Template talk:Greeks in Albania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recognition of Region[edit]

Northern Epirus, especially when mentioning Albanian cities, such as Korca or Vlora, implies an irredentist view against Albania, thus weakening the NPOV of Wikipedia. The continuation of the existence of this template would imply the creation of new templates which violate other countries' territorial and political status quo.--A B X T • ៛ 04:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC) :I will have to agree with you. A check for this template was asked in IRC, so I volunteered. I made some changes, after checking sources provided in articles. I will discuss this issue with some other users, in order to get some feedback. --Alarichus (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Region with historical-cultural background[edit]

Apart from being considered irredentist the term is mainly associated with Greek populations that live in southern Albania (they call it N.E. and 785 hits in googlebooks use it too), which is the main reason that it exists. Historically, the term was rejected as irredentist by the Albanian communist regime (1945-1991). I see no reason to delete a 'term' virtually adopting a tottalitarian approach. Actually the template's title is Northern Epirus region & Greek culture in Albania (as per geographic and cultural background).Alexikoua (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will give specific references that mention presence of Greek population in towns, cities that according to the former totalitarian regime in Albania (1945-1991) were never existent:

  • T. Winnifrith: p. 29 [[1]]: Berat was the seat of a Greek bishopric in medieval and modern times, and today Vlach- and even Greek speakers can be found in the town and villages near by.
  • Petiffer 2001:...thereby excluding important concentrations of Greek settlement in Vlora (perhaps 8000 people in 1994)...
  • Vickers, Petiffer p. 187:...there was bitter inter ethnic conflict in the minority regions of Korca and Gjirokaster...
  • Katherine Elizabeth Fleming: p.36: a large town whose Greek and Vlach merchants estamblished chamber of commerce. The prosperity of the Moschopolis Greeks...

The above references are included in the relevant articles, but there is an additional number of books & publications that confirms the above claims.

As for the polyphonic song of Epirus, it is more than obvious that it is part of the people's local tradition (the article is cited).Alexikoua (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered in our talk page discussion. Please read my reply there. --Alarichus (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polyphonic_song_of_Epirus[edit]

I suggest that Greek editors gently remove Polyphonic song of Epirus from this template and also remove the template itself from the article of the Polyphonic song. There is no scholar conclusion to suggest that the song has Greek origins as this paragraph suggests. In fact, Vlachs and Albanians use the song as well. There are several sources to suggest that the song is used throughout Southern Albania (see [2] especially in the Laberia region [3]. I could find plenty of sources to suggest a completely different article. Thank you! --Sulmues Let's talk 20:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the 'Polyphonic_song_of_Epirus' article is in this template does not mean that they are used only by Greeks.Alexikoua (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It implies that it is part of the Greek culture. This template reads "Greek culture". The implication is misleading. --Sulmues Let's talk 10:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the implication is right, it implies that is part of the Greek culture and it is. If it is part of more than one cultures that's something irrelevant with this template.Alexikoua (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption again[edit]

It seems that the last days, from the moment the new 'restriction' is imposed, a number of spa accounts (Kushtrim & Stupidus Maximus) and ips have become aware and therefore very active, since they know that their job is much more easier now. No wonder the specific ip, that likes to follow me around [[4]], didn't lose the opportunity to come here too. For the history, this template was a target of one of Sarandioti's sockpuppet Alarichus, and his removals are almost identical as the ips.Alexikoua (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New source[edit]

Per this [5] new source, the following places should be added to the template, and appropriate changes be made to the relevant articles. Athenean (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template was the latest victim of a spa revert-only ip [[6]], one of many that know even how to post an edit summary by misusing wp terms, that also mysteriously know how to 'edit' templates. Suppose just by being instructed to follow me around. History proves that it will strike again soon.Alexikoua (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ath.: Actually, we can use it in demographics section.Alexikoua (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta be kidding me, is Shkodër heavily populated by Greeks? Where on hell are Albanians on this country?Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this one [[7]] 110,000 were relocated to northern Albania, it's stays perfectly in accordance with Shkoder.Alexikoua (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second one is unreliable (400 thousand chams it says ;)). Whatsoever, my question stands too: Is there any Albanian in Albania? Nevertheless, I am not intervening until next year, when (finally) a census on ethnicity and languages will be held in Albania. Too many things to do than. Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really cannot comprehend how you think the presence of a small Greek community means that the town is inhabited exclusively by Greeks, with zero Albanians. So your questions borders on trolling. As for the census, well, μακάρι, but considering the inability to have a free and fair election, I am a little skeptical it will include language and ethnicity or meet international standards. But I digress. Athenean (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the source, it says that in Shkodra (and the other cities) are heavily populated by Greeks. Bah, I am not sceptical, as it will be monitored, and because they do not care really about it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chams? You comfuse them with the Chams from Indochina.Alexikoua (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean it does include ethnicity and language and then many articles will have to be adjusted. I would also welcome an ethnographic census in Greece since the last one was in the 1950s and even then a Greek citizen could declare himself a)a Greek b)a Greek speaking as a second mother tongue another language.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 07:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Zjarri: Can you please avoid the highly sarcastic comments. If you have any demands towards governments this is not the right place.Alexikoua (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua I'm not being sarcastic at all and I don't understand why you would comment that I'm being sarcastic, but since Athenean made a remark I thought that a reply politely reminding certain existing conditions was appropriate. If you consider my remarks sarcastic then I'm sure that if you examine them you'll realize that I'm simply recounting official policies of certain countries, which under no context could be considered sarcastic. I tried to be as brief as possible per WP:FORUM as I don't want to detour the current discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this template was the target of the recent drive-by initiative of Pakapshem. The user is informed that if he continues such an activity: personal attacking [[8]] and without discussing [[9]], a new block would become inevitable. Actually, after a long-term block, massive removals of sourced content is something that should be avoided. If there is any objection with this template, it's better to discuss them on this taklpage.Alexikoua (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template has significant amounts of unsourced and unsubstantiated information such as adding 5-6 Albanian cities with no Greek communities at all to the part of the template that talks about the modern settlements of Greek communities. The articles of these cities do not speak of any greek communities in these cities. Those cities have to be taken off from the template. --I Pakapshem (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced content[edit]

Athenean, you have to excatly show the sources and the qoutes from the sources that Bilisht, Erseke, Tepelene, Leskovik, Permet and Narte have significant greek populations or otherwise the info has to go. I found no sources or even claims in the articles for these cities about there being any greek populations. --I Pakapshem (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check again this discussion and talk:Narte, we have a number of fine sources. If a specific work sounds somewhat exaggerated you can express your concerns here. But the bibliography is just fine.Alexikoua (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, go read my answer. The sources are 2 and they're far from being fine, and they talk about greek speaking populations and not greek populations. Narte is only one village, either way. No sources or claims in the articles of Bilisht, Erseke, Tepelene, Leskovik or Permet of there being any greek populations. You can't just add cities to your template without having any proof of any significat greek communities existing in these cities. --I Pakapshem (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the 'new source' section's fist line, there is a another source.Alexikoua (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which new sources and where? --I Pakapshem (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there are some greeks in the district of permet but i too doubt that there are that many...if any...in the town87.202.6.63 (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC) in the other areas im almost sure that there arent any...alex youre reaching here be reasonable87.202.6.63 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

alex many of those sources are citing activists, cultural organizations etc who unfortunately exaggerate often..based on the same sources we could speak of hundreds of thousands of chams like balkanian said we need to put these numbers in order some time87.202.6.63 (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are Greeks living today that's not the case. We are talking about traditional precense and the geographic definition of 'Northern Epirus'. Take for example Chams template. Chams have gone but they tradinionally used to live there. It's not a demographics template, or if a community is majority/minority.Alexikoua (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show me one source that says about there being a traditional presence of greeks there? --I Pakapshem (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmm..i see your point and i dont disagree the only problem is that much of the greek population of 'northern epirus' with the exception of the southwest and himare wasnt greekspeaking but also vlach and albanian which would be a point of dispute with many editors since the descendants of these populations dont feel any connection to greece anymore...but anyway i still have doubts about SOME places for example why would you include e.g. Tepelene at all..it was always an albanianspeaking muslim place (the greek claims in the paris peace conference were quite exaggerated to be honest...) or why did you include Bilisht? im also not sure about the mention of all those northern places (shkoder, tirana etc.) even if some greeks live there..similar is Durres which was inhabited by greek populations along with latins etc. until late medieval times but what has it got to do with greeks in modern times? you dont have to clutter up the template with places of little to no relevance..87.202.47.40 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and IMO you should use districts rather than towns becoz theres greek population in the districts but not necessarily many in the towns..87.202.47.40 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know any of this? Are you kidding me? Saranda and Gjirokaster for sure have Greek populations. I can see a case for removing Leskovik and maybe Erseka, but the rest all stay. Athenean (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korca, Erseke, Bilisht, Leskovik, Permet and Tepelene are definitley going. No mention whatsoever in the article of there being any greek communities at all, let alone significant ones. --I Pakapshem (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATHENEAN asked: "How do you know any of this? Are you kidding me? Saranda and Gjirokaster for sure have Greek populations. I can see a case for removing Leskovik and maybe Erseka, but the rest all stay." --- gjirokaster but especially sarande have a greek population but for example permet DOESNT...but the permet district does thats why im saying use the districts you dont clutter the template also..can you also argue why tepelene of all places should stay?? korce could stay since there were populations that sympathized with greece in the past and because of moscopole which though aromanian-speaking mostly was a center of greek culture which back then was the high culture of the christians all over the balkans19:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.35.52 (talk)

Regarding Permet, we have this source [10] that categorically says that the town itself was inhabited by Greeks. I rest my case. Athenean (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What page? Who is this guy? Political parties of Eastern Europe? Hardly believable. All the above cities mentioned by me, will go pretty soon since there is no proof of any greek populations in them. --I Pakapshem (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

athenean this is the least...anyway the districts cover the towns also and the permet district should be included but you didnt tell me why you want to include eg Tepelene..? btw can you give me a page from that source?87.202.35.52 (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i cant see that page...but what i can see is '[omonoia] received substantial support from the ethnic Greek minority concentrated in the southern districts of sarande and gjirokaster' and thats where the absolute majority of greeks are these days..with the exception of himare and as i said before and please keep it in mind its hard to fit the slightly more complex sociohistorical phenomena in orthodox albania among non-greek speakers with regards to greek nationalism in a single template...otherwise we could include even berat which would be ridiculous87.202.35.52 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polyphonic Music of Epirus[edit]

Rm Polyphonic Music of Epirus from the template. As we worked on that article, that showed the music is NOT apanage of the Greek culture, so if you keep that music in the template of the Greek Culture in Albania, is clearly POV. Thank you and please let me know if you disagree in my talk page. --Sulmues Let's talk 15:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. Polyphonic singing is part of the Greek Culture of Albania. It doesn't matter that it is ALSO part of neighboring cultures, and that is the most POV reason for removing it. This Template is "Northern Epirus region & Greek culture in Albania", not "Northern Epirus region & Exclusively Greek culture in Albania". Anything that is part of Greek culture in Albania belongs here, simple as that. Athenean (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, haha ridiculous for real. It's not also part of neighboring cultures, but is also part of the so called greek comunity in Albania. Polyphonic Music of this kind is clearly Albanian, as it is recognized and protected as an oral treasure even by UNESCO. At best the so called greek minority has tried to immitate the Albanians. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSa1mZrBq1g --I Pakapshem (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's this? A youtube video? It MUST be true then! Athenean (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't jump to conclusions. It's a UNESCO documentary, it's not simply a youtube video. Watch before you comment. --I Pakapshem (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Is Polyphonic song of Epirus appropriate for this template?[edit]

Is Polyphonic song of Epirus appropriate for this template? The polyphonic song of Epirus, a region divided between Albania and Greece, is a song that is part of both nations, Albanian and Greek and this transpires from the article itself. This template is called Greek Culture in Albania. Is it appropriate that the article be part of the template? Sulmues Let's talk 18:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You gave the answer yourself, this is part of both nations, in the region of Epirus: Greek is one of these cultures and so it should stay here. Alexikoua (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually pretty funny. Athenean (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polyphonic singing is not part of Greek Culture in Albania, since it's part of Albanian culture and it has been so since the beginning of time. If greeks try to sing polyphonically it just means that they're trying immitate the culture of the natives. I say it should be removed from the template. --I Pakapshem (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...since the beginning of time..." Just like that lunatic on youtube whose video you posted a link to. Athenean (talk) 19:46, 10 June

2010 (UTC)

So UNESCO is a lunatic organization?--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i pakapshem...sorry but i have to disagree here various kinds of polyphony exist among greeks albanians AND vlachs in some places. its a SHARED tradition and i doubt you truly know its origins and obviously theres no evidence from the 'beginning of time' either...87.202.35.52 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, had I wanted Greek or Albanian editors in this RFC I would have just asked for a third opinion. I want established editors who aren't from the Balkans. Would you please mind striking all of your edits in this RFC or transfer them into a higher paragraph? Thanks! --Sulmues Let's talk 20:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC2: Is Polyphonic song of Epirus appropriate for this template?[edit]

Is Polyphonic song of Epirus appropriate for this template, which reads Greek culture in Albania? The polyphonic song of Epirus, a region divided between Albania and Greece, is a song that is part of both nations, Albanian and Greek and this transpires from the article itself of the Polyphonic song of Epirus. This template is called Greek Culture in Albania. Is it appropriate that the article be part of the template? Sulmues Let's talk 18:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this has been moved one section down. Several editors have already replied above.Alexikoua (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see no problem with having it. It's part of the shared culture of both groups in this region, so why not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the template's name is not Shared Culture between Greeks and Albanians, but Greek Culture in Albania, therefore having the Poliphonic song with that template and within that template simply implies that that's Greek Culture only. --Sulmues Let's talk 15:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Northern Epirus[edit]

This edit is problematic if the template includes "Greek Culture". That's why I moved to simply Northern Epirus. --Sulmues (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it problematic? Care to explain? Korce was part of the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus. Besides, that is not a reason to remove "Greek Culture". Athenean (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Korce has been part of Bulgaria, Serbia, Ottoman Empire for 13 centuries, and we don't have templates for those, but we find ARNE's template which was there for two months. I would suggest that the two be split. One template for Northern Epirus, which is a geographical concept, and another one for the Greek culture, which is a cultural concept. Not necessarily the Greek culture is a predominant one in Northern Epirus and the two concepts together in one template are misleading. Setting geographical borders through some Greek culture that is present but not widespread in all Northern Epirus reveals a battleground mentality and the template, as it is, simply shows a chauvinistic view. If I have 1% of the population of Korce with Greek origin and in the bottom I find "Greek culture" as a template I really wouldn't want to read wikipedia anymore, because I know that a nationalist has written that. --Sulmues (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reason to split the template. Splitting the template is a non-starter. NE is not just a "geographical concept" (what does that even mean?). Greeks and and Greek culture go together. The rest of your post makes no sense (Not necessarily the Greek culture is a predominant one in Northern Epirus and the two concepts together in one template are misleading. Setting geographical borders through some Greek culture that is present but not widespread in all Northern Epirus reveals a battleground mentality and the template, as it is, simply shows a chauvinistic view.). What chauvinism? What "battleground mentality"? Please don't toss insults like that around. Seems to me like all this is about is that you don't like seeing the word "Greek" in the Korce article. Well, I can't help you with that. I you don't want to read wikipedia anymore, then don't read it. Athenean (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is no Greek culture in Albania article, the Template should read "Northern Epirus and Greeks in Albania".--Sulmues (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 August 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Epirus → Template:Greeks in Albania – Templates for minority ethnic groups follow the naming convention X people in Y country. This one uses the name "Northern Epirus", which is a nationalist/irredentist political term which was created in 1912 and doesn't describe a natural geographical region. The term is POV and doesn't cover the history of Greeks in Albania, which predates the term. If the template included just the Greeks after 1912, it would be reduced. A renaming to "Template:Greeks in Albania" is a)politically neutral (WP:NPOV) and b) historically accurate about its subject as it doesn't retrogressively include individuals under a concept which didn't exist before 1912. Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In order to secure wp:NPOV this should be part of a centralised discussion together with template:Cham Albanians, the Albanian counterpart in Greek-Albanian issues. In the same fashion Cham/Chameria is a nationalist /irredentist term mostly used by Albanians.Alexikoua (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the template is titled Cham Albanians already, not Chameria. Super Ψ Dro 09:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is the issue. There is no such thing as "Northern Epirotes", only Greeks. Çerçok (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chameria is a historical reality, not a nationalist/irredentist term. It is an ethnolinguistic region that consists (well, 'consisted', most of Chameria was ethnically cleansed by Greeks who formed a minority in the region until the Cham Albanians were evicted) of it's own dialect of Albanian, as well as a real history of having been historically inhabited by Cham Albanians since the Middle Ages. Northern Epirus and Chameria cannot be equated. Botushali (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. And by the way the irredentist term Northern Epirus cannot be equated with Chameria. Çerçok (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I once thought about something like this. The term is indeed POV. Super Ψ Dro 09:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per points made by Super Dromaeosaurus and Çerçok.Alltan (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per above nomination. Botushali (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moscopole[edit]

Alexikoua, why are you adding Moscopole into the settlements section? Moscopole has never been an ethnically Greek settlement. It was always Aromanian, and still is. I've already added it into another section due to its influence over Greek culture at its time. If this message goes unreplied I will revert you. Super Ψ Dro 19:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a leading centre of Greek culture, nicknamed new Athens, and centre of the modern Greek enlightenment. Being Greek doesn't explude being Aromanian if you mean that, Moscopole doesn't claim racial purity. Declaration of being revert-read without providing a decent argument (apart from racial purity of the settlement without backing of sourced material) isn't a productive approach.Alexikoua (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Moscopolis is a settlement not a cultural feature. The section culture can include various aspects / institutions of culture, such as the printing house, the Academy etc, settlements have their own part in the template.Alexikoua (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that my argument is ethnic-based, when the template is about an ethnic group in another country. If you include a settlement in a section about settlements in a template called "Greeks in Albania", you're implying Moscopole is an ethnic Greek settlement. That's not true. That it may also be considered Greek apart of Aromanian is your opinion, I doubt you could be able to defend this with sources, surely in the ethnic sense at least. Also, I don't need to bring sources to a template, for info on the ethnic composition of Moscopole, see Moscopole#Demographics. Still I recognize its Grecophile nature during its peak, that's why I included Moscopole at the culture section. But including it in the settlements section, when all the other settlements do have substantial ethnic Greek populations (some being Greek-majority), is POV-pushing. I believe keeping Moscopole in the culture section is a good compromise. Super Ψ Dro 10:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were Greeks (and Albanians too) in Moscopole, it was never 100% Aromanian. So the culture section is a non-starter. Perhaps moving it from the main "Modern" in the "Settlements" section to the "Other" section immediately below would work? Khirurg (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Still it would imply that Moscopole has a substantial ethnic Greek population, which appears not to be the case [11]. I don't think Moscopole was ever relevant precisely because of its strictly ethnic Greek population. However the note in that section could be changed to something else that could highlight the relevance Greek culture had in Moscopole. Such a change should also fix that we are moving Moscopole to a section of settlements outside of Northern Epirus as it was within the political entity [12] (Moscopole borders Korçë). The template was moved anyway, so there's no more need for a section specifying that some listed settlements aren't part of Northern Epirus. Super Ψ Dro 14:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've went ahead and done this change [13]. I'm okay with it if the template stays like this. What do you think? Super Ψ Dro 14:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine. I never liked that separate "Other" category anyway. Khirurg (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1912 history[edit]

Articles about the history of the Greek populations in the region need to stay. There is no reason to hide the history of this part of the world.Alexikoua (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History before 1912 is already included so I am not sure what you are talking about. Furthermore, the note is completely undue and won't be inserted by violating the 3rv-rule as you did. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any Greek-related topics in the territory of what is now modern Albania belong in the template. The name of the template is "Greeks in Albania", not "Greeks in independent Albania" or "Greeks in post-independent Albania". Furthermore, everything you are removing was there long before you showed and started edit-warring, and it won't be removed without consensus. Khirurg (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if you could tell the truth, there never was a note in the title of the template and there was no consensus for that. You should respect the outcome of the consensus. Ahmet Q. (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ancient stuff was there for ages before you showed up and started edit-warring to remove it, and you know that. Watch it with the personal comments btw. Khirurg (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There never was a note in the title, why did you say that it was there long before the consensus? If you could stop accusing other editors of edit-warring when you yourself are edit-warring, that would also be nice. Ahmet Q. (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template was stable before you showed up and started continuously removing more and more. Anyway, this [14] is acceptable, even though it's kind of a tautology. If that's what it takes to end the edit-warring, so be it. Khirurg (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first note referring to the independence of Albania still doesn't make any sense considering that the region of Albania existed long before this date. This has not been done for similar templates, so its inclusion is undue. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The topic refers to local Greek populations irrelevant of what happened to the local political entities, as such the scope of the template includes antiquity, medieval and modern-era articles about local Greek-related topics. Well, it's very typical for a present minority to have existed before the creation of the current state.Alexikoua (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The note has been added to explain the inclusion of articles about ancient Epirotes in this template, which is about modern Greeks. An Ancient Epirotes template could easily be made, which would replace this one in the related articles. Ahmet Q. (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Enough with your POV, Ahmet Q. Pre-1912 history has to be inclusive, not exclude medieval or ancient history. Pre-1922 means exactly that: both Ancient and medieval history. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else, is a blatant POV disruption and will not be tolerated.
To all the editors: I suggest the "[1] The template includes content about Ancient and Byzantine Greeks." footnote is removed all together. Besides it 1) being problematic since it lacks mention of Ottoman Greeks, and 2) the fact that these people's history doesn't begin in 1912. Both the country's and the people's history stretches beyond that landmark year; 1912 is just the declaration of independence, while the state the people lived in, was formed later, at year 1913. After all, in Wikipedia, cultural groups in a certain country are defined by their distinct culture in a given geography; not about having their history be unecyclopedically defined by foundational dates of states. Not serious academic source ever supports such a claim that the Greeks in Albania are strictly a post-1913 cultural phenomenon. 3) Last, having this footnote about Ancient and Byzantine Greeks next to "Greeks in Albania" wrongly suggests (to the inexperienced readers at least) that otherwise the Greeks in Albania did not had any historic presence in what today is Albania, a POV which goes against both the facts and the unanimous international academic consensus. Considering these facts, I can't see how the term "Greeks in Albania" may have such a clarification as a footnote. If stability, neutrality and verifiability are truly our priority here, then Wikipedia should reflect on facts and the academic consensus, not reflect on editorial opinions by inserting redundant POV-pushing footnotes implying/suggesting something else.
Edit: Also, just added a much-needed {{Under discussion inline}} next to the problematic footnote to inform the template's unaware/unsuspecting users so that they are aware of the ongoing discussion in this talk page. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said or wrote that there were no ancient Greeks on the territory of modern Albania. What I am saying is that there is no direct continuity between ancient Greeks and modern Greeks and there is also no direct continuity between ancient Epirotes and the modern Greek minority of Albania. You will need to find extraordinary sources and evidence for this and no, there is absolutely no academic consensus that backs this claim. Every people in the Balkans are the product of different migrating people in different quantities, and every people should be treated equally. As for the term Byzantine Greeks, it is an ambiguous term which didn't exist back in the day. It is used in modern sources to describe Greek-speakers under the Byzantine Empire, but most Greek-speakers back then didn't identify as Greeks but as Romans. The self-identification of Greeks came much later. This term also groups some ancient Greeks, Greeks in medieval times and people who only spoke Greek together which doesn't make much sense. It is not comparable with the term Ancient Greeks.
Also, I have said this already but I will repeat it one last time. If you want to make a report or contact admins of AE or whatever else you want to do, go ahead and do it. I personally think that it would be a good idea to let admins evaluate my versus your editing history. Ahmet Q. (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor like you thinks that my edit history is problematic, then I must have something right after all. As for your theories? Well, I am afraid I don't care. No sane person thinks that the modern nations are pure-blood or something, as if migration isn't core to the human history or development. Heck, 95% of world history is about migrations if nothing more than that. Only Greek ultra-nationalists would claim that there is direct connection between ancient and modern and only Albanian ultra-nationalists would give a shit about disproving them, along with some of them even claiming a direct Illyrian ancestry (talk about irony here!) Your unfortunate obsession in making pov-pushing changes in the Greece Topic Area, about "disproving Greek direct continuity theories" (which aren't real anyways and Wikipedia doesn't need you to prove them) indicates your POV agenda-driven motives here, which IMO is bad faith, disruptive and not what Wikipedia is for. If I were you, I would change my course ASAP and keep any personal views to myself or else leave the project at once. That's my last advice to you. Expect no further replies. The rest, at the AE.
Back to the topic: To my dismay, the serious NPOV concerns expressed here, were ignored and the editor already removed big chunks of the history of the group suggesting falsely that there is no Byzantine or Ottoman history related to that group the region. This is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutrality rules and I vehemently oppose this. The footnote will be removed unless editors here can address adequately my NPOV concerns about it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read WP:CIVILITY. Ahmet Q. (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The footnote cannot stay unless editors here can address adequately my NPOV concerns about it. Editors are kindly reminded that per WP:NPOV, neutrality is non-negotiable and no consensus may supersede it. Editor Ahmet Q will have to provide really strong and indisputable sources backing their claims that the Greeks in Albania had nothing to do with their presence in Medieval times in the said geography if they want the footnote making such a claim, to be restored back to the navigation panel. Not only the sources have to be strong, but the editor will have to prove that this is also the view supported by the majority of the international academic community per WP:WEIGHT. In this case, I will lift my strong objections and consent to the footnote with only a wikilink to Ancient Greeks being restored. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Euhm...nope. This is not how Wikipedia works. Please, provide sources which claim continuity between ancient Epirote tribes and the modern Greek minority of Albania; I will be waiting. Btw, an Ancient Epirus/Epriotes template should be made. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
History is the issue here and that's relevant and therefore SR is correct. If the ancient Epirote tribes practised endogamy and preserved racial continuity through the centuries that's irrelevant to wikipedia. What's relevant is that a Greek identity - including speech and culture- existed.Alexikoua (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selapshoros[edit]

There is a red link settlememt with that name. Can anyone link it to the article of a present day settlement/municipality or create its own article if need be? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The usual practice in Wikipedia is to direct to a regional/provincial entity's article, Preferably with a # tag directing straight to the article's section which explicitly mentions the said settlement.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Greeks_in_Albania&oldid=1129510030"