Talk:Preveza

Albanian Name

I saw that Athenean and Alexikua reverted the article several times, I have already reverted it 2-3 but I will stop since I do not want an edit war. Let us discuss this(the same applies to the one that reverted them back)--Sarandioti (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The unwritten understanding we have in these articles (Greece-Albania) is that we only include the "other" name in the lead if there are still native speakers of the language in those towns (and it is backed up by WP:RS, of course). This is the case, in Himarra, Saranda, Igoumenitsa etc...However it is not the case in Preveza and Arta. Otherwise, we would have to include the Greek name for Vlore, Korce, Durres, and so forth. The experienced users in these articles abided by this understanding and the articles were stable before you came in. We are not going to turn eveything upside down because of one new inexperienced user. --Athenean (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You are comparing different situations Athenian. Of course no one is going to claim the addition of an ancient name who has no speakers in an area. But Arta and Preveza are modern areas, of great importance to Albanian history(principalities etc.). And yes they were inhabited by Cham Albanians. History is not about trade agreements Athenian, but about facts. --Sarandioti (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just like there are no Greek speakers in some Albanian towns now, there are no Albanian speakers in Preveza and Arta. Just like there were Cham speakers in those areas, there were Greek speakers in those Vlore and Korce. You say they are of great importance to Albanian history? Guess what, so were Vlore and Durres (they were founded by Greeke, for God's sake, their name derives from the Greek name). Please be reasonable. You can't have it both ways. There are two sides here, and the only solution is compromise. There is no other way. If you push, you can expect the other side to push back. I've been on wikipedia 2 years now, and I'm telling you this as an experienced wikipedian. Just let it rest. --Athenean (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is there are cham albanian speakers, altough they are cham orthodox that wern't expelled. Altough these people are a minority they exist, see for example this documentary --Vinie007 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nikos Stylos

Seeing how the result of the AfD was "Delete" (and a fairly easy delete at that), I have removed Nikos Stylos from the list of notable individuals. Nothing controversial there, I hope. Athenean (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Precise"

Saying the ancient city of "Berenike" was in the "wider region" of Preveza is not precise at all, in fact, it is the exact opposite. I don't see the source saying "wider region" anywhere, it seems that this is being made up for the usual reasons. Athenean (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The source says "near the site of modern Preveza" and I paraphrased a bit without any usual reasons.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Do try and be a bit more "precise" in the future. Athenean (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

actually athenean as far as i know ancient berenike is usually identified...not with absolute certainty...with mihalitsi(on) which is near nicopolis a bit north of preveza87.202.50.149 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC) also there are various theories about the name im adding them87.202.50.149 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Sulmues' pov & redundant addition. What's completely weird is that the sources used to add the 'Albanian' alternative were wrong, since the city's name in Albanian is also Preveza (as these sources claim). There is no need to invent a diferrent Albanian form. That's why we have 'name' section.Alexikoua (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually in Albanian there are two forms:a definite and an indefinite form, thus Prevezë and Preveza. Sulmues's edit is based on WP:NCGN. Please don't ignore the policy and cause disruption.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Suppose the one that should respect this policy is you: Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead. There is also a separate section, so an alternative (and unsourced) Albanian name in first line is nothing more than a pov game.Alexikoua (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no other alternative names, this is the only and there are two sources about it. That section is about the etymology of the name not a list of alternative, so if you want to remove it you should find another subpolicy to justify it, otherwise it would be one of the usual povs. Well, Sulmues added it with sources so his response will be interesting.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(Ignore trolling) There is a name section, according to wp:nc this belong there. Of course a name section can also contain etymologies, that's reasonable. By the way, changing the section's name [[2]] in order to launch empty pov accusations it's of the most childish actions if ever seen here.Alexikoua (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This naming nonsense needs to end, and it needs to end once and for all. I strongly advise Zjarri to read this thread [3], and read it well. The only reason a foreign name should appear in the first line of lead is if our readers are likely to encounter it in the literature, in other words if it appears with reasonable frequency in reliable sources. As far as I have searched, exactly zero English-language sources use the Albanian spelling. Even the two sources used by Sulmues to supposedly bolster his claim use "Preveza"! A few older sources use the Turkish spelling, Preveze, without the "ë", but I can't find one English language source that uses "Prevezë" (besides Hammond), which moreover already appears in the "Etymology" section. WP:LAWYER type arguments about WP:NCGN are boring and irrelevant (WP:NCGN talks about the lede in general, not just the first line). And re-naming the "Name" section to "Etymology" [4] in a desperate attempt to forestall the inevitable is not "precise", but pathetic as well as disruptive. Enough. Athenean (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The NCGN defines a names or an etymology section so why would I change it to something similar if I had any desperate motives as you define them? Sulmues added it and his response will be needed.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No matter what's his response, according to wp:nc this needs to go. It's simple, we have not a single argument that the reduntant alt. name should stay both in lead and below, typical wp:IDONTLIKEIT. Alexikoua (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless you provide some solid arguments that contradict the two sources and mainly Hammond I don't see why it has to go.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears you didn't do your reading, or didn't get the point. By the way, WP:IDHT is very disruptive. Not a good idea. Athenean (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You're also (deliberately?) misconstruing what I'm saying. I'm not advocating a Pakapshem-style wholesale removal of the foreign name. The etymology of Hammond is very interesting and benefits our readers. I did not know that "Prevezë" meant "crossing place" in Albanian and that it's a possible etymology of the town's name, and I think it enriches the article. All I'm saying is that since it already appears once in the etymology section, and since it is not used by any other sources, there is no real need to have it in the very first line of the lead. Athenean (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful removals

I undid some removals that were extremely unhelpful, uncool attempts at withholding information from our readers under the false pretenses of "cpediting". This article is about the municipality of Preveza, not just the town proper. Any ruins, any events within the municipal boundaries, and even a little bit beyond, are well within the scope of the article. Also removed a source that contained no useful information (Facaros). Athenean (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points

I removed a sentence that repeated the same exact information as the paragraph immediately above. Also, since this is the English wikipedia, I removed the Albanian name of the Committee of Preveza. We typically don't include such information, because it is of little or no interest to the average English reader. After all, I don't go around adding "Αυτόνομος Δημοκρατία της Βορείου Ηπείρου" in every article where it is mentioned, do I? Athenean (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Assembly of Preveza the culmination of the activities of that committee, but it wasn't expanded so after I find some way to write it in a better way I'll add it back.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

NN

Just 4 minutes after the latest edits, a blind removal was performed [[5]] with the excuse that both of them do not pass notability, although the hundreds of googlehits confirm their notability.

Such reverts can be easily considered very disruptive, especially when performed only a few minutes after the initial edits.Alexikoua (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Avdikos passes almost all notability points per academic. As for I. Dimopoulou isn't well known in English bibliography, although in Greek she is quite famous, I'll remove her for now.Alexikoua (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(changed the title because of npa) Avdikos is just a professor of the University of Thessaly that doesn't grant notability and of course there aren't hundred of google hits for him(although google hits aren't a sign of notability), so Avdikos has to be removed. If he isn't removed per the academic criteria then what is required by the general guidelines will be done. Dimas also isn't notable per NN(even if a local theatre was named after him). In fact Alexikoua for the usual reasons has added other unknown people. Only Tsoumeleka and the other athelete pass the criteria so the rest will be removed.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems you still have to check his biography, (to correct he is the president of the department). He made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity/made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions/made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

A search in googlebooks easily confirms this.

On the contrary this one, hardly reaches wp:n [[6]], since he has 0 english books hits in gbooks [[7]] (just a member of this family means nothing).Alexikoua (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems a lot of the Dinos aren't notable but have been added for the usual reasons. When I have more time, I will go through them one by one and put up for deletion those that fail WP:N. Athenean (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

He passes WP:DIPLOMAT as he represented Albanian in the Treaty of London and no Avdikos is not the head of the department and even that wouldn't be a sign of notability.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 06:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please check the numerous links on net (for example this [[8]][[9]] says he is president).Alexikoua (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the same definition all 6 of them [[10]] pass wp:diplomat too, since they represented Northern Epirus at the same Treaty (like R. Dino represented Albania).Alexikoua (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUCH because the present borders of Albanian were ratified in that treaty and these guys never participated in any discussions because they never were accepted in any of them as they didn't represent any authority/state i.e not WP:DIPLOMAT. That's similar to the thousands of protesters who want to enter G8 and "discuss" with the country leaders but are never accepted i.e because someone wants to be/take part in a treaty that doesn't grant him notability. Btw that source doesn't state that Avdikos is head of any department so if you don't bring a source stating that he will be removed along with Dimas and Provatas i.e edit-warring doesn't override notability(BLP) policy--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems you mysteriously misinterpret every source and historical fact, rejecting even the most obvious evidence. I suggest you wp:rfc instead.Alexikoua (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Per BRD you should RfC because you were reverted and edit-warred to keep your version(parts of which I'll remove because of the policy)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Berenikia

As I see Berenikia was built on the spot where modern Preveza is now found [[11]] and of course not nearby. However several recent edits (unsourced) mention that the ruins of this ancient city lie nearby. In case this isn't sourced, edits like this [[12]] need to be corrected.Alexikoua (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable people

I propose that this section be either referenced for the people who don't have an article, or a stub be started on them. Otherwise we might have BLP violations. Your thoughts. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you stuck to subjects you actually knew something about, like Albanian Superliga, instead of creating POV disruption in articles about places you have never been to and know nothing about. Just because you have never heard of someone, doesn't mean they aren't notable. And your idea of what constitutes a BLP violation is downright weird. Athenean (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone wrote your name in WikiPedia as a notable inhabitant of Athens, and you happen to be nobody, wouldn't that constitute a BLP violation? I have already explained to you what a secondary source is, now it's time that you understand BLP violations. If there are no references, the names have to be removed, don't you think? --Sulmues ^(talk) 23:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

All of them pass wp:n, just a gsearch makes that very easy to understand. By the way, performing such blind removals is the worst kind of disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the ones that didn't give me any results. Don't count facebook or linkedin hits please. Anyways, my objective was to keep the article clean from BLP problems. Wouldn't it be better to put some redlinks? Someone might feel incentivated to start articles on them. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Source falsification

Yet another instance of source falsification [13] by User:ZjarriRrethues. This is the second time in two days. The source is viewable online and it quite clearly says "its ancient name", not the "the name of the nearby city of....". I am documenting each and every one of these instances for future reference. Athenean (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually a tertiary source should go. You know fully well that tertiary sources are only used for broad summaries and only if other secondary sources are used to endorse such source. We prefer secondary sources in Wikipedia. Hammond will suffice and Room should be removed. Done. [14]. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a tertiary source. You still don't understand what tertiary sources are. It is a highly specialized source. It specializes on place names, and this is what it is used for. Tertiary sources are an entirely different thing. Your edit borders on vandalism and your talkpage post is arrogant. Please revert yourself. I am >>>>>>>>>>this<<<<<<<< close from taking you to AE, you have been really disruptive and aggressive of late. Athenean (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see: WP says in Tertiary Sources the following: Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. In page 1 of Room, preface, Mr. Room says that this book is a dictionary. A dictionary is the epitomy of a compendium. Thank you for your attention. --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues: Please calm down, seems you are jumping from article to article today creating wp:ninja style disruption with ridiculous explanations.Alexikoua (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexi, please let me know if my reading of wikipolicies on tertiary sources is incorrect, your accusation of disruption is very heavy.--Sulmues ^(talk) 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The author writes reference books like this one i.e this can be interpreted as a tertiary source[15], making this a content dispute. So find the secondary which is probably referenced in the bibliography of the book and revert Sulmues if it is RS. If there is a disagreement over the secondary source or the degree of the source then ask for a 3rd opinion or RfC but you don't have to reply to him in that way.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute is completely irrelevant here. We have additional theories, and since Hammond isn't sure about his theory, any attempt to remove alternative explanations is simply wp:idontlike.Alexikoua (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So please find a secondary source for the theory that Preveza comes from Berenike without calling me disruptive and ridiculous. Or discuss why you would think that Room is NOT a tertiary source. --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What's really unexplainable is that the same editors are against mentioning Hammond's alternative theory about the Boua clan (and it's in the very same book of Hammond), however they defend Preveza's possible etymology, removing aother specialist source.Alexikoua (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexi, you are making some confusion now. I told you to fully quote Hammond, and not to do snippet abuse. Hammond is a secondary source. Can you please focus on the page on hand rather than using these diversionary manoeuvres? --Sulmues ^(talk) 23:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, we have entire passages. Just noted that it's very ironic to try to 'hide' a specific page of a book, while at the same time trying to support your arguments using another page of the same book, as a source. We have no reason to believe 'part' of a specific work, else can it considered very disruptive (wp:pov).Alexikoua (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? I'm completely lost. Can you please be more specific in this talk page? I'm not making any more sense of what you are saying. --Sulmues ^(talk) 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Very easy: there is this book [[16]] you don't like p. 39&50 of it (says that Bouas were possibly Vlachs_), but you like p. 84 (says about Preveza's possible etymology).Alexikoua (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't have the entire passage of Hammond, because you don't have the book. You can't even show me the entire sentence of Hammond. --Sulmues ^(talk) 09:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUCH: The passages have been already presented multiple times, since I have access on this.Alexikoua (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of a little bit of an OR diversion, please indulge my curiosity as a linguist for a moment.

1. Question: can anybody give independent confirmation that prevezë/a actually exists as a common noun meaning "crossing place" in Albanian?`I'm asking because I wasn't able to find any attestation at least in current Albanian writing on the web where the word was used in any function other than as a place name. Is it an archaic or dialectal word or something? However, if it does exist, the identity with the placename is so obvious that I'd tend to accept it as the etymology at first sight (even though one normally has to be wary of folk etymologies, this one would be exceedingly unlikely otherwise)
2. Can anybody assess what qualifications the author of that dictionary has? I can't find anything about academic standing or anything. And I'm a bit wary of his book, because he doesn't document his own sources, and there are some other doubtful entries (e.g., he endorses the idea that Istanbul is derived from Constantinople rather than from Eis tin Polin, when as far as I know, explicit specialized debate in research has always come out in favour of the latter, and he gives no sign of having engaged with that existing literature.) I'm also wondering because the alleged derivation from Berenikia > Preveza would be excessively irregular. There is certainly no combination of known sound changes that I can think of (certainly not in Greek) which could explain /n/ > /v/, /k/ > /z/, and /ber/ > /pr/. Only thing I can think of is if there was a combination of the two explanations: borrowing of Berenikia into Albanian, some local sound changes within Albanian, followed by folk-etymological adaptation to the prevezë noun (if it exists).

Well, that's OR, I admit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a medieval Albanian word: pre + vëzë. In modern Albanian we use (në)për instead of pre, while vëzë was a noun of the verb vë(still used today) meaning place, put.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It may also derive from Slavic (ford or passage) [[17]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)That group is not rs so please don't use it as a source, but if that's plausible etymology then I'm sure there are lots of sources to back it up.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) That group is completely RS (based on credible professors works [[18]]). By the way the name Preveza was first attested in the Chronicle of Morea (1292), almost half a century before Albanian tribes reached Epirus (for example at 1325 they reached Berat some 350kms north for the first time) [[19]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)No, it's not RS unless you want me again to bring the list of their publications. Per Hammond I changed it to the 13th century because that's what he assumes. Btw Albanian migrations began in the 11th century.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So far, the Balkan Studies ref, with its further ref to Andriotis, is clearly the highest quality source. Somebody needs to find out the exact author and title information of the article in B.S., and/or a page ref to the Andriotis dictionary. If we can substantiate this, I'd say we can safely give that etymology preferential treatment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Andriotis is acceptable but not the Balkan Studies(unless they're actually citing him) so if someone can bring the actual reference of Andriotis of course that'll be another plausible theory.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Balkan Studies is a perfectly acceptable scholarly journal. But, as I said, in order to cite it we need the actual bibliographical info. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In recent years with the new leadership they are acceptable but the pre-1999 publications were mostly used as a means for ownership(of Macedonia). There is a video somewhere on the internet where the 1992 leader of the group gave a speech at Macedonia rally in Thessaloniki, so you should watch that at least once for a better understanding of the team[20] written by the leader of the team and of course the rest of the group: The expansionist policy of Skopje: documents 1934-1992.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The ref is: Arnakis, George G. (1963). "Balkan Studies". 4: 379–400. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help). I see no problem with this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Me neither so what wording should be used?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If it was up to me and my semi-expert judgment, frankly, I'd simply go with Arnakis/Andriotis (they being the only undoubted experts in all this) and ignore the two other versions as inherently implausible. But if any of you decide to make a stink and insist on keeping to the letter of the wiki rules, we could also just give Arnakis/Andriotis first and add the others in a ("... but has also been explained as ..."). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict): [[21]]. This version seems also historically accurate since the Albanian migrations occurred later, Hammond for example states that Albanian tribes reached Berat-Valona region at 1335 [[22]] (it's 14th century not 11th).Alexikoua (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yep, that's the one. On the other hand, on second thought, I'm thinking it would be better to bypass Arnakis (some of the rest of his paper seems rather political and not on our topic) and just go straight for Andriotis. Anybody got access to that dictionary (Ετυμολογικό λεξικό της κοινής νεοελληνικής) to verify where that entry is? BTW, if a Greek author is acknowledging that a placename has a Slavic etymology, of all things, there's inherently little danger they might be misled by nationalist prejudice, whatever else one might think about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Go straight for Andriotis and then explain that "while according to Hammond etc.". Alexikoua Albanians settled areas like Thessaly since the 12th century so that source doesn't exclude that fact, but it just says that they took Berat as a city in that century(in fact they began in the 11th century[23].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's map no. 11 from Hammonds book, here: [[1]]

Hammond says they reached for the first time Berat at 1335, to be more precise: the migrations started at end 13th-early 14th century [[24]], also "there is no evidence that Albanians came southwards to Epirus in this period", ca. 1250 which is mid. 13th, [[25]] Alexikoua (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

More evidence that "Preveza" is in fact Slavic [26]. Very interesting source overall, by the way. Athenean (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice. It in turn cites as its authority Koder, J. (1982). Ēpeirōtika Chronika. 24: 16. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help). Looks good. Koder is a reputable scholar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

For instance Albanian migrations in the 14th century brought the Slavic toponym of Preveza then that means that the city wasn't attested in the chronicle of Morea. FutureP I was trying to find the actual word but I can't find it and it seems that according to this source Albanian was an intermediate language so is there any way to find the initial word(for this theory)?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, so let's check if the Chronicle of Morea claim might be wrong. That one was from a very poor quality source, and it doesn't seem particularly important anyway. By the way, the sentence you quoted from Osswald might also help to reconcile Andriotis and Hammond: it might be a word of ultimately Slavic etymology, but being used as a loanword by Albanians at the time it was brought to the area. Who can help us find an online text of the Chronicle? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, that was actually easy [27]:

[` 636] Ἐκείνη γὰρ ἡ ὑποδρομή, τὸ κοῦρσο ποῦ σᾶς λέγω,
οὐδὲν ἐδιήρκησεν πολλά, ἄνευ κ᾿ ἡμέρες δύο,
ἐπεὶ μαντᾶτα ἠφέρασιν ἐτότε τοῦ Δεσπότου,
τὸ πῶς ἐκαταλάβασιν εἰς τὸν κορφὸν τῆς Ἄρτας,
κάτεργα ἑξῆντα ἤλθασιν κ᾿ εἶναι τῶν Γενουβίσων·
ἐπέζεψαν στὴν Πρέβεσαν, κουρσεύγουν τὰ χωρία,
ὡρμήσασιν νὰ ἔρχωνται ὁλόρθα εἰς τὴν Ἄρταν.

God, I love political verse. Try reading this with the rhythm of Σαράντα πέντε μάστοροι κι εξήντα μαθητάδες..., the effect is incredible. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So it is mentioned in the Chronicle of Morea meaning that Oswald's source is wrong. Hammond says it was probably an Albanian name and that it was probably founded by Albanians, while in the next sentence he refers to the name being attested in the Chronicle of Morea. Andriotis says it was a Slavic toponym, while Oswald says it was Slavic toponym brought by Albanians in the 14th century. Nicolai Martoni refers to Albanians in Preveza in 1395 [28]

Preveza in the chronicle of morea is attested in the 1285-1290 period so if Oswald says that it was of the 14th century it could be considered a minor mistake, but we have to find the original word of the second theory.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What's controversial is that both Oswald&Hammond say that Albanians moved to Epirus at 14th cent. and also they claim that (possibly) founded Preveza. However both seem to ignore that the city was first mentioned in the C. of Morea, some 100 years before the first movements.Alexikoua (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So change it to 14th century but don't remove the whole sentence because that's disruptive. Albanians migrations began in the 11th century and 10 year difference between 1390-1400 is a minor issue. Alexikoua the Chronicle of Morea is document of the 14th century about events of the 13th century, while Preveza is attested in the period of 1385-1390 in the document. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

To perplex matters even more:

Nearby Preveza is not attested until the beginning of the fifteenth century when Albanians were settled at the entrance of the Ambracian gulfOswald&Kristen-Kraiket consider the foundation a certainty Hammond a possibility, all disagree on the era, whie most (partially) disagree at the name Albanian-Albanianized Slavic-Slavic.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Zjarri: please stop this: 'Albanian migrations began at 11th century?' Very funny, the first record of Albanians ever in history was at 1080, this is late 11th. As for the migration, take a look at Hammond's map. By the way the Chronicle describes events of 1200-1290.Alexikoua (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added the alternative version, maybe some rewording is still needed here. However, since Hammond wasn't a specialist in linguistics, it would be helpful to have access in his inlines too.Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)The source I brought says that the migrations began in the 11th century(btw obviously I meant 12- and not 13)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Then this source is for sure unreliable, since it contradict all mainstream bibliography, see Origin of Albanians.Alexikoua (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we have several alternative theories about the city's foundation, I've removed the existing theory (in fact possibility) which monopolizes the subject. As I see Zjarri has also presented an alternative one. Well, since we have a serious wp:pov issue I've removed it, but everyone that's interested to present all these theories it would be interested to have a detailed presentation on this. (@Zjarri.: I would appreciate if you become more civilized on this and accept Hammond's map, which is not a possibility).Alexikoua (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found also this "preveza founded in the late 13th century and refounded by the Turks in the late 15th century"&"We hear of ships putting in at Preveza in 1292. The Turkish refounding of Preveza probably occurred in 1477/78 or 1486/87, with a subsequent (in 1495) strengthening of the fortifications.". Seems the first foundation agrees with the Chronicle of Morea (prior to the local migrations).Alexikoua (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC on Qeparo

Athenean, please take a look at Talk:Qeparo#RFC before removing further material from the article. The Rfc clearly states:

Given the proximity of the town to Greece, it seems eminently fair to provide the Greek name. Including names in multiple languages is common practice for settlements in Europe, particularly those near national borders. (User:SFGiants) Beserks (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Beserks: you should read the section above, also in Qeparo the distance isn't the only argument (Preveza is several km far awar from the border that qeparo). Not to mention the Preveza is also spelled in Albanian. Alexikoua (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Help in Photos

Dear Friends, I need your help, to make a more beautifull arrangement of photos in the article. Best regards. Harry Gouvas Harrygouvas (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Following the so called hubbub of preveza and the ottoman siege,there was a short anglo-russian occupation period as far as i m concerned(year 1800)http://www.livepedia.gr/index.php/%CE%99%CF%8C%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%B9_%CE%9D%CE%AE%CF%83%CE%BF%CE%B9 http://themataistorias.pblogs.gr/2009/02/istoria-ths-prebezas.html .Plus the fact that the city remained under a semi-autonomous regime after a russian/ottoman agreement till 1807(putting the term occupation in brackets coz earth is generally occupied by nation-states-capitalists and their supporters/forces whether they re greek-speakin or albanian/turkish/etc speakin ;-) Plus the fact that the right wingers-monarchofascists etc attacked and massacred plenty of the left-wingers in preveza during the civil war (i do not remember the exact date) a thing which is not mentioned here in this article. cheers

perevoz

Preveza is of course a Slavic name for "departure port" and, more specifically, a south slavic name (per- > pre-). I can't understand why it is compared to East Slavic (Russian etc) perevoz and not to south slavic (Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian etc) prevoziti or Czech prevezt to which is more directly related. When the Kievan Rus took Bulgarian Preslavitsa they "renamed" it Pereyaslavets, just to give an example:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pereyaslavets

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prevoziti http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/p%C5%99ev%C3%A9zt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.61.87 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Preveza name contribution

There is one more word that could be connected with the name of Preveza: the word "prevez" (cyrillic "превез") is widely used in Macedonian language and the meaning of prevez is "veil" [English].
And "preveze" or "prevezuva" (cyrillic превезе, превезува) means "to transport" as mentioned by other contributors. It is also used to denote when someone is to be carried, transported across a river or channel using boat, ferry or raft; while the noun "prevoz" means "transport" and to complete: "prevoznik" is "carrier", "transporter".
It could be also loanword that Albanians loaned from neighbouring Slavic tribes long time ago and then brought into the area. But, to be a loanword, that involves the loanword to be used in Albanian language, but as far as I could research, it is used only to denote the name of the town of Preveza. The etymologists could work on this.
Here is an example of Google translate: http://translate.google.com/#mk/en/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B7%0A%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B5%0A%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B7%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0%0A%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0B7%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA --Gkozinakov (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721081815/http://preveza.meteoclub.gr/ to http://preveza.meteoclub.gr/

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) 03:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Banner of Pashalik of Ioannina based on Ali Pasha's medalion.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Albanian names in Chameria

@Alexikoua @Çerçok Alexikoua, I think you know the quote (in WP:NC) that I am refering to now. Also, it does not even predate 100 years since Chams lived in that region. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

"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" AlexBachmann (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:NCGN. 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. Two or three alternative names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out. If there are more names than this, or the lead section is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the namesof the place is often a good idea. In the case of Preveza, there was never a significant Cham presence, and the Albanian name is not used by 10% of English sources (in fact I've never seen it used at all). The fact that a Cham meeting occurred there 100 years ago is absolutely not enough to add the Albanian name in the first line of the article: Most of the Cham representatives were from elsewhere, not Preveza itself. In general, my position is that that foreign names should only be added to the first line of an article if there is a significant current presence of that group. Otherwise, I could just as easily add the Greek name to the first line of Vlore, Korce, and many others. Khirurg (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

wp:NCGN is quite clear that an Albanian name can't stay as an alternative one. Also various Albanian editors are familiar with Kokollakis and Baltsiotis who both are quite clear that Preveza wasn't home of an Albanian speaking community.Alexikoua (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)