Talk:Principality of the Pindus

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

Untitled[edit]

Sorry I can't remove the following [[Category:History of Greece|Pindus] from the External links. Please help. Thanks. --Koppany 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matoussi[edit]

"Φιλόδοξα οράματα που ο Ματούσης θα πληρώσει με εικοσαετή κάθειρξη στις φυλακές του Τσαουσέσκου." If I understand well this means that Matoussi was sentenced for 20 years in Ceausescu's Romania? → Η άλλη Ξένη Thanks. --Koppany 11:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imported from old talk page[edit]

From previous Talk:Principality of Pindus:

Discussion about this "state" can be found on [1]. It seems to have longer history, quote: Italy actually created the Principality of Pindos in 1917 first after they took control of Epirus. Pavel Vozenilek 23:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek article[edit]

Could somebody expand the article by translating it from Greek wikipedia? Luka Jačov 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PRINCIPALITY OF PINDUS[edit]

Here is the original start 22 August 2006 and the already removed and not archived Talk Talk:Principality of Pindus Balkanfreezer (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Hugh Poulton and  Mark Mazower speak just about Principality of Pindus

Does Wikipedia support neologisms and invented SECONDARY Titles? Balkanfreezer (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

User:Koppany  also removed the already Category:Principality of Pindus with newly (by him) created Category:Voivodship of Macedonia!!...

Balkanfreezer (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However in the irrelevant Ohrana external link there is no mention of ANY Voivodhip or Principality of Pindus!.. Balkanfreezer (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


QUOTE In Sept. 1941 the commander of the Pinerolo Division, Gen. Cesare Benelli, proposed the creation of Aromanian militias in Grevenà, Kastoria, Kalabaka, Trikkala, Karditsa; moreover he proposed to support the Aromanians and give to them the gendarmery and some administrative places, along with a few Bulgarians from Macedonia. This plan wasn't approved by the commander of the III Army Corps, and meanwhile also Gen. Benelli had become less enthusiast of the Aromanian collaboration, given that they weren't compactly pro-Italian, many were mere oportuninsts, and had great political differences also between themselves.


QUOTE Julius Csesznegi: his correct Hungarian name was Baron Julius Milványi-Csesznegi (Báró Milványi Csesznegi Gyula). He was really an adventurer and also a not too known poet and writer.

Julius was proclaimed prince regent of Pindus and abdicated in 1944. He never had any power or even set foot on the territory of the state.

Julius' mother, Maria Handzár was from Vlach origin.

http://forum.axishistory.com

Balkanfreezer (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it is very hard to follow what it is you want from the above. Could you please try to clearly and briefly describe the problem for somewhat who is absolutely clueless and has no knowledge of the background (i.e. me)? henrik•talk 18:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Balkanfreezer, please stop your vandalism and violating the rules of Wikpedia. The title of the article, so far as I know, reflects the Italian attempt to create a local structure that would support them against Greek guerillas. First they used for this purpose the Aromanians, later Macedonians. Maybe these two attempts could have different articles, but it seems to be not easy. Anyway I can not support any unilateral remove of information. --Koppany (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All we know about Aromanians and Principality of Pindus is well documented On the contrary the Slavic(and Bulgarian) Macedonian issue belongs to Uhrana NOT here Balkanfreezer (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

You can give whatever informations are needed about Albanians and other Groups inside the article

but these groups have no right to hijack the original title which is PRINCIPALITY OF PINDUS Balkanfreezer (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the external link of Uhrana speaks of NO relation to Principality of Pindus?? Italians supported also the Albanians. Should Albania take place in the title of Pindus? and how you define Maceedonia Geographicaly,Slavic,Bulgarian what? Why not Moglena also?? Moglena title was of the same value, as Voivodship of Macedonia ...JUST TITLES at the last years!! The reference of Macedonia in the title is disputed It belongs inside the article,in a subcategory Balkanfreezer (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUOTES FROM THE ARTICLE

In 1942 a faction of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (VMRO) offered the throne of Macedonia to Alchiviad

Where is the source.. Names?? The Bulgarophile VMORO offered Macedonia to Aromanian control???

Why Ivan Mihailov is linked to Principality of Pindus,since he set no foot in the region and refused to participate in an autonomous Axis-Macedonia,(although he supported Ante Pavelic in Croatia)??

According to a source from the old pre-communist Bulgarian National Security Service, this change was due to the decisive intervention of the VMRO-agent Ivan Mihailov through Ante Pavelić in Rome in early 1943.[1] Go and see the PDF

BUT THE LINK SAYS NOTHING ABOUT VOIVODSHIP OR PINDUS!!! Balkanfreezer (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there in no support from bibliography (it did not make sense anyway, as you correctly point out). --FocalPoint (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cseszneky was a Hungarian-Croatian baron[5]http://ferenczygen.tripod.com/id6.html

The link lists generally Hungarian Barons and gives no information about this mysterious Voivode.. Balkanfreezer (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and the farce of link-sources goes on!... [2] [3]

who only nominally reigned as Voivode Julius[6] between August-September in 1943, but never actually assumed power, although some local autonomist Slavic Macedonian Uhrana leaders governed in his name


Balkanfreezer (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, no relation whatsoever. --FocalPoint (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept a subtitle to deal with the Macedonian issue, but it is almost impossible to detach it from the Pindus story. The territories ruled or at least claimed by the Principality and those ruled or claimed by pro-Italian Macedonians were the same. It seems that about 1942-43 Italy disappointed with Aromanians started to favorize Macedonians (and even formed a commitee with Bulgarians) but in the same territory and based on the same structures.--Koppany (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title misleading like a main article of Byzantine Empire and Despotate of Epirus[edit]

and the Despotate of Epirus EXISTED (not only as a title) but this so called Voivodship of Macedonia is disputed Balkanfreezer (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why the links about Uhrana and Italo-Bulgarski Komitet - Svoboda. ili Smrt speak of NO relation to Pindus and Alchibiadi?? [4]

Balkanfreezer (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are Makedonskis participating in Bulgarophile Uhrana

and later Makedonski Tito-Communists SNOF

What are the sources about Makedonskis directly and independently related to Italians???

Balkanfreezer (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Macedonians were supported by the Italians and their uniforms were supplied by the Italians. --Koppany (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The armed men of Ohrana weared hats with the sign "IBK-SIS-Cheta ofTirana" -(Italo-Bulgarian Committee "Liberty or Death" - Cheta of Tirana).In Kostur has been created Ohrana commandment - it has been placed inthebuilding of the former Greek police. The movement between all villagescontrolled by Ohrana could be possible only by written permission ofporuchik A. Kalchev or with a pass from the Bulgarian club in Solun.The Bulgarian government took firstly very reserved position towardsOhrana.So in a telegram of the Bulgarian Prime Minister Bogdan Filov to theBulgarian legation in Rome is written: "Because the Italian commandmentin Kostur cannot manage with the attacks of the Greek andarts, itpermittedthe local population to be armed, without informing the Bulgariangovernment.[5] --Koppany (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Italo-Bulgarian relation is already known

from the article Another important figure in the history of the state was the Albanian Vasil Rapotika (Vasilis Rapoutikas).[2] According to V. Papagianni, he was Minister of Defence in the autonomous government since its creation

Maybe this is the only Non-Aromanian,Non-Italian who participated actively in this Principality Balkanfreezer (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only about Italo-Bulgarian relation, but these soldiers were Macedonians. Kostur (Greek Kastoria) was part of Pindus Principality and so on...--Koppany (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and so on ..the fact that they were both Italian (and some time German collaborators) does not prove a DUAL STATE as the title implies Balkanfreezer (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.where is the source that Kastoria/Kostur was capital of Principality?

2.The artilce Alcibiades Diamandi gives much more information about the AROMANIAN Principality than the article here Balkanfreezer (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There and in the above axis forum Cseszneky was a Hungarian-VLACH but here he became Hungarian-Croat!!

There in the older article of Alcibiade

some AROMANIANS governed in his name

and here it was changed to .....some local autonomist Slavic Macedonian Uhrana leaders governed in his name!!!

Balkanfreezer (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and one can assume that the movement of the Hungarian prince had a MACEDO-ROMAN and NOT a Slavic Macedonian character ...Who can prove what here?... Balkanfreezer (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 Points[edit]

  • 1.Title -> Principality of Pindus
  • 2.Subcategories Principality of Moglena , Voivodship of Macedonia
  • 3.RELIABLE SOURCES INSIDE THE PHRASE

Balkanfreezer (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and what is the source about the FLAG??

I can accept the title Principality of Pindus and such subcategories if you insist.--Koppany (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flag description was found in a site of the Professor Bruno D'Ambrosio. --Koppany (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this site?

btw Autonomous state of Pindus is much more constructive than Moglena,Voivodship or Macedonia etc Balkanfreezer (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Mozower speaks about autonomous mini-state [6]

Balkanfreezer (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am quite happy for it to be Principality of Pindus/Autonomous State of Pindus and have subcategories but we need to move the page PROPERLY. Balkanfreezer, copy-paste moves delete the history of the page which is actually quite important. After four days, you will be able to move a page properly... so just wait, or either me or Koppany will move the page when this discussion is over. BalkanFever 02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the talk for the moves here? [7] [8]

and the sources..don't you see that it lacks neutral sources ...ENGLISH or (AXIS DOCUMENTS:ITALIAN and GERMAN)sources Not Greek,Bulgarian,Hungarian etc balkan

I thought unsourced statements can be easily deleted Balkanfreezer (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to me or....? BalkanFever 13:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion between the supposed Voivodship, the Pro-Bulgarian Independent State of Macedonia[edit]

IMRO, Ohrana and Ivan Mihailov. Too many links but nothing relevant. Where is also the reference that Julius I had this specific title? Balkanfreezer (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-and-paste move fixed[edit]

This article was copy-and-paste moved and redirected several times on 26 December 2007 and 31 January 2008 by User:Balkanfreezer, from the present Principality of Pindus and Voivodship of Macedonia back to its older title Principality of Pindus. I have fixed this by history-merging all content edits made while the material was at Principality of Pindus back into the history here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then, let's do it properly:

Proposed move[edit]

Principality of Pindus and Voivodship of Macedonia -> Principality of Pindus

It's been proposed that this page be moved back to Principality of Pindus. Please make a note here if there are any remaining objections to this. I'll carry out the move in a few days if this is consensus. It needs admin tools to do it properly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion[edit]

Please note that there is a significant confusion, both in the Wikipedia text on the Principality of the Pindus, as well as in bibliography:

  • The term Principality of the Pindus was used to describe the attempt to create some kind of autonomous entity in 1917 in Samarina by Vlachs representing 13 villages in Pindus mountain, during the short Italian occupation of the region, following the attempt of the Italians to have the allegiance of the Vlachs.
  • The events between 1941-1944 are described in the article Vlach "Roman Legion", an organization headed by Alcibiade Damandi (in more detail see also el:Λεγεώνα των Βλάχων), where it is shown that there was no mention of any other term at the time, since, anyway the main movement was based in Thessaly. The name "Roman Legion" was used (and Diamantis was described in some cases as Prince but certainly not of any non-existent state).

I believe that the distinction has to be made in the article here, where especially the infobox is quite misleading:

  • the Principality of Pindus was never a state, just a proclamation
  • the date is 1917 (it is wrong to make any connection with 1940's)
  • description: it is entirely wrong to invent descriptions like "Elective monarchy" for a non-existent state and no elections held!
  • historical era: 1917 - end of First World War

--FocalPoint (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead as you see fit. This article has been problematic almost since its inception. It would be nice to have some reliable source-based information and clarity on who was what. Constantine ✍ 19:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before I rewrite it so that it reflects the events in 1917, I will remove (I have started already) several pieces which are either fictional, or speculative or just irrelevant with the situation in 1942-3. Then, whatever is left, I will use in the article Vlach "Roman Legion". --FocalPoint (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article, even though it describes the situation during 1942-43, has several issues corrected. I will now move whatever is needed to Vlach "Roman Legion" and transform the present article, so that it presents the events of 1917, as well as partly the 1942-43 events, since the name "Principality of the Pindus" is used in both cases. --FocalPoint (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article information[edit]

The article now is balanced and all information is supported by reliable sources. I can only hope that in the future, information from here will be copied to the other language wikipedias:

Main points to know:

  1. The name Principality of Pindus is used mainly for the events in 1917 (indeed villages of Pindus were involved)
  2. The same name is in some cases used for the events in 1941-43. This is not correct since the events are covered by the actions of the so calles "Roman Legion", which was active in Thessalia, as well as parts of Macedonia and Epirus. Hence the name ...of Pindus... has no sense.
    "... has no sense." — I wouldn't be a bit surprised if what drew these two bits together is the presence of Diamandi. To someone like me who is not an experienced, academic historian, it can appear superficially as if these were both efforts spearheaded by one man hungry for power, taking advantage each time of a general background of war and chaos, to create facts on the ground. Hence identifying them by a common name, even if geographically incorrect, does make sense in that setting. I mention this only because I want to make sure all your corrections here stay within NPOV, and the best way to do that is to make sure your thinking on this stays within NPOV. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe what you say is right. Overall, I believe that scarcity of information (up to now) has simply led to mistakes, even in reputable sources. thank you for the comment. --FocalPoint (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There was never any Principality or any kind of state formed or even declared neither in 1917 nor in 1941-43
  4. There was no leader declared in the events of 1917
  5. In 1917, Alcibiades Diamandi was one of the members of the provisionary committee. Being 20 years old, he was not having any leading position.
  6. In 1941-42, Alcibiades Diamandi was indeed a leader of the Vlach "Roman Legion". He was not any kind of prince.
  7. In 1942-43, Nikolaos Matoussis, was the successor of Diamandi in the leadership of the Vlach "Roman Legion". He was not a prince, he was not a regent of any kind as many wikipedias wrongfully indicate.
  8. I have not found any relationship with Gyula Cseszneky which is presented in several wikipedias as third in the non-existent throne!!! of the non-existent principality!!! nor any Voivodate

--FocalPoint (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lad:Wikipedia and mistake here in en-Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, @FocalPoint. I found this article based on the edits you made at the Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia. May I make a couple of suggestions/requests here?
  1. Can you by any chance put inline citations in over there? At first glance, an administrator (over there) like me, not speaking much Judeo-Spanish and seeing substantial deletions in the article, had to wonder whether there was either vandalism or POV editing going on. I can see from here that is probably not the case, but connecting sources to statements would help.
  2. In this (English) article, please have a look at the section Albania and Epirus at the end of World War I: 1816-1817. You can see right there that dates are messed up; you'll want to fix that.
Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StevenJ81, being an admin in el-wikipedia, I fully understand what you are talking about.

  1. I will bring in citations in Lad:Wikipedia.
  2. It is really a simple mistake: 1816-> 1916 !!! Thank you !!!

--FocalPoint (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FocalPoint, a couple of additional notes:
  • I added a location note at the beginning of the article here. Unless you know where the Pindus are—I'm kind of a geography geek, but I didn't before now—it takes a while to get to a location in Greece (or Greece and Albania). My judgment: that needs to be right there. (The lead paragraphs can stand some copyediting, too.)
  • I will try to adapt the short article you put at the Ladino talk page for the Simple English Wikipedia. I will need to simplify language some to do it, but it shouldn't be a problem. Add "Simple English" to your chart for that purpose.
    See simple:Principality of the Pindus. Language is not yet simplified, but I have otherwise adapted what you wrote at Ladino. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I don't think so, but please look me in the eye (so to speak) and assure me: you are not editing with an agenda other than to get the facts straight.
Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For my reference: lad:Prinsipado del Pindo - no automatic translation, so I left a short article in English to be translated if possible in the discussion: lad:Diskusyón:Prinsipado del Pindo. This short article could also be used in other wikipedias and it also has references to the best secondary sources I could find (plus one in english, with a very short description). --FocalPoint (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81: "Again, I don't think so, but please look me in the eye (so to speak) and assure me: you are not editing with an agenda other than to get the facts straight". FWIW, I can vouch for FocalPoint. He is among the best-intentioned users I have come across in any version of Wikipedia. Constantine ✍ 14:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: I'm getting that impression, too, and as you see above, I've started to adapt his short piece for simplewiki already. And he's an administrator at elwiki, which also counts for something. But there is enough of a real overhaul in information here—and Balkan history and politics are such touchy subjects in general—that I thought I'd ask FocalPoint just once more. Thanks for your support and reference! StevenJ81 (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear StevenJ81, I admit I have a HHHHHUUUUGE bias against unsourced information, which has been spread among wikipedias, creating an imaginary territory, creating imaginary princes and even more imaginary regents, creating even non-existent royal houses. I have a bias, when a non-existent entity is being listed among Axis-led puppet states in all wikipedias. I am lucky to have found secondary sources, which clear out the misinformation spread in Wikipedias. Furthermore, I am quite sure that all this crazy situation did not have any motive whatsoever (who would want to promote issues which would drop with the first attempt to some research? I cannot think of any motive really). I am sure that it only happened because no one came in with reputable secondary sources to set the record staight. It will take a while to clear, but I am glad this has been discovered, with the help of a user of el-wikipedia who insisted: "The en-wikipedia cannot be wrong". Well, this was a very innocent thought, but he was right in a way: It is important that the en-wikipedia has correct, sourced information. So, I really want to thank you, StevenJ81, for your assistance and Constantine for his kind words. --FocalPoint (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @FocalPoint: have a look at the version in Simple English Wikipedia (simple:Principality of the Pindus). It's based on what you left me at Ladino Wikipedia, but with language (both vocabulary and syntax) modified as required for that Wikipedia. Please let me know in particular if it seems like everything more or less reads accurately. But do please understand that sometimes a little bit of the nuance contained in some vocabulary choices gets a little lost in the process of simplifying the language. So if you think something ought to change, let me know (probably there, at its talk page) and I'll try to see what I can do.
  • There are no pages linked there (except one redirect), so it sits as an orphan page right now. Is there some other page where you'd think it's appropriate to add a mention, and then link, so the article is no longer orphaned? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look now. Concerning pages to link from: I don't see any articles on any of the subjects you describe. Simple English Wikipedia is a small one that is missing a lot of specialized, detailed articles. These incidents (separate or combined) are too small and insignificant for the relatively brief history section in Greece, and don't really fit in articles on Balkans, World War I or World War II, either. I think the best bet is that if you want to write an article there about Samarina, I'll help you to "simplify" it. That's at least a topic on which one could write a credible two-to-three paragraph stub, including a mention of this topic. All the other possibilities (history of Aromanians/Vlach-speaking communities in Greece, Balkans during WWI, occupation of Greece in WWII, etc.) would require more substantial work. Mind you, articles can continue to exist if they remain orphans. But an article on Samarina would probably help both survive. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
done. simple:Principality_of_the_Pindus --FocalPoint (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordination for correction of serious mistakes across all wikis[edit]

Following the identification of serious mistakes in the Principality of Pindus articles in all wikis, I hereby leave

  • instructions on corrections that need to be done
  • a list of wikipedias and recording whether these corrections have been done (or not)
Instructions

Correct the affected articles:

  1. Principality of the Pindus (mainly for events of 1917)
  2. Alcibiades Diamandi (leader of the Vlach "Roman Legion" in 1941-42)
  3. Nicolaos Matussis (leader of the Vlach "Roman Legion" after Diamandis 1942-43, when Diamandis left for Romania)
  4. Gyula Cseszneky (no relationship with 1917 at all, no relationship with the "Roman Legion" at 1943)

Most important also:

  • Find all "what links here" articles to Principality of the Pindus and Alcibiades Diamandi and correct them.
  • Usual links to be corrected: the information of the non-existent principality has been copied in several wikipedias in Trikala (as a seat of assembly of the non-existent principality) and Metsovo (as a "capital" of the non-existent principality)
List of these articles in all Wikipedias
Wikipedia Principality of the Pindus Alcibiades Diamandi Nicolaos Matussis Gyula Cseszneky "what links here" articles
Armãneashti To correct (easy, very small) - - - To correct, easy, few
Български ok ok ok ok ok
Bosanski Removed gross inaccuracies, added "disputed" template, left note in discussion - - ok To correct, easy, few
Català Ok - - ok To check 2-3 only
Čeština To correct - - - To check
Dansk - - - ok To check
Deutsch Left a note in discussion and removed some mistakes To correct - ok To check
Ελληνικά ok ok ok ok ok
Español To correct (some mistakes removed) ok - ok To check
English ok ok ok ok ok, a few minor issues remain
Esperanto ok - Was a machine translation, replaced by new machine translation - - ok ok
Français mostly ok - - ok ok
Galego To check - - To check To check
Hrvatski despite corrections still needs changes To correct - To check To check
Bahasa Indonesia despite corrections still needs change - - To check To check
Italiano ok ok - ok ok
עברית To check - - To check To check
Ladino To correct, note left in discussion - - - ok
Magyar To check To correct To correct To check To check
Македонски To check - - To check To check
Bahasa Melayu despite corrections still need changes - - ok ok
Nederlands To check - - To check To check
日本語 To check - - To check To check
Norsk bokmål - - - ok ok
Norsk nynorsk - - - ok ok
Polski To check To correct To correct To check To check
Português despite corrections still needs change, left move proposal - - To check To check
Română despite corrections still needs change, needs move - - - To check
Русский despite corrections still needs change - - Corrected To check
Simple English ok - - - ok
Slovenčina ok, but still speaks about state - - ok ok
Српски / srpski To check - - To check To check
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски despite corrections still needs change - - ok ok
Basa Sunda To check - - To check To check
Suomi Left Template:Disputed - - - ok
Svenska To check - - - To check
Українська despite corrections still needs change - - - To check
Tiếng Việt Ok, machine translation from simple english - - - To check
中文 To check - - - To check

Standard message to leave in Edit summary:

removed incorrect information, please see [[:en:Talk:Principality of the Pindus#Article information]]

--FocalPoint (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank the people who have been involved in the corrections up to now: User:StevenJ81 (lad, en, simple), User:Cplakidas (en, fr), User:Мико (bg, el), User:Phso2 (fr). --FocalPoint (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palazzo Chigi[edit]

A small tangent but this passage: "The Aromanians were part of the projects for the dismemberment of Greece set up by the Italians. When the 11th Army occupied the areas in 1941, their commanders received orders by Palazzo Chigi (the Italian government/prime minister's premises) to survey each village recording their ethnicity and its attitude towards the occupiers, finding the Aromanians absorbed and assimilated in the Greek community with the exception of some groups who were recorded as anti-Bulgarian, anti-Greek, pro-Italian and pro-Romanian.[11]"

uses Palazzo Chigi as a metonym in a way that might be inaccurate. Palazzo Chigi was not the seat of the Prime Minister of Italy at that time or, according even to the Wiki article on the building, until 1961. Mussolini worked out of Palazzo Venezia. So, at least, the bit in parentheses is wrong. If the original source cited uses the name of Palazzo Chigi, and so describes it, it is also wrong. If the source cites Palazzo Chigi in a context meaning the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is possible, then this may be accurate. Random noter (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source cites Palazzo Chigi in a context meaning the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The erroneous part "(the Italian government/prime minister's premises)" was added by me. Apparently I was trying to explain what is the meaning of Palazzo Chigi but I got it wrong. Many thanks for indicating the problem - no matter how small it might seem, it is important to be accurate. I just replaced the text in parentheses with "(the seat of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time)" --FocalPoint (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_the_Pindus&oldid=1209999346"