopolis' and the M- variants. Just, take a look on the next section.Alexikoua (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I meant 'google books of 20th century' (see above Guildenrich). Voskopoje/a beats Mosc(h)opole(is) 23-11. You could argue either way: google hits will give you different results than google scholar or google books.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time to look at google scholar, which was the recent discussion on the topic before you show up.Alexikoua (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar

[edit]

Google Scholar: Moschopolis 129 hits. [8] vs. Moscopole 50 hits [9]. Guildenrich (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I search for English articles only (which still lets some Greek articles slip through, but it's better than raw search), I get this: Moschopolis 61, Moscopolis 13, Moscopole 11, Moschopole 0, Voskopojë 40, Voskopoja 53. Markussep Talk 14:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Moskopole 9, Moskopolje 6, Moskopol 6, Moschopol 2, Moschopoli 5. It seems the name exists in various similar forms.Alexikoua (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the most frequently used names in English are Voskopoja & Moschopolis. Maybe we could resort to some sort of arbitration for the name change. Guildenrich (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Given the small difference in usage between the two (WP:NCGN quote "If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted."), I guess it's rather arbitrary which name we use. I think both names are acceptable, I have a slight preference for Voskopojë (the indefinite form of Voskopoja). Markussep Talk 13:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voskopojë, Voskopoja, potato potato as they say. In Albanian, as in Romanian and Swedish (?, not so sure) the article goes at the end of the word. Voskopoja is "Voskopojë-the" or the Voskopojë. Guildenrich (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that travelguides adopt the Voskopoja/e form, on the other hand most academic/encyclopedic researches prefer the m-.Alexikoua (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to the page being renamed Voskopoja. Guildenrich (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Objections, anyone? Guildenrich (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Seems you took the initiative alone here Guil.. Did I say that wiki is a travel guide? Academic sources are always preferred. You didn't provide an argument to support the Voskopoje move anyway.Alexikoua (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guildenrich, Alexikoua and I have done some research on English usage, and concluded that Moschopolis, Voskopojë and Voskopoja are all reasonable options. Alexikoua states that Moschopolis is more used in academic sources, and thus preferable, we should verify and discuss that. The way forward would be to search for all names, like this, and check each hit for whether they're written in English, whether they're about this town (and not about "Daniel of Moschopolis", for instance), and which name is used primarily (e.g. "Voskopoja (formerly named Moschopolis)"). About academic vs. guidebooks, WP:NCGN actually states "When considering a source in determining English usage, remember the purpose of the source. When a guidebook or roadmap written in English shows an autobahn between München and Nürnberg, it is attesting to local usage, because that is what the signs on the autobahn will say". This may apply to a few of the hits we found. Markussep Talk 16:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the hits at Google Scholar, these are the results:
  • Moscopole 2
  • Moschopolis 21
  • Voskopojë/a 21
  • Moscopolis 1
  • duplicate 4
  • not about town 19 (several about a pea race and a geological fault named after Voskopoja, and about Daniel of Moschopolis)
  • not accessible 5
My conclusion: academic use is evenly divided between Moschopolis and Voskopojë/a. Markussep Talk 13:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say that "Voskopojë" is also the ufficial standard form. Guildenrich (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
M- seems somewhat more prefferable than V-, if we count all the variations of M-. Actually the city became known as M-. V- is an anachronism since when this name was officially adopted there was nothing more than a tiny village. Moscopole or Moschopolis seems the same to me. I agree with Guil's initial proposal to move it to Moschopolis since the choice is between Moschopolis/Voskopoji.Alexikoua (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, the "official standard form" is irrelevant as far as wikipedia is concerned. We go by what reliable sources go by, not any "official" forms. --Athenean (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that the name "Voskopojë" wasn't used in the 18th century, by Albanian speaking locals? I'm not surprised the Greek name Moschopolis shows up more frequently in older literature, Greek was the language of the church and education in the southern Balkans then (also in Ohrid, for instance). Anyway, what's more relevant is under what name the place is referred to in contemporary English. Google Scholar is undecided (also if you count all M-versions together, it's 24 vs. 21). There are far more hits in Google Books (652 since 1959), I checked the hits of the past 5 years Google Books, these are the results:
  • Moscopole 1
  • Moschopolis 14
  • Moschopole 1
  • Voskopojë/a 14
  • Moscopolis 0
  • duplicate 10
  • not about town 10
  • not in English 15
My confirmed conclusion: English usage is evenly divided between Moschopolis and Voskopojë/a. Markussep Talk 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I've checked, pre 1978 bibliography mentions only the M- version [[10]] [[11]], the V- version appeared 30 years before according to googlebooks.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to remind you the famous A handbook called faith? Βιβλιάριον καλούμενον πίστις: Αναγκαίον εις κάθε απλούν\nάνθρωπον βεβαιωμένου από Προφήτας, Ευαγγέλιον, Αποστόλους, και\nάλλους σοφούς Διδασκάλους. ___ / Συνταχθέντες παρά του εν\nΙερομονάχοις Νεκταρίου Τέρπου εκ της θεοφρουρήτου Χώρας Βοσκοπόλεως\nΣυνεργεία δε του εντιμωτάτου Κυρίου Χατζή Μιχάλη Γκούστα εκ της\nαυτής Πόλεως. Νυν πρώτον τύποις εκδοθέντα, και επιμελώς διορθωθέντα\nπαρ' Αλεξάνδρου Καγκελλαρίου. [12]. Strange you don't remember! See Alexikoua's [13] Guildenrich (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious it isn't in googlebooks. What's the meaning of that? New proposal to Voschopolis? Actually it says 'χώρας' not 'πόλεως', suppose it includes the entire surrounding region, which had gained an autonomous status under a Sultan decree.Alexikoua (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion was whether the name Voskopojë/a was used in the 18th century. I can imagine Google hasn't scanned every scrap of paper from the Balkans, but I did find some older books: 1924, 1916, 1875 (spelling variant Voskopolje), 1875 (spelling variant Voskopole). If the V-version is really a 19th century development (which I doubt), that's not a binding reason to use the M-version for the article title, but it could mean that in 18th century context the M-version should be used. Consider e.g. Pressburg vs. Bratislava, Constantinople vs. Istanbul. Markussep Talk 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guild. has become very disruptive in his edits, seems his first block had the opposite results. The move to 'Voschopolis' is imposible.Alexikoua (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I wanted the page moved to Voschopolis. I want it to be moved to Voskopojë/Voskopoja, or Moschopolis (second choice). Guildenrich (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bla bla bla, as usual

[edit]

Guildenrich (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? Can someone please translate as Guildenrich has been banned? sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to the village as Voskopolis in Greek as opposed to Moschopolis. I think there's no doubt though that the most common name for the village in Greek is Moschopolis.--Ptolion (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis

[edit]

It seems that a number of sources say that it was a Metropolis: [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] And of course a 60,000 large city in the 18th century: and second largest city in the Balkans that time "was" a metropolis.Alexikoua (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 60k is the true Metropolitan Legend. The city had 25-30k inhabitants See Gjurmime Albanologjike (which says that Athens and Belgrade at that time had 20k, so it's Ok I guess. --Sulmues Let's talk 20:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even with 20,000, it was a huge urban center of that time. Only a few Balkan cities were that large, since we are talking about 17th century pre Industrial revolution era. By the way since we have plenty of English speaking sources, non-english sources (and especially stalinist ones) as per policy are not preferred.Alexikoua (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'metropolis' in the sense of 'very large city' is vague and not terribly helpful. The term 'metroplis' in the sense of 'seat of a metropolitan bishop' is well-defined and would be relevant in a Religion section. I have no idea if Moscopole was a metropolis, archdiocese, or whatever either in its heyday or today, however. --Macrakis (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a metropolis of the Vlachs (Aromanians), and as such the overwhelming majority of the mainstream bibliography uses this term (today as I know it's just a tiny village, nothing to do with Balkan's second largest city in the 18th century)Alexikoua (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the term Metropolis, is also related to the Aromanian diaspora, which originated from Moscopole (the term has the same meaning of the ancient Greek metropolis here).Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the meaning of the ancient Greek metropolis Alexi? --Sulmues Let's talk 15:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably this refers to Moscopole as the "mother city" of the Aromanian diaspora, on the analogy of ancient Greek colonies. But as far as I know, Moscopole did not send out colonies. And anyway, using the word 'metropolis' to describe Moscopole as a center of emigration makes the article less, not more, clear. Perhaps some clearer formulation can be found? --Macrakis (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced Elsie's review of Peyfuss: It's said to have contained 20-50k.--Sulmues Let's talk 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Makrakis, there are dozens of books that name Moschopolis Aromanian metropolis [[19]]. Can you please check at least one before you continue with this discussion? Saying that all this meanstream bibliography is useless isn't something reasonable.

@Sulmues, can I ask why you removed the 60,000 claim?Alexikoua (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, these Google search counts don't prove much here. By this technique, we should call Moschopolis a village: [ moschopolis metropolis ]: 26; [ moschopolis city ]: 157; [ moschopolis town ]: 190; [ moschopolis village ]: 212. So we need better arguments. In particular, what exactly is being claimed by calling Moschopolis a "metropolis"? --Macrakis (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Peyfuss adopts the 70,000 claim. Also he says that Albanian historians claim that the population was 20,000 or lower [[20]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see the full context of Peyfuss though. Elsie we can see in full. --Sulmues Let's talk 20:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well known book, actually all estimates are from 50,000 to 70,000. Albanian authors tend to minimized the number (per Peyfuss).Alexikoua (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you are misreading the German. The snippet you point to above actually says "...The truth may be closer to this number [sc. 3500] than to 70,000. Albanian historians estimate the 18th-century population of Moschopolis at 5-7000 or 15-20,000. Moschopolis was certainly not among the largest Balkan cities of the 18th century". --Macrakis (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this part: [[21]] gives the estimates of several authors.Alexikoua (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Winnifrith, a specialist on the Aromanians adopts the 60,000 claim[[22]]. However, none can be sure about the city's exact population number that time.Alexikoua (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this edit seems to be of another opinion. The statistics on the bottom are clearly clashing with what the main text is saying currently. No one can be sure but we have to think about how many people were served by 24 churches. The number in my opinion is between 10k and 20k. --Sulmues Let's talk 13:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we create a section about these estimates. No official data existed that time, although 18th cent. writers and travelers (like Thunmann) adopted the 60,000 number. I've also found some exaggerated estimates of 200,000 [[23]]. I believe all this stuff should fit in a section.Alexikoua (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. --Sulmues Let's talk 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the word "metropolis" -- in looking over the various sources cited in Talk and in the article, it becomes pretty clear that most of the uses of the term "metropolis" are in the sense of "mother country" or "homeland" (from the perspective of an emigrant or colonist), not in the sense of "very large city". This is especially clear in the Gilles de Rapper article, which is written by a French-speaking person and includes many uses of French terms. Other uses in the cited sources are referring to metropolis in the sense of the chief town of the Aromanians or of the region. In any case, I have tried to be more precise in the use of words -- 'metropolis' is too ambiguous, I think. --Macrakis (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pics

[edit]

Can someone do pics mgmt here? I don't want to stir up any controversy. --Sulmues Let's talk 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bravo sulmues the change of voskopoja to moscopole in historical context is laudable..87.202.53.82 (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I might have been of a different opinion in the past, and the consensus might change in future, for now in my opinion we should keep Moscopole throughout the article. It's the name in Aromanian and the city gained its notability in the 18th century, when it was mainly a Vlach city. In addition per respect of what the Vlachs have given to Albania (and Greece for that matter), we should conserve the Aromanian name. --Sulmues Let's talk 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalistic future plans for wikipedia... That's very interesting, please read wp:what wikipedia is.Alexikoua (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that I will change opinion. I'm saying that consensus of other editors might substitute my opinion. --Sulmues Let's talk 23:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you exactly did on talk:Panajot Pano, when a troll appeared and you supported him. This doesn't mean that this is constructive: following trolls and support the 'hidden' pov.Alexikoua (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alexi, get the facts straight and take the blinkers off your eyes. No one told me to take off all Voskopoje and substitute it with Moscopole. Panajot Pano has nothing to do with Moscopole. --Sulmues Let's talk 03:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great edit by Athenean. --Sulmues (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Literature"

[edit]

Is the book by Ben Blushi [24] "literature"? Seems more like a non-notable, pop culture anti-Muslim polemic. I also note that the novel itself is used as a ref, which is rather comical. Since I already know what the usual suspects are going to say, I'd be more interested in the opinion of neutral editors. Athenean (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although you might not need my opinion, I doubt that many people have read the book. I have. It's a fictional book about characters of Voskopoje. The plot of the book spans for two centuries and evolves around the city. The artistic value in my opinion is not one of the highest: Ben Blushi, although son of a very notable children's writer, Kico Blushi, doesn't seem to be at the heights of his father in literature, and seems more versed in politics (he is number two of the Socialist Party of Albania (after Edi Rama)). That's just my opinion, though. Still the book's main character is the city of Voskopoje/Moscopole and the description of the city's belle epoque and its decline. It describes how the first people of Moscopole started to become Muslim and how internal wars between Muslims and Christians led to the destruction of the city. The controversy that the book generated was clearly notable both nationally and internationally. --Sulmues Let's talk 13:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moscopole has been the main topic for hundreds of books/media through the last 200 years. The current section is the definition of pov since it mentions just one work, and should go as per wp:advertisment.Alexikoua (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it go Alexi? Give me other examples of literature on Moscopole and, if possible, enter them in that paragraph. It's not that we have hundreds of fictional books on the town and we should get rid of the bad ones. IMO it is notable and verifiable and should stay. --Sulmues Let's talk 13:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is the definition of pov: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This isn't all but the tiniest fraction you could find.Alexikoua (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed. If it's such a big deal, let's keep the poorest state of art. --Sulmues Let's talk 13:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

[25].--Sulmues (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, galleries are a bit depreciated. Be sure to read this before making an attempt at one. Best. --Laveol T 18:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone brought some pics of a festival with no info on it. I suggest to remove them and potentially include them into an article on the festival, because they are misleading on the city. All I see is the Macedonian flag, which has little to do with the Vlach town. Next thing you know we'll see the flags of Albania and Greece. --Sulmues (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked User:Yioryi what those pictures were about, I copied his reply below. I suppose we can keep (some of) the pictures, given a bit of context. That is, if this festival was relevant to the town (recurring, usually held in Moscopole, notable).
[copied from User talk:Markussep] Hello! This festival was organised by MAKEDON / ARMAN council. It reprezent the most important festival of Macedonians/Armans/Aromanians/Vlachs culture. They proclaimed there as AUTOCHTONOUS PEOPLE in BALKANS and minority in every place in the world, and also as DESCENDENTS OF ANCIENT MACEDONIANS. (Yioryi (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I've removed the pictures, they are completely irrelevant with the article by the way.Alexikoua (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yioryi please feel free to start an article on the festival: the pics you posted are misleading. --Sulmues (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why such pictures are relevant with this article. They can be added on 'Symbols of Republic of Macedonia' or something like this (Descendants of Ancient Macedonians?).Alexikoua (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First destruction (1769)

[edit]

According to this article of Albert Kotini, Eqerem Bej Vlora has written in his memories how the Dangellia region people destroyed Moscopole because the city hadn't paid protection taxes to them for 4 years. Someone should find what book exactly, because the article writer doesn't fully cite. --Sulmues (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the article current reads in the lede: "Historians have attributed the decline of the city to a series of raids by Muslim Albanian bands, who destroyed the town in 1769 following the participation of the residents in the preparations for the Orlov Revolt in 1770[4]," which comes from Mikropoulos. --Sulmues (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a conflict of sources. Kotini seems to endorse Vlora. --Sulmues (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. What's the problem with the 'participation in the Orlov revolt'?Alexikoua (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just two historians disagreeing and giving different versions. --Sulmues (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which? Eqerem Bey isn't a historian [[27]].

Also there was not a one day destruction but a 3 month long wave of destruction at 1769 (see Kekridis). A very detailed approach is also here [[28]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Kotini is not excluding the hate of the locals versus the filorussians. He is adding to it the history that the locals sorrounding Moscopole had not been paid for 4 years (because the pasha of Vlora, Ngurresa had already promised protection to the traders), and that was another reason why they felt entitled to attack, and the Sultan couldn't protect on time. I am not saying that we have a RS: the article is not well sourced. I'm just prepping the terrain for when we'll have "Tragjedia e Voskopojës" from Dhori Falo, which will most likely include a similar background. Unfortunately it is not on google books yet. --Sulmues (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we have plenty of material in googlebooks about this event (I mean english speaking material).Alexikoua (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I found it [29]. And it is in Aromanian. This is a rarity, English sources will start picking up from Falo. --Sulmues (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Consensus appears to be to leave this here and split out the appropriate material into a new article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moscopole → Voskopojë – Name is only used by aromanians, the greek name is here even more logic than the aromanian name. Afcourse these article deserves the Albanian name, if we start adding everywhere an other not even official minorty langue to cities all Albanian names will be lost and will turn it in a mess, please move because now it is unaccepteble Vinie007 18:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems this talk page is full of move requests from Moscopole to Voskopoja/e, but without precise arguments to support this. According to history the site, once a prosperous metropolis was already a insignificant tiny village before it became part of Albania (1920s). In general Moscopole is considered an Aromanian metropolis, as such it's mentioned in literature, not as a tiny mountain village that is today.Alexikoua (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment than for the same reason we can move Preveza → Prevezë and Ioannina → Janina. Today there are only some Chams living in Greece but once a prosperous metropolis of Chameria --Vinie007 14:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this isn't the place for extreme wp:or. Please focus on the specific move request.Alexikoua (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, for that reason i give a neutral comment --Vinie007 13:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We've been over this several times in the past. "Moscopole", mostly for historical reasons, appears to be the most common name in reliable English language sources. Athenean (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Compare:

and:
There are similar forms: Moschopolis, Moscopolis,[[30]] that outnumber Voskopoja/e by 3 to 1 at gbooks.Alexikoua (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE that Moschopolis includes not much english books, most are french, spanish or greek books.

--Vinie007 19:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets take only the english results:
  1. Moskopole, which " was a cultural and commercial center of the Aromanians " with population number estimated between 3.500 and 70.000. According to this article Moskopole was abandoned and destroyed with only six churches and one bridge survived
  2. Voskopoja, a small municipality in Korçë District with "a population of 2,218" in 2005--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree --Vinie007 20:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok: Moscopole for the once prosperous metropolis-now a small village & Voskopoje for the present municipality (which includes a number of villages). However, I'm afraid that the article isn't big enough to justify a seperation: we are talking about a village not a capital city like Belgrade.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, there is no need for removal of a few sentences about municipality of Voskopoje out of this article. On the contrary, they should probably remain in the article to explain that territory of the old city belongs to the existing municipality of Voskopoje. Splitting should be probably performed by creating the new article about municipality and copying a few sentences about Moskopole into "Background" section and copying all sentences about municipality into the main body of the article. Template Not to be confused with should be added to both articles.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Antidiskriminator's Solomonian proposal. It is both fair and represents the subject accurately, since the Ottoman town was manifestly of a different nature to the modern village.Constantine ✍ 06:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise the new article (Voskopoje), per Antid. proposal, will be about the administrative division (community) which incorporates a small number of villages. Something I find much better.Alexikoua (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment

[edit]

If we're going to split this article, I suggest we do it like Constantinople/Istanbul. The Constantinople article covers the history of the city between 3rd century AD and 1453. The Istanbul article gives short summaries of the history of Byzantium and Constantinople, and gives detailed information on the period after 1453. For Moscopole/Voskopojë the split could be around 1800. Some sections could be in both articles, e.g. the architecture section (some of the churches are still there, and are a prominent feature of the village). Another option is to keep everything in one article and add good naming and demography sections. Markussep Talk 07:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good split in this case would be year 1916, where the last massive destruction occured, or 1944, were also a number of destructions of cultural monuments during WWII occurred, but there isn't much to add about the modern small mountain village: It's remaining cultural monuments are of religious character and during the period 1945-1991, religion was prohibited in the region.
It would be a better idea to expand it first.Alexikoua (talk)
I agree that expanding the article is better. Markussep Talk 16:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the article be split. The comparison with Constantinople/Istanbul is inappropriate. The city was a predominantly Vlach settlement, and so is today. There has been continuity of the Vlach ethnicity, although the city has lost its splendour of one time, the main reason being that of having been overshadowed by Korce. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/40/04/32/PDF/de_Rapper_2009_Religion_on_the_border.pdf
    Triggered by \bhalshs\.archives-ouvertes\.fr on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained adjustments

[edit]

The once prosperous city of Moscopole was a target of raids by Muslim Albanian bands in the late 18th century. Although the references are stating this in detail in the appropriate sections, they are not present in the lead, but this doesn't mean that the correspodent facts shouldn't part of the lead.Alexikoua (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the already existing reference (Mikropoulos) and, all of the sudden, it perfectly confirms what the lede describes. Anyway a second inline is not bad to be there too.Alexikoua (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18th century vlahs from Korca basain

[edit]

You must prove that the 18th century vlahs from Korca basain were with macedonian lands ancesterals a dousen centuries ago...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.43.239.199 (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Second not all of them turn back to animal husbandry. Most of them made a trade colonis in most of the macedonian towns, especialy in Bitola! Third there were massiv migration of ortodoxal christians (vlahs, albanians, greeks and bulgarians) from what is now Eastern Albania and Epir to Thrace and Macedonia. Caused from the musulman presure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.43.239.199 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you need to provide the necessary reference with the correspondent quote which supports the fact that "the Aromanians who left Moschopolis did this...".Alexikoua (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City of shepherds

[edit]

The following discussion is moved from my talk page: --T*U (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I saw you readded the name "Voskopolis" saying that the source is a greek one.This makes no sense as this is the English Wikipedia.As you can see at the article the alternative name of Moscopolis is Voskopoja,not Voskopolis.So please don't continue adding a greek name for Moscopole.Rolandi (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolandi : The article has a long list of alterantive names in different languages in the opening sentence, among them two different Greek names. As the source says, the alternative name "Voskopolis" (as opposed to "Moschopolis") is derived from "voskos" and "polis", making the meaning "City of shepherds". Your edit resulted in a statement that "Voskopojë" means "City of shepherds". Even with my very limited knowledge of Albanian, I am quite sure that is not correct. --T*U (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Voskopojë" really means "City of shepherds"."Polis" is always changed to "pojë" in Albanian.For example "Nicopolis" is changed to "Nikopojë" in Albanian.Using the greek name for a place in Albania is unacceptable.Rolandi (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rolandi : (I indented your meaasge.) But Voskopojë does not mean "City of shepherds". The point here is the etymologi, which can only be derived from Greek. We could say something like "The Albanian name Voskopojë stems from Greek "Voskopolis", meaning "City of shepherds".", but then we would need a source for the derivation of Voskopojë from Voskopolis. Or we could say "The alternative Greek name "Voskopolis" means "City of shepherds"." But your "The alternative name "Voskopojë" means "City of shepherds"." does not work, simply because it is not true. --T*U (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False claims

[edit]

Someone claims that the theory of Muslim destruction of Moscopole is the main theory.This isn't true as the article says :"According to another opinion, the city's decline was mainly due to the relocation of the trade routes in central and eastern Europe following the aforementioned raids".There isn't any proof that the destruction by Muslims is the main theory.Rolandi (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this is nothing more than your personal view: The inline reference states that the destruction theory is the traditionally held theory among historians, while the relocation of the trade routes as a main reason for the decline is just "a more recent scenario". Thus, you are just falsifying the inline reference.Alexikoua (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moscopole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moscopole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moscopole was the center of Greek culture until the Orlov revolt ?!

[edit]

I very much ask you to write correctly. In the Ottoman Empire, Rayah is run on a confessional basis, and all Orthodox, often and quite irrelevant to the age of romantic nationalism, are referred to as Greeks, but this designation is a symbol of denomination, not nationality. By the same token, you can classify Pella Palace as an achievement of Greek architecture. Angel Angel 2 (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Moschopolis" from lead

[edit]

The recent removal of "Moschopolis" form is clearly against WP:NCGN, which states: "Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. ". Moschopolis is widely used in English literature as the primary name of this settlement [[31]], in fact the vast majority of mainstream research prefers this form (Fleming, Palairet, Winnifrith, Peyfuss, Kahl [[32]] etc.) instead of any other. Alexikoua (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start a move request. Alltan (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? I've stated that 'Moschopolis' should be at lead and infobox because it is widely used and warranted per wp:NCGN. Removing that from lead constitutes disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why can't we add the the Albanian name to Parga and Igoumenitsa using the same logic? Alltan (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to point which English (and western) authors use primarily the Albanian form of Parga and Igoumenitsa. In the case of Moscopole I have provided several notable examples (all non-Greek authors). To name additionally few: [[33]][[34]][[35]][[36]][[37]][[38]][[[[[39]][[40]][[41]][[42]][[43]][[44]][[45]][[46]][[47]].Alexikoua (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Albanian form of Parga is Parga, same goes for Preveza. A quick Google scholar search reveals multiple non-Albanian sources which use Gumenica, Kostir, even Janina seems quite popular. But are we going to add the Albanian version to all these articles? Alltan (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite interesting, I'm waiting for your links on the relevant tps. Also note that all this works mention Moschopolis as the main name form. If that's the case too then that's quite interesting. Waiting for your comments there. Nevertheless you understand that there are no arguments for exclusion of Moschopolis from lead.Alexikoua (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. So basically I should be OK to add Janina, Kostur, Preveza etc. Well thing is, I don't really want to do that, but what I want less is for double standards to exist. Alltan (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that some kind of threat? Alexikoua has demonstrated that "Moschopolis" is widely used by English language sources, unlike the examples you mention. Khirurg (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alltan: you self-refuted your tendency to remove Moschopolis; its actually a name used by a large percentage of English sources as the primary name of this settlement. Ok, I assume you understand how to read wikipedia guidelines. What about Ioannina, Kastoria, Preveza? Why don't you present those supposed sources there? Someone can easily conclude that you have run out of arguments by avoiding to focus on the issue.Alexikoua (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg: what's weird is that even some Albanian authors use primarily the Moschopolis form.Alexikoua (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the name "Moschopolis" is obviously used in many English language sources (see for instance this Unesco report, page 21 of 126), it would be odd to not even mention it in this article, as is the case now. It definitely belongs in the "Names" section, and probably also in the lead, as a historical name, per WP:NCGN. About Ioannina: I found the name "Janina" in older English texts, for instance these British parliamentary papers (1879). "Janina" is mentioned in the "Name" section of the Ioannina article. Whether it should also be in the lead could be discussed at that talk page. Markussep Talk 09:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The importance of Moscopole over Greek culture is big and due to this, the Greek name deserves a mention on the lead in my opinion. In the infobox I am less sure, no clutter should be there so ideally only the official (Albanian) and local (Aromanian, no Greeks live in Moscopole) should stay. The lead could look something like this [48].
I will not comment a lot on the cases of the Albanian names on Greek cities but I doubt Albanian influence on for example Ioannina is comparable with Greek influence in Moscopole. Super Ψ Dro 11:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: Can you please explain why Pettifer, Vickers & Winnifrith, prefer the form Moschopolis for the 18th century settlement vs Voskopoka is just used for the modern village? [[49]] Moschopolis, modern Voskopoja [[50]]

Moschopolis, now Voskopoje This is a general trend in bibliography as I see. Almost 100% of the works dedicated to Moscopole follow this naming (Fleming, Palairet, Peyfuss, Kahl to name a view specialists on Aromanian issues).Alexikoua (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:

Google scholar indexes results from all academic publications and Google books.

Therefore, a)Moschopolis should be included in the lead sentence b)the article must be renamed as Voskopojë/a.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should include various similar forms:

As such Moscopole & Moschopolis variants: 498 299 = 797

The modern name, about the tiny current village and municipality, is not widely used as the Mosc(h)opole/-is forms. What's also interesting is that many Voskopoja hits provide the following quote: Moscopole (now Voskopojë) in south-eastern Albania not to mention that this search includes also Albanian language works (and excludes Greek). It would be better to put a filter on this. It would be also better to include the 1990-2000 period since too many important works were written in this period (Kahl, Peyfuss etc). Alexikoua (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that your search mixes Greek-derived names with Aromanian-derived ones, such as Moscopoli. Most results by Moscopoli are not in English anyway [51]. Super Ψ Dro 08:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "Voskopojë" OR "Voskopoja" search also gives a huge amount of non-English results, just look at this [52]. More sophisticated methods will need to be used to determine the most common name of this locality. Super Ψ Dro 08:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Ngrams, [53] it shows that the Albanian-derived versions are slightly more common to the Greek-derived ones and that both have decreased in usage while the Aromanian-derived ones have risen. I did not assign names to the Greek-derived part and the Aromanian-derived one randomly by the way, I added all variants ending in -polis to Greek and the rest I individually searched them and saw that Moschopoli was more used among Greek scholars without discussion on the Aromanians while Moskopoli was used in several Aromanian-related works, some in Slavic languages.
Without any time ranges, "Moschopolis" OR "Moscopolis" OR "Moskopolis" OR "Moschopoli" gets 368 results in Google Scholar [54]. "Voskopoje" OR "Voskopoja" OR "Voskopojë" gets 451 [55], while "Moscopole" OR "Moscopoli" OR "Moskopoli" OR" "Moscopolea" OR "Muscopoli" OR "Voscopole" only 152 [56]. Out of 971 results, 46.45% are Albanian-derived, 37.90% are Greek-derived and 15.65% are Aromanian-derived.
Out of curiosity, I've put a time range from 1990 to 2010. The Greek-derived names under the same search get 111 (41.11%) results, the Albanian-derived ones get 132 (48.89%) and the Aromanian-derived ones only 27 (10%).
Doing the same, but from 2010 to 2015, the Greek-derived names get 76 (29.23%) results, the Albanian-derived ones 144 (55%) and the Aromanian-derived ones 40 (15%).
Finally, from 2015 onwards, Greek-derived names get 126 (30.36%), Albanian-derived ones 198 (47.71%) and the Aromanian-derived ones 91 (21.93%).
Since 2021 specifically, Greek-derived names got 19 (22.35%), Albanian-derived ones 49 (57.65%) and Aromanian-derived ones 17 (20%).
With this you can see a common trend, Greek-derived names have decreased in use in English literature over the years while Aromanian-derived names have increased and would now be almost as common as the Greek-derived names. The Albanian-derived names remained mostly stable. But I want to leave clear the fact that Aromanian-derived names may keep rising in use in the future. It was under this argument that Kiev was moved to Kyiv. Not that because of this should the Aromanian name be kept, but we may have different discussions in the future. Super Ψ Dro 08:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As such I believe the Aromanian name should remain as the main name for an Aromanian settlement (also the M- variants outweigh Vokopoja/e 3 vs 1). As I see there is also a consensus about Moschopolis not be removed from lead. Alexikoua (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SP: If the smoothing scale is lowered then the [[57]] the Voskopoja/e form is in decline compared to the M- variants in post 2018 publicationsAlexikoua (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Moschopolis should be kept, but as a bold title like Voskopoja or within the other languages part? Considering Voskopoja is included in bold in the title, I guess Moschopolis would have no reason not to be included; I would personally favor simply having the article name in bold and then the names in non-English languages in the parentheses part, as it had been for a while. Maybe we could benefit from looking at other articles to look for examples.
And what you show with the Ngrams is interesting. Would you know how to explain what does lowering the smoothing scale mean? Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 October 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is a numerical majority in support here, but as Wikipedians are aware, discussions are not decided by democracy. WP:CONSENSUS is formed by examining arguments made through the lens of policy. The ngram results (which are generally a much better indicator of WP:COMMONNAME than a Google scholar search is, which only examines a small subset and only considers academic papers, not wider usage) show that the combined total of "Moscopole" variants exceeds that of "Voskopojë" variants. The point was also made that this settlement has two distinct histories, a historical city and a modern small hamlet, and it is reasonable for those opposers to give more weight to the name of the settlement as it was when it was a large city. Overall, I don't see a consensus to move, after 11 days and extensive discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moscopole → Voskopojë –

  • "Voskopojë" OR "Voskopoja" OR "Voskopoje" (2000-2022, only publications in English): 408 results
  • Moscopole (2000-2022, only publications in English): 121 results (a part of the results are in Romanian despite 121 of them showing up in the "English-only" search)
  • "Moschopolis" OR "Moscopolis" (2000-2022, only publications in English): 243 results
  • Voskopoja/Voskopojë leads results but not by enough to make it the widely accepted English name (WP:NCGN). When there is no such name, the official, local name should be used which in this case is the one which leads in search results in academic publications. Hence, the article should be renamed to Voskopoja and all alternative names should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article - the exact manner which can be used is being debated in the above discussion. Maleschreiber (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:::The above 3 links you provided need correction, they provide 0 hits now.Alexikoua (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maleschreiber: Can you provide a similar search on googlebooks? This appears somewhat convincing but doesn't offer a general picture (as I see several major works on the subject are not included in googlescholar). Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Markussep: I changed it to the indefinite form to make it consistent with all other articles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I changed my "vote" accordingly. Markussep Talk 10:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose user Alexikoua has shown above that with a smoothing of 0, Moscopole becomes the most common variant in Google Ngrams [58]. Here you can see it more clearly [59].
Here, it is explained what smoothing means. A smoothing of 1 in Google Ngrams means that the data in 2018 would be shown by showing the raw data of results from the year 2018 plus the data from the years 2017 and 2019, divided into 3. I am not sure what is the purpose of this. A smoothing of 2 would mean that the data in 2018 would include the raw data of 2018 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2020 (hypothethically, as 2019 is Google Ngrams' limit) divided by 5.
By looking at the first link in my comment, you see that Moschopolis and Voskopoja and their variants have had vast use in earlier years, which is not the case of Moscopole and its variants. This inflates Moschopolis' and Voskopoja's results for each year when smoothing is applied. You can see the huge distance between both and Moscopole here when a smoothing of 20 is applied [60]. For determining what name is the common name, we need to look at the raw data for each year, which you get by taking the smoothing at 0. And it shows that Moscopole became the most common variant in late 2018, and we do not have evidence that this has changed ever since.
Per the Kyiv precedent [61], in Wikipedia, a locality's article should be titled according to the most common name in English-language sources in recent times, even if the general total of sources show preference for another name due to its more common use in the past.
And I will also add that the local name of Moscopole is indeed Moscopole. Only the official is Voskopoja/Voskopojë. Super Ψ Dro 14:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Voskopoja and Voskopojë do not have a demonym in English literature, while Moscopole does [62] [63]. If you wonder how often does the need for the use of these demonyms appear, I will tell you that it's quite common in local research, as the Aromanians, an ethnic group that inhabits Moscopole among other places, are classified into several subgroups, one of which are the Moscopoleans/Moscopolitans [64]; their dialect, one of the main of the Aromanian language, is also known as such. English literature does not have terms like "Voskopojean" for research works on the Aromanians. Though the use of Moscopolean/Moscopolitan extends outside Aromanian research too [65] (the quote is: "His building of the Observatory at Athens is significant as showing that this Viennese Moscopolitan was always conscious of his Greek nationality, and turned at once to Athens as soon as the Hellenic capital was inaugurated.") Super Ψ Dro 14:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The need for the name to be a reflection of modern and recent use is already established in all relevant policies (WP:MPN/WP:NAMECHANGES). The case of Kyiv pushed the boundary of what that means to be defined as "name which is preferred in the post-2014 era". This specifically refers to the recent history of Ukraine and is relevant only for Ukraine. Another such date might be relevant for other cases where political changes have caused such a shift, but Voskopoja/Moscopole isn't such a case.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure the RM was successful not because of the reasons that had led to that shift in English-language sources, but because the shift took place in the first place. As it has happened with Moscopole. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence disputing this has been shown above. Are you able to refute it? Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All relevant policies dictate that the name which should be used is the modern, local and official one and not an older or historical one. Google results have to be confined at the very least to the 21st century to determine modern use. Moschopolis and Moscopole can't be counted under the same heading as they don't represent variants in the same language. The use of the term Moscopole in a historical context or in older sources highlights that it can't be the name which the article uses. Many sources which refer to Moscopole refer to pre-19th century events or specifically to the history of the Aromanian community and many sources which refer to Voskopojë/Voskopoja refer to its modern history. There is a contextual division between them. WP:MODERNPLACENAME: For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use The name Moscopole should be used in its correct historical context and has a place in the article, but it is not representative of the modern situation.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the name which should be used is the modern, local and official one and not an older or historical one. sorry but as I have stated already, the local name is Moscopole. Moscopole is also not an older nor historical name, more like the opposite. And regarding your comment on the official names, WP:OFFICIALNAMES clearly states at the start of the page that People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title, then it should be moved. In many cases, this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy. And that Many sources which refer to Moscopole refer to pre-19th century events is not true. The Ngrams links I've sent above show it's precisely in recent times that Moscopole is getting more use. It is indeed representative of modern times. Moschopolis is the one more common in older times. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Voskopoja/e is not the most common name per evidence so far. Either if the scaling is 0 [[66]] or 20 [[67]]. Nevertheless I'm still waiting for a decent argument in favor of the proposed move. Moscopole is known as a once cultural centre of the 18th century, which was repeatedly destroyed destroyed by Albanian armed groups in the past. The tiny village that today exist (Voskopoja) can't be compared to the once prosperous city.Alexikoua (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can, as all the elements that made the city great are still there, just many of them ruined. The dominant ethnic group is still the same, and so is the name used by its inhabitants. Sources do not do an artificial split between the former city and the modern village, they're both referred to as Moscopole. Maybe Constantinople, which used to be Greek and Orthodox dominated, capital of a Christian European empire, full of churches and other elements of Greek (and also medieval) culture cannot be compared to the greatly expanded Turkish Muslim Istanbul, not a capital of any state, with elements reminiscent of your typical 21st-century Western city. Such a radical change has not taken place in Moscopole. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the difficulty here is that this article treats both the historic city Moscopole/Moschopolis and the current village and administrative unit Voskopojë. Both the historic city and the current village do not receive very much coverage in English literature (there is no mention of it in Encyclopædia Britannica, for instance), and I wonder whether it would make sense to split the article, since they obviously share many characteristics (geography, the monumental buildings that have been preserved). I'm trying to find similar cases, maybe Pergamon/Bergama (two articles), Monastir/Bitola (one article, Bitola), Tenochtitlan/Mexico City, Mycenae/Mykines (two articles). Markussep Talk 10:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The settlement is still the same, just decreased in size and population. The ruins of the printing house, of the churches (and there's some extant ones too), the old school, everything Moscopole was known for, are still there. The population, Aromanians, are the same, and the name is still the same. And most importantly, if a separate article for the village was created, it would either be very short, or constantly comment on aspects of the city-era, so we'd just have duplicates. Information on the former city and the modern village can easily be covered into one single article, opposite to for example Constantinople and Istanbul. Also, comparing the change Bitola underwent to the one Mexico City did is an exaggeration in my opinion. Bitola and Monastir are the same cities, their split would be even less justifiable than Moscopole's, as at least the latter went from a city to a village.
I will also add that the split (and this move too) have been often proposed in this talk page, and it never succeeded. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Voskopojë. Per WP:NCGN which states: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.. The guideline clearly gives the reasoning behind this: By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called.. Currently it is called Voskopojë. Even if there is no widely accepted English variant, which from the evidence above seems to still be Voskopojë (at least since 1990), we should still use the modern official name of the locality. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. In case users don't agree there is a established English name (which I don't see how, considering its largely been called Voskopojë for at least 3 decades), then they should concede to the rule that we must use the modern local name, which would still be Voskopojë.Alltan (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to wonder if the supporting side of this RM has read the full discussion. Moscopole is not a historical, old name, Moschopolis is the one you're looking for; Voskopojë is not the most common name used in English sources, Moscopole is since 2018; Voskopojë is not the local name, the inhabitants, which are Aromanians, use Moscopole. I will again remind that it is Moscopole and not Voskopojë the name that has demonyms derived from it used in English academic literature. I suspect based on this that while Voskopojë may be often used for quick mentions of the current village as Alexikoua has noted on the discussion above this RM, it is Moscopole the one used for more deep research about the locality. Super Ψ Dro 15:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the case actually. Aromanians were not the only people group which inhabited the area historically, and in the last census[68], of the 1058 inhabitants, 69,57% declared themselves as Albanian, 5,48% declared themselves as Aromanian, 0,47% declared themselves as Macedonians, and 0,09% as Greek. The rest 24.39% didn't state an ethnicity, but even if everyone of them was Aromanian, the dominant, large majority name of the settlement is Voskopojë. What demonyms it had derived from historic English literature is not relevant to figuring out its modern usage and its local name. Alltan (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is official census data. According to it, there's a total of 8,266 Aromanians in Albania; zero authors researching on the Aromanians cite a number this low. Tom Winnifrith (1998) gives a number of 200,000 [69] (p. 2), while Thede Kahl (2002) estimates at least 100,000 Aromanians in Albania [70] (p. 156). Super Ψ Dro 16:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have to bring forward statistics for the demographics of Aromanians in Moscopole specifically. They can be 99% percent of the population of Albania for all I care, the local name still is Voskopojë. Alltan (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they are 99% of the population, evidently, the local name is not the Albanian one. I will also ask you for evidence that Albanians conform the majority of the population in Moscopole. Super Ψ Dro 16:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said 99% percent of the population of Albania, not Voskopoje. The issue is that the total number of Aromanians in Albania is irrelevant to them being a majority in Voskopojë. And I did give you the official census data, where only 5% of people said they were Aromanians, and 70% said they are Albanians. It's therefore your turn. Alltan (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SD No, you should provide evidence that the Aromanians are the majority in the village. Alltan provided evidence that the Albanians are the majority: the census data. If you find evidence that the Aromanians are the majority, then there is disgreement which is the local name of the village. Per the relevant policy, in such cases the official name should be used: Voskopojë. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the 200,000 figure is obviously non-sense. Kaser puts the number at between 30,000 and 50,000. Tanner puts it at around 2% of Albania's population (~50,000-60,000). Those figures are certainly nearer to the reality, though the vast majority of those people of Aromanian origin nowadays self-identify as Albanian. I assume that a good number of the Albanians in Voskopoja are of Aromanian origin. In the Korca area a large number of Aromanians and Slavs became Albanian in the few last centuries. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if they're 200,000 or 30,000, it still shows that the 2011 Albanian census does not accurately reflect the ethnic situation in this area. Academic works that directly study the Aromanians are obviously closer to this than a general nationwide process with other purposes, and they cannot compared. So I will again request academic sources claiming that the Albanians are the majority in Moscopole.
Still, I have not been able to find any open-access sources discussing the modern ethnic composition of Moscopole. Thede Kahl maybe did in 1999, but we cannot access the book [71]. We do have access at one of his maps through another source, see here [72] at the PDF document's page 9. Moscopole is listed not with an exclusively Aromanian population, but as a settlement with a "strong" Aromanian population. On this same level is included Boboshticë, an Aromanian-majority settlement (see the article's Demographics section), but also cities like Berat, Elbasan or Vlorë, where evidently Aromanians are a small minority.
De Rapper (2010) [73], cited in this article, states that Muslim Albanians settled in the village during the communist period and that as a result of this, the local Christians started seeing the village as "mixed". If the Aromanians truly were 5% of the population, it is clear Moscopole would not be considered a mixed village, so they must be more. In fact, De Rapper is implying Moscopole was not mixed before the recent settling of Muslim Albanians during the communist period.
The conclusion we can take out of this is that Moscopole is probably an ethnically mixed settlement nowadays. I don't think it then makes much sense to consider the "local name" aspect here. Super Ψ Dro 18:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Aromanians certainly are not 5% in Voskopoja. 24% of the population did not declare ethnicity, and obviously the vast majority are Aromanians. So in Voskopoja we have around 70% Albanians and around 30% Aromanians with some Macedonians and Greeks. I don't think it then makes much sense to consider the "local name" aspect here then, as per the relevant polocy, the offical name (Voskopoja) should be used. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
De Rapper actually is talking about how Voskopoja saw Albanians migrate during the communist period, in the process becoming a mixed village then. He does not say it is mixed today. Consider the fact that large numbers Aromanians have migrated to Greece because of their pro-Greek feelings. In fact, according to scholar Asterios Koukoudis, in 1900 the settlement was inhabited by 120 Albanian and 80 Aromanian families."A report by Betsos, the Greek consul in Monastir, is very informative about the demographic composition of Moschopolis in 1900. Moscopolis: The old Vlach-speaking inhabitants of Moscopolis dispersed in all directions at the end of the eighteenth century, because the Moslem Albanians living round about pillages that once famed city, and the comparatively few remaining families gradually moved elsewhere, particularly to Korçë, which slowly became an important commercial centre. Of the old Vlach families, only about thirty remain in Moscopolis; but on the other hand, the widespread disorder ravaging the area of Opar has caused many Albanian speaking families to leave the barren, mountainous parts of the country and remove to Moscopolis, where they till the land and raise livestock. Able Vlach-speaking families came from two Vlach settlements to Moscopolis, of which the entire population at present amounts to 200 families, of which 120 are Albanian-speaking and the remaining 80 Vlach speaking. All the old Vlach-speaking families have remained true to [their Greek national consciousness], but for three, who, together with some of the newcomers, have been led astray by the unfrocked priest Kosmas. The Romanising families there number twenty in all."[1]
So even according to Greece, a country which at the time tended to overblow the Aromanian component of south Albania (viewing them as easier to assimilate as Greeks), the town was 60% Albanian in 1900. But even if all of this were irrelevant, Ktrimi's argument stated it perfectly as per the relevant policy, the offical name (Voskopoja) should be used. Alltan (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but even if the Aromanians are not the absolute majority of the population, Moscopole still remains as the most common name for this locality in English-language sources. This remains as the main policy when discussing the titles of geographical places. The "local name" aspect only gave further strength to the choice of Moscopole; now that it has been shown that Albanians constitute a solid, possibly majoritarian sector of the population, the user closing this RM may need to balance different factors to decide the outcome of the RM. "Moscopole" is more common than "Voskopojë" in English, Albanians are possibly more numerous in Moscopole than Aromanians, Moscopole was a historical ethnic Aromanian center still impacting their scholarly classification into subgroups while the history of Albanians in Moscopole and the impact it has had over them is recent and mild, "Voskopojë" is the official name.
He does not say it is mixed today at most three generations passed. Not much must have changed. Definitively not a "mixed" to "Albanian" shift. Consider the fact that large numbers Aromanians have migrated to Greece because of their pro-Greek feelings. emigration from Albania to Greece is a general phenomenon without ethnicity. We should not attempt to use this hypothetical case as it could go two ways, unless one is supported by academic sources, which is something most likely not studied.
And for the record, I don't want the statement So in Voskopoja we have around 70% Albanians and around 30% Aromanians with some Macedonians and Greeks. by user Ktrimi991 to go unreplied and therefore "assumed" as a truth for the rest of the discussion. It is quite possible this is close to the ethnic reality but I expect a number of the people with self-declared Albanian ethnicity to be assimilated Aromanians or people with mixed ethnicity (someone 50/50 would probably be proud of their Aromanian blood but feel primarily Albanian), and also some of the people who did not declare ethnicity to be Albanians, due to personal reasons they might have wished to hide their identity. There's a lot of circumstances to consider. Super Ψ Dro 20:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Albanians are the majority population in Voskopoje today, and largely have been so since the 20th century (Betsos' report). Now, de Rapper said "Muslim Albanians settled in the village during the communist period and that as a result of this, the local Christians started seeing the village as "mixed"." He is therefore making the argument it was religiously mixed, not ethnically. Therefore, the Christian people he is talking about may very well be Albanians. More on him, he actually preffers using Voskopojë, and says that: "This is particularly the case in Voskopojë and Vithkuq, which have a specific relationship to the outside world. Both villages are not only considered as former prosperous Christian cities; according to a part of the local population and to some historians, the two cities were in those times in majority or exclusively inhabited by Aromanians, locally known as Vlachs (Vllah), who flew away at the time of the destruction" and, finally: After several assaults and destruction by its Muslim neighbours, Voskopojë is no more than a big village in which Aromanian population is not in majority anymore. Albanian-speaking Christians and Muslims have come and settled, especially after the Second World War, when life conditions became more attractive in what was turned into an administrative centre rather than in remote mountain villages. So yet again, the local name, as well as the official one, is Voskopojë. Alltan (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the history of Albanians in Moscopole and the impact it has had over them is recent and mild, this is not an accurate statement at all. This article in general might need some work. Alltan (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I feel that the nom simply provided arguments against the move. Voskopoje/a is simply not the most common name, as clearly explained. It's sad that this has turned into Balkan-POV pushing.Alexikoua (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alltan: Even the book that you quote is using "Moschopolis" [[74]]. Yet another argument to object the move.Alexikoua (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Voskopojë. Again, when two or more variants have a very close result and none show a clear advantage, then the official or local names are preferred. This was also explained in similar RMs and I don't understand why insisting on which has 5% or 10% more results than the other. --Bes-ARTTalk 17:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • when two or more variants have a very close result and none show a clear advantage, then the official or local names are preferred.? Is that a new rule in wikipedia? Also what makes Voskopoja the official name when this settlement was a famous metropolis (not a tiny village), i.e. at 18th century?Alexikoua (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications have been posted to all related wiki-projects (Albania, Greece, N.Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, cities).Alexikoua (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this discussion the "official name" is Voskopojë/a because the article covers a settlement that exists in the present and the present official name is Voskopojë/a per the Albanian government.
An example of a city with a historical name different from the modern one is Edo / Tokyo - split in two articles, though the challenge would be finding the right period in history at which to make the cut-off. I see this was discussed a bit a decade ago but nothing came of it. However, looking deeper into this, I don't think a split makes sense here, as the present-day settlement is much smaller than it was historically, so an article about Voskopojë/a (with the Moscopole era split out) would be pretty short. It's hard to find an example of a city that was dominated by one culture at its peak and is now dominated by another as a mere village, while at no point being actually abandoned.
I think WP:MPN applies here: For an article about a place whose name has changed over time... For articles discussing the present... use the modern English name... Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use. Reading everything above, I'm still not sure what reliable English-language sources now use. I wonder if one or the other is clearly preferred among the reliable sources already in use in the article. --Local hero talk 05:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per Super Ψ Dro, Moscopole becomes the most common name without smoothing, especially since recent years. Given the Kyiv precedent, this becomes even more significant.
Apart from that I think "Moscopoli"/"Moscopolis"/"Moschopoli" should be added together, as variants of the same name. Greek and Aromanian essentially use the same name, and the differences that result from each language's grammar essentially disappear in the English versions. Therefore the lead of the current name becomes significant.
Finally, this article is mostly about an Aromanian city that got destroyed, and essentially on its ruins lies a modern Albanian village. There is a much stronger preference for the current name when it comes to the former. And, even in cases where the old name is not really used anymore in English, such as Constantinople, there is a separate article for each period. In this case Moscopole seems to still be used, and the modern village probably isn't significant enough to get its own article separate from the earlier city, but, if an article is to be named "Voskopojë", it should be the result of a split. --Antondimak (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it is not the most widely used name in English. Super Ψ Dro 13:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That alone has no weight. WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Super Ψ Dro 18:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per excellent arguments by Super Dromaeosaurus. I believe it is important to also look on the quality of sources behind quantity: The current title not only is being the more common title, but also it happens to be the term used in the majority of the sources which refer to the Aromanian city of Moscopole more than to the present day's small Albanian village on that location. The historical city is what the article is more about and this is owed to its historical significance: both in terms of history, notability, culture and religion. I do not know cases in Wikipedia where a small insignificant village's alternate name may replace the name of the much more historically significant city of Moscopole thanks to which the village is ever notable nowadays. The small Albanian village is hardly any significant to even warrant its own article at all. Any notability it enjoys today as a village, is solely due to Moscopole's rich heritage. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is another argument I expressed that SilentResident has worded more appropriately. Most references in academia to Moscopole refer to the old city, when it was an Aromanian-majority settlement. Few works are dedicated to the modern village. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. As highlighted in the Google Scholar results, Voskopojë is the common name. Additionally, if we take into account the other platforms, as was stated above by Bes-ART, when two or more variants have a very close result and none show a clear advantage, then the official or local names are preferred, which in this case is still Voskopojë. Botushali (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Voskopojë per nom. Truthseeker2006 (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Koukoudis, Asterios (2003). The Vlachs: Metropolis and Diaspora. Thessaloniki: Zitros Publications. pp. 362–363. ISBN 9789607760869.

 Comment: The pro-move voters claim the proposed name being more common which is not true. Also the pro-move voters seem to ignore the fact that in their majority, the sources focuse on the historical city, not the small village in its place. The participants are reminded that it isn't the number of votes that determines a RM's outcome, but the strength of arguments supported by the evidence. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is more common than Moscopole in all academic publications and this is something which is discussed in the first post of the move request. Opposing the move because 250 years ago it was known to the outside world with another name is not a valid reason to oppose. If you argue that Voskopojë/Voskopoja hasn't been yet established as the most widely used English name, this isn't an argument against renaming the article. Wikipedia uses modern names and a move request is successful because when no widely used English name exists, the local, official name becomes the new article title.
  • I'm manually checking major academic publishing houses which due to paywall aren't listed on google scholar.
  • Let me add on this about googlebooks: Moscopolis 9,090 while only Voskopoja 2,570 and Voskopoje 1,160. Definitely the arguments for a move into the proposed title are extremely weak, Moschopolis and in general the M- forms outnumber Voskopoja/e by 3 to 1. I kindly asked the nominator to provide decent arguments for the move but no reply so far.Alexikoua (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you using the Greek GoogleBooks? (.gr)? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The search results aren't displayed properly, there's no date range and English hasn't been picked as language. To check the actual results of gbooks - which is a subset of google scholar - you have to go to the last page because the figures displayed aren't the actual search results. If Alexikoua did all that, he would find out that there aren't 9,090 hits of "Moscopolis" but close to a hundred between 2000-2022.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The result is the same and Voskopja/e is still outnumbered by 1 vs 3. Why should be ignore the bibliography of the 1990s? Alexikoua (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1990-1999 (publications in English): 23 (Voskopojë & variants), 6 (Moscopole), 10 (Moschopolis & variants).--Maleschreiber (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, I don't care what the name of the page is, but I do want to say this: Moscopole is probably the best thing to use for the town in the Ottoman period, while Voskopoja is better for the modern period. A lot has changed in between. See also Gdansk/Danzig etc. --Calthinus (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice note: Actually the current article refers 90% to the old prosperous town, but nevertheless the nominator wants everything to be part of the modern name that concerns the current tiny village.Alexikoua (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no "common name" in English. The alternate names do not have a large difference in usage when compared with each other. So, per the relevant policy, the one used in a modern rather than historical context should be used. WP:NCGN says When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name (in articles dealing with the present) or the modern local historical name (in articles dealing with a specific period) should be used. It is obvious from online research (GB, GS etc) that Moscopole is preferred by history books, and Voskopojë is almost always used by books concerned with modern issues, news agencies and tourism articles. These matters are also addressed by WP:NCGN when it says that : If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name.  If that is not enough, then per WP:OFFICIALNAMES the offical name should be used. Which is the official name can't be disputed by anyone. There is only one. In all options provided by the relevant policy, Voskopojë is the ones to be used. If editors can't agree on which is the most used name, then the policy says the local offical one should be used. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: Well, the Ottoman metropolis was not known under the Albanian name, google are simply not in favor of the proposed title. I have the strong feeling that your argument is completely anachronistic and wrong.Alexikoua (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere is the naming policy it is said that a place with several names during its history should have its article named after a previous name of the place. For example, Butrint was named Buthrotum in its heyday as a major city, and it was named Butrint only when it was in ruins. But still the article is named Butrint, not Buthrotum. I have a strong feeling that you have never read the relevant policy. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Voskopojë because it is the common modern name: Moscopole has 44,000 hits on Google, Voskopojë has 135,000 hits. According to WP:NCGN: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." Academic sources do not reflect commonality as much as they reflect history. The first WP:CRITERIA is recognizability, which has been met by the Google search. The second criteria states "Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." The third criteria is precision and we are precisely talking about the village that exists today, the article lead starts with "is a village" and the section on geography confirms that the article is about the place there today. If the present village and the historical centre that it once was cannot even be compared then make the word "Moscopole" a redirect to the history section of the article, it would be more precise to do so.Cardofk (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination and above arguments by Ktrimi991 and Cardofk. – Βατο (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is no proof of two Gregory's in the printing press of Moscopole

[edit]

Maximilian Peyfuss, that is the most credible source for the printing press of Moscopole, shows how the hypothesis on two Gregory's has no scientific backing. Gregory Konstandinidis, later became the Metropolitan of Durrës, and that is stated by Zabiras who was his contemporary. Anna Comnena (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to provide reliable sources to back this claim? Super Ψ Dro 23:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will give e brief outline: In the case of Gregory the burden of proof falls on those who back the two-Gregories hypothesis. This second hypothesis was first made by Ivan Snegarov in 1932 (p. 354–5), basing it on some older notes by Zabiras (before 1804) where Gregory is mentioned in 1761 and 1767 (1872, p. 236, 244). After this, Albanian and Greek scholars have been following the same line of thought. However, in 1989 Max Demeter Peyfuss wrote a book on the printing press of Moscopole, becoming the main source for it and all the publications made there. Peyfuss shows how there is no scientific basis for claiming the existence of two Gregories in Moscopole. Furthermore, on Zabiras notes (shown above) both accounts lists books that are printed by the same person. Thus, giving the final proof that it is indeed only one Gregory.
I will no go further into detail here. It seems a good idea to expand the article on Gregory to include all the different hypothesis on his identity. I will just note, that this article was recently merged, going through the regular process.
Here are some sources:
Max Demeter Peyfuß (1989). Die Druckerei von Moschopolis 1731-1769 (Vienna). p. 47-94 (German)
ИванЬ СнегаровЬ (1932). Охридска архиепископија, организација на цркви, црковни лица, Sofia: НУБ Св. Климент Охридски 1932, p. 354–5 (Bulgarian)
Evlogio Kurilas (1930). Gregorios Argirokastritis, Athens, Theologia, p. 263-266 (Greek)
Geōrgios Iōannēs Zabiras (1872). Νεα Ελλας η Ελληνικον θεατρον, p. 236, 244 (Greek)
Dhimitër Shuteriqi (1987). Marin Beçikemi dhe shkrime të tjera, Tirana, p. 105 (Albanian) Anna Comnena (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Yes, I believe it would be good to expand the article to include these issues. By the way, if Georgios Konstantinidis and Gregory of Durrës are the same person, what gives the Albanian name priority? Was he an ethnic Albanian? Super Ψ Dro 10:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus on his ethnic identity. Peyfuss does not talk about it at all. He might have been Aromanian, or even Greek, or indeed Albanian. During the 18th century the Patriarchy of Ohrid, as Heinrich Gelzer (1902) claims, was at the center of a movement that promoted local languages: Bulgarian, Albanian and Aromanian. It was as part of this movement that translations like that of Gregory happened. So, to get back to you last question, Gregory of Durrës is not his Albanian name (that would be Gregori i Durrësit), it is his English name, with 'Durrës' the current recognized name for this city in English. Hope that answered you questions. Anna Comnena (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voskopoja in both Ottoman sources and Mitrou?

[edit]

A recent addition states that Ottoman documents from the 16th-17th centuries use the variant Voskopoja, nevertheless Ottoman documents mention the following forms (from the very first appearance in records in 1697): Uskopol and later Iskupol, Oskopol. What's also surprising is that Mitrou mentions one name for this settlement Βοσκόπολις /Voskopolis not Vokopoja.Alexikoua (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another issue that needs to be addressed: why Moschopolis is the Aromanian rendering of the name. Is there a approach explanation on this?Alexikoua (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the Aromanian and Greek names are similar and the region was not in a traditionally Greek zone, I would expect it if this form first surged from the Aromanians. Though an explanation from the author should be provided indeed. Super Ψ Dro 07:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is worth taking a look into. Can you send some sources talking about Mitrou's work? Super Ψ Dro 07:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new additions need some copyediting. For example, I don't understand this sentence: In this way, regarding the events of the years 1660-1687, in agreements concluded between the monks of the monasteries, the notables and the archons of the three districts of the city, where the name of the city is given in the form Voskopoja. There are more such examples. Super Ψ Dro 07:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand it either. Indeed the addition appears problematic. About Mitrou;s description on Moscopole ([[75]] vol.6 p. 307): "εις τούτα τα μέρη είναι πολίσματα ακουστά Βοσκόπολις, Γκιόρτσα και τα λοιπά". Guess we have yet another case of misinterpreting primary material by Xhufi (and it's not the only such case of presenting primary sources the wrong way in his Vokospoja paper). Alexikoua (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remember edit warring over the use of Xhufi. Was that settled? Is he a reliable source? Super メ Dro 18:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Xhufi was removed in cases his claims were controversial vs scholarship (or at least a better source tag was added on sporadic cases). The case was settled as Xhufi controversy subsided (as coordinator stated). Its problematic to say the least.Alexikoua (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the precise quotes are needed for the recent additions in order to see if we can perform further adjustments to the section. @Alltan:, can you provide them?Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have CEEOL access you can see them (and you do because you have access to the Wikipedia library). Adding the quotes for every single bit of text from Xhufi will result in copyright infringement issues. If you are unable to find it, I can link it here: [76] I will make some adjustments to the additions when I have more time. Meanwhile stop accusing Xhufi without first seeing what he has to say. Ty Alltan (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
stop accusing Xhufi without first seeing what he has to say. re: No, I'm stating that he is misrepresenting primary material and I proved that this material doesn't confirm Xhufi's statement. Mitrou doesn't use Voskopja he uses Βοσκόπολις (the later not an Albanian form). I also can't find where Xhufi supports the claim that: The city appears under the Albanian rendering Voskopoja in Ottoman documents from the 16th-17th centuries., can you provide us the specific quote? Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alltan, Alexikoua, a disclaimer. I've seen the absolutely undesirable disputes that have surged among Albanian and Greek editors in other articles. I would like it if this article stayed as a bastion of tranquility. So please let's avoid easily avoidable tone such as Meanwhile stop accusing Xhufi.... I will also apply this advice on me.
As for the quote of the text (which by the way occurs on pages 1[actually 9]-2[10], not 2-3[11] as cited in this article), it is the following: We note on the other hand that, in the Ottoman documents that we have used, we systematically find the name under the variant "Voskopoja" and this fact does not seem to us to be unimportant. This form is also that used by Meletios, an 18th century author, in his geography text. The affirmation on the text seems to simply be wrong, unless Xhufi is analysing Voskopolis together with Voskopoja and separate from Moskopolis. Not sure what to do here. Super Ψ Dro 14:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Xhufi is indeed considering the variants Voskopoja and Voskopolis together: Indeed, this agglomeration appears late in historical documents under the name Voskopoja-Voskopol or under its other variant Moskopol. page 9. That the text in this article would only focus on Voskopoja would then be inappropriate. Apparently, after adressing he is analysing both variants together, he affirms Under these circumstances, it can be assumed that the Voskopoja form was the oldest, used mainly by the Albanian population (page 10), even though Voskopolis is an obviously Greek form. He also calls variants starting with M (in contrast to those starting with V, that's how he apparently decided to split the ways of calling this settlement) as Aromanian even though Moskopolis is the most widely used Greek form and Aromanians also use forms starting with V.
The "16th-17th centuries" part is indeed said by Xhufi in page 10. Whether it is factual is another thing. Super Ψ Dro 14:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I admit the author is interpreting various primary&secondary sources on a non-scholarly way. As you said he states 'Voskopoja' but it is obvious that this is the case of 'Voskopolis' or any other V- form form. All issues need to be addresed on a detailed basis. The list is big though.Alexikoua (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before presenting a complete list it seems helpful to add that scholarship on the onomatological evidence in Moscopole presents a completely diferrent picture compared to Xhufi's conclusion.Alexikoua (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moscopole&oldid=1258038254"