Talk:Northern Epirus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Proposed Additions

As there is not much within the article about the Albanian speaking population (Orthodox or Muslim) and their relationship/views (past or present) regarding Greek and Albanian speakers or matters relating the Albanian government and schooling, and the situation in the immediate aftermath after WW1 and so on. Hence, these proposed additions fill that important gap within the article (they are all based on academic material and referenced and do a thorough overview regarding grammar or sentence fixup, expansion etc). I have also placed inline citations within the references. Regarding small references so there won’t be some error message I have made them appear in the talk page as (e.g. <;ref name=Pipa./.>). I have done this way because when a similar process was embarked upon in the Cham Albanians page, it got very messy with proposed additions and hard to get through. Anyway, here are the proposals:

This bit to go under this sentence (my additions in bold).

In 1204, the region was part of the Despotate of Epirus, a successor state of the Byzantine Empire. Despot Michael I found there strong Greek support in order to facilitate his claims for the Empire’s revival.

During this time, the earliest mention of Albanians within the region of Epirus is recorded in a Venetian document of 1210 as inhabiting the area opposite the island of Corfu.

This bit to go under this sentence (my additions in bold).

This view would continue to influence Greek perceptions of the territory for much of the 20th century.

From the middle of the nineteenth century however, the term Turk and from the late nineteenth century onwards, derivative terms such as Turkalvanoi have been used as a pejorative term, phrase and or expression for Muslim Albanian populations by non-Muslim Balkan Peoples. Amongst the wider Greek-speaking population until the interwar period, the term Arvanitis (plural: Arvanites) was used to describe an Albanian speaker regardless of their religious affiliations. In Epirus today, the term Arvanitis is still used for an Albanian speaker regardless of their citizenship and religion.

This bit to go under this sentence (my additions in bold).

Another uprising in 1878, in the Saranda-Delvina region, with the revolutionaries demanding union with Greece, was suppressed by the Ottoman forces, while in 1881, the Treaty of Berlin awarded to Greece the southernmost parts of Epirus.

Throughout this period the Albanian speaking zones in what later became part of southern Albania and adjacent areas such as Greek Thesprotia was considered a nuisance for both the Greek state and Christians of Epirus who self identified as Greeks. The non-Greek linguistic factor posed a hindrance to Greek territorial ambitions. Tackling this issue was undertaken through two policies. The first was that Greek historians and politicians attempted through concerted efforts to conceal the existence of the Albanian language within the region. The second was to present the argument that the language spoken by the local population had no relation upon their national affiliations. According to the prevalent ideology in Greece at the time, every Orthodox Christian was considered Greek, whereas after 1913, especially the area of Southern Albania deemed “Northern Epirus” by Greece, Muslims were considered Albanians.

During the late Ottoman era, the majority of Orthodox Albanian speakers in areas that became southern Albania and Greek Epirus did not share the national ideas of their Muslim Albanian speaking neighbours. <;ref name= Baltsiotis2011./.><;ref name= Nitsiakos2010.> The development of the Albanian national movement in the latter part of the nineteenth century instead greatly confused Orthodox Albanians regarding their national identity. Nonetheless, due to Greek education and the Orthodox church, a majority of Orthodox Albanian speakers had formed a Greek national consciousness and identified themselves as Greeks. In the second half of the nineteenth century, within the area referred to by Greeks as Northern Epirus, Albanian speakers of both religions made up the majority of the population, though not all backed belonging to an Albanian state. During the late Ottoman era and seeking financial betterment, Orthodox Albanians migrated to the Americas in sizable numbers. Some who immigrated to the USA, alongside some Vlachs from the area espoused an Albanian national consciousness and supported the establishment of an Albanian Orthodox Church in America under Fan Noli. Other immigrant Orthodox Albanians in the USA though held a Greek national consciousness.

This bit to go under this sentence (my additions in bold).

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 awarded the area to Greece after World War I. <<<(This sentence needs a good reference or a tag for a citation should be placed next to it)

During this time, a U.S diplomat Joseph Emerson Haven stationed in the area noted in a detailed report that in the disputed province of Korçë had roughly 60,000 inhabitants of whom roughly 18 per cent favoured Greek sovereignty. Of that 18 per cent, Haven argued that half of that number held that view due to fear or being promised material gain from Muslim property and land. Other areas that supported Greek sovereignty were a few towns in the Himarë region; otherwise Haven noted “the country is absolutely Albanian in sentiment”. Haven also asserted that the Greek Orthodox Church was engaged in a series of activities that was designed to intimidate Albanians. He observed that Greek teachers and priests in the Korçë and Gjirokastër areas were using their position to advance separatist causes through “propaganda” and were “working openly for the detachment of Southern Albania and for its union with Greece”. Haven also observed that Greek soldiers had engaged in physical and sexual violence which resulted in an “intense hatred and loathing in Southern Albania for Greece”.

Not long after, a League of Nations delegation was sent to observe firsthand the situation in Southern Albania. They concluded that a majority of people residing in these contested regions awarded to Albania “were in favour of the present regime”. One commissioner from the delegation Sederholm noted the population of Korçë being “entirely Albanian” with “the number of Greeks there” being “quite insignificant”. Sederholm also stated that the Albanian government was already subsidizing Greek schools for the Greek minority which numbered “about 16,000” and this was “in accordance with the rules laid down for the protection of minorities”.

The British representative Harry Eyres, often maligned by Albanian communist and post-communist academic circles concurred with the Albanian position regarding the contested regions. In a report to the British Foreign Office in 1921, Eyres noted that the Greek government “appears to make no distinction between Orthodox Albanians of the Southern provinces and veritable Greek subjects”. Eyres also added that in the Greek state, there was a “set purpose to disseminate false news” and that claims regarding Greek minority persecution and school closures had “little or no basis in fact”. Eyres also joined in backing the League commission’s report that within the contested provinces, Muslims outnumbered Christians. By 1922, the Greek state was appealing to the Conference of ambassadors to enforce the Protocol of Corfu granting autonomy to Albania’s southern regions. The British though by this time regarded the protocol no longer “valid” as it had been “superseded by other agreements”. Thereafter by July 1922, Greece offered recognition to the Albanian government with a protest note regarding the southern border. Throughout the early 1920s alongside Yugoslavia, Greece in its policy towards Albania encouraged religious differences and stressed that Albania was a “little Turkey” antagonistic to Orthodox Greeks. Also during the interwar period with hostility from the Patriarchate, Greek clerics went to great efforts to prevent the creation of an independent Albanian Orthodox Church which delayed its final establishment much later.

This bit to go under this sentence (my additions in bold).

The Albanian state viewed Greek education as a potential threat to its territorial integrity.

The Albanian government was concerned that within Greek schools, students could be influenced by a majority of teachers who were in favour of the “Pan-Epirot movement”. The Albanian state thus was opposed to Greek schools in Albanian-speaking settlements and only allowed them in line with League of Nations agreements within Greek speaking areas in southern Albania.

This bit to go under this sentence (my additions in bold).

According to a 1923 law, priests who were not Albanian speakers, as well as not of Albanian origin, were excluded from this new autocephalous church.

During the interwar period, some Orthodox Albanians espousing either pro-Greek sentiments and or with a Greek national consciousness emigrated from Albania and resettled in Greece. Pro-Greek feelings amongst Orthodox Albanians were strong within the region of Gjirokastër.<;ref name= Moskos1977./.> Some Orthodox Albanians who migrated to the Americas during this time also espoused a Greek national consciousness.

This bit to go under this sentence (my additions in bold).

However, when the Soviet General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev asked about giving more rights to the minority, even autonomy, the answer was negative.

During this time, some Orthodox Albanians managed to flee Albania and resettle in Greece where they espoused a Greek national consciousness, while referring to themselves as Arvanites.

Fix up of this sentence and this bit to go under this sentence (my additions in bold). Also i check De Rapper, in his article he refers to these people a of some number with an unclear consciousness in the Lunxheri region as Orthodox Albanians and the settlers as Muslim Albanians. I have added clarifications to the sentence so it is inline with the academic source.

Moreover, during this period a number of new settlements, consisting of Albanian Muslim settlers, were created as a buffer zone between the recognized 'minority zone' of Orthodox Greek speakers and Orthodox Albanian speaking regions of unclear ethnic consciousness.

Some Orthodox Albanian villages near the Albanian-Greek border were also viewed by the communist regime with suspicion and being Grecophile.

This bit to go under this sentence (my additions in bold).

A 2003 survey conducted by Greek scholars estimate the size of the Greek minority at around 60.000.

Two scholars who have spent much time travelling through Southern Albania, Tom Winnifrith in the 1990s and Vassilis Nitsiakos in the 2000s have reached similar conclusions regarding the Orthodox Greek speaking minority in Albania. The Greek minority in Albania is located compactly, within the wider Gjirokastër and Sarandë regions with some villages in the Himarë area amongst some Albanian speaking settlements.

This bit is a new section about Orthodox Albanians, Albanian Muslims and Vlachs. Considering that they play a very big role regarding the whole Northern Epirus matter and that there is sufficient academic data out there (about their views of each other and so on) i propose this new important section to go under this section (my additions in bold).

'Minority zone'

==.Orthodox Albanians, Albanian Muslims and Vlachs.==

Throughout the duration of the Communist regime, national Albanian identity was constructed as being irreligious and based upon a common unitary Albanian nationality. This widely spread ideal is still present, though it is challenged by religious differentiation between Muslims and Christians which exists at a local level. Hence within the post-communist era, amongst Orthodox Albanians there are varying views regarding their identity and their relationship with Muslim Albanians, Greeks and Greece. With the fall of communism and migration to Greece there has been a tendency amongst a majority of Orthodox Albanians to identify as “Northern Epirote” which is understood to be synonymous with Greek identity. Apart from identifying as Shqiptarë or Albanians, they also use as self-appellations the terms Arvanitë (a word also used by Orthodox Albanophones in Greece), Minoritarë (a word meaning minority used in Albania as a synonym for the Greek minority) or even Grekoman (meaning a person with Grecophile sentiments). In Albania, many Orthodox Albanians often stress that they have Greek origins and some have tried unsuccessfully to change their names into Greek forms. When in Greece, some Orthodox Albanians are members of Northern Epirote associations that advocate for Greek interests and rights in Albania. Some Orthodox Albanians also advocate for wider recognition of the Greek minority zone to encompass their settlements as they feel they are Greek. Amongst the wider Albanian population and some in the Albanian Orthodox community hold the view that individuals claiming Greek identity are doing so to access benefits of Greek citizenship such as jobs, education and old age pensions. Albanian Muslims have also engaged in claiming a Greek identity, though their change regarding ethnic or religious identity is mainly viewed as superficial to access the Greek labour market and Greek citizenship.

Within areas where Orthodox Albanians live in close proximity to Orthodox Greek speaking populations in southern Albania, there has been a tendency to vote for Greek political parties. Other Orthodox Albanians living in various parts of Southern Albania have also displayed political sentiments and or support toward Greek political parties in Albania. Older generations of Orthodox Albanians are mainly monolingual Albanian speakers. Due to migration in recent decades, many middle aged Orthodox Albanians have become bilingual, while amongst the young knowledge of Albanian is passive and many are monolingual Greek speakers. In the 1990s, Greece favoured Orthodox Albanian politicians as they were seen as being friendlier to their interests. Amongst Albanians, in particular Kosovar Albanians, Orthodox Albanian politicians have been perceived to be less inclined to advocate for the Albanian national cause. Relations with Muslim Albanians vary and are often distant as Orthodox Albanians and Albanian Muslims live in separate villages and or neighbourhoods, while national identity is rarely constructed outside the binary opposition of Muslim and Christian. Some Orthodox Albanians perceive Albanian Muslims as a majority group oppressing Albanian Christians and being responsible for past destruction and troubles within Albania. Also the past dictatorship and its ideology of communism is viewed by some Orthodox Albanians as being synonymous with Islam, due in part to Enver Hoxha's Muslim heritage and the communist regime's aversion to religion.

Whereas close relations exist amongst Orthodox Albanians who live in proximity to Orthodox Greek speaking settlements and Greeks in Albania regard them as "relatives", whereas Muslim Albanians are labelled "Turks". Orthodox Albanians negatively refer to Albanian Muslims as “Turks”, while the latter refers to them as “Greeks” and attributes to them pro-Greek sentiments. Albanian Muslims also pejoratively refer to Orthodox Albanians as “Kaur”, an Ottoman era word which means infidel. In recent times and due to issues with the 2011 census regarding the fluctuating numbers of Orthodox people in the country, some politicians from the Albanian Orthodox community have felt that there is an "anti-Orthodox agenda" in Albania. Whereas due to the head and some officials of the Albanian Orthodox Church being Greek nationals, a view amongst former Albanian intelligence officials has formed that the Albanian Orthodox Church is no longer an Albanian institution.

With the fall of communism, the Vlach community in Albania formed various associations aimed at revitalising their language and culture that are affiliated to either a pro-Greek and or pro-Romanian position. Vlachs that belong to the pro-Greek faction are either supportive of or active in Greek political parties within Albania. These Vlachs self ascribe themselves as "Helleno-Vlachs" or Greek-Vlachs and espouse the Greek view regarding origins as being romanised Greeks. There are views in Albania that some of these Vlachs who have adopted a Greek identity have done so to access benefits of Greek citizenship such as jobs, education and old age pensions. Vlachs are deeply fond of Greeks and Greece and view Orthodox Albanians as "their own people". Vlachs negatively refer to Albanian Muslims as "Turks", while Albanian Muslims pejoratively refer to them as "Kaur" meaning infidel.

Resnjari (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

After a first look it appears that some of the proposals are selectively chosen in order to promote a specific pov. To be more precise:

• The term Northern Epirus is linked with the local Greek element (per 1st line of the article NE is a term...., it's not just geography, else it would start NE is a region...), thus any mention to the self appellation of Muslim Albanians is irrelevant. A general Greek vs Turk classification is ok though.
• Extensive descriptions of a specific correspondent who after rumors heard (by whom?) concludes that Greek soldiers committed rapes and crimes in the region. Actually that's the epitomy of cherry picking & no wonder other academic references (without 3rd part claims) conclude that the (Winnifrith, 2002: p. 131) " people living in the occupied areas of Southern Albania seemed to accept the Greek administration quite willingly".
• Also about this part "the argument that the language spoken by the local population had no relation upon their national affiliations", it appears that classification based on non-linguistic factors was established a couple of centuries before under Ottoman rule. Obviously this needs to be rephrased to present the entire picture. This strategy wasn't something new with 19th century standards.Alexikoua (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• The initiative of Fan Noli and the Boston community is not even slightly connected with the subjected, I assume that a mention of the confused ethnic identity will be ok.Alexikoua (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources mentioned there are from peer reviewed material, from academics that have no axe to grind.

"After a first look it appears that some of the proposals are selectively chosen in order to promote a specific pov. To be more precise:"

Not so Alexikoua, a lot has been published since this article was last properly looked at and edited. I have access to the sources and am very widely read and encourage you and others to look at the material. All i have done is in line with Wikipedia policy. If i was POV pushing, i could have left out everything to do with the sizable numbers of Orthodox Albanians(and their relations with Muslim Albanians and vice versa) and the Greek national consciousnesses that they are espousing today in Albania. I said to you once, i am not a nationalist and i mean that. Its time to have a look at this material also that is importantly peer reviewed and relevant to the article. I am very willing to discuss very sentence, edit and source. I don't want no farcical edit wars and its time if possible to put an end to them (however even then, some may still sadly persist) through the examination of peer reviewed sources. Albanian editors may not like what i have proposed, however the information is credible and exists. You from Greek heritage may not like some things i have proposed, however some academics from Greek heritage and Western ones as well have written on the matter which is new evidence from the archive and relevant.

"The term Northern Epirus is linked with the local Greek element (per 1st line of the article NE is a term...., it's not just geography, else it would start NE is a region...)"

Winnifrith uses the term Northern Epirus at times to describe Southern Albania as a region and one that goes beyond the "Greek element" (Kolonja, Korca, Devoll areas etc). Also Winnifrith and Nitsiakos both state that the "Greek element" is resident in the Gjirokaster, Saranda and Himara areas. Yes, the term and its geographical appellations like "Northern Epirote" are used extensively by Greeks. Its both a term and region in a complicated sense and the article is about Northern Epirus, the term and the lands of Southern Albania that have been defined as such. However regarding the "Greek element" as you state, national affiliations were fluid amongst Orthodox Albanian speakers, so even then its very complicated as to who was using the term and in what sense or not. Even Muslim Albanians today, as i have included in the sources, are referring to themselves as "northern Epriote", though for superficial economic reasons. Nonetheless they too are making use of the term "Northern Epirote" which is synonymous with Greek and implying belonging to a place called Northern Epirus (which i have outlined in the sentence proposals with peer reviewed sources) which goes well beyond the "Greek elements" usage of the term and its meanings.

"thus any mention to the self appellation of Muslim Albanians is irrelevant."

Actually i disagree. If the article is talking about classifications of Greek and "Turks" (referring to Muslim Albanians) yet it gives no further explanation on the subject, when there is material that exists in that regard (i was adding on to this bit "while all Muslims (including Muslim Albanians) were considered "Turks""). There are sources that further explain the usage of the term "Turks" and its other meanings regarding Albanians during the late Ottoman era and what that signified. Without the further explanation, the way it is within the article is POV pushing (In the Turco-Albanians wikipedia article, it explains how the word "Turk" and its derivatives had pejorative connotations. A similar example is the "n" word for African Americans. Whites used it at will and thought it to be a ok term, but the people being called that did not agree and it has been academically documented, just like the word "Turk" regarding Muslim Albanians). Also, the way in which the region of Northern Epirus was geographically defined, Muslim Albanians formed a very sizable part of the population. The article is about an area called Northern Epirus, hence it should cover elements relating to all peoples residing there. If the article was about Greeks in Albania, then yes what you say would be right. But in this context, my proposed inclusion is supported by peer reviewed material and more than relevant to the article.

"Extensive descriptions of a specific correspondent who after rumors heard (by whom?) concludes that Greek soldiers committed rapes and crimes in the region. Actually that's the epitomy of cherry picking & no wonder other academic references (without 3rd part claims) conclude that the (Winnifrith, 2002: p. 131)"

Absolutely not. One Winnifrith makes no mention of Haven or Eyres who observed and wrote during those important years like the League of Nations commission. Austin describes them as independent observers. Winnifrith only cites Clarke, a archeologist who travelled the southern parts of Albania in the area of Pogoni and Lunxheri and gives information about the Orthodox Albanian speakers identity views in 1923-1924 (Winnifrith-Badlands-Borderlands). p. 168.) regarding that area. I have the Winnifrith book with me and on page 131 he refers to Clarke's notes regarding pro-Greek feeling amongst Orthodox Albanians in the vicinity of Lunxheri (e.g. "Northern of these villages there was pro-Greek sentiment even in places where Albanian was spoken as a first language. However the next line states " Many Greek speaking villages were still partly owned by Muslim beys, a fact which may have encouraged pro-Greek sentiment in private and pro-Albanian standpoint in public". Winnifrith directly refers to Greek-speaking villages but does not state where he got that information from. Was it Clarke or some other source. The commission's report however states that pro-Greek sentiment existed in Greek speaking areas. There is no contradiction or issue. Haven and Clarke were writing at different points in time. In a few years, a lot can happen. Your issue is with Haven, who is not a correspondent but a high ranking diplomat. In the book Founding a Balkan State: Albania's Experiment with Democracy, 1920-1925 (look it up on google books, or go to a library and read it like i have done, look at pages 90-95 in particular) that cites Haven, the academic Austin states this on Haven on page 95. "The suggestion that Greek Orthodox clergy were often using their position to further separatist causes was well documented by independent observers in the aftermath of the war. In 1919 American special representative Haven wrote that" and it continues on that way into examing the material further. Haven went around on the ground and wrote what Austin calls a "detailed report". He was no armchair writer but an on the ground observer and had no Albanian sympathies. He was a high ranking employee of the USA government, a government which (winnifrith. badlands-borderlands: p.133) had proposed to detach the area of Gjirokaster and Saranda as a "comprimise" to the issue. What is important to note here is that Austin includes Haven and the others from the League of Nations commission i have mentioned and refers to them as "independent observers". Why is this relevant then, because Wikipedia policy of identifying reliable sources stipulates the following:

"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."

And on neutrality it states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Austin is a very reliable and credible source and i have not in anyway interpreted the source or cherry picked as your claim ((check it out yourself). Just like Meyer is regarding the Chams and WW2 and is extensively used throughout. Unless you can find someone criticizing Austin's scholarship or issues with the author (like has been done with Miranda Vickers over certain matters and now articles refer to her as "pro-Albanian") his material and citing of Haven is very valid. Also your citing of "(Winnifrith, 2002: p. 131) " people living in the occupied areas of Southern Albania seemed to accept the Greek administration quite willingly". is important here. Winnifrith himself stated "seemed" and he did not say where he got that information from. No mention of Clarke or so on regarding that. Austin refers to the observers and their reports he cites as independent. His scholarship is very recent and has looked through the archive and is peer reviewed. Though Winnifrith is good to use, other academics like Miranda Vickers have refereed to his book Badlands/Borderlands as "pro-Greek" (see: http://www.da.mod.uk/Research-Publications/the-cham-issue-where-to-now-1029/category/66 page 12). However, i still use Winnifrith, but we should keep that in mind.

"Also about this part "the argument that the language spoken by the local population had no relation upon their national affiliations", it appears that classification based on non-linguistic factors was established a couple of centuries before under Ottoman rule."

Alexikoua, i cited Baltsiotis, a Greek academic at Panteion university. What i wrote directly refers to the Greek position during the nineteenth century era, not some generalised statement that says it is the one and only position based with no sources. I did write in the preceding sentence that "Tackling this issue was undertaken through two policies." in line with Baltsitois in his article which is online and you can read (and i have provided a link). Greeks politicians and academics during that time were putting the argument forth that "the argument that the language spoken by the local population had no relation upon their national affiliations". That was part of the Greek position regarding the areas that Greeks refer to as Northern Epirus. Very important to the article content.

"it appears that classification based on non-linguistic factors was established a couple of centuries before under Ottoman rule. Obviously this needs to be rephrased to present the entire picture. This strategy wasn't something new with 19th century standards."

You are placing a interpretation on the source which Wikipedia policy states we should refrain from. Baltsitois states nothing regarding what you are affirming in your comment there. Unless you can find a peer reviewed and credible source/s affirming that, then its ok with me and it goes in the medieval period section or thereafter (whatever time period the source might say the view was formed) for previous Greek views on the matter. Anyway Baltsiotis is clearly referring to the nineteenth century Greek position regarding the area and the way things where done to go about it. So the whole paragraph regarding that is relating to the nineteenth century era. I was not in anyway discussing hypothetical Greek or other views from centuries past, only nineteenth century views from a peer reviewed Greek academic. Unless you have a source that calls into question Baltsiotis then there is no issue and what i wrote is very relevant to the article.

"The initiative of Fan Noli and the Boston community is not even slightly connected with the subjected, I assume that a mention of the confused ethnic identity will be ok."

It is due to a few points. The people who where around Fan Noli's group creating the Albanian Orthodox church, were mostly from the Korca region. The Korca region is described as being part of Northern Epirus. It was a important action by people from the region who espoused a Albanian national consciousness that had ramifications regarding the religious outlook of the Orthtodox community in the area. I included this because some people who where migrating from the region had formed a Albanian national consciousness and were exercising it from the area in the new country for use also back in the homeland from where they were from. I also then followed that with another sentence about other Orthodox Albanians from the region that had a different national consciousness, a Greek one and they held that in the new country. Both points are relevant as it shows the divergent formation through examples of national affiliations amongst Orthodox Albanians. Also Noli is relevant because the church he establishes with the backing of Korca immigrants later leads to the creation of the Albanian Orthodox church which covers all Orthodox people in Albania (within and outside Northern Epirus). I have included in my sentence proposal one more reference that more specifically links Korca Albanian immigrants in the USA with the establishment of the Albanian Orthodox church.

So like i wrote, do read thoroughly, do check the sources yourself (go and read Austin and Baltsitois too and the rest.) Any other issues, otherwise which bits are are a go then so i can place some of these bits in.

Best regards

Resnjari (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No, there is absolutely no way we are going to turn this article into another unreadable wall of text. Simply no way. You are welcome to start a blog and make your additions there, but this is an encyclopedia in case you hadn't noticed. Athenean (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Athenean, what are you on about ? Wikipedia policy states that any information/input into a article must be based upon academic sources. I know this is an encyclopedia and my proposed additions are in line with that, and Alexikoua has stated that he/she would assist me in the past. I have said to you on other pages i work in good faith and i make sure that everything i place is directly inline with peer reviewed sources. I have also said that making accusations of "absolutely no way we are going to turn this article into another unreadable wall of text" (i still don't know what your basing this on ???) like you have done now, because some of the content may not be to your liking goes against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy on editing stipulates the following (in case you over looked it):

Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is. Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information. However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. You are invited to show that information is verifiable by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information—Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable. To avoid such challenges, the best practice is to provide an "inline citation" at the time the information is added."

It is up to you to challenge what has been proposed here through peer reviewed sources. I am more than fine with that, but only through that process. I have also refrained from using Albanian academics with material from Albania here, and when using Albanian academics only those that are in the West and peer reviewed (only used Kosta Barjaba, Arshi Pipa and Vullnetari for the Albanian immigrants from Korca and Albanian consciousness thing which is non contentious and they are peer reviewed). Everything else that i based the proposed additions come from scholarship written by Greek academics (Baltsiotis, Kretsi, Nitsiakos, Kallivretakis), pro Greek scholars (Winnifrith) and impartial Western scholars (Austin, Gilles De Rapper). Refute with evidence, not accusations Athenean. Its why i created a proposed additions section in the talk page to discuss the matter based on peer reviewed sources. Feel free to look up the sources i have placed. I encourage it wholeheartedly and look forward to your contribution based solely Wikipedia policy.

Best regards

Resnjari (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your proposed additions, are as usual way off-topic. So no, we are not going to include them. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and present information in summary style. Please familiarize yourself with this guideline and stop wasting everybody's time. Athenean (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Atthenean, you need to explain how it is "off topic" as you say. Otherwise its an allegation or accusation, which wikipedia states we should refrain from. Just saying that a person's edits are "off topic" without showing why or how does not suffice. Convince me that it is off topic. Show me and others. This is the talk page after all meant for discussion. You keep saying Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Yes i have told you repeatedly now that i know that. I have also read the Summary style and importantly too, the article size policy. The summary policy states the following:

"Wikipedia articles cover topics at several levels of detail: the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points, and each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article. The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems and should be split. A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. For copyright purposes the first edit summary of a subtopic article formed by cutting text out of a main article should link back to the original."

Whereas the article size policy states:

"A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style – see A rule of thumb below. Comprehension of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%."

The overall points are that the article should be within its limits (scope etc). If i was to take a similar article Cham Albanians as an example, Greek editors where very insistent on being very detailed regarding the WW2 stuff. Now if we go by what your stating then, that bit should be very small. Greek editors have also created larger topics that give details of the Cham-Axis collaboration. And thats fine. They were going by Wikipedia policy and so am i (i am using peer reviewed material after all). Another case in point is the Genocides in history which is a long article, but with sub sections that lead off to other articles. If a part of an article gets too big then it should be divided into sections and or other articles also created (that what the policy states). My additions to some sections are very small, to other sections that are small, it makes them medium sized like some other sections in the article as stands now. Also i did through copy and paste in Microsoft word of the current article and its word limit is roughly 5,800 words. My proposed additions (the sentences and paragraphs above) which in microsoft word number roughly 1, 900 words. With those being added to the article, the article would have a rough total of around 7, 700 (to 7, 900) words, which is well within the scope of Wikipedia policy regarding article size. I heavily condensed the proposed sentences, while still remaining true to the peer reviewed academic content and was no easy feat. So i did take into consideration these things Athenean. So some of my proposals above are one sentences in case you overlooked it.

Also the other content relates direct to the topic at hand and i have proposed a new section to cater for that, as it fills a great gap in the article. In works that deal with Northern Epirus especially Winnifrith's book, he writes a lot about Orthodox Albanians and so do other Greek and non Greek authors (Nitsiakos, Kretsi, Gilles De Rapper)about Orthodox Albanian identity issues (e.g. "Northern Epirote"). The article already has a section that deals with numbers of the Greek minority and related matters (Why that and not the other?) But nothing about other peoples claiming a Greek identity within the scope of Northern Epirote or Northern Epirus. And the stuff from Austin is of independent observers (with no Albanian sympathies) noting details about the era when the region was becoming known as Northern Epirus and was subject to international attention and local violence. They deal exactly with the era and topic relating to this article. Yes at first it might appear a full paragraph, however i have condensed it so much already that to condense more would be to not place it up for proposal at all if we go by what your saying. But the stuff from Austin does relate directly to the topic and importantly its peer reviewed. The sentences i have written are very much in line with the content from the academic source. Its why i said to all, to please go look up the source yourself, read it and we can discuss it in good faith. I am all for that, every sentence, every source, maybe you might come across other sources (they must be peer reviewed and from credible academics, thus in accordance with Wikipedia policy) But Athenean, saying its "off topic" and not detailing how does not suffice here in how Wikipedia works.

I have said to you in the past, i follow the rules, if your only objection to the material is "off topic" without explaining how especially when it is not, then following the rules i am more than happy and very willing to get third party deliberation on the matter. The sources i base the sections on in here are peer reviewed and i might add from Greek academics as well. I have also taken into consideration that there might have been Greek objections to Albanian academics from Albania/Kosovo had i used them, so already the content of this article which deals with Albanians(since Northern Epirus is in Albania and Albanians live there too) is severely diluted and limited in information in what i could write. So no Albanian academics (apart from those in Western countries and i used them solely in the non contentious bit about Korca Albanians in the USA). Please Athenean take these matters into consideration before pronouncing something as "off topic". Like i said to Alexikoua, read everything proposed in here thoroughly, and go check the sources yourself. I encourage it wholeheartedly and await your contribution to improving the article and am more than willing to discuss everything with you.

Best regards

Resnjari (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the vast majority of the above proposals are products of cherry-picking: additions of specific parts in order to promote a certain pov. For example the first proposal (the 1st record of the Albanians in the region) is presented in a pov way since it lacks the necessary explanation the author offers, thus the primary source is metioned and nothing more. Also, the argument that Winnifrith describes the various populations in Northern Epirus is still weak since he still focuses in the local Greek element and Greek history. Winnifrith's work consists of 219 pages, thus it's no wonder that a tiny part offers some detail in the non-Greek element. On the other hand a wikipedia article should be written per wp:summary and carefully avoiding wp:undue. It can't reach the same amount of quantity compared to 200+ pages.

Similar wp:undue issues (although at a smaller degree), are created in the present versions of Ioannina (post wwii history is focused on the shrinking of the tiny Albanian community) and Epirus (region) (more than half of the demographics section is dedicated to the Albanian-speakers).Alexikoua (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Cherry picking. You have to show how it is "Cherry picking". You seem to persist in your claim that it is cherry picking but not showing how each edit is "cherry picking". Since you probably don't have access to Austin's book here is the google books link.> https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Mwi137osWhMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Founding+a+Balkan+State&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIkbTo7L6WxgIVwWGmCh3zjgDZ#v=onepage&q=Founding%20a%20Balkan%20State&f=false If i had not written the bits that are from Austin that way with inline citations, apart from accusing me of POV you also would have accused me of lying. Sorry, but i want to be very detailed about this. Being fuzzy with this is not how its done.

Alexikoua, now i can very easily pick out many bits in this article that stand as POV or POV pushing, and say they are cherry picked and pushing an agenda. However within the scope of good faith, i prefer to now have more peer reviewed data that has been published be put up for scrutiny and consideration (by Greek authors i might add) for addition to the article.

"Similar wp:undue issues (although at a smaller degree), are created in the present versions of Ioannina (post wwii history is focused on the shrinking of the tiny Albanian community) and Epirus (region)"

You didn't seem to have an issue with that then when i made the edit. I am wondering why you are bringing this up now here in this article now all of a sudden. An Albanian Muslim minority did exist, so that why it’s mentioned in the demographics section in a few sentences, in a similar vein to articles on Turkey for example which give a few sentences about a past Greek population (see: İzmir Province (make the edit there by removing the bit on the Greek minority's historical presence and then i will take what you are saying on board. Otherwise focus on this article.) And the current day Orthodox Albanian speaking community (which has a very credible EU source to it) also exists, hence mentioned in a sentence. I am very surprised by all this Alexikoua, i was not expecting it. Even a sentence mentioning Albanians is too much now, even it its based on peer reviewed material. Very surprised since your an editor with privileges, a gatekeeper if you will.

"are created in the present versions of Ioannina (post wwii history is focused on the shrinking of the tiny Albanian community)"

Same with this, why are you mentioning this now, out of the blue all of a sudden. As i recall you seem to have had no issue about it then when the editing was going on. And also its just one sentence based on a credible source. Why now Alexikoua ? So the remaining Albanian community cannot be mentioned at all now ? Alexikoua, you are an editor with privileges. They where given to you because there was a view taken that you as an editor don't take personal bias, but looking at the data on its merit. Like i said to Athenean, i am more than happy and very willing to get third party intervention into the matter. I rather however we do this with input from everyone and in good faith, but if this continues and accusations of cherry picking and so on are continuously made with no basis on the sources, then i will resort to that measure as contained in policy. I remind all that the material i have in here is peer reviewed and strongly in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I remind all to please stick to the content and policy.

"Also, the argument that Winnifrith describes the various populations in Northern Epirus is still weak since he still focuses in the local Greek element and Greek history."

Your kidding right. Your saying this as if i haven't got a copy nor read the book. Where does he say that the study is about just or 'mainly' about Greek people or that he focuses on mainly the 'Greek element and Greek history'. Point that out, which page ? I am flicking through it looking for what you have inferred. What kind of POV pushing interpretation of Winnifrith is that when he clearly states on page 25: "Thus in a sense Northern Epirus is a slightly misleading term for the area under consideration. Greek history, religion and speech play an important part in southern Albania, but there are other minorities apart from the Albanians, and as we have shown and will show, Albanian speech and influence once reached as far as Arta and the Peloponnesse. We might for this reason, with Byron and Hobhouse, call the present Greek province of Epirus southern Albania." His book by the way is called "Badlands, Borderlands: A History of Northern Epirus/Southern Albania". Notice there the two are one and the same and he states in his book about Northern Epirus (which he also calls Southern Albania) as having Albanians and that Albanian speech played an important role. He states regarding his book that he "will show" regarding the Albanian element. Vickers referred to Winnifrith's book as pro-Greek. I have used a pro-Greek source after all and he still devotes sizable parts of his book to Albanian related issues and people. Being dismissive about Winnifrith because his book in only 200 pages or so also does not cut it. You have to challenge and show the author's credibility as a scholar is questionable, like say Justin Mc Carthy for me to take what you have said on board. Do this then its A ok with me and in line with wikipedia policy. But only through those means. Journal articles are 10 or 20 pages and thus short, yet i have noticed you have had no qualms about using those short academic works (from Manda for example) for articles such as Cham Albanians. I hope your not being selective regarding the use of peer reviewed material without giving proper reasons for it.

"For example the first proposal (the 1st record of the Albanians in the region) is presented in a pov way since it lacks the necessary explanation the author offers, thus the primary source is metioned and nothing more."

Alexikoua, why do you think i am engaging in this process, so we can have proper clarification and discussion of the edits. Why are you being dismissive of peer reviewed material? I proposed the sentence and and yes Giakoumis refers to a primary source. Why don't you make an additional addition from the source or other. I am all for that. Add to it. Make your proposal. Its a editing process. Don't accuse, just do, talk and discussion (i am going by the book> Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. However, I hope your not inferring a peer reviewed journal article POV by a Greek academic on the basis that he is citing an Albanian presence. I hope that is not the case especially when the article is about a region that is within the larger region known historically as Epirus. The sentence is important because it gives details about the first mention of Albanians in the area of Epirus. Albanians just don't pop up there out of no where in the nineteenth century. But as it stands now, that's how it is in the article. Odd isn't it, especially after you state earlier that the article is about the term Northern Epirus. As i recall and the article states, the term only came into being after Albania came into being in 1912-1913 (and is political in nature), so then why all the stuff on the ancient era or the Ottoman one for that matter. No Northern Epirus then ? And under the Ottoman era it was called Sanjak of Yanina or Ergiri not even a mention of Epirus or Northern Epirus. Thus by having all of the pre 1912 stuff, isn't that POV pushing and has nothing to do with the history of the term. Should the contents of the article relate only from the period starting at 1912-1913? I am most curious to know your thoughts on the matter ?

Also i am very glad you cite Wikipedia policy. In the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view section states the following:

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it"

My sources are reliable (you have yet to challenge them) and the way i have written them are in line with the policy. Point out which bits might need a shortening or expansion and we can work on it together (we did this on the Cham Albanians topic and you said as a recall that you would do this on other topics. Maybe its my Albanian heritage, but when someone gives their word, i take them at their word and they should keep it, not be hazy about it later). Wikipedia does work on good faith after all. So like i said, the content is reliable and importantly peer reviewed. Whoever wrote or contributed to the article seemed to overlook these other (Greek) sources(i wonder why) or be selective about them, many of which where out there, not used and now parts of article are POV pushing. I will point out a few sentences that are POV pushing that need further fixing/clarification as examples:

"In the event, only a limited area in the Districts of Gjirokastër, Sarandë and four villages in Himarë region consisting of 15,000 inhabitants[34] was recognized as a Greek minority zone. The following years, measures were taken to suppress[35] the minority's education. The Albanian state viewed Greek education as a potential threat to its territorial integrity.[34] Greek schools were either closed or forcibly converted to Albanian schools and teachers were expelled from the country."

No reasons provided why the Albanian government did that apart from territorial integrity reasons which really can be interpreted in different ways. Wikipedia says clarify if a peer reviewed source exists for it. However there is peer viewed material giving reasons for it and that the closures where done mainly in Albanian speaking areas that where Orthodox. As it stands now, the section is POV pushing and in need of additions.

Another example is this sentence that cites De Rapper as a source. "Moreover, during this period a number of new settlements, consisting of Muslim settlers, were created as a buffer zone between the recognized 'minority zone' and regions of unclear ethnic consciousness."

Whoever wrote this sentence was very selective in their wording. I have read De Rapper and he specifically writes, Albanian Muslim settlers for one (no ‘muslim settlers’), points out that the people who had unclear national consciousnesses where Orthodox Albanians and it was done to prevent what the regime interpreted as Hellenisation by the neighboring Orthodox Greek speaking population. No one seems to have had any qualms about that manipulation of the source. Yet you are referring to my proposals as POV pushing. Really? I said to all, if you think i am being dodgy go and look up these sources yourself. I encourage it with all my being. I have nothing to hide. Let me repeat that again, I have nothing to hide. I have gone far and beyond to even provide inline citations because possibly many of you will say POV, POV, POV, (even with inline citations, and peer reviewed sources its still happening, though why am i surprised) so at the very least you can all have a look and examine the matter. What about this sentence Alexikoua that has no footnote source?

"During this period over 200 Greek populated towns and villages were burned or destroyed, 2,000 Northern Epirotes were killed, 5,000 imprisoned and 2,000 taken hostages to concentration camps."

What am i to make of this sentence, especially in light of Wikipedia's policy regarding neutrality. This sentence is POV pushing. First of all Winnifrith and Nitsiakos states that the Greek minority is in the Gjirokaster, Saranda, and Himara areas. Kallivretakis gives a similar number of villages (a 100 or so) to what the Albanian government has in its list of Greek villages regarding those areas. What’s this 200 number based on ? Is it referring to Orthodox Albanians and Vlachs who were espousing a Greek identity? Where are these villages. Where is the source ????? On its own it is POV pushing. Actually it’s outright POV and goes against Wikipedia policy on neutrality. Its unsourced and making a very serious allegation.

Best regards and thoroughly examine the material. The overwhelming bulk of what is there is important, relates directly to the article and is peer reviewed. Do check the sources yourself (and i say the same to others).

Resnjari (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I will check each proposal in depth, but a first clear impression is the one I've noted. In general examining an amount of ca. 110kb of text needs some time.Alexikoua (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, that's what i have been saying and why i decided to go about it this way. Because the data is about a sensitive topic. Absolutely no rush, take your time. I never said there was a time limit. That would be silly of me to do so anyway and would go against what Wikipedia is about. It took me a while to compile the proposed edits, and yes it will take a while for you and others to do a check. Go for it. Like i said, i encourage it whole heartedly. By the way, also check the Souliotes and Arvanites talk pages too for those proposed additions. Their much smaller.

Best regards and looking forward to your contribution.

Resnjari (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Beginning with the 1st proposal, it's good for the history section to mention the first historical record of Albanian presence, with a brief addition:

During this time, the earliest mention of Albanians within the region of Epirus is recorded in a Venetian document of 1210 as inhabiting the area opposite the island of Corfu. Nevertheless, significant movements of Albanian populations in the region are not mentioned prior to 1337. (Giakoumis, 2003, p. 177)Alexikoua (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua, Athenean has just deleted an edit that you expanded upon and was discussed as to its merits within the article and Athenean only only offered the reason that: "(removed irrelevant addition, as already explained in the talkpage)". One i was looking for this explanation regarding the edit which he states exists and i failed to find it. I am not sure if Athenean is against any edits to do with regarding Albanian speaking subject matter though it has been pointed out by pro-greek texts like Winnifrith that Albanian speakers formed an important part of the area's history. Wikipedia does have a policy regarding, neutrality and disruptive editing also and third party deliberation can also be done if Athenean does not have proper reasons regarding the edit's deletion in line with Wikipedia policy. What are your thoughts on the matter ?

Resnjari (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Athenean, i reverted the edit you made before, because i could not even locate your reason for it. Now you do give a reason which does not suffice: "(rv totally irrelevant addition, this article is not about Albanians)".

That is interesting since one can already locate a mention about Albanians in the article which already refutes your position: "According to the Ottoman "Millet" system, religion was a major marker of ethnicity, and thus all Orthodox Christians (including Aromanians and Orthodox Albanians) were classified as "Greeks", while all Muslims (including Muslim Albanians) were considered "Turks"."

Two, in a peer reviewed book which has been described as pro-Greek, Winnifrith states explicitly on page 25: "Thus in a sense Northern Epirus is a slightly misleading term for the area under consideration. Greek history, religion and speech play an important part in southern Albania, but there are other minorities apart from the Albanians, and as we have shown and will show, Albanian speech and influence once reached as far as Arta and the Peloponnesse. We might for this reason, with Byron and Hobhouse, call the present Greek province of Epirus southern Albania."

I wonder why that is Athenean, considering that the article is about a geographical region within the sovereign borders of Albania, not Greece for one. The source also states that Albanians and their language have impacted this region that has also been referred to as Northern Epirus. Your POV pushing reason for reverting the edit 'Albanians are irrelevant' does not suffice and mind you the edit was agreed to by another Greek editor. Its from a peer reviewed source discussing Eprius and importantly by a Greek academic. I am going to wait for Alexikoua's input. If i don't hear anything about this soon, i am going to go to third party deliberation on the matter and then they can evaluate if the edit and its content are "irrelevant".

Resnjari (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I just don't see what a Venetian document from 1210 that says there were Albanians living in some place has anything to do with a 20th century irredentist concept, which is what Northern Epirus is. Really, I just don't. This discussion is surreal. Bottom line is, I won't let you turn this article into yet another unreadable wall of text, or a content fork of Cham Albanians. This habit of yours of copy-pasting the same material all across wikipedia ends here. Athenean (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Checking the entire section I admit that this goes into too much detail (providing primary source), especially in comparison with the rest of the medieval-era population movements. However, a brief mention can be added in this part of the existing version: "the region witnessed the invasions of several nations: Visigoths, Avars, Slavs, Serbs, Normans, Albanians and various Italian city-states and dynasties (14th century).". Alexikoua (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Guys, there is a huge problem with some of the things stated. First of all Athenean because Northern Epirus is a "political concept", why is there a section on the ancient era or the medieval one for that matter ? Since Northern Epirus as a political concept came into being after Albania's creation in the twentieth century, then the ancient and medaevil sections should be deleted, if we are to go along your methodology. I for one says it stays and make this important addition, filling the gap about Albanians and their presence. Winnfrith says that Albanians and the Albanian language are an important population and culture regarding the region defined as "Northern Epirus". The earliest mention of their presence should be noted, in an article that discusses the ancient presence of Greeks (why that and not the Albanian one), when even you yourself state that Northern Eprius is a political concept of the modern era. Otherwise this article, as already noted above has serious POV issues and is already POV pushing. Also Athenean, it is not some "content fork" about the Chams. Have a look at a modern day map, the coastal region of Northern Epirus contains coast and land that is directly opposite Corfu (hence inline with Giakoumis reference also), and yes part of it is inhabited by Chams in Albania and others by Labs alongside the Greeks. In information provided by Kallivretakis (see: http://helios-eie.ekt.gr/EIE/handle/10442/8696 Η ελληνική κοινότητα της Αλβανίας υπό το πρίσμα της ιστορικής γεωγραφίας και δημογραφίας ) he gives a list of settlements that are still Albanian speaking (Chams and Labs, Muslim Albanian and Orthodox Albanian speaking) in the area opposite Corfu. The region again i remind all is in Albania, not Greece. As i have cited above, Wikipedia policy (which i have cited above) says if peer reviewed information exists, it should be used if the neutrality of an article is especially an issue and not dismissed. As it stands now, the article has serious flaws and POV pushing. This article should take in all sides (though i have only provided Greek and Western sources !) that wrote about the subject and the article should not be a placard for some irredentist dreams of old. Wikipedia here Athenean is an encyclopedia, not a platform to advance nationalist Megali Idea causes by giving a one sided approach to issues. I am not "text dumping" as the content shows and since the article is about Northern Epirus as a political concept the stuff cited by Austin is especially most relevant of all regarding this article, and do consult the source. If flimsy reasons such as irrelevance (Athenean, it will be interesting what reasons you will give for Austin's stuff) are still given for much of the peer reviewed material from Greek and Western academics relating directly to the subject matter, there is third party deliberation as per the policy. I rather as i have said do this process in good faith and input from all and not resort to that.

Alexikoua, unlike the other peoples that you cite "Visigoths, Avars, Slavs, Serbs, Normans," their impact on the region has been minimal, and as i remind everyone again, Winnifrith whose book on Northern Epirus in English has been called pro-Greek states that the Albanian population is an important element to shaping Northern Epirus as a political concept and geographical region. Athenean all you keep saying is that Albanians or Albanian speakers are "irrelevant" to Northern Epirus when the peer reviewed academic literature contradicts you. Find me a credible academic peer reviewed source/s that states quite clearly that Albanians are "irrelevant" to the political and geographical concept of Northern Epirus and i will cease in pursuing these changes. Absent that, changes that i have proposed need to be given full consideration as they are from peer reviewed western and Greek academics who have written on the subject matter and have been overlooked from this article. Resnjari (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Especially in the case of Slavs, I can't agree that their influence was minimal. Winnifrith mentions all these people, in general he is starting from the Mycenaeans but he is clearly focused on the Greek element (from antiquity). Who called Winnifrith pro-Greek by the way?Alexikoua (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Miranda Vickers referred to Winnifrith's book as pro-Greek (see: http://www.da.mod.uk/Research-Publications/the-cham-issue-where-to-now-1029/category/66 page 12). You may say her word does not count regarding the matter, however if others uses source to infer that Miranda Vickers is "pro-Albanian", her label of a text being pro-Greek equally counts also as she does work in Western academic institutions and collaborates with Western academics like James Pettifer. "Especially in the case of Slavs, I can't agree that their influence was minimal." I agree, however apart from you also noticing a gap and the need for to be catered for (probably Athenean will object again because it about the Slavs and say its "irreverent") in the article, the Albanian presence/cultural and linguistic influence is a strong factor in the geographical and political concept of Northern Epirus. The edit regarding the early presence of Albanians should stand. In doing so the article fills a important gap and is not longer POV pushing (because the article has an ancient and medavil section about a political term of the twentieth century regarding a region that is in Albania, not Greece. "Winnifrith mentions all these people, in general he is starting from the Mycenaeans but he is clearly focused on the Greek element (from antiquity)." I don't mind that Winnifrith is pro-Greek. He is a good scholar and one should take into account (since he is pro-Greek) what he wrote on page 25: "Thus in a sense Northern Epirus is a slightly misleading term for the area under consideration. Greek history, religion and speech play an important part in southern Albania, but there are other minorities apart from the Albanians, and as we have shown and will show, Albanian speech and influence once reached as far as Arta and the Peloponnesse. We might for this reason, with Byron and Hobhouse, call the present Greek province of Epirus southern Albania." This article needs adjustments. You just pointed out a gap that the Slavs are not catered for. My point is will Athenean then object to every proposed edit and actual ones thereafter that is made? Alexikoua, this article should not be POV pushing and should be based upon credible peer review material. And within that material there are things that don't make the Greeks happy and there is material that definitely wont make the Albanians happy. Resnjari (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Taking into account that Vickers has been widely accused for beeing clearly pro-Albanian in various third part accounts [[1]][[2]][[3]], the accusation about Winnifrith can't be taken as serious (if Vickers is the only one that claims that). About the medieval precense of Albanians in the region I believe a mention is ok, without the need to describe it in detail (mention the primary source for example). Alexikoua (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A very brief mention about the Albanian presence in a region called "Northern Epirus" that is within current day Albania does not suffice. Albanians have impacted the region since at least from 1210 (as the Giakoumis source states) and still exist in the area in sizable numbers. Why then is there a section about the ancient Greek past of the region, when the term Northern Epirus clearly originates from 1912-1913? Is that not POV pushing. Is not the ancient section and medieval section "irrelevant" to use Athenan's expression ? I placed the whole sentence with both your additions and page number from Giakoumis (it is only two sentences ! So much for being "detailed" and its still an issue. Why ?). Also do check the revision page. Athenean says that it is irrelevant, without going into why. Even with peer reviewed sources and others contributing to making the sentence better, he finds that Albanians are "irrelevant". What kind of POV pushing rationale is that? I ask what is one to do (because somehow he might do this for any edits i make) in this situation, since you have engaged in such matters before? Or are you going to point out why the edit is needed there (due to neutrality reasons for one) or revert the deletion about the Albanian presence there by Athenean? As for Vickers, i am not saying that those academics or sources accusing her of being pro-Albanian is wrong, but she is an Western academic and she can also make the same accusations or point out something like she has regarding Winnifrith's book. (One) academic/s accusations does not take precedence over the others, they are all equal and we should be mindful or the insight they bring. Moreover, i am in favour of using Winnifrith (because he is pro-Greek), especially since he has written about the subject. I am yet to find a source that says he is pro-Albanian. If you know of one, please do share. Resnjari (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"In 1210 the earliest mention of Albanians in the region is recorded, nevertheless, significant Albanian movements not mentioned prior to 1337." It's almost the initial text but without the mention of the primary source. Virtually all the information of the initial proposal is added.Alexikoua (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that is fine. Make sure it does not get deleted though, as it is a peer reviewed source and relevant to the article. As for De Rapper, i just checked the book and it states the following:

p. 173: "Until the 1960s, Lunxhëri was mainly inhabited by Albanian-speaking Orthodox Christians called the Lunxhots. By then, and starting during and just after the Second World War, many of them had left their villages to settle in Gjirokastër and in the towns of central Albania, where living conditions and employment opportunities were considered better. They were replaced, from the end of the 1950s on, by Vlachs, forced by the regime to settle in agricultural cooperatives. Some Muslim families from Kurvelesh, in the mountainous area of Labëria, also came to Lunxhëri at the same time – in fact, many of them were employed as shepherds in the villages of Lunxhëri even before the Second World War. While Lunxhëri practiced (as did many other regions) a high level of (territorial) endogamy, marriage alliances started to occur between Christians Lunxhots and members of the Greek minority of the districts of Gjirokastër (Dropull, Pogon) and Sarandë. Such alliances were both encouraged by the regime and used by people to facilitate internal mobility and obtain a better status and life-chances."

p. 182.The issue of a couple of new villages created during communism illustrates this case. The village of Asim Zenel, named after a partisan from Kurvelesh who was killed in July 1943, was created as the centre of an agricultural cooperative in 1947 on the road leading from Lunxhëri to Dropull. The people who were settled in the new village were mainly shepherds from Kurvelesh, and were Muslims. The same thing happened for the village of Arshi Llongo, while other Muslims from Kurvelesh settled in the villages of lower Lunxhëri (Karjan, Shën Todër, Valare) and in Suhë. As a result, it is not exceptional to hear today from the Lunxhots, such as one of my informants, a retired engineer living in Tirana, that ‘in 1945 a Muslim buffer-zone was created between Dropull and Lunxhëri to stop the Hellenisation of Lunxhëri. Muslims were thought to be more determined against Greeks. At that time, the danger of Hellenisation was real in Lunxhëri’. In the village of Këllëz people also regret that ‘Lunxhëri has been surrounded by a Muslim buffer-zone by Enver Hoxha, who was himself a Muslim’."

Very important to be precise (and no POV pushing) as the sentence talks about Albanian "settlers". De Rapper does not even use the word "settlers" for these people. It a POV pushing word by the way. Find that word in source and i will accept. Also Lunxheri is inhabited by Orthodox people who speak Albanian and those Muslim villages where established to be in between. Vlachs came later as Lunxhots migrated to other cities.Resnjari (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)