Talk:Northern Epirus/Archive 5

Pejorative terminology obsession
I wonder why the pejorative terminology is important for this article. Especially when this terminology is not something distinct for the region, but general about Ottoman-era based terms. Moreover, this terminology is not even about the people that self-declare as Northepirotes. For example if we should add something about pejorative terms we can negatiote this one (by Gregoric, p. 33, which deals with N. Epirus and not with general Balkan terminology):

"According to the mainstream public opinion in Greece the Greek speaking people of Orthodox religion living in Southern Albania are called Northern Epirots (Vorioepirotes) (see Triandafyllidou and Veikou 2002: 191). According to the public opinion in Albania they are often referred to by Greeks or Greku or pejoratively Kaure (non-believers) or Kaur i derit (non-believer-pigs, i.e. Greek pigs)."

Nevertheless, it's completely undue to add something too special, although this can be added in the context of religious pluralism in Albanian in the correspodent articles. (about religion)Alexikoua (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Alexikoua, there is a big issue with what you say there. In the article it already states that "while all Muslims (including Muslim Albanians) were considered "Turks"". The reader is told that the term arises from the millet system, it does not give the additional information that the word Turk (and its derivatives) also acquired pejorative connotations from the middle and late nineteenth century onwards regarding Albanians (in a northern Epirus context and) as a whole. The word Turk has also been used in Northern Epirus too by Orthodox, Albanians, Greek and Vlachs even in current times and not as some word of endearment. Peer reviewed literature states the following (which contradicts you comment "Especially when this terminology is not something distinct for the region"):

For Greeks and their usage of the word Turk> Nitsiakos. On the border. 2010. p. 455. “Religion remains an important factor of differentiation and the distinction the Greeks make today between Christian and Muslim Albanians, considering the former “relatives”, while the latter “Turks”, is typical."

For Orthodox Albanians and their usage of the word Turk> Nitsiakos. On the border. 2010. p. 200-201. “Traces of this historical differentiation are still evident in South Albania today between Christian and Muslim Albanians. Very often on hears Christians call Muslim Albanians “Turks”; they, in their turn, often attribute pro-Greek sentiments to Orthodox Christian Albanians.”

For Vlachs and their usage of the word Turk> Nitsiakos. On the border. 2010. p. 345. “I ask him if his mother and grandparents from Drenovë are Vlachs, and he replies: “No, they are kaour”. “Kaour” or “giaour” is what the Muslims still call the Christians in Albania."; p.388; p. 397. “He speaks with great disdain about the Muslim Albanians whom he calls Turks; he separates them from the Christian Albanians, for whom he only has good thing to say.”

Karpat, Kemal H. (2001). The politicization of Islam: reconstructing identity, state, faith, and community in the late Ottoman state. Oxford University Press. p. 342. “After 1856, and especially after 1878, the terms Turk and Muslim became practically synonymous in the Balkans. An Albanian who did not know one word of Turkish thus was given the ethnic name of Turk and accepted it, no matter how much he might have preferred to distance himself from the ethnic Turks.”

Millas, Iraklis (2006). "Tourkokratia: History and the image of Turks in Greek literature." South European Society & Politics. 11. (1): 50. “The ‘timeless’ existence of the Other (and the interrelation of the Self with this Other) is secured by the name used to define him or her. Greeks often name as ‘Turks’ various states and groups—such as the Seljuks, the Ottomans, even the Albanians (Turkalvanoi)”.

Tzanelli, Rodanthi (2008). Nation-building and identity in Europe: The dialogics of reciprocity. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 62. “Consequently, at the beginning of the 1880s the Greek press openly incited anti-Albanian hatred, associating the Albanian irredentists with Turkish anti-Greek propaganda, and baptizing them Vlachs and ‘Turkalbanian brigands’ (Aión. 10 and 14 July 1880; Palingenesía, 3 April 1881).”

Batur-VanderLippe, Pinar (1999). "Centering on global racism and antiracism: from everyday life to global complexity." Sociological spectrum. 19. (4): 472. “In the centuries-old stereotype of the “Terrible Turk,” Turks were pictured as the backward and savage enemies of civilization and progress. Whether the Terrible Turk was conceptualized as White or Black, the essential Orientalist categories of “backward” and “savage” always accompanied “darkness,” qualities in stark contrast to the self-image of the colonizer as white, progressive, scientific, and superior (VanderLippe 1997).”

McCarthy, Kevin M. (1970). “The Derisive Use of Turk and Turkey”. American Speech. 45. (1/2): 157. "Among the nationalities that seem to have been disparaged throughout history, the Turks hold a prominent place. The name Turk or Turkey has long been associated with cruel, inhuman behavior and has often been used as a descriptive part of our speech in derogatory phrases."; p. 158. "As a noun in the English language Turk has meant, according to the OED, ‘a cruel, rigorous, or tyrannical man; any one behaving as a barbarian or savage; one who treats his wife hardly; a bad-tempered or unmanageable man.’"; p. 159. "Since it has such a tradition of derisive meanings, I was not surprised when I came across a recent application of turk, this time in the field of sports: turk is a nickname that professional football players have given to the bad news that they have been cut from the squad. Such an example points out the fact that, while many ethnic groups have served as the butt of jokes and the object of derision in particular periods of our history (for example, the Poles, Italians, Jews, and Irish), the Turks alone have generally been a constant target for derision and have unwillingly lent their name to many unfavorable situations."

This is important because, especially in Greek the word Arvanites was used for a Albanian speaking person and people and was a neutral word. Turk attained other connotations. As Baltsiotis point out:

Baltsiotis, Lambros (2011). The Muslim Chams of Northwestern Greece: The grounds for the expulsion of a “non-existent” minority community. European Journal of Turkish Studies. "Until the Interwar period Arvanitis (plural Arvanitēs) was the term used by Greek speakers to describe an Albanian speaker regardless of his/hers religious background. In official language of that time the term Alvanos was used instead. The term Arvanitis coined for an Albanian speaker independently of religion and citizenship survives until today in Epirus (see Lambros Baltsiotis and Léonidas Embirikos, “De la formation d’un ethnonyme. Le terme Arvanitis et son evolution dans l’État hellénique”, in G. Grivaud-S. Petmezas (eds.), Byzantina et Moderna, Alexandreia, Athens, 2006, pp. 417-448."

I have no issue about you wanting to include the word Kaur and its pejorative contexts in the article which is important. I was way ahead of you on that one too. I included that in more of the proposals. I am not sure If you have read them still after all these weeks, yet if you did you would have come across it. As for the word Turk additional meanings must be added to have neutrality and balance, otherwise on its own it is POV pushing and outright offensive and racist. Especially this matter in the article, you must take that into consideration. Wikipedia policy regarding Offensive material Offensive material states: "However, offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." If i have an "obsession" as you say (again please refrain from personal attacks) regarding my insistence on the matter, its so there is no discrimination. I am against racism. Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you ever though that not a single reference (from the 6-7) you mention above doesn't mention "Northern Epirus"? In all the quotes Northern Epirus is absent. This is a very strong argument not to add what you are obsessed to in an article like this. To sum up: the best ever peer reviewed work, in case it doesn't deal with the subject, it can't be part of the correspondent article & that's the case here.Alexikoua (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua, in the article it states that Albanian Muslims due to the Millet system where known as "Turks". In the nineteenth century the word Turk as a whole, not just for Albanian Muslims in Southern Albania or Northern Epirus but those as a Balkan whole, the word Turk acquired a additional meaning to the millet one, a pejorative meaning from the mid and definitely from the late nineteenth century onward. It is not undue especially since Nitsiakos notes its current day usage amongst Greeks, Vlachs and especially Orthodox Albanians regarding its use toward Muslim Albanians in the area. Nitsiakos also notes the use of the word Kaur in current times by Muslim Albanians toward any Christian in Southern Albania. Because in a "Northern Epirus" context he does not state it is used pejoratively, now i am specifically going to not write in the article that because it is not stated. I know very well its pejorative and as such i am going to use other peer reviewed material which covers the word in a more generalised context to cite that fact. The reader must be made aware of that. Wikipedia does not promote racism. The peer reviewed material states when in reference to the word Turk acquiring pejorative meanings for Muslims Albanians in the nineteenth century, refers to all Muslim Albanians living the Ottoman Empire of which Southern Albania (or Northern Eprius) was a part. Maybe the sentence needs to be rewritten, however the additional meaning must be given as Wikipedia does not promote racism. It is nothing about undue weight or POV. On this point don't be difficult. I have more than enough peer reviewed sources that a third party deliberation can have a look at and will argue my case very strongly if i make a complaint. I rather not do that. Please take into consideration these matters. An additional sentence of some kind must be added alongside the word "Turk" regarding Albanian Muslims. Otherwise its POV pushing already.Resnjari (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see the reason why you insist about the pejoratives of the one side and how this evolved through time. Seeing that this isn't clearly connected with Northern Epirus (N.E. isn't even mention at any source you provided) a very brief mention of such a terminology is more than enough, without overemphasizing in favor to the Albanian side:

Various pejoratives are in use today for the population groups in Northern Epirus, some of them are based on the Ottoman system of classification (Turks, Turkalbanians for Albanians, Kaur, Kaur i derit/non-beliver pigs, for Greeks) (Gregoric).Alexikoua (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Slight variation:  "Various pejoratives are in use today for the population groups in Northern Epirus, some of them are based on the Ottoman system of classification (Turk, Turk-albanians for Muslim Albanians, Kaur/infidel, Kaur i derit/non-beliver pigs, for Greeks) (Gregoric+Nitsiakos)Resnjari (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's fine. I'm still confused which is the best section for this (Ottoman era or N.E. issue at present?).Alexikoua (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

In Albanian,kaur doesn't mean "non-believer",but "Christian".Also,in Albanian it's not pejorative.The pejorative use was by Turks. Rolandi+ (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Rolandi, Kaur is a pejorative word, Christians in Albania do get offended when its used. We have an indigenous non-offensive word for Christian: "Krishter/ë". Kaur is borrowed from the Turkish Gavur, which in turn was borrowed from the Arabic "Kaffir", which means non believer or infidel.Resnjari (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I really don't see what all this has to do with the article. This article is about a fairly narrow and specific topic.  It's not Greeks and Albanians in the Ottoman Empire in general. Let's keep it that way. Athenean (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Before dealing with the above issues, which appear to have been 'nearly' settled by now, a next step will be to check if they recicle similar piece of info each other. The additions appear to be too speciliazed, thus some triming job might be necessary to stay on topic.Alexikoua (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * True in a sense Athenean, though Nitisakos does repeatedly cite the use of the word Turk by Orthodox Albanians, Greeks and Vlachs toward Muslim Albanians in the southern Albania (or Northern Epirus). And likewise with the word Kaur by Muslim Albanians toward Orthodox people. The way the sentence is probably in the N.E. issue at present section.Resnjari (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Greek Naming
Shouldn't it be Βόρεια Ήπειρος ? Ήπειρος, although having the masculine ending, is feminine. The current listing has Βόρειος Ήπειρος, which is the male adjective (Βόρειος) with the feminine word (Ήπειρος). Doesn't make sense. If you go to the Greek Wikipedia article, it has the noun and adjective in gender accordance. Why is it not here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmilios (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I guess the Greek Wikipedia article has both. But why? Is the latter not grammatically incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmilios (talk • contribs) 03:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest additions
These additions seem a little strange. While I see nothing wrong with the first sentence, why is Greek official policy mentioned in the "Ottoman period" section in the rest of addition? Is this section about the Ottoman period or not? The last sentence is also not a complete sentence, and is unclear - "obscured" by whom?. If obscured by the Greek government, why is it even in the article? This article is about an area that was not under Greek rule, except very briefly. Athenean (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Official Greek policy toward to region of modern Southern Albania or Northern Epirus had emerged toward this area during the late Ottoman period pertaining to the population groups living there (See Baltsiotis who is cited in the articlle for more who states this very clearly after examining the Greek state archive). For the Greek state, the Albanian language of both the Orthodox and Muslim inhabitants was not considered a determining factor. It was also at times seen as a problem and as cited by Baltsiotis was obscured at the highest level and was official Greek policy. The inclusion of that is more than important considering that the Greek view considered all Orthodox people regardless of their linguistic or ethnic backgrounds as Greeks and all Muslims as Turks. It influenced Greek state views of the Northern Epirus question according to them. Though the region was not part of Greece per se, the Greek state tried to annex the region in 1912-1913, supported the Northern Epirus republic movement and made various attempts at annexing the region to it in the immediate aftermath of WW1, and also during the early years of the cold war (mid to late 1940s). So to iterate, Baltsiotis clearly states these views of the Greek state emerged from the mid 19th century and continued until 1946 influencing Greek perceptions which played a important and determining role regarding the future of the region. I do take your point about the "obscured" bit regarding whom. I will add "by Greece" as per Baltsiotis to make it clear.Resnjari (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It still seems very odd to me to discuss the policies of the Greek state in the "Ottoman Period". Perhaps it might be better to create a separate section where the policies of the various governments (Ottoman, Greek, Albanian) can be discussed?  That way the history section can be used to present historical events, and the "policies" section can be used to discuss government policies without resulting in weird historical juxtapositions such as what is going on now. Athenean (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The official Ottoman policy is already outlined. They thought people were either Greek or Turk. Citing the Greek government policy to this article is core and the way the sentence was written, fine. Otherwise we have to have repetition of two or three more sentences for time periods and views. That will create clutter. And knowing how you don't like clutter, having it in that form hits the nail on the head, as the saying goes. Me and Alexikoua worked very hard to get it to that. As for the Albanian view, a sentence on that possibly later, unless you got something (if so put it up on the talkpage). Otherwise for that i will need to look up proper sources and my attention for that in this article is not a pressing proposed edit. The reason why the Greek state polices are needed is because they emerged and formed during the late Ottoman era and deeply influenced Official Greek views of how they perceived peoples in the area until 1946. It was these views that were very much in sync for about one century during the most important events (and what its future would be i.e within Albania or Greece) that occurred in the region. So in sum when the Greek government lobbied for the region to become part of Greece, they did not cite the linguistic factor or that communities espoused ethnic or other identities. It was always the religious factor that was highlighted. Baltsiotis is wp:reliable and wp:secondary and importantly gone through the Greek state archives. The reader needs to get a grasp of the official Greek state view toward the region's peoples as it influenced it's actions greatly.Resnjari (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Greek state policy as cited by Baltsiotis covers a wide historical range: Ottoman, Balkan Wars, WWI, Interwar Period, WWI, post-WWII period. I don't think it would be a difficult task to move this part to "official positions/Greece". Being strict in historical terms this wasn't only "Ottoman period". About Ottoman classification policy, a brief mention to millet system appears fine. Alexikoua (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Baltsiotis clearly makes reference to the linguistic factor being obscured of the various peoples that lived there as being official Greek policy from the mid 19th century until 1946 (as is in the Baltsiotis article and the inline within the Wiki article). Moving it to the "official positions/Greece" bit of The Northern Epirote issue at present' section is problematic as that section pertains to a post communist 1980s environment and has nothing to do with the time period that Baltsiotis states. The sentences about Greek policy being after the millet system (which was the official Ottoman policy) is more than appropriate as those Greek polices of that era shaped the political direction that Greece took which influenced how it went about lobbying for the Northern Epirus issue internationally for the area to become part of Greece. Its post 1940s position is different to some extent from that era and cited in that the appropriate section. Otherwise if we are going to combine various polices, then the Official positions bit would need to be taken out from the The Northern Epirote issue at present section and made into a separate section of its own with the Ottoman millet policy bit going in there too, so its neutral. For me the way it is is fine as it gives a chronological overview as those past policies of the Greek state that are now redundant, but very influuential to the socio-political view and events that occurred at that point in time.Resnjari (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)