Talk:Albania–Greece relations/Archive 2

Initial Proposal
Sources:    (and more can be added if needed)

Notes: How does that sound, guys? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 23:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.

Comments:
 * 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 it might work to say, regarding the North Epirote term -- . --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 ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 07:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

Sources:    (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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; 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
Sources:    (and more can be added if needed)

Comments: , 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 [] "Greek co-ethnics who are Albanian citizens (Voreioepirotes) ", "Ethnic Greeks from Albania (Voreioepirotes)" [], "The Vorio-Epirotes (ethnic Greek Albanians) are members of a Greek minority group " [], " Vorioepirotes – Albanian citizens of Greek descent" []. 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)
 * 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; 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)
 * 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; 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)
 * 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
Sources:    (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 ✉️ &#124; 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
Sources:     (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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 .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 's proposal for the last sentence too., 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
Sources:     (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: 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.

, state your positions. Do we have a majority for a consensus at least? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; 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)
 * makes a point about urban centers outside the southern region. 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
Sources:     (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, 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 14:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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, 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)
 * , SR first agreed to this version 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  makes good points. Time to move on.Resnjari (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For future reference this isn't an agreement [], 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)
 * actually the comment by SR for the final version says "Its Great" . 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * what is it with you and personal attacks? Do you have a problem with because you have used that description of  "aggressive" many a time toward the editor.Resnjari (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 . 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
--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 13:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE MERGER, as you favored the previous version 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 17:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Categorical procedural oppose I will not entertain this disruptive goalpost moving. 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 ✉️ &#124; 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)
 * well, looking at the page currently and imagining our section we agreed to added to it, I also see this :
 * 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.
 * Ditto above about issues they face with discrimination etc etc -- Greek issues are mentioned, what Albanians experience is not.
 * 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)
 * 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 ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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) 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 ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 23:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , 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 . 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)


 * 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 [] 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 ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 23:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * pinging . 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 ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


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

Final citations
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)
 * 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, 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 ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 22:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder for the removal of this analysis [] 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)


 * 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


 * 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).
 * 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 ✉️ &#124; 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. []. 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 ✉️ &#124; 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: [] 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; 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." 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 ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 14:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't ignore, 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 ✉️ &#124; 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)
 * , 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: . 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; 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)
 * Will you revert again? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ktrimi991, please don't ask such questions. considers this taunting, and I think I agree. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 16:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

, 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..
 * About the problem with the Primary sources, this can easily be resolved. Have a good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 22:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here with . 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 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  "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)
 * 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 ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 10:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here with . 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 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  "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: and then here  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 ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 13:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Final Proposal (Updated)
'''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)" ) 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.'''

and I would like to hear everyone's opinions on these adjustments. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; 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, this and this , 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:, , . 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)
 * "usual culprits"? I see your back to form. A reminder, an admin reverted your addition to the page recently 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 . 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  . Can you translate the sign in the last link for us? Khirurg (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Search again 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 . 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 and  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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; 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 ✉️ &#124; 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)


 * "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 ✉️ &#124; 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: 

'''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)" ) 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 ✉️ &#124; 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)
 * 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 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". 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,  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 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 . Its a reasonable compromise. ok, i'm on board with your proposal.Resnjari (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 ✉️ &#124; 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:

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 ✉️ &#124; 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)
 * 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: : "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?
 * thank you!!! --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 16:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)