Talk:Ioannina/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Anyone have a list of Byzantine to Post-Byzantines rulers of Ioannina?

Maybe this helps? (Aggelos Orfanakos | Talk | Contributions) 11:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Omicron, the last Greek letter? What other simple fact-checking blunders exist in this article?

Thanks for mentioning this. I intend to remove it along with some other changes. This article needs quite a few corrections... (Aggelos Orfanakos | Talk | Contributions) July 6, 2005 00:00 (UTC)

If the city was founded in the sixth century AD by Justinian how did it get its name in 51 AD?Padem 08:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It must be a typo. The earliest reference to Ioannina dates back to 510 AD, although that does not mean that the town was founded in that year.TheArchon 18:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

===>Only the official language names.Do not add other languages names.

The link to the source of the population statistics seems to be dead. 70.48.156.233 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternative names (again!) !

Why should we have Bulgarian, Albanian or "Aromanian"??? They are totally irrelevant for a number of reasons, mainly because Ioannina has never been a city influenced by these "cultures". I think these should go. If anyone has any serious objection with a strong basis, say it.--Michael X the White (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the "Alt. names" section above. This is standard practice on Wikipedia. Khoikhoi 04:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the standard practice putting in names that apply to languages of the wider geographical region (The Balkans)? So should for exemple London article also mention the French,German,Gaelic,Norse,Roman (Latin),Dutch,etc. names?? I agree with the Turkish name only, because there is a linguistic connection and possible etymology (ayan-->ayannena-->Yannena). All other names are totally irrelevant (especially Bulgarian) and also justify certain nationalistic claims (Albanian). And I do not see why there is the need of the vlach name since the vlachs never inhabited the city.--Michael X the White (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Aromanian name can stay, since the Aromanians were and still are one of the major components of the city's Greek population, even though the Aromanian language is not spoken there now, nor was ever the majority language (even the Aromanians themselves have been bilingual since they appear in history). Te Bulgarian name can go, since the Bulgarians never were an important part of the population, and the city never played any sort of a role in the Bulgarian history. The Albanian name can also go, since Albanian is not spoken there any more (apart from by some modern immigrants), nor it ever was the majority language (at least never according to history). In addition, it has not played a role in the Albanian history, giving the fact that it never was part of an Albanian state. Lastly, from the moment the Greek name is missing from cities of Albania, with a large Greek minority population, that have played an important role in Greek history and were part of various Greek states (e.g. Korçë, Durrës, Vlorë-which mentions "Ancient Greek" in order to avoid any possible connection with the modern Greek Northern Epirotes-, Pogradec, and so on) I see no reason in having the Albanian name in Ioannina other than simple nationalism. Btw, Michael IX the White, the name Ioannina has nothing to do with Turkish. As a Greek speaker, I bet you see the obvious: Πόλη του Ιωάννη (referring to Saint John)-the fact that the name is mentioned in Justinian's time (early 6th century AD) leaves no place for any possible Turkish connection. Turkish folk etymologies have been pushed in various Wikipedia articles (e.g. in Anatolia) for political reasons, beyond the scope of historical and linguistic fields. --Hectorian (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hector, since Albanian cities and territories such us Vlore, Kolonje, have not the Gree k name, we can delete the Albanian name of Ioannina, using the same arguments. The 1st line of Vlore article is really to making someone lauph. It has the 'ancient Greek' name, and then explains that it may derives from another more archaic (pre-Greek) form...Alexikoua (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Alt. names

If we have the Greek names at the top of the İznik, Edirne, Bursa, İzmir, Trabzon, Kırklareli, Sinop, Mersin, Bergama, Bodrum, Muğla, Kastamonu, Eskişehir, and Konya articles, I see no reason why we should make an exception for Ioannina. This is common practice on Wikipedia. Khoikhoi 06:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I put a link to the other names of Ioannina in the very beginning of the article and you come back reverting what I edit making idiotic comparisons with the names of (currently) Turkish places, (that is, the plain transliterations of their original Greek names). You're ridiculous. Sshadow 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Am I? Khoikhoi 07:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
If Ioannina had even some of the characteristics the places in Anatolia mentioned above have, i wouldn't mind to see the Turkish name in the top of this article. If it is just because a number of muslims lived in the city till 1923, do i have to remind that most of them spoke Greek? in addition, if the name in turkish is to be added just because the turks had conquered and ruled the city in the past, tell me so, so i can "spread", legitimately, the greek names as far as India, Sudan, Hungary and Portugal, and maybe also the UK, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka and Eritrea. Regards Hectorian 23:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The Turkish name can go, but what about the Aromanian & Albanian names? Khoikhoi 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
all the names are corruptions of the original Greek name and thus irrelevant. and neither populations of these nations were indigenous nor had a significant existence in the national and linguistic history of the city. 150.140.227.137 (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Albanian language

Read the history page of Municipality of Ioannina: from 1200 "Έναντι αυτού του στυγνού καθεστώτος, οι Αλβανοί Ιωαννίτες φέρονται, κατά πληροφορία, ότι ζήτησαν προστασία από τους, Αλβανούς φυλάρχους." until 1917 "Η Ιταλία είχε εισβάλλει δια θαλάσσης, με στόχο την ανεξαρτησία της Αλβανίας και την μείωση του Ελληνισμού προς όφελος των Αλβανικών πληθυσμών. Η Ιταλική κατοχή των Ιωαννίνων, λήγει στις 28 Σεπτεμβρίου του 1917" there are plenty of sources mentioning the albanian population only in the history page of the Municipality of Ioannina webpage [1]

WP:NCGN clearly states that names can be used if: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place"

There is no way the Albanian language not to be used in this page.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from the municipality's website we can't really conclude anything about the notability of their presence. In my view these names reflect the city's rich history and should stay. I don't see how their inclusion could raise suspicion of nationalist POV-pushing, unlike other not so notable places in Epirus. Both Bulgarian and Turkish are acceptable also. [But if you really want to back the Albanian name here per WP:NCGN you'd have to find sources that speak of a notable presence, that would be either with lots of them mentioning Albanians or at least one stating clearly they were a significant group, in numbers or whatever. Just FYI.] --Zakronian (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkish and Bulgarian have certainly nothing to do with nationalism, but (at least Bulgarian) are irrelevant. Ok, Turks did live in the city for quite some time but I don't think they're more relevant than that. I think Aromanian is also irrelevant, as there has never been a Vlach community in the city itself. But that's the first time I hear about an Albanian community in Ioannina and truly, the municipality site confirms nothing. The Albanian name could certainly be connected with nationalist claims over all of Epirus. And per WP:NCGN, you could say that Albanians still live in Ioannina, but they are not native to it. WP:NCGN at least implies that the population should be native. And by the way, the site refers to history of the entire region of Epirus.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not saying Bulgarian has to be included, but the city was ruled by Bulgaria's stronger tsars in the Middle Ages: not only by Samuel and Ivan Asen II, but also by Simeon the Great. That makes the name no less relevant than Albanian, as the Albanians haven't ever ruled the city to my knowledge. Todor→Bozhinov 10:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
"Έναντι αυτού του στυγνού καθεστώτος, οι Αλβανοί Ιωαννίτες φέρονται, κατά πληροφορία, ότι ζήτησαν προστασία από τους, Αλβανούς φυλάρχους."

οι Αλβανοί Ιωαννίτες (Albanian Ioannians) isn`t this a proof that there was an albanian community in there. this paragraph is from ioannina.gr, the official site of the municipality in thissubpageBalkanian`s word (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me the exact date in the page? Αλβανοί Ιωαννίτες means Albanians residing in Ioannina, not Albanians from Ioannina, as there were French in Ioannina,Russians in Ioannina and others. Ioannina was anyway the most important city of western Balkans and it was impossible not to attract people from non-Greek ethnicities as well.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Give me a break: There is no Alvanos Athineos today... Αλβανοί Ιωαννίτες, means Albanians of Ioannina. It`s on year 1367, and later on...Balkanian`s word (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC).
Given the geographic proximity and the spread of the Albanian ethnicity in that period, I'd call it very likely that there was a native Albanian community in the city, although I can't speak about its size. Todor→Bozhinov 10:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We do not include (or exclude) foreign names in lead sentences to satisfy the hypothetical historical claims of this or that group, so all of you, spare us the futile debates. We include or exclude names to the extent they are interesting to outside readers. Names listed in a lead bracket are utterly boring. Names within the context of encyclopedic information can be highly interesting. [2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with FP in this, there is no need for other than the Greek name to be included here and that is because the city is and has been Greek. A whole list of the same name in other language versions is not really needed if there is not an etymological connection or some other important way they're connected.For example check Jerusalem. There is only the Hebrew and Arabic name even though the city has been an important centre of (Babylonian, Egyptian,) Persian, Greek, Roman, "Crusader" (that includes all Northern European languages) and Turkish administrations. --Michael X the White (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets make a new standard. If we remove here the Albanian and Aromanian names, than we should remove the greek name in Vlora page. Do you agree? All this is against WP:NCGNBalkanian`s word (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Aulon was founded by Greeks. The (original) Greek name has to be there because it is important.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you offering a new standard and suggesting that we stick to the old one at the same time? How's the Greek name of Vlora in your way? You can move the Vlora names to the history section and provide a linguistic and historical treatment if you like that, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to "make a new standard". What I'd suggest is that you take a break away from the computer, relax a bit and then rethink this entire dispute: from the point of view of an outsider, it's ridiculous to revert Fut and me. The Albanian name remains in the article, it even remains in the intro, content is added with Fut's commentary on the etymology, and there is no information lost whatsoever. Where's the problem? I hope you're not obsessed with the first line of an article... Come on now, accept that your reverts are premature and quit the stupid revert war, there's better stuff to do here. There's already a consensus and your suggestion is not it. Todor→Bozhinov 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
"...but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to "make a new standard"..." No No, there is a WP:NCGN, which states what I say, we need a new WP:NCGN, in order to have a standard, wich would allow us to remove albanian and aromanian name in here.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of going round and round in circles over something that has already been discussed to death, the Greek and Italian names in Vlora are important for no other reason than that they are used in modern English literature when referring to the city in historical contexts. I don't see how any of that applies to Janninë, which is just a minor phonological variant of the alternate Greek name that we do list anyway. This goes to both sides in this debate: for Christ's sake, stop thinking of these listings as if they were symbolic marks of possession or badges of recognition of this or that ethnic group's importance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Janninë, which is just a minor phonological variant of the alternate Greek name. Who says that? But, whatever, lets change WP:NCGNBalkanian`s word (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
We needn't. "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; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves." Which is exactly what I was proposing. By the way, of course "Janninë" is a minor phonological variant of "Jannina". It is entirely predictable and regular that Albanian will have feminine nouns ending in -ë where Greek has -a. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
That`s right, but in this case even the greek name should be put in the name, or etymology section. These are the rules my friend...Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
What "rules"? It's a guideline, it needs to be handled in such a way that it makes sense, first and foremost. The Greek is the primary, official name. You are evidently still thinking in terms of national possession marking, and that makes everything you say invalid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, go onBalkanian`s word (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet I don't understand what this has to do with Aulona! Just because the Albanian name won't be included in the lead in a non-Albanian city that happens to be Greek, you remove the Greek name from a city that was founded by Greeks?? Don't forget that consensus about this page will not decide what will be used in any other. Two articles are not the same as two cities are not the same. Except if you see this as an eye for an eye, which would be totally pointless. I can give no other explanation anyway.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On Talk:Vlorë pleaseBalkanian`s word (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The entire thing is ridiculous: the city was never in Albania, it never had a sizable Albanian population, and the Albanian name is a different spelling of the common Greek name, just like Bulgarian Янина (Yanina), Aromanian Ianina, Serbian Јањина/Janjina. What's the point of this entire dispute? Emphasizing some Albanian nationalist point I don't understand? Todor→Bozhinov 20:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the same arguements Kolonjë District should state the Greek name too. The link proves that there was a considareble number of Greeks there sometime at 19-20th cent.[[3]]--Alexikoua (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Jews of Ioannina

The Jewish community of Ioannina is extremely important in the history of the Jewish Diaspora. It was one of the earliest Jewish colonies established outside the land of Judea/Israel ... dating as far back as the first or second centuries Before the Common Era (BCE).

This community is referred to as the Romaniot Jews, because in the early years of the Common Era these Jews attained full status as Roman citizens, a noteworthy achievement for any group of people outside Italy, let alone Jews living in Greece. The history of the Romaniot Jews was researched and document by Rae Dalven, PhD, of New York University. (Dr. Dalven, whose husband is a distant cousin of mine, is a descentant - as I am - of the Romaniot Jewish community). The majority of Jews in Greece were and are Sephardi Jews, i.e. refugees of the Spanish and Portugese Diaspora, which began in 1492. The Romaniot Jews, however, are a separate entity and avoided the Ladino speaking Sephardim. In fact, Ioannina had the second largest Jewish community in Greece - surpassed only by the Jewish community of Thessoloniki (Salonica)Buddmar 05:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)buddmar

Suggestion: There should be a link to the page about Romaniot Jews: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romaniotes —Preceding unsigned comment added by HamTech87 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Names

I had my proposal written on my first edit, on the section "name". Find the references for what you say. I hope what you said while reverting my edit, (substiansaly challenge this account) was not a threat!Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your content proposal does not include an explanation about the origin of the foreign names. To add a fact tag, you're either saying there is nothing obvious about it that doesn't need a reference or that there is another view on the matter which challenges that of the current version. [In case you misunderstood the edit summary, account: explanation, reasoning, not as "user account", why would it be a threat ?]--Zakronian (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, "challenge this account" in the sense of: provide an alternative explanation (sorry, didn't even occur to me there was a possible double meaning in there. :-) Are you seriously saying you are of the opinion the linguistic connections might be some other way round, or are you just using the "fact" tags for tactical disturbance? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sorry about the misunderstanding. My objection is:
::1. We don`t know the etymology of "Ioannina"(is Ioannina the original name?).
2. We don`t know the etymology of Janena and Janina (are they just a reflection to Demoteke, a reconfiguring of the name? the original name perheps?).
3. We don`t know if the Albanian and Aromanian variants "reflect" this suposed etymology (Jani is a name in Albanian, as Ian in Aromanian, so Janina and Ianina may be just "the city of John", which it means)
I do not challenge the meaning of the word, it is the city of John, in whatever possible language.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, if "city of John" is the original meaning, then Ioannina is by necessity the original form, because it was of course originally named by Greeks and in Greek, by its founders. And Jani is a name in Albanian only because that, too, was borrowed from Greek, rather obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: Actually, there just might be slightly more to this story than I thought yesterday. Babiniotis in his Greek dictionary hints that there might be some alternative etymology based on Turkish-Arabic ayan ('lord') and that the link to "John" would be some kind of folk etymology. But I have absolutely no idea how that should be historically possible, given that the city name is attested much earlier than any Turkish influence in the area. Weird. (Normally Babiniotis is reliable enough about etymologies.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Babionits is surely a WP:RS, so he should be added. I think that we are not sure if Ioannina was the name when it was founded.
For your first edit, let me argument the oposite: Rather obviously, Jani is a name in Albanian only because that, too, is a Hebrew biblic name, which was, too, borrowed by Greeks. If "city of John" is the original meaning of Ioannina, then it does not mean that Ioannina is the original name. If Ioannina is the original name, than it is by necessity the original form, because it was of course originally named by Greeks and in Greek, by its founders.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Except that Ioann- to Jan- reflects a number of characteristic sound changes that happened within the Greek language and are entirely regular there. Have fun working out if the same sound changes could also have occurred independently in Albanian and led to the same result, if it had taken the original Biblical Yôḥānnān directly without Greek interference. (Plus, of course, we all know that Christianity in Albania was always mediated through the medium of the Greek liturgical language, for many centuries.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
From Joan to Jan in albanian is normal. The fonetic changes from "oa" to "a", and from "o" to "a" and "a" to "o" are usual, the 2 first for the tosk dialect, and the third for the gegh dialect. On the "liturgic language", the inhabitants of albania adhered to christianity since the 2nd-3rd century, but the greek language became the official language of the byzantine empire, and thus of the orthodox christianity only in the 7th century. So, such a "liturgical borrowing", would be a bit strange.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, are we sure it was founded by Greeks? It is not strange to be founded by another civilisation. Eg. one of the theories of the foundation of Tirana is that it was founded by persian merchants. Something like that may have been even hereBalkanian`s word (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
That would be for you to find out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I`d see for that, but please consult again Babiniotis and add his etymology. On the other hand I will see what Cabej says for the name, and I will ad him tomorrow.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

names, again

All foreign names are included in the lead, there is no need to re-add them again in the first line. This is really not necessary. Also, there is no reason why some foreign names should be given precedence over others. Athenean (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You should revert yourself. The source clearly says it was a main town of Albanian population, so Albanian is not a foreign or "neighboring" but the name of its own inhabitants. --Sulmues Let's talk 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
What? And I can bring hundreds of sources that claim the opposite. Athenean (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Stop it already. This idiotic names obsession needs to end. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
True, I guess that both Sulmues and Athenean can get many sources etc. but that's not the subject of the article. If Sulmues wants to mention that it was also inhabited by Albanians he can write a brief sentence about it.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
But I hardly believe he can find something desent to support that. According to the city's history: Nevertheless].
@Zjarri: You had been already adviced to stop this nationalistic madness [[4]][[5]].Alexikoua (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Alexikoua if Sulmues has sources about it why shouldn't he add it? There's nothing wrong or nationalist with it.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Alexi, please. The Osswald article you cite is talking about the freaking 15th century. What does that have to do with anything? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the lead section already contains alternative names, Albanian too, I dont see why this is necessary. @Fut.: Of course this is not connected with the alternative name we are discussing. I've answered to Zjarri's proposal& gave an example about the city's past (contradicting) demographics. Alexikoua (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
How on earth is the claim that the city had no Albanian inhabitants in the 15th century "contradicting" the claim that it had some at a later stage? As for the name in the lead sentence, I quite agree, it's unnecessary. I'd only consider giving some English transcription of the popular name, "Yannina" or something of the sort, a more prominent place in the lead, rather than its Greek version. The point here is not whether it's Albanian or whatever; the point is merely that such forms have been historically common in English, and still are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree, this form is also very popular in google. About the medieval stuff, I admit that I've created choronological confusion, since 'Sulmues' snippet [[6]] propably talks about 19th century.

However, Osswald is contradicting some old comments by Balkanian about the same issue a few sections above [[7]]) [[8]].Alexikoua (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

History confusion

There may be some confusion regarding the early history of the place and its foundation as a city. According to this relatively decent history page (not technically a RS, but decently written):

  • the city wasn't immediately called Ioannina when it was founded (i.e. if it was founded) in the 6th cent.
  • there is no mention of Prokopius
  • the hypothesis that Ioannina is a continuation of a 6th century settlement called after the earlier city of Euroia (Εύροια) is no longer universally accepted
  • there is only one passing reference to a "bishop of Ioannina" in ecclesiastical records of 879.
  • the first unambiguous attestation of the city under the name of Ioannina is from 1020.

We need to check this. Anybody got better sources? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember that Sakelariou mentions this comfusion according to the city's foundation. I've to check her the next hours.Alexikoua (talk)

FUTURE PERFECTs summary is accurate according to a quick look at epirus by ekdotike athenon which is a good source. (sakellariou BTW is the EDITOR not the author and he is MALE)..to answer some other points above the name of the city cant be albanian for obvious historical reasons but theres a theory that it might be a slavic toponym...also its inhabitants in the 19th century were mostly greekspeaking christians, even many of its muslims were greekspeaking and also its jews (romaniotes)..albanians were a minority guys87.202.15.183 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Athenean deleting sources

Athenean the source says Albanian center of power, so it's not up to you to decide how to rephrase that because that's synthing and Skendi is RS.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually when we have detailed secondaries they are preferred instead of tertiarie sources per wp:rs. I've added 2, but there is a mountain of books that confirms the current version (Fleming is a nice one).Alexikoua (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua there is no contradiction between any of the sources so please don't try to remove them again like you did with Skendi when you added Sakellariou(for which a RSN will be added) and that's not a tertiary source despite the title.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
As I see you completely removed 2 sources: adding a -cn- tag instead and then adding a tertiary in the previous sentence. And of course this 'according to a Greek author' is the definition of disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, Sakellarious is a Greek author. Btw I don't know about Kushtrim but I can't really access the page(hopefully this isn't another dead link). It finally opened and it's a nice looking pdf but

Full info is here: [[9]]. Also you are aware of her here [[10]]: it's the second time you unsucessfull try to question a Academy of Athens awarded publishing house.Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what's so informative about the sentence. They held an assembly? So what? They held lots of assemblies all over the place. It's pretty clear what's going on here. Google books is searched by keywords e.g. "Ioannina+Albanians", and whenever the two appear in the same sentence, they are added to the article without any regard to encyclopedicity, but only to prove that Ioannina, like all of Greece, was predominantly Albanian. POV-pushing by gamin WP:RS. Well, it's not going to work. Skendi is not an RS and will be removed. As for the lede, what can I say. How exactly was Ioannina a "center of Albanian power". Ali himself relied on Greeks as much as Albanians, Greek was the language of his court, and he never showed the slightest interest in the Albanian national cause (which back then was dormant anyway). I also really fail to see why Shkoder and Kara Mahmud Bushati should be mentioned in the lede of this article. Athenean (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Reliable or not this specific part: During the spring of 1877 the Albanian leaders organized a congress in the city regarding the decisions of the Constantinople Conference, gives no info. at all: obviously this congress didn't take at least one decision it is worthy to be mentioned in the specific work.Alexikoua (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't contain any info. Athenean (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


(unindent)I'll expand both Alexikoua(in fact I'll also upload a picture), but please stick to the sources and don't make obvious or deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually i would suggest you become more careful, -especially in lead- by naming 'Albanian centers of power' cities that there is little evidence of any Albanian presence.

(unindent)I would suggest you become more careful because that's Winnifrith speaking about the late 20th century, while the first source is about the late 18th century. I'll also upload the pictures of the Albanian school of the city in 1911.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you should rely on secondaries which clearly reject your hypothesis.Alexikoua (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Which would those be, since the late 18th century doesn't contradict the late 20th century. Btw I found more about the spring 1877 congress [11]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You insist that this entity (Pashalik of Ioanina) was an Albanian center of power. Googlebooks has a diferrent opinion. Obviously an entity that its official language was Greek can't be termed Albanian center of power (typical wp:pov).Alexikoua (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)I insist on using what the previous source says and nothing else(especially or deductions like the Greek language being official). This will be interesting to add too [12]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets start again, an entity that uses only X language in all the courtly dealings this is the entity's official language [[13]][[14]] (very reasonble since the vast majority of the population was Greek [[15]]). I would also appreciate if you read the relevant articles which are properly sourced.Alexikoua (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If the source says Albanian center and this is supported by other sources as well anything else is irrelevant. Btw Flemming doesn't say anything about Greek being official and she also mentions Albanian and Turkish being used as well so please don't make or deductions. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Since there is not a single secondary, but on the contrary this is completely rejected just with a simple gbooks search, I would suggest you avoid or deductions (hope its clear that a language used in a pashalik's court is also the official one).Alexikoua (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Instead of gaming WP:RS, ZjarriRrethues would do well to familiarize himself with WP:UNDUE. Only a single, pro-Muslim source ever referred to Ioannina as a "center of Albanian power", so sticking that in the lead is a violation of WP:UNDUE and constitutes POV-pushing (to "prove" to the world how Albanian Ioannina was). Case closed. Athenean (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


Ottoman period section

Large part of that section isn't even slightly related to the city, so it should be removed. A lot of people who weren't even from the wider region of Epirus are presented as people from the city and more than one-fourth of the section is about schools in Venice and their activities.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 01:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Just checked this section: everything is fine & everyone is related to the city. No need to remove the slightest information so far.Alexikoua (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The section is titled ' and the first unrelated part is:

All four Greek printers in Venice were Ioannites: Nikolaos Glykys (1670), Andreas Ioulianos (17th C), Nikolaos Saros (1687) and Demetrios Theodosiou (1715) [12]. Without questioning whether they were from the city of not, that's unrelated to the city itself.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is fine and relevant with a section named: "Ioannina as center of the Greek enlightenment": locals that were active in Venice and published thousands of Greek books.Alexikoua (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
That's doesn't make that city a center, but Venice. Btw The Epiphaniou was established in 1647 by a Greek merchant in Venice, Epiphaneios, who had been a student in the ‘’School of Despoton’‘ in Ioannina before its closure. The Epiphaniou taught not only Grammar and Philosophy but also the Physical Sciences. It continued operating until 1742. is also irrelevant to the city.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Epifaniou school was in Ioannina, not Venice, this means its relevant with this article. Epifanios, the founder, was a member of the diaspora, from Ioannina and merchant in Venice.Alexikoua (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Ioannina Collage.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ioannina Collage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 16 September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Landmarks

There are some problems with this section.

  1. It is presented as a list
  2. Its referencing is mostly based on a newspaper article
  3. Reads too much like a tourist pamphlet
  4. The use of english is bad
  5. There is overlapping with other parts of the article (see for instance the information on the synagogue)

I removed the paralels drawn between Vrelli's museum and Tussaud's in London since they dont make much sense. The only similarity btw the two places is that they are both wax museums and they are not the only ones for that matter. I also removed the reference to the festival in Arachthos: It takes place several miles away from the city itself.

In term of the rest of the information provided in the section perhaps we could cluster similar places in small groupings: places of worship can go together (churches, mosques and the synagogue). Museums can form another group, then historical buildings etc. Another option is to merge the elements of the list according to different districts: "city centre", "castle", "island" etc would be the categories in this case. Any ideas? Kkostagiannis (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Places of worship

Mosques are rare in Greece and there are two in Ioannina, both appearing on photographs in this article. Admittedly one is in a highly photogenic location, standing tellingly on the ruins of a demolished Orthodox church. Churches are by comparison commonplace, so it is not surprising there are not photographs of all the churches of Ioannina. Nonetheless, there are some which are very old, significantly older than the two mosques, especially the monasteries on the Pamvotis island, while the cathedral of St Athanasius is at least as beautiful and as old as the two mosques. There are also some beautiful churches from more recent periods, such as that of the Holy Trinity. I have the impression there was once a photograph of the cathedral. In any case, it would be nice to have one in the article.Skamnelis (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Albanian community in Ioannina and Athenean's deletion

Athenean please explain why you deleted a edit regarding the Albanian community in Ioannina. I have added a very credible source, that of Arthur Foss who served with Napolean Zervas' forces. He is an impartial observer and yes he came across Albanians during his travels in Ionannina. That a Albanian community existed during until the 1970s, whatever their numbers is important considering that Muslims once made up a substantial portion of the city's population and that people wanting to know about that community in Ioannina should be mentioned. Today in Ionanina the Jewish community is very small, but nonetheless they are mentioned in the article. Why not the Albanians ? In your the edit you state that that i have "Misuse of sources: twenty families is not a "sizable" community by any stretch". If that is the issue, then my edit should NOT have been deleted by any stretch, yet instead that "sizable" should have been substituted for "small". Otherwise something else is at work here. So Athenean please explain ?

Resnjari (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I have made the change which you said was a "misuse" of sources. Sizable now reads for small. Any other semantic issues. Arthur Foss thought that writing about these "small" numbers of Albanians was important enough for a mention in his book on Eprius and his chapter on Ioannina. Does such information not suffice for Wikipedia too, if the source is credible ?

Resnjari (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The life of "eight people" in the demographics section is completely wp:undo at its worst level. That city hosted a tiny Moslim community some of which were also of Albanian origin" is more than enough for this section.Alexikoua (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The life of eight people Alexikoua is the remnant of a community which predated the creation of the Greek state. They were not "hosted". I am concerned about the language in which you use regarding Albanians, considering that these people that i wrote about are Greek citizens. They were the last of a large local Muslim (its spelt Muslim not "Moslem" by the way) community made of Greek and Turkish speaking Turks and Albanians that were there for centuries. With the population exchange, Albanians of Muslim origin became exempt from the exchange of populations. Some families as was outlined in what i wrote (using a very credible source, i might add) remained. I see that mention is made regarding the Jewish community who dwindled to a very low number ! Why not the Albanians being mentioned. Your rationale for the editing is problematic to say the least Alexikoua.

Resnjari (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I can only assume you are out of serious arguments in this case and thus you turned to wp:npa violations and exaggerations, which I kindly suggest to avoid. As I've said, the existence of a tiny community is ok to be mentioned, but anything else is wp:undoAlexikoua (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You accused me of very serious POV and deleted all my edits which now you say only had a few issues about 'wording'. That is a very serious allegation to make, without discussing it first on any talk page and you did NOT (for those interested see the article Cham Albanians and the history section of the page). You stated yourself in the Cham Albanians article that most of the edits were 'ok'. I resorted to those measures in haste (after you deleted everything and called it POV !) as i was not aware of the procedures. As for you "are out of serious arguments", i think i made my point since you state in the same sentence "the existence of a tiny community is ok to be mentioned". Its in marked contrast to what you wrote regarding the deletion on the history page. And i quote you "rv "20 families" are not a sizable community, completely wp:undue", even though i had changed the wording after Athenean pointed it out, and before you deleted even that edit also. I did change it to "small numbers". Yet that somehow that did not suffice. Then you should only have deleted part of what was written, not the whole thing, and discussed the rest on the talk pages. As an editor you don't delete if you think something should be there, but needs more work. Your editing skills are questionable after these actions. Even words in your reply have issues about maybe what sentiments you have towards Albanians. For example Albanian Muslims were not "hosted", even though they were Greece's citizens. Citizens are not "hosted". Tourists, refuges, migrants and so on are "hosted". The living conditions of the Albanian community are important to be mentioned. Maybe not in the lead, but what Arthur Foss wrote should be in the footnote, as with other articles when something contentious is mentioned. Alexikoua, talk, discussion first, then delete if it is proven that the source is dodgy. As an editor with all those barnstars, you should be the first to go by that principle. Or is it selective ?

Resnjari (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears you continue with wp:npa violations pretending that you are accused, even using as an argument a disagreement in another article. Per wp:BRD my reverts are fully justified, not to mention that you falsified the sources in another case (the claim of a supposed Albanian domination of Thesprotia in early 11th century).Alexikoua (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
"falsified" is a matter of your interpretation and you did not discuss it first. People can go back to the history page and they themselves can see that you wrote regarding reverting the edits. You accused me of POV, of edits that just corrected dead links (the Euromosaic example). What was i to make of that. No bias ? Or poor editorship in the Chams Albanians article. Discussion first. Failure of that, then POV accusations as you did. In the end the source for Albanians regarding Ioannina stands and the reasons for its complete removal did not suffice in the first place by either Athenean or yourself. Anyway, i will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Resnjari (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(ignore continuous trolling) It's far too obvious that you should be carefull with pov issues: in fact when someone pretents that an ethnic group was dominant in a region, while not the slightest historical record existed yet about it, emmmm that's unfortunately far too obvious to be left unnoticed.Alexikoua (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Alexikoua, i am discussing the matter with you, that is not trolling. Deleting first without going to the discussion page, especially when the source and footnote are given i must say goes against what wikipedia is about. I interpreted that as POV and partially overacted. It wont happen again [believe me it wont ;) ] as i become more familiar with the guidelines. You should thank Antidiscriminator about that, otherwise i might have been banned, and we would not be able to have these exchanges especially regarding the Cham Albanians topic. Tell him thanks :) Regarding the word Dominating, it has multiple meanings. It can mean outright control or be prominent. I should have been more succinct. When i used the word, it was with the second meaning in mind, being prominent. Baltsiotis did write that the Albanian speaking area was compact in most of Thesprotia and part of the Preveza area. And other authors as i have cited in the edits point to that direction in the Chams Albanian article. Which means that sizable amount of people living in those areas were Albanian speakers (identity is another matter). As for the "slightest historical record existed yet about it", Albanians(or Albanian speakers) have been mentioned in the historical record as existing in the region (opposite Corfu) from at least the early 1200s. It is Greek authors who are pointing it out and who i cited. Your deletion was too obvious to be unnoticed with the accusation of POV, while later you say that the edits were ok just having some wording issues. It is there for all to see and what your rationale for deletion was first without even discussing it on the talk page. As a long time editor on English wikipedia you should have sent me a message on my talk page or the article talk page, especially as the edits i placed were in depth. It means you either did not read it (fully) or did not take into consideration what i wrote (because i am another person of Albanian heritage, maybe ???). If someone takes the time and effort to put such massive input like that, you don't ignore it as if it was some kind of vandalisation (like i said you even lumped into the POV accusation the Euromosiac link that i updated. I am still trying to work out how that was POV), which made me wonder if you even bothered to read the edits (or beyond the first one or two). Anyway, like i said i will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Resnjari (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears you still reject the wp:BRD procedure. To say it with simple words, problematic edits can be removed instantly (like in this case) that's why R(revert) is the 2nd letter and D(discuss) the 3rd. If you believe that this is nonsense you are welcomed to propose your own procedure in the correspodent page (you can name it BDR).Alexikoua (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I do think there are issues with some of the procedures. There should be a better notification system regarding deletes for one. Anyway, highly doubtful that that input is taken from a user. When asking for advice from the administrators there was no reply, this was after the canvassing issue. So, i don;t have much faith in the system. Nonetheless, its important to engage with this wikipedia platform as many people come to it, and a lot of source that i or you have access to, they may not, so would not be able to make the case or necessary changes on a article. For example, goodness knows how long the Cham Albanians article would have had those issues of plagiarism, missing gaps in the knowledge and actual POV issues that have been allowed to linger for a few years now.

Resnjari (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Remind

Just a remind. Some important naming conventions which the article's lead violates (WP:LEAD#General guidelines and WP:LEAD#Separate section usage): Once a Names or Etymology section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead. (Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".' If the case is exceptional, common sense may be applied to ignore all rules. Please discuss to decide whether this is an exceptional case or not.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Map

Could the article have a map please showing the location of Ioannina within Greece? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.243.15 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ioannina. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ioannina. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Landmarks (four years later)

I made some changes to the landmarks section based on the points I raised (much) earlier:

  1. New material: I mostly added new material about monuments (19th and 20th century) and new references from the municipality tourism organisation webpage. I thought those would be better than the newspaper article that was used as the only source in previous versions.
  2. Removal of old material: I removed some sentences about the castle and the church of St. Athanasios that needed better sourcing (they had no sources).
  3. Sections: Reorganised the discussion into three sections Castle, Island, City. Initially I expanded the discussion of Ottoman mosques to include ottoman-period monuments but this would overlap with the other two categories anyway. Then I decided to go for a geographical division rather than the previous one that was Island, Castle, Mosques, Churches, Synagogue as it seemed to me it was unfairly biased against non-religious buildings.
  4. Repetitions: those remain an issue. Kkostagiannis (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Far too much detail about 90 years of medieval history

As for the 1340-1430 period the article offers extended information on the political developments of the Despotate of Epirus. In fact some piece of information is given in such a detail that a typical reader will find it simply boring about Ioannina: thus we have full titles of various lords, how each clan & warlord moved around Epirus how many times happened to besiege the city unsuccessfully, even the various intermarriages between the clans. This kind of detailed information belongs to Despotate of Ioannina and the other small states that were involved in the specific events. A trimming is necessary in the case of this article (and the other articles about towns & cities that continue to survive as local administrative centers in Ottoman era and then as part of Greece). On the other hand vital information about the city and its population about that period (i.e. the existence of guilds as stated by the Chronicle of Ioannina) is absent.Alexikoua (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a rather late response to this post but as I worked a bit on rephrasing this section now, maybe I can leave a summary here for other users in case it is needed or in case someone found my changes counterproductive:
  1. Removed parenthetical reign dates which could easily be double-checked elsewhere
  2. Removed some events that looked to me of small importance to the city (for example: who mentioned it, what happened in Arta or neighbouring areas, details about various leaders etc).
  3. Merged a few sentences here and there, for example where the discussion was covering several sieges in a sequence.
  4. Probably more radical changes can be made but I am a bit hesitant to remove cited content without discussion.

Kkostagiannis (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

history section

I have been trimming the history section trying to bring it in line with the guidelines of WikiPproject Cities. As such I am trying to remove material that says little about the city and where it came from or is too detailed. A quick summary:

  1. Middle Ages: Removed as much as possible from the extra background that was there about different people without omitting the transitions of power in the city. As Alexikoua mentioned above, there is stuff missing here like the Chronicle of Ioannina and of course any discussion of society, demography, economy etc during the period.
  2. Last Ottoman century: This was a bit problematic:
  • Almost half of the text was about Albanian and Greek committees that were formed in the city in the span of 2 years. This was hardly the most important thing happening in the city at the time. After all, as per the sources cited, the Albanian committee was not very active and the Greek one only issued a memorandum (which did not result in the transfer of the city to Greece, this happened only as a result of the Balkan Wars much later). I thus summarized those whilst keeping all sources cited in place. Probably they can be summarized even further but I would like to also see what other users think.
  • The text explains that the first branch of the Ottoman Bank in Greece was opened in Ioannina. This statement makes little sense as Greece's borders at the time were way further to the South. Did the editor who added it mean "of today's Greece" meaning the territories that now form Greece or do they mean that the first Ottoman Bank branch that was opened in Greece (as in: within the Greek state) was in Ioannina (presumably at some point after 1913)? This was unclear to me so I tagged it for clarification.Kkostagiannis (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

History section

I have read the history section several times and I am reaching the conclusion that the periodisation used is rather problematic and the sections a little bit unbalanced in terms of their content. To begin with, the sections from antiquity up to -and including- Early Ottoman Period are short and lack adequate referencing but generally to the point.

The following period, however, (and here I partially agree with an author that commented on the same topic before) has some issues:

1. The information provided is much more detailed, and -contrasted to the rest of the history sections- one might even add excessive. Maybe it makes more sense to move some of the passages to the Greek Enlightenment article and provide a link. That would balance the content of the article a bit.

2. While the information in this section is indeed relevant to the city, I find that defining a whole period of one and a half century of its history *exclusively* in terms of Greek Enlightenment is unwarranted and gives undue weight to the importance of the intellectual developments in the town for modern Greece and Greek nationhood. I am not doubting here that what happened in Ioannina in this period did influence modern Greece significantly. It did and should be mentioned. At the same time, however, the Greek Enlightenment was not the only thing happening at the time in the city and I think that the title and the periodisation should change to reflect that. Ioannina was after all a major administrative center of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans throughout those years and this story is almost totally lost in the discussion about the Greek Enlightenment. I guess what I am trying to say is the following: Why is Ioannina as a Centre of Greek Enlightenment more important in defining a period of the city's history than , say, the reign of Ali Pasha?

3. On a related note: the division to periods in history makes perfect sense but only until 1430. The previous editors identified key events that warranted the transition from one period to another. Antiquity and Byzantine years are far back in time and without much historical material but they are generally well established historical periodisations. The despotate deserves a section of its own and the next period correctly starts with the milestone of Ottoman conquest. The next three periods however seem arbitrary. There is nothing in the text that signifies what makes 1647 such an important year. Why 1647 and not 1645 or the year of Dionysios' uprising (which had a major impact in the city and its population)? And why does the next period end in 1830 and not for example with the fall of Ali Pasha which again signaled major changes for the city (don't forget the population was decimated during the siege and took sometime to recover). To connect this point to the previous one, I fear that by overemphasizing the Greek Enlightenment and granting it a whole period of its own, the article actually sacrifices the history of the city to tell the history of the Greek Enlightenment to which the history of the city is a mere episode.

4. To sum up, I believe the periodisation should change to better reflect milestones in the history of the city. If need be, there can be a separate section on the role of the city for the Greek Enlightenment as we have one for the Jewish community but having Greek Enlightenment dominating a whole period seems to me rather problematic. Kkostagiannis (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking forward for some detailed proposals, especially in the field of the Greek enlightenment. Nevertheless I'm reluctant about trimming essential information about the englightenment, which appears closely connected to the city as a major center of this movement.
About the period of the Despotate, Ioannina played a major role only for half a century in 14th century, after the temporary loss of Arta. But I wouldn't label this period "Despotate", it was in fact a short-term Latin/Serbian dominated city-state. I doubt if this can warrant a seperate section.Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with the change of 1647. Dionysos uprising was signifant for the history of the city.Alexikoua (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the despotate, I have a copy of Nicol which will be shipped to me soon from my previous address. I can have a look to fix some of the refs. Now regarding the section itself, I agree Ioannina was only the 2nd city of the despotate but there are some things worth mentioning: 1) that it gained in prominence because of the despotate 2) I think Thomas made extensive repairs to the castle 3) The 'Chronicle of Ioannina' seems to be an important source and probably deserves a line or two 4) and of course the changes in status and control already present in the text since they give an idea of the history of the place in those 200 years. I would be inclined to keep it as a section since the despotate offers for a neat periodisation (has a clear date of establishment and dissolution, at least when it comes to the surrender of Ioannina) and was a distinct political entity albeit forming part of the byzantine commonwealth (there is an element of continuity in that despite rule changing hands all the time, especially after the assassination of the last Komnenos all rulers tried to legitimize themselves by assuming the title of the despot). On the other hand, if we are to lose it we can probably merge it with the previous two sections (it fits well with the byzantine years and the antiquity section is way too short to stand alone) under something around the lines of: "Antiquity and Middle Ages". Of course, if we decide to keep it we can still merge the two first sections anyway.
Re: Greek Enlightenment. My main concern was not with the information per se but with its domination of the periodisation which blurred everything else that was happening in the same period. I am still uncertain about whether a new section is warranted or if we can somehow reorder the existing material. I 'll give it some thought and will return to it tomorrow. Kkostagiannis (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I gave it some further thought regarding the periodization and here are some ideas. I believe we have two clear milestones that could serve to separate the periods of the city's history, namely 1430 and 1913. For the period before 1430 and, depending on the available material to be covered, we can have three (as its stands now: antiquity-byzantium-despotate), two (Early period and despotate) or one (Origins and Middle Ages) period. The Ottoman Period: This is by far the trickiest because it is the longest (1430-1913). Of course we could only have one period about Ottoman Ioannina but it would end up that long that it would need a separate article (as is the case in the GA of Belgrade where most of history is delegated to separate articles). What seems to me a logical way of dividing it based on important shifts in the towns history would be in three periods: 1. Early Ottoman (1430-1611/18?) -> that would include surrender of the town up to the moment when the Christian population lost their privileges and the Ottomans took over the castle. 2. The heyday period (1618-1822) -> that would include the increase in prosperity of the town as discussed by Celepi and others, Greek Enlightenment and the rule of Ali Pasha who actually favored the aforementioned process. (The Greek Enlightenment part needs to be better integrated to a historical narrative though as I mentioned in the previous comments). Personally I believe that the period that Ioannina was the seat of a semi-autonomous pashalik (1788-1822) should form a separate section but that would leave the previous 150 years with way too few information in a very small section. 3. Late Ottoman Years (1822-1913) -> up to the Balkan wars. Major event here would be the fire and reconstruction by Rasim Pasha and the efforts of modernization by the Ottomans (bibliography might be difficult to find here though). final period would be After the Balkan Wars -> siege and surrender to Greek army, exchange of populations and its impact on the city, WWI (if enough material), certainly WWII (bomber raids, occupation, holocaust, probably some mention of the Edelweiss division and its atrocities around Ioannina) and then the rest of the 20th c. with urbanization, university (if deemed important for history of the city) etc. Do they make any sense? Kkostagiannis (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I think this is basically a good schema. For the earlier period I think the simplest (Origins and Middle Ages) is best. The other divisions make sense, though personally I don't like "heyday,"; it suggests a bunch of Ottomans dancing around waving a finger in the air. Littlewindow (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
All proposals look nice. I would be happy if I can contribute to this large scale improvement. Also note that the post WWII period is poorly represented, thus a number of additions may be needed there to deal with wp:UNDUE issues. Alexikoua (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Littlewindow, I can't think where you got the idea about Ottomans dancing around... i meant more or less that the town flourished during said period and 'heyday' was the first word that came to mind to describe it. Anyhow, those were merely suggestions for titling the periodisation. Any alternative titles are most welcome. I will return to the middle ages and fix the rest of the unsourced material in one of the following days and when done I can merge those sections. Both you and Alexikoua seem to agree on that. Of course if you come across any good historical sources feel free to add.Kkostagiannis (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

. Huh, I had not seen this discussion earlier. Anyhow, although a bit late, and as I am the guy who added most of the material to the section, I am broadly in agreement with Kkostagiannis's suggestions, as well as with the copyedits he made in December. Well done. Just a request, next time, please ping me or any other concerned user directly, otherwise it is unlikely the discussion will be noticed. Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 18:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

New infobox

Just a few comments to the new infobox:

  • Red dot on map is pointing wrong. Ioannina is further NE.
  • In old infobox there was also a hide/show map showing "Location within the region", same as used in all municipality articles.
  • The entry "Municipalities: 6" is nonsense. The current single municipality is the result of 6 former municipalities fusing into one. Those six are now municipal units, but that is hardly worth mentioning in the infobox.
  • The entries for "Metro" area and population are wrong. A metropolitan area cannot be smaller than the urban area. Can we even speak about a metro area of Ioannina? Athens, Thessaloniki, Piraeus and perhaps Patras, yes, but from there? Anyway, 80,371 is the 2011 population of the municipality unit, 65,574 is the 2011 population of the urban agglomeration.
  • Lowest elevation has to be wrong, as Ioannina has no sea level area. Highest elevation of the municipality has to more than 480 (the lake is 479). --T*U (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciated feedback. And sorry for that. Still I do not understand exactly what Urban and what Metro do mean. These terms are confusing. I have undone the new infobox, for until at least I get some free time to look upon the issues and fix them. Again sorry. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 12:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Ioannina collage photos

The previous infobox photo has been removed from Wikimedia Commons, and since then, the infobox lacked a good city photo. For now, we have been using either a photo that is showing the castle by the lake, from a distance, or, a cropped off panoramic photo of the city, but both weren't really that great photos (the castle photo by no means is giving a glimpse of the city's notability to the readers, and the panoramic photo contains no notable details - hardly any of the city's landmarks can be seen). Due to this, I think it is a very good time for Ioannina to get a collage showing more than just a castle or a panorama, a collage which could reflect better on the city's rich historic past and cultural heritage on the infobox.

I made one myself, but, frankly, the variety of photos to pick from Wikimedia Commons for Ioannina isn't as sheer and satisfactory as I hoped. In my collage, I have tried my best to have only those photos that could represent and highlight some of the city's most famous locations and monuments, chosen, while at same time have various aspects of city's life and heritage not excluded from it (from historical buildings, to cultural buildings, from religious or touristic areas, and so on).

However, while I found some photos of museums, parks, castles, towers, and other significant city landmarks, I couldn't find any decent photos that could be used as a representative of the city's modern economy, education (Ioannina is the educational center of Epirus) or industry. In fact, photos of shopping malls, offices and industries are non-existent on Commons. But this doesn't mean they do not exist. Ioannina features plenty of such buildings, and I can confirm that as I have been there myself. Furthermore, the university of Ioannina has some photos on the Commons, but these are of pretty poor quality. For this reason I have decided to leave them out of the collage (at least, for the time being, or until someone or I go the myself and take some photos just for this purpose).

Here are all the photos picked from Commons for the collage:

  • The Castle of Ioannina and the lake: [16]
  • The ferry pier and park: [17]
  • A characteristic street in the Old Town: [18]
  • The Municipal Museum and the minaret: [19]
  • Τhe City's famous Clock Tower: [20]
  • The University of Ioannina's monastery: [21]

These places are among the most notable and visited locations in the city, if not the most. Which, is to say that the collage is more representative of the city. The collage is here, with the necessary tone adjustments, crops, and resizings to have all the photos fit:

  • The city collage: [22]

I was going to place it on the infobox but User:TU-nor suggested that the collage shall be put for discussion on the talk page first before using it, which is a good idea. I could like to hear opinions on it and whether there are any problems with the photos. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 15:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Given that I generally am rather sceptical about the use of collages in infoboxes, I will not invest too much work and prestige in discussing this, but since it was me that asked for talk page consensus before addition, I will present my view.
Regarding the choice of motives, I do not have any strong feelings. I could add one alternative motive: The Silversmithing Museum in Its Kale, the newest and possibly best of the industrial history museums of the Piraeus Bank Group Cultural Foundation (piop.gr), is a very nice building against the castle wall. I do not know how difficult it is to find a picture with a free license. If that is a problem, I might possibly have one of my own I could upload (but I am not certain).
Regarding the choice of individual pictures, most of them seem OK, but not much more. The technical quality (resolution) of the monastery picture is not very good; it might pass, since the size is small, but it wouldn't hurt finding a better one. The Old town picture is a bit dull, with no specific point of interest; it could be from any "old town" in Greece. The ferry dock picture has very much grey road and a rather prominent dustbin, but it can probably be cropped to a nice version.
One thing is finding good pictures for a collage, another thing is to compose the collage itself. This is usually the most difficult part (and the main reason I find collages problematic). It is important that the overall effect has a good balance in distribution, size and colour. In the proposed collage, there are imho too many ways that balance breaks down. When bottom right is much broader than bottom left, this does not go well with top right and middle right also being a little broader than top left and middle left. When top left is higher than top right, it adds to the lopsidedness. My suggestion would be: First to make sure that top left and top right have the same height (and hence middle left and middle right same height, but not necessarily the same as the top ones), so that the pictures make three horizontal bands. Second to secure that the three vertical dividing lines are not all on one side of the centre. If the bottom band has the narrow picture on the left, like now, the two top bands should either be split both in the centre or both slightly to the right, or alternatively the top one in the centre and the middle one to the right. But this would also depend on the "weight" and the overall colour of the pictures.
And that is the last part, matching the pictures to each other. As the proposal stands now, the top left and the top right are screaming against each other, the left one with the top half of the picture sky, the right one with no sky at all, but lots of green at the top. Also the middle and bottom right are much into dark and blue, while the left ones are more towards shades of grey, which creates an imbalance.
I see now that while I was preparing this comment, the collage has been placed in the infobox. That is disappointing, since the idea was discussion on the talk page first before using it, which is a good idea. I could like to hear opinions on it. Any changes in the collage now will be visible changes to the article, which was exactly what I hoped to avoid when I asked for talk page consensus before placing any collage. --T*U (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hoped to hear some feedback, but none was coming for days and I thought why not just add it, and if any problems arise, we will fix them anyways even if that means a few extra revisions at article's history, which is not a problem. After all, it is an work in progress and the article is bound to be expanded, not just on infobox but on the main body as well, so history revisions are only bound to increase, duh. As for your feedback on collage, you have raised some good points. I wish I had noticed them myself. When I get some time, I will try your suggestions and post them here. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 12:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not a high profile article, and there are probably not too many people having it on their watchlist, so three days waiting for feedback is not much. One reason I suggested a RfC was to get more input. Also, I was not worried about the number of revisions in the article's history. My concern was that the visual presentation of the article should preferably be stable over time, not exposed to changes back and forth while the matter is discussed. However, that is now a moot point, since you have put back the old infobox. --T*U (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
High profile article or not, this Talk Page usually has responses to new discussions coming within a reasonable time. A RfC to get input from editors who otherwise are not genuinely interested in Ioannina and were not to get involved to the discussion about collages, is not what I am seeking here. I don't want the kind of disappointing RfC we had at Thessalonica, where I had expected editors knowing Thessalonica well, to come, and to give usfeful input for the Collage, but never happened, with the mere exception of one or two editors, and especially I am referring to you. I don't want that disappointment to repeat here. So I do not think a RfC is going to be much better for a small city like Ioannina when it wasn't as productive and without enough input for a large city such as Thessalonica. I always found RfCs useful, but this time at Thessalonica they were not, and is the reason I won't be calling one. You, however, alone, at Thessalonica you have provided me much more help than the entire RfC had, in my view. Which is the reason I prefer you over calling for a RfC again, but I understand that you are not exactly a big fan of collages and such. So from now and on, if you excuse me, for every collage I will be making for each one of the 20+ regional capital cities of Greece, the collages will simply be posted to Talk pages, without initiating 20+ RfCs just for them. People are free to comment and give freedback. If no editors ever show up in the discussion, then I guess there should be no problem with the collages, but if there are editors involved in the discussion and nothing good of an agreement comes out of it, then obviously the Collage will simply not be posted at all, or be postponed for another time and with the necessary corrections that could soothe the other editor's concerns. Still, the idea of calling a RfC for them all is rather tiresome, and importantly, not as practical as we have had hoped them to be, and prefer just regular talk page discussions by editors who are genuinely interested in these particular cities. Have a good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 14:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I applaud your hard work on the collage, SilentResident, but I too am against collages for the reasons TU-nor mentioned. I find that a single picture, usually a panoramic, is a better choice for city infoboxes. In this case here we have an excellent panoramic that gives a very good overview of the city for the reader. Khirurg (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, dear, it took me around 3 hours to complete the collage. But it is all right, if you think the new panoramic photo is decent enough replacement for the deleted panoramic photo that was in place before it, then so be it. We keep that panoramic photo in the infobox, and I drop the city collage away.
However I do really like some of the collage's photos so I hope you don't mind putting them individually into the article's various sections (or to bottom end's gallery). They are great addition, which show how Ioannina, despite being a capital of one of the poorest (per GPD) regions of EU and Greece, it is still a city with noteworthy architecture, charm and beauty. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 23:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course. Khirurg (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ioannina/Archive_1&oldid=1145254321"