Talk:Northern Epirus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Synvet Map

I removed that map because it isn't an ethnographic map but a map connecting ehtnicity to religion. I don't think that anyone can argue that Mussulmans isn't an ethnic description of any kind or that there is no nation called Serbo-Croats or Bulgar-Greeks.--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This map has been around for too much. For example the WHOLE Vlore area seems to be populated by Greeks according to this map. It is funny how Vlore became the capital of Albania in 1912 and it's where the independence of the country was proclaimed. Probably all the Albanians might have taken a shuttle to go to this Greek city to become independent according to Synvet? --sulmues (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to support this view with arguments. Sarcasm can not lead to a constructive discussion. @Sulmues, again you decided to remove this map by yourself while the discussion hasn't even started.Alexikoua (talk)

Actually the discussion had started 3 days ago and you edit-warred instead of responding to ZjarriRrethues. There are many maps that bring the Albanian ethnographics to Peloponesium and the Greeks no further than the Parnass mountain such as this one ([1]), and you know very well, but you keep pushing with this extremely nationalistic map and it's a pity that you continue to do so.--sulmues (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry there was no discussion, at least in this wikipedia. If you mean that someone just removed it that's another issue.Alexikoua (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues started the discussion on the 13th. Today is the 16th. I ask for the opinion of a neutral wikipedian. Double standards are being used here. --sulmues (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a more detailed map about this region [[2]], I dont see why more generalized Balkan maps are necessary for this article. Suppose we agree on that, but lets hear additional opinions.Alexikoua (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's relevant to this discussion that Synvet is considered a pro-Greek source by authors working on the subject: [3] (page 4), [4]. This should be taken into account when determining the whether to include the map here and in other related articles. Kostja (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Still you have to explain why you removed the corresponding reference about the Ravestein's map in being pro-Bulgarian from every article. I am not sure if we can use refs in captions but it's either any or neither. --Factuarius (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never removed a caption from any Ravenstein map. I removed a caption from a map from Atlas Général Vidal-Lablache (a map which is not included in most of the articles you just edited) because it was a misuse of the source. I've explained my reasoning in Talk:First Balkan War. Kostja (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The so-called misuse of source is your personal opinion. Actually it's a word by word copy-pasted part.Alexikoua (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Synvet's map

The removal of the map's ref was not a vandalism. I removed the ref about A.Synvet being pro-Greek because what the ref actually says is not at all that: It says that the MAP was favourable to the Greek cause, which is something entirely different. In detail: "Other maps (not other geographers) amongst other ..... were favourable to the Greek cause" meaning that they agreed with the Greeks. That doesn't make (the geographers themselves) pro-Greek. The text is free on line as pdf --Factuarius (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

POV paragraph

Tagged POV a paragraph that claims the following:

The return to Albania of ethnic Greeks that were expelled during the past regime seemed possible after 1991. However, the return of their confiscated properties is even now impossible, due to Albanian's inability to compensate the present owners. Moreover, the full return of the Orthodox Church property also seems impossible for the same reasons

I cannot see the source for this. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You added a tag that claims the whole article is POV. Please be more careful. Also, a source is provided. Just because you can't access it online (or just plain don't like what it says) doesn't mean a cn tag is needed. Athenean (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrected to POV section: My bad. Now for the source: it claims that Greeks were expelled. I've never heard of this story. Furthermore it's from 1996: The property of the church has been fully returned, it's odd that the article claims that the Church's property is still in the hands of the Albanian state. Therefore I probably should tag it dubious, rather than POV. I hope Alexi will clarify. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, you are substituting your own OR ("The property of the church was fully returned", "it's odd", etc...). When a source contradicts your own beliefs and opinions, you immediately tag it to try and undermine it. You have a long term habit of doing this, and it is rapidly becoming VERY disruptive. Athenean (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not OR and please don't make improper accusations. I have a source that says that the Greek government (Konstantinos Stephanopoulos) considers close all Greece claims towards Northern Epirus p5 paragraph 4. That declaration was in 2004. The POV paragraph instead, is relying on a source from 1996. So take it easy and please pay attention to the timeline. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@Sulmues: Since you said you know German then read the reference: page 74 of this book, second paragraph from end.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well first of all don't say page 331 [5], and second correct the reference in the paragraph, because it's still saying page 331, which seems to be the actual total number of pages of the whole book. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC) And, unfortunately page 74 is not in my google book preview for now, so I'll take your word and check later. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(since I've already corrected the page I don't see a reason why you insist on p. 331...)If you don't see the specific page then you'd better ask for the specific quote and please remain less aggressive. [[6]]. This is irrelevant with territorial claims.Alexikoua (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Purges of 1994

This [7] edit is correct in pointing out that purges of ethnic Greeks are no longer the case, however the events of 1994 are notable and should be mentioned in an appropriate manner. I have edited the article accordingly. Btw, if someone could source that the current Health minister is Greek, that would be great. Athenean (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The wording should be changed because if it is just one author that labels it as such we don't have to use the same exact phrasing.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Makes no sense whatsoever, sorry. Athenean (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Athenean the wording purge indicates a lot of actions that aren't related to the case.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the Sotir Nini from greek personalities of Southern Albania

The sotir nini came from Albanian family who emigrated in greece in 90' so i find inappropriate to show his name in greek personalities of Southern Albania.

He was an ethnic Greek from this region. Why should be considered inappropriate?Alexikoua (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He is Albanian of orthodox religion you should have consideration for Albanian people with these religion and dont count automatically in greek umbrella with or without his wish, dont start hellenize people with different ethnicity just because they have same religion as yours, respect people what they really are.

Minority Status Certificate

For determination of Minority Status, Recognition, Affiliation and related matters in respect of Minority Educational Institutions under the Constitution of India. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India gives linguistic and religious minorities a fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. These rights are protected by a prohibition against their violation. The prohibition is contained in Article 13 of the Constitution which declares that any law in breach of the fundamental rights would be void to the extent of such violation. It is well-settled that Article 30(1) cannot be read in a narrow and pedantic sense and being a fundamental right, it should be given its widest amplitude. The width of Article 30(1) cannot be cut down by introducing in it considerations which are destructive to the substance of the right enshrined therein. The National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act (for short the ‘Act’) has been enacted to safeguard the educational rights of the minorities enshrined in Article 30(1) of the Constitution. It has been held by the Eleven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 that a minority, whether linguistic or religious, is determinable only by reference to demography of the State and not by taking into consideration the population of the country as a whole. The application of numerical test with reference to religion in states like Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir and Nagaland makes Sikhism, Islam and Christianity, the majority religions in those states respectively. (See D.A.V. College vs. State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 1731). minoritystatus.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.49.193 (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Map game

There is no reason to add this map [[8]], since it concerns a quite wider region (the entire Balkans and N.Epirus is just a tiny part of it, geographically speaking). Not to mention that such old stuff doesn't offer any trace of reliability, its simply one of many contradicting 19th era maps.Alexikoua (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

there were 2 ethnographic maps of the balkans, and one of epirus here, (19 century) one of those maps said "considered pro-greek" and it had not been deleted before, so at the moment i add one map suddenly it shouldnt be there and be removed???why did you even remove all the ethnic map of 19 century, and left only 1?the one u thought it was better?i added the map because a more neutral view is needed and at the time wasnt only the demographic maps of the balkans who were shown on the page , there should be 2-3 demographic maps to give a better idea to the public. the map was added days ago and noone said nothing nor removed it. returning both the maps for a neutral viewRcLd-91 (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Still no arguments why maps of the Balkans are placed here, aprat from wp:ILIKEIT. The Balkans are a wider region and N. Epirus is a tiny part of it. Geographically speaking this is useless for the reader, no matter if it was placed recently or just 1 week ago.Alexikoua (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said because i like it , and the ethnic maps of the balkans were there for so long,befor i added the map, and suddenly if u add one they are all gone just because someone thinks its better this way???i dont understand the logic of this... however, if you want i am going to put only a map of epirus,(19 century) so the reader will have a better idea and a wider view of the ethnicities of the time.the map shown in the page wasnt actually the only one.RcLd-91 (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the article is improved after this change. Adding contradicting & outdated maps of a much larger region, isn't an improvement for this article, on the other hand, I wouldn't say no for a similar addition in the demographics of the Balkans or even Macedonia, since they (at least) geographically belong there.Alexikoua (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)