Talk:Expulsion of Cham Albanians/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New Lede discussion

I have been observing talkpage discussion for some days now only giving minimal commentary here or there with the thinking that all three of you would have come to some consensus. Instead the discussion is descending into farce. Very disappointing. All the edits made, there is no dispute over the facts and we all have access to good ground scholarship regarding about passive/active collaboration and other matters. Each editor though has felt that the lede needs to have this or that sentence about the interwar or the Ottoman era as some kind of qualifier that resulted in this that or the other. This has resulted in a over-bloated lede, with much content that needs to be in body, such as numbers, how they fled etc. I expressed my concerns about the lede ending up resembling a McCarthy style lecture of due to collaboration they deserved it kind of a thing, however the reverse is also true in a way that having stuff about the interwar period also takes away from what the article is about. I remind everyone that the article is about the expulsions of the Chams in the 1944-early 1945 period. I have cited that other complicated articles on Wikipedia such as those on the Germans focused on that in the lede. Collaboration is included in the body and expanded on in other articles. I note that there is a article on Cham collaboration already existing. I have looked at this matter and reflected that a minimalist approach and a bare bones to the point lede would be best as this process is now unbecoming of all editors engaged. My proposal encompassing sentences already in the lede with the small tweaking here or there for the lede only have this text focusing directly on the issue of expulsion:

The expulsion of Cham Albanians from Greece was the forced migration of thousands of Cham Albanians from parts of the region of western Epirus, after the Second World War to Albania, by elements of the Resistance National Republican Greek League (EDES) forces and the post-war Greek government.

Partially active and mainly passive collaboration by a significant segment of the Muslim Cham population with the Axis fueled resentment by the Greek side toward the end of World War II. The result was that most of the Muslim Cham population had to flee to Albania. In the process between 200 and 300 Chams were massacred by EDES forces in various settlements, while 1,200 were murdered in total. The estimated amount of Cham Albanians expelled from Epirus to Albania and Turkey varies: figures of 14,000, 19,000, 20,000 or 25,000. After the members of the community settled in Albania, instead of being treated as victims by the People's Republic of Albania, the local regime took a very distrustful view towards them and proceeded with arrests and exiles. The Cham Albanians were labelled as "reactionaries" and suffered a certain degree of persecution within Albania probably because they were Greek citizens, their elites were traditionally rich landlords, their collaboration with the Axis forces and their anti-communist activities.

I welcome any comments. Please all be constructive about this. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I expressed my concerns about the lede ending up resembling a McCarthy style lecture of due to collaboration they deserved it kind of a thing'

Which is exactly what the suggested lede above implies. Incredible. This should go before the second paragraph (which also should be adjusted).

In the late Ottoman period tensions between Muslim Chams and the local Orthodox population emerged. These became expressed through communal conflict that continued after the Balkan wars when a portion of historic Epirus became part of Greece. During the interwar period, Muslim Chams were not integrated into the state and underwent bouts of state persecution that intensified during the Metaxas dictatorship. This set the impetus for communal conflict that transpired between both communities during the war, leading many to collaborate with the invading axis forces. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Its condensed and encompasses those issues without blabbing on endlessly. I tried to focus on the bare essentials with what i proposed as it was becoming nauseating and unsightly. The lede should be a summary of the article, not the actual article itself. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No, this does not sound good. The one side's actions are again downplayed, while the other side's actions are once again on the spotlight. Talking about non-intergration and state persecution and even mention the Metaxas regime, while ignoring completely of the stance of the Cham Albanian side which didn't help the situation? No, this is clearly a concealed POV. If we want to mention the events leading to the expulsion, there should be NO EXCEPTIONS from what is mentioned on the main body of the article. The Ottoman, the Balkan and Interwar periods of the now expelled Cham Albanian minority should be mentioned. So here is my proposal that takes into account Alexikoua's edits, Resnjari's edits, and DevilWearsBrioni's suggestions:

In the late Ottoman period, tensions between the Muslim Chams and the local Greek Orthodox population emerged through communal conflicts that continued during the Balkan Wars, when part of the historic region of Epirus under Ottoman rule became part of Greece. During the First Balkan War, a majority of Cham Albanians, though at first reluctant, sided with the Ottoman forces against the Greeks forces and formed irregular armed units and burned Christian Orthodox inhabited settlements, with only few Albanian beys willing to accept Greek rule in the region. As a response to this activity Greek guerilla units were organized in the region. After the Balkan wars and during the interwar period, the Muslim Chams were not integrated into the Greek state, which adopted policies that aimed to drive out Muslim Chams from their territory, partly through their inclusion in the Greek-Turkish population exchange, although this was not realized due to objections by Italy's fascist regime. Furthermore, the attempted settlement of Greek refugees from Asia Minor within the area and bouts of open state repression in the 1920s and 1930s, in particular by the authoritarian Metaxas regime, led to tensions between the Cham minority and the Greek state. Meanwhile, Fascist Italian propaganda initiated in 1939 an aggressive campaign for the creation of a Greater Albanian state. As such with the onset of the Second World War, a majority of the Muslim Cham population collaborated with the Axis troops, either by providing them with indirect support (guides, local connections, informants etc.) or by being recruited as Axis troops and armed irregulars. The latter cases were responsible of atrocities against the local Greek populace. Overall, the Muslim Chams were sympathetic to Axis forces during the war and benefited from the Axis occupation. Between July and September 1943, armed Cham collaborator units actively participated in Nazi operations that resulted in the murder of over 1,200 Greek villagers, and, January 1944, in the murder of 600 people on the Albanian side of the border. There were also moderate elements within the Muslim Cham community who opposed hatred of their Greek neighbors. A limited number of Muslim Chams enlisted in Albanian and Greek resistance units at the last stages of World War II.

The paragraph should include the details from Ottoman period to World War II, without exceptions. The lead is now bigger but this is because we seem to fail on agreeing on the previous shorter lead paragraphs. If we manage to reach a consensus on the lead this time, we can then collectively help trimming it carefully and without tricks and without downplaying any side's actions on the events of that time period. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Its the same thing again that you have placed. The Ottoman era and Interwar era are condensed in the new version that Brioni placed. The article is about expulsions, not collaboration and that is why the version i placed deals with that. There already is a collaboration article. Moreover, collaboration is cited in the smaller proposed version for the lede. It is not omitted. The lede should overall focus on the expulsions and their aftermath. Otherwise if this version of the lede remains, then a sentence about Zervas collaborating with the Germans will be added to give the reader context about what was going on during the era and collaboration. As it stands now the lede reads like the Chams deserved what they got because they as Muslims considered themselves as citizens of the Ottomans which thereby justified other things in later times. Also the bit about fascist Italian propaganda, Baltsioits states that the reason for people collaborating did not overall have to do with Albanian nationalism. Those who where Albanian nationalists joined ELAS. Needs fixing even on that point.Resnjari (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The Collaborations article should mention all what led to it. And the Expulsion article should mention all what led to the Expulsion. But when it comes to the lead, we have 2 options: Either a balanced mention of the events leading to the expulsion, either not mention these events at all (not even the Metaxas regime, not even the Greek police of discrimination. How clear can I be that biased perceptions of the events are not tolerated? You choose: 1) Balanced mention of events leading to Expulsion on lead, or complete removal of ALL mention of events that led to the Expulsion from lead. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Second option sounds good and myy first proposal was heading in that direction. First option though in theory sounds good has resulted in this lede that is over bloated and growing to the point that it is the main article. Then it would be a even skinnier lede proposal on my part taking into what you have said and basically constitute this as the lede with the rest incorporated into the main article (with accompanying footnotes).

The expulsion of Cham Albanians from Greece was the forced migration of thousands of Cham Albanians from parts of the region of western Epirus, after the Second World War to Albania, by elements of the Resistance National Republican Greek League (EDES) forces and the post-war Greek government. In the process between 200 and 300 Chams were massacred by EDES forces in various settlements, while 1,200 were murdered in total. The estimated amount of Cham Albanians expelled from Epirus to mainly Albania and some to Turkey varies: figures of 14,000, 19,000, 20,000 or 25,000. After the members of the community settled in Albania, instead of being treated as victims by the People's Republic of Albania, the local regime took a very distrustful view towards them and proceeded with arrests and exiles. The Cham Albanians thereafter were labelled as "reactionaries" and suffered a certain degree of persecution within Albania during the communist era.Resnjari (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Or even better, this:

The expulsion of Cham Albanians from Greece was the forced migration of thousands of Cham Albanians from parts of the region of western Epirus, after the Second World War to Albania, by the Allies. During the process, over 1,500 Cham Albanians were murdered and massacred and the estimated amount of Cham Albanians expelled from Epirus to Albania and Turkey varies: figures of 14,000, 19,000, 20,000 or 25,000. After the members of the community settled in Albania, instead of being treated as victims and have their rights protected, the local regime took a very distrustful view towards them and proceeded with arrests and exiles. The Cham Albanians thereafter were labelled as "reactionaries" and suffered a certain degree of persecution within Albania during the communist era.

What do you think? But thinking of the second option which you have proposed a while back, trimming the side-side information, couldn't go against Wikipedia:Lead? Because 50% of the Article is full of pre-Expulsion content... This gives the Option 1 a good reason to be considered as well. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest the first sentence should be: "The expulsion of Cham Albanians from Greece was the forced migration of thousands of Cham Albanians from parts of the region of western Epirus, after the Second World War to Albania, by the Allies and extremist elements of the EDES." Moreover, "instead of being treated as victims and have their rights protected" is not very encyclopedic. It implies some form of personal analysis. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Instead of "the Allies and extremist elements of the EDES.", it should simply be "the Allies and their collaborators.". Remember that the EDES did so by the orders of the Allies. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

So, we are heading for the second option, which is removing entirely any mention and details about events prior to the Expulsion. But I feel obliged to note that if the 2nd option has to be taken, a solid consensus first should be reached first here in the talk page. We have to hear the opinions of the other users here in the Talk Page and especially ensure that DevilWearsBrioni and Alexikoua do not object to this for a consensus to be reached. We can not do such drastic changes without reaching a solid consensus first. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Having "extremist elements of the EDES" (that poses questions of: who were they ? were there people in EDES who opposed this course of action ? and then the lede becomes bloated and a mess again) or "Allies and their collaborators" (same thing). As for "Because 50% of the Article is full of pre-Expulsion content..." Some of that content should be in the collaboration article. For the lede anyway the second option is best after all this wrangling. For your proposal, allies is too subject to interpretation. The previous sentence has by elements of the Resistance National Republican Greek League (EDES) forces and the post-war Greek government. I would say to remove post-war Greek government. That government (in exile and its shaky return in 1945 in Athens) was not involved in the actions of expulsion when a government of exile existed. Zervas though affiliating with the government in exile was his own operative. Though the government was not fond of the Chams, they did not give the directive for the expulsions to occur and only accepted the outcome of what happened, which is different altogether. Zervas also went ahead with full scale expulsions due in part to local British intelligence operatives giving him the go ahead about removing populations that may cause problems for the allies (see: James Pettifer for this: [1]. I would say that the sentence ought to have by elements of the Resistance National Republican Greek League (EDES) forces and with the acquiescence of local British intelligence operatives. Beyond that, the slimmed down version is fine.Resnjari (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

OK how about "by the Allies and elements of the Resistance National Republican Greek League (EDES) forces with the acquiescence of local British intelligence operatives"?-- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I would make a few slight tweaks and changes like and for through and added toward the end of the instead of after which is factually wrong. I split the sentence into two as it would be clunky and added: It was carried out at the beginning of the second sentence. So the final sentences now read: The expulsion of Cham Albanians from Greece was the forced migration of thousands of Cham Albanians from parts of the region of western Epirus toward the end of the Second World War to Albania. It was carried out by the Allies through elements of the Resistance National Republican Greek League (EDES) forces with the acquiescence of local British intelligence operatives. Your thoughts guys ?Resnjari (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think "by the allies" is a bit misleading. For example, when 4-5,000 Chams returned to the area in 1945, they were subsequently expelled by paramilitary groups. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. I am happy now, and this deals with all possible POV concerns I had, and I give the green light from my part. I am relieved now, considering how I was on the edge of reporting DevilWearsBrioni to the Administrators for POV-pushing edits that could ignore any balancing concerns of the other users. Now I hold the faith that if DevilWearsBrioni agrees to the second option, and everyone else here is not objecting to it, then the consensus could be solid. But I feel obliged to remind the users here that NO FURTHER CHANGES SHALL BE DONE ON THE LEAD! Any further changes with tricks that add about the one side but intentionally keep out of from the other side, could only worsen the neutrality of the article, and find me against it. In the shadow of a such event, I will be left with no other options but to report the disrupting user to the Administrator's noticeboard. Wikipedia is not a place where nationalist Albanian and Greek points of views and manipulation of sources are tolerated and I am really sad that the people are failing to see how their edits are doing exactly that. Remember: no more actions. The article has enough problems already. OK? -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The British were part of the big three (USA, Russia and Britain, some include France too as no. 4). So British operatives acting on the ground giving the go ahead counts as a main voice from one of allies and Zervas was considered one a local allied force when it happened. Though the Chams did return in 1945, paramilitary groups were affiliated with Zervas as EDES included those groups and they came in after ELAS was expelled from the Filiates area. As for reports to Adminstators both of you would have come out of this not in good stead or order. That i had to intervene at all... really, anyway disappointed me. After this is done, a discussion on what needs happen as to what remains, what needs to be shifted to the collaboration article and what needs be here regarding collaboration but in more condensed form. I am going to place the lede in whole down below and place my vote for it.Resnjari (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

New Lede (final wording after discussion). Vote:

The expulsion of Cham Albanians from Greece was the forced migration of almost the entire Muslim Cham Albanian population from parts of the region of western Epirus toward the end of the Second World War to Albania (1944-1945). It occurred during the military operations of the Allied forces and after the withdrawal of the German units from the region. It was carried out by the Allies through elements of the Resistance National Republican Greek League (EDES) forces with the acquiescence of local British intelligence operatives. During the process, some 1,200 Cham Albanians were murdered and massacred and the estimated amount of Cham Albanians expelled from Epirus to Albania and Turkey varies: figures of 14,000, 19,000, 20,000 or 25,000. After the members of the community settled in Albania, instead of being treated as victims and have their rights protected, the local regime took a very distrustful view towards them and proceeded with arrests and exiles. The Cham Albanians thereafter were labelled as "reactionaries" and suffered a certain degree of persecution within Albania during the communist era.

• Agree.Resnjari (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agree - disagree (see bellow) too. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with the general sentiment, although it seems the concerns I raised were ignored. Either way, this will do for now, and future edits to the lead should be made after consensus has been reached. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Any future edits by you on the lead, may break the new consensus and thus leave us with no other options than to revert back to this stable version [2] and report you to the Administrator's noticeboard. At least do not say that I haven't warned you. The consensus on the second option has to be respected from the moment it is agreed. Any changes to the lead will be done only with a wide consensus and not like how you did before, where you have ignored the concerns of other users and proceed alone in implementing the changes to the lead. So, my friend, I feel obliged to warn you specifically this: if you resort again in edit revert wars with other users, or if you attempt any biased or unconstructive edits on the new lead without seeking a consensus on talk page first, or if you seek to manipulate sources once again, and or if your edits have resulted in break of the hard-reached neutrality of the new lead, and or turn the second option into another failure like how you have done with the first option, then, your edits will be reverted and you will be reported to the administrator's noticeboard. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstood what I wrote. Any future edits to the lede, once this has been settled, will only be made through consensus. For the record, that's not a stable version. And please, if you intend to accuse me of manipulating sources and edit warring, start a post on ANI already. I'm tired of that shit. I'll gladly present my case there. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree:(solved, but still a couple of suggestions remain about the addition of 3 sententences) I have some objections here: 1. "thousands" needs to replaced with a more precise estimate or simply saying "the entire community'. 2. No reference about 1,500 victims, I suggest it should be corrected to 1,200, 3. It's too short, its needs some expansion. Everything else is ok.Alexikoua (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding thousands. Point taken. Replace with most of the Muslim Cham Albanian population or of almost the entire Muslim Cham population. Reason being that a small number remained behind in Koutsi (today's: Polyneri) as per Baltsiotis. On the casualty numbers, that's fine unless others have sources for the 1,500 number. Nonetheless, its reduced to this level due to the lede being overbloated and becoming a article within the article. For now this minimalist approach dealing with what the article is supposed to be about: expulsions is a better course of action. Doubling it as you put, will result in tripping it and quadrupling it and so on. Direct and to the point is what this lede is.Resnjari (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I highly recommend that Alexikoua's concerns are noted and changes are done where the problem is, for us to reach a solid consensus and go ahead with the new Option 2's lead. Thanks. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, will add. As for doubling as Alexikoua says and Brioni has also, we have been through this. Its a complete mess. After all that has happened a minimalist approach is best.Resnjari (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Some context is necessary: 1. Year is missing (1944-5), 2. The fact that this occurred during the Axis withdrawal and when the Allied side attempted to secure a breachhead in the region should also be mentioned. The last one addition is essential for the context, since this occurred during ongoing war developments in the region.Alexikoua (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I added the year/s to the appropriate sentence. About 2.) on the allies and beachhead thing that's sounds ok. Since you identified a gap, come up with a sentence and we will take it from there. About context in the wider region, a lot was going on like EDES vs ELAS and the Cham expulsions occurring within that time. Not sure if your referring to that ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You should understand that, if enough context is provided to certain events, the lede will become suggestive again, and as such we're back at square one again. I can see where this is heading and I'm just letting you know that. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there: What about changing "The Cham Albanians from Greece " to "The Cham Albanians from Axis occupied Greece"?

Also, we could potentially provide context by doing something along the lines of a sentence from the Greek civil war article that reads: "The civil war was the result of a highly polarized struggle between left and right that started in 1943 and targeted the power vacuum that the end of German-Italian occupation during World War II had created." It's neutral and doesn't put blame on either side.

Maybe: "The expulsion, carried out by the Allies through elements of the Resistance National Republican Greek League (EDES) forces with the acquiescence of local British intelligence operatives, was the culmination of a highly polarized conflict between two once coexisting communities that started during the first Balkan Wars." That was just off the top of my head. I'm sure it could be improved. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The concept that everything started with the Balka Wars is wp:OR, Tsoutsoumpis offers detailed descriptions from the Ottoman era with the coexisting communities being not so friendly eachother. Thus, BW should change to late Ottoman era.Alexikoua (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Late Ottoman era is when these things began when both Albanian speaking groups (Muslims and Christians) starting to gain national identities that kick-started communal conflict (see: Baltsiotis etc). Anyway this stuff and its relevance for this article (or how much should be about that time in here) can be discussed for the body. Especially in light of Silent's comments, and somewhat Brioni's, lede should relate directly to expulsions like with other similar articles i.e Germans etc. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Alexikoua is right, the new Lead feels small. I got an idea. The mention of the Aftermath of the Expulsion on the new Lead can be expanded slightly to make up for the new Lead's very small size. So how about adding a phrase or two, about where (which regions) the Chams settled in Albania? I mean, the new Lead already explains that they got uprooted from Western Epirus in Greece, but it does not explain precisely where they settled in Albania. Konispol area? North Albania perhaps? It couldn't be bad to mention this, this could help the new Lead not feel too small and short. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say just one sentence on where they where settled and the rest can be elaborated on in the aftermath part of the article. The Chams were overwhelmingly settled in the plain of Myzeqe (around the town of Fier, as draining of the regions swamps allowed for the fertile land to handle a bigger population. Others where mainly settled in Sarande - and 3 villages around it in the Albanian speaking zone - Kallivretakis gives the village names in his study of the demographics of the area in 1992, in Elbasan city and very small numbers scattered in central and northern Albania. Enver Hoxha did not want these Cham refugees to settle the Konispol area. Those native Chams and these refugee Chams were kept for the most part separate during the communist era. I have the info for all that. I need though Alexikoua to elaborate on the context thing if he meant the EDES vs ELAS conflict about context in his previous comment, so i know what to focus on when writing up the new sentences. If so, about 3 new sentences can be added to the lede. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume we need 3 additional senteneces for the proposed lead. Alexikoua (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional supportOppose: "Murdered and massacred" is both not very NPOV and redundant. The neutral word here is "killed" (as in the lede for the Holocaust article). Otherwise looks good. Athenean (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed such terms should be avoided in lead.Alexikoua (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I disgree about the removal of such terminology here. Though editors on the Holccaust have chosen to not use that terminology, they could is they so wished as it is accounted for in the scholarship of what happened. Other articles and their lede's like that on the Armenian genocide and the Greek genocide contained those words and others. Now at least one of you is a contributor to the second article (well in the talk) so make the case there for the removal of those words first and carry through on it and then make the case here. Otherwise that part on the massacres in this article, which i might add Baltsiotis amongst other scholars uses for what happened in Paramithia and Filat and is apt for here too.Resnjari (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Then no way, forget it. I am not interested in your semantic games. Athenean (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Athenean. You invoke an example and i invoke two to the contrary. I have a third example too: Paramythia executions. In the lede it refers to a massacre of Orthodox notables by the Chams. If we go by methodology your citing then the word should be removed from there too. Yes ? I prefer consistency. Semantic games, your opinion. In the end, the lede will be fixed up whether you want to particpate or not. Massacres is the term used for what happened.Resnjari (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV is non negotiable. None of your "examples" use "murdered and massacred" because it's highly POV, redundant, and bad English. Athenean (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well since you feel strongly about this and as the lede discussion about its final wording will be ongoing for a while longer (i am still waiting on a book), you can make a change at least to the Paramythia executions lede (as its a related article) and follow through on it and make it stick. When or if you do that, then i will take on board for here what you said. Otherwise terminology like massacres stays for the lede in this article, as it is used in the credible (Greek) scholarship amongst others.Resnjari (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I am amenable to changing the "murdered" in the lede of Paramythia executions to "killed", but that is a discussion for another time. As far as your proposal here, until you change the ridiculous "murdered AND massacred" (they weren't JUST murdered you see, they were massacred too!), I'm afraid your lede proposal is dead in the water. Athenean (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I said the discussion on the lede will be ongoing for some time in lieu of comments i made in the above regarding British involvement etc (i am waiting on a book before i proceed, some slacker at my university has not returned it to the library yet !). Anyway, if you want me to take on board removals of words like massacres in the lede, you can easily remedy the issue and make the change at Paramythia executions right now if you want or over the week. Like this, you set a precedent and then i will take on board what you have said and be amenable to change here. Until that time massacres stays as it is accounted for in the scholarship. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Agree Disagree too - Athenean and Alexikoua both are right for the need of the new lead to be compact and without POV issues. I think Athenean got a point here - using just the word "Killed" is more than enough, but honestly, in the past, I didn't realized that the words "murdered" and "massacred" were a possible POV case, and thus, I didn't bother with these details. But the fact that these words were on the same sentence (same phrase to be precise), was a mistake of mine, not Resnjari's mistake, coz if my memory does not fail me, they originally have existed in two separate phrases on the same paragraph on the lead, before I proceed to merge them into the same phrase, as part of my efforts to trim the very long lead (See Talk Page: The lead is way too long). If we can have the Lead be as simple as we can, with just NPOV words, then I will too give my consent like how I have explained in my previous comments about the need for the new lead to be compact and simple and without POV issues. But personally, I am against two standards and two values in Wikipedia, and the rules must apply anywhere - so I recommend that if there is any case of MASSACRED/MURDERED spotted on the lead of the Armenian and Greek genocide pages, as Resnjari pointed out, then they should be corrected as well. If the lead in the page about the Holocaust avoids using such words, then I don't see why the same doesn't apply for the leads in the pages about the Armenian and Greek genocides. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Like i said, 'massacres and murdered can be removed, but there must be consistency at least on the Cham related Wiki article. The Paramithia executions has massacres at the top and also states that the event is known by that name. Apart from the NPOV issues that Athenean has brought up, it is also a bit problematic as scholarship on the Paramithia massacre refers to the event that happened to the Chams by EDES in 1944, not the executions by Chams of Orthodox notables in 1943. See Baltstiotis and Manta as examples in this regard. Now any one of you can remove it from that article, when done i will agree to a change here. Until then massacres is attributed in the scholarship. I give my word here in front of everyone. But things MUST be consistent and first there. Yeah change needs to occur on the Armenian and Greek genocide pages too. That's for others to do. I only brought up those two examples to contrast it with Athenean's example of the Holocaust. Anyway, My main area of focus is Cham related articles at this point in time. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see where the expression "murdered and massacred" is used in Paramythia executions. Obviously the use of both verbs together is pov. I also fail to see where Baltsiotis (as well as Manta, Tsoutsoumbis, Kretsi)makes subsequent use of both words "murdered and massacred" or "murders and massacres" somewhere in his booklet. Care to provide the specific quote?Alexikoua (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

In the peer reviewed journal article, not booklet of Baltsiotis, on paragraph 61 and 68 he refers to the massacre in Paramythia in 1944 and also refers to it as the Paramithia massacre. On paragraph 59 he referred to events in Paramythia in past tensed and use the word murdered and again in footnote 100 as murders. Mazower also refers to a massacre by Zotos' paramilitary forces in Filiates -p.26 [3]. The words are used in scholarship regarding what happened. You and others have online access to the sources so you can go direct to them, by all references i have provided. Best.

Yes this is reasonable. I can understand that for some readers the use of two strong-worded terms in the very same phrase, can raise questions about the article's impartial tone. In fact, as per W:NPOV-IT, the events in the article should be described with an impartial tone. Phrases containing a rather partisan tone such as massacres and murders in the very same phrase, should be corrected. Since our goal (supposedly) is to deal with the chronic POV issues plaguing this article and make a compact and impartial lede, the best way to accomplish this is by following Wikipedia's guidelines. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that impartiality needs to be used, however on other similar articles when the Chams are cited as perpetrators the word massacre is used as in the Paramythia executions article. Its a very complicated issue.Resnjari (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: I'm still waiting an explanation where is this double verb "massacred and murdered" used. So far there are "zero" inlines to support this, even more the use of both verbs together reveal a disruptive initiate to insist on a certain national POV. In general there is no such expression in any wikipedia article in this scope as well in the entire available bibliography (Baltsiotis, Manta, Meyer, Tsoutsoumbis etc). I also fail to see the same in "Paramythia executions".Alexikoua (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Its very easy. The sources when referring to the expulsions use words such as massacres, murders, in Mazower, words like much destruction and plundering. Having "massacred and murdered" is just encompassing those contents. One can replace it with two prominent massacres, one in Paramythia followed on by another in Filiates that involved killing and much destruction and plundering if you so wish to be much closer to the peer reviewed sources without plagiarizing them. As for inlines, you do have the internet i take it, he sources are free, available and you can access them all. If in the next comment you still say that is beyond you regarding access, a very lengthy list will be given by me. Don't follow it on thereafter that my comment is big and hard to navigate like in previous times as you will get what is asked.Resnjari (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Resnjari, fist of all, this talk page is about the problems related to the Expulsion of Cham Albanians article, not about the Paramythia Executions. Secondly, any POV issues encountered on other articles, such as the Paramythia Executions, should not be used as an excuse for justifying the POV issues on the current article. The Wikipedia's rules must apply ANYWHERE without excuses for no excuses. Third and last, since you have spotted POV issues on other articles, such as the Paramythia Execution article, then, you better open a similar discussion in their relevant Talk Pages, so the people who are monitoring these articles, can be aware of and solve them. I hope can't be more clear than this - the rules must apply on all articles. Turning a blind eye to problems spotted on any them, does not promote Wikipedia's quality standards - they rather undermine them. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Silent Resident. I am not justifying any POV issues. If all of you who want there to be a change in this lede, change part of the lede of that article. Why do i say this. In future if say a discussion occurs on changing the lede there, others who so vehemently campaign for a change here will block it over there for a whole host of reasons, or by sheer numbers and then call my moves for consistency etc disruption and me pushing "national POV". I am just going by experience with interactions of multiple editors on Wikipedia in recent times and am very well aware of the dynamics here on Wikipedia. Usually yes the normal way is to start a separate discussion on that article for a change and resolve it there. However, in light of i said if all of you want consistency, make a change over there and remove from the lede the word massacre and then i will agree to it here. They are Cham related articles after all on similar subject matters. In the end i am not fussed whether this intro goes in or not. If this intro does not go in at the end, the current one will just get bigger, that's all.Resnjari (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: No wonder the so-called inline support for "massacred and murdered" is nothing more than science fiction. Unfortunately for you I have full access to the cited material. For future reference descriptions such as "much destruction and plundering" (by Mazower) can't be interpreted as "massacred and murdered".Alexikoua (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua. So you have access to the sources. Great ! Not unfortunate after all. "massacred and murdered" can be replaced with something more to the point like two prominent massacres, one in Paramythia followed on by another in Filiates that involved killing and much destruction and plundering and some addition about the burning of other villages. The events around and during the expulsions were not "science fiction".Resnjari (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I won't object this wording provided that this is preceded by "the Cham Albanian representatives were invited to abandon their support to the Germans and hand over their weapons before the advance of the Allied forces in Paramythia and Filiates. As a result...". I can provide the precise quotes from Tsoutsoumpis and Manta if you need.Alexikoua (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds ok. I'll come up with (a) sentance/s soon.Resnjari (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Reviving this discussion since the lede is still a POV mess. I will consider outside assistance if status quo remains. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. Things got by the wayside due to personal circumstances. Will do additions very soon. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Balkan Wars - OR / POV

Source #1 reads:

"The tensions that had been building in the area finally exploded during the Balkan War of 1912-1913. The war took the form of brutal guerrilla fighting, waged primarily by local civilians who were armed by the Greek and Ottoman governments. In the autumn of 1912, Muslim bands raided villages as far north as the area of Pogoni in Ioannina; resulting in hundreds of Greek peasants abandoning their homes and seeking shelter in Corfu and Arta. Atrocities were widespread and no prisoners were taken from either side. Greek irregulars responded in kind from January 1913 onwards."

Source #2 reads:

"Although Muslim Chams were not eager to fight on the side of the Ottoman army during the Balkan Wars, they were nevertheless treated by the Greek army as de facto enemies, while local Christians were enlisted in the Greek forces. For example, a few days after the occupation of the area of Chamouria by the Greek Army, 72 or 78 Muslim notables were executed by a Greek irregular military unit in the religiously mixed town of Paramythia, evidently accused of being traitors."

Wikipedia entry reads:

Muslim Chams were not keen to fight on the side of the Ottoman army, but already from autumn 1912 formed armed bands and raided the entire area as far north as Pogoni. As a result hundreds of Greek villagers were forced to escape to nearby Corfu and Arta. Thus, the members of the Muslim community were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek state.

Apparently Muslim Chams were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek state because Muslim bands raided villages from autumn 1912. How is this not SYNTH and POV? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Quite weird someone can claim about OR. In fact the inline reference fits perfectly with the text. Especially the highlighted text is from the most up to date inline academic reference we have:

Inline	Article
In the autumn of 1912, Muslim bands raided villages as far north as the area of Pogoni in Ioannina; resulting in hundreds of Greek peasants abandoning their homes and seeking shelter in Corfu and Arta.	Muslim Chams were not keen to fight on the side of the Ottoman army, but already from autumn 1912 formed armed bands and raided the entire area as far north as Pogoni. As a result hundreds of Greek villagers were forced to escape to nearby Corfu and Arta. Thus, the members of the Muslim community were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek state.Alexikoua (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

In general Baltsiotis admits that he couldn't find information about this period. On the other hand, the more detailed and recent research of Tsoutsoumbis needs to be preferred, as it sheds enough light to the subject. In simple words, Baltsiotis becomes obsolete in the same manner Roudometof became too.Alexikoua (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Its weird because the sentence combines two sources which when the sentence is split are chronological and make sense, but together, yes makes up OR. Baltsiotis only notes the sentiment of Albanian Muslim Chams on the eve of the Balkan wars about them not wanting to fight. The war changed it after as they did not want to become part of Greece. Sentence should be split about irregular bands.Resnjari (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Tsoutsoumbis's sources provide valuable information about this time period. Of course should be referred. Tsoutsoumbis clearly has stated that the Greek government was the one who armed the Greek irregular bands who responded to the atrocities of the Chams. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Obliviously that needs to be cited and also that Greek bands did their own share of atrocities against the Muslim Cham population and i have Blerina Sadiku for it during that time. The issue as Alexi brought it up was that Chams were not willing to fight for the Ottomans, should be removed from the article. There is nothing to suggest that what Baltsiotis states is wrong. It was the sentiment of the Muslim Cham Albanian population on the eve of the Balkan wars. Muslim Albanians themselves had risen against the Ottomans in 1910 and especially 1912 (for in depth overall situation see: Gawrych pp. 197-200. [4]) as the long process of divorce had begun from the Ottomans, however they did not want to be in a Greek or Serb state. While the Muslim Albanian Chams Albanian speaking Orthodox counterparts saw themselves as Greeks and supported the Greek movement, incoming Greek army and wanted to be part of Greece. I do agree that Tsoutsoumbis is very interesting indeed. He builds on Baltisois in that his research shows outright it was conflicts between two religious groups of Albanian speakers and was sectarian in nature. It goes beyond the Chams as being Axis allies as Zervas himself was a Axis collaborator in 1943-early 1944. Much, much to do here. There will need to be some adjustments of the lede two. Not enough on the British role, actually in particular Woodhouse and only Woodhouse (Kretsi even cites him in his own words in a journal article for Balkanica). It was he outright who encouraged Zervas to go through with the expulsions with no go ahead from London headquarters or the from the other Allies. It was a on the ground decision made. Tsoutsoumbis cites that the EDES leadership was reluctant and that it was the (Albanian-speaking) Orthodox population of the region (who formed a sizable number of EDES forces) who wanted the Muslim Albanian Chams out from reasons ranging from communal and sectarian tensions all the way to personal and property gains. I have to get my hands on one more book before i suggest proposals to the lede to clarify it. Brioni also has a point about the expulsion being two phased and that needs to be addressed as EDES was not involved in the second, while elements from it as a paramilitary force under Zotos were, but not under the official EDES banner.Resnjari (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Baltsiotis states that he is lacking suficient sources about the BW era, but Tsoutsoumbis who is an expert on the field sheds enough light on this. @Resnjari I assume this sentence: Muslim Albanians themselves had risen against the Ottomans in 1910 and especially 1912 doesn't include Cham Albanians, they preferred to be self-defined as Turks or Muslims instead of Albanians, per Tsoutsoumbis. Most important: Cham Albanians were completely irrelevent with the Albanian rebellions of 1910s:

Accordingly Muslim peasants did not identify as Albanians-Shqiptar, but rather as Muslims-Myslyman in Albanian or Turks. (Tsoutsoumpis, p. 122)

DWB's OR/POV arguments above fall simply into wp:IDONTLIKEIT, not to mention his personal obsession to launch bad faith attacks on every noticeboard possible.Alexikoua (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

My point about the rebellions, which did not affect the Cham population though the wider Muslim Albanian community was that the Ottoman state was completely and utterly unsure about which way Muslim Albanians were going to go as a whole group. Would they support the Ottomans or not if the moment came in the war as the sentiment up in central and in northern Muslim Albanian speaking areas was not for the Ottoman military by that point on the eve of the Balkan wars. I still fail to see where in paragraph 21 Baltsiotis states in relation to the sentiments of Chams not wanting to not fight on the Ottoman side is based on meagre or insufficient sources. Nor is there a contradiction with other works on the wider Albanian sentiment in relation to the Ottomans as per Gawrych. Baltsiotis also does not contradict Tsoutsoupis who states Muslim Chams joined the Ottoman army with the start of the Balkan wars. Also what does "Muslim peasants did not identify as Albanians-Shqiptar" have tto do with this? You quote from Tsoutsoumpis based on a Greek educationalist Kyrioss Nitsos from 1909, who i note states that Christians called themselves Kaur and found no offence in the term (which somehow bypassed it being also cited in the Wiki article, though i remedied that too) and not Greek, while Baltsiotis states in 2011 that the Orthodox people where Greek orientated at that time and identified themselves as Greek. Should we remove Baltsiotis about Greek identification because Tsousoumpisi work is published in 2015 and says that Albanian speaking populations were not nationalised, so as to be consistent? In the end Nitsos was one Greek observation of a people who were mainly Albanian speaking and that still has nothing to do with sentiments about a fight in a war. Tsoutsoupis also does not bother to say if Nitsos got that information from those people in Albanian or Greek? -and he was a Greek educationist, which poses its own problems. Albanians going through the area had different viewpoints too. Nonetheless, still are you drawing a conclusion that because people identified generically as Muslims they automatically supported the Ottomans in war and everything? Clarify otherwise its OR.Resnjari (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Res.: Have you ever took time to read wp:Good_practices_for_all_talk_pages_used_for_collaboration? What about to begin creating subsections for each question you have, because mashing it all into one long post makes methodical progress almost impossible? About DWB's initial question, it's obvious that someone that burns settlements etc can be regarded as de facto enemy as in our case, even if he is not enthousiastic to cooperate with the Ottoman authorities.Alexikoua (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alexi.:Thankyou for the advice. I have not mashed anything. My point in the previous comment was in relation to you stating that Baltsiotis should be removed about Cham reluctance in participating on the Ottoman side in the war on the basis that he supposedly says he had little information about that time period. My response was that he makes no such claim and in no way contradicts other research regarding Albanian sentiment in the eve of the Balkans war. Fighting happens after. As for who is regarded as a "de facto" enemy, Muslims in the Balkans, Albanians included, saw the Balkans war as one for survival as the armies that came invaded and they saw their Orthodox neighbours regardless of having the same language as their foe, due to the activities of ceta or tsetes groups fighting from some decades before. Gawrych states this outright toward the last chapter of book and why Albanians then participated on the Ottoman side. They did not want to be part of Serbia or Greece. Like i have said, for the large Muslim population, the Balkans war was not one of liberation and there is more than enough scholarship on that too. The bit stated by Baltsiotis stays on Cham sentiment.Resnjari (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That's your personal analysis. Unless Tsoutsoumbis or Baltsiotis makes the claim that the the Greek army treated muslim Chams as enemies as a consequence of the activities of Muslim Bands (Turks, Muslim Greeks, Albanians? Or all of them?), you're not allowed to do it. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at all: Tsoutsoumbis states that Albanians were burning settlements all over Epirus and then they the Greek side responded to this attacks. In simple words when someone responds to another's attack he regards him as enemy. No wonder your ANI case is considered de facto "poor" as various editors instructed you.Alexikoua (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

So were Greek irregulars (Orthodox Albanian speakers, Greeks speakers etc) with arms supplied by the Greek side and after the Greek army breached Ottoman territory and Muslim Albanians were also responding in kind and in self defense to the invading army. This article has much much to do.Resnjari (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Greek irregulars, not the Greek army, responded to the activity of Muslim bands, per Tsoutsoumbis. Baltsiotis makes it clear that both sides were burning villages before 1913. If the Greek side, which you claim, only responded from 1913, how does that align with what Baltsiotis says? Maybe because they're talking about two separate things? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Tsoutsoumbis presents a more detailed work being the most up to date on the issue. Baltsiotis on this issue faces similar problems with Roudometof.Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Tsoutsoumpis is certainly not more detailed, and you have yet to provide any evidence for the claim that Baltsiotis is outdated. If Tsoutsoumpis states that the Greek army did not engage in village burnings in late 1912, you'd have a case (but then we'd have to determine who's more reliable). But he doesn't, and as such, these details can be considered valid and should (and will eventually) be accounted for in the article. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the concept of an academic source being outdated due to more recent and detailed research was intruduced in this talkpage by Resnjar. I won't have any issue to restore Roudometof on the fact that "there was not evivdence of direct persecution" during the Interwar years.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

And let me remind you that you need to provide evidence for why Baltsiotis is outdated. Merely asserting it and claiming that Tsoutsoumpis is more recent doesn't suffice. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this was the very same reason Roudometof was removed, although being one of the experts on the subject. Definitelly your argument is very strong to restore the "no direct presecution" fact against the Cham community.Alexikoua (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The difference being that Roudometof is contradicted by several scholars. Both Resnjai and I provided evidence of scholarship which states that there was direct state persecution. You still haven't presented any evidence. So, I ask you again, why should Baltsiotis be considered outdated. Where specifically does Tsoutsoumpis contradict Baltsiotis? By the way, what are Tsoutsoumpis' credentials? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Tsoutsoumpis meet's fully wp:secondary and wp:academic, the same happens with Pitouli & Roudometof which are also questioned by you. You are free to take him to the noticeboard considered you have evidence against.Alexikoua (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

In fact, dear Alexikoua, from my experience, most cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT are appearing on politically-sensitive articles about the Balkans and Eastern Mediterranean, which is really alarming. I hope DWB raising multiple cases of OR in such a sort period on the article about the Expulsion of Cham Albanians might be just a mere coincidence and not some sort of a pattern? -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a mere coincidence, it's definitely a pattern which is a consequence of the fact that both you and Alexikoua clearly don't understand OR policy. It so happens that obscure articles like this don't get the attention they deserve, which is why both you and Alexikoua can get away with edits that wouldn't fly on many other articles. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you be kind enouph and highlight the OR part of the text? I admit your comments are not easy to understand. No wonder you were instructed by 3rd part editors to avoid poor arguments in yet another bad faith filled ANI against me.Alexikoua (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@DWB: The fact that you believe that: "Muslim Chams were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek state because Muslim bands raided villages from autumn 1912." is OR raises serious questions about the way you can understand an inline reference. Pretending that this is blantant OR and taking this straight to ANI without even posting here before and with aggresive headings ("No Original Research Policy should not take 8 years to grasp"?) can be easily considered as the epitomy of disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

DevilWearsBrioni, you are accusing everyone for false and unproven OR cases even when the sources are there and confirmed the Greek response to Cham Albanians. You are insisting on CHERRYPICKING and not including/misrepresenting certain source information to the article, and you are disputing the other people's edits and accuse them for OR or as POV when you do not like their edits. And when nothing else works for you, you are sending them warnings on their talk pages and you are resorting to edit warring to get your point. Please stop. It is clear that you have never really cared about this article's neutrality issues and you have worsened the situation with your disruptive stance. Constant disagreements with other users and failing repeatedly to cooperate with them, clearly does not help the contribution to the article. If you can't stop spreading accusations and raise objections to the changes done by other people, then I recommend that you abstain from working on this article. The other users can not make any contributions when this this polemical climate of disruptions and accusations prevails.-- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Everyone? Do you mean that you and Alexikoua represent everyone? Also, moving forward, if you want me to engage with you on this or other talk pages, focus on the issue at hand, instead of me and my supposed motives. That said, it was clearly a mistake of me to respond to your speculations about my motives.

If my conduct is an issue, take it to ANI. In the meantime, I will wait for non-partisan editors to have their say on the issue. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears that outside editors (or "non-partisan" since according to your rationale everyone here is partisan) have already intructed you that your report is "poor". No wonder you still avoid to present a desent argument.Alexikoua (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

My report on ANI is irrelevant since it concerned editor conduct. Other editors (one editor mind you, i.e. MrX) stated that the report was a "poor sampling of diffs and warnings", arguing that I needed to show a pattern of ignoring OR policy throughout the 8 years you've been editing, which I obviously don't intend to do. He made no comment with regards to this specific case. DevilWearsBrioni (talk)

Fellow co-editors were kind enough to offer you a piece of advice since accusations without decent arguments can't be taken serious. Alexikoua (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: What's the difference between:

The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

and:

Muslim Chams were not keen to fight on the side of the Ottoman army, but already from autumn 1912 formed armed bands and raided the entire area as far north as Pogoni. As a result hundreds of Greek villagers were forced to escape to nearby Corfu and Arta. Thus, the members of the Muslim community were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek state.

You've stated that the latter is not original research. Curious to see why you think there's a difference between the two. The blue/red is to highlight and differentiate between the two sources used to substantiate the section in question. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Translation of Greek source (Pitouli-Kitsou)

The section which reads:

As soon as the Balkan Wars started and conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Greece occurred, the Greek state attempted to approach the local Cham representatives in order to discuss the possibility of a Greek-Albanian alliance. However, many of the Muslim Chams had already formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements in the area of Paramythia.

is a distortion of the source which reads:

Among the beys of Epirus, mostly Labs and Chams, who had strong anti-Greek feelings, had already formed militias and fought against the Greek army and the Greek forces, burning villages in the areas of Paramythia and Fanari. As early as October 17th Athens had entrusted Spyromilios to confer with their beys, in order for them declare submission as soon as possible, assuring them that the Greek authorities would respect the life and property of Muslims and that the Greek government would take care of their moral satisfaction, depending on the services that would be offered.

Stating that, I'm paraphrasing, "Chams had already formed irregular units when Athens attempted to approach local Cham representatives" is a distortion of the source. Source clearly states that village burnings occurred during the war, and not when Athens approached local Cham representatives. It's also disingenuous to accuse me of POV pushing against consensus.[5] What consensus? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The text doesn't claim that this happened before the war but during the very first days: the war started at Oct. 8 and the Greek government approached the Muslim beys at Oct. 17, when Muslim Albanian groups were already committing atrocities. Nevertheless a minor clarification is fine, as I've already did, instead of wide scale disruptive removals such as this one [[6]], which still need a decent explanation.Alexikoua (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

October 8 was the start of the First Balkan war because that's the date Montenegro, not Greece, attacked Ottoman positions. From A Box of Sand: The Italo-Ottoman War 1911-1912:

What became known as The First Balkan War had effectively begun on 8 October 1912 with the Montenegrin attack on Ottoman positions at Podgoritza. It became general following the demand by the Balkan League that the European vilayets be granted autonomy and divided according to nationality on 13 October. This was followed the next day by the Greek government signaling that the union of Crete with Greece was imminent. In response to these ’provocations’ the Ottomans declared war on 17 October and the Balkan League responded by beginning military action the following day.

Notice that military action by the Balkan League began the following day, i.e. 18 October. Here's more from The Balkan Wars 1912-1913: Prelude to the First World War:

In preparation for the invasion of Epirus, the night before the Greek declaration of war on 18 October, two Greek torpedo boats slipped into the harbor of Preveza and rendered two Ottoman warships lying there unusable. The next day, the army in Epirus crossed into Ottoman territory at Arta. It moved slowly in a northwesterly direction and occupied the town of Philippias on 26 October. There, General Zapundsakis divided his forces. One column continued to advance north. The other column moved along the north side of the Gulf of Arta, and crossed difficult terrain and encountered Ottoman resistance. By 2 November the old fortifications at Preveza were under siege. This lasted until 4 November, when the Ottoman defenders of Preveza surrendered.

Now, according to your interpretation of Pitouli-Kitsou, on 17 October Muslim Chams had already fought against the Greek army, even though, according to Richard C Hall, Greece didn't enter Epirus/Ottoman territory until 19 October. How is this possible? Furthermore, your addition of "when the war started"[7] is problematic because

a) The war started on October 8 but Greece didn't get involved militarily until 18 October

b) Pitouli-Kitsou does not clarify when these events happened, and she certainly does not use the words "when the war started". That's your personal analyis

Finally, I'd still like to know how I'm POV pushing against consensus. When and where was this consensus established? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears you are confused with the historical sequence: the fact that Muslims committed atrocities has nothing to do with the war developments, because they were not regular army. As the inlines describe Muslims Cham Albanian formed irregular bands and committed atrocities against civilians. Off course this has nothing to do with the battle-front.Alexikoua (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The inline states:

Among the beys of Epirus, mostly Labs and Chams, who had strong anti-Greek feelings, had already formed militias and fought against the Greek army and the Greek forces, burning villages in the areas of Paramythia and Fanari.

And this is the "minor clarification" you recently made[8]

However, many of the Muslim Chams had already formed irregular armed units when the war started and were burning Greek inhabited settlements in the area of Paramythia, Fanari and Filiates.

So, now you're saying it had nothing to do with the war developments, but two days ago you claimed the units were formed when the war started. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting observation Brioni. This had not occurred to me and i have read the thing so many times. The way the sentence is written up in the article is that Muslim Chams from the villages decided to form miltia's. Pitouli though notes that it was the Muslim Albanian elites with anti-greek views who established miltias and recruited some people into them. This needs to be clarified so to be precise otherwise its POV. As for sequence, we need sources (good peer reviewed ones) in the article that state Greece entry in the war and formal operation in the Epirus theater.Resnjari (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis yet again

Alexikoua's synthesizing yet again. [9] For the record, Baltsiotis states:

For a more detailed narration of the fighting and the battles that occurred in the area during late 1912, the use of local population and the burning of villages by both sides see K. D. Sterghiopoulos, ΤοΜικτόνΗπερωτικόνΣτράτευμακατάτηναπελευθέρωσιντηςΗπείρου (Οκτ.-Νοεμ. 1912), Athens, 1968

DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This part is perfectly cited by a more recent and detailed source,as you have been already been instructed: Tsoutsoumbis. Its already clarified that Greeks responded in Albanian irregular activity from Jan. 1913. Albanian activity was initiated from autumn 1912. Tsoutsoumpis sheds enouph light for this period.Alexikoua (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way DWB's quote refutes nothing and unfortunately with this thread he repeats the usual empty accutations against me by ignoring already settled discussions.Alexikoua (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The Balkans War started in autumn. Question is when was the Greek army present in Epirus and where the Albanians irregular forces a reaction of self defense to incoming non Muslim forces and their local supporters. Tsoutsoumbis, as the other sources have not fully touched on that issue. Also were Greek irregular forces armed by the Greek army operating in the area and/or were they armed prior to that when the Ottomans still had sovereignty over the area? These queries need to be looked into. There is still not enough on this and it needs clarification.Resnjari (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Fact is as already stated, that Albanian irregular bands were committing atrocities already from autumn 1912. The local Greek population responded to this activity from January 1913. Tsoutsoumpis offers one of the most recent and detailed research on the subject. There is no synthesis at all. Unfortunately, it's yet another childish excuse by DWB to launch another frivolous attack against coeditors based on clear facts supported by top graded authors.Alexikoua (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We know its fact that Albanian irregular bands were committing atrocities, as where Greek affiliated Orthodox irregular bands (whether they spoke Greek or Albanian) committing their atrocities. No one is doubting Tsoutsoumpis. I am mainly referring to the date of things. Tsoutsoumpis, Baltsiotis and Pitouli don't give reference to that in a very concise way for certian bits. For example autumn in 1912 can be subject to much interpretation. The Balkans wars commencement was an autumn event. Was the Greek army in the area when Cham elites were organising their bands (as some form of self defense) ? There is nothing childish about DWB looking at this issue.Resnjari (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue hasn't been settled, just like I haven't edited against consensus. That said, let us keep this simple: Do you disagree with Baltsiotis that the Greek army burned villages during late 1912? And if the answer is yes: Am I distorting the source, or is your opinion that Tsoutsoumpis makes Baltsiotis obsolete on the issue? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Questions above remain unanswered. Do you disagree with Baltsiotis that the Greek army burned villages during late 1912? And if the answer is yes: Am I distorting the source, or is your opinion that Tsoutsoumpis makes Baltsiotis obsolete on the issue? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The sentence needs to be split up. The Balkans Wars began in Autumn 1912 anyway.21:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of repetition:

Later, in January 1913, Greek irregulars begun to respond to this situation.[5]

As a response to this activity Greek guerilla units were organized in the region latter in 1913.[5]

Pointing to the same source as well. It seems to me that the burning of villages by Chams started the Balkan wars? Considering how much weight is continuously put on these village burnings. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Do you intend to discuss or no? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Expulsion section

To start with:

• Is Michalopoulos, Demetrios considered RS? It's from 1987, and Baltsiotis refers to it as a "Greek propaganda book".
• There's a lot of weight put on Woodhouse and the general theme of the section seems to be justification of the expulsion. Hardly neutral.

I'll make some additions over the coming days to fix the blatant POV. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Widely accepted as a case of Ethnic Cleansing or not?

‎SilentResident you have deleted peer reviewed material [10]. Your reason for the deletion used was: "Since the Cham Albanians weren't expelled on fly, but as result of their traitorous actions, there is no solid consensus among scholars. And therefore if it has to be mentioned, it has to be precise (name scholar who thinks so)". You have mentioned the words "tratorous actions". I would like to remind you of the policy on wp:POV. Deleting peer reviewed content based on personal POV of a population is not sufficient. An similar example is the Turks view of the part of the Armenians and Pontian Greek populations support of the Russian army in WW1 as "traitorous" if one was to use a example. However no one denies what happened was genocide and ethnic cleansing in the scholarship. Moreover Baltsiotis has been provided, is recent and peer reviewed. He is the one that states it is ethnic cleansing. Can you provide sources referring to the "international community" and also to these other scholars which you refer too. Absent this the bit will be restored.Resnjari (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not just delete a peer viewed material. I removed what, which although is the opinion of a mere scholar, was used in an ambiguous way that could give the false impression of being an established fact, or the opinion the international community. And therefore, the sentence was UNACCEPTABLE in this form unless further clarification are made to it. This was a case of misrepresenting a single scholar's opinions for being the opinion of the majority and I felt necessary to clarify this. And therefore, with this edit of mine, here, things could be more clear: [11]

Since this article is POV-sensitive and Resnjari is fully aware of WP:POV, I expected from Resnjari to be more careful in presenting the opinions accurately as being that of an individual scholar, or the consensus of the international community. -- SILENTRESIDENT 22:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

‎SilentResident, I am still waiting for your "international community" and "other scholars" info. Baltsiotis is a Greek scholar and is wp:secondary and wp:reliable. Do you have anything to refute what he has written with other scholarship to warrant your new wording of it being "his opinion" ? Otherwise that is wp:original research on your part. If you do not provide anything as you said you would the old wording will be restored.Resnjari (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

If you believe that a source being peer viewed can validate your argument and justify your effort to present it wrongfully as being the established consensus, then I am sorry but you are very wrong. You can't have things done they way you like them. As you see, and probably know already by yourself, not every scholar out there calls these events an ethnic cleansing. I haven't seen other peer viewed scholars such as Tsoutsoumpis describing these events as ethnic cleansing. And since not every scholar out there calls these events an ethnic cleansing, Wikipedia has made it clear that if these opinions are a minority and differ from those of a majority, then this should be mentioned. Unless you can prove otherwise, the clarification will have to stay as these opinions do not reflect everyone. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

To clarify about traitorous actions and expulsion: the reason I mention this is because Baltsioti's opinions do not reflect other scholars's opinions. The Expulsion, for some scholars, is not a result of a mere ethnic cleansing that was ordered on fly, and for some other scholars, it is the consequence of the Cham Albanian actions and decisions (Chams siding with the enemy, terrorize the Greek populaces, etc) that brought them to a very difficult position, post-war. Baltsiotis does indeed say that the Expulsion of Cham Albanians was an ethnic cleansing, but he does not reflect the opinions of other scholars. For example, Michalopoulos does not use the term "ethnic cleansing" to refer to the Expulsion, and rather believes it to be the Cham's fault: "Τα όσα όμως αυτοί διέπραξαν κατά την περίοδο 1941-1944 σε βάρος του υπόλοιπου πληθυσμού ναρκοθέτησαν κάθε δυνατότητα συμβίωσης. Έτσι, στίς μάχες πού, από τα τέλη Ιουνίου 1944, έγιναν στη Θεσπρωτία μεταξύ των ανταρτικών δυνάμεων του «Εθνικού Δημοκρατικού Ελληνικού Συνδέσμου» (ΕΔΕΣ) καί των Γερμανών πολέμησαν στο πλευρό των τελευταίων καί λίγο πριν ολοκληρωθεί ή απελευθέρωση της περιοχής, συγκεκριμένα μετά τη μάχη της Μενίνας (17-18 Αυγούστου) διέσχισαν μαζικά τα σύνορα καί πέρασαν στην Αλβανία" (Translation: however, all what the Chams have done between 1941-1944 against the rest of the population, undermined any chance for a co-existence [of the Chams with the Greeks] and left for Albania). As you see, there are scholars who hold different opinions about the same event. Thats why this needs to be clarified on the article... The term "ethnic cleansing" was not used in the Expulsion of Cham Albanians so far, because no concrete consensus among scholars exists. And to be honest, the term "ethnic cleansing" was totally absent from the article until just yesterday, only appearing after DevilWearsBrioni made his biased edits once more, and for which you intervened today to defend his edits. Even if Baltsioti's opinions about ethnic cleansing could be noted due to relevancy, (after all, in Wikipedia, different opinions are supposed to be noted, as long as they are relevant), these could not be added in an way that will negate or overshadow the different opinions from other scholars such as Michalopoulos just because you like it. While some scholars may believe it was ethnic cleansing, and others perhaps believe it was something less or worse than that - a genocide or something, there are also those scholars who believe it was nothing of the two, and scholars who believe it to be the Cham's fault. Like it or not, in Wikipedia, the different opinions should be noted, but nothing more than that. And especially not in an way that the one opinion could overweight and or cover different opinions in a bid to make a certain scholar's views sound louder. Not even when these opinions are coming from peer viewed and reliable sources. (and Baltsiotis being a Greek, does not make your arguments more valid either...) -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Who are these "other scholars" apart from Michalopoulos? There's a difference between not using the terminology and actually stating that it wasn't ethnic cleansing. Moreover, Kretsi refers to it as "ethnic cleansing", so do Effi Gazi, James Pettifer, Robert Elsie, Mark Levene, and even Mark Mazower adopts a similar view. With regards to Michalopoulos, it's actually quite interesting that you bring him up. Baltsiotis refers to his work on Muslim Chams as a "Greek propaganda book" that is "employed to support the hidden argument that those lands were inhabited by Greeks". Do you find his book to be RS? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

For Kretsi, see page 183 in Ethn. Balkanica. For Effi Gazi, see Constructing the national majority and ethnic/religious minorities in Greece. For Elsie, see introduction in The Cham Albanians of Greece: A Documentary History, for Levene, see appendix in Annihilation: Volume II: The European Rimlands 1939-1953. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Silent Resident. Those scholars of which you have cited do not mention the words “traitorous actions”. Can you please refer to where they use those words. All they refer to is a breakdown of relations between Muslim Albanians and Orthodox Albanian speakers who had come to identify themselves as Greeks. While also citing that Muslim Albanians in the area hadin some way or another supported the Axis powers. However, you are still making a judgment call about Albanian Muslim Chams that what happened to them was not ethnic cleansing due to “traitorous actions”. Scholarship should guide discussion and content input. As i cited a similar example previously there is much opinion in Turkey that the actions of some Pontian Greeks and Armenians siding with incoming the Russian army was “traitorous” and what happened to them thereafter was punishment. However this is an encyclopedia, not original research based on personal opinion. Otherwise the Pontian and Armenian Genocide would be very different articles. Even on articles dealing with the war time expulsions of the Germans during WW2 (similar situation t the Chams) scholars have citied that it is ethnic cleansing, even though that population also collaborated with the German army (which is acknowledged). On Baltsiotis, one he is recent and two peer reviewed. You have to show that he is flawed outright. Scholarship on the Chams has been built on from when Michalopoulos more than two decades ago. The 2000s until now has much more on these things now. Scholarship does not remain static.Resnjari (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni:, your argument that a scholar should not be taken in account just because another scholar's point of view contradicts him or diminishes him, or your own point of view does not favor him, is WP:BIS and WP:BIASED and clearly goes against WP:NPOV, which clearly comes in contrast with your statement for restoring the POV Tag on the top of the article. And it is even more glaring that you are attempting to deal with the POV issues in the article with even more POV of your part. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari:I am sure you didn't read anywhere "the X scholar mention the words 'traitorous actions'", did you? Or are you pretending to not understand what I wrote above about the need for all sources to be taken in account, both those which describe the events with the term ethnic cleansing and those which do not use this term? What did you not understand? Shall I repeat what I wrote? Like it or not, opposite approaches to the Expulsion of Cham Albanians should be present in the article to avoid bias. You can not pretend or silence the fact that not all the scholars do use the term ethnic cleansing to describe these events. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@SilentResident:I know what you wrote. You made your changes based on your personal opinion. Find me a scholar that uses the expression “traitorous actions”. Like i said in a comparative example, in Turkey views of the Pontian Greeks and Armenians siding with the Russians have those hallmarks, however that has not disqualified scholars referring to what happened to those populations as ethnic cleansing and so on. Scholars are aware of what segments of the Cham population did by siding with Axis powers in a passive or outright way. However their conclusion (i.e Baltsiotis, Mazower and Pettifer) that it was ethnic cleansing is their scholarly evaluation and you still have not presented a scholar/s that contests this. Original research about “traitorous actions” does not count. The main issue of contention in recent times regarding this matter has been whether it was justified or not which is a completely different matter.

The obsession to add pov&or tags equals disruption. DWB is kindly requested to respect the outcome of all past noticeboards.Alexikoua (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I resorted the tags that Brioni placed as i started this section in the talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What's disruptive is that you do not mention the reason of this obsession, contrary to the decision of several noticeboars, for example ton the last mediators proposed restrictions to DWB and reverted him instantly [[12]][[13]]. I'm afraid that DWB isn't the only disruptive editor in this tp in an attempt to ignore a series of decisions & most important the last DRN result which clearly refuted all of DWB's arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari, you were one of the involved editors in that case in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard where the outcome was negative for you. Are you certain that you want to adopt DevilWearsBrioni's disruptive behavior and go against the resolution?

@SilentResident. When this is resolved, then i will personally remove the tags.Resnjari (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari, and about the scholars - you are missing the point here. I am not talking about Scholars who are DISPUTING the term Ethnic cleansing. I am talking about Scholars not adopting the term in their own fieldworks and do not call it as such. We have scholars who use it, and scholars who just DONT use it. Shouldn't this be noted in the article? A scholar does not have to contest another scholar's views for his different views to be noteworthy in Wikipedia. This is an absolutely wrong argument you are expressing here. A scholar's views do not have to refer/contest to other scholar's use of a term or denote that they do not use it. If they do not call the events as such, but other scholars do, does not automatically mean that there is a consensus on the term's use. Currently, the sentence, "the implicit aim of justifying the ethnic cleansing that had occurred" as it stands, gives the readers the impression that this is an established fact, that the international community as whole considers it to be an Ethnic Cleansing! The readers do not know that this term is used by some scholars, not every scholar out there. Since this term is not used by everyone, shouldn't this be clarified, at best? The way the sentence stands as of now is POV. -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@SilentResident. Those types of arguments have also been made for events like the Armenian Genocide also by some number of editors. Again scholars have refered to it and this event as ethnic cleansing and many others. You need to find scholars that state this is a wrong evaluation and or conclusion for the Chams that it constituted as ethnic cleaning. You have not so far presented one that explicitly writes this. Those 3 scholars (Baltsiotis, Mazower and Pettifer) are peer reviewed also. On scholarship on the expulsions of the Germans from Eastern Europe those events have also been evaluated as ethnic cleansing even though those Germans communities collaborated. So not citing that aspect from the article or referring to it as a opinion is very problematic especially if one uses the reason for removal as based on “traitorous actions”. Please provide me with good peer reviewed scholarship that says that the events which related to the Chams was not ethnic cleansing or that it is mistaken or wrong to refer to it that way to allay my concerns. Just because one scholar might not use it does not mean that because another scholar has not used it that it automatically is wrong. Also the scholarship on the Chams has been expanding in recent times and Baltsiotis gave an evaluation of much of the source from previous times.Resnjari (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

More recent scholarship, such as Tsoutsoumbis completely ignore outdated ones such as Baltsiotis. In general SR's version is a balanced one in agreement with wp guidelines. In general if scholar X claimed Y then this should be stated as such.Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, can you show where Tsoutsoumbis has stated that using the term ethnic cleansing in reference to the Chams is wrong in relation to this matter? Scholarship builds on previous content. Recent scholarship only cancels out old scholarship shows the old data to be outdated or wrong. I need to see something peer reviewed that explicitly state and cancels out the term ethnic cleansing in relation to this matter. Resnjari (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Resj.: I've stated that he completely ignores this "argument". He is quite detailed and the most recent paper we have up to date. In general when a specific scholar believes something specific that should be stated. Else we have wp:DISRUPTION. Resnjary may I ask you why you place the POV etc tags, contrary to the last DRN?Alexikoua (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Show me where ?Resnjari (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If something can be termed OR and POV this is the recent addition by DWB. A part of this specific newly created section [[14]] should be merged with the Aftermath section, but most of it simply repeats information already stated. Not to forget that Tsoutsoumbis states that post-WWII Greek governments (as well as EDES leadership) were completely unrelated with the expulsion. Zervas for example repeatedly asked the Cham notables to break their pro-Nazi war efforts, but in vain.Alexikoua (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Resnjari, this shows how your approach to the issue is not objective and planned from the start: "I will do things in Expulsion of Cham Albanians like how they are done in Armenian Genocide" This is so wrong attitude, and hence why now we are in a deadlock as you are ignoring other editor's concenrs and are blatantly imposing your own opinions on the matter.

1) You are referring to the way the Armenian Genocide was dealt and are trying to do the same with the Expulsion of Cham Albanians, even when you are fully aware that these are two different cases, not equal cases. The Armenian Genocide occurred at a time period very different of the Expulsion of Cham Albanians, and under very different circumstances. The Armenian Genocide's events and parameters are different and complicated and cannot be treated by the International community and Wikipedia the same way as the exodus of the Cham Albanians to Albania can. Everyone knows the challenges the Genocide scholarship had to face in recording and analyzing the Armenian Genocide, and how Wikipedia has reached a consensus in presenting these complicated historical events. You must be kidding when you are saying that the Expulsion's scholarship has to be dealt in the same way, using the Genocide as a paradigm!

The Expulsion of Cham Albanians is about a minority that betrayed, fought and occupied its own country for 3 years, while the Armenians were not a similar case; instead they were a minority of which over 75%-80% of its total population was exterminated under very very different circumstances. On the other hand, the Albanians, after the war was lost, they took their families and fled to Albania. The scholarship in the Expulsion of Cham Albanians did not had to deal with the challenges the Scholarship did in the Armenian Genocide. Nor can Wikipedia treate the two cases in the same way.

2) We are now in a deadlock because of your and Devilwearsbrioni's rushed actions in dealing with the article without consulting with other editors first. You have ignored what NPOV concerns the other editors have, you added debatable sentences from a biased source without allowing for clarifications to be made, and dismissed the need for consulting with other editors, and you have reverted edits that could keep the sentences in place, just re-written in a more neutral tone. And at the end, you are justifying this in the grounds that they are... Peer viewed! I never heard anyone in Wikipedia claiming that he can do whatever he likes, as long as the sources he cites are peer viewed! I am sorry to disappoint you but no Wikipedia rule says that you can ignore a peer viewed source's bias just because it is peer viewed. I am really sorry. Also a peer viewed source does not permit you to impose your views and to act without consensus. This is the most unencyclopedic attitude I have seen from you, and I shall remind you that in the past you have said that you could work with everyone here for a balanced article that contains minimal or no POV and bias.

I still believe that the sentence about Greekness of epirus has to be removed completely for obvious reasons, and the sentence that the events ARE an ethnic cleansing to be re-worded for a more partial tone.

Instead of the Armenian Genocide, I recommend you come back to your senses, and look how the editors have done it in the Expulsion of Germans, where there is a mention of Ethnic Cleansing, but more carefully worded: "The events have been USUALLY classified as population transfer or as ethnic cleansing."

I am sorry, dear Resnjari, but your approach has led us to a deadlock. If you want to deal with POV issues in the article, you should listen to me and see how it was done in the Expulsion of Germans article. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Resnjari, please will you stop reverting the removal of Tags? I have no option but send you an ARBMAC warning. If you keep up with violating the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard's decission, I will have no option but file an Arbitation Enforcement report against you. Please stop this. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

My approach is objective unlike yours which is based on reasons of “traitorous actions”. Like I said show me peer reviewed scholarship that states that using the term ethnic cleansing is wrong. As for the comparison with the Armenian Genocide it does suffice. It does not matter about the numbers. Both populations where not liked by other peoples that they lived amongst, they had people who collaborated with incoming armies and that was used as justification for the populations demise. The only difference is that Armenians are Christians and Albanian Chams are Muslims. So when peer reviewed scholarship states that those events for Christian Armenians is ethnic cleansing its ok to cite, but when it’s for Muslim Albanian Chams it’s a different standard even though peer reviewed literature cites that too. If you want to report me, then please do so.Resnjari (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Objective approach? Are you realising that you are asking me to prove that ethnic cleansing is wrong when I don't care about that? I don't care what Baltsiotis even believes. This site is not Baltsiotis' book. this is Wikipedia. Wikipedia has to refer to Baltsiotis's views, not adopt Baltsioti's views. I am once again asking you what problem do you have with rewording the problematic sentence. I am asking once again, very kindly, to not pretend that you don't understand me. I am asking, very kindly again, to see how it was done in the Expulsion of Germans, which too had scholars classifying it as ethnic cleansing and scholars who did not. Don't make me repeat myself. I hate repeats. Please answer to this at least. Do you have a problem with the fact that NOT EVERY SCHOLAR calls these events as ethnic cleansing? Do you have a problem that these events are not ALWAYS (by everyone) considered ethnic cleansing? :) -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Who do you think I am to dispute the term Ethnic Cleansing? I am not a scholar. I am an editor and I MUST accept the term Ethnic Cleansing. I am just asking it to be presented fairly, without POV-pushing tones. For some scholars, the Chams were subject to Ethnic Cleansing, while for others, were not. The EXISTENCE of different opinions among scholars is INDISPUTABLE. And you know this has to be reflected in the sentence, like how it was done in the Expulsion of Germans, where not all scholars classify it as Ethnic Cleansing. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Resnjari, are you implying that there is any religious racism against Chams? C'mon, you are better than that. What has religion to do with what I am asking? We have a POV here. We have to solve it. If you really believe it is religious racism from my part, then, look at the German example... They are Christians, aren't they, dear Resnjari? Yes they are! The Germans, like Armenians, are Christians. And yet, I don't see them getting any better treatment:

Expulsion of Germans:
Event not classified as Ethnic cleansing by every scholar.
Expulsion of Cham Albanians:
Event not classified as Ethnic cleansing by every scholar.

Whats the problem? If you see any double standards here, then we are doomed and we do not even deserve to be editors and we should abandon Wikipedia immediatelly. -- SILENTRESIDENT 00:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari:By the way, it is really funny to ever thing that my NPOV recommendations could be perceived as anti-Muslim, or as targeting any other whatever religions. Especially when I have muslim friends on social sites and one of my boyfriends was Albanian (although he was atheist, not muslim, so this doesn't really count here). And yes, I am fully aware that Wikipedia is not the place for personal stories, but really, you need come back to your senses as I need your help for reaching a consensus. Because all other solutions are less pleasant for both of us. Can i have your consensus my dear? I am really tired with our constant fights here, this has to stop once and for all. -- SILENTRESIDENT 00:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@SilentResident:From the lede:

"Between 1944 and 1948 about 31 million people, with the majority of which including ethnic Germans ('Volksdeutsche') as well as German citizens ('Reichsdeutsche') were ethnically cleansed from Central and Eastern Europe."

"The third phase was a more organized mass population removal and ethnic cleansing following the Allied leaders' Potsdam Agreement,[11] which redefined the Central European borders and approved mass removals and ethnic cleansings of ethnic Germans from preexisting German territory given to Poland, the prewar territory of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary."

The part you quoted is from a separate section where discussion pertaining to the definition is relevant. As you can see from the lede, "ethnic cleansing" is used and there is no "clarification". Fact of the matter is, not a single source that disputes the use of "ethnic cleansing" has been presented. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

For our lede, we have agreed to what we have agreed. As you might have understood, I am not talking about the Cham lede here. I am talking about the Cham aftermath. The sentence I am referring to, is in the German aftermath section ("Legacy of the [German] expulsions"), which could be used as an example to overcome the deadlock in the Cham aftermath section, which you have caused by your stubborn and persistent edits by ramming things into a sensitive and POV-prone article without ever consulting with other editors. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

In answer to Resnjari about the official policy to force the community to leave the region, Tsoutsoumbis is quite clear that this was not the case:

Neither the government, which during the period had almost no armed forces at its disposal, nor the EDES leaders, most of whom were located in Athens scrambling for political offce, had any sway or influence over the host of gangs of peasants and demobilised guerrillas who roamed this region armed to the teeth.

.

In fact Tsoutsoumbis goes even further and refutes previous claims by other scholars that this was part of an organized policy:

Some scholars have suggested that these actions were sanctioned by the government and EDES leadership; however, this does not appear to be the case.

In general Tsoutsoumbis refutes this stubborn obsession to present the expulsion as part of some policy of ethnic cleansing.Alexikoua (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

For some reason the editors DevilWearsBrioni and Resnjari must have the false impression the ethnic cleansing was ordered by the government authorities of the Greek state, which baffles me, as the sources fail to provide any concrete and specific information about this. For comparison, the Expulsion of Germans article explains when and how the expulsion of Germans was organized and directed: "The third phase was a more organized mass population removal and ethnic cleansing following the Allied leaders' Potsdam Agreement, which redefined the Central European borders and approved mass removals and ethnic cleansings of ethnic Germans from preexisting German territory given to Poland, the prewar territory of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.", which is not the same here.

In our case, The Chams appear to have fled for Albania with their families during the later days of the war, after their side of the war was defeated. They did not left in an organized manner as the Germans did, and especially not by an weakened and non-existent Greek Army. If there was an official Greek policy indeed, then how was this implemented? Some scholars who classified the events as Ethnic Cleansing, suggested (or give the impression) that they were organized, either by the Greek government, or by the Allies (or forces under Allied command). The sources so far, fail to give more specific information about this. At least any names? Protocols? Directions?

Devilwearsbrioni has rushed to add the term Ethnic cleansing without the necessary clarification, and Resnjari backed him, just because some scholars said so. But the thing here is, the scholars themselves have expressed contradicting suggestions about these events and if they were organized at state level or not. This needs to be clarified to avoid possible anti-Greek POV. And if these problems are not enough, the way DevilWearsBrioni added his sentence in the article, accompanied with a very certain source which gives the impression that the GREEK GOVERNMENT is to be blamed for the Expulsion. My apologies if I am wrong, but this makes a big difference. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni:, I have no problem with your recent added contents except about the sentences of Ethnic Cleansing and Non-Greekness of Epirus. The sentence about the Ethnic Cleansing, urgently needs for clarifications, as stated above, but the final sentence which disputes the Greekness of Southern Epirus is highly biased and has to be removed at all costs and it no way can stay, especially in its current form. Baltsiotis being peer viewed does not automatically classify his views as non-biased. Please check WP:BIASED where it states:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source.''

We have reached a deadlock because biased content is rammed into the article without prior consultation with the rest of the involved editors for a much-needed consensus, and the sources are cited in an way that promotes a certain POV (i.e. Epirus's Greek character being questioned when the established fact says otherwise) instead of a neutral point of view is preserved or being omitted completely. It needs to be removed as per WP:IMPARTIAL and I expect that you remove it, since it was you who have added it. If you do not, other editors may be left with no other option but remove it by themselves. You have to understand that you can't just ram any biased contents like that in an ARBMAC-protected article without consensus and then act like "I don't care about your concerns, the source will stay because I say so". This goes against WP:OWN and this not only greatly hurts the likehood for a WP:Consensus, but also greatly increases the chances that an administrator will sanction you from ever editing this page in the future. Being stubborn is not a positive trait; is a problem for the other editors and this will affect your future standing with the other editors and the administrators. The biased contents, or more precisely, parts of it which push a certain narrative, can not be tolerated and should be removed asap from the moment it is clear that they are problematic. -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua:Thank you very much for listening to my pleas. Although I wish these changes were reverted by DevilWearsBrioni and not by you, as it was that editor who rammed the problematic and highly biased content, and yet, the same one who stubbornly adds POV Tags and insists that anything (except his own edits) contain POV. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Silentresident, I am not here is discuss personal life, if that is so I would talk about my current Greek girlfriend etc ,etc (as I mix mainly in those circles and hardly in Albanian ones). Anyway the issue is content. On ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is not always undertaken by state authorities. It can be done by non state actors and other groups throughout time for it to have the designation of ethnic cleansing without a official policy to exist. Ethnic cleansing is the actions undertaken by a particular group (it can be a state, non state actor/s or other groups and individuals -whatever their justification for it) to remove a population. All I am reading in this discussion is that removal of that peer reviewed content from the article needs to occur when those 3 scholars are of notable standing in the scholarly community and written on the matter evaluating and concluding it as such. In reference to Tsoutsoumbis, he outlines that the expulsions were not organized by the state (nowhere does not state that it was not ethnic cleansing). I have even said that in the past and removed myself the bit about the Greek state officially sanctioning any measure of that sort (remember that everyone) even though it was not fond of the Muslim Chams. EDES too to an extent. Tsoutsoumbis outlines that those who engaged in those actions of expulsion went even outside the framework of EDES and that it was a local reaction (by mainly Orthodox Albanian speakers) to what happened in the war and a result of communal relations breaking down during the interwar period. I disagree with the removal of content in reference to that issue. We may need to get a third opinion on the matter.Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A third opinion is always welcome, but you need to be reminded that the constant need for a 3rd intervention and the lack of willingness from your part to confront and tackle the matters with the editors here, (as you and DevilWearsBrioni have done by constantly dragging both the Expulsion of Cham Albanians and the Northern Epirus's disputes to various noticeboards, where the administrators failed to accept your arguments), means that you are lacking an appropriate editorial stance in discussing and reaching a consensus with other editors on your own. You feel the need for a 3rd opinion? So be it. But I can't help but bring you 4 examples that are not a result of different editorial opinions, but a result of refusal to be reasoned:

1st Example:
SilentResident says: "Clarification is needed in regards to the instigator of the ethnic cleansing. Having the term 'Ethnic Cleansing' placed under the 'Greece' section, and without any clarifications, gives the POV-pushing impression that Greece has instigated it."
Resnjari's and DevilWearsBrioni's impression: "All I am reading in this discussion is that removal of that peer reviewed content from the article..."

2nd Example:
SilentResident says: "That a content is peer viewed, does not necessarily mean it is neutral and unbiased.
Resnjari's and DevilWearsBrioni's impression: "It is peer viewed, so this makes it automatically appropriate to use in-text attribution as is."

3rd Example:
SilentResident says: "Some, but not every scholar suggested that the events amount to 'Ethnic Cleansing' in their fieldworks."
Resnjari's and DevilWearsBrioni's impression: "The suggestion of 2-3 scholars automatically became a fact, and that fact automatically became an established fact."

4th Example:
SilentResident says: "Article has to maintain a neutral tone and as minimal bias as possible, by presenting all differing opinions on this matter, otherwise constitutes POV."
Resnjari's impression: "Religious racism against Muslim Chams"

I have presented logic arguments, but Resnjari fails to understand my concerns and arguments, and rushes once again to bring the matter to 3rd party intervention. I am speechless. Dear Resnjari, if you need 3rd party opinions or moderators every time you come into a disagreement with other editors, then I am afraid you are lacking a very important element of the editorial progress required in Wikipedia: the ability of yourself to have exhausted all prior methods and efforts for reaching a consensus with all the parties here. But no, edit wars, ramming of POV content, ambuse of tagging and stubbornes, are what I am seeing here. And this, frankly, does not hurt me or the other editors. Hurts you, but more importantly of all, hurts the article itself. Feel free to request a 3rd party mediation, but you should know that you haven't tried at all to overcome the deadlock in which you and DevilWearsBrioni have brought the page with your biased edits. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not using Albanian scholarship, but peer reviewed Greek and other Western ones, so comments about bias don’t suffice. Also i do not refer to religious racism. During the interwar period there was a communal and sectarian breakdown between local Muslim and Orthodox Albanian speaking peoples. The first wanted an Albanian outlook for themselves and the second a Greek one. This is not up for conjecture but clearly stated in scholarship. Those animosities within the framework of war played out within the context of socio-political alignments with occupying powers and local armed groups who fought with or against those forces. That the article states that the Greek state did not order the expulsions is fine as that is fact and also that part of EDES was not involved. Nonetheless, that still does not in any way abrogate that the events and actions of expulsion did not consist as ethnic cleansing. As I said ethnic cleansing does not need to be directed by a state but can be done by non-state actors and individuals etc. Ethnic cleaning is the actions and process of population expulsion that goes beyond just expulsion but entails violence etc etc. Moreover two of the sources Baltsiotis and Mazower both refer to such non state actors, with even Mazower stating that the second round that led to the expulsion of the Chams occurred due to not even EDES forces, but forces working outside them and directed by Zotos.Resnjari (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are wrong. The biggest mistake (and according to Wikipedia, the most common) is that the nationality of the scholars (and not their opinions / point of views and fieldworks) plays the outmost role in determining the validity, the reliability, the weight, or importance, or whatever, of their opinions / points of views to the dispute.

I am sorry but if we approach things your way, then no wonder why we have come under that mess now. Ethnicity and nationality of scholars whose the soures are cited, do not matter and especially can not play a role at the expense of their scholarship and fieldwork. And the nationality does not automatically means that the X scholar has more validity and weight than the Y scholar. This is very wrong. Wikipedia's rules are very clear on this: points of views of reliable scholars are what do matter here. Not ethnicity. Wikipedia was not developed around the concept of a Neutral Ethnicity, but of Neutral Point of View.

I am really sorry. But, look, Resnjari, you better leave this ethnicistic approach of scholars and their sources, and adopt a more objective approach. And no, I do not mean your "objective approach" based on Baltsiot's Greekness. I am talking about a real objective approach, to work with other editors in having the article preserving as a neutral tone as possible and have the different opinions and points of views recorded. I am asking you nothing that hard. Or is that so difficult for you? -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There are 4 important things the editors have to bear in mind, which define Wikipedia:

1) Nationality of editors does not matter in Wikipedia. Editorial conduct does.

2) Nationality of scholars does not matter in Wikipedia. Scholarship and fieldwork does.

3) Fieldwork and opinions of scholars, can be referred to in the articles. Personal points of views of editors can not.

4) Wikipedia expects the editors to cite POV-ridden and biased sources, but urges the editors that the citation meet Wikipedia's guidelines and standards about the biased sources being given an appropriate in-text attribution that eliminates their POV, and if this is not possible, then to be replicated in an way that the bias does not appear as being adopted by Wikipedia.

I am certain that everyone here already knows that. Just I feel the need for a reminder because the same or similar situations on ARBMAC-protected pages such as this, should and can be averted in the future. -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You stated previously that the German expulsion page was a good example and compared it to this article by pointing out similarities ("Expulsion of Germans: Event not classified as Ethnic cleansing by every scholar.") When I brought up the fact that the lede in Expulsion of Germans mentions "ethnic cleansing" as "a fact", you replied that it doesn't matter since our discussion doesn't pertain to the lede. Unfortunately, this misses the mark entirely. My point was and is that "ethnic cleansing" is stated as a fact, in what's arguably the most important section of the article (the lede), and your argument is that in the case of Muslim Chams we can't state it as a fact anywhere. Lede, background, aftermath, it doesn't matter to you, it should not be stated as a fact. That's why I don't see why you bring up the German expulsion when it clearly describes the events as "ethnic cleansing" in the lede; how do you explain this, considering that you've also claimed that not every scholar sees the expulsion of Germans as ethnic cleansing?

Also some clarification with regards to my recent edit: "The Cham issue" concerning property and minority rights should not be confused with the "The Cham issue" cited in the specific part by Baltsiotis. For example, when referring to property rights etc: "The Cham issue is a closed case" has a different meaning than "The Cham issue was a closed case" when referring to their expulsion i historiography. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear DevilWearsBrioni, this is another strinking example of how you can still misunderstand my sayings. OK let me explain patiently once more time, with the hope that I may finally become more clear to you. (my apologies, but expect a lengthy answer now):

SilentResident says: "I am not talking about the Cham lede here, but about the Cham Aftermath. For the lede, we have already discussed (in their own appropriate sections in the talk page, titled "Lede") where we agreed to what we agreed."

DevilWearsBrioni's impression: "SilentResident replied that it doesn't matter since our discussion doesn't pertain to the lede..."

I never said "it does not matter". My point is, we are discussing about the term "Ethnic Cleansing" present in the Aftermath of Expulsion of Cham Albanians, not about the same term being absent from the Lede of Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Here, we are talking about the Aftermath, which has suffered problems lately thanks to your rushed edits.

On the other hand, the Cham Expulsion's lede and its problems are tackled in their own respective sections of the Talk Page, not here. And I only have referred to the Aftermath of the German Expulsion, to give you an idea on how your initial additions in the Aftermath of Cham Albanians can be re-worded to maintain a more neutral tone to eliminate possible POV problems. Tha's all. Anyways, a such distraction (I mean, discussing about lede here in the Aftermath talk section) is counterproductive. If you have something to discuss, or want to bring up something the Lede-related, then bear this is done on a different Talk Page section, and with your participation, where the lede's final form was agreed already and a consensus has been reached.

And by the way, you wrote: "'Ethnic cleansing' is stated as a fact in German Expulsion. And your argument is that in the case of Cham Expulsion we can't state it as a fact anywhere. Lede, background, aftermath, it doesn't matter to you, it should not be stated as a fact."

I never said that. There is a big difference between some scholars classifying it as "Ethnic Cleansing" and it being an established fact. Opinions and facts are two different things. Some scholars have classified Expulsion of Cham Albanians, as "ethnic cleansing" but this is more their opinion than something proven. We still have no ample facts about its background (we do not know who was the perpetrator, nor the when this was decided, nor if the Cham departure from Greece happened because it was organized and planned and not because the Chams fled to Albania), which is not the case for the Expulsion of Germans. The Germans didn't just flee on their own. The whole event was decided, planned and organized. The scholars therefore classified the events as ethnic cleansing, but were unable to prove that the Greek Government was behind it.

In the German Expulsion on the other hand, the scholars have a more clear record of the aspects of the German Expulsion: who, how, why, where, and when. Furthermore, it is documented that the Germans didn't just flee - this was organized and in two phases (first and second).

I don't know for you, but the classification of the Expulsion of Cham Albanians as "ethnic cleansing" is the only thing we have for now, and that is the opinion of the scholars, not a fact. And therefore, the Cham Albanian Expulsion's classification as "ethnic cleansing" shall be mentioned as such. For Wikipedia, there is a big difference between Some scholars classifying the events as Ethnic Cleansing" and "All scholars classify them as Ethnic Cleansing and presenting the events as established facts or even imply Greece as the perpetrator. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

To end my day-long comment, dear DevilWearsBrioni, I must remind you and Resnjari about Wikipedia: Academic consensus and Wikipedia: Statements of opinion, which are vital for avoiding any misunderstandings and editorial misconducts of that kind in the future, especially on ARBMAC-protected articles such as the Expulsion of Cham Albanians:

1) The first of the two rules is WP:RS/AC which states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus."

>>>As you see, you will have to give us a source specifically stating that 2-3 scholarly opinions on Cham's Ethnic Cleansing are reflecting the opinions of ALL or MOST of the scholars whose the work is relevant to the matter, otherwise this can not be stated or even be implied in Wikipedia's articles, including the Expulsion of Cham Albanians.

2) The second of the two rules is WP:RSOPINION which states: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion."

>>>While Baltsioti's sources may be cited in the article for noting his personal opinions, his sources can not be used for statements asserted as "facts" and especially the way you have tried in the past days. Furthermore, such statements need to be carefully worded with all necessary clarifications.

It is very important that you and Resnjari bear the aforementioned rules in mind, as such misconducts can not be tolerated again. When we have tried reasoning with both of you in the past days and revert (or even correct) your newly-added problematic sentences, you have responded to our moves with edit wars and you even got to the point to assume bad faith of our part, including religious racism against Muslim Chams and really, this didn't help at all. Nor does your insistence that any sourced material "stays just because the author is of Greek nationality and the source is peer viewed". Because of this stubbornness and misconduct, we have reached a serious deadlock which normally could lead to ARBMAC sanctions and article-specific perma-bans without further delays, which is very unpleasant. Such escalations, if not averted, can test everyone's patience and we have some administrators around already expressing their disappointment to your stubborn conduct. Such incidents should not be repeated as they can be avoided easily. Take this as a kind reminder that unless there are strong sources backing the claims for ethnic cleansing, nothing more can be done than referring to Baltsioti's and the other scholar's works. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 00:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It was clear to me before, just as it’s clear to me know. You took issue with ”ethnic cleansing” being stated as a fact, because according to you, it’s merely ”Baltsiotis’ opinion”. You pointed to the Expulsion of the Germans article as a good example of how to word things, on the basis that not every scholar describes those events as ”ethnic cleansing”. You cited a sentence from the Expulsion of Germans as an example, which in reference to the events states ”It’s usually classified as population transfer or as ethnic cleansing”. When I pointed out that the lede in Expulsion of Germans actually describes the events as ”ethnic cleansing”, you claimed the lede is not relevant in this case since there’s a already ”consensus” with regards to the Cham lede (for the record, there isn’t, yet). It's a convenient rebuttal, but it misses the mark entirely. I’m not arguing for the inclusion or exclusion of ”ethnic cleansing” from/in the Cham lede. I’m simply stating, that by your own logic, i.e. ”not every scholar describes those events as ethnic cleansing” => the lede/aftermath/any section in the Expulsion of the Germans should not describe ethnic cleansing as a fact. What you’ve recently done however is you've slightly amended your position. Suddenly, with regards to the Expulsion of Germans, while ”not every scholar describes those events as ethnic cleansing” still seems to hold true, you take no issue with that they’re described as such in the lede because you for various reasons, unlike the Cham expulsion, consider it a fact that they were ethnically cleansed.

Moreover, whether there are ”ample facts” or not is not up to you or me to determine. There were obviously enough ”ample facts” for several reputable scholars (not 2-3 like you claim) to classify what took place as ”ethnic cleansing”.

Finally, with regards to the ”rules”.

1. Only applicable to statements such as ”There is a consensus among historians that….” or ”Most historians believe that…”. That’s not the case here.

2. The work of Baltsiotis is not an opinion piece. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Now you are trying to confuse things to prove a point? Do you ever know that the German Expulsion had multiple Phases? German Lede's sentence and German's aftermath sentence are not referring the one and same aspect of the German Expulsion, so arguying about the German lede to make a point about the Cham Expulsion is wrong. Hence why I avoided pointing out at the lede and rather the aftermath. The German lede's sentence refers to the post-Potsdam Agreement Phase (Third Phase specifically) of the Expulsion, while the Aftermath section tackles about the German Expulsion (as whole) being classified as Ethnic Cleansing by some Scholars. Taking the German Lede's sentence which is about the Third Phase's facts and comparing it to the whole Cham Expulsion event and suggest that the whole Cham Expulsion being ethnic cleansing being a fact too, is WP:NOR. Furthermore, while the Third Phase was organized and can be considered an ethnic cleansing, not all scholars consider the whole German Expulsion to amount as such, and Wikipeida does not ignore this. Wikipedia takes note of that: "The events have been usually classified as population transfer or as ethnic cleansing." What you are doing now is either not reading carefully the German Expulsion article, either twisting different aspects of the German Expulsion (lede) to raise a case of fact presentation in Cham Expulsion's aftermath section.

I am sorry but there is a big different about the German Lede's sentence describing the Third Phase as Ethnic Cleansing and the Aftermath sentence noting about the lack of consensus among scholars regarding the German Expulsion being classified as Ethnic Cleansing. Very big difference. Like I said, you can not refer to different cases in the German lede as being approriate for the Cham Expulsion's aftermath.

If there is any Phase of the German Expulsion sharing similarities with the Cham expulsion (from a planning and organized respective), this can be the Second Phase. Wikipedia writes: "The second phase was the disorganised fleeing or departure of ethnic Germans immediately following the Wehrmacht's defeat" which is very similar to the disorganised way the Chams fled or departed for Albania (and if that was not enough, according to British reports about the Chams exodus, they noted how the Chams not only managed to flee to Albania with all of their equipment (weapons, tools, etc) but also stole cattle(!) and horses(!) from the Greek territory on their way to Albania, leaving only the elderly members of the Cham community behind! And I admit, this contradicts greatly the opinions about the exodus being planned and organized at state level to qualify as an ethnic cleansing lol) Like it or not, the Cham ethnic cleansing is not a fact uless it has been PROVEN. You can't take the the opinions and turn them into a fact just because you say so. The scholars classifying it as ethnic cleansing needs to be noted and clarified as per WP:RS/AC, like in the German aftermath section.

Now, presenting the Cham ethnic cleansing as a fact, will require strong sources backing it, not just mere suggestions or opinions by scholars. you will need indisputable facts that the Cham Expulsion's ethnic cleansing was an organized and planned event. On the other hand, the German Expulsion's Third Phase was organized and planned and Wikipedia reflects upon this. it was organized by authorities or governments and was NOT a mere flee on their own to Germany. Wikipedia can not treat the same way the organized Third Phase's ethnic cleansing and the unorganized Cham flee to Albania. Regarding the Cham Expulsion, there are no concrete facts that it was planned and organized - all what we have from the scholars is just their opinions. You will need really strong sources to prove that the Chams didn't flee but were forcibly send to Albania.

Furthermore, about your other argument, I am sorry, but arguying of your part that "the scholar's classification of the Cham Expulsion as ethnic cleansing, automatically turns their opinions into a fact", when no such fact exists, is a blatant violation of No Original Research. Specifically, the WP:NOR clearly states that: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

>>>Frankly, it is very difficult to prove that the Cham Expulsion wasn't the unorganized flee of Chams but a planned and organized ethnic cleansing, when no concrete proof exists about it at all. Good luck with this. -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

And about Athenean's comment bellow, I admit, the WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING is very relevant to our case here. Devil, you, as an editor, should pay more attention to the rules and policies as this can greatly reduce any editorial misconducts in the future and make the progress for reaching compromises and a consensus a lot more smooth. I strongly recommend it. :) -- SILENTRESIDENT 00:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Here’s a sentence from the first paragraph of the lede that you seem to have missed:

Between 1944 and 1948 about 31 million people, with the majority of which including ethnic Germans ('Volksdeutsche') as well as German citizens ('Reichsdeutsche') were ethnically cleansed from Central and Eastern Europé.

Like it or not, the Cham ethnic cleansing is not a fact uless it has been PROVEN This is not mathemathics, we don’t deal with proofs. The fact that you claim it needs to be proven tells me that there’s a standard of truth which you have defined, independent of source quality and quanitity. For example, Pettifer, Mazower, Baltsiotis, Kretsi, etc clearly don’t meet ”standard of proof”. When they refer to the events as ”ethnic cleansing”, it’s just ”their opinion” and merely ”suggestions”, and you clearly seem to know better. But please understand, I’m really not interested in your opinion of what constitutes as ”ethnic cleansing”.

The scholars classifying it as ethnic cleansing needs to be noted and clarified as per WP:RS/AC, like in the German aftermath section Not applicable here. There’s no statement about academic consensus. For example, if you would want to include the statement ”There is no academic consensus whether the events should be classified as ethnic cleansing”, you would need a source for that.

You will need really strong sources to prove that the Chams didn't flee but were forcibly send to Albania I won’t, actually. All I need is strong reliable sources (which I have plenty of) that refer to the events as ethnic cleansing. That's it. I will present them accordingly to third parties if no consensus is reached here.

blatant violation of No Original Research You seem to be under the impression that because certain scholars, according to you, haven't met their burden of proof, their classification of the events as "ethnic cleansing" only count as "opinions", and as such it's original research to state that "Muslim Chams were ethnically cleansed". The fact that you only consider his conclusion an "opinion" does not matter the slightest, since he clearly refers to the events as "ethnic cleansing", and as such, the requirement of a reliable published source is fulfilled. Ergo, it's not OR.

With regards to WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING, it refers to sentences in their entirety. One or two words don't generally determine if the sentence is closely paraphrased or not.DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Finally you are more specific. Problem often is that you are speaking too generic and others can't conclude what are you exactly referring to. I am sorry but the particular sentence you are pointing out in the lede does not meet WP:RSOPINION and therefore it will need to be clarified. The absence of a precise wording can not be a valid argument for requesting a similar exception from Wikipedia's rules to be repeated in the Expulsion of Cham Albanian article. As for the rest of your answers, I will not comment on them as they are just your opinions, not what the rules say. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The title of the article is Expulsion of the Cham Albanians. Till such a time as the title of the article is changed (good luck!) we should stick with that for internal consistency. We are not obligated to follow the exact wording of a source, in fact it is discouraged per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING. Athenean (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I have stated my position and those scholars are peer reviewed. Looks like we may need third party mediation on the matter. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Third party mediation is for overcoming content disputes and not for bypassing Wikipedia's Policies and editorial misconducts, including ramming content and refusal to reach a consensus. Please check Wikipedia: Mediation where it very clearly states: "The basic aim of mediation is to help Wikipedia editors to contribute willingly together by helping to resolve their good-faith disagreements over article content. As above, the mediation process is unsuitable for complaints about the behaviour of other editors; these should be directed to a project administrator (e.g. at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) for evaluation. Mediation equally is not suited to parties who are disagreeing "for the sake of disagreeing" or who have no intention of compromising or discussing the thinking behind their positions. It is not an aim of mediation to produce mutual amity between the disputants, but increased tolerance and respect is an important goal."

>>>This is what Mediation is, Resnjari. You may have forgotten, but I am here to remind you patiently what you seem forgetful or ignorant of: this deadlock was reached, not because anyone denies the addition of content, but because of your editorial misconduct in adding content into the article WITHOUT following the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and WITHOUT exhausting any efforts of your part for reaching a compromise with the other editors. From the moment it is not a content dispute but editorial misconduct and refusal to be reasoned, you can not expect the Mediators to solve the problems for you. Mediation is free to request it, but first you should read the boomerang essay and gaming the system. -- SILENTRESIDENT 12:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Mediation

I am less than happy to see that none of the editors have replied to the request for formal mediation. It appears to me that formal mediation is the only feasible way to resolve the recurrent long-standing disputes over this article. We have tried informal mediation, but the issues are too stubborn and long-running for that to work. Discussion has been tried, but it tends to wind up with angry lengthy posts that don't help. Edit-warring has been tried; it doesn't usually actually resolve a content dispute; what it may do is result in short blocks or in the page being locked to try to force discussion, but discussion hasn't been working. Tagging has been tried, but tagging just is labelling to ask a third-party editor to fix the neutrality or OR issues. In a day or two the mediation request will probably be rejected due to no response. The remaining possibilities are WP:ANI, which never resolves content disputes and only resolves conduct disputes when it is clear that one editor is the problem, or arbitration enforcement. If no one agrees to mediation, the next step will probably be arbitration enforcement, which will result in the administrators there deciding which editors have been stubborn and disruptive, and topic-banning them. Would everyone here really prefer topic-bans over mediation? If so, so, but some of you will be the ones who get topic-banned. Why not give mediation a try? It may take a few months, but it may work in the long run, which name-calling won't. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, though there was a template on my talkpage, there was no direct link [15]. I was looking for the proper place that this would cited on one of them forums and could not find it with reference to the Chams. I agree to formal mediation to end this going into complete farce. I don’t mind at all to it taking a few months (as everyone has lives outside of Wikipedia and this is a complex topic) and am all in for formal mediation. Better done robustly than have this continue like this. At least then the discussion will be based on the scholarship and its contents. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Go to the mediation request page and edit the request page to include Agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Resnjari - It seems that another editor tried to give you a warning on edit-warring, and that you deleted the warning, and in the process accidentally deleted the mediation notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance, Robert McClenon. As for edit warring notices it has been part of the process that has made this article descend into farce. I am all for formal mediation.Resnjari (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Found it. Done. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Checked the links on the Mediation notification posted on our Talk Pages, however the Mediation policy rules out the problem we have here. More specifically it say:

"The basic aim of mediation is to help Wikipedia editors to contribute willingly together by helping to resolve their good-faith disagreements over article content. As above, the mediation process is unsuitable for complaints about the behaviour of other editors; these should be directed to a project administrator (e.g. at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) for evaluation. Mediation equally is not suited to parties who are disagreeing "for the sake of disagreeing" or who have no intention of compromising or discussing the thinking behind their positions. It is not an aim of mediation to produce mutual amity between the disputants, but increased tolerance and respect is an important goal."

The Mediators intervening and helping in resolving content disputes could have been perfect if our case here was just a mere content dispute and nothing else. The Mediators can not intervene or help in regards to editorial misconducts by certain editors here who have been ramming content into the article and failed to show any willingness for compromises. The editors refusing to think beyond their stubborn positions and reach a consensus with the rest of editors is what caused the current problems. Seeing a compromise that complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, did not prevent them from acting as if they are owners to the article and edit wars to ensue and Edit Warnings / ARBMAC Warnings to be given on their Talks. Since the Mediators are not here to tackle with the core of the present issues, and since a certain user here was able to ignore the outcomes of previous Mediations, then what can quarantee that the new Mediation's outcome won't be ignored again? I have a feeling that from the moment certain editors who evidently have not respected the previous Mediations, a new Mediation won't make any difference. History tends to repeat and all what we may accomplish at the end is just dragging our feet around without actually tackling the editors responsible for their disruptive behavior. Still AE is not the way to go, but previous Mediations have not been respected either and this is has made me sceptical. I am at loss. -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Given the fact that DWB has not respected the outcome of 'all' previous procedures I see no reason why he will respect the decision of a future mediation. It's worth to mention that the last DRN mediator proposed DWB's ban as the best solution.Alexikoua (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: A question, I have never heard people mentioning this, but isn't there any kind of Etiquette Mediation here in Wikipedia? As a last resort? -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have agreed to be party to mediation. Moreover the previous dispute resolution discussion was in relation to a different matter on this article. Since then new issues have arisen and an impasse exists in the article talkpage. Mediation is more than warranted for new issues considering that the discussion is over behaviour or personal views and other things instead of just the scholarship.Resnjari (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You must be kidding me. Have you forgotten your actions? You can't come now and pretend that the need for Mediation "is warranted" when you have done nothing of your part to remedy for your attitude in the past days. Mediation is needed when BOTH sides are trying for a compromise to their disputes first. Not when you turn deaf ears to others(!), revert their edits(!), and even assume that they are racist(!) against Muslims(!). Where is your constructive effort? I am sorry, but this is not how things work in Wikipedia. I am not going to participate in any mediation from the moment you the two are the first ones to rush to mediations in the first place, but then you are the first ones who rush to violate the Mediation's resolutions when they are not in your favor. Did you forgot what happened in the Expulsion of Cham Albanians, only 12 hours after Robert MacClenon closed the previous Mediation? Frankly, I am fully aware that the Mediation resolutions are not binding. However, it is not in my standards to encourage repeated cases of Mediations and Talk Pages being turned into farces. That's not very Wikipedic. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: There was no resolution. I suggest you don't buy into that rhetoric. DRN volunteers are not arbitrators. There's still no consensus with regards to the issues that we discussed at DRN.

@SilentResident: Frankly, I am fully aware that the Mediation resolutions are not binding. Not only that, mediation "will not hear the arguments and make a judgment as to what is correct." DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The latest DRN result was quite clear about the Balkan Wars section, nevertheless manipulation by DWB is still in full swing about this part [[16]]. I don't believe that a new DRN or any kind of mediation is the appropriate way for this kind of disruption. I would agree with Iazyges who volunteered with the DRN [[17]] Alexikoua (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I was wrong. Now I see why you only talk about sanctions and why Robert MacClenon has not come with any Etiquette-related mediations. There aren't any, are there? I checked every possible rule and guidline in there and still no word about such kind of mediations. Funny how Wikipedia is VERY extensive, with many rules and guidelines tackling every aspect of the project and every kind of problem (even rules for dead editors who are no longer in life). But for disruptions there is only one way: sanctions. I wish someone has told me that sooner. Furthermore it seems Wikipedia not only lacks any Etiquette commitees, but also discourages the editors from taking role in etiquetting any disruptive editors like I did. More specifically, according to WP:IDHT: "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed." -- SILENTRESIDENT 07:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The lack of Etiquette Mediation left me no other option but sign for Robert MacClenon's mediation. So be it. -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)