Talk:Northern Epirus

Link to discussion about Northern Epirus artcile on Wikiproject Greece page

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

POV changes to the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Tq Who decides that it is a "strong claim"? You? If you have RS that reject it or say something that is fundamentally different, post it here and we can find a solution. If, on the other hand, it is just your judgement, you are aware of WP:OR. Ktrimi991 (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Template:Tq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding Template:Tq, this is already mentioned in the opening paragraph. Khirurg (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crimes were also committed by Albanian nationalist groups (starting even before the Balkan Wars) and descriptions by Kinley are quite relevant to the article: Template:Quote Ignoring the full picture contitutes wp:POV. Alexikoua (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

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

(unindent) Proposal for the lede: Template:Tq To mention acts of violence by only one side is POV. Khirurg (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Since violence was already ongoing before the BW an appropriate addition should be: Template:Tq. Then the sentence about what occured during BW can follow.

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

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

For starters, this edit summary [4] by Khirurg was misleading. I can clearly see above that Ktrimi, the editor who added this line, has actually responded to the concerns in their comment above - Template:Tquote - and, IMO, I see no adequate counter from those contesting its inclusion. It’s quite important that current situations are included in the lead when applicable.

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

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

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

If those who still advocate for NE are "peripheral", then that contradicts the need for them to be in the lede. If most of Greek society has already abandoned the issue, shouldn't that be what's mentioned in the lede instead of "peripheral elements"? And why where the sourced additions from Kinley [6] removed from the article body? I even provided the inline quote from the source. Is there any kind of sourcing for the claim "most crimes were committed by Greeks against the Albanian population rather than the reverse." Even if that's the case, the crimes by the Albanian bands should still be mentioned. I made a concrete proposal for the lede, but no counter-proposal was made. Khirurg (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I find your reasoning quite flawed. Just because the reaction of the Greek public to this political term is peripheral doesn't mean that this fact on itself is peripheral. That’s a false equivalence.

Regarding the balanced portrayal of atrocities committed by both sides, this has already been well addressed by Maleschreiber in his latest edit.

Furthermore, I have to agree with Botushali: since one side, in this case the Greek militias, committed significantly more crimes than the other, then giving equal weight to the less numerous crimes committed by the Albanians is not neutrality, it's the opposite. Nishjan (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree, it is important for the lede to say what the current stance in Greek society is on NE. And the current stance is that Greece has officially abandoned that ideological platform, while peripheral elements still push it.

On violence, we need to see what the RS say. If they say the Greek Army and militants committed more violence than the Albanian militants, the lede should say that. Otherwise, if we don't have RS saying that, then the lede shouldn't. I should note that the Greek army committed massacres and atrocities, and that should be specified in the lede (the lede does that already). Not just violence, but massacres and atrocities. On the Albanian militants, what do the RS say? Do they mention massacres or atrocities? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the topic of violence, first we need to deal with the article body, but my addition from Kinley to the body of the article clarifying some of the violence was removed without explanation [7]. Also, "did campaigns of violence" is not proper grammar and the sentence is redundant given Maleschreiber's edits [8]. For the lede I already made a proposal, but received no counter-proposal. Since several editors consider that the Greek side committed more violence, they should make a counter-proposal addressing that and we can take it from there. But everyone agrees that there was violence by both sides and that needs to be reflected in the article. Khirurg (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is against the content you added about violence. I have the impression that it was reverted while the reverting editors were trying to undo other edits of yours, i.e. by restoring the version before your edits instead of manually undoing the changes they disagreed with. I don't see any grammar issue there, but it can be easily changed to "The Greek Army committed atrocities and was involved in campaigns of violence". Maleschreiber's additions to not mention atrocities, but general or other acts of violence. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, regarding your first point, I am glad to hear that, because that was my impression as well, but I wasn't sure. Khirurg (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion has grown - IMO - out of proportion since the last time I checked it. I attempted to write a version which would be generally acceptable and would use as much neutral language as possible. I understand that a criticism to what I wrote might be argued for in the form "but why didn't you mention attacks against civilians by both sides in the opening section?", but in bibliography there are extensive accounts of attacks against civilians by irregular Greece backed forces and the Greek army against local Albanian civilians, while far fewer sources document attacks by Albanian irregulars against Greek Orthodox civilians. Even when such sources do mention such actions they tend to do so in a very general and broad manner which is equal to the statement "such attacks existed as well". During the 5 years I've been on wiki, I've never tried to minimize attacks against civilians and have always tried to highlight attacks against civilians by groups which hold power and I didn't remove the statement about such attacks from the article, unlike what has been going in the revert cycle. I couldn't keep the statement in the opening section because there's not much to expand on based on bibliography, which in turn can be summarized in the opening section. If content about attacks against ethnic Greek or Greek Orthodox civilians by Albanian irregulars could be expanded in the article itself, there would be no argument based on policy which would exclude mentioning them in the opening section. Attacks against Albanian civilians have a lot of documentation and as such they are mentioned in the opening section as well. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, and I appreciated your attempt to mediate and agreed with your expansion of the lede (and still do). The only major sticking point is the addition of the "peripheral elements" sentence, which came after your edits, and I did not agree with. For the issue of the violence against civilians, I did make an addition to the body text, and though it was reverted along with other edits, it sounds to me like it may have been accidental/unintentional. Other than that, the only other edits of mine I would like to reinstate are the expansion of the caption and the reversal of the map change. For the issue of the violence against civilians in the lede, we can work on the body text for now and revisit at a later date. Khirurg (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

We discussed and explained the "peripheral" stuff; I suggest you move on. Your expansion of the Himara pic caption was a bad idea, as the issues in the town have been too complex to highlight one of them in the caption. Why highlight property right issues for Greeks, when Albanians there too have issues with property rights (as do many people elsewhere in Albania), instead of highlighting the tendency of some Greek PMs to stir nationalist rhetoric regarding Himara to redirect attention from corruption and other internal issues in Greece for example? It is better for the caption to stay as is. On the other hand, I agree with you on the map change. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The map in question is highly problematic and represents a clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It is based on sources that promote a narrative rooted in the Greek nationalist and extremist myth of a Greek majority in southern Albania and that Orthodox Albanians were not ethnic Albanians but Greeks, an idea that is not supported by reliable demographic or historical evidence. Even in the so-called "Northern Epirus" region, the Greek population has historically been a minority.

The map's boundaries [9] are based on a highly questionable depiction created by 20th century Greek historian Soteriadis for the Paris Peace Conference (File:Hellenism in the Near East 1918.jpg), intended to support Greek territorial claims rather than reflect accurate demographics. It was produced in the context of nationalist expansionist goals, not scholarly consensus. The current map, whose outlines for the Greek minority are based on this source, attempts to present his claims as factual, which is not acceptable.

This kind of map has no place on Wikipedia. Ironically, when a similar map, also based on 20th century sources, was proposed to reflect Albanian historical presence in what is now Greek Epirus, it was immediately labeled as POV and removed by some of the same editors now defending this one.

This map should not remain, nor should any map based on unsupported sources that push the unfounded claim of a historical Greek majority in southern Albania, like following source for instance: The Albanians, a scattered people.

In an effort to maintain a map in that section, I replaced the previous POV map with the 20th-century Greek map, clearly captioned to reflect its original context. However, I now believe it would be better to remove all the maps altogether. The other map in the section, which depicts the traditional presence of all ethnic groups in Albania, already overestimates the Greek presence in southern Albania in my opinion, especially in the Himarë region. It may be more appropriate to remove all maps from that section to avoid reinforcing any biased narratives. Nishjan (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, the article should contain maps, as they are useful to readers. The map you removed is based on a number of sources and replacing it with Soteiriades, which you claim is biased, makes absolutely no sense. Khirurg (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Before the edit war which led to full protection, I rewrote a sentence as Template:Tquote, while the original citation (Kinley 2021) was added by Alexikoua. After reading again the article, it has become clear to me that the citation doesn't even refer to this specific region or period: Template:Tquote It refers to the area north of Ioannina before the Balkan Wars, hence this citation should be removed for now, but the source itself can be used for relevant edits.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, so we should remove that part. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Unless someone has arguments against, I will make the edits proposed by Maleschreiber and Khirurg regarding violence. Other changes you might want to make are better proposed here first. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Name section

I need to address the edits I made in the name section, which were reverted without explanation. The etymology and ancient history of Epirus are already thoroughly covered in the main Epirus article and have no relevance in the context of the quite recently invented term North Epirus. Including that content here appears, in my view, to be influenced by Greek nationalist rhetoric, attempting to link the modern political term "North Epirus" to the ancient region of Epirus. This narrative is rooted in the Greek nationalist myth of historical continuity, that the modern Greek minority in southern Albania are direct descendants of the ancient Epirotes, whose own ethnic identity remains debated among scholars. While this myth is considered to be fringe and unfounded, the current version of the name section seems to subtly endorse it. Nishjan (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any "subtle endorsements" of anything, only factual, relevant, and well-sourced information that would be of interest to the readers. Regardless of whether the etymology is discussed in the Epirus article, this article needs its own etymology section. We can't assume all readers will read the Epirus article. Khirurg (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

If readers are interested in learning about ancient Epirus, they should be referred to the article dedicated to that topic, not the article on 'Northern Epirus,' which refers to a modern political and irredentist term. Nishjan (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I see the same Greek nationalist rhetoric, attempting to link the modern political term "North Epirus" to the ancient region of Epirus. SolderUnion (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It's "nationalist" to link "Epirus" to..."Northern Epirus"? Really? How do you figure? Khirurg (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the very creation of the modern political term "Northern Epirus" was rooted in an attempt to artificially establish a sense of historical continuity with ancient Epirus, an effort largely driven by Greek nationalist and fringe narratives. I’ve already explained this earlier in the discussion. If that point still hasn't been understood, it seems you're deliberately avoiding engaging with the deeper historical and political context by reducing the argument to semantics. Nishjan (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing artificial, the territory lies in the wider historical region of Epirus. In any case, the etymology is certainly relevant and of interest to readers. Any relevant material that meets WP:V should be included in the article. By the way, since admins are almost certainly following this discussion, I recommend you discuss in a more civil manner. Khirurg (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)