Talk:Albania–Greece relations/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC

The following discussion 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.

---

Which version of the text below should be added to the article? Khirurg (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Option 1
Greek minority of Albania
The status of the Greek minority in Albania is one of the unresolved issues existing between both countries. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority.

Option 2
Greek minority of Albania
The status of the Greek minority in Albania is one of the unresolved issues existing between both countries. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has been it that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed, while the position of the Greek government is that issues facing the Greek minority need to be resolved as a condition for Albania's accession to the European Union.

I personally prefer Option 2, but I can live with Option 1 as well. Khirurg (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The RfC is misleading. There are several proposals made in the discussion above, but the editor who opened the RfC has chosen only two of them, avoiding perfectly sourced content. This is POV-pushing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

There are no other constructive, clearly outlined proposals. There is a whole lot of obstructionism and stonewalling, but as far as clear proposals, these are it. Participation at RfCs is anyway optional. You are not obligated to participate if you don't want to. Khirurg (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you just placed here two proposals you agree with. Nothing else. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALL Khirurg (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2. The Wikipedia's rules are very clear regarding WP:NPOV, that a content must well-balanced by covering both side's views on the matter. Either we publish BOTH views on the matter, either we publish NONE of the views. Simple as that. Certain editor's insistence to a middle but biased solution, (which is that we leave the Albanian position in and the Greek position out), falls into WP:POV, WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Option 2. There is nothing dramatical. Jingiby (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Invalid RfC per Ktrimi991's arguments. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Cinadon36, Ktrimi991's claim is invalid, imo. To call a RfC invalid based on Ktrimi's WP:OR claims, is not exactly a valid argument. Ktrimi991 wants that we attribute the minority's human right complaints as coming from a foreign government outside the country instead. The WP:RS published by third party Human Right organizations contradict Ktrimi991's claims and verify that the Greek minority in fact did complaint about its human rights violations by the Albanian government. Your position cites an invalid argument. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree here with @Cinadon36.Resnjari (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2: per nominator.Alexikoua (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way literature points also to the "political representation" of the native Greek population as a major issue. To sum up: 1. abuse of minority and human rights (appropriation of private property, church demolitions etc), 2. accurate census figures and geographical distribution, 3. education. Quite informative are both academic papers (yes they are not -vn- tagged): [1]] and [[2]].Alexikoua (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2: per SilentResident. Pavlos1988 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Option 3

The status of the Greek minority in Albania is one of the unresolved issues existing between both countries. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting or caused by members of the Greek minority, claims of Greek ethnicity by members of Aromanian and Albanian communities in exchange of Greek citizenship or minority pensions, usage of the minority by nationalist parties in Greece and Albania. Albania's official position has been it that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed. The position of the Greek government is that issues facing the Greek minority need to be resolved as a condition for Albania's accession to the European Union.

• Pinging @Jingiby, SilentResident, and Cinadon36: again after the third option was added. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This version is not supported by reliable sources and thus cannot go in the article. Khirurg (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This at least entails some of the issues that the Albanian side has in its bilateral relations relating to the Greek minority. @Ktrimi991 your proposal and @Silent's still make this sentence "Albania's official position has been it that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed, while the position of the Greek government is that issues facing the Greek minority need to be resolved as a condition for Albania's accession to the European Union" clunky and should be split as its 63 words ! The split can be where it says "addressed, while the" to "addressed. The" etc. Sources can be provided Khirurg.Resnjari (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Khirurg, Murati, a source used in your proposal, on pages 212-213 mentions the text I added, and even writes a whole paragraph on Aromanians claiming Greek ethnicity. I also provided links to Alb. gov. declarations in the discussion we had yesterday. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari, I fixed it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Option 1 and 2 are well-sourced and neutrally-worded. Option 3 has serious WP:POV issues, turns this whole thing into a Demographc section (the admins warned us to not do such a thing) plus it missing the Greek government's position which is a blatant case of WP:CENSOR attempt. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you have not read the third option. Contrarily to what you claim, it includes Greece's position. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

My strikethrough [3] happened BEFORE you write this [4]. Didnt you see the edit of strikethrough before commenting? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope. I saw it after I saved my response. Maybe it was an edit conflict. That is a trivial detail though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Murati is not viewable online. Can you provide the direct quote here? Khirurg (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, after I return home after a hour or so. I suggest everyone interested in the topic to buy his book. The second edition, if possible. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

And what kind of title is "Ballkani faustian"? What kind of publication house is "Botime ALSAR"? Khirurg (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Option 3 is highly problematic, IMO, since it takes two totally different aspects of the bilateral relations: the 1) The Human Right situation in the Greek minority and 2) issues not related to the Greek minority and blends them together. The proposed paragraph is already problematic due to mixing the Greek minority's issues with the Cham Minority (a totally different issue not belonging here). To blend more things to it on top of that, causes a serious lose of focus distracting the reader from the minority's human rights for other issues, since so many different contents got crammed by Ktrimi991 into it, which prevents keeping it concise for the readers: the Greek Minority rights, blended with Aromanians, blended with Citizenship, blended with Jobs/Employment of non-Greeks, blended with immigrants, blended with Nationalist circles, blended even with the Cham Minority issues! Seriously this Option 3 crosses all sanity lines and is the epitome of stonewalling! This content does not belong here and is an invalid inclusion to the RfC which is about the Greek Minority and only that. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I got something from Kondiaris on the Aromanian stuff and the Albanian position. Anyway this RFC ain't going to finish quick and with this kinds of things, they go for some days and so on. @Ktrimi991 when you have time, after all this, seriously no rush.Resnjari (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

??? What the heck do have the Aromanians do with the Greek minority? This is about the GREEK minority, not Aromanian! Enough! This went too far. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

They are claimed as Greeks and a sizable amount in Albania have Greek citizenship. People in the Alb gov over the years have said that Greece is attempting to expand' the Greek minority in the country etc. That's where one of the controversies lie within bilateral relations.Resnjari (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you are describing here is a citizenship dispute between governments. That ought to go to its own section in a demographics article, not here. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

People in the Alb gov over the years have said that Greece is attempting to expand' the Greek minority is a conspiracy theory. If some Aromanian individuals choose to identify as Greek, that is their choice. But it has nothing to do with bilateral relations. Khirurg (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

And furthermore, the minority pensions were eliminated in 2013. This is not only off-topic, but outdated as well. Khirurg (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Even Minority Pensions are off-topic, not just outdated. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It has to do with bilateral relations because Albania continuously says that Greece is giving Greek citizenship or minority pensions to some Aromanians and Albanians. The census was a mess partly due to that. The gov. led by Edi Rama has mentioned those details as damaging to the rights of the Greek minority. The minority, Chams, immigrants etc are very complex problems. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Its a relationship fraught with problems and many issues.Resnjari (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, Tsipras has stated that Greece will start to give pensions again (though no date has been given). Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Option 3 is highly problematic, and the discussion thus far didn't convince me at all. This RFC is supposed to be about the Greek Minority and only that. I am starting seriously feeling that this Option 3 turns the Greek Minority into a WP:COATRACK case where the nominal subject (Greek Minority) gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subjects of the Albanian side (Citizenship, Aromanians, Pensions, Jobs, Immigrants, Nationalists of both sides, etc). Thus the paragraph, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh, "bias subjects" etc. the scope of the article is about bilateral relations. Just like the Greek part gets covered so does the Albanian on the topics/issues.Resnjari (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. what you describe here is WP:RELEVANCY. That an information is WP:RELEVANT to an article, doesn't make it less WP:BIASed. In principle, a relevant content in an article can cite biased sources (depending the attribution), and the opposite: biased gov positions can be relevant to an article (depending the content). You should have knew that. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I've made my points. The RFC will open for some days or more (however long they go for). The new year is coming up and its already the 31st on my end, so i ain't going to get back to you here until after the 1st, 2019. Everyone in here we may have a difference of views on things, but stay safe and happy holidays.Resnjari (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Part of #3 is highly problematic POV and irrelevant to the section we are discussing (claims of Greek ethnicity by members of Aromanian and Albanian communities in exchange of Greek citizenship or minority pensions, usage of the minority by nationalist parties in Greece and Albania). Ethnicity claims (according to the usual Albanian POV from non-Greek communities) is part of the issue about the precise number of the community: "accurate census figures" is already mentioned.Alexikoua (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Its to do with bilateral relations. The article is meant to cover both angles on outstanding issues, not just the Greek POV.Resnjari (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Option #1 is fine. By the way if we are going to mention the Albanian POV (part of #3) about the so-called non-Greek communities maybe we can add something about the demolition & appropriation of churches by the state authorities for some balanceAlexikoua (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Its to do with bilateral relations. The article is meant to cover both angles on outstanding issues, not just the Greek POV.Resnjari (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, destruction of cultural monuments is another issue of the relations. It is maybe the most interesting of all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

To be precise we are not going to add only the Albanian POV. Nevertheless without bringing SOURCES there is no way to propose text with cn tags. The specific part of #3 needs citation first else its a waste of time.Alexikoua (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

To be precise nobody has demanded to have only "Albanian POV". Both the "Greek POV" and the "Albanian POV" should be on the article. If you have anything relevant to relations, add it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well said @Ktrimi991. @Alexikoua the page is about bilateral relations after all, not one side's interactions, views and positions of the other.Resnjari (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to support your view with wp:RS, since without one there is no issue at all & we are going straight for option #1.Alexikoua (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I insist that without inline there is no way for a proposal, see wp:RS.Alexikoua (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I have provided sources, one of which needs quotes because it is not online. Your efforts to modify my comments seem to be Idontlikeit. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So, Option 3 not only was added without following the formal procedures of a proper RfC and is not even part of the ongoing RfC's question, being added unilaterally without consulting with the OP beforehand, but also contains information which is WP:UNSOURCED. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Option 3, as it encompasses wider scope of bilateral relations.Resnjari (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting for something that lacks citation. That's a risky bet.Alexikoua (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, i am not a gambling person and i pity those people who are. On sources, because they exist and i know the content well. RFCs last a while and dopn't close quickly. Its New Years, so after that much engagement here on issues.Resnjari (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:RfC, editors are reminded that the Project's articles must follow the Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research policies. I don't see this happening here with Option 3. Option 3 is WP:UNSOURCED and is WP:COATRACKing the Greek minority (the Editors are kindly reminded that this section is about the Greek Minority specifically (hence the title "Greek Minority of Albania" [5]. The Aromanians, Romas and Chams, Immigrants, Nationalist cycles, and Citizenship disputes have no place in this section). --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Murati has additional stuff that I might post soon. There are also a few newspaper article on these.

Murati can actually be used for all problems (including schools, reliable census data etc) but I am going to enjoy the last few hours of 2018. Might post soon. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Needless to say that offline sources need wp:verify. There is no way to make it to wikipedia without confirmation per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations and also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources.Alexikoua (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't forget to translate your source to English please for others to understand. Plus there is also a problem of WP:VERIFICATION. Still, I am sorry to tell you but this source is about the about citizenship issues/demographics and nationalists, not about the Greek minority itself. You are being reminded that this RfC is about the Greek Minority of Albania section and nothing else. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well said, Alexikoua. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". Murati quotes Rama and Bushati linking those problems with "minoriteti". A few newsapers have declarations of Alb gov, read the ones I posted yesterday. But I do not have to persuade you. I did not do so for more than a month. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way if we believe that the text is correct the author begins with "yet another topic....". Obviously this means that the major issues are already addressed. Full context is needed since by the quote it appears that the source disagrees with the proposed text.Alexikoua (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, let me help you with the rest of the text: " Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf". By the way it's very weird you have access to this but you can't provide full context.Alexikoua (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thing is we dont know Murati and if he is a reliable source at all. It makes me skeptical that Ktrimi had to cite someone who is difficult to verify, for a Prime Minister who is currently in power and no well-known sources can be found to verify his sayings. I mean it is not an old event of the past, is something recent and there were supposed to be more sources about this. Maybe I am wrong ? Still this is not a pressing question. The pressing is that the content is not about the Greek minority itself and yet Ktrimi included it unilaterally in the RfC about the Greek minority, and the RS is not even in accordance with Ktrimi's proposed content. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fact is that even if we believe the quote its still unable to support the proposed version. Top issues about a subject don't begin with ..."yet another topic...".Alexikoua (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest to everyone interested in Balkan matters to buy the book, the second edition as it better than the first one. If I am not mistaken it has a third edition but I do not know anything about it. Murati is a diplomat and specialist in Balkan matters, in particular when Albania is concerned. I will post soon. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fact is that even if Murati wrote the above part it doesn't support your proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You must be kidding. I should not even respond anymore. Whoever agrees on the third proposal can support it, the rest nope. Let other editors express their opinions, our opinions are known. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's sum up: 1. No verified referece 2. Quote doesn't support the proposal (by saying "yey another topic" someone addresses topics of secondary importance). Friendly advice, If I was you I would have scanned&uploaded the entire page of this work in order to prove that this is a "main topic" for this section ("not yet another topic").Alexikoua (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The third proposal isn't official part of the RfC. You didn't follow the formal procedures to have the original poster asked to include your option to his formal RfC question, and I won't either, since you failed to address the pressing issues of WP:POV, WP:COATRACKING. WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RELEVANT. There are these issues, and you know that you haven't addressed them adequately. Options 1 and 2 are well sourced by easily to access sources, while Option 3 is not, and it is problematic with the content being questionable. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

If I can understand the third proposal differs from the second I have voted, one by the next sentence: ...claims of Greek ethnicity by members of Aromanian and Albanian communities in exchange of Greek citizenship or minority pensions, usage of the minority by nationalist parties in Greece and Albania. Is it possible to update it to make the sentence shorter and simpler and to resolve this issue? For example: "speculative usage of the complicated issue by nationalist parties in both countries, including for political goals.". That will be a neutral update, I think. Jingiby (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Jingiby, it is impossible to solve the issue by making shorter what has no place be in the paragraph in the first place. Nationalists are ought to go to their own section, not here. Also, Jingiby, don't forget that from the moment the nationalists are using not only the Greek minority (otherwise they should have belonged here), but also the Cham minority, the immigrants, and to a less extend, unemployment and border/territorial issues. That's why it is clear they cannot be added here due to their political activities being spread to more aspects of the diplomatic relations, not just this particular minority.

Everyone is reminded that we have one more minority section in the article, titled "Cham Issue", but it doesn't make any mention of nationalists at all. The same rationale must be followed in the Greek minority section as well if we are to avoid double standards. Any tactics to mix the Greek minority with the Aromanians, Romas, far-right nationalists or immigrants is WP:DISRUPTIVE and will find me vehemently opposed. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 11:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Option 3: More complete and NPOV than the first two.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Option 3 isn't part of the RfC. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Option 3: More balanced and NPOV version. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You already stated your opposition earlier: [6]. Only 1 vote per editor please. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I never commented on this talk page before. This was a comment by Cinadon36. Next time check things more carefully.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

??? What are you talking about? Cinadon voted a second time, right after you: [7]. I simply responded to him, not you. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No 👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻, I hadnt "vote" previously. I 've just voiced my opinion that a RfC was issued where a single user presented two versions he created (instead of several users presenting their version). I find that absurd. Now there is a third version and I am ok with the process. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

What? Option 2 is presenting the demands of all 6 editors who participated in the previous discussion. Don't forget, initial proposal was Option 1, but Ktrimi991 and Resnjari were unsatisfied with the Option 1. They demanded the Albanian government's position to be added (this is what started the whole dispute). This was done, and the Greek gov's position was added as well. That is how Option 2 was born. The RfC here couldn't even be needed if everyone agreed that both viewpoints should be presented for the sake of neutrality. Ktrimi and Resnjari maintain that neutrality is to present the Albanian gov's position WITHOUT the Greek gov's position. The discussion got stonewalled because of this absurd logic and their insistence to the removal of Greek government's position. If this isn't POV, then what is it?

The Option 3's contents are going to be added to the article nevertheless, since they relate to the bilateral ties of the two countries. If you read User:Calthinus's proposal: [8], you can see that he has suggested that the Nationalism (and the other issues of bilateral relations) are added to the article instead of the Greek minority section. Adding them to a dedicated section about these issues, would allow for the readers a much more comprehensive education on the subject. Option 3 can't offer this to the readers due to the nominal subject being different from the proposed text.

I am worried, Cinadon36. With Option 3, the Greek minority's text gets disproportionally smaller, with only 40% of the text being about nominal subject (the Greek Minority) while remaining text goes - 40% about bilateral issues (nationalism, citizenship) and 20% about government positions to nominal subject. IMO, Option 2, doesn't have this problem, since 80% of the text is about the nominal subject, the Greek Minority, and 20% of the text about the Governmental positions on this subject. Everyone can see how Option 3 creates a discrepancy between the content and the goal. Readers jump to Greek minority section and they find a synopsis of the entire bilateral relations rammed into it instead of more info about the very minority itself. My opinion is that Calthinus's suggestion should be considered instead of Option 3. Adding the info to a more appropriate section called Modern Affairs as Calthinus has suggested, would win everyone's support and also avoid all these problems/disagreements we are facing now. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Khirurg and SR and all. I'm reviewing this and will vote. Sorry I have been absent for a bit, been busy. Happy civil new year everyone!--82.81.85.195 (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident: The very first post of this section presents two proposals and does not attribute those two versions to other users. So I thought they were Khirurg's proposals. (Attribution should have been given in the first place). Nevertheless, when Ktrimi996 presented his version it was clear that someone could choose among versions presented by more than 1 user. That's why I voted this time and I think that is reasonable and legitimate. So I would kindly ask you to strike your comment You already stated your opposition earlier: [9]. Only 1 vote per editor please. and after that I can explain my reasoning.Cinadon36 (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

As I see even verified papers by Albanian authors disagree with Ktrimi's proposal (Murati is misrepresnted too) that this policy of naturalisation is among the main topics that concerns the Greek minority. Actually this topic is completely irrelevant with the Greek minority issues but an issue that concerns internal Greek politics. Krasniqi's paper in "The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity" doesn't include this issue in the section about Northern Epirotes. We shouldn't either.Alexikoua (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I am arguing that I have the right to voice my opinion and vote in this section, a right that SilentResident is denying. The ethnicity of scholars disagreeing with Ktrimi's proposal is irrelevant imho, but that 's a different issue.Cinadon36 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"I am arguing that I have the right to voice my opinion and vote in this section, a right that SilentResident is denying." I am sorry you had this impression, Cinadon36. I was simply pointing to the fact that you 1) voted against the RfC as whole and then 2) voted in favor of an Option outside the RfC's question. If me asking you to clarify your position does constitutes in your eyes, a "refusal of your right of participation to the RfC", then I think you misunderstood me.

Alexikoua, I will restraint from this discussion about an option that isn't part of the formal RfC's question, which IMO is counter-productive. The RfC's originator seems to have disappeared, which is unfortunate, as he should have been present in the discussion and have edited the RfC accordingly to clarify things about it so that the participants are informed instead of spending time to discuss about a 3rd Option to figure out how relevant about the Greek Minority is or how to access sources that cannot be accessed to verify contents. Everyone have a good day and happy new year. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Closed problematic discussion
The following is a closed discussion that concerns soley behavioral issues. Please do not modify it.
Comment: There was a WP:Canvassing attempt, related to this discussion. I informed @Bishonen:(an admin) about it. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC) I see nothing about that. Can you provide difs please.Alexikoua (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC) No Alexikoua there are no diffs because the call was via mail. All users that have participated in this discussion, are those usually involved in Greece or Albania related articles. (apart from User:יניב הורון but he is obviously unrelated) Cinadon36 (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC) I wonder if this is related with this initiative [[10]] where one gr.wiki administrator ignores -under the table- communication.Alexikoua (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Not even close, totally irrelevant and misleading. Not every email is "under-the-table" communication.Cinadon36 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC) @Alexikoua:, the edit of an admin on the Greek Wiki you are referring to was made before this RfC was opened. Furthermore, you can ask that admin whether someone asked them to vote here or not. What @Cinadon36: is referring to is patent canvassing. Cinadon36, make sure admins are informed about this. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC) I really wonder why you insist on something that you don't even know. Speculations and nothing more. Be carefull on that. Canvassing should be avoided (a typical example here [[11]]). Alexikoua (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Alexikoua i see you back to fine form there. On the Vjosa page the allegations made a certain few editors where ignored by administrators and they were bluster. If you think something happened i suggest strongly that you take it up on one of the noticeboards. While here emails have been passed around in Wikipedia toward canvassing as noted by @Cinadon36. I wonder how many editors of wikiprojects were canvassed i.e, Greek, English and so on? I am very curious as to who in here was involved in that campaign in an attempt to skew the process of this RFC?Resnjari (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Suprisingly enough I wonder the same: Albanian wikipedia included like in the canvassing attempt in Aoos.Alexikoua (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC) {u|Alexikoua}} you more than free to take unfounded allegations made on the Vjosa page to an administrators board right now. Mind you administrators back then gave no attention to those comments. So my question to you is what's stopping you if you think you have a case to make on the Vjosa article dating back years? Or is it an attempt on your part here to derail this thread when serious concerns about canvassing have been brought up via an email campaign. I am very interested in finding out the facts of the matter.Resnjari (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Cases such as this one should be avoided. I commented to the canvassing allegations by another editor and the Aoos case was a typical case who someone attempted to derail a discussion.I'm quite interested if that's a similar attempt.Alexikoua (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC) What do mean they "should be avoided"? Why? Cinadon36 has noted something serious that emails were sent out for canvassing. Alexikoua, you either report your allegations about the Vjosa page or your just attempting to derail this discussion here about a real case of canvassing through strawman arguments and smears. Its disappointing although i am not surprised.Resnjari (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC) I commented to claims of canvassing. This kind of activity should be avoided, for example recruiting from sq:wiki or other projects. I wasn't the one that raised this canvassing case, don't put words on other people's mouths.Alexikoua (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Alexikoua i see your doing the smear thing again with "for example recruiting from sq:wiki or other projects" based on personal views. But in this instance an editor has come forward starting that there is evidence of canvassing via emails. Question is who here was behind it?Resnjari (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Resnjary: Canvassing is canvassing and evidence is evidence: either via-mail or via sq:wiki.Alexikoua (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Alexikoua why are you insisting on sq:wiki? @Cinadon36 did not say anything about sq:wiki. The current matter revolves around a campaign to canvass votes for this RFC via email. As evidence exists it is important to know who was involved so no smear campaigns are done to against other editors so there is no need to be defensive or go to strawman arguments on your part if nothing was done by any editor here. So to be precise what i mean by smear campaigns is when someone alleges that canvassing has been done by an editor without evidence. @Cinadon36 has come forward stating there is evidence (i.e email) and has not engaged in any petty accusations. That's the difference between evidence and smear. Now how you interpret that is your schtick.Resnjari (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC) The only evidence of canvassing was when someone attempted to recruit editors from sq:wiki (to vote for the Aoos move). That's all we have. I wonder why you are insisting about Greek wikipedia. [[12]][[13]]. No need to suppress your comments I know you are in close off wiki cooperation.Alexikoua (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Alexikoua its disappointing. The edits which you cite are in the public domain and made on the 3rd while my contributions here are on the 4th and also in the public domain. It appears you have an axe to grind and are using strawman arguments to derail any discussion about the actual canvassing that has occurred here via email. I insist on Greek Wikipedia because Cinadon30 has not edited on Albanian wiki as their logs show and edits occur on Greek Wikipedia. I don't edit Greek wiki but i do read it. I do await the results of the investigation.Resnjari (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Wait a minute: you are certain that there is a canvassing attempt in Greek wikipedia because Cinadon also edits there? So far the only evidence of canvassing reported is the one in Aoos case. A very bad attempt. Don't do that again.Alexikoua (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Alexikoua "reported"? I never remember you reporting a case of canvassing to administrators. Show me where you did that? Which noticeboards ? Like i said you bringing it up here has the appearances of trying to derail what has happened here, an actual case of canvassing. About the canvassing attempt here via email, i have made my comments. The matter has been referred to a wiki investigation. I await as do other of further information.Resnjari (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Disruptive convassing was reported to the clossing admin [[14]], no wonder the move request failed.Alexikoua (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC) That's not a noticeboard, that was the Vjosa article talkpage and the thread was completely ignored by administrators who stated that it was "not relevant to the purpose of the RM". The response was quite clear to those shenanigans by other editors. However here there is email evidence as noted by @Cinadon36. Question is who was behind it?Resnjari (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Nothing was ignored by administrators: the closing admin noticed that the nominator did this in complete bad faith and this "request" was archived. Evidence was provided with difs of that kind of disruption. Unfortunately the specific nominator continues this campaign (being "informed" via mails this time).Alexikoua (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Actually the compliant you refer too was dismissed as "irrelevant". That your commenting on unfounded allegations made years ago here means you got an axe to grind. Its something personal for you and feel aggrieved by. However Wikipedia is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Now for this RFC an actual case of canvassing has occurred via email. Who here was behind it? That's the interesting question. So no need to further derail the discussion about personal issues you have with editors.Resnjari (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Actually reality speaks for itself. Taking in account there is a record in canvassing votes [[15]]. Either sq wiki or mail canvassing isn't good.Alexikoua (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC) I see your set in your ways there with a personal axe to grind and rehash allegations from a few editors that administrators dismissed as 'irrelevant. Its ok, i forgive you. Someone has too. It beckon's the question of whether your really here to build an encyclopedia? Its a curious thing that, as canvassing has occurred here via email.Resnjari (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Disruption like canvassing (either from sq wiki or via mail) or filling bad faith reports with obvious BOMMERANG efffect is usually done by editors whose future is short in this project.~ Sure they have a certain agenda which is against building an encyclopedia here.Alexikoua (talk) Same thing again. It will be interesting to know as to where the canvassing attempt happened here for this RFC. Stick to the topic, this is not a laundry list of your perceived past grievances on wiki that no serious person took note of.Resnjari (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2. As someone said above, there is nothing dramatic here. The proposed Option 2 is well worded and neutral, while the so-called "Option 3" has serious WP:POV issues, as was already stated above by some users. Sorabino (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2. Very clear, thorough, neutral and textbook on WP:NPOV guidelines. Option 3 is very problematic and leans more towards the typical POV side. Othon I (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose all three options. Imo they are all POV in different ways (option 3-- too much credence to conspiracy theories popular in Albania about Greece trying to dismember their country, all the others -- can be read to imply Greeks live in areas they... don't... and that the census hides this -- well it did undercount Greeks likely but Greeks being present in large numbers in Erseka is by all observations extremely unlikely). All present but one agreed to this version before I left : Ethnic Greeks, some of which identify as Northern Epirotes, form the largest minority in Albania. They are mostly concentrated in the south of the county, in parts of Vlorë, Gjirokastër and Sarandë counties with Greek communities also located in some urban areas like Korçë, Berat and Tiranë. The former communist regime had granted limited rights to the Greek minority within a specifically designated minority zone consisting 99 villages. Since the fall of communism, issues relating to the treatment of the Greek minority have frequently caused tension in relations between Greece and Albania. Current issues primarily involve respect for property rights, access to Greek language education outside the "minority zone", accurate census figures, and occasional violent incidents targeting the Greek minority. Albania's official position has been that the Greek minority's rights are respected and further discussions on the matter can not be held until matters related to Greece’s expelled former Cham Albanian minority are addressed. When I left we were just getting the sources for it. It was a solution accepted multilaterally. So why is there a fight over this yet again when I return...? --Calthinus (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: There is a small issue about both option 2 and yours: the Cham part needs verification (reference offline).Alexikoua (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 said he had a source. Can't we use that? Or are we going to waste time fighting again because … we didn't have time to let someone add a source? That would be embarrassing for all of us...--Calthinus (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alexikoua:: The previous week I tried to get the reference about Cham minority condition in my hands but still I wouldn't. I am starting to believe Ktrimi's source may not really exist and have a WP:OR case here.

@Calthinus: on the Ktrimi's source: We can't rely on an editor's words for this. We prefer RS that is well-published and confirmed via multiple sources. It is not a common Wikipedia practice to turn a blind eye to well-known governmental positions on a sensitive topic for a dubious one for which no verification exists, especially for a very sensitive political issue such as this. If I was Ktrimi I would have tried to provide more sources on this position. Logically they shouldn't be hard to find, if this really was a published governmental position. Thing is, I can't find any.

About Option 2: it is basically your proposal, just updated during your absence from Wikipedia, as there have been 2 new crucial developments since you left, as summarized here:

• 1) The Administrators wanted the demographics to be removed from your proposal (assuming that when they say "demographics", they mean areas/cities where the Greek minority lives, and the North Epirote identity, etc). If you believe you can convince the Admins to change their position, then feel free to talk to them. I personally will support restoration of it, if they make their mind on this, that would make me happier, since I see nothing wrong about it...
• 2) The Greek government announced their position shortly after you disappeared from Wikipedia (I think it was a week after you left Wikipedia that Tsipras and the Greek Foreign Policy Council, both published the Greek gov's position on it), and it was included to your proposal per WP:CCC and per WP:NPOV (previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances taken in account for neutrality, as both sides's viewpoints have to be covered for NPOV reasons). That's all, Calthinus.

But I understand your disappointment and wanting to go back to the previous proposal. You will have my support in doing so, under the condition that neutrality is maintained, and that is, to have both governmental positions presented (Albanian + Greek) instead of just the Albanian one.

And last, I agree absolutely about your opinion on Option 3. Have a happy new year and welcome back. Edit: I wonder if can you talk to the admin and have the demographics restored? But I don't know when it is more ideal to do so - during the RfC or after it? No idea. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes my main gripe with Option 2 is that it deleted the part we had agreed on where we explicitly enumerate where Greeks live. I think that is very important regarding the demographic issues because that way we can also allude to the census issue without implying Greeks should be in places like Tepelena/Dishnica/Vithkuqi/Erseka/Kurvelesh/etc where they obviously do not actually live but which do happen to be in the North Epirus region. If that is restored I can support it. --Calthinus (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, that's good to hear. You have my full support on restoring demographics. (And I think everyone here who participate in the discussion is ok with the demographics being restored - it was just an admin who opposed it via edit revert but I don't think admin reverts are stronger than talk page consensus) However bear in mind that the RfC isn't about Demographics.... but about governmental positions and whether your paragraph is better with them or without, so consider voicing your opinion here at the RfC on which Option you prefer to continue on with. In my case it is Option 2, as is for the majority of the editors here in the RfC, who believe that the governmental positions do belong to the paragraph since this is a Dipl. Relations article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Closed problematic discussion
The following is a closed discussion mostly unrelated to the RfC. Please do not modify it.
@Calthinus: I do not have the time to largely focus on Wikipedia these days and am just keeping an eye on things. Hence I can not read all comments made here recently. For the reasons why the "final proposal" we agreed on has not been added to the article, read the sections above, and recall how a certain editor has the habit to try changing their mind after they see one proposal of them has been accepted by the other side in the dispute. I have already provided two sources on the sentence for which you asked me to do so, and there is another one here. I might not respond again. As I have several experinces with RfCs, I remind everyone that the process is one of consensus building, not one of voting. Without a clear consensus as indicated by arguments brought none of the proposals above will be added to the article. Also, I have been informed that @SilentResident: has been reported to the Arbitration Committee for canvassing editors of the Greek Wikipedia via emails. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC) I have been informed that @SilentResident: has been reported to the Arbitration Committee for canvassing editors of the Greek Wikipedia via emails. Are you kidding me? If I really am reported for Canvassing as you say at Arbitration Committee, then why I don't even know about this? Where is the report against me? Why I can't find any diffs about this AC report against me? I would like please to know who told you such things and how? this is a serious accusation. Since there are no differences in Wikipedia, I assume you are you communicating and cooperating off-Wiki with others against me? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 21:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC) @Silent.: Don't even bother to take serious the trolling comoments of a so-called "report" that never occured. The only canvassing attempt is done by Ktrimi as usual (being "informed" off wiki).Alexikoua (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC) No, this intimidation campaign crossed the lines. First the death threats against me when the RfC started, and now this WP:BULLYing attempt. Feels like someone is trying to prevent me from participating in the RfC! I will talk to the admins. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 21:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC) A can name a number of editors being harassed by Ktrimi quite recently, but this crosses the line.Alexikoua (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC) @Ktrimi991: Care to explain to us how come you know that informed that @SilentResident: has been reported to the Arbitration Committee? I see nothing on wiki. By the way As I have several experinces with RfCs, I remind everyone that the process is one of consensus building, not one of voting. Without a clear consensus as indicated by arguments brought none of the proposals above will be added to the article. reads like an intent to sabotage by refusing to abide by the conclusion of the RfC should it not go your way. Khirurg (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC) @Khirurg: I have been checking carefully Ktrimi's edits now, and it is clear that there is evidence of Ktrimi canvassing off-wiki. He admitted it, first unintentionally: [16] (which he quickly tried to erase so that we don't see it), and then, openly: [17]. Reported this incident to the administrators. Ktrimi's edits however do indicate a pattern against your RfC. For the record: Ktrimi initially attacked your RfC in its opening hours by 1) calling it "misleading", then 2) by inserting his own biased option to the RfC without consulting with you the originator of that RfC, and without respecting Wikipedia's WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:OR criteria (as editors such as me, Alexikoua, Sorabino and Othon have pointed out). The content that he is insisting on adding, gives too much credence to conspiracy theories (as editor Calthinus pointed out), and despite the RfC options being just fine (as editor Jingiby has pointed out). However, Ktrimi instead of providing any well-published RS to support his claims in the RfC, insisted on providing offline sources that even I cannot access and verify. Since this tactic didn't worked well for him, he decided on a new strategy: 3) to accuse me of WP:CANVASSING, which shouldn't be surprising, since Ktrimi has my e-mail address in real life, (this was a big mistake of mine, given his record of harassments). At this rate, it can be expected that he and those he cooperates with off-Wiki, spread not only WP:CANVASSING but also WP:SOCKPUPPET accusations and worse. I am not stupid, all these accusations and death threats begun after the RfC was initiated, and not before. Which makes me believe that the reason Ktrimi is cooperating off-Wiki with other editors, is to intimidate me with the purpose of harming the RfC. I am very disappointed. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 01:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC) I am extremely concerned you are receiving death threats. Unfortunately I cannot say I am surprised. You should report these IMMEDIATELY however, see WP:TOV. The Wikimedia Foundation takes these things very seriously, and with good reason, and they have ways of dealing with that. Khirurg (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Cinadon36, you said that emails had been passed around in an attempt to canvass votes for this RFC. What's happening there on that front? Has a report been made of the information and or has the matter been forwarded to administrators etc? Its important that editors know here as to who is the source attempting to undermine the process here. Calthinus, an administrator removed content after @Khirurg attempted a unilateral move to add content [18] and deemed having content on demographics etc as being outside the scope of this article. I agree with that decision as being the right call. On other matters, the issue referring to Aromanians, pensions etc and so on may be considered "conspiratorial" but there is RS on the matter. I have not further engaged on that issue and so as i want this canvassing matter resolved first before i add those sources. I am still in favour of Option 3 as being being most neutral even though its imperfect (though less so then option 1 and 2). Both Albanian and Greek positions need to be covered in the context of the history and events of this relationship.Resnjari (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC) @Resnjari: I 've received an email from ArbCom (acknowledge receipt of my mail) but apart from that...silence. Cinadon36 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Cinadon36, possibly a report may be needed instead. Administrators who deal with this kind of thing may miss it via Arbcom email.Resnjari (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC) @Resnjari: I ve sent an email to an admin, informed her about the case and she e-mailed me with instrucations and the email address of ArbCom. Cinadon36 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Cinadon36, you said you have evidence, so its not like its just aspersions developed out of thin air. Ask the administrator again (about whether a report and so on can be pursued via the other noticeboards) as ArbCom action and wiki bureaucracy via email can be slow.Resnjari (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Since admins replied with silence I see no reason for Resnjari's enthousiasm. Fact is that Ktrimi is again "informed" about anti-Albanian conspiracy theories. This kind of canvassing needs to be reported indeed.Alexikoua (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Its not enthusiasm. Its getting to the bottom of who was canvassing and trying to game the process in their favour of a particular POV. If you have real evidence against a fellow editor engaging in such things you should report the matter. @Cinadon36 has stated there has been email canvassing. I do think that the matter ought to be brought to the forefront in the form of an open report at one of the forums.Resnjari (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Exactly Ktrimi's "informants" need to be checked. This kind of disruption and convassing can't be tolerated. As for Cinadon he is correct: the issue is insignificant & no wonder it was not worthy for admin intervention.Alexikoua (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC) @Cinadon36 never said anything about the issue of email canvassing being "insiginficant" nor did the editor say anything about the matter "was not worthy for admin intervention". Interesting choice of words @Alexikoua. Nor did @Cinadon36 say anything about @Ktrimi991. I am starting to get this vibe that an open report is definitely needed to look into the email canvassing matter as referred to by @Cinadon36.Resnjari (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC) wp:IDONTLIKEIT is obviously disruptive in this case: admins reply was "silence" as Cinnadon instructed you. If you have another personal view (or obsession against co-editors) you can fill a report yourself. Don't waste our time by inventing conspiracy theories.Alexikoua (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC) You seem to be going off on other tangents especially with your comment "Don't waste our time by inventing conspiracy theories." Also @Cinadon36 did not instruct me, the editor just made a comment. On your part more interesting choice of words. Hmmm.Resnjari (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Silence means silence that's the final statement by Cinnadon. It would be better to understand the meaning of this word instead of being obsesive against co-editors. If you are eager to investigate disruption you can maybe explain how Ktrimi "was being informed". Alexikoua (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure as Arbcom is slow sometimes in replying via email. Not to mention that contact via that format is not viewed widespread among the administrator level. Open reports get attention. Anyway i am going to wait for a response from @Cinadon36. Until such time i wont make further statements.Resnjari (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Alexikoua, I suggest you refrain from participating in the derailing of the RfC's discussion. Don't you think it had already been derailed too much? Roughly over 90% of the RfC's entire discussion is about the biased Option 3 and attacks against those who oppose it, not about the RfC nor the other options. FYI, just mailed the admins who directed the case to ArbCom. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 01:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• There is an article Greeks in Albania that should be home to most information pertaining to that minority group. To avoid coatracking and POV forking, this page on Albania-Greece relations should go into as little detail as possible, except where the matter concerns diplomacy at the national level. Therefore, the additions of Option 2, describing the official positions of the respective governments, is the most essential and appropriate content to include on this page. The rest of the paragraph (the Option 1 content) is a suitably concise preamble. The additional content of Option 3 seems like grievances from someone close to the topic. If responsibility for violence is disputed it would be more neutral to say "inter-ethnic violence" than to say who precisely caused it. However, if there is strong sourcing about responsibility, follow WP:YESPOV. None of the proposed options cite sources for their claims, so it is hard to evaluate. If there are reliable sources about Albanian citizens claiming Greek citizenship, that could be pertinent to the topic of the two countries' relations. I found nothing in a quick Google search. Suffice it to say Option 3 is not suitable as-is. It may be possible to address the concerns represented by Option 3 in a more encyclopedic fashion, but there is no reason to delay replacing the existing blank section with Option 2. Enacting one improvement does not preclude further improvements in the future. Rhoark (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2019 (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.

Update Required: Time to highlight the long, rich and complex relationship!

Greece and Albania, especially the peoples, share a long, rich, and albeit complicated history. Far more detailed than what the Wikipedia article has included for many years now.

It's unfortunate that some with bias have been at the helm of producing valuable contributions and updates to this page, as well as many others relating to Greek-Albanian affairs. It defeats the purpose of Wikipedia.

As a university graduate from New Zealand who has long been fascinated in the relations of the two countries and peoples I am keen to get working on updating this page in order to shine the light on the more in-depth relations, good and bad.

Despite the belief there aren't enough suitable, honest, and detailed sources on this topic a thorough online search provides a variety of academic sources exploring the topic to its core. In English, Albanian, and Greek.

As two neighbouring countries that are clearly intertwined in many ways, it will be wise to update and revamp the page so Greeks, Albanians, and others can get a clear, broad and and rich insight into the historical and present relationship between the two countries and their peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varvanitis (talk • contribs) 23:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)