Talk:Northern Epirus

Link to discussion about Northern Epirus artcile on Wikiproject Greece page

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

Incident not relating to this article

@Alexikoua I am not going to continue this, but the reason for "Northern Epirus" being mentioned is due to the specific low-quality outlet you've chosen. In the same way, I could provide numerous news articles from Albanian outlets that do not mention it. It would be more informative to see how authoritative, serious news outlets reported the news, like "Associated Press" (one of those you've included yourself). Associated Press did not mention "Northern Epirus", because it's unrelated. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no issue about the sources I've provided, they are RS, they mention that Himara is part of the region known as Northern Epirus. If one out of many sources does not mention N.E that's obviously not an excuse to claim that the events are unrelated. You should not rely exclusively on Albanian newspapers, that's the English wikipedia.Alexikoua (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alexikoua APN is not Albanian, and it seems that neither Ta Nea (Greek) nor other authoritative European newspapers make any mention of it. In addition, the newspapers you've provided placed the story (of NE) in a specific section without wanting to establish any explicit link. This tells us a lot about the quality of these publications. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree, the event of the arrest pf Fredi Beleri has essentially nothing to do with the geopolitical concept of Northern Epirus. I will go ahead and remove it until Alexikoua can provide a reason as to how these two subjects are linked. Alltan (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Beleri's arrest was reported in multiple international news sources and is very notable. Of course it is related to Northern Epirus. No explanation has been provided as to how it is not related. Until then it should stay. Khirurg (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Khirurg Before writing, it’s important to read and understand the context. While this incident has been covered by various newspapers, it does not pertain to Northern Epirus as a geopolitical entity. Authoritative news outlets such as Associated Press News do not mention NE. That is simply because it is unrelated. Simply stating "of course it is related" is not sufficient. On the other hand, some low-quality Greek newspapers have mentioned NE in a separate section, but without establishing any explicit connection. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

some low-quality Greek newspaper? What exactly makes the newspaper "low-quality"? Is it the fact that it's Greek? Besides, Providence, which is not Greek, also mentions Northern Epirus and explicitly connects it. Khirurg (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Khirurg You know what determines the authority of a newspaper, so don't play that card. Instead, can you provide any evidence that the arrest of Bejleri was not a coincidence and that it was due to him supporting Northern Epirus? Even the least reputable of the news outlets would not explicitly make such a claim. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Khirurg To make things clear: Beleri was arrested for vote-buying and nothing else, which is why it is not relevant to this article. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

How is it not relevant? As one of the sources makes clear, there were 31 cases of alleged vote-buying, yet only Beleris was arrested. It's not a coincidence. Khirurg (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

How is it relevant to this article specifically? Was he arrested because he supported an idea of Northern Epirus? Was he voted in because of the same reason? This is what would make the even fit in the WP:SCOPE of the article. Alltan (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

If you read the sources you removed, you would see how the matter falls within the scope of the article. It's the latest installment in a long history of repression of the Greek minority, and fits within the pattern of the content described in the article. Khirurg (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Instead of "repression", I see a person buying votes in a video. Wait until/if reliable academic sources say sth on the issue. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

And he was not a "Greek minority candidate" because the main party of his coalition was Berisha's party. Beleri's own party won a small fraction of the votes for the municipality council. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

As one of the sources makes clear, there were 31 cases of alleged vote-buying, yet only Beleris was arrested Absolutely not true. Several people were arrested for vote buying throughout Albania, and that can be easily sourced. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Khirurg Providence also mentions NE and explicitly connects it. No, it does not. In all 5 instances, its mention is either a quote from or related to a written letter by Greek Ioannis Lagos to the European Commission. Instead, along the article, the focus is on the "violation" of minority rights in Greece, which is why this incident should be taken to Greeks in Albania or to Albania-Greece relations. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Albania amends Greek identity legislation

A landmark move by Albania to institutionalize self-identification rights for the Greek minority has paved the way for strengthened ties with Greece and potential resolution of long-standing disputes, including property claims. The move ensures that ethnic Greeks, regardless of residence, can freely declare their ethnic identity. These developments come amid Albania’s EU accession negotiations, with both Athens and Brussels playing crucial roles. 49.182.150.124 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

POV changes to the lede

I am reverting this on WP:BRD. While the article was due for an update, this is a step too far. Sepcific issues:

• The new version of the lede is largely based on a single source (Herclides 2023).
• The language used is heavily editorial in nature, using value judgment statemlents like "Greece claimed implausibly...". This is not encyclopedic language.
• All mentions of a native Greek population in Northern Epirus have been removed.
• The new lede contains details not suitable for the lede.
• The material was added in haphazard fashion, making the new lede extremely long, cluttered, and poorly organized.

Major changes to the articles require consensus. These changes to the lede are not acceptable. Khirurg (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The version I prepared can be trimmed, especially parts from Heraclides and Kromidha. What do you propose to remove?

"All mentions of a native Greek population in Northern Epirus have been removed". This is not true at all and anyone can verify this. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

You mean the following sentence: "The term is used mostly by Greeks and is associated with the existence of a substantial ethnic Greek minority in the region"? It can be easily added to the version I prepared, though it already makes the importance to Greeks clear. It mentions the Greek minority several times. The version that I prepared is a summary of the entire article and based on RS, contrary to the old version which largely counters with the rest of the article and does not make a summary of all of it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not so much a question of what can be removed, so much as a question of what should be added. The previous version did a pretty good job of summarizing the article, and was already quite long and detailed, so we need to weigh carefully any additions. Regarding the mention of the Greek population, that needs to be explicitly mentioned in the first or second sentence of the article, because that is after all the entire reason for the existence of the Northern Epirus issue. Regarding the rest of your additions: language such as which it arbitrarily called "Northern Epirus", declaring implausibly that the majority of the population was Greek and with Greek national consciousness is WP:EDITORIALIZING and unsuitable for any part of the article, let alone the lede. Hercalides and Kromida are free to use whatever language they want, but as a neutral encyclopedia we have to adhere to WP:NPOV. Similar with concealed its claim on Northern Epirus under interest for the Greek minority. - in addition to editorial language, this is a rather strong claim not backed by any other sources. The claim of "violence" is unsubstantiated by the authors and contradicted by other sources. The part about "presupposing the existence of a "Southern Epirus" is kind of trivial and not something suitable for the lede, even if technically correct. What could be added is more recent developments i.e. from Papandreou onwards, albeit in summarized form. While what you have added is a start, it is far too detailed for the lede. My proposal is to leave the first three paragraphs as they are, and add a fourth paragraph describing more recent developments, such as the 1996 treaty. The lede should not exceed 4 paragraphs in any case, per WP:LEDE. Khirurg (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

As I said, the old version does not reflect what the article says, and it does not even have any source for some of its statements. The version I wrote is in line with the article and its sources. Hence keeping the old version is a non-starter. I agree with you that the new version needs to be trimmed, and I am waiting for a list of what can be removed (or reworded as far as it is in line with the sources). Otherwise if you insist on the old lede despite its many issues, it will not be helpful. The article until 2 years ago was total crap, and it has been fixed now. The case of the lede will not be any different. Ktrimi991 (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

this is a rather strong claim not backed by any other sources Who decides that it is a "strong claim"? You? If you have RS that reject it or say something that is fundamentally different, post it here and we can find a solution. If, on the other hand, it is just your judgement, you are aware of WP:OR. Ktrimi991 (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The version you are proposing is heavily based on a single source (Heraclides 2023). This is in violation of WP:BALASP and WP:UNDUE. We cannot give that much weight to a single source. There were sources in the longstanding version of the lede [2], but you removed them. I propose 4 paragraphs: 1) definition, 2) pre-WW2, 3) post-WW2 to 1990, 4) 1990 to current. For the first paragraph, I propose:

Northern Epirus (Greek: Βόρεια Ήπειρος, Vóreia Ípeiros; Albanian: Epiri i Veriut) is a Greek term for parts of southern Albania that are part of the historical region of Epirus, and associated with the existence of a substantial Greek minority in the area. First used by Greece in 1913, upon the creation of the Albanian state following the Balkan Wars, it is a political and diplomatic term rather than a clearly defined geographical one. The territory is regarded by many Greeks as geographically, historically, culturally, and ethnologically connected to the Greek region of Epirus since antiquity. It also has irredentist connotations due to claims on the territory on the grounds that it was held by Greece and in 1914 was declared an independent state by the local Greeks against annexation to the newly founded Albanian principality..

It's a combination of the old version and yours. On another note, all editorial language and value judgments should be removed from the article. Khirurg (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I wrote an attempt for an inclusive version based on all comments. It's open to revision and I don't really think that differences are major, hence it may be best to just further edit the article until a final version is naturally reached via the editing process.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the version that you prepared is a good one. I only made a small addition on the current stance of Greece and Greek society. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I too agree with Maleschreiber's version. I object however object to the sentence about "peripheral elements" and "populist discourse" being in the lede, on the grounds that it is not lede worthy. The lede is meant to provide a broad overview of the sections of the article in summary style. This is just a single sentence that is pasted from the body to the lede. That is not how ledes are meant to be written, per WP:LEDE. Khirurg (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Every sentence of the lede is a sentence from the body of the article. Where is the difference here? The lede as a summary of the article needs to mention the current stance of Greek society on "Northern Epirus". Those who still advocate for this platform, already abandoned by Greece, are of little importance in Greece and are mostly found online. Do you have any issue with this fact? Also be aware that gaming the 3RR by waiting for a few hours to make the 4th revert is not a wise choice.

Hey @Nishjan: make sure to not add duplicate info to the lede. Each new proposal is better evaluated here on the tp. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, my recent additions reflect the content of the article's body. The term 'Northern Epirus' is a political term primarily used by Greeks with irredentist intentions. Nishjan (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The claim that Albanians were masacred by the Greek state is quite abstract and is based on just one vogue claim. On the other hand Winnifrith and Kinley are describing a quite diferrent story about that period (most of the local population accepted the Greek troops quite willingly & the Greek administration received full approval in diplomatic cicles due to collapse of the Albaian government and marked the end of the conflict). To sum up: we should avoid this of POV to be part of the intro. I've added the additional material in order to secure neutrality to the text.Alexikoua (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Moreover, the claim that the Greek state used violence and perpetrated massacres was never brought to an international court for WWI war crimes. Such claim should be presented and based by solid clear evidence and yes we have plenty of evidence and accusations of that kind by WWI powers but southern Albania was not the case.Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding The term 'Northern Epirus' is a political term primarily used by Greeks with irredentist intentions., this is already mentioned in the opening paragraph. Khirurg (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The introduction of the article deliberately fails to clarify that the term in question is fundamentally political and nationalistic, and primarily used by Greeks. I have rewritten the introduction to address this issue and correct the existing point-of-view imbalance. The article, as it currently stands, is extremely biased and cannot remain in this condition. Accordingly, I have tagged the article until the entirety is reviewed and revised.

Regarding the recent additions: they present a problematic narrative suggesting that the local population enthusiastically supported annexation by the Greek state. This portrayal ignores well-documented historical facts of severe atrocities and massacres associated with that annexation. Such content violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy and should not be included. Nishjan (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The previous version of the lede was agreed upon between several editors. Mass removals of sourced info accompanied with only vague comments about "neutrality" are not helpful. Khirurg (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Nishan: When various wp:RS state that most of the local population accepted Greek administration quite willingly this doesn't make them defacto controversial. Winnifrith and Kinley are among the specialist researchers on the field. Removing this kind of information constitutes disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Another intro addition that's not supported by the main text is the following: During this period, the Greek Army and Greece-backed irregulars used violence against local Albanians and have been accused of atrocities against civilians.... Nothing close to that in the text. On the contrary Kinley describes a different story: the Greek army witnessed paramilitary destruction once it entered the area. I'm gonna proceed to the necessary adjustment.Alexikoua (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary, Kinley provides a lot of details about crimes and violence committed by the Greek Army and Greek militants against local Albanians. I guess you rushed and did not read the source entirely. Thanks for finding Kinley, he is a potent and useful RS. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Kinley describes violence from both sides (paramilitary violence not by military units as Ktrimi claims) and he gives in detail many exampled by Albanian nationalist groups who targeted Orthodox Greek communities (in Northern Epirus during that period). In fact he is clear that the violence begun by the Muslim beys and the Albanian nationalists shortly before the Balkan wars. This needs to be clarified per wp:NPOV. On the other hand he doesn't provide a single example of violence perpetrated by the Greek army. No wonder there were no accusation agains the Greek army for WWI violence against civilians at any post WWI court. Winnirith is also stating that the local population accepted the Greek military precense quite willingly. Alexikoua (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The crimes committed by the Greek Army are mentioned in the article twice, sourced to Heraclides&Kromidha and Kinley. Read them, and keep in mind you have already made 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Crimes were also committed by Albanian nationalist groups (starting even before the Balkan Wars) and descriptions by Kinley are quite relevant to the article:

Paramilitary bands associated with Muslim Beys and Albanian nationalists began campaigns against Orthodox Greeks. Because these groups marched across the country-side inciting violence, the local government issued a decree denouncing large meetings and gatherings of armed people as criminal. The government’s decree did little to quell violence. In the summer of 1912, the Greek government expressed concern about the state of anarchy in Epirus, noting: ‘the local governments are being supplanted by chaos while violence is a tool utilized to secure demands’. After encountering continued resistance, Muslim bands resorted to publicly executing Greek priests and even threatened to assassinate the regional bishops. Continued violence and acts targeting religious leaders provoked some Orthodox Greek communities to form their own paramilitary bands under the guidance of village priests to counter Albanian nationalists. who they believed ‘desired their extermination’. When war against the Ottomans erupted in October, Greek troops entered Epirus and began their push through the Western Theatre. The ultimate goal of the Greek Army was to launch several operations to capture Ioannina and occupy ‘Northern Epirus’ (Himarra, Argyrokastro, and Korytsa), which Greece claimed as irredenta due to its history and Orthodox population. However, Greek forces encountered destruction and paramilitary violence once they entered the region.

Ignoring the full picture contitutes wp:POV. Alexikoua (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If you want to add something to the lede, you can propose the wording here and see what others think. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

(unindent) Proposal for the lede: During the Balkan Wars, violence was committed by the Greek army and Albanian irregular bands against civilians in the region. To mention acts of violence by only one side is POV. Khirurg (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Since violence was already ongoing before the BW an appropriate addition should be: Paramilitary bands associated with Muslim Beys and Albanian nationalists began campaigns against Orthodox Greeksbefore the outbreak of the Balkan War while the Ottoman ogvernment was unable to quell the violence. (see quote by Kinley above, but there are dozens of authors like Tsoutsoumpis, Psomas, Giakoumis that also confirm this). Then the sentence about what occured during BW can follow.

Disruptive removals of sourced content by Nishan like this one [[3]] with the excuse that the authors are biased should be avoided. Nishan is kindly invited to express his objection against Kinley's statement in the talkpage first Alexikoua (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I’ve been monitoring the recent editing disputes and their accompanying TP discussions on this article and other relevant articles. It seemed as though things were moving towards a consensus, so I didn’t see a need to get involved, but I’ve decided to insert myself in the discussion here as I’ve recently noticed a string of proposed edits that don’t seem to be appropriate for the article. Of course, that's also being accompanied by edit wars whilst the discussion is still ongoing.

For starters, this edit summary [4] by Khirurg was misleading. I can clearly see above that Ktrimi, the editor who added this line, has actually responded to the concerns in their comment above - The lede as a summary of the article needs to mention the current stance of Greek society on "Northern Epirus". Those who still advocate for this platform, already abandoned by Greece, are of little importance in Greece and are mostly found online… - and, IMO, I see no adequate counter from those contesting its inclusion. It’s quite important that current situations are included in the lead when applicable.

This addition [5], although uncontroversial, doesn't exactly add information relevant to the WP:SCOPE of the article. I think the information included in this addition would better serve a purpose in the articles that they've been linked to, as it isn't exactly clear how it ties to what has been discussed on this article.

Additionally, I don’t see why the lead must equally mention both sides’ crimes when the majority of war crimes were committed by a single side (i.e. the Greek side), as evidenced by WP:RS bibliography. Equating them in magnitude provides an undue weight to a certain aspect mentioned in the article. At the same time, I understand that some editors might have POV concerns if the other side’s actions are not mentioned at all. That’s fair, but the aforementioned distinction should be mentioned in the lead - most crimes were committed by Greeks against the Albanian population rather than the reverse.

Those are just some of my main concerns and the primary reasons as to why I've recently RV'ed. This conversation is still ongoing although definitely headed to a consensus and source-based close, so I don't understand why the edit war is continuing. I think a major issue here is that the disputes involve different sections, different additions, different lines etc, and that complicates the discussion, particularly when editors keep changing things. I understand that, within my RV, there are new additions that are not related to the initial lead dispute, but I take issue with them nonetheless as outlined above. Botushali (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)