Talk:Albania–Greece relations/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Greek Minority Proposal

Initial Proposal

Initial Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, who often refer to themselves as North Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are concentrated in the south of the country, in and near the cities of Gjirokaster and Saranda. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority.

Sources: [1] [2] [3] (and more can be added if needed)

Notes:

• 1) In this proposal, the key word for "refer to themselves as North Epirotes" is the term "often", which I do believe can soothe any concerns regarding whether they do "always" identify themselves as North Epirotes or not. I hope this can soothe even the most skeptical of editors?
• 2) The term "North Epirote" is mentioned only ONCE, no more, and here it refers to the identity of people, not political association of people. Furthermore, the term "Northern Epirus" is avoided altogether due to the unfortunate controversy that exists around it, like how the term "Chameria" is avoided too in the same article.
• 3) Wiki-links to other articles can be added wherever they are deemed necessary. As long as they were not added elsewhere in the article.
• 4) The sentence is about 5 lines in length, which is on par with the sentence for the Cham minority which is already present on the article, so that it does not draw more focus to this specifically, nor does it overweights the article.

How does that sound, guys? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

SilentResident I'll have to think on this but assuming this section's creation accompanies the end of attempts to remove the Cham section and a consensus to have both I can probably support it. To assuage Ktrimi991 it might work to say, regarding the North Epirote term -- Ethnic Greeks, who may refer to themselves as North Epirotes (although some refuse the term [cite Toptani]). --Calthinus (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid the (although some refuse the term) is an unnecessary pointer towards a controversy which is none of the article's concern and scope. The article's purpose is merely to inform the readers on the situation of human rights for the Northern Epirotes among other Ethnic Greeks living in Albania, with the term North Epirote explicitly mentioned due to the incidents targeting them the most, and being the actual cause of diplomatic tensions and strife between Greece and Albania. Clarifications on identities, do belong, not here, but on their respective articles. Adding them here even though this article has absolutely nothing to do with identities, does not help, Calthinus. It rather turns the sentence into a WP:MNA pointer of identity controversies which are irrelevant to the Greek-Albanian relations.

Feel free to rephrase the first sentence however you like, but without this WP:MNA "refusal" in parenthesis which gives the readers the false impression that there is a big deal with the identity or that it does actually have an impact on Greek-Albanian relations, which is not true. I understand that the Albanian editors are feeling very insecure when it comes to identities, but lets not forget that neutrality must be maintained in Wikipedia. This is not neutral, is Albanian POV pointer.--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 07:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident it disappointing that you refer to "Albanian editors" here yet alone "feeling very insecure when it comes to identities". But why i am surprised that you make assumptions about a person's heritage or making claims about what people have said when they have not. Please enough of this, your an adult.Resnjari (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I categorically reject the proposal. The term "Northern Epirote" should be explained fully. A part of the Greek minority accepts being called "N. Epirote", and another part of the Greek minority feels insulted and rejects the usage of that term. The ones who feel insulted are mostly those who are moderately or not religious at all. Some Aromanians and Albanians claim to be Greeks for the sake of a job in Greece. If the term "Northern Epirote" and how some Greeks call themselves has to be on the article, a full picture of the Greek identity in Albania should be given. Another thing that should be added is the position of Albania on the matter of rights of the Greek minority. There are zillions of sources that highlight that since the 1990s the position has been the same (since the "doctrine of Sali Berisha"): the Greek minority's rights are respected, further discussions with Greece on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority and does not recognize any Albanian minority. The position of Albania is rather unjust but we can not change that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree: Nice work SR. Though the precise concetration is a matter of dispute "Sarande and Gjirokaster" is reduntant here. Mai for example states that the main minority areas are Gjirokaster and Korce. Simply "southern parts of the county" is fine. As for the self-identification a serious problem occurs in the case of the Chams: their current number in Albania is severely inflated for the usual reasons (per Kouzas and Kallivretakis).Alexikoua (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Alexikoua. I took Calthinus's suggestions in consideration and, in a bid to soothe abit Ktrimis's concerns, I replaced the "who often" with "some of which". I hope the Albanian editors are content with these changes which are the best possible I can do without POV-pushing the paragraph towards the one or the other side. Also, I took in account Alexikoua's suggestions and replaced any specific mention of Albanian cities with the more generic "southern parts of the country". Last, about Ktrimi's request for the position of the Albanian government, I have added nothing yet. He will have to clarify what exactly he wants to be added to the paragraph. Perhaps something like "The Albanian government considers the matter as non-existent", at the very end of the paragraph perhaps?

Here are all the changes thus far:

2nd Proposal

Changes explained: (bold = addition or replacement, strike = removal)

2nd Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, some of which who often refer to themselves as North Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are concentrated in the southern parts of the county, in and near the cities of Gjirokaster and Saranda. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. The Albanian government however considers the matter to be non-existent.

Sources: [4] [5] [6] (and more can be added if needed)

Comments: How is that now? I tried to be as careful as possible as to not bloat the paragraph or alleviate its focus from the human rights issues. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Southern parts of the country is fine and the reader can check the correspondent article in case he needs details. It's erroneous in terms of geography to limit the N. Epirote Greek community while on the same time inflating the geographical distribution of the Cham community (entire Epirus), the later according to the inline refs was located in Thesprotia (Meyer & Roudometof have been mistakenly dismissed as Greek editors by Resnjari....).Alexikoua (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the POV problem about the Chams and after we are done with this article, I will support any initiatives towards correction of that POV issue. About the Northern Epirotes, what are you proposing? "who often" VS "some of which" or do you have something better in mind? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Support the proposal. I would only change the first sentence to something like "most of which identify as Northern Epirotes", and the last sentence to "the Albanian government considers that the rights of the minority are respected and the matter non-existant. Khirurg (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

3rd Proposal

3rd Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are concentrated in the southern parts of the county. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. The Albanian government however considers the matter to be non-existent.

Sources: [7] [8] [9] (and more can be added if needed)

Comments: @Khirurg:, given the recorded bias and denial against North Epirote identity these days in the talk page, I can easily predict that the term "most of which" will turn into another political dispute unless it is strongly backed by WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Can you provide any? I could like sources for this if this proposal has to have any chances of passing through even minimal WP:CONSENSUS or ever pass through third opinions in the event the consensus-building fails. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. I fully support the 3rd proposal above. Khirurg (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am waiting to see what the others will say before I make a conclusion of my own (about "some"; "most" is out of the question) but regarding the last sentence, it was not what I said in my previous comments. I said that There are zillions of sources that highlight that since the 1990s the position has been the same (since the "doctrine of Sali Berisha"): the Greek minority's rights are respected, further discussions with Greece on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority and does not recognize any Albanian minority. That would be "Albania's official position since the early 1990s has been virtually unchanged, that the Greek minority's rights are respected, further discussions with Greece on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority and does not recognize any Albanian minority". Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"Most of them/often" is appropriate compared to "some of them". A huge mainstream bibliography supports the equation N. Epirotes=Greeks in Albania, some examples [[10]] "Greek co-ethnics who are Albanian citizens (Voreioepirotes) ", "Ethnic Greeks from Albania (Voreioepirotes)" [[11]], "The Vorio-Epirotes (ethnic Greek Albanians) are members of a Greek minority group " [[12]], " Vorioepirotes – Albanian citizens of Greek descent" [[13]]. In case someone pretends that he is a N.Epirote he pretends that he is Greek in order to acquire Greek citizenship. Apart from that I support the proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: in my latest proposal, there are 4 lines, with the 5th being the Albania's official position on the matter. If we change that and adopt your proposal, then the paragraph which initially was meant to inform the reader about the Greek minority's issues, will, unfortunately, be turned into a WP:ADVOCATE of the Albanian government's positions on the matter, and unintentionally shifts the reader's focus from the minority's issues to what and how the government thinks about it. This is not how Wikipedia works and certainly we do not want that here. With my proposal, we cover Tirane's positions on the North Epirote Greek minority's issue but keep them as minimal as possible, to about 20% of the paragraph's length, in similar fashion to how Athens's position on the Cham minority's issue ("being closed") is kept as minimal as possible, barely constituting 20% of the paragraph's length. The sentence as proposed by the other editors here, is fairly enough as it does not overemphasizes on the governmental positions while at same time reports on the issues the minority has, as listed by the various independent international human right organizations and third parties. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The position of Greece on the Cham issue is explained in two sentences. My proposal for the position of Albania on the Greek minority is one sentence. My proposal is backed by 6 sources that formulate what they say in the same manner. Hence, I categorically reject any proposal that does not contain the sentence I wrote:"Albania's official position since the early 1990s has been virtually unchanged, that the Greek minority's rights are respected, further discussions with Greece on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority and does not recognize any Albanian minority". The sentence as proposed by you does reflect sth other than the official position of Albania. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Greece's position on the Cham issue is that the matter is closed, isn't it? This is way smaller than the overly detailed and explicit sentence you are proposing for Northern Epirus. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the Cham part again, all its sentences contain information on the position of Greece on the Cham issue:The first sentence says that Greece cited collaboration for the expulsion of the Chams, the second sentence says that Greece considers the issue closed, the two other sentences say what is Greece doing regarding the issue (the commission for the property). Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmmmm. Ktrimi, if you read carefully, the sentence says: "The Cham issue refers to a controversy which has been raised by Albania since the 1990s over the repatriation of the Cham Albanians, who were expelled from the Greek region of Epirus between 1944 and 1945, at the end of World War II, citing the collaboration of the majority of them with the occupying forces of the Axis powers." The expulsion of Cham Albanians is not "Greece's position". Is a historic fact. Athens's position is only synopsized in the following sentence: Greece considers the matter closed.. Only this.

That the Chams were expelled after World War II due to collaboration with the Nazis, is not a "political position" of Athens, but an indisputable fact.

In your place I couldn't go as low as to revision history and attribute past events as being Athens's position, Ktrimi. About the Albanian government's position, there are 2 ways this can be done, but you will have to make compromises either way: 1) accept a smaller sentence for the Albanian government to compensate for the rather small paragraph overall, or 2) stick with your full statement while at same time the paragraph is expanded to include Greek positions as well, more details about the Greek minority's hardships, and mentions of what International human right organizations think about this, to compensate for this detailed Albanian government position. Your pick, your call. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi is right here, Albania's position needs to be cited as it is bilateral relations after all of both countries and Albania has been pursuing that issue in its relations. If two sentences on Greece's position are given in the section on Chams something similar is warranted here as well of Albania's position on the Greek minority. Although Ktrimi is offering a compromise of one sentence. Fair, is fair.Resnjari (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss much about this. That sentence should be added as is. Further additions on rights for the Greeks are not needed due to WP:Undue. I categorically reject any proposal similar to what you did in your latest comment. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

If you wish this Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are concentrated in the southern parts of the county. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone" and accurate census figures. Albania's official position since the early 1990s has been virtually unchanged, that the Greek minority's rights are respected, further discussions with Greece on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority and does not recognize any Albanian minority. it is OK. Otherwise I oppose any proposal. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The last sentence is highly problematic (aside the fact that it is ridiculously long and badly written) because 1) there was and is no "Albanian minority", the only such minority erre the Chams, who should be referred as such (and not as an "Albania nminority"), 2) they weren't expelled by the Greek government but rather by Greek resistance fighters, because 3) the collaborated with the Nazis. Khirurg (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but you will find me opposing to your insistence for partial and overemphasized coverage of the Albanian government's positions in the proposal while the Greek positions are being completely absent from it, and still demand it without giving any compromises that could help the other side finally reaching WP:CONSENSUS with you.

The options here are three. Either:

• 1) we accept your demand to have the Albanian government's position included to the paragraph, on the issue added as summary, and in proportion with the rest of the summarized info on the minority's issues in compliance with WP:DUE rules (and Greek government's position be left out completely which for me is WP:POV but I am willing to make a recession)

or

• 2) we accept your demand to have the Albanian government's position included to the paragraph, with all the details you have requested, but also we expand on to include the Greek government's positions on the matter per WP:NPOV. The necessary WP:ATTRIBUTIONs applied.

or

• 3) we return back to the second proposal which has the support of 4 people here: me, Alexikoua, and possibly Khirurg and Calthinus, and which does not contain any Albanian or Greek governmental positions, again per WP:NPOV.

The matter is at your hands for as long as you are willing to make compromises like everyone here does, in a bid of helping reach a WP:CONSENSUS. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have accepted many things you proposed. On this particular sentence no. There are 3 sources for it. Absolutely no. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi is not the only one here and acceptance or not by the editor does not equal default acceptance for others. Anyway considering some of the heat in some previous comments by editors, i think it would benefit everyone to have a breather and get back to this some hours later.Resnjari (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

1. 3) and the second proposal look fine. Nice work SR. I believe there has been a great compromise by not presenting Northern Epirus/te in the head. Next step will be to fix serious discrepancies with the Cham section nearby.Alexikoua (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I had a look around and the Albanian position goes into this so it might as well reflect it in the sentence. The last sentence can have a bit of expansion taking into account partially of what Ktrimi has written: 'Albania's official position is that the Greek minority's rights are respected, and further discussions with Greece on the matter are based on resolving the rights of its former Albanian Cham minority. Otherwise i'm ok with the rest of the wording in proposal 3. Resnjari (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjary: The Cham part belongs to the Cham paragraph, the rest about the official posisition is fine.Alexikoua (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

4th Proposal

4th Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are concentrated in the southern parts of the county. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position since the early 1990s has been virtually unchanged, that the Greek minority's rights are respected and the matter to be non-existent.

Sources: [14] [15] [16] (and more can be added if needed)

I find Resnjari's first half of the sentence to be well worded, and I added it to the proposal which is as much as we can go WITHOUT adding the Greek position and EU conditions and International human right organization's reports to it. It is already POV, but it is tolerable. If you insist so much about the Cham reciprocity sentence, this can always be added at a later point on a new paragraph below the Cham and the North Epirote paragraphs (as a 3rd, independent paragraph, titled appropriately), that can cover both countries's positions on the bilateral issues, as well as the the international community's positions. So far this sentence is only about Greek minority and I can not consent into adding further Albanian POV without counterbalancing it with the necessary Greek government's POV on the issue. The likehood of a WP:CONSENSUS will be seriously undermined if we insist too much on adding even further POV or one-sided focus to it. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop dividing things into "pro-Albanian" and "pro-Greek". Neither editors nor content should be of a national nature. The position of Albania is its position, and it should be reflected in the text proposed by you, regardless whether its position is fair or not. If you insist on that, I, and maybe other editors, will not agree. If you are indeed concerned about the sentence's length, it could be " Albania's official position has been that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority". The position of Greece is already covered ("issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority"). I do not see what is the problem. You made a proposal and other editors are demanding an extra sentence. Do not blame other for not helping the consensus process. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Although you wrote the following sentence by yourself and it is supposed that you made a good summary of the situation, you might modify the sentence to better represent what you think is the position of Greece: "issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority". Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Stop dividing things into "pro-Albanian" and "pro-Greek". Neither editors nor content should be of a national nature." Ktrimi, it is you who are trying to turn a neutrally-worded text a such, not me, and our lengthy discussion is here for everyone to see and make their own conclussions on who is trying to force one-sided positions into it. It is you who is requesting inclusion of, and I am simply commenting on the problems such an approach entails if not compensated or counterbalanced by equal coverage of the other side's positions per WP:NPOV. I am afraid Wikipedia is very clear in that all the different views on the matter shall be covered, if they are to be. This means both sides and not the one or the other only.

"The position of Greece is already covered". Is that so? Sorry to tell you that, but actually it hasn't yet. That's why I insist so much on the coverage of Albania's demands from Athens for the Chams. This is due to the other side's (that is, Athens's) positions not being covered yet. Instead, it is just reports of the international organizations such as Minority Rights Org, and uninvolved countries such as the diplomatic missions of the United States of America in Albania. But I would like to add Greece's position on the matter so the readers can get the complete picture, if we are to include your whole sentence to it.

So, in your proposed text, you have suggested that it writes: "Albania's official position has been that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority." and I am willing to make a compromise and have it included, if that's the only way for you to consent to the inclusion of that text to the article. But this also merits inclusion of Greece's positions as well. But I will need sources for attribution, and especially sources for the following 2 sentences:

* further discussions on the matter can not be held while Greece has - I need an official source where Albanian government explicitly links the today's human rights violations of the Greek Minority with the Cham Expulsion that happened 70 years ago.

* while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority I need an official source where Albania blames Greece for the expulsion of the Cham Albanians. The world does not blame Greece's official authorities for that, but EDES, and such a serious accusation will have to be WP:ATTRIBUTED accordingly per Wikipedia's rules.

Once you provide me with the reliable sources confirming your sentence, we are good to go. I will do the same with the Greek position on the matter. For now, this, once sources are provided as well:

5th Proposal

5th Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are concentrated in the southern parts of the county. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has been that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority.

Sources: [17] [18] [19] [20] (and more can be added if needed)

The proposal is here and ready, I think, all what we need now is just these sources verifying the claims for the necessary attribution that these claims reflect the Albanian government. I could also hear on other editor's opinions on how to write up the Greek government's position on the matter because I happen have in my notice dozens of official Greek statements and I am at a loss on which one to pick up to reflect collectively and in a most representative way, the Greek gov's position on the issue. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have never mentioned any "pro-Greek" or "pro-Albanian". You have and have been criticized by other editors as well. I doubt you forget what you say. You have to understand sth. While I am interested in helping build consensus, I am happy with the article as is as well. Re sourcing, I am going to prepare the references and post them here. Meanwhile, tell us what do you consider to be the position of Greece on the Greek minority in Albania. I do not understand what do you mean with that. I repeat it again in case you forget it, while I am interested in helping build consensus, I am happy with the article as is as well. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Re the position of Greece on the Greek minority, preferably use academic sources that analyze the situation during the years. A single statement does not necessarily describe a long-term stance. Politicians say sth now and sth quite different later. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority" is extremely POV and OR, any mention to the Cham should be relocated to the correpondent section, not to mention that the self-identification of the Cham community was not "Albanian" but "Muslim" (per Manda, Kretsi, Tsoutsoumbis etc.). Anyway the Cham expulsion citing collaboration is already covered in the correct article. That's about another section and therefore not part of this proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have never mentioned any "pro-Greek" or "pro-Albanian". Ktrimi, I really want to believe that. I really. But what I do believe doesn't really matter, what matters is if can we prevent our editorial POV from turning the content into governmental propaganda and derailing the discussion. Can we do that? You have and have been criticized by other editors as well well if you do choose to baptize as "criticism" the reactions to an acknowledgement that there has been POV in your comments regarding the Cham and North Epirote issues, then no comment. I am sure you could have figured out by now that if it wasnt for different perceptions on the issue, now there could have been consensus already, days ago.

Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority" is extremely POV and OR, Alexikoua, this is exactly what I am thinking. But if this claim by Ktrimi isn't WP:OR and rather what Albania claimed, then the source will be scrutinized and the information will be attributed accordingly before it is added to the final sentence. The readers will need to be aware about this being POV and that Albania's claims on the perpetrators of the Expulsion of Cham Albanians, are biased and not a viewpoint shared by the historians or the rest of the world. any mention to the Cham should be relocated to the correpondent section is what I would support too. That, or in a paragraph covering both side's issues independently of the Cham and the North Epirote issues. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You should provide diffs to prove that I have mentioned any "pro-Albanian" or "pro-Greek". This discussion has been taking place since a month or so ago and still there is no way to consensus. As the discussion is not productive, and many comments are way off-topic, I do not see any good at continuing. As a result, to make the changes you wish, you should either take this to DRN or return later (a month or so) with a better proposal. The length of this dispute has become absurd. I reject every proposal as none of them seem to be capable of satisfying all sides involved in the content dispute. To end this, anyone interested in proposing changes to an article, should be aware that it will become difficult to other editors to fully understand your concerns while you have resorted to threats and off-topic discussion. In case I do not comment again here in the coming days, it does not mean that I accept any proposal made here, but that I do not have the time/desire/interest to see new proposals. If anyone (Calthinus, Resnjari, SilentResident, Alexikoua and so on) wants changes, take them to DRN. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I come back to this thread and find all of this. Heck i'm not engaging with it, only discussion over the proposed sentence. Most of the sentence is fine. I see where your going with it Silent but respectfully the end part sounds a bit awkward, i.e "while Greece has expelled its former Albanian minority." I would say a little tweak of so it would read" "until matters related to Greece’s former expelled Albanian minority are addressed." It would encompass the official Alb position while not going on about things related to the Chams (through use of that word) in this section. Thanks for your efforts SilentResident.Resnjari (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

While as mentioned before I prefer (from proposal 1) smth along the lines of "in the vicinity of Saranda and Gjirokaster" (can add Himara if you like), or "in the regions of Vurg, Himara, Dropull and Pogon" (instead of "southern regions -- that's very vague and there are not Greek communities near Erseka or Tepelena, let alone Skrapar, Myzeqe, Pogradec which are also "southern"), I do support in principle this version. I agree with Resnjari's proposal for the last sentence too. @Ktrimi991:, although I can understand where you are coming from, in terms of informativeness this page is indeed lacking something as the Greek minority in Albania (and vice versa) do play a role in bilateral relations, and it is helpful for a reader who wants to be educated a bit on Alb-Gre relations to know that -- so adding some section is important for the quality of the page here. If Alexi and SR hadn't found this first, I might have been the one to add it.--Calthinus (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari's proposal is far far more moderate and I do not think there could be any problems with that.

6th Proposal

6th Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are mostly concentrated in the south of the county, in parts of Vlorë, Gjirokastër, Korçë and Berat Counties. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has been that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s former expelled Albanian minority are addressed.

Sources: [21] [22] [23] [24] (and more can be added if needed)

How is that now? At least it is good in my opinion. At least it is how it is said in the article here: [25] so if none has problem with the wording thus far in that article, then I bet none could mind about copying it here as well? I made so many proposals, I hope we are good to go now? Consider this a final proposal, since for me there isn't really anything that could keep this whole discussion dragging except the -now addressed- last sentence.

@Calthinus: @Ktrimi991: @Alexikoua: @Resnjari: @Khirurg:, state your positions. Do we have a majority for a consensus at least? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ehh, no, there is no region in Korce or Berat counties that have some sort of concentration of Greeks outside of urban centers they end up in primarily for work and have in the past as well (there are some Vlachs esp in these urban environments too). Well actually, in what is technically Korce county (but quite far from Korce) there have historically been Greeks south of Leskovik, but this is probably closer to Gjirokaster geographically than Korce, making the statement confusing at best.--Calthinus (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Address the concern of Calthinus and then add the text to the article. It is very good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus makes a point about urban centers outside the southern region. SilentResident it would be better if it is more specific. i.e if it said something like "in parts of Vlorë, Gjirokastër and Sarandë counties with Greek communities also located in some urban areas like Korçë, Berat and Tiranë."Resnjari (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari's way of handling this is a great compromise and also more informative than what I was proposing. Support.--Calthinus (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"former expelled Albanian minority" is stylistically odd (was the minority expelled before it became former?), and the only people expelled were the Chams, so a better choice of words would be "expelled former Cham Albanian minority". Khirurg (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Good catch Khirurg. Yeah it should be "expelled former Cham Albanian minority" --Calthinus (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @Khirurg's proposed clarification. If that geographical clarification bit is included along with @Khirug's suggestion, i support the section as a whole.Resnjari (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Final Proposal

Final Proposal

Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are mostly concentrated in the south of the county, in parts of Vlorë, Gjirokastër and Sarandë counties with Greek communities also located in some urban areas like Korçë, Berat and Tiranë. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has beenit that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed.

Sources: [26] [27] [28] [29] (and more can be added if needed)

I added the bit about geographical clarification to the sentence and also @Khirurg's proposal as well. For me its good. For the rest (@Calthinus: @Ktrimi991: @Alexikoua: @SilentResident: @Khirurg:), is it ok? I hope we are good to go now?Resnjari (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thats great! Now you make me really happy with your input and quick responses, guys. Edit: Khirurg's suggestion added (bold). --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 01:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Support glad it looks like we are finally reaching a conclusion here :) --Calthinus (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It is very good. A:::::::::::dd it and put an end to this long dispute. Most of us are not willing to discuss here any longer. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The current proposal includes information about the Cham issue so it's obvious that the Cham section should be merged with the one in question. Obviously enough this paragraph ends up with Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority and then we repeat about Cham Albanians, who were expelled from the Greek region of Epirus between 1944 and 1945, at the end of World War IIAlexikoua (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Very good point. I propose merge instead of repetition. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua, this is a great point to make if you are dedicated to sabotaging the rare case of Albanian-Greek agreement on a contentious issue on Wiki. Deal with one thing at a time, please. There are other issues here that others have had the decency to not complicate this with (like the status of Albanians in Greece). --Calthinus (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, it was very hard to have gotten this far. Albania's position in bilateral issues is based on that point (whether one likes or dislikes their position on a personal level). The article is about bilateral issues after all. Please enough of the wp:idontlikeit. Many editors here have made large compromise and are ok with this version and i doubt they will go further. Without getting consensus the current version of the article stays and no Greek minority section gets to become part of the article.Resnjari (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to remind you (or inform you in case you are not aware already), but the administrators and the noticeboard volunteers are very sensitive when it comes to reports of editors barricading themselves behind WP:CONSENSUS to block NPOV additions to articles that have POV issues. Editors who used WP:CONSENSUS to block moderate edits in articles, got banned in the past. So please be careful when you say "Without getting consensus the current version of the article stays and no Greek minority section gets to become part of the article.", as EDITOR CONSENSUS can be a two-edged sword, when used to override WP:NPOV. The content WILL be added to the article, regardless of what you do believe about it. What we are doing here is to do this the smooth way without taking it to the noticeboards, where, the results are without doubt, going to favor inclusion of the minority to the article and form a Consensus so that we avoid not only future disruption but also further edit wars. This discussion here is not meant to determine whether the content is added or not, but if it will be added the one or the other way. Sorry.

And I am sure everyone here prefers the smooth way of adding it because no matter what, the content is too important for the Greek-Albanian relations for it to be simply left out. Whoever uses consensus to maintain the current version of the article which has POV issues, will have difficult time explaining this to the administrators and the other members of the project, whose the belief, and the project's goal is to have all the information included nevertheless, as long as it is 1) noteworthy, 2) relevant to the subject, 3) well sourced and 4) neutrally-worded and attributed, and this is the case with the Greek Minority. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident do wite have an addition to add the suggested text that at least four agreed to? Imo it is better to do one thing at a time -- otherwise we could all end up with nothing and a locked page. --Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree here @Calthinus. I took forever to get to this stage. Its preferable that there is a section on the Greek minority. Not everyone got everything they wanted. Compromises were made on both sides. In the end the article is about bilateral relations of two countries so balance had to be found for both parts related to both. Its going to be like that with each section and not all about just one state and its positions and interactions of events/things about the other.Resnjari (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Calthinus.Cinadon36 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Cham stuff belongs to Cham section, even if someone pretends that's not fair unfortunately (false claims about sabotaging etc.) this is a fact. SR's reply about merging those sections is a constructive step in case this piece of information should mixed with the Northern Epirote issue.Alexikoua (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Please, Alexikoua clam down. A constructive (and tiring) process was taken to reach this point. Editors have made many compromises. @Calthinus is right here on the overview of the situation.Resnjari (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite calm. There is no reason to add information about the Cham issue in this section. Any addition about this belongs to the correspondent section & you are welcome to propose changes about it. In fact: SR is right here.Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua, SR first agreed to this version [30] before your comment. Other editors have made many compromises to reach this point and agree to the current version. Going by comments already, highly doubtful editors here will continue further with this. The article needs a section on the Greek minority. You can continue as you wish, but the article will lack a section on the Greek minority due to no agreement. Anyway to reiterate Calthinus makes good points. Time to move on.Resnjari (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

For future reference this isn't an agreement [[31]], i.e. SR asks for input. Accusing me that there was a so-called agreement is at least disruptive. You need to concentrate in real arguments and reply to the issues raised here instead of attacking co-editors.Alexikoua (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Information about the former Cham minority should be part of the correct section. Thus, the last part should move one section down with appropriate copy-editing.Alexikoua (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua actually the comment by SR for the final version says "Its Great" [32]. Look multiple editors have made difficult compromises. You can continue with your stance (and personal attacks against editors), but a section on the Greek minority wont end up in the article and the current stable version of the page will remain. That's about it.Resnjari (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(ignore pretending NPA violations). An editor says it's great means there is some progress. Agreement is something else. What about to focus on arguments?Alexikoua (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua, whether or not you want to ignore or whatever is up to you. Other editors feel this is it (as outlined in their comments) after having made many difficult compromises.Resnjari (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious that there is some kind of discrepancy in case we add info about the Cham issue in the wrong section. However, in case you are eager to discuss Albania's official about the Cham issue you can initiate a new proposal to change the relevant section. Another solution, as SR noted is to merge those sections.Alexikoua (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Several editors, myself among them, are not willing to continue discussing here after more than a month of disputes. If you wish to add "the final proposal", very good. Otherwise you should move on and concentrate your energy on other articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, its the Albanian state's position regarding this matter. The section on the Greek minority does not include much on the Albanian position and that sentence covers it all. This article is about bilateral relations and a balance needs to be in the article that shows both sides of the relationship and their positions on things. Now you can continue as you do, but editors struggled hard to reach something satisfactory here via difficult compromise. Either the article can have a long overdue section on the Greek minority or the stable version of the article can remain.Resnjari (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, it's the Albanian state's regarding the Cham issue and should be part of the correspondent section. Can't be more simple than that. I wonder why you insist not to touch this section since you are eager for the addition of relevant information on the Cham issue (by the way it lacks RS, care to find?).Alexikoua (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua nope, its the Albanian state's position on the Greek minority. I see that your digging in here after editors made much hard and difficult compromises on this section. Its disappointing your stance but anyway there is a section ready to go.Resnjari (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(still RS not porivided). If you mean the Cham issue that's a piece of info for the Cham issue section, provided that you provide a citation.Alexikoua (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why we even discuss something that's not even supported by secondary RS. Feel free to make your research on this.Alexikoua (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Jeez, your still at it. We have not finalsied all sources that are going into the section as the wording had to be sorted out and that was a difficult process in itself. Per sentence we are allowed 3 citations, so it doesn't become WP:OVERCITE. After painstaking and difficult compromise already done by editors, its pointless to continue here in a merry go-round with you.Resnjari (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

As I've imagine, no citation that support this part. Please focus on the subject and calm down. No source means it has no place in our proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you do not have imagination at all. I have said several times that I have sources for the sentence. Strange that you have not noticed that. I will choose 2 or 3 of them and post them here. I could have done that long ago but your redirection of discussion every few hours made discussing sources redundant. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A constructive approach will be to provide those sources instead of being aggressive against co-editors. Else this part goes out of the proposed version.Alexikoua (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua what is it with you and personal attacks? Do you have a problem with Ktrimi991 because you have used that description of "aggressive" many a time toward the editor.Resnjari (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: @Ktrimi991: @Alexikoua: @Resnjari:, all listen: The Cham and the Epirote sections will both be next to each other. Since the Albanian government links the Epirote with the Cham issue, so we will do too. Since Albania maintains a position that the two matters relate, in some sort of reciprocity, it will be strange to not merge the two sections, which is what we should do, as this helps the reader get the full picture of the issues and political attitudes to them. In my opinion, it is simply a matter on where in the article the proposed Epirote will be added. My suggestion is to have the two issues merged and sorted in chronological order - the Cham issues chronologically preceded the North Epirote one so this will be mentioned FIRST, and the Epirote section should be added AFTER it. Just common sense. And since we agreed on this proposal we can also agree on how to work out the placement on the article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No, on my part i don't agree with combining sections etc. The original terms of discussion was that this would be a separate section, as other editors wanted. It took time to get this far with editors having made extensive and difficult compromises. @SilentResident you expressed favour toward this version [33]. Going by the comments above by at least 4 editors (i include myself in that number) for support of this version you wont get further calls for change of combining sections etc and its highly doubtful of their further involvement too. The Albanian government has a position and for it matters around the Greek minority are connected to matters on the Cham community. The Albanian position is outlined in one sentence. Anyway that's about it.Resnjari (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussing the addition of something that's not even supported by RS isn't the best procedure. Resnjary by the way has already rejected a dozen of RS because of 1. it's primary material (CIA Factbook), 2. written by Greek analysts, 3. outdated though published at 2008. On the other hand proposing something without even presenting the correspondent citation can't be considered a serious proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Merge Proposal

See also: Cham issue and Greeks in Albania ENTRY TEXT (your input - I recommend something like: "Prominent issues between Albania and Greece are the status and rights of their respective minorities, more specifically the Cham issue and the Greeks in Albania, which played a significant role in the diplomatic relations of the two countries...") The Cham issue refers to a controversy which has been raised by Albania since the 1990s over the repatriation of the Cham Albanians, who were expelled from the Greek region of Epirus between 1944 and 1945, at the end of World War II, citing the collaboration of the majority of them with the occupying forces of the Axis powers. While Albania presses for the issue to be re-opened, Greece considers the matter closed. However, it was agreed to create a bilateral commission, only about the property issue, as a technical problem. The commission was set up in 1999, but has not yet functioned. BRIDGING TEXT (your input - something that makes transition from one paragraph to another - I recommend something like: "the other issue is the rights of the Greeks in Albania...") Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are mostly concentrated in the south of the county, in parts of Vlorë, Gjirokastër and Sarandë counties with Greek communities also located in some urban areas like Korçë, Berat and Tiranë. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has beenit that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed. FINAL TEXT (your input - whatever you feel is missing from above to balance any POV issues, can be included here)

--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• OPPOSE MERGER, as you favored the previous version [34] above which is a separate section and done after many concessions and hard made compromise by multiple editors.Resnjari (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually you are showing my statements as contradicting each other, which are not. I supported that version but I also support its proper placement in the article that could nail the two issues in one section called "minorities". It is about placement which could help from having the Cham minority mentioned repeatedly on multiple separate sections within the whole article, which in my opinion has to be avoided, per WP:PROMINENCE. Having the Cham section, and the other issues which are affected due to it (i.e. Greek minority) in one section, could make sense, couldn't it? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There was no agreement for combining these sections into one called "minorities". Editors wanted a section on the Greek minority and there is one ready and written up. The Albanian position is outlined in one sentence and does not dominate the section. 4 editors support that version (with your comment of being in favour of that form) and the previous consensus among all editors was that the section be called Greek minority of Albania. Moving the goalposts everytime is time wasting as at least 4 editors already expressed that they wont be bothered further with this.Resnjari (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Though I don't understand the chronological order, (Cham issue was non-existent pre-1990s) it's not a big deal to me. Epirus in the Cham paragraph should change to Thesprotia (per existing inlines), in the same fashion the Greek minority is limited in a few urban centers outside the extreme SW. Finally the last part needs citation: Resnjary has already rejected primary reports, Greek analysts and 2008 academic papers in this discussion, so I'm waiting for something strong to support this part.Alexikoua (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, things were outlined to you ad nausuem in previous posts by multiple editors. Whether or not you understand is your schtick but ignoring that editors made many, many difficult concessions to even reach a point where there was some viable form of a section and then moving the goalposts further and further out means that editors just wont engage. They have outlined this in their own comments above.Resnjari (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Instead of being aggressive a sound approach would be to point to the specific sources.Alexikoua (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, you keep calling for "sound approach" and then continue with personal attacks like "Instead of being aggressive". Wow, 'very constructive' indeed. The above threads which ad mausuem was discussed referred to all these matters. Other editors have stated they would present their sources and the priority was to try and get some kind of cohesive text to form a section.Resnjari (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way I don't see a real argument for those rejecting a merged section: same content, same paragraphs but one section of two small paragraphs. Sounds too weird especially when this took to much time and effort (no wonder no citation presented so far for the supposed Cham issue part)Alexikoua (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Other editors have stated they would present their sources? Without sources nothing can be proposed even more controversial parts such as this one. It's simple Wikipedia policy. Per wp:AGF I assume you have access to those sources and I'm still waiting for them. Alexikoua (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

And i don't see a reason for merging considering that the whole process of 7 proposals in the above threads was for a section on the Greek minority of Albania, not a merger or anything else. This new thread is just moving the goal posts further and further out. Already other editors expressed in above comments that they are over it. Now @Ktrimi991 said that sources will be presented on the matter for references. I await those and its important for editors to understand that not all editors go by time expectations of a single person. Patience sometimes is best. Beyond that this new thread here was not what time and effort was wasted on for many days by editors via difficult compromises.Resnjari (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

A part without citation is obviously problematic. Actually the merger of two small paragraphs is a good proposal provided that no content will be changed.Alexikoua (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No part will be without citations. Otherwise what's the point of all of this? This section, as with the others will all have citations so that in future there are no headaches about a lack of citations. Regarding the merger, the goal posts are being moved and editors that partook in discussions for this section was to have a separate section on the Greek minority and nothing about a merger.Resnjari (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting for the RS for Albania's position. Once we have them, we are good to go to the next task, which is to see how to handle the minorities section. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Categorical procedural oppose I will not entertain this disruptive goalpost moving. @Resnjari, Ktrimi991, and SilentResident: let us find sources for the agreed upon version and proceed. --Calthinus (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus, the merge was proposed with my mind in future expansion of the article to include specific mention of diplomatic incidents and crises between the two countries due to minority issues, such as Greek President Karolos Papoulias's cancellation of visit in Albania due to the Cham issue. All right, guys, so tell me, since I see everyone here opposing this, what ways could you propose for future expansion of the article over the issue of minorities? The merger could have enabled me to do that, while keeping both Cham and North Epirote paragraphs INTACT. How could this be handled then? Perhaps 3 independent sections, one for Greek minority, one for Chams, and one that expands upon the diplomatic incidents over minorities? I am disappointed you could see my proposal as a "disruptive goalpost moving". Very disappointed.

@Alexikoua, I thought the Merger to be a good way of aleviating your concerns over mentioning the Cham issue in both Cham and Greek sections. But if that doesn't work, then I am up for any better ideas. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

When editors got involved it was under the premise that it was for a section called Greek minority of Albania, not something else on the section. So yes mergers etc now are moving the goalposts after much difficult comprise to even get this far. @Calthinus makes a good point about matter. About expanding the Greek minority section in future, that is for the future. Getting something into the article in terms of a functional section now that addresses this glaring absence is most important.Resnjari (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@SR.: In case specific editors are eager to add info about the Cham issue in various paragraphs then that's a good reason for merging. Not to mention that defending something that is in need of citation isn't a strong position. I'm afraid that Cathinus needs to explain his one-sided approach on the issue.Alexikoua (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident well, looking at the page currently and imagining our section we agreed to added to it, I also see this :

1. Mention of the Greek minority in Albania but no mention of Albanians living in Greece -- this applies also to at least two other sections currently on the page.
2. Ditto above about issues they face with discrimination etc etc -- Greek issues are mentioned, what Albanians experience is not.
3. Chams, a population consisting of more than half women, and many of the remaining males being children or elderly and not of fighting or working age, are described as "majority collaborators" (yes, with an RS-- but you see the issue here...)

These are all issues that need solving. But we shouldn't drag this one negotiation process out by discussing them simultaneously. Alexikoua is trying to justify, consciously or not, holding a negotiation about one paragraph hostage to his desire to delete another. That should be discussed separately if we want to get anywhere at all. Which I sure do, after the eighth (!!) "final" proposal. --Calthinus (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and well said @Calthinus.Resnjari (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus My intend was to expand on the Minority section to cover on-topic diplomatic incidents between the two countries related to the minorities, but since you all are opposing the merger, then I won't keep asking about that. The rest of the issues you are raising here, are not about the minorities, are off-topic, which could belong elsewhere in the article. The Albanian immigrants are not a minority and do not have a minority status. International law is very clear that immigrants and minorities are two different things. Thus, if they are to be added, then that should be done on its dedicated section, where of course we will also have to include the Greek immigrants which for some reason you chose to not mention, and who left crisis-hit Greece for employment in Albania's tourism and services sectors, mainly in the Albanian Riviera.

Last, about the Cham women and children, as much as I personally sympathize with them as well as the Italian and German women and children, being a woman myself, you won't find me supporting any initiatives where the families of the collaborators of the Nazis are treated individually due to gender and age, and, or, even go as deep as to analyze which members in the same family actually disagreed with each other about supporting Hitler or the Resistance. Obviously, this was the case anywhere in Europe during World War II, not only with the Cham fighters and their families, but also with the German and Italian ones. No matter what we may think or feel about events of the past and whether they are politicized in modern times by far-right Cham politicians in Albania, they are very controversial and the epicenter of this controversy lies to the fact that they are one-sided perceptions which is not shared by the international community, but only by the former Axis countries such as Albania and Germany. No other European state, especially former Allied countries such as Greece, Poland and France, as far as I can see, has agreed to accept delving deep into the past and review the expelled families on an individual basis like this. Although the only country which supports such controversial matters and advocates for Cham rights in Greece is Turkey, an country which ironically failed to show the same sensitivity when it comes to its own minorities. The minorities in Turkey, had a fate much worsen and bloodier than mere expulsions. Turkey however does so in the case of the Cham issue, not because of any sudden outbursts of Human right sensitivities among Turkish diplomats or a post-modern Enlightment of humanism among Turkish politicians, but because for the Turks it is an easy political tool for increasing and bolstering Turkish influence in Albania (a rather successful move, if I may add, as some Albanians evidently fell for it except the nationalists (for whom I am aware) who mistrust Turkey's motives and intentions). Calthinus, if you propose something off-topic and such controversial and highly POV case for the article which is about diplomatic relations, (i mean, such a thing which you proposed, was not even done in the case of the Germany-Poland relations article and the expulsion of German families regardless of whether there were elderly, women or children from Poland which was one of the largest in Europe) then you will find me totally opposed. As you see, I already had to deal with far less controversial Albanian POV here such as in the case of the Greek Minority paragraph above where certain editors wanted to censor out self-determinations of people, do not EVER expect me sitting down and nosediving to far worse cases which are way far more controversial than ever. Just I won't. Sorry. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident modern day Albanian immigrants have been a issue between both countries and it has affected their bilateral relations post 1992. Covering that in an article that is about bilateral relations makes sense. Anyway we are not up to that, about the Chams please stick to the subject if your going to discuss them. What other countries have done or not done is doesn't apply to this article. As for Turkey and Albanian relations, there are issues but the mean people in Albania who are against peaceful relations are nationalists (i.e: extremists) who promote Turkophobia and Islamophobia. Now you may not like relations between those states (going by your comments) and frankly i don't see what it has do with this article. Wikipedia is wp:notaforum.Resnjari (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident, modern day Albanian immigrants have been a issue between both countries and it has affected their bilateral relations post 1992. Covering that in an article that is about bilateral relations makes sense. Not sure why are you telling me. I guess I take this as you agreeing with my position that the Migrants can be added to the article, just on a different section? This is my position, and if you are fine with it, then good.

As for Turkey and Albanian relations, there are issues but the mean people in Albania who are against peaceful relations are nationalists (i.e: extremists) who promote Turkophobia and Islamophobia. Now you may not like relations between those states (going by your comments) and frankly i don't see what it has do with this article. Wikipedia is wp:notaforum. why couldn't I like the relations between countries? If you are thinking of me as an warmonger, then I feel sorry for being too harsh at you. You must be having a terrible impression about me, my dear, for you to ever assume that I could not like good relations in the Balkans. Re-read my above comment more carefully and you will see that I am not commenting on relations but on information more or less present already in Wikipedia: Turkey using the Chams for its own gains in the region (see here: Cham issue#International position) where Wikipedia already listed one of the reasons Turkey does that for. I can gladly add more information with RS supporting it about Turkey's motives behind Cham issue, just I hope you are ok with that? Thanks and good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident, no i don't think of you as anything apart from a person who edits wikipedia. What personal motivations drive you in editing are no ones business but yourself. As for saying "Turkey is using the Chams for its own gains", in Albania part of the PDIU leadership is thought to be in the pay of the Greek Foreign ministry [35]. So i guess there is alternative POVs on the matter. Anyway Turkey and Albania's relations are not important for this article. Focus is on Albania and Greece.Resnjari (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident you misunderstand. I am not proposing adding anything to the Cham section. Instead I am opposing holding the addition of the section that you made, which won the support of myself and many others, hostage to a new discussion of deleting the separate Cham section-- raised by Alexikoua, even though Khirurg explicitly states he does not [[36]] support deleting the Cham section. What you misunderstood as some sort of proposal from me was in fact me arguing about why it is not a good idea to link this to that. I did mention long term goals for the page and none of these included modifications to the existing Cham section. Regarding the France/Poland comment, I should say actually the position of France is quite different from that of Poland or Greece (statements of apology, reconciliation etc...) -- and it is Poland's attitude to the past that has caused considerable friction with not only Germany but also a diplomatic fallout with Israel last year. But this is off-topic. Can we please get back to adding your proposed section, before the merge proposal (which let's be honest-- stands no chance-- but your original proposal was quite agreeable)?--Calthinus (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm I am having trouble understanding you lately. Sorry I didn't understand but ok, now that the merger is opposed, all we can do is add the Greek minority section, or at least the parts of it which have RS supporting it. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

pinging Ktrimi991. Its seems after all the discussion that things are moving toward adding the section as part of the article. Can you provide the sources for that sentence on n Albania's position soon so the section can go whole into the article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion went rather off-topic during my absence but glad to see that desire for consensus is prevailing again. I have the books here, just need to manually write the relevant quotes, sth I hate to do to some degree. See you soon. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We have been waiting for days for this. How much more time do you need? At least can you give us the names of these books and their page numbers to do it ourselves? That would save you the hassle and let us finally add the paragraph to the article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

References

HRM & Hatzidimitriou state about "weaknesses for the protection of minority rights".Alexikoua (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)