Talk:Chameria

Maps Again

The map shows that except Thesprotia, Preveza perfecture is also included in the teritory called cameria/tsiamouria. Except that the names of the towns in Greece are all in albanian (suppose the source is albanian), former map of the region were limited to Thesprotia, or parts of Thesprotia. It seems that the 'larger version' of the so region is a more recent fabrication. Here [[1]] is a map that shows that during wwii, Balli Competar considered cameria/tsiamouria only Thesprotia. This agrees with many other historical ethnological maps. It seems that chams/tsamides may had fields (of their property) in Preveza region, but there are no clues that they lived in towns and villages in this region (except maybe Parga which is on the northest edge of Preveza perf.). The linked map above, I believe shows clearly the limits of the article's region. Nazi-friendly organizations had a more limited view about the region--Alexikoua (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a "hand made" map, not based on any source. I propose it for deletion. Or, can I draw my own map and post in the article? --Euzen (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Northern Epirus article has a similar map not based on any source. Yet that has not been proposed for deletion. On Wikipedia you can not use maps from a source outright(say something scanned) as that would violate copyright. Many editors make maps based on a source, giving a description. The current map is in line with geographical descriptions given by academic Baltsiotis who has done extensive work of Cham related topic matter.Resnjari (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Albanau, if you object to this form of the article, please discuss it here. It is not acceptable, among other things, to refer to provinces of independent countries as though they rightfully belonged to another independent country. Chronographos 15:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It wasen't me I allways use my account. However Chronographos what you wrote is clearly not NPOV.

Çamëria (or Chameria) is the name sometimes used by Albanians to refer to the Greek province of Epirus. The area probably was home to an ethnic group of Albanian origin and Muslim faith, the Chams. The Chams are believed to have fled to Albania during, and immediately following, World War II, probably because they had been persecuted by Greek Resistance guerilla groups fighting against the Nazi occupation army, on the belief that Chams had cooperated with the Albanian-launched invasion of Greece by the Mussolini fascist regime in 1940, and had continued cooperation with the Nazi occupiers. Greek censuses mention no Muslim presence in Epirus since 1951; they do not include linguistic data.

Albanau 14:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The article proper should just redirect to Epirus, the region's continuous name from time immemorial until now. Your insistence to be using an Albanian name for a province of Greece is rather telling. Chronographos 15:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I propose that it should be redirected to Çamë!... one more thing, Çamëria is according to Albanian understanding a region in northwestern Greece, so there is nothing wrong with this. Albanau 15:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Corrected reference to "under Greek influence" in 4th century. Removed refernce to "Cham Christians". Acerimusdux 17:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Albanau's suggestion that this article should refer to the Chame people and not to Epirus. I think this is a fair compromise. Acerimusdux, do you agree as well? Chronographos 17:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Not entirely. Since the region is at least corresponds roughly with what is known as ancient Epirus, I think this needs to at least be mentioned, with a prominent link to the main article on Epirus for more information. I don't think a simple redirect is informative enough, though. When this conflict over "Chams" arose on the Albanians page, I had no idea what it was about and had to do a bit of research. Wikipedia at that point was of no help at all. There ought to be room for an article of some sort that at least outlines what this is about, with as much a NPOV as possible. I also don't believe Albanau ever siad the article shouldn't mention Epirus. He simply said there was nothing wrong with it mentioning Chameria. If you want to include all of the information in the article on Epirus, they could certainly be combined, with the name Albanian name Chameria mentioned prominently in bold at the top of that article, and a section added including the history of the expulsion of the Chams followng WWII, but I think a seperate article will be more convenient for readers.

I also think the page title should comply with wikipedia conventions which say "Title your pages using the English name, if one exists, and give the native spelling on the first line of the article. If the native spelling is not in the Latin alphabet, also provide a Latin transliteration. Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form." So the appropriate name is "Chameria", with the native spellings following (maybe in parenthesis) on the first line. No one will find this article as it is - no one is going to do a search on English Wikipedia for a word using non-standard English characters.Acerimusdux 20:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article may mention that "Chameria" is the name Albanians sometimes use for Epirus, properly linked. I also have no objection to describe what may or may not have happened to the Chams, provided both sides of the story (Albanian, Greek, or what have you) are given. In other words, as long as NPOV is adhered to, I will have no problem. Chronographos 20:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This was grossly dishonest of you, Acerimusdux. That's not what we agreed Chronographos 21:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Do not know where I must write about it. So, I will write it in comments.

The current article says that Chamides were expelled by Greeks. But as far as I know they left the country not expelled by the government decision (although after they left the Greek court without their presence decided their guiltiness as of collaborators of Germans and confiscated their property - we are talking about 1920 men - not millions, not billins; and they WERE guilty, as Italian and German collaborants, according to the court). They was "afraid of Greek revenge", that is left their homes and got to Albania in the first place. And after that they did not came back (formally they say because of the Greek court decision).

Also, English knew about what Tsamides and Greeks did during the war, and let Napoleon Zerva's forces do whatever:

Αποκαλυπτικό γι’ αυτή τη στόχευση είναι ένα μεταγενέστερο υπηρεσιακό «σημείωμα περί Τσάμηδων» του Κρις Γουντχάουζ (16/10/1945):

«Ο Ζέρβας, με ενθάρρυνση της Συμμαχικής Αποστολής που τελούσε υπό τις διαταγές μου, τους έδιωξε από τα σπίτια τους το 1944 προκειμένου να διευκολυνθούν οι επιχειρήσεις κατά του εχθρού. [...] Οι Τσάμηδες άξιζαν ό,τι έπαθαν, οι μέθοδοι όμως του Ζέρβα ήταν κομματάκι άσχημες ή οι υφιστάμενοί του βγήκαν εκτός ελέγχου. Το πρακτικό αποτέλεσμα ήταν μια πληθυσμιακή μεταβολή, με την απομάκρυνση μιας ανεπιθύμητης μειονότητας από το ελληνικό έδαφος. Ισως θα ήταν καλύτερα ν’ αφεθούν τα πράγματα έτσι» (Μαντά 2004, σ.312).

http://www.efsyn.gr/arthro/mia-anepithymiti-meionotita

Colonel Chris Woodhouse, head of the Allied Military Mission in Greece during the Axis occupation, who was present in the area at the time, in his "Note on the Chams" official military report of 16 October 1945, clearly accepting the full responsibility for the expulsion of the Chams

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians

Mr Woodhouse accepts that English knew everything and let Greeks do it.

Andy4675 (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Stub article restored

Chameria is not (always) the same as Epirus in the 20th-21st century context. Chameria is also not the same as Cham Albanians. I resored a stub minus the Greek-Albanian polemics (which can remain at Epirus and Cham Albanians if preferred). LuiKhuntek 19:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

Should those links to ultranationalist Albanian sites be here??? Helladios 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

reconfiguration

I reconfigured the article. We talk about a region, which in itself has no reason to exist, if it has no information about the Cahmeria issue and Cham Albanians. So I added summary of this articles in the main article. What do you think?balkanian (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

reconfiguration

I reconfigured the article. We talk about a region, which in itself has no reason to exist, if it has no information about the Chameria issue and Cham Albanians. So I added summary of this articles in the main article. What do you think?balkanian (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Map

I suggest a better map is used.The current one seems like a piece of clothing splashed with blue and red paint(no offence to whoever made it) and doesn't clarify the geographic location of the region.Amenifus (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, what do you think about thisbalkanian (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I object to this map on several grounds: It doesn't provide sources, and thus appears to be OR. Second, the area it shows as Chameria is way too large. Chams all the way down to Preveza? I don't think so. And lastly, it shows all the toponyms of epirus in Albanian, which is a non-starter. I am thus removing it until a better one appears. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this seems more like it.Check if it's copyrighted though.Amenifus (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right about the names, but not about the geography. According to Vickers, Chameria does lay down to Preveza, (see it in Cham Albanians it is sourced), so there is no problem about that. I am entering english names in this map, so it would be NPOVbalkanian (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It also extends way too far inland. This just seems like a bunch of OR. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, see the definiton of Vickers, and then lets discuss the points, where the map is inacquarite.balkanian (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, mr Balkanian, Miranda Vickers is a PRO-ALBANIAN author. Even the Wikipedia article you mentioned is writing about it:

"pro-Albanian[240][241] author Miranda Vickers"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cham_Albanians

Is it rigth to widely use sources which are not objective and not accepted by BOTH sides?

Andy4675 (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose to move this page into Thesprotia (region). As far as we can see in this map, but also according to sources, Preveza was part of ancient Thesprotia region. Also, in medavial ages, Vagenetia, (the name of Thesprotia) included the prefecture of Preveza, but went as far north as Delvina. In todays history, Chameria goes from Konispol to Preveza, including few villages from Ioannina and according to sources Thesprotia region in Greece includes Preveza Prefecture.

But, as an administrative division (i.e. nomos, not region), it is separate. So, I propose the establishment of a Thesprotia (region) page, because the geographical region of Thesprotia, and the geographical region of Chameria is essentially the same, with minor fixes, which may be presented in there. This way we can avoid nationalistic terms such as Chameria, by using it only as a second name in Thesprotia`s page and the article itself may contain the common history of Greeks and Chams in the region, without being exclusive to one group, as the current page is. Also, I propose the renaming of the page Thesprotia to Thesprotia prefecture as are all prefectures in Greece. What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe we can then 3 seperate articles: thesprotia (like chaonia-chaones), vagenetia and chameria/tsiamouria. Then we can see if a merging is affordable.Alexikoua (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should we create three separete articles, for the same region, only because etymological issues? We can create the page "Thesprotia (region)", and include inthere a history section, which overlaps "Ancient" Thesprotia, Vagenetia, Chameria and "Modern" Tehsprotia, with stuff existing in Thesprotians, Thesprotia, Chameria and Epirus (region). Too many articles for only one issue.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the aspects that specifically relate to the Cham population of this region are adequately dealt with in the Cham Albanians article, and Chameria almost equals Thesprotia, I agree with Balkanian's proposal. One question however: since the term Thesprotia in itself signifies primarily the region, all relevant information should be merged into the article Thesportia, like the other prefectures that overlap with ancient geographical regions (Corinthia, Achaia, Messenia etc). If other editors prefer to separate the administrative fom the region article, then again, Thesprotia should become the region article, and Thesprotia (prefecture) the administratove article, since the former very much predates the latter, and is one might say, more "general". Constantine ✍ 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that they should be two different articles, because the Region of Thesprotia includes Prefecture of Thesprotia, a vast majority of Prefecture of Preveza, and under definition, other territories too. So it would be better to distinguish a geographical/historical region, from an administrative division which is not the same in length.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd want an article on ancient Thesprotia. The ancient geographical coverage (which, by the nature of the topic, can only be approximate anyway) can just as well be covered in the modern Thesprotia article – it only requires a sentence or two. All the remaining historical information goes into the Thesprotians article. – Vagenetia certainly can, and should, have an article, since (apparently? correct me if I'm wrong) it was a political entity that's not covered anywhere else. I have no strong opinion on whether Chameria should remain distinct, or be merged with Cham Albanians. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually proposed that Ancient Thesprotia, Vagenetia, Chameria and Modern Thesprotia be merged in one article called Thesprotia, and the current Thesprotia page, be redirected into Thesprotia prefecture. Merging is better for "regions" which occupy the same area, more or less.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Vagenetia can exist separately, to the extent that it was a political entity, not just a geographical name. Apart from that, all we need is a single short piece in the existing Thesprotia article, of the type: "The geographical name Thesprotia was revived in the 20th century, when the area was annexed to Greece. It was introduced to cover approximately the area that had been popularly been known as Chameria, Tsamouria or Ciamura in the 19th century, after the Albanian name of the river Çam (Thyamis) and the tribe of the Cham Albanians. In antiquity, the term referred to the lands inhabited by the Epirote tribe of the Thesprotians, which covered roughly ...".

Why do we need separate articles for that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me sum up again: Thesprotiko is in Preveza Prefecture, for sources, that are listed above Thesprotiko is part of Thesprotia region and Preveza Prefecture. Acheron river too. According to sources that I listed above, Thesprotia region is not even today in Greece, the same as Thesprotia Prefecture. Thesprotia as a region seems (per sources) to occupy Preveza Prefecture, being almost the same as Ancient Thesprotia and Medevieal Vagenetia and early modern Chameria, but as an administrative division it is not that large. (something like Macedonia region and Western Macedonia periphery, if I am correct). As for Vagenetia, I don`t think it was a political (administrative) division, it was just the medevieal name for the region.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a different historical and cultural backround of the 3 names Thesprotia-Vagenetia-Chameria. Like Constanobple-Instambul, Tenochitlan-Mexico. Why not try to create them first and then put them together if possible? However there are geographical inequalities, Chameria incorporates regions of ancient Mollosis, and Chaonia.Alexikoua (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you, but the differences are too small, we may just explain them in one or two sentences. I do not think that it is the same as Constanobple-Instambul, because we are talking about a region not a city, or a state. Creating four different pages for the same region, means that we will have four different "history sections" (one greek, one albanian, one ancient greek, one medevieal albanian and greek), four different "geography sections" (with the same material), etc. So it is unneded. It is like Epirus (region), one page for it, even if it is ill-defined region (i.e. that during history its pressumed "bounderies" have changed).Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Thesprotia" as a region would be too vague for a merge of all this. I see and I think that the merge proposal is well thought but I do not agree on the merge. It is better to keep Thesprotia as it is, and Chameria as it is too. The second term is way too recent to merge it with the first one in one article. And still, ancient Thesprotia does not equal the area that is called Chameria. On the other hand, Thesprotia (the prefecture) pretty miuch equals Chameria, but the one appelation is official and the other is not, and they have had different uses in different contexts, so they must stay seperate. So, I oppose. --Michael X the White (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a correction: I did not propose to merge "terms" but pages, which means that a page named Chameria, will not exist any more, but would be redirected to Thesprotia one. As for the "equality", Thesprotia as a region and Chameria as a region equal one another (chameria covers Preveza prefecture, per sources, as thesprotia region does), so there is no dispute about being official or not, but about the same geographical/historical region.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not getting it: what is this all supposed to be good for? You seem to have got hung up about this entirely insignificant detail, that some people have at some times apparently used the term Thesprotia for something slightly larger than the modern prefecture, and now you've run away with it and want to build a huge new set of things around it. Why? Seriously, why are you even interested in the boundaries of Thesprotia? Nobody else seems to be, and rightly so. What's this strange new obsession of yours?

And, most of all: What actual content are these articles going to have? Is there anything we actually want to write about this region, in whatever boundaries, other than that it exists and has been called like this or that? Anything that we aren't already covering, or could cover, in some other article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'm also not clear why it would be a good idea to do away with an article focused on Chameria in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about seperate cultural backrounds, there was no Vagenetia or Chameria in antiquity, nor Vagenetia today. This will only cause confusion of terminology. Alexikoua (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The article about Thesprotia prefecture speaks only about the administrative division as Preveza prefecture or Ioannina prefecture do. There is nothing about the region. I am not speaking about boundaries, but about history, geography and other stuff of a region as e.g. Epirus (region) or Macedonia (Greece) do. I.e. about the region itself. My question is why should we have a page called Chameria, and no page about the region of Thesprotia? For sure Chameria is just an alternative name about the region of Thesprotia, as Vagenetia is too. "Is there anything we actually want to write about this region, in whatever boundaries, other than that it exists and has been called like this or that?" The history, the geography the economy, and a lot of stuff, which cannot are treated in different pages for the same region. See Chameria (speaks about the Principality of Gjirokaster), while Thesprotia (about the Despotate of Epirus). Its like saying the Greeks which use Thesprotia ever lived in the Principality of Gjirokaster and Albanians which use Chameria ever lived in the Despotate of Epirus. I cannot understand, why should we have different articles for the same region. "I'm talking about seperate cultural backrounds, there was no Vagenetia or Chameria in antiquity, nor Vagenetia today." I totally agree with you, because Ancient Thesprotia became Vagenetia in the Medevieal ages, and it became Chameria in Ottoman rule, and became again Thesprotia in modern times. A page called Thesprotia (which is the most used today) should cover Vagenetia and Chameria, because its just the same region, with different names. Vagenetia and Chameria would be used only in two sentences, cause they are significant only in certain historical context, about the same region.Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, you can't compare Thesprotia as a region to Epirus and Macedonia, because Thesprotia is a part of Epirus. I still disagree that Thesprotia=Chameria because they are terms of different historical periods for parts of Epirus that partially cover one another. Chameria is also connected to the Albanian political claims of the region.Chameria rather is how the Albanians call the terriotory they once used to live in W.Epirus, while Thesprotia is not that same territory. Also, the territorial subdivisions of ancient Epirus have never been totally clear to safely say Thesprotia=Chameria. And anyway today Thesprotia=Prefecture of Thesprotia. I also cannot see what would be the encyclopedic profit for doing such a risky merge. The answer to your question simply is: We have Chameria because of the "political issue" Albania can see in it, and becuase it was an area that used to be inhabited by people who self-identified as Albanians, and we do not have "Thesprotia (region)" because it is a part of Epirus, there is not alot of notable information on it, and it is covered pretty accurately by the article about the prefecture. Again Thesprotia= Prefecture of Thesprotia, at least for a long time now.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proof

There is no evidence that the Ottomans recognised a Cham area in the empire or a Cham region. There is not a simgle historical map representing a Cham area. - let alone an administrative region. Any proof to the contrary welcome. (By the way, there are many peoples across the world living in areas that held no official recognition whatsoever and no cartographic representation- including Greeks in parts of the Balkans and Anatolia, so any offense taken by the above comment is probably politically motivated). Politis (talk)

Why do you feel that "recognition" by some historical state, or representation in maps, are in any way fundamental criteria for the validity of treating the concepts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, one can find mentions like the following, in Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution, p.46: "The administrative divisions of Albania have varied at different periods of Othoman history, but the positions of Skodra, Berat, and Joannina, have rendered these cities the residence of pashas, to whom the rulers of the districts of Elbassan, Dukadjin, Delvino, and Tchamuria, have generally been subordinate." Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it appears that "Tsamouria" is also used quite regularly in documents of the 1821 era, e.g. in Kolokotronis' memoirs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the potential references. Do you think that any region mentioned in any memoir or dispatch deserves its own article and a series of maps? (I am not disputing the existence of this article). I am just interested in Wikipedia as a medium for displaying, expanding, promoting or inventing national myths. Your question is valid; my curiosity is in the way such concepts are treated in wiki and the dynamic they generate in interpreting, re-prioretising and interpreting existing data, produced in the wider academic and published world. Politis (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Take part on the above discussion. I propose that this page be renamed Thesprotia (region), and be only one page, where Chameria and Vagenetia be used, only within their historical context.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I could not verify any of the sources claimed to support the notion that there is a concept of "Thesprotia", in the modern context, that goes south into Preveza. What do those sources say? – As for treating details of geography and history, I suggest that either Thesprotia or Chaameria are really too small units for a useful treatment. We need history treated in larger units. Epirus can have a useful history section that covers all these. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"administrative subdivisions"

Chameria was never a political entity or province, merely a folkloric region. It never had administrative subdivisions of any kind. Only Epirus (periphery) has administrative subdivisions. Attempts to include an "administrative subdivisions" subsection are POV-pushing by insinuation. Semi-clever attempts to rename the section "Administrative incorporations" and "Local government are ridiculous attempts at euphemism and are not acceptable either. --Athenean (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Look up, you just want to move parts of every page you do not like. It is just a region ok? And as a region it is on a territory. As a territory it is has political divisions. Readers might wish to know where on hell is this region, where does it border, which subregions does it occupy. What on hell is pov-pushing in here? Its the same as Macedonia (Greece)Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article that it include parts of Thesprotia and Preveza prefectures. Don't forget the map too. That is more than sufficient. To include tables with administrative subdivisions makes it look like a provincial or state entity which it is not. A reader might think it has some sort of legal status which it doesn't. And I really object to placing tables with cities and their population, because a reader might similarly think that the people living there are Chams, which they are most certainyl not. It's total POV-pushing, to try to make it look like a state. Only legally defined territories such as Epirus (periphery) have administrative subdivisions. --Athenean (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a region, not a Cham region, a region. And it is clearly stated in the demographics section that the Chams are not the majority, but a minority. Dah? What kind of problem is there puting some tables? What about Macedonia (Greece), which is not a political subdivision but a region?Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself, since you seem to be playing dumb. Chameria does not have administrative subdivisions, never has, never will. Because it is a vaguely defined ethno-geographic region, not a province. As for Macedonia, please spare me WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS type arguments. To help the reader understand where it is located, there is a map, and a "Geogrpahy" subsection, which serves that purpose adequately. Now what is the purpose of including an "administrative subdivisions" section, with tables, list of towns, postal codes, etc...? What's next a "government and politics" section? A flag and anthem? Seriously. --Athenean (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody says that Chameria has administrative subdivision, neither Macedonia, nor Thrace, nor Epirus region have. But, on this region some political divisions exists. And what is the problem on adding this divisions that exists on a region, except of your strange attitude?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Athenean. One the one hand, "Most of what is called Chameria is divided between the Greek prefectures of Thesprotia and Preveza and the southern extremity of Albania's Sarandë District." is perfectly sufficient, and on the other, any further elaboration under a heading "subdivisions" does imply some ordered administrative status for a region which never had it (if one reads "Administrative subdivisions of Chameria", one does get the impression that "Chameria" was a province or a state), whose extent is unclear, and which is not officially recognized in Greece. In contrast, since it was brought into the discussion, Greek Macedonia is a well-defined and widely acknowledged (both within and outside Greece) area, and which was an official subdivision (see Regions of Greece) in the past. Regards, Constantine ✍ 20:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I see both this and the attempt for a Thesprotia (region) article as irredentist attempts to base that "this purely Albanian region is divided". Chameria only was a "historical", if you like, region and never had an official status, or any well-defined border. Saying that it is a region somewhere between Greece and Albania is more than fine and clear.--Michael X the White (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Cham Albanians

I propose the merger of this article into Cham Albanians. This article does not contain any information not found in Cham Albanians and is essentially a content fork of that article. The extent and boundaries of the Cham homeland are adequately discussed in Cham Albanians. This article's history section is a duplicate of that of Cham Albanians and the demographics section is a cut-and-paste job. In short, there is no reason to have this article when all its contents are to be found in Cham Albanians. --Athenean (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This article focuses on the area and not on the people as Cham Albanians. It offers information not found in Cham Albanians such as the Geography and Climate passage or the History passage. The only passage in common with Cham Albanians as stated in the article itself is the Demographics section. This article has information not found in Cham Albanians, which info extends in certain cases in Thesprotians and Epirus(region). Furthermore this is an article about a minority not a majority. We don't need articles on Texas and Texans, but we need articles on both people and area(when we can) for minorities such as Cham Albanians and Northern Epirotes. If we were to make a comparison, then Cham Albanians-Chameria issue is the same as Northern Epirotes-Northern Epirus, which is also a minority. --Sarandioti (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC) :I disagree. Ditto. Guildenrich (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What information does this article have not already found in Cham Albanians? Can you give us some examples? The geography and history sections are duplicates of those in Cham Albanians. Any info in them not already in Cham Albanians can be easily accomodated. The "Climate" section is nonsense. --Athenean (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Call it 'nonsense' or anything else you want, but it is a section that has to do with Chameria, that is the AREA. So I don't see why a section called Climate is 'nonsense' in an article which is about the AREA. The geography & climate is one difference. Another major difference is the Boundaries section of Chameria. Reading Cham Albanians you dont have a clear view of Chameria, just a general position. And we can continue analysing this again and again. But still that is not the issue. As I said Northern Epirus - Northern Epirotes is a parallel case to Chameria - Cham Albanians. They are both minorities, and for minorities(whenever possible) there are articles on both the people and the area. So... I disagree as you already know with your proposal. --Sarandioti (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree as well. The geographical area needs to be clearly defined and elaborated on, seperately from the people. Further more a great deal of the Cham Albanian population, presently does not live within Chameria.--I Pakapshem (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree too. Taking the logic of the last user, but also taking into consideration that the Cham Albanians article is already huge, this would not be a wise move. We'd be forced to either make that article even bigger, or omit large parts of this one. Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It's quite obvious when an article like this has no more info to add to be merged with a more general one. Chameria is a copy-paste job on specific sections from Cham Albanian. The info about Thesprotians is irrelevant, and historically misleading (like adding info about the Qin Dynasty on the History_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China, or Lenape on the History of New York City). The term Chameria was used some millenia after the Thesprotians.

Moreover I agree with User:Sarandioti, we can make a comparison with Northern Epirus-Northern Epirotes, but wiki has no article named 'Northern Epirotes' (just a redirection). In case the merging proposal is rejected I agree with Sara's comparison Northern Epirus-Northern Epirotes vs Chameria-Cham Albanians, renaming the article Greeks in Albania to Northern Epirotes.Alexikoua (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood me partially. The Chameria-Cham Albanians is the same as Nothern Epirotes-Northern Epirus. I said nothing about renaming. Greek minority of Albania is the official term used by most countries. Among greeks the "northern epirotes" term may be prevalent, but not in the international community. --Sarandioti (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to adopt a weird one-sided apporach: talking about official names one the one side (Greek minority -not to mention N. Epirus as a term etc), and a free 'academic' approach on the other (Did I have to say that Chameria and all that terminology has not official status at all?). Classic pov approach: just proves that the 'N. Epirus vs Chameria' comparison argument is too weak. One the other hand the merging Chameria with Cham Albanians is more that clear.Alexikoua (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Again you misinterprete my words. The merge may seem clear to *you*, but guess what? You need a consensus for merge of articles, which you clearly do NOT have. --Sarandioti (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this is a pro-Greek lobby trying desperately to portray them selves as the most ancient settlers of Epirus. The ammount of ridiculous sources used here have no place in the Cham Albanians page. There is no consensus for the proposal, and no clear and rational argument to support it. Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Very nice, Sara diasagrees because of nothing at all, and Intersted' insists on historical fairytales.Alexikoua (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be best to leave this discussion for the time being and pick it up once the these individuals are out of the picture. --Athenean (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I will be removing the merge discussion tag then, and re-add it when you feel that you can actually achieve it.--Sarandioti (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the tag should stay. Other people might want to participate in the discussion. It's just that I don't want to anymore. --Athenean (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're misusing verbs. You *do* want to, but you know that it will have *no* result ;).--Sarandioti (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to have a discussion on this, but only with reasonable, neutral people. Which does not include you and your friends. So long. --Athenean (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

With great pleasure I inform you, that the time when neogreek editors created fictional heroes and minorities in wikipedia, has passed. But still you can hope. Hope is a good thing. --Sarandioti (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And hopefully *your* time editing on wikipedia will soon pass as well. Indefinitely so :) --Athenean (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet on that "indefinitely". In my time in here i may have been blocked several times, but again I have achieved many things, which you certainly didn't like at all. --Sarandioti (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sarandioti has been banned from wikipedia for sockpuppetry and block-evasion (just like I predicted). Athenean (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree The discussion of the region is central to the article on Cham. Both are riddled with Greek POV and falsification of history, and both need to be sorted out at the same time. Xenos2008 (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree::There is enough material to keep the articles seperate.Megistias (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree Nor is "Chameria" an independent region to be referred to seperately, not are the "Chams" a seperate population group. They are interconnected so much that need not be 2 articles.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree How are Cam Albanians the same as Cameria?sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 20:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Questioned modern Greek history

If you cannot provide sources for your false history (and I dont accept student papers), then the claims will be deleted by me. The region was not renamed in 1914 and you have no sources to suggest that it was. This is a Greek propaganda page, not a serious encyclopedia page. Xenos2008 (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Roudometof isn't a "student", Martin, so why'd you remove him? 87.202.5.200 (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Who told you that I am called Martin? This is just the usual Greek trick of trying to personalise and intimidate people you disagree with. If you read the book you will see that it has very little to say about the region of Chameria. The book is not well regarded internationally anyway, but that is a moot point. Xenos2008 (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There are claims made here, such as the date of renaming of Chameria, which are unreferenced and wrong. I have deleted all such things.Xenos2008 (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, you did not present any proof that it was not renamed. And remember that the prefectures that exist today in the area were established right after the Balkan Wars. I have never seen anywhere any mention of a "prefecture of Tsamouria". Administratively at least, the area must have reverted to its ancient name right after 1913. Constantine ✍ 12:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I do not have to provide proof that something did not happen. I have texts from the League of Nations as late as 1928 using the name, and another source (Greek) which states that the rename was in 1936. Just cut the Greek propaganda, will you? Xenos2008 (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Xenos you have to calm down. The term 'Chameria' was never official in history, nor by Greek neither by the Ottoman administration (they called it Risadye). Your behavior is still unprovoked, what kind of tottalitorian philosophy did you learned? Suppose this academic and social science stuff you told in Cham-reassessment were just your initiative fairytales.Alexikoua (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you do have an obligation to provide proof on a claim that most people here consider to be false. The name "Chameria" may well have been used by contemporaries, but I have never in seen it used in any official capacity by the Greek state, as you claim, and it does not get much more official than the name of the prefecture. Now, the prefecture was established after 1913, so you have to prove that "officially", it was not called Thesprotia until 1936. And if you have these much-vaunted source, by all means, let's see them. So far your mentality, the method and tone of your edits are just as bad as the worst of the Greek POV-pushers, and the last thing they contribute to is to present a fair and balanced viewpoint in the article. PS, we are still awaiting the specific points of why the Cham Albanians article fails POV. Constantine ✍ 13:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't know how to write history. The fact that most uneducated Greeks (educated through the propagandistic history schoolbook) think something happened is not relevant. I did not say it was used in an official capacity: I said it was not renamed until 1936. You Greeks claim something completely different, and see no need to prove that something happened. FINE. Your shitty style of research is what characterises most Greek research, is POV, and unacceptable. Just carry on, i dont give a fuck. Xenos2008 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My dear fellow, this and this are your edits. There is a pretty big "official name" there, where the "official" was your addition. If the region was established as a prefecture called Thesprotia in 1913, is that not "renaming"? What exactly do you mean by "renamed in 1936"? That Metaxas passed a law renaming again the region into a name that was used in official capacity already for over 20 years? As for Greek "shitty research", yes, much of our national education system, and particularly the way history is taught, is a disgrace, but judging from your contributions (combative language, gross incivility, no sources at all), you are not exactly in a position to criticize it. Constantine ✍ 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As anyone who understands Ottoman history knows, the Greek state tended to leave Ottoman structures alone and concentrated on more urgent problems -- such as oppressing Muslims and forced assimilation of Slavs, etc. You can challenge the wording that I used (official) if you like, but the fact is that it was not renamed. And I am bored of being polite about basic issues of research, and bored with Greek POV. You people win arguments just by insisting and shouting loudly: I can do the same. The difference is that I am a university scholar and know what I am talking about. Xenos2008 (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Really?? Are you a university scholar? So what? Write a book about it and then we can check if we could use that as a source; till then, your word only has no value. Of course you can shout loudly; that's all you've ever done around here.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are bored with being polite! That's rich, since civility has been distinctly lacking on your part until now... Since you are a university scholar, you must have access to tons of sources. Where are they? For crying out loud, if you so much hate the "shitty Greek research", why do you emulate it to the point of absurdity? And you still have not answered my question: if the prefecture called Thesprotia was established in 1913, does this not equal a renaming? As for the oppression of Muslims and Slavs, well, neither Greece nor the other Balkan nations or the Turks went around being nice to their respective minorities in this period. It would be interesting to note however that this quasi-genocidal Greece still has a substantial Muslim minority, which, despite discrimination from the Greek state, has even increased in numbers since 1923, while the corresponding Greek minority in Turkey has all but vanished. It is also interesting to note that in the same period and until the population exchange, Thessaloniki had a Muslim mayor (Osman Said Bey). It is also interesting to note that after the annexation of Thessaly in 1881, the property rights of the great Muslim land-owners were left untouched. I cannot say that Greece or any state in the region has had an exemplary record in human rights, and ethnic cleansing abounded all around but your particular ire against Greece is odd. Constantine ✍ 15:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"It is also interesting to note that after the annexation of Thessaly in 1881" - don't you get it? xenos believes this about thessaly: "The Greek nation state was first created with a violent revolutionary struggle supported by Albanians, and later the British amongst others, and the state in 1832 stopped just north of Thessaly". yeah, he sure knows what he is talking about87.202.4.36 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are such arrogant assholes. I am going to continue to correct this page using all my ISP logins until you accept that what is written is propaganda and lies. And yes, I have published many articles and books on these topics, and some are even referenced on WP. There are basic rules of how to think, and you understand fuck all. You know how to manipulate WP so that you can get somone banned. Go and get a fucking job as a manipulator... oh wait, i forgot that lying and corruption are real pluses in Greece....

Since you claim to be a noted and published scholar, and use this argument over and over, could you perhaps also tell us who you are so that we can check it up? And, in case you haven't noticed, you are a real godsend for any Greek nationalist, real or imagined, with a stake in this and similar articles. The only thing you'll achieve the way you are acting is to get blocked, and to have these articles editprotected in their previous form. FYI, if some Greek editors had started behaving like you do, they'd already have been banned. I am saying this in the (most likely vain) hope that you'll calm down and have a constructive conversation for a change... Constantine ✍ 00:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Greeting to the Voreioepirote syllogos' brothers!

Great idea! What I really meant, is: Are you fu*cking making inside jokes, or what? Why don't we merge the North American continent with the North American People, too? Just kidding. Against, irrelevant Guildenrich (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not called Voriopir. It has a name that all know, so, greek patriots are pleased to stay away from trolling. Chameria, like all can see, was (I'm saying was!!!) a albanian majority land. Albania, and South Albania too, is 95% maded by albanians, and you call it Vorioepirus?? I'm against too.--Albopedian (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Villages

In the last days User:Stupidus Maximus added three times a list of ca. 50 villages of the region [[2]][[3]][[4]]. Although the specific user was several times informed to explain his various edits he preferred to remove immediately my messages in an hostile way from his talkpage [[5]][[6]]]], not to mention serious accusations he launched against me in talk:Fustanella [[7]].

The specific list is against wp:nc, and especially without any reference to the official names of the settlements. I've explained in my edit summaries that a similar list alreadt exists here List_of_settlements_in_the_Thesprotia_prefecture. Moreover, I see that some villages aren't part of Thesprotia prefecture. Another fact that makes this overwhelming list unnecessary is that the template 'Cham Albanians' already mentions the most important settlment in Tsamouria.Alexikoua (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I carefully examined the link you provided for the List_of_settlements_in_the_Thesprotia_prefecture. It refers to current settlements at "Thesprotia prefecture" (modern greek administrative organisation) not to cham settlements . Moreover, place names are not represented in the original names used by cham population that lived there. e.g. The village of "Shulash" (place where my grandfather was born) is not mentioned in your link. Same applies for other settlements. The question here is not to mention "the most important settlement in Thesprotia " as you stated above, but the cham settlements including names used by cham population. This article is not about Thesprotia prefecture but about chameria! Piasoft (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way the list is completely unsourced too, you should avoid using personal experience as arguments. Unofficial names & unsourced claims about the regions village's have simply no place here.Alexikoua (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The list is completely unsourced, a bunch of OR. Athenean (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So Alexikoua and Athenean, are you saying that if the list is sourced, it would be Ok to stay in the article? In addition, if it does, I would make 5 columns, because it's looking ugly, in addition I would put the name in Greek first and then in parenthesis the Albanian name, and this would be ok with Wikipedia policy. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 19:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll check for sources for these places and create articles for them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of indiscriminate information. Mere naked lists, especially of this length, are utterly uninformative. I see no value in this list at all, sourced or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

After a quick search I found out about this Kastri, Thesprotia.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It also is WP:NOT a directory of useless stubs of every trivial village in every country. Athenean (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Since two books mention it I guess it isn't a trivial village.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Put the settlements in five columns, and it won't look that ugly anymore. However I agree with FPS that the list might be shortened into a smaller one, we don't need to mention 100 settlements, I guess the main 30 ones should be fine. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The majority of the settlements doesn't link, whereas the majority of the ones that link, link to other places. I suggest that we leave them now and then one at a time can be worked. I sent a message to user:Stupidus Maximus in his talkpage to get him to place the sources of this list [8]. I don't see this big need to get rid of them right away. If we do, here is the list for future references.

--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Agji Arilë Arpicë Arvenicë Bedelen Çiflig Dishat Dolan Draganj Dragomi Dramës Dhëmbas Dhërmicë Filat Filipjadhë Gardhiq Gliqi Glloboçar Gravë Grikë

Grikëhuar Gumenicë Guri Gurrëz Janjar Kaicanj Kalbaq Kalibaq Karterezë Karbunarë Kastrizë Kolishtat Konispol Koriqanj Koronopulli Koskë Kuç Kurtes Kushovicë Ledhëzë

Lefterhori Lopës Luarat Llur Markat Margëllëç Mazrek Mavrudh Mininë Mursi Muzhakat Nënshat Nikolicanj Ninat Nistë Nuneshat Njihuar Paramithi (Ajdonat) Pargë Peshtan

Petrovicë Picar Pjadhul Pllatare Prevezë Psakë Reçat Rokë Rrëzanj Sajadhë Salicë Samovinë Selan Skopjonë Skupicë Smarte Smokovinë Spatar Sollopi Shalës

Sharat Shargan Shenicë Shëmrizë Shënedjellë Shqefar Shulash Trikopallk Varfanj Vërselë Vërvë Volë Vratilë Vrastovë Vris Vrohona Xarrë Zeleso

--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As far I see from history there was a similar discussion ca. a year ago: Talk:Chameria#.22administrative_subdivisions.22. The result was to remove the table. Alexikoua (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been several days now, and I still no compelling arguments for keeping this list of settlements. It is an uninformative, naked !list that is of very little use. It is also potentially misleading, as it makes it appear all these villages are Albanian, when in fact the demographic picture of the area was always much more complex than that. Other articles, such as Northern Epirus do not include such lists, and I note that a similar list was removed from this article in the past. Unless I hear compelling, non-boring (e.g. "the list is important and useful !") arguments, I will remove it per WP:NOT. Athenean (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In 1913 Grrece took Chameria and changed the names of the villages in 1926. Wikipedia is not against Lists. Let';s make them with sources, and discuss then. I am busy at this time with other work. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this specific list has become a real obsession by a specific wp:spa team. And yet no arguments or explanations just ilikeitstyle nonsense. Since the main contributors on Greek-Albanian topics are under time-limited restriction, this period is a great opportunity for them to launch an aggresive revert war on every situation possible.Alexikoua (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Isufi, Hajredin: ASPEKTE TË ISLAMIZIMIT NË ÇAMËRI, in: Studime Historike: No.3-4 /2004. page 17-32.[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupidus Maximus (talk • contribs) 10:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this discussion, I have compiled a sourced list of villages in Chameria region (uncompleted, there are some villages in Preveza and in the two municipalities of Ioannina which fall in Chameria which are not presented) and sourced, but four sources (it needs some reworking, because those villages that have ---- on their Albanian name, were never inhabited by Albanians). But, I think that it needs a new article for that. You can find the list on here.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@Balk. as Fut noted this is a wp:not list. But if the Albanian editors are really obsessed to add something like this, I assume that they will not have any problem with a similar 'Northern Epirus' list.Alexikoua (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Since we haven't yet heard a single argument for this badly written list of villages, it's time for it to go. By the way, the inventor of this, St. Maximus, creating the usual mess in every article possible, received a sockpuppet ban. Hope not a new sock or spi show up again here, and restore this, as in the past.Alexikoua (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Since BW presented this, can you Athenean & Alexikoua let me know upfront if it would be ok with you to have it, or is it going to AfD as soon as started? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 23:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD. Athenean (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? It would be a list article. However, it's good you told me, because I was thinking to make an article on the list of the Albanian authors taht were using Greek letters for their writing, but I really don't have any desire to fight over it on AfD. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 18:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)\

This is really mysterious: we have not a single serious list about villages or settlements in a single part of Albania, while on the same time we organize in full detail a list of villages of Chameria (even with coordinations included).Alexikoua (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no mysteries actually. Here's an example Liqenas_Municipality. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 12:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's cheap stuff according to Balkanian's Chameria villages.Alexikoua (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

lead

I restored the old lead, because there were a number of problems with the recent edits. Saying "Chameria" was the name of the region until 1936 is both false and misleading. It is misleading because it strongly implies that Chameria was an official name, which it never was, and it is false because Chameria is still very much in use, especially among Albanians. Athenean (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Since no one responded, I have reverted to the original version, which I feel is more correct. The term "Chameria" is still used today by Albanians, and it certainly didn't cease to be used after 1936. Athenean (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

POV-pushing

Reverted this bit [10] of inflammatory (and incorrect - the Chams were not expelled by the Greek armed forces) POV-pushing by one of the many IPs that plague this area. Athenean (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

During the Axis occupation of Greece (1941–1944), large parts of the Muslim Cham community collaborated with the Italian and German forces committing a number of war crimes. At the end of World War II, nearly all Muslim Chams in Greece were expelled to Albania, because of that activity.

The first reference comes from a Greek biased book and there is no mention of war crimes anyway. The second source needs to be sourced correctly i.e. page number etc. since none of it is accessible to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.225.211 (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

References

The author of the first source is H.F. Meyer (German) and off course not biased. The second one is properly cited (page, etc).Alexikoua (talk)

Etymology

Firstly, the phrase "suffix -eria, which in Albanian language denotes "land of the Chams" is wrong and needs correction. Suffix -(e)ria denotes what it denotes not particularly in Alb. language but in all western european languages and Greek (e.g. Illyria, Bulgaria, Hyngaria, Iberia etc). It is the precursor of the english -ry and the french -rie. The origin is Greco-Latin
There is an alternative etymology: The population of Chameria, formerly Christians, started getting islamized after the Ottoman occupation. This started with the big landlords who wanted to keep their lands and social position, and soon the farmers and other lower classes followed (or forced to follow). The tradition says that the first to be islamized was someone with the muslim name "Isam", probably the leader of a clan. From Isam all the rest were called "Isams" and from that "'sams" and "Chams". This is a tradition reported by some Greek authors. Instead of citing those authors (obscure for the english reader) we can possibly add this etymological case as "oral tradition". --Euzen (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Map not correct

This map is of the province of Chameria, this is the real map [11] --Vinie007 19:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no "province" of Chameria and if this is a "map", I am an astronaut.--Euzen (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

1908 number on table

It appears that the 1908 numbers on the table do not represent exactly the population of the modern Thesprotia prefecture. To sum up the three Ottoman kazas (Filiates, Paramythia and Margariti) may be ca. 75-80% the modern prefecture, but important towns of the Filiates kaza are in the Albanian side of the border, like Konispol and Markat, as well as a number of surrounding villages (per [[12]] Kokolakis, p. 270: Dishat, Vërvë, Shalës, Ninat, Janjar). Although including this data on the table with the rest might be not a good idea, I believe it's no problem no include them in the text with the essential context.Alexikoua (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I believe Fililates (Filati) in its heyday (i.e. while its Muslim population still lived there)- as well as the other villages that didn't fall onto the Albanian side of the border - was probably much larger than that of Konispol or Markati. Nevertheless, I left a note. --Yalens (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Tagging of sentence

I have tagged the following sentance:

As the Greek toponyms Epirus and Thesprotia have been established for the region since antiquity, and given the negative sentiments towards Albanian irredentism,the term is not used by the locals.

There are absolutely no sources provided alongside that sentence for the information it is supposedly making. Must be sourced. It makes assertions such as "negative sentiments towards Albanian irredentism". Who has these views. What is meant by locals. Baltsiotis has refereed to the demographic make of Thesprotia as consisting of Muslim and Orthodox Albanian speakers pre 1945. Greeks and Vlachs filled the void of Muslim Chams after their exit. So who and or which of these locals don't use the term etc? Also its says that "Greek toponyms Epirus and Thesprotia have been established for the region since antiquity". They were used in antiquity. Question is did the Albanian speakers who where present from the mediavil era onwards use those names for the region? Was it known to them ? If not then those terms where not "well established" in clear succession onwards, but there was a break, with its revival occurring in the twentieth century. Like i said, needs to be cited as peer Wikieida polices with reliable peer reviewed sources. Otherwise how can the reader rely on what is accurate about what that sentence is stating.Resnjari (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I should let you know that tag-bombing, as you are doing, is a form of disruption. That the terms "Epirus" and "Thesprotia" are ancient is well-known, hence asking for sources for something like this is tendentious and disruptive. And there is certainly no need to source that Albanian irredentism is negatively viewed in Greece, you of all people should know that. Athenean (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Tag bombing". Athenean, its not disruption if a sentence is making a contentious claim that has no source for it. Agian you need to provide sources that state "Epirus" and "Thesprotia" were terms well established well beyond the ancient era. Many places have had different names. Due to migrations, demographic shifts, different countries, those terms have been disrupted and sometimes continue. My concern with that sentence is have those terms been preserved by the local populace because there this term Chameria. In an similar example, in the book Maps and Politics by Wilkinson, H.R, even the Ottomans where not aware of the the term Macedonia, until it was revived by 19th century classicists and Philihellenes. Just because something is a given to Greeks in this instance, may not have been a given to other non-Greek speaking populations in the area. Again reliable sources are needed and no personal opinion.Resnjari (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The lede claims are too obvious and a number of reference are also present in the main body of the article. I can name for example Kretsi: [[13]] in an area which today is called Thesprotia in Greek and Chameria in Albanian ...the regional denomination "Chameria" is primarily in use by Albanians with obvious irredentist undertones... which refer to an ethnic Albanian territory which today remains inside Greek territory.Alexikoua (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added the following sentence: The terms Epirus and Thesprotia are not used by Cham Albanians and Albanians in general and the toponym Chameria is still used on the Albanian side of the border.

This is to clarify the different positions of terminology use on both sides of the border.Resnjari (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It is certain that the term "Tsamouria" is used today in Greece only in historical context. I cannot find a source about it but i propose that I quote some modern Greek encyclopedias or dictionaries so that this can be concluded as obvious.--Euzen (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

In Albanian, Cameria is used in a ethnographic and geographic sense. And in recent times amongst certain circles it has gained irredenist connotations. As for tagging the Chameria map, the Northern Epirus map (in a article which states that the concept is clearly and wholly irredendist) in that article has no tag or citation for it and likewise that will be for here too.Resnjari (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I added in the Baltsiotis footnote to map.

The N.E. map is well sourced and historically accurate (guess you need to check again in commons). On the other hand this Chameria map is nothing more than an wp:OR product, the pocket of Chameria includes a much more limited region.Alexikoua (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it needs more sources I got many that can be added alongside Baltsiotis. Elsie and a whole series of Albanian academics who give rough descriptions of the confines of what the region roughly constitutes at that map outlines. The map at the Northern Epirus article has sources based on Greeks maps (irredendist ones too) and so on. Over the next few days i will supply them for the map. Map stays.Resnjari (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The map of N.E. is primarily based on the map presented by the exiled Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus in the Paris conference of 1919 [[14]]. It concerns the region under de-facto control by this entity in 1914. I assume you know that Chameria is linked with irrendetist claims too.Alexikoua (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way Baltsiotis states that Chameria covers the western part of what is today the prefecture of Thesprotia,. This map covers all of Thesprotia prefeceture +parts of Ioannina (Zitsa, Dodoni). Thus, some trimming is needed.Alexikoua (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, I can't understand why Butrint on Albania part is also included.Alexikoua (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Chameria as a region is both a geographic region and in recent times has also acquired irredendist connotations as well. The Greek state used the word Chameria for the region in official documents throughout the interwar period, thus acknowledging its existence. Baltsiotis makes additional notes in his article (http://ejts.revues.org/4444#ftn2) on the Chams and use of the term when he states the following:

In certain sources Chamouria includes the Greek-speaking area to the east of the city of Filiati and does not include the Albanian speaking area of Fanari, named alternatively “Prevezaniko”. The official name of the area north of the Acheron river is Chamouria in all Greek state documents for the whole Interwar period.

That's different from Northern Epirus which was used as a irredendist concept as outlined by scholarship from the outset of its conception in 1912-1913. The Greek state's use of Chameria in documents was in no way irredentist as that was the name used for the area. In fact Hammond also noted Tsamouria, the toponym being used during the interwar period (when he did his travels to the region).

Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond (1967). Epirus: the Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas. Clarendon Press. p. 28. "Tsamouria is a word which..... Clarke and I were both familiar with it, and it was in common use".

That Chameria has acquired irredendist meanings is disgraceful and shameful in later years. Toskeria, Laberia, Gegenia still just retain their ethnographic/geographic and diatological usage thank goodness. But back to Chameria, the term itself has undergone evolution over the past century. The above map roughly outlines the geographical extent that the area encompassed according to such descriptions. Baltsiotis is an impartial researcher and a Greek scholar who has done extensive fieldwork in the area and Elsie is widely known for his expertise on Albanian studies and no one yet has produced something of a critique of his work like with Vickers for him not to be used. Also there are various definitions on Chameria's border within Albania. For instance Leake puts the border at the Bistrica river. Usually its given as being between the Bistrica and Shales, Pavla river. In Greece is covers either the bulk or all of Thesprotia. It sometimes covers a part of Preveza prefecture mainly Fanari or including the neighouring ethnographic region of Lamari and goes all the way to Preveza. Its more complicated than one gathers on the issue after reading stuff on the matter. Even Albanian sources have definitions about whether it includes that little river or not. The current map is an approximate definition regarding these descriptions, if conveyed on a map.Resnjari (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Lake Butrint is part of it because villages near its southern and south-western shores are Albanian speaking. See Kallivretakis and compare village list with a map. Places like Xarra, Sopik, Vrina, Pandejlemon (Muslim village), Mursi etc form part of the Cham dialect speaking area along with the Konispol and Markat districts.Resnjari (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears you can't give a precise picture. Actually you highlighted The official name of the area north of the Acheron river is Chamouria in all Greek state documents for the whole Interwar period. So what? should we remove everything south of Acheron?Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I did give a precise picture. I just cited the official Greek one. You inferred in a previous comment that Chameria was just a irredentist name for a area. Chameria has acquired irredendist connotations in later times and after World War Two. The name was recognised and used by the Greek state for an area above the Acheron river in what it defined to be Chameria. That is different, as Baltsiotis states from other definitions which include the mainly Orthodox Albanian speaking Fanari region below the Acheron. The idea of Chameria also encompassing other nearby areas is even outlined by people who considered themselves as Arvanites or Orthodox Albanian speakers from the Lakka area in the nineteenth century. I quote the example of Nikolaos Komenos that Skoulidas cites:

Elias G Skoulidas (22 shkurt 2011). Identities, Locality and Otherness in Epirus during the Late Ottoman period.(dok). European Society of Modern Greek studies. p. 7.

"Nikolaos Konemenos takes a different approach, by not denying his Albanian identity, although he participated in Greek public life. He accepts this identity and embodies it, without excluding the other identity: κι εγώ είμαι φυσικός Αρβανίτης, επειδή κατάγομαι από τα' χωριά της Λάκκας (Τσαμουριά) και είμαι απόγονος ενός καπετάν Γιώργη Κονεμένου ’λ που εμίλειε τα’ αρβανίτικα κι όπου ταις αρχαίς του προπερασμένου αιώνος... είχε καταιβεί κι είχε αποκατασταθεί στην Πρέβεζα...[I too am a natural Albanian, because I originate from the villages of Lakka (Tsamouria) and I’m a descendant of a kapetan Giorgis Konemenos, who spoke Albanian and who at the beginning of the last century... had come down and had settled in Preveza]. The spelling mistakes in this passage are a good indicator of what is happening."

Tsamouria or Chameria has mainly been a geographical and ethnographic term. It never was a political one until the onset of World War Two onward. It never was conceived of as a state and other countries that dominated the area employed it in their documentation like the Greek state and locals used it too until World War Two. All had different definitions of Chameria constituted. If one was to use just dialect as a border line than it includes Fanari, Lakka and so on. If one just limits it to Muslims than it is a smaller area etc.

That's different from Northern Epirus which was used as a irredendist concept as outlined by scholarship yet more wp:OR. I'm afraid you need to understand some basics here. There is no reference which claims that Chameria is a non-irredentism term while Northern Epirus falls 100% under this. For future reference Northern Epirus was a proclaimed state, with an internationally recognized autonomous statous inside Albania.Alexikoua (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"yet more wp:OR". No its not considering that you infered that Chameria was mainly a irredentist term in the previous commentary. "There is no reference which claims that Chameria is a non-irredentism". I did not claim this as my commentary above shows. What i stated clearly was that the term acquired irredentist connotations with the passing of time. If Chameria it was irredentist from the outset, the Greek government would not have made use of that term in its official documentation of a territory within its borders throughout the interwar period. The Albanian government though never used "Northern Epirus" in its documentation, unless you can show something to the contrary. As for future reference, the international community and Greek state recognized the sovereignty of the Albanian state in those areas and not of Northern Epirus. It is this decision that has stuck until now. As Austin states unequivocally:

Austin. Founding a Balkan State[15]. 2012. p. 94: In the long run, Greek claims of Albanian mistreatment fell on deaf ears, and Britain finally advised its representative in the Conference that further complaints not be heard and that matters be dealt with between the two countries on a diplomatic level. In June 1922, Greece had appealed to the Conference of Ambassadors to enforce the Protocol of Corfu granting autonomy to the southern provinces. In a Foreign Office dispatch to Lord Hardinge, the British ambassador in Paris, Lord Balfour noted that the protocol was ‘In a Foreign Office dispatch to Lord Hardinge, the British ambassador in Paris, Lord Balfour noted that the Protocol was ‘no longer a valid instrument. In the fist place the Epirots themselves violated it in July 1914, by occupying Koritza [Korçë]. In the second place it has been superseded by subsequent enactments . . . It is also noticeable that the Greeks never mentioned the protocol during the time when they thought that Northern Epirus going to fall to them.’ In July 1922, blocked in its attempts to internationalize the problem, Greece finally offered dejure recognition to the Albanian government but included a protest note on the southern frontier.Resnjari (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If the ref. Miranda Vickers (1999) is correct (which i can't check online), she puts the southern border of Chameria to Acheron river, which is much northern than the Gulf of AmbraKia, the south border of the bogus map. In some later articles of this overtly pro-Albanian writer, she streches the southern boundary of Chameria to the gulf Ambrakia. Of course, the philo-albanian site of Elsie cites this latter work. I added in the article the account of Perraivos, who should know better than any modern Briton the place and the people, and who in early 19th c. did not have any reason to argue about Chameria's location. If don't agree on a map, I will make mine based on Perraivos and others--Euzen (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC).

I am going by what Baltsiotis and Elsie have used. Moreover you need to find me a resource which states that Elsie is a "philo-albanian". Yes he is an Albanologist, all that means is he has great expertise in Albanian studies as a scholar. Find me some academic who states that his work is off. Definitions of Chameria vary. If you get to add in Perivaious, i will add British diplomat Valentine Chirol's description and definition of the region during the nineteenth century. The British are neutral observers. If Chirol get removed then so will Perivious who i have sources (Greek ones that outline his work was at times politically motivated -as i did in Chams Albanians talk page).Resnjari (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Euzen, i was checking the Kalivretakis source. it states:

Η χάραξη της οριστικής ελληνοαλβανικής μεθορίου, το Νοέμβριο του 1921, διαιρώντας την Ήπειρο στα δύο, διαίρεσε και την Τσαμουριά μεταξύ Αλβανίας (Νομός Δελβίνου & Αγίων Σαράντα) και Ελλάδας (σημερινός Νομός Θεσπρωτίας). Έκτοτε ανεφύη το ζήτημα των Τσάμηδων, όρος που στη βιβλιογραφία ταυτίζεται πλέον μόνο με τους Αλβανούς Μουσουλμάνους κατοίκους της Τσαμουριάς και ειδικότερα, από πλευράς διεθνούς διπλωματίας, με εκείνους οι οποίοι παρέμειναν στο τμήμα που υπήχθη στην ελληνική επικράτεια. [The development of permanent Greek-Albanian border, in November 1921, dividing the continent into two, divided and Tsamouria between Albania (Delvina & Saranda Counties) and Greece (current Thesprotia). Since then arose the question of Chams, a term in the literature identified only most Albanians Muslim residents Tsamouria especially in terms of international diplomacy, with those who remained in the section came under the Greek territory.

Kallivretakis talks about the word Cham/s not Chmaeria or Tsamouria being used only in reference to Muslim Albanians during that time. That has been outlined in the Cham Albanians page. This article is about the toponym Chameria, not the ethnonym Chams.Resnjari (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to trim the Chameria map in the Zitsa municipality, since there is no objection about it.Alexikoua (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Not yet. This is still being worked out. A new map may be needed. Various sources give the boundaries of the ethnographic/geographic region accordingly to their definitions. Not yet.Resnjari (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I confused Chams' place with Chameria. At least we agree that not all Chameria was a Cham's place.
About the boundaries: The older encyclopedia "Great Greek Encyclopedia" (Μεγάλη Ελληνική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια) or "Encyclopedia of Drandakis" (c. 1926- 1930's) has a sizeable article "Tsamouria". There it says: "Tsamouria extends on the sea-shore from the mouth of river Acheron [south] till Vouthroton [Butrint], and on the land till the western slopes of mount Olytsikas or Tomaros". The article's title is followed by the indication "(Geogr.)", probably meaning that the term is only geographic. As far as I know there was never an administrative term, at least in the Greek state.
It seems that sources disagree on the southern margin of the area. Therefore, we can have two different maps, or one with two different borders and the corresponding references. --Euzen (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not as optimistic as to prove conclusively that Elsie is philo-albanian. This is my opinion expressed in the Talk section, and it is up to anyone interested to check it. For example, here [16] he translated from albanian the account of a certain Cham describing how the evil Greeks massacred some Chams in 1944. And here [17] there is an appeal of an "Anti-Faschist Chams Committee" to UN describing their "persecution by the Greeks". However, I cannot find in Elsie any account on Greeks massacred by Chams earlier on.--Euzen (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding that link from his website, he is citing a primary document. That is not his work. Elsie has done a lot of work of going into the archive and putting up primary documents on his website and publishing them in his books from the archive, the same way Greek academics have done regarding Greek material which show the other side and avoid material regarding actions that happened toward the Albanians. Baltsiotis literally is the first as he has gone into the archive and had a good look at the Greek sources (non archival) and has found some issues with certain authors (see article link below). Anyway academics who cite primary documents can do so of what has not been previously been published and these are not their personal views. Academic Bassilis Kondis is a good example of that regarding publishing primary Greek documents relating to Albania and the Northern Epirus matter.

Regarding Chameria it has never constituted a political entity to have had defined" borders. It was(and still is for some) a ethnographic/geographic term which was associated with local people speaking a dialect called Camerisht or Tsamiko in Greek. It acquires irredentist overtones and meaning from about World War Two onwards, especially post 1992. Baltsisotis says this of Chameria [18]: "During the beginning of the 20th Century, the northwestern part of the Greek region of Epirus was mostly populated by an Albanian-speaking population, known under the ethnonyme "Chams" [Çamë, Çam (singular)in Albanian, Τσ(ι)άμηδες, Τσ(ι)άμης in Greek]. The Chams are a distinct ethno-cultural group which consisted of two integral religious groups: Orthodox Christians and Sunni Muslims. This group lived in a geographically wide area, expanding to the north of what is today the Preveza prefecture, the western part of which is known as Fanari [Frar in Albanian], covering the western part of what is today the prefecture of Thesprotia, and including a relatively small part of the region which today constitutes Albanian territory. These Albanian speaking areas were known under the name Chamouria [Çamëri in Albanian, Τσ(ι)αμουριά or Τσ(ι)άμικο in Greek."

The toponym was associated with Cham speaking people, its boundaries vary but there is some consistency. I am going to add a few more sources from the nineteenth century era and if you come across them add them with inline citation/s. From there after we can then start a discussion for the parameters of a new map.Resnjari (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Map #2

Seeing that the current map is in disagreement with the vast majority of sholariship, I'm working on a new version based on Manta, Baltsiotis, Michalopoulos, Kallivretakis etc. Psalidas version can also present in the same image as a historical one (considered the Delvine region as Chameria entirely, while the Greek part is the same with modern scholarship).Alexikoua (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the map being in "disagreement with the vast majority of sholariship". Have you also consulted Albanian sources to come to such a final conclusion ? Or is the map in question only going to be based on certain (Greek) sources (of whom all give diverging descriptions of which even Baltsiotis states are not consistent) ? The Albanian view of the matter has not been covered within the article and i will place two promananet sources within the article (Rrapaj and Sheme) to cover that part. The map within the article covers the rough and maximum extents that this area has been defined over time. There is no clear boundary as Chameria never was defined as a political or administrative concept. Within the Albanian speaking world it was (and still to a certain extent is) a geographical and ethnographic one of which nearby Greek speakers seem to have also at times used to (for its use in Greek). Regarding recent edits about Preveza prefecture, Baltsiotis does mention that Chhameria is north of the prefecture. He however does not state that Chameria is north of the Preveza regional unit. Moreover he places Fanari a plain that straddles the Acheron and is mostly south of that river (the area was also a municipality for sometime) as being within Chameria.Resnjari (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why you manipulate Baltsiotis, he simply states that: The Chams are a distinct ethno-cultural group which consisted of two integral religious groups: Orthodox Christians and Sunni Muslims. This group lived in a geographically wide area, expanding to the north of what is today the Preveza prefecture, the western part of which is known as Fanari [Frar in Albanian], covering the western part of what is today the prefecture of Thesprotia. [[19]]? It's easy to understand that this region is north of Preveza prefecture according to Baltsiotis. By the way, the borders of all prefectures and regional units in Greece fully coincide.Alexikoua (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

How i am manipulating Baltsiotis? Fanari falls in mostly Preveza regional unit and yes it is in the West. I am not sure if you are familier with the area, though Fanari is both a ethnographic region based around a plain of the same name in which the Greek state had previously based a municipality within Preveza regional unit which is made up of other municipalities, prefectures etc. In English the administrative equivalents for their Greek counterparts vary (prefecture, district, municipality, commune etc). Also the area defined as Fanari (or Frar as it is called in the local Arvanitika) consists of the following settlements from what Rrapaj lists: Arcë, Beshere, Birbil, Cugnidhë, Gliqi, Goricë, Hojkë, Jonuz, Kanallaq, Kastri, Klisurë, Koron, Koronopull, Leshe, Lëkurës, Mandukë, Manjë, Morfat, Muzhakat, Nemicë, Njihor (i Frarit), Potame, Spatharat, Spllancë, Stanovë, Taban, Trikopallk, Vllandoraq, Xarrë (i Frarit). I can give the Greek versions another time. To make things easy here, Morfi, Hoika, Gliki fall in Thesprotia and are right on the southern administrative border with Preveza regional unit. The rest of Fanari villages are located in Preveza regional unit (in the former municipality of Fanari) (have a look at this map foor while i find the others :[20]). Now your saying that Fanari somehow falls somewhere else. Where else in Thesprotia is Fanari ? Clarify this for me at least. Baltsiotis when he states north of Prezeva prefecture, its north of the Preveza area, municipalities etc where there is no Fanari. Instead there it is the plain and ethnographic/geographic region is known as Lamari and has been always traditionally Greek speaking. In an article(Lambros Baltsiotis (2015). "Balkan Roma immigrants in Greece: An initial approach to the traits of a migration flow." International Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication. 1. (1)) that Baltsiotis wrote on Romani migration about both sides of the border [21], regarding his fieldwork on Fanari he wrote the following (p.5): There are also some indications of the patterns of migration in relation to the language and the religious heritage of the Roma communities. In the region of Epirus in Northwestern Greece, the knowledge of Albanian language seems to be of certain significance in the areas where Greeks are of an Albanian speaking background or where they still speak the language: in the plains of Fanari in Preveza district for example, Roma farm workers are exclusively Albanian." Fanari falls within Preveza district. Wikipedia uses regional unit for the same kind of administrative area. Its not the fault of others that equivalents vary. Nonetheless Fanari is in Preveza regional unit, not outside it.Resnjari (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Psalidas (cited from Kallivretakis) says that Tsamouria coincided with the Kazas of Margariti, Paramythia and Delvina. Michalopoulos, Kentriotis, Manta and Kallivretakis state that the southern border was Acheron, eastern border the slopes of Olytsikas and northern border Konispol. Batlsiotis rouphly agrees with the rest of the modern academics (he excludes Fanari and Parga). Fanari doesn't make a big difference its just a small region on the banks of the Acheron on the border between Preveza and Thesprotia (either prefecture or regional unit it's geographically the same). To sum up, all of them (Psalidas too) roughly agree about the eastern and the southern border.Alexikoua (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. All those Greek scholars and sources give the Greek view of what the region was or is roughly defined as (if one can still say that for the Greek side of the border these days). Frasheri a early Albanian source gives something similar. I need to add Rrapaj sand Sheme and its similar. Again the borders of Chameria were never definitive and varied according to local Greek and Albanian/Arvanite speaking communities and their localised constructs of geography. The sources diverge. There is no one smoking gun definition and its folly to pin one down. The map in the article give the maximum extent of which Elsie outlines in his description and is also consistent with what Chameria is not (Ioannina or the whole of Greek Epirus as some ignorant idiots now in Albania say).Resnjari (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this was explained to you. Nationality of scholars is not what determines a viewpoint, nor the use of the sources. -- SILENTRESIDENT 18:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

????The scholarship gives alternative viewpoints on what the region was defined as; with even the scholarship itself stating that there are divergences. A editor here said they want to create a map on a "vast array" of sources because the current one is problematic. My point was that most of those sources engage with (divergent) Greek definitions of the region and that the article has almost none giving an Albanian definition (considering that Chameria is a concept of Albanian speaking people). Now if all those want to talk about the geography of the area, well we can. I know it well. I have traveled there and stayed in many a village where Arvanitika is still spoken like in Velani (i.e: Hrisavgi), or Picari (Aetos) and other areas.Resnjari (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly SR, I also wonder how Resnjari can prove that a region is within Preveza prefecture but not within Preveza regional unit as claimed here: [[22]]. Unfortunately I know the region very well, but it doesn't need to be an expert to understand that this falls into wp:DISRUPTION. To sum up Baltsiotis states that Chameria is north of Preveza regional unit/prefecture (whether r.u. or pref. its geographically the same). Alexikoua (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well its good that we both know the region well. So this should be simple then. When Baltsiotis published his works it was in 2011 right after the Kallivretis 2010 administrative reforms changed the way Greek administrative units were defined by the state. In 2015, Baltsiotis writing about Fanari includes it with Preveza district. Now i ask what does it mean when he says district some years later, though uses the word prefecture some years before. Is he referring to the wider Preveza regional unit or Preveza municipality which is located within the wider Preveza regional unit and is south of Fanari?Resnjari (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have been in Chrysavgi and the other villages and I know everyone who happen to live here, even the couple which runs the pottery shop right on the intersection before the village of Chrysavgi for example, and even the family that owns the restaurant and the house above it by the river where the summer festival takes place. You are saying you know the region well, however your edits appear to contradict this. Alexikoua is correct that the Kallikratis reform redefined only the Prefecture's administrative structure; not the Prefecture boundaries. -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

To say it with more simple words your claim is de facto wrong: there is no region: (within the Preveza regional unit) and north of Preveza prefecture.. Both regional units and prefectures in Greece have the very same borders and Baltsiotis states that this region is north of Preveza prefecture/r.u..Alexikoua (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the obvious issue to claim that a prfecture is geographically different from the Regional unit, the term Chameria is geographically irrelevant with the presence of Albanian speakers in adjacent areas (Ioannina, Konitsa etc.). Tsamouria was a region inhabited by various ethnicities and prior to 1912 Tsamides were called all of its inhabitats (Greeks, Albanians etc) irrespective of ethnicity. On the other hand Albanian speakers were also present in Ioannina, Konitsa, etc, in Epirus but not in Chameria. The concept that everything that speaks Albanian inside NW Greece is called Cham is a much later invention.Alexikoua (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

deletion of Geography and climate section

Athenean Chameria is noted as a region even in Greek sources (both non-government and government). In Albania the bit that extends there is still known as Chameria and is considered a region (not in some irredtist way). Some Albanians call the Greek side of the border with irredtist connotations. Only on the Greek side has the term been disused post WW2 as stated in scholarship due to the toponym gaining irredentist overtones. Please do not delete sections like that. Chameria is more complicated.Resnjari (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The section is completely unsourced, and repeats a lot of the same information already in the borders section, so there is no need to be so "protective" of Chameria. Athenean (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok so that section can be incorporated into the above section. You should have said that in the first place, make things easier. The reasons some of which where a concern that you gave in the deletion were: "rm section b/c 1) not a country, 2) uncourced, 3), ethno-geographical regions and irredentist term articles don't have geogrphy and climate sections, 4) redundant with "borders" section)"

Chameria is a geographic/ethnographic region and was recognised as such until WW2 by all who used the term or toponym which wasimportantly used by the Greek government in its official documents. Thereafter things change as per the sources and events relating to the war. Since you brought this up, what part is repetitious before i make edits to incorporate and condense the section ?Resnjari (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I did say that in my first edit summary, but it seems you didn't notice it. The rivers are mentioned a lot in the previous section, so I felt it was repetitious. It was also entirely unsourced. Athenean (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Some stuff on the roads needs to be reincorporated and yes sourced. I find some stuff. The boundary section needs to be named Geography and boundaries, as the section does contain a lot of geography as well.Resnjari (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Location of Lakka

The link you placed giving the location of Lakka [23], [24], is to a village that was formally known as Salitsa prior to 1929 [25]. That Lakka does not correspond to the Lakka Konemenos wrote in the 19th century in which he was referring to a region. Academic Mihalis Kokolakis identifies Lakka as being the region to the east of Souli. See page 373 and map (hartes) 1 for more (Mihalis Kokolakis (2003). Το ύστερο Γιαννιώτικο Πασαλίκι: χώρος, διοίκηση και πληθυσμός στην τουρκοκρατούμενη Ηπειρο (1820-1913). EIE-ΚΝΕ.). Also the Austro-Hungarian Empire when they prepared their military maps of the region in the early twentieth century also identify Lakka in the same area as Kokolakis though also distinguishing its three sub-regions all with the word Lakka. See map:  http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/digkonyv/topo/200e/38-39.jpg For whole map collection see:  http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/digkonyv/topo/3felmeres.htm The area is also known as Lakka Souli. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chameria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418152706/http://cultureportalweb.uoi.gr/cultureportalweb/article.php?article_id=503&topic_id=111&level=4&belongs=110&area_id=39&lang=gr to http://cultureportalweb.uoi.gr/cultureportalweb/article.php?article_id=503&topic_id=111&level=4&belongs=110&area_id=39&lang=gr
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131127064844/http://cultureportalweb.uoi.gr/cultureportalweb/upload_files/1197894290_548_ATT00117.pdf to http://cultureportalweb.uoi.gr/cultureportalweb/upload_files/1197894290_548_ATT00117.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Map

Replacement of the existing map should be discussed here Needless to say that a new map needs neutral & academic sources at least.Alexikoua (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course we can have a slightly better map than the current one. There has been already a discussion here Talk:Chameria#Map_#2. On the other hand an initiative to simply inflate the region without reference tends to fall into disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yet another attempt to place a POV map [[26]]. What's really weird here is that the correspondent source includes several maps of this era (19th-early20th c.) and region, nevertheless Hoxha chose the specific one that inflates that Albanian areas to the max.Alexikoua (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That map is not "POV", it (source) is made by a prestigious Hungarian scholar. It looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT of your part. N.Hoxha (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"What's really weird here is that the correspondent source includes several maps of this era ... inflates that Albanian areas to the max." Uhm, no it is not "weird" at all. I used the map with the most details, but if you prefer another map of the source I can reproduce another one. N.Hoxha (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The map is extremely problematic because it uses solid coloring over areas that are diverse. It also contains numerous errors (e.g. Catholic Albanian areas near Ioannina, Greek-inhabited areas as Albanian, etc.), and it also contradicts the other maps in the article. The article also has 3 maps already, that's quite enough. We don't need a fourth, especially when it is problematic. Khirurg (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Those arguments don't justify the removal of my map. The other maps that are present in the article have errors as well, and if it's the coloring that bothers you, then I guess all maps on Wikipedia about countries with diverse populations that use solid coloring should be removed aswell. "it also contradicts the other maps", it only contradicts the linguistic map, I can remake the map in the lede to coincide with this map, that's not a problem. N.Hoxha (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the map is based on a non-published source [[27]], but this isn't the most serious problem here. There is a collection of late 19th early 20th century maps, off course all of them are non-neutral on modern standards. The specific one is based on a c. 1900 map. If we rely on outdated maps why Hoxha doesn't present a map like the one in p. 21 of the same source (by Virgili?).Alexikoua (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Virigili is dead long time ago (primary), the Hungarians who made (in the 21th century) the map I reproduced are still alive... (not primary) N.Hoxha (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Talking about outdated crap we can find maps of whatever pov we like. However, presenting it as "ethnic composition" is disruptive.

yet another old map

Alexikoua (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This has literally nothing to do with our discussion. N.Hoxha (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

My map is not an outdated "crap", talk about PA. N.Hoxha (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

RS map

Your map is one of many that dates from c.1900. Have you ever read the legend about this map? It's the worst kind in terms of neutrality, don't do that again.Alexikoua (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have read the legend, have you? It clearly says "redrawn and fit to other maps (cca 1900) by Zsolt Bottlik". It is not from 1900 it is about 1900. No valid arguments were presented to justify the removal of my map and it should therefore be reintroduced immediately. N.Hoxha (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This map you have created was based on a c.1900 (left). It has the same historical value as the one of Kiepert (right) map. So, tell me why you prefer only the one POV?Alexikoua (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The map I reproduced can't even slightly be compared with that map (right) which is probably the worst POV piece on this website. Tell me why do you insist on talking about a map that has literally nothing to do with the source I presented? The map I put under the old map is the only map I found with similar historical value to the map above it. But then again, nothing to do with the source I presented. N.Hoxha (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Resnjari offered you some piece of advice on how to select neutral sources. I'm afraid that 'all' those maps here are not close to the real picture. They are not even close to eachother.Alexikoua (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua:, again please, don't invoke me for your 'editing purposes', especially if you don't ping me to partake in the said discussion. Do not take my name in vain. I don't want to be used as a verbal cudgel against other editors whom i highly respect for various agendas. It's not good faith editing.Resnjari (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed they are not similar at all: one map is backed by recent RS material and two other maps have little to no historical value whatsoever. I'm not sure why you bring Resnjari into this. N.Hoxha (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@N.Hoxha:, although i am not inclined to support the addition of the said map you made to this article, you should NOT take @Alexikoua's reaction seriously on this matter. Alexi plain and simple has used similar old and problematic maps in a manner makes the editor hypocritical to say the least. I present Alexikoua's ethnographic map (link: [28]) made about Albania purporting to show current/traditional ethnic groups/communities in Albania and plastered all over Wikipedia. One of the sources used is this map in Sotiriades from 1919 [29] cited in Alexi's bibliography for the map. Why is Sotiriades an issue? Well i said it in this discussion [30]. Have a read and you will know what type of editors you’re dealing with. .Resnjari (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Resnjari: I've created a map based on your suggestion and used Kokkolakis. I assume that's your way of appreciation to other editors in Wikipedia. Also, the only trolling editor here is the one that encourages others "not to take serious their co editors". Alexikoua (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua:, don't invoke me as a verbal cudgel against other editors when your own backyard contains things like the Albania map and use of Sotiriades. Thanks.Resnjari (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Resnjari: I've used your directions about the Chameria maps. I don't know what you are talking about. The map you mention is based on Le Monde Diplomatique (not Sotiriadis) and is a modern source..Alexikoua (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Lede

How about changing the lede, with focus on the "ethnographic" nature of the term? There are four Albanian ethnographic regions, Gegëria, Toskëria, Labëria and Çamëria.Edion Petriti (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Procedural close – This Rfc is not the right way to go here; fails WP:RFCBEFORE, and other reasons. Details at #Discussion below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Ditto. This is not an article about four ethnographic regions; it is about one region.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

@Edion Petriti: A couple of points:

• Have you discussed this issue before? An Rfc is not the first stop in discussion, but more of a last resort when extensive discussion with other editors has been unable to achieve resolution. You can just open a discussion about this, without the need for creating an Rfc. See WP:RFCBEFORE.
• Please see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Of the four regions you mention, not one of them is mentioned in the body, thus, it would be completley inappropriate to mention them in the WP:LEAD.

I suggest you simply close this Rfc (you can do that by removing the line that reads {{rfc|hist|rfcid=4ED839B}}), and add material to the body of the article concerning the four regions, taking care to follow Wikipedia policies of WP:Verifiability, which means including citations to reliable sources. Once you have done that, you may consider whether this newly added content is sufficiently important in the article, that it ought to be added to the lead. But it is definitely premature to add it to the Lead now. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that the lede, as it is now, "Chameria (Albanian: Çamëria; Greek: Τσαμουριά, Tsamouriá; Turkish: Çamlık)[2] is a term used today mostly by Albanians for parts of the coastal region of Epirus in southern Albania and the historical Greek region of Epirus, traditionally associated with an Albanian speaking population called Chams" should be changed to reflect the ethnographic nature of the term. Because it can be properly sourced. «Simbas këtij kriteri, populli shqiptar si njësi etnografike ndahet në... Gegëri e Toskëri. ... Toskëria gjithashtu plotpjesëtohet në 4 nëngrupe të tjera që quhen Labëri, Myzeqe, Toskëri e Çamëri (According to this criterion, the Albanian people as an ethnographic unit is divided into ... Gegëri and Toskëri. ... Toskëria is also divided into 4 other subgroups called Labëri, Myzeqe, Toskëri and Çamëri.)». [31] Edion Petriti (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sarandë District

Why does the lead of the article mention Sarandë District as if it still exists? That administrative unit was dissolved in 2000. Dimadick (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Because we're all too lazy to fix it. All that matters is Konispol and Markat anyways. --Calthinus (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of similar terminology

It's reasonable to have similar terminologies in the see also section, as such Northern Epirus and Chameria are part of the same terms in the Balkans. On the other hand the argument that the one term is historical while the other nationalistic falls deep into deep ethnic POV itself.Alexikoua (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Çamëria has been used since the 19th century. Meanwhile Northern Epirus is just a term derived from the Authonomous Republic of N.E, which aimed to alleged territorial rights. Nothing historical here. The administrative regions of the Sanjak of Ioannina do not mention an Epirus region.

So you might want to read WP:POV

I will put the pov template. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

We have been through this already, Chameria is not the equivalent of the 20th invention of the concept of Northern Epirus. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

My last edit summary was added by mistake and I apologize to the editor in question. However, I have explained the revert as my comment above.

Usually editors that share a certain POV tend to favour their own POV terminology, in this case Chameria against Northern Epirus. We should be neutral on such terminology.Alexikoua (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

[32] I would really recommend you to stop using such kind of language, you have been editing wikipedia for more than a decade now, you should know better. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)