Talk:Northern Epirus/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Northern Epirus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Demographics

Taking the advice from the DRN i have come back here, however frmal mediation is also another option as advised. Nonetheless on demographics, as the article stands it has a whole host of numbers in the demographics section. These pertain to the ethno-linguistic makeup of the area defined as Northern Epirus. Other editors voiced the position that scholarship citing the term Northern Epirus is applicable/acceptable to the article and content/sentences should be based around them while those that don't cite the term should not be there. Ok, then should not the Greek government Paris Peace conference numbers in a Greek government publication citing the term Northern Epirus be included in the article due to relevance to the topic that gives the Greek numbers of Albanians also [1] )p.3) ? Additionally for consideration into the article are numbers from Austin who also cites Greek government numbers used to claim the area. Austin states that Greece used Ottoman numbers compiled in 1908 for the Paris peace conference to claim the area (p. 92. [2]). Should they also not be in the article as the scholar used the term Northern Epirus (p. 91) in his analysis ? First i'll get clarification on just these two issues first. Is their citing in the article of relevance to the topic ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

In general the initiative to add content that is already part of the current version and recycling the same piece of info is something we should avoid. Your proposals are already part of the current version of the article (Paris Conference, Albanian estimates of the 1920s, L.o. Nations estimates of the same era, even a detailed geographic distribution is also part of the article). I would suggest reading the article carefully before proposing large scale additions.Alexikoua (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

By checking again the article again, there is already way too much detail about demographics: we have the demographic situation about a single village (Mursi) and a small group of villages (Lunxhery etc). It would be also the epitomy of POV to add the comments of a single diplomat (Austin), because it's more suitable to a specific POV. Instead I propose to remove some isolated cases such as Mursi in order to secure the balance of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The addition of Mursi was not about demographics and nor is it in the demographics section. The sentence based on Mursi was about the Hoxha regime and its views toward Orthodox Albanian speaking villages and Hellenophile issues. Just like the bit on Lunxheri also. If you want to remove the Mursi bit, the Lunxheri bit should also go as well. Otherwise if one stay so does the other. Anyway on demographics, the estimates in the article are in reference to only the Greek speaking population while even the Greek government (1919) itself gave full numbers on the area of all populations in a detailed survey. It listed the Muslim Albanian population too in the book that has Northern Epirus in the title. That is relevant considering the Greek government claimed the area based on those numbers.Resnjari (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The demographics section should refer to current estimates, not historical estimates. Otherwise it will turn into another unreadable wall of text of the familiar kind. Athenean (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes having too much detail within an article is a issue depending on the context. Wikipedia also has guidelines that when a article becomes big it can be split too into other articles. Having detial in some articles prevents them also from becoming hotspots for edit warring and having POV issues. For this article am not proposing to add large amounts of text. I have asked for input in the talk to refine things so many times yet also address shortcomings with the article. Anyway there already is a sentence on the Paris Peace conference (1919) and Greek government estimates. However it only cites the Greek government's numbers in relation to one population group (the Orthodox population of various linguistic backgrounds all classified as Greek), when the Greek government gave numbers for both population groups (Albanian Muslims also) in a book that caries the title Northern Epirus and produced a accompanying map which is in the article *the one in the quote citation box). I agree that current estimates should be in the article too. However, historical estimates were also part of the northern Epirus question (the Greek government was explicit about this and so is the recent scholarship as Greece based its claims on those numbers. i.e Austin). I am referring to these which directly refer to the topic. At most an addition of kind is less than even one sentence. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

To see if I understood well, the problem for Resnjari is that a region, (Northern Epirus), which is noted for its Greek minority, got its article mentioning the Greek minority's population statistics, but not explicitly mentioning the Albanian population's ones? Isn't the Albanian population already covered by the remaining non-Greek percentage? Isn't the Albanian population being covered already as a whole in the following article: Demographics of Albania? Since Northern Epirus is particularly noted for its official minority, the usual practice in Wikipedia is to mention it. The same happens, for example, in the article of the Albanian region of Prespa where the Ethnic Macedonian minority is concentrated: Mala Prespa. If you check the article of Mala Prespa, you will notice how there is no specific mention of the Albanian population, but there is a specific mention about its Ethnic Macedonian minority, because they are noted for being a minority of Albania. This doesn't mean the Albanians are underrepresented or that there is an Anti-Albanian bias in this article. Just the articles of Northern Epirus and Mala Prespa mention about the minorities for which the said regions are noted in the first place. On the other hand, the Albanians who constitute the main bulk of the whole country's population, are already covered in the article Demographics of Albania as they live anywhere in Albania, regardless of regions and places. -- SILENTRESIDENT 03:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent point. In fact it's the same thing in the [[Chameria] article. There is a whole table of nothing but Albanians. Greeks are mentioned only once in passing, and even then only in the context of the highly biased "census" of the occupying Italians. Someone reading the Chameria article would primarily be interested in the demographics of the Albanians, not the Greeks. Same thing here. Athenean (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. And I do not say that Resnjari's concerns are wrong. Just the reason the majorities are usually not given a spotlight in the articles about minority regions (Albanian majority in Northern Epirus, Greek majority in Chameria, and Albanian majority in Mala Prespa), is not because the aforementioned majorities do not exist in the said regions, or that there is any bias against majorities. Just, in these cases, a majority is present anywhere, while a minority is not. And by the way, I can't help but notice how since 2015, Albania got 12 administrative counties and 61 municipalities! Imagine, now, mentioning the majority Albanian population in EVERY ONE of these 12 Albanian counties... Couldn't this be too repetitive and impractical? It is better that the majorities are dealt in the [Demographics of COUNTRYNAME] instead. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Guys about Small Prespa, no Albanian speaking community lives there now or before. All villages are Macedonian. If a village or two had an Albanian population then yes one would cite it like on Macedonia's side of Prespa. On the Chameria article, the area conceived as Chameria in the Albanian speaking world mainly covers an Albanian speaking area that did not take in for the most part Greek speaking areas (apart from the area around the northern Mourgana mountains and southern Lamari plain near Preveza). Its why it has numbers on Muslim and Orthodox Albanian speaking peoples (the latter identifying as Greek). I can cite Kokolakis or Baltsiotis for more on this if you wish that both state was a compact area that was Albanian speaking. My point on this article was in reference to the Paris Peace conference of 1919. The Greek state when laying claims to the area in a document that has Northern Epirus in its title referred to all population groups including the Albanian one. Considering that this article is, as editors have said about a irredentist concept, are not the Greek government's full claims on the area of relevance to be noted as it thought those numbers where vital to its claims on the area? Otherwise can someone at least give me a reply as to why the Greek government even bothered to note a Albanian population in the context of Northern Epirus (and official claims to the area) if it did not think they really existed in the area ? This article already uses a map [3] from that official Greek government document [4] created by the Greek army staff showing the distribution of communities (yet there is no explanation of the population groups coloured in browny orange in the article).Resnjari (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"the area conceived as Chameria in the Albanian speaking world mainly covers an Albanian speaking area". Wow. Translation: "According to the Albanian POV, there were no Greeks in Chameria". Are you aware of how POV that sounds? With the same rationale, we could easily say ""the area conceived as Northern Epirus in the Greek speaking world mainly covers a Greek speaking area". There were plenty of Greeks in "Chameria" (e.g. Igoumenitsa, Parga, and the places you mentioned) and you know iw. You can't have your cake and eat it. As for the map, it's purpose is mainly illustrative rather than informative. It is extremely difficult to read. Athenean (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No i am not aware that what i stated was POV considering that is what peer reviewed scholarship outlines very clearly. Well let me cite them for all even though i wont at all be surpised that editors in here will say i am of course "cherry picking" or "POV" etc. Here are two accessible sources for all to read written by Greek scholars based in Greece and are considered experts regarding the demographic makeup of the area. Baltsiotis [5]: para 5:

"During the beginning of the 20th Century, the northwestern part of the Greek region of Epirus was mostly populated by an Albanian-speaking population, known under the ethnonyme “Chams” [Çamë, Çam (singular)in Albanian, Τσ(ι)άμηδες, Τσ(ι)άμηςin Greek]. The Chams are a distinct ethno-cultural group which consisted of two integral religious groups: Orthodox Christians and Sunni Muslims. This group lived in a geographically wide area, expanding to the north of what is today the Preveza prefecture, the western part of which is known as Fanari [Frar in Albanian], covering the western part of what is today the prefecture of Thesprotia, and including a relatively small part of the region which today constitutes Albanian territory."

para 9:"The Albanian speaking area was quite compact and well marked by the local geography, as the Greek speaking communities were settled at the eastern mountainous areas. Chamouria and Prevezaniko were also symbolically distinguished as the land where the Arvanitēs lived. We can rather confidently argue that Muslim and Christian Chams of the plains made up a distinct “ethno-economic” group. However, there was a particular pattern in the settlements of religious groups inside the area of Chamouria annexed to Greece: most Muslim villages were located at the center of the area, while the large majority of the Christian Orthodox Albanian speaking villages were to the south and the east of the area."

Kokolakis (2003), page.51 [6] (and if in doubt see also map compiled from data on linguistic situation early 20th century on page 374:

Ακόμη νοτιότερα και στο εσωτερικό της ελληνόφωνης ζώνης, παράλληλα με τις ακτές του Ιονίου, σχηματίζεται ο μεγάλος αλβανόφωνος θύλακας της Τσαμουριάς, που στο μεγαλύτερο μέρος του (με εξαίρεση την περιοχή της Κονίσπολης) πέρασε στην Ελλάδα με βάση το Πρωτόκολλο της Φλωρεντίας (1913). Στο θύλακα αυτό υπάγονταν από το σημερινό νομό Θεσπρωτίας οι επαρχίες Θυάμιδος και Μαργαριτίου και τα δυτικότερα χωριά των δύο επαρχιών Παραμυθιάς και Φιλιατών. Αλβανόφωνα ήταν και τα βόρεια τμήματα του σημερινού νομού της Πρέβεζας, όπως οκάμπος του Φαναριού, η ενδοχώρα της Πάργας και τα παλιά παρασουλιώτικα χωριά του Ανω Αχέροντα (Ζερμή, Κρανιά, Παπαδάτες, Ρουσάτσα, Δερβίζιανα, Μουσιωτίτσα -τα δύο τελευταία υπάγονται διοικητικά στα Γιάννενα). Χωρίς να ταυτίζεται με το σύνολο του αλβανόφωνου πληθυσμού, η ομάδα των Μουσουλμάνων Τσάμηδων ήταν σημαντικό συστατικό του στοιχείο."

Athenean, Greek speakers were only found in Parga, Paramithia and very few villages (near Filiates: i.e Sagiadas) amongst a compact Albanian Cham dialect speaking region surrounded thereafter by a Greek hinterland population around it. You can ignore this and call it POV but its there in proper scholarship (unless you have something that disqualifies all of it). Now back to matters in this article. Its does not matter that the Greek government map is "hard" to read (with a click of a button it becomes big and very clear to see), it is included in this article within a caption box to highlight its importance above all other maps (not done by me but by other editors a long time ago). Maps in encyclopedias like this one are not meant to be "illustrative" in some vague sense or for decoration. They are meant to be informative and relating to the content. Moreover this article cites Greek government numbers for Northern Epirus. My point was that considering that editors have acknowledged that this article is about a irredentist concept, Greek government numbers of all populations used to claim the area (1919) are more than relevant. The Greek state themselves considered those populations as part of the mix in what they defined as Northern Epirus in a publication (prepared by the Greek army staff) that used the name Northern Epirus at the Paris Peace conference. Now one can not have their cake and eat it by having a Greek government map and citing the Greek government's numbers (for Greeks or the Orthodox population) while omitting the Greek government numbers of Albanians also (even though they cited them clearly and directly in relation to Northern Epirus). That has been my point. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"Applying linguistic principles, the whole area constituted an Albanian speaking enclave, isolated at least in strict geographical terms, with a continuum of Albanian language in today’s Albania and adjoining areas, i.e, Kosovo and the Republic of Macedonia." Is this Albanian POV?

"the area conceived as Northern Epirus in the Greek speaking world mainly covers a Greek speaking area". Which is blatanly false, unlike the assertion that Chameria mainly covered an Albanian speaking area (notice that this doesn't mean that there were no Greeks. I mean, Albanian-speakers can be Greek too, right? Especially if they're Orthodox I presume.) DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Brioni, don't forget to sign off your comments. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

So basically if an area is "mainly Albanian", Greeks living there shouldn't be mentioned, but if an area is mainly Greek, then of course Albanians should mentioned. Is that the gist of your argument? Athenean (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

A straw man, is that the gist of your argument? I'm curious, on what basis is 'Northern Epirus' mainly Greek (speaking)? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Northern_Cyprus#Demographics DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Athenean. I never wrote that and nor is that the jist of my argument. Moreover in the Chameria article there is more than one section relating to the historical Greek presence in the region. Also the Greek element in a modern sense within the area is also cited in relation to Orthodox Albanian speakers identifying as Greeks (as per Baltsiotis etc) due to the 19th century/early 20th century. Regarding this article you have stated outright that this article is about a irredentist concept and that this article should have content directly relating/citing the term Northern Epirus. Well, the Greek government within the context of territorial claims (1919) published a book with the title of Northern Epirus that gave numbers which acknowledged Albanians (though Muslims only). Why should that be omitted from this article when even the Greek state thought it was important to note that and formed part of its claims? Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni, @Resnjari, your arguments are very poor and have not convinced me about the necessity of adding such information to the article Northern Epirus. Like Athenean said previously, demographics referring to the current estimates could be fair and more than enough. Northern Epirus is not the appropriate place for in-depth information about populations; this should fit better in population-focused articles, such as the Demographics of Albania as they are more suited for this purpose. Unnecessary information can do more harm than good to an article, especially when it is about a minority-concentrated historical region, not about generic populations. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And please, Resnjari, in your replies to previous comments by other people, adding just 1 more colon ( : ) is more than enough and helps in keeping the Talk Pages more compact. Thank you. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@SilentResident, the article for Demographics of Albania deal with demographics that relate to the whole territory of Albania. I am specifically referring to demographic data that the Greek state presented in its territorial claims at the Paris Peace conference within the context of Northern Epirus in a document bearing the title Northern Epirus. Already a map from the publication is prominently displayed in this article. Why that map and not the addition of the full numbers given by the Greek state for this article (only for the Greek or Orthodox population are given). The Greek state thought that a Albanian element (only the Muslim part of course) existed in the area it defined as Northern Epirus. Last one checked both that official Greek government publication and this article have the term Northern Epirus. More than relevant to the subject matter.Resnjari (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This piece of info isn't a big deal since it concerns a minor addition (something like... the number of Greeks in Northern Epirus is 117,000 and formed a ...% majority in the area while to the % Albanian element based on the same source). However, we should not repeat the same piece of info again... about the official Greek view, linguistic, religious, cultural identity etc..Alexikoua (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The source defined Greek as being of Orthodox faith. For obvious reasons, it should be clarified what "Greek" meant. Here's a scholar you should be familiar with: "It was during this period that the Greek army conducted a survey of the region and published in 1919 a map of the southern part of Albania where the region is officially called ”Northern Epirus.” Subsequently, the term was adopted into Greek discourse, in spite of the fact that the survey was (obviously) biased.”

What do you think of this? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

If someone has read the article he will conclude that the Greek identity is already defined in its current version. The specific survey by DWB doesn't concern the survey under question but the 1914 one (It was during this period concerns this year i.e. 1914). Definitely a typical case of source falsification by DWB.Alexikoua (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Brioni, the Orthodox community or what consisted it should be clarified as to what is meant. Moreover the official Greek numbers presented to the Paris peace conference (1919) of all communities need to be attested in the article, considering the Greek state based it claims on the area on them within a document that defined and refered to Northern Epirus.Resnjari (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the DRN outcome: there is large scale confusion with the arguments presented by Resnjari and no wonder it was a straight failure. For example about this last proposal: 1. We had the proposal to add the Albanian number of the Greek survey of 1913 (not 1914 as DWB stated), but also: 2. Resnjari points that there should be a large scale analysis on each demographic survey that's presented for N.Epirus, although we have to go into useless repetition of the same piece of info (definition about Greekness, Albanianess, religious identity, official views in Greece and Albania, Ottoman era classification etc., thus recycling the same and the same again) 3. In case there is not a precise proposal I have no doubt that any future DRN will have the same fate.Alexikoua (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You did not see the whole DRN ruling. There were 4 options available one of which was discussion and another for formal mediation. I compacted the issues in the DRN because i thought that a wide scale discussion could occur there with outside observers watching. Don't get me wrong, i will go back but this time i will do it one by one if need be. Once again on demographics, this article is about a irridentist concept and the Greek state published numbers at the peace conference (1919) highlighting all peoples in a official document that had the term Northern Epirus. That is more than relevant considering that a map from that document is in the article and highlighted in a caption box.Resnjari (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari, yes that is exactly the "jist" (sic) of your argument. The Chameria article says absolutely nothing about any Greeks there (the irrelevant ancient stuff notwithstanding). It's as if there were no Greeks there at all. There is even a huge table with all kinds of figures, but nothing on any Greeks there. Yet here you want to cram all this stuff about Albanians. You can't have it both ways. Athenean (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Athenean. Apart from the Murgana area and the area around Lamari, the area was a compact Albanian speaking enclave. If you want the bit on Greek speaking people in Murgana and Lamari cited, i can do that. Yes ? In that article its also cited that Orthodox Albanian speakers identified as Greeks toward the late Ottoman period and that after a post WW2 context Greek speaking people from the Epirote hinterland where resettled by the Greek state in former Muslim Albanian Cham villages. The Greek element is to an extent still cited. Resnjari (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Renjsari: Apart from the Murgana area and the area around Lamari, the area was a compact Albanian speaking enclave. LOL! It appears you just turned useless "all" available bibliography: Tsoutsoumbis states that Souli region was predominantly Greek speaking, Parga was entirealy Greek-speaking (even its tiny Muslim minority was Greek speaking). Albanian speech in Preveza region was present only in a tiny region south of Acheron (less then 10 villages). I can only assume you forgot all your previous contribution in correspondent articles.

if you want to go down that road that is fine. :) Baltsiotis and Kokolakis both give a outline of the Cham dialect speaking area which included both Muslim and Orthodox villages. Tsoutsoumbis does the same thing in outlining the matter. On Souli he rightly states that they spoke Greek in the late Otttotman period. I am going to expand in the other comment to you down below.Resnjari (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Alexikoua (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As for WWII demographics, Chams were present in a total of 48 settlements (28 of them mixed), per Meyer. That makes them hardly a compact population of the region: "If" we believe that Chameria is stretched down to Preveza Albanian speakers were less than 1/10 (also note that Baltsiotis offers a minimal definition of Chameria i.e.L only the western part of Thesprotia prefecture +a tiny part in Albania).Alexikoua (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

"48 settlements (28 of them mixed), per Meyer". Correct in the sense that it refers to Muslim Albanians as Albanians. Greek in the area consisted of Orthodox Albanian speakers who affiliated themselves with a Greek identity, as per Baltsiotis while Kokolakis gives an outline of their limits that go well beyond the Muslim Albanian settlements (p 374). I assume you are also familiar by the EU study done in the 2000s that still cited a presence of the Albanian speaking area amongst the Orthodox still in the area [7]: "Thesprotie: ils occupent la majeure partie du département, et sont essentiellement installés dans la zone frontalière avec l'Albanie. Prévéza: dans la partie du département de Prévéza limitrophe de la Thesprotie (Prévézaniko) et dans quelques villages au nord de Thesprotiko. Ioannina: de rares villages dans la zone limitrophe de la Thesprotie et du département de Prévéza". Anyway, i'll just cite Baltsiotis in another article he wrote (Ο Πολίτης, τευχ. 126 Οκτ. 2004: titled: Τσαμουριά: πραγματικότητες και φαντασιώσεις) pp.1-2:

Σήμερα υπάρχουν επαρκή δεδομένα που μας επιτρέπουν να έχουμε αρκετά καλή εικόνα για το γλωσσικό τοπίο τουλάχιστον για τις περιοχές που ανήκουν στην ελληνική επικράτεια, αλλά και για αυτές που ανήκουν στην αλβανική, τουλάχιστον από τα μέσα του 19ου αιώνα, δηλαδή πριν την «ανταγωνιστική» εμφάνιση του ελληνικού και του αλβανικού εθνικισμού στην περιοχή την οποία η ελληνική ιστοριοδιφική παράδοση ονομάζει Ηπειρο. Η τσάμικη υποδιάλεκτος ομιλείτο σε μια περιοχή που ξεκινούσε από την περιοχή της Κονίσπολης, και σχηματικά οριζόταν ως εξής στα όρια της σημερινής ελληνικής επικράτειας: από το Φιλιάτι έφτανε δυτικά μέχρι την (ελληνόφωνη) πόλη της Παραμυθιάς και τα όρη Παραμυθιάς, διακοπτόταν από τα ελληνόφωνα πλέον ιστορικά χωριά του Σουλίου (τα οποία είχαν ουσιαστικά αποψιλωθεί από τον αλβανόφωνο πληθυσμό τους μετά την ήττα των Σουλιωτών στις αρχές του 19ου αιώνα) μεταξύ των ορέων Παραμυθιάς και των ορέων Σουλίου, συνέχιζε νότια και ανατολικά μέχρι το όρος Τόμαρος και τις νότιες (νοητές) υπώρειές του βόρεια της Φιλιππιάδας. Στο νότο οριζόταν-με αρκετές τεθλασμένες γραμμές- βόρεια του ελληνόφωνου Θεσπρωτικού και δυτικότερα από τα χωριά Εκκλησιές και Λούτσα. Στο εσωτερικό ολόκληρης αυτής της περιοχής, που τελείωνε δυτικά στην θάλασσα, όλοι οι ντόπιοι οικισμοί μιλούσαν αλβανικά, με την εξαίρεση της ιστορικής ελληνοφωνίας της Πάργας και οι κάτοικοι ονομάζονταν Τσάμηδες, θρησκευτικά δε ήταν ορθόδοξοι και σουνίτες. Μόνο στην περιοχή της Τσαρκοβίστας, στο σημερινό νοτιοδυτικό άκρο του νομού Ιωαννίνων έχουμε εξακριβωμένη κατά τον 19ο και 20ο αιώνα μετατόπιση από τα αλβανικά στα ελληνικά, κάτι που εκτός των άλλων οφείλεται στην γειτνίαση με την ελληνική γλώσσα, αλλά και την διάρρηξη της αλβανοφωνίας, αφού πλέον το ευρύτερο ιστορικό Σούλι μιλά ελληνικά. Η ελληνόφωνη «σφήνα» που σχηματικά σχηματίζουν τα χωριά Πλαίσιο-Σαγιάδα χρειάζεται περαιτέρω έρευνα, όπως και η προσπάθεια ακριβούς απεικόνισης της αλβανοφωνίας νότια και δυτικά των Θεσπρωτικών ορέων κατά τον 19ο αιώνα, όπου όμως σε κάθε περίπτωση υπάρχει μετατόπιση προς τα ελληνικά σε ορισμένους οικισμούς.

Κατόπιν τούτων νομίζω ότι μπορούμε να προβούμε σε μερικές διαπιστώσεις και παρατηρήσεις. Καταρχήν η ευρύτερη Τσαμουριά τον 19ο αιώνα γλωσσολογικά συνιστούσε θύλακο αλβανοφωνίας, αφού περιβαλλόταν βόρεια από τα ελληνόφωνα χωριά του Βούρκου και τις άλλες ελληνόφωνες περιοχές, στα δε βορειοδυτικά δεν ξεπερνούσε την κωμόπολη του Φιλιατιού. Θεωρούμε όμως ότι με ιστορικούς όρους συνιστούσε την προς νότον ακραία επέκταση της αλβανικής γλώσσας, αφού η επικοινωνία με την αλβανόφωνη ενδοχώρα βορειότερα ήταν απρόσκοπτη και συνεχής μέχρι την χάραξη των συνόρων. Συμπερασματικά, σε σχέση με τα παραπάνω, μπορούμε να αποκαλέσουμε τουλάχιστον ευφάνταστες τις απόψεις εκείνες που κάνουν λόγο για μια ενιαία αλβανόφωνη-αλβανική περιοχή που συνέχιζε ανατολικά και έφτανε μέχρι την Καστοριά και την Φλώρινα. Δεύτερη διαπίστωση, που καταρχήν έχει γίνει από τον Μιχάλη Κοκολάκη, είναι ότι όλο το νότιο τμήμα της αλβανόφωνης περιοχής (ολόκληρος ο σημερινός νομός Πρέβεζας, τα χωριά της Πάργας, και τα χωριά νότια του Μαργαριτιού και του Γαρδικιού), αλλά και το ανατολικό τμήμα (στον νομό Πρέβεζας, στον νομό Ιωαννίνων και μια σειρά χωριών στα νοτιοδυτικά της Παραμυθιάς) ήταν αμιγώς χριστιανικά. Η διαπίστωση αυτή θεωρούμε ότι είναι σημαντική σχετικά με τη στάση των αλβανόφωνων χριστιανικών πληθυσμών, αλλά και την γενικότερη ιστορία της Τσαμουριάς. Η απουσία σημαντικών οικισμών με αλβανόφωνο χριστιανικό πληθυσμό είναι μια άλλη σημαντική διαπίστωση: οι χριστιανοί της Πρέβεζας, της Παραμυθιάς, της Πάργας6 έχουν -ή υιοθετούν άμεσα όταν μεταναστεύουν σε αυτές- τα ελληνικά ως μητρική γλώσσα, όπως και όλοι οι σημαντικοί τότε οικισμοί στην περιοχή του Φιλιατιού, αρχίζοντας από το Πλαισίο-χωρίς να μπούμε στη συζήτηση για την ενδεχόμενη πρότερη αλβανοφωνία του- και όλοι οι ανατολικότεροι με τη σημαντική διασπορά (εννοώ μετανάστευση) τους. Έτσι η απουσία γαιοκτητικής αλλά και αστικής τάξης, όπως και αστικού (citadins) αλβανόφωνου χριστιανικού πληθυσμού μπορεί να συμβάλει στην εξήγηση για την απουσία της αλβανικής «κίνησης» στον αλβανόφωνο χριστιανικό πληθυσμό της περιοχής.

Alexikoua i am not basing myself on myths but facts. In terms of dialect and language the area was Albanian speaking and compactly so. National affiliation of the population became determined by religion. Albanian speaking Muslims did not develop a Greek identity because the language of the mosques was Arabic and the Ottomans never rolled out Turkish schools until literally the last few years before their rule ended. The Ottomans also never made an attempt until the last few years to instill a certain type of modern Turkish identity which left Muslim Albanian speakers open to embrace a national Albanian identity especially once the Albanian state came into being (in particular those of Albania. The Orthodox Albanian speakers though had liturgy in Greek and also Greek schools which made that population affiliate with Greek identity. Its the same in what happened in Southern Albania or Northern Epirus. However there the process was stopped due to the area entering Albania (and the government closing Greek schools down in Orthodox Albanian speaking villages and liturgy became for the most part replaced with Albanian) and has only resumed (post 1992) to an extent of those who have migrated to Greece and some areas here or there among Orthodox Albanians. The issues of a fluctuating Greek population there have to do with what Orthodox Albanian speakers have chosen to identify themselves as depending on context, situation etc. Its why debates over the church etc have been so passionate in Albania and its ramifications for national social cohesion. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ultranational ideologies that Chameria was almost inhabited by a compact Albanian population but N.Epirus had only a tiny Greek minority is nowhere to be backed by serious reference. If a user floods the tp with 10k of text it proves nothing more than he is out of real arguments. That in full agreement with the DRN result. Also per DRN I see no reason to keep the tags too. No 3rd part editors can understand the supposed issues here.17:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, when one points to a peer reviewed source you say a editor is out on context etc etc or that its based on "Ultranational ideologies" (so Baltsiotis, Kokolakis or even the Greek state who cite a Albanian element whether in national consciousnesses terms or language contexts is POV ???), yet if one keeps it short you say that one is making it up, POV etc. On Northern Epirus even the Greek state recognised a sizable Albanian element (only Muslim of course) yet somehow that is wrong. You still have not explained why, but instead avoided the matter over and over again regarding inclusion of the Greek state numbers of Albanians at the Paris peace conference (even though this article has a map and numbers for Greeks from that source. POV i presume?). At the DRN all that was said was that i placed to much for it to be resolved as that place was for quick resolution things. It was my first time there and i learned how to go about it next time. Anyway i and other editors who partook in the discussion was offered four options of which one was discussion in the talk. If i go back i will keep it very simple. All that will do is that every proposed change required for this article will have to go through a painstaking process but at least someone from the outside will be observing deliberations. I got lots of time and lots of peer reviewed scholarship at my disposal. If a recommendation comes back that only mediation is to be done due to complexities as a last resort then that's ok too. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The bibliography you mentioned (Baltsiotis, Kokolakis etc.) simply refutes ultranationalist claims that Chameria (i.e. Thesprotia & Preveza prefectures) is almost inhabited by a compact Albanian population (it's by far a minority compared to the total population). I don't understand your obsession about the Greek claim in the Paris conference of 1919: there it is stated that Northern Epirus also hosts an Albanian minority, apart from the Greek majority.Alexikoua (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course they don't refer to compact Albanian populations. What they do refer to is dialect speaking issues. In that context the area was compact in the sense that there was Muslim and Orthodox people who spoke Albanian from one village to the next in a certain and defined geographical area. That is fact. Of those, those who were Muslim attained a Albanian national consciousness (Koklakkis also states that this was a decisive factor that resulted in the partition of Epirus - please read the book i don't want to be copying and pasting) and those who where Orthodox (as in what is now Greek Epirus and southern Albania) had for the most part attained a Greek consciousness (Nitsiakos, Skouliadas, Koklakkis, Skendi etc). As Hart also notes just because one speaks Albanian or was monolingual in Albanian in the area did not mean that they identified as Albanian (mainly the Orthodox) or the identity of Albanian as expressed for the past 100 years or so. As Koklakkis notes the development of the national Albanian movement was the preserve of the Muslim Albanian speaking population that made very small inroads amongst the Orthodox Albanian speakers (and was a concern for Greece). Its only the imposition of the border that changed things (sort of) until 1992 where identification with a Greek identity (i.e Northern Epirote) predominates. Its why that aspect ought to be noted in this article (you remember those two paragraphs that we were working on in January and then you just ceased to do anything while i just waited for a reply for many months from you.). As for the Greek numbers at the Paris peace conference, its not an obsession. The Greek state gave its official position of what it thought was the demographic reality of the area and used that document to forward its claims to a northern Epirus. This article uses the map from the document and highlights it in a caption box while in the article only gives half the numbers cited (only for the Greek or Orthodox community). My position is that the full number is given as that is what the Greek state did above all else when it placed full claims to the area defined for it as Northern Epirus. Those numbers are pivotal as that represented the official Greek view not of some lobby group or those. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Northern Epirus. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Underrepresentaiton due to boycott"

Personally I agree it's likely that the Greek minority was underrepresented, especially numbers wise and also national % wise, less regional % wise tho Aliko and Finiq are good counterpoints (can't find sources supporting these things I noticed tho). There are those disputing the view that the Greek minority is underrepresented, instead attributing the decrease to heavy emigration. Sources given don't claim underrepresentation of population share due to boycott-- both note boycotts three times but they say the boycott drove down the numbers of Greeks but they never say it drove down the percent (the first source does say in the next sentence that the composition of non-Sunni religions was possibly driven down but it doesn't say this for ethnic Greeks, just Orthodox as a whole, so OR). There's an aspect off-topic to this page complicating things, but worth noting, in that supporters of the ultranationalist Red and Black Alliance (not super cosmopolitan, also not huge fans of Greece/Greeks :/), also boycotted in large numbers, driving down the number of Albanians too. Similar issue for the widespread irregularities and the other crap, as it's still unclear if some groups were affected more than others. This census was a hairball, but for these reasons it's really difficult for sources to demonstrate that one group's percent was driven down by the issues-- which is what most people associate with "underrepresentation". I'm gonna specify that-- we can discuss here if necessary. --Yalens (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Northern Epirus. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Mythological foundations", "geography" in Wikivoice

I am concerned about this section. Why is it necessary? It can come off very cringey, falling into the trap of talking about how area X has belonged to nation Y since the beginning of time. But really, do we really want to be asserting in wikivoice that the matter of Northern Epirus has its definitional foundings in mythology? Likewise, why are we talking about the "geography" of the region in wikivoice? Is this a geographically defined region? No, it is a politically defined one, much like Ilirida. In the case of Ilirida, I have opposed descriptions of the region as some sort of natural geographic region, because it is not, and the same should be applied here.--Calthinus (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, why is there a temple in Apollonia depicted? That is in Myzeqe, of which 0% is in North Epirus. And why do we have Some of the cities and towns of the region are: Himarë, Sarandë, Delvinë, Gjirokastër, Tepelenë, Përmet, Leskovik, Ersekë, Korçë, Bilisht and the once prosperous town of Moscopole.? That is a good reprepresentation of a certain POV held by some Greeks. But there is another POV, that either asserts that the region simply doesn't exist (as it is a creation of irredentists) and is "offensive" to mention, or that that it does exist, but is limited to the actually mostly Greek regions such as V(o)urg(os), Pogon(i), etc. --Calthinus (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Look who is trying to start another Balkan shitstorm. Yes, most of these are started by you. If you find the article "offensive", or "doesn't exist", you should send it to WP:AfD. But I don't see anything other than WP:JDL in your arguments. Khirurg (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The Trojan cycle can't be used to describe a geopolitical term that didn't exist 120 years ago. I agree with Calthinus, such regions are by definition political. They have no history prior to their politicization. There's also a very misleading idea at play here which by way of inclusion seeks to form a historical line of continuity. Now, if someone here wants to claim continuity from the Trojan cycle, wikipedia is not the place to do WP:FRINGE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a region called Epirus. Can we agree on that much? It has a southern part (now in Greece), and a northern part (now in Albania). Both the northern and southern parts have ancient cities in them. So they should be mentioned here. Some sources connect them with the Trojan cycle. That's all there is to it. Khirurg (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

But the article makes clear that this term is a political term. What I agree with Calthinus is that "northern Epirus" is not a natural geographical term, but a political one - like Ilirida. So, it doesn't have an ancient history. It has a very recent history only that begins with its geo-political birth. I write articles about Albanian tribal regions. Most are on old Illyrian sites, but I don't write about the history of those sites in the articles I create because the tribal regions didn't exist. I think that everything up to the late Ottoman period should be condensed in one section. [Side comment: I bolded this to mark it as my dispute resolution alternative in order to avoid getting into one of those very long discussions, but also make clear where I stand on that particular issue Calthinus brought forward]--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, in Ilirida one does not see text about the Illyrian, Paeonian, and Dardanian tribes that inhabited the land, let alone IliriDardanian "origins" of the concept. Yet here, a naive reader could easily come to the conclusion that the concept does indeed have "origins" in, of all things, Greek mythology from 3000 years ago.--Calthinus (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That would have to be a VERY naive reader, because the second paragraph in the lede says "The term "Northern Epirus" was first used in official Greek correspondence in 1886". No, the "I'm concerned about naive readers" trick is not going to work. Try something else. Khirurg (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No, not all readers who visit Balkan topics are familiar with the ins and outs of the subject matter. These are valid points that the other editors make. Ilirida does not include an ancient section, as not only would it be undue and POV, the article is about a concept that was conceived in the 1990s. Likewise, Northern Epirus, as a term/political concept has its origins in the late Ottoman era. An ancient section is WP:UNDUE.Resnjari (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It's very much like Sandzak. Imagine if it had a section about "its ancient history". The "Sandzak" doesn't have an ancient history and "northern Epirus" doesn't have an ancient history either. The fact that history unfolded in the same terrain before it came to be is outside of the scope of its existence.--Maleschreiber (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in the specific section its cited by a variety of wp:RS and SECONDARY. For example Hammond a top graded historian on the subject published dozens of papers about Northern Epirus in antiquity (+Bronze Age). By the way Appolonia geographically belongs to this region [[8]]. Alexikoua (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion about this article. Some think that it has been a region known by that name for thousands of years, while there is literature that points to its emergence as a political concept known as northern Epirus. There is a article about Epirus in general, northern epirus is something is not that. More information needs to be added about this aspect which is sorely lacking.Resnjari (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

N.E. isn't just a political term actually it's also used as a historical&folklore term. @Resnary: Is it possible to respect wp:BRD this time instead of typically wp:ninja?Alexikoua (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I can see enough wp:RS&SECONDARY in the field of archaeology&ancient history which uses N.E.. In general such historical regions don't have precise borders, see for example Chameria.Alexikoua (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This topic, is the focus. Just like Ilirida, a political concept does not have an ancient section, i fail to see why a political concept called northern epirus ([9] Baltsiotis, para.14, footnotes.19, 20.) gets one. Sure archeology talks about the northern regions of Epirus, that's why we have an article about the region of Epirus, that encompass both Albania and Greece. Plus editors have respectfully expressed concerns with other issues.Resnjari (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure that papers have been written about northern parts of Epirus, but "northern Epirus" an entity that exists only in geopolitical terms has no history beyond the date of its creation. It is also misleading because you're implying a subregional continuity and unity that doesn't exist before its geopolitical birth. This is not a historical region, it has no "folklore". The "history of Northern Epirus" doesn't extend beyond the era it took shape - like the Sandzak and like all other regions. Like Chameria which you mention too. It doesn't have a history before its creation and the background of that creation (Albanian medieval tribes in that area). There's nothing wrong with that. We just need to condense the history sections to reflect that. What sort of repackaging would work for you?
Also, I don't know much about the Kacifa case, but you shouldn't add back something that has a cn tag. You can either source it or not add it back at all.
Nitsiakos (2010): Northern Epirus does not consist in itself a geographical unity. The name of this area was initially a diplomatic term and later a political one.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why 'this region has not folklore'? Perhaps you can support this with RS? According to your geo-political rationale (cn by the way) we should remove everything before something was created as a political entity/unity. Imagine Albania without a pre-1912 history or Chameria without a history section at all (it never acquired independence). On the other hand top graded RS such as Hammond, Winnifrith refer to Northern Epirus (in caps) in antiquity ....Badlands, Borderlands: A History of Northern Epirus. No wonder there is plenty of ancient history there. A history section is warranted in this case. Alexikoua (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I notice that an Albanian nationalist view considers that the Greek element in Albania has no pre-18th century history at all. However, such wp:fringe should be avoided. Ancient history is needed else the article gets POV. See for example Western Thrace or East Thrace both are parts of a wider region i.e. Thrace which today is divided between two countries. Both regions have their ancient history. Alexikoua (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Pogon has folklore, villages and microregions have folklore and you can certainly write about that. Chameria is itself a historical region. It appears in the 16th to 17th century and some background can be written about the medieval Albanian tribes of the two previous centuries, but no one would write about events long before that. I've written Hoti, a tribe and region that is first mentioned in 1330. That is the chronological point in which it appears. I can maybe write about late Byzantine Praevalitana but that is where the scope ends. You have written about a concept that appears in 1913 in terms of events of the Trojan cycle. Doesn't that strike you at the very least as excessive?--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Various microregions can form a wider historical region, Laberia for example is part of Toskeria (sorry if the spelling is wrong). Same way with Pogon, Dropull (Pogoni, Dryinopolis their Greek names) etc. they are part of a wider area (N.E.). Information of local ancient Greek tribes in antiquity appears valid in this case. Hammond and the Cambridge Ancient History refer to this region as Northern Epirus. As long as there is something related to local ancient Greek culture & presence there is nothing wrong. As I see the Albanian pov that the Greeks are newcomers in N.E is also stated.Alexikoua (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is ridiculous to have content about the Trojan cycle in an article of a modern region. No other article in the Balkans does this. I would reduce the history content to one section and begin from the Ottoman era or maybe the medieval era. N.Hoxha (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Also I think that maybe the whole article needs a POV tag because its sources are not neutral as Calthinus has pointed out. N.Hoxha (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Depends on what you mean by "newcomers". Almost all Hellenistic and Roman sites were abandoned by the early Middle Ages in many areas of the Balkans, so you can't point to a geographical continuity of populations from that era. But you can certainly say that many families that lived in a given area in the late middle Ages probably have descendants in the same general area to this day unless a "demographic event" occurred. There are also other families that moved from somewhere else to that area. I think that we've established in terms of bibliography that referring to geographical northern parts of Epirus has a different meaning than the term and scope of this article. There are POV concerns and there is a dispute resolution alternative which basically says "how about we condense the history section to a reasonable point?"- I'm not proposing a wipeout of all historical background and a start date from 1913, but you've got to also see this as a non-zero-sum game and accept a condensation.-Maleschreiber (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see where the article states the 'Greek continuity theory'. It only mentions a Greek presence based on various mainstream RS (if you have RS declaring that the Greek culture vanished entirely I'm really interested to see that). Nevertheless I believe that a part of the mythology section can be trimmed. Imagine an article about a region inhabited by an Albanian community which hides information about its Albanian history&culture no matter if there was continuous presence or not.Alexikoua (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that there is some ancient Greek events, and some mythological events from before even that time, in what later became "North Epirus" -- plus plenty of Greek stuff in Albania but outside North Epirus (Oricum, Apollonia etc) which is (bizarrely) on this page. What is rather bizarre is the claim that the concept of "North Epirus" it has "foundations" in "mythology". Yes, later the page states that Rather than a clearly defined geographical term, "Northern Epirus" is largely a political and diplomatic term applied to those areas partly populated by ethnic Greeks that were incorporated into the newly independent Albanian state in 1913. It also has, in a large text section header that appears in the navigator page, an assertion that the "region" has "mythological origins" (alas, some of these -- Oricum -- are not even located in North Epirus). Readers will make of that what they will. Maybe there wasn't an implicit assertion of Greek continuity in the region (both Albanian and Greek continuity assertions for this area are problematic), but there is still an assertion of something else: that due to foundations in "mythology", Greeks had in their minds for millenia the idea of a North Epirus that mysteriously matched borders that would be drawn 1913... which everyone acknowledges is total bull. --Calthinus (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Historic regions (Chameria included as you have noticed) don't have precise geographic borders. As such Northern Epirus isn't limited to the autonomous entity established in 1914, the northern border fluctuated over time: see Kalivretakis for example or even pro-Albanian authors such as Petiffer who places as the most extreme view the Northern Epirus geographic border far north to Shkubin (not a popular view). In antiquity the foundation of a settlement is linked to the people's mythology, thus there is nothing wrong about it. See for example East Thrace, Pontus and many more. As for Apollonia the settlement is connected with Greek culture and as you pointed N.E is a term applied to those areas partly populated by ethnic Greeks that were incorporated into the newly independent Albanian state in 1913 (no Greek community in 20th century bad there was a Greek presence older times which is mentioned in the context of N.E.). Winnifrith dedicates several paragraphs to Apollonia in his volume about the history of Northern Epirus [[10]]. Hmmm why is this weird? No wonder there is complete RS coverage.Alexikoua (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Heh that's not what I pointed out, it's what I pointed out the page saying, nor do I believe it to be the case (there don't seem to be any substantial Greek populations in large swaths of this i.e. Kurvelesh, Kelcyra, Erseka, in Korca they are mostly in Voskopoja and some sprinkling of a minority population outnumbered by Albanians and others around Korca and Bilisht but not a bit in the countryside... etc.). *Pettifer is not "pro-Albanian", please desist from that. One difference is that we don't talk about the importance of King Pyrrhus (yes, a Greek, let's not get confused) in Chameria even though Cham folklore loves him... because Chameria didn't exist until the Chams formed in the Middle Ages (alas the name likely comes from Slavic). We also do not talk about Teuta's conquest of Buthrotum in Laberia, because although that happened in Laberia, the concept of Laberia cannot be shown to have existed before the Middle Ages. Why is "Vorioepiros" different? Additionally, this is not simply the "northern part of Epirus", which would also include Metsovo, Konitsa, etc. This is specifically the part of Epirus -- and a chunk of Makedonia -- which is claimed by Greek irredentists. That is the scope of the page. Or do we disagree, in which case the non-Greek populations in the area should certainly be mentioned? Further, if North Epirus means "where Greeks live" doesn't that change when "where Greeks live" changes? Or is it "once Greek, always Greek till the end of our days"? Italy better watch out. Even in Israel we have Banyas up in Golan -- which the then-local Greeks dedicated to Pan, you should visit, it's beautiful :). --Calthinus (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me *Banias, damned Anglicization. --Calthinus (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I am not being clear: if we actually have RS support for a non-irredentist defined region, which certainly is not going to be bounded by the Albanian-Greek border (which follows zero natural boundary but actually cuts across valleys etc), as a subset of classical Epirus, that is a separate story. But then, we would have a very different page, because the history of the area is more than just Greek inhabitation, as there have also been Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs and others. --Calthinus (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually the term 'Cham/Chameria' was first recorded in the late 18th century (Medieval I don't thing so, see Kokolakis, Kallivretakis), but you are right about Chameria history section should begin when the first Albanian communities arrived there (that's in Middle Ages). Some situation should happen with Northern Epirus: the presence of local Greek communities should be mentioned without exceptions. Apart from Winnifrith who isn't afraid of speaking about the ancient history of the region there is Cambridge Ancient History that deals with N.E as a single region (though not a political entity) [[11]] .Alexikoua (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes but notice Winnifrith talks about "northern Epirus" not "North(ern) Epirus". And mentions some tribes which, although I can't access the full text, likely were not exclusively Greek... then we have Osswald, who also talks about the northern part of Epirus and discusses Slavs, Vlachs, Albanians... who don't seem to be mentioned as historical or present inhabitants on this page. Is Hellenistic heritage something Greeks have a monopoly on? Nah almost all of Europe has tangible Greek cultural influence, and even the Muslim world does too. The question is, is this page "northern Epirus" or is it the specific region "North Epirus"? --Calthinus (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It appears your are in deep OR territory, Winnifrith reads: [[12]] This area is called Northern Epirus by the Greeks, and contains many monuments of Greek and Roman civilisation, such as those at Apollonia and Butrint. I never claimed any Greek monopoly. On the contrary you claim that this part of history needs to be removed which is clear wp:POV. By the way why Chameria should begin in medieval age while the term was first mention in late 18th century? I assume you realise something is really poor by presenting your arguments here.Alexikoua (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, my source had a lower case (you want a screenshot?), but if you have an upper case in a different passage, well sure. Well, actually my "stance" on Chameria is kind of irrelevant, since my argument was actually the converse -- not "we must mention Chameria's medieval history" but rather "we cannot mention its ancient history". I don't care to grab sources on Chameria, so, sure, 18th century if you want, point stands. If we have sources supporting that North Epirus goes up to the Shkumbin, then sure, we can have the page say that. As I said I am fine with us transitioning this to a more geographic page -- but then we have to mention all the inhabitants, not just the Greeks. If you're cool with that, we have an agreement, and we can move forward :). Contrary to some belief, I do not prefer to fight.--Calthinus (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No, Calthinus you are right: Cambridge Ancient History (1989) p. 463 writes ...on the borders of northern Epirus as it refers to the northern part of the historical and geographical region. History books never refer to the historical/geographical region with the term N.E., but only with Epirus. While the other book (Winnifrith) is about the specific modern Southern Albania called also N.E. – Βατο (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I assume here [[13]] we can agree about Winnifrith's introductory statement. Off course a Chameria history section should begin in the Middle Ages that's when the first Albanian presence was recorded. As such there should be similar criteria for inclusion in N.E. as long as a local Greek presence is confirmed. This doesn't mean that this region was exclusively inhabited by one group or anything about continuity. The same happens with the Albanian tribes in medieval Epirus: Bouas, Shpatas, Mazarakaioi etc. some of them even migrated to southern Greece thus they hardly can be called Chams, a term first recorded in late 18th century.Alexikoua (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Though the Cham equivalent is not Chameria, but "Southern Chameria" -- Konispol is in North Chameria, making

Chameria like Epirus as a trans-national region. Well then, a way to fix this at least on my end (can't speak for others-- at least some are talking about other things) is to get rid of the word "foundations" and merge the section into the ancient history section.--Calthinus (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

":Well I admit I have to agree on this "foundation" doesn't look good. A merge is warranted.Alexikoua (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: can we agree to a removal of the "mythological" foundations section and a regrouping of other sections up to the late Ottoman era in one section? We can work it out here and after we agree it can be put to practice and the remove the tag. But as it is right now, reading this article feels like a textbook from the 1920 that is not supported by bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus' proposal seems to have merit. Well for example Winnifrith was published in 2007. Antiquity is still a historical period this doesn't necessary mean that we have an outdated textbook. Everything should be based on RS. I've agreed above that some trimming of the Mythology section is fine however a complete removal isn't a good idea.Alexikoua (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Here (Don't mix foundation myths with history and archaeology) it seemed you didn't think so. It's interesting how some wiki-editors quickly change their mind as soon as it suits them. – Βατο (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that seems fair to me^. I've removed the tag for now but yea it doesnt need a whole paragraph (the details of which Greek tribe founded which city etc are not really important), it can be reduced to about two sentences and switch places with the currently-next paragraph.--Calthinus (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bato: The Duress edit mixed history with mythology in the same sentence (Heracles then Phrygians then Taulantii in 10th century then the Liburni then Greeks). That's not the case here. Imagine Amazons&Hercules fighting with historical people somewhere in nth century BC.Alexikoua (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is vague, but not neutral. It says NE is a term used to refer to those parts of the historical region of Epirus, in the western Balkans, which today are part of Albania. But NE is not some generic term, it is a geopolitical term. I added that with Nitsiakos(2010) as bibliography, but it got removed by @Khirurg:. The introduction as it stands is POV because it presents as neutral and geographic, a non-neutral and non-geographical term that came to be in 1913 Nitsiakos (2010), a professor in the University of Ioannina City: Northern Epirus does not consist in itself a geographical unity. The name of this area was initially a diplomatic term and later a political one. What I also find interesting is that here we have the opinion of an RS Greek scholar from the region of Epirus, who is presumably academically active in his home region, but he gets removed from an article about Greeks in that general region.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

See here for what your collaborator Calthinus thinks of Nitsiakos [14]. But if you consider him RS, there are other things we can add. Also, please do not ping me, it is annoying. Khirurg (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a historical region. That much is established. What sort of "historical region" is just a term that came up in 1913? Bibliography has explained that it's not a historical region, then why should wikipedia say the opposite? If Greek scholarship has no problem with saying as much, I don't see how you can insist on any grounds.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you point what's exactly the POV on this: "Northern Epirus is a term used to refer to those parts of the historical region of Epirus"? It makes sense that Northern Epirus is related to the wider term "Epirus" with some geographic restrictions. The political issues are located in the following part of the lead. It's obvious that a reader needs to understand where is N.Epirus located.Alexikoua (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they need to understand that and it should have information about the wider term "Epirus", but it should also note that it is a geopolitical term. If it began with "geopolitical term", the indroduction would be NPOV for me. Is that adjective such a cause of dispute? I suppose that you too as I want to write about other topics too. We can potentially close a chapter of dispute here and it will create an AGF environment if we achieve a real consensus about it and not just a consensus that arises because we eventually get tired of discussing about it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Update

The article needs a serious update in terms of political events, demographics, bilateral relations - one that isn't one-sided either.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)