Jump to content

Talk:Moscopole

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

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

[edit]

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

Removal of "Moschopolis" from lead

[edit]

The recent removal of "Moschopolis" form is clearly against WP:NCGN, which states: "Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. ". Moschopolis is widely used in English literature as the primary name of this settlement [[1]], in fact the vast majority of mainstream research prefers this form (Fleming, Palairet, Winnifrith, Peyfuss, Kahl [[2]] etc.) instead of any other. Alexikoua (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start a move request. Alltan (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? I've stated that 'Moschopolis' should be at lead and infobox because it is widely used and warranted per wp:NCGN. Removing that from lead constitutes disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why can't we add the the Albanian name to Parga and Igoumenitsa using the same logic? Alltan (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to point which English (and western) authors use primarily the Albanian form of Parga and Igoumenitsa. In the case of Moscopole I have provided several notable examples (all non-Greek authors). To name additionally few: [[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]][[[[[9]][[10]][[11]][[12]][[13]][[14]][[15]][[16]][[17]].Alexikoua (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Albanian form of Parga is Parga, same goes for Preveza. A quick Google scholar search reveals multiple non-Albanian sources which use Gumenica, Kostir, even Janina seems quite popular. But are we going to add the Albanian version to all these articles? Alltan (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite interesting, I'm waiting for your links on the relevant tps. Also note that all this works mention Moschopolis as the main name form. If that's the case too then that's quite interesting. Waiting for your comments there. Nevertheless you understand that there are no arguments for exclusion of Moschopolis from lead.Alexikoua (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. So basically I should be OK to add Janina, Kostur, Preveza etc. Well thing is, I don't really want to do that, but what I want less is for double standards to exist. Alltan (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that some kind of threat? Alexikoua has demonstrated that "Moschopolis" is widely used by English language sources, unlike the examples you mention. Khirurg (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alltan: you self-refuted your tendency to remove Moschopolis; its actually a name used by a large percentage of English sources as the primary name of this settlement. Ok, I assume you understand how to read wikipedia guidelines. What about Ioannina, Kastoria, Preveza? Why don't you present those supposed sources there? Someone can easily conclude that you have run out of arguments by avoiding to focus on the issue.Alexikoua (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg: what's weird is that even some Albanian authors use primarily the Moschopolis form.Alexikoua (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The importance of Moscopole over Greek culture is big and due to this, the Greek name deserves a mention on the lead in my opinion. In the infobox I am less sure, no clutter should be there so ideally only the official (Albanian) and local (Aromanian, no Greeks live in Moscopole) should stay. The lead could look something like this [18].
I will not comment a lot on the cases of the Albanian names on Greek cities but I doubt Albanian influence on for example Ioannina is comparable with Greek influence in Moscopole. Super Ψ Dro 11:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: Can you please explain why Pettifer, Vickers & Winnifrith, prefer the form Moschopolis for the 18th century settlement vs Voskopoka is just used for the modern village? [[19]] Moschopolis, modern Voskopoja [[20]]

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

  • Comment:

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

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

We should include various similar forms:

As such Moscopole & Moschopolis variants: 498+299 = 797

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

Be aware that your search mixes Greek-derived names with Aromanian-derived ones, such as Moscopoli. Most results by Moscopoli are not in English anyway [21]. Super Ψ Dro 08:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "Voskopojë" OR "Voskopoja" search also gives a huge amount of non-English results, just look at this [22]. More sophisticated methods will need to be used to determine the most common name of this locality. Super Ψ Dro 08:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Ngrams, [23] it shows that the Albanian-derived versions are slightly more common to the Greek-derived ones and that both have decreased in usage while the Aromanian-derived ones have risen. I did not assign names to the Greek-derived part and the Aromanian-derived one randomly by the way, I added all variants ending in -polis to Greek and the rest I individually searched them and saw that Moschopoli was more used among Greek scholars without discussion on the Aromanians while Moskopoli was used in several Aromanian-related works, some in Slavic languages.
Without any time ranges, "Moschopolis" OR "Moscopolis" OR "Moskopolis" OR "Moschopoli" gets 368 results in Google Scholar [24]. "Voskopoje" OR "Voskopoja" OR "Voskopojë" gets 451 [25], while "Moscopole" OR "Moscopoli" OR "Moskopoli" OR" "Moscopolea" OR "Muscopoli" OR "Voscopole" only 152 [26]. Out of 971 results, 46.45% are Albanian-derived, 37.90% are Greek-derived and 15.65% are Aromanian-derived.
Out of curiosity, I've put a time range from 1990 to 2010. The Greek-derived names under the same search get 111 (41.11%) results, the Albanian-derived ones get 132 (48.89%) and the Aromanian-derived ones only 27 (10%).
Doing the same, but from 2010 to 2015, the Greek-derived names get 76 (29.23%) results, the Albanian-derived ones 144 (55%) and the Aromanian-derived ones 40 (15%).
Finally, from 2015 onwards, Greek-derived names get 126 (30.36%), Albanian-derived ones 198 (47.71%) and the Aromanian-derived ones 91 (21.93%).
Since 2021 specifically, Greek-derived names got 19 (22.35%), Albanian-derived ones 49 (57.65%) and Aromanian-derived ones 17 (20%).
With this you can see a common trend, Greek-derived names have decreased in use in English literature over the years while Aromanian-derived names have increased and would now be almost as common as the Greek-derived names. The Albanian-derived names remained mostly stable. But I want to leave clear the fact that Aromanian-derived names may keep rising in use in the future. It was under this argument that Kiev was moved to Kyiv. Not that because of this should the Aromanian name be kept, but we may have different discussions in the future. Super Ψ Dro 08:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As such I believe the Aromanian name should remain as the main name for an Aromanian settlement (also the M- variants outweigh Vokopoja/e 3 vs 1). As I see there is also a consensus about Moschopolis not be removed from lead. Alexikoua (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SP: If the smoothing scale is lowered then the [[27]] the Voskopoja/e form is in decline compared to the M- variants in post 2018 publicationsAlexikoua (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Moschopolis should be kept, but as a bold title like Voskopoja or within the other languages part? Considering Voskopoja is included in bold in the title, I guess Moschopolis would have no reason not to be included; I would personally favor simply having the article name in bold and then the names in non-English languages in the parentheses part, as it had been for a while. Maybe we could benefit from looking at other articles to look for examples.
And what you show with the Ngrams is interesting. Would you know how to explain what does lowering the smoothing scale mean? Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 October 2022

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

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

Moscopole → Voskopojë –

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

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

@Maleschreiber: Can you provide a similar search on googlebooks? This appears somewhat convincing but doesn't offer a general picture (as I see several major works on the subject are not included in googlescholar). Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Markussep: I changed it to the indefinite form to make it consistent with all other articles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I changed my "vote" accordingly. Markussep Talk 10:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose user Alexikoua has shown above that with a smoothing of 0, Moscopole becomes the most common variant in Google Ngrams [28]. Here you can see it more clearly [29].
Here, it is explained what smoothing means. A smoothing of 1 in Google Ngrams means that the data in 2018 would be shown by showing the raw data of results from the year 2018 plus the data from the years 2017 and 2019, divided into 3. I am not sure what is the purpose of this. A smoothing of 2 would mean that the data in 2018 would include the raw data of 2018 + 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2020 (hypothethically, as 2019 is Google Ngrams' limit) divided by 5.
By looking at the first link in my comment, you see that Moschopolis and Voskopoja and their variants have had vast use in earlier years, which is not the case of Moscopole and its variants. This inflates Moschopolis' and Voskopoja's results for each year when smoothing is applied. You can see the huge distance between both and Moscopole here when a smoothing of 20 is applied [30]. For determining what name is the common name, we need to look at the raw data for each year, which you get by taking the smoothing at 0. And it shows that Moscopole became the most common variant in late 2018, and we do not have evidence that this has changed ever since.
Per the Kyiv precedent [31], in Wikipedia, a locality's article should be titled according to the most common name in English-language sources in recent times, even if the general total of sources show preference for another name due to its more common use in the past.
And I will also add that the local name of Moscopole is indeed Moscopole. Only the official is Voskopoja/Voskopojë. Super Ψ Dro 14:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Voskopoja and Voskopojë do not have a demonym in English literature, while Moscopole does [32] [33]. If you wonder how often does the need for the use of these demonyms appear, I will tell you that it's quite common in local research, as the Aromanians, an ethnic group that inhabits Moscopole among other places, are classified into several subgroups, one of which are the Moscopoleans/Moscopolitans [34]; their dialect, one of the main of the Aromanian language, is also known as such. English literature does not have terms like "Voskopojean" for research works on the Aromanians. Though the use of Moscopolean/Moscopolitan extends outside Aromanian research too [35] (the quote is: "His building of the Observatory at Athens is significant as showing that this Viennese Moscopolitan was always conscious of his Greek nationality, and turned at once to Athens as soon as the Hellenic capital was inaugurated.") Super Ψ Dro 14:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The need for the name to be a reflection of modern and recent use is already established in all relevant policies (WP:MPN/WP:NAMECHANGES). The case of Kyiv pushed the boundary of what that means to be defined as "name which is preferred in the post-2014 era". This specifically refers to the recent history of Ukraine and is relevant only for Ukraine. Another such date might be relevant for other cases where political changes have caused such a shift, but Voskopoja/Moscopole isn't such a case.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure the RM was successful not because of the reasons that had led to that shift in English-language sources, but because the shift took place in the first place. As it has happened with Moscopole. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence disputing this has been shown above. Are you able to refute it? Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All relevant policies dictate that the name which should be used is the modern, local and official one and not an older or historical one. Google results have to be confined at the very least to the 21st century to determine modern use. Moschopolis and Moscopole can't be counted under the same heading as they don't represent variants in the same language. The use of the term Moscopole in a historical context or in older sources highlights that it can't be the name which the article uses. Many sources which refer to Moscopole refer to pre-19th century events or specifically to the history of the Aromanian community and many sources which refer to Voskopojë/Voskopoja refer to its modern history. There is a contextual division between them. WP:MODERNPLACENAME: For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use The name Moscopole should be used in its correct historical context and has a place in the article, but it is not representative of the modern situation.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the name which should be used is the modern, local and official one and not an older or historical one. sorry but as I have stated already, the local name is Moscopole. Moscopole is also not an older nor historical name, more like the opposite. And regarding your comment on the official names, WP:OFFICIALNAMES clearly states at the start of the page that People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title, then it should be moved. In many cases, this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy. And that Many sources which refer to Moscopole refer to pre-19th century events is not true. The Ngrams links I've sent above show it's precisely in recent times that Moscopole is getting more use. It is indeed representative of modern times. Moschopolis is the one more common in older times. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Voskopoja/e is not the most common name per evidence so far. Either if the scaling is 0 [[36]] or 20+ [[37]]. Nevertheless I'm still waiting for a decent argument in favor of the proposed move. Moscopole is known as a once cultural centre of the 18th century, which was repeatedly destroyed destroyed by Albanian armed groups in the past. The tiny village that today exist (Voskopoja) can't be compared to the once prosperous city.Alexikoua (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can, as all the elements that made the city great are still there, just many of them ruined. The dominant ethnic group is still the same, and so is the name used by its inhabitants. Sources do not do an artificial split between the former city and the modern village, they're both referred to as Moscopole. Maybe Constantinople, which used to be Greek and Orthodox dominated, capital of a Christian European empire, full of churches and other elements of Greek (and also medieval) culture cannot be compared to the greatly expanded Turkish Muslim Istanbul, not a capital of any state, with elements reminiscent of your typical 21st-century Western city. Such a radical change has not taken place in Moscopole. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the difficulty here is that this article treats both the historic city Moscopole/Moschopolis and the current village and administrative unit Voskopojë. Both the historic city and the current village do not receive very much coverage in English literature (there is no mention of it in Encyclopædia Britannica, for instance), and I wonder whether it would make sense to split the article, since they obviously share many characteristics (geography, the monumental buildings that have been preserved). I'm trying to find similar cases, maybe Pergamon/Bergama (two articles), Monastir/Bitola (one article, Bitola), Tenochtitlan/Mexico City, Mycenae/Mykines (two articles). Markussep Talk 10:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The settlement is still the same, just decreased in size and population. The ruins of the printing house, of the churches (and there's some extant ones too), the old school, everything Moscopole was known for, are still there. The population, Aromanians, are the same, and the name is still the same. And most importantly, if a separate article for the village was created, it would either be very short, or constantly comment on aspects of the city-era, so we'd just have duplicates. Information on the former city and the modern village can easily be covered into one single article, opposite to for example Constantinople and Istanbul. Also, comparing the change Bitola underwent to the one Mexico City did is an exaggeration in my opinion. Bitola and Monastir are the same cities, their split would be even less justifiable than Moscopole's, as at least the latter went from a city to a village.
I will also add that the split (and this move too) have been often proposed in this talk page, and it never succeeded. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Voskopojë. Per WP:NCGN which states: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.. The guideline clearly gives the reasoning behind this: By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called.. Currently it is called Voskopojë. Even if there is no widely accepted English variant, which from the evidence above seems to still be Voskopojë (at least since 1990), we should still use the modern official name of the locality. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. In case users don't agree there is a established English name (which I don't see how, considering its largely been called Voskopojë for at least 3 decades), then they should concede to the rule that we must use the modern local name, which would still be Voskopojë.Alltan (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to wonder if the supporting side of this RM has read the full discussion. Moscopole is not a historical, old name, Moschopolis is the one you're looking for; Voskopojë is not the most common name used in English sources, Moscopole is since 2018; Voskopojë is not the local name, the inhabitants, which are Aromanians, use Moscopole. I will again remind that it is Moscopole and not Voskopojë the name that has demonyms derived from it used in English academic literature. I suspect based on this that while Voskopojë may be often used for quick mentions of the current village as Alexikoua has noted on the discussion above this RM, it is Moscopole the one used for more deep research about the locality. Super Ψ Dro 15:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the case actually. Aromanians were not the only people group which inhabited the area historically, and in the last census[38], of the 1058 inhabitants, 69,57% declared themselves as Albanian, 5,48% declared themselves as Aromanian, 0,47% declared themselves as Macedonians, and 0,09% as Greek. The rest 24.39% didn't state an ethnicity, but even if everyone of them was Aromanian, the dominant, large majority name of the settlement is Voskopojë. What demonyms it had derived from historic English literature is not relevant to figuring out its modern usage and its local name. Alltan (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is official census data. According to it, there's a total of 8,266 Aromanians in Albania; zero authors researching on the Aromanians cite a number this low. Tom Winnifrith (1998) gives a number of 200,000 [39] (p. 2), while Thede Kahl (2002) estimates at least 100,000 Aromanians in Albania [40] (p. 156). Super Ψ Dro 16:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have to bring forward statistics for the demographics of Aromanians in Moscopole specifically. They can be 99% percent of the population of Albania for all I care, the local name still is Voskopojë. Alltan (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they are 99% of the population, evidently, the local name is not the Albanian one. I will also ask you for evidence that Albanians conform the majority of the population in Moscopole. Super Ψ Dro 16:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said 99% percent of the population of Albania, not Voskopoje. The issue is that the total number of Aromanians in Albania is irrelevant to them being a majority in Voskopojë. And I did give you the official census data, where only 5% of people said they were Aromanians, and 70% said they are Albanians. It's therefore your turn. Alltan (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SD No, you should provide evidence that the Aromanians are the majority in the village. Alltan provided evidence that the Albanians are the majority: the census data. If you find evidence that the Aromanians are the majority, then there is disgreement which is the local name of the village. Per the relevant policy, in such cases the official name should be used: Voskopojë. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the 200,000 figure is obviously non-sense. Kaser puts the number at between 30,000 and 50,000. Tanner puts it at around 2% of Albania's population (~50,000-60,000). Those figures are certainly nearer to the reality, though the vast majority of those people of Aromanian origin nowadays self-identify as Albanian. I assume that a good number of the Albanians in Voskopoja are of Aromanian origin. In the Korca area a large number of Aromanians and Slavs became Albanian in the few last centuries. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if they're 200,000 or 30,000, it still shows that the 2011 Albanian census does not accurately reflect the ethnic situation in this area. Academic works that directly study the Aromanians are obviously closer to this than a general nationwide process with other purposes, and they cannot compared. So I will again request academic sources claiming that the Albanians are the majority in Moscopole.
Still, I have not been able to find any open-access sources discussing the modern ethnic composition of Moscopole. Thede Kahl maybe did in 1999, but we cannot access the book [41]. We do have access at one of his maps through another source, see here [42] at the PDF document's page 9. Moscopole is listed not with an exclusively Aromanian population, but as a settlement with a "strong" Aromanian population. On this same level is included Boboshticë, an Aromanian-majority settlement (see the article's Demographics section), but also cities like Berat, Elbasan or Vlorë, where evidently Aromanians are a small minority.
De Rapper (2010) [43], cited in this article, states that Muslim Albanians settled in the village during the communist period and that as a result of this, the local Christians started seeing the village as "mixed". If the Aromanians truly were 5% of the population, it is clear Moscopole would not be considered a mixed village, so they must be more. In fact, De Rapper is implying Moscopole was not mixed before the recent settling of Muslim Albanians during the communist period.
The conclusion we can take out of this is that Moscopole is probably an ethnically mixed settlement nowadays. I don't think it then makes much sense to consider the "local name" aspect here. Super Ψ Dro 18:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Aromanians certainly are not 5% in Voskopoja. 24% of the population did not declare ethnicity, and obviously the vast majority are Aromanians. So in Voskopoja we have around 70% Albanians and around 30% Aromanians with some Macedonians and Greeks. I don't think it then makes much sense to consider the "local name" aspect here then, as per the relevant polocy, the offical name (Voskopoja) should be used. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
De Rapper actually is talking about how Voskopoja saw Albanians migrate during the communist period, in the process becoming a mixed village then. He does not say it is mixed today. Consider the fact that large numbers Aromanians have migrated to Greece because of their pro-Greek feelings. In fact, according to scholar Asterios Koukoudis, in 1900 the settlement was inhabited by 120 Albanian and 80 Aromanian families."A report by Betsos, the Greek consul in Monastir, is very informative about the demographic composition of Moschopolis in 1900. Moscopolis: The old Vlach-speaking inhabitants of Moscopolis dispersed in all directions at the end of the eighteenth century, because the Moslem Albanians living round about pillages that once famed city, and the comparatively few remaining families gradually moved elsewhere, particularly to Korçë, which slowly became an important commercial centre. Of the old Vlach families, only about thirty remain in Moscopolis; but on the other hand, the widespread disorder ravaging the area of Opar has caused many Albanian speaking families to leave the barren, mountainous parts of the country and remove to Moscopolis, where they till the land and raise livestock. Able Vlach-speaking families came from two Vlach settlements to Moscopolis, of which the entire population at present amounts to 200 families, of which 120 are Albanian-speaking and the remaining 80 Vlach speaking. All the old Vlach-speaking families have remained true to [their Greek national consciousness], but for three, who, together with some of the newcomers, have been led astray by the unfrocked priest Kosmas. The Romanising families there number twenty in all."[1]
So even according to Greece, a country which at the time tended to overblow the Aromanian component of south Albania (viewing them as easier to assimilate as Greeks), the town was 60% Albanian in 1900. But even if all of this were irrelevant, Ktrimi's argument stated it perfectly as per the relevant policy, the offical name (Voskopoja) should be used. Alltan (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but even if the Aromanians are not the absolute majority of the population, Moscopole still remains as the most common name for this locality in English-language sources. This remains as the main policy when discussing the titles of geographical places. The "local name" aspect only gave further strength to the choice of Moscopole; now that it has been shown that Albanians constitute a solid, possibly majoritarian sector of the population, the user closing this RM may need to balance different factors to decide the outcome of the RM. "Moscopole" is more common than "Voskopojë" in English, Albanians are possibly more numerous in Moscopole than Aromanians, Moscopole was a historical ethnic Aromanian center still impacting their scholarly classification into subgroups while the history of Albanians in Moscopole and the impact it has had over them is recent and mild, "Voskopojë" is the official name.
He does not say it is mixed today at most three generations passed. Not much must have changed. Definitively not a "mixed" to "Albanian" shift. Consider the fact that large numbers Aromanians have migrated to Greece because of their pro-Greek feelings. emigration from Albania to Greece is a general phenomenon without ethnicity. We should not attempt to use this hypothetical case as it could go two ways, unless one is supported by academic sources, which is something most likely not studied.
And for the record, I don't want the statement So in Voskopoja we have around 70% Albanians and around 30% Aromanians with some Macedonians and Greeks. by user Ktrimi991 to go unreplied and therefore "assumed" as a truth for the rest of the discussion. It is quite possible this is close to the ethnic reality but I expect a number of the people with self-declared Albanian ethnicity to be assimilated Aromanians or people with mixed ethnicity (someone 50/50 would probably be proud of their Aromanian blood but feel primarily Albanian), and also some of the people who did not declare ethnicity to be Albanians, due to personal reasons they might have wished to hide their identity. There's a lot of circumstances to consider. Super Ψ Dro 20:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Albanians are the majority population in Voskopoje today, and largely have been so since the 20th century (Betsos' report). Now, de Rapper said "Muslim Albanians settled in the village during the communist period and that as a result of this, the local Christians started seeing the village as "mixed"." He is therefore making the argument it was religiously mixed, not ethnically. Therefore, the Christian people he is talking about may very well be Albanians. More on him, he actually preffers using Voskopojë, and says that: "This is particularly the case in Voskopojë and Vithkuq, which have a specific relationship to the outside world. Both villages are not only considered as former prosperous Christian cities; according to a part of the local population and to some historians, the two cities were in those times in majority or exclusively inhabited by Aromanians, locally known as Vlachs (Vllah), who flew away at the time of the destruction" and, finally: After several assaults and destruction by its Muslim neighbours, Voskopojë is no more than a big village in which Aromanian population is not in majority anymore. Albanian-speaking Christians and Muslims have come and settled, especially after the Second World War, when life conditions became more attractive in what was turned into an administrative centre rather than in remote mountain villages. So yet again, the local name, as well as the official one, is Voskopojë. Alltan (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the history of Albanians in Moscopole and the impact it has had over them is recent and mild, this is not an accurate statement at all. This article in general might need some work. Alltan (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I feel that the nom simply provided arguments against the move. Voskopoje/a is simply not the most common name, as clearly explained. It's sad that this has turned into Balkan-POV pushing.Alexikoua (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alltan: Even the book that you quote is using "Moschopolis" [[44]]. Yet another argument to object the move.Alexikoua (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Voskopojë. Again, when two or more variants have a very close result and none show a clear advantage, then the official or local names are preferred. This was also explained in similar RMs and I don't understand why insisting on which has 5% or 10% more results than the other. --Bes-ARTTalk 17:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • when two or more variants have a very close result and none show a clear advantage, then the official or local names are preferred.? Is that a new rule in wikipedia? Also what makes Voskopoja the official name when this settlement was a famous metropolis (not a tiny village), i.e. at 18th century?Alexikoua (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications have been posted to all related wiki-projects (Albania, Greece, N.Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, cities).Alexikoua (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this discussion the "official name" is Voskopojë/a because the article covers a settlement that exists in the present and the present official name is Voskopojë/a per the Albanian government.
An example of a city with a historical name different from the modern one is Edo / Tokyo - split in two articles, though the challenge would be finding the right period in history at which to make the cut-off. I see this was discussed a bit a decade ago but nothing came of it. However, looking deeper into this, I don't think a split makes sense here, as the present-day settlement is much smaller than it was historically, so an article about Voskopojë/a (with the Moscopole era split out) would be pretty short. It's hard to find an example of a city that was dominated by one culture at its peak and is now dominated by another as a mere village, while at no point being actually abandoned.
I think WP:MPN applies here: For an article about a place whose name has changed over time... For articles discussing the present... use the modern English name... Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use. Reading everything above, I'm still not sure what reliable English-language sources now use. I wonder if one or the other is clearly preferred among the reliable sources already in use in the article. --Local hero talk 05:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per Super Ψ Dro, Moscopole becomes the most common name without smoothing, especially since recent years. Given the Kyiv precedent, this becomes even more significant.
Apart from that I think "Moscopoli"/"Moscopolis"/"Moschopoli" should be added together, as variants of the same name. Greek and Aromanian essentially use the same name, and the differences that result from each language's grammar essentially disappear in the English versions. Therefore the lead of the current name becomes significant.
Finally, this article is mostly about an Aromanian city that got destroyed, and essentially on its ruins lies a modern Albanian village. There is a much stronger preference for the current name when it comes to the former. And, even in cases where the old name is not really used anymore in English, such as Constantinople, there is a separate article for each period. In this case Moscopole seems to still be used, and the modern village probably isn't significant enough to get its own article separate from the earlier city, but, if an article is to be named "Voskopojë", it should be the result of a split. --Antondimak (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it is not the most widely used name in English. Super Ψ Dro 13:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That alone has no weight. WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Super Ψ Dro 18:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per excellent arguments by Super Dromaeosaurus. I believe it is important to also look on the quality of sources behind quantity: The current title not only is being the more common title, but also it happens to be the term used in the majority of the sources which refer to the Aromanian city of Moscopole more than to the present day's small Albanian village on that location. The historical city is what the article is more about and this is owed to its historical significance: both in terms of history, notability, culture and religion. I do not know cases in Wikipedia where a small insignificant village's alternate name may replace the name of the much more historically significant city of Moscopole thanks to which the village is ever notable nowadays. The small Albanian village is hardly any significant to even warrant its own article at all. Any notability it enjoys today as a village, is solely due to Moscopole's rich heritage. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is another argument I expressed that SilentResident has worded more appropriately. Most references in academia to Moscopole refer to the old city, when it was an Aromanian-majority settlement. Few works are dedicated to the modern village. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. As highlighted in the Google Scholar results, Voskopojë is the common name. Additionally, if we take into account the other platforms, as was stated above by Bes-ART, when two or more variants have a very close result and none show a clear advantage, then the official or local names are preferred, which in this case is still Voskopojë. Botushali (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Voskopojë per nom. Truthseeker2006 (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Koukoudis, Asterios (2003). The Vlachs: Metropolis and Diaspora. Thessaloniki: Zitros Publications. pp. 362–363. ISBN 9789607760869.

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

Voskopoja in both Ottoman sources and Mitrou?

[edit]

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

Yet another issue that needs to be addressed: why Moschopolis is the Aromanian rendering of the name. Is there a approach explanation on this?Alexikoua (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the Aromanian and Greek names are similar and the region was not in a traditionally Greek zone, I would expect it if this form first surged from the Aromanians. Though an explanation from the author should be provided indeed. Super Ψ Dro 07:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is worth taking a look into. Can you send some sources talking about Mitrou's work? Super Ψ Dro 07:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new additions need some copyediting. For example, I don't understand this sentence: In this way, regarding the events of the years 1660-1687, in agreements concluded between the monks of the monasteries, the notables and the archons of the three districts of the city, where the name of the city is given in the form Voskopoja. There are more such examples. Super Ψ Dro 07:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand it either. Indeed the addition appears problematic. About Mitrou;s description on Moscopole ([[45]] vol.6 p. 307): "εις τούτα τα μέρη είναι πολίσματα ακουστά Βοσκόπολις, Γκιόρτσα και τα λοιπά". Guess we have yet another case of misinterpreting primary material by Xhufi (and it's not the only such case of presenting primary sources the wrong way in his Vokospoja paper). Alexikoua (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remember edit warring over the use of Xhufi. Was that settled? Is he a reliable source? Super メ Dro 18:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Xhufi was removed in cases his claims were controversial vs scholarship (or at least a better source tag was added on sporadic cases). The case was settled as Xhufi controversy subsided (as coordinator stated). Its problematic to say the least.Alexikoua (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the precise quotes are needed for the recent additions in order to see if we can perform further adjustments to the section. @Alltan:, can you provide them?Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have CEEOL access you can see them (and you do because you have access to the Wikipedia library). Adding the quotes for every single bit of text from Xhufi will result in copyright infringement issues. If you are unable to find it, I can link it here: [46] I will make some adjustments to the additions when I have more time. Meanwhile stop accusing Xhufi without first seeing what he has to say. Ty Alltan (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
stop accusing Xhufi without first seeing what he has to say. re: No, I'm stating that he is misrepresenting primary material and I proved that this material doesn't confirm Xhufi's statement. Mitrou doesn't use Voskopja he uses Βοσκόπολις (the later not an Albanian form). I also can't find where Xhufi supports the claim that: The city appears under the Albanian rendering Voskopoja in Ottoman documents from the 16th-17th centuries., can you provide us the specific quote? Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alltan, Alexikoua, a disclaimer. I've seen the absolutely undesirable disputes that have surged among Albanian and Greek editors in other articles. I would like it if this article stayed as a bastion of tranquility. So please let's avoid easily avoidable tone such as Meanwhile stop accusing Xhufi.... I will also apply this advice on me.
As for the quote of the text (which by the way occurs on pages 1[actually 9]-2[10], not 2-3[11] as cited in this article), it is the following: We note on the other hand that, in the Ottoman documents that we have used, we systematically find the name under the variant "Voskopoja" and this fact does not seem to us to be unimportant. This form is also that used by Meletios, an 18th century author, in his geography text. The affirmation on the text seems to simply be wrong, unless Xhufi is analysing Voskopolis together with Voskopoja and separate from Moskopolis. Not sure what to do here. Super Ψ Dro 14:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Xhufi is indeed considering the variants Voskopoja and Voskopolis together: Indeed, this agglomeration appears late in historical documents under the name Voskopoja-Voskopol or under its other variant Moskopol. page 9. That the text in this article would only focus on Voskopoja would then be inappropriate. Apparently, after adressing he is analysing both variants together, he affirms Under these circumstances, it can be assumed that the Voskopoja form was the oldest, used mainly by the Albanian population (page 10), even though Voskopolis is an obviously Greek form. He also calls variants starting with M (in contrast to those starting with V, that's how he apparently decided to split the ways of calling this settlement) as Aromanian even though Moskopolis is the most widely used Greek form and Aromanians also use forms starting with V.
The "16th-17th centuries" part is indeed said by Xhufi in page 10. Whether it is factual is another thing. Super Ψ Dro 14:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I admit the author is interpreting various primary&secondary sources on a non-scholarly way. As you said he states 'Voskopoja' but it is obvious that this is the case of 'Voskopolis' or any other V- form form. All issues need to be addresed on a detailed basis. The list is big though.Alexikoua (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before presenting a complete list it seems helpful to add that scholarship on the onomatological evidence in Moscopole presents a completely diferrent picture compared to Xhufi's conclusion.Alexikoua (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moscopole&oldid=1264993431"