Talk:Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars

Recent tweaks and other things
1) I have combined several paragraphs, per Manual of Style/Layout - ''The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points instead.

I made my edit per the usual rule of thumb quoted above.

The names of the places were crimes and massaceres took place are added in the sentences. I am only not sure about Anamorava and Karadak part. Please help if you can, with good faith.

2) Works by Cohen should have no place in the article. He is not a respected academic/historian/scientist (Cohen is a medical doctor), his background is political and his works generated a great amount of criticism.

3) The miseinterpation of Tucović's work is still a problem. We have discussed about it before, but for one reason or another, nothing happened. Our recent sources are repeating after Tucović, like many other. We are talking about the quote Tucović also wrote that the Serb soldiers burned hundreds of Albanian women and children alive. It is not per his original statement in Serbian, which can be found in this very article.

4) Serb ---> Serbian It is not the same. For example, Serb army means that there is an army of Serbs (the whole nation), while Serbian army refers to the Serbian state and its territory. I did some other minor NPOV tweaks. cheers  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  09:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Not factual
False narrative promoting pro-albanian agenda. 2600:1702:3710:AAF0:243A:DBFF:FE53:F764 (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Estimate from Kosta Novakovic
The 120,000 estimate reported by Kosta Novakovic keeps getting removed from the infobox. I apologize if this was discussed before in greater detail, but I don't see why his report is disregarded. As far as I'm aware, the estimate he provides is based on what he had witnessed while being present in the Balkan Wars as a Serbian soldier. Wouldn't this make his accounts a primary source? I am aware of his bias against the Serbian government, but I don't think that would cause him to falsify all of his testimonies. Yung Doohickey (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * His report would indeed be considered a primary source. Using his writings as a source could be used only to denote his own estimate and not to make an objective statement. That is because, unlike Freundlichs reports, it isn‘t taken into consideration in any later scholarly analyses (as far as I‘m aware). Another important fact is that it was published not only by a critic of the Serbian government, but by an Albanian resistance newspaper based in Geneva called „Liria Kombetare“ in 1931 (source for this: The Truth On Kosova, 1993, pp. 168-170). This is different from people like Freundlich, who collected reports from multiple sources, which makes his work more balanced, thorough and overall more valuable for this article.
 * This however shouldn’t impede the usage of his number in the info box. Perhaps it could be written as follows: „120,000 Albanians in total killed (according to Kosta Novaković)“.
 * But I do agree with ElderZamzam that we should first establish a consensus on how the numbers are to be used in the article, especially since the claim is such a large jump from 25,000 in the Kosova Vilayet alone to 120,000 in the rest of occupied Albania. Agrotqr (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree. But I now think we should keep it out of the infobox because it can be misleading, though I also think that only having a figure of only 25,000 is a little misleading since it only refers to the Kosovo Vilayet. Ultimately, I think it'd work best if we can find a lower bound (perhaps 40 or 50 thousand) and and have of figure of 40,000-120,000, for example. Alternatively, if we can find estimates for the other Vilayets, we could just list them. Yung Doohickey (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to find such documents.
 * Using the combined number of 100,000 by Ophélie Bilheur would for example be misleading. Pierre Lotis figure of 70,000 applies mostly to information he had on the Bulgarian and Greek occupied territories (source for this: Turquie agonisante, 1913, pp. 204-208), meaning it includes the Vilayets of Janina, Salonica, Adrianople and parts of Manastir, but not the Vilayet of Scutari and most Albanian parts of Manastir (which were occupied by Serbia). So this would also include a significant number of non Albanians as well.
 * Perhaps adding in links within the article for the regions outside of the Kosova Vilayet could work, writing it as follows:
 * 25,000 total deaths (est.) in Kosovo Vilayet
 * thousands outside of Kosovo (see: Scutari, Manastir, Janina)
 * 23,000 deaths (est.) in Serbian and Montenegrin prisons
 * 120,000 total deaths (est. by Kosta Novaković)
 * For Novakovićs claim there is the possibility of adding a footnote that explains something along the lines of:
 * „Kosta Novaković was a Serbian socialist politician, Balkan War veteran and opponent of the Serbian monarchy, he made this estimate 4 years after his escape from Yugoslavia in 1927. “
 * ^This is information I took from the Serbo-Croatian article on Novaković and the 1993 book I referenced last time. Of course all the claims made about him within the footnote should be referenced accordingly.
 * Since there aren‘t any other numbers referenced in the article, I don‘t see how this would constitute WP:Cherrypicking. Agrotqr (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong presentation of Tsoutsoumpis
This additon [] adds text that's not supported by the citation. Tsoutsoumpis states that there were executions of irregular troops, kiiling of war prisoners but nothing against civilians. It's POV to interpret this as "massacres" since the source doesn't mention such a term. Also why the memoirs of a soldier are presented as historical facts? Alexikoua (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I fixed it, I apologize for not making the paragraph clear enough. Though, the infantry officer's memoir would be considered a primary source, to my knowledge, but the information should have been presented as coming from an infantry officer to avoid confusion. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, based on the those descriptions there is no justification to include Greece in the list of massacre perpertators. Alexikoua (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ,, I would have thought so, but isn't the "The villagers were being mowed down like sparrows" counting as atrocities against civilian population? I had Greece removed from the perpetrators list but then my eyes caught this sentence and self-reverted. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, also the rest of the Vilayet of Janina section justifies keeping Greece in the list of perpetrators. Yung Doohickey (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, Yung. Even if the source doesn't *specifically* mention the word "massacre", what happened in the Vilayet, such as the destruction of the villages and even towns like Tepelenë, Frashër and Leskovik, it is easy to conclude that they constituted massacres. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 02:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @SR: You need to read carefully the source: the comment "The villagers were being mowed down like sparrows" is claimed by an anonymous soldier (inside brackets) and the source (Tsoutsoumpis) does not agree with that claim. As such massacres perpetrated by Greece against Albanians fall still in OR territory. You need to be careful in the use of wp:PRIMARY accounts, even Tsoutsoumpis treats the specific claim as an anonymous & isolated primary account. Alexikoua (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted. However, this insight you have offered to us in the talk page will have to be reflected on the article as well. The article cannot state something from a primary source by an anonymous soldier (infantry officer more precise) as being a fact from the moment the WP:RS doesn't agree with/has verified; the sentence where Tsoutsoumpis doesn't agree with the anonymous soldier's claim, should be quoted. Also, because this soldier's claim is exceptional, we cannot rely solely on it. A claim by an anonymous soldier for such serious accusations will require strong and substantial sourcing. Please see: WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Therefore, the solutions I can see to this problem here are two: either 1) more sources are to be provided to support the anonymous soldier's claims, or 2) the following sentence in the article: "According to an infantry officer," will have to be reworded with all the necessary clarifications, -including the addition of a footnote if deemed necessary- to ensure that these unverified claims by that soldier are not given bigger credibility than what Wikipedia's guidelines permit. In the event the first solution is applied, then Greece should remain listed as a perpetrator. In the event the second option is the only viable option, then Greece should be removed from the list of perpetrators and an invisible text be added on infobox warning editors in Edit Mode against misuse of such information in the future.


 * Also, I may be asking too much, but can you enlighten me if Liakos & Doumanis 2023's source mentions massacres against people? The provided quote states: "The Greek army occupied the region in December, and a provisional government was established in February 1914. Its ‘army’ was composed mainly of deserters and bandits, who were pitted against Albanian militias, thereby subjecting the territory to a vicious cycle of arson, hostage-taking and looting. Towns like Tepelenë/Tepeleni, Frashër/Frasari and Lefkovik/Leskovik, and many villages were burned to their foundations." but it doesn't mention killing large number of people (massacres). It only mentions hostage-taking and leaving people homeless, which is different to actually massacring the people. Any insights will be appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 08:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * SR: the specific quote is about 1914: it's not Balkan Wars period and therefore its irrelevant to the subject of this article. Off course it can't warrant this kind of infobox addition: neither (necessary) falls into 'massacre' but it certainly doesn't bleong to the 'Balkan Wars' since it happened a few months after the BW peace treaties.Alexikoua (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I took the bold move and cleaned the article of any irrelevant information that falls outside its scope and I have added an invisible text warning editors of misuse of this kind of Primary information in WP:BADFAITH:. I hope this settles things. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 09:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Source about Razing misrepresented as a Massacre
''Note: Section split to this subsection in a bid to easier concentrate on the concerning issues. It continues from the final comments on the talk page section above, titled: "Wrong presentation of Tsoutsoumpis"''

Seeing at how primary sources appeared to be misused in the article to include countries as perpetrators to Balkan War massacres that otherwise wouldn't be, I have decided to give a look at the other sections. It came to my notice that the section Peshtan, cites again a primary source by a Priest wrongly named "Tomorri" (correct is Tomori), who made WP:Extraordinary Claims, however, I haven't noticed any necessary third party WP:Reliable Sources being provided that could help verify them. The claims being serious, will definitely require some substantial reliable sourcing. If anyone knows of any WP:RS that can be used to verify them, this will be appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 09:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think that we should focus on the essence of what sources are describing, not the use of specific words which are merely descriptions which are used in the title. If a source describes the razing of an entire settlement and killings of civilians by any army, then it falls under the scope of such an article. It's pedantic to argue that mass killings don't fall under its scope because the word "massacre" isn't mentioned. I agree that sources should be checked more carefully.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Razing of settlements is different to massacring people, I am afraid. This article here is about massacres (people killed), not razing of towns (infrastructure destroyed). The source does not mention any massacres either directly by using the definition "massacres", nor does indirectly by describing any mass killings that can fall under the definition of a "massacre". Therefore it has been removed from the article. Unless someone can provide me information that can support the definition of massacres, then it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, per WP:RELEVANT. Such serious claims, will require that they are explicitly supported by the reliable sources as to leave little room for misconceptions. I will appreciate any insight here, in the case I have missed something, and if the source does indeed mention massacres in the aforementioned towns, then providing a full quote will be very useful for the necessary verification. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone would ever support the removal of such information based on reasoning which argues that when an army razes a city this only involves infrastructure. You can file a discussion at RfC about its removal. There are many sources which describe the brutality of these events and I'll add more if more are asked. I've added some information about the massacre of 75 Chams near Paramythia based on Dorlhiac (2023): This involves just a single event. The list would be too long if we documented every event.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all: a RFC's purpose is for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. Here, on the other hand, you are suggesting a RfC but haven't elaborated on how the razing equals mass killings. Mass killings is a serious claim, which requires that it is verified in the source before being used into the article. The WP:OR policy is quite clear: On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. So I will simply ask again: Provide full quote directly supporting anything about kills or massacres and I will happily consider this to be WP:VERIFIED and, thus, consent to its restoration - but with the appropriate full quotes so that it is not challenged again in the future. Simple as that. Note that WP:OR and WP:VERIFICABILITY are the 2 of Wikipedia's 3 Core Content Policies (CCP) and abiding by these rules is very important, especially on a sensitive and important article such as this one about massacres.


 * Secondly, about the information you have stated that you are having about other massacres that may have occurred elsewhere, they are unrelated to the present discussion's topic I am afraid, since this topic isn't about possible future content added by you or others, but about existing content that is already present on the article and which is lacking the necessary verification required for such serious claims. As long as there are sources that directly support your new information about killings and massacres, you are more than welcome to add them, and all I ask from you is the courtesy to accompany their citations with their respective full quotes for verification purposes; the same I expect from all editors. (Also, when you finally add that information you mentioned, take care to remove the invisible text warning editors: which I trust is unnecessary as long as editors are citing WP:RS carefully, and I am confident that, you, as an editor, too are careful with the sources). Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 05:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Maleschreiber, it just came to my notice that you have restored the content about the razing of settlements such as Tepeleni back to the article "Massacres of Albanians" citing a source which does not mention any massacres, only that razing of settlements. Please pay attention that this article's title is only about events describing people's deaths, not about other effects of the war such as destructions of homes and settlements. If the author of the source has taken the effort and time to mention about the razing of the settlements, but falls short of reporting about the population, then it isn't in our role as editors to imply/suggest what the source's author doesn't. If the author of the source doesn't mention anything about deaths, then this information doesn't belong here. For example, Igoumenitsa too, like Tepeleni, was razed to the ground, but this doesn't amount massacring the people and certainly it doesn't fit into an article about massacres. To conclude that the population of Igoumenitsa was massacred just because the city was razed, falls under WP:OR and is exactly what you are doing here with Tepeleni.
 * I have added a citation needed tag and I expect from you to provide the necessary quotations supporting your claims that the razing of the settlements was accompanied by the massacre of its population as well. . --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 08:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Due to this article covering a sensitive topic, and the discussion has characteristics of Status quo stonewalling by editors who kept restoring the unverified content, I have sought feedback from admins who have dealth with issues in similar articles in the Massacres/Genocides topic area. Any feedback, although not required, is welcome. In the meantime I am still waiting for the editors defending the problematic additions to provide sources verifying that the burning down of settlements amounted to massacring, thus, warranting inclusion to this article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't use the wrong tag. Cn is reserved for cases where no source is provided. This is not such a case - a source has been provided with a full quote: Your objection is that the fact - as discussed by Greek historians themselves - that the Greek army burned many towns villages "to their foundations" and "subjected the territory to a vicious cycle of arson, hostage-taking and looting" shouldn't be mentioned in the article because the term massacre or the term mass killing isn't mentioned. I think that it's obvious that it does fall under the WP:SCOPE of the article. You can file a discussion via WP:RFC and ask whether its inclusion is appropriate. If a majority of editors, agree with your opinion then it'll be removed. But I don't see how this will happen because it is unambiguously clear that when a state army razes to the ground many settlements, it is something which is closely linked to activity which includes state-sponsored violence against civilians on a mass scale.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Quoting/Replying to you: "You shouldn't use the wrong tag. Cn is reserved for cases where no source is provided." I disagree. As an editor yourself, you should have knew that A "citation needed" tag is a request for another editor to supply a source for the tagged fact: Your argued that the razing of settlement, is in fact a massacre, and thus, will WP:NEEDCITE. Simple as that. You havent 1) provided a source supporting your claim that the burning of settlement had also its population massacred. 2) You haven't addressed my concerns in the talk page and restored the unsupported information in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * Furthermore, you keep suggesting RfCs instead of discussing the matter thoroughly in the talk page first, however, Wikipedia's WP:RFC clearly states that: "Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC., something I haven't seen here. Not only the RfC, but even the other recommended dispute resolutions such as the WP:3O requires that "the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page." first. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 04:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. I added the sentences: which fully reflect the citation. There is no claim which is not mentioned in the citation. Thus, your objection is unrelated to cn tagging and will be removed. Your comment is related to WP:SCOPE and you can start RfC as we there is no middle ground to be explored in this case. You want to remove it and I consider it within the scope of the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The next time you remove the CN tag, you will be reported to the admins. You listed this event from the Liakos & Doumanis 2023 source (the burning of settlement) as a Massacre since you placed it on the article section "Massacres". However, the scope of the particular section are massacres and only massacres, hence the title "Massacres".
 * Therefore you are misrepresenting what the source Liakos & Doumanis 2023 which didn't state anything about massacres in its quotation. You argued that a non-massacre can be listed as a massacre citing "relation to WP:SCOPE" but this in fact is POV-pushing source falsification. You should have placed this Liakos & Doumanis 2023 information elsewhere on the article instead of under "Massacres" if indeed you think it is related to the scope of the article. Insisting in placing Liakos & Doumanis 2023, a source that does not talking about massacres, under the "Massacres" list, is extremely disruptive and blatant violation of NPOV, VER and OR. Please correct this mistake by either 1) Moving this Liakos & Doumanis 2023 information to a more fitting section for these kinds of non-massacre events, or 2) remove it entirely. It doesn't have the required citations to support its inclusion to the "Massacres" list. The removal of the CN tag you have attempted here, does not resolve the problem, is only making things worse and by acting like that, doesn't instill me faith that you are here to work collaboratively with other editors in seeking solutions to their NPOV concerns. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 05:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to request a move of the article’s name from “massacres” to “ethnic cleansing”. There is an array of RS bibliography that describe it as such, and it can be seen in the whole premise behind how Greek and Serbo-Montenegrin forces behaved towards Albanian civilian populations. If I go ahead with this request, then events such as what is being discussed here will definitely fall under the scope of the article without debate. Even in its current form, the actions of Serbo-Montenegrin forces in killing unarmed Albanian civilians were accompanied by burning, razing, looting, violence in general etc, and those are the actions described as having been committed by Greek forces. It is difficult to imagine that these weren’t accompanied by the killing of unarmed Albanians in Chameria, also. But I agree, more sources seem to be required to confirm that particular aspect.
 * Some RS sources claim it to be ethnic cleansing (some even call it genocide), and the nature of the actions taken clearly indicate that invading forces wished to eradicate the presence of Albanian populations within these regions. A very disturbing period in history, indeed. Botushali (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For the time being I have removed the citation tag. No further citation is needed beyond what is already present; the edit is supported by the existing citation. Rather, it seems that the issue this article has is that the name needs updating. Nonetheless, the content definitely fits the article’s scope as is. Botushali (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Botushali, your response didn't address the issue I am having here. Your intervention at best appears to be just to support Maleshreiber, without offering anything tangible to the resolution of the dispute. My concerns are very specific ones and I can't elaborate more than I have done already: placing Liakos & Doumanis 2023, a source that does not talk about massacres, under the "Massacres" list, violates WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:OR. The particular event's classification as a "Massacre" simply cannot stand. You keep removing my tags without addressing my concerns adequately. Therefore, I am adding the NPOV tag as this discussion is getting on POV borderline which shows that editors here are attempting an editorial Historical revisionism by categorizing non-massacres as massacres in Wikipedia even though 1) they lack the necessary citations and 2) is not in agreement with what the provided sources do say.

The editors are reminded that the NPOV tag cannot be removed until all NPOV concerns pointed to in the talk page have been adequately addressed. For as long as editors insisting on keeping non massacres listed under "Massacres" section, there is a clear violation of Wikipedia's WP:NEUTRALITY policy. If the editors would like to have the problem addressed quickly and easily, and have the POV tag be removed from the article, then a compromise is required here: Move Liakos & Doumanis 2023 elsewhere in the article, and that is, out of the "Massacres" list which is the core of the dispute here. Moving it elsewhere on the article, still falls under the scope of the article which is Maleshreiber's concern, so that wouldn't be an issue. Do the editors agree with moving this content out of the "Massacres" section? This is the only way for the NPOV criteria being met that can permit the removal of the NPOV tag. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 07:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thing is, SR, nobody is labelling it a massacre. I also don’t think NPOV is being violated here in the slightest, but I get your concern - having it under the subheading of massacres suggests it occurred as a massacre, even though it most definitely did involve massacres and there are sources to prove that. Then again, this is an easy fix.
 * The subheadings of the article should be separated according to regional division, i.e. ‘Vilayet of Janina’, ‘Albania’ ‘Kosovo’ and more. This will also present the information in a nicer way and will be a suitable format to fit with an ideal change of the article’s title to ethnic cleansing. I will proceed with the move request soon, but I can separate the subheadings as I have just mentioned when time permits in the following days should you agree. Simple solutions. Botushali (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your proposals for restructuring the article are not the present discussion's concern and are WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Heck, they can't even be a solution to my problem raised here, as usually these take quite some time.
 * Stay on topic please: I insist that the content is removed from "Massacres" section regardless of what long-term plans there may be in motion about the article. I don't know how you want to handle it, but it has to go from there. You are welcome to take your time in resolving it, but in meantime, none may remove the NPOV tag. The rules for removing a NPOV tag are very strict. If you need any help with section handling, let me know. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 07:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems you completely misunderstand what I am saying. That’s ok, I’ll explain it again.
 * Basically, the heading ‘Massacres’ should be replaced by a series of headings based on regions, i.e. ‘Albania’, ‘Kosovo’ etc. Then, the information can be placed under the corresponding heading. That way, the word ‘Massacres’ is omitted from the heading to better present the information as it includes more than just massacres. This is also why the article should appropriately renamed as ‘Ethnic Cleansing’.
 * I suggest you take a break before responding so insultingly next time. I am trying to take in your concerns and make new proposals that will benefit the article. False claims and remarks on what I am doing are not beneficial. Botushali (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that you made it more clear, I understand what your plan is and is finding me more agreeable with. But "False claims and remarks"? Not at all. I insist that the hasty removal of CN tags does not help build trust and confidence in that you have indeed understood the NPOV and VER concerns expressed in the talk page. First discuss it with the other editors, and once you have reassured that their concerns have been satisfied, ONLY then you may remove tags in courtesy without making other editors feel that you are trying to maintain a POV status quo. This is an important advice, considering that the Ethnic Cleansings/Genocides topic area isn't an ordinary area and you are a new editor in Wikipedia. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 08:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See, SR, snide remarks ruin whatever positive interaction we have. Just because you have been on Wikipedia for longer, it does not mean that you are entitled to more respect than I am, or that you are automatically more correct or knowledgeable than me. You misused tags - that’s it. Botushali (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @SilentResident, just taking a look at your most recent edit. You have now realised the main problem with the article that I have been bringing up in our discussion here. It wasn’t just a massacre, it was a whole genocidal process, hence why many authors actually use the word genocide to refer to the events that took place, and some authors use “systematic extermination” (aka Genocide).
 * As such, I assume that you can now see my point and agree that the article should be renamed “Albanian Genocide during the Balkan Wars”. Botushali (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Your WP:OR theories about organized genocidal campaigns have no place here. I am feeling you are wasting my time. I am initiating dispute resolution and seek third opinion on Liakos & Doumanis 2023's removal. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 13:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, do any RS say this was a massacre? Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no RS. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 16:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then we can't say it was,  per WP:ONUS and WP:V. Either present RS that back tp the claim, or drop it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you. But there is no sentence in the article which claims that an event which isn't a massacre is a massacre. SR wants to remove this section: because SR believes that the scope of the article doesn't include it, not because it's unsourced information. This is an objection which has to do with the scope of the article, not reliable sources and verification. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Silentresident's tag use doesn't refer to anything related to what it's about. SO what makes this "failed verification"???. Silentresident thinks that said content shouldn't be in the article. Many have objected her claim and like Maleschreiber suggested she can start an rfc. Edit-warring to add tags which don't have anything to do with the situation doesn't help.Alltan (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Administrator Nick Moyes was kind enough to instruct me on the use of that Failed Verification tag which both you are repeatedly removing from the article without providing any sources to verify your claims that the razing of settlements, constituted a massacre and warrant inclusion on an article titled "Massacres in the Balkan Wars". Discussion can be found here: You should not have removed the tag and waited for the verification concerns to be addressed first. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * He told you what I've been telling you: and this doesn't give any support to your claims. You couldn't show that the article describes something which the source doesn't. You claimed that there is a sentence in the article based on this source which describes massacres of civilians. There isn't such a sentence. You can't use the verification tag for something which isn't in the article. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You claimed that there is a sentence in the article based on this source which describes massacres of civilians. I am not sure how you came to such conclusions. Like I explained on the Noticeboard and this talk page: Adding non-massacre content (Liakos & Doumanis 2023) here on an article titled "Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars", suggests or implies that Liakos & Doumanis 2023's events constituted a massacre. The article title is only "Massacres of Albanians" and you should be adding only massacre events to it, not razing of towns for which no sources exist to verify the POV-pushing suggestion that they constituted a massacre. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't - this is your own conclusion. The scope of such articles involves a historical background and a summary of key military activities which involved targeting civilians in areas affected by mass killings. This is not a List of X massacres article. There is an admin's opinion about your tags here and I think that you can file a discussion at RfC if you continue the debate, but I can't act about something which doesn't exist in the article or deal with a conclusion which is itself a purely subjective reading of the situation.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand how this inclusion to the article, serves at helping about the subject of the massacres. Not the sentence preceding it, or the sentence succeeding it, connects the razing of Tepeleni and other settlements, to any Massacres in the broader region. Does it? Unless you have a source verifying this by connecting all these events together - razings, massacres, etc.
 * I insist that the only way this problem with the misrepresentation of source can be resolved, is by either 1) removing it entirely from the article, or 2) moving it to another but more relevant article, or 3) moving and renaming this article from "Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars" into "Ethnic Cleansing of Albanians", a rename that myself do support and is finding to be a more suitable and inclusive title than the "Massacres" title ever was. No matter if it is a "List of X Massacres of Albanians" or "Massacres of Albanians", both just arent as inclusive to support/host other types of crimes such as razing of settlements wich the sources didn't connect to any massacres in the region. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not source misrepresentation as you insist on calling it. An admin explained to you that it's not such a case. You can file a discussion at RfC about your opinion regarding inclusivity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that razing and burning down villages belongs in an article about massacres of a specific group of people. It's relevant information. If you really think the scope issue is that apparent, we can rename the article to "Atrocities against Albanians in the Balkan Wars" to encompass razing and ethnic cleansing. I honestly don't think that's necessary, as razing, looting, and deportations are clearly relevant to this article and were part of the same violent campaign. PS: I forgot to mention "ethnic cleansing" is already in the list of attack types and the lead, so such crimes are included. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That idea of yours, would really satisfy me. Atrocities against Albanians in the Balkan Wars will cast all my NPOV concerns aside and is finding me wholeheartedly supporting it because 1) it is far more inclusive about all the crimes committed against civilians in the war, without suggesting/labeling every crime, such as the razing of settlements, as being related to massacres elsewhere, or as being a massacre itself. Atrocities against Albanians in the Balkan Wars is also more neutrally-worded title than the proposals made so far by me and others, such as Ethnic Cleansing or Genocide of Albanians in the Balkan Wars. A plus is that the term "Atrocities" should be easy to get a !move consensus for.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 07:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that no other title is necessary, but if you and Botushali agree with a proposed title like Ethnic cleansing, it's worth having a discussion about it. Maybe you can prepare a draft and post it during the weekend.--Maleschreiber (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I originally had proposed Ethnic Cleansing of Albanians in the Balkan Wars assuming that, as a title is inclusive enough. However, I came to the realization that not all atrocities are befitting the description of an ethnic cleansing. To claim that every event/incident in the Balkan Wars was ethnic cleansing, is WP:OR and not supported by the sources. My proposal constituted WP:OR and I apologize for that. The title Atrocities of Albanians in the Balkan Wars, on the other hand, is a much more inclusive one, since it can include even these events that do not constitute ethnic cleansing but still are atrocious nevertheless. "Atrocities against Albanians in the Balkan Wars" encompass razing AND ethnic cleansing. The Liakos & Doumanis 2023 source which I seek to remove from the article but you are trying to keep, is one such example of atrocities that weren't classified by the author as an ethnic cleansing: the author mentions the razing of towns, but doesn't mentions them as an ethnic cleansing. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 08:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the title, as Yung explained, such events are under the article's scope. It is how most sources approach such subjects and you would find that it is so if you ever filed a discussion at RfC. You can first read an article like Armenian genocide which has FA status. It includes all events - even forced conversions to Islam and this is within the scope of the article. Hence you shouldn't expect that an argument which boils down to "anything which describes state-sponsored mass violence against specific populations but doesn't describe mass killings should be removed" will find any consensus. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out to Armenian Genocide. You missed the basic points through, which differentiate the Armenian Genocide from the Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars: The forced conversions of Armenians you mention as being part of the scope of the article, is because the sources themselves do say so: that they constituted part of the same genocidal policy which aimed at the destruction of the identity of these people, by the same authorities that are responsible for their eventual eradication from the Ottoman lands. You did right to point on the fact that the Armenian Genocide has gained a Featured Article (FA) status. But thing is, this is because that article is written very carefully and is well-sourced by high-quality reliable sources ensuring that nowhere the information relies solely on primary sources but on WP:RS, nor it has POV-pushing implications. FA criteria are very strict on such matters.
 * If the "Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars" was ever to get nominated for GA or FA, it will fail, I am afraid. Exactly because it consists of various independent events occurring at different parts of the Balkans, being listed together and with no clear connections to each other, except their nature: were atrocities. The article title currently fails to reflect on this fact, by using only a term that doesn't accurately describe all events listed in it, just some. There is also content that relies solely on WP:PRIMARY sources, lacking any WP:RELIABLESOURCES. These problems are bound to generate POV-Pushing problems which is finding me fundamentally opposing. Sensitive topics like this require exceptional care by the editors as to avoid these kinds of problems.
 * If these problems with the article title remain unaddressed, then yes, a RfC and not only, but more are in my goals: . Maleschreiber, do you agree with title "Atrocities against Albanians in the Balkan Wars? This more inclusive title should solve the problems and justify the inclusion of non-massacres to this article like how it was done so far. Not only that, but also will make the other sections such as the one titled "Genocide question" be much more relevant; a Genocide doesn't constitute only of massacres, but also of all other forms of violence and atrocities including the ethnic cleansing. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 07:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It came to my attention that there were proposals for moving this page to a new title such "Ethnic Cleansing of Albanians in the Balkan Wars" or "Genocide of Albanians in the Balkan Wars" discussed elsewhere in this talk page. However it is obvious that for some of these terms, a Page Move may not have any chances of success yet without the required substantial sourcing and a broader consensus. However, I am sure everybody here can see how the "Atrocities against Albanians in Balkan Wars" is a step up from "Massacres against Albanians in Balkan Wars" and a step closer to these other notions proposed here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 10:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I initially advocated for a change in the article’s title, but I have changed my mind following this addition which satisfies your concerns about the extremely unlikely possibility of entire settlements being razed to the ground not fitting within the scope of the article. You said that there were no sources explicitly stating that massacres occurred, but now there are. I no longer see the point in a move change.
 * Your argument that nothing ties these events together is flawed. They are all massacres and systematic cleansing policies perpetrated against ethnic Albanians in an effort to remove them from certain regions. All of them, including the Greek ones, now fall under the scope of the title, as it is sourced that massacres occurred. The only move I’d support from here on out is if the title is renamed to “Albanian Genocide during the Balkan Wars” or something along those lines. Greeks have continuously attempted to systematically wipe out an Albanian presence within the modern Greek state, and this is no different. There is definitely a decent amount of sources to argue for this name change as all those sources that say “systematic extermination” are basically referring to it as a genocide, but I do not think a move to another name is necessary. Botushali (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Finally somebody showed up with the source I had asked for!, thank you very much. With these new additions, I don't think there are any other NPOV problems with Liakos & Doumanis 2023. FierakuiVërtet's move to actually provide the sources I had repeatedly asked for, both on this talk page and on the NPOV Noticeboard, should be exemplified by the other editors to follow in similar disputes in the future.
 * Botushali, as long as FierakuiVërtet's source is not removed, both the current and/or suggested titles such as "Atrocities" and "Genocide", are WP:RELEVANT to this information. I agree about what you said about Greeks having continuously attempted to systematically wipe out an Albanian presence within the modern Greek state, and this is no different. but this doesn't mean you are editing a blogspot. This is an encyclopedia and from the moment we editors cease respecting the content guidelines, the Wikipedia Project's future will become bleak. It is already becoming bleak, but thankfully there are still lots of good editors and admins around who care about the project. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is still no excuse to add Greece as a perpetrator of Balkan Wars massacres in Albania. I suggest to everyone to avoid nationalist narratives and stick to the sources. For future reference the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus which was established after the Protocol of Florence (delineation of the Albanian border) of early 1914 is not a Balkan Wars-era event.Alexikoua (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The "slaughter" of Cham notables would constitute a massacre, therefore the kingdom of Greece should be added to the list of perpetrators. Yung Doohickey (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo Vilayet estimates incorrectly represented
The current estimates of 25,000 killed in the Kosovo Vilayet seem very misleading. Both of the sources citing the claim from Trotsky and Lazër Mjeda refer to the death toll as of early 1913. For example, quoting Devastation: Volume I: The European Rimlands 1912-1938, "bringing the total deaths in the region to around 25,000 by early 1913." Additionally, Report on the Serb Invasion of Kosova and Macedonia is written in 24 January 1913. Albania's Golgotha uses the same information from Lazër Mjeda, which is why the way the estimates are described is so similar. If we account for the rest of the first Balkan wars, the figures would probably be far higher. The way these estimates are represented should be changed to something along the lines of "around 20,000 and 25,000 were killed or died due to starvation or illness in the Kosovo Vilayet during the first few months of the First Balkan War" to correctly present the contemporary estimates. Yung Doohickey (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I have made the necessary changes. Due to most of the contemporary estimates being made in early 1913, or based on estimates made in early 1913, this also adds a lot more legitimacy to the estimates from Kosta Novakovic and Justin McCarthy. Yung Doohickey (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made some recent changes, however I will not make another category as the same issues are being discussed across multiple categories which is making this talk page cluttered. I have removed sources stemming from the site "Albanianhistory.com". This site does not meet WP:RS, however the site is probably being used as it discusses cited works from 1913 etc. If somebody has special access to the cited material, they can be re-added in line with WP:SOURCEACCESS. Additionally, I have removed content from (Bekaj, 2010). This specifically relates to claims made by Bekaj that the annexation of Kosovo was illegal and stems from this passage in the work The author does not state why it was illegal and appears to be an opinion, thus violating WP:NPOV.
 * In terms of death toll figures, an issue relates to the text Professor Justin McCarthy gave an estimate of 100,000 deaths in Albania during the Balkan Wars in an annotated map. The annotated map merely states this fact, with no supporting information or facts as to how the deaths occurred. However, this figure has been added to the text to imply that 100,000 were massacred. This violates WP:SYNTH and thus needs to be removed. The other reference for this figure by (Trix, 2017) also uses this annotated map without any supporting citation or discussion of it. Thus, this too needs to be removed.
 * In terms of the citations by Jing Ke, specially the death toll fugures of 120,000–270,000, two citations are used. However, both citations use the exact same text, one stemming from a dissertation while another stems from a published piece of work. The dissetation must be be removed as it violates WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Additionally like Bekaj (2010), this figure is stated by Ke without any supporting evidence or discussion. This figure borders on an opinion as there are no other scholarly works which state this figure, a figure which is 10x higher than most estimates on this page. ElderZamzam (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Albania's Golgotha (1913) considered RS?
The work is a wp:primary account: a compilation of news which the author gathered when traveling. It's far from wp:RS, also no wp:academic and no wp:secondary. I'm certain that scholarship on the subject exists.Alexikoua (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Considering it's referenced by scholars like Robert Elsie, it probably should be. Additionally, some of the sources in this article use it for information (i.e Kosovo, A Documentary History: From the Balkan Wars to World War II). However, we should be careful how we present the information since there is no way to definitively prove every event happened to the extent being described whether it be underexaggerated or overexaggerated. Yung Doohickey (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, Albania's Golgotha is considered WP:RS. It is not a primary document about the distant past which requires modern interpretation by secondary sources. It is under the scope which allows the use WP:PRIMARY accounts of such events. It is a widely cited document and played a major role in the final Report of the International Commission on the Balkan Wars. The fact that it's such a widely cited source means that every description in this book has been reproduced and cited by many secondary sources. Hence it wouldn't lead anywhere if some editors insisted on removing it as all statements have been reproduced in other sources.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Genocide?
I was wondering if these events could or should be referred to as a genocide. It may seem like a loaded term, since there is a research gap on civilian deaths, but multiple sources use words like "extermination" to describe the acts committed by perpetrators (i.e Albania's Golgotha, Novakovic, Devastation: Volume I: The European Rimlands 1912-1938, Dynamic of Destruction: Culture and Mass Killing in the First World War, etc.). Some sources give evidence for intent to destroy:

"At the beginning of the war we ourselves were told quite openly by a Serbian official: "We are going to wipe out the Albanians." .... The Serbs declared quite openly that the Moslem Albanians were to be exterminated because this was the only way of pacifying the country. .... The Serbs, as the article notes, are conducting a war of extermination against the Albanian nation which, if they could, they would eradicate completely. .... Drunk with victory, Serbian officers have proclaimed that the only way of pacifying Albania is to exterminate the Albanians. .... Near Kratovo, General Stefanovic had hundreds of Albanian prisoners lined up in two rows and mowed down with machine guns. The general then declared: This brood must be exterminated so that Austria will never find her beloved Albanians again."

- Leo Freundlich "The Frankfurter Zeitung stated that it had received plausible reports, confirmed by impartial European observers, that Serbs, Greeks, and Bulgarians had all committed massacres in Macedonia and Albania. The worst, it said, were the Serbs, who had declared that the Albanians 'must be eradicated'."

- Alex Kramer "Their plight would be highlighted in the Carnegie Endowment's Special Commission reports published in 1913. Here too the Christian-Muslim divide does not explain much. In one particular gruesome section, the Commission characterized Serb actions in Albanian populated areas as a systemic policy of murder and deportation aimed at instituting 'the entire transformation of the ethnic character of the regions inhabited exclusively by Albanians'. .... In the process, some 20,000 to 25,000 Albanians were massacred, notably in the towns of Ferizaj, Prizren, and Gjakova. The aim was to promote the Serbian claims by 'ethnic cleansing' and statistical manipulation before the inevitable Powers' conference that would finalize the new borders."

Additionally, Tucovic wrote "We have carried out the attempted premeditated murder of an entire nation." One source even refers to the events at Luma as a "localized genocide." The Institute for the Research of Genocide Canada refers to the Plav-Gusinje massacres as a genocide.

According to the US Department of Justice, "Genocide is defined in § 1091 and includes violent attacks with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group." We have intent to destroy ("the entire transformation of the ethnic character of regions inhabited exclusively by Albanians", "We are going to wipe out the Albanians", and "must be eradicated"), in part or in whole (depending on the mortality in present-day Albania this can be either), and an ethnic group (Albanians). Yung Doohickey (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * To call it a genocide (ie. rename the article) is not the decision for Wiki editors to make since that would constitute WP:OR.
 * However there are historians (mostly Albanian) such as Lush Culaj, Zekaria Cana, Jusuf Osmani etc. who do refer to it as such.
 * A separate subsection called “Genocide classification” could be created in order to contrast opposing academic views (Albanian, Serbian and International) in relation to the primary sources. Agrotqr (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of a new section that compares differing opinions from various scholars. I knew it'd be WP:OR to just classify it as such without citing any actual scholars, I was mainly questioning if it would be of any validity to consider it a genocide if we cite scholars and cite the various sources that give genocidal implications by the Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro. Though, due to the lack of scholarly consensus, it would be best if we just make a section that discusses the views of various scholars. Yung Doohickey (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This article should be moved to a title such as “Albanian Genocide during the Balkan Wars”, or at the very least, “Ethnic Cleansing of Albanians during the Balkan Wars”. Looking at the sources, however, genocide and the term “systemic extermination” (aka genocide) seem to be the more common scholarly designation that refers to the events. Botushali (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is something I was thinking about, since a ton of scholars, including Robert Elsie, refer to these atrocities as systematic extermination or rooted in a policy of extermination. I don't think it would be WP:OR to refer to it as genocide if scholars refer to it as "systematic extermination". As far as I can tell there are only a handful of scholars who oppose a genocide classification. There aren't that many sources that explicitly refer to the events as genocide though, so I'm not entirely sure. As of right now, I'd support renaming the article to "Genocide of Albanians during the Balkan Wars" as long as scholarly consensus of either genocide or systematic extermination exists. Yung Doohickey (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. There is no such claim even in the majority of Albanian bibliography. Ethnic cleansing might be more applicable but even in Albanian historiography the term "genocide" is usually reserved for the case of Cham Albanians in Greece (1944-45) and the Sandzak of Nish Albanians (1878-1881).--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of sources (modern and contemporary) that refer to the atrocities as systematic extermination or the result of policies (against Albanians or Muslims in general), which is a form of genocide. I'm unsure if any scholars reject calling the atrocities 'systematic' without downplaying or denying them. With Albanian historiography reserving "genocide" for the expulsion of Chams and the expulsion of Albanians from Nish instead of the 1912/1913 massacres may be true but doesn't make much sense considering that Albanians being killed en masse is documented by Albanian, Serbian, and impartial observers far more in the 1912/1913 massacres. Yung Doohickey (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, I would say that more sources are needed that refer to it specifically as a genocide rather than systematic extermination and the like. I agree that this case has more deaths than the Cham genocide, but nonetheless a fitting title for the article would be the ethnic cleansing of Albanians during the Balkan Wars at the very least. With the right amount of sources, genocide could also be employed, but the title of ethnic cleansing can definitely be used here.
 * Nonetheless, the lead and even a section of the article can still discuss the genocide designation if the move to ethnic cleansing occurs. I’m happy to request a move tomorrow and open it up for discussion. Botushali (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My only problem with changing the name of the article to use "ethnic cleansing" is that it's too vague and doesn't exactly give then necessary weight that people were killed, so I don't think it's necessary to change from 'massacres' to "ethnic cleansing". Ethnic cleansing encompasses genocide, deportation, ethnocide, etc. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thing is, “Massacres” fails to truly cover all aspects of what occurred - razing, looting, expulsion etc. That’s exactly what the last dispute was about - by changing it to ethnic cleansing, nothing can be argued (no matter how poor the last few arguments were) to be outside of the article’s scope. Like you, I also believe the term genocide to be most appropriate, but I think the community would ultimately settle with ethnic cleansing - this was a brutal campaign to eradicate the Albanian population from certain regions no matter the case. Botushali (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Massacres covers the scope of the article because as Doohickey explained it's obvious that we're going to mention all aspects of military activity which resulted in deaths of civilians. It's not reasonable for anyone to argue otherwise and if they filed a discussion at RfC they would see that this how most of the community approaches this subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

One of the first regions which were captured by the Greek army in the Vilayet of Janina was Chameria?
The specific claim is completely fictional and ignores the basic Balkan Wars timeline of operations: the Greek army initial advanced from the south and the west of Epirus. To be precise Tsamouria was one of the last regions to be completely controlled by the Greek army this happened after the fall of Himara, Korce and Ioannina .Alexikoua (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue could be resolved by removing the statement that it was one of the first regions. All additions by Alexikoua represent an extreme POV which is out of the scope of the article. Statements like (based on the POV of a particular type of historiography) or  represent an extreme POV which contradicts many other sources already used in the article. Such statements are both POV and out of the scope of the article which concerns Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars. The consensus in international bibliography is very negative towards "1914 Northern Epirus" narratives. This includes Greek historians as well  (Liakos & Doumanis). This is part of the article and it obviously contradicts the POV narrative which was added.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The selective removals by Maleschreiber are indeed extremely POV since they ignore the entire background & essential BW developments. Everything that occurred before Jan 1913 was summarily removed []; it's really weird to ignore entire months BW era events.

Tsoutsoumpis reads:. In fact it's essential to stay as all actions were tightly connected to the Balkan Wars developments and there is definitely no need for selective selective removals. Greek irregulars responded to previous action that occurred before and during BW and this should be stated. Also Winnifrith reads: Winnifrith is quite neutral and mainstream author and he is extensively used even by Maleschreber in the past (Winnifrith does not contradict other sources by the way, Psomas for example agrees with that statement, Gregoric also) on his description about the post October 1914 situation.

I would agree that October 1914 is post-BW period, but the same can be said for all events that occurred in 1914. I won't object to a full removal of every that happened in 1914.

Simply labelling mainstream authors like Winnifrith and Tsoutsoumpis as extremely POV and removing them is not productive. Alexikoua (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * May I ask what turns a propaganda paper titled: "Greek Barbarians in South Albania" [][] wp:RS to deserve even a full mention in the article? If some sources should be removed from this article that's definitely this one and not scholarship such as Winnifrith & Tsoutsoumpis. There is no excuse to pretend that this kind of partisan claims should stay per concensus. In fact there is no concensus. Alexikoua (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * and the rest are POV statements which contradict other sources and which refer to events which other POVs describe in entirely different ways. The statement is an example of cherrypicking. Other sources in the article itself contradict it and there are many sources which don't support such a narrative. The article is not going to include any political narrative which in itself is out of scope and highly debatable and the article is not going to discuss as  paramilitary formations which the sources themselves describe as  Tomorri has been removed as well.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are using extremely abstract arguments to remove mainstream academic scholarship. Not only that but you removed everything before January 1913 which is quite disruptive.


 * The name 'autonomist Northern Epirote forces' is used by academic scholarship (Winnifrith, Gregoric, Pitouli, Psomas, Tsoutsoumpis, Schmitt etc) and its neutral, on the other hand your claim about deserters and bandits is pov. Armed formations even by provisional governments had a name even if they came from a specific ethnic background.


 * Abstract claim that "the rest are POV statements which contradict other sources" is completely weird since those (supposedly POV) statements are sourced by several authors: Winnifrith, Psomas, Tsoutsoumpis among them.


 * Yet again you restore propaganda material. You don't really believe that papers titled "Greek Barbarians in South Albania" are wp:RS ok. That's the only one presented so far that contradicts Winnifrith and available scholarship.


 * The entire section should present the events on chronological order: if Muslim Albanian atrocities in the BW provoked Greek counteraction (Tsoutsoumpis, Pitouli etc) that should be indeed part of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Psomas (one of the removed reference), reads that: 'During this revolt atrocities and violence were reported by both sides'. On another part he states that the autonomists consisted of Greeks and Albanians. Guess, this needs to be back again to secure a balanced text. Obviously we should be careful with wp:CHERRY. Alexikoua (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Albanian genocide" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albanian_genocide&redirect=no Albanian genocide] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 06:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing Mile Bjelajac weirdly
Mile Bjelajac's article on the Balkan Wars and Austro-Hungarian propaganda argues against many of the statements made about atrocities against Albanians in other sources. Why is it then only cited where it cites the statement of a newspaper? Volim jagode (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)