Talk:Albania–Greece relations

Untitled

"But the Greek goverment is three times more racist against Albanians living in Greece..." What does this means? How can you quantify racism? Soathana (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed. The user who edited that section provided no source what-so ever. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories

This [1] series of edits by Sulmues is unacceptable and I have reverted it. Using a low quality POV source [2] (no ISBN, can't find it anywhere), the passage lets it be implied that Greece got hold of nuclear weapons and pointed them at Albania. This is conspiratorial POV nonsense of a high order. Even assuming the weapons had been stationed on Greek soil (for the sake of argument), is it even conceivable that they would have been under anything other than US command? And even assuming the crazy idea that the US handed over the weapons to Greece to do whatever they want, why on earth would Greece point them at the relatively militarily weak Albania, rather than its main opponent, Turkey. This is sheer lunacy. Wikipedia is not a repository of conspiracy theories based on fringe sources. Athenean (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons were stationed in Greece under NATO's nuclear sharing program. However they were under US control and of course never "pointed" at Albania (most were free-fall bombs either way, and not missile heads). For the rest, it is well-known that the Albanian communist regime (and the Soviets) considered the Balkan Pact a threat to their interests, and denounced it as a covert plan for aggression against Albania ([3], [4]) - which AFAIK is just that: political rhetoric of the kind typical of the Cold War. The same goes for the diplomatic exchanges re the weapons, i.e. it has more to do with power block relations than with any particular Greek-Albanian issue. Per se the events that Sulmues' edit contains are correct, the interpretation however is not. Constantine ✍ 08:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Constantine is right like Sulmues's edit, although it should interpreted as part of wider conflict and not an exclusively Albanian-Greek conflict [5]

[6]

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues' edit has nothing to do with Greece-Albania relations. That first link you provide doesn't even mention Albania. Athenean (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@Constantine: I remember having read the reactions in the Albanian press to an article published in Greece by Ta Nea in 2007. Perhaps someone who knows Greek can enlighten us on it? It was exactly about the fact that the nukes were pointed to Albania from Araxos. I'll work on getting more than one source, since this is so controversial.--Sulmues ^(talk) 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, I don't know which article you are referring to, but living in the Balkans, we both know full well that "reactions in the press" can mean a lot of things. Any paper and journalist, not to mention a few historians, can put their own little nationalist propaganda spin on any otherwise innocuous or neutral piece of information. The point is simple: atomic bombs (not missiles, but free-falling, "ordinary" bombs which cannot be "pointed" at anyone) were based at Araxos (and also several other countries), always under US control. There is no indication that this was a move directed against Albania by Greece, but only along the lines of NATO strategy (of course, since Albania was part of the Eastern Bloc, in case WW3 erupted I don't doubt they would be used there too). If the Albanian press of the time raised concerns, it is because it was its job to do so, i.e. to demonstrate that the "dirty imperialist/fascist Greeks are not only still harbouring territorial claims and aiming to declare war on us, but are even mad enough to threaten use of nuclear weapons"... Similar pronouncements were staple goods from both sides during the Cold War, intended for internal consumption and "international opinion", and should not be taken at face value. Khruschev's threats, provided by Zjarri, are also on the same level: "you allow the Americans to use your country as a base for nukes, but don't think you'll get away with it". There were similar threats against all Western European countries in the 1980s with the installation of Pershing II missiles there and the reciprocal targeting of the Soviet SS20s on W. European targets. If the guy you used for the source chooses to rehash Communist-era propaganda, fine by me, but it is not eligible for use in this article. Constantine ✍ 19:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete

Under Relations since 1992, contains an incomplete sentence/fact?

"On the other hand there have been many minor incidents between the Greek population in Southern Albania (Northern Epirus) and Albanian authorities over"

Also, The European Monitoring Center for Racism and Xenophobia article in page 25 clearly makes the case for discrimination/racism of Albanian immigrants. Any thoughts on this or am I reading this wrong? Bburghokie87 (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)bburghokie87

Warm relations

Lead currently reads:

Due to the strong presence of Albanian communities in Greece and the Greek communities in Albania, and the frequent high-level contacts between the governments of Albania and Greece, the two countries today enjoy warm diplomatic relations.

This has several problems:

• It is unclear what a "strong" presence is. Does this simply mean that there are many Albanians in Greece and Greeks in Albania?
• What is mean by the presence of Albanian communities in Greece, as opposed to the presence of Albanians? Is this meant to (incorrectly) imply that Albanians in Greece are somehow segregated? Yes, there are some historical communities of A in G and G in A, in the sense of Albanian-speaking villages in Greece, and Greek-speaking villages in Albania; is that what is being referred to here?
• By "Albanian communities", do we mean ethnic Albanians, or Albanian nationals? There are of course both.
• There is a non-sequitur. The "strong presence of A communities in G" and of G communities in A has historically been a source of friction. It may or may not continue to be a source of friction, but it cannot cause "warm diplomatic relations".
• Are the "frequent high-level contacts" actually the cause of "warm diplomatic relations"? or the consequence? Or just two ways of saying the same thing?
• "Warm diplomatic relations" sounds like a press release, not an objective description.

More objectively, I think all we can say in the lead is:

Albania and Greece have frequent high-level diplomatic contacts.

Comments? --Macrakis (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I too realized this issue and came to this talk page to check whether there are discussions about this. I replaced now the term "warm" with the term "decent". I hope this helps. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Though i agree wholeheartedly with the removal of "warm" as its false and POV terminology, even having it as "decent" brings up problems. Both countries just have plain diplomatic relations and it would be best to say that. Its a transactional relationship of sorts and nothing more.Resnjari (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"Transactional"? I don't think so. The two countries did more than just limiting their relations to a merely typical level that you may try portray them. The Greek government started inviting the Albanian government in international or regional summits held in Rhodes and Thessalonica, the two countries are building pipelines, are resolving the issue of the unburried Greek soldiers of WWII, the Greek Government took measures to ease the life of the Albanian illegal immigrants in Greece including recognition of Albanian diplomas and driver's lisences, while the Albanian government stopped the illegal demolitions of Greek homes and is taking efforts to open TV channels in the Greek language for the Greek minority. The Albanian government, along with the Bulgarian government, supported Greece on the Prespa Agreement despite Serbia's opposition to the agreement. And reports by officials stated that, in 2018, there were intense negotiations between Greek and Albanian governments on the definition of maritime boundaries between the two countries, despite Turkey's opposition to this. These efforts albeit noteworthy, they do face major difficulties, mainly due to nationalist reactions, but thing is, the two countries are taking some small steps in improving their relations. To me all this is hardly just "transactional relationship" --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albania–Greece relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141115070035/http://www.minorityrights.org/1400/albania/greeks.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/1400/albania/greeks.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325222928/http://www.migrantsingreece.org/transpartner/Tables.pdf to http://www.migrantsingreece.org/transpartner/Tables.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Albania–Greece relations

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Albania–Greece relations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Vickers, Miranda 2002":

• From Cham issue: Vickers, Miranda. The Cham Issue - Albanian National & Property Claims in Greece. Paper prepared for the British MoD, Defence Academy, 2002.ISBN 1-903584-76-0
• From Expulsion of Cham Albanians: Vickers, Miranda. The Cham Issue - Albanian National & Property Claims in Greece. Paper prepared for the British MoD, Defence Academy, 2002. ISBN 1-903584-76-0

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Cham issue but not N.Epirus issue

I wonder why a Cham issue section exists while we have no info about a N.E. issue. I assume the last disserves some info per wp:NPOV.Alexikoua (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean like the recent Greek nationalist incident by Katsifas ?Resnjari (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mention a specific incident but a N.E. (issues about the local Greek communities in this region)issue does exist from 1914 and warrant a section on its own.Alexikoua (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The Greek minority in Northern Epirus and their issues is still affecting greatly the diplomatic relations between the two states. If Alexikoua means that, then yes I would support inclusion. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It depends what we are referring to here. Northern Epuris as a irredentist issue of the past or Greek minority rights. Lets not conflate the two because the modern Greek government does not, as the recent Katsifas Greek nationalist incident shows. Also if where going to upgrade articles, time for Northern Epirus to get an upgrade as well. Its long overdue.Resnjari (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If by that you mean resumption of your past disruptive behavior on that article, I strongly advise against it. You need to stop this behavior of "if you make edits I don't like to this article, I will mess up that other article". Khirurg (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I am referring to constructive editing as i have always done. How others see it on wp:idontlikeit issues, is their concern.Resnjari (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall any "constructive editing", only crude POV-pushing and filibuster. If other editors see that as "constructive" that speaks for itself. Khirurg (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A friendly reminder. Your the one with multiple warnings from administrators regarding editing in recent times on articles. Your editing speaks for itself.Resnjari (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A friendly reminder: You are the one with multiple blocks for edit-warring in just the past year. Khirurg (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

They were two, due to certain trivial circumstances. Lessons were learned. However prior to and after that time i have not been involved in any matters of the sort in my whole decade of having an account. Yet you seem to be getting yourself in many recent quagmires with administrator warnings and not to mention you have racked up blocks in the past.Resnjari (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you refer to violating 3RR as "trivial circumstances" leaves me skeptical about "lessons learned". Time will tell. Khirurg (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That said, the complete lack of mention of the Greek minority in this article is glaring. Khirurg (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And Northern Epriot irredentism as well.Resnjari (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And hate incidents such as this [7], this [8] and this [9]. Khirurg (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we really, really want to go down this road. In recent weeks a Greek nationalist and citizen Konstaninos Katsifas, a special forces member (Redacted) who was in favour of the Northern Epirot 'cause' was shooting at Albanian police [10]. At his funeral were Greek nationalists [11] like Golden Dawn 'activists', nationalist Greek MPs from the EU parliament like one from Cyprus [12] and members of the Greek minority that had no qualms in yelling obscene things about Albanian existence [13] and so on. There are of course more articles on this. Now in terms of hate incidents in Albania this one tops it.Resnjari (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the murder of a Greek citizen and member of the Greek minority under unclear circumstances, the terrorizing of his elderly parents and theft of their property [14], the refusal to hand over his body [15] (among others) definitely "tops it" and is perhaps worthy of inclusion. As has the Albanian prime ministers' calling the mourners at his funeral "pigs" and "donkeys" [16]. However, he was not a Golden Dawn affiliate, and I will remind you that WP:BLP applies to talkpages and to the recently deceased. Further references to him being a Golden Dawn affiliate will be reported as BLP violations. Khirurg (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As is referring to a respected Euro MP as a "Greek nationalist". Khirurg (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The above comments are based on news reports from credible outlets. There are many more which point to those factors about the actions, membership and political affiliations of those people. True this is a developing story for now, but in coming months there will be more information over the whole issue, after the corner report and the joint Albanian-Greek investigation report etc come through. Areas where there is no doubt is that at his funeral, Greek nationalists and Golden Dawn members were in attendance [17]. Fact. At his funeral there some people yelling out chants of "Blood is calling us, set Albanians on fire!" [18]. Fact.Resnjari (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Golden Dawn members may have been present at his funeral, but that does not mean Katsifas himself was a member. You have no evidence of that. I hope we have reached an understanding on this matter. Khirurg (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Golden Dawn members were at his funeral (Greek authorities tipped off Albanians about some of them i.e "as at least one right-wing Golden Dawn Party van filled with supporters was warned by the Greek side to be arriving." [19]), its not in the realm of 'may have been'. With Katsifas news reports referred to his political sentiments. Of course more will come pending investigative reports.Resnjari (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence of Katsifas having any affiliation with Golden Dawn. I'm sure if there was, you would have found it by now. Please strike the part of your earlier comment where you refer to him as such. Thank you. Khirurg (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And the part of your comment where you refer to Eleni Theocharous as "nationalist". Thanks again. Khirurg (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Even Cypriot media is aware of Theocharous' ideas. She is on the record for statements such as promoting 'Enosis' (something that got Cyprus in its predicament in the first place): "If setting oneself on fire at [Athens’] Syntagma Square is what it takes to push for a union of Cyprus and Greece, then I will strive to be the first to do it" (2016) [20].Resnjari (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You have provided no reliable sources that describe her as a "nationalist". Your views about her comments are your own. So I will ask you one last time. Khirurg (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Economist describes her political affiliations this way some years back: "Eleni Theocharous from the nationalist wing." [21]. Also here is the link on her being banned from Albania [22]. The article says the following: "The Albanian foreign ministry announced on Friday the Cypriot, Euro Parliamentarian Eleni Theocharous is now a ‘persona non-grata,’ after the latter attended on Thursday the Greek minority member’s Kostantinos Katsifas funeral service in Bularat, Gjirokaster, where she issued extremist, anti-Albanian calls, according to Albanian authorities." The article goes further into it. Greece has not told Albania to revoke this ban and neither has the EU. By the way that comment about her and fire is cited in a journal article about hate speech in Cyprus by Yiannos Katsourides, Nikos Moudouros and Eleni Evagorou, p. 158. [23].Resnjari (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"according to Albanian authorities". Problem is, the authorities cannot be considered a reliable source. In any case, since you won't strike your BLP violating comments, I will do it for you. Khirurg (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The news article is noting the view of the authorities who banned her from the country which did happen. I fail to see what the issue is. Also its the Economist source that places her political affiliations in the "nationalist wing", not the Albanian news source. Have a read.Resnjari (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless i read it wrong and no one got banned? I fail to see anything that would suggest otherwise.Resnjari (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't contest that she was banned from Albania, that's pretty obvious. I do object to your removal of your accusation that Katsifas was a Golden-Dawn member, because it alters the discussion, and anyone who tries to follow this discussion won't know what we're talking about. That's why in such cases is is better form to strikethrough than delete. Khirurg (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue with his political affiliations is complex. Obviously more is going to come out in an official investigation. That people involved in the Greek far right and them attaching themselves to this matter is beyond doubt. At least the leftist Syriza Greek government has shown restraint and common sense.Resnjari (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Based on how the Albanian government and especially the prime minister have already handled the situation (sowing up of the wounds of the deceased, holding the body for days, intimidating members of the Greek minority through arbitrary arrests, no release of the bodycam and drone footage, incendiary ethnically charged remarks, etc.), I would be very cautious about the "official investigation", unless it were conducted by an impartial organization (EU, ECHR, European Parliament, etc.). Khirurg (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The body was held for days as Katsifas family requested in Ioannina (that's where they lodged documents as Katsifas is a Greek citizen as well) for a Greek coroner and investigation, something which the Albanian government accepted. Its now a joint Albanian-Greek investigation with footage and other matters being for the investigators to deal with. The Albanian prime minster handled the situation as he thought best when Golden Dawn people were in Albania yelling anti-Albanian chants at the funeral. Albania arrested those people for national security reasons. Golden Dawn is a fascist party, this is beyond dispute (no need for any "BLP" here) and the Greek state itself is at a loss in how to handle them (i can cite heaps of articles about this if need be -again beyond dispute). My heart goes out to the leftist Syriza, its a hard situation they face.Resnjari (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

So you approve of Rama's remarks describing Greeks as "pigs" and "donkeys"? As for the body, it wasn't held by the family, it was held in Tirana by the government. The family pleaded for days for them to release it. Get your facts straight. Albania did not arrest Golden Dawn members, it arrested leaders of the Greek minority for intimidation purposes. Even now they are making occasional shows of force in Vouliarates to intimidate the locals. In any case, this is not the place to discuss this.Khirurg (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

On getting facts correct, the village is called Bularat. The Albanian state has never called the place with name and neither did the Ottoman state. The family wanted the body, on the other hand had they wanted Greek investigators. Both things can't happen at once. And Albania is caught in a bind. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Golden Dawn members were arrested and those affiliated with them due to events at the funeral. The Greek government has not said to the Albanian government that their actions were wrong in arresting or banning people. I am yet to see this. Only clarifications were asked for. All they have said is that caution be exercised. Once again the leftist Syriza government has not given given in to the Greek far right on this. With Edi's facebook comment he was referring to extremists on both sides as being "pigs" and "donkeys", not the Greek people. I can translate his whole comment if you so wish [24]. The Albanian police is in the area due to events, i.e Golden Dawn people being there some days before. I should also note, Bularat now is in Dropull municipality run by local Greeks and the local Albanian police force are mainly from the Greek minority. Those involved with the Katsifas event come from the Albanian special forces, like Katsifas who also was from the Greek special forces.Resnjari (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I could been happy if the Albanian authorities arrested ONLY the Golden Dawn members, or if they released the body days sooner. But they did not. Another big mistake was the banning of Eleni Theocharous, who is not a random MEP, but the shadow Rapporteur of the Albanian EU accession negotiations. Albania's prospects of joining the European Union have been weakened now that the European Parliament's shadow rapporteur has been banned from entry in the candidate country which aspires to join it. For comparison, authoritarian Turkey never banned any EP Rapporteurs, no matter how much the Erdogan governments could agree or disagree with them. We may argue what was done right and what not, but still this is not a concern of the present time: still, if something has to be added here in the article, this clearly is the Northern Epirote minority and how it was an important factor affecting the relations between the two countries (in fact, more than the Cham issue ever did; those who are following the developments, know this already). --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 08:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see Albania joining the EU any time soon. It might never. Far right parties are gaining the ascendancy in Europe and they are not fond of Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo or Turkey. Even politicians not in the right wing category like Macron have expressed views being against enlargement for now. In regards to Theocharous, the Albanian government did what it thought was in its national interests and her controversial views on certain topics are known (i cited the 'fire' comments by her above). About Turkey it no longer seeks EU membership and the EU ain't interested either. No one wants to officially call off accession talks for political reasons (there are heaps of articles about this) and take blame. Also its not the 'northern epirot' minority, but the Greek minority of Albania. The Greek and Albanian governments officially recognises it as such.Resnjari (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Greeks of Northern Epirus are Northern Epirotes and the minority which resides in Northern Epirus is what I am referring to. They are geographical terms. I have no problems if others call the region as "Southern Albania" and the Greek minority as "Greek Minority of Albania", still both terms are valid. Like it or not. I however do sense a rejection of your part of the term "Northern Epirus" due to unfortunate irredendist connotations it obtained due to Greek nationalist propaganda? Rejection of established geographic terms such as Northern Epirus is a form of weakness, which reminds me of Greece's (past) rejection of the term Western Thrace (calling it merely Thrace) due to irredendist connotations it beared related to Turkish nationalists. Now the term Western Thrace is finally being acknowledged as a geographic term reflecting the fact that Greece only owns the Western portion of Thrace, like it should have been. I am against politicizing the geographic terms such as Northern Epirus and Western Thrace, so please spare me. Regarding EU, it is true that Turkey never really sought accession to the block under Erdogan's presidency, but at least it kept its pretensions when it came to rapporteurs and other EU officials, didn't it? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 09:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I use the official name: Greek minority of Albania. The modern Greek government does not recognise a "Northern Epirus" nor does it call the area in those terms. Northern Epirus is not a term used by Albanians or Albania. The comparison with Western Thrace is a wp:straw. The region you refer to is in Greece. Turks have been ok with referring to it as Batı Trakya (Western Thrace). I have not seen any other terminology used in Turkish for the place. "Northern Epirus" has been a politicised term for more than a century, and yes its to do with Greek irredentism. Southern Albania is in Albania, not Greece. On the EU and Turkey both sides never really meant it. It just took a while for both to be on the same page.Resnjari (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I use the official name: Greek minority of Albania. The modern Greek government does not recognise a "Northern Epirus" Really? So you are suggesting that we are using Official names and ONLY these? If we go with your logic, then we shall ban the use of the name "Albania" and start calling it only "Republic of Albania" only when referring to that country. Likewise, We shall ban everyone calling the "Turkish Minority of Western Thrace" by anything other than "Muslim Minority of Greece" instead. Saying that The region you refer to is in Greece. Turks have been ok with referring to it as Batı Trakya (Western Thrace)., doesn't stand as an argument when trying to tell us to not use a name that the Greeks have been ok with referring to the region in Albania as Voreios Ipiros (Northern Epirus). Now, if you excuse me, you REALLY need to stop deviating from the discussion. This is not a forum and you know that I am impatient with people who came here, not to contribute positively to the project, but to dictate the other Wikipedians on how other people shall be called. If the Greeks of Albania do define themselves as Vorio Epirotes, then so be it. If the Chams do define themselves as Chams, then so be it. If the Greeks of Greek Macedonia define themselves as Macedonians, then so be it. If the Macedonians of the Republic of Macedonia do define themselves as Macedonians, then so be it. If the Muslims of Thrace, at least those that have Turkish origin, do define themselves as Turks, then so be it. This is none of your business to dictate how to call them. Please dont turn this into another WP:FORUM or I will be obliged to not take your presence here in account for the sake of the discussion. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 10:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I speak for myself, i don't speak for you. Its southern Albania and Tsipras' government does not refer to the region as "Vorio Epirus" nor to any Northern Epirot minority but a Greek minority. They do call themselves Hellenes, do they not (which means Greek)? How you want to deal with that is up to you.Resnjari (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears that Resnjari insist to derail the discussion into a usual trolling pattern. In case there is no real argument against a Northern Epirus issue section I'm going to create one per wp:NPOV (no wonder nationalists insist that term X -Chameria- is fine while Y -N.E.- is irredentist).Alexikoua (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Not a derailment, but a discussion. We'll see what you come up with and if its in the realm of "wp:NPOV". A reminder that there is academic material about "Northern Epirus" and irredentism, in particular Albania's views about the matter in relation to Greece.Resnjari (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way the Greek government doesn't recognize a Cham issue, so according to Resnjari's rationale the already existing Cham section should vanish.Alexikoua (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no modern Cham issue. Chams are never going to get a right of return or compensation. Those who think that need a reality check. There are those who talk or bring it up from time to time and that's as far as it has ever went. The best they can ever hope for is to get a visa and visit for a holiday the land they come from. I highly doubt that will happen as well. Albania is a small country and Albanians are not many in number to be able to negotiate or have leverage with its large neighbours. Its the same with Greece's and Cyprus' relations with Turkey. It is what it is.Resnjari (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Alexikoua, I can quote Resnjari's past statements that he is AGAINST double standards. I want to believe that his position remains unchanged to this day, and thus, I expect him to agree that either we include BOTH Cham and North Epirus Issues in this article, or have BOTH of them removed. Otherwise we have an WP:NPOV case, where an issue for the Albanian side that is important in its diplomatic relations with Greece is being mentioned, but an issue for the Greek side that is important in its diplomatic relations with Albania, is being WP:CENSORED. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Silent, take a breather. I can't dictate to you, the same goes for you regarding me. I can't say whether i am for or against inclusion until i see what @Alexikoua proposes here in terms of text and sources if additions are truly meant to improve the article. On 'northern epirus' there is the Albanian angle regarding relations with Greece, and there is scholarship around it. The same way as you point to WP:CENSORED, not having how this issue has affected the Albanian government would also constitute that. Fair is fair.Resnjari (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Am I supposed to read all what is written above? You all should try to confine the discussion to the content issue at hand. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

In cases of huge walls the best way is to ignore the text posted by the editor who keeps flooding the discussion with irrelevant data (a specific editor posted almost 14kb in 22hours, more than 55% of this section).Alexikoua (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way half of the Cham section lacks citation: Roudometof & Meyer claim nothing about a post-1990s Cham issue. This part should be removed.Alexikoua (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it is just one editor writing walls of text. In any case, writing walls of text is not that bad, writing walls of text with little to no value to the article is. So all of you try to make the discussion more fruitful and easier to read. You Alexikoua should also make up your mind. On one hand you want to add content on Greeks in Albania and on the other hand you want to remove content on Chams. Do you want to add or to remove content? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I was quite clear in my comments that if a N.Epirus issue is absent then a Cham issue has no place in this article too. Either both or nothing.Alexikoua (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Reminder to all that this talk page is not a forum. I know you love arguing with each other, but keep it on the forums. Thanks. As for the matter at hand, all I will say is that in the past my view has been (and still is) that all four of you place far more emphasis on nationalist disputes than most people -- including probably the vast majority of other Albanian and Greek editors. In the case of "Northern Epirote", Resnjari would be correct that the usage is mostly limited to Greek or Greek-focused sources (when we are not dealing with the 1910s republic that is), and it's safe to say it's very usage is offensive to Albanians --- comparable to referring to Thesprotia as Chameria. It's also not equivalent to Greeks in Albania (is Narta in Northern Epirus? Is Zvernec? What about Durres? Vlora? Tirana?), and yes there are Greeks in Albania who refuse the term, generally in the case that they are not personally irredentists and the term has obvious connotations.--Calthinus (talk) 19:22, 19November 2018 (UTC)

Same situation occurs among Albanians who refuse the Chameria story. Nevertheless N. Epirus played a role in the diplomatic agenda & needs to be stated. Resnjari's view that only a Cham section should exist is generally POV. Alexikoua (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It is quite the opposite. I see confusion in the lines you wrote. What you consider to be a N. Epirus issue, is a past issue (if it ever was an issue on its own). Current issues include the Cham issue (of Chams, not of all Albanian communities that lived in Greece), and the rights of Albanian immigrants in Greece and Greeks in Albania. If we were to add content on the past N. Epirus issue, we would add content on the problems caused by the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey too (Alb. gov. protested the expulsion of many Albanians and their replacement with Anatolian Greeks and Christian Turks). If you wish to discuss about the rights of Greeks in Albania and Albanian immigrants in Greece, it is good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The N.Epirus issue including the rights of the ethnic Greek communities in the region is a major topic in the Greek-Albanian diplomatic agenda. Certainly a nationalist would insist that only one side of a coin exist (for example Cham issue and not N.Epirus or the opposite) for the usual irredentist reasons. Wikipedia isn't a place for this type of censorship.Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

To avoid any possible misunderstanding, are you saying that I am a nationalist? Yes or no? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

In terms of wikipedia editing "selective" use of such terminology is a typical pattern of POV editing. Though I avoid personal discussions (see policy) this tendency raises serious issues about neutrality.Alexikoua (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record I support keeping the Cham section (as long as unsourced material is removed), and adding a section about the Greek minority, as both of these have an effect on bilateral relations. Khirurg (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually with the Cham issue i have the necessary academic sources and can add footnotes to them. That is not a problem. Alexikoua, i never wrote anything about leaving out any details relating to the Greek minority of Albania. Of course their existence has affected relations. Please elaborate what do you mean by the "Northern Epirus issue". Are you referring to the past? If so then its both sides and what they did in terms of relations would need to covered (scholarship exists). Or are you referring to a current "Northern Epirus issue", if so do you mean from a Greek government perspective (i have not seen the Greek state of today have any claims) or from some diaspora groups, parts of the Greek far right and Greek nationalists? Clarification would be good. Ktrimi991, since historic relations between the two nations are cited, your suggestion about the population exchange and Albanian-Greek relations are important and covered in scholarship. Coverage in the article would do well. Thank you for reminding me. I appreciate it.Resnjari (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

When Alexikoua is talking about Northern Epirus issue, he is referirng just to the minority and its isues, not all Greeks who reside in Albania, or the North Epirote diaspora in the West. The Greek government doesn't have any claims against Albanian sovereighnty - I thought this was clear. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

If its the minority and its issues then its about the Greek minority. As you have said "Northern Epirus" is a Greek term for land, not people. As one recalls "Northern Epirot" is Greek terms for people. On the Albanian side all those terms are controversial. But it would be good for @Alexikoua to clarify.Resnjari (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

We already have a Chameria section, so to maintain neutrality we need to include the exodus of ethnic Greeks from parts of N. Epirus [[25]] p. 45 (at the same time of the Cham exodus but in the opposite direction). Information about the official position of the Greek government in the 90s, for example that the ethnic Greeks should enjoy the same rights compared to the Albanian communities of Kovoso are/were part of the diplomatic agenda and are also vital for this article [[26]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Just so there is no confusion, there is no Chameria section. If the section was called that then it would be implying that there is a territorial issue/dispute which there is not. The section is named the Cham issue around the Muslim Albanian community that lived on the Greek side of the border until the mid 1940s. The Cham issue section is woefully small, not to mention that during the interwar period they formed a large part of the Albanian government's diplomatic relations with Greece p.206. [27], p.xxxiv, xxxvi-xxxviii [28]. This is vital for the historic and contemporary coverage of the article about the role Chams have played in diplomatic relations between both states. I remind editors that its southern Albania. Otherwise its easy to start referring to Thesprotia as Chameria like the Greek government did as Tsamouria until the 1940s.Resnjari (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure there is no Chameria but Cham issue & in the same fashion we should have a Northern Epirote issue. The later should focus on the group which self identifies as such (as in the same fashion some Albanians identify as Chams). Info about the 1945 exodus, human rights issues etc. are good to be part of this. It's an essential part of the Greek-Albanian diplomatic agenda & it's not about border change.Alexikoua (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait a sec. There is confusion once again. A Northern Epirote issue would refer to a land, the Greek government refers to the issue of the Greek minority and not as a "Northern Epirote issue". Having a subsection with the terms "Northern Epirote issue" would be POV and give the appearance that the Greek state has land claims on Albania. If we are talking about rights of the Greek minority the subsection ought to reflect that. A "northern Epirote issue" which really connotes the thing over land is another issue that plagued Albanian-Greek relations from 1912-1913 till about the fall of communism or thereafter. We can't lump everything into one of minority rights and land claims. The article already has subsections like the Military cemeteries of fallen Greek soldiers. Within the larger History section i would support a Greek minority of Albania subsection and something about the whole "Northern Epirus" thing treated in its historic context of diplomatic relations as another separate subsection.Resnjari (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The cemeteries issue is unrelated to the local Greek communities. Take also into account that Cham/N.Epirote are both POV in case they are treated selectively. By the way, nice proposal about the History section in case a Cham issue also becomes a subsection of this.Alexikoua (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The case of relatedness and non-relatedness is subject to interpretation. "Northern Epirus" was a land claim which the Greek state no longer pursues for at least some 3 decades or more now. Greek minority rights are things which the Greek state actively pursues. Conflating former territorial claims with minority rights would be problematic and go into all sorts of POV issues. Also no one proposed to treat "Cham/N.Epirote" in one subsection. That would be confusing and defeats the purpose of having a clear and succinct article. There is a history section and all these topics are subdidvided into their own subsections. With the Cham matter it might become a historical issue. To date the Albanian government has not said so yet. The Albanian side still has that issue active in its diplomatic relations with Greece. When the Albanian government longer has it part of relations then yes a change of course. I am not Nostradamus so neither i, you or anyone else knows if or even when such a thing might happen.Resnjari (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"Northern Epirote issue" is not a land but points to specific communities, just like the "Cham issue". In general there is enough bibliography to warrant such a section. I can't ignore that an extreme pro-Albanian approach would simply reject any mention to Northern Epirote communities while inflating the Cham side but this is POV and should be fixed.Alexikoua (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah no. The Greek government does not refer to a "Northern Epirote" issue, but the Greek minority of Albania (neutral non POV bibliography is wide on this). Your still conflating both a past land issue to one with the Greek minority. Disappointing. As for your other commentary i am not surprised.Resnjari (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way as I see Roudometof was misinterpreted. By reading the book he states that: During the 1990s, Albanian diplomacy used the Cham issue as counter-issue against the one related with the Greek minority in Albania.. If we are going to fix this discrepancy this should be stated at the start of this section (Roudometof as inline reference is part of this section several months now, so there is already an established consensus, in contrary addition about Gogonas should be discussed first).Alexikoua (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

What's interesting is that Roudometof's statement is confirmed by a variety of sources (Dorlhiac, 2015: "Les Tchames sont une population musulmane albanophone expulsée de la partie grecque de l’Épire, de l’entre-deux guerres à la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Essentiellement patrimoniales, ses revendications sont souvent instrumentalisées politiquement et mises en miroir avec les revendications de la minorité grecque."). The so-called Cham issue is primarily part of internal nationalistic consumption in the country: activity by Red & Black alliance & the Cham party etc.Alexikoua (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua Do not make assumptions about me. This discussion started as a desire to add content on the Greek minority and now is about removing content on the Chams. I suggest that everyone return for a fresh new discussion later. Reflect, prepare a better proposal and ping us. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(ignore trolling about supposed personal assumptions) In general text that's not supported by the existing material should be either removed or replaced in line of wp:CITATION. As such During the 1990s, Albanian diplomacy used the Cham issue as counter-issue against the one related with the Greek minority in Albania. should be place at this paragraph. It's based on Roudometof which is already used as inline ref there.Alexikoua (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua I am neither "trolling" nor "tolling". You should recall your response to the question I raised in my previous comment. Since I am not "trolling" (or "tolling" for that matter), I am not going to discuss further here. I conclude my involvement here with opposition to your proposal. I tried to find a solution that could satisfy all sides of the dispute. If you wish to remove a source, you should accept to replace it with a better one. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be removed, a problematic part should be corrected with what the inline reference (Roudometof) really states as noted above.Alexikoua (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari: The Greek government does not refer to a "Northern Epirote" issue, but the Greek minority of Albania. Roudometof appears to disagree about that [[29]] p. 183 It is characteristic of this interest that Alexandros Papadopoulos, an Epirote Socialist MP, wrote a brief overview of Greek-Albanian relations including reviews of the Northern Epirus question (Papadopoulos, 1992). It would be better to use RS for such extraordinary claims since members of the Greek government did refer to the Northern Epirote issue ([[30]])Alexikoua (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that the article cannot stand in its current form. Either both sides's issues will be presented and covered equally and fairly in this article, per WP:NPOV, either none of them stays on the article. No matter what certain editors may think/consent about the North Epirote Issue, it is still a fundamentally detrimental issue affecting the core of the Albanian-Greek relations and cannot be left out of the article while keeping the Cham issue in it. Simple as that. Alexikoua, feel free to make additions to the article about the Northern Epirote minority's problems. But make sure that the content you are adding, does relate to the article's subject. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Cham section is a product of copy paste job from the correspondent article. There is no need for introductory statements like "the Cham issue refers to a controversy..." all diplomatic issues refer to some kind of disagreement. Also Epirus needs to be changed to Thesprotia per inline (Roudometof and Meyer).Alexikoua (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

As i have said to all of you i can very easily remedy the situation on the Cham section and write it up with scholarship. No issues there.Resnjari (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Also @Alexikoua you just ram what you want into the article as a "recent and respectable analysis on the subject" while omitting other edits based on Greek scholarship like this one [31]. Seek consensus.Resnjari (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As I remember the above part you accuse me that I've removed is now restored.Alexikoua (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It was restored by another editor. First you removed it in the first place on grounds of it being unsourced [32]. ok fine. Then i provided a Greek academic for the sentence and then you removed it for no consensus [33]. So the situation on that bit now stands that it is unsourced and POV written, while the sentence i added had a source and was based on that. With you addition, a section on the Greek minority itself dealing with them is fine and the title reflecting that. Northern Epirote issue refers to land which is part of historical relations (Greece does not have a land claim for decades).Resnjari (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Northern Epirote refers to Northern Epirotes (a community & Chams are another community). I've provided a recent political analysis on the subject which contradicts your claims. So, If there isn't a decent argument against it I assume we have a consensus.Alexikoua (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I just read that digital media piece by Hajidimitriu [34]. If you take this "Το χρονικό, η ιστορία των Ελληνο-αλβανικών σχέσεων, είναι άρρηκτα συνδεδεμένο με την τύχη των Ελλήνων στην Βόρειο Ήπειρο." to mean Northern Epriote issue then your mistaken. All it says is that Greek Albanian relations are tied to the Greek minority living in "Northern Epirus" i.e Southern Albania. I did find colourful terms like "οθωμανικό ζυγό" i.e Ottoman yoke. Anyway nowhere in the article does it say "Northern Epirote issue". A Greek minority section is needed but not under a Northern Epirote issue title. Please no synthesis or interpretations of media pieces if it does not say that. Otherwise all sorts of things get floated around that are not the words of the source itself.Resnjari (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to have content on the Greek minority's rights, it is OK as long as it does not have any reference to the "N. Epirus issue". They are two different things. On the Chams part, if you wish to make those changes, the source of Resnjari should be added [35]. Since the part on the Greek minority does not have similar content, the bolt part in the following sentence should be removed:"The Cham issue refers to a controversy which has been raised by Albania since the 1990s over the repatriation of the Cham Albanians, who were expelled from the Greek region of Epirus between 1944 and 1945, at the end of World War II, citing the collaboration of the majority of them with the occupying forces of the Axis powers." The situation is more complex than just a sentence shows. If you agree on all of these, I agree too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Cham and Northern Epirote issues are both sides of the same coin in the dimplomatic agenda. I understand that a typical nationalist may prefer a selective use of this terminology but Hatzidimitriou fieldwork is of great value and sheds light in both issues. You still need to address why Chams should be overemphasized contrary to Northern Epirotes. Still no argument provided for this.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If you repeat your claims on "typical nationalist" again, I will not comment here again and will not allow any edit. Then you will need a RFC/DRN case etc. Right? Since your command of English is not that good, and you might not be fully aware of the meaning of "nationalist" in English, we are forgetting what you wrote this time. If you wish to see nationalists, do not search for them on Wikipedia but on online forums, chats, videos etc where some guys who do not have the guts to fight for what they want, post crap hidden behind a computer. They are not men of honour but little trolls. Now back to the topic. Do you agree with what I wrote in my previous comment or not? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua that's a strawman. The counterpart to a Northern Epirote issue would be something called a Chameria issue. Both imply something to land. Some Greeks refer to southern Albania as Northern Epirus and some Albanians still refer to the area of Thesprotia as Chameria. Cham issue refers to the people. When the term "Cham issue" is mentioned it is to the people and property matters and not something else [36]. Please don't conflate things. With Hajidimitriu he just sumerizes what is already out there in scholarship. My thing to you is if where going to go down the path of using sources like that there are heaps written by Albanians as well. I guess you wont object to their usage?Resnjari (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The counterpart to a Northern Epirote issue would be "Tokat shqiptare ne Greqi". Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"Northern Epirotes" refers to a community just like Chams. I understand that the selective use of such terms raises serious concerns about neutrality. Your arguments need to be backed by RS and a Northern Epirote issue did exist in the diplomatic agenda just like a Cham issue.Alexikoua (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you consider to be a "North Epirote issue" is not being currently discussed or raised by any government. The right of the Greek minority are. If you keep up the "Northern Epirote" issue I am not going to respond here again. Do you agree with my proposal or not? Yes or No. Here it is again:"If you wish to have content on the Greek minority's rights, it is OK as long as it does not have any reference to the "N. Epirus issue". They are two different things. On the Chams part, if you wish to make those changes, the source of Resnjari should be added [37]. Since the part on the Greek minority does not have similar content, the bolt part in the following sentence should be removed:"The Cham issue refers to a controversy which has been raised by Albania since the 1990s over the repatriation of the Cham Albanians, who were expelled from the Greek region of Epirus between 1944 and 1945, at the end of World War II, citing the collaboration of the majority of them with the occupying forces of the Axis powers. The situation is more complex than just a sentence shows." Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Even the article that @Alexikoua cited does not refer to the people as "Northern Epirotes" but the Greek minority. My goodness. @Alexikoua, i already placed a source about RS and the "Cham Issue".Resnjari (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Also i still raise objections to the section. It has a problematic sentence "(also known as the Northern Epirote issue)" [38]. Hajidimitriu nowhere says this . Obviously original research. Disappointing. Please no POV.Resnjari (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have read some (not all) arguments of this heated debate but I havent seen any evidence that a RS discuss at a certain extent the alleged "N.E. Issue" and its influence on Greece-Albania Relations.Cinadon36 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident: Tell your opinion here by commenting, not by continuing the cycle of changes to the article. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You have violated 3RR, you reverted information you do not agree with, and insisted in keeping opposite information the others do not agree being presented in the article, despite my warnings. This is not constructive attitude of your part, Ktrimi. Unless you agree on covering both side's respective minorities in the article, none stays. I think I was very clear to you on this, wasn't I?

Either resolve the disagreements by yourself, either ask for a 3rd party opinion. By reading this discussion here, you are not showing signs of goodwill preferred to edit war. I am calling for admin attention. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it is your WP:ONUS to wait until you reach agreement on the talk page and then change the stable version. Instead of making frivolous threats, respond to my proposal above. Otherwise everything is a waste of time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident, there was edit warring and no consensus in the article talkpage while some editors continuously kept trying to add content while a discussion was ongoing. That in no way generates good faith. @Ktrimi's constructive editing returned the article to a stable version and yes i do agree that administrator attention is needed.Resnjari (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Persistent denial to accept that Northern Epirotes and Chams refer both to communities (not regions) falls simply wp:IDHT. There is plenty of RS material as presented above so there is no excuse for selective use of those two terms. In case these is a Cham issue there should be a Northern Epirote issue else this is POV.Alexikoua (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Unbelievable, even one of the editors who joined in had to change the section subtitle from the one your POV pushing "Northern Epirote issue" to the neutral "Greek minority in Albania" as some editors in here having been pointing out. @Alexikoua you seem to agree with that in your edit summary of "objections are addressed" [39], yet here your still pushing things about Northern Epirotes. I will note again no one here has disagreed that a section about the Greek minority in Albania should exist, but adding content when it does not say things about a "Northern Epirote issue" in no way builds good faith. Also there is lots of RS scholarship about bilateral relations and the Greek minority of Albania. Use those please. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

One thing is for certain and going by the edit summary/edits of @Alexikoua, @SilentResident and @Krirug agree i guess that the section should be called Greek minority in Albania.Resnjari (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Added POV tag to the article, and asked for administrator attention. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Page is now protected.Resnjari (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

POV tag has been added and Ed locked the article. I am sorry it had to come to this, but you didn't leave me any other options. if you can't resolve a dispute by yourself, then consider a third party opinion on this instead of editwarring. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

There is plenty of bibliography to include the "Northern Epirote issue" Roudometof for example is now of them which states that this is part of the official Greek policy: Northern Epirote issue=the condition and human rights of the Greek communities in Albania.Alexikoua (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed there is a extensive bibliography and when they use the expression "Northern Epirote issue" (Stefanidis [40]) its in relation to land and bilateral issues, not people. You already agreed that the section should be called Greek minority in Albania by agreeing [41] to @Khirurg's edit, so that part is done. Now the crux is what content and should be be based on RS sources or other?Resnjari (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident No need for sorry. I asked page protection before you. I do not mind improving the article, I do not mind leaving the article as is together with the POV tag. If you wish to make changes, respond to my proposal above. Otherwise, everything is a waste of time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with Khirurg's suggestion which is cited (Stefanidis confirms that a n.E. issue exists).Alexikoua (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Stefanidis does say that in terms toward the land and past, not the people.Resnjari (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

N. Epirus is a region but N. Epirotes refers to people, similar like Chameria & Cham issue (the last being present in the article with a separate section).Alexikoua (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

In Greece some people refer to southern Albania in that way, in Albania there is no recongition of Northern Epirus, neither does the Greek government refer to southern Albania that way. With Chameria after the mid 1940s the geographical concept over the area of modern Thesprotia becomes defunct (just to refresh your memory the Greek state refereed to the region as Tsamouria until the 1940s out of its own free will in government documents). Chameria only still applies to the Albanian side of the border in the Konsipol area. Look after all the brouhaha of opposing a proposal i made about the section being called Greek minority in Albania you accepted that same thing after @Khirurg rewrote section's name. Now if you want to be constructive about the content of the section, ok i'll engage with you otherwise this page is protected and no one gets anything done.Resnjari (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Since there is no objection about Khirurg's suggestion I'm ok with it.Alexikoua (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record it was my suggestion first.Resnjari (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to have content on the Greek minority's rights, it is OK as long as it does not have any reference to the "N. Epirus issue". On the Chams part, if you wish to make those changes, the source of Resnjari should be added [42]. Since the part on the Greek minority does not have similar content, the bolt part in the following sentence should be removed:"The Cham issue refers to a controversy which has been raised by Albania since the 1990s over the repatriation of the Cham Albanians, who were expelled from the Greek region of Epirus between 1944 and 1945, at the end of World War II, citing the collaboration of the majority of them with the occupying forces of the Axis powers. If you agree on all of these, then it OK. Otherwise, move on and do sth else. To clarify, the content on the Greek minority would be like this:

===Greek minority in Albania===

Main article: Greeks in Albania

The issue of the Greek minority in Albania revolves around the implementation and respection of the minority and human rights of the ethnic Greek population in Albania.

Say if you agree or not without too many words. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Khirug's suggestion is ok [[43]] & as soon Resnjari is fine [[44]] I assume there is concensus (The issue of the Greek minority in Albania (also known as the Northern Epirote issue) revolves round the implementation and respect of the minority and human rights of the ethnic Greek population in Albania.). It appears that Ktrimi adopts a stubborn opposition on this (not to mention his 4rvs). Alexikoua (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Jesus, how are you still interpreting that its consensus on the whole thing? There is no consensus about the internal contents of the section making reference to the POV of "also known as the Northern Epirote issue" about the Greek minority. Not even the media source by Hajidimitiriu that you presented does that. The only thing so far that there is agreement now is that the section be called Greek minority in Albania.Resnjari (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The controverial approach that Chams vs Northern Epirotes should have one sided approach POV. Nothing should be avoided (in your rationale mention to Northern Epirotes) provided that there is enough RS and in this case we have plenty of sources.Alexikoua (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually your the one continuing with a controversial approach. It was you who has consistently (as shown in the above comments) held firm to having a section called in a POV way and only relented when you did(maybe when you did not notice Khirurg's edit that changed of the title through all the reverts of this and that), and by default agreed in the edit summary to what was my original proposal but you now attribute to Khirurg. Anyway it doesn't matter who came up with it, what is important is that the section will carry the name "Greek minority in Albania".Resnjari (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have read a review on Stefanis book, but doesnt say anything about Epirus. Does anyone have access to that book? In what chapter/pages does he discuss the North Epirus Issue? As pointed out earlier, we should not connect Chams and N.Epirotes like it is the same issue (even if they are!). It is not POV pushing, it is sticking to the sources. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I've read that, though I can't understand why Resnjary presented this work here. Top grated publications like that of Hatziioanou on Naftempriki are ok and can't be excluded. Moreover, Tzineli is among many others that refers to the Northern Epirote issue in modern terms [[45]].Alexikoua (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I read through the Tzanelli source, she refers to Greeks in Greece, not the Greek government. Remember this article is about relations between governments and countries, not the day to day relations between Albanian people and Greek people. Otherwise i can cite sources here about the Albanian populace and their views on the 'Chameria question'. Please lets keep to what the article is about international relations between two countries.Resnjari (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. This article is about bilateral relations, not international. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A single sentence on this issue is obviously not going to cut it. Tomorrow I will try to draft something that we can all agree on. Khirurg (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't what your referring to here, but any content going into the article must reflect the sources and not personal POV.Resnjari (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The only POV is to present a Cham only section. As you said this article should present official government relations and since Papadopoulos' analysis clearly states that there is an Northern Epirote issue there is no question that its in the scope of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

We're going around in circles. Let me be clear about my personal position. I have not opposed a section on the Greek minority itself and think that it is long overdue of the article. However what i was opposed to was your original proposal for the name of that section. Now that you agree that it should be called Greek minority in Albania we can start the process of making constructive proposals (one hopes) via RS that would lead to such a section being in the article.Resnjari (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

After reading this whole discussion again and again, the following facts came to my notice thus far: 1) sources referring to the Greeks by both its official name as Greek Ethnic Minority of Albania and its self-idendified name Greeks of Northern Epirus do exist. For example the world-renowed newspaper Huffington Post, (which mind you, never was classified in the Reliable Sources noticeboard as an unreliable newspaper) just a couple of years ago published an article about the "Greeks of Northern Epirus signal SOS", their history, their fight for autonomy, persecution during Communist era, and immigration, and nowadays, the human right issues it is facing. [46] 2) None here disputes the Greek Minority's self-idendification as Northern Epirote, from what I understand. Resnjari rather points out το the necessity of source citation. However Resnjari is missing the fact that it is not necessary to cite the term Greeks of Northern Epirus, as citing self-determination or geographical determination of people is not a common Wikipedia practice and such a thing has not been requested for other people/communities which too have been very controversial, such as the Cham Albanians and the Turks of Western Thrace. There are sources about their name origins and such, but there is no need for sources to describe these people by their self-determined or geographical names. Wikipedia in fact is permitting them. I can't help but see the insistence of certain editors's objections here, regarding the self-determination of people, as being problematic given how the same editors have never raised any such cases about other Balkan minorities thus far.

Someone said, earlier, that the Greeks of Northern Epirus should not be compared to the other minorities. I agree with that as much as I agree with handling the Greeks of Northern Epirus in the same fashion we handled the other Balkan minorities in Wikipedia, such as the Turks of Western Thrace, in a bid to avoid double standards that could cause friction among editors. Ktrimi and Resnjari are objecting to the term North Epirus due to POV concerns related to past irredendism, but a look should be given on how it was allowed for the Turks to use the term Western Thrace when describing their minority in Wikipedia, despite the term being sensitive for many Greeks due to its irredendist connotations stemming from Turkey's past claims to the region of Western Thrace, already from the days of the Turkish Republic of Western Thrace. In all case, the self-determination of people constitutes no POV for Wikipedia, and if you ask any administrators, they will tell you the same I am afraid. Do not confuse Wikipedia's WP:NPOV with self determination of people, communities and nations, as they are two completely different things. The issue here, how I see it, is not self-determination of people, but how to word the sentences carefully and in a balanced way that could not contain any POV, always in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You refer to sources, its nice if they are presented here so one can have a look themselves. Also still with the POV of "Northern Epirus". Its southern Albania. Continuing in this fashion is disappointing. Bilateral relations is part of international relations. The Turkish minority of Greece, that's a different article. Stick to the issues at hand. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's easy to find sources that Greeks of Norther nEpirus identify as "Northern Epirotes" "northern%20epirotes"&f=false [47]. This is a fact. I realize you absolutely hate the term, but you can't ban it from wikipedia.

ok the first source is Nitsiakos. He refers to people in southern Albania using the term to gain job access to the Greek market and also states that the Greek minority are known as "northern Epiriots" in Greece etc, etc. Second source by Maratou-Alipranti places the term side by side with the Greek minority and then also says that Albanians have used the term to get job access in Greece. So which northern Epirots here, Greeks, Albanians ??? Having terminolgoy that is to the point is improtant. Now for the sake of neutrality and going even by your edit [48] Greek minority in Albania (which was my initial proposal anyway for the name of the section) is unambiguous and neutral.Resnjari (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Look at Nitsiakos page 270, he is clearly referring to Greeks. I agree the term "Greek minority in Albania" should be the section title, however, the section should include that the Greeks there self-designate as "Northern Epirotes", and that the region is referred to as "Northern Epirus" in Greece. Khirurg (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

ok, i would need to see how you would word that sentence though and what RS will be used. We may be able to work something out on that. Anyway you said you were going to come up with content for the section. When you have that ready start a new section in the talkpage. I doubt i'm the only one but its dizzying following this thread. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Since this is about relations between governments let me remind you that the official Greek position in 1990s was that the Northern Epirotes should enjoy the same rights as the Albanian in Kosovo.Alexikoua (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

ok, i'm trying to work out what you mean. Are you implying that the Greek position was that Greeks have no rights, because in the 1990s Yugoslavia removed all rights for Albanians in Kosovo. This makes no sense that Greece would want for its minority the same conditions of Albanians in Kosovo living under Yugoslavia in the 1990s.Resnjari (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

How a part of Greek society calls the Greek minority in Albania is irrelevant. Make your proposal but if it contains delusive references like "N. Epirus", "N. Epirote" etc, it will be rejected. To add content, you should also agree on my proposal above. Take your time and post here when you are ready. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Your "proposal" is nothing, you just copied what I tried to add to the article, added misspelled words to it (what is "respection") and are now trying to take credit for it. So no, no one "should agree" to anything. And stop barking orders while you're at it. Khirurg (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you seem to not know what we are talking about. My proposal is more than that. "Respection" is a word, research it online. Anyway, this discussion is becoming more and more meaningless. I oppose your proposal. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

We'll see what comes up and then we'll take it from there. Ktrimi's proposal sounds fine. Others can add further comments or place something of their own. The article is after about bilateral relations between both countries, it should focus on that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The "argument" to get rid from any mention about Northern Epirus/otes is POV. Khirurg has proposed a balanced version even by avoiding mention of N.E. in the heading. However, this can't be neglected and its use is warranted. No wonder even the book provided by Resnjary states that the Northern Epirote issue has a place in the sphere. Also would suggest to Ktrimi to calm down. Reaching 4rvs in a couple of hours isn't cool.Alexikoua (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me reiterate about what i said previously. On the Northern Epirus question (the land claim issue) it ought to be treated in a historical context. Greece no longer has a land claim on Albania for decades. Attempts to conflate and mix it up with the Greek minority and issues of today would be POV. As for Khirurg's proposal we will see what will be written. Can't comment on something that does not exist yet. By the way Alexikuoa, Ktrimi is right in expressing those concerns.Resnjari (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari, they do not understand that with some redundant comments they just make it harder for themselves to reach an agreement and add the content they wish. It is elementary logic. Will I, you or anyone else feel pressured and add off-topic content on N. Epirus? No, of course. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Well it is what is is, its no shocker. One hopes that a constructive approach will emerge. I agree with you, content should reflect bilateral relations, not other things.Resnjari (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually 4 rvs in a couple of hours can't be considered a constructive approach if you mean that. In general the obsession that Northern Epirus should vanish from the context of Greek-Albanian relation is wp:POV. Northern Epirus "is" one of the hot topics in this context, see Roudometov, Hatzidimitriou, A. Papadopoulos (the later a member of the Greek government for nearly 2 decades).Alexikoua (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

From my experience, the Reliable Source Noticeboard, as well as the NPOV Noticeboard will advice the editors here to do what was done in all other cases: Include both terms per NPOV. The administrators are not exactly very fond of WP:CENSORSHIP in Wikipedia, I am afraid, and everyone who has been editor for many years in Wikipedia, knows that already. The project's philosophy was and still is to include all information, no matter how sensitive or offensive it may be for certain editors. Now, regarding our subject: we have the sources, and the term's significance is indisputable. I recommend that the proposals the editors make, pay attention on the wording, which in my opinion has to be careful and as neutral as possible per WP:NPOV, because the term in this case is only about the self-determination of people, and not about other uses. Especially, it shouldn't be confused with past attitudes or irredendist tendencies which do not characterize Greece's foreign policy which respects and believes in the inviolability of state borders, in line with all the other countries of the West (a fact already acknowledged by Resnjari if I am not mistaken here?). --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually you are mistaken. The international community recognises no place in the world called northern Epirus. Northern Epirus is a irredentist concept floated by some in Greece today. The Greek state in no way lays claim to southern Albania or refers to a "Northern Epirus region" in the context of bilateral relations.Resnjari (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually the entire bibliography on the subject of Greek-Albanian relations is completely ignored per wp:IDHT (and with distruprive 3rr breaches). A typical example is this work [[49]] (which has been presented by Resnary in various other talkpages by te way). No wonder the author treats both Northern Epirote issue and the Cham issues without taboo in the conext of modern politics. What's also interesting is the "Albania used the Chams as a counter-issue to that of the Greek minority. By the way Ktrimi needs to explain why he changed back Thesprotia to Epirus contrary to inlines: Roudometof & Meyer(guess blind reverting isn't a constructive strategy).Alexikoua (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua, i have the work by Kondiaris from that book. Don't place an OR interpretation that somehow its a present issue when it is not and nor does the soruce say this. Should i scan the pages of that chapter and uplead them on the internet for all to see? That chapter does have a lot about bilateral relations and the Northern Epirus thing it treated in its historic context.Resnjari (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook of 1991 which I may consider it's modern era [[50]] lists the Northern Epirote question as an active issue in Greek-Albanian polics. So we habe both primary and secondary sources in full aggrement.Alexikoua (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, you forgot to note that it was published in 1992. Today is 2018. Maybe it was an oversight on your part. Greece has no claim to southern Albania and nor are land claims part of bilateral issues.Resnjari (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Albania used the Chams as a counter-issue to that of the Greek minority Yes, the Greek minority, not N. Epirotes. Your source proves you are wrong. This discussion is similar to that on the talk page of Greeks in Albania when you tried to describe all Greeks in Albania as "N. Epirotes". After you failed there, why do you think you will succeed here? Reliable sources specialized in Balkan issues say "However the two governments have struggled to overcome several issues, including the rights of Albanians expelled by Greek nationalists at the end of the World War II, known as the Cham issue, and the rights of the Greek minority living in Albania [51]. As we have discussed before, academics like Levy, Rusha etc explain that not all Greeks in Albania identify as Northern Epirotes. That CIA link also mentions one "Kosovo question" and lists them as "disputes", hence it elaborates on territorial claims, not minority rights. Further, Human Rights Watch [52] reported in the 1990s that in 1987, when the Greek government formally withdrew claims to northern Epirus......At the same time, Greece began to voice its concern for the treatment of the Greek minority in Albania. If you wish, you can take this to DRN, RSN etc. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"Yes, the Greek minority, not N. Epirotes" Sorry if I am mistaken, but aren't we talking here about the issues of the Northern Epirotes specifically? Isn't Alexikoua just trying to highlight the plight of the Greeks in Northern Epirus? Aren't the Greeks residing in Northern Epirus the source of discontent and discord that harmed the relations between the two countries?

Sorry, but no source thus far has verified that the entirety of the Greek population of Albania, even those who live outside of Northern Epirus, such as the Greeks of Durres, Vlore and Tirane, ever had any significance in the diplomatic relations between the two countries. It is true that the Greeks aren't limited strictly to the area of Northern Epirus but thing is, all the records of incidents relating to Greeks in Albania, took place in Northern Epirus specifically, and ONLY here. Such examples of incidents are the case of Aristotle Gumas, the assault of shopkeepers, the demolition of homes and churches, and so on. All in Northern Epirus and only here. Maybe I suck in googling and there is more to it than just Northern Epirus? I could like to know, because myself I can't find anything about this in newspapers or even at the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs' website. If can you enlighten me, that could be very helpful, and if this is true, then I will gladly agree to opt out COMPLETELY the term Northern Epirus from the proposed additions to the article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi it appears you can't see that the specific work uses the wording "Northern Epirus issue" without hesitation in the context of modern politics. There is no reason for Wikipedia to hide well estachlished terminologies or do you believe that the CIA factbook spreads nonsense? In the case of the Greek language precenatage in Albania you were eager to use this specific source something you should do in this case too.Alexikoua (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but no source thus far has verified that the entirety of the Greek population of Albania, even those who live outside of Northern Epirus, such as the Greeks of Durres, Vlore and Tirane, ever had any significance in the diplomatic relations between the two countries.......I can't find anything about this in newspapers or even at the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs' website. If can you enlighten me, that could be very helpful, and if this is true, then I will gladly agree to opt out COMPLETELY the term Northern Epirus from the proposed additions to the article. Yes, of course. In October 2017, the then PM of Greece Nikos Kotzias said that for allowing Albania to become an EU member, Greece demands the recognition of rights for Greeks everywhere in Albania, including those in Tirana [53]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

OK Ktrimi, let me understand: are you proposing that the Wikipedia does NOT make note of the serious issues the Greeks do face in a specific geographic area, just because of a mere statement by the Greek MoFA? Even though the incidents in Northern Epirus (and not his statement) are what affected the diplomatic relations? To put it simple: Are you proposing that we hide/obstruct the noteworthy fact that the incidents against Greeks in Albania were concentrated in Northern Epirus? Are you proposing that we use merely a MoFA's statement just so we generalize the issue by possibly implying that there are human right violations in ALL of Albania, just to avoid using the term Northern Epirus alltogether, even though in reality, the violations happened in that limited geographic area?

You know, Wikipedia values and emphasizes on incidents/events over the political statements. Politicians, especially in the Balkans, can say alot of things, no doubt about that. But it is the actions/events what really hold any real value in Wikipedia. I don't mind adding MoFA's statemets but I do mind, and not only me, but everyone here would too mind, if we obscure information from the readers about events and incidents, which are far more important than a political statement. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I am very disappointed with you SilentResident. One editor had said to me good words about you but I am starting to feel disappointed. You asked for sources that prove that Greeks in Tirana have significance to the relations between the two countries. I provided one that demonstrates that Greeks in Tirana are not only important but a condition to the path of Albania to the EU membership. Hence, I am not expecting much from this discussion. Use other ways to seek consensus like DRN etc. I say No and No. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Saying "no and no" isn't an argument. I feel you should need to relax and avoid personal accusations about "editors who said you something". Both primary and secondary bibliography make widely use of the Northern Epirote issue. Wikipedia has no reason to avoid that.Alexikoua (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, I am sorry if I disappointed you, but I am not here to impress anyone, I am here to see the information which is directly related to diplomatic relations, being finally added to the article. The incidents in Northern Epirus contributed to the diplomatic relations between the two countries and this is indisputable fact. The source you have provided is just about Greece's position regarding the Law of Minorities. Sure, we can include that too! After all, if you read my past comments, you will notice how I always believe the more information is added to the article, information covering all sides fairly, is the better for us all and first of all, the readers. But you have to understand, the article is not merely about a law voted in the Albanian Parliament which was conditioned on Albania's EU accession, is also about incidents in Northern Epirus which affected (and continue to affect to this very day) Albania's diplomatic relations with Greece. We can't simply ignore this fact just because you you may not like it. I hoped you could have supported the information's inclusion, but if you do not want to consent to this or be part of this, then so be it. Although it could have been much better if you participated. Perhaps you should consider asking for a third opinion if you do not want to listen to me. Feel free to do so, none is holding you back. But, Ktrimi, be prepared in that what others have to tell you, may not be what you could like to hear. Have a good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 02:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Analysis about the issue is also found in a mountain of academic scholarship, for example [[54]] states: "The issue of Northern Epirus was formally submerged in 1926 with the signing of a peace agreement between Albania and Greece, but it continues to plague Greek-Albanian relations today." . I'm afraid there is no doubt that wp:IDHT is reaching a new level here (and this paper isn't written by a Greek author an editor turned Hatzidimitriou useless above). Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Your newest source just proves you wrong. It says that The issue of Northern Epirus was formally submerged in 1926 with the signing of a peace agreement between Albania and Greece, i.e. it is not part of relations between governments of the two countries. Our article is concerned with issues between governments of the two countries. Yes, there are other sources that say that claims on N.Epirus plague the relations between the two countries in the context that some fringe nationalists (and religious fundamentalists) in Greece spread their ideas (Golden Dawn etc). If you wish to treat N. Epirus in that way, yes, I surely agree. Levy explains that not all Greeks in Albania identify themselves as N. Epirotes. Rusha and your newest source explain that "N. Epirus" is linked to religion rather than ethnicity. Merdani points out that claims on N. Epirus are not part of official relations between the two countries but are of importance among some circles in Greece, some of them being neo-Nazis. This way, yes, one or two sentences mentioning N. Epirus in this context would be great. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 i am not surprised here with commentary by editors. There are editors in here just want so very much to place in POV about Northern Epirus as being some kind of "active" issue when Greece has no land claims on Albania. Disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua i came across this in your source p.190. "Like the Greeks, the Serbs sought to deport many of the Albanians to Turkey, considering them unwanted remnants of the Ottoman empire." @Ktrimi did say something many posts back about adding things on the interwar period and the Muslim Albanian community that lived in Greek Epirus, as per bilateral relations. I got more sources to that's more detailed. Thoughts guys?Resnjari (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua also the source you posted is from 2009. Treating it as being contemporary to today when almost one decade has past is a personal interpretation. The Greek state has no land claim nor has it mentioned "Northern Epirus" as a issue of today in relations.Resnjari (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

"Northern Epirus as being some kind of "active" issue when Greece has no land claims on Albania" lack of ability in understanding what others say, is definitely the problem here. What part of the "North Epirus ≠ land claims" do you not understand? The region was known as Northern Epirus for 2000 years, Resnjari, you don't expect us to believe that "Epirus = 20th century claims"?

To map out the reasons for lack of consensus here, you have to answer with all honesty, and straightforwardly: Do you believe that Epirus is NOT a historical region whose the existence predates the 20th century's national romanticism? Do you believe Epirus to be merely an invention of some far-right Greeks who lived in 20th Century and laid claims to it? Do you think the local Greeks residing in Northern Epirus, are NOT called Northern Epirotes? Do you think the local Greeks in Northern Epirus were NOT assaulted and discriminated? Do you think there were NO incidents in that region? Do you think this information must be censored? I want an answer. A clear one. I can't make these questions simpler and smaller than that. But I expect that they are easily intelligible, and once this is cleared out, we can understand if the problem here is merely editor's anti-Epirote POV or just bad communication. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 03:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident, i'm not here to recycle national narratives. History notes that the Bulgarian, Serbian and later Ottoman Empires ruled the region for a collective period of more then a thousand years and they never used the term "Epirus" and never "Northern Epirus". There is no evidence that Greeks living in the region used the until toward the 19th century and beyond. The ancient period is the ancient period. That should not be confused with the modern day period for which we are discussing here now.Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: there is one problem, though. Lets say we add the term Northern Epirus to the article. Doesn't that exclude a very important center of the Greek minority, the city of Korçë? Even though Korçë is one of the centers of the Greek minority of Albania, it is a Macedonian town, not Epirote. This came to my notice now. Only the other two centers of the Greek minority happen to be located on Epirote soil. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Traditional regions never had precise borders, however Northern Epirus includes Korce in terms of 20th century politics & was part of the Northern Epirote state. Here is the map presented by the N.Epirote government in the Paris conference [[55]]. The border was in lake Malik further north.Alexikoua (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I assume that turning an academic analysis useless because it's written in 2008 (as obsolete?) or even written by a Greek author, although its brand new publication, or even no providing an counterargument at all (in the case of Roudometof) is quite disruptive. This combined with 3rr breaches, unexplained and blind reverts (Ktrimi doesn't care to explain yet why he change Thesprotia to Epirus) isn't a sound approach. For future reference a 2008 academic publication isn't obsolete unless you provide respectable RS for that. According to Resnjari's "rationale" Kotzias claims are obsolete too since he resigned from office.Alexikoua (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Its disappointing that your going down this read again but i am not surprised. I saw and scholarship and am thoroughly acquainted with them. For future reference we are now 2018, not the 2000s, not the 1990s, not even the 1900s. Our task is to write an encyclopedia not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Northern Epirus includes Korce in terms of 20th century politics -- yes precisely, Korce became part of "Epirus" even though it had never been before for Greeks, solely for irredentist purposes, and reference to Korcha as "Epirote" thus unavoidably arise in some way from irredentism And was it even a "major center of Greeks" -- maybe for Greeks in Albania overall simply because it is a "big" town (for Albania) so in raw numbers it could have had many Greeks, as did Vlora and does Tirana, but anywhere close to the majority? No way. Their big man back then, Photios, wasn't even from Europe, he was from Pontus, not any local community; meanwhile, the city was the cradle and epicenter of Albanian nationalism in the 19th and 20th century. So the question is -- why should we adopt a terminology that was proposed and primarily used only by 20th century irredentists?--Calthinus (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident's claim that "the region was known as Northern Epirus for 2000 years" are for crying out loud. "Northern Epirus" is not same as "Epirus" or "northern Epirus". Anyhow, strange statements are not sth new on Wikipedia. @Alexikoua, regarding my edits, I have explained them both in my edit summaries and here (many times). If you are not capable of understanding them, it is because need to "relax". Your sources say that the Greek government does not have any claim regarding stuff with N. Epirus. We could create a separate section (separate to the current section that is concerned with official relations) on nationalist claims that are not accepted by governments of the two countries and not supported by the majority of citizens of them:Northern Epirus by some Greek nationalists and even some neo-Nazi groups (Golden Dawn etc), "Albanian ethnic lands in Greece" (Chameria, Ioannina, Konitsa, Florina, Kastoria and Gravena) and minority rights for Arvanites that are claimed by some Albanian nationalists. These fringe claims are supported by some nationalists in the two countries and damage official relations. Merdani and Toptani elaborate on all of this. I am starting to agree that Alexikoua has a point when he insists on adding content on Northern Epirus. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident's claim that "the region was known as Northern Epirus for 2000 years" are for crying out loud. I don't think so.The region was known historically as such since Roman times. Albeit Northern Epirus (Roman: Epirus Nova) extended much further to the north, including even the areas where Tirane, Vlore and Durres are today. If you don't know the region's history, it is not my problem. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident, we are not discussing the Roman period and so many other empires have come and gone i.e the Bulgarian, Serbian and especially the Ottoman which never ever made use of the term Epirus. This article is solely about the modern day period, about state relations tdating from 1912-1913 when Albanian came into being as a state. Our task as editors is to write an encyclopedia, not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we go by the political definition of "North Epirus = Northern Epirote state", then we will NEVER get any consensus with the other editors I am afraid. If we want to have any hopes of using the term Northern Epirus in the article, we have to make sure we are referring to the geographical Northern Epirus which predated the 20th century politics and still is the predominant definition nowadays for historical and geographical purposes. We can't refer to an autonomous state of the 20th century as a valid geographic definition. A state's borders ≠ geographical borders. Just like how we couldn't use Greece's modern borders for defining Epirus, Thrace and Macedonia's geographical borders. The geographical borders of all these 3 regions, are contemporary and are independent of the modern-day political borders. I feel we will have a hard time explaining why Korçë is mentioned collectively as North Epirote if all what we meant here is to refer to the Northern Epirotes in an NPOV way, by their historical and geographical context and not by their political one. The Greek editors could NEVER consent to such a rationale for Greece-Turkey relations if lets say Western Thrace was referred to as, politically instead of geographically. Just we have to keep the same rationale on all Wikipedia's articles to avoid double standards. If we refer to the North Epirote areas by using 20th century political definitions, then we are unwillingly politicizing the term and we will have hard time explaining to others, such as Turkish editors why they shouldn't do the same with Western Thrace. Our scope here is the issue of human right violations of the minority regardless of 20th century politics, and any mention of the 20th century NE state could be only be made for historical purposes as long as it is relevant to the human rights situation for the minority. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"Epirus Nova" means "New Epirus", not "Northern Epirus". But who cares about details, right? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't realize that Epirus Nova constituted the northern half of the region of Epirus, which is what I am referring to? Or are we playing the dumb here? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident agian the article is about modern relations not the ancient period of "Epirus Nova".Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I would support Ktrimi991's proposal to make a section for the potentially destabilizing claims by neo-Nazi and other nationalist groups (Golden Dawn, KQZ for the Albanian side etc...) while making clear that the Greek and Albanian governments both refuse the claims of the groups that claim to act in Greek/Albanian interests. Such a section could be useful for readers in understanding the backgrounds of nationalist obsessions on both sides, while making clear that the governments of Greece and Albania do not give into such "North Epirote"/"Greater Albania" extremism. --Calthinus (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

In particular, collaboration between Greek and Albanian moderates in containing the extremists in favor of common interests of European integration and common Balkan economic advancement can also be highlighted.--Calthinus (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but I am VEHEMENTLY opposing any attempts of portraying the term Northern Epirus as irredendist. If we go by this rationale, then we should flag any use of the term Cham as irredendist too and ban it from inclusion to the article altogether, even though it is part of their geographical (not political) identity. Could you ever support such an illogical rationale? Of course no. I expect the same sensitivity when it comes to regional Northern Epirote identity as you expect for the Cham idendity from Greek editors. Either we respect both Cham Albanians and North Epirote Greeks, either we not. There are no middle solutions to this: regional idendities of people must not be politicized, no matter what. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻  ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident if regions where "Northern Epirotes" live are listed to include only the ones where they are known to reside in large rural and urban concentrations -- namely Vurg, Dropull, Pogon and Himara (can also mention urban centers outside they migrate to as well as Saranda and Gjirokaster which are sort of on the edge of the ethnic Greek minority region), I don't think moderate Albanians would find it so offensive, but it is a process to de-associate the word with it's irredentist usage (Sudeten Germans have a distinct identity but Czechs are also understandably uncomfortable with the word...). But when it starts to be used to include Tepelena, Kolonja, Korce, Devoll, Pogradec, Dangellia, Lunxheria, even Kurvelesh, then it becomes a lost cause-- imo. Regarding Chameria, my experience has been that Greeks dislike any and all usage of the term similar to Albanians with North Epirus -- similarly I suppose it could be less threatening if it wasn't used to refer to places like Ioannina and Grevena which clearly aren't Chameria.--Calthinus (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, the problem clearly can be synopsized into 2 key facts: 1) actual Northern Epirus boundaries, and 2) politicization of the term Northern Epirote. In the same fashion that the ambiguous borders of Chameria were a cause of discord among editors in other articles. However can we agree that the politicization and questioning of the term Northern Epirote definition for its citizens is unfair and that it shouldn't happen from the moment the Cham definition isnt politicized or questioned? Unless I am mistaken, the Greek editors never questioned the term "Cham" for the Cham Albanians. I don't remember any discussions in Wikipedia where Greeks were calling for Cham Albanians to be renamed "Northwestern Greece's Albanians" or something like that, or even the Greek state calling them "Albanian Minority of Greece" in a bid to erase the term Cham. I agree the geographical definitions are a big mess, but at least we, from both sides, should respect the idendities of people. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident There are no "actual boundaries" of a "northern Epirus". The the world today the international community does NOT recognise anything of the sort and neither does Albania or Greece.Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And I am sorry if I have to be straightforward and raw about this: if someone here has any PROBLEM with Epirote Greeks in Albania being called North Epirotes, then they are encouraged to leave Wikipedia and find other occupations, as they are unfit for serving the project's goals. Any forms of racism go against Wikipedia's rules and I can't even list here how many cases of denialism were brought to the Noticeboards, with the obvious outcomes to us all. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Today, Orthodox Chams who refer to themselves as Cham and Shqiptar when speaking their mother tongue are referred to as "Arvanites of Epirus" on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Ditto for Albanians elsewhere in Northern Greece. Someone might say that these some of these people don't want to be called Chams or Albanians, well some Greeks in Albania do not want to be called Vorioepirotes. --Calthinus (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident since allowing the identities of people is the goal here -- I would predict, Ktrimi991 and Resnjari might give serious consideration for a proposal along the lines of "Ethnic Greeks, who often refer to themselves as North Epirotes, live mostly in the regions of Vurg, Himara, Dropull and Pogon" -- these are indeed the distinct regions that Greeks that call themselves North Epirotes live in (others -- Narta and Zvernec and some coastal cities-- are not "Epirote"). This would be more likely to be considered, though I could be wrong, because it avoids connotations of Greeks trying to "Hellenize" non-Greek populations that live elsewhere, which has long been a source of distrust by Albanians toward Greece, regardless of how true or untrue it is. However, I predict such a compromise proposal might encounter resistance from Alexikoua... --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't object something that's not proposed yet. However, stating that terms like Northern Epirus should vanish from this article at all costs falls into wp:POV.Alexikoua (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, this can be a good start. Alexikoua, I agree censoring NE is clearly POV, as could the censoring of the word Cham. If we went to censoring the word Cham from Wikipedia, couldn't this too be a blatant WP:POV case? Wouldn't the Albanian editors complaint about this? Of course they would, so I am positive now in that we all can see the faulty grounds of the objection to this term's use, and finally come to a logical conclusion that the identities of people must be respected, no matter the political views of editors. Terms such as Cham and North Epirote, should be not banned from Wikipedia - only their improper/bad usage should be. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻  ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident, can you refrain from using the term "Albanian editors". No one is calling you or others "Greek editors" or making ethnic heritage/descent part of the discussion. Show some good faith at least.Resnjari (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari:, oh you have misunderstood me. I am merely referring to your political identity as pro-Albanian editor, not national identity as Albanian Australian editor. Your position on Wikipedia's disputes reflects the Albanian side. I am vehemently against mention of people by birth origin and if my memory does not fail me, there is a rule in Wikipedia which clearly prohibits from referring or commenting to birth identities of editors. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident:, everything you have said there is gross i.e "to your political identity as pro-Albanian editor, not national identity as Albanian Australian editor. Your position on Wikipedia's disputes reflects the Albanian side." You should immediately retract everything in this statement through a strikeout. I have not made ethnic heritage part of a discussion or assumptions about an editor being "pro" this or that. I have never discussed your "political identity" or that of other editors, nor do i care. That should not be part of any discussion. Also i have not made an editor's location part of any discussion even if they have freely divulged that information on their own personal User page. Your further digging yourself a hole by persisting with this kind of commentary.Resnjari (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari:: I think I was quite clear to you in that these are references to the political sides (i.e. pro-Greek editors or Greek side) and from personal experience, there wasn't an issue with that. If this is really an issue for you, then you have my apologies. However, I can't help but find it strange that you have a problem with that, when none else does. If you check other article discussions, I was referred to as "Greek editor", (in a political context, not birth) by others. But unlike you, I didn't have a problem with that. Did you see me reporting them? No. What makes me sceptical is that you are making now in all of sudden these BADFAITH accusations that I am referring to your birth and then threatening me that I am "further digging myself a hole". I am really worried now. Are you threatening me??? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident:, you could have worded things differently i.e 'editors that have a focus on Albanian related topics' etc. I never said anything making threats (again another assumption for you), just don't go there about assumptions of individual editors and perceived things about them. Its uncalled for and useless for complex discussions like this. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari: ther was a similar incident here, with Ktrimi: [56]. If this wording can confuse 2 editors in just only 1 week, then yes, I will have to think twice before borrowing other's phraseology. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident:, actually in that diff example @Ktrimi was clearly saying to you not to go down that road of dividing editors into nationalities. Just so there is no ambiguity. An editors location (even if they have openly stated it on their userpage), what one might perceive as their politics/political views and or ethnic heritage/descent etc should not be part of any discussion in these article talkpages. If an editor edits a lot on topics relating to a certain wikiproject then it can be phrased in away that does not touch on these other things but only that. Like this there is no room for confusion, misinterpretation etc. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, this article is not about how a part of the Greek minority call themselves. Toptani explains that a part of the Greek minority accepts being called "N. Epirote", and another part of the Greek minority feels insulted and reject the usage of that term. The ones who feel insulted are mostly those who are moderately or not religious at all.. Tell me a way we can place an analysis of the term "N. Epirote" without creating a huge section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus, I think that is a great proposal. Khirurg (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

In addition to what I said in my previous comment, not all those who claim to be part of the Greek minority in Albania feel really Greeks, many do so just for the sake of a job in Greece (Albanians and Aromanians) [57]. Calthinus. tell me a way we can place an analysis without creating a huge section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I want to so some more detail about this before i agree.Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

1 edit, 4 pings, 4 notifications for the SAME edit. [58] Don't do that ever again. Next time just use only one ping, is more than enough, no need for 4. This is very disruptive. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I ping you because sometimes the ping does not go through. Its just common courtesy. Whether you like it or not, not my problem.Resnjari (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, like I said before: everyone has to respect the minorities and their right to self-identification. If you can't do that at least, then I suggest you leave this discussion to editors who are trying to work on the content. I suggest you don't go down the road again of disputing the identity of the Greeks in Albania, just don't. We have had enough of this. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry I kind of backed out of this, I'd like to be part of constructively resolving this but I don't have the time to read all the stuff like that above^. The only proposal I can support is the first. "The Albanian government considers the issue to be non-existent" --- there are many implications here that basically assume the Greek POV (first that there is this issue there --- meanwhile Albanian rights in Greece are undiscussed except for Chams where the reader gets introduced to them as "majority Nazi collaborators" -- to be clear I am indeed of hte opinion that Greek minority affairs have a place on this page as do non-Cham-expulsion issues regarding Albanian inhabitants of Greece, including both immigrants and Albanian-Greeks in the north. But this will of course be sticky.). Imo the 1st proposal, especially once SR offered to include that some Greeks dislike the term North Epirotes, if I were Ktrimi I would have taken that as a working version that an be built on and tried to build good will from there. But with all the accusations including ethnic-tinged ones, it's kind of understandable that didn't happen. Liking each other isn't necessary to pursue mutually beneficial agreements. There's always next time. Anyhow, I gotta back out here as I don't have the time at the moment, but that's my view since I've been thrown around as "possibly Calthinus" here and there, thought I'd make it clear. --Calthinus (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Greek Minority Proposal

Initial Proposal

Initial Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, who often refer to themselves as North Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are concentrated in the south of the country, in and near the cities of Gjirokaster and Saranda. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority.

Sources: [59] [60] [61] (and more can be added if needed)

Notes:

• 1) In this proposal, the key word for "refer to themselves as North Epirotes" is the term "often", which I do believe can soothe any concerns regarding whether they do "always" identify themselves as North Epirotes or not. I hope this can soothe even the most skeptical of editors?
• 2) The term "North Epirote" is mentioned only ONCE, no more, and here it refers to the identity of people, not political association of people. Furthermore, the term "Northern Epirus" is avoided altogether due to the unfortunate controversy that exists around it, like how the term "Chameria" is avoided too in the same article.
• 3) Wiki-links to other articles can be added wherever they are deemed necessary. As long as they were not added elsewhere in the article.
• 4) The sentence is about 5 lines in length, which is on par with the sentence for the Cham minority which is already present on the article, so that it does not draw more focus to this specifically, nor does it overweights the article.

How does that sound, guys? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

SilentResident I'll have to think on this but assuming this section's creation accompanies the end of attempts to remove the Cham section and a consensus to have both I can probably support it. To assuage Ktrimi991 it might work to say, regarding the North Epirote term -- Ethnic Greeks, who may refer to themselves as North Epirotes (although some refuse the term [cite Toptani]). --Calthinus (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid the (although some refuse the term) is an unnecessary pointer towards a controversy which is none of the article's concern and scope. The article's purpose is merely to inform the readers on the situation of human rights for the Northern Epirotes among other Ethnic Greeks living in Albania, with the term North Epirote explicitly mentioned due to the incidents targeting them the most, and being the actual cause of diplomatic tensions and strife between Greece and Albania. Clarifications on identities, do belong, not here, but on their respective articles. Adding them here even though this article has absolutely nothing to do with identities, does not help, Calthinus. It rather turns the sentence into a WP:MNA pointer of identity controversies which are irrelevant to the Greek-Albanian relations.

Feel free to rephrase the first sentence however you like, but without this WP:MNA "refusal" in parenthesis which gives the readers the false impression that there is a big deal with the identity or that it does actually have an impact on Greek-Albanian relations, which is not true. I understand that the Albanian editors are feeling very insecure when it comes to identities, but lets not forget that neutrality must be maintained in Wikipedia. This is not neutral, is Albanian POV pointer.--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 07:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident it disappointing that you refer to "Albanian editors" here yet alone "feeling very insecure when it comes to identities". But why i am surprised that you make assumptions about a person's heritage or making claims about what people have said when they have not. Please enough of this, your an adult.Resnjari (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I categorically reject the proposal. The term "Northern Epirote" should be explained fully. A part of the Greek minority accepts being called "N. Epirote", and another part of the Greek minority feels insulted and rejects the usage of that term. The ones who feel insulted are mostly those who are moderately or not religious at all. Some Aromanians and Albanians claim to be Greeks for the sake of a job in Greece. If the term "Northern Epirote" and how some Greeks call themselves has to be on the article, a full picture of the Greek identity in Albania should be given. Another thing that should be added is the position of Albania on the matter of rights of the Greek minority. There are zillions of sources that highlight that since the 1990s the position has been the same (since the "doctrine of Sali Berisha"): the Greek minority's rights are respected, further discussions with Greece on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority and does not recognize any Albanian minority. The position of Albania is rather unjust but we can not change that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree: Nice work SR. Though the precise concetration is a matter of dispute "Sarande and Gjirokaster" is reduntant here. Mai for example states that the main minority areas are Gjirokaster and Korce. Simply "southern parts of the county" is fine. As for the self-identification a serious problem occurs in the case of the Chams: their current number in Albania is severely inflated for the usual reasons (per Kouzas and Kallivretakis).Alexikoua (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Alexikoua. I took Calthinus's suggestions in consideration and, in a bid to soothe abit Ktrimis's concerns, I replaced the "who often" with "some of which". I hope the Albanian editors are content with these changes which are the best possible I can do without POV-pushing the paragraph towards the one or the other side. Also, I took in account Alexikoua's suggestions and replaced any specific mention of Albanian cities with the more generic "southern parts of the country". Last, about Ktrimi's request for the position of the Albanian government, I have added nothing yet. He will have to clarify what exactly he wants to be added to the paragraph. Perhaps something like "The Albanian government considers the matter as non-existent", at the very end of the paragraph perhaps?

Here are all the changes thus far:

2nd Proposal

Changes explained: (bold = addition or replacement, strike = removal)

2nd Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, some of which who often refer to themselves as North Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are concentrated in the southern parts of the county, in and near the cities of Gjirokaster and Saranda. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. The Albanian government however considers the matter to be non-existent.

Sources: [62] [63] [64] (and more can be added if needed)

Comments: How is that now? I tried to be as careful as possible as to not bloat the paragraph or alleviate its focus from the human rights issues. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Southern parts of the country is fine and the reader can check the correspondent article in case he needs details. It's erroneous in terms of geography to limit the N. Epirote Greek community while on the same time inflating the geographical distribution of the Cham community (entire Epirus), the later according to the inline refs was located in Thesprotia (Meyer & Roudometof have been mistakenly dismissed as Greek editors by Resnjari....).Alexikoua (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the POV problem about the Chams and after we are done with this article, I will support any initiatives towards correction of that POV issue. About the Northern Epirotes, what are you proposing? "who often" VS "some of which" or do you have something better in mind? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Support the proposal. I would only change the first sentence to something like "most of which identify as Northern Epirotes", and the last sentence to "the Albanian government considers that the rights of the minority are respected and the matter non-existant. Khirurg (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

3rd Proposal

3rd Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are concentrated in the southern parts of the county. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. The Albanian government however considers the matter to be non-existent.

Sources: [65] [66] [67] (and more can be added if needed)

Comments: @Khirurg:, given the recorded bias and denial against North Epirote identity these days in the talk page, I can easily predict that the term "most of which" will turn into another political dispute unless it is strongly backed by WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Can you provide any? I could like sources for this if this proposal has to have any chances of passing through even minimal WP:CONSENSUS or ever pass through third opinions in the event the consensus-building fails. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. I fully support the 3rd proposal above. Khirurg (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am waiting to see what the others will say before I make a conclusion of my own (about "some"; "most" is out of the question) but regarding the last sentence, it was not what I said in my previous comments. I said that There are zillions of sources that highlight that since the 1990s the position has been the same (since the "doctrine of Sali Berisha"): the Greek minority's rights are respected, further discussions with Greece on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority and does not recognize any Albanian minority. That would be "Albania's official position since the early 1990s has been virtually unchanged, that the Greek minority's rights are respected, further discussions with Greece on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority and does not recognize any Albanian minority". Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"Most of them/often" is appropriate compared to "some of them". A huge mainstream bibliography supports the equation N. Epirotes=Greeks in Albania, some examples [[68]] "Greek co-ethnics who are Albanian citizens (Voreioepirotes) ", "Ethnic Greeks from Albania (Voreioepirotes)" [[69]], "The Vorio-Epirotes (ethnic Greek Albanians) are members of a Greek minority group " [[70]], " Vorioepirotes – Albanian citizens of Greek descent" [[71]]. In case someone pretends that he is a N.Epirote he pretends that he is Greek in order to acquire Greek citizenship. Apart from that I support the proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: in my latest proposal, there are 4 lines, with the 5th being the Albania's official position on the matter. If we change that and adopt your proposal, then the paragraph which initially was meant to inform the reader about the Greek minority's issues, will, unfortunately, be turned into a WP:ADVOCATE of the Albanian government's positions on the matter, and unintentionally shifts the reader's focus from the minority's issues to what and how the government thinks about it. This is not how Wikipedia works and certainly we do not want that here. With my proposal, we cover Tirane's positions on the North Epirote Greek minority's issue but keep them as minimal as possible, to about 20% of the paragraph's length, in similar fashion to how Athens's position on the Cham minority's issue ("being closed") is kept as minimal as possible, barely constituting 20% of the paragraph's length. The sentence as proposed by the other editors here, is fairly enough as it does not overemphasizes on the governmental positions while at same time reports on the issues the minority has, as listed by the various independent international human right organizations and third parties. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The position of Greece on the Cham issue is explained in two sentences. My proposal for the position of Albania on the Greek minority is one sentence. My proposal is backed by 6 sources that formulate what they say in the same manner. Hence, I categorically reject any proposal that does not contain the sentence I wrote:"Albania's official position since the early 1990s has been virtually unchanged, that the Greek minority's rights are respected, further discussions with Greece on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority and does not recognize any Albanian minority". The sentence as proposed by you does reflect sth other than the official position of Albania. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Greece's position on the Cham issue is that the matter is closed, isn't it? This is way smaller than the overly detailed and explicit sentence you are proposing for Northern Epirus. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the Cham part again, all its sentences contain information on the position of Greece on the Cham issue:The first sentence says that Greece cited collaboration for the expulsion of the Chams, the second sentence says that Greece considers the issue closed, the two other sentences say what is Greece doing regarding the issue (the commission for the property). Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmmmm. Ktrimi, if you read carefully, the sentence says: "The Cham issue refers to a controversy which has been raised by Albania since the 1990s over the repatriation of the Cham Albanians, who were expelled from the Greek region of Epirus between 1944 and 1945, at the end of World War II, citing the collaboration of the majority of them with the occupying forces of the Axis powers." The expulsion of Cham Albanians is not "Greece's position". Is a historic fact. Athens's position is only synopsized in the following sentence: Greece considers the matter closed.. Only this.

That the Chams were expelled after World War II due to collaboration with the Nazis, is not a "political position" of Athens, but an indisputable fact.

In your place I couldn't go as low as to revision history and attribute past events as being Athens's position, Ktrimi. About the Albanian government's position, there are 2 ways this can be done, but you will have to make compromises either way: 1) accept a smaller sentence for the Albanian government to compensate for the rather small paragraph overall, or 2) stick with your full statement while at same time the paragraph is expanded to include Greek positions as well, more details about the Greek minority's hardships, and mentions of what International human right organizations think about this, to compensate for this detailed Albanian government position. Your pick, your call. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi is right here, Albania's position needs to be cited as it is bilateral relations after all of both countries and Albania has been pursuing that issue in its relations. If two sentences on Greece's position are given in the section on Chams something similar is warranted here as well of Albania's position on the Greek minority. Although Ktrimi is offering a compromise of one sentence. Fair, is fair.Resnjari (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss much about this. That sentence should be added as is. Further additions on rights for the Greeks are not needed due to WP:Undue. I categorically reject any proposal similar to what you did in your latest comment. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

If you wish this Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are concentrated in the southern parts of the county. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone" and accurate census figures. Albania's official position since the early 1990s has been virtually unchanged, that the Greek minority's rights are respected, further discussions with Greece on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority and does not recognize any Albanian minority. it is OK. Otherwise I oppose any proposal. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The last sentence is highly problematic (aside the fact that it is ridiculously long and badly written) because 1) there was and is no "Albanian minority", the only such minority erre the Chams, who should be referred as such (and not as an "Albania nminority"), 2) they weren't expelled by the Greek government but rather by Greek resistance fighters, because 3) the collaborated with the Nazis. Khirurg (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but you will find me opposing to your insistence for partial and overemphasized coverage of the Albanian government's positions in the proposal while the Greek positions are being completely absent from it, and still demand it without giving any compromises that could help the other side finally reaching WP:CONSENSUS with you.

The options here are three. Either:

• 1) we accept your demand to have the Albanian government's position included to the paragraph, on the issue added as summary, and in proportion with the rest of the summarized info on the minority's issues in compliance with WP:DUE rules (and Greek government's position be left out completely which for me is WP:POV but I am willing to make a recession)

or

• 2) we accept your demand to have the Albanian government's position included to the paragraph, with all the details you have requested, but also we expand on to include the Greek government's positions on the matter per WP:NPOV. The necessary WP:ATTRIBUTIONs applied.

or

• 3) we return back to the second proposal which has the support of 4 people here: me, Alexikoua, and possibly Khirurg and Calthinus, and which does not contain any Albanian or Greek governmental positions, again per WP:NPOV.

The matter is at your hands for as long as you are willing to make compromises like everyone here does, in a bid of helping reach a WP:CONSENSUS. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have accepted many things you proposed. On this particular sentence no. There are 3 sources for it. Absolutely no. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi is not the only one here and acceptance or not by the editor does not equal default acceptance for others. Anyway considering some of the heat in some previous comments by editors, i think it would benefit everyone to have a breather and get back to this some hours later.Resnjari (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

1. 3) and the second proposal look fine. Nice work SR. I believe there has been a great compromise by not presenting Northern Epirus/te in the head. Next step will be to fix serious discrepancies with the Cham section nearby.Alexikoua (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I had a look around and the Albanian position goes into this so it might as well reflect it in the sentence. The last sentence can have a bit of expansion taking into account partially of what Ktrimi has written: 'Albania's official position is that the Greek minority's rights are respected, and further discussions with Greece on the matter are based on resolving the rights of its former Albanian Cham minority. Otherwise i'm ok with the rest of the wording in proposal 3. Resnjari (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjary: The Cham part belongs to the Cham paragraph, the rest about the official posisition is fine.Alexikoua (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

4th Proposal

4th Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are concentrated in the southern parts of the county. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position since the early 1990s has been virtually unchanged, that the Greek minority's rights are respected and the matter to be non-existent.

Sources: [72] [73] [74] (and more can be added if needed)

I find Resnjari's first half of the sentence to be well worded, and I added it to the proposal which is as much as we can go WITHOUT adding the Greek position and EU conditions and International human right organization's reports to it. It is already POV, but it is tolerable. If you insist so much about the Cham reciprocity sentence, this can always be added at a later point on a new paragraph below the Cham and the North Epirote paragraphs (as a 3rd, independent paragraph, titled appropriately), that can cover both countries's positions on the bilateral issues, as well as the the international community's positions. So far this sentence is only about Greek minority and I can not consent into adding further Albanian POV without counterbalancing it with the necessary Greek government's POV on the issue. The likehood of a WP:CONSENSUS will be seriously undermined if we insist too much on adding even further POV or one-sided focus to it. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop dividing things into "pro-Albanian" and "pro-Greek". Neither editors nor content should be of a national nature. The position of Albania is its position, and it should be reflected in the text proposed by you, regardless whether its position is fair or not. If you insist on that, I, and maybe other editors, will not agree. If you are indeed concerned about the sentence's length, it could be " Albania's official position has been that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority". The position of Greece is already covered ("issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority"). I do not see what is the problem. You made a proposal and other editors are demanding an extra sentence. Do not blame other for not helping the consensus process. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Although you wrote the following sentence by yourself and it is supposed that you made a good summary of the situation, you might modify the sentence to better represent what you think is the position of Greece: "issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority". Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Stop dividing things into "pro-Albanian" and "pro-Greek". Neither editors nor content should be of a national nature." Ktrimi, it is you who are trying to turn a neutrally-worded text a such, not me, and our lengthy discussion is here for everyone to see and make their own conclussions on who is trying to force one-sided positions into it. It is you who is requesting inclusion of, and I am simply commenting on the problems such an approach entails if not compensated or counterbalanced by equal coverage of the other side's positions per WP:NPOV. I am afraid Wikipedia is very clear in that all the different views on the matter shall be covered, if they are to be. This means both sides and not the one or the other only.

"The position of Greece is already covered". Is that so? Sorry to tell you that, but actually it hasn't yet. That's why I insist so much on the coverage of Albania's demands from Athens for the Chams. This is due to the other side's (that is, Athens's) positions not being covered yet. Instead, it is just reports of the international organizations such as Minority Rights Org, and uninvolved countries such as the diplomatic missions of the United States of America in Albania. But I would like to add Greece's position on the matter so the readers can get the complete picture, if we are to include your whole sentence to it.

So, in your proposed text, you have suggested that it writes: "Albania's official position has been that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority." and I am willing to make a compromise and have it included, if that's the only way for you to consent to the inclusion of that text to the article. But this also merits inclusion of Greece's positions as well. But I will need sources for attribution, and especially sources for the following 2 sentences:

* further discussions on the matter can not be held while Greece has - I need an official source where Albanian government explicitly links the today's human rights violations of the Greek Minority with the Cham Expulsion that happened 70 years ago.

* while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority I need an official source where Albania blames Greece for the expulsion of the Cham Albanians. The world does not blame Greece's official authorities for that, but EDES, and such a serious accusation will have to be WP:ATTRIBUTED accordingly per Wikipedia's rules.

Once you provide me with the reliable sources confirming your sentence, we are good to go. I will do the same with the Greek position on the matter. For now, this, once sources are provided as well:

5th Proposal

5th Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are concentrated in the southern parts of the county. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has been that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority.

Sources: [75] [76] [77] [78] (and more can be added if needed)

The proposal is here and ready, I think, all what we need now is just these sources verifying the claims for the necessary attribution that these claims reflect the Albanian government. I could also hear on other editor's opinions on how to write up the Greek government's position on the matter because I happen have in my notice dozens of official Greek statements and I am at a loss on which one to pick up to reflect collectively and in a most representative way, the Greek gov's position on the issue. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have never mentioned any "pro-Greek" or "pro-Albanian". You have and have been criticized by other editors as well. I doubt you forget what you say. You have to understand sth. While I am interested in helping build consensus, I am happy with the article as is as well. Re sourcing, I am going to prepare the references and post them here. Meanwhile, tell us what do you consider to be the position of Greece on the Greek minority in Albania. I do not understand what do you mean with that. I repeat it again in case you forget it, while I am interested in helping build consensus, I am happy with the article as is as well. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Re the position of Greece on the Greek minority, preferably use academic sources that analyze the situation during the years. A single statement does not necessarily describe a long-term stance. Politicians say sth now and sth quite different later. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority" is extremely POV and OR, any mention to the Cham should be relocated to the correpondent section, not to mention that the self-identification of the Cham community was not "Albanian" but "Muslim" (per Manda, Kretsi, Tsoutsoumbis etc.). Anyway the Cham expulsion citing collaboration is already covered in the correct article. That's about another section and therefore not part of this proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have never mentioned any "pro-Greek" or "pro-Albanian". Ktrimi, I really want to believe that. I really. But what I do believe doesn't really matter, what matters is if can we prevent our editorial POV from turning the content into governmental propaganda and derailing the discussion. Can we do that? You have and have been criticized by other editors as well well if you do choose to baptize as "criticism" the reactions to an acknowledgement that there has been POV in your comments regarding the Cham and North Epirote issues, then no comment. I am sure you could have figured out by now that if it wasnt for different perceptions on the issue, now there could have been consensus already, days ago.

Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority" is extremely POV and OR, Alexikoua, this is exactly what I am thinking. But if this claim by Ktrimi isn't WP:OR and rather what Albania claimed, then the source will be scrutinized and the information will be attributed accordingly before it is added to the final sentence. The readers will need to be aware about this being POV and that Albania's claims on the perpetrators of the Expulsion of Cham Albanians, are biased and not a viewpoint shared by the historians or the rest of the world. any mention to the Cham should be relocated to the correpondent section is what I would support too. That, or in a paragraph covering both side's issues independently of the Cham and the North Epirote issues. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You should provide diffs to prove that I have mentioned any "pro-Albanian" or "pro-Greek". This discussion has been taking place since a month or so ago and still there is no way to consensus. As the discussion is not productive, and many comments are way off-topic, I do not see any good at continuing. As a result, to make the changes you wish, you should either take this to DRN or return later (a month or so) with a better proposal. The length of this dispute has become absurd. I reject every proposal as none of them seem to be capable of satisfying all sides involved in the content dispute. To end this, anyone interested in proposing changes to an article, should be aware that it will become difficult to other editors to fully understand your concerns while you have resorted to threats and off-topic discussion. In case I do not comment again here in the coming days, it does not mean that I accept any proposal made here, but that I do not have the time/desire/interest to see new proposals. If anyone (Calthinus, Resnjari, SilentResident, Alexikoua and so on) wants changes, take them to DRN. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I come back to this thread and find all of this. Heck i'm not engaging with it, only discussion over the proposed sentence. Most of the sentence is fine. I see where your going with it Silent but respectfully the end part sounds a bit awkward, i.e "while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority." I would say a little tweak of so it would read" "until matters related to Greece’s former expelled Albanian minority are addressed." It would encompass the official Alb position while not going on about things related to the Chams (through use of that word) in this section. Thanks for your efforts SilentResident.Resnjari (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

While as mentioned before I prefer (from proposal 1) smth along the lines of "in the vicinity of Saranda and Gjirokaster" (can add Himara if you like), or "in the regions of Vurg, Himara, Dropull and Pogon" (instead of "southern regions -- that's very vague and there are not Greek communities near Erseka or Tepelena, let alone Skrapar, Myzeqe, Pogradec which are also "southern"), I do support in principle this version. I agree with Resnjari's proposal for the last sentence too. @Ktrimi991:, although I can understand where you are coming from, in terms of informativeness this page is indeed lacking something as the Greek minority in Albania (and vice versa) do play a role in bilateral relations, and it is helpful for a reader who wants to be educated a bit on Alb-Gre relations to know that -- so adding some section is important for the quality of the page here. If Alexi and SR hadn't found this first, I might have been the one to add it.--Calthinus (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari's proposal is far far more moderate and I do not think there could be any problems with that.

6th Proposal

6th Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are mostly concentrated in the south of the county, in parts of Vlorë, Gjirokastër, Korçë and Berat Counties. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has been that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s former expelled Albanian minority are addressed.

Sources: [79] [80] [81] [82] (and more can be added if needed)

How is that now? At least it is good in my opinion. At least it is how it is said in the article here: [83] so if none has problem with the wording thus far in that article, then I bet none could mind about copying it here as well? I made so many proposals, I hope we are good to go now? Consider this a final proposal, since for me there isn't really anything that could keep this whole discussion dragging except the -now addressed- last sentence.

@Calthinus: @Ktrimi991: @Alexikoua: @Resnjari: @Khirurg:, state your positions. Do we have a majority for a consensus at least? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ehh, no, there is no region in Korce or Berat counties that have some sort of concentration of Greeks outside of urban centers they end up in primarily for work and have in the past as well (there are some Vlachs esp in these urban environments too). Well actually, in what is technically Korce county (but quite far from Korce) there have historically been Greeks south of Leskovik, but this is probably closer to Gjirokaster geographically than Korce, making the statement confusing at best.--Calthinus (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Address the concern of Calthinus and then add the text to the article. It is very good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus makes a point about urban centers outside the southern region. SilentResident it would be better if it is more specific. i.e if it said something like "in parts of Vlorë, Gjirokastër and Sarandë counties with Greek communities also located in some urban areas like Korçë, Berat and Tiranë."Resnjari (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari's way of handling this is a great compromise and also more informative than what I was proposing. Support.--Calthinus (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"former expelled Albanian minority" is stylistically odd (was the minority expelled before it became former?), and the only people expelled were the Chams, so a better choice of words would be "expelled former Cham Albanian minority". Khirurg (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Good catch Khirurg. Yeah it should be "expelled former Cham Albanian minority" --Calthinus (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @Khirurg's proposed clarification. If that geographical clarification bit is included along with @Khirug's suggestion, i support the section as a whole.Resnjari (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Final Proposal

Final Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are mostly concentrated in the south of the county, in parts of Vlorë, Gjirokastër and Sarandë counties with Greek communities also located in some urban areas like Korçë, Berat and Tiranë. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has beenit that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed.

Sources: [84] [85] [86] [87] (and more can be added if needed)

I added the bit about geographical clarification to the sentence and also @Khirurg's proposal as well. For me its good. For the rest (@Calthinus: @Ktrimi991: @Alexikoua: @SilentResident: @Khirurg:), is it ok? I hope we are good to go now?Resnjari (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thats great! Now you make me really happy with your input and quick responses, guys. Edit: Khirurg's suggestion added (bold). --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 01:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Support glad it looks like we are finally reaching a conclusion here :) --Calthinus (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It is very good. A:::::::::::dd it and put an end to this long dispute. Most of us are not willing to discuss here any longer. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The current proposal includes information about the Cham issue so it's obvious that the Cham section should be merged with the one in question. Obviously enough this paragraph ends up with Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority and then we repeat about Cham Albanians, who were expelled from the Greek region of Epirus between 1944 and 1945, at the end of World War IIAlexikoua (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Very good point. I propose merge instead of repetition. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua, this is a great point to make if you are dedicated to sabotaging the rare case of Albanian-Greek agreement on a contentious issue on Wiki. Deal with one thing at a time, please. There are other issues here that others have had the decency to not complicate this with (like the status of Albanians in Greece). --Calthinus (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, it was very hard to have gotten this far. Albania's position in bilateral issues is based on that point (whether one likes or dislikes their position on a personal level). The article is about bilateral issues after all. Please enough of the wp:idontlikeit. Many editors here have made large compromise and are ok with this version and i doubt they will go further. Without getting consensus the current version of the article stays and no Greek minority section gets to become part of the article.Resnjari (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to remind you (or inform you in case you are not aware already), but the administrators and the noticeboard volunteers are very sensitive when it comes to reports of editors barricading themselves behind WP:CONSENSUS to block NPOV additions to articles that have POV issues. Editors who used WP:CONSENSUS to block moderate edits in articles, got banned in the past. So please be careful when you say "Without getting consensus the current version of the article stays and no Greek minority section gets to become part of the article.", as EDITOR CONSENSUS can be a two-edged sword, when used to override WP:NPOV. The content WILL be added to the article, regardless of what you do believe about it. What we are doing here is to do this the smooth way without taking it to the noticeboards, where, the results are without doubt, going to favor inclusion of the minority to the article and form a Consensus so that we avoid not only future disruption but also further edit wars. This discussion here is not meant to determine whether the content is added or not, but if it will be added the one or the other way. Sorry.

And I am sure everyone here prefers the smooth way of adding it because no matter what, the content is too important for the Greek-Albanian relations for it to be simply left out. Whoever uses consensus to maintain the current version of the article which has POV issues, will have difficult time explaining this to the administrators and the other members of the project, whose the belief, and the project's goal is to have all the information included nevertheless, as long as it is 1) noteworthy, 2) relevant to the subject, 3) well sourced and 4) neutrally-worded and attributed, and this is the case with the Greek Minority. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident do wite have an addition to add the suggested text that at least four agreed to? Imo it is better to do one thing at a time -- otherwise we could all end up with nothing and a locked page. --Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree here @Calthinus. I took forever to get to this stage. Its preferable that there is a section on the Greek minority. Not everyone got everything they wanted. Compromises were made on both sides. In the end the article is about bilateral relations of two countries so balance had to be found for both parts related to both. Its going to be like that with each section and not all about just one state and its positions and interactions of events/things about the other.Resnjari (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Calthinus.Cinadon36 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Cham stuff belongs to Cham section, even if someone pretends that's not fair unfortunately (false claims about sabotaging etc.) this is a fact. SR's reply about merging those sections is a constructive step in case this piece of information should mixed with the Northern Epirote issue.Alexikoua (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Please, Alexikoua clam down. A constructive (and tiring) process was taken to reach this point. Editors have made many compromises. @Calthinus is right here on the overview of the situation.Resnjari (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite calm. There is no reason to add information about the Cham issue in this section. Any addition about this belongs to the correspondent section & you are welcome to propose changes about it. In fact: SR is right here.Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua, SR first agreed to this version [88] before your comment. Other editors have made many compromises to reach this point and agree to the current version. Going by comments already, highly doubtful editors here will continue further with this. The article needs a section on the Greek minority. You can continue as you wish, but the article will lack a section on the Greek minority due to no agreement. Anyway to reiterate Calthinus makes good points. Time to move on.Resnjari (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

For future reference this isn't an agreement [[89]], i.e. SR asks for input. Accusing me that there was a so-called agreement is at least disruptive. You need to concentrate in real arguments and reply to the issues raised here instead of attacking co-editors.Alexikoua (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Information about the former Cham minority should be part of the correct section. Thus, the last part should move one section down with appropriate copy-editing.Alexikoua (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua actually the comment by SR for the final version says "Its Great" [90]. Look multiple editors have made difficult compromises. You can continue with your stance (and personal attacks against editors), but a section on the Greek minority wont end up in the article and the current stable version of the page will remain. That's about it.Resnjari (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(ignore pretending NPA violations). An editor says it's great means there is some progress. Agreement is something else. What about to focus on arguments?Alexikoua (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua, whether or not you want to ignore or whatever is up to you. Other editors feel this is it (as outlined in their comments) after having made many difficult compromises.Resnjari (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious that there is some kind of discrepancy in case we add info about the Cham issue in the wrong section. However, in case you are eager to discuss Albania's official about the Cham issue you can initiate a new proposal to change the relevant section. Another solution, as SR noted is to merge those sections.Alexikoua (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Several editors, myself among them, are not willing to continue discussing here after more than a month of disputes. If you wish to add "the final proposal", very good. Otherwise you should move on and concentrate your energy on other articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, its the Albanian state's position regarding this matter. The section on the Greek minority does not include much on the Albanian position and that sentence covers it all. This article is about bilateral relations and a balance needs to be in the article that shows both sides of the relationship and their positions on things. Now you can continue as you do, but editors struggled hard to reach something satisfactory here via difficult compromise. Either the article can have a long overdue section on the Greek minority or the stable version of the article can remain.Resnjari (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, it's the Albanian state's regarding the Cham issue and should be part of the correspondent section. Can't be more simple than that. I wonder why you insist not to touch this section since you are eager for the addition of relevant information on the Cham issue (by the way it lacks RS, care to find?).Alexikoua (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua nope, its the Albanian state's position on the Greek minority. I see that your digging in here after editors made much hard and difficult compromises on this section. Its disappointing your stance but anyway there is a section ready to go.Resnjari (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(still RS not porivided). If you mean the Cham issue that's a piece of info for the Cham issue section, provided that you provide a citation.Alexikoua (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why we even discuss something that's not even supported by secondary RS. Feel free to make your research on this.Alexikoua (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Jeez, your still at it. We have not finalsied all sources that are going into the section as the wording had to be sorted out and that was a difficult process in itself. Per sentence we are allowed 3 citations, so it doesn't become WP:OVERCITE. After painstaking and difficult compromise already done by editors, its pointless to continue here in a merry go-round with you.Resnjari (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

As I've imagine, no citation that support this part. Please focus on the subject and calm down. No source means it has no place in our proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you do not have imagination at all. I have said several times that I have sources for the sentence. Strange that you have not noticed that. I will choose 2 or 3 of them and post them here. I could have done that long ago but your redirection of discussion every few hours made discussing sources redundant. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A constructive approach will be to provide those sources instead of being aggressive against co-editors. Else this part goes out of the proposed version.Alexikoua (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua what is it with you and personal attacks? Do you have a problem with Ktrimi991 because you have used that description of "aggressive" many a time toward the editor.Resnjari (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: @Ktrimi991: @Alexikoua: @Resnjari:, all listen: The Cham and the Epirote sections will both be next to each other. Since the Albanian government links the Epirote with the Cham issue, so we will do too. Since Albania maintains a position that the two matters relate, in some sort of reciprocity, it will be strange to not merge the two sections, which is what we should do, as this helps the reader get the full picture of the issues and political attitudes to them. In my opinion, it is simply a matter on where in the article the proposed Epirote will be added. My suggestion is to have the two issues merged and sorted in chronological order - the Cham issues chronologically preceded the North Epirote one so this will be mentioned FIRST, and the Epirote section should be added AFTER it. Just common sense. And since we agreed on this proposal we can also agree on how to work out the placement on the article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No, on my part i don't agree with combining sections etc. The original terms of discussion was that this would be a separate section, as other editors wanted. It took time to get this far with editors having made extensive and difficult compromises. @SilentResident you expressed favour toward this version [91]. Going by the comments above by at least 4 editors (i include myself in that number) for support of this version you wont get further calls for change of combining sections etc and its highly doubtful of their further involvement too. The Albanian government has a position and for it matters around the Greek minority are connected to matters on the Cham community. The Albanian position is outlined in one sentence. Anyway that's about it.Resnjari (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussing the addition of something that's not even supported by RS isn't the best procedure. Resnjary by the way has already rejected a dozen of RS because of 1. it's primary material (CIA Factbook), 2. written by Greek analysts, 3. outdated though published at 2008. On the other hand proposing something without even presenting the correspondent citation can't be considered a serious proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Merge Proposal

See also: Cham issue and Greeks in Albania ENTRY TEXT (your input - I recommend something like: "Prominent issues between Albania and Greece are the status and rights of their respective minorities, more specifically the Cham issue and the Greeks in Albania, which played a significant role in the diplomatic relations of the two countries...") The Cham issue refers to a controversy which has been raised by Albania since the 1990s over the repatriation of the Cham Albanians, who were expelled from the Greek region of Epirus between 1944 and 1945, at the end of World War II, citing the collaboration of the majority of them with the occupying forces of the Axis powers. While Albania presses for the issue to be re-opened, Greece considers the matter closed. However, it was agreed to create a bilateral commission, only about the property issue, as a technical problem. The commission was set up in 1999, but has not yet functioned. BRIDGING TEXT (your input - something that makes transition from one paragraph to another - I recommend something like: "the other issue is the rights of the Greeks in Albania...") Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are mostly concentrated in the south of the county, in parts of Vlorë, Gjirokastër and Sarandë counties with Greek communities also located in some urban areas like Korçë, Berat and Tiranë. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has beenit that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed. FINAL TEXT (your input - whatever you feel is missing from above to balance any POV issues, can be included here)

--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• OPPOSE MERGER, as you favored the previous version [92] above which is a separate section and done after many concessions and hard made compromise by multiple editors.Resnjari (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually you are showing my statements as contradicting each other, which are not. I supported that version but I also support its proper placement in the article that could nail the two issues in one section called "minorities". It is about placement which could help from having the Cham minority mentioned repeatedly on multiple separate sections within the whole article, which in my opinion has to be avoided, per WP:PROMINENCE. Having the Cham section, and the other issues which are affected due to it (i.e. Greek minority) in one section, could make sense, couldn't it? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There was no agreement for combining these sections into one called "minorities". Editors wanted a section on the Greek minority and there is one ready and written up. The Albanian position is outlined in one sentence and does not dominate the section. 4 editors support that version (with your comment of being in favour of that form) and the previous consensus among all editors was that the section be called Greek minority of Albania. Moving the goalposts everytime is time wasting as at least 4 editors already expressed that they wont be bothered further with this.Resnjari (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Though I don't understand the chronological order, (Cham issue was non-existent pre-1990s) it's not a big deal to me. Epirus in the Cham paragraph should change to Thesprotia (per existing inlines), in the same fashion the Greek minority is limited in a few urban centers outside the extreme SW. Finally the last part needs citation: Resnjary has already rejected primary reports, Greek analysts and 2008 academic papers in this discussion, so I'm waiting for something strong to support this part.Alexikoua (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, things were outlined to you ad nausuem in previous posts by multiple editors. Whether or not you understand is your schtick but ignoring that editors made many, many difficult concessions to even reach a point where there was some viable form of a section and then moving the goalposts further and further out means that editors just wont engage. They have outlined this in their own comments above.Resnjari (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Instead of being aggressive a sound approach would be to point to the specific sources.Alexikoua (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, you keep calling for "sound approach" and then continue with personal attacks like "Instead of being aggressive". Wow, 'very constructive' indeed. The above threads which ad mausuem was discussed referred to all these matters. Other editors have stated they would present their sources and the priority was to try and get some kind of cohesive text to form a section.Resnjari (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way I don't see a real argument for those rejecting a merged section: same content, same paragraphs but one section of two small paragraphs. Sounds too weird especially when this took to much time and effort (no wonder no citation presented so far for the supposed Cham issue part)Alexikoua (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Other editors have stated they would present their sources? Without sources nothing can be proposed even more controversial parts such as this one. It's simple Wikipedia policy. Per wp:AGF I assume you have access to those sources and I'm still waiting for them. Alexikoua (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

And i don't see a reason for merging considering that the whole process of 7 proposals in the above threads was for a section on the Greek minority of Albania, not a merger or anything else. This new thread is just moving the goal posts further and further out. Already other editors expressed in above comments that they are over it. Now @Ktrimi991 said that sources will be presented on the matter for references. I await those and its important for editors to understand that not all editors go by time expectations of a single person. Patience sometimes is best. Beyond that this new thread here was not what time and effort was wasted on for many days by editors via difficult compromises.Resnjari (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

A part without citation is obviously problematic. Actually the merger of two small paragraphs is a good proposal provided that no content will be changed.Alexikoua (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No part will be without citations. Otherwise what's the point of all of this? This section, as with the others will all have citations so that in future there are no headaches about a lack of citations. Regarding the merger, the goal posts are being moved and editors that partook in discussions for this section was to have a separate section on the Greek minority and nothing about a merger.Resnjari (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting for the RS for Albania's position. Once we have them, we are good to go to the next task, which is to see how to handle the minorities section. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Categorical procedural oppose I will not entertain this disruptive goalpost moving. @Resnjari, Ktrimi991, and SilentResident: let us find sources for the agreed upon version and proceed. --Calthinus (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus, the merge was proposed with my mind in future expansion of the article to include specific mention of diplomatic incidents and crises between the two countries due to minority issues, such as Greek President Karolos Papoulias's cancellation of visit in Albania due to the Cham issue. All right, guys, so tell me, since I see everyone here opposing this, what ways could you propose for future expansion of the article over the issue of minorities? The merger could have enabled me to do that, while keeping both Cham and North Epirote paragraphs INTACT. How could this be handled then? Perhaps 3 independent sections, one for Greek minority, one for Chams, and one that expands upon the diplomatic incidents over minorities? I am disappointed you could see my proposal as a "disruptive goalpost moving". Very disappointed.

@Alexikoua, I thought the Merger to be a good way of aleviating your concerns over mentioning the Cham issue in both Cham and Greek sections. But if that doesn't work, then I am up for any better ideas. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

When editors got involved it was under the premise that it was for a section called Greek minority of Albania, not something else on the section. So yes mergers etc now are moving the goalposts after much difficult comprise to even get this far. @Calthinus makes a good point about matter. About expanding the Greek minority section in future, that is for the future. Getting something into the article in terms of a functional section now that addresses this glaring absence is most important.Resnjari (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@SR.: In case specific editors are eager to add info about the Cham issue in various paragraphs then that's a good reason for merging. Not to mention that defending something that is in need of citation isn't a strong position. I'm afraid that Cathinus needs to explain his one-sided approach on the issue.Alexikoua (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident well, looking at the page currently and imagining our section we agreed to added to it, I also see this :

1. Mention of the Greek minority in Albania but no mention of Albanians living in Greece -- this applies also to at least two other sections currently on the page.
2. Ditto above about issues they face with discrimination etc etc -- Greek issues are mentioned, what Albanians experience is not.
3. Chams, a population consisting of more than half women, and many of the remaining males being children or elderly and not of fighting or working age, are described as "majority collaborators" (yes, with an RS-- but you see the issue here...)

These are all issues that need solving. But we shouldn't drag this one negotiation process out by discussing them simultaneously. Alexikoua is trying to justify, consciously or not, holding a negotiation about one paragraph hostage to his desire to delete another. That should be discussed separately if we want to get anywhere at all. Which I sure do, after the eighth (!!) "final" proposal. --Calthinus (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and well said @Calthinus.Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus My intend was to expand on the Minority section to cover on-topic diplomatic incidents between the two countries related to the minorities, but since you all are opposing the merger, then I won't keep asking about that. The rest of the issues you are raising here, are not about the minorities, are off-topic, which could belong elsewhere in the article. The Albanian immigrants are not a minority and do not have a minority status. International law is very clear that immigrants and minorities are two different things. Thus, if they are to be added, then that should be done on its dedicated section, where of course we will also have to include the Greek immigrants which for some reason you chose to not mention, and who left crisis-hit Greece for employment in Albania's tourism and services sectors, mainly in the Albanian Riviera.

Last, about the Cham women and children, as much as I personally sympathize with them as well as the Italian and German women and children, being a woman myself, you won't find me supporting any initiatives where the families of the collaborators of the Nazis are treated individually due to gender and age, and, or, even go as deep as to analyze which members in the same family actually disagreed with each other about supporting Hitler or the Resistance. Obviously, this was the case anywhere in Europe during World War II, not only with the Cham fighters and their families, but also with the German and Italian ones. No matter what we may think or feel about events of the past and whether they are politicized in modern times by far-right Cham politicians in Albania, they are very controversial and the epicenter of this controversy lies to the fact that they are one-sided perceptions which is not shared by the international community, but only by the former Axis countries such as Albania and Germany. No other European state, especially former Allied countries such as Greece, Poland and France, as far as I can see, has agreed to accept delving deep into the past and review the expelled families on an individual basis like this. Although the only country which supports such controversial matters and advocates for Cham rights in Greece is Turkey, an country which ironically failed to show the same sensitivity when it comes to its own minorities. The minorities in Turkey, had a fate much worsen and bloodier than mere expulsions. Turkey however does so in the case of the Cham issue, not because of any sudden outbursts of Human right sensitivities among Turkish diplomats or a post-modern Enlightment of humanism among Turkish politicians, but because for the Turks it is an easy political tool for increasing and bolstering Turkish influence in Albania (a rather successful move, if I may add, as some Albanians evidently fell for it except the nationalists (for whom I am aware) who mistrust Turkey's motives and intentions). Calthinus, if you propose something off-topic and such controversial and highly POV case for the article which is about diplomatic relations, (i mean, such a thing which you proposed, was not even done in the case of the Germany-Poland relations article and the expulsion of German families regardless of whether there were elderly, women or children from Poland which was one of the largest in Europe) then you will find me totally opposed. As you see, I already had to deal with far less controversial Albanian POV here such as in the case of the Greek Minority paragraph above where certain editors wanted to censor out self-determinations of people, do not EVER expect me sitting down and nosediving to far worse cases which are way far more controversial than ever. Just I won't. Sorry. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident modern day Albanian immigrants have been a issue between both countries and it has affected their bilateral relations post 1992. Covering that in an article that is about bilateral relations makes sense. Anyway we are not up to that, about the Chams please stick to the subject if your going to discuss them. What other countries have done or not done is doesn't apply to this article. As for Turkey and Albanian relations, there are issues but the mean people in Albania who are against peaceful relations are nationalists (i.e: extremists) who promote Turkophobia and Islamophobia. Now you may not like relations between those states (going by your comments) and frankly i don't see what it has do with this article. Wikipedia is wp:notaforum.Resnjari (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident, modern day Albanian immigrants have been a issue between both countries and it has affected their bilateral relations post 1992. Covering that in an article that is about bilateral relations makes sense. Not sure why are you telling me. I guess I take this as you agreeing with my position that the Migrants can be added to the article, just on a different section? This is my position, and if you are fine with it, then good.

As for Turkey and Albanian relations, there are issues but the mean people in Albania who are against peaceful relations are nationalists (i.e: extremists) who promote Turkophobia and Islamophobia. Now you may not like relations between those states (going by your comments) and frankly i don't see what it has do with this article. Wikipedia is wp:notaforum. why couldn't I like the relations between countries? If you are thinking of me as an warmonger, then I feel sorry for being too harsh at you. You must be having a terrible impression about me, my dear, for you to ever assume that I could not like good relations in the Balkans. Re-read my above comment more carefully and you will see that I am not commenting on relations but on information more or less present already in Wikipedia: Turkey using the Chams for its own gains in the region (see here: Cham issue#International position) where Wikipedia already listed one of the reasons Turkey does that for. I can gladly add more information with RS supporting it about Turkey's motives behind Cham issue, just I hope you are ok with that? Thanks and good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident, no i don't think of you as anything apart from a person who edits wikipedia. What personal motivations drive you in editing are no ones business but yourself. As for saying "Turkey is using the Chams for its own gains", in Albania part of the PDIU leadership is thought to be in the pay of the Greek Foreign ministry [93]. So i guess there is alternative POVs on the matter. Anyway Turkey and Albania's relations are not important for this article. Focus is on Albania and Greece.Resnjari (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident you misunderstand. I am not proposing adding anything to the Cham section. Instead I am opposing holding the addition of the section that you made, which won the support of myself and many others, hostage to a new discussion of deleting the separate Cham section-- raised by Alexikoua, even though Khirurg explicitly states he does not [[94]] support deleting the Cham section. What you misunderstood as some sort of proposal from me was in fact me arguing about why it is not a good idea to link this to that. I did mention long term goals for the page and none of these included modifications to the existing Cham section. Regarding the France/Poland comment, I should say actually the position of France is quite different from that of Poland or Greece (statements of apology, reconciliation etc...) -- and it is Poland's attitude to the past that has caused considerable friction with not only Germany but also a diplomatic fallout with Israel last year. But this is off-topic. Can we please get back to adding your proposed section, before the merge proposal (which let's be honest-- stands no chance-- but your original proposal was quite agreeable)?--Calthinus (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm I am having trouble understanding you lately. Sorry I didn't understand but ok, now that the merger is opposed, all we can do is add the Greek minority section, or at least the parts of it which have RS supporting it. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

pinging Ktrimi991. Its seems after all the discussion that things are moving toward adding the section as part of the article. Can you provide the sources for that sentence on n Albania's position soon so the section can go whole into the article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion went rather off-topic during my absence but glad to see that desire for consensus is prevailing again. I have the books here, just need to manually write the relevant quotes, sth I hate to do to some degree. See you soon. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We have been waiting for days for this. How much more time do you need? At least can you give us the names of these books and their page numbers to do it ourselves? That would save you the hassle and let us finally add the paragraph to the article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

References

HRM & Hatzidimitriou state about "weaknesses for the protection of minority rights".Alexikoua (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Final citations

Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are mostly concentrated in the south of the county, in parts of Vlorë, Delvinë, Gjirokastër and Sarandë counties with Greek communities also located in some urban areas like Korçë, Elbasan, Durrës and Tiranë. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has been that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed.

@SilentResident, Resnjari, and Ktrimi991: because I want to help this process along, I am grabbing citations myself. You can help me by providing cites for other sentences I haven't cited yet, and by placing cn tags on sents that you think need citation. Cheers.--Calthinus (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident: in line with sources, I have added Delvine to the list of partially Greek-populated counties, I hope this is okay, and I will be replacing Berat with "Elbasan and Durres" in line with that those are the urban centers, aside from Tirana, where sources are describing Greeks to live most heavily.--Calthinus (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to insist about parts that are unsourced (i.e. Cham part). By the way since Resnjari rejects recent papers on the grounds that they are written by Greek analysts, I assume that their Albanian collegues can't be an exeption in this case. Else we are into serious wp:POVAlexikoua (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Alexikoua, please do NOT infer something of my comments when i never made them. I never opposed Greek scholars and so on. I opposed your interpretation of a Greek source which did not state something which you kept insisting it did say. The sentence on Albania's position is written up and editors are being constructive in adding citations for the section to take its final form. Please if you want to contribute to the process ok, if not, no need for further hindrance.Resnjari (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

We have all agreed on this version and I will be adding cites from Greek authors such as Nitsiakos. Not sure what your carp with Resnjari is about really, given that he has come under pretty serious fire from other Albanian editors for relying mainly on Greek historiography on pages like Alb nationalism. --Calthinus (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Also don't forget the sources I provided with my proposals above. If there is anything else, let me know. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder for the removal of this analysis [[95]] with the excuse that this was written by a Greek author and there "there are heaps written by Albanians as well. I guess you wont object to their usage?". Even worse, as soon as there is no source at all the proposal is too weak to receive any support. Thus, since Greek annalists are excluded I assume their Albanian colleagues aren't an exemption in this rule.Alexikoua (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

RS sources first to avoid issues with this sensitive topic. Don't care what their ethnic background is as long as they have published via RS sources. Other editors are in the process of gathering citations. Process is by no means complete yet.Resnjari (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

References

I wonder why we are still proposing something that's without a source, especially when this concerns another issue just one section below. Needless to say that we have a clear wp:POV and OR case.Alexikoua (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

These are the two sources. I am actually aware of two other sources that back the same stuff but I can not find copies of them rn. Both sources below show several official documents that can help the Wiki coverage of several topics but I am writing here just quotes relevant to the ongoing discussion.

• Eva Tafili Hyskaj
• Shaban Murati

References

Read them and make the needed changes to the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Resnjary has already turned obsolete sources more than a decade old (in the context of current politics). I'm ok with Murati though as soon as the -vn- issue is fixed. By the way I can't see in Murati's quote any mention to Chams and the exodus from Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The sentence on Albania's position refers from the post communist era until now. Hyskaj is fine and Murati (2016) is most recent both showing Albania's unchanged position then and now. To @Alexikoua the part in Murati is "pozicioni zyrtar i qeverise shqiptare nuk ndryshon, pra te drejtat e minoritetit shqiptar te debuar nga Greqia sanksionon ecurine e metejshme ne dialogun per te drejat e minoritetit grek". The key part of the sentence translated is "the official position of the Albanian government has not changed that the rights of the Albanian minority expelled from Greece sanction further progress on the Greek minority rights dialogue."Resnjari (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Guys, with all respect, today we had a new development on the Greek minority issue. Specifically, Tsipras, for the first time today - during the Qaudrilateral Summit between Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia, announced his country's position on the issue, which is that Albania's EU accession will depend on the respect of its Greek minority. Furthermore, Tsipras declared that Albania will have more conditions for joining the European Union. He specifically announced that: "the necessity for the respect of minority rights is a precondition for joining the European Union" (ανάγκη σεβασμού των μειονοτικών δικαιωμάτων ως προϋπόθεση ένταξης στην ΕΕ). [96]

This constitutes a very important development in my opinion, since the head of the excecutive branch of the Greek government, in the past, was reluctant to take such a clear stance on the Minority issue. First time we have such a clear position by Greece's Prime Minister on the matter, as expressed today at the Quadrilateral Balkan Summit. Anyone here objecting to updating the the article with the new development? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought that has been Greece's position for some years. I'm a bit surprised that it wasn't until now. Anyway come up with sentence or an addition to part of a sentence etc. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I have made my position clear. If you wish to add the "final proposal", add it. But I am not going to discuss or agree on further changes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any point why a POV approach in terms of sources should be followed. For example Resnjari insists that specific sources should be removed at random as outdated. What makes Albanian analysis of 2003 non-obsolete while non-Balkan academic papers of 2008 useless? The following part should be in the final proposal: The issue of Northern Epirus was formally submerged in 1926 with the signing of a peace agreement between Albania and Greece, but it continues to plague Greek-Albanian relations today. [[97]]. in order to secure some balance in the paragraphAlexikoua (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Submerged for whom ? Greece has not had territorial claims for some decades now. That is a changed position from the 1970s after the fall of dictatorship by the Greeks generals. Albania's position so far since the fall of communism regarding the Greek minority has been consistent. The day it changes that sentence thereafter will be treated in past tense. Two sources cover it. You can continue as you have here but all it means is that the section further languishes in the talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, you discarded Hyskaj as it was published in 2003 and I did not oppose as you did not discard Murati (published in 2016 and mentions declarations of Rama). Anyways, if you changed your mind and do not wish to add anything new to the article, I think we all are happy with that too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I have made my position clear. If you wish to add the "final proposal", add it. But I am not going to discuss or agree on further changes. Ktrimi, I appreciate that you have contributed to our efforts for as wide consensus as possible. However, consensus isn't about keeping the latest and newest developments that occurred post-consensus, from being added into the article. Per WP:CCC, a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances is something that can happen. Wikipedia is evolving, and new information gets released which at the time of the previous consensus was unconsidered and this is very natural, because the flow of time never pauses and the world keeps advancing. To keep the future events and incidents WP:RELEVANT to Albania-Greece relations from being added, is not a constructive editorial behavior, is disruptive. If you want to participate positively to the article, you are welcome. Otherwise the others can go ahead without you.

I don't see any point why a POV approach in terms of sources should be followed. For example Resnjari insists that specific sources should be removed at random as outdated. Alexikoua, which article are you referring to?

I'm a bit surprised that it wasn't until now. Anyway come up with sentence or an addition to part of a sentence etc. Resnjari, I was surprised too. I don't know, if you have any sentences in mind to propose, feel free to do so. Actually I could like you giving us a proposal, because from past experience, I can tell your sentences tend to be better-worded than mine or other's, due to you being evidently a natural or daily English speaker, if not a native one, and that's useful here. I am not natural or daily English speaker, and my above Greek minority proposal unfortunately took me ages to write it down and present it here. Any help would appreciated if that can save us from making multiple and constant proposals in a row. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Since you are not happy because you want to add additional content, I want to add additional content too. Since the N. Epirus is mentioned, it should be added that many Greeks in Albania feel insulted if they are called "N. Epirotes". Since you wish to add content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Since we have the Albanian position it's obvious that something's missing from the other side. I'm ok with the sources presented by Ktrimi (though per Resnjari's rationale one of them is obsolete, but ok ok as soon we have -vn- fixed). Thus, with the addition of a small part next to the Albanian position we can secure neutrality. Top graded papers by Greek analysts can be helpful: [[98]] describing the position of Greece: "Είναι σαφές ότι στις σημερινές συνθήκες το «Βορειοηπειρωτικό», ως ζήτημα εδαφικής διεκδίκησης, δεν υφίσταται. Ωστόσο, δεν παύει να υφίσταται ως μείζον ζήτημα εφαρμογής, ισχύος και σεβασμού των δικαιωμάτων της Ελληνικής Εθνικής Μειονότητας στην Αλβανία.". Certainly this will shed enough light to the section. Alexikoua (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, the Albanian gov's position is already PRESENT in the paragraph, while the Greek gov's position is MISSING and this itself is problematic, and can become EVEN MORE problematic if we ignore the new post-Consensus December 2018 developments which occurred, where for the first time the Greek government, via its executive head, Prime Minister Tsipras, stated their position on the issue. Responding to a NPOV proposal for inclusion of the missing Greek government's position with even more POINTY POV of your part, such as "Greeks not idendifiying as X or Y", isn't helpful but a blatant case of disruption. I suggest you back off.

Alexikoua, can you offer translation in English of the sentence you are proposing? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Do not use capital letters, it is not considered constructive. The position of both countries is included in the proposal, you are just trying to create a huge section on the Greek minority's rights. If you wish to add the "final proposal", add it. Additional stuff should include that many Greeks in Albania consider being called "N. Epirote" an insult, and prefer being called "Greek". Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The position of both countries is included in the proposal I see only the Albanian position but nowhere PM Tsipras's statement and or Alexikoua's sourced information. If we add the Greek position then yes, we can say that both positions are covered then. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope. The following text gives info on Greece's demands, hence its position: "Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority". Since the "final proposal" explains what kind of term N. Epiriotes is, I might agree on addition of your sentence if the text I copy pasted above is removed from the "final proposal". We are not going to create a huge undue section on the Greek minority's rights. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It is very incompetent of your part to confuse United States reports and Human Rights organization's positions as being the Greek government's positions. From now and on, you will be IGNORED and I will not respond further to your comments anymore. If you continue to filibuster this discussion, I will report you to the administrators. You have been warned. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you can not ignore me or anyone else. Feel free to report me. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari, Alexikoua, Calthinus, are we done with the sources? About the latest December 2018 developments, something like: "The Greek government's position is that it won't consent to Albania's EU accession until issues affecting the Greek minority are addressed" can be good IMO. Contains no POV and allows the article's readers to be informed on the Greek gov's position, as expressed by the Greek Prime Minister this week. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I would rephrase it as "The position of the Greek government is that issues facing the Greek minority need to be resolved as a condition for Albania's accession to the European Union". Otherwise looks good, and I obviously support inclusion. Khirurg (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Yours is even better than mine. Now that the new statements by the Greek PM on the issue are taken in account, I believe the Paragraph to be as complete as possible, per WP:NPOV, as it covers all viewpoints on the issue (both Albanian and Greek gov ones). Just for everyone's information, I have stumbled now upon further information: the PM's remarks were following those of the Foreign Policy Council of Greece, which stated that: "Support was also expressed to Albania's European perspective, with Athens setting as precondition the respect for the European institutional acquis, international law and the rights of the Greek minority." [99] The Prime Minister's remarks and the Foreign Policy Council's statements on the same issue were published less than 24 hours from each other. Such a timing and synergy makes me believe that these developments are not merely a coincidence, but a timely coordinated response reflecting the Greek side's stance on the issue. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Please don't ignore Ktrimi991, that's not conducive to getting closer to a resolution. I do think that sentence is warranted on Greece's position on the Greek minority and it being associated with Albania' s EU accession. @Ktrimi is right however on wp:undue. Albania's position is only a sentence long while the Greek position on all that is a couple of sentences. Either the Albanian position gets expanded also, or the other bits get trimmed so that new addition gets a fit in.Resnjari (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

There is only one sentence regarding the position of the Greek government (that respect for the minority rights is a precondition for EU membership). The other sentence is sourced to the US State Department. It is not the position of the Greek government. Khirurg (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari, I would suggest you take the RS to the RS Noticeboard (or any other boards you think is more suitable for this), and try convince the Admins here that the Human Rights Organization and the United States's Department of State are actually part of the... Greek Government. The admins and the volunteers here will have difficult time understanding your views. I kindly recommend that the next time you read more carefully the RS before rushing to adopt Ktrimi's problematic positions where he has confused the USA's State Department for the Greek government. We have the RS, which meet all of Wikipedia's rules per WP:RS and everyone is free to take them to the noticeboard. Just make sure to bring strong arguments and indisputable evidence to support your case there, because, IMO, the admins and the editors on the noticeboards will not find your and Ktrimi's position to be convincing at best. They will tell you that the position of the Greek side is absent even though this article is about Greece as well. Merry Christmas everyone! --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident, since no valid objections were raised, you can go ahead and add the section. This long debate has reached its conclusion. Khirurg (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Whether the objections raised by me and Resnjari are "valid" or not is not decided only by you. You know this article is being watched by an admin, so why do you ask SR to make the changes that do not have consensus? Make them by yourself. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course they are not valid. You are confusing the position of the US State Department (what the issues facing the Greek minority are) with the position of the Greek government (Albania is not getting in the EU unless it respects the rights of the Greek minority). Whether it's a WP:CIR issue or deliberate obstruction, I can't tell, but either way, these are not valid objections. Khirurg (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course they are valid. After all, this article is not about what the US State Dep. says on the minority rights. It is about relations between Greece and Albania and their official positions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

You're kidding right? The US State Dept. is the source we use to source the issues facing the Greek minority in Albania (land theft, violent incidents, denial of education, etc...). It is NOT the position of the Greek government. The position of the Greek government is, Albania is not going anywhere without respecting the rights of the Greek minority. Surely you agree that the position of the Greek government on Albania's EU prospects should be in the article? Khirurg (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

While most aspects of relations and problems between the two countries (EEZ/maritime borders;Alb. immigrants; war law and so on) are not covered at all, you wish to make an undue section on minority rights. Nope. The sentences that are not part of the Greek official position should be removed. Only official positions of the two countries. For that matter, does the "Cham issue" sub-section contain info on problems faced by Chams (no right to visit or enjoy their property, no graves for their ancestors etc)? The Cham issue and the Greek minority's rights are merely two of many aspects of relations between Greece and Albania. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it but Ktrimi is right, this article is about bilateral relations between Greece and Albania and not relations with the US State Dep. The positions of both countries should be reflected in the article and not the views of other international institutions giving their own positions unless they cite the position of either Greece or Albania. Otherwise its wp:undue and wp:or.Resnjari (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually the only undue is about the Cham question which for an unexplained reason -apart from its seperate section- needs to be repeated in the context of the Northern Epirotes.Alexikoua (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari:, citing independent international organizations and third party countries to verify the information is a common Wikipedia practice and goes totally in line with Wikipedia's WP:VERIFY rules. Your position that the third party sources shall not be cited if the position of the Greek government is to be included, is quite problematic, if not blatant case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as no other article across Wikipedia have a precedence where the official governmental position of a country is being denied inclusion due to the same paragraph citing reliable reports by third party Human Right organizations. No other article EVER has such a precedence, and Ktrimi may risk get topic banned if this problematic attitude persists here, and I am sure this is not what you want. To include the Greek government's position in addition to the reports by Human right organizations, is absolutely in line with Wikipedia's Verify Content rules. I am considering calling for administrator attention if this problematic attitude of yours and Ktrimi's continues, which goes against any logic. The Admins may also have to consider that this negative attitude is not limited only here, but also extends to other parts of Wikipedia, such as the yesterday's failed report by Ktrimi against Alexikoua on the Noticeboard, where the Administrators criticized Ktrimi: [100]. I am sorry, I can't help this, but comment how this confirms my concerns that that this editor's behavior is problematic and non-constructive at all! Absolutely not!

My position is made quite clear to you, I hope: if you have any issues with the RS, take it to the RS noticeboard. If you have problem including BOTH the third party human right organizations and the Greek government's stance on the isue, then take it to the NPOV noticeboard. Or if you feel, call for a mediation, among others. It is up to you.

From my part, I believe that the content is fully verified and well sourced with RS, and is neutrally worded in line with NPOV rules and both side's positions are covered equally. If you disagree with this or that, or if you even object to Wikipedia's rules, then you know your options. IMO, and as far as the paragraph concerns, it is ready for inclusion to the article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not against adding in content. You kept moving the bar and bringing up issues and well Ktrimi991 brought up an issue which had not even occurred to me. The US State Dep. is not the Greek government and unless it cites the Greek government position, its wp:undue and wp:or as this article is about bilateral relations. I mean if were including third party positions here then its endless, Turkey has many positions regarding Albania-Greek bilateral relations like on the Cham issue and maritime border. Are we going to add those too? Best not. We should stick to the scope of the article i.e bilateral relations between Albania and Greece and their positions.Resnjari (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I could have cited the Greek or Albanian side's records on these Human Right violations of the Greek Minority but - as you probably are fully aware too - they are quite biased. Could you like to replace third party neutral reports with biased ones like Albania's, Greece's, or even Turkey's who is chastised by the International community for its notorious perception of human rights? if yes, then we will end up with bigger problems. From experience, Wikipedia tends to avoid using Turkey's view on human right issues across the globe, or even cite the Turkish position on them unless Turkey is directly part of the issue. As for me moving the bar, is not exactly that, is it? I was afraid this could happen, because the longer the paragraph is kept from the article, the more likely it will get outdated by ongoing post-consensus developments which otherwise could make their way directly to the article instead of here. Thats why Wikipedians must not delay so much time on Talk page, and agree to its inclusion to the article so that the editors can work directly on the article in case new developments occur in real life that relate to this. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Turkey does not have a view about human rights issues on Albania-Greece relations unless its in the scope of geopolitics (i.e Cham issue and maritime border -especially the second matter). My point was regarding the inclusion of third party positions in an article about bilateral relations.Resnjari (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying the only sources we should use are the Greek and Albanian government? This is absurd. Good luck convincing admins of this point of view. SilentResident (and anyone else reading this), I think it is quite obvious we are dealing with deliberate obtuseness-type stonewalling. Won't look good at arbitration, that's for sure. Khirurg (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I could love to see the reaction of Admins or the Arbritation committee on Resnjari's ridiculous proposal to restrict reports on the issue to only those by the Albanian and Greek governments... Wow. I can't wait. Resnjari, instead of prolonging a discussion that has come to a natural end, i suggest you acknowledge that this is not going to happen. You may object, or take action by bringing this case to the Arbritation or the Noticeboards. Just make sure you know what you are saying. Because, if the outcome is not what you expected, don't come and tell me that I haven't warned you: the Admins are renown for their lack of tolerance towards irrational arguments. :-) --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Well thanks both of you for the interpretation of my comments when i did not say that. What i did say is that the source/s are RS (have said this many times) and refer to bilateral relations, regardless of whether its background is Greek, Albanian etc it. Please tone down on the bluster. Stay calm.Resnjari (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The naive threats only make consensus more difficult. We agreed on a "final proposal", then SilentResident started to demand further additions. Nope. At least you should have proposed to also add a sentence on problems caused by members of the Greek minority (hate speech, participation in Nazi organisations like Golden Dawn, acts of violence). They are part of relations too? Right? We are not going to change the article in line with a single POV. Re Arbitration, SilentResident file there as many reports as you wish. The first diff there should be the one where you declared that your family has a "Cham trauma". It is enough to prove your credibility. Calm down and discuss. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Accusing SR that "we" agreed is done in bad faith (we? who is we? link please): I fail to see "our" agreement yet. We need a balanced version here and selective use of sources isn't a constructive approach. Needles to say that Ktrimi is again into a lunatic wp:NPA concert.Alexikoua (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Did you know that accusing someone repeatedly is a violation of WP:Civility? Take your concerns in the right place. Here we should discuss content disputes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Re the said agreement, SilentResident made a "final proposal" (well she made many "final proposals" but whatever). When we (the other side of the dispute) agreed, she started to demand further changes. I was not talking about you Alexikoua, do not worry. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the section. We've been deep in WP:IDHT territory for far too long now. Let those who think that the Greek government's position regarding Albania's EU prospects argue why it should not be in the article. Khirurg (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It will be reverted. No worries. The EU stuff is indeed for the article, the US stuff no. If the US stuff should stay, as I said, problems caused by members of the Greek minority (hate speech, participation in Nazi organisations like Golden Dawn, acts of violence) should be on the article too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Will you revert again? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, please don't ask such questions. Khirurg considers this taunting, and I think I agree. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I am not a native speaker of English and I do not live in an English-speaking country. Hence my good-faith words can be misunderstood. Would you explain to me why my question is taunting? Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not either, Ktrimi991, but asking "are you going to revert" is like you're daring someone to revert you. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I leave this for a while and come back to a see a whole series of reverts etc to the main article (sigh). Anyway i do agree here on what @Ktrimi991 has suggested. The article's focus ought to be on content about bilateral relations regardless of who published them as long as they are RS. Otherwise it will be an endless cycle of adding "extras" on this and that outside the scope of bilateral relations.Resnjari (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

This is what I am saying. Since the minority is part (as it affects) the relations between the countries, the origin of the RS shouldn't matter. what matters is that we mention these issues and the position of the governments on them. Its so simple. So far, the Human right organizations and the US State Department, are not making statements on this - are just recording the issues - and IMO, if you ask in the RS Noticeboard, you can see that both the Human Rights organization and the State Department were considered RELIABLE thus far, by both the Admins and volunteers in the RS, and have been cited elsewhere across Wikipedia without problems. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari, you are saying: "The article's focus ought to be on content about bilateral relations regardless of who published them as long as they are RS" but this contradicts Ktrimi's position which is: "The sentences that are not part of the Greek official position should be removed. Only official positions of the two countries." so are you: 1) suggesting either that we shouldn't make note of the Greek Minority's issues (the source of tension in the bilateral relations), which have been verified by RS which Ktrimi wants to remove due to them not citing the Greek or Albanian governments, or 2) are you saying that we should proceed as normal (inclusion to the article) with the RS now that you have stated you are not minding their origin? You will need to be CLEAR on this. No contradictory statements please. Four editors (me, Alexikoua, Khirurg, Calthinus) are already not objecting to the Greek gov position's inclusion, nor to the origin of the sources, and now we are awaiting just for your statement so we clear out things once and for all. It depends on you if the consensus will be solid (5 editors) or average one (4 editors). The more the better. Please state and clarify your position. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies:, I was about to post this on your TalkPage, but you locked the discussion just now, when I was about to post my message, so I will post this here:

• IMO, you shouldn't have reverted Khirurg. The content he added is not "about population" as you claimed, nor is unrelated to the article. I am sorry to say, but in fact, it is WP:RELEVANT to the Greek-ALbanian relations which currently are going through a difficult period due to violations of the minority's rights by the Albanian state which have angered Greece. The Greek PM was due to visit Albania this Autumn 2018, but he made up his mind the last moment due to Greek Minority's worsening situation. Logic says, if the hardships of a minority affects diplomatic relations and is a primary issue in these relations, then it permits inclusion to the article about these diplomatic relations.

Another reason you shouldn't have reverted Khirurg for this, is that this content is opposed only by a small minority in the talk page, not by the majority. Currently, the content is objected by only 2 editors who have rather problematic demands (i.e. they asked that we cite only Governments and not independent sources). And these 2 editors are Ktrimi and Resnjari, while the remaining 4 - me (SilentResident), Khirurg, Alexikoua and Calthinus have no problem with it. I have already told Ktrimi and Resnjari that if they do really mind the sources, then they can take the case to the RS Noticeboard and be done with the case. Simple as that. They have not, however. The discussion in the talk page has come to an end, more or less, because lately what happens in talk page is a classic pattern of stonewalling, which I have tried to break through. [101].

About the problem with the Primary sources, this can easily be resolved. Have a good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs where Calthinus agreed with the version you want to add? I mean the newest version, not the "final proposal". Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You are the only editor who is raising objections to the necessity for the article to contain comprehensive information about the issue of the Greek minority and the governmental positions on it for the readers to be informed and educated. None else is objecting on this. Only you. You have framed out Calthinus. Let me quote you what he told you: "[...] in terms of informativeness this page is indeed lacking something as the Greek minority in Albania (and vice versa) do play a role in bilateral relations, and it is helpful for a reader who wants to be educated a bit on Alb-Gre relations to know that." Have you forgotten that he too is of the opinion that the readers shall be educated on the issue? (Which, mind you is also my position, as well as I am sure it is Alexikoua's, and Khirurg's positions). For some reason, you, unlike us, wanted and asked for no information about the Greek gov's position at all nor about the Greek minority's problems that damaged these relations in the article. You have demanded that this information gets WP:CENSORed. And you are the only one here who insists on that approach. Calthinus is right and you know that.

Now, I shall remind you that my original proposal (the initial one, by me) contained no governmental positions. it was you who asked for the first time that any governmental positions be added to the article. Since you asked for the Albanian, it was naturally bound to have the Greek gov position added as well. That is how Wikipedia works: either both sides, either none of them. I could have agreed to NOT include the Greek gov's position at all as a compromise, but you insisted so much about it. This insistence of yours for including the governmental positions, and the post-consensus new statements by Tsipras, didn't help the whole situation (see WP:CCC request above). You know that an article cant be forever frozen to a particular text version and that new information should be added to it as long as it is well sourced and relevant. You should have considered that before demanding from us to include governmental positions in the first place.

I don't want to go into lecturing you about your stance, but I am reminding primarily myself here (and everyone else) that we are editors and our task isn't to obscure or censor information selectively from the readers on topic issues. Either we include all information, either none of them.

My suggestion (actually more of a reminder) to both you and Resnjari, is that we act quickly from now and on, because soon there may even more WP:CCC cases if this stonewalling keeps going on, especially since we are talking about an ongoing dispute which is is not frozen and continues to affect the relations of the two countries. In case you didn't realized, there is bound to be new information we cannot consider yet, may have to be considered in the future, and you can see where this goes - may require the current text to be updated again. So lets move on, and then agree with the structural issues of the page. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, Calthinus (and Resnjari and I) agreed on the "final proposal". After that you decided you want to add another sentence. But we should not list Calthinus as an editor who does agree or does not agree on the addition of that sentence. He can speak for himself. Tell us, why do not you also want to mention that 1. some members of the Greek minority have been mistreated while others have caused problems (violent acts, participation in anti-Albanian Neo-Nazi parties like GD and so on) 2. some people in Albania are concerned bacause some Aromanians and Albanians claim Greek ethnicity to get Greek citizenship and find a job in Greece? Are not these aspects of relations between the two countries? No, we will not move on because we agreed on a "final proposal". If you wish to add that sentence, remove the two others. We are not going to create very large section while most of aspects of relations (maritime borders, war law, rights for immigrants, collaboration as members of NATO etc) are not even mentioned on the article. You might insist and might revert but that will not help. Next time do not make threats with ANI or AE as it just makes more difficult for the other side to understand your point of view. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

As I see none proposed the addition of this kind of information: though violent acts occured from both sides, either from GD or from Red&Black alliance etc. In this context I can not see one side being portrayed in a negative way. Issues like "property rights, access to native education and accurate census figures" are hot issues in the context of minority politics. On the other hand the demands of the Cham party are already part of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The proposal includes the following sentence "Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority". Re the Chams, they demand more than just property (apology etc) but that is best elaborated on the Chams article. This article just gives the position of Albania (that they should take their ancestors's property back) and does not mention what cities Chams lived in (while the proposal elaborates on what cities Greeks live in) but I do not support expanding the Chams section, at least till more urgent issues of the article are solved. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

So we have one good point here. I also wonder why so much detail on the geographic distribution which is disputed by the way: "They are mostly concentrated in parts of the country's south." sounds enough for this article and NPOV.Alexikoua (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, Calthinus (and Resnjari and I) agreed on the "final proposal". Everyone did. Including me. But unlike you, none objects to the Greek Gov's inclusion. As a matter of fact, everyone agreed recently that the information you are asking to remove, is WP:Relevant to this article. You are the only editor who is opposing this. If you think the Cham section needs expansion, then go ahead. You and Alexikoua have my support. Fix the Cham issues, but do that without causing problems to the Greek section or using it as argument for blocking the expansion of other sections. There is work to be done on the article and we ain't got your patience. Unlike the Macedonia naming dispute article, this article's disputes are extremely outdated, oversummarized and underdeveloped, and your stance is making things worse. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree here with Ktrimi991. If were going to be mentioning things that are outside bilateral relations about human rights issues etc, then also other things relating to the Greek minority (like extremist incidents and irredentism) need to be covered considering that they are hot issues. Yo SilentResident most agreed to a final version, then the bar moved with a merger proposal and addition of further content. @Ktrimi991 brought up issues that even hadn't occurred to me and i agree. I should also note here that an admin rejected the inclusion of the section being included in the article with the reason [102] "this isn't about demographics, but about state relations. also, content uses a lot of primary sources". For one the part about demographics ought to go.Resnjari (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari you say then also other things relating to the Greek minority (like extremist incidents and irredentism) need to be covered considering that they are hot issues. which you will find myself totally agreeing with. That's why I believe the article needs to be re-structured to permit expansion of the minority sections to include more paragraphs in the future, besides the one we are trying to agree on, now. I strongly believe this currently single paragraph about Greek minority (and the single paragraph of the Cham minority) do not suffice for the informativeness of the article and are in urgent need for expansion. I agree with the addition of information, and Calthinus's proposal is a good step towards this direction, but I don't understand why are you raising the issue of extremist incidents and such HERE, right this moment. Doing so, is not helpful. It shifts attention from one problem (about this paragraph) to another (which is not about this paragraph). Here we are talking about this particular paragraph which currently has the following problem: the one side's official viewpoint is present, while the other's isn't. To talk about other issues on the article, like the nationalist incidents (such as Golden Dawn's nationalist provocations, the foundation of the illegal Republic of Chameria by Cham irredentists, and others), isn't addressing the current paragraph's pressing problem of having the Albanian official position present and the Greek official position missing.

"If were going to be mentioning things that are outside bilateral relations about human rights issues etc" thing is, Ktrimi's demand is causing more problems if we go by the logic of classifying the human right issues as being "outside of bilateral relations", because:

1) WP:OR problem: You are forgetting that it is the minority's human right issues the cause of tension in the bilateral ties between the two countries, not the minority by itself. According to the vast majority of sources available, the A country (Greece) cares about the minority's rights and complaints about human right violations by the B country (Albania). All the RS back this and no RS ever claimed otherwise, (i.e. the Greek minority itself as being the problem in these bilateral ties). Removing the mention to the human right violations from the paragraph, is like trying to give the readers the false impression that it is the Minority itself and not its Human rights the problem in the bilateral relations and this is not supported by any reliable scholars. Sorry but Original Research is unacceptable here. Either stick what the sources say, either we will run into big problems.

2) WP:RELEVANT problem: By removing the issue which is causing this tension in the bilateral relations (that is: human rights issue), the Greek Minority no longer meets WP:RELEVANCY criteria for inclusion to this article. It is better that we leave the Minority outside of the article completely rather than mentioning it here without its problems. The minority by itself was never relevant to the diplomatic ties (i.e identity or culture of the minority and such didn't had a factual influence on the bilateral ties), however its human right violations are relevant (since the diplomatic ties soured because of them).

3) WP:POV problem: Portraying the Greek minority as being itself the source of tension in the bilateral relations instead of its human right violations, happens, as most editors here are fully aware, especially Greek editors, to be an extreme far-right viewpoint shared only by nationalist Albanian circles who view that the Greek minority itself has no human right issues, and speculate that these "human right issues" (yes, with "") are a Trojan horse utilized by chauvinist Greece. Any POV similar or close to that, in Wikipedia, is UNACCEPTABLE, Resnjari. I am disappointed because I know you know about these views espoused by extreme far-right circles, as evidenced from your interest in Albanian nationalism (your work on the article Albanian nationalism says it all), I can not wonder if you are playing fool here. I am very disappointed with you. Is this what you are asking now??? To give the readers the impression that the cause of bilateral tensions aren't the minority's human right violations but the Greek minority itself? No, Ktrimi's demands ain't happening. Take the matter to the NPOV Noticeboard, if you want. You will will NEVER ever find myself consenting to such demands. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 10:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree here with Ktrimi991. If were going to be mentioning things that are outside bilateral relations about human rights issues etc, then also other things relating to the Greek minority (like extremist incidents and irredentism) need to be covered considering that they are hot issues. Yo SilentResident most agreed to a final version, then the bar moved with a merger proposal and addition of further content. @Ktrimi991 brought up issues that even hadn't occurred to me and i agree. I should also note here that an admin rejected the inclusion of the section being included in the article with the reason [103] "this isn't about demographics, but about state relations. also, content uses a lot of primary sources". For one the part about demographics ought to go.Resnjari (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Copying the same text over and over as you did here: [104] and then here [105] is disruptive stonewalling. Either reply to my comments or not. You are copy-pasting anywhere the same text again and again, but you aren't providing clarifications. Since you aren't doing that, here some questions which you ought to answer:

• 1) Which particular sentence about demographics? Can you quote it?
• 2) Are you implying that fixing a WP:POV issue in the current paragraph (presnece of Albanian official position and absence of Greek official position) constitutes "moving the bar"?
• 3) Why are you referring to as me having "moved the bar"? This is my impression I get from your replies here and on EdJonston's talk page. Haven't you refused the merger proposal? Yes, This means the bar eventually didn't move, as you refused to consent to moving it. Even though my merger was meant to help restructuring the minority section so that it could expand. Now Ktrimi asks in his proposals for the minority section's expansion, aka "moving the bar" himself. And you support it this time.

It left me a bitter taste that you are accuse me of "moving the bar" while at same time not realizing that you are supporting Ktrimi's "moving of the bar" (with which too I am fine). Resnjari, the only difference here is this: YOU opposed my proposal for moving the bar and restructuring the minority section (see above) while at no point I objected to moving the bar with the inclusion of nationalist incidents into the article (Calthinu's expanded upon the issues of the articles below, in this talk page). If you want to move the bar, state it from the start. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Final Proposal (Updated)

Final Proposal (Updated)

Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are mostly concentrated in the south of the county, in parts of Vlorë, Gjirokastër and Sarandë counties with Greek communities also located in some urban areas like Korçë, Berat and Tiranë. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has been that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed. The position of the Greek government is that issues facing the Greek minority need to be resolved as a condition for Albania's accession to the European Union

This proposed paragraph intends to inform the readers on the human rights situation of the Greek national minority of Albania but it has two problems of neutrality, currently: first problem is that the Greek official position (Greek POV) is absent from it while the Albanian official position (Albanian POV) is already in it. This goes against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV rules which state that BOTH viewpoints shall be covered. And second problem is that certain editors here with notorious POV agendas are blocking the paragraph which is about the minority's situation from being included to the article, and demand that this paragraph shall be mixed with information that isn't about minority, but about violence and incidents by certain individuals (nationalists, irredendists and such) which normally belong to different sections. This is done so that the minority is portrayed with a negative light on Wikipedia, which goes against the Project's core pillars and rules.

The Albania-Greece relations have a long record of nationalist provocations and incidents from both sides. Thus far, no editor has objected to any future expansion of the article and corresponding sections with more information covering this (i.e. the addition of info about provocations by nationalist individuals, history of diplomatic tensions, diplomatic incidents, migrants and more). Editor Calthinus suggested (in his own talk page section, below the current one, titled: "Proposal that might be premature to label final (sigh)" [106]) on how to expand on and develop the article in the areas where it is lacking, and offered an essay on how to do that. However certain editors are for some reason stonewalling the current discussion about the POV issue (where the official Albanian position is present but the official Greek one is absent). My opinion is that any violence or incidents by individuals, do not belong here about the minority, but elsewhere.

References

@Alexikoua: @Resnjari: @Ktrimi991: @Khirurg: @Calthinus: and @Drmies: I would like to hear everyone's opinions on these adjustments. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• There is nothing new in your newest "Final proposal". There are two options: 1. Only the official position of the two countries is present 2. If problems related to the minority are listed, they should also include that a. some members of the Greek minority have been mistreated while others have caused problems (violent acts, participation in anti-Albanian Neo-Nazi parties like GD and so on) b. some people in Albania are concerned bacause some Aromanians and Albanians claim Greek ethnicity to get Greek citizenship and find a job in Greece. I mostly support the first one, though I might agree on the second. Otherwise you should not expect several editors agree with you. Now and in the future. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

That's reasonable @Ktrimi991.Resnjari (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Excellent proposal Silent Resident, I fully support. In order to overcome the stonewalling by the usual culprits however, I suggest you try to get as much community involvement as possible via RfC, NPOVN, etc. Khirurg (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Same goes for the "violent acts" and "hate speech". If we go down that route, it is likely those who insisted on it will end up regretting it [107], this [108] and this [109], as the lion's share of the violence and hate speech comes from one side. Khirurg (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

On "violent acts" and "hate speech" this is more however in the context of bilateral relations. For latest example is Albania repeatedly asking the Greek government and authorities to condemn violent acts toward Albanians in the country and to stop them: [110], [111], [112]. I disagree that actions are from "one side". But you saying it comes from "one side" kind of shows from what angle your your looking at this. A reminder this page is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and your edits were already once reverted by an administrator.Resnjari (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Did you see the part about and another shot by Greek police while trying to illegally cross the border transporting drugs.? It is highly dishonest to portray the killing of drug dealers as "hate". Khirurg (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

That is highly disappointing that you disregard the articles by focusing on one of the killings because they do NOT refer to one killing but 4 recent ones. Apart from the one you refer too the others are blamed on Golden Dawn and so on i.e hate crimes + plus the Albanian government wants answers from the Greek government (this part is bilateral relations).Resnjari (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Khirurg "usual culprits"? I see your back to form. A reminder, an admin reverted your addition to the page recently [113] on grounds that "this isn't about demographics, but about state relations. also, content uses a lot of primary sources". I have one question, why was the sentence on the Albanian position missing when you did make that addition? An 'oversight'? I'm all for wider community involvement. To whichever editor decides to go down that route, make sure to ping participants when the process has begun.Resnjari (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, those who insist on "only official positions of the two countries" should be careful what they wish for [114]. Khirurg (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Is that another primary source you have there ? The admin who rejected your addition did state that your addition had a lot of primary sources.Resnjari (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I recall, it was you and your friend who insist on "only official positions of the two countries". Now you don't like it? Khirurg (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah official positions via RS sources. Otherwise Albania too has its own government websites. By the way who is my "friend", can you elaborate or is this another slip of the tongue on your part?Resnjari (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the most reliable source there is for the official positions of Greece. I would think that that's kind of obvious. Khirurg (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

For that matter, Albanian gov accuses Greece of involvment in domestic affairs using religious claims, paying ethnic Aromanians and Albanians to declare themselves as ethnic Greeks, not criticizing acts of violence by members of the Greek minority, claiming Greek minorities where there is none etc. These are well-sourced and declarations of Alb gov. The two countries have many claims. We might add them as official positions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

There is lot written on that @Ktrimi991 and its a sound proposal you make for adding them to the article.Resnjari (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of interesting stuff ready for this article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I searched the Albanian mfa site, but unfortunately I didn't find any relevant (no mention of the Greek minority, unsurprisingly). But I have found lots of other "interesting stuff ready for this article.", if you want to go down that road [115] [116] [117]. Can you translate the sign in the last link for us? Khirurg (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Search again [118][119] and many other declarations to be posted here soon. All of these connected with the Greek minority by Albanian gov. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Excellent finds Ktrimi991. As its bilateral relations it would need to have both positions within the context their interactions. Some RS would do fine for an overview over the past years.Resnjari (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Abuse of minority rights is a hot topic in the diplomatic agenda, there is no reason to avoid this kind of info in this section. It's essential for the context of the specific section.Alexikoua (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if information about drug dealers & networks is relevant to this article. It appears more suitable in articles such as Albanian mafia.Alexikoua (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I have lots of sources about Albanian citizens killing Greek citizens in Greece (at least 30 Greeks killed by the Albanian Mafia alone in Greece since 1990), Cham nationalists raising irredendist Greater Albania flags in Thesprotia (Only for the year 2018, 2 such incidents), Albanians raiding and robbing Christian churches in Southern Epirus, and many more. I hope @Ktrimi991: and @Resnjari: won't mind including these as well? Since it is the misbehavior of the Albanian citizens in Greece and the records about it is HUGE: from the killing of a famous jurist (Michael Zafeiropoulos), to the burning of alive man, the cruelty of which shocked the Greek society, and the tensions between Greece and Albania and their Interior Ministries for the lack of willingness of the Albanian side to probe the mafia fugitives who flee to Albania to escape Greek Police arrest. I suggest Ktrimi and Resnjari to be ready for the inclusion of all this information if they insist on going down this route. Personally I couldn't recommend and rather follow the example of Italy-United States relations which avoid touching these issues despite similar issues between these 2 countries. But it is Ktrimi's and Resnjari's call. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If Greek gov. considers what you wrote above to be part of relations between the two countries, they should be on the article. A section on Alb. immigrants should be created with the official position of the two countries. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"A section on Alb. immigrants" Separate section? No way. All part of THIS paragraph, since it is YOU who insisted that this paragraph shall contain anything. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Do you want to add content on Alb. immigrants to the Greek minority section? Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"Are you kidding? Do you want to add content on Alb. immigrants to the Greek minority section?" Absolutely not kidding. If you insist that we mix nationalists and irredendists with minorities, if you insist mixing violence with minorities, then so we shall mix criminals with minorities. Simple as that. Sorry. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Open a RfC for that since you wish to make changes to the article. The Cham issue, Greek minority, immigrants, maritime borders, war law, soldiers' graves etc are separate issues and each of them needs its own section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

More clearly, each of them needs to be a separate sub-section of the Modern relations section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"are separate issues and each of them needs its own section." "...and so do the nationalists from both sides need their own separate section from the human right section", if I may complete your phrase. There is no precedence in Wikipedia where we mix individual nationalists and criminals with governmental policies on human rights. Absolutely NO PRECEDENCE. Since you want to set a precedence here on this, then we will mix them all, even those which you don't like. I have warned you to be careful but you didn't listen to me. Now either you will shallow the pill of your stonewalling tactics, or you will accept the reasonable proposal above which avoids mixing governmental policies on human rights with individual nationalists and criminals into, not just the same section, but same paragraph which is what you insisted. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

My statement has been updated to reflect on the stonewalled situation in this talk page, but proposal remains: [120]

This proposed paragraph intends to inform the readers on the human rights situation of the Greek national minority of Albania but it has two problems of neutrality, currently: first problem is that the Greek official position (Greek POV) is absent from it while the Albanian official position (Albanian POV) is already in it. This goes against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV rules which state that BOTH viewpoints shall be covered. And second problem is that certain editors here with notorious POV agendas are blocking the paragraph which is about the minority's situation from being included to the article, and demand that this paragraph shall be mixed with information that isn't about minority, but about violence and incidents by certain individuals (nationalists, irredendists and such) which normally belong to different sections. This is done so that the minority is portrayed with a negative light on Wikipedia, which goes against the Project's core pillars and rules.

The Albania-Greece relations have a long record of nationalist provocations and incidents from both sides. Thus far, no editor has objected to any future expansion of the article and corresponding sections with more information covering this (i.e. the addition of info about provocations by nationalist individuals, history of diplomatic tensions, diplomatic incidents, migrants and more). Editor Calthinus suggested (in his own talk page section, below the current one, titled: "Proposal that might be premature to label final (sigh)" [121]) on how to expand on and develop the article in the areas where it is lacking, and offered an essay on how to do that. However certain editors are for some reason stonewalling the current discussion about the POV issue (where the official Albanian position is present but the official Greek one is absent). My opinion is that any violence or incidents by individuals, do not belong here about the minority, but elsewhere.

--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This proposal of SilentResident is well balanced and seems very close to NPOV. Jingiby (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Jingiby the proposal that Silent has suggested and was placed into the article by @Khirurg (without the Albanian position sentence) has already been rejected by an administrator [122] on grounds that "this isn't about demographics, but about state relations. also, content uses a lot of primary sources". There is a lot more to hash out here.Resnjari (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"And second problem is that certain editors here with notorious POV agendas". SilentResident is this what you think of other editors who may not agree with your viewpoint? I thought you were above that kind of thing. On the things you brought up, Ktrimi991 put it best "If Greek gov. considers what you wrote above to be part of relations between the two countries, they should be on the article." Otherwise its WP:OR and in the end were here to build a encyclopedia and not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think, the article of the subsection has to be: Greek minority issue and the text can be: The status of the Greek minorityin Albania is one of the unresoved issues existing between both countries. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has beenit that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed. Jingiby (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to make only a summary of the situation, the proposal of @Jingiby: is very good. If we are going to add many details, the links I posted earlier should be added too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I see where your coming from Jingiby. Its a reasonable compromise. ok, i'm on board with your proposal.Resnjari (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Jingiby so are you proposing the Albanian gov's position stays and the Greek position is left out??? Can you Jiginby explain to me how removing the Greek position makes the proposal better?? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The position of Greece is given (that the minority deserves more rights like language and recongnition outside the "minority zone"). If more details are to be added, the links I posted earlier should be added too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You guys have only 2 options based on User:Jingiby's proposal, your take, your call:

Option 1

The status of the Greek minority in Albania is one of the unresolved issues existing between both countries. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority.

Option 2

The status of the Greek minority in Albania is one of the unresolved issues existing between both countries. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has been it that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed, while the position of the Greek government is that issues facing the Greek minority need to be resolved as a condition for Albania's accession to the European Union.

There is no middle solution. Either the first option, either the second option. Sorry. The Wikipedia's rules are very clear regarding WP:NPOV, that a content must be representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. and there are 2 significant views published, the Albanian and the Greek. Either we publish BOTH views, either we publish NONE of these views. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The position of Greece is given (that the minority deserves more rights like language and recongnition outside the "minority zone"). If more details are to be added, the links I posted earlier should be added too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, a small update for the Greek position is reasonalle: Greek government however insists that minority issues need to be resolved before Albania's accession to the EU. Jingiby (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: You say: "The position of Greece is that the minority deserves more rights like language and recongnition outside the "minority zone"" but the RS contradicts your claims. According to the International Human Rights Organization: [123]: "The ethnic Greek minority complained about the government’s unwillingness to recognize ethnic Greek towns outside communist-era “minority zones,” to utilize Greek in official documents and on public signs in ethnic Greek areas". Be very careful, when going down the route of baptizing human right complaints coming from the Minority as coming from a foreign Government. You are on WP:OR territory, and I am very sure you are fully aware that insisting on OR can be a very dangerous route. I hope you have realized that the Greek position needs to be added otherwise not only you will be on WP:OR territory but also on WP:POV territory. Is that what you want here?

@Jingiby: thank you!!! --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal that might be premature to label final (sigh)

SilentResident Imo, it's not good to mix short term and long term deals. But instead of dealing with only one of many larger structural issues in a page with many when trying to negotiate on a small content issue for a new section, let's talk about structural issues and this one section in parallel conversations.

Proposal for the Greek minority section (short-term): exactly what everyone here but Alexikoua and Cinadon (who wasn't present when it was proposed I believe) agreed on. To be added immediate.

Longer term larger structural proposal to handle Chams and other issues that will certainly be sucked in: I have already fixed the section on "Modern relations" so that it is not part of history (that's an oxymoron anyways). I think the two should be clearly separated. The following things should go into the history section, long-term: One: pre-modern "people relations", i.e. medieval and Ottoman, to handle the migrations that led to Cham communities in the 13th century, Arvanites etc etc; and then, relations during the Ottoman, especially late Ottoman period -- relations between the two nationalist movements both positive and negative, of which the Confederation Aspirations were part of the former, the schooling issue, etc, leading up to the Balkan Wars. Two: the Balkan Wars , World War I and aftermath and the death of the Megali Idea as well as Greek involvement in Albanian factional fighting (Qemali~Wied / Essat / Qazimi-Qamili etc... yes I am sorry that but we will indeed have to talk about both Qemali and Qamili). Three: World War II, important as this is the origin of both the existing "state of war" law still technically active for Greece dating back to 1940 when Italy controlled Albania, and the Cham issue -- the history of these issues should be discussed here, in history, not modern relations. Four: Cold War relations, including of course the 1971 thaw in relations. Five: Post-Cold War (but not 'modern') relations, which shall cover the fall of communism, Albania and Greece where they intersected diplomatically in the Yugoslav Wars and the Macedonia name issue, the civil war in Albania and the mass migration of Albanians to Greece, Albania joining NATO, the independence of Kosovo (relevance is discussed by RS, yes), and finally the effects of Greece's financial crisis which included the partial return of Albanian migrants.

Then, we have the new modern affairs section. This shall have:

1. Economic ties
2. That Greece still has the 1940 state of war law in act regarding Albania
3. Cultural ties
4. Possibly Albania's stance on the Macedonia name issue-- not necessary though.
5. Mutual minority issues -- here we discuss the Greek minority in Albania, the Albanian minority in Greece including both immigrants and non-immigrants, and the Cham issue at present. Not it's history or how it happened.
6. Political factions which threaten positive relations -- mention Golden Dawn, Orthodox Rally whatever, KQZ, PDIU, et cetera. Can mention Chameria/North Epirus/other only by reference. No explaining these issues in this section, if necessary explicitly refer the reader to the above section. Kacifas can go here too.
7. Greece's support for Albania joining the EU. Shocker relations are much friendlier than they look on wiki.
8. Albanian/Greek coordination, miscellaneous (natural disasters, tipping each toher off about nationalist hotheads, etc etc)

I think this is a long term goal we can work towards. It should not come at the expense of immediate agreements.--Calthinus (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, since how to source all of this is an issue -- I do have many of these sources on hand and having been used elsewhere, but... here's a set of essays specifically on this, made in a Greek-Albanian academic collaboration project between Giakoumis, Rakipi and others [[124]].--Calthinus (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Point 4 wont be needed for this article. That's more for Albania-Macedonia relations. On point 3, cultural ties may exist, not sure about it being real. Would need RS. I think on relations, it should not go beyond the 1912-1913 period as Albania became a state then and that's when bilateral relations began. Prior to that one can not really speak of bilateral relations between states as both are modern creations of the past 200 years and not prior to that going back to the medieval period. On the other stuff yeah sounds good.Resnjari (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a guideline for where stuff should be added, long term. Re Macedonia, Toncheva discussed it once at least.--Calthinus (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see a Greek minority section where "everyone here but Alexikoua and Cinadon" agreed. Maybe Khirurg and SilentResident are also ignored in this so-called "consensus". Especially when there is a serious -cn- issue this becomes even more problematic. Alexikoua (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A section on the Greek minority is needed. Much difficult compromise was made. Continuing on this merry go round means that we don't have a section of the sort in the article and some other editors have said that they wont engage further after so much time thus far.Resnjari (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua just a reminder here please don't alter other editor's comments as you did, i.e: [125]. Any points made do so in your comments.Resnjari (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Added a header

I made 'Greek Minority Proposal' above into a full header to make the talk page easier to navigate. Please adjust as needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC

Which version of the text below should be added to the article? Khirurg (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Option 1
Greek minority of Albania
The status of the Greek minority in Albania is one of the unresolved issues existing between both countries. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority.

Option 2
Greek minority of Albania
The status of the Greek minority in Albania is one of the unresolved issues existing between both countries. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has been it that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed, while the position of the Greek government is that issues facing the Greek minority need to be resolved as a condition for Albania's accession to the European Union.

I personally prefer Option 2, but I can live with Option 1 as well. Khirurg (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The RfC is misleading. There are several proposals made in the discussion above, but the editor who opened the RfC has chosen only two of them, avoiding perfectly sourced content. This is POV-pushing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

There are no other constructive, clearly outlined proposals. There is a whole lot of obstructionism and stonewalling, but as far as clear proposals, these are it. Participation at RfCs is anyway optional. You are not obligated to participate if you don't want to. Khirurg (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you just placed here two proposals you agree with. Nothing else. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALL Khirurg (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2. The Wikipedia's rules are very clear regarding WP:NPOV, that a content must well-balanced by covering both side's views on the matter. Either we publish BOTH views on the matter, either we publish NONE of the views. Simple as that. Certain editor's insistence to a middle but biased solution, (which is that we leave the Albanian position in and the Greek position out), falls into WP:POV, WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Option 2. There is nothing dramatical. Jingiby (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Invalid RfC per Ktrimi991's arguments. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Cinadon36, Ktrimi991's claim is invalid, imo. To call a RfC invalid based on Ktrimi's WP:OR claims, is not exactly a valid argument. Ktrimi991 wants that we attribute the minority's human right complaints as coming from a foreign government outside the country instead. The WP:RS published by third party Human Right organizations contradict Ktrimi991's claims and verify that the Greek minority in fact did complaint about its human rights violations by the Albanian government. Your position cites an invalid argument. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree here with @Cinadon36.Resnjari (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2: per nominator.Alexikoua (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Option 3

The status of the Greek minority in Albania is one of the unresolved issues existing between both countries. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting or caused by members of the Greek minority, claims of Greek ethnicity by members of Aromanian and Albanian communities in exchange of Greek citizenship or minority pensions, usage of the minority by nationalist parties in Greece and Albania. Albania's official position has been it that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed. The position of the Greek government is that issues facing the Greek minority need to be resolved as a condition for Albania's accession to the European Union.

• Pinging @Jingiby, SilentResident, and Cinadon36: again after the third option was added. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This version is not supported by reliable sources and thus cannot go in the article. Khirurg (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This at least entails some of the issues that the Albanian side has in its bilateral relations relating to the Greek minority. @Ktrimi991 your proposal and @Silent's still make this sentence "Albania's official position has been it that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed, while the position of the Greek government is that issues facing the Greek minority need to be resolved as a condition for Albania's accession to the European Union" clunky and should be split as its 63 words ! The split can be where it says "addressed, while the" to "addressed. The" etc. Sources can be provided Khirurg.Resnjari (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Khirurg, Murati, a source used in your proposal, on pages 212-213 mentions the text I added, and even writes a whole paragraph on Aromanians claiming Greek ethnicity. I also provided links to Alb. gov. declarations in the discussion we had yesterday. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari, I fixed it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Option 1 and 2 are well-sourced and neutrally-worded. Option 3 has serious WP:POV issues, turns this whole thing into a Demographc section (the admins warned us to not do such a thing) plus it missing the Greek government's position which is a blatant case of WP:CENSOR attempt. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you have not read the third option. Contrarily to what you claim, it includes Greece's position. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

My strikethrough [126] happened BEFORE you write this [127]. Didnt you see the edit of strikethrough before commenting? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope. I saw it after I saved my response. Maybe it was an edit conflict. That is a trivial detail though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Murati is not viewable online. Can you provide the direct quote here? Khirurg (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, after I return home after a hour or so. I suggest everyone interested in the topic to buy his book. The second edition, if possible. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

And what kind of title is "Ballkani faustian"? What kind of publication house is "Botime ALSAR"? Khirurg (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Option 3 is highly problematic, IMO, since it takes two totally different aspects of the bilateral relations: the 1) The Human Right situation in the Greek minority and 2) issues not related to the Greek minority and blends them together. The proposed paragraph is already problematic due to mixing the Greek minority's issues with the Cham Minority (a totally different issue not belonging here). To blend more things to it on top of that, causes a serious lose of focus distracting the reader from the minority's human rights for other issues, since so many different contents got crammed by Ktrimi991 into it, which prevents keeping it concise for the readers: the Greek Minority rights, blended with Aromanians, blended with Citizenship, blended with Jobs/Employment of non-Greeks, blended with immigrants, blended with Nationalist circles, blended even with the Cham Minority issues! Seriously this Option 3 crosses all sanity lines and is the epitome of stonewalling! This content does not belong here and is an invalid inclusion to the RfC which is about the Greek Minority and only that. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I got something from Kondiaris on the Aromanian stuff and the Albanian position. Anyway this RFC ain't going to finish quick and with this kinds of things, they go for some days and so on. @Ktrimi991 when you have time, after all this, seriously no rush.Resnjari (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

??? What the heck do have the Aromanians do with the Greek minority? This is about the GREEK minority, not Aromanian! Enough! This went too far. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

They are claimed as Greeks and a sizable amount in Albania have Greek citizenship. People in the Alb gov over the years have said that Greece is attempting to expand' the Greek minority in the country etc. That's where one of the controversies lie within bilateral relations.Resnjari (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you are describing here is a citizenship dispute between governments. That ought to go to its own section in a demographics article, not here. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

People in the Alb gov over the years have said that Greece is attempting to expand' the Greek minority is a conspiracy theory. If some Aromanian individuals choose to identify as Greek, that is their choice. But it has nothing to do with bilateral relations. Khirurg (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

And furthermore, the minority pensions were eliminated in 2013. This is not only off-topic, but outdated as well. Khirurg (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Even Minority Pensions are off-topic, not just outdated. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It has to do with bilateral relations because Albania continuously says that Greece is giving Greek citizenship or minority pensions to some Aromanians and Albanians. The census was a mess partly due to that. The gov. led by Edi Rama has mentioned those details as damaging to the rights of the Greek minority. The minority, Chams, immigrants etc are very complex problems. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Its a relationship fraught with problems and many issues.Resnjari (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, Tsipras has stated that Greece will start to give pensions again (though no date has been given). Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Option 3 is highly problematic, and the discussion thus far didn't convince me at all. This RFC is supposed to be about the Greek Minority and only that. I am starting seriously feeling that this Option 3 turns the Greek Minority into a WP:COATRACK case where the nominal subject (Greek Minority) gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subjects of the Albanian side (Citizenship, Aromanians, Pensions, Jobs, Immigrants, Nationalists of both sides, etc). Thus the paragraph, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh, "bias subjects" etc. the scope of the article is about bilateral relations. Just like the Greek part gets covered so does the Albanian on the topics/issues.Resnjari (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. what you describe here is WP:RELEVANCY. That an information is WP:RELEVANT to an article, doesn't make it less WP:BIASed. In principle, a relevant content in an article can cite biased sources (depending the attribution), and the opposite: biased gov positions can be relevant to an article (depending the content). You should have knew that. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I've made my points. The RFC will open for some days or more (however long they go for). The new year is coming up and its already the 31st on my end, so i ain't going to get back to you here until after the 1st, 2019. Everyone in here we may have a difference of views on things, but stay safe and happy holidays.Resnjari (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Part of #3 is highly problematic POV and irrelevant to the section we are discussing (claims of Greek ethnicity by members of Aromanian and Albanian communities in exchange of Greek citizenship or minority pensions, usage of the minority by nationalist parties in Greece and Albania). Ethnicity claims (according to the usual Albanian POV from non-Greek communities) is part of the issue about the precise number of the community: "accurate census figures" is already mentioned.Alexikoua (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Its to do with bilateral relations. The article is meant to cover both angles on outstanding issues, not just the Greek POV.Resnjari (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Option #1 is fine. By the way if we are going to mention the Albanian POV (part of #3) about the so-called non-Greek communities maybe we can add something about the demolition & appropriation of churches by the state authorities for some balanceAlexikoua (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Its to do with bilateral relations. The article is meant to cover both angles on outstanding issues, not just the Greek POV.Resnjari (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, destruction of cultural monuments is another issue of the relations. It is maybe the most interesting of all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

To be precise we are not going to add only the Albanian POV. Nevertheless without bringing SOURCES there is no way to propose text with cn tags. The specific part of #3 needs citation first else its a waste of time.Alexikoua (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

To be precise nobody has demanded to have only "Albanian POV". Both the "Greek POV" and the "Albanian POV" should be on the article. If you have anything relevant to relations, add it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well said @Ktrimi991. @Alexikoua the page is about bilateral relations after all, not one side's interactions, views and positions of the other.Resnjari (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to support your view with wp:RS, since without one there is no issue at all & we are going straight for option #1.Alexikoua (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I insist that without inline there is no way for a proposal, see wp:RS.Alexikoua (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I have provided sources, one of which needs quotes because it is not online. Your efforts to modify my comments seem to be Idontlikeit. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So, Option 3 not only was added without following the formal procedures of a proper RfC and is not even part of the ongoing RfC's question, being added unilaterally without consulting with the OP beforehand, but also contains information which is WP:UNSOURCED. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Option 3, as it encompasses wider scope of bilateral relations.Resnjari (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting for something that lacks citation. That's a risky bet.Alexikoua (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, i am not a gambling person and i pity those people who are. On sources, because they exist and i know the content well. RFCs last a while and dopn't close quickly. Its New Years, so after that much engagement here on issues.Resnjari (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:RfC, editors are reminded that the Project's articles must follow the Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research policies. I don't see this happening here with Option 3. Option 3 is WP:UNSOURCED and is WP:COATRACKing the Greek minority (the Editors are kindly reminded that this section is about the Greek Minority specifically (hence the title "Greek Minority of Albania" [128]. The Aromanians, Romas and Chams, Immigrants, Nationalist cycles, and Citizenship disputes have no place in this section). --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Murati has additional stuff that I might post soon. There are also a few newspaper article on these.

Murati can actually be used for all problems (including schools, reliable census data etc) but I am going to enjoy the last few hours of 2018. Might post soon. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Needless to say that offline sources need wp:verify. There is no way to make it to wikipedia without confirmation per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations and also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources.Alexikoua (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't forget to translate your source to English please for others to understand. Plus there is also a problem of WP:VERIFICATION. Still, I am sorry to tell you but this source is about the about citizenship issues/demographics and nationalists, not about the Greek minority itself. You are being reminded that this RfC is about the Greek Minority of Albania section and nothing else. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well said, Alexikoua. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". Murati quotes Rama and Bushati linking those problems with "minoriteti". A few newsapers have declarations of Alb gov, read the ones I posted yesterday. But I do not have to persuade you. I did not do so for more than a month. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way if we believe that the text is correct the author begins with "yet another topic....". Obviously this means that the major issues are already addressed. Full context is needed since by the quote it appears that the source disagrees with the proposed text.Alexikoua (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, let me help you with the rest of the text: " Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf". By the way it's very weird you have access to this but you can't provide full context.Alexikoua (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thing is we dont know Murati and if he is a reliable source at all. It makes me skeptical that Ktrimi had to cite someone who is difficult to verify, for a Prime Minister who is currently in power and no well-known sources can be found to verify his sayings. I mean it is not an old event of the past, is something recent and there were supposed to be more sources about this. Maybe I am wrong ? Still this is not a pressing question. The pressing is that the content is not about the Greek minority itself and yet Ktrimi included it unilaterally in the RfC about the Greek minority, and the RS is not even in accordance with Ktrimi's proposed content. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fact is that even if we believe the quote its still unable to support the proposed version. Top issues about a subject don't begin with ..."yet another topic...".Alexikoua (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest to everyone interested in Balkan matters to buy the book, the second edition as it better than the first one. If I am not mistaken it has a third edition but I do not know anything about it. Murati is a diplomat and specialist in Balkan matters, in particular when Albania is concerned. I will post soon. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fact is that even if Murati wrote the above part it doesn't support your proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You must be kidding. I should not even respond anymore. Whoever agrees on the third proposal can support it, the rest nope. Let other editors express their opinions, our opinions are known. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's sum up: 1. No verified referece 2. Quote doesn't support the proposal (by saying "yey another topic" someone addresses topics of secondary importance). Friendly advice, If I was you I would have scanned&uploaded the entire page of this work in order to prove that this is a "main topic" for this section ("not yet another topic").Alexikoua (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The third proposal isn't official part of the RfC. You didn't follow the formal procedures to have the original poster asked to include your option to his formal RfC question, and I won't either, since you failed to address the pressing issues of WP:POV, WP:COATRACKING. WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RELEVANT. There are these issues, and you know that you haven't addressed them adequately. Options 1 and 2 are well sourced by easily to access sources, while Option 3 is not, and it is problematic with the content being questionable. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

If I can understand the third proposal differs from the second I have voted, one by the next sentence: ...claims of Greek ethnicity by members of Aromanian and Albanian communities in exchange of Greek citizenship or minority pensions, usage of the minority by nationalist parties in Greece and Albania. Is it possible to update it to make the sentence shorter and simpler and to resolve this issue? For example: "speculative usage of the complicated issue by nationalist parties in both countries, including for political goals.". That will be a neutral update, I think. Jingiby (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Jingiby, it is impossible to solve the issue by making shorter what has no place be in the paragraph in the first place. Nationalists are ought to go to their own section, not here. Also, Jingiby, don't forget that from the moment the nationalists are using not only the Greek minority (otherwise they should have belonged here), but also the Cham minority, the immigrants, and to a less extend, unemployment and border/territorial issues. That's why it is clear they cannot be added here due to their political activities being spread to more aspects of the diplomatic relations, not just this particular minority.

Everyone is reminded that we have one more minority section in the article, titled "Cham Issue", but it doesn't make any mention of nationalists at all. The same rationale must be followed in the Greek minority section as well if we are to avoid double standards. Any tactics to mix the Greek minority with the Aromanians, Romas, far-right nationalists or immigrants is WP:DISRUPTIVE and will find me vehemently opposed. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 11:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Option 3: More complete and NPOV than the first two.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Option 3: More balanced and NPOV version. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)