Talk:Albania–Greece relations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

"But the Greek goverment is three times more racist against Albanians living in Greece..." What does this means? How can you quantify racism? Soathana (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed. The user who edited that section provided no source what-so ever. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories

This [1] series of edits by Sulmues is unacceptable and I have reverted it. Using a low quality POV source [2] (no ISBN, can't find it anywhere), the passage lets it be implied that Greece got hold of nuclear weapons and pointed them at Albania. This is conspiratorial POV nonsense of a high order. Even assuming the weapons had been stationed on Greek soil (for the sake of argument), is it even conceivable that they would have been under anything other than US command? And even assuming the crazy idea that the US handed over the weapons to Greece to do whatever they want, why on earth would Greece point them at the relatively militarily weak Albania, rather than its main opponent, Turkey. This is sheer lunacy. Wikipedia is not a repository of conspiracy theories based on fringe sources. Athenean (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons were stationed in Greece under NATO's nuclear sharing program. However they were under US control and of course never "pointed" at Albania (most were free-fall bombs either way, and not missile heads). For the rest, it is well-known that the Albanian communist regime (and the Soviets) considered the Balkan Pact a threat to their interests, and denounced it as a covert plan for aggression against Albania ([3], [4]) - which AFAIK is just that: political rhetoric of the kind typical of the Cold War. The same goes for the diplomatic exchanges re the weapons, i.e. it has more to do with power block relations than with any particular Greek-Albanian issue. Per se the events that Sulmues' edit contains are correct, the interpretation however is not. Constantine ✍ 08:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Constantine is right like Sulmues's edit, although it should interpreted as part of wider conflict and not an exclusively Albanian-Greek conflict [5]

[6]

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues' edit has nothing to do with Greece-Albania relations. That first link you provide doesn't even mention Albania. Athenean (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@Constantine: I remember having read the reactions in the Albanian press to an article published in Greece by Ta Nea in 2007. Perhaps someone who knows Greek can enlighten us on it? It was exactly about the fact that the nukes were pointed to Albania from Araxos. I'll work on getting more than one source, since this is so controversial.--Sulmues ^(talk) 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, I don't know which article you are referring to, but living in the Balkans, we both know full well that "reactions in the press" can mean a lot of things. Any paper and journalist, not to mention a few historians, can put their own little nationalist propaganda spin on any otherwise innocuous or neutral piece of information. The point is simple: atomic bombs (not missiles, but free-falling, "ordinary" bombs which cannot be "pointed" at anyone) were based at Araxos (and also several other countries), always under US control. There is no indication that this was a move directed against Albania by Greece, but only along the lines of NATO strategy (of course, since Albania was part of the Eastern Bloc, in case WW3 erupted I don't doubt they would be used there too). If the Albanian press of the time raised concerns, it is because it was its job to do so, i.e. to demonstrate that the "dirty imperialist/fascist Greeks are not only still harbouring territorial claims and aiming to declare war on us, but are even mad enough to threaten use of nuclear weapons"... Similar pronouncements were staple goods from both sides during the Cold War, intended for internal consumption and "international opinion", and should not be taken at face value. Khruschev's threats, provided by Zjarri, are also on the same level: "you allow the Americans to use your country as a base for nukes, but don't think you'll get away with it". There were similar threats against all Western European countries in the 1980s with the installation of Pershing II missiles there and the reciprocal targeting of the Soviet SS20s on W. European targets. If the guy you used for the source chooses to rehash Communist-era propaganda, fine by me, but it is not eligible for use in this article. Constantine ✍ 19:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete

Under Relations since 1992, contains an incomplete sentence/fact?

"On the other hand there have been many minor incidents between the Greek population in Southern Albania (Northern Epirus) and Albanian authorities over"

Also, The European Monitoring Center for Racism and Xenophobia article in page 25 clearly makes the case for discrimination/racism of Albanian immigrants. Any thoughts on this or am I reading this wrong? Bburghokie87 (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)bburghokie87

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albania–Greece relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141115070035/http://www.minorityrights.org/1400/albania/greeks.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/1400/albania/greeks.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325222928/http://www.migrantsingreece.org/transpartner/Tables.pdf to http://www.migrantsingreece.org/transpartner/Tables.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Albania–Greece relations

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Albania–Greece relations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Vickers, Miranda 2002":

• From Cham issue: Vickers, Miranda. The Cham Issue - Albanian National & Property Claims in Greece. Paper prepared for the British MoD, Defence Academy, 2002.ISBN 1-903584-76-0
• From Expulsion of Cham Albanians: Vickers, Miranda. The Cham Issue - Albanian National & Property Claims in Greece. Paper prepared for the British MoD, Defence Academy, 2002. ISBN 1-903584-76-0

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Warm relations

Lead currently reads:

Due to the strong presence of Albanian communities in Greece and the Greek communities in Albania, and the frequent high-level contacts between the governments of Albania and Greece, the two countries today enjoy warm diplomatic relations.

This has several problems:

• It is unclear what a "strong" presence is. Does this simply mean that there are many Albanians in Greece and Greeks in Albania?
• What is mean by the presence of Albanian communities in Greece, as opposed to the presence of Albanians? Is this meant to (incorrectly) imply that Albanians in Greece are somehow segregated? Yes, there are some historical communities of A in G and G in A, in the sense of Albanian-speaking villages in Greece, and Greek-speaking villages in Albania; is that what is being referred to here?
• By "Albanian communities", do we mean ethnic Albanians, or Albanian nationals? There are of course both.
• There is a non-sequitur. The "strong presence of A communities in G" and of G communities in A has historically been a source of friction. It may or may not continue to be a source of friction, but it cannot cause "warm diplomatic relations".
• Are the "frequent high-level contacts" actually the cause of "warm diplomatic relations"? or the consequence? Or just two ways of saying the same thing?
• "Warm diplomatic relations" sounds like a press release, not an objective description.

More objectively, I think all we can say in the lead is:

Albania and Greece have frequent high-level diplomatic contacts.

Comments? --Macrakis (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I too realized this issue and came to this talk page to check whether there are discussions about this. I replaced now the term "warm" with the term "decent". I hope this helps. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Though i agree wholeheartedly with the removal of "warm" as its false and POV terminology, even having it as "decent" brings up problems. Both countries just have plain diplomatic relations and it would be best to say that. Its a transactional relationship of sorts and nothing more.Resnjari (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"Transactional"? I don't think so. The two countries did more than just limiting their relations to a merely typical level that you may try portray them. The Greek government started inviting the Albanian government in international or regional summits held in Rhodes and Thessalonica, the two countries are building pipelines, are resolving the issue of the unburried Greek soldiers of WWII, the Greek Government took measures to ease the life of the Albanian illegal immigrants in Greece including recognition of Albanian diplomas and driver's lisences, while the Albanian government stopped the illegal demolitions of Greek homes and is taking efforts to open TV channels in the Greek language for the Greek minority. The Albanian government, along with the Bulgarian government, supported Greece on the Prespa Agreement despite Serbia's opposition to the agreement. And reports by officials stated that, in 2018, there were intense negotiations between Greek and Albanian governments on the definition of maritime boundaries between the two countries, despite Turkey's opposition to this. These efforts albeit noteworthy, they do face major difficulties, mainly due to nationalist reactions, but thing is, the two countries are taking some small steps in improving their relations. To me all this is hardly just "transactional relationship" --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Added a header

I made 'Greek Minority Proposal' above into a full header to make the talk page easier to navigate. Please adjust as needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Cham issue but not N.Epirus issue

I wonder why a Cham issue section exists while we have no info about a N.E. issue. I assume the last disserves some info per wp:NPOV.Alexikoua (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean like the recent Greek nationalist incident by Katsifas ?Resnjari (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mention a specific incident but a N.E. (issues about the local Greek communities in this region)issue does exist from 1914 and warrant a section on its own.Alexikoua (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The Greek minority in Northern Epirus and their issues is still affecting greatly the diplomatic relations between the two states. If Alexikoua means that, then yes I would support inclusion. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It depends what we are referring to here. Northern Epuris as a irredentist issue of the past or Greek minority rights. Lets not conflate the two because the modern Greek government does not, as the recent Katsifas Greek nationalist incident shows. Also if where going to upgrade articles, time for Northern Epirus to get an upgrade as well. Its long overdue.Resnjari (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If by that you mean resumption of your past disruptive behavior on that article, I strongly advise against it. You need to stop this behavior of "if you make edits I don't like to this article, I will mess up that other article". Khirurg (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I am referring to constructive editing as i have always done. How others see it on wp:idontlikeit issues, is their concern.Resnjari (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall any "constructive editing", only crude POV-pushing and filibuster. If other editors see that as "constructive" that speaks for itself. Khirurg (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A friendly reminder. Your the one with multiple warnings from administrators regarding editing in recent times on articles. Your editing speaks for itself.Resnjari (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A friendly reminder: You are the one with multiple blocks for edit-warring in just the past year. Khirurg (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

They were two, due to certain trivial circumstances. Lessons were learned. However prior to and after that time i have not been involved in any matters of the sort in my whole decade of having an account. Yet you seem to be getting yourself in many recent quagmires with administrator warnings and not to mention you have racked up blocks in the past.Resnjari (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you refer to violating 3RR as "trivial circumstances" leaves me skeptical about "lessons learned". Time will tell. Khirurg (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That said, the complete lack of mention of the Greek minority in this article is glaring. Khirurg (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And Northern Epriot irredentism as well.Resnjari (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And hate incidents such as this [7], this [8] and this [9]. Khirurg (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we really, really want to go down this road. In recent weeks a Greek nationalist and citizen Konstaninos Katsifas, a special forces member (Redacted) who was in favour of the Northern Epirot 'cause' was shooting at Albanian police [10]. At his funeral were Greek nationalists [11] like Golden Dawn 'activists', nationalist Greek MPs from the EU parliament like one from Cyprus [12] and members of the Greek minority that had no qualms in yelling obscene things about Albanian existence [13] and so on. There are of course more articles on this. Now in terms of hate incidents in Albania this one tops it.Resnjari (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the murder of a Greek citizen and member of the Greek minority under unclear circumstances, the terrorizing of his elderly parents and theft of their property [14], the refusal to hand over his body [15] (among others) definitely "tops it" and is perhaps worthy of inclusion. As has the Albanian prime ministers' calling the mourners at his funeral "pigs" and "donkeys" [16]. However, he was not a Golden Dawn affiliate, and I will remind you that WP:BLP applies to talkpages and to the recently deceased. Further references to him being a Golden Dawn affiliate will be reported as BLP violations. Khirurg (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As is referring to a respected Euro MP as a "Greek nationalist". Khirurg (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The above comments are based on news reports from credible outlets. There are many more which point to those factors about the actions, membership and political affiliations of those people. True this is a developing story for now, but in coming months there will be more information over the whole issue, after the corner report and the joint Albanian-Greek investigation report etc come through. Areas where there is no doubt is that at his funeral, Greek nationalists and Golden Dawn members were in attendance [17]. Fact. At his funeral there some people yelling out chants of "Blood is calling us, set Albanians on fire!" [18]. Fact.Resnjari (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Golden Dawn members may have been present at his funeral, but that does not mean Katsifas himself was a member. You have no evidence of that. I hope we have reached an understanding on this matter. Khirurg (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Golden Dawn members were at his funeral (Greek authorities tipped off Albanians about some of them i.e "as at least one right-wing Golden Dawn Party van filled with supporters was warned by the Greek side to be arriving." [19]), its not in the realm of 'may have been'. With Katsifas news reports referred to his political sentiments. Of course more will come pending investigative reports.Resnjari (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence of Katsifas having any affiliation with Golden Dawn. I'm sure if there was, you would have found it by now. Please strike the part of your earlier comment where you refer to him as such. Thank you. Khirurg (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And the part of your comment where you refer to Eleni Theocharous as "nationalist". Thanks again. Khirurg (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Even Cypriot media is aware of Theocharous' ideas. She is on the record for statements such as promoting 'Enosis' (something that got Cyprus in its predicament in the first place): "If setting oneself on fire at [Athens’] Syntagma Square is what it takes to push for a union of Cyprus and Greece, then I will strive to be the first to do it" (2016) [20].Resnjari (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You have provided no reliable sources that describe her as a "nationalist". Your views about her comments are your own. So I will ask you one last time. Khirurg (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Economist describes her political affiliations this way some years back: "Eleni Theocharous from the nationalist wing." [21]. Also here is the link on her being banned from Albania [22]. The article says the following: "The Albanian foreign ministry announced on Friday the Cypriot, Euro Parliamentarian Eleni Theocharous is now a ‘persona non-grata,’ after the latter attended on Thursday the Greek minority member’s Kostantinos Katsifas funeral service in Bularat, Gjirokaster, where she issued extremist, anti-Albanian calls, according to Albanian authorities." The article goes further into it. Greece has not told Albania to revoke this ban and neither has the EU. By the way that comment about her and fire is cited in a journal article about hate speech in Cyprus by Yiannos Katsourides, Nikos Moudouros and Eleni Evagorou, p. 158. [23].Resnjari (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"according to Albanian authorities". Problem is, the authorities cannot be considered a reliable source. In any case, since you won't strike your BLP violating comments, I will do it for you. Khirurg (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The news article is noting the view of the authorities who banned her from the country which did happen. I fail to see what the issue is. Also its the Economist source that places her political affiliations in the "nationalist wing", not the Albanian news source. Have a read.Resnjari (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless i read it wrong and no one got banned? I fail to see anything that would suggest otherwise.Resnjari (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't contest that she was banned from Albania, that's pretty obvious. I do object to your removal of your accusation that Katsifas was a Golden-Dawn member, because it alters the discussion, and anyone who tries to follow this discussion won't know what we're talking about. That's why in such cases is is better form to strikethrough than delete. Khirurg (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue with his political affiliations is complex. Obviously more is going to come out in an official investigation. That people involved in the Greek far right and them attaching themselves to this matter is beyond doubt. At least the leftist Syriza Greek government has shown restraint and common sense.Resnjari (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Based on how the Albanian government and especially the prime minister have already handled the situation (sowing up of the wounds of the deceased, holding the body for days, intimidating members of the Greek minority through arbitrary arrests, no release of the bodycam and drone footage, incendiary ethnically charged remarks, etc.), I would be very cautious about the "official investigation", unless it were conducted by an impartial organization (EU, ECHR, European Parliament, etc.). Khirurg (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The body was held for days as Katsifas family requested in Ioannina (that's where they lodged documents as Katsifas is a Greek citizen as well) for a Greek coroner and investigation, something which the Albanian government accepted. Its now a joint Albanian-Greek investigation with footage and other matters being for the investigators to deal with. The Albanian prime minster handled the situation as he thought best when Golden Dawn people were in Albania yelling anti-Albanian chants at the funeral. Albania arrested those people for national security reasons. Golden Dawn is a fascist party, this is beyond dispute (no need for any "BLP" here) and the Greek state itself is at a loss in how to handle them (i can cite heaps of articles about this if need be -again beyond dispute). My heart goes out to the leftist Syriza, its a hard situation they face.Resnjari (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

So you approve of Rama's remarks describing Greeks as "pigs" and "donkeys"? As for the body, it wasn't held by the family, it was held in Tirana by the government. The family pleaded for days for them to release it. Get your facts straight. Albania did not arrest Golden Dawn members, it arrested leaders of the Greek minority for intimidation purposes. Even now they are making occasional shows of force in Vouliarates to intimidate the locals. In any case, this is not the place to discuss this.Khirurg (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

On getting facts correct, the village is called Bularat. The Albanian state has never called the place with name and neither did the Ottoman state. The family wanted the body, on the other hand had they wanted Greek investigators. Both things can't happen at once. And Albania is caught in a bind. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Golden Dawn members were arrested and those affiliated with them due to events at the funeral. The Greek government has not said to the Albanian government that their actions were wrong in arresting or banning people. I am yet to see this. Only clarifications were asked for. All they have said is that caution be exercised. Once again the leftist Syriza government has not given given in to the Greek far right on this. With Edi's facebook comment he was referring to extremists on both sides as being "pigs" and "donkeys", not the Greek people. I can translate his whole comment if you so wish [24]. The Albanian police is in the area due to events, i.e Golden Dawn people being there some days before. I should also note, Bularat now is in Dropull municipality run by local Greeks and the local Albanian police force are mainly from the Greek minority. Those involved with the Katsifas event come from the Albanian special forces, like Katsifas who also was from the Greek special forces.Resnjari (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I could been happy if the Albanian authorities arrested ONLY the Golden Dawn members, or if they released the body days sooner. But they did not. Another big mistake was the banning of Eleni Theocharous, who is not a random MEP, but the shadow Rapporteur of the Albanian EU accession negotiations. Albania's prospects of joining the European Union have been weakened now that the European Parliament's shadow rapporteur has been banned from entry in the candidate country which aspires to join it. For comparison, authoritarian Turkey never banned any EP Rapporteurs, no matter how much the Erdogan governments could agree or disagree with them. We may argue what was done right and what not, but still this is not a concern of the present time: still, if something has to be added here in the article, this clearly is the Northern Epirote minority and how it was an important factor affecting the relations between the two countries (in fact, more than the Cham issue ever did; those who are following the developments, know this already). --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 08:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see Albania joining the EU any time soon. It might never. Far right parties are gaining the ascendancy in Europe and they are not fond of Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo or Turkey. Even politicians not in the right wing category like Macron have expressed views being against enlargement for now. In regards to Theocharous, the Albanian government did what it thought was in its national interests and her controversial views on certain topics are known (i cited the 'fire' comments by her above). About Turkey it no longer seeks EU membership and the EU ain't interested either. No one wants to officially call off accession talks for political reasons (there are heaps of articles about this) and take blame. Also its not the 'northern epirot' minority, but the Greek minority of Albania. The Greek and Albanian governments officially recognises it as such.Resnjari (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Greeks of Northern Epirus are Northern Epirotes and the minority which resides in Northern Epirus is what I am referring to. They are geographical terms. I have no problems if others call the region as "Southern Albania" and the Greek minority as "Greek Minority of Albania", still both terms are valid. Like it or not. I however do sense a rejection of your part of the term "Northern Epirus" due to unfortunate irredendist connotations it obtained due to Greek nationalist propaganda? Rejection of established geographic terms such as Northern Epirus is a form of weakness, which reminds me of Greece's (past) rejection of the term Western Thrace (calling it merely Thrace) due to irredendist connotations it beared related to Turkish nationalists. Now the term Western Thrace is finally being acknowledged as a geographic term reflecting the fact that Greece only owns the Western portion of Thrace, like it should have been. I am against politicizing the geographic terms such as Northern Epirus and Western Thrace, so please spare me. Regarding EU, it is true that Turkey never really sought accession to the block under Erdogan's presidency, but at least it kept its pretensions when it came to rapporteurs and other EU officials, didn't it? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 09:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I use the official name: Greek minority of Albania. The modern Greek government does not recognise a "Northern Epirus" nor does it call the area in those terms. Northern Epirus is not a term used by Albanians or Albania. The comparison with Western Thrace is a wp:straw. The region you refer to is in Greece. Turks have been ok with referring to it as Batı Trakya (Western Thrace). I have not seen any other terminology used in Turkish for the place. "Northern Epirus" has been a politicised term for more than a century, and yes its to do with Greek irredentism. Southern Albania is in Albania, not Greece. On the EU and Turkey both sides never really meant it. It just took a while for both to be on the same page.Resnjari (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I use the official name: Greek minority of Albania. The modern Greek government does not recognise a "Northern Epirus" Really? So you are suggesting that we are using Official names and ONLY these? If we go with your logic, then we shall ban the use of the name "Albania" and start calling it only "Republic of Albania" only when referring to that country. Likewise, We shall ban everyone calling the "Turkish Minority of Western Thrace" by anything other than "Muslim Minority of Greece" instead. Saying that The region you refer to is in Greece. Turks have been ok with referring to it as Batı Trakya (Western Thrace)., doesn't stand as an argument when trying to tell us to not use a name that the Greeks have been ok with referring to the region in Albania as Voreios Ipiros (Northern Epirus). Now, if you excuse me, you REALLY need to stop deviating from the discussion. This is not a forum and you know that I am impatient with people who came here, not to contribute positively to the project, but to dictate the other Wikipedians on how other people shall be called. If the Greeks of Albania do define themselves as Vorio Epirotes, then so be it. If the Chams do define themselves as Chams, then so be it. If the Greeks of Greek Macedonia define themselves as Macedonians, then so be it. If the Macedonians of the Republic of Macedonia do define themselves as Macedonians, then so be it. If the Muslims of Thrace, at least those that have Turkish origin, do define themselves as Turks, then so be it. This is none of your business to dictate how to call them. Please dont turn this into another WP:FORUM or I will be obliged to not take your presence here in account for the sake of the discussion. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 10:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I speak for myself, i don't speak for you. Its southern Albania and Tsipras' government does not refer to the region as "Vorio Epirus" nor to any Northern Epirot minority but a Greek minority. They do call themselves Hellenes, do they not (which means Greek)? How you want to deal with that is up to you.Resnjari (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears that Resnjari insist to derail the discussion into a usual trolling pattern. In case there is no real argument against a Northern Epirus issue section I'm going to create one per wp:NPOV (no wonder nationalists insist that term X -Chameria- is fine while Y -N.E.- is irredentist).Alexikoua (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Not a derailment, but a discussion. We'll see what you come up with and if its in the realm of "wp:NPOV". A reminder that there is academic material about "Northern Epirus" and irredentism, in particular Albania's views about the matter in relation to Greece.Resnjari (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way the Greek government doesn't recognize a Cham issue, so according to Resnjari's rationale the already existing Cham section should vanish.Alexikoua (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no modern Cham issue. Chams are never going to get a right of return or compensation. Those who think that need a reality check. There are those who talk or bring it up from time to time and that's as far as it has ever went. The best they can ever hope for is to get a visa and visit for a holiday the land they come from. I highly doubt that will happen as well. Albania is a small country and Albanians are not many in number to be able to negotiate or have leverage with its large neighbours. Its the same with Greece's and Cyprus' relations with Turkey. It is what it is.Resnjari (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Alexikoua, I can quote Resnjari's past statements that he is AGAINST double standards. I want to believe that his position remains unchanged to this day, and thus, I expect him to agree that either we include BOTH Cham and North Epirus Issues in this article, or have BOTH of them removed. Otherwise we have an WP:NPOV case, where an issue for the Albanian side that is important in its diplomatic relations with Greece is being mentioned, but an issue for the Greek side that is important in its diplomatic relations with Albania, is being WP:CENSORED. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Silent, take a breather. I can't dictate to you, the same goes for you regarding me. I can't say whether i am for or against inclusion until i see what @Alexikoua proposes here in terms of text and sources if additions are truly meant to improve the article. On 'northern epirus' there is the Albanian angle regarding relations with Greece, and there is scholarship around it. The same way as you point to WP:CENSORED, not having how this issue has affected the Albanian government would also constitute that. Fair is fair.Resnjari (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Am I supposed to read all what is written above? You all should try to confine the discussion to the content issue at hand. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

In cases of huge walls the best way is to ignore the text posted by the editor who keeps flooding the discussion with irrelevant data (a specific editor posted almost 14kb in 22hours, more than 55% of this section).Alexikoua (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way half of the Cham section lacks citation: Roudometof & Meyer claim nothing about a post-1990s Cham issue. This part should be removed.Alexikoua (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it is just one editor writing walls of text. In any case, writing walls of text is not that bad, writing walls of text with little to no value to the article is. So all of you try to make the discussion more fruitful and easier to read. You Alexikoua should also make up your mind. On one hand you want to add content on Greeks in Albania and on the other hand you want to remove content on Chams. Do you want to add or to remove content? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I was quite clear in my comments that if a N.Epirus issue is absent then a Cham issue has no place in this article too. Either both or nothing.Alexikoua (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Reminder to all that this talk page is not a forum. I know you love arguing with each other, but keep it on the forums. Thanks. As for the matter at hand, all I will say is that in the past my view has been (and still is) that all four of you place far more emphasis on nationalist disputes than most people -- including probably the vast majority of other Albanian and Greek editors. In the case of "Northern Epirote", Resnjari would be correct that the usage is mostly limited to Greek or Greek-focused sources (when we are not dealing with the 1910s republic that is), and it's safe to say it's very usage is offensive to Albanians --- comparable to referring to Thesprotia as Chameria. It's also not equivalent to Greeks in Albania (is Narta in Northern Epirus? Is Zvernec? What about Durres? Vlora? Tirana?), and yes there are Greeks in Albania who refuse the term, generally in the case that they are not personally irredentists and the term has obvious connotations.--Calthinus (talk) 19:22, 19November 2018 (UTC)

Same situation occurs among Albanians who refuse the Chameria story. Nevertheless N. Epirus played a role in the diplomatic agenda & needs to be stated. Resnjari's view that only a Cham section should exist is generally POV. Alexikoua (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It is quite the opposite. I see confusion in the lines you wrote. What you consider to be a N. Epirus issue, is a past issue (if it ever was an issue on its own). Current issues include the Cham issue (of Chams, not of all Albanian communities that lived in Greece), and the rights of Albanian immigrants in Greece and Greeks in Albania. If we were to add content on the past N. Epirus issue, we would add content on the problems caused by the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey too (Alb. gov. protested the expulsion of many Albanians and their replacement with Anatolian Greeks and Christian Turks). If you wish to discuss about the rights of Greeks in Albania and Albanian immigrants in Greece, it is good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The N.Epirus issue including the rights of the ethnic Greek communities in the region is a major topic in the Greek-Albanian diplomatic agenda. Certainly a nationalist would insist that only one side of a coin exist (for example Cham issue and not N.Epirus or the opposite) for the usual irredentist reasons. Wikipedia isn't a place for this type of censorship.Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

To avoid any possible misunderstanding, are you saying that I am a nationalist? Yes or no? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

In terms of wikipedia editing "selective" use of such terminology is a typical pattern of POV editing. Though I avoid personal discussions (see policy) this tendency raises serious issues about neutrality.Alexikoua (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record I support keeping the Cham section (as long as unsourced material is removed), and adding a section about the Greek minority, as both of these have an effect on bilateral relations. Khirurg (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually with the Cham issue i have the necessary academic sources and can add footnotes to them. That is not a problem. Alexikoua, i never wrote anything about leaving out any details relating to the Greek minority of Albania. Of course their existence has affected relations. Please elaborate what do you mean by the "Northern Epirus issue". Are you referring to the past? If so then its both sides and what they did in terms of relations would need to covered (scholarship exists). Or are you referring to a current "Northern Epirus issue", if so do you mean from a Greek government perspective (i have not seen the Greek state of today have any claims) or from some diaspora groups, parts of the Greek far right and Greek nationalists? Clarification would be good. Ktrimi991, since historic relations between the two nations are cited, your suggestion about the population exchange and Albanian-Greek relations are important and covered in scholarship. Coverage in the article would do well. Thank you for reminding me. I appreciate it.Resnjari (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

When Alexikoua is talking about Northern Epirus issue, he is referirng just to the minority and its isues, not all Greeks who reside in Albania, or the North Epirote diaspora in the West. The Greek government doesn't have any claims against Albanian sovereighnty - I thought this was clear. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

If its the minority and its issues then its about the Greek minority. As you have said "Northern Epirus" is a Greek term for land, not people. As one recalls "Northern Epirot" is Greek terms for people. On the Albanian side all those terms are controversial. But it would be good for @Alexikoua to clarify.Resnjari (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

We already have a Chameria section, so to maintain neutrality we need to include the exodus of ethnic Greeks from parts of N. Epirus [[25]] p. 45 (at the same time of the Cham exodus but in the opposite direction). Information about the official position of the Greek government in the 90s, for example that the ethnic Greeks should enjoy the same rights compared to the Albanian communities of Kovoso are/were part of the diplomatic agenda and are also vital for this article [[26]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Just so there is no confusion, there is no Chameria section. If the section was called that then it would be implying that there is a territorial issue/dispute which there is not. The section is named the Cham issue around the Muslim Albanian community that lived on the Greek side of the border until the mid 1940s. The Cham issue section is woefully small, not to mention that during the interwar period they formed a large part of the Albanian government's diplomatic relations with Greece p.206. [27], p.xxxiv, xxxvi-xxxviii [28]. This is vital for the historic and contemporary coverage of the article about the role Chams have played in diplomatic relations between both states. I remind editors that its southern Albania. Otherwise its easy to start referring to Thesprotia as Chameria like the Greek government did as Tsamouria until the 1940s.Resnjari (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure there is no Chameria but Cham issue & in the same fashion we should have a Northern Epirote issue. The later should focus on the group which self identifies as such (as in the same fashion some Albanians identify as Chams). Info about the 1945 exodus, human rights issues etc. are good to be part of this. It's an essential part of the Greek-Albanian diplomatic agenda & it's not about border change.Alexikoua (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait a sec. There is confusion once again. A Northern Epirote issue would refer to a land, the Greek government refers to the issue of the Greek minority and not as a "Northern Epirote issue". Having a subsection with the terms "Northern Epirote issue" would be POV and give the appearance that the Greek state has land claims on Albania. If we are talking about rights of the Greek minority the subsection ought to reflect that. A "northern Epirote issue" which really connotes the thing over land is another issue that plagued Albanian-Greek relations from 1912-1913 till about the fall of communism or thereafter. We can't lump everything into one of minority rights and land claims. The article already has subsections like the Military cemeteries of fallen Greek soldiers. Within the larger History section i would support a Greek minority of Albania subsection and something about the whole "Northern Epirus" thing treated in its historic context of diplomatic relations as another separate subsection.Resnjari (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The cemeteries issue is unrelated to the local Greek communities. Take also into account that Cham/N.Epirote are both POV in case they are treated selectively. By the way, nice proposal about the History section in case a Cham issue also becomes a subsection of this.Alexikoua (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The case of relatedness and non-relatedness is subject to interpretation. "Northern Epirus" was a land claim which the Greek state no longer pursues for at least some 3 decades or more now. Greek minority rights are things which the Greek state actively pursues. Conflating former territorial claims with minority rights would be problematic and go into all sorts of POV issues. Also no one proposed to treat "Cham/N.Epirote" in one subsection. That would be confusing and defeats the purpose of having a clear and succinct article. There is a history section and all these topics are subdidvided into their own subsections. With the Cham matter it might become a historical issue. To date the Albanian government has not said so yet. The Albanian side still has that issue active in its diplomatic relations with Greece. When the Albanian government longer has it part of relations then yes a change of course. I am not Nostradamus so neither i, you or anyone else knows if or even when such a thing might happen.Resnjari (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"Northern Epirote issue" is not a land but points to specific communities, just like the "Cham issue". In general there is enough bibliography to warrant such a section. I can't ignore that an extreme pro-Albanian approach would simply reject any mention to Northern Epirote communities while inflating the Cham side but this is POV and should be fixed.Alexikoua (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah no. The Greek government does not refer to a "Northern Epirote" issue, but the Greek minority of Albania (neutral non POV bibliography is wide on this). Your still conflating both a past land issue to one with the Greek minority. Disappointing. As for your other commentary i am not surprised.Resnjari (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way as I see Roudometof was misinterpreted. By reading the book he states that: During the 1990s, Albanian diplomacy used the Cham issue as counter-issue against the one related with the Greek minority in Albania.. If we are going to fix this discrepancy this should be stated at the start of this section (Roudometof as inline reference is part of this section several months now, so there is already an established consensus, in contrary addition about Gogonas should be discussed first).Alexikoua (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

What's interesting is that Roudometof's statement is confirmed by a variety of sources (Dorlhiac, 2015: "Les Tchames sont une population musulmane albanophone expulsée de la partie grecque de l’Épire, de l’entre-deux guerres à la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Essentiellement patrimoniales, ses revendications sont souvent instrumentalisées politiquement et mises en miroir avec les revendications de la minorité grecque."). The so-called Cham issue is primarily part of internal nationalistic consumption in the country: activity by Red & Black alliance & the Cham party etc.Alexikoua (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua Do not make assumptions about me. This discussion started as a desire to add content on the Greek minority and now is about removing content on the Chams. I suggest that everyone return for a fresh new discussion later. Reflect, prepare a better proposal and ping us. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(ignore trolling about supposed personal assumptions) In general text that's not supported by the existing material should be either removed or replaced in line of wp:CITATION. As such During the 1990s, Albanian diplomacy used the Cham issue as counter-issue against the one related with the Greek minority in Albania. should be place at this paragraph. It's based on Roudometof which is already used as inline ref there.Alexikoua (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua I am neither "trolling" nor "tolling". You should recall your response to the question I raised in my previous comment. Since I am not "trolling" (or "tolling" for that matter), I am not going to discuss further here. I conclude my involvement here with opposition to your proposal. I tried to find a solution that could satisfy all sides of the dispute. If you wish to remove a source, you should accept to replace it with a better one. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be removed, a problematic part should be corrected with what the inline reference (Roudometof) really states as noted above.Alexikoua (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari: The Greek government does not refer to a "Northern Epirote" issue, but the Greek minority of Albania. Roudometof appears to disagree about that [[29]] p. 183 It is characteristic of this interest that Alexandros Papadopoulos, an Epirote Socialist MP, wrote a brief overview of Greek-Albanian relations including reviews of the Northern Epirus question (Papadopoulos, 1992). It would be better to use RS for such extraordinary claims since members of the Greek government did refer to the Northern Epirote issue ([[30]])Alexikoua (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that the article cannot stand in its current form. Either both sides's issues will be presented and covered equally and fairly in this article, per WP:NPOV, either none of them stays on the article. No matter what certain editors may think/consent about the North Epirote Issue, it is still a fundamentally detrimental issue affecting the core of the Albanian-Greek relations and cannot be left out of the article while keeping the Cham issue in it. Simple as that. Alexikoua, feel free to make additions to the article about the Northern Epirote minority's problems. But make sure that the content you are adding, does relate to the article's subject. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Cham section is a product of copy paste job from the correspondent article. There is no need for introductory statements like "the Cham issue refers to a controversy..." all diplomatic issues refer to some kind of disagreement. Also Epirus needs to be changed to Thesprotia per inline (Roudometof and Meyer).Alexikoua (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

As i have said to all of you i can very easily remedy the situation on the Cham section and write it up with scholarship. No issues there.Resnjari (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Also @Alexikoua you just ram what you want into the article as a "recent and respectable analysis on the subject" while omitting other edits based on Greek scholarship like this one [31]. Seek consensus.Resnjari (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As I remember the above part you accuse me that I've removed is now restored.Alexikoua (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It was restored by another editor. First you removed it in the first place on grounds of it being unsourced [32]. ok fine. Then i provided a Greek academic for the sentence and then you removed it for no consensus [33]. So the situation on that bit now stands that it is unsourced and POV written, while the sentence i added had a source and was based on that. With you addition, a section on the Greek minority itself dealing with them is fine and the title reflecting that. Northern Epirote issue refers to land which is part of historical relations (Greece does not have a land claim for decades).Resnjari (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Northern Epirote refers to Northern Epirotes (a community & Chams are another community). I've provided a recent political analysis on the subject which contradicts your claims. So, If there isn't a decent argument against it I assume we have a consensus.Alexikoua (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I just read that digital media piece by Hajidimitriu [34]. If you take this "Το χρονικό, η ιστορία των Ελληνο-αλβανικών σχέσεων, είναι άρρηκτα συνδεδεμένο με την τύχη των Ελλήνων στην Βόρειο Ήπειρο." to mean Northern Epriote issue then your mistaken. All it says is that Greek Albanian relations are tied to the Greek minority living in "Northern Epirus" i.e Southern Albania. I did find colourful terms like "οθωμανικό ζυγό" i.e Ottoman yoke. Anyway nowhere in the article does it say "Northern Epirote issue". A Greek minority section is needed but not under a Northern Epirote issue title. Please no synthesis or interpretations of media pieces if it does not say that. Otherwise all sorts of things get floated around that are not the words of the source itself.Resnjari (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to have content on the Greek minority's rights, it is OK as long as it does not have any reference to the "N. Epirus issue". They are two different things. On the Chams part, if you wish to make those changes, the source of Resnjari should be added [35]. Since the part on the Greek minority does not have similar content, the bolt part in the following sentence should be removed:"The Cham issue refers to a controversy which has been raised by Albania since the 1990s over the repatriation of the Cham Albanians, who were expelled from the Greek region of Epirus between 1944 and 1945, at the end of World War II, citing the collaboration of the majority of them with the occupying forces of the Axis powers." The situation is more complex than just a sentence shows. If you agree on all of these, I agree too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Cham and Northern Epirote issues are both sides of the same coin in the dimplomatic agenda. I understand that a typical nationalist may prefer a selective use of this terminology but Hatzidimitriou fieldwork is of great value and sheds light in both issues. You still need to address why Chams should be overemphasized contrary to Northern Epirotes. Still no argument provided for this.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If you repeat your claims on "typical nationalist" again, I will not comment here again and will not allow any edit. Then you will need a RFC/DRN case etc. Right? Since your command of English is not that good, and you might not be fully aware of the meaning of "nationalist" in English, we are forgetting what you wrote this time. If you wish to see nationalists, do not search for them on Wikipedia but on online forums, chats, videos etc where some guys who do not have the guts to fight for what they want, post crap hidden behind a computer. They are not men of honour but little trolls. Now back to the topic. Do you agree with what I wrote in my previous comment or not? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua that's a strawman. The counterpart to a Northern Epirote issue would be something called a Chameria issue. Both imply something to land. Some Greeks refer to southern Albania as Northern Epirus and some Albanians still refer to the area of Thesprotia as Chameria. Cham issue refers to the people. When the term "Cham issue" is mentioned it is to the people and property matters and not something else [36]. Please don't conflate things. With Hajidimitriu he just sumerizes what is already out there in scholarship. My thing to you is if where going to go down the path of using sources like that there are heaps written by Albanians as well. I guess you wont object to their usage?Resnjari (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The counterpart to a Northern Epirote issue would be "Tokat shqiptare ne Greqi". Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"Northern Epirotes" refers to a community just like Chams. I understand that the selective use of such terms raises serious concerns about neutrality. Your arguments need to be backed by RS and a Northern Epirote issue did exist in the diplomatic agenda just like a Cham issue.Alexikoua (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you consider to be a "North Epirote issue" is not being currently discussed or raised by any government. The right of the Greek minority are. If you keep up the "Northern Epirote" issue I am not going to respond here again. Do you agree with my proposal or not? Yes or No. Here it is again:"If you wish to have content on the Greek minority's rights, it is OK as long as it does not have any reference to the "N. Epirus issue". They are two different things. On the Chams part, if you wish to make those changes, the source of Resnjari should be added [37]. Since the part on the Greek minority does not have similar content, the bolt part in the following sentence should be removed:"The Cham issue refers to a controversy which has been raised by Albania since the 1990s over the repatriation of the Cham Albanians, who were expelled from the Greek region of Epirus between 1944 and 1945, at the end of World War II, citing the collaboration of the majority of them with the occupying forces of the Axis powers. The situation is more complex than just a sentence shows." Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Even the article that @Alexikoua cited does not refer to the people as "Northern Epirotes" but the Greek minority. My goodness. @Alexikoua, i already placed a source about RS and the "Cham Issue".Resnjari (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Also i still raise objections to the section. It has a problematic sentence "(also known as the Northern Epirote issue)" [38]. Hajidimitriu nowhere says this . Obviously original research. Disappointing. Please no POV.Resnjari (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have read some (not all) arguments of this heated debate but I havent seen any evidence that a RS discuss at a certain extent the alleged "N.E. Issue" and its influence on Greece-Albania Relations.Cinadon36 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident: Tell your opinion here by commenting, not by continuing the cycle of changes to the article. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You have violated 3RR, you reverted information you do not agree with, and insisted in keeping opposite information the others do not agree being presented in the article, despite my warnings. This is not constructive attitude of your part, Ktrimi. Unless you agree on covering both side's respective minorities in the article, none stays. I think I was very clear to you on this, wasn't I?

Either resolve the disagreements by yourself, either ask for a 3rd party opinion. By reading this discussion here, you are not showing signs of goodwill preferred to edit war. I am calling for admin attention. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it is your WP:ONUS to wait until you reach agreement on the talk page and then change the stable version. Instead of making frivolous threats, respond to my proposal above. Otherwise everything is a waste of time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident, there was edit warring and no consensus in the article talkpage while some editors continuously kept trying to add content while a discussion was ongoing. That in no way generates good faith. @Ktrimi's constructive editing returned the article to a stable version and yes i do agree that administrator attention is needed.Resnjari (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Persistent denial to accept that Northern Epirotes and Chams refer both to communities (not regions) falls simply wp:IDHT. There is plenty of RS material as presented above so there is no excuse for selective use of those two terms. In case these is a Cham issue there should be a Northern Epirote issue else this is POV.Alexikoua (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Unbelievable, even one of the editors who joined in had to change the section subtitle from the one your POV pushing "Northern Epirote issue" to the neutral "Greek minority in Albania" as some editors in here having been pointing out. @Alexikoua you seem to agree with that in your edit summary of "objections are addressed" [39], yet here your still pushing things about Northern Epirotes. I will note again no one here has disagreed that a section about the Greek minority in Albania should exist, but adding content when it does not say things about a "Northern Epirote issue" in no way builds good faith. Also there is lots of RS scholarship about bilateral relations and the Greek minority of Albania. Use those please. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

One thing is for certain and going by the edit summary/edits of @Alexikoua, @SilentResident and @Krirug agree i guess that the section should be called Greek minority in Albania.Resnjari (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Added POV tag to the article, and asked for administrator attention. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Page is now protected.Resnjari (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

POV tag has been added and Ed locked the article. I am sorry it had to come to this, but you didn't leave me any other options. if you can't resolve a dispute by yourself, then consider a third party opinion on this instead of editwarring. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

There is plenty of bibliography to include the "Northern Epirote issue" Roudometof for example is now of them which states that this is part of the official Greek policy: Northern Epirote issue=the condition and human rights of the Greek communities in Albania.Alexikoua (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed there is a extensive bibliography and when they use the expression "Northern Epirote issue" (Stefanidis [40]) its in relation to land and bilateral issues, not people. You already agreed that the section should be called Greek minority in Albania by agreeing [41] to @Khirurg's edit, so that part is done. Now the crux is what content and should be be based on RS sources or other?Resnjari (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident No need for sorry. I asked page protection before you. I do not mind improving the article, I do not mind leaving the article as is together with the POV tag. If you wish to make changes, respond to my proposal above. Otherwise, everything is a waste of time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with Khirurg's suggestion which is cited (Stefanidis confirms that a n.E. issue exists).Alexikoua (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Stefanidis does say that in terms toward the land and past, not the people.Resnjari (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

N. Epirus is a region but N. Epirotes refers to people, similar like Chameria & Cham issue (the last being present in the article with a separate section).Alexikoua (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

In Greece some people refer to southern Albania in that way, in Albania there is no recongition of Northern Epirus, neither does the Greek government refer to southern Albania that way. With Chameria after the mid 1940s the geographical concept over the area of modern Thesprotia becomes defunct (just to refresh your memory the Greek state refereed to the region as Tsamouria until the 1940s out of its own free will in government documents). Chameria only still applies to the Albanian side of the border in the Konsipol area. Look after all the brouhaha of opposing a proposal i made about the section being called Greek minority in Albania you accepted that same thing after @Khirurg rewrote section's name. Now if you want to be constructive about the content of the section, ok i'll engage with you otherwise this page is protected and no one gets anything done.Resnjari (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Since there is no objection about Khirurg's suggestion I'm ok with it.Alexikoua (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record it was my suggestion first.Resnjari (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to have content on the Greek minority's rights, it is OK as long as it does not have any reference to the "N. Epirus issue". On the Chams part, if you wish to make those changes, the source of Resnjari should be added [42]. Since the part on the Greek minority does not have similar content, the bolt part in the following sentence should be removed:"The Cham issue refers to a controversy which has been raised by Albania since the 1990s over the repatriation of the Cham Albanians, who were expelled from the Greek region of Epirus between 1944 and 1945, at the end of World War II, citing the collaboration of the majority of them with the occupying forces of the Axis powers. If you agree on all of these, then it OK. Otherwise, move on and do sth else. To clarify, the content on the Greek minority would be like this:

===Greek minority in Albania===

Main article: Greeks in Albania

The issue of the Greek minority in Albania revolves around the implementation and respection of the minority and human rights of the ethnic Greek population in Albania.

Say if you agree or not without too many words. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Khirug's suggestion is ok [[43]] & as soon Resnjari is fine [[44]] I assume there is concensus (The issue of the Greek minority in Albania (also known as the Northern Epirote issue) revolves round the implementation and respect of the minority and human rights of the ethnic Greek population in Albania.). It appears that Ktrimi adopts a stubborn opposition on this (not to mention his 4rvs). Alexikoua (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Jesus, how are you still interpreting that its consensus on the whole thing? There is no consensus about the internal contents of the section making reference to the POV of "also known as the Northern Epirote issue" about the Greek minority. Not even the media source by Hajidimitiriu that you presented does that. The only thing so far that there is agreement now is that the section be called Greek minority in Albania.Resnjari (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The controverial approach that Chams vs Northern Epirotes should have one sided approach POV. Nothing should be avoided (in your rationale mention to Northern Epirotes) provided that there is enough RS and in this case we have plenty of sources.Alexikoua (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually your the one continuing with a controversial approach. It was you who has consistently (as shown in the above comments) held firm to having a section called in a POV way and only relented when you did(maybe when you did not notice Khirurg's edit that changed of the title through all the reverts of this and that), and by default agreed in the edit summary to what was my original proposal but you now attribute to Khirurg. Anyway it doesn't matter who came up with it, what is important is that the section will carry the name "Greek minority in Albania".Resnjari (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have read a review on Stefanis book, but doesnt say anything about Epirus. Does anyone have access to that book? In what chapter/pages does he discuss the North Epirus Issue? As pointed out earlier, we should not connect Chams and N.Epirotes like it is the same issue (even if they are!). It is not POV pushing, it is sticking to the sources. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I've read that, though I can't understand why Resnjary presented this work here. Top grated publications like that of Hatziioanou on Naftempriki are ok and can't be excluded. Moreover, Tzineli is among many others that refers to the Northern Epirote issue in modern terms [[45]].Alexikoua (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I read through the Tzanelli source, she refers to Greeks in Greece, not the Greek government. Remember this article is about relations between governments and countries, not the day to day relations between Albanian people and Greek people. Otherwise i can cite sources here about the Albanian populace and their views on the 'Chameria question'. Please lets keep to what the article is about international relations between two countries.Resnjari (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. This article is about bilateral relations, not international. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A single sentence on this issue is obviously not going to cut it. Tomorrow I will try to draft something that we can all agree on. Khirurg (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't what your referring to here, but any content going into the article must reflect the sources and not personal POV.Resnjari (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The only POV is to present a Cham only section. As you said this article should present official government relations and since Papadopoulos' analysis clearly states that there is an Northern Epirote issue there is no question that its in the scope of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

We're going around in circles. Let me be clear about my personal position. I have not opposed a section on the Greek minority itself and think that it is long overdue of the article. However what i was opposed to was your original proposal for the name of that section. Now that you agree that it should be called Greek minority in Albania we can start the process of making constructive proposals (one hopes) via RS that would lead to such a section being in the article.Resnjari (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

After reading this whole discussion again and again, the following facts came to my notice thus far: 1) sources referring to the Greeks by both its official name as Greek Ethnic Minority of Albania and its self-idendified name Greeks of Northern Epirus do exist. For example the world-renowed newspaper Huffington Post, (which mind you, never was classified in the Reliable Sources noticeboard as an unreliable newspaper) just a couple of years ago published an article about the "Greeks of Northern Epirus signal SOS", their history, their fight for autonomy, persecution during Communist era, and immigration, and nowadays, the human right issues it is facing. [46] 2) None here disputes the Greek Minority's self-idendification as Northern Epirote, from what I understand. Resnjari rather points out το the necessity of source citation. However Resnjari is missing the fact that it is not necessary to cite the term Greeks of Northern Epirus, as citing self-determination or geographical determination of people is not a common Wikipedia practice and such a thing has not been requested for other people/communities which too have been very controversial, such as the Cham Albanians and the Turks of Western Thrace. There are sources about their name origins and such, but there is no need for sources to describe these people by their self-determined or geographical names. Wikipedia in fact is permitting them. I can't help but see the insistence of certain editors's objections here, regarding the self-determination of people, as being problematic given how the same editors have never raised any such cases about other Balkan minorities thus far.

Someone said, earlier, that the Greeks of Northern Epirus should not be compared to the other minorities. I agree with that as much as I agree with handling the Greeks of Northern Epirus in the same fashion we handled the other Balkan minorities in Wikipedia, such as the Turks of Western Thrace, in a bid to avoid double standards that could cause friction among editors. Ktrimi and Resnjari are objecting to the term North Epirus due to POV concerns related to past irredendism, but a look should be given on how it was allowed for the Turks to use the term Western Thrace when describing their minority in Wikipedia, despite the term being sensitive for many Greeks due to its irredendist connotations stemming from Turkey's past claims to the region of Western Thrace, already from the days of the Turkish Republic of Western Thrace. In all case, the self-determination of people constitutes no POV for Wikipedia, and if you ask any administrators, they will tell you the same I am afraid. Do not confuse Wikipedia's WP:NPOV with self determination of people, communities and nations, as they are two completely different things. The issue here, how I see it, is not self-determination of people, but how to word the sentences carefully and in a balanced way that could not contain any POV, always in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You refer to sources, its nice if they are presented here so one can have a look themselves. Also still with the POV of "Northern Epirus". Its southern Albania. Continuing in this fashion is disappointing. Bilateral relations is part of international relations. The Turkish minority of Greece, that's a different article. Stick to the issues at hand. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's easy to find sources that Greeks of Norther nEpirus identify as "Northern Epirotes" "northern%20epirotes"&f=false [47]. This is a fact. I realize you absolutely hate the term, but you can't ban it from wikipedia.

ok the first source is Nitsiakos. He refers to people in southern Albania using the term to gain job access to the Greek market and also states that the Greek minority are known as "northern Epiriots" in Greece etc, etc. Second source by Maratou-Alipranti places the term side by side with the Greek minority and then also says that Albanians have used the term to get job access in Greece. So which northern Epirots here, Greeks, Albanians ??? Having terminolgoy that is to the point is improtant. Now for the sake of neutrality and going even by your edit [48] Greek minority in Albania (which was my initial proposal anyway for the name of the section) is unambiguous and neutral.Resnjari (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Look at Nitsiakos page 270, he is clearly referring to Greeks. I agree the term "Greek minority in Albania" should be the section title, however, the section should include that the Greeks there self-designate as "Northern Epirotes", and that the region is referred to as "Northern Epirus" in Greece. Khirurg (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

ok, i would need to see how you would word that sentence though and what RS will be used. We may be able to work something out on that. Anyway you said you were going to come up with content for the section. When you have that ready start a new section in the talkpage. I doubt i'm the only one but its dizzying following this thread. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Since this is about relations between governments let me remind you that the official Greek position in 1990s was that the Northern Epirotes should enjoy the same rights as the Albanian in Kosovo.Alexikoua (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

ok, i'm trying to work out what you mean. Are you implying that the Greek position was that Greeks have no rights, because in the 1990s Yugoslavia removed all rights for Albanians in Kosovo. This makes no sense that Greece would want for its minority the same conditions of Albanians in Kosovo living under Yugoslavia in the 1990s.Resnjari (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

How a part of Greek society calls the Greek minority in Albania is irrelevant. Make your proposal but if it contains delusive references like "N. Epirus", "N. Epirote" etc, it will be rejected. To add content, you should also agree on my proposal above. Take your time and post here when you are ready. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Your "proposal" is nothing, you just copied what I tried to add to the article, added misspelled words to it (what is "respection") and are now trying to take credit for it. So no, no one "should agree" to anything. And stop barking orders while you're at it. Khirurg (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you seem to not know what we are talking about. My proposal is more than that. "Respection" is a word, research it online. Anyway, this discussion is becoming more and more meaningless. I oppose your proposal. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

We'll see what comes up and then we'll take it from there. Ktrimi's proposal sounds fine. Others can add further comments or place something of their own. The article is after about bilateral relations between both countries, it should focus on that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The "argument" to get rid from any mention about Northern Epirus/otes is POV. Khirurg has proposed a balanced version even by avoiding mention of N.E. in the heading. However, this can't be neglected and its use is warranted. No wonder even the book provided by Resnjary states that the Northern Epirote issue has a place in the sphere. Also would suggest to Ktrimi to calm down. Reaching 4rvs in a couple of hours isn't cool.Alexikoua (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me reiterate about what i said previously. On the Northern Epirus question (the land claim issue) it ought to be treated in a historical context. Greece no longer has a land claim on Albania for decades. Attempts to conflate and mix it up with the Greek minority and issues of today would be POV. As for Khirurg's proposal we will see what will be written. Can't comment on something that does not exist yet. By the way Alexikuoa, Ktrimi is right in expressing those concerns.Resnjari (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari, they do not understand that with some redundant comments they just make it harder for themselves to reach an agreement and add the content they wish. It is elementary logic. Will I, you or anyone else feel pressured and add off-topic content on N. Epirus? No, of course. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Well it is what is is, its no shocker. One hopes that a constructive approach will emerge. I agree with you, content should reflect bilateral relations, not other things.Resnjari (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually 4 rvs in a couple of hours can't be considered a constructive approach if you mean that. In general the obsession that Northern Epirus should vanish from the context of Greek-Albanian relation is wp:POV. Northern Epirus "is" one of the hot topics in this context, see Roudometov, Hatzidimitriou, A. Papadopoulos (the later a member of the Greek government for nearly 2 decades).Alexikoua (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

From my experience, the Reliable Source Noticeboard, as well as the NPOV Noticeboard will advice the editors here to do what was done in all other cases: Include both terms per NPOV. The administrators are not exactly very fond of WP:CENSORSHIP in Wikipedia, I am afraid, and everyone who has been editor for many years in Wikipedia, knows that already. The project's philosophy was and still is to include all information, no matter how sensitive or offensive it may be for certain editors. Now, regarding our subject: we have the sources, and the term's significance is indisputable. I recommend that the proposals the editors make, pay attention on the wording, which in my opinion has to be careful and as neutral as possible per WP:NPOV, because the term in this case is only about the self-determination of people, and not about other uses. Especially, it shouldn't be confused with past attitudes or irredendist tendencies which do not characterize Greece's foreign policy which respects and believes in the inviolability of state borders, in line with all the other countries of the West (a fact already acknowledged by Resnjari if I am not mistaken here?). --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually you are mistaken. The international community recognises no place in the world called northern Epirus. Northern Epirus is a irredentist concept floated by some in Greece today. The Greek state in no way lays claim to southern Albania or refers to a "Northern Epirus region" in the context of bilateral relations.Resnjari (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually the entire bibliography on the subject of Greek-Albanian relations is completely ignored per wp:IDHT (and with distruprive 3rr breaches). A typical example is this work [[49]] (which has been presented by Resnary in various other talkpages by te way). No wonder the author treats both Northern Epirote issue and the Cham issues without taboo in the conext of modern politics. What's also interesting is the "Albania used the Chams as a counter-issue to that of the Greek minority. By the way Ktrimi needs to explain why he changed back Thesprotia to Epirus contrary to inlines: Roudometof & Meyer(guess blind reverting isn't a constructive strategy).Alexikoua (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua, i have the work by Kondiaris from that book. Don't place an OR interpretation that somehow its a present issue when it is not and nor does the soruce say this. Should i scan the pages of that chapter and uplead them on the internet for all to see? That chapter does have a lot about bilateral relations and the Northern Epirus thing it treated in its historic context.Resnjari (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook of 1991 which I may consider it's modern era [[50]] lists the Northern Epirote question as an active issue in Greek-Albanian polics. So we habe both primary and secondary sources in full aggrement.Alexikoua (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, you forgot to note that it was published in 1992. Today is 2018. Maybe it was an oversight on your part. Greece has no claim to southern Albania and nor are land claims part of bilateral issues.Resnjari (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Albania used the Chams as a counter-issue to that of the Greek minority Yes, the Greek minority, not N. Epirotes. Your source proves you are wrong. This discussion is similar to that on the talk page of Greeks in Albania when you tried to describe all Greeks in Albania as "N. Epirotes". After you failed there, why do you think you will succeed here? Reliable sources specialized in Balkan issues say "However the two governments have struggled to overcome several issues, including the rights of Albanians expelled by Greek nationalists at the end of the World War II, known as the Cham issue, and the rights of the Greek minority living in Albania [51]. As we have discussed before, academics like Levy, Rusha etc explain that not all Greeks in Albania identify as Northern Epirotes. That CIA link also mentions one "Kosovo question" and lists them as "disputes", hence it elaborates on territorial claims, not minority rights. Further, Human Rights Watch [52] reported in the 1990s that in 1987, when the Greek government formally withdrew claims to northern Epirus......At the same time, Greece began to voice its concern for the treatment of the Greek minority in Albania. If you wish, you can take this to DRN, RSN etc. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"Yes, the Greek minority, not N. Epirotes" Sorry if I am mistaken, but aren't we talking here about the issues of the Northern Epirotes specifically? Isn't Alexikoua just trying to highlight the plight of the Greeks in Northern Epirus? Aren't the Greeks residing in Northern Epirus the source of discontent and discord that harmed the relations between the two countries?

Sorry, but no source thus far has verified that the entirety of the Greek population of Albania, even those who live outside of Northern Epirus, such as the Greeks of Durres, Vlore and Tirane, ever had any significance in the diplomatic relations between the two countries. It is true that the Greeks aren't limited strictly to the area of Northern Epirus but thing is, all the records of incidents relating to Greeks in Albania, took place in Northern Epirus specifically, and ONLY here. Such examples of incidents are the case of Aristotle Gumas, the assault of shopkeepers, the demolition of homes and churches, and so on. All in Northern Epirus and only here. Maybe I suck in googling and there is more to it than just Northern Epirus? I could like to know, because myself I can't find anything about this in newspapers or even at the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs' website. If can you enlighten me, that could be very helpful, and if this is true, then I will gladly agree to opt out COMPLETELY the term Northern Epirus from the proposed additions to the article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi it appears you can't see that the specific work uses the wording "Northern Epirus issue" without hesitation in the context of modern politics. There is no reason for Wikipedia to hide well estachlished terminologies or do you believe that the CIA factbook spreads nonsense? In the case of the Greek language precenatage in Albania you were eager to use this specific source something you should do in this case too.Alexikoua (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but no source thus far has verified that the entirety of the Greek population of Albania, even those who live outside of Northern Epirus, such as the Greeks of Durres, Vlore and Tirane, ever had any significance in the diplomatic relations between the two countries.......I can't find anything about this in newspapers or even at the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs' website. If can you enlighten me, that could be very helpful, and if this is true, then I will gladly agree to opt out COMPLETELY the term Northern Epirus from the proposed additions to the article. Yes, of course. In October 2017, the then PM of Greece Nikos Kotzias said that for allowing Albania to become an EU member, Greece demands the recognition of rights for Greeks everywhere in Albania, including those in Tirana [53]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

OK Ktrimi, let me understand: are you proposing that the Wikipedia does NOT make note of the serious issues the Greeks do face in a specific geographic area, just because of a mere statement by the Greek MoFA? Even though the incidents in Northern Epirus (and not his statement) are what affected the diplomatic relations? To put it simple: Are you proposing that we hide/obstruct the noteworthy fact that the incidents against Greeks in Albania were concentrated in Northern Epirus? Are you proposing that we use merely a MoFA's statement just so we generalize the issue by possibly implying that there are human right violations in ALL of Albania, just to avoid using the term Northern Epirus alltogether, even though in reality, the violations happened in that limited geographic area?

You know, Wikipedia values and emphasizes on incidents/events over the political statements. Politicians, especially in the Balkans, can say alot of things, no doubt about that. But it is the actions/events what really hold any real value in Wikipedia. I don't mind adding MoFA's statemets but I do mind, and not only me, but everyone here would too mind, if we obscure information from the readers about events and incidents, which are far more important than a political statement. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I am very disappointed with you SilentResident. One editor had said to me good words about you but I am starting to feel disappointed. You asked for sources that prove that Greeks in Tirana have significance to the relations between the two countries. I provided one that demonstrates that Greeks in Tirana are not only important but a condition to the path of Albania to the EU membership. Hence, I am not expecting much from this discussion. Use other ways to seek consensus like DRN etc. I say No and No. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Saying "no and no" isn't an argument. I feel you should need to relax and avoid personal accusations about "editors who said you something". Both primary and secondary bibliography make widely use of the Northern Epirote issue. Wikipedia has no reason to avoid that.Alexikoua (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, I am sorry if I disappointed you, but I am not here to impress anyone, I am here to see the information which is directly related to diplomatic relations, being finally added to the article. The incidents in Northern Epirus contributed to the diplomatic relations between the two countries and this is indisputable fact. The source you have provided is just about Greece's position regarding the Law of Minorities. Sure, we can include that too! After all, if you read my past comments, you will notice how I always believe the more information is added to the article, information covering all sides fairly, is the better for us all and first of all, the readers. But you have to understand, the article is not merely about a law voted in the Albanian Parliament which was conditioned on Albania's EU accession, is also about incidents in Northern Epirus which affected (and continue to affect to this very day) Albania's diplomatic relations with Greece. We can't simply ignore this fact just because you you may not like it. I hoped you could have supported the information's inclusion, but if you do not want to consent to this or be part of this, then so be it. Although it could have been much better if you participated. Perhaps you should consider asking for a third opinion if you do not want to listen to me. Feel free to do so, none is holding you back. But, Ktrimi, be prepared in that what others have to tell you, may not be what you could like to hear. Have a good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 02:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Analysis about the issue is also found in a mountain of academic scholarship, for example [[54]] states: "The issue of Northern Epirus was formally submerged in 1926 with the signing of a peace agreement between Albania and Greece, but it continues to plague Greek-Albanian relations today." . I'm afraid there is no doubt that wp:IDHT is reaching a new level here (and this paper isn't written by a Greek author an editor turned Hatzidimitriou useless above). Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Your newest source just proves you wrong. It says that The issue of Northern Epirus was formally submerged in 1926 with the signing of a peace agreement between Albania and Greece, i.e. it is not part of relations between governments of the two countries. Our article is concerned with issues between governments of the two countries. Yes, there are other sources that say that claims on N.Epirus plague the relations between the two countries in the context that some fringe nationalists (and religious fundamentalists) in Greece spread their ideas (Golden Dawn etc). If you wish to treat N. Epirus in that way, yes, I surely agree. Levy explains that not all Greeks in Albania identify themselves as N. Epirotes. Rusha and your newest source explain that "N. Epirus" is linked to religion rather than ethnicity. Merdani points out that claims on N. Epirus are not part of official relations between the two countries but are of importance among some circles in Greece, some of them being neo-Nazis. This way, yes, one or two sentences mentioning N. Epirus in this context would be great. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 i am not surprised here with commentary by editors. There are editors in here just want so very much to place in POV about Northern Epirus as being some kind of "active" issue when Greece has no land claims on Albania. Disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua i came across this in your source p.190. "Like the Greeks, the Serbs sought to deport many of the Albanians to Turkey, considering them unwanted remnants of the Ottoman empire." @Ktrimi did say something many posts back about adding things on the interwar period and the Muslim Albanian community that lived in Greek Epirus, as per bilateral relations. I got more sources to that's more detailed. Thoughts guys?Resnjari (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua also the source you posted is from 2009. Treating it as being contemporary to today when almost one decade has past is a personal interpretation. The Greek state has no land claim nor has it mentioned "Northern Epirus" as a issue of today in relations.Resnjari (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

"Northern Epirus as being some kind of "active" issue when Greece has no land claims on Albania" lack of ability in understanding what others say, is definitely the problem here. What part of the "North Epirus ≠ land claims" do you not understand? The region was known as Northern Epirus for 2000 years, Resnjari, you don't expect us to believe that "Epirus = 20th century claims"?

To map out the reasons for lack of consensus here, you have to answer with all honesty, and straightforwardly: Do you believe that Epirus is NOT a historical region whose the existence predates the 20th century's national romanticism? Do you believe Epirus to be merely an invention of some far-right Greeks who lived in 20th Century and laid claims to it? Do you think the local Greeks residing in Northern Epirus, are NOT called Northern Epirotes? Do you think the local Greeks in Northern Epirus were NOT assaulted and discriminated? Do you think there were NO incidents in that region? Do you think this information must be censored? I want an answer. A clear one. I can't make these questions simpler and smaller than that. But I expect that they are easily intelligible, and once this is cleared out, we can understand if the problem here is merely editor's anti-Epirote POV or just bad communication. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 03:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident, i'm not here to recycle national narratives. History notes that the Bulgarian, Serbian and later Ottoman Empires ruled the region for a collective period of more then a thousand years and they never used the term "Epirus" and never "Northern Epirus". There is no evidence that Greeks living in the region used the until toward the 19th century and beyond. The ancient period is the ancient period. That should not be confused with the modern day period for which we are discussing here now.Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: there is one problem, though. Lets say we add the term Northern Epirus to the article. Doesn't that exclude a very important center of the Greek minority, the city of Korçë? Even though Korçë is one of the centers of the Greek minority of Albania, it is a Macedonian town, not Epirote. This came to my notice now. Only the other two centers of the Greek minority happen to be located on Epirote soil. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Traditional regions never had precise borders, however Northern Epirus includes Korce in terms of 20th century politics & was part of the Northern Epirote state. Here is the map presented by the N.Epirote government in the Paris conference [[55]]. The border was in lake Malik further north.Alexikoua (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I assume that turning an academic analysis useless because it's written in 2008 (as obsolete?) or even written by a Greek author, although its brand new publication, or even no providing an counterargument at all (in the case of Roudometof) is quite disruptive. This combined with 3rr breaches, unexplained and blind reverts (Ktrimi doesn't care to explain yet why he change Thesprotia to Epirus) isn't a sound approach. For future reference a 2008 academic publication isn't obsolete unless you provide respectable RS for that. According to Resnjari's "rationale" Kotzias claims are obsolete too since he resigned from office.Alexikoua (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Its disappointing that your going down this read again but i am not surprised. I saw and scholarship and am thoroughly acquainted with them. For future reference we are now 2018, not the 2000s, not the 1990s, not even the 1900s. Our task is to write an encyclopedia not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Northern Epirus includes Korce in terms of 20th century politics -- yes precisely, Korce became part of "Epirus" even though it had never been before for Greeks, solely for irredentist purposes, and reference to Korcha as "Epirote" thus unavoidably arise in some way from irredentism And was it even a "major center of Greeks" -- maybe for Greeks in Albania overall simply because it is a "big" town (for Albania) so in raw numbers it could have had many Greeks, as did Vlora and does Tirana, but anywhere close to the majority? No way. Their big man back then, Photios, wasn't even from Europe, he was from Pontus, not any local community; meanwhile, the city was the cradle and epicenter of Albanian nationalism in the 19th and 20th century. So the question is -- why should we adopt a terminology that was proposed and primarily used only by 20th century irredentists?--Calthinus (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident's claim that "the region was known as Northern Epirus for 2000 years" are for crying out loud. "Northern Epirus" is not same as "Epirus" or "northern Epirus". Anyhow, strange statements are not sth new on Wikipedia. @Alexikoua, regarding my edits, I have explained them both in my edit summaries and here (many times). If you are not capable of understanding them, it is because need to "relax". Your sources say that the Greek government does not have any claim regarding stuff with N. Epirus. We could create a separate section (separate to the current section that is concerned with official relations) on nationalist claims that are not accepted by governments of the two countries and not supported by the majority of citizens of them:Northern Epirus by some Greek nationalists and even some neo-Nazi groups (Golden Dawn etc), "Albanian ethnic lands in Greece" (Chameria, Ioannina, Konitsa, Florina, Kastoria and Gravena) and minority rights for Arvanites that are claimed by some Albanian nationalists. These fringe claims are supported by some nationalists in the two countries and damage official relations. Merdani and Toptani elaborate on all of this. I am starting to agree that Alexikoua has a point when he insists on adding content on Northern Epirus. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident's claim that "the region was known as Northern Epirus for 2000 years" are for crying out loud. I don't think so.The region was known historically as such since Roman times. Albeit Northern Epirus (Roman: Epirus Nova) extended much further to the north, including even the areas where Tirane, Vlore and Durres are today. If you don't know the region's history, it is not my problem. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident, we are not discussing the Roman period and so many other empires have come and gone i.e the Bulgarian, Serbian and especially the Ottoman which never ever made use of the term Epirus. This article is solely about the modern day period, about state relations tdating from 1912-1913 when Albanian came into being as a state. Our task as editors is to write an encyclopedia, not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we go by the political definition of "North Epirus = Northern Epirote state", then we will NEVER get any consensus with the other editors I am afraid. If we want to have any hopes of using the term Northern Epirus in the article, we have to make sure we are referring to the geographical Northern Epirus which predated the 20th century politics and still is the predominant definition nowadays for historical and geographical purposes. We can't refer to an autonomous state of the 20th century as a valid geographic definition. A state's borders ≠ geographical borders. Just like how we couldn't use Greece's modern borders for defining Epirus, Thrace and Macedonia's geographical borders. The geographical borders of all these 3 regions, are contemporary and are independent of the modern-day political borders. I feel we will have a hard time explaining why Korçë is mentioned collectively as North Epirote if all what we meant here is to refer to the Northern Epirotes in an NPOV way, by their historical and geographical context and not by their political one. The Greek editors could NEVER consent to such a rationale for Greece-Turkey relations if lets say Western Thrace was referred to as, politically instead of geographically. Just we have to keep the same rationale on all Wikipedia's articles to avoid double standards. If we refer to the North Epirote areas by using 20th century political definitions, then we are unwillingly politicizing the term and we will have hard time explaining to others, such as Turkish editors why they shouldn't do the same with Western Thrace. Our scope here is the issue of human right violations of the minority regardless of 20th century politics, and any mention of the 20th century NE state could be only be made for historical purposes as long as it is relevant to the human rights situation for the minority. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"Epirus Nova" means "New Epirus", not "Northern Epirus". But who cares about details, right? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't realize that Epirus Nova constituted the northern half of the region of Epirus, which is what I am referring to? Or are we playing the dumb here? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident agian the article is about modern relations not the ancient period of "Epirus Nova".Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I would support Ktrimi991's proposal to make a section for the potentially destabilizing claims by neo-Nazi and other nationalist groups (Golden Dawn, KQZ for the Albanian side etc...) while making clear that the Greek and Albanian governments both refuse the claims of the groups that claim to act in Greek/Albanian interests. Such a section could be useful for readers in understanding the backgrounds of nationalist obsessions on both sides, while making clear that the governments of Greece and Albania do not give into such "North Epirote"/"Greater Albania" extremism. --Calthinus (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

In particular, collaboration between Greek and Albanian moderates in containing the extremists in favor of common interests of European integration and common Balkan economic advancement can also be highlighted.--Calthinus (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but I am VEHEMENTLY opposing any attempts of portraying the term Northern Epirus as irredendist. If we go by this rationale, then we should flag any use of the term Cham as irredendist too and ban it from inclusion to the article altogether, even though it is part of their geographical (not political) identity. Could you ever support such an illogical rationale? Of course no. I expect the same sensitivity when it comes to regional Northern Epirote identity as you expect for the Cham idendity from Greek editors. Either we respect both Cham Albanians and North Epirote Greeks, either we not. There are no middle solutions to this: regional idendities of people must not be politicized, no matter what. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻  ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident if regions where "Northern Epirotes" live are listed to include only the ones where they are known to reside in large rural and urban concentrations -- namely Vurg, Dropull, Pogon and Himara (can also mention urban centers outside they migrate to as well as Saranda and Gjirokaster which are sort of on the edge of the ethnic Greek minority region), I don't think moderate Albanians would find it so offensive, but it is a process to de-associate the word with it's irredentist usage (Sudeten Germans have a distinct identity but Czechs are also understandably uncomfortable with the word...). But when it starts to be used to include Tepelena, Kolonja, Korce, Devoll, Pogradec, Dangellia, Lunxheria, even Kurvelesh, then it becomes a lost cause-- imo. Regarding Chameria, my experience has been that Greeks dislike any and all usage of the term similar to Albanians with North Epirus -- similarly I suppose it could be less threatening if it wasn't used to refer to places like Ioannina and Grevena which clearly aren't Chameria.--Calthinus (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, the problem clearly can be synopsized into 2 key facts: 1) actual Northern Epirus boundaries, and 2) politicization of the term Northern Epirote. In the same fashion that the ambiguous borders of Chameria were a cause of discord among editors in other articles. However can we agree that the politicization and questioning of the term Northern Epirote definition for its citizens is unfair and that it shouldn't happen from the moment the Cham definition isnt politicized or questioned? Unless I am mistaken, the Greek editors never questioned the term "Cham" for the Cham Albanians. I don't remember any discussions in Wikipedia where Greeks were calling for Cham Albanians to be renamed "Northwestern Greece's Albanians" or something like that, or even the Greek state calling them "Albanian Minority of Greece" in a bid to erase the term Cham. I agree the geographical definitions are a big mess, but at least we, from both sides, should respect the idendities of people. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident There are no "actual boundaries" of a "northern Epirus". The the world today the international community does NOT recognise anything of the sort and neither does Albania or Greece.Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And I am sorry if I have to be straightforward and raw about this: if someone here has any PROBLEM with Epirote Greeks in Albania being called North Epirotes, then they are encouraged to leave Wikipedia and find other occupations, as they are unfit for serving the project's goals. Any forms of racism go against Wikipedia's rules and I can't even list here how many cases of denialism were brought to the Noticeboards, with the obvious outcomes to us all. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Today, Orthodox Chams who refer to themselves as Cham and Shqiptar when speaking their mother tongue are referred to as "Arvanites of Epirus" on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Ditto for Albanians elsewhere in Northern Greece. Someone might say that these some of these people don't want to be called Chams or Albanians, well some Greeks in Albania do not want to be called Vorioepirotes. --Calthinus (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident since allowing the identities of people is the goal here -- I would predict, Ktrimi991 and Resnjari might give serious consideration for a proposal along the lines of "Ethnic Greeks, who often refer to themselves as North Epirotes, live mostly in the regions of Vurg, Himara, Dropull and Pogon" -- these are indeed the distinct regions that Greeks that call themselves North Epirotes live in (others -- Narta and Zvernec and some coastal cities-- are not "Epirote"). This would be more likely to be considered, though I could be wrong, because it avoids connotations of Greeks trying to "Hellenize" non-Greek populations that live elsewhere, which has long been a source of distrust by Albanians toward Greece, regardless of how true or untrue it is. However, I predict such a compromise proposal might encounter resistance from Alexikoua... --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't object something that's not proposed yet. However, stating that terms like Northern Epirus should vanish from this article at all costs falls into wp:POV.Alexikoua (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, this can be a good start. Alexikoua, I agree censoring NE is clearly POV, as could the censoring of the word Cham. If we went to censoring the word Cham from Wikipedia, couldn't this too be a blatant WP:POV case? Wouldn't the Albanian editors complaint about this? Of course they would, so I am positive now in that we all can see the faulty grounds of the objection to this term's use, and finally come to a logical conclusion that the identities of people must be respected, no matter the political views of editors. Terms such as Cham and North Epirote, should be not banned from Wikipedia - only their improper/bad usage should be. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻  ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident, can you refrain from using the term "Albanian editors". No one is calling you or others "Greek editors" or making ethnic heritage/descent part of the discussion. Show some good faith at least.Resnjari (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari:, oh you have misunderstood me. I am merely referring to your political identity as pro-Albanian editor, not national identity as Albanian Australian editor. Your position on Wikipedia's disputes reflects the Albanian side. I am vehemently against mention of people by birth origin and if my memory does not fail me, there is a rule in Wikipedia which clearly prohibits from referring or commenting to birth identities of editors. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident:, everything you have said there is gross i.e "to your political identity as pro-Albanian editor, not national identity as Albanian Australian editor. Your position on Wikipedia's disputes reflects the Albanian side." You should immediately retract everything in this statement through a strikeout. I have not made ethnic heritage part of a discussion or assumptions about an editor being "pro" this or that. I have never discussed your "political identity" or that of other editors, nor do i care. That should not be part of any discussion. Also i have not made an editor's location part of any discussion even if they have freely divulged that information on their own personal User page. Your further digging yourself a hole by persisting with this kind of commentary.Resnjari (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari:: I think I was quite clear to you in that these are references to the political sides (i.e. pro-Greek editors or Greek side) and from personal experience, there wasn't an issue with that. If this is really an issue for you, then you have my apologies. However, I can't help but find it strange that you have a problem with that, when none else does. If you check other article discussions, I was referred to as "Greek editor", (in a political context, not birth) by others. But unlike you, I didn't have a problem with that. Did you see me reporting them? No. What makes me sceptical is that you are making now in all of sudden these BADFAITH accusations that I am referring to your birth and then threatening me that I am "further digging myself a hole". I am really worried now. Are you threatening me??? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident:, you could have worded things differently i.e 'editors that have a focus on Albanian related topics' etc. I never said anything making threats (again another assumption for you), just don't go there about assumptions of individual editors and perceived things about them. Its uncalled for and useless for complex discussions like this. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari: ther was a similar incident here, with Ktrimi: [56]. If this wording can confuse 2 editors in just only 1 week, then yes, I will have to think twice before borrowing other's phraseology. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident:, actually in that diff example @Ktrimi was clearly saying to you not to go down that road of dividing editors into nationalities. Just so there is no ambiguity. An editors location (even if they have openly stated it on their userpage), what one might perceive as their politics/political views and or ethnic heritage/descent etc should not be part of any discussion in these article talkpages. If an editor edits a lot on topics relating to a certain wikiproject then it can be phrased in away that does not touch on these other things but only that. Like this there is no room for confusion, misinterpretation etc. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, this article is not about how a part of the Greek minority call themselves. Toptani explains that a part of the Greek minority accepts being called "N. Epirote", and another part of the Greek minority feels insulted and reject the usage of that term. The ones who feel insulted are mostly those who are moderately or not religious at all.. Tell me a way we can place an analysis of the term "N. Epirote" without creating a huge section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus, I think that is a great proposal. Khirurg (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

In addition to what I said in my previous comment, not all those who claim to be part of the Greek minority in Albania feel really Greeks, many do so just for the sake of a job in Greece (Albanians and Aromanians) [57]. Calthinus. tell me a way we can place an analysis without creating a huge section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I want to so some more detail about this before i agree.Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

1 edit, 4 pings, 4 notifications for the SAME edit. [58] Don't do that ever again. Next time just use only one ping, is more than enough, no need for 4. This is very disruptive. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I ping you because sometimes the ping does not go through. Its just common courtesy. Whether you like it or not, not my problem.Resnjari (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, like I said before: everyone has to respect the minorities and their right to self-identification. If you can't do that at least, then I suggest you leave this discussion to editors who are trying to work on the content. I suggest you don't go down the road again of disputing the identity of the Greeks in Albania, just don't. We have had enough of this. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry I kind of backed out of this, I'd like to be part of constructively resolving this but I don't have the time to read all the stuff like that above^. The only proposal I can support is the first. "The Albanian government considers the issue to be non-existent" --- there are many implications here that basically assume the Greek POV (first that there is this issue there --- meanwhile Albanian rights in Greece are undiscussed except for Chams where the reader gets introduced to them as "majority Nazi collaborators" -- to be clear I am indeed of hte opinion that Greek minority affairs have a place on this page as do non-Cham-expulsion issues regarding Albanian inhabitants of Greece, including both immigrants and Albanian-Greeks in the north. But this will of course be sticky.). Imo the 1st proposal, especially once SR offered to include that some Greeks dislike the term North Epirotes, if I were Ktrimi I would have taken that as a working version that an be built on and tried to build good will from there. But with all the accusations including ethnic-tinged ones, it's kind of understandable that didn't happen. Liking each other isn't necessary to pursue mutually beneficial agreements. There's always next time. Anyhow, I gotta back out here as I don't have the time at the moment, but that's my view since I've been thrown around as "possibly Calthinus" here and there, thought I'd make it clear. --Calthinus (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal that might be premature to label final (sigh)

SilentResident Imo, it's not good to mix short term and long term deals. But instead of dealing with only one of many larger structural issues in a page with many when trying to negotiate on a small content issue for a new section, let's talk about structural issues and this one section in parallel conversations.

Proposal for the Greek minority section (short-term): exactly what everyone here but Alexikoua and Cinadon (who wasn't present when it was proposed I believe) agreed on. To be added immediate.

Longer term larger structural proposal to handle Chams and other issues that will certainly be sucked in: I have already fixed the section on "Modern relations" so that it is not part of history (that's an oxymoron anyways). I think the two should be clearly separated. The following things should go into the history section, long-term: One: pre-modern "people relations", i.e. medieval and Ottoman, to handle the migrations that led to Cham communities in the 13th century, Arvanites etc etc; and then, relations during the Ottoman, especially late Ottoman period -- relations between the two nationalist movements both positive and negative, of which the Confederation Aspirations were part of the former, the schooling issue, etc, leading up to the Balkan Wars. Two: the Balkan Wars , World War I and aftermath and the death of the Megali Idea as well as Greek involvement in Albanian factional fighting (Qemali~Wied / Essat / Qazimi-Qamili etc... yes I am sorry that but we will indeed have to talk about both Qemali and Qamili). Three: World War II, important as this is the origin of both the existing "state of war" law still technically active for Greece dating back to 1940 when Italy controlled Albania, and the Cham issue -- the history of these issues should be discussed here, in history, not modern relations. Four: Cold War relations, including of course the 1971 thaw in relations. Five: Post-Cold War (but not 'modern') relations, which shall cover the fall of communism, Albania and Greece where they intersected diplomatically in the Yugoslav Wars and the Macedonia name issue, the civil war in Albania and the mass migration of Albanians to Greece, Albania joining NATO, the independence of Kosovo (relevance is discussed by RS, yes), and finally the effects of Greece's financial crisis which included the partial return of Albanian migrants.

Then, we have the new modern affairs section. This shall have:

1. Economic ties
2. That Greece still has the 1940 state of war law in act regarding Albania
3. Cultural ties
4. Possibly Albania's stance on the Macedonia name issue-- not necessary though.
5. Mutual minority issues -- here we discuss the Greek minority in Albania, the Albanian minority in Greece including both immigrants and non-immigrants, and the Cham issue at present. Not it's history or how it happened.
6. Political factions which threaten positive relations -- mention Golden Dawn, Orthodox Rally whatever, KQZ, PDIU, et cetera. Can mention Chameria/North Epirus/other only by reference. No explaining these issues in this section, if necessary explicitly refer the reader to the above section. Kacifas can go here too.
7. Greece's support for Albania joining the EU. Shocker relations are much friendlier than they look on wiki.
8. Albanian/Greek coordination, miscellaneous (natural disasters, tipping each toher off about nationalist hotheads, etc etc)

I think this is a long term goal we can work towards. It should not come at the expense of immediate agreements.--Calthinus (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, since how to source all of this is an issue -- I do have many of these sources on hand and having been used elsewhere, but... here's a set of essays specifically on this, made in a Greek-Albanian academic collaboration project between Giakoumis, Rakipi and others [[59]].--Calthinus (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Point 4 wont be needed for this article. That's more for Albania-Macedonia relations. On point 3, cultural ties may exist, not sure about it being real. Would need RS. I think on relations, it should not go beyond the 1912-1913 period as Albania became a state then and that's when bilateral relations began. Prior to that one can not really speak of bilateral relations between states as both are modern creations of the past 200 years and not prior to that going back to the medieval period. On the other stuff yeah sounds good.Resnjari (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a guideline for where stuff should be added, long term. Re Macedonia, Toncheva discussed it once at least.--Calthinus (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see a Greek minority section where "everyone here but Alexikoua and Cinadon" agreed. Maybe Khirurg and SilentResident are also ignored in this so-called "consensus". Especially when there is a serious -cn- issue this becomes even more problematic. Alexikoua (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A section on the Greek minority is needed. Much difficult compromise was made. Continuing on this merry go round means that we don't have a section of the sort in the article and some other editors have said that they wont engage further after so much time thus far.Resnjari (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua just a reminder here please don't alter other editor's comments as you did, i.e: [60]. Any points made do so in your comments.Resnjari (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)