Jump to content

Talk:Northern Epirus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alexikoua (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 29 June 2023 (→Latest round). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Link to discussion about Northern Epirus artcile on Wikiproject Greece page

Link to discussion about Northern Epirus article on Wikiproject Greece page [1]

Massive undiscussed changes

Alltan (talk · contribs) WP:BOLDly moved most of this article's content to Greeks in Albania, without any discussion and only trivial explanations in the edit summary. However, such massive changes need discussion and consensus. Gutting the article with short edit summaries (Does not belong here) is not going to cut it. What exactly is Alltan's reasoning for whether something belongs here or not? While I do agree that some parts could be moved, this needs to be discussed in the talkpage and not ham-handedly gutted. What I find particularly objectionable is the split of the History section between this article and Greeks in Albania. Alltan moved everything up to and including to the Ottoman period to Greeks in Albania, left the period from 1912 to the end of the Cold War here [2], and then moved the "Human rights" section to Greeks in Albania right after the Ottoman period. So the result is this article begins ex nihilo at 1912, ends abruptly with the end of the Cold War, while the History section of Greeks in Albania jumps from the Ottoman period to the present day, skipping everything in between [3]. This is the definition of bad editing. By the way, if anyone is thinking of the usual brute-force edit-warring to impose their version, be aware that my revert is in accordance with WP:BRD, and instead of reverting again I will just go straight to WP:ANI, just so there are no misunderstandings. Khirurg (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment in the last sentence is not constructive at all, and does not help your discussion with Alltan and anyone else who might be interested in this discussion. Not to mention that you are the one recently blocked for edit warring in February, not Alltan. Better focus on content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to mention that I also know a certain user who also reverts without reaching consensus. AlexBachmann (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A bit of "historical" background: One of the many reasons why the article is tagged as POV has to do with a specific editor always insisting that the article should have a section about "prehistory and ancient history" which starts from ... myths about Troy. Nitsiakos (2010) explains that Northern Epirus does not consist in itself a geographical unity. The name of this area was initially a diplomatic term and later a political one Hence this article shouldn't cover any era before the late Ottoman period because no "Northern Epirus" existed before then. The same is true for countless such terms including "Kosovo". All of these terms are geopolitical constructs, not historical entities. Hence, subsections 2.1/2.2 shouldn't be part of the article. For some other sections, I think that there's always room for debate about whether they should be discussed here or at Greeks in Albania. Section 4 regarding minority rights feels out of place in this article and should probably be moved there. PS If there was a genuine attempt to fix specific issues which were always blocked by just one editor, I would most probably consider a removal of the tag as well. I think that most editors are mature enough to realize that it's in the best interest of the entire community and readership to maintain articles up to a basic level of neutrality.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I am here, I am taking some time to improve the article. The POV tag can't stay forever. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are the issues highlighted by me back in 2020: The article discusses the problems with the minority's rights, but does not very much do so about the rights it enjoys and the considerable contribution Greeks well-integrated within Albanian society have given to the country. There is a section named "The Northern Epirote issue at present" that does not mention a "Northern Epirote issue". The subsection dedicated to the 2011 census mentions the minority's concerns but it should also mention the Alb government's concerns (and some other Albs' too) that the minority's numbers could get inflated in several ways by the Greek government and/or members of the minority itself. The history section itself has many issues. For instance, the "Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus (1914)" subsection describes the conflict as merely a 'Orthodox Greeks vs Muslim Albanians" thing. I will try to solve them in the next few days. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These, as well as other issues must be addressed. I further trimmed down the history section. Alltan (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some information on pro-Greek revolts and cultural activities in the Ottoman period shouod be added for background context. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how relevant that is to the Northern Epirote subject. The Pro-Greek revolts of say the 1870s were anti-Ottoman in nature, while the Northern Epirus Autonomous Republic was founded after the end of Ottoman rule in Epirus and it saw as the Albanian government as its "oppresor", not the Ottoman Turks. The section about the Millet system should be replaced with a section dealing with the idea of "Greek land occupied by Albania" and how that evolved into the known political concept. Alltan (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can do that, it would benefit the History section a lot. How the concept evolved etc. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Giving readers background is important. For example, the fact that parts of southern Epirus were given to Greece by the Ottoman Empire in 1881 should not be removed. Since the term first appeared in 1886, the Ottoman section should stay to give the readers some background. I remember in earlier discussions there was no objection to the Ottoman period being mentioned. Khirurg (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not opposed to the inclusion of a section about the late Ottoman period which in effect is the background for the post-1913 era. A few more points:
    • Is everyone ok with moving the subsection "Minority zone" to the first section about "Definition"? I think that the concept and the debates which surround it are better suited for this section. Section 4 & subsections should probably be moved to Greeks in Albania, but a summary can be kept here.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with all points. Alltan (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an issue moving the "Minority zone" to the definition (along with the Protocol of Corfu infobox), but I think the "Education", "Official Positions" and "Incidents" should stay here. The "Education" section describes the situation in the interwar years and hence is relevant, the "Official Positions" is definitely relevant also. The Minority representation section can be moved, while the 2011 census section can be moved to the demographics section here. Khirurg (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, if material from here is moved to Greeks in Albania (e.g. the "Minority Representation" section), the lede of that article will need to be modified. Khirurg (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If material is moved, then it is reasonable to expect the lead to summarize them. "Official positions" can be moved to the section about definition if it stays in this article. "Education" pertains more to the education rights of the group which makes it more relevant for 'Greeks in Albania' like in other articles e.g. Albanians_in_Serbia#Education because if you refer to the status of education in a region, then you necessarily need to describe education in all languages spoken in the specific region, not just the minority language.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't have time to expand the issue today, hence I just added a relevant source. Djordjević & Zaimi (2019) explain how the concept of minority zones is largely non-applicable since the 2017 Law on Protection of National Minorities. pp. 57-58 on the current law, pp-58-59 on the importance of up-to-date census data for the application of the law. This latter point will be added in later edits.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox map

The infobox map detail needs to be more accurate because "Approximate extent of largest concentration of Greeks in Northern Epirus" refers to claimed numbers of Greeks but it doesn't acknowledge that Albanians live and they make up the majority in most of the "green area".Alltan (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't claim that Greeks were a majority in any of the area, even though they clearly were in much of it (Saranda, Himara, etc...). It could be rephrased to "Areas with Greek presence in Northern Epirus in the early 20th century" or something like that, but ideally you should take this up with the map's creator. Note that it is sourced. Khirurg (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latest round

I think that the latest round of removals-reverts-counterreverts is unnecessary. The general agreement/status quo is that events after 1912 do fall under the scope of this article. If a specific source which discusses Greeks in Albania, uses or doesn't use the term "North Epirus" doesn't make the use of the specific source more or less legitimate for the post-1912 period. We wouldn't say that a source which discusses events about Cham Albanians in the 1930s should be used in the article Chameria only if it mentions the term Chameria. In any case, some of the sources which were removed do use the term in general, although Alltan may have checked only the specific quotes which were cited. This might have been part of the misunderstanding and I think that it's best if @Alltan: reverts himself.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the recently removed text is based on sources focused on the context of Northern Epirus (De Rapper, Clogg, Dimitropoulos etc.), if "Northern Epirus" isn't repeated on each paragraph then this can be fixed by making the necessary addition.Alexikoua (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Epirus&oldid=1162554001"