Jump to content

Talk:Cham Albanians/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Renamingof towns

Ive noticed this sentence: "During this period, a number of villages were renamed in the region. More than 100 village names were changed from Albanian to Greek in Thesprotia, Preveza and Ioannina." And its sourced by this: [[1]]. Which are the 100 placenames that were changed from Albanian to Greek? Ajdonat to Paramythia is not excactly a change from Albanian to Greek, the same happens to Yanya>Ioannina. The source mentions toponyms of Turkish, Aromanian, Slavic, Albanian root, not only Albanian. I can't make the Albanian to Greek changes of names 100 altogether ... Alexikoua (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a total of 266 name changes, but the sentence is " More than 100 village names were changed from Albanian to Greek", not meaning the etymology of the name, but the use. If a Greek-root name is used by Albanians, than it still is an Albanian name. E.g. Ajdonati is the Albanian name of Paramythia (but Ajdonati, is of Greek root Agios Donatios) this does not mean that Ajdonati is the Greek name of Paramythia, cause the Greek name of Paramythia is Paramythia. Was I clear?Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats the issue, there is no " More than 100 village names were changed from Albanian to Greek" in that document [[2]], although the 266 renamings (not only from Albanian to Greek) are clear mentioned. In the catalog there are no more than 20 renamings from Albanian to Greek. Cheers.Alexikoua (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cham Albanians/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Prose is passable though it will need to be refined if it wants to move up to FA status.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    There are some MOS issues, as with any article of this length, but they are minor (IMO), and as such I will not hold up passage on those issues.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    I still feel that the article is to long and could be trimmed with branch articles made the help cut out a lot of the content.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    I know this has been a contentious issue and I invited other editors who may have an opinion on the POV aspects to weigh in. I received no further input and my own concerns have been addressed.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Lead

At first blush with out having read through the entire article here are my reactions to the lead:

  • Per WP:Lead the lead is supposed to be an introduction to the article and summarize all of the topics within the article. An article of this length can have up to four paragraphs. Considering this, the lead is deficient and needs to be expanded. I note that very little is mentioned about Cham history, language and traditions and nothing about organizations, demographics, and notable individuals.
  • The second sentence in the lead is a stub (one sentence) and should be expanded.
  • There is some copy editing to be done in the lead as well but since it needs to undergo a significant expansion I'll leave that until the above work is done. H1nkles (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I added hard dashes to the info box in the lead. See WP:DASH regarding the usage of hard dashes (–). I haven't gone through the rest of the article to see if it is an issue throughout. This is just a heads up. H1nkles (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

  • Can the terms: "Thesprotia" and "Preveza" be wikilinked? I'm a big opponent of over linking but in situations where there is obscure geographical locations, it may help the reader to link to an article about these places.
  • Remove terms like "As such", they aren't really necessary and overburden the article with wordiness.
  • I don't think you need to link misnames, doesn't add much since it just links to a definition, which seem obvious. You may want to use the noun, misnomer instead, but that would require a rewrite of the sentence.
  • Per MOS:BOLD you should use italics rather than bold text for the various appellations. H1nkles (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Distribution

  • No need to wikilink to homeland, I removed the link.
  • You link to Ioannina here but not above, consider moving the link up to the first mention of it in the article and not linking it here.
  • "some sources" in the diaspora section is a little too vague and borders on weasel wording, it's best to specify the source or reword the sentence. H1nkles (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Also the photo in this section has a clean up tag on the description. Please correct. H1nkles (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

History

  • "Meanwhile Ottoman incursions increased, as they were occasionally called in support by despot Esau de' Buondelmonti of Ioannina." Called in support of what? For what reason?
  • You have another hard dash issue here (1358–1434, 1367–1403).
  • "Cham Albanians played an important role in both the Greek War of Independence and in the National Renaissance of Albania.[2]" Is this explained in more detail later? Otherwise this claim should be further explained here. It seems to be coming out of no where since the context of the paragraph it is in is about the rule of the Ottomans.
  • Is there a reason "sanjaks" is not capitalized?
  • What are, "second order administrative divisions"? A little explanation here would be good.
  • This is awkward wording, "schools in Chameria, as elsewhere where Albanians lived" consider rewording to, "schools in Chameria, as in other Albanian provinces..."
  • This sentence, "In 1870, the despot of Paramythia, Grygorios, translated the New Testament into Albanian, as his followers could not understand well the Greek language,[36] and in 1879, the first Albanian school of the region was created in Sagiada by father Stathi Melani, when the region was under the short-lived rule of the League of Prizren.[32]" is a run-on. Consider breaking it up into two, possibly three, sentences. H1nkles (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Your map in this section has a Description clean up tag, please address this.
  • Is "Islamization" a word? Consider changing to "Effects of Islam" or "Conversion to Islam" or something along those lines. I see that you wikilink to an article on the word so I won't dig in my heels on this.
  • " Islamization was widespread amongst Albanians, the majority of whom became Muslims." This is repetitive, consider removing, "the majority of whom became Muslims."
  • You talk about Pashas and Beys but don't explain what they are or link them. Please do so for the novice reader. This will help keep out jargon.
  • Watch out for terms like "celebrated" found here, "celebrated Köprülü family". This can border on Peacock wording and really doesn't add much to the paragraph.
  • "seized to exist" I think you mean "ceased" to exist? H1nkles (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Pashalik of Janina subsection you refer to "the sultan", who was the sultan? You also refer to him in lower case in the first paragraph and upper case on the third. Please specify lower or upper.
  • "In 1792 Ali declared war against them, mainly because of their persistence in refusing to acknowledge his authority, rather than economical reasons" Why include, "rather than economic reasons" the context gives no mention of economic issues so it's confusing that this is here.
  • I also delinked confederacy as it doesn't really give much information. Unless there is an article on the military confederacy the Souliotes were a part of then it shouldn't be linked to a generic page.
  • The caption in the Ali Pasha photo is confusing. The link is to Louis Dupré who was a French Ballet master. Also it doesn't make sense, "Ali Pasha after Louis Dupré (1821)". Please reword the caption for clarity.
  • Per WP:ACCESS you cannot have left-aligned photos under third level captions. I know that sounds dumb but I think it has to do with glitches that can occur in the coding. So please move the Markos Botsaris photo to the right-hand side.
  • The first paragraph in the Greek Independence sub section is a stub and should be expanded. You also have four references for one sentence, that seems a bit odd. Since it is a fairly significant claim can you expand on it using the various reference you cite.
  • Your Abedin Dino photo also has a clean up tag, this is the third such photo in this article. Please make sure these are all addressed as proper use of images is one of the GA criteria.
  • "disestablished", consider using a word like "disbanded". It's a little more mainstream English terminology.
  • I linked the three heroes of the National Renaissance. It created a red link for Thoma Çami. You can remove this wikilink if you wish. I also delinked Osman Taka later in the next paragraph since he should be linked in the first mention of his name not the second. H1nkles (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all I'll be able to do presently. I'll continue to review the article in the coming days. Since it is a long article it will take me a little while to get through it. In the cases of long articles I sometimes pause part way through the review to allow the editor(s) to address previous concerns and discuss the review to that point. I will likely do that on this article at some point. H1nkles (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  • In the Greek state section you wikilink beys but not in a previous section. Consider linking the first mention of beys. See recommendation above.
  • The quote by Kaklamanos, "'the compulsory exchange shall not be applicable to the Moslem subjects of Albanian origin'" uses the term "Moslem", since it is spelled "Muslim" throughout the article you should put a (sic) after it. See WP:QUOTE for insight on this.
  • "According to the Greek political historian[56] of that time Athanasios Pallis, only 1,700 were exempted under Venizellos government decision[57] and the League of Nations estimated that 2,993 Muslim Chams were forced to leave to Turkey, even after their compulsory exchange was prohibited,[58] by declaring themselves as Turks rather than Albanians.[52]" Usually cites should go at the end of the sentence, it is distracting to have them sprinkled throughout the sentence.
  • The photo in the Pangalos Regime section falls into the same issue about not having left-aligned photos under third sub-headings. Please move the photo of Theodoros Pangalos to the right side.
  • "rosen" isn't a word, perhaps "raised"?
  • there are some prose issues in this section, for example, "but they were not given any minority rights and continued discriminations against them". Who continued the discriminations? From the context I gather it's the Greeks, but it should be spelled out because the sentence structure would point to the "they" (or the Chams). H1nkles (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The wording here, "Since the 1927 Greece held a state policy depriving Muslim Chams and other minorities from Greek citizenship" is wrong, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say or I would fix it myself.
  • Wording in this sentence is also awkward, "By using the term "allogenis", which in Greek means "other-race", the Greek law on citizenship made deprivation on the right of the minorities including Chams, to retain or regain their citizenship". Especially "made deprivation on the right of the minorities." I'm trying to think of a way to correct it but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
  • Does cite 65 address both the sentences preceding it? The reason I ask is because the sentence before starts with, "Such a practice is seen by scholars as..." and this should be referenced otherwise it is bordering on weasel wording. H1nkles (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Paralelized"? Not sure that's a word, consider "correlate".
  • There are more prose issues that I've found in the history section. Example: "However, this proposal was rejected by the Greek side, which was feared that Albania would force Greeks to flee from the country, making the exchange non-voluntary." "...which was feared...", the Greeks is the subject so in would be better to say, "who feared", making it more personal.
  • "...was imposed to all minorities..." should be "on" not "to".
  • "...Albanian-speaking minorities were prohibited on using..." should be "from" not "on".
  • "The once who used Albanian words..." should be "those who spoke Albanian..."
  • "...local population about prior confiscations..." should be "for" not "about".
  • These are examples of wording issues that make me feel that the History section needs a thorough prose review to pass GA standards. H1nkles (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "The Muslim Chams would be restored in their land only after the fascist Italy got control of the region." They are restored "to" their land and you can drop the "the" before fascist.
  • "Despite the assistance of a British expeditionary force, the country was occupied and divided it into German, Italian and Bulgarian occupation zones." Who occupied it and who divided it? I would recommend removing the "it" in this sentence.
  • General comment about the history section: It does tend to stray into too much detail at times. For example there is a paragraph in the "Occupied Greece" sub-sub section that discusses the Chameria battalion, which is linked. Then it goes into the names of each group within the batallion, how many were in each group, and how many members weren't Chams along with where they were from. This isn't really necessary information, especially since you wikilink to the main article, which has all this information. This is one example that I found of too much detail. I usually tread lightly when it comes to this topic because it is a judgment call and editors usually hold pretty tightly to their content, wanting only suggestions on how to polish and improve rather than cutting. Given that, this article is very long and could do with some significant trimming (in my opinion). We can certainly discuss this if you'd like. H1nkles (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Watch weasel wording here, "according to sources, Zervas, was himself of Cham origin, being a descendant of Souliotes, a community that became assimilated into the Greek nation more than a century ago". What sources? The in-line citation appears to be a Greek journal, which doesn't help the English-speaking reader.
  • "...as a result of the atrocities that occurred..." What atrocities? This isn't clear from the context.
  • "Two attacks took place in July and August with the participation of EDES 10th Division and by those local Greek peasants whose villages have been burned down by the Cham Albanians active collaborators, in order to gain revenge: many of the Cham villages were burned and the remaining inhabitants – some 18.000 to 35,000 – fled across the border into Albania." Run-on sentence, this should be broken down. I would recommend removing the dashes and put in parentheses.
  • Photo in the "Expulsion" section has a clean up tag that needs to be addressed.
  • Who is Mark Mazower? You wikilink to him, which is fine, but I would also recommend adding a nominal description like, British historian...
  • Consider rewording this sentence, "Led by Zervas' former officer, Col. Zotos, a loose paramilitary grouping of former guerrillas and local men went on a rampage." Rampage is a strong word, you also should specify why they attacked. H1nkles (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You may want to combine the last two small paras in the "Expulsion" section because they seem to be similar and since they're so small it would make one larger paragraph.
  • Two issues with this quote, "...and gave 1.2 million US dollars via the UNRRA, specifically for refugees from northern Greece." Per MOS:CURRENCY the dollar amount should be formatted: US$1.2 million. Also spell out UNRRA and then put (UNRRA) in parentheses after the full name. You should probably do that with your reference to the "UN Assembly" as well. That should wrap up my review of the History section. H1nkles (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Current situation

  • "In 1991, was formed in Tirana, the Chameria Political Association," Reorder this portion of the sentence, "The Chameria Political Association was formed in Tirana in 1991."
  • Also this opening paragraph is a stub paragraph and should be expanded or combined. It also has issues of tense, switching from past to present tense: was formed in Tirana/which is attempting...
  • IMO the first two paragraphs of the "Chams in Albania" sub section should belong in the History section. Your final sub section on post war events covers through 1990 but really there's nothing after 1953. That should be addressed from a comprehensive stand point. This information picks up in 1991 but certainly relates directly to the historical situation resulting from WWII.
  • "Albanian president`s office stated that President Moisiu expressed deep sorrow at this unexplainable decision," The word "unexplainable" is a value judgment, is this part of a quote by the President's office? It border's on a minor POV statement, nothing I would get worked up about but still something to consider.
  • Photo in this section also has a clean up tag.
  • "which could lead to social and economic tensions developing", this is speculative and should be avoided. H1nkles (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "The language is spoken even by young people, because when the local population migrates to Athens, or abroad, the children are left with their grandparents, thus creating a continuity of speakers". "local population" implies everyone migrates to Athens, yet from the context I gather that you intend to mean the adults, though why would they "migrate" (which implies permanent movement from one place to another) without their children? The statement is confusing.
  • This sentence, "The Greek government tried to alter the demographic structure of northwestern Greece by the introduction of settlers from other parts of the country. Vlachs in particular were encouraged to settle in abandoned Cham villages without a legal right of ownership." is a direct repeat of a sentence in the second to last para of the Postwar situation sub-sub section. Please remove as it is redundant information.
  • I'm sorry but this sentence also confuses me, "Today, the majority of these Orthodox Chams are called Arvanites by others, but self-identify as Shqiptar, which means Albanians. In contrast with Arvanites, they have retained, not only a distinct ethnic identity, but also the Albanian national identity." Outsiders call them Arvanites, but they call themselves Shqiptar. Ok got it thus far. But then you say, "...in costrast with Arvanites..." (but I thought they were Arvanites, they just chose to call themselves Shqiptars). Obviously Arvanites and Shqiptars are not synonymous but I don't know what the difference is. This information is a stripped down repetition of the third paragraph in the "Ethnic apellations" section. When I read this though it caused me to pause because the first part of the sentence makes it sound like Arvanite and Shqiptar are just two different words for the same meaning, but obviously that isn't the case.

(Outdent) I'd like to ask about the [neutrality is disputed] tag after this sentence, "Albania has not raised the Cham issue as much as it should." It is the second such value judgment that I have encountered and does concern me from a POV stand point. I'm obviously completely neutral on this subject and I may be stepping into a vipers pit but I feel like I need to understand the reasoning behind the sentence as it is written and I need justification that it isn't a violation of WP:POV standards. I'm open minded to this and want to dialogue about it. I note an edit war on April 12, but I don't know if it revolved around this issue. I haven't been able to find the specific discussion on this issue on the talk page so I am raising it here.

I see that the [neutrality is disputed] tag was removed but I don't see any comment regarding this concern. I will raise POV concerns below because, after having read through some of the threads in the article's discussion page, I feel this needs to be discussed before GA passage. H1nkles (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


Ok at this point I am going to pause me review and allow for comment and fixes. I'll give the article a week and then return to determine how things are going. I will watch this page and engage in discussions here as they occur and time permits. Thank you for the chance to review this article and for your anticipated work. H1nkles (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

After discussion with the primary editor I have agreed to extend the hold on the article another week. H1nkles (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I just finished fixing some of the passages that you point out on the page. The majority of them are fixed as you have proposed, but not all of them. So, lets start one by one:

  • On the lead, I think, that we should firstly finish reviewing the article, and then re-writte the lead, so I left it for the end.
  • On the name and distribution sections I agree with you, and fixed what you asked.

History section

  • I reworded "Meanwhile Ottoman incursions increased, as they were occasionally called in support by despot Esau de' Buondelmonti of Ioannina" to "Meanwhile despot Esau de' Buondelmonti of Ioannina called in support of his war against the Albanian nobles, the Ottoman forces leading to increasing incursions of the Ottomans in the region". I think now it is clear.
  • "Cham Albanians played an important role in both the Greek War of Independence and in the National Renaissance of Albania.[2]" is just a summary sentence of what is explained in detail in 2 sub-sub sections namely: Chams in Greek War of Independence, and Chams in National Renaissance of Albania. I think it can stay in there, but I have no problem to remove it, if you feel it is unneeded.
  • Sanjaks are the second order administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire. I don`t understand what should be clarified in this passage.
  • "This is awkward wording, "schools in Chameria, as elsewhere where Albanians lived" consider rewording to, "schools in Chameria, as in other Albanian provinces..."" We cannot say Albanian provinces, as in that region (as everywhere in the Balkans) lived Albanians, Greeks, Vlachs etc. so it would be incorrect to define that region ethnically.
  • "Rampage is a strong word, you also should specify why they attacked." Actually, this is an inline quoting of Mazower, so I think it is ok. Also, the results, which are explained in there, shows that it was a rampage.
  • "IMO the first two paragraphs of the "Chams in Albania" sub section should belong in the History section. Your final sub section on post war events covers through 1990 but really there's nothing after 1953. That should be addressed from a comprehensive stand point. This information picks up in 1991 but certainly relates directly to the historical situation resulting from WWII." The problem is that in "current situation" section I have tried to put the ongoing situation on Chams, wherevere they live. So, since 1990, when the Cham issue, got on the table and the ongoing dispute should be treated in one section, which should be different from the historical one, of pre-1990, when such an issue was not raised by the Albanian government.
  • Fair enough, I understand from an organizational standpoint keeping the subjects separate, but the problem remains that there is a large gap between 1953 and 1990, what happened in the interim? H1nkles (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It seams that nothing notable happened. In albanian history subsection it is explained that they were discriminated during the communist regime and that the Cham issue was not rosen. So, it is not notable to add anything new in this passage. If, we find anything notable and sourced, than we will add it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I fixed the other questions you raised. What do you think, are they ok now?

Thanks once again, Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am back after an absence for which I am apologetic. Real life demanded of me more time than I had so unfortunately Wikipedia had to take a back seat. This review is my #1 priority. I will continue the review where I left off at the "Organizations" section. Once I have finished the full article I will return and comment on previous edits.

Organizations

  • This quote is confusing, "Chams have created a number of organizations, in order to fulfill their requirements." What requirements were they needing to fulfill?
  • The Chameria association in Albania should be one paragraph instead of two very short paragraphs.
  • This sentence, "Every year, in 27th of June, is organized in Konispol the Cham March, remembering the expulsions of Chams" is poorly structured. As a suggestion you may want to say, "Annually on June 27th, the Cham March is organized in Konispol. This march is held to remember the expulsion of the Chams."
  • I've moved two photos from left alignment to right alignment per WP:ACCESS, you can't have left aligned photos under tertiary sub headings, something to do with the coding. Not a big deal unless you really disagree in having them on the right. I notice this move makes the photos much larger.
  • Is this sentence, "to make researches in the history and culture fields of the cham community as an inherent and important part of the Albanian nation." a direct quote? If so it should have quote marks and you'll need to put a (sic) after "make researches" as that is incorrect wording. If it isn't a direct quote then you'll need to reword it.
  • "...and the rest in USA and Turkey". This has been mentioned several times in the article and is getting repetitive, consider removing some references to this fact.
  • "250.000 in 2007,[2] while in Turkey they are 80,000 to 100,000" sometimes its periods (.) and other times in comma (,) between numbers as in this quote. Please be consistent.
  • There's no reference for the "Chams in Albania by town" box. This should be referenced.
  • The "Religion" sub-section is amazingly small. I think this is dealt with elsewhere, can the information either be assimilated elsewhere or removed? If not then it should be expanded here as it doesn't really fit to have a two sentence sub-section. H1nkles (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Language

  • In the literature section you have two, "He is considered" comments, see WP:Weasel about weasel words. There needs to be a reference to someone who considers the subject to be what ever it is claimed to be.
  • Considering the subject of the section, "Language" seems to not be the best name, or at least it is incomplete as Literature and Media have little to do with dialects. Perhaps there's a better place for the last two sub-sections?
  • "...but he managed to give in Albanian literature a important impact" Bad prose here, please reword.
  • "He is considered the best Cham Albanian writer and poet" See above, who considers him the best?

Traditions

  • I'm still uncomfortable with the prose and grammer. I've been making minor fixes as I go along but that is slowing down the review. I'm going to skip editing the article and bring up some examples of grammatical and prose issues. These are not exhaustive but represent a cross section of the problems.
  • "Cham Albanian dances are well-known in Albania and Greece and are considered today as traditional dances in both countries. The most known of those is Tsamiko, the Dance of Zalongo and the Dance of Osman Taka." The best known would be better and "those" is both refering to the plural "dances" but also the singular "Tsamiko". The best known dance is... would be better.
  • Duplication is a prose problem with this article, "The Tsamiko dance is the traditional dance of the Chams, and one of the best-known folk dances in Albania and Greece." This was just said in the previous sentence.

(outdent) Sorry I have to leave for now, I'll try to do more later tonight or tomorrow. H1nkles (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Continue with examples of prose problems.

  • "...pay tribute to medieval ages lords and the wars with and against Ali Pasha." "Middle Ages" is not an adjective, the sentence should be reworded to put lords and wars first followed by "Middle Ages". "Pay tribute to the lords and wars fought with an against Ali Pasha during the Middle Ages."
  • "Cham Albanian folk tales, have been collected in 1889 by the Danish wthnographer, Holgert Pedersen..." "were collected" not have been collected. Also is wthnographer spelled correctly? I've never heard of this word before so I can't be sure.
  • What is a "benefaction"?

Lifestyle

  • The kilt of high society men was made of many..." Of many what?

Notes

  • Make sure all your website references including books found on google books have accessdates. Refs. 69–74 don't have accessdates, for example.
  • The links are good, no dead links.
  • For future reference, there are many ways for format the reference section especially when combining books and periodicals. You have put them all into the "Notes" section. The only problem with that is if you are citing several different sections of the same book. Since it is important to put page numbers for all the references this becomes difficult if you are pulling references from many different parts of one book. I recommend putting the books in their own "References" section and then list the author's last name, year of the book, and page number, in the "Notes" section. See the Olympic Games as an example of this format. Since there are several ways to format the "Notes" section I don't have a problem with what has been done here. This is a suggestion for future articles where there are several different types of sources and lots of books involved.

Overall Comments and end of review

First off I again apologize for the length of time this review has taken. I'd like to summarize here what I've said above and focus on the issues that keep me from passing the article.

  • The lead is underdeveloped. This has been discussed and agreed to wait until the rest of the article is finished and then the lead would be expanded. I can't pass the article with the lead as it currently stands so this will have to be done prior to passing.
  • Prose is still an issue. I commend the editors on tackling such a broad topic but I've listed some examples of prose problems above. I think a thorough prose review is in order, at least from the point where my review ended previously.
  • I have no problem with it being comprehensive, perhaps a bit too comprehensive. I've discussed this above, I would also cite the discussion of the various dances and how they are performed as being a bit too much detail. The editors should be looking for ways to shorten this article. It is a bit long for the subject (in my opinion).
  • There are a few examples where information is duplicated, this is one way to tighten up the article and make it a little easier to read in one sitting.

Overall the article is actually pretty close to GA. The two biggest hurdles are the prose and the lead. Please address the issues I've brought up and let me know what you think. I'm going to update the hold. Thanks for all your hard work. H1nkles (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done a cursory look at the article and put it up against my review. You have incorporated most of my suggestions. Now I'd like to address the issues raised on the article's talk page. Usually I don't read talk pages while doing a review as I want to remain objective, but after a recent GA review that I did on a similarly controversial subject went horribly awry I decided to gain some perspective on the various issues with the article. Please bear in mind that I am not Albanian, I am not Greek, and I am definitely not a mediator. But I do want to understand the POV allegations that are levied in the talk page as well as the reliability of sources issues that are present on the talk page. I will raise the over-arching talk page issues that I see, not specific details but more of the big themes:
  • I note that you rely heavily on Vickers. I see the first two cites are two PDF docs that are cited 68 times between the two of them. You have cited her in a couple of other spots as well. I note that Balkanian has fought many battles over this on the talk page and I respect that. Would you please supply me with information on Vickers? A background on where she's coming from, I note that she is working with the UK Ministry of defense. Is this the department that published her papers? I note a discussion about WP:OR in the talk page, I would agree that Vickers is a secondary source and not OR, though I'm uncomfortable with her reliance on her own work for some of the papers. This appears to be minor though. It appears that much work has gone into making sure the sources are credible and reliable. I do not have the time or energy to read every source and so I take this on good faith.
  • Regarding POV, I am well aware of the long-running disputes between Albanian/Macedonian and Greek editors here in WP. I have read heated arguments in which both sides accuse the other of nationalism and blatant POV. I do wish cooler heads would prevail but alas they usually do not. I note that this article has not been above the fray. As an outside observer I have noticed some POV edits, which cause me concern given the fact that I am totally unfamiliar with the subject matter. One such concern is the [neutrality is disputed] tag that was placed in the "History" section. I raised this concern in the review and the only fix that I can see is that the tag was removed, hardly a fix in my opinion. Please address this concern.
  • From what I have read in the Talk page, the comments of User:Fut.Perf. are cogent and well-reasoned. This editor is credible albeit a bit controversial at times. Nonetheless I would take this editor's opinions to heart. Especially as it relates to the length of the article. I won't hold up passage to GA over article length as this isn't clearly defined in the GA Criteria, nonetheless, the article is unwieldy and should be trimmed.

(outdent) I would not be surprised if there are editors watching this review intent on making comments or even overturning a "GA pass" based on either POV or source reliability issues. I invite those editors to participate in the review at this point by giving their opinions. Ultimately I will decide the merits of the article and do as diligent a job as possible to make sure that this article is in line with the GA Criteria.

In closing I would like these issues addressed and the Lead expanded to encompass a summary of the entire article. When I am satisfied then I will pass the article. H1nkles (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, on Vickers, I can replace the majority of her sources with others (except of numbers and Current Situation in Albania). Miranda Vickers is a doctor on Modern History and her works are published by UK Ministry of Defence. But, nonetheless, although she is for sure a secondary RS, as I said I can replace the majority of her sources, if any editor disputes her during GA process. on [neutrality is disputed] I cannot rember what was it about. Can you remind me? As for the lead, I am confident that it is the easiest part, and as such we should be clear if the article has GA standards, in order to rewritte it. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I saw what POV assertion was about. It was changed to "Chams complain that Albania has not raised the Cham issue as much as it should." from "Albania has not raised the Cham issue as much as it should." in order to avoid POV.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you for your quick response, no need to change out the source, GAs have passed with far less credible sources. The POV change is acceptable. Please commence with the Lead editing and we'll wrap this baby up. My invitation for other editors to participate in the POV/reliability of sources discussion is still open. H1nkles (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

the lead

Now, we have to rewritte the lead. I have a proposal, which I think it would be better to discuss it here before editing the article. I think the best lead is:

Cham Albanians, or Chams (Albanian: Çamë, Greek: Τσάμηδες Tsámidhes), are a dialectical and regional group of ethnic Albanians who originally resided in the coastal region of Epirus, an area known as Chameria among Albanians. Their first presence in the region is dated before the 12th century, as a result of migratory process during the Slavic migration to the Balkans.
Chams have played an important role in the wars of independence of both Albania and Greece[1] and have influenced the cultures of the two countries, by popular dances, songs and folk traditions that originate from them.[2] One of this dances, Tsamiko is considered a national dance in both Greece and Albania. Chams speak their own dialect of the Albanian language, which is considered one of the two most conservative dialects, the other being Arvanitika. Their language was supressed during the Ottoman Empire and the Greek state, when Albanian-language schools and even speaking in that language was forbiden.
In 1913, the majority of Chams were included under the Greek state, but they were never given any minority right, while their land was constantly confiscated by the Greek government. In 1923, a number of Chams were forcibly sent to Turkey, during the Population exchange between the two countries, although the League of Nations asked Greece not to deport any Albanian subject. In the eve of World War II, the muslim part of the population was sent to concetration camp, or to islands in exile, while during the war they were freed by the Italian occupator.
Some Cham Albanians collaborated with Italian and German forces, while approximately the same number formed two resistence battalions in the liberation movement of Albania and Greece; the rest, which formed the majority were civilians uninvolved in the war.[3] But, at the end of World War II the whole muslim population was forced to leave the region, in an ethnic cleansing operated by anti-communist EDES forces of Greece. More than 2 thousand Muslim Chams were killed or died in the process. Today, the Muslim majority lives in Albania, United States and Turkey, as a result of their expulsion,[3] while the Orthodox minority, which remained in Greece, has suffered from public suppression of their Albanian heritage and language.[1] Since the fall of Communism in Albania, Muslim Chams have asked for the right to return to their homeland and restoration of their properties which were confiscated by the state, an issue that does not exist for Greece.[4]
During the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans, the majority of Chams were islamized, while a minority of them, especially in highlands retained their Orthodox faith. Today, the exact portion of the religious affilation is unknown. In Greece, all Chams are (at least nominally) Christian Orthodox, while in Turkey they adhere Islam. In Albania and the United States their religious affilation is unknown, due to large amount of religious conversion that has happened in those two countries especially in the last decades.

Is there anything from the article that we did not sum up, or is there anything we should rephrase? If not, lets edit it... Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, there are a few problems with it: the history and culture sections are mixed with no apparent reason, and normally, no citations are needed in the lead, since it summarises statements that are (or should) be cited in the main text. Also, the summary part is a bit defective since it gives wight to particular events while ignoring a broader perspective. If I may propose an alternative (and slightly toned down) version:
Cham Albanians, or Chams (Albanian: Çamë, Greek: Τσάμηδες Tsámidhes), are a dialectical and regional group of ethnic Albanians who originally resided in the coastal region of Epirus, an area known after them as Chameria among Albanians. The Chams have their own peculiar cultural identity, which is a mixture of Greek and Albanian influences as well as many specifically Cham elements. In return, the Chams have influenced the popular cultures of both Albania and Greece: one of the Cham dances, the Tsamiko, is considered a national dance in both countries, and Chams played an important role in starting the renaissance of the Albanian language in the 19th century. The Chams speak their own dialect of the Albanian language, which is considered one of the two most conservative dialects, the other being Arvanitika.
The Chams have played an important role in the history of the region. The first presence of Albanian tribes, the Chams' ancestors, in Epirus, is dated before the 12th century, as a result of migratory process during the Slavic migration to the Balkans. Several Albanian principalities existed in Epirus during the Middle Ages, before the region came under Ottoman control. During the last centuries of Ottoman rule, the majority of the Chams converted to Islam, while a minority retained their original Orthodox faith. In the 19th century, the Chams played an important role in the struggles for independence of both Albania and Greece. Following the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913, the majority of Chameria came under Greek rule. For the next few decades, the Chams were marginalized and discriminated against by the Greek state, who viewed them with distrust. Their properties were confiscated, several thousand were expelled to Turkey, and their cultural identity was suppressed. Throughout the period, the Chams, supported by Albania, campaigned for recognition of minority rights, especially the right to be educated in Albanian. Although some Greek governments reined in the discriminatory practices and guaranteed these rights, others revoked them.
During World War II, some Chams collaborated with the Axis powers occupying Greece, while others joined the resistance in both Greece and Albania. Nevertheless, in 1944, the entire Muslim Cham population was expelled from Greece under the charge of collaboration. Most of them crossed the border into Albania, while others formed émigré communities in Turkey and the United States. Today, the Muslim majority of the Cham population live in these countries, while the Orthodox minority that remained in Greece has suffered from decades of suppression of their heritage and language. Since the fall of Communism in Albania, Muslim Chams have campaigned for the right of return to their homeland and restoration of their properties which were confiscated. Greece does not recognize the existence of the "Cham issue".

How does it look? Constantine ✍ 07:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine, but I think it needs two corrections:

1. In the intro word, it should be noted that Epirus is in Northwest Greece, cause not everybody that reads the article, knows where Epirus is.

2. The last paragraph, I think that should be reworded as follows:

In the eve of World War II, the muslim part of the population was sent to concetration camp, or to islands in exile, while during the war they were freed by the Italian occupator. Some Cham Albanians collaborated with Italian and German forces, while approximately the same number formed two resistence battalions in the liberation movement of Albania and Greece; the rest, which formed the majority were civilians uninvolved in the war.[3] BNevertheless, in 1944, the entire Muslim Cham population was expelled from Greece under the charge of collaboration. Most of them crossed the border into Albania, while others formed émigré communities in Turkey and the United States. Today, the Muslim majority of the Cham population live in these countries, although in ALbania and the United States their religious affilation has changed sinifically. On the other hand, the Orthodox minority that remained in Greece has suffered from decades of suppression of their heritage and language. Since the fall of Communism in Albania, Chams have campaigned for the right of return to their homeland and restoration of their properties which were confiscated. Greece does not recognize the existence of the "Cham issue".

What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, are we sure that they were expelled "under the charge of collaboration." As I have explained, Mazower gives too many reasons for their expulsion and concludes that this charge was an excuse created in the aftermath of the war. Should we periphrase it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see: "...are a dialectical and regional group of ethnic Albanians who originally resided in the coastal parts of the region of Epirus in northwestern Greece, an area known after them as Chameria among Albanians." is good by me. I disagree on point 2, because "all Muslim Chams" does not in fact include the majority of the population, only the males of military age, and that because Greece was facing a threat from Italian-controlled Albania. With the Italians playing the Cham card as much as they did in their propaganda, Greece did not have much of a choice. Therefore, including that statement in the lead without further explanation is highly misleading. The discrimination against the Chams is amply mentioned, there is no need to make Greece look the equivalent of Nazi Germany. The details of the expulsion are also best left to the main article; the reason publicly put forward was collaboration (still the mainstream version in Greece), so "under the charge" covers that, without actually implying that it was necessarily true. The fact that the Chams were not exactly welcome anyway is also covered earlier ("viewed them with distrust"), and anyone can add up one and one and get the true reason of their expulsion. The changes in religious affiliation can be covered as follows: "Today, the descendants of the Muslim majority of the Cham population live in these countries, although their religious affiliation has changed considerably in the past decades. At the same time, the Orthodox minority that remained in Greece has suffered from decades of suppression of their heritage and language." Constantine ✍ 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but with a minor problem. " the reason publicly put forward was collaboration (still the mainstream version in Greece)" The problem is that this was a reason that may have been put forword after the war. So, "under the charge" may apply to the reason why they were not allowed to turn back, not about the reason of their expulsion. Just a logical deduction. Also about their concentration camps before the war, we may periphrase it, but for sure it should be in the lead as far as the situation during WWII is a major importance on Chams history. You know, you say "Greece did not have much of a choice", but on the other hand, Chams had not much of a choice after they were liberated (dont get me wrong) by Italians. On the other hand, someone may argue why is it so important to put in the lead that some of them collaborated, when everywhere people collaborated. Do you get my point? I mean this part of history should be covered up totally in the lead, in order to let the reader know about the circuisantces. Can you propose something else? I am ok about the rest.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, on the expulsion, we can change the wording to "under the pretext of collaboration". I really think we shouldn't go into more detail here, this is the lead section, after all, and the implication is quite clear. For the concentration camps, if we add info on them, then we also would have to mention that the Italian propaganda used the Chams as a vehicle for Albanian irredentism, and which, in conjunction with the fact that the expected battlefield actually ran across Chameria, provided the reason for the increased distrust towards the Chams. If you insist, we could add "following the Italian occupation of Albania in 1939, the Chams became a prominent propaganda theme for the Italians, who hoped thus to rally Albanian sympathies. As a result, on the eve of the Greco-Italian War, the adult male Cham population was deported by the Greek authorities to concentration camps." But again, by adding two sentences to the lead for an episode like this, I think we give it too much undue weight. The Chams' expulsion was not determined by that, but by their (alleged) subsequent collaboration (which, as stated, is still the official justification for the expulsion, thus directly pertinent). Neither was the Chams' attitude towards the Italians as "liberators" cogent on that episode alone, but on two decades' worth of discrimination from the Greek state against them.
Also, come to think of it, there is a problem with "dialectical": it refers to dialectics, not dialects... We could rephrase the intro to something like "are a group of ethnic Albanians...". Since both their regional identity and their peculiar dialect are mentioned, we don't lose in accuracy. Constantine ✍ 12:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what about:

Following the Italian occupation of Albania in 1939, the Chams became a prominent propaganda theme for the Italians. As a result, on the eve of the Greco-Italian War, the adult male Cham population was deported by the Greek authorities to concentration camps. After the occupation of Greece, some Cham Albanians collaborated with Italian and German forces, while approximately the same number formed two resistence battalions in the liberation movement of Albania and Greece; the rest, which formed the majority were civilians uninvolved in the war. Nevertheless, in 1944, the entire Muslim Cham population was expelled from Greece under the pretext of collaboration. Most of them crossed the border into Albania, while others formed émigré communities in Turkey and the United States. Today, the descendants of the Muslim majority of the Cham population live in these countries, although their religious affiliation has changed considerably in the past decades. At the same time, the Orthodox minority that remained in Greece has suffered from decades of suppression of their heritage and language. Since the fall of Communism in Albania, Chams have campaigned for the right of return to their homeland and restoration of their properties which were confiscated. Greece does not recognize the existence of the "Cham issue".

It is a bit long, but for sure this is the hot spot of their modern history.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Largely OK, with a few tweaks: "some Cham Albanians collaborated with Italian and German forces, while approximately the same number participated in the resistance movements in Albania and Greece; the majority however remained uninvolved in the war." And what of the "dialectical" issue? You OK with it? Constantine ✍ 12:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The lead is excellent, I did unlink the country names, per WP:Overlink it is not necessary to wikilink country names unless the link is to a specific time frame w/in the country's history (for example your linking of Germany to Nazi Germany is appropriate). After all this I will pass the article and wish you well in your further endeavors. Thank you for your timely and courteous responses to my concerns. Perhaps we can collaborate again on future articles. H1nkles (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

VANDALISM

You say : "On June 1940 the notorious Albanian bandit, wanted for theft and murders Daut Hoxha killed from two Albanian shepherds inside Albania after a quarrel over some sheep"

Where on hell is this on 18th page of Pearson??????? Stop misciting.

You say: "an army equivalent to a full division of 9 battalions (4 blackshirt battalions -Tirana, Korçë, Vlorë, Shkodër-, 2 infantry battalions -Gramos and Dajti-, 2 volunteer battalions -Tomori and Barabosi-, one battery corps -Drin". Who on hell says that?????????????????? There were Gramshi and Tomorri the only two who took place on the war.

Stop adding povish theories. I am removing this part to Expulsion of Cham Albanians, since it is too much for a summary that we are trying in this page.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


1. "On June 1940 the notorious Albanian bandit, wanted for theft and murders Daut Hoxha killed from two Albanian shepherds inside Albania after a quarrel over some sheep" is on Owens Pearson book page 18 find out

2. All units are in Manta's book page 117--Factuarius (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

3. I included no theories of mine in the paragraph, there is only facts transfered almost word-by-word from three books already mentioned in the article before my editing. Who is to decide what parts of a given book we can mention and what is not allowed? --Factuarius (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

4. The attidute of some members of Chams before and during the war is part of the story of that population, why to rmv it to the expalsion article? With that logic we have to remove also their attidute during Ottoman's occupation, during Axis occupation etc. What you really want to mention about their history? tell us to understand what you really have in mind. --Factuarius (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, my fault. I just have to see Manda again. By the way, it needs to be shorten, because this is just a summary of Expulsion of Cham Albanians, not an article itself.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


This is not the summary of the "Expulsion of Cham Albanians" section of the article as you always say, it is the "Occupied Greece (1940–1944)" section of the article. The Expulsion of Cham Albanians section is after that. Please check it also.

Firstly you insisted that my references are incorect, then to take my paragraph to the expalsion article then that are all from greek POV authors and now you insisting to shorten the paragraph. This is not a serious attidute. I believe that what you really wanted from the start is to get rid of the paragraph. No, I believe that Chams history during the 2nd war & the occupation is a key issue to their history and cannot explained enough with just three phrases. I cannot understand your four differend positions other that you don't want to say much about these key events.

The Italian intervention in the Chamuria issue is also a major issue we cannot omitt since it was one of the very reasons of the Greco-Italian war (according to them), leading to the occupation and the subsequent events. It is impossible to say that Italy invaded Greece without saying why, especially when one of the main reason of the war was the Chames issue. How shorter we can explain all these in less of a paragraph? --Factuarius (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What on bhell are you waiting? Why did you remove my last edit???????????? It was just the same shit as yours, just with some more sources. I just added another POV on Hoxhas life: because Vickers says something else, Pearson says something else. What on hell are you talking about? you say "Firstly you insisted that my references are incorect, then to take my paragraph to the expalsion article then that are all from greek POV authors", while my f... first edit was "1. Discuss, 2. Stop POVING, 3. You may add it to Expulsion of Cham Albanians." You may add it to Expulsion of Cham Albanians, do you read????????????????????? Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Balkanian, calm down and don't call other people's edits "VANDALISM" and stop yelling. You do not own this article. Please be civil. There is no reason why the expulsion of the Chams can't be discussed here. Maybe not in as much detail as in the expulsion article, but it should still be discussed. --Athenean (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Athenean, please read the first version (consensus version of Cplakidas), the second one of Factuarius, and the last which was just a minor reconfiguration of mine, and then see if there was or not, this on this page. Of course it was part of this page, it just was not half of that page. WP:UNDUE.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that I am totaly stupid? Is this "minor reconfiguration"? Who you believe that can fool about? Everyone can see your minor "minor reconfigurations". You left only one phrase of mine and imediately your old friend Sarantiotis delete it. Do you guys believing yourself very clever and all the others just idiots.--Factuarius (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Article needs to be npoved. Issues;

1. It conflates Chams and Albanian speakers living within the state or what later became the state of Greece. In essence it confuses Chams with Arvanites and assumes all Albanian speakers to be Chams. This is clearly wrong and unacceptable.

2. Tone and style are obviously partisan. This needs to change fast.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Still no answer to the original point, this article confuses Chams with Southern Albanian speakers.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Read Talk:Cham_Albanians#Arvanites of Epirus/ wiki creation or not?, Talk:Souliotes. Read them and then start arguing. There are WP:SOURCES, quite clear on this point.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read the talk pages thoroughly and see no evidence of these sources you claim identify southern albanian speakers as Chams. If anything FP trounces your line of argumentation in this instance (and that is pretty lame incidentaly because he generally sucks at making a point). Nope we will need to see sources here--Xenovatis (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Subtext: Epirus and half of Greece belongs to modern Albania

Of course this article is POV. As it stands, the article in effect wishes to indicate that Epirus is and has been Albanian territory, that the Arvanites are pure Albanian and are misguided into thinking they are Greeks, and ergo much of Greece is, in effect, Albanian. LOL and re-LOL. And the article even has a picture of Markos Botsaris... how about including Pangalos? Naughty-naughty, and how crafty... this article needs serious re-re-editing before the POV label is removed. Politis (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


What's so funny there greek buddy? Do you recognize this qoute? "Who are the Greeks? At least five-sixths of them, if not more, are Christian Albanians of the Orthodox faith, Albanians in sentiment and in language, who because they acknowledge the Patriarch of Constantinople are declared to be Greek in point of ´national consciousness´." James Knowles, "The Nineteenth century and After", Volume 86, July-December 1919, p. 645. --I Pakapshem (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Well, I wouldn't go that far, but the way it is written now definitely tries to portray the Chams as innocent victims of the racist genocidal Greeks. This needs to change, and it will. --Athenean (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is like a property of Balkans & Sarantioti every time someone is trying to edit something, has to do with an editing war by both of them. The way is the following: First they deleting everything and then saying you to go to the talk page to say your "παράπονό σου". If you insisting they rmv it again and are going to the admin saying "please help we have someone that denying to talk", when you are going to talk are posting nothing and keep removing your text until your 3rd choice, thus winning, since they are two and you are alone. That's gentlemen the story here. Can anyone help? --Factuarius (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I will keep a watch on this space from now on and encourage other editors who wish to help this article be more neutral to do the same.Xenovatis (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No, this article is a GOOD ARTICLE, and you are trying to make it look like a sh... thats all. Markos Botsaris was Cham, like it or not. I am still waiting for your response: Why did you remove Vickers part on Daut Hoxha?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? when I mention Botsari? What this has to do with me? I am not the guy to answer about Vickers, you are the guys to answer why you rmv both Owen Pearson, E. Manta and Bernd J. Fischer to put Vickers although there was an open discussion about that paragraph YOU HAD ASKED FOR without saying a word about you intended to edit. --Factuarius (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Nope this article sucks and should be listed for re-evaluation. In addition BW and Sarandiot should be IP checked as I suspect them to be clones. In the mean time it should and will be re-written. IT is heavily POV as it is.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Clones they are not, but they are definitely coordinating off-wiki, as can be shown in this thread [User talk:Balkanian`s word#Mbledhje do ta organizojme tek faqja jote  :)]. Can be translated by google translate. Btw, the situation is much the same across all Greece-Albania articles, whether it is [Cham Albanians]], Gjirokaster, or Fustanella. There is a hard core of southern Albanian users (Balkanian, Sarnadioti, I Pakapshem) that share an obsession with Greece-related articles and are tag-team reverting anyone who crosses them. --Athenean (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be quite good to say which are the conensensuses we have reached till now.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please make me a favour, read: Talk:Cham Albanians and then speak.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are not using clones why Saradioti was out a week now? Do you want the evidence if you are using cloning tactics or not? I pity you for believing that by lies or suppressing truth you are doing good job for your country. How many weeks or months can you do that work over here before everybody understand what is happening? --Factuarius (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Athenean, what comes next? EL battles? The article is completely neutral, so lets stop this here. Factuarious, I was blocked for 3 days, and I'm not a clone of Balkanian. And now please stop this nonsense, before you are reported AGAIN and get blocked AGAIN. We show good faith, so I suggest you do that too. --Sarandioti (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC) --Sarandioti

There is procedure to deal with suspect clones; I think, I am not sure, it does not include discussing it extensively on a talk page. Meanwhile, I respect Sarandioti's notion of neutrallity but this article has won the POV tag with full honours :-) No need to worry about it, it happens all the time in wikipedia. Politis (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree there must be better ways.--Xenovatis (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarandioti the post: You have been blocked for 1 month for violating Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy by using XXxLRKistxXx to continue an edit war across multiple pages. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC) is it or not in your page?

it is why? and if you see below you'll see that it was reduced to 3 days, because we were just writing from the same net cafe. And politis excuse if im wrong, but I think that you were recruited to join here. And certainly your opinion cannot be considered NPOV.--Sarandioti (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course of course. It is naturally the net cafe. --Michael X the White (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Irthe kai o Mixalis! I am just watching this idiot debate in here, because nobody is giving arguments. Good, go on!Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Recruited? You think wrong, but before making lazy assumptions there is one way to find out, follow my editorials on the Cham related articles. They go back a some time. And I certainly dont remember you Sarandioti... ;-)Politis (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So, I do not remember you, until you came here, with your editorials. Go and check who is Sarandioti, its quite easy. By the way it was not "recruited", Mihalis for some time, used to go in every page I commented, he was there, commenting me of course.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

michael "white" are you questioning the admin? he checked me. So are you saying that the admin was wrong ? hmm.... --Sarandioti (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is the proof?

The greek team here claims that this article is not neutral. Well, you still havent told us why. Explain, because you claim but have no proof for anything. --Sarandioti (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

I arrived at this article by request of another user involved in this dispute, and I'd just like to point out a few things:

  • Firstly, I am in no way familiar with the subject of this article, but there is clearly a dispute going on, and it is currently being characterised by controversial edits and reversions being made back-and-forth by various parties – please, if you're involved, try to discuss before jumping in with the edit button, as revert ping-pong benefits nobody.
  • I personally can't make out any particular bias from editing the article (although, again, I am no expert in the subject field). Edits like this one, however, clearly use loaded language and are deliberately provocative. (If you're asserting that the article is biased towards a point of view, then don't try and counter it by introducing text which is biased the other way!)
  • The "debate" so far seems to break down into personal attacks within a couple of lines. Please, try and keep focused on content, rather than contributors.
  • The above section appears to assert undeniable POV-pushing without citing any examples of content or language which support that claim. To someone unfamiliar with the subject material, that is useless! Seriously, though, both sides of the debate need to please present their arguments clearly and civilly.

Please, everyone, try to stay cool and talk things through. Who's going to go first..? haz (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am in favour for the previous state of the article, without any neutrality tags. The article had no territorial pushing in favour of Albania, never hided the fact that some cham albanians collaborated with the axis, and portrayed all issues as they indeed happened. You can verify that just by reading the article. But again this multi-attack without ANY reason from all these greek editors in the article has no point. Where is the proof? Where is your evidence? --Sarandioti (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Haz, if I may give my view here, from my perspective of experience with admininistrating these kinds of disputes, I'm pretty convinced this will, sadly, only work out if the constructive editors are decisively separated from the non-constructive ones. Balkanian`s word, Athenean and Alexikoua are fundamentally capable of collaborating; Sarandioti, I Papakshem and Factuarius appear to be fundamentally unwilling or unable to do so. You have WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions in your hands; I recommend using them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Future perfect me or Pakapshem never added anything wihtout source. And I was the one who actually asked for mediation. So please refrain from your previous comments. They were offensive. --Sarandioti (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the second about no personal attacks or anything other focused on editors? I made my case clear, and offended no one, so why you, who are admin, break those rules in the discussion? Let us return to the issue now, and please stay to the issue. I asked you before to intervene futperf and you didn't. So now dont intervene by changing our subject. Post only if what you have to say is related to the issue(which until now only I have done) --Sarandioti (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Whatever someone can say about it is impossible to anyone to edit that article. I tried for three days now to put a paragraph with almost every word of it from three already mentioning sources in the article believing that no one can decide what part of a given book is to be used and what part is not allowed, but in vane. Firstly they insisted that my references were falsified, after, that are all from greek POV authors (the two were not even greek) then to take my paragraph to the Chams expulsion article (although had nothing to do with expulsion) then to shorten the paragraph and yesterday they deleted it entirely (half of it the Balkan's word and the rest Sarandiotis). If you believe that my absence will make any difference over here I am willing to go out by myself to see the difference for any period Fut. believing necessary. Fut. just give me a number I will do it whatever haz will decide. Also from my short experience with Sarandiotis etc. it will be fruitless to ban them since they extensively using multiple user names, direct IP editing and friends. What they are doing is simple: You have 3 rv we have 6,9,12..you will never edit that article. --Factuarius (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

About Sarandioti's sockpuppetry policies [3], for his edit-warring tactics [4] --Factuarius (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

About Balkan's policies [5] and [6] and after that ("blocked for a period of one week for edit warring on multiple articles directly after the release of your block"18:42, 4 June 2009) --Factuarius (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

About Pakapshem's please see [7] or [8] in just 10 days of his existence in Wikipedia.

Sorry for giving that in the inapropiate page of Chams article but to my oppinion their ways of acting is the real problem over this and many other articles. (I am also new in wikipedia -maybe 6 months old- but I have only a 24h off)--Factuarius (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A parallel theatre of this dispute took place yesterday in the Souliotes article, where edit-warring erupted in the most offensive way: within 2 hours 20 reverts are registered with 6 users involved (3+3→5 (!) of them reverted 3 times, and one of them 2 times), all of them flirting with the 3RR, but gaming the system so as not to technically violate it. I blocked 5 of them. I say all this stuff so that haz understands that we have to do with users who are ready to edit-war in the most offensive way. Of course, at the end they all lose, but they don't seem to care about that. The worst is that even very good editors with significant main space contributions, like Alexikoua, Balkanian, Xenovatis and Athenean exhibit an edit-warring mentality. This is a particularity that should be taken into account. My message to haz is clear: there should be no leniency to edit-warring, because otherwise control is going to be lost. We should fight this mentality.
Watching the relevant discussions, I can say that the only users who have demonstrated a high degree of self-constraint and moderation are Cplakidas, 3rdAlcove and (although very limited involved in this case and semi-retired) Giorgos Tzimas. I strongly believe that the aforementioned users should be involved in the relevant discussions, and their input should be take into serious consideration.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
First of all, a big thank you to haz for his attempts at mediation. I also agree with Future Perfect insofar that it will be impossible to have a civilized discussion as long as Sarandioti and I Pakapshem are allowed to participate. I am very firm on this. The disruption these two have caused in the brief time they have been on wikipedia is staggering. They have managed to rack up 5 blocks between the two of them in less than a month. The disruption is documented in this thread [WP:ANI#ARBMAC cluebat needed]. Incivility, battleground mentality, stonewalling (manifested here through the "there is nothing wrong with this article" meme), the list goes on. Now, regarding this article, there are two problems I can immediately identify: One is tone, which is very non-neutral to me. The other is over-reliance on non-neutral sources. The best example of this is that Miranda Vickers, a less-than-neutral source, is cited a whopping 68 times! Clearly there is something wrong here. These are the two most immediate problems I can identify. Over the next couple of days I will go over the article in detail and note down other problems as I notice them. --Athenean (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Future Perfect and Yannismarou for the context. FP, thanks for the case link, but sadly I don't... lol!
An FYI for those involved in the discussion here: at this time, Balkanian`s word, Sarandioti, Alexikoua, Xenovatis and I Pakapshem are currently blocked for editwarring on articles in the same content area.
This is a summary of the most recent conflict in the article, as I've read it:
Now that, to me, is some edit war!
My personal views on the above:
  • I personally believe that the original revision of the Greco-Italian conflict was more encyclopaedic than Factuarius' subsequent revision. I also believe that this revision was a very good compromise on the part of Balkanian`s word, and that its subsequent reversion was due more to personal tensions between the two editors that had built up by this stage, rather than content.
  • I also believe that the original reversions themselves of Factuarius' edits by Balkanian`s word were made with good faith intentions, per my first point, but that the provocative use of edit summaries, and the aggressive stance taken on the talk page, certainly did not help prevent the conflict from escalating. I realise that I am unfamiliar with past conflicts in this content area, but working solely on the above timeline, I would assume that the reversions by Balkanian`s word were not on ownership grounds, but were bona fide reversions to maintain the quality of the article. However, the conflict was initially badly handled on Balkanian's part, which was a major factor in the development of the edit war.
  • Given that Balkanian`s word was the only one of the two to attempt to compromise on the content of the section, and was the only one to apologise throughout the conflict, a move which was met with hostility by Factuarius, I would argue that Factuarius was to a greater extent responsible for the conflict, although both users must hold some degree of culpability.
  • I Pakapshem's reversions were almost certainly due to his desire to force POV, as shown in his edit conflicts elsewhere. The reversions were deliberately disruptive and I Pakapshem's only contribution to the talk page was a personal attack which indicated some sort of nationalist basis to his actions. Both due to this and because of the user's pattern of disruptive editing across this area of conflict, I would recommend a ban per ruling at WP:ARBMAC from all articles in said area.
  • Sarandioti has been deliberately and unwaveringly aggressive, both in xyr reversions to the article and in xyr talk page comments, which are littered with personal attacks. I would also argue that this is deliberate surreptitious POV-pushing, and that Sarandioti exhibits the clearest example of all the editors involved in this conflict of WP:OWN violation. Xe clearly exhibits "team" mentality over the conflict ("We show good faith...") and, despite that previous link, does not appear to assume good faith on behalf of any of the other contributors involved in the conflict or discussion. This needs to change if the user is to be allowed to continue editing articles in this field.
  • Everyone else seems to understand far more about the article subject than I do... :-/
I have been receiving comments via e-mail from blocked users who were involved in the conflict, and will be happy to post here any comments on behalf of any such users received via e-mail. For now, page protection does not seem necessary, as three of the main participants in the edit war (Balkanian`s word, Sarandioti, I Pakapshem) are blocked, and the article has been quiet since my last edit. Personally, I would rather see peaceful resolution than sanction for the time being. Comments on any of the above observations are most welcome, as well as any recommendations for resolutions.
Athenean, thank you for your comments as well – as you can see, I'm trying my best to play catch-up here, so it's greatly appreciated – and for agreeing to go over the article. Hey, this is talk page usage at its best! haz (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Another major problem with the article is that it conflates any Albanian-speakers in Epirus with Cham Albanians. This is factually incorrect and a major no-no, as there is a big difference between speaking a language and identifying with a particular community. To give an example from this discussion, both Balkanian and Sarandioti speak excellent Greek, but they certainly don't identify with the Greek people. I don't have time right at this moment, but I will provide examples of this conflation later on today. --Athenean (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


I don't want to go back to an unproductive and meaningful discussion of what really happened here during the last three days. I only want to explain to you 2 points about what you had analyzed. 1. that the apology of the Balkanian that two times you are mentioning had nothing to do with his falls accusations over me as you understand it, but it was an answer for my message to the Fut where among others I had expressed my disappointment for the Balkanians' lack of participation in the discussion he had asked for the Chams article. See by yourself : [9] my post 13:51 and [10] his sorry post at 14:06. And 2. a last word about the transferring of the paragraph to the Expulsion article: The paragraph had nothing to do with expulsion and because of that it was not even in the expulsion section of the Chams article, it was in a section labeled “Occupied Greece”. So I couldn't understand why to transfer it to the Expulsion article, if not to get rid of it.

Νοw, I would like to explain in detail what by rewriting this paragraph wanted:

  • To point out that the Chams issue was one of the main reasons of the Italian invasion in Greece, which I believe it's a point of historical interest about the issue, nowhere mentioned in the article.
  • To illuminate the tricky role of the Italian policy between the Chams and the Greek communities in Epirus, (with its tragic consequences before and during the occupation and later).
  • To give the story of the murder of Daut Hoxha which (sorry to tell) unlike what you are believing, historically, became a catalytic event in the hands of the Italian leadership both in Albania and in Italy because it was not at all a farmer but a key figure in many Italian machinations in the area back to the '20s according to numerous english intelligence services documents.
  • To fix the number of the Albanian volunteers that took part to the invasion from “some hundred” to “some thousand” which was the truth (I had the exact number who makes “many thousand” but I preferred not to give reasons for fights over numbers).
  • To mention that in the Italian invasion took also part a large number of Chams volunteers, not mentioning in the article (with catastrophic results in the relations between the two communities in Epirus during the occupation).
  • To be as NPOV documented as possible, thus I preferred to use only already mentioning in the article books, because I knew beforehand from other articles that they would possibly dismissing the text by saying that its sources are “POV” (as indeed happened although my effort), and to use more than one sources, in order to avoid accusations like "you just using this or that known POV author etc.."
  • To be absolutely accurate in terms of facts and numbers (maybe I over did it with the units)
  • To be as short as possible in doing all that.

So to tell the truth I am a little disappointed about your opinion for my “version being very narrow in its scope”, but maybe I must be disappointed in not succeeded to give what I wanted in an encyclopedic way. Anyway unless Fut. or you have a different opinion I will wait until both three Albanian users being unblocked to begin from the start the discussion but only under supervising. Regards--Factuarius (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Specific concerns from Athenean

Below I am listing some specific concerns with the article. Because of its enormous size, this will take a bit of time. I would appreciate it if people discussed in a separate section so as to not clutter this section to the point of making it unreadable--Athenean (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

  • "...some Cham Albanians collaborated with Italian and German forces..." This seems like a weasel word to me, and an attempt to minimize the collaboration. How many is some? A few dozen? Several hundred? Several thousand? The figure is disputed. For example, the (French language) Euromosaic source says "they massively migrated to Albania as the majority of them collaborated..." This is one of the most vexed and contentious issues. There is a lot of cherry-picking of sources going on in this article in general. The main author (Balkanian) used a source whenever it was convenient, but then ignored when it wasn't.

Infobox

  • The figure of 40,000 is taken from a single source (Vickers, of dubious neutrality). This is a maximalist position, as sources that give lower estimates are ignored. Furthermore the source refers to Albanian-speakers, not Chams. It is extremely doubtful that there are 40,000 individuals that identify as Chams in Epirus (over 10% of the pop.), but that is what is essentially stated by including this figure in the infobox.

Etymology and definition section

  • "In its original ethnographic and dialectological sense, the term Cham comprises the entire Albanian-speaking population of the Thesprotia and Preveza prefectures of Greek Epirus, including both the Muslim and Christian populations." The perfect example of conflation of all Albanian speakers with Chams. You will note that this is sourced from an Albanian language source, and is as such impossible for our English language speakers to verify.
  • Also highly contentious is whether the Souliotes can be considered Chams. In this section, this is rather poorly sourced. The British Naval Intelligence Division from 1944 hardly seems like the ideal source for such an important subject. The Souliotes are very well-known. If it is equally well-known that they are Chams, surely better sources would be out there. The Jochalas source is without an inline citation and hence impossible to verify.
  • "At the same time, Orthodox Chams are often referred by Greeks as Arvanites (Αρβανίτες),[3][8] which primarily refers to the Albanophone Greeks of southern Greece but is commonly used as for all Albanian-speaking Greek citizens." The last clause is unsourced, and this is goes to the heart of the matter.
  • "Orthodox Chams use the appellation "Albanians" (Shqiptar in Albanian) for themselves." Highly contentious, again the source is non-English and inaccessible online.

Distribution

  • "Preveza and Ioannina also had significant Cham Albanian communities". sourced from a Turkish source (even though in English). Turkish sources, particularly those with any sort of government affiliation, need to be treated with extreme caution, as the Cham issue has been extensively exploited by Turkey for propaganda purposes against Greece.
  • "The Orthodox Chams originally resided in Fanari,[2] Louros[2] and Thesprotiko". This uses the same Albanian language Ref.#2, which is the one used to establish that all Orthodox Albanian speakers are Chams in the first place. Circular reasoning.

History

Early History

  • None of the sources mention Chams, only Albanians. The only source that does mention the Chams specifically is, surprise, in Albanian.

Medieval States

  • Yet more conflation of Albanians with Chams. None of the sources mention the Chams, only Albanians.

Ottoman rule

  • "Cham Albanians played an important role in both the Greek War of Independence..." Highly contentious, sourced from the less than neutral Vickers. There is plenty of material available about the Greek War of Independence. Why isn't any of those authors cited. Rather, this assertion relies on Vickers, who is not an authority on the Greek War of Independence. Another example of cherry-picking. If it is generally accepted that Chams played an important role in the Greek War of Independence, we should be able to find it in specialized sources.
  • "At that time, the region was under the short-lived rule of the League of Prizren". To my knowledge, the League of Prizren never ruled anything, especially anything as far flung as southern Epirus. Yet another contentious claim sourced to an Albanian language source.

Pashalik of Yannina

  • "These were a group of Orthodox Chams, the Souliotes..." Again, contentious and not well established. No inline citation to establish that the Souliotes were Chams. Unless it can be solidly established that the Souliotes are Chams, this whole section needs to go.

Greek Independence

  • "Orthodox Chams and especially the Souliotes were one of the main contributors to the war that achieved the Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire, liberating a number of regions, under the command of Markos Botsaris and Kitsos Tzavelas." This sentence is highly contentious and the wording is POV. Does any source state that "Orthodox Chams were one of the main contributors to the War of Greek Independence"? That is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. Since it is not at all established that Botsaris and Tzavellas identified as Chams (as opposed to say, Rhomioi), this whole section needs to go.

National Renaissance of Albania

  • "muslim Cham and Lab armed units burned a number of villages: 3 in the vicinity of Preveza (Tsouka, Glyky, Potamia), 4 in Thesprotia (Alpohori, Manoliasa, Keramitsa, Fortopia) as well as a number of villages in the regions of Ioannina, Sarande and Delvina. From these actions, many villagers managed to escape to the nearby island of Corfu." It is carefully omitted that these were Greek villages.

Modern History

First Years of Greek rule

  • "Muslim Chams were discriminated by Greek authorities, and they did not have the right to vote, despite being Greek citizens." Again, sourced from a Turkish source that needs to be treated with caution.

Population exchange

  • The way this section is worded is highly problematic. "The real problems...", "Greece saw this as a perfect opportunity...", "Only after pressure from Italian and Albanian doplomacy...". The tone of this whole section is designed to make Greece look like the victimizer, even though Greece was well-entitled to include Muslim Chams in the pop. exchange under the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne. The wording in the section needs to be changed to reflect this.

Discrimination and Normalization

  • " Since then, and until as recently as 1998, the Greek government made a clear distinction between Greeks and non-Greeks...". What is the purpose of this sentence? How is it relevant to the article?
  • "The Albanian government believed that a voluntary population exchange of the two minorities would resolve a number of internal problems for both sides and improve Greek-Albanian relations." Unsourced.

Crackdown under the Mtaxas regime

  • The entire 3rd paragraph is unsourced, except for the last sentence. The first sentence is subjective in tone.

Occupied Greece

  • "Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected." Unsourced.
  • The second paragraph is an exercise in weasel wording and POV-pushing. The way it is written seems entirely designed to minimize and hedge the collaboration as much as possible. Pressure? What pressure? The previous paragraph mentions no such pressure. It almost seeks to justify the collaboration

Expulsion

  • "In the worst massacre, in the town of Filiates on 13 March, some sixty to seventy Chams were killed." Unsourced.

Postwar situation

  • The first paragraph is either unsourced or sourced entirely from partisan sources. The figure of 2772 killed is taken at face value, without any explanation as to whether it is accurate or not.
  • "These demands were never answered" Another sentence with a victimological tone.
  • "No criminal of Cham origin was ever brought to trial." This sentence is problematic. Is that because all those convicted Chams were innocent and the Greek authorities couldn't prove their case, or because all the Cham collaborators has fled to Albanian?
  • "For those Chams of the Orthodox faith who remained in Greece after 1945, their Albanian identity was suppressed as a deeply repressive policy of assimilation ensued and, as before World War II, the Albanian language was not allowed to be spoken in public, nor taught in the schools." Unsourced.

Current Situation

  • The first section is sourced almost entirely from Vickers.

Chams in Greece

  • "Throughout the Cold War, their Albanian identity was suppressed by a deeply repressive policy of assimilation." Verbatim repetition from the preceding section. What is the point of such constant repetition?
  • More conflation of Orthodox Albanian speakers with Chams, as well as repetition from previous article sections. In general, there is quite a bit of repetition in the article.

Cham issue

Political Positions

  • The "closed chapter" meme is repeated twice in short succession.
  • The picture of the Greek passport is also silly.
  • In this and the following section there is much repetition with the rest of the article.

Demographics

Current Demographics

  • The overall figure of 440,000 seems exaggerated. Even if we take the 1941 Italian census at face value (54,000), this figure implies an almost 10 fold increase in 50 or so years. It should be no surprise that this figure is sourced to the Cham-sympathetic Vickers.
  • The section is overall sourced almost entirely from Vickers. Sources that claim the number of Albanian speakers is negligible, such as Winnifrith, are ommitted.
  • "In 2002, in Chameria, the Orthodox Albanian population was estimated at 40,000, the majority of them being descendants of the Orthodox Chams who were allowed to remain in Greece, but also including a sizeable minority of recent, post-1991 immigrants." Weasel wording. Estimated? By whom? what fraction are recent immigrants? How is that "in Chameria". A more appropriate way to word this sentence would be "According to Miranda Vickers, in 2002, the Orthodox Albanian-speaking population in the preiphery of Epirus was estimated at 40,000, the majority of them being descendants of the Orthodox Chams who were allowed to remain in Greece, but also including a sizeable minority of recent, post-1991 immigrants."
  • "While the total population of Thesprotia, Preveza and Ioannina prefectures is 275,086". What is the point of this sentence? I mean, really?

In the remaining section, much of what is passed off Cham folklore is essentially generic to the region or Albanians in generals. Examples of this are the polyphonic music, the story of the bridge of Arta, the compilation of fairy tales (the source says Albanian, not Cham fairy tales), and the cuisine section. These are less important than the other concerns, but there is some conflation of Epirotic and/or Albanian culture with Cham culture. The cuisine section is a good example, where there is little that is uniquely Cham and not shared with Gree/Turkish/Albanian cuisine.

I hope the above concerns can be the basis of a productive discussion on how to improve the article and make it more neutral. My ability to edit will be limited in the next few days but I look forward to see how the discussion has progressed when I return. --Athenean (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yannismarou's comments on Athenean's remarks

A general comment: On 1 June 2009 this article became GA: it was reviewed by H1nkles (a very skilful editor); and during the review collaborative work was done between Constantine (mainly on the lead, if I am not mistaken), and Balkanian. Especially, as far as the lead is concerned, I see that it was the outcome of a discussion and collaboration between Constantine and Balkanian.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Respecting Athenean's request I place some specific comments here, although I do not know if this system works!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

  • What is Euromosaic? Is it compiled and written by whom? Name of the author? I think that our basis should be printed sources of high quality. Now, if there is a dispute on how many of them collaborated, then what is the problem with "some"? Yes, it is weasel, but even in FAs weasel is used, if the sources can't help us more. Hence, if we do not know how many, "some" looks fine to me.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Euromosaic" was a collaborative research effort solicited by the European Commission and conducted by several university institutions. The institution that produced the Albanian/Greek report was apparently the Institut de Sociolingüística Catalana. There's some info here [11] (in Catalan; there's also an English version but its html encoding is botched up [12], switch manually to UTF-16 encoding to view.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have a specific link for this report even in French, Spanish or German, because COM's site is so pathetic that I'm afraid I'll be searching for hours?!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • False alarm; I found it:

La majorité d'entre eux ayant collaboré avec les forces d'occupation, le reste de la population a été conduit à exercer des représailles et les Tchams ont été expulsés par la Résistance grecque.

Let's just clarify that we should, of course, not use the Euromosaic report as a source about the history. It's supposed to be a work of sociolinguistics and deals with the present linguistic status of the minorities; whatever it says about historical background is just that and should be sourced to more specialised works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
(ed, but this was exactly what I was writing!) Definitely! Ok, this is indeed what Euromosaic says, and I now know what is Euromosaic (thanks Fut)! But have in mind that this is obviously a language-focused research, while we discuss here the accuracy of the term "some" on an historical context and question (how many of them collaborated with the Germans?). I repeat that personally I have no preference on that, and I am fine with "some", unless "many", "most" or a specific number can be sourced and verified via various non-Greek and non-Albanian sources.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


History

National Renaissance of Albania

It may be self-evident to you and me, Yanni, but given the obscurity of the subject to our general English-language audience, we can't assume that in general. --Athenean (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Modern History

First Years of Greek rule

  • Agree about that, if indeed it is based only on one source (Turkish or not). If indeed they were prevented from voting, it should be explained why (on what grounds? Weren't they Greek citizens?) and when (first time they were allowed to vote?).--Yannismarou (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Comments on Athenean's comments

1)I agree with Yanissmarou for the "some Cham collaborated issue". "Some" is the exact word to be used 2)Most of Athenean's comments contained "Miranda Vickers is dubious and that is why we should change the article"

Who is Miranda Vickers?
Vickers is an analyst of Albanians for the International Crisis Group set up after the Dayton accords.

MIRANDA VICKERS, Britain's leading historian of the Albanian people. Vickers is an analyst for South Europe in BBC and has worked(or still works i am not sure about that) for the foreign office department of the UK. So, can we call such a source dubious? Of course not.

Athenean asks for sources which identify Souliotes as Chams. In the Souliotes article there 15 sources which clearly show that they were Cham Albanians. That article is now protected because Athenean and others tried to remove its sources. But that is not the present issue.
Athenean asked for the removal of section which says about albanians communities in preveza, arta.

His justification: "Turkish sources, particularly those with any sort of government affiliation, need to be treated with extreme caution, as the Cham issue has been extensively exploited by Turkey for propaganda purposes against Greece." Well that looks(and is) a POV statement, and OR. Again lets not forget that this is a GA article which was corrected by a totally NPOV admin as I saw. And still we have no sourced or even semi-sourced or even self-evident observations that would make the article NOT neutral. I will make also one general irrelevant comment. As I saw futperf lost his admin rights. I believe that it was for being favourable to the greek editors and not being neutral in the greece-macedonia dispute arbcom, although I cannot be sure if this was the exact reason as I cant find the link. --Sarandioti (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

End

As I saw all Athenean's questions have been answered many times in Talk: Cham Albanians End of story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarandioti (talk • contribs) 12:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the above concerns and questions by Athenean are very well positioned and off course most of them are not answered. We must be very cautious about Albanian and Turkish sources, because the topic is a favorite theme on the local propaganda. Alexikoua (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Off course the information about f.p. is irrelevant here and I fully disagree with the conclusion. About Vickers' C.V., sorry this is not an argument about not being pro-Albanian. She has been accused of being pro-Albanian in a number of works, like [[13]], [[14]], [[15]]., but she is still an expert on his field (not to mention the irredentist statements she makes in Albanian newspapers).Alexikoua (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So now we are at the "this is propaganda phase"?. No comment at all by me, admin already knows what do. --Sarandioti (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A Fresh Start?

If we are all back here, lets give a try and establish a real discussion. I still depend my cooperation in the discussion to Fut's will, although I do agree with Sarandioti about Fut. “Abusing users using admins tools and with incivility, resistance to listening, declaring an intent to edit war and getting users banned”, is not a solution as it is not a solution to put everyone you disagree with, out of the discussion as was Fut's first word for good morning here. This is not a restoration of the discussion, is the substitution of the discussion. I understand Athenean is a very hot admirer of Fut's way of working having writing hymns for him, but by just now starting to understand what WP really is, and having seen what Fut. had left behind him, my hopes for common accepted solutions here goes to haz's ways of dealing, not Futs. My proposition: lets forget everything ugly and make a fresh start here and now. Regards to all, --Factuarius (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As always

As always it is becoming again: making noise, just in order to keep this article disrupted. Lets start with them one by one, althouhg I know that some users (like Athenean) will use WP:IDONTHEREIT as an argument. First of all the reason of this mess is the paragraph added by Factuarius. I am adding the email I had sent to Haz, which is my opinion on this dispute:

The cham issue is a controversial one: Greeks say that all Cham Albanians collaborated in the WWII war, Albanians say that none collaborated, while reliable historians like Mark Mazower, Georgia Kretsi and Miranda Vickers say that a minority collaborated, aproximately the same number took part in the Greek resistance; while the majority remained uninvolved in the war. The main problem is that the historiography of both countries is so problematic that every editor that comes in that page (Albanian or Greek) disputes the whole article, which is built by consensus among others with User:Deucalionite, User:Cplakidas, et al.

The current dispute (which for me is not a dispute) is that User:Factuarius wanted to add in the WWII section page references by Eleytheria Manta; which is a Greek author, and contains a certain POV. For the reason I stated above (the extremity of POVs in Albania and Greece) I had proposed an agreement (see: Talk:Cham_Albanians#Proposals) that no Greek, no Albanian author shall be used on WWII issues, with some minor exeptions. This proposal was agreed by other users, till Factuarius came, putting Manta on WWII issues (no Albanian historian is sourcing that section).

This user wanted to add a strongly POVish issue on that section. There was written (by User:Cplakidas) that Chams were used as a tool, etc, but Factuarius thought that there was a need for more space on that issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cham_Albanians&diff=296740972&oldid=296739264

The problem is that the way it was written was totally POV and unnacaptable for a GA article. So I modified to this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cham_Albanians&diff=296778130&oldid=296740972

Above all the main problem, for which I insist that the first version (written by Cplakidas) is the best is that this page is way too long, and that that paragraph is undue, towards the section of WWII issues. There is a page that is concentrated to the WWII issues:Expulsion of Cham ALbanians, where I added the word-to-word paragraph that was put by Factuarius: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians&diff=296738924&oldid=296521340, although it was totally POV. Under these circuimtances per WP:UNDUE and per WP:NPOV, I propose that in this article be added the version of Cplakidas (the first one), and the third one, be added on Expulsion of Cham Albanians, which is the article related to WWII issues (even the pre-war conditions that involved the war).Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, take note to Alexikoua that Ruches may be a historian, but on this book he treats Albanian folksongs, and thus is not capable for the history section. He could be cited on Music section. Thus these two edits are out of place and should be removed.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

After we finish with those two disputes (which are current issues), we may treat Atheneans concerns (although they are treated on >>>>>this talk page<<<<<).Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

About the book of Ruches, it fits all the rs criteria in wiki (inlines, bibliography etc). Adding a number of related historical folksongs in a book doesnt mean that the historical events didn't happen (actually a small part in the book, ca. 10%, is devoted on folksong lyrics). The specific additions i've made are off course not part of a song's lyrics, but sourced events, so I don't understand the necessity to remove them. This book deals with Greek-Albanian issues from 1700 to 1960 so it is 100% related with the Cham article. Moreover, the specific author focuses always on historical issues in his works (actually most works of Ruches mention some related folksongs on historical events, this doesn't mean that the works aren't historical).Alexikoua (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean that Ruches is not a historian, I mean that this specific books is about Albanian folksongs of that region. I do not have that book, but it is clear through the snippet view that he does not analyse the history but the songs itself. Can you provide some inlines about it, cause the inlines you have provided are not-linked with the paragraph you wrote. I have no problem with the paragraph, since those things might have happened (or at least have happened similar things, war man lol), but the actual citation seems doubtful. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The book is not concerned about musicology or related stuff. I can see a deep analysis on specific historical facts. Maybe the title of the book is a little misleading, but in the preface it states clear: "The present volume is the outcome of an intensive, self-imposed study involved in sifting the background of the long-standing Greco-Albanian border dispute."

  • About the increasing outlaw activity in 1909 and a specific incident, Ruches mentions inside the text the official correspondence between the local bishop and the Ecumenical Patriarch. (p.97 "But all this proved a mere show in the test of time. And the Albanian dispotition towards banditry was hardly softened at all by the show of Ottoman constitutionalism. Typical of conditions in Epirus in this period is this culled from letter sent on July 11 and 14 1909 to the Patriarchate of Const. by Metropolitan Neophytus of Paramythia. The Thesprotian prelate relates how on July 6, 15 Greek villagers of Plesevitsa were on their way to Phyliates when they were waylaid by bandits led by Muharem Rechet of Kotsika...-describes the incident)"
  • About the village burnings (and names) in 1912, the inline is the Italian 'Luciano Magrini, Le Isole L'Albania e L'Epiro, Maggio 1912-Giugno 1913 stampa delle corrispodenze inviate al "Secolo", Milano p. 262"Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)(p. 99 "The Labs and Cams sharpened their axes and knifes...Sacked and put to the torch before the Greek army's arrival were the villages of Choika, Glyky and Potamia...")

Daut Hoxha

Since there was a talk about him, I just want to notice something I see on P.J. Ruches. Albania's Captives, 1965: on p. 146 there is a detailed criminal record 1919-1925: (it covers ca. 1 page) He committed a number of crimes together with muslims and christians against muslims and christians. All his crimes have to do with banditry and theft, notably he murdered more muslims (his compatriots) than christians. No to mention that he was one of the responsible for the Corfu Incident, murdering the Italian diplomats in 1923. I'll give an inline:

His ingrained 'faith' permitted him to slit the throat or shoot a Christian Greek and an Moslem Albanian with equal facility... Accordingly, Daut Hoxha, made an excellent steward of an Albanian bey's chiflik at Saronia, Vourkon (Delvino). There he aquired a new reputation for brutality toward the sheperds and Greek tenant-farmers. It was therefore to nobody's surprise that his headless corpse was discovered...This then was the cause celebre Musolini choose to trumpet around the world to justify the move he was soon to make

Vickers on the other hand just says that he was leader of the organized Cham resistance (no source mentioned), suppose she is relying too much on the Italian Fascist perspective.Alexikoua (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We may discuss this later. But, please one by one, cause it will become a mess (as always). Now, if nobody has a real argument on Factuarius dispute, I will restore Cplakidas version on it in this page; and the stuff about Hoxha or not, will be discussed on Expulsion of Cham Albanians.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


"if nobody has a real argument"? As we all had readed, at least me Politis and Xenovatis have "a real argument". Speaking for myself I do insisting that it is essential to mention to the war section of the article:

  • What the Italian declaration of war said about the Chams, making the issue one of the main reasons of the Italian invasion in Greece.
  • The role of the Italian policy between the Chams and the Greek communities in Epirus before the war
  • The story of the murder of Daut Hoxha which was a catalytic event, working as a provocation for the war
  • The correct number of the Albanian volunteers that took part to the invasion
  • The participation of a large number of Chams in the volunteer units before the Italian invasion of 1940

How we can omit such significant events from the story of Chams in such a long article, and why? --Factuarius (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Factuarius it is WP:UNDUE for that page; we cannot have 2 thousand bytes for the reason of the Greek-Italian war, and then 500 bytes for all the rest. This is just a summary of Expulsion of Cham Albanians, and in here it is noted that Chams were used as a propaganda tool from Italians, what do you want more?Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No Albanian-no Greek author in WWii section

I just mentioned a contradicting statement by an Albanian author (Kretsi Georgia), who is supposed not to 'participate' in that section:

Beyond the expulsion, as a result of the atrocities that occurred more then 2,000 of them were killed and others died during their exodus to Albania. (inline is missing)

I notice also another source that has a somewhat different claim on the number:

EDES gangs massacred 200-300 of the Cham population, who during the occupation totaled about 19,000 and forced all the rest to flee to Albania.-The Origins of the Greek Civil War. David H. Close. [[16]].

Alexikoua (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I see Kresti Georgia is mentioned several times on the wwi sections, should I write, 'according to albanian authors'?Alexikoua (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Kretsi Albanian???? Bah, I dont think so...Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually she is, [Albanian].Alexikoua (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are right that she should not be in this section, but not because she is Albanian, but because she is too Greek to be Albanian lol.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, suppose it means that she's twice not acceptable on that section.Alexikoua (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have e better proposal, why don't we say according to greek authors and then cite her?:) Aigest (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No I suggest, to take into account only the 11 experts, suppose the other 10 (except Kretsi) are non-Albanians too (non of the them says Albania).Alexikoua (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually one of them says Albania (

DEMIRAJ Shaban Tirana ALBANIA) The majority of the rest it is pretty clear that are not Albanians: Altimari, Fringer, et.al. But, as it seems Kretsi is a Greek historianBalkanian`s word (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why I see that she is Albanian Albanian?
What do u suggest? Removing all Greek-Albanians or the supposed Greeks (that might be Albanian) should stay?Alexikoua (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because she is German, according to ceeol.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[17].--Yannismarou (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Principle No 1: In a contentious field, before citing somebody, learn who she/he is.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

She's not Greek againAlexikoua (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex you are making a nonsense debate here. To be an Albanologist doesn't mean you are Albanian:) This website tells nothing if she is Albanian or not (from the name it appears Greek though and in another document more clear she is identified as a greek) Now serious guys what is the problem here, this article was GA before and you both have agreed on consensus here?! What is the meaning of this dispute? Trying to destroy every article possible "including" or "excluding" nationalities? First Alex says that Kretsi must be excluded because she was supposedly Albanian and now it turns out she is greek:) and what a lucky shot it was now she must be excluded because she is Greek. What if she was born in Germany by Greek parents? Or by Arvanites or Chams (possible Greek nationality) WHAT IF SHE HAS GERMAN NATIONALITY? Will you end this nonsense dispute? Aigest (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Aigest) As regards my above comment, nationality (or ethnicity — she is German, but she may have both ethic Greek or Albanian roots) is just one issue. Specialization, experience, background, published works etc. are other interesting issues as well. The fact that she is presented as an "albanologist" indicates that she is specialized on the field. I also see in the web quite a few publications of her about Albania–Greece and minority issues. This is all the information I can accumulate from the web!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
And, of course, I agree with Aigest. The whole discussion about Kretsi's roots is nonsentic. I'm sure that if she is reading us, she is having a really great time! You have attributed to her three nationalities (or ethnicities? Or you did not bother at all about the difference between the two notions?!) already!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
At least for me, I think it is obvious that I am joking; we know, she is a hybrid lol. I do not think that this is a real dispute. The real dispute comes above, on the WP:UNDUE issue with factuarius. Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, a comment: I think it is better to exclude/include on ethnicity parameter in that section; because otherwise the section would be: No single Cham collaborated <ref>Demiraj</ref>, although all of them collaborated<ref>Manta</ref>. *just an example, they do not say what I cited them.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Does a GA article mean 'don't touch it'? Of course not. I was just wondering about her, and its reasonable, because Kretsi gives a total different number (ten times bigger) than Close. Suppose I can carefully rely on some authors that were born in a third country, no matter if there is an ancestral link with Greece or Albania.Alexikoua (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What to mention then?

Please Factuarius it is WP:UNDUE for that page; we cannot have 2 thousand bytes for the reason of the Greek-Italian war, and then 500 bytes for all the rest. This is just a summary of Expulsion of Cham Albanians, and in here it is noted that Chams were used as a propaganda tool from Italians, what do you want more?Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Balkanian`s word please understand that

  • we cannot mention the war without its reason since that has to do with the Chams issue
  • we cannot mention the war without its triggering fact of the killing of Daut Hoxha
  • we cannot mention that killing without saying who killed him as it is now
  • we cannot mention the invasion without saying that many Chams took part
  • we cannot saying that the greek authorities internment the adult male population before the war since that took part AFTER the invasion and AFTER the Greek army reoccupied Thesprotia, putting it before we pervert the image
  • we have to fix the total number of the Albanian volunteers in the Italian army which is totally imaginative
  • All that makes a paragraph of no more of a 1kb difference to an article of 156kb since about 300 bytes are the extended references. If we put them out what the reader will understand about the events during the WW2 which is the most critical period of their history?

I also cannot understand why you are still saying that “this is just a summary of Expulsion of Cham Albanians” I told you two times before that you are wrong: this is not the summary of Expulsion of Cham Albanians, this is the summary of the war and occupation situation, the summary of the expulsion is in the next chapter (please check it again) and this is natural since the expulsion took part after the war, after the Axis occupation and after the liberation. --Factuarius (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Cham Albanians? We are talking about 1940, its just an background note according the Expulsion.Alexikoua (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

About the size: I made a test to see the difference. The previous paragraph and Balkanian`s word paragraph have exactly the same sizes. Check them in the history log 151,901 bytes before 151,908 bytes after! We can make it even shorter if we want it, by putting out the Albanian units in which I can agree that it is possibly too much. Is there any other argument in not putting back the paragraph? Balkanian? --Factuarius (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe we can use a middle way, making it 151904 bytes. Some sentences 'are' needed in the article. Thanks for the test, Fact.Alexikoua (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Alexikoua, to be correct against the facts I put also a note about the male's Chams internmention so to include Balkans point over the paragraph and deleted the Albanian units as to stay short. This is the text now:

  • On June 1940 the notorious Albanian bandit, wanted for theft and murders Daut Hoxha was killed from two Albanian shepherds inside Albania after a quarrel over some sheep. The Italian controlled newspapers and the authorities in the occupied Albania and in Rome officially described him as “an Albanian from Chamuria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chamerija. From June of that same year up to the eve of the war, due to the instigation of Albanian and Italian propaganda, many Chams had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups, which were to side with the Italians. Their numbers are estimated of about 2,000 to 3,000 men. Adding to them in the following months the Italians urgently started organizing several thousand local Albanian volunteers to participate in the "liberation of Chamuria" creating an army equivalent to a full division of 9 battalions with the necessary artillery. All of them eventually took part in the invasion of Greece at October 28, 1940 (see Greco-Italian War) under the XXV Italian Army Corps which after the incorporation of the Albanian units renamed to “Chamuria Army Corps” under Gen. C. Rossi, although with poor performance. The Chamuria issue provided a major reason in the Italian declaration of war as this was printed in the ultimatum submitted by the ambassador in Athens E. Grazzi. Due to the situation created from the numerous Chams volunteered to the Italian units by secretly crossing the borders before the war, Greek authorities after the war had broken, internment the rest adult male population, relocating them in remote to the front areas. The continuous defeating the Italian Army suffered the next 6 months necessitated the German intervention on April 1941 against Greece leading the country in a triple occupation, German, Italian and Bulgarian.

I'll make another test just for seeing the size (since Balkan thinks that so important). But in any case it is better to wait Balkans (and everyone else) opinion about. --Factuarius (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

105 bytes plus. Alexikoua or everyone else here, can you give a more encyclopedic air on the text?--Factuarius (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Given his significant role played in supplying the excuse for the invasion, but also due to his involvement in reasoning the Italian occupation of Corfu 17 years before (1923), an article about Daut Hoxha or "Daut Hoxha incident" must be created asap. My wiki knowledge is not enough to start it but I am ready to participate in it. ----Factuarius (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Factuarius (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me see, hmmm. "Do you hear me, or somebody else?" I am saying about the Cplakidas version, which is just the half of yours. And this is just a suymmary of Expulsion of Cham Albanians, because Expulsion of Cham Albanians treates the whole WWII issues, since the reasoning, till the reaction. It is not important to have triple size section about the background and 1/3 for the expulsion itself. Cplakidas version is totally encyclopedic, short, and explaines it all:
The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The invasion force included several hundred native Albanian and Chams in blackshirt battalions attached to the Italian army. Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[72] The initial Greco-Italian conflict continued into 1941, when the forces of Nazi Germany invaded Greece. Despite the assistance of a British expeditionary force, the country was occupied by German, Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.
We may add on this section a sentence that "Chams were used as the main argument from Italians, to start the war" and thats all. The rest should be (as it is) in Expulsion of Cham Albanians.Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Because simply that's not all. "Cplakidas' version" says almost nothing, half of it is about Albanian volunteers poor performance. Is that a significant event? I said it also, but with three words in my version. Is that "version" the Chams history during the war? Also this is not a summary of Expulsion of Cham Albanians because the expalsion took place after the invasion, after the occupation and after the liberation, a full five years later. And the chapter is indeed the Occupied Greece chapter, not the Expalsion one as you keep saying. In the article about the history of the Albanian Chams:

  • we cannot mention the Greco-Italian war without its reason since that has to do with the Chams issue
  • we cannot mention the war without its triggering fact of the killing of Daut Hoxha and who really killed him as it is now
  • we cannot mention the Italian invasion without saying that many Chams took part
  • we cannot saying that the greek authorities internment the adult male population before the war since that took part after the invasion and after the Greek army reoccupied Thesprotia, putting it before we pervert the image
  • we have to fix the total number of the Albanian volunteers in the Italian army which is totally imaginative

You want to say less about the more critical period of the Chams history than about their cuisine. It is your choice. My opinion is that this has nothing to do with the "size" of the paragraph since this paragraph has the same size with the present (yours) paragraph in the article. Why the size was not a problem when you wrote the present paragraph but it is now with a same size paragraph saying five facts more? Just tell me that. --Factuarius (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the current paragraph is just a "consensus paragraph" until we find a solution. As for your points:
  • We may add a sentence that it had a reason for Chams
  • Daut Hoxha was killed possibly be Greek police per the most NPOV source that we have Brendt Ficher.
  • It is said on Cplakidas version
  • You are lying as the internment happened on October 1940, i.e. before the war per Mazower
  • We cannot fix the number, because Manta and Albanian Academy of Sciences are not reliable on this issue, because they represent their countrys POV.
Also, as I explained "this is just a suymmary of Expulsion of Cham Albanians, because Expulsion of Cham Albanians treates the whole WWII issues, since the reasoning, till the reaction. It is not important to have triple size section about the background and 1/3 for the expulsion itself". So please stop WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and please please collaborate. What is the problem with having this on Expulsion of Cham Albanians, where is treated the fully-detailed issue since the Greek-Italian War, until the reactions on the expulsion? Please stop this.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually balky friend I say it again: the expulsion took place in 1944-45. The Daut incident in 1940. I believe your approach for a 'long-term' expulsion it's clear povish. Off course 1940 is not an event of the expulsion, which happened 4 years later, (can only used as a background note). Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


No the current paragraph is not a "consensus paragraph" is 100% your paragraph Balk, nobody of the participants agreed with it.

  • Are you really believe that Hoxca killed from the Greek police inside Italian occupied Albania? Give me nr. of page of Brendt Ficher's book.
  • “Cplakidas version” mention “some hundreds” which is misleading since there was 2,000-3,000 thus “some thousands”
  • YOU are lying about the internment happened before October 1940 and you know it, give me Mazower's book & page
  • We can mention both Manta and Albanian Academy of Sciences figure, no problem about it. Or we can just mention their number of units, many NPOV sources mentioning them (all nine battalions by name).

Sorry to tell but I found your policy in insisting firstly for a “consensus” (16/6) then for “shortening the paragraph”(21/6) and then for POV sources (now), a pretext policy. Also your call for collaboration, since you are are not collaborating by finding every time a new reason in leaving the paragraph unchanged. As it is now, or as it was before. As for the rest I agree with Alexikoua. --Factuarius (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, balk. even Fisher isn't sure if he was a resistance leader [[18]] (Italian agend...)Alexikoua (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes make my day. According to Ficher (the NPOVist source we have), he actaully was a leader of Chams and was possibly killed by Greek police read it. On Cplakidas version its quite clear that we have to do with NPOV and POV sources. If you want to add it as you like: "Hisotria e Popullit Shqiptar" mentions in total 200-300 Albanians (including all Albanians, not only Chams). Mazower is pretty clear: in October 1940 (not prior October, but in October) thus prior the Italian intervention please read it. And my reasons are pretty clear: Per consensus (which is Cplakidas version; the current version has no consensus, it was a "consensus paragraph" "in brackets", i.e. till we find a new consensus; to shorten the paragraph (which means Cplakidas version and the new paragraph be added in Expulsion of Cham Albanians and of course for POV. As I have said 1 million times (but you do not want to hear it) read my first reasoning for my first revert and you will find that there are those three reasons. As for POV, let me cite Alexikoua, who says: "According to Owen Piercon, I strongly believe that his books are kind of 'journals' on historical base, with simple narration on the events (like short-stories book). Information is taken from various authors and which are contraditing each other, not to mention that the dates sometimes are not the right ones. In his 20th century history of Albania book, he clearly states what his relations were with specific personalities of Albania's political past, suppose this means I'm POV, do not rely to much on what I'm describing in accordance to historical research."
@Alexikoua: The expulsion may have taken place on 1944, but collaboration, resistance, and the war in general, are integral parts of this expulsion: thats why Expulsion of Cham Albanians (please read the page) treats the whole issues on there. If you both continiue with WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, I am not willing to discuss any more, cause I am not willing to repeat myself 1000 times.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

YOU ARE CLEARLY LYING AGAIN. Mazower's text you are noted said the opposite “In October 1940 (the month of the invasion-28/10/40) the Greek authorities disarmed 1,800 Chams conscripts and put them to work on local roads; the following month (November-thus AFTER the invasion) they sized all Albanian males not called up and deported them to camps or to island exile.” About Ficher: the page you footnoted is as you know totally empty "read it".. About Owen Pierson: Since you agree with Alexikoua that the quality of his work is evident by his inaccuracy of its dates I am going to ask to remove every Vickers' reference in this article since she is not even able to give a right date for the war believing that was broken a full year before (in 1939). About the discussion: No, you have to stay and discuss. You asked for it and you will discuss it, using lies in an obstructive attempt to kill the issue as you did with the Igoumenitsa discussion [19] will not help you again. The paragraph is in the occupation chapter, the expulsion chapter is next of it. Also I want to inform you that I started checking every single reference you had input in that article and you will have to give answers for any possible inaccuracy as that on the Mazower. Do you want to delete some of them by yourself in order to avoid future problems? Or all of them are perfectly accurate Balk? Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fichers states clearly that Hoxha was a leader of Chams. Pearson (per Alexikoua) is not reliable; and go and check every edit I have make, you will do the same as User:Athenean has done, without success of course. About Mazower, the internment of Chams, as it seems Cplakidas, me and Alexikoua, did not check it clearly; the conscription before the war, and the internment after the war. This is just a minor change, that may be done with only a separation of sentences. Expulsion of Cham Albanians has to do with the whole WWII in that region as it cannot be dealed without the collaboration, the resistance and the attrocities of WWII.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What do u mean Balky? deleting Piercon? I also suggested to delete anyone that is considered (partly) Greek/Albanian, to secure a more neutral approach. Suppose u dont like Piercon too. Fisher says also that he was a possible Italian agent... Whats you problem now? the 2 diferrent views are presented here.

Moreover I'm fed up with your povish nationalistic game you play here, you intentionally misuse every single source: [[20]], a typical Mazower misuse: according to you+the majority of the population was uninvolved. Man, you have great fantasy... Mazower nowhere says that.

As for your 'expulsion' arguement, u know it's clear pov approach. Collaboration -Expulsion are two different events (related but diferrent). What can I say? You insist that collaboration is a subsection in your 'overextended Expulsion theory'? (expulsion is the main point and collaboration the minor- depends on the pov side you believe) The expulsion article is written by you so dont present it as argument. You have to relax, dont need to adopt a fighting spirit. We are with you balk. Take a big breath and we'll solve everythingAlexikoua (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There are 100 Greek editors (most of them nationalists) that come across and dispute again and again and again this page; if I was missusing sources, I would have been wiki-killed, as I am only one non-Greek-POVish editor on this article (dont take it personal, I mean it in general). About that point on Mazower, is Kretsi stating that, if I have forgeten to mention her source in this section, you may ask me; but you cannot accuse me, cause I have rewritten this page, in GA standards, with the help of some Greek editors, who are not around right now. As for the expulsion argument, you know I can bring at least 1000 bytes for resistance and about 200 for collaboration, and more than 2000 of course per the expulsion; I have not done it neither here, nor in Expulsion of Cham Albanians, only because I did not want to be biased on resistence more than in collaboration. But, as it seems that "I am the nationalistic guy" in here; I am going to do it right now on Expulsion of Cham Albanians#Resistance and I will incorporate the whole section in here, in order to be for real nationalist.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What do u mean Balky? deleting Piercon? I also suggested to delete anyone that is considered (partly) Greek/Albanian, to secure a more neutral approach. Suppose u dont like Piercon too, for a reason o dont say. Fisher says also that he was a possible Italian agent... Whats the problem now? the 2 diferrent views are presented now (however the pre-war Cham resistance hadn't caused a single incident all that years, suppose it was the most peaceful resistance of all times, like M. Gandi's).

Moreover I'm fed up with your povish nationalistic game you play here, you intentionally misuse every single source: [[21]], a typical Mazower misuse I noticed yeasterday: according to you+the majority of the population was uninvolved (about the Nazi colaboration). Man, you have great fantasy... Mazower nowhere says that.

As for the 'expulsion' argument, u know it's clear pov approach. Collaboration -Expulsion are two different events (related but different, the one caused the other). What can I say? You insist that collaboration is a subsection in your 'overextended Expulsion theory'? (expulsion is the main point and collaboration the minor- depends on the pov side you believe) The expulsion article is written by you so dont present it as argument. (Typical pov approach to overfocus on one of the 2) You have to relax, dont need to adopt a fighting spirit. We are with you balk. Take a big breath and we'll solve everythingAlexikoua (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Osrry, is the above what we say: bla, bla, bal: repeating myself, cause I have nothing else to do? I did not suggest to delete Piercon, you think he is unreliable, until you found that he has the same POV with you. Till now, I have never said for the same source, once that it is non-RS and later that it is RS, unless somebody else, has given arguments for that. This is exactly what I call nationalistic aproach: saying that a source is not reliable, and later on, when you find that the POV of that source is your POV, becoming angry, and saying that it is the best source.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What you are talking now. I told you that the Albanian males internment happened after the war broken and not before as your paragraph currently in the article says, you said me that I was “lying” because “Mazower said it pretty clear: in October 1940 (not prior October, but in October) thus prior the Italian intervention” giving me a page reference. I check the page and I found that you consciously LIED: That Mazower said exactly the opposite “In October 1940 (the month of the invasion-28/10/40) the Greek authorities disarmed 1,800 Chams conscripts and put them to work on local roads; the following month they sized all Albanian males not called up and deported them to camps or to island exile” and now you calling that “a minor change”. Since you are who found and gave that reference, it is perfectly sure that you also read it, and you preferred to mislead all of us by saying that Mazower said exactly the opposite of what he said. I call that a lie, you calling it “just a minor change”. What to say? Just that if I was in your position I would be at shame. But that's my problem. --Factuarius (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this work? As it has not to do with the Expulsion, it has not to do with that section. Also, removed double statements.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Beys

Just added the dubious discuss sign on the sentence: "But the local beys, the muftis and the majority of the population did not support such actions." Vickers 2002 says: "Although many Beys and their older sons were liquidated when they went up to join the nationalist organisation Balli Kombetar in 1942-1943".

They were part of the Balli Komb. but not supported actions by the Balli Komb.? Sources are contradicting eachother.Alexikoua (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Ballists except from being nationalists, collaborated with the Occupation forces [[22]] (+there are more than 50 books saying it clear).Alexikoua (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Listen about the problem, Balli Kombetar was not "the collaborationist force", it was "a resistance forst". SOme of its members and leaders later became collaborationists, making this confusion. Being a member of Balli does not mean that you have collaborated.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
As Bernd Ficher says "Most BK members denounced collaboration and whenever a BK member collaborated, the organization would either deny that the offending party was even affilated with the BK...".Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, on Daut Hoxha, the NPOV-est source we have (Bernd Ficher) actually says that he was a leader of the Chams.p.74.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We can use a secondary set. on the beys. Hoxha a leader of the Chams? Does he write something more specific except that? (some backround or record?)Alexikoua (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So, lets remove the doubious template, ok? As for Hoxha, he states that he is a leader of the Chams, and has a reference about it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing dubious about it and no harm done with it being there. There is plenty of time for that. Politis (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how a man could be leader of a non-existent resistance (the pre-1940 Cham resistance). Suppose the ones (except Musolini and Fascist Italy) know something more than to labeling a person 'leader'.
. I've reworded the sentence about the beys, according to Mazover and added a secondary set. from Vickers.Alexikoua (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that we have to do with 2 organizations, Balli Kombetar Cam, founded by Nuri Dino (Mazars brother) and Balli Kombetar, the nationalist resistance group. So, I reworded it again. As for Hoxha, the resistance existed, but was minor, resistance does not mean only war hehe. E.g. Bletsas in Greece may be considered by various authors as Vlach resistance lol. I am kidding on this point, but the sense is the same.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Very nice we agreed on a sentence today. Suppose Balli Kombetar Cam was something different than Keshila. What was she? paramilitary?Alexikoua (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As it seems it is like EAM with the Mountins government; Balli Kombetar was a front, Keshila was an administration.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

E telika eisai poly ... Factuarius. What on hell are you talking about: OPEN YOUR EYES: p79 it is not a new source, it is the source given by Cplakidas and it is pretty clear.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Put on search: the word defected, and it is obvious.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence "The pages 56-114 are not part of this book preview" makes any sence to you? OPEN YOUR EYES and stop making references to not existence pages! --Factuarius (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and I am pretty clear: put on the search the word "defected" and the first result will be page 79, with the exact phrase.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


  • About Vickers this is an other source of her, your first was pure FAKE so an apology is nessesary about. Now "alleged by the Italian-controlled government" is not enough to put the blame to the Greeks when so many other authors are categorically about his real assassins! Vickers don't take position just says what the Italians said (for their obvious reasons!). So I believe you again lying about.
  • About Fischer "uknown assailants...possibly.." is also not enough to put the blame to the Greeks when so many other authors are categorically about his real assassins! Why to mention him when he himself is not sure.

In both cases without having their pages it is impossible to positively know what their oppinions are Take their books and tell me. --Factuarius (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Also totally FAKE was your Mazower reference about the sized of the male Chams population before the war, since he had said exactly the opposite of what you noted. And I can assure you from now on, that there are more faked references of yours inside the article. Do you want them today or tomorrow? --Factuarius (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Balkanian has a long history of falsifying sources and misquoting. It is very important that we go through all his sources and verify what they dsay, because there is a serious trust issue here. --Athenean (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes I know: I remember Mazower on Jewish of Ioannina. Do you?Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Google shows different parts of their books in different countries. For me the pages 75-80 are available. Refrain from making personal attacks against other users, please. Consult WP:AGF. Colchicum (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Three cases of falsification of sources. I did no personal attack I just told him that

  • His original source was completely faked since the page 21 was almost empty and said nothing about, which is true.
  • His second offered source was only a sentence said "It was alleged by the Italian-controlled government in Tirana that he had been murdered by Greek secret agents." which is just the sentence explained what the Italians said about, and nothing more, a very well known fact since every author is quoting what the Italian had said about the murder. So the statement "Vickers says..." is a misleading lie.
  • And that his reference of Mazower about the sizing of the male Chams population before the war was also a lie since Mazower saying exactly the opposite in his book, in the very page he noted.

To falsify three sources in a single paragraph by itself characterize the person. If you still have reservations about him I will provide ten more falsifications just to ensure you that all these are not "mistakes" but a consistent try to mislead all of us and especially the readers. Finally, personal attack is to write to someone "E telika eisai poly ..." that in Greeks means "So finally you are very..." which is at the start of that chapter signed by him. In which I was avoided to answer. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Falsification of source nr.4.

  • What the source says: 1.4.1.1.4 Αναγκαστικός Νόμος 735/1937 σχετικά με την αναγκαστική απαλλοτρίωση των υπολειπομένων αλβανικών περιουσιών, τα οποία βρίσκονται υπό το Δημόσιο ή την Εθνική Τράπεζα, ως διαχειρίστριας της ανταλλαξίμου μουσουλμανικής περιουσίας, και (β) την αποζημίωση των ιδιοκτητών μετά από γνωμοδότηση της Επιτροπής Απαλλοτριώσεως. Σύμφωνα με μία πηγή, οι καθυστερήσεις στην καταβολή των αποζημιώσεων υπήρξαν προκλητικές. So it was about the properties that the Muslims of the area (Chams) had left behind when they resettled to Turkey during the population exchanges of '20. Compensations provided although according to one source were delayed.
  • What was transfering and referenced: "On the core issue of properties, the government led by Metaxas, not only did not compensate the local population for prior confiscations, but adopted a new law, which reduced the properties of Muslim Chams. The final law that nationalized the entire property of Chams and other Albanian nationals in Greece was passed in 1937. This law confiscated all properties of Albanians in Greece, except the primary homes and the small farms inside the villages, while the compensations provided for were delayed, something which was seen as a provocation, by Chams."

Some imagination indeed, I like the details "except the primary homes and the small farms inside the villages". "Farms inside the villages"???? An answer Balk? Or its better to wait because I have more "minor deferencies" between the article and its sources to ask you about. --Factuarius (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Falsification of source nr.5.

  • The sentence in the article: The Greek government saw this as the perfect opportunity to get rid of Muslim Albanians, as Orthodox Chams could be easily assimilated. The reference: Petzopoulos The Balkan Exchange of Minorities and Its Impact on Greece. p.128)
  • What the page says: Nothing about. Has two tables of the Ethnological Composition of the Greece and makes some general annotations about! An answer Balk? --Factuarius (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Falsification of source nr.6.

  • The sentence in the article: Prior to 1925, historian Miranda Vickers estimates that another 5,000 Chams had been forced to leave their homeland. reference Vickers, Miranda: The Cham Issue - Where to Now?
  • What the source says: "The Turkish goverment agreed to allow the settlement of some 5,000 Chams" and she explain below how the League of Nations intervened and stoped the procedure (p.5&6). Pallis says that only 1,700 resetled to Turkey, the League of Nations 2,993. So firstly Vickers mention only the Greek-Turkish agreement, doesn't makes ANY at all "estimations". And secondly her figure are not for "ANOTHER 5,000" but for the same 1,700 or 2,993 people!

Nice way to mention a source. An answer Balk?


There are too many more. I am going to report the situation. This article had been the target of a consistent falsification and misquoting.--Factuarius (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It starts again, noise noise noise noise, in order to maintain the status quo. What on hell do you wnat: there is an inline on both Fischer and Vickers. The statement of VIckers "Near the village of Vrina in southern Albania, in June 1940, the headless body of the Cham leader Daut Hoxha was discovered. It was alleged by the Italian-controlled government in Tirana that he had been murdered by Greek secret agents. Hoxha was a military leader of the Cham struggle during the inter-war years. The Greek government claimed he was merely a bandit." And Fischer says exactly the same. And do not move your point to other sources, what is the problem with the current paragraph. Do not remove it, but discuss it. Vickers is quoted to say that Hoxha was a leader of Chms and that Greece called him a bandit. What is the missourcing on that?Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One by one: what are your problems with this version? And then I will answer to your problems one by one: do not remove sources, put them a doubious template and discuss them.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All the inlines are faked see by yourself And I have more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Factuarius (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC) The problem with the version are the falsification of the sources. You put everything back as to read nothing and you asking what are my problems? My problems are the 6 faking references as I analyticaly had explained.--Factuarius (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

On that version, which f... sources are falsificated? I gave you Vickers inline and Fischer inline, which you disputed. What is falsificated?~

Balkanian`s word (talk)

I am not going to write again all these. Read them all six. --Factuarius (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

On this fucking paragraph what on hell do you dispute.Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Which one?--Factuarius (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop mention again and again Vickers about. Vickers mention just what Italians said about. Which is already in the paragraph, no need to say it again. We know it: The Italians said that Greeks killed him.--Factuarius (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Telika eisai poly ... This is the version you reverted on that paragraph:
At the same time, a negative influence about the position of Cham Albanians came from their motherland. Following the Italian invasion of Albania, the Albanian Kingdom had become a protectorate of the Kingdom of Italy. The Italians, especially governor Francesco Jacomoni, used the Cham issue as a means to rally Albanian support. Although in the event, Albanian enthusiasm for the "liberation of Chameria" was muted, Jacomoni sent repeated over-optimistic reports to Rome on Albanian support. On June 1940 Daut Hoxha a Cham Albanian was found headless in the village of Vrina in Southern Albania. According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Ficher, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years, leading to him branded as a bandit by Greece.[13][75] According to another British historian, Owen Pearson, Hoxha was a notorious bandit killed in fight by two sheperds.[76] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse from fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] As the possibility of an Italian attack on Greece drew nearer, Jacomoni began arming Albanian irregular bands to use against Greece.[78] At the same time, on the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and put them to work on local roads.[19] The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The invasion force included native Albanians, estimated 2,000-3,500 (including some Chams),[79] in blackshirt battalions attached to the Italian army, united later under “Chameria Army Corps”.[citation needed] Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[78]
In November, as the Greek counter-offensive managed to regain Thesprotia, the Greek authorities seized all Albanian males not called up and deported them to concentration camps or to island exile.[19][80] Until the invasion of Greece by the German army, the Muslim Cham population of the region of Chameria was composed of women, child and the elderly. The Muslim Chams would be restored to their land only after fascist Italy got control of the region. In 1941, Greece was occupied by German, Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.
Where on hell is written that Hoxha was killed from Greece? And why did you remove this? What is the problem with this version?Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually it should be added that per Fischer he was possibly killed by Greek police.Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you reading anything I posting you? I told you why, why you ask me again, read again --Factuarius (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttttttttttttt???????????????????? Which fucking inline is faked on this fucking paragraph???????????????????Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. Firstly you are not rv only this paragraph, you rv everything I had made as you know. And I made it because I find out that all of these sentences had faked references. Thats why I answered you that you had them fake them all. Secondly you always do the same first you rv and then ask to discuss. Wrong, those who want to rv first says why and then rv Third the paragraph you asked about is αρτζι πουρτζι και λουλάς. Πράγματα ατάκτος εριμένα. In your effort to say first what you like leaving for the end what you don't like you are going timely back and forward and again. I also told that Fischer himself is not sure about who killed them read what I told you about some hours before.--Factuarius (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Secondly you always do the same first you rv and then ask to discuss. Wrong, those who want to rv first says why and then rv" Who started this? It was you that made that paragraph look like that, without discussing.

"Third the paragraph you asked about is αρτζι πουρτζι και λουλάς. Πράγματα ατάκτος εριμένα. In your effort to say first what you like leaving for the end what you don't like you are going timely back and forward and again."

What is going back and forth in that paragraph? My question is clear, why did you remove e.g. this sentence "According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Ficher, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years, leading to him branded as a bandit by Greece.[13][75]". Why did you remove everything that you did not like? And for the record, when you dispute a sentence or a reference you may put a {{doubious}} template in there, and discuss it; not reverting it as you always does. My question is f......... clear; what is the problem with this paragraph? The sentence, the word, the comma you do not like? What is it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I WILL PUT THE SENTENCE BACK!!--Factuarius (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also what problem has the vickers sentence "Rome's propaganda machine hurled fabricated accusations at Athens conserning the “oppression” of Albanian nationals in the Greek Epirus" Vickers is your favorite authors you put 1,000,000 references from her books. End this sentence is very iluminating for the situation.--Factuarius (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Also most of your paragraph is not deleted as you say is right back in the prewar section with Metaxas Regime. Check it and stop making noises like "Whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttttttttttttt????????????????????"

  • At the same time, a negative influence about the position of Cham Albanians came from their motherland. Following the Italian invasion of Albania, the Albanian Kingdom had become a protectorate of the Kingdom of Italy. The Italians, especially governor Francesco Jacomoni, used the Cham issue as a means to rally Albanian support. Although in the event, Albanian enthusiasm for the "liberation of Chameria" was muted, Jacomoni sent repeated over-optimistic reports to Rome on Albanian support. As the possibility of an Italian attack on Greece drew nearer, he began arming Albanian irregular bands to use against Greece.[75] --Factuarius (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Chams in Italian army

For Factuarius edits

  • Point 1 Since Chams were in Greece that time, what the hell were Albanian and Chams battalions?! First it is wrong historically and second it makes no sense it's like saying that Greeks and Peloponnesian-Greeks battalions.
  • Point 2 Related to point to According to Greek census there were 21-22000 Chams in 1940. That makes roughly 11,000 Cham males and you mean that 30% of total Chams male population were enlisted in Italian army (2000-3500)?! In the same time Population of Greece in 1940 census: 7,344,860 (possibly 3,700,000 man) while whole Greek army after the general mobilization in Battle of Greece was 430,000 that means 11.5% of total Greek male population. Where the hell did this Ruches got the numbers?! They seem very unrealistic prima facie Aigest (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Point 3 This sentence has no clear meaning "The Italians urgently started organizing several thousands local Albanians volunteers to participate on the "liberation of Chamuria" creating an army equivalent to a full division of 9 battalions." Were they all Albanians, partly, no Albanians at all?!(while the first version was very clear on the topic). Apart the well known Albanian battalion in Italian army such as "Tomorri" could you give the names of your pretending battalions. They should have been mention in the battle order don't you think? Aigest (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


For Aigest

  • The Chams where in Greece but during 1940 a number between 2,000 to 3.500 (depended to the source) went in the Italian occupied Albania as volunteers in Italian backed corps (see references in the article)
  • The rate between population and conscription of the era was approx. 8:1 Both France, Germany and USSR achived that particular rate. So 21,000 population can indeed give 2,600 men although Balk don't want to discuss such a figure since he is sure for a population of 35,000 (that gives 4,375 men approx), or others for even more (50,000) which I believe is an totally unrealistic figure.
  • Yes off course: 4 Blackshirts battalions (Tirana, Korçë, Vlorë, Shkodër), 2 infantry battalions (Gramos and Dajti), 2 volunteer battalions (Tomori and Barabosi), one battery corps (Drin)

Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


For Factuarius

  • Do you know the difference between full conscription and defecting?! In the same Greece there was 1: 17 ratio (leave alone the argument of Germany and URSS while there was a 5 year bloody conflict), and also in the same topic there are other 1800 cham conscriptors of Greek army(maintaining the roads). Let's see it makes 1800+3500=5300 out of 22000 equals 1:4 even to 35000 (BW numbers) it is 1:6.6 ratio(?!) and all of that for 6 month conflict?! Well math is not an opinion and surely Ruches is way wrong.
  • As for the total numbers on the Albanians who participated in the invasion of Greece could you be more precise which is the definite number? Regards Aigest (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
"The Chams where in Greece but during 1940 a number between 2,000 to 3.500 (depended to the source) went in the Italian occupied Albania as volunteers in Italian backed corps (see references in the article)" You are misciting; the source says 2,000 to 3,500 Albanians, not Chams, so stop assumptioning. I am asking you: Why did you remove the sentence about Fischer and Vickers on Hoxha. Is quite simple. WHY?Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not the sentence; the whole paragraph should be back; cause it is totally NPOV, per all sources, not taking the sources you like and living the one you do not like.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For Aiges:

  • No I don't know the difference is there also a defecting rate? About Greece: At the start of the First Balkan War had a 2,666.000 population so could had 333,000 men, but had only 82,000 armed men. During the 2nd BW had almost twice the population but had only 118,000 men (148,000 at the end of the war). How many men a country will have, has to do mainly with the money the country has in its pocket. That was not a problem to the Chams since they don't paid for their arms etc. They were paid. In any case I do believe that their numbers where closer to the 2,000 than to the 3,500. But this is my personal opinion.
  • I only know the number of men of one battalion which was 1,000. I have to see which was.
  • For Balk. No you are misciting as many times before: says for the volunteers FROM CHAMERIA
  • You asked for the sentence and you mentioned the sentence READ WHAT YOU WRITE! I agreed and I put it back. Now you are asking to remove all the paragraph to put yours. Is there any possibility to reach at any consensus with you? You are still believing that your paragraph is deleted. See the previous paragraph, most of it is there! --Factuarius (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)' --Factuarius (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For Factuarius

  • I wasn't talking about the rates I was talking about the process, if you can not understand the difference let me explain this case in detail. Greek government had the full control of the territory before the war and it recruited 1800 chams (later put them to maintain roads) which it means that they were the male class able for the service army. If you see this rate 1800:22000 it is 1:12.2 while for 1800:35000 (bw numbers)it goes 1: 19.4 (much closer to the Greek conscription rate 1:17) so it leaves no male Chams able for war defecting in the first place.
  • I don't know where you get the numbers from, if you see the article here Battle of Greece there are clearly 430,000 Greek forces while you say 118,000?! Do you mean the article of Battle of Greece had wrong numbers, or you are making your OR here
  • I was asking for the names of Italian battalions with Albanian (conscripts or volunteers whatever) which participated in the invasion of Greece and the definite number of Albanians who participated Could you provide that? Aigest (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


  • Αiges cannot understand. There are two kind of conscription the normal peace-time conscription and the war conscription (mobilization). Greece now has a 110,000 peace time army (or had-they changing constantly the months) but can mobilize 1,4 millions. I don't know how many ages the Greek authorities had called in 1940 for the active army, but where a number of ages not all the ages. Anyway the real able-man-rate is about 8:1 if you have enough money to buy as many weapons you need. That makes a number of Chames men between 2.750 and 4,375 (for 22-35,000 population) If devote the 1,800 conscripted to the Greek army we have a number between 1,000 and 2575 rest. Not realy illogical figures.
  • My mistake 2nd BW is not the 2nd WW is for 2nd Balkan War, so the numbers (118-148,000) are for 1913's war with Bulgaria not 1940 with Italy
  • Tirana, Korçë, Vlorë, Shkodër (Blackshirts) Gramos and Dajti (line infantry) Tomori and Barabosi (volunteer) Drin (battery corps) --Factuarius (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Ruche is quite clear: ...3,500 Albanian volunteer irregulars... he mentions no Chams in there. So stop it. The version I put in was completely NPOV.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't now what Ruche says. Ask Alexikoua. I do know what Manta says in page 21, because I took the book (so..I have all the pages). BTW if you read it you will find it very useful for your positions and not at all "POV" but you are totaly uncompromised towards NPOV sources sometimes even with Albanian-POV books in some details you don't like. But that's your problem. --Factuarius (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Even the italian version of Wiki says 3,500 Albanian troops here [23]
  • Factuarius your reasoning does not stand. If you know the process of conscription and simple demographics you have at 1800:22000 make a 1:12.2 it means (all male chams from 18-45) or from 1800:35000 (BW figures) makes 1: 19.4 (all male chams from 18-30 but still closer the the ratio of Greek forces 1:17 during all conflict which mean full conscription ). So it looks like a full conscription anyway. If you accept BW figures than you have some space for male Chams over 30' while if you keep that 22000 than you have very little space for male chams over 45' (sure they were to be integrated in Italian army old men at 50' and 60?!:)). I am insisting that Ruches figures are quite wrong (unless miscited). Aigest (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


  • What another wiki article says as you know, I know, Balk knows and some thousands other fellow editors (but not the readers) knows, unfortunately has a very limited value depended to the quality of the guys and the sources used there. Also I found no referencies about the figure there. Or it's a fault of mine to do with my limited Italians.
  • Aigest I told you by many historical examples. I told you by numbers but you cannot understand. Greece had never the means to achive full mobilizations. Ever. So the Greek rates upon you calculate are limited to the arms the Greece had at any historical times. This was not the case with the Chams. Italians before during and after the war where ready to arm any number of them for their (political) reasons. If Greece could have unlimited help in arming its combat able manpower will fielded almost a million troops but it hadn't such a help. You keep calculate Chams possible strength according the Greek actually rates (1:12 or 1:20 or 1:17) these figures has to do with the actual number of arms the Greece had in given dates of wars not fix rates according to the available manpower, having more arms these rates you mention would be totally different. But for the reasons I explained that was not the case with the Chams. --Factuarius (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Manta is out of question: there is a consensus about WWII sources. Ruches is pretty clear, so stop being so povish.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Even the italian version of Wiki says 3,500 Albanian troops here [24] " Yeas thats it: Albanians, NOT CHAMS.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop treating me as an idiot. What I am mentioning about Manta (for the time being) is only about the prewar period, not during the war or after. About Ruches I told you to discuss it with Alexiqoua, it is his reference, I am refering to MANTA whatever you keep saying and I insist. --Factuarius (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What you seem to not understand Factuarius is the simple demographic process of conscription. I wasn't referring to the availability of arms, but to that of the persons . Doing simple math the numbers are there: 1800(greek conscription)+3500(volunteers)=5300 total cham soldiers

  • bw numbers of 35,000 total chams-> 1:6.6 ratio or all cham males 18-45
  • Greek census of 22,000 total chams -> 1:4.1 ratio or all cham males over 18
  • once more is simple demographics and maths, not a question of capabilities or furnishing, that's why I think Ruches is surely wrong or miscited. Aigest (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree to you that is simple demographics and told you the rates of the era. I understand that you don't believe me. Check me by seeing every compatant of that era, you will find the rate I told you. (I believe Germany came at almost 7:1 in 1944).--Factuarius (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep germany could have arrived at 1:7 in 1944 (including Volkssturm invalids) but chams seems to have come to 1:4 at greek census scenario while 1:6.6 to BW scenario?! I really doubt that Aigest (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's simple, by the Greek census the Chams volunteers where 1,000, to BW scenario 2,600. I agree with you that that was the possible range for the Chams volunteers.--Factuarius (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Which my sennario, are you ...? Who says that Chams volunteers were 1,000, and who says that they were 2,600? Inlines please.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the discussion about from the start.--Factuarius (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

NO Factuarius don't try to avoid the simple fact, by making assumptions In the paragraph there are 1800 Cham conscripts in Greek army + 3500 volunteers = 5300 cham fighters WITH REFERENCES ADDED and THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE (see comment on German example above)!!!! surely THE REFERENCES ARE WRONG OR MISCITED Aigest (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 3,500 is a big number. I told you from the start that I believe the real number must be closer to the 2,000 than to the 3,500. But this is our oppinions according our calculations. --Factuarius (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I never reference a single wrong or miscited source. Take that for sure. Inlike others I never lied --Factuarius (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe you have seen that in the paragraph there are indeed 1,800 Cham conscripts in Greek army but not 3500 volunteers. Are 2,000 to 3,500 = 3,800 to 5300 cham fighters.--Factuarius (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What's interesting to me is that the article overall equates all and any Albanians in Epirus as Chams, except when it comes to collaboration with the Axis. For example, Vickers gives a figure of 40,000 Albanian speakers in Epirus. She then says that some of those are recent immigrants (and therefore not Chams), and makes no comment as to whether the remiaing native speakers identify as Greeks, Arvanites, or Chams. Yet in the infobox, guess what? All 40,000 are counted as Chams. However when it comes to the collaborators, then all of a sudden we hear the Albanian editors shouting "Not all Albanians are Chams". This is totally self-serving and hypocritical. --Athenean (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You gotta be at least out of place. All Albanians of Thesprotia are Chams; we are talking not about them, but about Albanians that served in the Italian Army; which could have been from Mitrovica, Shkodra, Tirana, or even from Southern Italy.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

References are totally wrong Ruches says 3500 exactly so there are no 2000 (where did you get it?). So (leaving asside the fact disputed by BW they were chams or not) in the article of Ruches that you use as a reference to this than you have exact number 3500 (chams?!) which should be added further 1800. I seems that chams were better organized for war than the whole the state apparatus of Nazi Germany?! Lol aparently Ruches is miscited or unbelievable as source. Secondly I saw the book and confirmed that Fisher refers to Daut Hoxha as a leader of Chams. While we have this dispute between Pearson, Ruches-Vickers, Fisher I found the variant of BW is more NPOV than one sided variant existing now. I am going to bring the NPOV version again. You guys have to talk first before making POV edits and remember this article was built on consensus and was GA, before these nonsense POV disputes. Regards to all Aigest (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus issue

Factuarius please read what I say: Ruches says that there are in total 3500 Albanian volunteers, not 3500 Cham volunteers. On the other hand Manta should not be in that section, per our consensus. Am I clear?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are unable to communicate I have been answer that two hours before. You are reading nothing and every hour you are coming here to say what already had been told again and again and again and again and again. I told you that for the time being I am using her only for the prewar period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aν είναι δυνατόν ποιά! --Factuarius (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

She is being used on a section called World War II.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So?--Factuarius (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The current consensus is not to use Albanian and Greek sources on a period from 1935 to 1950.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I will use her even in the occupation section if I have to mention something that happen in the prewar period as it is the prewar making of the Albanian units. Cannot understand it?--Factuarius (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also I have to remind you that nobody accepted that "consensus" other that the partly agreed Alexikoua. Nobody else! --Factuarius (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This consensus is agreed by all editors of this page, except of you (Alexikoua, Cplakidas, Deucalionite, even Athenean). There is a clear reasoning about that; if we mantain Albanian and Greek authors than e.g. that sentence would be "Albanians consisted 200<ref>albanian source</ref> but they consisted 3,500<ref>Ruches</ref>. While in this case Ruches may be put on, as long as he is not disputed by non-Albanian, non-Greek RS. This consensus is made only to mantain this article in good standards, because otherwise, it would become too fullish as an article, because of the extremely different Point of Views of Albanian and Greek authors. And the reasoning that it is from 1935 to 1950, is because Greek authors blame Chams for WWII, Albanian authors blame Greeks for Chams in WWII. It would become a laughable page in that occasion.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ιs this article in good standards? Give me a break. You again have read nothing from the morning. What about the references? Is this what you mean “good standard”? We have months ahead us to start speaking for “good standards” and hard work. Give me Cplakidas, Deucalionite and Athenean's acceptance. --Factuarius (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I will answer to all your concerns about the references, but as I have said lets finish with the current issue firsty. Cplakidas, Deuces and Atheneans acceptance is in remoing all Greek and Albanian sources from that section and not allwoing others to put such sources on that section, please see the history of this page. Please, I will ask you once more time, read it above and tell me which is your problem with my wording for Greek-Italian War subssection? Which sentence, word, comma, is not welcomed by you? Please tell me.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I already told. Half of it is already in the previous chapter all the other is in the current version plus the section you insisted to incorporate about Hoxha being leader etc. After we input the sentence you asked the next minute you started to ask for a full deletion of the paragraph in order to put your full paragraph instead. It is imposible to achive a consensus with you. You are always asking for consensus but what you realy mean is let me put my sentence I am accepting nothing more. Give me Cplakidas Deucalionite and Atheneans acceptance. --Factuarius (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, we need a consensus based on NPOV, not on your POV. You say "On June 1940 Daut Hoxha was killed in a fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep.", although Fischer, states that he is possibly killed by Greek police. You day that "He was in fact a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before.", although Vickers and Fischer, state that he was a leader of Chams. You say that "Many Chams, estimated 2,000-3,500, had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups.", and cite it with Ruches, although Ruches states that there were 3,500 Albanians not Chams. These are clear POV issues, selecting the sources you like and living the rest that you do not like. POV consensus is not a consensus. I have tried to put the NPOVist version, putting on both side on the above version, but you refuse to cooperate.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We have discuss all these from the morning again and again.

  • Fischer are not sure, with "possibly..etc" you cannot write history book even for children. POV is to trying to use "possiblys" to avoid certaincies because is fitting to your story.
  • Vickers has no oppinion, by using her phrase about what Italians said about the murder and christening it "her oppinion" is fakery
  • About the number of the Chams I told you to discuss it with Alexikoua since it's a reference of him, but you did nothing just continue to discuss with me the same and the same from the morning. If Alexikoua is not sure I will put Manta's reference which say between 2,000 to 3,000.
  • All the other you say (POV, NPOV, consensus, cooperate, etc.) as you know and I know are just rocks to throw one to the other head
  • I am going to continue the work with the referencies and I will delete every sentence is based in faked references.

--Factuarius (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

E re trelokomio pou giname. Wiki works on sources; if a source says that they are "possibly killed by Greek police"; we should writte there that "possibly killed by Greek police", nothing more nothing less. Are you familiar with wiki policies?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Between a "possible" source and a certain source we prefer the certain not the possible. Are you familiar with logic? --Factuarius (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not, because we are speaking about history not maths. THere is no possible and certain source. There are sources that present a POV certainly and possibly. WIki cites sources man, not selecting them.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK Ι respect your oppinion but I believe the logic is a universal tool making the human reason-able and more human. Although I understand that my oppinion is not the only one, but I prefer that from the others. --Factuarius (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That is called POV. Read WP:Sources. There is nothing about opinion, it is about how wiki works.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruches as a reference

  • That figure of 5300 cham fighters (if Ruches says 3500 chams volunteers) is a BS story.
  • In the issue of Italian general Tellini once again Ruches cited here Corfu incident is again wrong (putting blame on Albanians) because if you see the sources on Tellini matter you see that:

1. None is expressed for sure most of them say none knows they were never found here an eg [25]

2. Pearson here [26] is favoring Albanians, by saying A) Greeks didn't want a cooperation on inquiry of the murder offered by Albanians. b) Delimitation Commission was deliberately favoring Albanians as accused by Greek newspapers (so no need for Albanians to kill him sic.) c) Albanian government ordered the publication of a Red Book containing two documents which proved that the assassination had been organized and perpetrated by the Greeks.

3. The International commission who made the inquiry on Tellini's murder clearly implies Greece's guilt here[27]

4. Greece accepted to pay reparation (legally accepting the guilt)

I don't want to make any further comment on Tellini murder since sources speak for themselves. What I wanted to point out is that:

I see that Ruches, in the wiki article of Corfu incident and in Chams article of Greek-Italian war if not miscited again is biased as Anti-Albanian author (at least in these two cases, I had to check his other citations while I strongly doubt in his book he is a NPOV author au contrair) two cases because his cited position is - (Tellini murder-albanians did it(?! see above?!), Chams male population-were more organized than nazi germany?!) that's why I don't see him as a reliable source. Hope you understand my point regards Aigest (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments about he Telini murder are good but what this article has to do is about the murder of Hoxha not Telini 17 years later. About Telini I will provide some British oficial inteligence documents enlighting the issue if you are interested about, but not here (maybe in my page or yours). Let me know. Your major edit makes me to wander how you change so many paragraphs by just saying that "Ruches references you use are waaaaaaaaay wrong". Ruches is in just a senetence of the 10 you changed. All the others have nothing to with him. I have inform the discussion here and you personaly in your page about the faked sources and although you never answer it you put all of them back by just mentioning Ruches who has nothing to do with them. I will put the text back to where was before your extented edit and ater that I will replace Ruches reference since you insisting on that. --Factuarius (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop it men, do not remove Fischer source and stop poving it. It is quite NPOV as it is.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you Factuarius didn't get my point.

  • I wasn't discussing Tellini murder but the validity of Ruches as NPOV, non-biased historian. I became curious about his numbers (5300) i and the case of Daut Hoxha in that Greek-Italian war section. This brought the investigation on Daut Hoxha while appearing at Pearson book pointed to Corfu incident and I saw there again Ruches as a reference. As I explained above in these two cases (unless he is miscited) he is a very POV author (even going to pure fantasies just like that 5300 number, man that was hilarious).
  • After that we have also Vickers and Fisher telling for Daut Hoxha as being a leader of Cham vs. the position of Pearson and Ruches who says he was a thief. I don't want to discuss in detail the position of Daut Hoxha here but the fact that according to scholars like Vickers and Fisher he was a leader and even by the fact that according to Pearson and Ruches he was accused by Greek authorities as the being one of the assassins' commando together with two other Albanian police officers who killed general Tellini make me wonder a bit that the things are not so clear cut in Dauti's case.

For the above reasons I reverted the section to that of what I saw as NPOV version (and for sure is not aesthetic to began the section with the dubious fact (see above) that some sheeps were stolen) Aigest (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


I see again Ruches used as a reference in Northern Epirus Liberation Front article. Again (if not miscited) he is wrong. The Borova massacre happened in 6th July 1943 after Albanian partisans attacked a German column see Owen Pearson p. 258 here the link [28] or Bernd Fischer p. 190 here the link [29] (or see here [30]) while he put it in October 1943?!?!?!

Again he is wrong for the winter offensive which was against Albanian partisans see here Fischer p 195 [31] and Pearson p 319 [32] and none mentions MAVI battles or even skirmishes in both those books, while the article with Ruches as a reference mentions many battles. Please take a look at Pearson and Fischer books to see for yourselves this huge discrepancy.

How about deleting every non pro-Albanian author in wiki? Man, plz be serious, your arguments are not good anyway:

  • Ruches (p. 163) doesn't say that Borova massacre took part in October. He says only that it happened just when the Italians withdraw (sometime in 1943).
  • Pearson also mentions Ruches (he copy-pastes many parts of Ruches) about the Northern Epirote resistance, suppose he finds him reliable.
  • About the offensive, Fisher isn;t contradicting anyone, reprisals misions had more than one objective anyway (not only to extinguish Hojxa's FNC but to deal with Epirote resistance, which had 'allied' with FNC as per Ruches and Pearson).
  • I feel that Vickers is pro-Albanian too [[33]], [[34]], [[35]] (and contradictory in several cases-like Thesprotians? an Illyrian tribe? this is clear lie), I didn't say that we have to remove her she is a distinguished political analyst anyway.
  • Subjectivity is something that a wiki author needs, for sure it's hard to obtain.

I try on that too, didn't say that I'm perfect on judging what;s good or not. Everyone that needs info about Ruches, Meyer just askAlexikoua (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

3 month topic ban to Factuarius

In line with the discretionary sanctions at WP:ARBMAC, User:Factuarius has received a three month topic ban from this and related articles. Page protection will now be lowered to semi protection, but all editors are reminded to edit within the parameters of decorum as described in WP:ARBMAC. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources for the paragraph Greek-Italian War

Daut Hoxha

The disputed sentence is:

  • "On June 1940 Daut Hoxha a Cham Albanian was found headless in the village of Vrina in Southern Albania. According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Ficher, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years, possibly killed by Greek police, leading to him branded as a bandit by Greece.[13][75] According to another British historian, Owen Pearson, Hoxha was a notorious bandit killed in fight by two sheperds.[76] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse from fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] As the possibility of an Italian attack on Greece drew nearer, Jacomoni began arming Albanian irregular bands to use against Greece.[75]"

Factuarius version is:

  • "On June 1940 Daut Hoxha was killed in fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep. He was in fact a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before[76]. Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] Rome's propaganda machine hurled fabricated accusations at Athens conserning the “oppression” of Albanian nationals in the Greek Epirus ([4]p.143). According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Fischer, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years."

The sources used are:

  • Miranda Vickers says: "Near the village of Vrina in southern Albania, in June 1940, the headless body of the Cham leader Daut Hoxha was discovered. It was alleged by the Italian-controlled government in Tirana that he had been murdered by Greek secret agents. Hoxha was a military leader of the Cham struggle during the inter-war years. The Greek government claimed he was merely a bandit."
  • Berndt Fischer says: "Ciano decided to focus on an incident in June when unknown assailants, possibly Greek police, killed and beheaded Daout Hoxha, a leader of the Albanians in Northern Greece".
  • Owen Piercon says: "He [Daut Hoxha] was in fact a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before, but was killed in fight with two sheperds after a quarrel over some sheep"

Numbers

Another dispute, is about the size of the Chams that took place in the war:

My version is:

  • On the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and put them to work on local roads.[19] The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The invasion force included native Albanians, estimated 2,000-3,500 (including some Chams),[78] in blackshirt battalions attached to the Italian army, united later under “Chameria Army Corps”.[citation needed]

Factuarius version is:

  • The Italians urgently started organizing several thousands local Albanians volunteers to participate on the "liberation of Chamuria" creating an army equivalent to a full division of 9 battalions.[78]Many Chams, estimated 2,000-3,000, had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups.[79] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse from fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The Albanian and Chams battalions took part to the invasion attached to the Italian army, united under the “Chameria Army Corps”.[80]

Sources used are: Ruches says "Albanian volunteers", not Cham Albanian volunteers, (Chams are a subbranch of Albanians, living at that time in Greece, but at that time, Albania was occupied by Italy, so the Italian Army could have easily volunteers from Albania).

Eleytheria Manta: no inline.

My objection: Manda, Eleytheria is a Greek author. In this page, we have reached a consensus firstly proposed by me, not to use Albanian and Greek authors on the period between 1935-1950. The reasoning of this consensus has been that the cham issue is a controversial one: Greeks say that all Cham Albanians collaborated in the WWII war, Albanians say that none collaborated, while reliable historians like Mark Mazower, Georgia Kretsi and Miranda Vickers say that a minority collaborated, aproximately the same number took part in the Greek resistance; while the majority remained uninvolved in the war. The main problem is that the historiography of both countries is so problematic that every editor that comes in that page (Albanian or Greek) disputes the whole article, which is built by consensus among others with User:Deucalionite, User:Cplakidas, et al.

The current dispute (which for me is not a dispute) is that User:Factuarius wanted to add in the WWII section page references by Eleytheria Manta; which is a Greek author, and contains a certain POV. For the reason I stated above (the extremity of POVs in Albania and Greece) I had proposed an agreement (see: Talk:Cham_Albanians#Proposals) that no Greek, no Albanian author shall be used on WWII issues, with some minor exeptions. This proposal was agreed by other users, till Factuarius came, putting Manta on WWII issues (no Albanian historian is sourcing that section).

Preformance

My version is:

Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[75]

Factuarius has removed this sentence.

Sources used:

Fischer says [36] that Albanians "desearted or defected" and the rest may be seen in p. 79-80 of that book. (I have not enaugh time to writte all those pages in here).

Concentracion camps

My version is:

  • In November, as the Greek counter-offensive managed to regain Thesprotia, the Greek authorities seized all Albanian males not called up and deported them to concentration camps or to island exile.[19][79] Until the invasion of Greece by the German army, the Muslim Cham population of the region of Chameria was composed of women, child and the elderly. The Muslim Chams would be restored to their land only after fascist Italy got control of the region. In 1941, Greece was occupied by German, Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.

Factuarius version is:

  • On the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and replaced their active service by labour service on the local roads. On the following month, they seized all Albanian males who had not been mobilized and sent them to camps and islands.[19][81] The initial Greco-Italian conflict continued into 1941, when the forces of Nazi Germany invaded Greece. The country was occupied by German Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.

Sources used:

I have put him as inline, Factuarius has written "sent them to camps and islands", propably forget to add "for holidays".:)

Overall

My version is:

On June 1940 Daut Hoxha a Cham Albanian was found headless in the village of Vrina in Southern Albania. According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Ficher, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years, leading to him branded as a bandit by Greece.[13][75] According to another British historian, Owen Pearson, Hoxha was a notorious bandit killed in fight by two sheperds.[76] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse from fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] As the possibility of an Italian attack on Greece drew nearer, Jacomoni began arming Albanian irregular bands to use against Greece.[78] At the same time, on the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and put them to work on local roads.[19] The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The invasion force included native Albanians, estimated 2,000-3,500 (including some Chams),[79] in blackshirt battalions attached to the Italian army, united later under “Chameria Army Corps”.[citation needed] Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[78]

In November, as the Greek counter-offensive managed to regain Thesprotia, the Greek authorities seized all Albanian males not called up and deported them to concentration camps or to island exile.[19][80] Until the invasion of Greece by the German army, the Muslim Cham population of the region of Chameria was composed of women, child and the elderly. The Muslim Chams would be restored to their land only after fascist Italy got control of the region. In 1941, Greece was occupied by German, Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.

Factuarius version is:

On June 1940 Daut Hoxha was killed in a fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep. He was in fact a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before[76]. Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] Rome's propaganda machine hurled fabricated accusations at Athens conserning the “oppression” of Albanian nationals in the Greek Epirus ([4]p.143). According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Fischer, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years. The Italians urgently started organizing several thousands local Albanians volunteers to participate on the "liberation of Chamuria" creating an army equivalent to a full division of 9 battalions.[78]Many Chams, estimated 2,000-3,500, had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups.[79] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse from fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The Albanian and Chams battalions took part to the invasion attached to the Italian army, united under the “Chameria Army Corps”.[80] On the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and replaced their active service by labour service on the local roads. On the following month, they seized all Albanian males who had not been mobilized and sent them to camps and islands.[19][81] The initial Greco-Italian conflict continued into 1941, when the forces of Nazi Germany invaded Greece. The country was occupied by German Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.

Comments

I think that it is pretty clear which is POV and which is NPOV. But, if any body has still not get it, than he may discuss in here :).Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


Reply to Balkanian

Daut Hoxha

Your version is WP:SYNTH. You are synthesizng Vickers ("a leader of Cham resistance") with Fischer ("possibly killed by Greek agents"). Vickers says nothing about Greek agents, she only says that what the Italians claimed, while Fischer says nothing about a leader of Cham resistance.


According to this [37] Miranda Vickers expressively states "In 1941 the Cham leader Daut Hoxha was murdered, allegedly by Greek police, and his head was displayed in various border villages" p. 207 Albania: From Anarchy to a Balkan Identity By Miranda Vickers, James Pettifer 320 pages, Publisher: C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd (April 22, 1997) ISBN-10: 1850652902 ISBN-13: 978-1850652908 hope it helps with the article. Aigest (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do people that have little or no understanding of the English language insist on editing the English wikipedia? There is a huge difference between "possibly" and "allegedly". "Possibly" means that is the author's (in this case Vickers) own judgement, while "Allegedely" means she just says what the Italians claimed, without passing judgement over it. --Athenean (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Athenean on this matter, actually the source says that Hoxha was a leader of Cham and this was the topic (thief or leader) while murderers were never found and that is what I said on this matter (see my comment at Ruches section) Aigest (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

Your version carefully omits to say that the Albanian blackshirt divisions were volunteers. The distinction between volunteers and conscripts is militarily significant and should be mentioned. The use of "including some Chams" is also weasel-wording to try and minimize the collaboration, as is done throughout this article. A better version would be "The invasion force included native Albanian Cham volunteers and is estimated at 2,000-3,500". But Factuarius' version is fully sourced and has better flow. What does the putting of work of Cham conscripts on local roads have to do with the Italian invasion? It seems completely disjointed.

Performance

The way this section is worded, I also feel it is an attempt to minimize the collaboration. The statement "Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected." appears totally unsourced.

Concentracion camps

Your version is totally unsourced. Also since only the adult male Chams already not called up were deported, the sentence "The Muslim Chams would be restored to their land only after fascist Italy got control of the region." is highly problematic. It implies that all Chams were deported and appears designed to portray them exclusively as victims.

Overall

For these reasons, I propose the following version:
"On June 1940 a Cham Albanian by the name of Daut Hoxha was found headless in the village of Vrina in Southern Albania. According to historian Owen Pearson, Hoxha was a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before[76] and was killed in a fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep. According to historian Miranda Vickers, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years. The Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered by Greek spies inside Albania, and declared the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse by fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. Prior to the outbreak of fighting, many Chams, estimated at 2,000-3,500[79], had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups. The Italians organized these groups in the "liberation of Chamuria", consisting of 9 battalions.[78] The Albanian and Chams battalions took part in the invasion attached to the Italian army, united under the “Chameria Army Corps”.[80] For this reason, on the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and replaced their active service by labour service on the local roads. On the following month, they seized all adult Albanian males who had not been mobilized and sent them to camps and islands.[19][81] The initial Greco-Italian conflict continued into 1941, when the forces of Nazi Germany invaded Greece. The country was occupied by German Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones."

LOl, you forget to say Fischers version; I suppose that it is totally NPOV for you to "forget" mentioning authors you dont like. And please read Fischer: he says that Hoxha was a leader of ALbanians in Northern Greece. I know, I know; as always you just find the way to contradict me; without reading firstly what is written. Who says that the volunteers in the Italian army, were Chams and not Labs, Tosks, Ghegs, etc? Aha, I know, I know, its your misciting as always. The preformance is totally sourced with Fischer (please read it, I know, it is difficult to read it, but try). Your point on the "Muslim Chams would be restored..." is the only one that makes sense, and I am going to change it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
By the way. I like the sentence of Factuarius and Atheneans "and sent them to camps and islands." but I insist that we should add something and make it "and sent them to camps and islands for wonderful holidays". What do you think, ain`t good?Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You know full well that Vickers says nothing about "possibly killed by Greek police", so you know as well as I do that that is SYNTH. Vickers only says that "it was alleged by the Italians that he was killed by Greek police", not that he "was possibly killed by Greek police". --Athenean (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Second World war and expulsion section

This section is an exercise in POV-pushing. I notice only one or two sentences on the collaboration of the Chams with the Axis, and even those are hedged in all sorts of ways "Being under such pressure from the Greek state...", "But it seems the local mufits and beys bla bla bla". On the other hand the "Expulsion" section is lavished with three full paragraphs and is replete with gory detail, including numbers killed, etc...--Athenean (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure balk. can find 10 times more stuff about expulsion than about collaboration (how ironic). Contrary to that, H.F. Meyer describes collaboration in 35 pages and in expulsion within 10 lines (i thing less)Alexikoua (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Occupied Greece

It is more NPOV to have an article with that title. Than two separate articles for chams fighting for Axis and chams fighting against Axis, can be included in it along with what happened to the civil population in the mean time. Aigest (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How is that NPOV? It just sounds like your own POV. I don't see any reason why the section should have a main link to the collaboration article at the top, just like the expulsion section does the same. --Athenean (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That is POV because as I said there were chams on both sides (look the section yourself) so it's more NPOV to say occupied Greece as the main article and then include in it the collaboration and the resistance. So far the title is POV and misleading (what happened to the chams fighting against Axis? should we call them collaborators?!) Aigest (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys interested in talk page? Or you have your own agenda? Aigest (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The first Chams enrolled in ELAS in May 1944, just one month (or less) before the Axis retreat, I suggest to move them in the expulsion section. In May 1944 the Axis retreat was more than obvious, so participation in ELAS, as anti-Axis action- had not significant value.Alexikoua (talk) 07:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • First Alex you forget to include chams who fought against axis incorporated in Albanian partisans army (National Liberation Front) + there were chams also in ELAS (I don't care about the date) they were there and that is a fact. So it's quite obvious that as I said there were chams on both sides and that means that the article should not have that misleading title.
  • Secondly to put cham fighters into expulsion it is like moving all the section of occupied Greece to expulsion. That doesn't make sense at all. Aigest (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The fact that your knee-jerk reverting everything, especially the expand tag, clearly shows you have an agenda. Why do you remove the expand tag? Please explain, I'd like to know. --Athenean (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Athenean you are wrong again (as usual:)). I am not reverting anything from Alex edits, just changing the article title. My opinion and proposal for that section is expressed above. If you have smth to say about it you can do it here. Aigest (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

May be the section occupied Greece can have three subsections

1. Occupation of the territory and cham collaboration with Axis 2. Cham resistance to Axis 3. Cham population during this period (reprisals executed by both sides, internment etc)

What do others think? Aigest (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The titles seem very genitive, fogue and milseading. e.g. occupation of territory? what territory?, 'Axis resistance?' which resistance left or right (balli cambetar) wing? Cham population? every section deals with with parts of the Cham population. I believe the sections are clear enouqh:occupation and colaboration-reft wing resistance-expulsionAlexikoua (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is simple because it includes what happened to cham population (in the end this article is for cham population and not the territory) so it is better described if we keep this subtopics

1 chams who collaborated

2 chams who resisted

3 chams who neither collaborated nor resisted (the majority of the population which was between two fires)

with that we include all the history of cham people during that period and keep the article simple and NPOV. Aigest (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought its a matter of titles, not positions. 1st section is on collaboration 2nd on resistance, 3rd on expulsion (so we agree). What;s the diferrence?
-the majority- who says that? (Balky misused Mazower, he says nowhere something like that) actually there was for sure a part uninvolved but we dont know excact numbers (lets say-a part-)Alexikoua (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


You surely don't think that women, children, old men etc so the category not capable of fighting, wasn't a majority part of cham population?!(not including those capable but not involved just like it is mentioned in the article). What happened to them during Greece occupation 1941-1944 where they were being executed, deported, raped, burned the house, robbed etc (by both parts) is a very important topic and it makes sense to have these three categories as I proposed "bad guys" "good guys" "uninvolved innocent". The expulsion of them happened after the occupation during 1944-1945 and that is a separate topic (moreover regarding its importance) Aigest (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the number included in the article we should be very careful, otherwise as I told to Factuarius above for the numbers of chams involved in the fighting (see above demographic analyze) we should going to make some ridiculous affirmations (like that of 5300 cham fighters:)) Aigest (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually we talked about section' titles, which are clear and reasonable. About the numbers, I thought we took into account only the ones the could carry arms, off course women, children, elderly are not included in these numbers (there is a degree on potential passive collaboration on them).Alexikoua (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Women and children passive collaboration?! Man that's nazi theory for putting people in front of a fire squad!!!Aigest (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the title "Left Guerilla Activity". It sounds as if these people were terrorists! My opinion is that if collaboration is called collaboration, then participation in a resistance group should also be called resistance; and I do not care about ELAS' ideological affiliations. Labelling any ELAS member as "left guerilla" is inaccurate, and sometimes offensive, because at the time (a time of idealism before civil war) ELAS gathered people from all ideological affiliations, who believed that it was first of all a resistance group.

"On the other hand, several hundred Muslim Chams became part of the Greek People's Liberation Army (ELAS)". The source here is Kretsi. Does she give any date, year? Do we have any other sources about that?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Balkanian can give a hand. However, its a bit hard to prove [[38]] that (only one German work has a limited preview). Also noticed in article: IV_"Ali_Demi"_battalion (written by Balkanian) that:

In may 1944, a group of local Cham Albanians, created the battalion named after Ali Demi, in the village Milea (Albanian: Kastanjë), which was included in the 15th regiment of Greek People's Liberation Army.

May 1944, this means a month (or less) before the Axis retreat.

I've sourced on Kretsi's German book (Verfolgung und Gedächtnis in Albanien) on "Ali Demi", but the results were zero [[39]]. Alexikoua (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, then we should be a bit more careful about the dates. Google Book is a nice tool, but the preview restrictions make our job often impossible, and sometimes endanger our credibility. Let's see if Balkanian can help on that.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Vickers was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grove was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c Mazower, Mark (2000), "Three Forms of Political Justice, 1944-1945", After The War Was Over: Reconstructing the Family, Nation and State in Greece, 1943-1960 (illustrated ed.), Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 25-26, ISBN 0-691-05842-3, retrieved 2009-03-15 {{citation}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Unknown parameter |ean= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Vickers, Miranda 2002 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cham_Albanians/Archive_3&oldid=1145854739"