Jump to content

Talk:Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Tom Winnifrith

For the record, Tom Winnifrith, cited in the lead for the foundation date of the Republic, says only "in March 1914 declared the autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus" (Winnifrith, Tom (2002). Badlands-borderlands: a history of Northern Epirus/Southern Albania. London: Duckworth. p. 130. ISBN 0715632019.). It may only be a matter of a few hours, but the information ought to reflect the source cited. Also, could someone please tell me if this article was translated and if so provide a link to the original? I thought it strange that before I located the book, the citation read only "Winnifrith: 130". Aramgar (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Some sources are really contradictory. At 1914 the Julian calendar was still in use in Eastern Europe, making thinks more complecated for research. I've found a sourced site stating that the declaration date was 28 Feb. (Gregorian calendar) [[1]]:

Feb.28 >In southern Albania, local Greeks proclaim the Republic of Northern Epirus, in defiance of the International Control Commission

other dates related to the article:

Mar.07 > William of Wied arrives in Durazzo, and is installed as the ruler of Albania with Austrian support

Mar.08 > Austria and Italy demand that Greece evacuate southern Albania

Mar.10 > Talks between Prince William’s Albanian regime and Greek separatists in the south - the Greeks reject concessions

May.17 > The Protocol of Corfu, mediated and guaranteed by the ICC: an autonomous ‘Northern Epirus’ (south Albania) is to be ruled by local Greeks under nominal Albanian sovereignty .

the sources are here: [[2]].

I believe the site is reliable about chronologies and facts, so I'll make adjustments on the article.--Alexikoua (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Flags

I feel the Albanian flag (as a former state in the region) should stay, because some regions (Korce region) were ceded from the Greek army directly to the newly formed Albanian gendarmerie (as the article and the related sources state) before they came under North-Epirot command after ca. 2 months. Alexikoua (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Republic?

If I remember correctly from history books and contemporary documents, the actual name of the state was "Αυτόνομος Πολιτεία της Βορείου Ηπείρου", and the word "Δημοκρατία", i.e. "Republic" was never used. Understandable, given the desire for union with the Greek kingdom on the one hand and the realistic aim of autonomy within an Albanian monarchy on the other, plus the very real provisional nature of this state which did not exactly conform to the standards of a democracy/republic. I think therefore that the article should be renamed to "Autonomous State of Northern Epirus" to reflect this. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 00:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Good morning! I agree that the word 'State' was often used instead of 'Republic' in some sources, but international bibliography seems to adopt more often the term 'Republic' (according to google books search [[3]]). There are several Greek books that adopt the 'Δημοκρατία' like that of Ekdotike Athenon historical series [4]]. I believe we can use it for redirection.

Actually the state's official name was simple: 'Αυτόνομος Ήπειρος', according to official documents (like the decleration, Corfu Protocol etc) and the people 'Ηπειρώται'.--Alexikoua (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOv-ing

I see that there is the template:infobox former countries. The article is about a former subdvision of Albania, since the Protocol of Corfu did not acknowledge it as an indipendent country, rather than a autonomous republic of Albania, and as such template:infobox former subdivision, is proper.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Protocol of Corfu was never implemented, it remained only in papers (it has only allegorical value today). The Albanian government collapsed, Wied departed, WWI broke up. It would be very interesting to know if the Albanian government choosed a governor for the region (if any, according to its terms), but sources point that the agreement couldn't been implemented cos political chaos emerged imidiately. So the region during that time (February-October 1914) was never under Albanian sovereignity.

As for the flags, the area was under Greek military administation before (February 1913-February/March 1914-except the regions of Korce, Kolonje, Voscopoje which were ceded to the Albanian gendarmerie) and after (October/November 1914-Sept. 1916)Alexikoua (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Who says it was a country, all references say it was an Autnomous Republic, the Protocol of COrfu is an international document signed, and therefore the only legal case of the creation of the Autonomous Republic. It never was a country. As for the flags, being and military administration (i.e. occupation) does not mean that Greece had sovereignity, it just means that it occupied it. The Protocol of Florece, gave this part into Albania, and as such, prior to the declaration of the Autonomous Republic, it was under Albanian sovereignity and under Greek occupation. The same as after World War I.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Under Albanian Sovereignty? According to citations Albanian sovereignty was never performed before 1921. It was to be to ceded to Albanian under the Protocol of Florence but never happened in practice before 1921. Protocol of Corfu was also to give Albanian sovereignty but it was never implemented too. 'Autonomous republic' doesn't mean it wasn't a state. According to Stickney, Miller, K. Boechk and many other sources the A.r.N.E. was virtually independent this period. Another similar situation was with the Republic of Gumuljina (with the difference that no protocol granted autonomy to that short-lived state). You need to provide sources that support your claims.--Alexikoua (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, that`s what I am saying: it was virtually independent, which means that it was not independent, but acted as such. As it was not independent, it was under the sovereignity of Albania, under the protocol of florence. Greece occupied this region, but it does not mean that it had sovereignity on it, otherwise it would not have been under military administration, but it would have been under civilian administration.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Erm, I fail to see the problem here. Is the fact that we use the former country infobox really that important? There have been plenty of self-declared countries , whether they term themselves "autonomous" or not, and whether they have been internationally recognized or not, that have established "de facto" independence. For all intents and purposes, Autonomous Northern Epirus was a separate government until the Corfu Protocol. Since the Epirotes rejected the Protocol of Florence, they also rejected Albanian suzerainty. The fact that a compromise was later reached does not detract from the fact of its brief spell of independence from Albania. To draw a parallel, if the TRNC were to be integrated as an "autonomous" territory into the Republic of Cyprus, that would not mean that between 1974 and today, it has not enjoyed "de facto" (even if unrecognized etc) independence... Constantine ✍ 13:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not the case of TRNC, since the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus was created as of the Protocol of Corfu. As such, it has never' been independent, rather then autonomous etnity of Albania.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but did you even read the article? The "autonomy" was declared on 28 February, from which point on, the Epirotes enjoyed practical self-administration, and the protocol was signed on 17 May, thereby ending the autonomous republic and re-integrating it into Albania as an autonomous region. Constantine ✍ 13:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry my friend, but what`s the deference. They declared the autonomy not the independence, how can they become independent, by declaring an autonomy? On the other hand, when was Northern Epirus, under greek sovereignity?Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Your are playing with words here, and I think you know it... You speak Greek, hence you know perfectly well that "Autonomy" can also mean independence. This was a government that fought against the Albanian state and its gendarmerie, seeking to expell all signs of Albanian authority from the area it claimed. Now, I hardly think that they thereby acknowledged even the most limited Albanian suzerainty... Legally, they may have been part of Albania still, but de facto, they were not (exactly the same as with the TRNC). As for Greek sovereignty, before Albania was established, the area was under occupation by the Greek military, and by the terms of the Treaty of London, all Ottoman territory west of the Enoz-Midia line had been ceded to the Balkan allies on uti possidetis terms. Constantine ✍ 13:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Its the first time that I hear that aytonomia, means aneksartisia. Whatsoever, Stinckley which is one of the references speaks about "autonomy" under the Albanian state, an "autonomist movement", etc, etc, etc. Who speaks about sovereignity? On Greek sovereignity, it was occupied by Greece, but it was under Albanian sovereignity under the terms of the Protocol of Florence. It would have been under de facto Greek sovereingity, if Greece would had annex this region, but his region declared autonomy, not independence, and as such, it was not annexed by Greece.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, let's discuss legalistic trivialities... Check αὐτονομία for one. Second, by international law, a country that occupies an area is responsible for it. The Ottomans had ceded the territory officially in May 1913, and while Albanian independence had been declared earlier, the borders of the Albanian state were only settled in Florence in December 1913, In the meantime, Greece exercised unrestricted sovereignty in the area, which until granted to Albania, and, as you point out, since it was not incorporated to Greece, was legally a terra nullius occupied by Greece. In any case, there is a difference between de jure and de facto situations (which you seem to confuse, if Greece had annexed the area, it would have been de jure sovereign, by virtue of its occupation it was de facto), i.e. between theory and reality. And the reality was that there was a Greek occupation that lasted for more than a year after the Ottoman period and before the area became part of Albania. Constantine ✍ 14:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I am perfectly OK with Future Perfect's edit. Constantine ✍ 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You say: "the borders of the Albanian state were only settled in Florence in December 1913" and you say "In the meantime, Greece exercised unrestricted sovereignty in the area", but you also say "The "autonomy" was declared on 28 February, from which point on, the Epirotes enjoyed practical self-administration". I think that there are some months in between that the sovereignity belonged to Albania. On the other hand: how can an autonomist movement, give independence?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you check the timeline, you'll see that the Greek army (and hence, Greek military administration and its de facto control) did not evacuate the area until early March 1914, by which time, the provisional government had been declared and uprisings already begun. In terms of practical control of territory therefore, in many areas it went straight from the Greek army to the Epirotes. As for the term "autonomy", I reply again that you are quibbling with words. In Greek, and not as a legal term, it means "self-governance", hence it can imply anything from a self-governing protectorate to a fully-fledged independent state. I suspect that is why they chose the word either way, since it is not as dramatic or radical as "ανεξάρτητη δημοκρατία" and gives leeway for negotiations about defining the actual extent of that "autonomy". Again, the difference is between de jure and de facto. De facto the area was not under control of any other government other than its own, ergo independent (as in "exemption from reliance on, or control by others; self-subsistence or maintenance; direction of one's own affairs without interference.", which is the common definition), irrelevant of the fact that it was a provisional state of affairs. Constantine ✍ 14:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
B.w., what exactly do you want changed in the article at this point? I thought I took out more or less everything that implied sovereignty? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, that it was an "autonomous republic of albania", as a subdivision, because it was an autonomist not independentist movements. Secondly, it was under albanian sovereignity since the protocol of florence, because no greek law or international treaty did not anex it to greece.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I know the difference between de jure and de facto, but the problem is that when in an occupied territory, is no national law that annexes this territory, it is not a de facto part of that country, but an occupied territory of that country (Golan Heights, Jeruslam, prior to annexation). If there is a national law that annexes the territory by that country it may be de facto part of that country, but not de jure, because international law may have been violated (TRNC).Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone doubts the de jure Albanian sovereignty. But the Epirotes, during the period March-May 1914, rejected Albanian sovereignty. They had their own government, flag and even postage stamps. Does that not constitute an entirely separate administration? If so, that must be reflected in the article. Northern Epirus was an autonomous region of Albania, yes, but after the Corfu Protocol. Prior top that, it was, at best, "in revolt" against the Albanian state. As for Albanian sovereignty, the lead now states that it was "short-lived self-governing entity founded in March 1914, in the aftermath of the Balkan Wars, by the Greeks living in southern Albania." which does mean that it includes the region in the internationally-defined borders of Albania. Constantine ✍ 14:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Problem is, to my mind at least, that "autonomous republic of Albania" implies that it was an integrated part of the Albanian state, i.e. that the Albanian side accepted its institutions as a constituent part of its own structure. We can call it "on Albanian territory" (somewhere in the text), but that's a bit different. I would likewise never call northern Cyprus (between 1974 and 1983) an "autonomous part of" the Republic of Cyprus, or the Republic of Serbian Krajina an "autonomous republic of Croatia". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"But the Epirotes, during the period March-May 1914, rejected Albanian sovereignty." Weasel wording. Who the epirotes?, how did the reject albanian sovereignity?, even if they did, how does this mean that the territory was under greek sovereignity?, what about albanians of epirus?

Secondly, who says that it was an independent state, and not an autonomous republic before the Protocol of Corfu?

Thirdly, it is not the case of Northern Cyprus, because the autonomy of Northern EPirus, was eventually recongizes by Albania under the Protocol of Corfu, while Cyprus did not recognise Northern Cyprus.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that during this period (Feb.-Oct 1914) Albanian sovereignty was non-existent (something lets say like Tep. of Cyprus on TRNC). Even after the p. of Corfu, because it remained in papers. So, according to papers it was under Albanian rule, but these papers remained just papers- no reality. Actually, from June (when the Protocol was ratified in Albania) Albanian government collapsed after a few days, so Albanian sovereignty was non-existent even in rest of Albania. The provisional government in Northern Epirus continue to have the area under control until october, so nothing's change in fact about the area's administration. Protocol of Corfu wasn't implemented a single day.

As for history, from 1915 Northern Epirus was under civilian administration and the region sent parliament member in Athens. Moreover the Paris conference, awarded the region to Greece (1919).Alexikoua (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not even care if it was recognised or not! The occupied area of Cyprus is not recognised yet appears here as a "de facto independent repulic". Northern Epirus nay have not been recognised, but it should also appear as a republic of its own. As you can see, we do not care if it is recognised or not.--Michael X the White (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that it did not declare independence, but it declared autonomy, and as such, it is an autonomous etnity and not an independent state.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If it didn't even pretend to be independent/sovereign, then why is "recognised vs. unrecognised" even an issue to mention (and in the lead, at that)? "Recognition", in contexts like this, is typically understood to mean recognition of sovereignty. Stressing "unrecognised" for an entity about which there isn't anything to recognise in the first place doesn't make much sense. Besides, you've created an ugly and ungrammatical heap of adjectives in that lead sentence. It's very poor English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Autonomy in Greek has the same meaning as independence, actually the decleration (that G. Zografos sent to the Great Power representatives) says about independence-'ανεξαρτησία'. Its also stated in Katrin Boech: [[5]] Page 112 'unabchaegig erklaerte' (German) and also in Stickney.--Alexikoua (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, to be fair, the Boech book goes on to say in the next sentence: "The Greeks' demands were essentially the formation of an autonomous Northern Epirote province within the Albanian state, which would be only nominally part of it, with full autonomy of interior administration", which seems to fit B.w.'s version of the story. But either way, I don't see how this would necessitate any substantial changes to the article at this point. – Incidentally, Boech seems to be a decent source for us; if anybody wants some translation from the German, let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

By saying Greeks it doesn't specifically state whether Greek government or Epirotes (or both). The sentence looks more like assumptions which is sourced by an Albanian intellectual. I agree about the article, seems ok and simple.Alexikoua (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, the German text is quite clear, it's the local Greeks it's talking about. Whether the statement is correct or not is not for us to judge; that, indeed, is a judgment we should leave to our reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Its quite clear that it wasnt independent, because it did not declare independence. Whatsoever, this is an ugly discussion. We just need rs, in this page.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Boech says the opposite about the declaration, Stickney too. I can find the deceleration document but thats not the point. About the 'de jure' and the 'de facto' conflict, it's interesting to say that 'de jure' the agreement of Corfu was never rejected by noone, it still 'de jure' exists, but 'de facto' it remained only in papers. Adopting the 'de jure' option we still have the A.r.N.E. alive under the Corfu agreement (this is a common argument of the Human Rights Union party, brought into discussion in the Albanian parliament, to respect an never rejected -de jure- but just ignored agreement).

Anyway, I dont see why the discussion is ugly at all.Alexikoua (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer-review

I have never reviewed a GAC, being "specialized" in peer-reviews and FARCs. Therefore, I'll not initiate the GAR, letting the task with somebody more familiar with it, but, pending the initiating of the GAR, I'll offer a peer-review, so that the article is at the best possible status, when its official review starts. These are my remarks:

  • File:EpireDuNOrd1913.jpg is not properly sourced. It says that it is from 1913, but how can we verify that? Where is it from? A book? Archives? Any source? Any link?
  • "At the end of the war Greek armed forces controlled most of the historical region of Epirus, reaching a line from the Ceraunian mountains (above Himara) in the Ionian coast to the Prespa lake to the east." Source needed.
  • "The last Ottoman census conducted in 1908 counted 128,050 Greek Orthodox and 95,661 Muslims in the region." What is your source for this? Ruches? Is he/she Greek? Do other sources agree to these numbers?
  • "on 28 February 1914, the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus was declared in Gjirokastër and a provisional Government was formed to support the state's objectives. Christakis-Zografos himself became president of the provisional government. In his speech, on March 2." You see the inconsistency in dates formatting? I fixed that, but check if there are more?
  • In the link of note 18 in Google Book, I do not see the exact text you cite. Of course, it is a snipped view. Do you have full access to the book (which by the way is not properly cited).
  • In sources, why do you put pages?! You already have pages in references? What do these different pages in "Sources" indicate?
  • For images File:AutonomyDeclaration1914.jpg, File:Epirote women Aug1914.jpg you have again no url link. How can I verify that it is from the National Museum? And I am not sure the permission used is correct. Does the museum allow use of its photographic material under the specific common creatives licensing ("you are free to share and make derivative works of the file under the conditions that you appropriately attribute it, and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one")? But, if the source is verified, they can maybe be {{PD-old}} ("a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years"). Unfortunately, we are not even user about that, because we do not know the authors?
  • Similar question for File:AuSaranda1914.jpg. Are you sure "L'Illustration" allows the specific creative commons? Have you verified that?
  • For "File:GZografos.jpg" you have more serious problems! You state that its use is allowed for educational reasons, but in Wikipedia we need a license for commercial use! Educational use is not enough!
  • "non native military units shall not be transfered ". Are you sure it was formulated like that? I would welcome some further information about what happened between June 1914 (agreement on autonomy), and October 1914 (invasion of the Greek army). Even for four months, this is the only time this Republic existed. I thus need some more information about this short period of existence. After all, this is the topic of the article! We need such information, in order to achieve comprehensiveness. What did the provisional governement did during this period? Its interactions with the Albanians and the Greek government?
  • I see a section titled "Declaration of Independence", and I see that it was actually declared an "Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus". This is contradictory, and it should be clarified both in the section and the infobox.
  • It would be nice if you had more info on the relevant negotiations.
  • Added a [citation needed] in "The Northern Epirote issue and the autonomy question".--Yannismarou (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets see:

  • I've checked the images, made the appropriate corrections and I believe they are ok now (found links for EpireDuNOrd1913.jpg, Epirote women Aug1914.jpg, the rest are also displayed on a book of Ekdotike Athinon, in which I give the appropriate url's on googlebooks, pages, pic numbers etc.)
  • About the Ottoman census of 1908, there is also a German document (titled: Minority protection in East Europe -Albania) [[6]], says the same on page 11

(95,000 'Muslime', 128,000 'Orthodoxe'), I'm sure there are more sources claiming the same results. About Ruches, google says nothing, on his autobiography in his book, he says that he is American, born in Chicago (nothing about Greek ancestry... also says that he is an US army WWII veteran and studied diplomatic relations...).

  • about link note 18 (now 19) this url [[7]] p. 106, shows the last part of the declaration document.
  • I've added the appropriate sources and reworded the 'term' paragraph on last section.
  • checked the "non native military... " in Ruches, it's written exactly that way.
  • About the July-October 1914 period sources don't give too much details: there were only sporadic conflicts with Albanian groups ('Essadists'), Albania collapsed as a state, WWI broke up, there was a diplomatic game with Greece and Italy negotiating their entrance at the side of Triple Entente and the occupation of A.r.N. Epirus and Albania. I'll check the next days some more books, I believe I'll find something interesting about this period.
  • Deceleration vs Independence, I've added a note link explaining the Greek meaning of the word 'autonomy', however I'm not sure if this is enough or there should be also a small explanation inside the text.
  • I'll add some info about the failed negotiations on March.
  • Ruches gives the entire text of the Protocol, I can add some articles more.Alexikoua (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal statement by ip editor

I and other Albanian people find this article very offensive. Everywhere it is written greek, greek, greek, greek. Greek this and greek that, as to make sure that the reader is brainwashed to believe that the Albnanian was nowhere to be found. It sounds like an article about a greek lost cause. It is a characteristic of all greek related articles and topics on Wikipedia.

But the truth is that there was nothing greek in that part of Albania apart from some minorities and and a greek invading army.

It is clear that this article is based solely on international documents (made by greece for the great powers) and does not represent reality. It was the year 1914, only two years after the declaration of independence, a very difficult and complex time for the emerging Albanian state. This article should be about foreign intervention (especially from the greek state)and the obstacles that the newly founded Albanian state had to overcome. The article is heavily biased (as with all greek related topics) and it does not reflect the complexity of the time, the history of the people it's talking about (Epirotes?????, where did this come from????) and their nationality, aka Albanian. This article should not be about the greek nation.

Furthermore, the term Epirotes is very offensive to Albanian people. Terms such as Cam, Lab and Tosk are nowhere to be found in the article. The Albanian people must not be confused with greek armed mercenaries such as those in the pictures.

The article is poor, biased, not well documented, superficial and offensive to Albanians, their culture, tradition and history. I demand that this article be reassessed or otherwise deleted until filled in with more detailed unbiased facts, broadened and diversified. ````Ardi Kule —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.242.18.6 (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed there are many holes in the article and I want to blame it on the poor Albanian sources on this. Unfortunately very little has been written by the Albanian historians and we find ourselves in Wikipedia fighting the deletion of articles that should be associated with this article such as Massacre of Hormova. On the other hand the creator of the article brought it to GA because there are virtually no Albanian secondary sources and we cannot rely only on what was written in Vatra in 1919. --Sulmues (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Charicature

The charicature of Albania being invaded by three armies as soon as it declared its independence is an important one. The Autonomous republic declared itself right when the Greek Army occupied Albania. Why remove it? I placed it in the correct paragraph [8]. --Sulmues (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't thing that pure propaganda charicatures are necessary in any article. Also I notice that you never read the specific section of the article (Albania being invaded by three armies as soon as it declared its independence?).Alexikoua (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, by the way, what is the precise legal nature of the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, because Kosovo, for example, is a disputed territory. Were the Protocols bilateral treaties? If such, they had no bounding nature for other countries, neither for their neighbors, nor for the European Powers that backed Greece's claims. "It was not until 1925 that Albania's present borders were fixed through the Florence Protocol, Greece finally abandoning its claims to northern Epirus." [9]Beserks (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Either the book is incorrect, or this is a second Florence Protocol in 1925, different from the one in 1913. --Sulmues (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Esat Toptani

Esad Toptani was a minister of Ismail Qemali, not a contemporary rival. In 1914 he became a minister of Wied and finally towards the end of 1914-5 he started his campaign[10]. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be wrong: 1. the source you give doesn't contradicting the one you just removed (Winnifrith). 2. There is a mountain of reference that say that Toptani was a rival of Wied, like: His main opponent had been Esad Pash, helped to undermine Wied's effectiveness, William was ousted by Essad Pasha within months. Durazzo and its neighborhood under its local bey, Essad Pasha and "When Ismail Kemal refused. Essad Pasha formed his own government in Durres on October 12, calling it the Senate of Central Albania.".3. You may give an explanation on why you also removed that ' conservative Albanian tribesmen still hoped for an Ottoman ruler.?'[[11]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't an opponent of Ismail Qemali but of Wied. Wied came to power after Ismail Qemali. Toptani didn't proclaim his own state elsewhere because he was part of Ismail Qemali's government, not his opponent. The landowners wanted to maintain their landowning rights, which they got under the Ottoman empire so they asked the laws regarding their rights not to change, they didn't ask for an actual Ottoman authority.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see: Winnifrith, Stickney and (from above): Filipovic & World and Its Peoples. They support that Essad formed his own government in Durres at the same time. There is also this [[12]]) Alexikoua (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Elsie is mentioning a late 1913 event, Stickney a July 1914 so none of them is contemporary to the declaration of independence. At the time of declaration he wasn't Qemali's opponent. Btw I couldn't find the quote from Elsie, because the link searched for his name, so I added a cn tag.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The section is titled 'Background' describing the events from Balkan Wars and before the Declaration of Northern Epirote Indepedence. A October 1913 event (Toptani's declaration in Duress) obviously belongs to this section. Also you need to explain why you remove that some Albanians wanted an Ottoman ruler [[13]] and then when reverted you put an -cn- removing Winnifrith [[14]]. I also see that you perform blind removals of sourced content [[15]] here with wrong edit summary).Alexikoua (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing on Winnifrith about any conservative Albanian tribesmen[16] and Toptani didn't do anything elsewhere in 1912, but he started in later 1913-5.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Very good, October 1913 (the section is called 'Background'). This means it should stay there. About the Ottoman ruler, it's clearly in p. 130 of Winnifrith (there is also Toptani's initiative)Alexikoua (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not elsewhere, it's one year later and add the Winnifrith quotation because searching about conservative Albanian tribesmen matches no part of the book. Btw that Nußberger Angelika, Wolfgang Stoppel (2001) isn't on the list of references so I'll probably delete it after adding a cn if you don't provide a source.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Its inside the Background period. As I've stated background period extends from Balkan Wars to the Declaration of Northern Epirote Independence (this starts to be boring). To be precise it's from 1912 to end 1913 (Toptani's initiative happened at October 1913).

Stoppel? Can you be more precise on what you intent to remove next? Alexikoua (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC) (unindent)Alexikoua cite Winnifrith because there's nothing on that book about conservative Albanian tribesmen and the Angelika is on the reactions section.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

About the conservative Albanian tribesmen, seems there is also an endless bibliography. For example the book you initially used says: "They were thus willing listeners to Ottoman propaganda that attacked the new regime as a tool of the beys and the Christian powers. Soon the new govenrment (of Vlore) was faced with a major peasant revolt", "number of Muslim large landowners who are anxious to see the reestablishment of Ottoman rule in the country.".

Also I would appreciate if you initiate a discussion before repeatedly removing parts that involve major events of the Albanian history, as the above (Toptani's initiative and Ottoman revival attempt major events happened at the time of the Albanian Declaration of Independence-1913).Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Landowners wanting to preserve their Ottoman rights and not conservative tribesmen, so we'll have to change it since Winnifrith doesn't say anything about those tribesmen.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the right description is: 'Muslim large landowners were anxious to see the reestablishment of Ottoman rule in the country.'. That's more precise (it's the same with the current part).Alexikoua (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruption in lead

It's really weird some editors add this one in lead [[17]]:

To be precise this state existed at 1914. The book says about an 1922 estimation of the population, however this is under question because there is an academic source [[18]] (p. 11) that says that at 1923: we had 109k Muslims, 114k Orthodox.

What's more important is that a 1920s estimation should be removed from lead since we deal mainly with 1914 events. But the 1908 population estimation (it's mentioned 'Reactions section') is more close to the reality of this era and says: 95k Muslims and 120k Orthodox (actually this census gives the social background of the area, not an 1922 one, +8 years later).

So, this weird addition in the lead should go per wp:lead, being also chronologically irrelevant with the article's main events. We can use the 1908 census instead, but I feel it's better to have it only at the maintext below.Alexikoua (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua it seems that you made because the Koln sources includes these estimations only about the sandjaks of Gjirokaster and Korce not the whole area, so the previous version is probably better.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Very funny: It says about the 'south part of the country'. Hope you are ok with the removal of the 1922 irrelevant with this article (and contradicting per Stoppel) estimation.Alexikoua (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Info about 1922 is completely beyond the scope of this article. The ARNE had long ceased to exist by then. Athenean (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Also: Wikipedia:Be bold, since you have been continuously added irrelevant material (and removed sourced content) in a wp:ga graded & multiple times peer reviewed article.Alexikoua (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)I reverted to Sulmues's version and precised the Koln source, but you be bold too Alexikoua if you have the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Zjarri: You show an extreme disruptive activity here. So, I kindly ask you to revert the irrelevant parts you restored (adding an 1922 questioned and irrelevant chronologically estimation in lead...).Alexikoua (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)You made 3 reverts yesterday and I made 1 partial revert now, so please don't label my 1 partial and explained revert as an extreme disruptive activity. Btw for future reference please don't misuse the sources, don't use primary ones like Schurman, Jacob Gould (1916) and the League of Nations figures aren't questionable. Sulmues precised the source, but I'm sure that the 1922 League of Nations figures can be easily replaced with the whole percentages of the Ottoman census when someone finds them.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please: 1. you are misusing the term 'revert', 2. avoid this extreme battlegounrd activity. 3. Focus on the topic: What has Schurman, Jacob Gould (1916) now to do with this discussion? Before you said you will remove Stopel and now... Schurman.... I'm sorry you are far too extreme.

I'm still wating the reason why you continuously add an 1922 estimation about a 1914 state... and especially in lead.Alexikoua (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)The League of Nations is highly reliable and it's precise, so we have a concise view of the demographics while the minor time difference isn't at all important. On the other hand someone could add the vilayet of Janina numbers and source the same thing with even more precise numbers but then we would have to change the wording because substantial could be considered an exaggeration.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The League of Nations did not exist in 1914. 1922 is 8 years after the ARNE ceased to exist. And even then, that is way too much detail for the lede, per my post below. Athenean (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Zjarri: I'm sorry you have not the slighest argument to use a chronologically outdated estimation here.Alexikoua (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Patois

The article reads "The last Ottoman census conducted in 1908 counted 128,000 Orthodox Christians and 95,000 Muslims in the sandjaks of Gjirokastër and Korçë, although they didn't include the whole region.[17] From the Orthodox population an estimated 30,000 to 47,000 spoke Greek exclusively.[citation needed] The rest of the Orthodox community were bilinguals, speaking an Albanian patois at home and being literate in Greek only, which they also used in their cultural, trading and economic activities. Moreover, they expressed a strong pro-Greek feeling and were the first that supported the following breakaway autonomist movement."

First of all calling the Albanian "patois" is an offense. Albanian has been written for 800 years and documents of it appear since 1467. In 1914 it was hardly to be called "patois". Second, does the source really say that all the Albanians (128k-40k=88k) had Greek feelings and were the "first to support the breakaway movement"? If that were the case, the Orthodox Albanians from the south would have never been the active force of the Albanian National Awakening that they were. The majority of the Albanian nationalists were from the south, were orthodox and were not illiterate in Albania, rather they were writing most of the books in Albanian. If the Albanians had a newspaper written in Albanian in Greece in 1861 (read Anastas Byku), how come their language was still patois in 1914 and in their own country, and more than 50 years after Byku's time? It makes no sense. Alexi please review the source you probably have entered when likely you were convinced that Albanians knew no English to read Wikipedia. --Sulmues (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Patois is an offense? Please, you are again extreme oring. Both sentences you added the -dubious- and -cn- tags are sourced by newman p. 262-263. Obviously you didn't check the relevant source.Alexikoua (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the first time I hear someone say "patois" is offensive. Athenean (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll remove an Albanian, Stalinist era (academy of science), reference which was recently added (don't know why) [[19]]. Far from rs for sure.Alexikoua (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The source is moreover not used in the article, so I really don't see the point of adding it. Athenean (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I will use it to enrich the article. Stalin had nothing against the Greeks, as a matter of fact he was Christian Orthodox. The only problematic source is Ruches. --Sulmues (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Kristo Frasheri is not WP:RS, sorry. Anything published in between 1945-1991 is suspect, especially for a topic such as this. Athenean (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Sulmues: you are now trolling. So, if you intent to vandalize this article you should change your mind soon.Alexikoua (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Alexikoua top quality sources like Jelavich source his book so please don't label Frasheri, one of the most important historians of Albania as non-rs [20]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Zjarri: please avoid extreme oring. Organs of tottalitarian regimes like the Albanian Academy of Science should be avoided (hope that is simple at least). Also you have been multiple times instructed to avoid such propaganda [source].Alexikoua (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Alexi, please avoid personal attacks, calling me a vandal will get you nowhere. Frasheri is a top notch historian and a secondary source. Stickney is a primary source. I'm doing you a favor in improving this article, which relies in old sources. Rather than calling me a vandal, you should think twice and thank me. --Sulmues (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You will never stop oring. Just misusing what's a primary or secondary isn't a solution.Alexikoua (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I can't stand it anymore. It's spelt TOTALITARIAN with one t. This is the size of your contribution to that word. At least get that straight. Ruches wrote in a center-right regime, Frasheri in a leftist regime and was one of the best historians. Period. --Sulmues (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Alexikoua Barbara Jelavich, a distinguished scholar wrote a book which was published by Cambridge and she's using Frasheri as a source so enough said about the rs issue.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 01:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
What has this with Jelavich to do? As I see it's completely irrelevant with a book published under strict cencorship like the one Sulmues believes that is 'rs'.Alexikoua (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
CenSorship was for ideological reasons, not national ones. You should get your facts straight Alexikoua. Albanian nationalism is much stronger today under democracy than during communist times when the slogan was of proletarians of the entire world to unite. Censorship had nothing to do with history of Albania. Rather it was the Greek lobbying who paid Ruches to write that book. Money can be more powerful than what you call censorship. --Sulmues (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"Censorship has nothing to do with history of Albania?" Did I read that correctly? Athenean (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as long as communism was not involved the regime had no interest to bring up any issues with Greece. Mind you it completely obscured the Cham issue. No one could speak about Chameria in communist times. Hoxha wanted good relations with Greece and the Greek minority loved him more than the Albanians. You can witness it in this video [21]. I apologize for the title of the video btw. --Sulmues (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Sulmues: May I ask why you remove Stickney (by the way he is secondary, and both English and online) with Frasheri[[22]] (offline & dubious since it's a work by a totalitarian organ and non-English)? I see you can't avoid sarcasm in your edit summaries [[23]].Alexikoua (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The harvbn function is what Cplakidas uses in his FAs, which I really like. I have started to use that function often at Skanderbeg now. There is no sarcasm, the reference brings to the source unlike other functions, which is really cool. If you really feel that Stickney is relevant, please feel free to put it back along Frasheri, but I believe that Stickney is a primary source and useless, thus to go to further reading. Look you have put Noli and Chekrezi in the bin, and those were primary sources, now I am bringing you secondary sources. For that date of ratification there are good secondary sources. Although in English it is still a primary source, too close to the event (1984 vs 1924). Besides isn't an Albanian source the best source for the ratifications of the Parliament of Albania? --Sulmues (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I've added Stickney back as well the other issues that have not been explained yet (an estimation of 1922 for example). About Stickney, I'm sorry but you need to read what's a primary. Stickney uses primary inlines in his work (every page has a lot of them) and can't be considered as a primary.Alexikoua (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Rv you. You also removed Frasheri as a source. The estimate of 1922 is a good one and may be used. Frasheri is better than primary sources. You should obtain consensus before edit warring like this. --Sulmues (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
[[24]]"If you really feel that Stickney is relevant, please feel free to put it back along Frasheri". Sulmues: I'm sorry but you are showing the worst behavior here. You just restored Frasheri. I have nothing more to say. Especially lying and pretenting a situation is the definition of bad faith.[[25]]Alexikoua (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a primary source. I think it impoverishes the article: there is no need for a primary source if you have a secondary one. You refuted Noli and Chekrezi, who were Stickney's contemporaries because they were primary sources, but if you really feel strongly about Stickney, put it back, alongside Frasheri. I'm not going to do it myself because my mission in Wikipedia is just to use secondary sources. --Sulmues (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems you didn't read what a primary is. It is not a primary [[26]]. I will appreciate if you end this campaign of disruption (first you said please 'feel free to to put it back' nwo you invent something else as an excuse for this activity).Alexikoua (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If you insist in using Stickney, I'll use another two English sources which you and Athenean have removed from my articles: Chekrezi and Noli, both ones in English and written by US citizens. --Sulmues (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Never mind, the usual tag-teaming in edit-warring started. Bye there. This ain't a GA, but a BA. --Sulmues (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Chekrezi and Noli are not reliable sorry, either. Using them to prove a point would be a violation of WP:POINT. Athenean (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll bring you Frasheri post 1991 and let's see what you'll have to say. --Sulmues (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Republished works that originally were published by totalirian organs are also not 'rs' (or translations of these works), only in case we have some brand new work.Alexikoua (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
So are you saying that if 12 authors write the History of Albania with their 24 hands they are deemed to not be considered worthy of your reliability for life? --Sulmues (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought I was simpleon explaining that: works published by totalitarian organs or translations or works republished are obviously not wp:rs. Also I would appreciate if you initiate a discussion instead of removing rs with non rs (like recently removed Stikney). In general we don't use partisan material in wikipedia and especially in already ga/fa graded articles: there are also many Greek nationalists that wrote about the events, like Konstantinos Skenderis, who I never used as reference, a similar approach I advise you to follow.Alexikoua (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
A book called "History of Albania" may be republished with consistent changes. If you are going to exclude all the "History of Albania" books written by the best Albanian historians by calling them republications of books called "History of Albania" published in 1945-1991 you need to state up to when are we not going to be able to write in Wikipedia based on Albanian sources called that way. You are edit-warring this article based on the fact that the source is 1984, but you insist in using 1923 and you are saying that you are likely going to not accept sources after 1991. This is a threat that you should probably retract as I would classify it under WP:BULLY. This article is about an area in Albania and you are basically saying that you are not going to accept any Albanian sources, which is clearly against NPOV. This article and what it states becomes even more unstable with your statements. If you insist in not accepting that an Albanian source even after 1991 be used I will have to bring this to WP:RS, and you'll have to respect that decision, but I'm sure that you will convene to represent NPOV in this article. If we miss completely neutral sources, but we have two sides of the story, both should be represented. --Sulmues (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems you can't cooperate here. I'm sorry but oring, threating to add ultranationlistic material (this equals vandalism) and multiple npa vios make your argument seem extremely weak.Alexikoua (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I am bringing the best Albanian historians, not ultranationalistic material. It seems like you have a problem with Albanian historians, and that's not my problem. --Sulmues (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC) And if you feel like I offended anybody, bring it to the admins and have them solve it, rather than repeating uselessly that I breached WP:NPA without bringing any evidence. --Sulmues (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Sulmues please: read what's wp:rs, and let this anti-Albanian conspiracy theories aside: in fact you are bringing the most extremist staff (Vani Noli, Ceckrezi & works published by totalitarian organs) in order to create disruption, which I advise you you should avoid.

I bet there are plenty of good Albanian historians.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to allow the best Albanian historians post 1991, and one of them is undoubiously Frasheri. Please read well what I bolded above, it seems like you don't read well what I ask you to do. If you find me better Albanian historians than Kristo Frasheri, please let me know: you'd do me a favor. --Sulmues (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

I have moved this information [27] out of the lede and into a more appropriate location. This is way too much detail for the lede, which should only provide a summary, not go into such detail. Thus "substantial Greek population" is more than good enough as it is sidesteps nicely the majority/minority question. Also, the source used contradicts the other source we have (Nussberger and Stoppel) and placing it in the lede is WP:UNDUE. Athenean (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a sec: Boardman says that the figures for 112,000 Christians and 113,000 Muslims are from 1922. In other words, fully 8 years after the collapse of the Autonomous Republic. Reliable sources, interesting info, but way beyond the scope of this article. At most the info can be included in the "Aftermath" section, to show how the Orthodox population decreased after the dissolution of the Autonomous Republic. Athenean (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be WP:SYNTH. We don't know what the population was in 1914. For that matter we may say that the Albanian population was decreased because of the invasion of the Greek army and the displaced Albanian population who went to Vlore as "muhadjirs" and most of them died of hunger and deseases. Putting in the lede that the Greeks was a majority in the area when it's never been the truth and it has no sources to be backed up, just contributes to shake the foundations of a good article. --Sulmues (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The lede never said there was a Greek majority. All the lede ever said is a "substantial Greek population", which is true. And it makes no sense to use data from 1922 for an entity that ceased to exist by 1914. Athenean (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I cannot accept that wording. Saying that the south had those problems because it had a "substantial Greek population", without mentioning that that population although substantial was still a minority, is misleading. It has to be stressed that the Greeks were a minority. In addition the article heavily relies on Ruches, who is completely biased as noted by FPS, and Ruches fails to stress the help of the Greek government to that uprising. The article has a lot of holes. Stickney himself in the 1920s was pro-Greek, and by now it has to be said that he was a primary source, so he should be removed little by little, of course without impoverishing the article. --Sulmues (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)There are two ways correct the POVs. We can either delete anything that uses Ruches and the rest as a source, or we can delete the obvious povs and add a cn for the rest.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What problems? Why does it "has to be stressed that the Greeks were a minority"? There is absolutely nothing misleading about "substantial Greek population" and you know it. It was also the consensus wording adopted long ago, and the article passed GA with it. If you want to change it, get a consensus first instead of edit-warring. You also don't have a single source that "the Greeks were a minority" in 1914 anyway. By the way, disrupting a GA is even worse than regular disruption. Athenean (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Since there are no objections then, I have restored the original wording, which is perfectly neutral and suitable for the lede, and moreover the article passed GA with. Athenean (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Id read it half day now but the precise 1924 nubers cant have a place hereMetsobon34 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

1924 is a very close time to 1914 for demographics. There is no need to remove valid references from the article, Metsobon, you are this way impoverishing it. --Sulmues (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not "a very close time at all". 10 years is a pretty long time, and a lot happened in those 10 years. If that source said there were more Greeks than Albanians, you would be doing everything in your power to keep it out. So, please stop this. We don't need a source from 1924 for the demographics of an entity that ceased to exist in 1914. 21:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Specified the year (1922). Besides, the population that you are taking in 1908 does not include lots of Albanians who came in the area from Turkey where they were stationed as soon as Albania became independent in 1912. Many people came to Albania with their families in that year to start the administration of the new state, others just went to get hold of their lands. We had way more shifts in 1908-1914 then in 1914-1922 and I believe that both numbers are important, although none of them is for 1914. Does it look better now? --Sulmues (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. The 1922 figures are beyond the scope of this article, as I have explained a thousand times, and I will remove them. Your talkpage post above is pure OR by the way. Athenean (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The section is called 'Northern Epirus and the Balkan War' and 1922 is irrelevant with the subject, since we have a more representative estimation (that of 1908). We can add it in 'Orthodoxy in Albania' article.Alexikoua (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. There are other articles where that information might be relevant, but this is not one of them. This article is about a very specific political entity that existed or a few months in 1914. Anything beyond that year is beyond the scope of this article. Athenean (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Flags are making me go blind

I want to point out that the flag from which this "republic" is coming from is wrong. Albania existed before the "republic" so if any, that should be the Albanian flag. The exiting flag, i.e. the flag of the future of the "republic" should be again the Albanian flag, because that's where it ended up: to the Albanian state. So both the entry and the exiting flags are wrong. Bottom line, Alexi give an explanation on what two little flags mean, 'cause they don't make any sense to me. --Sulmues (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC) who s interested in old calendar?

(ignore trolling) @Sulmues let me remind you that you were the one that agreed about the flags: If you read this article the specific region was prior and after under de facto Greek control. I have no problem adding also the de jure Albanian precence in case we don't adopt double standarts: so the Northern Epirote flag should be added in the Principality of Albania (it preceded the PoA in the region) and the Provisional government of Albania (it succeded the PgoA in the region).Alexikoua (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No wikireaders of 21th centuryMetsobon34 (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexi, I never agreed to having two Greek flags prior and after. Show me where did I agree please. And how was the area under Greek control? Or are you planning in writing another article about the presence of Greece in the area after the "republic" went defunct? In that case until when according to you the area was under Greece? --Sulmues (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems you haven't read the article. The flags are indicating that before and after the area was under de facto Greek control. Article creation is irrelevant.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
After all the noise you made for the "de jure" importance at Occupation of Albania (1912-1913), now you are appealing to the de facto situation so that you can raise your Greek flags? That's a clear example of double standards. --Sulmues (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes

I made some small changes, added some material, for example on Zografos, and the metropolitan of Konitsa, which seem to feature in the photo. Greece's claims of '25 are sourced by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beserks (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Greece abandoned all claims in 1925(the Korçë claim was abandoned in 1921), while the state of war until 1987 wasn't related with any territorial claims, but Albania's support to the Communist faction.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe some of the other editors mayt have confused the two facts. Beserks (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

@Alexikoua. Please, do not edit-war or remove my sourced contributions from reliable third party sources, damaging in this way the GA tag.Beserks (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And wp:own own is also active in this article. I also see blind removals and tag teaming in large scale by Beserks (especially the obsession to vandalise the caption [[28]] removing the right date and adding o.s. - February 17, 1914.).Alexikoua (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The photo says 17 Feb 1914. If there was a change in the calendar, you can ad a ref saying: "actually 1 may" because of the changes in calendar. BTW, what does it have to do with Wikipedia:Oversight? Beserks (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

lol, from 1924 o.s calendar doesn't exist officially and dates should be adjusted.Alexikoua (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

and which picture says '17 Feb 1914'? I see nothing.Alexikoua (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that Greece had an Old calendar until 1924. Beserks (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

See Old Calendarists. I also wait an answer for your unexplained comment: 'The photo says 17 Feb 1914.'. Alexikoua (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you just say "Laughing Out Loud" to me? Beserks (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(ignore trolling): In general wikipedia doesn't use as a source 'blog modified' pictures (it doesn't use blogs 'in general' as a source). Also the bishopric of Dryinoupolis incorporates sw Albania and its center was Gjirokastrer. Dropull region is irrelevant with this. Alexikoua (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
wp:OWN style disruption by Beserks still active here (for example the placement of the o.s. date makes more than clear that we have a childish activity).Alexikoua (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the merge proposal is: keep both articles seperate. -- Alexikoua (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I tagged this article with merge from Northern Epirote Declaration of Independence, because the Declaration of Independence article doesn't look like it's bringing to the table anything new. I would avoid content forking with the two articles. It's the same content and the same sources anyways.--Brunswick Dude (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Abvsolutely not. The article deals with a specific event: the declaration, and describes the event around 28 February. On the other hand the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus deals with the period from February to October 1914 (9 months). Since this article has been already reviewed, dyk nominated and will be soon on wiki's main page I remove that tag from the article, deosn't make really sense.Alexikoua 14:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see if there is consensus for the merge and don't close it so abruptly. You and I seemingly don't agree on this. Also follow Help:Merging#Closing_instructions to close a merge, but before, sufficient consensus should be reached. And please don't remove my comments in Dyk like you did--Brunswick Dude (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
wp:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an argument (not to mention the 'propose a merge' instruction aren't followed since without a single argument the merge proposal is controversial). Unfortunately you didn'ty provide a single argument and this can be considered highly disruptive (please wait means nothing, or even that both articles are same because they have similar sources...). It would be better to provide solid argument here before initiating unexplained move requests. In fact your national pov may not like articles such as this, but this article has been already reviewed and nominated.Alexikoua (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I like the article, it's generally well written, although I have some problems with the sources, such as Ruches, who is partisan, but the core problem is that the article is content forking. And I didn't ask for any deletions or moves. I initially thought about entering this template, but then I really didn't see anything in this article to warrant notability per se. The review in DYK is not a very serious one: requirements there seem to be low. In all honesty, what is anything new in this article that is not already said in the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus article? Please understand that I am an inclusionist by nature, but I would rather have one solid article than several pieces here and there, difficult to track and each one with fork issues. Athenean did a very good AfD nomination some days ago, which sent to deletion Serbian-Albanian conflict. That was a typical content fork article. This one, although of a complete different nature, has potential to present similar forking issues in the long run. This is my opinion, but I'll respect a wider community consensus on this. And, although I hold a couple of citizenships, I don't think I have a particular national pov for neither one of my passports, although you are free to think otherwise. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
In general when someone makes a merge proposal needs to present arguments. Off course when someone claims that 'The review in DYK is not a very serious one: requirements there seem to be low'.. he can't be serious and weakens his position. Also notice that personal experience can't be used in wikipedia as an argument.Alexikoua (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
So how are you sure that the DYK reviewer checked for content fork issues? Are you AGF-ing them? What if they had AGF'd you on that? If everyone AGFs everybody, nobody checks. So why shouldn't I have an extra set of eyes and see something that one might have missed at DYK? All I'm saying is: please be aware of the content fork problems and tell me what is the Declaration article bringing to the Republic article? Can you tell me or not, because I honestly can't see anything new. So I allow you to not AGF me and to tell me that I have overlooked things in this article which are not present in that article and prove me wrong. Otherwise we're going to be in a stalemate and a third opinion will be warranted. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Still oring. In general what you claim is not considered a merge argument. Statements like these:
  • Both article have similar sources.
  • Many articles about Northern Epirus.
  • Dyk nonination isn't a serious nomination.

Mean that you really can't understand why you do this. I kindly ask you to avoid wp:trolling that you are into. Personal experience doesn't really count here.Alexikoua (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Since no solid arguments have been presented so far, per above explanations, (BD meanwhile retired) for the support of this proposal per Merging#Closing_instructions it's time to remove the merg. tags.Alexikoua (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
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.

Prior and after, Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus

The Northern Epirote Declaration of Independence occurred on February 28, 1914, in Gjirokastër, against the decision of incorporation of Northern Epirus to the newly established Albanian principality. In the infobox is wrong, because according to it NE declare independence from Greece. --Irvi Hyka 15:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That is a rather fallacious argument, precisely because NE declared independence in order not to fall under Albanian control, not in order to secede from it. At the time of the declaration of independence, there was no Albanian control over Epirote territory, and the predecessor power/administration was de facto the Greek military administration. Control on the ground is always what counts in such cases, not de jure situations that are often more theoretical than actual. You might have more of an argument as to the successor state, but the impression I get is that NE authorities remained in de facto control until the area was re-occupied by the Greek army. I can be wrong, of course, but the article is rather sparse on the events between July and October. Constantine ✍ 17:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Someone deletes my references because "they aren't reliable as they are in albanian".If this is the problem,then why don't we delete all references in greek and albanian at this article?this would be more reliable Rolandi+ (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This is nonsense. You keep adding an Albanian nationalist reference without consensus. You also speak in Wikipedia's voice as if the book conclusions were an established fact accepted by everyone. I really doubt that is the case until you provide solid evidence that this book is written by a scholar who is widely accepted as an authority in his/her field. You have to establish who is the author, his/her credentials, the publisher of the book etc. Also, the ISBN of the book is not recognised by the ISBN sytem. Regardless, you must stop your edit-warring or you will be blocked again as you did less than two days ago. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Continuity

So Laberia/Northern Epyrus was part of Greece before the secession and even after they failed to secede? What is this? (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a de facto Greek control before the declaration of Northern Epirote independence (1913-Feb. 1914) and after (Oct. 1914-1916).Alexikoua (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Republic_of_Northern_Epirus/Archive_1&oldid=1096708442"