Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:39, 22 January 2025

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

Greece: Athens Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Athens task force. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities Urban studies and planning Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Architecture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Capital

I've taken out the sentence about Plaka being "the Athens that became the capital" since it doesn't seem to me clear what it means either in the article or in the cited source. Strawberryjampot (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Demetrios Sicilianos

Old and New Athens, even featured on cambridge.org . Exists also in German "Altes und Neues Athen". AlexBachmann (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Michael Llewellyn Smith also isn't a linguist. He's a diplomat. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Same with Dimitris Sikelianos. Plus his book is very old. If the etymology of "plaque" is newer, you can't use an old source to criticize an etymology that didn't even exist at the time it was published. I also asked you for a page number, which you have failed to provide. Why is that? Could it be that it's because you do not have access to the source (which would also mean you haven't read it)? This is absolutely required for , and if no page number is provided, it will be removed. Khirurg (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You want me to buy that the first book that proposed the Greek interpretation was "Blue Guide Athens"? And it would be better to not speculate to what I read and what I didn't. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I asked you, I asked you to provide the page number of the source you are trying to add to the article. If you had read the source you have added to the article, it wouldn't be hard for you to add the page number. So once again, where is the page number? Khirurg (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

If you looked at the article, you wouldn't have to ask. I'll just ignore the fact that you wanted to keep this out using "Blue Guide Athens". But alright, that's the reason why it is still Plaka today and not a random Ancient Greek one. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Usual drama

You're saying I'm "privileging" hypothesis even though I just moved the relevant etymology section to the top? Alright, go on and we'll see where that goes. If you want changes in the etymology section, feel free to post them here. And one more thing: Please use sources that are suitable for this case before you want to make a change, see more at WP:RS. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Khirurg AlexBachmann (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nah, you just made sure to move the Arvanitic hypothesis to the top. Tell my why I shouldn't mode the Greek etymology to the top? What makes the Arvanitic etymology more important? As for sources, I am not sure what you are talking about, but everything is solidly sourced, you should read them. Khirurg (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I moved the whole section to the top. I don't think we have to discuss whether the etymology of Plaka is more important or the former names of the quarter. Status quo ante included the Arvanite hypothesis at the beginning, if you have something against it (e. g. somewhat that prevents this according to the Misplaced Pages guidelines) feel free to open a discussion. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Status quo ante does not apply here. The section is completely different now, and much improved, with the addition of multiple high quality sources. Khirurg (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Status quo ante applies, not for the section but rather for the order of the etymology. The Arvanite etymology has been almost always in the first order, yet you are accusing me of "privileging" etymologies. That's what I'm talking about. So do consent moving the (more) relevant passage to the top? (Some have suggested that the toponym it denoted a place with ancient plaques or marbles.) AlexBachmann (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no status quo ante guideline, and this argument doesn't make sense; the section was expanded with new information. Furthermore, there is no more relevant text; the section heading is § Name, not § Etymology. It makes more sense to mention the history first, and then the etymology. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Look. We're talking about whether I'm "privileging" etymologies; I have shown that this accusation is (again) false. Status quo ante (still) included the Arvanite etymology before the Greek one. That's what we're talking about. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Albanians vs Arvanites

From the 19th century onwards, this article should refer to Arvanites, not Albanians. This is in accordance with the sources on this subject.

Levy, Jacques (2001) From Geopolitics to Global Politics: A French Connection, p. 176: Even today...one can find Arvanites, Albanian speakers who integrated into Greek national identity as early as the first half of the nineteenth century and who in no way consider themselves as an ethnic minority

Hall, Jonathan M. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 29: Their participation in the Greek war of Independence and the Civil War...has led to increasing assimilation

Especially for the late 19th century, there is no question that they should be referred to as "Arvanites". Khirurg (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources used in the article use the term "Albanians", and there are zillions of RS who use that term for the Albanian-speakers of central and southern Greece in the 19th century, and early 20th century as well for that matter. The process of assimilation was gradual and not at the same rate for all of the Albanians ("Arvanites"). Even the sources which you cite above say that the process of assimilation started in the early 19th century, not that all Albanians were assimilated at that point in time.

The article has had that content for a considerable amount of time. Why did you choose to change it now that there is less activity from experienced editors than usually? Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Khirurg argues we should use "Arvanite" from the 19th century onwards, I'm sure it wouldn't bother him if I changed every "Arvanite" into "Albanian" in a pre-19th century context. What was done here is clear source falsification. Also, changing "... it was Albanian" to "a part of it was Albanian" is straight up ridiculous. And Khirurg, believe me, like really, I don't care about your made-up terms like "flag planting", so I literally couldn't care less what What is "flag-unpainting" btw? is. You can call it what you want, but one simply can't erase history. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Skartsis added original research and personal interpretations changing the meaning of the information that is provided by the reliable cited sources. Please, before restoring WP:OR again, discuss it here by citing reliable sources that support those additions. – Βατο (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Khirurg you added original research: a part of today's Plaka was the Albanian quarter of Athens is so far unsourced. You should provide sources for such statement. The information it was the Albanian quarter of Athens, on the other hand, is what cited RS state. – Βατο (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The article already elaborates on the expansion of Plaka and makes it clear that today's Plaka is bigger that in the past. What a surprise! The fact that the 2 editors want to add that "clarification" only after the Albanians are mentioned, suggests that they are just 2 narrow-minded editors who are disturbed by the Albanian aspect of Plaka's history (as if the "clarification" makes it somehow less important). In any case, every sentence of the article should say only what its RS says. No OR or similar things. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Start-Class Greek articles
• Mid-importance Greek articles
• Athens task force articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• Start-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• Start-Class Urban studies and planning articles
• Mid-importance Urban studies and planning articles
• Start-Class Architecture articles
• Mid-importance Architecture articles