# Talk:Autonomous Province of Korçë

Alexikoua please don't add information about the fragmentation of the toponym Albania. Yes, the article is poorly written, because when you don't know Albanian and French you shouldn't quote Albanian and French sources or add your or to the English ones. I think that it should be moved to a sandbox and rewritten.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems you performed another unexplained or revert dreaming about Albanian majoritiesin the region, this needs to be corrected.Alexikoua (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Alexikoua April is near and btw please alphabetize your edits. Why do you put Albanians last in every edit you make? Btw [1] .--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, then I'll readjust Antid.s version per your proposal (quite weird seems you ignored your own proposal your latest edit). Btw [[2]].Alexikoua (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There is DYK nominaion based on this article going on. On the talk page for DYK nomination there was discussion connected with the quality of this article. I copied it below:

Antid. your hook is ungrammatical and out of context. You have to tell the readers who Enver Hoxha was, otherwise if they're not familiar with the subject they won't read it. He was a teacher at that school after the reunification of Albania, so this hook is unrelated to the state. Most of the article is related to other subjects and not the state itself i.e Greek/Bulgarian/French occupation, while you have miscited the sources(do you know Albanian and French?). Btw I'm not officially reviewing it because I can't help you if I do that. Rcej in 1920 Enver Hoxha was 12 years old. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Where did I mention the year 1920? Rcej (Robert) - talk 10:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It was reunited with Albania in 1920-1 so he wasn't a teacher in the Republic of Korçë. The article is poorly written, so Antid. should consider moving it to his sandbox.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that hook I suggested should not “have to tell the readers who Enver Hoxha was” because it simply not practice in DYKs (anybody can take look at the recent DYKs and see that in almost all cases there is no explanation who were the people mentioned in them although majority of them are far less famous than Enver Hohxa). Thank you ZjarriRrethues, for your copy edit of the article. I agree that part about events in Republic of Korce does need expansion and I plan to do it while preparing this article for GA. For DYK is enough that article has more than 1500 characters. The various occupations of Korce preceded establishing of Korce in the same year and can not considered as offtopic.
I propose that somebody, please, review the hook I proposed according to the criteria for DYK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Antid. you have labeled the reopening of the Albanian schools as part of the Albanian national awakening, which ended 4 years before the establishment of the republic. You have misquoted Albanian and French sources despite the fact that you can't speak either language. Btw the Greek occupation had ended 2 years before the establishment of the republic. Meeting the first technical criterium is pointless if the article is of such a low quality. You haven't even used ref name parameters.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Using the ref name parameters is not requested for DYK articles, as far as I know. If I am wrong, please someone provide link to the relevant policy. If I misquoted Albanian and French sources or made any other mistake, please use talk page of the article and mark the article with appropriate tags and I will deal with each of them. If I misquoted Albanian and French sources please correct my mistakes. I guess it is easier to correct mistakes in translation than to write comments that are longer than disputed text in the article. Any further comment about the quality of the article should be written on the article talk page and marked with the appropiate tags that would prevent positive reviewing of the article until it is resolved. Otherwise someone may think that purpose of the comments is not reviewing of the hook nominated for DYK but to discredit the NPOV position of the article.
* I propose to wait for a couple of days before final review of the article, on order to allow interested parties to resolve objections on the quality of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Antid. all in all the article doesn't have any NPOV, but it's poorly written. You created the article so would you mind moving the article to a sandbox and rewriting it there?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 I will try to summaize objections of ZjarriRrethues:
while describing “reopening of the Albanian schools” and
“reunification of Albania”
I “misquoted Albanian and French sources” and
I made mistake about year of Northern Epirus administration of Korce that ZjarriRrethues refer to as “Greek occupation” and
made mistake by linking Albanian National Awakening with the intention for opening of 200 elementary schools in 1917.
Reopeining of the Albanian schools. - Before schools can be reopened they have to be opened first. Albanian National Lyceum is opened in 1917. Not reopened. France intended to help in establishing 200 elementary schools on Albanian language. Establishing new schools, not reopening old ones.
Reunification of Albania and refering to Greek administration of Korce during WWI that was agreed with Allies as Greek occupation would add Albanian POV to the article, and there is policy WP:NPOV that does not allow that.
I think that I did not misquoted Albanian and French sources. If there are users that can prove I did, they are free to explain where.
Would using expression like Albanian literary revival be better than  Albanian National Awakening?
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"the article doesn't have any NPOV" I don't agree. I believe that article has NPOV. What part of the article you think violated NPOV?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
No part of the article violated NPOV, but you have misquoted or cited out of context many sources. The subject itself is largely ignored, while the occupation periods are given undue weight.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I will repeat "If I misquoted Albanian and French sources please correct my mistakes. I guess it is easier to correct mistakes in translation than to write comments that are longer than disputed text in the article." and "I agree that part about events in Republic of Korce does need expansion and I plan to do it while preparing this article for GA. For DYK is enough that article has more than 1500 characters." Anyway, I added appropriate tag for expansion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Although there are certain parts of the article that are to be improved, I would like to thank Antid for this article, not an easy one.--Sepastaj (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Sepastaj. I think we all managed to significantly improve the article. I would like to thank to all users that contributed to it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The name was "Republika Autonome Shqipëtare Korçë" so the title in English should be changed. --Sepastaj (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved. --Sepastaj (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Autonomous Province of Korçë/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: two found and fixed.[3] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I made a few copy-edits for grammar and style.  Please get articles copy-edited before nominating for GAN in future.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Please provide page numbers for citations from books and journals. Done
Sources support statements, RS, no OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Good coverage
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Tagged and captioned
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On hold for seven days for page numbers to provided in cites as noted above. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, good to go now. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The last version is the one of the greek propaganda and is not exactly what happened. The Autonomous republic of Korca was established after wars for national freedom and an union of orthodox and muslim population of Korca region. The Declaration was signed by 12 represent ants of each religion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.82.18 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 18 July 2013 

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717005134/http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts20_1/AH1933.html to http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts20_1/AH1933.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The following section titled "Northern Epirus" is POV. The article discusses southern Albania, not an irredendist concept called Northern Epirus. The short term autonomous region known as the republic of Northern Epirus was only between 1913-1914. Section needs to have a new netural title. Also this sentence "Korçë belongs to the region regarded as Northern Epirus, a region with substantial Albanian, Aromanian and Greek communities". This is problematic. Makes no mention of Muslims. Yet the article later discusses Muslim Albanians in terms of the Korce republic and its administration. A reader might get the idea that Muslims just appeared from nowhere.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly: this section discusses the situation in 1913-4 and in the political context there "was" a recognized entity known as Northern Epirus (as you name it). About the Muslim community we can mention that there were both Orthodox and Muslim Albanians (not simply Albanians).Alexikoua (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The section discusses a lot more then the 1913-4, in fact it has subsections that go throughout all the way to 1916. The autonomous republic was defunct after 1914. Its POV already. At the very least the Bulgarian and French occupation should be under a section called World War One. They never called their occupation zones "Northern Epirus" or recognised any autonomous republic bearing that name. I am glad that you agree about Muslims ought to be covered in the section. Actually they form a big part of the history about the Korce republic. Much more coverage is needed.Resnjari (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Good notice Resnjari. The heading should be corrected so that each Background subsection corresponds to the exact part.Alexikoua (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually the Northern Epirus wording can stay but it would need the word "question" next to it. It was contested, then accepted and then went defunct between that time period of 1913-1914 so its not POV sounding.Resnjari (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The heading is ok with just the geographical term. By the way a Northern Epirus question wasn't limited in 1913-4. I'm afraid you need RS for this.Alexikoua (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
It definitely was not active while Bulgaria and France occupied those areas. Greece resumed its claims from 1918 till 1923 and much later in the cold war period post 1945. With reliable sources, ok will need to get some books. Like i said, Muslims need to be covered in this article as its a glaring omission about the Korce republic.Resnjari (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You mean that a Northern Epirus question wasn't active during WWI (1915-1918)? Well this needs RS. Actually during 1915-1917 there were 17 Northern Epirote MPs in the Greek parliament and the issue never stopped to exist (George B. Leon. Greece and the First World War: from neutrality to intervention, 1917-1918). The article doesn't specify any distinct features about Christian element too.Alexikoua (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Well the article itself states that Bulgaria and France were in the region and they did not engage in such things. Paliemntarians served in Greece, the region was under the jurisdiction of other powers.Resnjari (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I see your point. However, the "Greek military and civil administration" revolves around this topic.Alexikoua (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I never disputed that.Resnjari (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Then you need to avoid renaming N.Epirus to S.Albania especially when the article refers to a period which the Albanian border wasn't delinated.Alexikoua (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It sure wasn't Greece either. The autonomous republic was recognised internally as being part of Albania, not Greece. Adding the word question to the bit Northern Epirus would at least make the section neutral.Resnjari (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The Protocol of Corfu was never implemented while a de facto control was never achieved before 1920. By labelling it southern Albanian is POV. Either N. epirus or N. epirus question is historically correct.Alexikoua (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I added the word question to Northern Epirus. It should be fine now regarding the title. I object to this sentence "Korçë belongs to the region regarded as Northern Epirus". One, its regarded as such in the Greek point of view. Two the sentence claims that there are Albanians, but if one looks at the proper article named Northern Epirus hardly anything is found about the Albanian population. Its misleading readers. A change of wording to Korçë belongs to the area of modern southern Albania, considered by Greeks of the time as Northern Epirus. It removes POV issues.Resnjari (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Ignoring some of the sniping above ("Southern Albanian is POV" -- that's just a provocation) we should be discussing what sources say. Is there any source saying that the North Epirote revolt set the foreground for the establishment of the Autonomous Albanian Republic?--Calthinus (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Can someone translate the french text in this article? [4]. I have added a template. Vannucci (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)