Talk:Northern Epirus/Archive 8

Trying to ram things through without consensus or needed additions
The latest edits by Resnjari are beyond the pale. There was no agreement to include anything of the sort. Images of mosques are entirely irrelevant to the article. This isn't Southern Albania, or Islam in Albania or any such article. Material not related to the article will be removed. This article is not going to turn into an ultra-dense, unreadable wall of text like Islam in Albania and Upper Reka. Athenean (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

One of the multiple obvious issues by this edits [] is the weird addition of images/text connected to Islam. A historical-geographical definition which isn't connected with Islam should be focused on the correspondent local aspects. Else we have clear wp:UNDUEAlexikoua (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, first lets clarify one thing. How is northern Epirus defined here? If it is defined as being just the Greek speaking area (Dropull, Vurg, Pogon and Himara) then yes nothing needed about Islam of the sort included. But if Northern Epirus is defined in this article as being a region stretching from the Korce zone all the way to the Gjirokaster area encompassing sizable areas that are inhabited by Muslims who identify as Albanians, why should Islam not be cited? Placing an image of the Mirahori mosque located in Korce (which this article claims is part of the northern Epirus region) is not "weird", especially as it was added in the Ottoman section. Considering that the region was almost 500 years under the Ottomans and half the region's population is Muslim, not having any thing about it is weird at best, POV at worst. As for Southern Albania its not a region per se, its just a generic term that Albanians use, even then its just mainly the word Albania that is used. Albanians define the south more so through its sub-regions like Lunxheri, Kurvelesh, Dangelli, Rreza, Kolonje, Bregdeti, Devoll, Opar, Gora etc and explain its history through them. Zoupan founded the article on his part, so ask him why. This article has been founded as one showing the history of southern Albania defined as Northern Epirus. It encompasses large areas that includes other peoples. It is only fair that some sentences also be devoted to them, their presence, culture, religious traditions and history. Moreover i can write up a whole article on southern Albania, which will just be a repetition for this region that will have mainly an Albanian overview and then someone will place a merge tag for that with this article and complaints from Greek editors that it omits the Greek part of the area's history. Makes no sense doing it that way. We were also close to reaching an agreement on almost adding in 2 important paragraphs for the modern day era. Please lets finish it off, so then a few other small bits are tidied up. This process has been 1 and half years now and is turning into farce. Doing it though the noticeboards is also not ideal either and is a route i have so far abstained from in the spirit of good faith as i still prefer this process. Best. Resnjari (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, Albanians detest the term "Northern Epirus", so I think it would look really odd to include stuff about "their presence, culture, religious traditions and history." It's ok to mention that there were Muslim Albanians living in the area (provided it is done succinctly - e.g. the sentence about fighting between Northern epirotes and Muslims was fine, and we could include a brief discussion of demographics), but anything more than that is off-topic. The Albanian culture can and should be discussed in the respective articles about sub regions (Lunxheri etc...), where the distinct culture of each sub-region can be discussed at length.  This article is about the Greek irredentist concept primarily.  The Mosque pics in particular look really odd.  It seems we were close to a deal in January. Not sure what exactly happened and how to go from here. Athenean (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes Albanians do dislike the term Northern Epirus due to its use (though they do not dislike Epirus or Epir/i in Albanian as it is used when referring to the area of antiquity and sometimes later). Nonetheless, the article in the lede states "Northern Epirus (Greek: Βόρειος Ήπειρος, Vorios Ipiros, Albanian: Epiri i Veriut) is a term used to refer to those parts of the historical region of Epirus, in the western Balkans, which today are part of Albania." The very first sentence purports to affirm that the term Northern Epirus is one that is used for the northern parts of the historic Epirus region in a generic way. Later it describes its other uses and controversies. This is English Wikipedia and the term has been used by some (not all and at times Greek) scholars to refer to the areas and in literature. It is on this basis that i have said many times now that this article needs to encompass a few other things that relate to the area. The presence of Muslim Albanians is important because it is with them that the region was disputed with, unless all the scholarship is wrong on this one ? Otherwise the reader is left as they are now perplexed as to how one, is the area part of Albania if it was overwhelmingly inhabited by Greeks and or Orthodox people of various linguistic backgrounds and two why the continuing issues ? As for individual micro-regions, yes i agree they should not be in here, and nor have i made edits in that regard, i was merely citing how Albanians view these things in my previous reply.


 * The edits i placed had to do with the Albanian national movement because that plays an important role in the events that followed. Kokolakos, p. 56. "Η διαδικασία αυτή του εξελληνισμού των ορθόδοξων περιοχών, λειτουργώντας αντίστροφα προς εκείνη του εξισλαμισμού, επιταχύνει την ταύτιση του αλβανικού στοιχείου με το μουσουλμανισμό, στοιχείο που θ' αποβεί αποφασιστικό στην εξέλιξη των εθνικιστικών συγκρούσεων του τέλους του 19ου αιώνα. [This process of Hellenization of Orthodox areas, operating in reverse to that of Islamization, accelerate the identification of the Albanian element in Islam, an element that will prove decisive in the evolution of nationalist conflicts of the 19th century.]"; p. 84. "Κύριος εχθρός του ελληνισμού από τη δεκαετία του 1880 και ύστερα ήταν η αλβανική ιδέα, που αργά μα σταθερά απομάκρυνε την πιθανότητα μιας σοβαρής ελληνοαλβανικής συνεργασίας και καθιστούσε αναπόφευκτο το μελλοντικό διαμελισμό της Ηπείρου. [The main enemy of Hellenism from the 1880s onward was the Albanian idea, slowly but firmly dismissed the possibility of serious Greek-Albanian cooperation and rendered inevitable the future dismemberment of Epirus.]"


 * A mention of the Albanian national movement in this article is unavoidable as one it competed with Hellenism and two it was largely responsible resulting in the partition of a Albanian or Northern Epirus and a Greek or southern Epirus. And the idea of being Albanian was also increasingly associated with Islam in the area. The state of the Albanian speaking Orthodox in relation to this national movement and their affiliations with the Hellenic world also need to be outlined as all these things played a role in determining the outcomes of the Northern Epirus movement and events thereafter. Their affiliations etc of the population were one that made one or the other side a majority depending on context. Otherwise a reader will once again be left wondering about multiple issues. I devoted a sentence each to these things and no more and you can check them (and please do in the history revision which address those gaps). Also i placed 3 sentences regarding the religious numbers of the inhabitants and the sources relating to this topic and are an important qualifier in understanding this issue. I understand that is article is about a irredendist concept as you say but its contents also refer back to the ancient area, that has nothing to do with the modern conflicts etc that occurred from around the 1870s onward. So in light of your comments on that i am a little perplexed myself as to what this article is exactly about too. If its about a irredentist term then it should only include stuff relating to when that stuff comes into play (late 1800s) and that calls into question the stuff about the ancient and medieval period being in this article and instead should be merged with the Epirus article. Or if it is an article about a generic term for an area encompassing places from Korca all the way to Gjirokaster, then it should include other material like that of the ancient era. In doing so however it needs to also encompass information about the area's other peoples so as to be balanced. I too thought we were close to getting something resolved in January then everyone went off their own way leaving me in a state of ???? Lets finish this off. We are close to it anyway. About pictures we can work it out later.Resnjari (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * A mention of the Albanian movement and Albanian national identity is already part of the current version. Islam is already mentioned. I still fail to understand your point to turn half of this article into Muslim Albanian focused topics. At least your selection of pictures makes this quite clear. By the way why should this article have pictures of Rustemi, Germanji and Kadare? Alexikoua (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "A mention of the Albanian movement and Albanian national identity is already part of the current version. Islam is already mentioned" ? Where? There are multiple sentences dealing with Orthodoxy (late Ottoman and contemporary), yet the religion of at least half the population of this area is barely mentioned apart from obscure words like Muslims. Where did these Muslims come from ? The article does not even have a sentence to address this. Prove me wrong. No where in the article does it mention the rise of the Albanian national movement and it being in competition with Hellenism -the main reason why historical Epirus became partitioned (as per Kokolakkis) and the reason regarding the Northern Epirus question, issue etc. Does this article cover all its peoples or is it just about Greeks though it purports to cover a whole region ? Athenean says that this article is about a irredentist concept only. So then why the stuff on the ancient and medaevil era? If this article claims that it is about a region that spans the Korca and Gjirokaster areas and as such it will need to include information about other things. There is also nothing about the historical demographics of this region (and Stoppel gives numbers and he is peer reviewed. Why should that not be in the article ?). My inclusion of Islam into this topic is not as you infer about "to turn half of this article into Muslim Albanian focused topics". I included information about Islam by following your lead in the same way that you have included information about Orthodoxy in other topics with the reason of having balance (i.e your edit and reason used for it at the Korca article: ). Or do i take it that "balance" is selective and subjective allowed only for some and not for others, even when wp:reliable and wp:secondary scholarship backs them up.


 * Islam has played an important role in shaping the ethnic, social and historical trajectories of this region. The region after all was for 500 years under the Ottomans and large numbers in the 17th and 18th century of Orthodox Albanian speaking people became Muslim. So the reason why there is an Albanian population today is because half its inhabitants where and are Albanian Muslims (as per Kokolakis and i can cite many more scholars). And as Stoppel states Muslims become the majority of the area in 1927. This constant stalling and even questioning of the existence of the Albanian element for over a year and half for additions to this topic is turning into farce. One could take a view that editors in here don't want to add information about the Albanian element because due to their own personal POV instead of looking at the peer reviewed material. Only a few needed sentences to address important shortcomings is fine with me. Even Athenean acknowledged that that needs to be addressed in a few sentences. While my selection of pictures was to bring balance on Albanian individuals. Again this article purports, does it not, to give the history of the region that spans Korca all the way to Gjirokaster areas? Clarify for me this aspect Alexikoua ? If it encompasses those areas then Albanians make up a large part of the population. Am i wrong here ? Have i read the scholarship (some Greek too) wrong on this ? Why are they not represented in this article more than a fleeting sentence or two in obscure language though there are whole paragraphs devoted to the ancient era ? What is the reason for having this omission/s ? Now there are two paragraphs on the contemporary era which were nearly ready to be finished off. Comment on them and i thereafter and whoever else may want too and that can go in soon. Then other matters can be discussed. Best.Resnjari (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that Muslim Albanians made a substantial part of the population of the area and came in conflict with the Greeks can and should be mentioned. The issue is keeping such mention strictly within the context of Northern Epirus, i.e. general stuff about Islam in Albania does not belong in this article, there is a separate article for that. This is why the images of the mosques were so utterly incongruous. Regarding demographics, the issue I see is "the area". What area area are we talking about here? The area does not have neat, clearly defined boundaries. It's not a former sanjak or anything like that. That's why it's best to leave it general and avoid specifics. Also why only Stoppel? Why 1927? Is it because it says Muslim Albanians were a majority? That smacks of WP:CHERRY. We should avoid that. Regarding the ancient and medieval stuff, I agree the article goes into way too much detail there, and those sections should be cut back. That's easy though. Lastly, it would greatly help if you could summarize what we had agreed on last. It's been too long and I am too busy in the RL to do so myself. Athenean (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Your comments are coming closely into line with mine. I cite Stoppel as an example, as Alexikoua has used the source (its how i came by the source in the first place, unless Stoppel has somehow done something dodgy with the numbers?) and its peer reviewed. One can use Kokolakkis too. One can even use the Greek government's numbers used at the Paris Peace conference which also gives very similar ratios of a almost even split between the two religious communities. Muslims form a large part of the area's population. Kokolakis states that these people were Albanian speaking also. These people form the population's main self identifying Albanian component today. Also Stoppel's numbers combined cite for the areas of Gjirokaster and Korca Ottoman sanjaks which where the same sanjaks that the Greek government laid claim to and defined as Northern Epirus. The article can say regarding demographics that it refers to the Korca and Gjirokaster sanjaks for it to be even more precise, no issue on my part there. Regarding 1927, Stoppel just states that Muslims became a majority at that point in time in the former Korca and Gjrokaster sanjaks. I don't see anything in peer reviewed scholarship to challenge that. As for the Islam in Albania article, yes it exists. There is also a Christianity in Albania article too and a article on Orthodoxy in Albania as well. This article has multiple sentences on Orthodoxy, while almost nothing on Islam. I am not suggesting many sentences or paragraphs. The edits that i made to this article that where reverted were sufficient and covered it. The only thing i had not included was a sentence on the conversions in here (obviously Giakoumis takes precedence as his study deals with this region). Please go see the edits i did again in the history revision section before they where reverted. As for having images of mosques was not incongruous. The Borsh mosque showed the destruction of Enver's campaign against religion of which involved Islam. The village Borsh is located south of the Himara area and part of the area. While the Mirahori mosque in Korca city relates to the Ottoman period, and it was during the Ottoman period that Islam came to the region and was taken up by much of the Albanian speaking people of the area. Otherwise why a picture of Moscopole church's interior for that section. One could make the same comment that it is incongruous or POV only showing one side of the regions religious hertiage. I added the image there for balance. Otherwise then, all images of religious buildings should not be in this article. That i can agree too. About the editing process, we were last at the Post 1992 -Orthodox Albanians section working on two paragraphs. I posted the last comments in here (before this process started again) in January towards finalizing the text and have been waiting for Alexikoua's input since January ! As for the ancient and medaevil stuff, i agree parts of it need to be cut and or condensed etc. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Resnjari: Definitely you are kidding me when you compare this article with Korce. N. Epirus isn't just a geographic definition and the most important its nearly non-existent in Albanian literature. The concept of Albanian nationalisn, Muslim Albanian antagonism is already part of this article and there is no need to recycle this further.


 * According to the so-called 'half Muslim presence' argument in N. Epirus I assume that 2/3 of 'Chameria' article should be turn into clearly Greek focused issues, per demography? That's obviously the epitomy of UNDUE. N. Epirus is closely related with Hellenisn as Chameria today with the Albanian idea. Thus, your initiative is POV. However you can create 'balanced' sections based on demography in articles about non-irredentist terms.18:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua: I am not kidding and i don't kid. That is childish. My point is this. I don't care about Albanian literature, Albanian nationalism or the rubbish that Enver concocted that today goes for Albanian identity. I thought i would just make this clear on my part. First of what is this article about? Recently Athenean has said to me that this article is about a irredentist concept and now you seem to infer this as well. Is this article about only a irredentist concept ? If so then having a ancient and medievil section is problematic (more on the POV side) and what is its purpose then to this article? If this article is about a geographic region however that spans the Korca and Gjirokaster areas, then yes it includes the ancient, medieval eras alongside the irredentist stuff and in the same token that it would need to include stuff about Albanians or Albanian speakers etc. But even in its irredentist scope, the Albanian element is there as two peoples had two differing ideas for the area and clashed over it. Its why there was a northern Epirus question. Or have i read the history wrong on this ? No clashes ??? Can you also please be so kind as to point out where exactly "The concept of Albanian nationalisn, Muslim Albanian antagonism is already part of this article and there is no need to recycle this further." is in the article? The article so far does not make reference as to why was there a Albanian national movement in the area and why was there antagonism to begin with? How is a reader supposed to know how things got to that state in the first place. Guesswork? Most people that come to these articles have no background knowledge. The article is supposed to inform not leave even more questions. Again i ask, does the article address this with even a sentence (show me where)? I know i did with my edits (that where reverted) based on peer reviewed scholarship (Kokolakis of course, etc).


 * Also your comment about "the so-called 'half Muslim presence' argument in N. Epirus" is very problematic. I can cite outright just the Greek government statistics prepared by the army staff (see also Kokolakis for that too, pp.279-280) for you first off. They give numbers that the Muslim presence recognised as Albanian was almost half (111,534 Muslim Albanians to 116, 888 Greeks) . Is the Greek government lying about the large Muslim Albanian presence ? Yes or No ? If you can prove that to be the case of them lying (and Stoppel and Kokolakis etc) then i will no longer pursue this part. But you have to prove this ? Also regarding the Chameria page there is three sub sections (Mycenean period, Iron Age to Roman period, < whats the purpose of these to that article if i used your line of thought here? and the Middle Ages) and around 3 paragraphs that have stuff relating to the ancient and medieval Greek history of the region. There is also a demographics section in that article. Alongside that there is a sentence which deals with the Albanian national movement and that the Orthodox Albanian speaking part identified with Greece. That's much more than one can say about the Albanian element within this article and their issues in regards to Northern Epirus. I only placed 3 sentences in this article regarding that which addressed a major gap in this article. As of now Albanians are an invisible presence and only appear when something happens to the Greeks etc. Interestingly not vice versa considering this is a irredentist concept according to editors (and with such things its never one way). Please reflect on these issues and to all editors read up (Koklakis is available online ). My initiative is not POV. That premise can be tested out in the noticeboards at a latter date if editors think that is the case with every edits i propose in here. My preference has always been do do things here in good faith and with peer reviewed scholarship, when many other editors would have went to the noticeboards ouright. There are two paragraphs that we were working on and i was awaiting a reply from you (since January) so they can be finished off. Or do i take they are ready to go (and i will place them in the article accordingly) ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears you stiil can't understand some basic facts about POV: 1. A Greek national identity is still present throughout N. Epirus, not only in Dropull and surroundings as policy of the P.R. of Albania (a view accepted from you too as you admit above) but also in Leskovik, Korce, Permet and surroundings: ca. all the area that this article concerns. 2. The article should be focused on Greek presence in the area (no wonder N.E. is about Greek irredentism). If there was a Greek presence since antiquity this should be part of the article. As Athenean pointed we can trimm this part but removing it is unacceptable. 3. If the article needs a couple of additions instead of flooding with irrelevant details about Muslim subgroups we can add some recent historical facts, for examble confiscation and demolition of Greek and Orthodox cultural monuments in Permet, Dhermi, show trials in Korce against representatives of the Omonoia, kidnappings of Omonoia members etc..


 * Similarly it will be childish for Chameria article to be focused on Greek related topics too based on Resnjaris rationale (but Chameria is just fine to Resnjari). This attempt is no more than an obsession to turn this article to UNDUE and POV flooding it dozens of kbs of irrelevant textAlexikoua (talk)


 * Now you are contradicting yourself. You say that a Greek identity is represented "in areas Leskovik, Korce, Permet and surroundings: ca" i suppose you are refering to the identity issues of the Orthodox community of numerous linguistic backgrounds, many non-Greek ? Yet you also allude to this article being about a irredentist concept. Well since the article covers more than just Dropull, the Albanian element should be cited too and it was with them that the region was contested. The Greek government did so in their official statistics presented to the peace conference first off. I don't see them viewing Albanians as irrelevant. Why are you? I will quote for you the Greek government number again: 111,534 Muslim Albanians to 116, 888 Greeks. Is this number irrelevant and was the Greek government lying in their numbers, if so (Please provide evidence that this is irrelevent or that the Greek government lied and i will no longer pursue this matter)? Kokolakis in his study of the region did so too of Albanians. You cannot have a article and place bits you like while omitting other important bits. Why cannot this article afford to have a few sentences explaining this, while sections exists on the ancient on an article about a irredentist concept ? Was there a irredentist concept of Northern Epirus in the ancient and medevil era for those sections to exist? Please clarify this point. As for "If there was a Greek presence since antiquity this should be part of the article." that's fine if this article is about a wider region, but no an irredentist concept. Otherwise that is POV. There already is a generic article on historic Epirus. You cannot say that having those sections because the article is about Greeks (more like POV if this article is about just irredentism) only while the article also claims that it is about a wider region at the same time. Why is the Albanian element omitted ? Not even the scholarship on matters related to Northern Epirus excludes mention of the Albanian element and the pivotal role they played that resulted in the situation that happened. The article claims to speak for a wider area. Chameria already has three sections devoted to the Greek part of the history in the area and anyone can check it. You brought up the example and i used your line of thought to compare. As for having a discussion in here, we can have it here or we can have it in the noticeboards with many more editors watching and partaking the process, i don't mind. Your choice how we do this. Now like i asked before and have been waiting since January for a reply from you so we can finish off the paragraphs on the contemporary era. Since you didn't reply, do i take it you agree with my suggestions and hence they are finished and ready to go ? If there is no reply on those soon, i take you agree and i will add them to the article, as per the policy BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Resnjari, "Albanians" appears 22 times in the article and "Albanian" appears 148 times. So it's hard to take seriously the accusation that the Albanian element is "omitted". The problem with your most of your additions is that they have no connection to Northern Epirus or are repetitive. For example, the pics of mosques are completely out of context and POV ("Here's a picture of some random mosque to prove the point that there were Muslims here!"). Most of the sources you cite do not even mention Northern Epirus. The material about Islam being repressed by the Hoxha regime is redundant as it is already mentioned in the article that the Hoxha regime oppressed everyone, not just Christians (in the lede in fact). On the other hand, when the additions you are proposing are relevant to the article, there is no opposition to them (e.g. about Muslim Albanians fighting the Northern Epirotes). For me, the critical point is everything added to the article must be directly relevant to Northern Epirus. If a source does not mention something in the context of NE, we should not add it. Athenean (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually the additions i have proposed do relate to the article. For example the edits relating to Kokolakis about the Albanian national movement and its partition of Epirus relate to this topic. While having an ancient and medaveil section on this topic about Northern Epirus, i irredentist concept (to use your descriptions) has what relevance to this topic. By the way, the picture of the mosque was not random, but one of the oldest and famous in region and located in Korca. It was the introduction of Islam and the conversion of a large part of the Albanian speaking population that resulted toward the late 19th century having two visions of what the region's future ought to be. So far no one has refuted that the Greek government citing of statistics is false. The Muslim Albanian element was there in large numbers. You cite the reference of Albania and Albanian and that its true but only in a post 1912 environment. However my edits where not about Albanian and Albanian, but of Albanians and issues relating to the pre-WW1 era and back (big commissions and absences). Big difference. Provide examples where in the article there is information about that in relation to topic more than a fleeting reference of two throughout the article. My additions where for the pre 1912 era were mention of the Albanian element is almost absent. Please don't remove the template until certain issues are resolved.Resnjari (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "in areas Leskovik, Korce, Permet and surroundings: ca" i suppose you are refering to the identity issues of the Orthodox community of numerous linguistic backgrounds, many non-Greek ? No I'm not reffering to non-Greek Orthodox communities, I'm reffering to the Greek speaking communities of these regions. As I check your recent additions it appears they are not only POV but they are on the border of DISRUPTION. Thus for an unexplained reason you added that the stalinist regime persecuted Muslims (by the way it's already mentioned that non-Greeks were also persecuted but you insist to add irrelevant detail). It's not the first time I kindly advice you to avoid flooding articles with irrelevant data: If the author of a work doesn't connect the events described in his work to "Northern Epirus" we should respect that too. For example Juergensmeyer and Lederer don't even mention N.E., how about you respect this fact?Alexikoua (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Greek state mentions Muslim Albanians in its official statistics presented at the peace conference regarding Northern Epirus. I take you would have no issue with that being cited in the article ? Islam is part of the region and and the sources used cite towns and cities in Albania's south. To use Koklakkis once again pp.51-52: Τα αλβανικά αποτελούσαν την κυρίαρχη ομιλούμενη γλώσσα προς τα βόρεια μιας γραμμής που άρχιζε από την περιοχή των Αγίων Σαράντα, περνούσε δίπλα από τις πόλεις Δέλβινο και Αργυρόκαστρο (ανάμεσα στα χωριά Κολορτσί και Δερβιτσάνη) και φτάνοντας στην Πολίτσανη, όπου και το βορειότερο άκρο της επαρχίας του Πωγωνιού, στρεφόταν προς τα νοτιοανατολικά και ακολουθούσε περίπου την πορεία των σημερινών ελληνοαλβανικών συνόρων. Τα εδάφη που βρίσκονται νότια απ' αυτή τη γραμμή, δηλαδή το μεγαλύτερο τμήμα της κοιλάδας της Δρόπολης, τα βορινά χωριά του Πωγωνιού, τα περισσότερα χωριά της Ρίζας του Δελβίνου (Δρόβιανη, Μάλτσανη, Δίβρη, Λεσινίτσα) 'και ο κάμπος του Βούρκου μεταξύ Δελβίνου και Αγίων Σαράντα ορίζουν μέχρι σήμερα την έκταση των ελληνικών μειονοτικών περιοχών στην Αλβανία. Going by peer reviewed material, yeah i am refering to the identity issues of the Orthodox because the Greek speaking community who had as their mother tongue as Greek corresponds to the area defined as Greek today in Albanian, then and now. I base myself on the scholarship. The whole book is available for anyone to read. Also i have been going through the sources used to write up the Mythological foundations and ancient settlements; Prehistory and Ancient period; Roman and Byzantine period and Ottoman period sections and apart from Winiifrith who uses the words Northern Epirus in the book title the rest do not mention it. So in light your advice of "If the author of a work doesn't connect the events described in his work to "Northern Epirus" we should respect that too.... don't even mention N.E., how about you respect this fact?" Or do i take its selective here ? Only when the Albanian element is the issue then all the arguments about "cherry", "disruption" and other things come into play ? Please clarify on this as you have been evasive on your answers thus far. I once again also kindly ask you in good faith about two paragraphs which have remained in hiatus. Are they good to go with the suggestions i made or do you have further suggestions. Otherwise if i don't get an answer soon (as i have been waiting for a response from you since January), i will add them in to the article as per [Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.Resnjari (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I was quite clear on my part: flooding the article with details about Islam is a non-constructive initiative. It's like flooding Chameria with non-Albanian information. It also appears that yor continue this nearly disruptive cherry picking obsession by taking specific parts from Kokkolakis & Winnithith. You forgot to mention that Kokkolakis also includes Himara in his definition (by the way Kokkolakis deals only with Ioannina Vilayet) and Winnifrith mentions clearly that Korce&surrounding have Greek speakers. Kallivretakis also mentions that there are Greeks in Permet and Korce region although their numbers are limited compared to Gjirokaster-Saranda-Delvino regions. Kallivretakis also mentions that Nivice has Greek communities, which by the way is found north of Kokkolakis line. To sum up that is N.E.in general and N.E. per definition is connected with Greek presence not Muslim Albanian.Alexikoua (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Islam is part of this region as is Orthodoxy and its legacy remains in the form of the Muslim Albanian population that serves as the basis of the self identifying Albanian element in the area today. This factor was acknowledged by the Greek state who was aware of the large Muslim Albanian population in the area in 1919 (111,534 Muslim Albanians to 116, 888 Greeks). Two Kokolakis' study (2003) is very detailed and has followed on from Winnifrith (in 1991 and who does not use footnotes). "Kallivretakis also mentions that there are Greeks in Permet and Korce region although their numbers are limited compared to Gjirokaster-Saranda-Delvino regions." Yes that is true. In Permet they are located in two villages traditionally known as Greek: Vllaho-Psillotere and Biovizhde. Greeks have also gone to live in Permet town from these villages and Pogon and a few of thier number have gone to live in neighbouring villages due to intermarriage with Orthodox Albanians etc. There are Greeks in Korca city too part of Enver's relocations and parts of the current Aromanian minority self identifying these days as Greek. "Kallivretakis also mentions that Nivice", yes true, however Kokollakkis study is on the Ottoman era and Nivice for the whole is inhabited by Orthodox Albanians, as per Kallivretakis. Kallivretakis also cites that in some settlements there has been population movement also. Anyway Winnifrith (1999), Kallivretakis (1995) and Kokolakis (2003) are all in sync. Regarding this subject i am very well read. You keep evading on many matters even after i ask certain questions. At least give me a direct reply to many of my queries above. This is the discussion. I ask you kindly again and in good faith regarding edits (2 paragraphs) about the contemporary era. Are they a go or are you going to comment on them futher (since i have been waiting for a response from you since January). Also about "It's like flooding Chameria with non-Albanian information." there are three sections about ancient and early medaveil Greek history in there. Do i take that that is "non-Albanian information"? Just asking for the sake of consistency and following your line of thought if one should delete that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * N.E. is closely connected with the local Greek element as the introduction of this article declares. What's quite weird is that you are still insisting in OR. Let me notice a couple of discrepancies in your arguments:
 * 1. There are Greeks in Korca city too part of Enver's relocations, allow me to tell you that Winnifrith disagrees with you and states that there were already Greek speakers in 1919-20: (p. 133) "Perhaps the American compromise would have been the best solution. It would still have left many Albanian-speakers and some Albanian sympathizers in Greece, and some Greek-speakers and rather more Greek sympathizers in the Korce area of Albania."
 * 2. Kokollakis deals with Ioannina vilayet only, Korca region didn't belong to this one
 * 3. I still fail to confirm your arguments that Greek presence in Premet, Nivica etc. was a result of P.R. of Albanian policy, (nothing in Kokolakis, Kalivretakis, while Winnifrith sees Greeks in Korce pre-WWII).


 * Apart from the above I've checked a couple of additions you proposed in the last year, which unfortunately recycle the same piece of info. For example we have a paragraph in the history section:
 * Part 1: According to the Ottoman "Millet" system, religion was a major marker of ethnicity, and thus all Orthodox Christians (Greeks, Aromanians, Orthodox Albanians, Slavs etc.) were classified as "Greeks", while all Muslims (including Muslim Albanians) were considered "Turks"
 * Part 2: The dominant view in Greece considers Orthodox Christianity an integral element of the Hellenic heritage, as part of its Byzantine past.[31] Thus, official Greek government policy from c. 1850 to c. 1950, adopted the view that speech was not a decisive factor for the establishment of a Greek national identity.
 * And then for an unknown reason the above information is repeated:
 * Part 3: As such, the non-Greek linguistic factor of some communities (especially Albanian, but also Aromanian) within the area of Northern Epirus was officially obscured by Greece.


 * It's obvious that the last part simply repeats info from the rest of the paragraph. Thus, it would be better to re-evaluate all parts that have been added last year as part of your initiative. It's quite typical for huge articles such as this one to deal with such issues.


 * About Chameria I fully agree to remove all irrelevant info about antiquity. As I I recall I disagreed with this addition from the beginning. I'm also waiting for a proposal to trim antiquity in this article too.Alexikoua (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * About Chameria, when about did you disagree with additions about antiquity ? I am hearing only now about this. Those sections exist because Chameria is still a geographical/ethnological region in Albania, while in Greece that is no longer the case. The emergence of Chameria as a geographical notion dates back to entrance (due to local political crises and Balkan death decimation issues: see Giakoumis) and eventual habitation of the Albanian element in the area (Giakoumis places the earliest mention at around the 13th century "opposite Corfu"). What was there before and how did a transition occur to a Chameria? Its why those sections exist in that article because Chameria is both a geographical and in other contexts also now a irredentist concept too dealing with its emergence and existence/uses etc. Same with this article. Both a region (defiantly a real region in areas where Greek is spoken in Albania (Pogon, Dropull, Vurgu etc) but also a irredentist concept that has and still for some encompasses a large geographical zone that includes other ethno-linguistic communities. About Kokolakis, yes he does focus on the Ioannina vilayet. The whole Gjirokaster sanjak comes under his study (The Greek government included that whole zone in its Northern Epirus statistics too). That relates to areas spanning all the way from the Leskovik area right up to Himara and all the way to the current border between those two points. That takes in around 2 thirds of the areas defined as Northern Epirus (well how the Greek state defined it in the statistics).


 * As for Greek speakers in Korca, yes they existed, Orthodox Albanians and Vlachs who had aligned with the Greek national movement. No one doubts that. I am glad you use Winnirith because he also states that Albanian speaking people were a majority population group during the late Ottoman period in the area (something which you were not particularly keen on as i recall in past discussions when i cited it). You also have not refuted the official Greek government position of Northern Epirus statistics that there was 111,534 Muslim Albanians to 116, 888 Greeks. Either the Greek government was lying about Muslim Albanians and made it up or there was a large self identifying Albanian presence which was also Muslim? You cannot have these things both ways: we talk about (Greek) demographics in the article while we omit other groups. The article presents the whole area from Korca to Gjirokaster as Greek while not devoting a sentence or two about other communities until much later or if at all unless it is in the context of "Albanisation" or the communist regime building a Muslim Albanian village here or there. That still leaves a gap about the Albanian identifying element ? Where did they come from ??? Older presence ? In 1912 ? In 1919 ? In 1945 ? The reason why this region was contested in the first place was because of this factor. Kokolakis unequivocally states that Epirus was partitioned due to this matter. Why should that also not be cited in the article ? How did everything get the the point it did in 1912 and the emergence of a Northern Epirus question without not having a few sentences on context ? For now as an encyclopedia article it is not encompassing the whole picture and instead it is giving more questions to a reader (most whom do not have background knowledge like you or me on this content).


 * Also I disagree with regards to the sentence about repetition as its based on Baltsiotis who elaborated on the matter (and directly to the Northern Epirus matter (using those geographical words too). The first sentence gives information about how Greek identity was viewed in general and the area in question with language not being an factor (for Greeks) while the second sentence gives Greece's then views toward other ethno-linguistic communities present in the area. I note that Greece did eventually recognise officially that there was a large Muslim Albanian presence by 1919 (while considering the Orthodox Albanian speaking element as Greek). These issues did influence how Greece went about things. The Albanian language is very different from Greek. The issue of language was important to the Northern Epirus question, because it determined how the border was drawn up to an extent too (there is also no sentence about that in the article. For in depth reading see a journal article by Nicola Guy: ). I placed 3 sentences in the Ottoman section that explained issues relating the emergence of the Albanian movement and it being the main competitor to Hellenism in Epirus . A second sentence on the interaction and limited cooperation between Muslim Albanians and Orthodox Albanians and Greek concerns about that . While a third sentence was about the state of the Orthodox Albanian community and them identifying with the Greek movement.. I had placed religious demographic data from Stoppel in that section but in hindsight those sentences were more appropriate for the demographics section of the article (with the needed addition of the official Greek government Northern Epirus numbers). These are important additions so as the reader gets an understanding of how things got to how they did by 1912 and beyond (demographics and the political situation of all communities in the area of contestation). There were population movements of Greeks in Albania from the Pogon/Dropull/Vurgu/Himara areas and a 1994 study by Berxholli Arqile, Sejfi Protopapa, & Kristaq Prifti (1994). "The Greek minority in the Albanian Republic: A demographic study" in the Nationalities Papers journal gives info to the relocations of people from those areas. Its the only study thus far in a peer reviewed journal that actually give numbers of each area in Albania, that Greeks were even relocated to Shkoder too, some forced, some for marriage, jobs etc ! Nonetheless Kokolakis still states that the Greek speaking element was found in the late Ottoman era in basically a similar area that it is now. All Winnifrith does is give small exceptions like that on Korca. Even his ethno-linguistic map in his book coincides with Kokolakis map (in the Gjirokaster sanjak bit that Kokolakis focuses on adn Kokolakis did his study after Winniwrith, with footnotes too). You have access to these things so you are aware of it.


 * As for trimming the ancient and medevil sections, ask Athenean about how he wants to do it. He was the first to say that it needs to be scaled back/trimmed. I don't know how big or small all of you had in mind. Do all of you want it to be a paragraph or two paragraphs ? etc. What bits are vital and what bits should be transferred to the Epirus article or deleted outright ? At the moment i don't have answers for this issue. When both of you work out something post it here so i know what the plan is before i make suggestions. About the two paragraphs on the contemporary era which i have been repeatedly asking you for at least a response since late January, what's happening there ??? Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out something that has been stated wrong by both of you guys here. The Hellenic Republic considered all "Orthodox Christians who use Byzantine Rite in Koine Greek" as Greeks and not every "Orthodox Christian" otherwise Serbs, Bulgarians and others would have been considered as Greeks. Orthodox Christians who use Old Church Slavonic or Church Slavonic language, Syriac language, Old Georgian, Armenian or even Byzantine Rite in Ecclesiastical Latin as liturgical language have never been considered as Greeks. Please be precise because sacrificing precision for simplicity can lead to serious WP:POV violations. Regards. Othon I (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Resnjari: Since you agree that your arguments have plenty of issues (Winnifrith, Nitsiakos contradict your views) I suggest you summarize your thoughts. Take into account that irrendetist terms are not simple geographical units, but are closely assosicated with a specific social group.Alexikoua (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Alexikoua, i know that having a lot text is not my preferred way to go about it. However this is a complex topic and article and responses to me have at times been evasive, obscure or none at all to my questions. Moreover "(Winnifrith, Nitsiakos contradict your views)" actually do not. They too refer to issues as the i have cited them (i have the books right beside me here on the desk) when i have mentioned things in the talk. Northern Epirus is not just "closely associated with a specific social group." but with multiple groups living in the area whether they like it or not due to historical, political and other issues. The Greek government clearly involved them to that regard at the Peace conference in 1919 in its claims to the area. My simple starting off question to you and to other editors is this then. Was the official Greek government statistics (111,534 Muslim Albanians to 116, 888 Greeks ) compiled by the Greek army staff presented at the peace conference (1919) referring to a large Muslim Albanian presence within the scope of Northern Epirus false or correct (see Kokolakis for additional info on pp.279-280 )? Was the Greek state's official acknowledgement of a large Albanian element (recognised as Muslim only though) incorrect as residing throughout the area ? Clarify this for me, then comments in the talk might get remarkably smaller. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears you are quite confused, but thanks to my objection you finally admit that 1. there are ethnic Greeks outside the minoritare zone, 2. they were there pre-Hoxha (no majority group doesnt mean non existent group). I suggest you make some research on the subject (as I pointed out you missed importants parts from Kalivretakis, and Winnifrith and created much confusion by presenting contradictory results). It might be better to present your suggestions in short paragraphs with bullets in agreement to wp:TALK.Alexikoua (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Confusion ? How ? Elaborate ? I have always said that there were Greeks outside the minority zone throughout my comments (especially in Himara and the two Greek villages near Vlore (remember it was me also who added that important info also to the article). Instead of ignoring and evading can you kindly give a response to the question to you (and also to other editors). Was the official Greek government statistics (111,534 Muslim Albanians to 116, 888 Greeks ) compiled by the Greek army staff presented at the peace conference (1919) referring to a large Muslim Albanian presence within the scope of Northern Epirus false or correct (see Kokolakis for additional info on pp.279-280 )? Was the Greek state's official acknowledgement of a large Albanian element (recognised as Muslim only though) incorrect as residing throughout the area ? Clarify this for me. Or we can get clarification at the noticeboards through third party arbitration. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears you need to check the introduction: Northern Epirus is a term used to refer to those parts of the historical region of Epirus, in the western Balkans, which today are part of Albania. The term is used mostly by Greeks and is associated with the existence of a substantial ethnic Greek population in the region. As such this article should deal with the local Greek element and culture. It's up to you to prove that Northern Epirus was a widely accepted term in the local Islamic literature and tradition. So far the bilbiography you presented (Juergensmeyer and Lederer) is refuting your point.Alexikoua (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again your evading my question on the official government Greek view regarding the Albanian element. You quoted the introductory sentence which says "Northern Epirus is a term used to refer to those parts of the historical region of Epirus, in the western Balkans, which today are part of Albania". Note that is a term used for an area in Albania in a geographical sense. The definition of Northern Epirus encompasses territory inhabited by other peoples of which the biggest is Muslim Albanians. The Greek government made note of the large Muslim Albanian population. Again i ask you a simple question. Please kindly give a response to it. Was the official Greek government statistics (111,534 Muslim Albanians to 116, 888 Greeks ) compiled by the Greek army staff presented at the peace conference (1919) referring to a large Muslim Albanian presence within the scope of Northern Epirus false or correct (see Kokolakis for additional info on pp.279-280 )? Was the Greek state's official acknowledgement of a large Albanian element (recognised as Muslim only though) incorrect as residing throughout the area ? Clarify this for me. Also what does "It's up to you to prove that Northern Epirus was a widely accepted term in the local Islamic literature and tradition." have to do with anything by they way ? Islamic literature and tradition focuses on the Quran and Islam (not Albanians as a people and their issues, history etc,) that is why it is Islamic outside secular literature like history etc which is not written by them. Orthodoxy has the same thing also. I am using scholarship undertaken in the humanities (i.e; history etc as per Wikipedia policy). Also regarding "As such this article should deal with the local Greek element and culture." there already exists a Greeks in Albania article ? Why the need for duplicate articles (WP:CFORK) to deal with the Greek element and culture when you and Athenean said that the article is about a irredentist, hence political concept ? Gentlemen, some clarity and consistency, please. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You actually ignore the very definition which is clearly stated in the introductory senntence in this article. It's not just a term used for an area in Albania in a geographical sense. but it's a term used mostly by Greeks and is associated with the existence of a substantial ethnic Greek population in the region. However, I'm still waiting your arguments in order to change the introduction (per your prosopoal) and the main text accordingly.Alexikoua (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have with multiple statements and instead all i get is responses (that if i get them at times) that don't answer questions posed etc etc. I have taken the issue to DRN for clarification. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I have yet to see a concrete proposal as to why the article is POV and what should be done to remedy it. The absence of a mosque pic does not make the article POV. This is resembling more and more a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Athenean (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are multiple proposals, its that no one is partking in them. The last where left idle since January and i have been waiting since then. I have taken the matter to DRN. I will be resotrinng the template until there is some clarification over there. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies but I didn't read the whole discussion, as certain users here are making overly long comments and this has discouraged me from ever reading them... But I guess, the problem of the dispute here is the lack of a mosque picture on this article and nothing more, right? and I can't help but note that Epirus was under Muslim Ottoman control for 500+ years, besides being under christian control for 1.500 years. And this article is about a historical region which has seen the rule both of Christian and Muslim factions, as its long history spans from ancient to modern times. So this article, while it is not about Islam, it is not about Christianity either, even if Christianity played a pivotal role in shaping the culture of the region. Since this is about a historical region any religious buildings will have to be historical ones, not modern ones (modern buildings better befitting articles of towns and villages, not articles of historical regions). I have noticed the presence in the article of a historical christian Church of Moscopolis, and that it is because it is a historical building, however I must bring to everyone's attention that if a mosque's picture has to be present in Northern Epirus, it too has to be a significant historic building, relevant to the history of Northern Epirus, not just for the sake of the equality of religions or something. Remember, Wikipedia is not about democratically presenting the opinions and contents into an article, but about the relevance of the content to the article in question. Is that so? -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  20:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)