Talk:Northern Epirus/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

One by one

• Throughout this period the Albanian speaking zones in what later became part of southern Albania and adjacent areas such as Greek Thesprotia was considered a nuisance for both the Greek state and Christians of Epirus who self identified as Greeks.

The inline does not agree with the proposal: that Greece and the Christians of Epirus considered Chameria (not southern Albania) as nuisance, even if this is corrected this is irrelevant with N.E. region.Alexikoua (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• An alternative version for the official Greek policy would be the following:

The dominant view in Greece considers Orthodox Christianity an integral element of the Hellenic heritage, as part of its Byzantine past. Thus, Greek official policy from c. 1850 to c. 1950, adopted the view: that speech was not a decisive factor for the establishment of a Greek national identity. As such, the non-Greek linguistic factor posed a hindrance to Greek territorial ambitions,(recycling of the same info) According to the prevalent ideology in Greece at the time, every Orthodox Christian was considered Greek, whereas after 1913, especially the area of Southern Albania deemed “Northern Epirus” by Greece, Muslims were considered Albanians.(same info about religious classification is recycled with different wording).Alexikoua (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You strike out a bit which is important to the Northern Epirus issue. Baltsiotis deliberately makes the point of stating that amongst Greek circles, there was a campaign to obscure the fact that both Christian and Muslim people spoke Albanian. Baltisotis writes regards the whole issue:

The fact that the Christian communities within the territory which was claimed by Greece from the mid 19th century until the year 1946, known after 1913 as Northern Epirus, spoke Albanian, Greek and Aromanian (Vlach), was dealt with by the adoption of two different policies by Greek state institutions. The first policy was to take measures to hide the language(s) the population spoke, as we have seen in the case of “Southern Epirus”. The second was to put forth the argument that the language used by the population had no relation to their national affiliation. To this effect the state provided striking examples of Albanian speaking individuals (from southern Greece or the Souliotēs) who were leading figures in the Greek state. As we will discuss below, under the prevalent ideology in Greece at the time every Orthodox Christian was considered Greek, and conversely after 1913, when the territory which from then onwards was called “Northern Epirus” in Greece was ceded to Albania, every Muslim of that area was considered Albanian.

Regarding this matter it cannot be omitted as it directly relates to Northern Eprius and issues of identity and so on. The linguistic issue was as much a factor as was the religious issue.Resnjari (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The linguistic feature as part of the national identity per Greek policy is already mentioned (speech was not a decisive factor for the establishment of a Greek national identity.), however we can emphasize more with the following addition ... and heterogenous speakers were included under this definition.Alexikoua (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Making that addition that you have suggested is ok. However we are going to need to also add a sentence that the Greek government (Baltsiotis: Greek state institutions) did try to obscure the links Muslim and Christian people in the area (defined as Northern Epirus) had to the Albanian language. Baltsiotis does state this very clearly that it was also part of official government policy to do so, not just a view held amongst Greek any Greek circles. It is through the political sphere that part of the Northern Epirus question develops after all. We would have to make a following addition to this sentence regarding Greek policy and Albanian speakers to clarify (my addition in bold).

"Thus, Greek official policy from c. 1850 to c. 1950, adopted the view: that speech was not a decisive factor for the establishment of a Greek national identity and heterogenous speakers were included under this definition. In relation to Muslim and Christian Albanian speakers within the area, official government policy therefore obscured the linguistic links to the Albanian language while also maintaining that it had no bearing upon the Albanian speaking population's national affiliations.(Baltsiotis)Resnjari (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Some trimming is needed to avoid repetition heterogenous speakers were included under this definition needs to go since we have your addition. However while also maintaining that it had no bearing upon the Albanian speaking population's national affiliations isn't exactly stated by Baltsiotis ("the aim was to obscure the fact that the Christian, or even the Muslim population, didn’t speak Greek but Albanian.", I fail to see something about Albanian national affiliation).Alexikoua (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine with the heterogeneous bit going. Baltsiotis' whole paragraph reads:

"The fact that the Christian communities within the territory which was claimed by Greece from the mid 19th century until the year 1946, known after 1913 as Northern Epirus, spoke Albanian, Greek and Aromanian (Vlach), was dealt with by the adoption of two different policies by Greek state institutions. The first policy was to take measures to hide the language(s) the population spoke, as we have seen in the case of “Southern Epirus”. The second was to put forth the argument that the language used by the population had no relation to their national affiliation. To this effect the state provided striking examples of Albanian speaking individuals (from southern Greece or the Souliotēs) who were leading figures in the Greek state. As we will discuss below, under the prevalent ideology in Greece at the time every Orthodox Christian was considered Greek, and conversely after 1913, when the territory which from then onwards was called “Northern Epirus” in Greece was ceded to Albania, every Muslim of that area was considered Albanian."

I based this part of the sentence "while also maintaining that it had no bearing upon the Albanian speaking population's national affiliations", on the part highlighted in bold from Baltsiotis (the whole article is online anyway for you to check). Albanian was one of the languages that government policy outlined had no relation to their national affiliations. We can have Vlach also if you want since Baltsiotis also includes that as well. But the paragraph mainly deals with Albanian speakers and Greek government policy.Resnjari (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As you point, Albanian was one of the languages spoken. Thus, I see no reason to overpemphasize with the last part. A brief addition: “Moreover, the non-Greek linguistic factor of some communities was obscured.” will make the job. Thus this part will be:

The dominant view in Greece considers Orthodox Christianity an integral element of the Hellenic heritage, as part of its Byzantine past.[2] Thus, Greek official policy from c. 1850 to c. 1950, adopted the view: that speech was not a decisive factor for the establishment of a Greek national identity, “while the non-Greek linguistic factor of some communities was obscured.”Alexikoua (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

In the areas defined as Northern Epirus, Albanian was the majority language of the communities that resided there. Vlach was a miniroty language spoken in certain pockets. Winnifirth writes the following about that:

Winnifrith, Tom (2002). Badlands, Borderlands: A History of Northern Epirus/Southern Albania. Duckworth. p. 122. “The figure for Albanians or Muslims is fairly constant, and we can see from maps showing Greek schools and churches a lack of Orthodox activity north of Tepelenë and a solid block of Muslims south of the present border near Igoumenitsa. Given the propensity of our statistics to link Orthodox Albanian-speakers with Greeks, it would seem that in Northern Epirus Albanian speakers were certainly in a majority for all of the second half of the nineteenth century. Of course, not all Albanian-speakers were necessarily in favour of belonging to an Albanian state.”

The Albanian language was an important factor regarding the Northern Epirus issue, which also played a key part for the boundary commission there after. Having the sentence read: "while the non-Greek linguistic factor of some communities was obscured." sidelines this important aspect. In the end the region was contested between the Greek and Albanian sides, not Vlachs or other speech/religious communities. As the Greek speech factor is highlighted and its links to Byzantine heritage, the Albanian one too needs noting. Like i said, Baltsiotis' paragraph mainly deals with Albanian speakers and Greek government policy and why i wrote it the way did.Resnjari (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

We can add parentheses after the "non-Greek linguistic factor of some communities (Albanian, Aromanian). Baltsiotis' work is focused on the Albanian communities of the Greek side of the border, thus there is no wonder he is foced on Albanian speakers.Alexikoua (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

In one way, yes. However Baltsiotis, does specifically mention Northern Epirus in that paragraph and its relation to Albanian speakers. Also Winnifrith has repeatedly mentioned in his book that Albanian speech was and still is important in the region to the effect that what is known as Northern Epirus is also Southern Albania (p.25). He also states that Albanian speakers where a majority in the region especially in the late nineteenth century (p.122). Even in Greek statistics Muslims form almost half of the population in the region and Baltisotis does mention that the Greek side regarded them as Albanians. Already just on these points the Albanian language (and national affiliations that play a big part regarding the region) is not some insignificant linguistic element in the region, but the linguistic element(because of the Muslims who had little interaction with Greek on a local level -commerce was after all mainly a Orthodox occupation- [see the noted article :Stoianovich, Traian. "The conquering Balkan orthodox merchant." The Journal of Economic History 20.02 (1960): 234-313.], apart from the elite and Muslim Chams who an Albanian speaking enclave surrounded by Greek speakers -and only a very small area of their speech area was given to Albania, the rest are Lab and overwhelmingly Tosk dialect speaking) followed by the Greek language and then Vlach. Vlachs though an important ethno-linguistic community were not as big in number and formed part of the Orthodox numbers. By having Vlachs and Albanians in parenthesis, it is treating both Vlachs and Albanians as being secondary within Northern Epirus which in definitely not the case. The region was contested between Albania and Greece, not a Vlach state or Romania.Resnjari (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Then we can adjust the text in the parenthesis (especially Albanian, but also Aromanian). Else we are fine.Alexikoua (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The dominant view in Greece considers Orthodox Christianity an integral element of the Hellenic heritage, as part of its Byzantine past. Thus, official Greek government' policy from c. 1850 to c. 1950, adopted the view that speech was not a decisive factor for the establishment of a Greek national identity. While the non-Greek linguistic factor of some communities (especially Albanian, but also Aromanian) was officially obscured.

Ok, i made a few slight additions (of your proposals mainly) then to the section. Otherwise its ok.Resnjari (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Greek was the dominant language in education, religion and commerce, thus a a Greek national consciousness was established among the majority of the local Albanian speakers, who identified themselves as Greeks. With the absence of an Albanian national identity, as well as religious institutions, loyalty in Northern Epirus to a potential Albanian rule headed by Muslim rulers, was not guaranteed. Thus, the development of the Albanian national movement in the latter part of the 19th century greatly confused Orthodox Albanians regarding their national identity. (no need for a more general comment since we have a more precise description on the situation about loyalty to the Albanian national movement).Alexikoua (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I also have issue with the line you written "With the absence of an Albanian national identity". Winnifrith says no such thing for one. Also the Albanian national movement was present in the region that time but mainly amongst Muslims (and varied of course), while as Nitsiakos states Orthodox Albanians became confused due to it. Instead something like "Due to the late emergence and fluidity of Albanian national identity" etc. Also this bit needs some clarification. The bit that says "Greek was the dominant language in education, religion and commerce". Regarding education only for the Orthodox and for a few of the Muslim Albanian Ottoman elite (e.g. those who attended Zosimea school in Ioannina). Education for those Muslims who did have it, was either in Turkish (in the latter decade before 1912-1913) when Turks started opening schools and Arabic regarding religious instruction. Regarding religion also, Arabic was used for prayers and so on. Muslim Albanians did not use Greek to pray or conduct their religious activities. The sentence should be adjusted as such to “commerce, Greek education, and local Christian Orthodoxy" We'll do yours first before i look at some of mine regarding further input. Resnjari (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Actualy Winnifrith states that there was an absence of a long established Albanian national identity. Thus, adding this couple of words we are fine in this part.Alexikoua (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Both Greek and Albanian identities in a national sense where in formation during the nineteenth century in the age of nationalisms. The Greeks had a head start of some decades. Its what Winnifrith means regarding the absence of a Albanian church and so on. Anyway the bits i proposed, also for the education and religion bit. Yes/No or more work needed?Resnjari (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok about religion, in fact Stoppel mentions it too. The exact quote in p. 7-8 is: "auf Grund der kulturellen Überlegenheit der griechischen Volksgruppe und des Einflusses der orthodoxen Kirche von einem Hang zur Assimilierung der albanischen Volksteile geprägt waren, zumal die griechische Sprache als lingua franca im Handels-, Wirtschaft- under Kulturleben galt.”. Thus we can adjust the proposal too (changes in bold):

“Due to the cultural superiority of the Greek element and the influence of the Orthodox Church, a Greek national consciousness was established among the majority of the Orthodox Albanian speakers, who identified themselves as Greeks,(Baltsiotis, Nitsiakos) with the Greek language being also the lingua franca in commercial, financial and cultural live.(Stopell) With the absence of a long established Albanian national identity, as well as religious institutions, loyalty in Northern Epirus to a potential Albanian rule headed by Muslim rulers, was not guaranteed. (Winnifrith)”.Alexikoua (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Nitsiakos says that Orthodox Albanians became confused about their identity as they were between identities during the latter half of the nineteenth century due to the Albanian national movement and hellenisation. Also the Greek language was dominant in commerace, but regarding Albanian Muslims it had not entered cultural life. Arabic was the language of religion, Persian sometimes amongst the elite to write poems etc, and Ottoman Turkish for administrative purposes. Amongst most Muslim Albanian peasants, Albanian was the ole language. Greek was challenging Albanian's status amongst the Orthodox peasants due to the church and education. Also, it is Orthodox Christians (Albanian speaking, Vlach speaking, Greek speaking) who had issues with being in a state run by Muslim leaders, not Muslim Albanians (its that to which Winnifrith refers too). Hence some adjustments have been made. Retweeking of sentence and some clarification (in bold):

Due to the cultural superiority stemming from the Greek element and influence of the Orthodox Church, a Greek national consciousness became established among the majority of Orthodox Albanian speakers, who identified themselves as Greeks in latter half of the nineteenth century (Baltsiotis+Nitisakos). Within the region, Greek was also the dominant language in commerce, Greek education, and local Christian Orthodoxy.(Stopell) Due to the late emergence and fluidity of Albanian national identity and an absence of religious Albanian institutions, loyalty in Northern Epirus especially amongst Orthodox Christians to potential Albanian rule headed by Albanian Muslim leaders was not guaranteed.Resnjari (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A couple of notes here: "in latter half of the 19th century", appears incorrect per Stoppel, who states that this kind of assimilation proccess occured "from the medieval era" p. 8 (seit dem Mittelalter). Also there is no point to specify that "an Albanian rule was headed by Albanian Muslim leaders". Off course is was headed by Albanian leaders (as far I know there is no significant non-ethinc Albanian Muslim community in Albania). That's why Winnifrith removed this kind of repetition too. The rest is ok.Alexikoua (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that process did occur much earlier with regards to certain Orthodox Albanian speaking people who attained Greek education. The majority of Orthodox Albanian speakers start identifying as Greeks in the modern sense in the nineteenth century. Greek meant just orthodox, it did not always mean "ethnic Greek". One must be cautious regarding that. If all Albanian speakers identified as "Greeks" in a pre nineteenth century setting, then when the mass conversion to Islam occurred in the area just prior to that time, they would have identified themselves as "Muslim Greeks" or something like that. Now unless you got a source stating and proving that, all that needs to be done is to slightly adjust the sentence above. Retweek of this section: who identified themselves as Greeks mainly in latter half of the nineteenth century. Resnjari (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Winnifrith didn't bother to clarify. Muslim Albanians who formed a significant of of the population in the region had no issue with Muslim Albanian rule, it was only the Orthodox element. The way he wrote it comes off that almost all the population was against rule to by Muslim Albanians which was not the case. If you want extra sources on the matter, i'll go through Austin and George Gawrych's the crescent and the eagle book and find the relevant sections.Resnjari (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Assimilation proccess among Orthodox started already from Medieval era. I fail to see how this was a "mainly late-19th process", per references. As for the other issue, it's simply in order to avoid unnecessary repetition (an Albanian rule of headed by (Albanian) Muslims,). If Winnifrith doesn't bother to add this again, we shouldn't either.Alexikoua (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Though that process did occur in the Medaveil era regarding certain Orthodox Albanian speaking people, it was a limited phenomenon. Yet were does Stopple say that it was a mass phenomenon for most Albanian speaking people? If that was the case however, Orthodox Albanian speaking people who converted to Islam would have refered to themselves at the very least as Greeks (Romioi), like Vallades in the Grevena region. Muslim Albanians did not. Moreover Skoulidas states the following in a scholarly article about the Orthodox Albanian intelligentsia and discusses the matter of Greek schools and consciousness and so on. (The Albanian Greek-Orthodox Intellectuals: Aspects of their Discourse between Albanian and Greek National Narratives (late 19th - early 20th centuries) ):

To describe better the context, Albanian Orthodoxes consist one of the major religion groups in Albanian society, which includes Albanians, Greeks, Aromanians, Slav-speaking and Roma communities. After the abolition of the Patriarchate of Peć and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in the late 18th century, all the Albanian Orthodoxes became members of the rum-millet. The rise of different national movements and the establishment of nation-states in the Balkans influenced these Orthodox communities, who had to rethink themselves with terms of national consciousness, social-economic status and religious identities. During the period of tanzimat, and especially in the 1860s, these communities had to deal mainly with religious and educational issues. For the newly established Greek state and during the phase of its expansion, these communities were mostly regarded as the «other» Greek, while the influence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the educational network of the Greek schools affected their identities. More over it should be noted that the Greek language was a lingua franca for these communities and a necessity to their economical life in the small cities and the local merchants.

Within the context of language as Skoulidas points out, Greek was a language used by the Orthodox community of various ethnic and linguistic backgrounds (Albanians too) and it shaped identity matters mainly in the nineteenth century. We can have Skoulidas then as a source in the article also.

Regarding this bit, I agree in one sense that it might be "unnecessary repetition (an Albanian rule of headed by (Albanian Muslims,)" however the reader may take from it that the bulk of the population was against rule by a Muslim ruler. These concerns where mainly amongst the Orthodox. Albanian Muslims consisted almost half (according to Greek statistics) and a plurality (according to the boundary commission) of the population and had no issue to being ruled by fellow Muslims. The Gawrych book and possibly Austin will then be needed as sources then. Just because Winnifrith omitted it doesn't mean that others have no covered it.Resnjari (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• With the creation of the Albanian state, official Albanian policy aimed at convincing the local Albanian Orthodox population that they were not any more Greeks, but Albanians. Thus, it was necessary to assume that the definition of ethnicity and national belonging was quite different from religion. This approach was in general accepted by the Tosk communities, as well as with some exeptions by the Aromanians, but rejected by the local Greek communities.

During the late Ottoman era, the majority of Orthodox Albanian speakers in areas that became southern Albania and Greek Epirus did not share the national ideas of their Muslim Albanian speaking neighbours.<;ref name= Baltsiotis2011./.><;ref name= Nitsiakos2010.>(it's already stated from Ottoman era history in the current article that Orthodox=Greeks, Muslims=Turks)

regarding that above sentence you would need to make a few additions. "official Albanian policy aimed at convincing the local Albanian Orthodox population" to "official Albanian policy aimed at convincing the local Albanian Orthodox population who had adopted a Greek national consciousness that they were no longer Greeks, but only Albanians.Resnjari (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

What about these bits ?Resnjari (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's ok. A slight adjustment per Stoppel: "Albanian Orthodox population" needs to be changed to "Orthodox Albanian speakeers".Alexikoua (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Agreed.Resnjari (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sum up

I'll post the specific parts which were agreed per above section:

1

• The dominant view in Greece considers Orthodox Christianity an integral element of the Hellenic heritage, as part of its Byzantine past. Thus, official Greek government' policy from c. 1850 to c. 1950, adopted the view that speech was not a decisive factor for the establishment of a Greek national identity. While the non-Greek linguistic factor of some communities (especially Albanian, but also Aromanian) was officially obscured.

Agreed.Resnjari (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe this can be added at the bottom of Ottoman period, but upon addition ...This view would continue to influence Greek perceptions of the territory for much of the 20th century has to be removed since this view is described in detail with the addition above.Alexikoua (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah cool, no need for repetition. Agreed.Resnjari (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 Sentence added to article.Resnjari (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

2

• Due to the cultural superiority dominance stemming from the Greek element and influence of the Orthodox Church, a Greek national consciousness became established among the majority of Orthodox Albanian speakers, who identified themselves as Greeks in latter half of the nineteenth century. Within the region, Greek was also the dominant language in commerce, Greek education, and local Christian Orthodoxy amongst the Orthodox population.

The word "superiority" is an issue. Wikipedia has policies regarding wp:weasel words. It would need to be replaced with dominance or something else, but not superiority. Also regarding this sentence, (when the editing process last left off some time back):

"Within the region, Greek was also the dominant language in commerce, Greek education, and local Christian Orthodoxy."

This is only the case for Orthodox Albanian speakers and Vlachs. Not applicable for Muslim Albanian speakers. Skoulidas (The Albanian Greek-Orthodox Intellectuals: Aspects of their Discourse between Albanian and Greek National Narratives (late 19th - early 20th centuries) writes:

To describe better the context, Albanian Orthodoxes consist one of the major religion groups in Albanian society, which includes Albanians, Greeks, Aromanians, Slav-speaking and Roma communities. After the abolition of the Patriarchate of Peć and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in the late 18th century, all the Albanian Orthodoxes became members of the rum-millet. The rise of different national movements and the establishment of nation-states in the Balkans influenced these Orthodox communities, who had to rethink themselves with terms of national consciousness, social-economic status and religious identities. During the period of tanzimat, and especially in the 1860s, these communities had to deal mainly with religious and educational issues. For the newly established Greek state and during the phase of its expansion, these communities were mostly regarded as the «other» Greek, while the influence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the educational network of the Greek schools affected their identities. More over it should be noted that the Greek language was a lingua franca for these communities and a necessity to their economical life in the small cities and the local merchants.

Sentence will need to have additional information.:

"Amongst the Christian Orthodox community within the region, Greek was also the dominant language in commerce, Greek education, and local Christian Orthodoxy."

This is needed as one Skoulidas states this outright regarding the Orthodox Albanian speaking community. Greek was not a language used by Muslim Albanian speakers. They did not attend Greek schools(apart from few elites at the Zosima in Ioannina), or Orthodox churches, nor was commerce an occupation that Muslim Albanian speakers engaged in. Languages they used was Albanian at a daily level and Arabic by some for religious purposes. Turkish, or Ottoman Turkish was the language of few peoples and known by elites.Only after the Young Turk revolution of 1908 did Turkish instruction start to be implemented at a school level (Book:The crescent and the eagle. p.156.[1] and a few years later the Ottomans were long gone from the area. Resnjari (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed ("dominance" and "amongst the Christian Orthodox commnity).Alexikoua (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It will be good addition (except from the last part) right after #1. The last part ...Due to the late emergence and fluidity of... its more suitable in "Autonomous R. of Northern Epirus" section.Alexikoua (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah ok, sounds good. In the northern Epirus republic sub-section, i was thinking it probably is most suitable to go after this sentence: However, the agreement was never fully implemented,. Your thoughts ?Resnjari (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe it's good to stay after the cession to Albania (in the above paragrph). "Northern Epirus, already under the control of the Greek army, was awarded to the newly found Albanian State"... However, due to... It was my mistake about the section.Alexikoua (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah,ok sounds good. It can go there then.Resnjari (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

About the rest I believe we should address a number of minor issues before we complete this: Greek was also the dominant language in Greek education, something needs to fly away.Alexikoua (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your right it kind of does sound a little awkward. In the sentence where it says: dominant language in commerce, Greek education,. In the education bit it could be retweeked with a addition of: > commerce, education (Greek schools), or commerce, education (Greek schooling),. This would also be in tow with Skoulidas and takes care of the issue of Greek schools regarding the era in a concise way without needing additional sentences. Your thoughts?Resnjari (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

After making some research and checking the current version of the Ottoman section I believe the 2nd part isn't necessary at all, since it recycles already mentioned facts: There is already a mention (on 1st paragraph) that "Greek was the language of trade". The thriving Greek education is already described with some detail: activity of missionary Kosmas, benefaction, even details how this school-network was sponsored, how books were printed & the role of local community trust funds. The link with the Orthodox Church is also mentioned (Christianity prevailed in many areas and became an important reason for preserving the Greek language). Thus, the addition that Greek was the language of trade, Orthodox religion, education in a text that already describes with more detail these very facts doesn't really offer quality to the text. It simply recycles already described fact in a more simplistic way.Alexikoua (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, no need to create a new sentence but an addition needs to be made then to the Greek was the language of trade sentence. Instead of trade, it needs to be replaced with (and addition after it): commerce, education (Greek schools), and Orthodoxy amongst the Orthodox population. Reason being so there is no confusion in the article about which community (Orthodox and not Muslims) used Greek language in their various socio-cultural and religious capacities. In the sentences that follow Greek education is discussed, but these bits (commerce, education, Orthodoxy) need to be in one sentence prior (to the further Kosmas and other bits) so there is no ambiguities, with Skoulidas added as a additional reference to that sentence. Your thoughts ?Resnjari (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have waited since January 2016. All editors who were involved in this discussion are still regularly active on Wikipedia and just stopped involving themselves in the process outright. Of recent date instead of finishing of the editing process the neutrality template was removed instead of addressing fundamental issues with the article which as the talk shows were acknowledged on the part of those editors to an extent. Now i don't know what the personal issue is or was for their absence from this article, however out of good faith as i have repeatedly done in this article i refrained from making any edits for a prolonged period of time, waiting of course for their feedback. I have waited and waited and waited for a reply on the article's talkpage so as to finish of the editing process, as there is not much left anyway. This editing process is around 1 and a half years so far and on my part i have always been ready to participate. However within this context of waiting and hiatus i have instead decided now upon reflection to go by Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I have made an addition of some sentences to this article with appropriate inlines (where needed in case access is an issue for some editors) based on peer reviewed literature to address some shortcomings of this article. In doing so i hope that even if there is a difference of views that a respectful discussion done in good faith will reemerge on the talk to finish off the editing process. Best.Resnjari (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually I have waited for a decent argumentation since January 2016. Moreover, I still fail to see where you proposed such pov additions such as links to "Islam in Albania", [[2]], pov selection of old ethnographics maps. This can be easily considered as the the worst kind of long term disruption, waiting the right moment to hit this article again.Alexikoua (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I did. You never responded. Maybe some thought that i would eventually just go away if they did not interact with me. Below was a paragraph which we were working on and then you just stopped your input. Ok, in relation to your above comment, the links to Islam that you interpreted as "POV" i want clarification from you. Are you saying that Islam has no bearing on this region before or now? You have read Koklakis i take it. This article purports to give the history of a region that covers areas spanning from Korca to Gjirokaster. Can you tell me why Islam should be omitted from the history of this region ? Stoppel who is peer reviewed and well you used him as a source states:

"In den südlichen Landesteilen hielten sich Muslime und Orthodoxe stets in etwa die Waage: So standen sich zB 1908 in den Bezirken (damals türkischen Sandschaks) Korca und Gjirokastro 95.000 Muslime und 128.000 Orthodoxe gegenüber, während 1923 das Verhältnis 109.000 zu 114.000 und 1927 116.000 zu 112.000 betrug. [In the southern parts of the country, Muslims and Orthodox were broadly always balanced: Thus, for example in 1908 were in the districts (then Turkish Sanjaks) Korçë and Gjirokastër 95,000 Muslims and in contrast to 128,000 Orthodox, while in 1923 the ratio of 109,000 to 114,000 and 1927 116,000 to 112,000 it had amounted too.]"

Is Stoppel lying ? Or that even the Greek government who gave statistics at the 1919 peace conference who gave similar numbers (similar to the 1908 one)and even a map (which is in this article) showing large areas of Muslim settlement and referred to Muslims as Albanians ! Why is mention about Islam omitted from this article, but Orthodoxy has numerous sentences, considering that almost half or slightly more than half (after 1927) are Muslims in the area? These are simple questions. This article does not define Northern Epirus as being only the Greek speaking regions (Dropull, Vurg, Pogon, Himara) but it takes in large swathes of areas that have Muslim Albanian habitation. Since that is the definition given should not a few sentences be devoted to that population and their religion (considering the region is part of Albania as well? As for the map, Wiegand's map is in line with Kokolakis peer reviewed research. One page p.374 in Koklakis book he gives a ethno-linguistic map based on actual research of the available data. Also, I have not taken any of these matters to the noticeboards yet. But if it means that every single edit will need such outside arbitration i can do that as well. Please consult the peer reviewed material as it relates to the region and its complex history. This article must encompasses all of the regions peoples and even their religious traditions, not just overwhelmingly the Greeks or Orthodoxy. Otherwise the article is still POV and removal of the template more than unwarranted.Resnjari (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic. This article isn't Southern Albania. 19th century maps are from ideal sources. And details such as "In 19xx there were xxx Muslims in the area but in 19xx there were yyy Muslims living in the area" add very little to the article and are a in fact the first step into turning it into an extremely long article that is difficult to read. Athenean (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually the edits i added were short and to the point. I was not planing to add more about those matters. Condensing it to that point was hard enough while still doing justice to the scholarship. Also what is the difference between southern Albania and Northern Epirus, considering that for example Winnifrith considers both one and the same? This article claims to be explaining the history, culture, demographics etc of the region which is also southern Albania right ? I am also curious as to why the Muslim heritage of this region should not be cited considering that Kokolakis gives an in depth study citing that they form a sizable part of the population (in the Ottoman days), Stoppel gives numbers that they are there in large numbers too and that they become the majority population of this region by 1927. Those sources cited are peer reviewed scholarship and not some crappy Albanian propagandist garbage and definitely not off topic. Also by having these numbers it gives the reader an understanding of the (religious) demographics of the region. The reason why there was a northern Epirus dispute was because there were large groups of Muslims and Christians there who had different understandings of what they wanted the future of the region to be. How is a reader supposed to know how this arose if nothing of the kind is not mentioned. Muslim Albanians did not just pop up in the region in 1912-1913. A reader is left wondering why did this region become part of Albania if there was so many Greeks or just Orthodox people and when did the Muslim Albanians come from. What is their role here ? This article does not address that. Resnjari (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

3

• With the creation of the Albanian state, official Albanian policy aimed at convincing the local Albanian Orthodox speakers who had adopted a Greek national consciousness that they were no longer Greeks, but only Albanians. Thus, it was necessary to assume that the definition of ethnicity and national belonging was quite different from religion. This approach was in general accepted by the Tosk communities local Albanian speakers and with some exceptions by Aromanians, but rejected by the local Greek communities.Alexikoua (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this sentence: "This approach was in general accepted by the Tosk communities, as well as with some exceptions by the Aromanians, but rejected by the local Greek communities."

Tosk needs to be replaced with southern Albanian speaking communities to make it clear to the reader. The reader does not know what Tosk is (or maybe does? Who knows?) and the article is not about Tosks in general (Otherwise we would need additional sentences explaning Tosk, Lab and Cham, and that is just clutter). Within these areas, three dialect groups of Albanian speaking communities existed, Tosks from the Korca area until the Vjosa, The Labs from the Vjosa until the Bistrica and a few villages of Cham Albanian speakers. Best to stick with Albanian speakers and placing the religious Orthodox or Muslim when needed in front of those words.Resnjari (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of southern Albanian speaking communities I believe it would be better to make it: "local Albanian speakers" (or -ing communities). "Southern Albanian speaking communities" (or Tosks) probably includes all communities nearly all communities of the southern half of the country.Alexikoua (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"local Albanian speaking communities" sounds better. ok agreed.Resnjari (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything's fine, but since the 1st part of #2 is closely connected with this & to avoid repeating same stuff (self-identification, consciousness etc.) in various parts of history section, it may be better to merge them:

With the creation of the Albanian state, official Albanian policy aimed at convincing the local Albanian Orthodox speakers, who had adopted a Greek national consciousness from the later half of 19th century due to the cultural superiority dominance stemming from the Greek element and influence of the Orthodox Church, that they were no longer Greeks, but only Albanians. Thus, it was necessary to assume that the definition of ethnicity and national belonging was quite different from religion. This approach was in general accepted by local Albanian speakers and with some exceptions by Aromanians, but rejected by the local Greek communities.

Taking into account the last addition at the bottom of the Ottoman section with the Millet system classification and the Greek view on defining ethnicities thef flow is fine from the one period to the other, without the need to repeat the concept of "community identification".Alexikoua (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes ok. However, first sentence you have there is too packed. Its 57 words in total. Needs to be split up and a slight rearrangement in chronological order. My proposal taking into account nearly all of what you wrote, though splitting into two sentences that add up to 63 words:

From the latter half of the 19th century, a majority of local Orthodox Albanian speakers had adopted a Greek national consciousness, due to the cultural dominance stemming from the Greek element and influence of the Orthodox Church. With the creation of the Albanian state, official Albanian policy aimed at convincing these Orthodox Albanian speakers that they were no longer Greeks, but only Albanians.

Your thoughts ?Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

4

Due to the late emergence and fluidity of Albanian national identity and an absence of religious Albanian institutions, loyalty in Northern Epirus especially amongst Orthodox Christians to potential Albanian rule headed by (Albanian) Muslim leaders was not guaranteed.

 Sentence added to article.Resnjari (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

5

(from section below): Various pejoratives are in use today for the population groups in Northern Epirus, some of them are based on the Ottoman system of classification (Turk, Turk-albanians for Muslim Albanians, Kaur/infidel, Kaur i derit/non-beliver pigs, for Greeks) (Gregoric+Nitsiakos) Alexikoua (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

For the time being this is an orphaned sentence. I had some stuff about the post communist era and issues of identity etc for a section to be placed in the article which is important to understanding the Northern Epirus matter. That sentence would need to go in there. I am going to create a new section down below to discuss the matter.Resnjari (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually you are kidding me since the specific proposal has been limited to the above part. I can't understand why you recycle the same parts (an additional 31kb of text) that have been already dismissed in the past as clearly wp:UNDUE and POV. The above paragraphs as have been already discussed from July are more than enough.Alexikoua (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"Dismissed" by whom ? This is the first i am hearing of this. As one recalls, editors where dismissive of all edits as Albanians were considered "irrelevant" to the matter. I have placed the section down below and it needs to be discussed.Resnjari (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

---

@Resnjari: in order to avoid the usual mess with tons of kb of unlimited texts, can you please add your comments to the correspodents sub-sections above? Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Done.Resnjari (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

New question

@Alexikoua, for the agreed stuff, do you want me to add the bits agreed to the sections here + references and inlines (ill do it one edit at a time so you can check it easily on the history revision page so there is not assumption of funny business) and then you just do a copy and paste job after they are ready and place them in the article ?Resnjari (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In case there you have no further issues all three parts can be added at once: 1&2 at Ottoman period (bottom), 3. at Interwar period (as 2nd paragraph).Alexikoua (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything is good. Add them all. Add under/ or following on from this sentence in the Ottoman period section: >>>> This view would continue to influence Greek perceptions of the territory for much of the 20th century. Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Repetition

It is important to avoid repeating the same information over and over, otherwise the article will have length issues like Islam in Albania and Upper Reka. This sentence [3] pretty much says the same thing as the one before it. Hence there is no need for it. Athenean (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The two articles don't have repetition. They have content based material from peer reviewed scholarship and no one is contesting this. Because of the detail and wp:reliable and 'wp:secondary that those two articles have not become magnet for the usual edit warring and at times POV and misinformation that certain Balkan related topics undergo. There are other articles such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant that are detailed due to the complex nature of the topic and countless others. Resnjari (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with a huge amount of text can lead to mistakes such as this one. In fact I was kind enough to make a research to about 70+31=101 kb (!) of proposed additions [[4]][[5]] most of them repeat over and over the same piece of information or (even worst) are out of topic. The current version of the article contains c. 15kb of those proposed additions, but even this one is to a limited degree problematic in certain parts (repetition issues etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I placed proposals in here because they are proposals so as to be worked on. You start of with more in those situations and then work out what is needed. So far even that process has stalled or stopped. I have been waiting for a reply from you since January on the two paragraphs for the contemporary era. Anyway, the matter is at the DRN now.Resnjari (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)