Talk:Northern Epirote Declaration of Independence

POV

Pearson is RS and about a year ago Alexikoua couldn't prove the opposited. On the other hand he's even removing quotes from sources he has added because he doesn't like them i.e the article is tagged for POV[1].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually he is partisan literature as administrators have already explained [[2]]. In fact Kondis is much more detailed in his description and is a secondary.

Unfortunately I see just the typical ultranationalistic pattern to attack every article of quality, like gas and dyks nominated ones.Alexikoua (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't attribute comments and explanations to others and btw your comment about ultranationalistic patterns to attack articles is npa.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I just mentioned one of Dbmann's past arguments. Since Pearson as admins explained is part of a partisan literature, seems there is no real reason for this tag.Alexikoua (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a comment of FutureP so please don't attribute to him your explanations. Btw about a year ago you couldn't explain why Pearson isn't rs and you don't even quote your own sources. Why did you remove that the bishop was expeled because he was the instigator of the issues? You added the Kondis quote, so at least stick to it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this dispute make the entire article POV. Seems more like a case of wp:idontlikeit. Athenean (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The text already mentions that it happened 'as a result' of the uprising. It doesn't change much if we add 'he was suspected as an instigator', I'll fix it.Alexikoua (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, an admin deems Ruches "second-rate", but Ruches is still in the article, while Alexikoua makes sure, instead, to remove Pearson. In addition, Alexikoua removed the merge template that I hade entered, when a merge process requires more time and at least a third party. On top of that Alexikoua removes my comment from the DYK process: is that even allowed? The article right now is forking for much of its content with Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, that's why I started a merge process. Ruches, a non reliable source, is still being used, and widely in both articles btw. This is what I call double standards in order to push the Greek POV: Eliminate English sources like Pearson, and push with the Ruches, already trashed by admins. No wonder why there is a POV tag, which is hastily taken away by Athenean while this discussion is still ongoing. I would invite someone to tell me what is being said in this article that is not already included in the other article. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your knowledge of past comments by wikipedia editors, your WP:LAWYERing, and the zeal with which you follow me and Alexikoua around are truly astounding for a "new" user. Athenean (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)The fact that Ruches is still on the article is enough for at least a pov-check tag. Btw the quote says that the Dutch had proof and not that they suspected him of being the instigator and Pearson is rs, so take it to RSN.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Newsflash: The article passed a NPOV check when it made it to DYK. Of course, that would the wikipedia community definition of NPOV, not yours. Your latest edit is essentially a revert, and duly noted as such. Athenean (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You reverted my pov tag and I added pov-check tag i.e not a revert.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Same wine, different bottle, i.e. most admins would consider it a revert. Wanna bet? Athenean (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Unlike others, even if we assume that it's a revert it would still be only one. Btw Alexikoua why did you change having proof to suspected?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a concerted, tag-teaming ,bad-faith attempt to sabotage a perfectly good DYK, and is duly noted for future reference. Athenean (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexikoua please don't attribute to sources your or since [3] says only that someone in Himarë proclaimed autonomy and doesn't include the rest of these places you added. Btw please stick to your own sources, which don't say that a number of cities joined the movement, but that the region also included them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

[[4]] Unfortunately it isn't my 'or', please read the source carefully, there were a number of towns that proclaimed autonomy declarations from the very start(Sarande, Delvina, Gjirokaster and Himare).Alexikoua (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You had added the wrong link of the snippet.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruption by Zjarritues

Seems this behavior is still in full swing. This edits [[5]] have a misleading edit summary and are falsifying the sourced material (there were initially seperate declarations [[6]]+ there was a self governed state[[7]], not just a autonomous region as per sources). Please avoid childish editting and use right descriptions in the edit summaries.Alexikoua (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The source says that it included those towns, not that they joined a movement so please stick to the sources. Btw the first link is your mistake since you had added a link which included only Himarë and none of the other towns/villages.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry? this part is quite clear, just by clicking it reveals the full sentence.Alexikoua (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"declared+the+autonomy,+notified+the"&q="notified+the+International+Control+Commission+of+his+appointment+as+President+of+the+provisional+government+of+autonomous+Epirus+and+he+announced+that+the+Epirotes+would+regard+as+an+act+of+hostility+and+would+resist+by+force+of+arm The full sentence says that the region included them, not that they joined a movement.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no Korce in Epirus

It's Korytsa as noted on the 1919 Declaration of Northern Epirotes that was sent to the Paris peace conference after WWI.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Northern Epirote Declaration of Independence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 00:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: - I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship. I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ-US  00:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool

• WP:LEAD is too short, currently 1 paragraph should be two paragraphs for a GA article

Ok, I've just noticed that in all my previous GA nominations. Done.Alexikoua (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations Tool

• No issues Y

Disambiguation links

• No issues Y

External links

• No issues Y

Well Written

Lead

• " against the decision of incorporation of Northern Epirus to the newly established Principality of Albania." just reads wrong, may I suggest something else?

• "as a reaction to the incorporation of Northern Epirus to the newly established Principality of Albania"

• "was already under the control of the Greek" you can remove the "Already" that's redundant.
• "Protocol of Florence had assigned" remove the "had"
• "place by the representatives of" I feel like this is missing somehing, perhaps "place organized by the representatives of"??
• "Since union of Northern Epirus" again is missing something in the sentence??
• "Greece was already dismissed" should be "Greece had already been dismissed"
• "by the Great Powers they decided that only" who are they?

I believe a change to "European Great Powers" is good for the lead, instead of going into more detail (i.e. the members of the Triple Entente & Triple Alliance (1882): France, UK, Russia, Italy, German, Austro-Hungary)

• "at early May" = "in early May"
• "the Great Powers resulted in" needs a comma after "Powers"
• is there some kind of link for "suzerainty"?

Background

• "of modern southern Albania, known as Northern Epirus to Greeks" - probably "then known as"
• Was the region considered Greek before this? the article is not clear on that point and if it's not then we'd need the name it was known under
• Also "Northern Epirus" is probably not how it was known to Greeks unless they used the English word "Northern"?
• "the following Treaty of London" remove the word "following", it is redundant.
• "The Greek government raised concerns about the evacuation process" this is the first time the evacuation process is mentioned, what is it? who's being evacuated where and why?
• "and pointed to the European" should be "pointed out"
• "Thus, in order to arrange the details of the evacuation with the International Commission of Control, an organization set up by the Great Powers to secure peace and stability to the region, the Greek perfect of Corfu moved to Vlorë, where the provisional government of Albania was also based." - please rewrite this, possibly two sentences as it's overly complex and hard to follow.
• "initiatives will be taken" should be "would' it's past tense.
• "Meanwhile, the local Greek authorities informed the Greek population that initiatives will be taken for the inclusion of all necessary provisions in Albanian legislation for the protection of their fundamental minority rights." I am not quite sure what this means... confusing?
• Is "Korçë" different than Northern Epirote? Reads like it may be, but I am just guessing. I should not guess, it should be clear in the article.
• Greek army will only" should be "Greek army would only"
• "units headed by Dutch officers of the International Commission" should be "units led by Dutch officers from the International Commission"
• "On the other hand, in case irregular Albanian bands showed up, the Greek forces would immediately open fire." - not sure what an "irregular band is"?

This is a general term indeed, "paramilitary" may be a more precise one in this case.

Panepirotic Assembly

• "Considering that unification of" - not liking the way that sentence is started, I think it needs to be totally rewritten. 
• "Northern Epirus feels betrayed" should be "felt betrayed"
• "arms, but agreed" should be "arms, but also agreed"
• "This triggered a series of events" what does "this" refer to? The Assembly? the decision to only accept local autonomy? the declaration that the population was unhappy?
• "Argyrokastron" should be linked.
• "Thus, in order" does not need the "thus"
• "proposed to the European powers three options for Northern Epirus" rewrite to something along the lines of "proposed three options for Northern Epirus to the European powers"?
• "representatives aimed also at the complete respect of the educational and religious rights of the local population." - not quite sure what to suggest, I know that "aimed also" is wrong and "at the complete respect" does not work either. What is the article trying to say here?
• "Moreover, for the region of Himara they struggled to retain the same rights it had enjoyed during the Ottoman era." first time Himara is mentioned, is that in Northern Epirote? If not what's the relevance? If it is in Northern Epirote why call this out specifically??
• The statement from Zografos needs direct attribution since it's basically a giant quote.
• "The following week declarations of autonomy were proclaimed in a number of cities" rewrite, "The following week a number of cities declared their autonomy"

Declaration

• "Zografos in a proclamation to the people of Northern Epirus told them that their aspirations were ignored" should be rewritten "In a proclamation to the people of Northern Epirus Zografos informed them that their aspirations had been ignored"
• "while guarantees for the protection of life, property, religious freedom and of their ethnic existence." - the sentence is incomplete.
• Here it's called "Northern Epirus" insteqd of "Northern Epirote"?
• "to undergo every sacrifice in defending" should be "to make every sacrifice defending"
• The sentence starting with "Gathered in Argyrokastron" needs direct sourcing, it's basically a quote.
• "On the day of the declaration" needs a comma.
• "regard as an act of" should be "regard it as an act of"
• "Himara, Delvino, Sarandë and Përmet (Premeti)" a little confused with this, are they not In northern Epirote? What am missing here?
• "On the same day" needs a comma after "day"
• "urging the people to follow the" - the structure is confusing, what did the people of Korçë not do that the rest of Northern Epirote did? Article is not clear on this?
• "In his speech on 2 March,[14] Zografos explained that the aspirations of the Northern Epirotes were completely ignored and the Great Powers not only rejected the possibility to become autonomous inside the Albanian state, but also refused to give even guarantees about their fundamental human rights.[6]" I feel like this is getting redundant, has already been mentioned on a few occasions
• Again "Northern Epirus", consistent location names please
• "The Northern Epirote army reached the number of 5,000 men from the first days of its formation." - hmmm did it grow to 5,000 men early on? did it grow to 5,000 over time? I am confused by "from the first days of its formation"?
• "Its core" should be "The Army's core"
• "With the support of irregular units of volunteers it reached a total manpower of c. 10,000.[8]" again irregular? in this context what does that mean? and should be "it reached a total manpower of approximately 10,000"

Reactions

• "haste withdrawal" should be "hasty withdrawal"
• "irregular bands" again?
• "to proceed to carry out atrocities" simplify, "to carry out atrocities"
• "Northern Epirus" again?
• "In fact the only" should be "In fact, the only"
• "accused Venizelos that he went beyond what was required" should be "accused Venizelos of going  beyond what was required"
• Statements by the opposition does actually cast doubt as to if Venizelos actually sympathized with the Epirotes or not, stands in contrast with the earlier statement.
• "requested of the Great Powers to take measures" should be "requested that the Great Powers take measures"

Aftermath

• I was at first confused by the "aftermath" title, then I realized that this is article is meant to literally be limited to JUST the declaration itself? Seems very narrow and not sure why it is not put in a greater context? 
• " region, at April 28 should be " region on April 28"
• "At the following days" should be "In the following days"
• "at early May" should be "in early May"
• "Northern Epirus" again?
• "which comprised by the regions surounding the" should be "which was comprised of the regions surrounding"

Sources/verifiable

• Looks reliable, well formed etc. Y

Broad in coverage

• At first I thought so, but the title seems to be restricting it, with most of the focus being on the actual declaration itself - not the whole movement to be independent - it's like doing an article on the first two acts of a play, then describing the third and final act as "aftermath", that just seems to be missing the boat.
• The way the article finishes up seems really abrupt. There is a ton of details up until and through the declaration and then "and stuff happened". N

Neutral

• I believe so, as long as the naming issues get resolved.

Stable

• There were some concerns about certain sources expressed on the talk page

1. The inclusion of Ruches - is limited to one source, I think it is okay
2. The inclusion of Pearson - is not in the article any more.

• I turn my back on this for a couple of days and look what pops up, I may have to retract the "stable" comment. So holding off on that with the obvious issues below.  MPJ-US  20:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Illustrated / Images

• Fdusile:AutonomyDeclaration1914.jpg - Should have a US Public domain tag

Ok, just added. Broken link also corrected with the initial source.Alexikoua (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Resnjari's intervention

@Alexikoua:, don't censor me by deleting my comments. See wp:civil for more. If you do not agree with my comments show exactly how there is an issue. Don't delete as i have looked at other GA articles and the process and multiple editors can make comments to make the article better before it get a GA status.Resnjari (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: You are not the reviewer: thus please add any comments in seperate section(s) If you wish.Alexikoua (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Comments will be moved to separate section.Resnjari (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid the way someone pretents to be a reviewer can be regarded as wp:civil violation. @Resnjari: Comments are fine but disrupting the review procedure isn't. Thank you for moving your comments on seperate sections.Alexikoua (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no disruption. All you should have said was move comments down below instead of deleting them outright. Disruption was when you refereed to my comments as "POV-ish" and twice deleted [8], [9] them without in any way addressing what i wrote. Anyway, i raised some concerns with the article regarding images, their source and copyright, spelling issues and so on. Constructively comment on that.Resnjari (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

In simple words: if someone pretends to be a "second" reviewer adding his comments and his personal pov as part of the reviewer's comments that "is" the epitomy of disruption. I've kindly asked you twice to move your comments in seperate section(s) and you finally did that. That's a good step indeed.Alexikoua (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No you didn't. You deleted my comments twice, [10], [11] called them POVish and then asked me politely on the third comment [12] to move them after i said don't censor me. This is my first review on English Wiki, and we don't do many on the Albanian one (well not ones that interest me and its been a long time). All you needed to say was place comments below in a separate section. Anyway enough words have been wasted on that. Lets ideal with the task at hand regarding what i wrote about issues pertaining to the article.Resnjari (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually this isn't the first time you participate in a GA nomination process and you are not a reviewer in this one. Your suggestions reflect, as you just stated above, your national-pov.Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I have. Its in the proposed additions section. Also, as Brioni identified a gap, i added sentences m as a proposal way down below. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Alexikoua, being a reviewer is not subject to who you want to engage in the process or not. Wikipedia has no limitations to a editor entering the process. Though somehow because its me i am not supposed to engage with the process???? Deleting a person's comments (twice on your part and your first reaction to my comments and then on the third go telling me to place them in a separate section more than speak who was pushing a POV line instead of engaging with the comments) is not acting in good faith See: wp:civil for more. Whatever your personal views of me, regarding what you interpret as "national-pov", even though i base my self always and tirelessly on wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources has no bearing to the process about making this article better. As for being a first time reviewer yes it is my first proper one. The Yayha Bey article was one that i only had slight interest and did not involve myself in it as others looked like they knew what they were doing. Regarding this article i am very interested in it and all other articles to do with Northern Epirus and will be so into the future. Its good practise for me.Resnjari (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Taking into account that you finally aknowledged a degree of disruption by moving your suggestions in seperate sections, since you are not the reviewer of this GA nomination is a good step. This was really kind of you. Also do not forget to respect wp:CIVIL. I can only assume that this occurred because it's your first time (as you claim) you participate in such a proccess.Alexikoua (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What disruption ? It was yourself who twice deleted my comments (called them POV-ish without addressing my concerns) before giving advice to move them into a separate section. That should have been your first comment with a ping to me. I have looked at other GA article processes and comments have been placed by outside editors in both areas. Going in depth like in this process, yes it is my first time. I have cited the Yahya article, and my contribution to that was very minimal. Anyway certain have been resolved and a few other small things are left. This article should be ready soon for GA.Resnjari (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It was yourself who twice deleted my comments "before" giving advice to move them into a separate section. Actually the very next edit after the first deletion was to post on your talkpage (my constribution log shows that quite clear) telling you that you can place your comments on seperate sections. Another issue with your intervention is that this article was sent for nomination five months before (early Jan.), but paradically you became aware of this nomination only some hours after this review openned. Needless to say that it's obvious that you waited for this opportunity.Alexikoua (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You deleted my comments. Your first deletion and reason was about my comments being "POV-ish". Then yes you did write to my talkpage with the same (and more expanded) view (by calling me a "pretend reviewer". I am curious as how one can gain experience if they don't participate at all?) that my comments are POV [13] of which i restored my comments, because to move them and create a new section, first they have to be restored into the article. However before this could happen, it was followed by another deletion on your part. I twice told you not to censor me. Those actions of yours there did not in any way indicate good faith. And only after all that did you place a comment politely saying to me to move my comments into a section below. And once again, you are insinuating some thing on my part that just because this article was nominated before for some months that some how my participation in it now is out of the ordinary. I am only participating at this point in time because a outside editor of non-Balkan heritage has taken on the role of being the primary reviewer very recently (My role as i envisioned it was to be a additional editor/reviewer like it happens at other articles with other editors. I did not want the role of primary reviewer and make no apology for that). Which means that there is a extra pair of eyes to watch out for any shenanigans such as those undertaken by editors and that the process regarding this article is not stalled or inhibited, as has happened with for example the actual Northern Epirus article time and time again. Or that other issues outside the review process manifest themselves, though once again i was naive regarding that part thinking that here of all places that would not happen. I have always said the more editors of a non-Balkan heritage participating, the better. The outcome is more robust and lasting like with what happened with the Souliots article some time back. It was the sources that guided the end result, not shenanigans (though sadly a few were pulled there too) because there were many eyes watching and editors contributing at that pivitol moment. You want this article to attain GA status, a process must be undertaken to iron out any issues with it before it achieves that status. Its that simple. Your personal view regarding the participants has no bearing on this process. Respond constructively, as should all editors to the concerns raised by other editors. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you declare above that you want to be a second reviewer feel free to fammiliarize with Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles.Alexikoua (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, i appreciate it. In future i would like to place the Upper Reka article up for a GA, some stuff in the guidelines about having done or been involved in a few different ones before doing that. On a whole most of this article is a go, just a few small things left to be ironed out like the place name stuff. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. In line of the reviewing process, and per statement you made above (as active editor of Albanian related articles) I have to remind you about the following part:

The review should not be influenced by beliefs about how the article could be made "perfect", by how the reviewer would have written the article, or by personal feelings about the article topic (This is a particular consideration for articles within the scope of a WikiProject where the reviewer is an active member. Sometimes it is helpful for an article to have an expert reviewer, but on other occasions it is preferable that the reviewer is not too close to the topic.) Reviewers should aim to advise on content and form rather than to impose their preferences. A reviewer involved in a contentious discussion should consider withdrawing, so that a less-involved editor can make the final assessment and decision on the Good article criteria.

Alexikoua (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. It applies to all editors. Sometimes there might also be wp:reliabble and wp:secondary that has also not been taken into consideration due new research being published or no one touching the article in a long while and having a browse as to what's out there. Anyway this article has few issues to iron out, the main being the geographical names.Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Resnjari's comments

Images: Actually the image with the caption: Picture of the negotiations that lead to the Protocol of Corfu >File:Protocol of Corfu 1914.JPG and the image with the caption Part of the declaration of Independence document > File:Declaration 1914 Northern Epirus.jpg is of concern. No source is given by the original uploader, the website from which it was taken is no longer in existence, and one cannot ascertain if there was permission in the first place to have that image in Wiki commons. Having those images in this article and elevating it to GA status is a concern regarding copyright and especially with the "negotiations" picture. It can be a image from any conference held back in the day with a caption purporting to be so and so conference ! How can one ascertain that the image is about the Protocol negotiations. These issues need resolving.Resnjari (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the uploader isn't active but both images can be confirmed from multiple online sources & they are also published by well known historical archives (Venizelos' archive the one Northern Epirote studies of Ioannina the other). The image of the Corfu negotiations is already part of another GA, leaving no doubt that it has been already double checked (most of the persons on the table can be easily identified: Zographos in the middle, Doulis next to him, M. Frasheri standing etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Find a source for it. I have seen pictures of Fan Noli and Abedin Dino in recent times being deleted from Wiki commons due to them not satisfying the copyright criteria, even though those pictures where taken over 70 or 80 years ago or more. Also just because some picture got through on another GA doesn't mean that the reviewers focused in on that matter like i am and it may have slipped their notice. Recently i observed the Yahya bey Dukagjini article being demoted from its GA status due to certain issues. So like i said, some kind of source/s needs to be placed for it. Just taking ones word on it is not enough. Wikipedia works by having verifiable material, not take my word for it. Otherwise it would be a free for all. If you have access to the images and importantly permission (or can get permission from a institution, as some Wiki editors have done for certain images) to place the image up, than by all means do so (as some images are old, but their re-publication in certain books has only been done so through permission). For the time being, those two images however being in this article are problematic regarding variability and copyright.Resnjari (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. Everyone who knows anything about image copyright knows that images 70+ years old are automatically PD and copyright does not apply to them. I can't help but think that this is an attempt to "invent" issues with the article where none exist (the other non-issue about spelling is a case in point) so as to derail the review (it won't work). Athenean (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you know so much about image copyright laws (everyone who knows, right?), you would know that it's 70 years plus the life of the author per EC directive. Unless anonymous/pseudonymous of course. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Simple question: Where do the images come from and is there permission to use them (as per Wikipedia policy regarding copyright and permission)?Resnjari (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct geographical spelling of Albanian names: In the article, names such as Vlore, Korce, Frasher, Permet are missing their diacritics (should be Vlorë, Korçë, Frashër, Përmet, while there are names that are misspelled, i.e Gjrokastër (should be Gjirokastër). Also Greek names should be in brackets. The territory was awarded to Albania and acknowledged as such (article notes this). A declaration of Independence is different to having formal recognition of independence and sovereignty (of which was supported by Greece), so Greek names in the article should be in brackets and not the other way around as currently exists for Argyrokastron (Gjirokastër) or Korytsa (Korcë). Also i note the recent example Kosovo (recognised by some states, yet names are for the most part in Serbian on Wikipedia.) Same standard should apply as unlike Kosovo, Northern Epirus was not recognised as independent, only autonomous with its status contested by the local Muslim Albanian population that made up almost half(or just over half depending on the source) the populace. Greek names should only be cited once for a particular geographical locality, not repetitiously, as it exists in some places in the article. Otherwise one can do the same for Cameria related articles and have Albanian names all over the place. Also the Albanian name Dropull (as most of the sub-region is in Albania) needs to precede Dryinoupolis which ought to be in brackets.Resnjari (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Dryinoupolis, there was a Christian bishopric under the official name "Dryinoupolis", which covered a much wider area than Dropull (by the way the Greek name of Dropull is D(e)ropolis). Being more precise the bishopric included Himara, Gjirokaster, Delvine regions. Thus, it will be wrong to change it to "bishop of Dropull". See [[14]] for a brief history of Dryinoupolis bishopric.Alexikoua (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so the title is that used by the church back then which uses Greek. As such so then for there to be clarification to the reader, the bit where it currently says Vasileios of Dryinoupolis, an addition should be made such as Vasileios from the bishopric/diocese of Dryinoupolis. This is needed so as the reader understands what those titles are. Not everyone comes from a Orthodox background when reading the page will understand it. An addition needs to be made to the article for clarification.Resnjari (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It's actually not a case of Orthodox background, in general all personalities of some authority have a region under their jurisdiction. I've slightly changed the text so each bishop refers to its bishopric, and not with with modern administrative units.Alexikoua (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind, as long as there is clarification, which the adjustment you made is good. The reader is now made aware. Still other things need to be sorted like the images (source, copyright etc), spelling mistakes regarding the article and so on.Resnjari (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The copywright issues and sources of the images have been fixed. A quick search on the newspaper archives of the Greek Parliament was very helpful. Various online sites, like that of Omonoia (organization) can easily confirm that the images aren't science fiction.Alexikoua (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Its not about a quick search. I can do one of Albanian images and so on. And many have been deleted from Wiki commons because they violate copyright even thought they are old images. If you have access to the images and have permission (from a organisation like Omonia. Email them and get the appropriate permission details if they give it or image from their collection, website etc and upload that one) place the permission and tags on it. These images regarding sources and copyright are not privileged over others. All come under the same scrutiny. The onus is on you as you placed the article up for GA status to resolve the matter. The two images as of now have none of these details. Wikipedia does have guidelines regarding images. You yourself have been a strict enforcer of these guidelines when it comes to other articles. Same applies for this one.Resnjari (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are kidding me: Newspaper images published in 1914 fall clearly into -pd-old-. There is nothing more to prove, the case is clear. Per reviewers notes there is nothing else to add on this .Alexikoua (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No i am not kidding. Now you’re talking about newspapers now. Which ones ? It is legitimate to ask this, no? The images are copied from websites that are now defunct (are they nationalist websites, did they violate copyright or did they have permission to publish the images? We don't know because it can no longer be checked regarding those images) by an editor who is no longer around, and your saying there is no issue with that. All i am asking is for a simple bit of information that gives the details from where the images are from (so someone can chase it up if they so wish) and that it is not infringing on any copyrights. I assume you are familiar with the Wikipedia policy on images. If not here it is WP:IUP#NAME and so on. As for the Peer reviewer that is up to him to answer. I note that Wikipedia has guidelines.Resnjari (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No i am not kidding. Now you’re talking about newspapers now. Which ones ? Actually you do not care see what was already written in commons description in both images. I've also told above that I have access to newspaper archives of the period, so it was easy to verify. For future reference newspaper images of 1914 (I never denied that there were newspaper images as you pretent now) don't need any permission in wikipedia. They can be also used by any other encyclopedia and third party in general as PD.Alexikoua (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Then verify them. Remember you placed this article for GA status, not i. The onus is on you to make sure it is verifiable.

I've already provided the sources for both cases (newspaper names, issues, dates etc.). I can't really understand what you mean. Is there something more specific you need? I can scan the specific images directly from the newspapers (Nea Ellas & Ipiros Argyrokastrou, as provided in commons), but there is no point to upload the same images again.Alexikoua (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers that confirm that the specific images are about historical events of the 1914, as cited in article. Both of them are fully sourced in commons.

There is nothing else to verify since they are both already confirmed images from contemporary newspapers & quite popular that time. Arguments such as "It can be a image from any conference held back in the day" or "a caption purporting to be so and so conference !" are at least childish, since I've provided all necessary details where they came from. To sum up:Alexikoua (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

My persistence in the matter has resulted in you sourcing the images. Unlike other similar articles where things like possible copyright and permission infringements may have slipped being double checked, here it has been prevented. I am quite pleased with the result regarding this matter.Resnjari (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Very good. Actually you should have asked what exactly was enough for you to be convinced (i.e. please scan the full page of the 1914 newspapers for me, although you provided full details on that -issue, date, publication- , because it's dificult to access them in the archives you pointed out). I'm glad you are pleased.Alexikoua (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ask for scans just a source, credible ones. The editor who placed those images into Wiki commons did so without placing the proper details and it was next to impossible to track it down as the website was defunct at this point in time. Of course then such questions will be raised as this article was selected for GA, meaning that it fulfills certain criteria that sets it above other articles and so on. Regarding the images, the matter is resolved. Also after this article is done, you ought to go through a few other articles and make sure their images have the right details since you have access to some of this stuff.Resnjari (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Spelling

Minor spellings are also fixed as you point out. Alexikoua (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The administrative regions of Northern Epirus that of "Argyrokastro and Korytsa" are mentioned as such in the Protocol of Corfu (see correspodent articles Protocol of Corfu, Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus which are by the way both GAs) and they are diferrent from the modern administrative units of Albania (geographically they slightly coincide with the former Ottoman sanjacks but they are completely diferrent from Albanian administration, see map I've just added). Northern Epirus as the article suggest finally received an internationally recognized status that era. As an autonomous state it had it's own administrative subregion: Korytsa and Argyrokastro, as the article states. This should not be confused with modern Albanian administration. The modern names of the regional capitals are mentioned in parentheses and that's the best we can do in this case.Alexikoua (talk)

Northern Epirus was recognised as a autonomous state within Albania, not a independent entity or country on its own. (Moreover the Albanian language for Albanian Muslims alongside the Greek for Orthodox Christian whatever their linguistic heritage or national affiliations was recognized in the Protocol, just to refresh the memory. The Albanian language had status. Even the map based on statistics published by the Greek army notes this heavy presence. [15], see also link to those stats from Thessalonika University). Anyway Albanian sovereignty was still upheld even then in international circles (the state of Northern Epirus was also contested internally by its large Muslim Albanian population). One cannot state this enough. The article is clear about its international status as even though it was controlled by N. Epirot forces, they did not get recognition as a independent entity. What your saying could be applied to different situations. For example, just because amongst the communists during the civil war part of the country was controlled by Slavic speakers who did not have a Greek national affiliation, we can use the Slavic names regarding northern Greece because in certain places they controlled it while the Greek state didn't. Greeks names need to be cited once and that is it. Albanian names throughout for the rest. There is no parallel universe for the matter. Otherwise its POV.Resnjari (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears you didn't read the article so far. It's about "declaration of Indepedence", and its predominantly Greek character was recognized by the Protocol of Corfu (primary use of Greek in administration, courts, education, so the Greek city-names were the official ones inside that historical context). As such in 1914 historical context the local towns are called with the appropriate names, as well as the sub-regions, the latter being irrelevant with modern administrative Albanian divisions. No wonder multiple successfull GA nominations agreed on that spelling. Albanian -the other official language- can be placed next to the Greek one. By the way, Albania never exercised control of Northern Epirus that time, as the article suggests, thus Albanian language had never a de facto official status as Greek. Unfortunately your examples are irrelevant with the subject and I can only assume you show up in this nomination clearly to wp:TROLL with endless amount of info, which is not related with the topic (Chameria, Slavs, even estimated local demographics, claimed Muslim presence etc etc, what else to attack this one?). Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Its Albanian character was also recognised, as the Albanian language was also recognized in administration, courts, education for Albanian Muslims. That is also in the Protocol. "No wonder multiple successful GA nominations agreed on that spelling." Yes with no Albanian editors present when that was done. Now i am here and and bringing up the issues. "GA articles" can be demoted as i have observed if they have issues. As for the Albanian state not excersing control, neither did the Northern Epirot forces have full control of all regions especially in the Korca area as Muslim Albanians put up fierce resistance to these aims and in other pockets. Internationally the areas was recogised as part of Albania, not Greece or as independent, but instead with a autonomous framework were both Albanian and Greek languages functioned side by side. After Word War One until the present day the area has been acknowledged as Albanian.Resnjari (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

To be more precise, in terms of wikipedia policy/guidelines English bibligraphy is in favor of Argyrok(c)astro -in a historical early 20th century context- [[16]], while the "Gjirokast(e)r" form emerges after 1960s, thus leaving no doubt that the same terminology should be used here too: In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence.) [[17]]. This is exactly what it's followed in this article as well as in other related high quality articles in general.Alexikoua (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so we can place Vodena, instead of Edessa, we can place Dedeagatch instead of Alexandroupoli, and so on because in English these are the names used regarding the time period. You agree right ? No hypocrisy? Anyway you misinterpreted my what i was saying. Albanian sovereignty in international circles was recognised over Northern Epirus (as stated in the article, contrary to what what those ascribing themselves as Northern Epirots thought), something that has persisted until this day. It should be Albanian names first, Greek names in brackets cited once and then Albanian names for the remainder. I'll just place a neutrality tag, and this can be resolved in the talk.Resnjari (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If the specific criteria according to wikipedia policy are met, yes off course. Go on. (By the way "Dedeagatc" is already used in Balkan Wars context). As I've pointed out in this article wikipedia guidelines are quite clear about the case of Argyrokastro/Gjirokaster: Gjirokaster -the modern form should stay inside parenthesis. There is no reason to place tags because everything concerned about spelling is within policy. In simple words wp:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for tagging an article.Alexikoua (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

In light of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) I assume the specific spelling issue is settled now. Thanks for your understanding.Alexikoua (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Issue is not resolved and it is a manipulation of the geographical naming conventions by you. For example placing Gjirokaster and writing that it is its "modern name" is POV. The city was Ottoman for almost 500 years and was known as Ergiri. Right after the Balkan wars due to the Northern Epirus matter, its sovereignty was dual, autonomous though recognised as Albanian. Greek army statistics state that Gjirokaster had a Muslim Albanian majority. How is Gjirokaster a "modern name". Moreover the protocol recognised both languages which h means both names. A similar situation was Kosovo after the 1999 war when the province as recognised by both sides as Serbian de jure though under UN control and both Serbian and Albanians names used by the UN in the formula i.e Djakovica/Gjakova. As the protocol recognised both languages and both sovnernities (but improtnaly not by Greece and also for only a few years), such a formula would be a neutral solution. Anyway I am waiting on books first to check a few things regarding this article before the names matter are to be resolved. May have to go to third party adjudication for it. Who knows. Anyway the books should be at my university library tomorrow. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Alex: Can you show that Korytsa and Argyrokastro are the widely accepted historical names? I don't really care too much tbh, as I think there are bigger issues with the article that I intend to comment on eventually. Either way, here's what I think:

• Roudomtof uses Korce and Gyrogastro.
• Vickers uses Korca and Girokaster.
• Robert Austin uses Korçë and Gjirokaster.
• Ines Murzaku does as well.
• Sabrina Ramet does as well.
• David Turnock does as well.
• Konstantinos Tsitselikis uses both (e.g. Korytsa/Korçë)
• Basilēs G. Nitsiakos and Vassilis Nitsiakos use Korçë.
• Frances Trix uses Gjirokastra.

Even some Greek sources in there, and all within a historical context. In the link you provided it reads:

”For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use.”

Does the below quote apply for historical names as well?

”If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name.”

So, I guess unless we can show that Korytsa and Argyrokastro are the widely accepted historical names, we should use the local names? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to say that in late 19th century texts, at times the version Kortcha was used instead of Korytsa. Phonetic spelling of the Albanian version is in indefinite from (without the schwa: ë) for that example (as the Albanian alphabet came into being in 1908, and spelling adopted after proper state consolidation). There are many peculiarities of the time period (late 19th-early 20th cent.) as Western travelers and others would use either the official Ottoman names (often for cities and towns if used), local names as used by certain linguistic communities regardless of their developing national affiliations and or if they had information say from certain ecclesiastical sources (i.e the Patriarchate in the Ottoman capital) etc.Resnjari (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Resnjari let me summarize my concerns about your thoughts:

• A widely accepted historical name in English (per guideline in wp:NC/GN) does not necessary coincide with the name used by the local (de jure in our case) authorities or population. For example we have Adrianople instead of Edirne in everything related to the 1910s battles. (see Siege of Adrianople (1912–13) etc, the city was Ottoman and of non-Greek majority, thus we have none of the criteria you insist). Speaking about Albania we have the Capture_of_Klisura_Pass) and not Celcyre pass as it was (and is) known in Albanian. See Cplakidas' comments why the the Albanian name shouldn't be at first place in such cases [[18]]
• According to my experience in wikipedia and especially from what I've learned from more experienced editors in the past the nature of the historical event and not the official (de jure) state language are preferred in such cases (stays also in accordance to NC/GN guidelines).
• It's not a great deal to change phonetics in cases where the very ending differs slighly (Delvina to -e etc), but that's not the case of Argyrokastro/Gjirokaster: it's where the event of the title occurred and this event was undertaken by local Greeks who overthrowed the previous military Greek administration in this city (as the article states). Not to mention that in English literature the Gjirokaster form was non-existent per-1960s [[19]], and Pearson's volume agrees that the western spelling of the city is Argyrokastro [[20]].
• Nevertheless, because the subject of this discussion may affect a wide field of articles (some of them of GA status) it may be good idea to ask a more experienced editor on the topic. I believe that Cplakidas is experienced, specialized and impartial. As I remember he provided also a solution in the Argyrokastro/Gjirokaster issue about this very event [[21]]. Thus, I believe you won't mind it would be a good idea to ask him if he can offer some advice here.Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Your Gjirokastër example is interesting and i did a similar one of for Korçë [22]. Kortcha and Korcha dominate from 1900 until 1940. Due to the world war Two, Korytsa takes over until 1948 and then the forms Kortcha and Korcha take over again and then somehow Korytsa takes over again ! While using the current Albanian spelling of the city (both in definate and indefinate form) with diacritics i.e Korçë, Korça; google gram yields NO results [23]! How is that, when the current spelling of the city name should dominate at least in English publications from the past few decades as that is the common from used. My point is this apart from google gram having its problems on the matter, i said in previous comments that travelers and others on the ground(i.e reporters, diplomats) etc picked up certain names and it was a mish mash. There are other problematic exmaples too. You wrote Ayioi Saranta in the article and placed Saranda in brackets as modern. Yet you cite Pearson as a example of how to go about things. Yes he does cite Argyrocastro as a Western spelling and also so is Gjirokaster (according to Pearson) and interestingly he places the Western version for Saranda as Santi Quaranta (a Italian name) as the name used during those days (see google gram results: [24]. Yet Saranda is the "modern" day name according to you and Agioi Saranta the name used during the period in English sources. Cherry picking is easy. Please some conformity instead of selectivity. In light of this and as Brioni has merticously pointed out, some formula based on wp:reliable and wp:secondary scholarship in how they go about should be applied here. Otherwise we will need a outside third party non-Balkan opinion.Resnjari (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that you do not object third party opinion by experienced editors on the subject I've posted to Cplakidas. By the way, I have to admit that google gramms (i.e. reflecting gbooks/scholar etc. database) beeing virtually useless is a serious claim. I have to will disagree: a search on "Korca", "Korce" is quite fine: [[25]] (thus cherry picking/selectivity doesn't apply in this case). In general my main concern is the spelling of the location the event of this title took place (for the reasons I've presented above).Alexikoua (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

In the end it may require third party opinion by experienced editors of non-Balkan heritage, so the final decision can be considered neutral. And gram can support your Argyrocastro example, while it can support my Kortcha/Korcha and Santi Quaranta examples. However regarding your comment that "Korca", "Korce" are found on google gram, one cannot still say that without acknowledging that google gram ignores Albanian diacritics such as ç (the ch sound) ë (and the Albanian schwa) which are used to spell Albanian geographical places and used in English publications for some time. It means that it still can miss sources and so on. However regarding Korçë spellings of Koorcha, Kortcha and the two you provided ("Korca", "Korce") still point to a dominance in English of the Albanian form throughout with Korytsa being used less until like i cited in the previous comment it increases in the post communist era (is it the same Korytsa then too?). Gram has issues (gram result of all Korçë spellings [26]. Moreover Brioni cited policy regarding solutions to the matter also.Resnjari (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the places names in general we have specific cases of regions of religious jurisdiction (as Dryinoupolis etc, a settled issue), quotes from original documents and assemblies. In these case the place names should retain their original form (i.e. the "Pan-Epirotic Assembly of Arygrokastron" as it was called by its delegates, "Metropolis of X, Y, Z" as it was known that time). That's in general agreement in wikipedia and in Albanian related articles too (for example Albanian Committee of Janina).Alexikoua (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. Obviously organizations etc that have a certain geographical name in their title when citing them stays as that is what they called themselves. That why after you said it was part of the title, i asked that clarification be provided within the article and that was done which is good. Anyway separate to that, the main issue in here is that periodic spelling of the era in English had multiple names which where used that were a mish mash (a Greek form was used for Gjirokaster, the Albanian form spelled in English phonetically for Korçë and a Italian form for Saranda). Saying modern for one set of names while over sighting other contemporary English names is a bit of a overstretch, if we want to stay true to the princple you have presented. For example Agioi Saranta (neither the Albanian or Greek form was common in English as the gram result shows) was not contemporary and common English name used in English at that time. The other example i also gave was regarding Kortcha/Korcha for Korçë that shows it to also be the case. By the way has Cplakidas got back to you yet? Message Macrakis too, he has also been a impartial editor who has respected standing in the Wiki community and i have noticed that he has contributed to such topics at times. Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

My concern is the use of place name forms which are integral part of the events described. Argyrokastro is one of them. I'm glad you understand this argument. About the rest of the spelling I don't find this too important to change the very endings, it's also irrelevant for an English speaker. I assume we have an agreement.Alexikoua (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks good ! This matter is resolved on my part, as per my comments above regarding the matter. I'll place some few small bits in addition to MPJ-DK's review for some sentence tweaking later today in a separate section down below. But the article is on the right path to being GA good. Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you finish with your suggestions first and then we can decide what exactly is worth to be part of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed additions to article

I am proposing a few sentences to be added for clarification regarding the subject matter within this article.

1

In the section titled Background this sentence based on wp:reliable and wp:secondary should be added to give the reader an understanding of one, the people living in the area and two the reaction of the Muslim Albanian population toward toward the Northern Epirot movement (as they are a subtanial population in the area as per the sources):

Apart from the Greeks, the region defined as Northern Epirus during this time was also home to Aromanians and Orthodox Albanians, of whom mainly identified with Greek national aspirations. A substantial Muslim Albanian population also resided throughout Northern Epirus and opposed the Northern Epirot movement.

2

In the section Aftermath after the end of this sentence "fully self-governing part of Albania under the suzerainty of the Albanian prince." this sentence should be added to give the reader context about the motivations for Wied and events around the protocal:

Greek sources state that Wied gave unreserved approval to the Corfu Protocol. Albanian historians maintain that Wied, newly arrived to Albania was unaware what to expect and that the Corfu Protocol was imposed upon him by the Allied Control Commission and Greece.

3

In the aftermath section, after this sentence "In 1921 the region was finally ceded to Albania, while the Albanian Prime Minister recognized a number of the Greek minority's rights, which were soon ignored." which by thee way needs a reference for it, this sentence should be added as a addition explaining when the Greek state officially recognized the border:

Failing to attain international support at having the Protocol of Corfu enforced, Greece officially recognized the southern border in 1922.

Looking forward to comments about this. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In general the above additions (combined with Cplakidas' similar suggestions) are fine and I'm ok with them. I'll provide some additional info on the above 3 points (demographics, Protocol, recognition of the border) per guidelines below. However, the quotes are 3x or 4x the size of the main text. It might be a good idea not to inlude them in the the inline reference.Alexikoua (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am fine without the whole inline being there. I just placed to avoid the usual "its POV" comments. I thought i would add a few further comments. Regarding demographics, Kokolakis scholarly work is of high value as he has done a in depth study of the Ottoman archive in addition to other sources regarding demographics. Baltsiotis too additionally regarding official Greek views on the demographic situation and the state trying to obscure the situation and also Stoppel gives important numbers. Regarding the protocol, Austin work is one of the most recent in English on the matter and has had a look at both Greek and Albanian scholar on the matter. So should i proceed in adding the sentences above in the form i have (without having most inlines being there) ?Resnjari (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you finish with your (new wave of) suggestions first and then we can decide what exactly is worth to be part of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I am doing this process in a robust and diligent manner. It is best to err on the side of caution than to rush things as a wave rushes over calm waters. I have placed three sentences that are heavily cited and accounted for. My main question is are there issues with those sentences being placed into the article or can they go in as they are. I am also aware that possibly some parts of the inline citations may need to be scaled back (they are placed there to prevent POV this or POV that arguments in here)?10:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments on comments by commenters

So I have tried to let this play out a bit, just to see where it goes. I am not totally liking the direction this is going, there is a tone of uncivility here, a two-way street unfortunately. There are legitimate concerns voiced, some have been addressed, some have not. The biggest challenge right now is that the contend dispute is not helping the article. If you guys can work it out in a civil manner then we can move forward with the review.  MPJ-US  03:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Most issues i.e images etc are resolved and some too relating to spelling. The main area of contention now is geographical place names. I am though on my part double checking a few references also before giving the green light on my part. But for the most part the article is on its way to GA.Resnjari (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Note

So I have been giving this a bit of time to get worked out, was going to start the review up yesterday but someone did a bunch of copyediting so I held off on it. I will pick up the review again now.  MPJ-US  22:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: - My review is complete, there are quite a few issues with language and grammar as well as the fact that this seems to be detailed up until a point and then just summarizes years of stuff in two-three sentences. It does not tell the whole story of their independence movement. I am putting this on hold for five days to allow for updates to be made.  MPJ-US  00:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi MPJ-DK! Alexikoua contacted me about helping with the prose in this article. I will work on polishing the prose, but due to RL concerns I won't get around to doing this till the weekend, so please consider extending the period a bit. Best, Constantine ✍ 12:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Cplakidas: since i see a lot of improvements going on and positive contributions i have no.problem keeping this open until after this weekend.  MPJ-US  15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've gone through the article making some copyedits where I saw fit. Overall a nice article, but IMO, a few things should be improved content-wise:

• at "the Greek government however raised concerns about the evacuation process of the Greek forces, pointing out to the Great Powers that the newly established Albanian state was unable to secure the region immediately" as elsewhere, the implication obviously is that the Greek government and the local population feared reprisals and atrocities at the hands of Albanian irregulars. If so, that should be stated explicitly as early as possible, since this was the main motivation behind this whole affair.
• the Background section also ought to explain for the uninitiated a) the actual extent of Northern Epirus so that the various city names etc can be traced by the uninitiated reader, and b) the ethnoreligious situation in the area, since without such information the whole dynamic of the conflict (Orthodox Greek-speakers vs. Muslim Albanian-speakers who dominated the rest of Albania) is left obscure.
• the position of Korce vis-a-vis the Assembly and the wider uprising is left a bit unclear. Did representatives from the city and its region participate in the Assembly or not? If yes, then it should be explicitly mentioned why it did not follow in the uprising as well. If not, then again this should be mentioned. BTW, a list of participants in the assembly along with the districts they represented would be most useful.
• I'd like some expansion of the Aftermath section, specifically a) what the instability in Albania was (and a mention, obviously, of the short-lived Greek annexation in WWI), and b) the statement "Albanian Prime Minister recognized a number of the Greek minority's rights, which were soon ignored" could do with more detail: which Prime Minister, when, which rights were recognized, and when was this "soon", etc... Constantine ✍ 14:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality and broad coverage

The editing process is coming along fairly well I see. Cplakidas raised some good points, and I'd like to expand on some of the points he made.

– The background is really shallow and makes no mention of the dynamics of the region (demographics, commissioner reports, Albania's and Greece's positions). The second paragraph is arguably POV. Replace parts of it with cherry picked statements by Albanian officials and you get the idea. This can be abused by either sides to POV push, e.g. ”Albanian officials asserted that the region was Albanian, and that the Greek army’s persecution of Albanian muslims would not be tolerated. In case the occupation continued, Albanians would continue to fight back.” There needs to be some balance if such information is to be used, i.e. a declared b, while c asserted d.

– Muslim Albanians suffered considerably during this period at the hands of the occupiers, but Greece's involvement is essentially reduced to that of regional peace keepers.

– ”rejected by the local Greek population” is ambiguous. Was the local population Greek, or was there a Greek community? ”rejected by the Greek community/Christian Greeks” would be more appropriate.

– ”However, the Protocol, which recognized the Greek character of the region” is contentious. It’s based on a source (Pettifer) that concludes that the protocol ”recognized the area as Greek”. One can not necessarily infer anything about the character of the region based on that piece of information; "recognized the area as Greek" ≠ "recognized the Greek character of the region". The former is prescriptive/descriptive while the latter is descriptive.

DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at the sources you placed and they are wp:reliable and wp:secondary. On the points you raised, some sentences would need created and also worked on by everyone so as to give the reader context about the events relating to the moment in time when the declaration was made. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What's important here is that the specific sources do not support the POV text presented by DWB. To sum up:

1. Stavrianos doesn't say a word "about how Albanians suffered"
2. Norris&Trix (both based on same primary) quote parts by a traveler named Frances Trix's based on comments from some Bektashi named Baba [[27]] Baba told me at this time there was much suffering. Not even the author adopts these claims.

Off course this kind of addition (primary comments by non-neutral account) is clearly against wp:NPOV. Resnjari I suggest you should familiarize with that policy.Alexikoua (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have. see comments below.Resnjari (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

1. All the inlines were initially placed after the sentence when I wrote it, but I later moved them to after the comma. Stavrianos obviously should have stayed after the sentence. But that's just nitpicking. Instead, how about addressing the other points (not related to Norris/Trix/Stavrianos) that I raised?

2. It's very disingenuous of you to claim that Trix bases her comments on Baba's words. Trix cites Hasluck. Norris does as well. In scholarly work, determining the veracity and reliability of primary sources comes with the territory. Scholars check for consistency, neutrality, etc; synthesize and weight sources against each other to form a conclusion of the events that took place. Both Trix & Norris are non-partisan and consequently there are no immediate signs of POV. If the viewpoints of Trix & Norris concern you, there's always the WP:RS/WP:NPOV noticeboard. Seeing how strongly you oppose the cited material by Norris & Trix ("clearly against wp:NPOV") I believe this to be the best option moving forward. It will at the very least be a learning experience on Wiki convention with regards to secondary sources and their use of primary sources. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, widely accepted views on the subject (not just recycling old memoirs & comments from non-neutral individuals) agree that In October (1914) Greek troops moved in, and most of the inhabitants seemed to accept quite willingly that they now belonged to Greece.[[28]]. (Badlands, Borderlands: A History of Northern Epirus/Southern Albania, Tom Winnifrith, Εκδότης Duckworth, 2002) p. 131. I believe that this will be a good addition per wp:NPOV, wp:reliable and wp:secondary. This is accepted by the author of this work, contrary to Norris&Trix.Alexikoua (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Note an important word Winnifrith uses is "seemed". Even that scholar himself is not sure. Since you refer to footnotes and sources regarding other works, there is nothing in Winnifrith to back this up (in the form of a footnote as to how he has come to that conclusion. What sources or sources has he used too base that conclusion on regarding such sentiments?). Please elaborate, especially in regards to the Albanian Muslim population. Was the civilian Muslim Albanian population of which was nearly half of the population really supportive of becoming part of a autonomous or independent Northern Epirus or even Greece for that matter? I aks this becuase Smith has stated clearly that Albanian Muslim immeditaly started fighting Greek irregular bands after the Greek army was told by the Great powers to leave those regions. That in no way bespeaks of the Albanian Muslim population supporting the Northern Epirot movement as they consists almost half the population (Kokolakis and Stoppel). Also how has Winnifrith decided to interpret "most of the inhabitants" in this instance ? There are multiple issues with that. Also Winnifrith himself has said in his book that he has decided to forego footnotes. He has made other comments in his book like the Albanian linguistic element being dominant and in past discussions you have cast doubt on that when i brought it up (Its why i went with firm scholarship this time like that of Kokolakis placing the matter beyond doubt.) Winnifrith without sources is an issue for really contentious parts if a additional source cannot be provided to back him up. Moreover you overlooked Trix. Trix has cited scholar Frederick Hasluck's study of the Bektashi's (Hasluck's work was republished by his wife in 1929) and cites his (fieldwork + scholarly work) regarding the destruction of Bektashi places of worship. And before one dismisses Hasluck's work, it is still considered as being of great standing and merit even in contemporary times by the scholarly world [29]. The part of Trix in relation to Hasluck is more than wp:reliable and wp:secondary and warrants its use as a citation for use in Wikipedia. Also regarding the issue of the above sources, Stavrinos points out that Zografis was acting with the knowledge of Greek authorities (an important thing to cite).Resnjari (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bottom line is, Tom Winnifrith is a reliable source. It is not for you or me to question how he reached those conclusions. The lack of a footnote does not invalidate his conclusions. Unless you have reliable sources that specifically criticise Winnifrith, you are engaging in wikilawyering and original research. Athenean (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Athenean ! Its been a while. Anyway, no one doubts that Winnifrith is a reliable source, so to speak (the lack of footnotes makes it somewhat difficult to double check where he got certain details). But that the scholar himself casts doubts on the very sentence that he writes about the sentiments of the people during that time (as noted the word seems is used by Winnifrith) and that almost half the population was Muslim, Albanian speaking with a Albanian outlook, acknowledged by the Greek side. It is also noted that resistance to the Northern Epirot movement was given by Albanian Muslims. How is it then that is "most". As for your claims i am "engaging in wikilawyering and original research", there are sources that state something contrary to that. I am first waiting to see if you or others are going to offer something substantive about Muslim Albanians and their view regarding the Northern Epirot movement in the form of "support". So Athenean, since your well versed in the topic area regarding Albanian Muslims and such matters, please provide some sources and explanations to that effect.Resnjari (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Winnifrith is not "casting doubt" he is being cautious. And no, you haven't provided any sources that criticise him. Regarding the "most", I'm not saying that there were Albanian Muslims supportive of the independence movement (I highly doubt that), but depending on how one defines Northern Epirus, it is conceivable that the majority of the inhabitants were Orthodox,and therefore supportive of the movement. So Winnifrith's assertion does not seem far-fetched to me. Athenean (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that even you cast doubt on Albanian Muslims being supportive of the Northern Epirot movement is actually the same or similar doubts i have and is my point. Winnifrith is saying that most of the inhabitants supported the Northern Epirot movement. He uses the word seemed too in that sentence as if he himself has some kind of doubt. Albanian Muslims during that time within the area constituted almost half of the population on the eve of the Balkan Wars (See Stoppel for a list of numbers regarding the religious divide [30] pp. 9-10). Official Greek government statistics (prepared by the War Office) give this view in their highly detailed numbers and they regard all Muslims as Albanians that they presented to the Paris Peace conference in 1919. They give 116, 888 as Orthodox (of all linguistic backgrounds) and 111, 534 as (Muslim) Albanians [31]. And that is in the area that is traditionally defined as Northern Epirus in Greek circles. Even if one was to extend that conception and take it all the way to the Shkumbini river as a few in Greece do, the areas get more Albanian Muslim, with Orthodox Albanian speakers present and in certain places in the Myzeqe area a majority and mixed in the Berat area, and as was detailed in the Austro-Hungarian census conducted in those areas during WW1 [32]. However back to Northern Epirus as is traditionally defined in Greek circles Albanian Muslims were very close to being almost half the population. Winnifrith's statements, without footnote to check whether he has based this on diplomat's assessments, numbers or data he has examined or something of that sort to at least justify the "most" part. All i am asking for is further clarification as i do have his book and Winnifrith himself does say he will forgo footnotes. Additional information is needed.Resnjari (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

About the POV claims from various individuals, Stickney's quote is quite representative and it can be added since it's from a neutral point of view: "Accounts of robbery and outrage were reported on both sides", at this time ["+Accounts+of+robbery+and+outrage+were+reported+on+both+sides"] instead of presenting claims from religious representatives of that time as facts (Bektashi monks etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You can call it POV, but such events did occur. A similar source of the kind you have there like > US congressional reports on the time refer to there having been massacres. [33] (see reference down below on that list). Hammond (book: Epirus: the Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas) on page 123 writing about the villages of Kurvelesh in Laberia such as Kuç states: "Albanian in speech and nationalistic in feeling, Kuç and its neighbours were burnt by Greek troops in the Balkan war of 1912 and are at feud with the Greek-speaking pocket as Himarë". (the latter part about feuding in reference to the interwar period). There is some attention being paid to these events too such as Blerina Sadiku's work in a Western edited book [34]. I will add more. My point is the Greek army before it pull out did engage in the burning of Islamic buildings and in some areas burning down Albanian Muslim villages. Violence that Muslim Albanian forces engaged also occurred too. Some sources are needed for that as well. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As you claim this kind of activity by Muslim Albanian gangs was quite daily feature: Moscopole was raised to the groud several times from 18th to 20th century: for example the 1916 destruction by the S. Butka band.

• By the way the author you mentioned offers some detail about Muslim Albanian activity: [[35]] p. 30 "Dhivre' was burnt in 1881 and again in 191 2 by the Albanian-speaking people of the area. ".
• But a quick check reveals that this activity was quite typical: (same author again) The conditions which attented the collapse of the Byzantine Empire recurred in the late eighteenth century and therafter when the Turks were losing control of their Balkan dependencies more and more, until Albania became free in 1912-13. Throughout this period bands of Albanians raiders pillaged and destroyed the villages of the Vlachs and the Greeks in Epirus. The conditions which attented the collapse of the Byzantine Empire recurred in the late eighteenth century and therafter when the Turks were losing control of their Balkan dependencies more and more, until Albania became free in 1912-13. Throughout this period bands of Albanians raiders pillaged and destroyed the villages of the Vlachs and the Greeks in Epirus,[[36]] (a good addition for the background section).
• During the events of the declaration of the Northern Epirote Independence cases of rape and pillage by Albanian bands occurred, such as in settlements in Permeti area (Following the withdrawal of Greek troops from the nearby villages of Varibobi, Velchisthe, Pachomiti, and Kuqari, Albanian bands rushed into the area and began to rape and pillage p. 172 [[37]].
• Executions, killings due to participation in the Korytsa uprising: [[38]] "After the surrender of the weapons, the Albanians proceeded to arrest the Christians of Korytsa en masse. Many of those were murdered by the Muslim mob and the Albanian irregulars, as they were being transported. The final tally of Christians who died in the insurrection reached 114, five of whom were women" (p. 187).

To sum up a short addition that "this kind of activity was reported from both sides" per Stickney, whose main subject is the Declaration of N.E. Independence (i.e. this article too) is just enough. Anything else will be wp:UNDO by creating endless lists of incidents that do not deal directly with the main topic.Alexikoua (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

My point was not about endless lists. A sentence or two about he situation of the time period. I don't see what is the point of Voskopoje's destruction in the late 18th century, or the burning down of Dhiver after Greek forces in the 1880s attempted to organise a anti-Ottoman uprising in the area or even the violence of the late 18th century between Orthodox and Muslim Albanian speakers in the Korca and Kolonja areas got to do with this article. The article is about the time period of 1912-13 or up to 1914. The acts of violence that were done by the Greek army and those of Albanian bands need to be accounted for in this article. A sentence or two to the effect of:

While the Greek army was present in the area, there were cases of Greek forces burning Muslim Albanian villages, destroying Islamic buildings and in certain instances massacres of Muslim civilians.(with accompanying references.) During this time and the immediate aftermath there were cases of Albanian irregular bands burning down Orthodox Christian villages, destroying Christian buildings and in certain instances massacres of Christian civilians. (with accompanying references.)Resnjari (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need to be precise for the reference about the Islamic buildings & massacres from both sides (you don't believe that a Baba's claim meet wp:RS). Also the sentence needs to be followed by Hammond that Throughout this period (from 18th century to 1913, prior to the declaration of the N.E. independence) bands of Albanians raiders pillaged and destroyed the villages of the Vlachs and the Greeks in Epirus. [[39]].Alexikoua (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hasluck, as cited in Trix covers Islamic buildings and their damage by the Greek army. Or one can go to the source itself, does not bother me. I have Hasluck with me anyway. As for "Albanian raiders" that sentence is one to broad and two, the raids were done by Muslim Albanians and the majority of times it happened to Orthodox Albanians (i.e: Vithkuq etc). Its one of the reasons that resulted in the conversion of Orthodox Albanians to Islam (resulting in high numbers of Muslim Albanians later) in the late 18th century, though not the only reason. If we have that sentence, we are also going to need a sentence (with clarification about who the raiders were) about the conversion of Orthodox Albanians to Islam to place perceptive as to how the Albanian Muslim population arose in the region. As for massacres, regarding the Greek army, i got that taken care of. Hormova massacre etc. I'll prepare the sources for that. Albanian bands and their massacres, you placed some stuff up there, i am sure you can find more.Resnjari (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need to explain why Hammond (an author you mentioned first in this section) spreads nonsense: it's clearly stated that bands of Albanians raiders pillaged and destroyed the villages of the Vlachs and the Greeks in Epirus and not Albanias destroyed other Albanians (?). Also Haslack and Trix are starting their narrative with .... Baba told me that Albanians suvered.... Thus, I'm still waiting for the exact quotes about your supposed massacres claims instead of reports and narratives from POV individuals as you do so far.

Off course you are kidding me with this [[40]])? Is really this url your most serious argument? Well, I have to ask you politely to do some serious research before jumping in wp:GANs and claim fictional massacres.Alexikoua (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"nonsense"??? Alexikoua you can go over my posts with a fine tooth and comb. Made no such comment about Hammond being such. If anything i quoted him regarding the village burning in the Kurvelesh. My initial question regarding some of the stuff you placed about the 18th century was not that it did not happen, but why it is needed in here since this is about events that occurred in the early 20th century. However since you do insist on it, the whole context needs to be placed for it. One there was socio-political instability during that time and there was raiding by groups of Muslim Albanian bands that went to Greek and Vlach settlements. However much of that was also directed toward Orthodox Albanian settlements, which caused much upheaval, which also served as a large impetus for that led toward mass conversion to Islam resulting in the Albanian Muslim population of today in the area. Asterios Koukoudis notes this in his book The Vlachs:Metropolis and Diaspora very clearly. So ff you want that sentence, full context will be given. As for Trix, i am not fussed if its not there. The book is a memoir of a Bekatshi monk. Trix cites Hasluck and i will cite Hasluck instead, whose enormous study of Bektashi's in the Balkans still stands as a work of great scholarly standards almost 80 something years after its publication as i have cited above. Will be providing them tomorrow, when i have access to the texts. Until then i have already placed 3 sentences fully sourced for additions to the article.Resnjari (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Status update

There seems to still be clarifications thaf are needed and work to be done. It is clear that this was not ready for GA when nominated and it still has stability, neutrality issues. This has been open for ablong time. I am going to fail the GA, feel free to reaplly for GA once the issues have been resolved.  MPJ-US  16:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)