Talk:Cham Albanians/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Arvanites of Epirus

1. Kollias has not been used as a reliable source in Arvanites so it should not be treated as such here.
2. Noone says that they selfidentify as greeks.
3. Greek is an ethnicity, orthodox is a religion. Cham are Albanians by definition.
Until you find sources, leave it this way.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but I can't see how Orthodox Chams=Arvanites of Epirus. Except that greek helsinki states that Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia feel Albanians (the sentence does not mention the term Chams about the entire region). There is also a geographical confusion, Chamera/Tsiamouria is a part of Epirus periphery (less than 30%, and Thesprotia alone consist of 12%-14% of Epirus area) not the same area with different name. In that way Orthodox Chams are the Arvanites of Chameria/Tsiamouria, seems logical. The Arvanites of the rest of Epirus according to helsinki feel Albanian but beeing Cham isn't geographically appropriate (there are no sources linking to that, imagine Napoleon Zervas beeing counted as Cham, because he was from Arta and of possible Arvanite origin).

I see that even Vickers is confused about the geographical definition of Chameria/Tsiamoura, in one time mentions that it is Thesprotia (she mentions also something about the ... Illyrian tribe of Thesprotians) but after some pages the term incorporates Epirus periphery.Alexikoua (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The euromosaic project, of the European Union, states that Orthodox Cham Albanians are called Arvanites of Epirus, I have added that reference. This includes even some arvanitic/cham villages in Janina, which although are not in the region of Chameria, are inhabited by Chams. (I`ll try to find references for this) and does not include some four-five villages in Konitsa, which are Lab Albanians. I see your point, but my point is that: Orthodox Cham Albanians are called Arvanites of Epirus, but not everyone that is called Arvanites of Epirus is an Orthodox Cham Albanian. This does not mean that Orthodox Cham Albanians are not called Arvanites of Epirus.Balkanian`s word (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

About what Vickers believes what's Chameria, on pg. 1 the 2002 paper states:

The Chams are the ethnic Albanian, and predominantly Muslim, population from the area of north western Greece known to Greeks as Threspotia and to Albanians as Chameria. The region, which is centred around the Tsamis river, extends from Butrint and the mouth of the Acheron River to Lake Prespa in the north, eastward to the Pindus mountains and south as far as Preveza and the Gulf of Arta.

Lake Prespa, is in fact out of Epirus. It's sure that there is a geographical confusion, so we have Thesprotia=Chameria=from Ionian coast to Prespa. On page 2 there is a map with the label 'Chameria' n, nw of Ioannina (on the Ioannina-Kakavia road, so in Ioannina prefecture).

With such confusions there is enough room for original research. If there are 40.000 orthodox albanians on thesprotia ('live in the Threspotia region.' pg. 11) there are 40.000 out of a population of 44.000, if we count as Thesprotia what Vickers defines as Thesprotia (=Chameria) the total population has to include Ioannina, Kastoria and Florina (to lake Prepsa).Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Added! You`re right!Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Arvanites of Epirus

1. Kollias has not been used as a reliable source in Arvanites so it should not be treated as such here.
2. Noone says that they selfidentify as greeks.
3. Greek is an ethnicity, orthodox is a religion. Cham are Albanians by definition.
Until you find sources, leave it this way.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Map needs references

The map of Chameria [[1]] in this article extends too far south. Also, I am not aware of any official, historic, or other maps showing Chameria as a region - the only mentions in old maps of the region are as Epirus or Albania or Romelia or Illyria (I am not denying that Chameria occupies/ed a geographic region). So please provide more reliable sources to keep this map in the article. Politis (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Its sourced by Vickers, and many others. There have been a discussion and a consensus about that in Talk:Chameria#Map.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just out of curiosity, are there any older maps that mention Chameria?Politis (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don`t know, I haven`t searched on it, but the maps I`ve seen till now, does not include, the subdivisions of Epirus, but just Epirus. Even if there is, it would be after the 18th century, cause till then the region, was called Vagenetia.Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious that under the Byzantines and Ottomans these names and their geographical location were almost aribtrary (I am not denying the individuality of the Chams). Probably because the important thing was the administrative district. It is only in the later part of the 19th century that names and regions became increasingly imprtant. For instance, the region of Macedonia only started being 'imposed' as a clearly defined region after the fall of Yugoslavia. In this respect, Wikipedia has promoted the identity of a regional Macedonia even though historically this perception was restricted as a concept within the, then, Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Macedonia. Of course, there is no geographic unity defining regional Macedonia but in the heads of those who support a greater Macedonia. Politis (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The area was called 'Risadie' or something like that on Ottoman times Greek: Ρισαδιέ. The name Vagenetia was first mentioned at 650 A.D., and was the name of the local bishopry, after the Slavic invasion (the name might derive from the Slavic tribe of Vainouitai).

There is a map mentioning the Albanian administration (or semi-administration) of Chameria/Tsiamouria (about WWII period) [[2]].

I see, but it doesn`t include Preveza, and per sources, Preveza is part of Chameria. It should be just an administrative region, or something like his. Do you know, what means the "teruleti gyarapodas" mentioned in the map?Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Something like "territorial expansion", according to a Hungarian online dictionary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This should be the case even here. The definition of Chameria depends on sources. But this discription seems the best, because it is used even by the Albanian author Sami Frasheri in 1889, see here, where he says that the sanjak of Preveza is the southern half of Chameria, and although describes the total region, including Janina, he describes as Chameria, only the regions, which are mentioned by Vickers.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be RomanianAlexikoua (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Balkanian requested that I assess this article and its overall expansion.

1) The Euromosaic Study that is associated with the phrase "Arvanites of Epirus" is decent. However, the source itself lacks reliable references. So far, my reading of the French excerpt doesn't show that the Chams specifically self-identify as "Arvanites of Epirus". If anything, the Euromosaic Study merely states that "Arvanites" inhabited the region known as Chameria. Of course, an accurate translation of the excerpt would be very helpful since many readers, including myself, are not gifted with the ability to read perfect French.

2) The organization of the history section seems fine. However, I would remove the following: "But, according to historians, earlier Albanian settlements were in the region before this migration." This sentence sounds a bit OR-ish given the fact that there is neither a page number nor an excerpt from John Fine's book that substantiates it. It would be best to provide more sources in order to verify that Albanian migrations actually occurred before the 12th century.

3) Reference citations are needed in the sections entitled "Medieval Albanian states" and "Ottoman rule and Pashalik of Janina".

4) Reference citations that derive their information from the International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations should be removed. Unfortunately, the source entitled "Urgent Anthropology" contains no bibliography, no reliable citations, and no discussion of scientific/academic methodologies. If anything, IMIR is an explicitly ideological organization that does not coincide with Wikipedia policies let alone with serious academic standards.

5) Reference citations that derive their information from the Albanian American Civic League should be removed. The article entitled "The Albanian National Question (Chameria)" by Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi lacks reliable citations and has no bibliography necessary for fact-checking. As far as WP:RS is concerned, this article is problematic.

6) The section entitled "Arvanites of Epirus" must either be changed or removed given the fact that the Vickers excerpt does not explicitly associate the phrase with the Chams. There are "Orthodox Chams", but nowhere do I find Chams declaring themselves as "Arvanites of Epirus".

This review may be deemed crude and blunt to some users. However, if there is any hope for this article to achieve GA status, then it must undergo multiple tempering processes. By far, the article seems to be progressing well even though it still needs a lot of work. If there any other problems I find, I'll be more than happy to discuss them here. Deucalionite (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I found some more problems while fixing the article.

7) The Greek Helsinki Monitor, like the IMIR, is an ideological organization. Whatever information is extracted from this particular group should be removed since their involvement in lobbies and political circles is evident. Their ability to over-accentuate (or perhaps even invent) minority issues with or without the presence of academic scruples is not very constructive.

8) Reference citations that derive their information from the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium need page numbers (excerpts are optional).

9) Reference citations that derive their information from www.albanianhistory.net should be removed. If we need information from Robert Elsie, then we can consult his published works and not websites that have the potential to misinterpret them.

Again, I'll report any other problems I find. Deucalionite (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it a RS?

There is a dispute about a reference: International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations.

User:Deucalionite opposes saying that: "Reference citations that derive their information from the International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations should be removed. Unfortunately, the source entitled "Urgent Anthropology" contains no bibliography, no reliable citations, and no discussion of scientific/academic methodologies. If anything, IMIR is an explicitly ideological organization that does not coincide with Wikipedia policies let alone with serious academic standards."

I oppose saying that: "I do not agree with they way it is writen "our estimate", without sayig how this estimate was made."

User:Alexikoua agrees saying that:"I believe that it is a reliable source, worth the try to mention".

Let`s find a solution is it a RS or not...Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean, we have already a source from Vickers. But Vickers don't give a citation about the number (suppose it's taken from Cham organizations). On the other hand Vickers disagrees clearly at least with 5 historical views according to wiki articles (mentioned above). So, why imir should be less trustworthy than Vickers on that?

Imir gives on the first pages the full schedule on how the research was conducted and in what basis.

Moreover, imagine, about Northern Epirus, taking into account only the numbers that N. Epirote organizations give.Alexikoua (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don`t want to be in this discussion, so I will not add my opinions. According to User:Deucalionite, who is blocked and cannot be part in this discussion: "Vickers is more reliable than the IMIR website because the former is a secondary source that at least contains a bibliography necessary for fact-checking. Of course, if Alexikoua manages to find evidence of how the IMIR establishes its demographic estimates (i.e. academic/scientific methodologies), then he should provide any and all pertinent links on the discussion page.".Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Map

I agree with you about the map. Actually I have created them, after the references I managed to get about the extent of the despotates and the principalities. If you have any other reference, then feel free to change the map, according to them. I am putting the map again in the page, saying that it is the extent, at 1390. Do you agree?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, 1390. However there where major fluctuations on borders that period, I' ll provide some sources and make adjustments. The sentence that the D. of Epirus was limitied on east Epirus is right about the 1358-1367 period, before Thomas Prelub. became despot. Alexikoua (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources i've got are from these books:

Migrations and Invasions in Greece and Adjacent Areas. Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond. 1976. ISBN 0815550472
Cronaca dei Tocco di Cefalonia, di Anonimo. Giuseppe Schirò.
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. IngentaConnect. University of Birmingham. Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman, and Modern Greek Studies

and up to this we have (about political control):

Butrindo: Venice (1386-)
Sagiada: Angevin (-1387), Ioannina (1387-1399), Zenebishi (1399-1402), Venice (1402-1458), Turks (1458-)
Paramythia: Spatha (1358-1367), Ioannina (1367-), (at 1370s revolt from some governor there, but again to Ioannina), during Tocco rule (1416-1430s) city was governed by his son named 'Torno'.
Vagenetia (Vagenetia is Margariti-except than the region's name): Spatha (1358-1382), Ioannina (1382-) (was the region that tribe of Zeneveshi settled)
Arahovitsa(west of Ioannina):Spatha (-1382), Ioannina (1382-)
Velas(north of Ioannina): Albanian clans (-1382), Ioannina (1382-)
Dropull: Albanian clans (1358-1382), Ioannina (1382-84), Shahin Pasha (?) (1384), Zenebishi (1384-1419)
Arta&Rogoi (west of Arta): (1358-1416).
Vonitsa: Angevin (-ca1390), Tocco (ca1390-)
Parga: Italians-Normans (?) (-1400), Vogoi-a serb-bulgar-albanian-vlach (1400) Venice (1401-)
Lepanto:Arta (-1407), Venice (1407-)

Some sources are contradicting its other, but the picture seems to be the above. What's most important is that Albanian chieftains never had control of the Epirotic coast, because the trade between Ioannina with the Italian was always undisturbed. The Italian despots of Ioannina had a special relation with their Venezian compatriots, even if there was some kind of migration in Vagenetia political control kept the ports to Italian hands.Alexikoua (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

Two proposals for people intrested in this page.

1. As far as the Cham Issue, of the WWII, and the adjuctant periods (1935-1950) are dobious, and not clear, Greek and Albanian government and authors may contain about this period a certain national POV. Thus, I propose a consnesus on the following issue:

Albanian and Greek authors, who have written about the period that contains Cham Issue, not to be used as references
Albanian and Greek authors, to be used as references only if they speak about certain figures collected on written sources that fulfills WP:RS
Albanian and Greek authors, to be used as references only if they explicitly cite other foreign authors that fulfills WP:RS

I think that this is the only solution in order to mantian the Cham Albanians page and other pages containing the Cham Issue balanced, reliable and NPOV.

2. Things to be done:

Name section may be added, knowing that Chams are describe by a number of names by Greeks and others.
Presence of Albanians should be expended.
Albanian uprisings should be added after the Presence of Albanians.
~~Medieval states should be rewritten.~~
Ottoman rule section should be expanded.
~~Pashalik of Janina section should be rewritten in order to have clear conections with Cham Albanians.~~
Cham Albanians and the Greek War of Independence section should be created.
Cham Albanians and the National Renaissance of Albania section should be created.
Metaxa`s regime should be expanded.
World War II section should have more RS sources and more information.
Expulsion section should be created.
~~Muslim Chams in Albania should be rewritten with additional information.~~
Muslim Chams in the Turkey section should be created.
Media section may be added on Culture
Cuisine section may be added on Culture
Music section should be expanded.
~~Folklore section should be expanded.~~
Famous individuals should be expanded.
Further reading should be created with all the online articles and studies.

~~External links should be updated with the main sites containing material for Cham Albanians.~~

Unreferenced parts ^{[citation needed]} should be filled.
Photos should be added.
Grammar check should be done.

And than our work is over.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Something very interesting and essential that is nowhere mentioned is about

the religion in history section
the forced islamizations of the 17th century
the failed revolution in 1611 of Dionysius the Philosopher, bishop of Paramythia.
The Spahis (mounted Ottoman troops) that the region provided to the Ottoman army.--Alexikoua (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottoman rule section should contain Pashalik of Janina, they should not be seperate. I do not see why having a section about Chams and the Greek Revolution, since they had no notable contribution in it. Careful about the external links, sites like "give Chameria back were it belongs" should be avoided. We can see about the rest.--Michael X the White (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

sources

Agree with the third and first, but the second point varies and is always confusing on weather something could be rs or not. A good approach should be to count first the no Albanian-Greeks, provided that they dont give repeatetly wrong proven data (according to wiki articles), like Vickers in her 2002, 2007 papers (as per disc. page in Cham Albanians).

Considered that not only some Albanian and Greek are no-rs, there are many Turks (and maybe other) that have a non-rs approach on the topics (this is logical according the Turks).

There is still unexplained why IMIR is excluded as a sources (the organization states clear about the scientific methods that are used)Alexikoua (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, there should be RS on 1930-1950 period. IMIR has lack of RS references. So, it should not be there, according to Deucialionite.Balkanian`s word (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sameis

What else does Babiniotis say? I see no reason why the article should not elaborate if there is more information. For example the sound-changes involved are interesting. I know that Doric Greek and North-West Greek (?) had a theta/s sound variation: salassa instead of thalassa, etc. which makes me think of a possible Sameis/Thameis variation. In Romanian there is cimbru (pronounced cheembroo), which in ancient Greek is thymbra (summer savory). What information do we have about:

Classical s to Albanian "ch" sound-change
Medieval/Modern Greek change of s to an Albanian ch
Classical/Medieval/Modern Greek theta sound-change to Albanian "ch"

--A from L.A. (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

On chams: Cham (o) (Chamides) resident of Chameria, area of Thesprotia; (more precisely) the muslim albanophone (Turkalbanian) of Chameria, who was excepted of the population exchange with Turkey. [ETYM.uncertain route, perhaps <ancient Thyamis, river running through the area or <Sameis, ancient Thracoillyrian tribe]-

On Thyamis: Thyamis (o) [Thyamidos] Kalamas river (see) [ETYM.< anc., pelasg. route , unknown etym, parall. of Thy-amos (mount near lake Ambracia)Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, so he doesn't elaborate. I guess my elaboration on this talk page will do for now till my sources are found. I don't have access to Babiniotis' work, and because they are very different points: (1)possible Sameis derivation 2) Thyamis coming a Pelasgian source: it is much better to have two notes placed, even though the reference is the same. People always come by and make claims about Thraco-Illyrians and etymologies, so it's good to have it clearly referenced. A from L.A. (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you propose? How do you think the sentences should look like?Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The sentences look okay now, with two notes placed, one for each point. As soon as I find more information from good sources, I want to elaborate on the sound-changes involved, with other Albanian examples of Greek theta changing to Albanian "ch", or Classical "s" being found as an Albanian "ch". A from L.A. (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but be carefull, because it could be seen as a OR, if you don`t find explict info about that.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I do not yet have a lot of knowledge of Greek, ancient, modern etc.; Sameis to a novice like me looks like an ancient Greek plural (polis, plural poleis etc.). So is Sameis a plural of *Samis, which itself shows a typical ancient Greek suffix -is? A from L.A. (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it means nothing. Thecians and Illyrians have no written sources and every tribe and word of them, is known only by Greek authors, who always added this suffix.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was not suggesting the suffix indicates any Greekness. I'm just asking whether the ancient Greek Sameis was a plural of ancient Greek Samis. Sameis and Samis have the Greek suffixes according to the Greek language, yes. I don't recall whether these same suffixes having the same function are attested in Thracian or Illyrian. I would like to know the Classical source of Sameis. I did not find it in a Perseus Digital Library search yet. A from L.A. (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have no idea about it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of *Samis, there is a Greek surname Tsamis (Τσάμης), and the hydronym Thyamis itself is very close to the form *Samis, when one knows about the s/th variation (*Samis/Thyamis). I'll share more research with you other editors, and hopefully I will find information usable in Wiki. A from L.A. (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For sure surnames like Tsamis are the same as Çami, which means that their origin is cham albanians. As for, Sameis-Thyamis, I have no reference.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, using Google I found that there is an Albanian surname, Çami. Yes that should be the source of Tsamis. Looks sure enough that I will add that to the Tsamis stub-article without a reference, but I will place a template showing that a reference is needed. A from L.A. (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mazower

We have this sentence: Albanian Cham units also played an active part in the Holocaust in Greece, including the round-up and expulsion to Auschwitz and Birkenau of the 2,000 strong Romaniotes Greek-Jewish community of Ioannina in April 1944., referenced with Mazower, Mark. Inside Hitler's Greece: The Experience of Occupation, 1941-44. Yale University Press, 1993, ISBN 0300089236.

Actually, Balli Kombetar did not discriminate any jew in Albania. This reference was not checked during ouer #Citations review So, I really doubt that Mazower is well-cited. Whoever has acces in this book, should provide the exact citation from Mazower.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Straight up, are you saying I'm lying? By the way, I noticed that you do not provide in-line citations for any of the works you quote. Thus, we have no way of telling if you are quoting them correctly. As far as I know, you could just be making everything up to make the Chams seem as victims of those evil Greeks (the theme of this article). --Athenean (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just per talk Cham Albanians were victims of EDES. Some Greeks were victims of XILIA. Far away from your (nationalist?) mentallity.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Challenge me! Future removed all citations, but they were there. I said the reasons why I doubt. Do not forget that you brought a second sentence that chams "left with germans" citing mazower and vickers, which was not true.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The way this article is written, it makes it seem like Chams are victims of Greeks in general, not just EDES. The whole history section is a one-sided rant about persecution and victimization at the hands of successive Greek governments. Talk about nationalist mentality. --Athenean (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This article contains WP:RS. Government=/=people, thats the main idea of non-nationalism. Find references that are contrary to the ones, I and others have brought, and you are welcomed to add them. Can you find me the inline citation of Mazower, since the other book he has written has no at all such a thing as jew persecution.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It may contain WP:RS, but as no in-line citations are provided, we have no way determining if you are quoting them correctly. Furthermore, it is possible to use on reliable sources but make an article totally one-sided by cherry-picking only those sources that back your POV while leaving out those that don't. This article is so totally one-sided that it seems to me this is the case here. --Athenean (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Talking about nothing. Challenge me! Give me the inline citation, and I will give you every inline citations you`ll need.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooooh, a challenge! How macho. How about you give in-line citations for all your refs, the way it's supposed to be done in the first place. --Athenean (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

here you are Give me now the Mazower citation!Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec, these aren't in even the article. That's just an old diff performed on an old version of the article. You have changed the crap out of it since that edit by FP. Incidentally, I noticed one of your sources states (in French), that "a majority of Chams collaborated with the Axis forces". This would seem to give the lie to your strenuous assertions about "only a few hundred Chams" collaborating. This raises serious issues about your honesty. I'm going to go through this article VERY carefully over the next few days, and whenever I see you misquoting a source, i will remove it. --Athenean (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Get serious: Euromosaic study can be a reliable source about the Current situation as far as it is discussing about current situation. It cannot be considered reliable source about history because it does not talk about history, and of course Mazower is reliable source about history, because his books are about history. In your way of thinking, I should use Babiniotis as a reference about "Turkalbanians". Anyone on his field!Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

About Mazover and the Holocaust participation of some Chams. It is really ridiculous to ask about exact citation provided that we trust with blind eyes Vickers, who makes a number of clear anti-wiki approaches (see above). Mazover didn't support that Thesprotians were Illyrians or that the Greek Government is acting like Mafia (Vicker's thoughts). As for the holocaust, one primary source are the documents of the 'ss commander' in the region. There is also a letter from him to M. Dino telling him how thankful he is, about the help provided.

What's Vicker's sources about the number of Chams?

As wiki says 'calm down' first, everything can find a solution. Go outdoors and enjoy yourselves its Sat. night.(Vicker's says something about Greek-Albanian underground meetings in taverns ;))--Alexikoua (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we`re not in the same town:-). The second problem is that on this book Mazower says nothing about such thing. If Chams played a role in holocaust, I suppose that he would use it. The third problem is that Balli Kombetar was not anti-semit, on the other hand they protected jews (a number of references about that). All these make me suspect that Mazower has not written it. I am not saying that Mazower has written something wrong, I am suspecting that he has not said it. If he has written that "chams have massacred jews" ofccourse it has a place in the article, much more than one sentence. If not, it should be deleted. Am I asking too much?Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Balkanian`s fraud

Balkanian strenuously maintains that "only a few hundred Chams" collaborated with the Axis forces, yet one of his own sources completely gives the lie to that: [3]. Section 1.2, paragraph B, sentence 5. For those of you that don't speak French, it says "a majority of them having collaborated with the occupation forces". Ouch! This raises serious doubts about how this user uses sources. Not only does he cherry-pick, but even those sources he uses are completely twisted and falsified. Incredible. This article needs major fact-checking. --Athenean (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Euromosaic study can be a reliable source about the Current situation as far as it is discussing about current situation. It cannot be considered reliable source about history because it does not talk about history, and of course Mazower is reliable source about history, because his books are about history. In your way of thinking, I should use Babiniotis as a reference about "Turkalbanians". Everyone on his field!Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But how do we know that that is what Mazower actually says, since you don't provide the actual in-line citation? As far as we know, you could be making everything up (which I wouldn't put past you). I provide a full in-line citation to the Euromosaic source. You do not for the Mazower source. Until you do so, we go with Euromosaic. --Athenean (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Information about population exchange (Chams-Northern Epirotes)

I wonder how a fact can be totally reversed. I don't know If the cited source has a sense of reality, but it lacks citations for sure. IMIR says that this plan was made up by Zog's Government. There is a specific record in the Greek Government in 1930 that refuses such kind of action, because the numbers are not equal.

There is a comfusion on what is rs or not. I see a very one sided approach.

According to a Turkish author, all Turks from Epirus that transfered to Turkey are Chams. Nice try, maybe we have to choose a bit more carefully our sourcesAlexikoua (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats why there is no mention of numbers of CHams that left to Turkey. On the other issue, IMIR has no source at all, while Fabbe has explicitly sourceds greek official documents.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Until these original documents are cited, there is not that kind of idiotic arguement (and it is if you claim that you want to exchange a minority of greater number in another country with another that's ca. 20.000 according to Mazover).

I ask for third time, where is Vicker's source of the 440.000 number? I'm sure you know balk.Alexikoua (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mazower says that there were 20 thousand in 1944, read him carefully. Vickers says that there are 440 000 today, in ALbania (the mazowers ones) in Greece, USA and Turkey.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I know about the 20.000. I speak about now. From whom Vickers knows that they are 440 worldwide? that's my clear answer. because there r no citations on the 02 07 papers.Alexikoua (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Vickers?

The citation number one, has a full number of CHam Albanians in ALbania, for 1991, which is 204,000 and she has estimated that they were in 2007, 250,000. "Cham population settlement in the Republic of Albania according to the 1991

registration of Chams by the Chameria Political Association. Place Persons Shkoder 1,150 Kruje-Lac-Fushekruje 720 Lezhe 35 Tirana (District) 29,700 Durres-Shijak-Sukth 35,000 Kavaje-Golem-Gose-Rrogozhine 10,500 Peqin 1,400 Elbasan-Cerrik 12,650 Lushnje-Zhame-Dushk 8,300 Berat-Kucove 6,900 Fier-Patos-Rreth 39,800 Vlore (District) 42,300 Sarande (District) 12,100 Delvine (District) 2,900 Total 204,255"

For Turkey and USA she makes an estimation from the number of Albanians that were forced to leave for Turkey, and has as reference "Michalopoulos, D, 'The Moslems of Chamouria and the Exchange of Populations

Between Greece and Turkey', Balkan Studies, Vol 27, No 2, 1986, pp305-6."

For Greece, she makes an estimation, refering to "Odysseus, Turkey in Europe, London, 1900, p401." SO her estimations are fully referenced and she explains the number she gives. On the other hand IMIR says nothing about them.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link of IMIR [[4]] lets read:

Two years later (in 1930) the Albanian king Ahmed Zogu offered the Greek government to make a population transfer by sending the Зams to Albania in the place of the Greek ethnic minority there. The king pursued a policy of clearing the Greeks out of Albania. His proposal was not accepted by the Greek side because of the lack of reciprocity - 10 to 20 thousand Зams in exchange for 100 thousand Greeks.

As per talk I'll delete the contradicting claim until there are primary sources about Greek records in hand to prove that the above is wrong.

As for the number of today's Chams, it's just an claim by Cham organizations, but imagine as for Greeks in Albania taking into account only claims of N. Epirote organizations. That's why Imir says that these figures are inflated (on both sides).Alexikoua (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, wait, thats really intresting, because we talk about 2 different offers. The greek one was in 1924, when there was Fan Noli prime minister of Albania, who did not accept it. THis could be another offer, from Ahmet Zogu. But, it should have another reference, because IMIR, is not reliable.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Source's link is dead, these means no primary sources available for now. The Greek 'offer' was in 1924? Very wierd because in 1924 the Greek-Albanian border wasn't excactly delinated yet (regions like Liqenas were in Greek hands that year). How could there be such offer without knowing the excact region of the potenial exchanged population?Alexikoua (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Liqenas has nothing to do with Greece, to far away. There were 14 villages only, which were under discussion, thus a very limited number of Greeks and Albanians. As far as I saw, IMIR did not have even a bibliography, nor a single citation, it clearly does not fulfill WP:RS, so you can not use it as an argument. If IMIR`s author was wikipedian, he would have been blocked indefinetetly.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What about Vickers? Too many historical errors, contrary to wiki approach. As for the 1923 exchange the author says about 'a community' not the entire minority.

I'll make the adjustment about the numbers, stating that this is what Cham organizations give.--Alexikoua (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats already done, I have added the full census in Cham Albanians#Current demographics.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

F... citations

I have added on the majority of the sources their online variants, in order to be easier to be read. For the others, I am waiting in the talk page, to be asked for any reference that any user is not sure, that is writly sourced, in order to give the in-line citation. I am also waiting for Mazowers- Inside Hitlers Greece, citation. Do not bullshit this page by removing whole paragraphs when you find new sources, just add them and do not bullshit this page by sourcing sentences about history, with studies that have no connection with history.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Still no inline citation for those "several hundred" Chams joining the Axis. Unless I see one soon, you know I'm going to do. --Athenean (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you kiding me or what? Read that online books and studies, that I added in the page. Its Mazower saying "Several hundred were conscripted into the anticommunist Bal Komitare[sic] to act as local gendarmes". I know that you are trying to maintain that sentence that for sure is not in Mazowers book, by asking idiotic inline citation, which you can easily find just by clicking external links that are in the references.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that due to RL concerns I don't have more time to devote to this article. Just a couple of notes regarding World War II: it is well-established that a) some Chams collaborated with the Axis, and conversely that b) not all of them did so. Collective guilt was used by EDES as an excuse to drive them out, but justified, it was not. Even "majority" is a term one should carefully use. Out of a population of 20,000 how many did actively collaborate? Leaving women, elderly and children out, the male population should be perhaps five thousand. How many of them joined the Axis forces? If only a few hundred, as stated in the only cited source (and Mazower is pretty reliable), then that hardly constitutes a majority. Now, on the cite on Mazower's Inside Hitler's Greece, I actually have the book, and it does not mention the Chams or any Albanians anywhere in it. I checked the section on the deportation of the Ioannina Jews (pp. 252-254), and there is no mention of them. So this reference at least is false, and I'll remove it. Regards to everyone, and please keep a cool head. Constantine ✍ 10:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Condemned to death

What happened to the part about a court case for WWII crimes and death penalty in absentia? I cannot quite remember the details but they seemed to be sourced. Politis (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is on Cham Albanians#Postwar reaction (1945-1990).Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How can?

How can anyone suffer from assimilation? Here in Britain we have Poles, Russians, Greeks, Italians, etc who have assimilated. Greeks have assimilated in Russia, Bulgarians in Ukraine, Laz in Turkey, Albanians in Italy... The prime example is the US. The term 'suffer' seems superflous, emotional and POV - even if/especially if used by Vickers. Politis (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

E.G. You are affraid to speak albanian in public, because police may arrest you (Real-life case, some months ago, when I was in Igoumenitsa). "forced assimilation".Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So you are basing it on personal experience. I respect that and am sorry for your discomfort, but such reasons for keeping edits are POV. Albanians speak freely their language all over Greece, including Igumenitsa. Albanian newspaper are sold where ever there is a demand. Including Igumenitsa.Politis (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No I am basing it on Vickers and RS. You asked me what can it mean, and I gave you a real-life case. In every case I am citing Vickers, and you are citing anybody. As for the case, it wasn`t me that could not speak albanian. I could speak it without any problem. But locals, who knew Albanian language, and self-identified as Chams, were affraid to.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I will look into it next time I am in the region. But I have known Greek Orthodox Arvnites in Greece and they were speaking their Arvanit Albanian dialect openly and heir children would answer in Greek, just like amongst non-English-speaking communities in the US, UK or Australia. They were also fiercly Greek because their ancestors, they told me, had fought for Greek independence so that they could be free Greeks, worshiping their faith freely.
I just dont want this article to emphasise how 'the bad Greeks exterminated the saintly Albanians and now Epirus must be handed over to Albania'. I will not stand for that. Just like I edited forcefully to create balanced article on Cyprus issues against the inexcusable nationalism of presumed Greek editors (I believed that the 'TRNC' exists as an individual entity and that had to be respected in any article). Politis (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. I don`t want a biased page. That`s why I have been careful, not to include in the article that "Greeks of Epirus were stunched nationalists", which is said in Mazower book, and other things like that. On the same time, I have emphasised that EDES forced them to leave, and not the greeks. You`re welcome to add aditional info from RS on this page.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How can an 'rs' make several historical faults? Vickers has to read about wiki rules. Wiki, articles like Thesprotias, Illyrians, Byzantine Empire are disagreeing with Vickers, in the way the 2002, 2007 papers are a sure ban according the wiki rules (making errors that are accidentally always pro-Albanian).

As for EDES, the British mission says clearly that the operation was undertaken by the British commander in order to secure the Epirote coast for upcoming reinforcements: Talk:Cham issue

C. Woodhouse's report on 16 Oct. 1945: ... Zervas encouraged by the Allied Mission under myself, chased them (the Chams) out of their homes in 1944 in order to facilitate operations against the enemy (the Nazis) ...

P.R.O. (Public Record Office), F.O. 371/48094/18138.Alexikoua (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On Vickers:
1. Her studies are about recent history, ancient history is background, and that`s why I have not used it as a source on a prior dispute on Chaonians.
2. Nobody has ever said in wiki and in every single study that because the majority of scholars think that Thesprotians were Greeks, no other scholar can say the opposite. That`s why wiki is collecting info from different RS, in order to make NPOV' articles, by [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|by not saying the truth, but just by adding different scholar opinions.
3.She has well-sourced her recent history and current situation sources, thus making it a RS.
4.For wiki rules a RS is when the author, the publisher and the paper itself are reliable. Per 1., 2. and 3. Vickers is reliabe, British Military Department is a RS and the paper itself is a RS.

On the second issue, it is stated in the article that "This operation was meant to enlarge the coastal area north of Parga under EDES and hence British control".Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The page, however, is becoming biased because of easy assumptions. What I mean is that, the following false assumption was made: Arvanites have Orthodox Albanian origin and some Chams are orthodox, so orthodox chams are Arvanites of Epirus and vice versa, so Souliotes that also had an earlier Albanian origin and are Orthodox, are Arvanites of Epirus, so they are Chams, and so Chams played a large role in the Greek War of Independence. Now, haven't Souliotes been self-identifying as Greeks and not Chams for the last few centuries? So how does that make Chams active in the Greek Revolution? You see what I mean?--Michael X the White (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no! On Souliotes there are references that say that they are Orthodox Albanians of the cham Brench.

Richard Clogg, Minorities in Greece: Aspects of a Plural Society, 2002 ISBN 1850657068, 9781850657064 "The Souliotes were a warlike Albanian Christian community, which resisted Ali Pasha in Epirus in the years immediately preceding the outbreak the Greek War of Independence"
Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby, Greece, University Press, 1944. "...who belongs to the Cham branch of south Albanian tosks (see volume I, pp.363-5).In the mid-eighteenth century these people (the Souliotes)were a semi-autonomous community..."
Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, I.B.Tauris, 1999, ISBN 1860645410, 9781860645419 "The Suliots, then numbering around 12,000, were Christian Albanians inhabiting a small independent community somewhat akin to tat of the Catholic Mirdite trive to the north
Nicholas Charles Pappas, Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1991
Katherine Elizabeth Fleming, The Muslim Bonaparte: Diplomacy and Orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 0691001944, ISBN 9780691001944 "The history of the orthodox albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such an overlap"
Gerolymatos, p. 141. "The Suliot dance of death is an integral image of the Greek revolution and it has been seared into the consciousness of Greek schoolchildren for generations. Many youngsters pay homage to the memory of these Orthodox Albanians each year by recreating the event in their elementary school pageants."

And a lot of others. There is no assumption in this page, at least made by me. There are clear references about every single sentence.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Still the term 'Arvanites of Epirus' is product of original reasearch (i mean these Arvanites that feel realy Albanians). There are sill Arvanites of Epirus that dont feel that belong in that category, so it's misleading too.

As for the Souliotes, sources often confuse the terms Albanians and Arvanites. A english book said that politician Th. Pangalos said that he is Albanian (actually he said Arvanite). Another english statement that made me lauph: 'Albanians are the Scots of Greece', suppose the author meant the Arvanites too.

About the 1821 Revolution, the section is very one sided. I will add the role of the Muslim Chams in that period and the fierce 'Cham civil war' (waw maybe creat a new article with this title) that occured these period (Botsaris hated his Cham compatriots very much I suppose).

Find a citation of these above, and feel free to create the "Cham civil war". I can help you, on the case of Souliotes war with Ali Pasha, it is "Edward Augustus Freeman" on the book "The Ottoman Power in Europe", stating that "This was a conquest of Christians by Mahometans ; but it was not a conquest of Christians by Turks. It was in truth a conquest of Albanians by Albanians" But, you will have to find a place that clearly cits "Cham Civil war" in a RS.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On Botsaris do not forget, that he was in the Albanian regiment of the French Army, his mother tangue was cham albanian dialect, per Titos Jochalas, etc. etc. etc.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Souliotes may be seen as having earlier Orthodox Albanian origin, but that does not make them Chams. I can see one source speaking of a cham branch, but that still would be cham origin, without making them Cham Albanians. From what is written in the article, Cham Albanians self-identify as Albanians, when Souliotes do not.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We cannot say that Souliotes self-identify as Greeks, as Souliotes today has just an origin sense. We are talking for the 18th and 19th century, when Souliotes was an actual ethnonym. Per sources, thay were Cham Albanians, and at that time they spoke Cham Albanian dialect, See Titos Jochalas.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael, we must be careful to not project our 20th/21st-century ethnic categories back into the 18th century. In the time of the Souliots, this dichotomy between "Greek-identifying" and "Albanian-identifying" that you are thinking of simply did not yet exist in this form. Yes, Souliots identified politically with the Greek national cause, and were later prepared to merge into Greek society. That didn't stop them from being (Cham) Albanian at the time, and not just having "Albanian origins". The differentiation into (Greek-identifying) "Arvanites" and (non-Greek-identifying) "Albanians", just like the association of the name "Cham" with only on sides of that, is a product of the 20th century, perhaps even the second half of the 20th century. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean and I do not disagree, but I think in the case of Souliotes, they had already been self-identifying as Greeks before the Revolution. The differentiation may be a product of the past century, but if they had been saying "we're Greeks" since before 1800, then it is correct to say they're a Greek ethnic group with Orthodox Albanian origin. They're Greeks for themselves, and "scientists" and "intellectuals" decided they had Albanian origin. You see what I mean? I see your point with the "Cham" part being added later on, and that is why I think it is exaggerated to use a 20th century "ethnonym" for people of around 1800 (that actually have an ethnonym, Souliotes). We could say something like "they were Orthodox Albanians that sided with the Greek ethnic cause" or even better "they were Greeks with earlier Orthodox Albanian origin", but I definately think that "they were Cham Albanians" is over-exaggerated.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You still seem to be thinking in terms of "Greek" and "Albanian" as two mutually exclusive categories. They were not. – But all in all, I'll say we should definitely de-focus this issue. Whether or in what sense these people were Greeks and/or Albanians is an issue of debate between nationally minded Wikipedians. It is not an issue of debate between serious authors in the real world. Of course they were Cham Albanians. That is such a self-evident statement, and at the same time so boring to everybody but a few nationalists, that the article should waste as few words as possible on even making it. We should definitely not waste article space and time buttressing it up, refuting it, discussing it or arguing for or against it. The article should simply take it for granted. What we might write about (with one or two sentences) is that among present-day Greeks this identification is often avoided, because of the contrast between the negative political association of the term Cham and the positive historical connotations of the term Souliote (e.g. by taking recourse to the modern construct of Arvanite rather than Albanian.) But that's a statement about modern mainstream Greek ideology, it isn't a statement about the Souliots or the Chams themselves, so it's only of marginal relevance in any case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources that say: Souliotes are not of Albanian conciousness (a.k.a. Chams)

google books search leads to the results (however there must be many other):

The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-. William Miller. Souliotes, 'an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenized Albanians (aka Arvanites)'
The Eve of the Greek Revival. Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis. Souliotes 'Christian Albanians who had intermixed with Greeks...the most obvious examples of gradual intergration of Albanians into the national conciousness of Greeks are they Ydraioi and the Souliots' (this means they are Arvanites, or are the Ydraioi Chams?)
Capodistria: the Founder of Greek Independence: The Founder of Greek Independence. Christopher Montague Woodhouse[[5]] Souliotes, a tribe of Greeks from Epirus...' (in another book of the same author says of Albanian origin, so Arvanites)
The Eve of the Greek Revival. Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis. 'Of Albanian origin' (aka Arvanites)
The Muslim Bonaparte. Katherine Elizabeth Flemin. 'of albanian origin' (aka Arvanites)
Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy. Victor Roudometof, Roland Robertson. 'the Greek Albanian clans of the Souliotes'
Two Diaries.Frank McEachran. 'of Albanian origin' (again Arvanites)
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. IngentaConnect 'of Albanian origin' (Arv.)

So they were of Albanian origin the time of the Revolution. In the Souli area there were some families with the name 'Zervas' too. Suppose we have two Cham civil wars...Alexikoua (talk)

So the definition of Chams is that they are of Albanian conciousnes.... very nice, we got an answer.23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a logical somersault backwards. "aka Arvanites"? You are again projecting modern concepts back in time. At the time of the Souliotes, nobody made a distinction between "Arvanites" and "Albanians". These two terms were exact synonyms until far into the 20th century. "Albanian-Greek" or something like that is fine to describe the Souliotes, as far as I'm concerned, but no description that denies their being Albanian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But they were counted themselves as 'Romioi' for sure. Actually the definitions of Arvanites, means excactly that their ancestry was Albanian, but they were integrated into another society, so intermariages were plenty with the local people. In that way the nationality is not clear. But it's sure that they didn't feel compatriots with their 'muslim counterparts' (I mean Cham muslims) in Paramythia. They actually were hated enemy with the beys there. I know that these terms were synonyms but today the term Arvanites describes people that are intergrated in the Greek society (part of the Greek nation, thats what the Souliotes were, fought together because they felt connected to the Greek nation, not because they were mercenaries, or just sympathized the revolution...).Alexikoua (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, today the term Arvanites means that. (And, I might add, it means that only among Greeks.) That still doesn't justify projecting it back in time. This "definition of Arvanites" is completely useless for our context here. And the opposition between the Souliotes and their Muslim counterparts was not an opposition between them and the "Albanians" but between them and the "Muslims". Whether they interpreted that opposition in some ethnic terms or not may be difficult to establish, but an opposition between "Greeks" and "Albanians" it was certainly not. In any case, that's all futile speculation - many reliable sources say they were Albanians, no reliable sources say they were not Albanians. You quoted some that said they were something that you, on your OR criteria, thought was incompatible with being Albanian, but that's a different thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In that way, Souliotes are in that scale Albanians that are any other that self-indentifies as Arvanitis, Hydraioi etc.. On the other hand the term 'Cham' is an eterochronism about this period. Not to mention that the equation orthodox Chams=Arvanites of Epirus, is clear original research and not acceptable by wiki. Alexikoua (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Were on hell did you found OR, Its Vickers, Banfi, Kresti and Manda that make a clear conection. More of all, Arvanites of Epirus form part of the modern albanian nation (banfi), thus no distinction about them. There are 2 foreign and 2 greek (no albanian, not because there are not, but because i dont want to add them) that support this connection, and no single f... reference that does not support it. Cham is not an eterochronism, read this book of 1861, that say that Souliotes were a branch of tchamides. Read Psalidas that in 1833, speaks about Tzamourian.Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I really have no idea what weird ideological agendas you both (!!) are pursuing with this fight over "Arvanites". Dammit, just leave it out. It's a term that is virtually unknown outside Greece, and quite irrelevant to this article from a global perspective. You seem to be both intent on employing the use (or non-use) of that term in order to make some point about an ethnic delimitation between "real" Greeks and "real" Albanians. That's nonsensical from the start. The term has never had any such connotations, either way, prior to the mid-20th century, and it has them only in Greece (and we are writing this article not from a Greek but from an international English-speaking perspective), and sorting out whether this or that subgroup is "really" Albanian or "really" not shouldn't be our focus anyway. It's the premises of a naive nationalist perspective that you both seem to share, if under opposing angles. The term "Arvanites" should be mentioned in passing, once, the way I was suggesting it with my last edit: as something that is occasionally heard in Greek discourse, but in no way more interesting to our readers, and most certainly not something that our readers want to associate with ideological baggage either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Brief overview with sources

During WWII and just after, there were a number of civil wars between different factions; Greeks against Greeks, Albanians against Albanians, Yugoslavs against Yugoslavs, Italians against Italians, as well as various 'ethnicities' against each other.
In the late 1930s, fascist Italy was exploiting Cham irredentism in Greece and knew they could become allies against Greece. The Axis found many friends amongst the Chams of Greece and Albania (just read Ciano’s diaries).

After 1944, many important democratic Greeks and Albanians were angry at those amongst the Chams who had joined the Axis. But this was a local issue, it was not a conflict of Greece against Albania. In fact, a democratic Greek would oppose a Cham collaborator as much as he would oppose a Greek collaborator.

Muslim Chams were also reported to have attacked Greek Orthodox Chams, and fought against the Albanian partisans. There were also unjustifiable acts of violence and intimidation against the Cham population by (extreme) Greek partisans.
From the end of WWII until the late 1990s, the Chams (also referred to in Greek as ‘Tourkalbanoi’, meaning Muslim Albanian) were held in low esteem in Greece (but also in Albania) since popular lore and memory associated them with the last survival of Ottoman massacres against Orthodox populations on Balkan soil.

From 1943 until the late 1940s, there emerged violent factional struggles within Albania - if not a state of civil war. Albanian Marxist historiographers of the Hoxha years often condemned WWII attacks by Albanian (fascists) against Albanians. Just read the Albanian historian Pollo. Former President Enver Hoxha, only mentions the Chams briefly in his book ‘Two friendly peoples’ (Tirana 1985). Hoxha did not see them as a worthy issue when writing about developments in Greece or about the Greek minority in southern Albania (northern Epirus). That is why Hoxha did not highlight the Chams in this book, which is a collection of his writings on Albanian-Greek relations. He seems happier to refer to Albanian and Greek people fighting together “against the Albanian and Greek quislings”. The only official reference to the Chams is found in his 1946 speech at the peace conference in Paris when he needed to defend Albania’s record during the war.

The evidence for Cham collaboration with the Axis is reported. According to one British officer, who was in situ, the Chams were, “armed by the Italians and Germans and co-operated with them against the Greek villages controlled by the andartes. Many atrocities by them were known...”. After liberation, “... Most of them had to be conveyed into Albania by the retreating Germans in 1944, only to fall into the hands of the Communist Albanians who no doubt regarded them as traitors.” [re: Foss 1977, Epirus].

The British services on Greek soil also referred to Muslim Cham as Turco-Albanians.

The historian Fischer writes that “When the Germans took over from the Italians in 1943, “the first to lend unequivocal support [] came from the new territories of Kosova and Cameria []. Many Albanian leaders in Cameria [] were quick to cooperate with the Germans”. Incidentally, for Greece, the Germans were thinking in terms of population exchanges. [re: Fischer 1999, ‘Albania at War 1939-1945’].

Also, there are the reports from the summer of 1944, by British military liaison officers responsible for reporting from Epirus and Macedonia in northern Greece:

Lt.-Col. J.M.Stevens wrote, “It is perfectly safe to move about alone and unarmed in practically all of Free Greece, except in north-west Macedonia where Comitajis wander about at night shooting up Antartes, and in Western Epirus where the Chams indulge in the same sport. If there are any Axis troops in the neighbourhood, one is immediately informed. This is not the case in areas where the villages are not organised as in the zone of Bulgar villages in the Edessa-Kastoria-Florina triangle.”

D.J. Wallace reported in August 1944 on, “negotiations between Zervas and the Turco-Albanian [sic] irregular franc tireurs for the latter to hand over their German supplied arms...” Later, Wallace mentions that the partisans took over “the large area previously held by Turco-Albanian irregulars armed by the Germans”.
“The Turkish banditti [sic] moved out with all the arms, horses and mules...” The local andartes then indulged in an orgy of revenge, looting and wantonly destroying everything…”

Since the 1990s the Cham issue was forcefully re-introduce by some right wing, Albanian politicians. When Mr Berisha visited London in 1993 (?) as President of Albania, he expressed concern about the welfare of Albanians in (former) Yugoslavia. But his interest in Greece was only as an investing nation. In 1994, the Cham issue was briefly re-introduced by his right wing DP government. This new interest came just after reports on the unhappy condition of the Greek minority in southern Albania. The big change came in 2000. Mr Berisha re-introduced the Cham question in his pre-electoral campaign of September 2000, when he stood on a nationalistic platform in response to the near civil war and total anarchy that had gripped Albania in 1997. He introduced the issue to a Cham gathering in Tirana (apparently funded and organised by oversees Albanians). Politis (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose that this discussion should be held in the page Expulsion of Cham Albanians, since in Cham Albanians page, is just a breif summary of the expulsion itself. On the other hand, I do not see any secondary source, exept of Wallace, whose reliability should be carefully seen, since he does terrible mistakes categorasing Albanians ans "turkish bandits" or "turko albanians".Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Wallace was on the spot, co-ordinating and in combat situations. The expression Turko Albanians originates from the 19th century; for the Greek Orthodox Albanian and Greek population, it identified specifically those Mulim Albanians who were fighting or pillaging in the name of the Turkish authorities. In the 1940s, there are also the cases of Albanian refugees (around 500) and of ethnic Greek refugees (around 5,000) from southern Albania to Greece. So do we start an article Expulsion of Greeks from Albania? Albanian refugees from Albania? Greek Albanian refugees?Politis (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally POV lead

"At the end of World War II, nearly all Muslim Chams in Greece were expelled to Albania by the national Greek resistance group EDES, as a collective punishment for the collaboration of some Cham Albanians with the occupation forces of the Axis as part of the Albanian nationalist Balli Kombetar.:

1. Mazower says that they were attacked, because they did not agree to fight against ELAS. So "as a collective punishment for the collaboration" is just a POV. 2. More then half of that sentence is "that f... chams that collaborated with germans", whilst our previoues sentence, was totally NPOV, made after consensus, which stated that some of them collaborated, other were part of the resistence and the rest were civilians.

Get that lead back.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mazower describes the refusal to join in against ELAS as the final pretext for the attack, but leaves no doubt that the attack was ultimately an act of punishment/revenge for the previous events (he speaks of a "conception ... of ethnic collective justice" motivating EDES.)

Come on, you are making a fuss over nothing, and I have the strong feeling you are doing so because you don't understand the English well. The previous version was poorly worded and just too long for the lead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mazower on that book speaks for three different motivations. 1. Ethnic homogenity (he describes why it could not be done with vlachs and macedonians). 2.Revenge. 3. Their refusal to ELAS.

But, whatsoever, I propose "At the end of World War II, nearly all Muslim Chams in Greece were expelled to Albania by the national Greek resistance group EDES, as a collective punishment for the collaboration of some Cham Albanians with the occupation forces of the Axis. Although, several hundred Albanians were part of the communist Greek resistance group of ELAS."Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "although" makes big red lights flashing in my mind. If you feel the need to balance off one fact with another fact, connecting them with "although", that almost invariably means you are a POV-pusher. But if you like, exchange "collective punishment" with "revenge", that's maybe better, on second thought. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions: Why shouldn`t we use "a minority of Cham Albanians collaborated", since it is clear in our sources?Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Because emphasising it is transparently an attempt at downplaying something. Typical POV-pushing tactics. You have an agenda, and it shows. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My agenda my friend is to writte this article. But, I will not allow a POV lead, which only states about Chams collaboration, without stating their resistance, because sources do not agree with your point of view.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And, pray, what is my POV? My only POV is to get a lean, slim, readable, well-written article unencumbered with obvious agendas. Now, please, instead of sqabbling over your national anxieties, please go and do your homework and get those plagiarised texts out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You are accusing me for an agenda. Where on hell is my agenda? I created the page Expulsion of Cham Albanians, and although I had too much info about their resistence, I did not add them, because I had too little sources for their collaboration. Where on hell is this agenda? I have added no single Albanian source in this page, exept on culture, and Chameria battalion, where I could not find any other source, meanwhile I have added greek sources.

You made a lead which emphasized a collaboration made by a minority. I am saying either say that the collaboraters were a minority, or mention both the resistance and the collaboration of Chams, or mention none of them. Does this seem pov to you?Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

the collaboration needs to be mentioned, because the expulsion can't be understood without it. We obviously have to mention the expulsion in the lead, so the collaboration can't be avoided. The opposite activities had no consequences of that type, so they are not relevant for the lead. The only motivation for including them would be "balancing blame", and that's precisely what we should not be doing. "Some" is neutral and non-committal, and in no way implies representativity. Details about the historical context and assessment go in the section further down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I presented period quotes and their souces as requested by Balkanian; I also provided them on the talk page, not in the article. I hope such extract of quotes from British sources in situ during the war are usefull (Mazower was not there). Is anyone now suggesting that their notes, diaries, comments take second place to Mazower? Also, there are more quotes from British and Italians of those years. The word 'revenge' is very loaded and only partly describes the reasons for those expulsions. Politis (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Second place? Yes, obviously. Read up in WP:OR on Primary versus secondary sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. At WP:OR it says that, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic." So the sources I provided are fine for this article. Thanks, I will include them. Politis (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see this part of OR. You have primary sources, while wiki works on secondary sources.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Since these are quotes from books written by analysts, historians, etc. and NOT documents found in archives, I will include them. Thanks for confirming. Politis (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You should include what author books say, and not wat Wallace e.g. says, because authors may totally ignore them, even if they quote them.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OR or not OR?

As you say, Wallace is an author and one of the experts. Some would argue that Vickers is an interested party. Working for the British Foreign Office and inconsistent in her presentation of facts. Wallace also worked for the British government and became an author. Always appreciative of your encouragement. Politis (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wallace is a primary source, and cannot be added as such. Please find books with citations and bibliography published by reliable publishers, in order to add them. And when you add them, finprovide books name, ISBN, page, et al. That`s wiki policy, not mine.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wallace is a primary source because he was there and was obliged to write objective, non-POV reports for the British government. Vickers is a primary source because she was there and had to write her own interpretation of what she say for the British government. Both of them were published. So do we get rid of all in situ authors?

This is childish but what can I say. Vickers was not even born at that time, and thus she makes studies on history, she is not a eye-witness and thus she is a secondary source. Wallace is a primary source. Wikipedia works on secondary sources not on primary sources, and thus Vickers is totally not OR, while Wallace is OR. I am not going to explain my motives, but just see that I have created Këshilla page, which is totally against albanian POV, so my motives are clear. Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My english for sure is not good, but as far as i know, i can make my self clear. Where on hell did you find that Vickers is OR? She is a secondary source(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), quoting people, studies, etc, she is not OR.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I am beginning to see the misunderstanding. Vickers is quoted in the article as giving 40,000 the number of Chams in Greece. The title of her paper - from which many 'facts' in the article are chosen - is "The Cham Issue - Where to Now?"; her title is not "The Cham Issue-what was it like before I was born? :-)" Like Wallace, she went there to ask question, to meet people, to research on the ground the current situation. She wrote the paper (and other work on Albania) for the British government, who pay for such things (this is not a criticism). Wallace was in a similar situation but under different circumstances. So Vickers and Wallace can be seen as OR.... Again, I fully accept and thank you for your wiki-based argument and consequently argue that we might have to remove or re-position OR. [ps. I would never criticise you (or anyone) on their English, it is fine) Politis (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

- My friend this is an idiotic discussion. Vickers is a secondary source, Wallace is a primary source, because Wallace wrote at the time it was conducted and it is a testimony not a historiographical study. OR means primary source. Wikipedia does not include OR. Secondary sources are not OR. So, Vickers is not OR, Wallace is OR, and you just do not get it, or you play childish games. Wallace cannot and shall not be included. Vickers can and shall be included(fullstop).Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

- - Guys, you are getting the concepts wrong. "OR" versus "Non-OR" is not the same thing as "primary" versus "secondary" sources. WP:OR is something that we, as wikipedia editors, are not supposed to engage in. On the other hand, our sources, being the work of academic researchers, are of course legitimately just that: original research (i.e. "original research" in its true real-world meaning, and not the perverted meaning that term has taken on in Wikipedia jargon.) As for "primary" and "secondary" and where this guy Wallace fits in with that, I can't judge, because so far nobody seems to have actually cited his work. So, who was he and what did he publish? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

- - - Wallace is taken from here, which are reports from the ground in 1944, to the Ministry of Defence of UK. Is it a secondary source?Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What's named after what?

The etymology section currently states that "The Cham Albanians' name derives from the region's name, Chameria". That doesn't sound very plausible linguistically. The derivational morphology strongly suggests that the region is named after the people, not the other way round. Doesn't "Cham-eria" mean "land of the Chams"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Logicaly you are right. Perheps Babiniotis has the etymology of "Chameria", in order to fill this gap. Can you check it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Arvanites of Epirus/ wiki creation or not?

The concept is old, but I see wiki is the only source in the net that adopts that term. Off course none of the 4 sources mentioned in the article states anywhere that excact term 'Arvanites of Epirus', which is misleading and geographically wrong if they are considered the same as' Orthodox Chams.

Well, usual results in google giving that term:

...Albania creates a minority of oppressed Arvanites in Epirus. (in not of)
some Arvanites of Epirus..
Arvanites of Epirus (that's the wiki)
As for the Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia...

The point is that original research is something that wiki opposes, so no rs stating that. Orthodox chams are better described with that term.Alexikoua (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not getting it. What are you guys fighting over, exactly? Can you both please explain here, to a naive outside editor, why you feel it is important whether or not we use the term "Arvanites"? And, please: "... of Epirus" in that context is not part of a fixed phrase or proper name. There is no specific concept of "Arvanites of Epirus". There is a concept of "Arvanites", and to the extent that you use that term, you can of course use "... of Epirus" as an ad-hoc syntactic modifier, just as you can talk of the Arvanites of Euboea, the Greeks of Alexandria, the Germans of the Banat, or whatever. As such, the modifier is self-explanatory and self-evident. It doesn't make much sense to stress the fact that Germans who live in the Banat are also called "Germans of the Banat", or Greeks who live in Alexandria are also called "Greeks of Alexandria". It makes just as little sense to stress the fact that Albanians who live in Epirus are also called "Arvanites of Epirus". Well, duh, of course they are. Thank you, Captain Obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The main point is that the term 'Arvanites of Epirus' isn't the same with 'Cham Orthodox' or 'Albanians of Epirus', something that balkanian agrees with. The concept is that not all Arvanites of Epirus are 'Orthodox Chams' because some of them are assimilated into Greek society and didn't belong to the definition that 'Vickers' and others give about 'Orthodox Chams'. A nice example is Napoleon Zervas, an Arvanite of Epirus (Arta), but not Cham Orthodox.

So, how can we claim that every Arvanite of Epirus is Albanian in ethnicity?

There were some Albanian clans before 500 or 600 years that descented south from Albania and settled in Greek inhabited areas (like that of Boua Shpata). Today their descendants (there are people with that surnames living in Epirus that dont know a single Albanian word) are called Arvanites and are assimilated into Greek society (sounds logical we r talking about several generations).

The term 'Arvanites of Epirus' and that Arvanites= Albanians is adopted only in Albanian nationalistic sites, some similar approach adopted Adolf Hitler about the supperiority of the unity of the Germanic tribes (that all Germanic tribes that migrated in the dark ages are one nation etc).

Moreover, and the most important, no sources claim that apporach (except unitedalbania.com) Alexikoua (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Inline citations Banfi says "Arvanites of Northwestern Greece, living in Epirus periphery and Florina, are part of the modern Albanian nation..."

This means that those are Albanians and not hellenized Albanians (i.e. Arvanites). Euromosaic says that expet of two villages north of Konitsa, other are Cham Albanians. What is not clear on this?Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just per talk Arbereshe for sure are a subbranch of Albanians, and no source distincts them. They are just hellenized, self-describe as Greeks, and thats all. Arbereshe of Greece (Arvanites) live in Morea, Attica, Eubea, and other islands (hydra, etc), thus being distinct from other subbranch of Albanians. What in Greece are called Arvanites and live in Epirus, may only be either Chams or Labs, because this subbranches of ALbanians (i.e. dialect, folk tradition, etc.) live in that region. Too obvious.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually they live in 'Epirus and Western Macedonia', what Vickers defines 'Chameria' (says to lake Prespa), why dont define seperate the Cham and Lab cumminities? Saying, 'orthodox Chams' 'orthodox Labs' part of the Arvanites in Epirus and Western Macedonia, Thats what sources say about these communities. As we said, not all Arvanites of Epirus belong to these Cham and Lab communities.

I agree about the first part, but this is Cham Albanians page, on Lab Albanians page it may be added. I have added [note a], which makes this distinction. On the second part, where can Arvanites of Epirus belong, since they do not speak Arvanitika (because the features of Arvanitika are created in Southern Greece) they do not have the arvanitic traditions (except the ones which are fully Tosk ALbanian, or Albanian traditions). They speak either cham or lab dialect and have either cham or lab features of ALbanian traditions. On your point of Napoleon Zervas (firstly we have no source that he is arvanite), I have explained you, that if an Greek of Albania, is assimilated, this does not mean that Greek minority of Albania does not exist. The same here: If a cham Albanian is assimilated, this does not mean that chams do not exist. But, we have no single source that Arvanites in Epirus are not Cham or Lab Albanians, while we have sources that claim that they are. So please find a source about your claim.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Zervas family was one of the known Souliote families, according to your claims he is Orthodox Cham, every biography of N. Zervas says about his family roots, sources are plenty to provide (provided that souliotes are Chams as you claim) .Alexikoua (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My claim? It is resolved in this discussion page. See here. Provide sources that Arvanites of Epirus are not Cham or Lab Albanians.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually about Zervas geneology it is you that you already have provide sources. See this: Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early. Well some of the famous Souliotes: Nasos Zervas Tousias Zervas, Dimos Zervas, [6] Diamandis Zervas. So they are all Chams according to your arguments. Morevover Diamantis' second grand son is Napoleon Zervas.

The surname Zervas is of uncertain root, according to a Greek site :[7] one of Zervas very far ancestors fought together with Senderbeu. So, why the Botsareoi and the Tzaveleoi are Chams and the Zerveoi aren't? Alexikoua (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that Zervei are not Chams, if they are Orthodox Albanians of Epirus, it was just an (in brackets) parenthesys. I have explained you, that

if an Greek of Albania, is assimilated, this does not mean that Greek minority of Albania does not exist. The same here: If a cham Albanian is assimilated, this does not mean that chams do not exist. But, we have no single source that Arvanites in Epirus are not Cham or Lab Albanians, while we have sources that claim that they are. So please find a source about your claim.

and that

It is resolved in this discussion page, that Souliotes were Orthodox Chams.

and that

Provide sources that Arvanites of Epirus are not Cham or Lab Albanians, because there are references that Arvanites of Epirus are Cham or Lab Albanians.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't say that they aren't 100%, some are, some are not. If we adopt the term 'Arvanites of Epirus' for these communities only (Chams, Labs), it practically incorporates all the Arvanites (whether assimilated or not).

So about Souliotes, what about adding the Albanian name to the Zervas fammily members too? I mean, M. Botsaris, K. Tsavelas, u add them as Chams, what's the diferrence with the Zervas Souliot clan?Alexikoua (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not, if we are sure that they are Orthodox Cham Albanians, for sure yes.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

On a sentence

"Chams account for the greatest part of the erstwhile substantial Albanian minority in Greek Epirus; today, the population of only two villages north of Konitsa belong to a different Albanian subgroup, that of the Labs."

Isn`t this too big and irrelevant for the lead? I have added this info (because it shoul be) in [note a], but i think that this is irrelevant for the lead as too big and with no clear signification for this article. What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly open to discussion, but since I see so much useless and misguided contention about the denotation of "Albanians", "Chams", "Arvanites" and "... of Epirus", I thought it would be useful to have it in the text: making clear that "Chams" is almost synonymous with "Albanian-speaking minority in Epirus", except for this one detail. If you don't want it in the intro, we can move it into the "definition" section. I just don't like the footnote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I ceartanly agree with, you, but It would be better in definition section, because it is not very important for the lead, or at least in a different paragraph, e.g. after Orthodox Chams, because it is actually, the orthodox for which we speak, since muslims do not live there anymore. Question:Wouldn`t it be better "Eastern Orthodox Churhc", rather than "Greek Orthodox Church", especially when Greek Orthodox Churhc, refers to a number of Churches, from Greece to Alexandria and to Jerusalem?. And please see my answer on Wallace.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To be sure, "Greek Orthodox" is a concept that isn't very well-defined in terms of actual ecclesiastical administrative structure, and strictly speaking has little meaning theologically, but in terms of a cultural, identity-defining construct it seems pretty relevant here. Also, of course, the church life these people partake of is of course that of the Church of Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but isn`t it a bit anachronistic, to define "greek orthodox", "albanian orthodox", "(ethnicity) orthodox", when we speak solely about religion? Isn`t this a confusion for a third party reader, who does not know that "greek orthodox" means somebody that adheres to Church of Greece, and "albanian orthodox" somebody that adheres to Church of Albania, not implying ethnicity?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there any Christian Chams in Albania, where they could attend the Albanian Orthodox church? I thought they all originated in Greece, and the Christians weren't expelled, so they're all in Greece, right? If that's the case, then there never was an option of being "Albanian-Orthodox" anywhere near where Christian Chams lived, and since orthodoxy and "Greekness" as a cultural concept were so closely connected – and that connection is in fact the prime reason they are still there – I see nothing anachronistic about using these terms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Christian Chams (except some 100 persons) live in Greece, but this is not my point. My point is that the Greek minority in Albania adheres to the Albanian Orthodox Church, so in your way of thinking they are Albanian Orthodox Greeks? Is it normal? Does not it confuse readers? Is orthodoxy a religion or an ethnicity?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that "Greek Orthodoxy" has historically been an important factor in defining collective identities, of many people in many places, whereas "Albanian Orthodoxy", as far as I'm aware, never had such a function. No, I would not think of Greek Vorioipirotes as "Albanian Orthodox Greeks". But the Christian Chams being "Greek Orthodox" was precisely what made it possible for them to integrate in Greek society, and what caused them to be perceived as "Greco-Chams. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your point is clear. But, in every case, it is just an opinion and as such, we cannot be sure about it. Secondly, exept of Greece, nowhere ethnicity and religion are confused in this way (greek orthodox, bah), so it would surely be more NPOV, saying Eastern Orthodox, which actually is the religion and cannot confuse anybody.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Footnote format

Just a technicality: Why do we have two sets of footnotes, one regular and the other home-built? As we are now seeing, the second type requires a lot of unnecessary fiddling. Why not just integrate them in the regular "ref" technique? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the note section in order to add there information that are not adequate to be added after the sentences. It cannot be added on ref section, because they are not references but notes. On the other hand, they should be in the article for further information. E.g. note b is about the population exchange. In the article, it is written that the population exchange is about religion and not ethnicity. So, for further info I added this sentence as a note: "Under this treaty Muslims of Greece would have been exchanged with Christians of Turkey, with an exception of Muslims of Thrace and Christians of Instanbul." I think it is relevant for the article, in order to make it more clear, without creating big sections.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In normal academic writing, if you use footnotes, you normally use the same type of footnotes both for references and for background info notes. I don't really see a reason why we couldn't do that here too. Just because it's called "<ref>" internally doesn't mean it has to be restricted to things that are technially "references". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok then remove them. Please see also about orthodoxy.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record

this article is too long. I am about to edit out some details that are best found in biography articles.
Then I will re-edit some passages which misrepresent their original author. I have most of the books referred to (and I mean hardbacks, not in electronic form). Politis (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are speaking about non-minor edits, than it is better to discuss them here, before starting.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the length, it has to be cut down in large parts anyway because some text is plagiarised. Balkanian, can I remind you of your promise to remove those? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, when I said to cut out the plagiarism, I didn't mean something as superficial as this. I meant radical cuts. This is still slavishly following the exact same progression of ideas as its source, only in slightly different wording. As such it is still plagiarism. Besides, I'm pretty sure we're not just talking about this one paragraph, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I do not think there is any else, only this one is as far as I remember, and I am going to rewrite it tomorrow.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is Chameria

We have discussed this and no one came up with any credible evidence. There is no doubt that the Chams are an entity that lived across a region spread across today's Epirus and southern Albania. The problem is maps and the references. They are hardly ever mentioned in historic sources. 'Their' region was clearly 'multi-ethnic', if not 'multi-ethnoreligious'. Various peoples living in that area had been referred to as Illyrinans, Epirots, Albanians, Greeks, Turks, etc. The term Cham seems to emerge strongly only after Albanian independence (of course there were no Chams before). So when we see a geographic definition of precise boundaries, it seem curious. Also, that precise geographic area has been given a specific Cham history. All this looks like another great act of wiki-nation-building. Another point is an emphasis on the bad Greeks and the pleasant Chams. In fact, history shows numerous occasions where Albanian (especially southern Tosks) and Greeks are either interchangable ethnicities or fighting for the same national cause, especially if they were Greek Orthodox. But the way the article is heading, we might see the emergence of a pure-blooded Cham nation-state! :-) Politis (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cham is not "created" after the Albanian Independence, there are sources before it. On the other hand Chameria is a certain well-defined region (sources speak about it), and it does not mean that it was not a multi-ethnic region. Epirus was multi-ethnic, ill-defined (no northern borders can be stated), but it does not mean that it is not a region. Agree about the rest, common causes have always existed (see Souliotes).Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For once, I will agree with Politis on something: we should be wary about ascribing precise geographical borders to this area. Can we avoid having maps that look as if there was a well-defined political-geographical entity with precise boundaries? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I certiantly do not agree, since it is a region well defined (at least in the north and in the south), and as such, map is no problem at all.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Idea?

Should we consider the establishin of a History of Cham Albanians page, and leave in this one only a summary, in order to make it leaner?Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If we do that, then we'll probably end up with semi-redundant information. I think we should try to keep things on one article. Of course, since I'm no jelim (or am I?) I guess my two cents ain't worth jack. Ha! :) Deucalionite (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dialect section

I've reinstated one of the {{huh}} tags in the "dialects" section. The statement that the dialect has been conservative because it was in contact with Greek makes little sense at first sight. It is not a common assumption in contact linguistics that language contact promotes conservatism, and it is by no means straightforward to see how and why it should do so. In fact, quite the opposite is much more commonly assumed: Language contact promotes change. Is the writer you are quoting there a reliable source on linguistic matters? Does he offer an explanation for this surprising statement? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The author is reliable, he is actually the head of the Lingiustic Department of the Albanian Academy of Sciencis. My summary should be bad. He states that Cham dialect, as |Arvanitika and Arbereshe are conservative in the meaning of retaining old features of albanian (kl) isntead of (q), (l) instead of (j) and old words, not in common any more in Standard Albanian. Maybe the way I have written it is not accurate.Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Chams

In a very general way, we mention in this article that Chams were the Albanians of Epirus. We know, however, that the Greeks with much earlier "Orthodox Albanian origin" (or whatever) are the Arvanites. Babiniotis (whom we cite) mentions that "Chams" were the Muslim Albanians (Turkalbanians Τουρκαλβανοί). So were "Chams" all Albanians or just the Muslims (who, as Muslims had not integrated in the Greek society) ??--Michael X the White (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Babiniotis is not a RS about sociology or history, he is a RS about linguistics. Of course Albanians in Epirus were Cham Albanians and not Arvanites, because they spoke the cham dialect, had the cham traditions and not the arvanitic ones. Arvanites as an ethnonym applies into Greeks of Albanian origin in Southern Greece (Morea, Attica, etc.), not to every Albanian in Greece. On the other hand, as a sociological term, it impplies all Greeks of Albanian origin. But Arvanites is an ethnonym (i.e. language, culture, etc.) and as such we can use it only about those who speak Arvanitika, have the Arvanitic traditions, and self-identify as arbëreshë, other, who do not self-identify as arbëreshë, cannot be Arvanites.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael, you really, really, really, must try to learn not to project your modern Greek-centric ethnic category into the past, and into the reference frame of the world at large. I know it's difficult, but try. – And, B.w., I partly disagree about the status of "Arvanites" too, but that's a different issue. You guys need to stop reifying ethnic categories. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If we actually cite Babiniotis to tell us what "Chams" are, then we cannot just pick a part of what he gives us and use it as it fits our interests. And neither can we say that "all albanians in Epirus were the Cham Albanians" (a term, let me remind you, that has been used mostly the last century and is confusing and wrong to associate with terms of the early 19th cantury). That would just be an assumption like the other ones.--Michael X the White (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We are not citing Babiniotis to tell us what the Chams are. Why would we do that? That's not his field of expertise. We cite him to tell us what connotations the name Cham has in present-day Greek. (That, in fact, is his field of expertise.) Just because, for you guys, in Greece, the term has been used "mostly the last century", and has developed those political overtones and that restriction to the Muslim non-Greek side, doesn't mean the rest of the world is forever doomed to follow the rules of Greek nationalist discourse. As far as I can see, Cham is, first and foremost, a term of Albanian ethnography and dialectology, describing a cultural and linguistic unit that has existed as such, quite independently of all that Muslim-versus-Christian and Greek-identifying versus non-Greek-identifying issue, and also quite independently of all the 20th-century tricks of Greek ideological discourse of disassociating the integrated Albanian-speakers from the Albanian ethnos through the artificially narrowed-down uses of terms like Chams, Arvanites and so on.

That said, Balkanian`s word, it might help to put this issue to rest if you could find some documentation when the use of the term Cham is first historically attested. I take it people in the Middle Ages weren't continually throwing that name about, but on the other hand it didn't just materialise out of thin air in 1900, did it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also another mistake (proving, though that I am correct). Turkalbanian or Turkocham are not "derogatory misnames". The addition of "Turk-" in front of an ethnonym signifies Muslim religion (for example Τουρκόγυφτοι). Babiniotis actually mentions that, too.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Babiniotis is reliable about linguistics, he cannot be reliable about history or sociology because he does not study history and sociology, but he studies linguistics.

2. "Turkalbanian" is a wiktionary:misname, because it says Turks-albanians, while they are just albanians and not turks, per the definition of "misname" (i.e. a wrong name) it is a misname.

3. Cham Albanians find it derogatory, and actually your example "Τουρκόγυφτοι" (per non-greek speakers: Turkogypsies) is a derogation too. Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know it how some find this, but still, Turk- means muslim.--Michael X the White (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as i know Turk means Turk, but it was missinterpreted as muslims in the Ottoman Empire, as Greek was missinterpreted as Orthodox, and thus it is a MISNAME.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case, it is used to define religion, so it means "Muslim Albanian". What is "derogatory" about that? Babiniotis, that is a linguist, also supports that "Turkalbanian" means Muslim Albanian. What does this here have to do with history? --Michael X the White (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputes

There are to disputes templates in the article, and no serious deisccussion about those disputes. Can somebody list the disputed parts in the talk page, or we have to remove the templates.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see any discussion about anything in these page, and the only thing we have is two templates. The templates says that there should be a discussion. As long as no discussion in in here, the templates have no place.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

1)the above discussion 2) the discussion at Souliotes. Sorry for highlighting your POV. --Michael X the White (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You have clear answers on your questions. You have no reference, we have references. So I cannot see any dispute. Please bring references from RS and experts in the field.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The article makes its scope perfectly clear: "In its original ethnographic and dialectological sense, the term Cham comprises the entire Albanian-speaking population of the Thesprotia and Preveza prefectures of Greek Epirus, including both the Muslim and Christian populations. [...] Today, the remaining Christian Albanian speakers are reported to avoid the appellation [...]. In the Greek context, the use of the term has thus become largely concentrated on the earlier Muslim minority." That's the basis the article is written on. I can see nothing in the above discuussion to challenge this very simple statement. The whole hullabaloo seems to be not more than a complaint that we are not giving exclusive preference to the popular modern Greek perception of the term and its denotation. That's not a serious POV dispute. It's just a few people who seem unable to process the cognitive complexity of having a term with more than one meaning. I'm therefore going to remove those tags again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

pov

the user who has written the article has a clear pov dont get into edit wars with him but keep that in mind 85.74.200.72 (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah right.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(And thus is article-ownership proven.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

kretsi

on graekochams, inline citation "The appellation “Graecochams” is also used by the. Greeks of the region, though more often Albanians continue to use the Ottoman Turkish term “kaur” (the “non-believers”)"

on elas, inline citation "in may 1944 a mixed battalion of the Cham minority was formed within ELAS-fighting units under the commando of the 15th regiment in the village of Kastanjë and was called Ali Demi"Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OR

Indicating that Chams and Arvanites are the same thing is POV. claiming that Chams and Arvanites are the same people is OR. Not only that but there are two articles for the Chams in wikipedia and this one is definitely biased so it should be in WP:AFD

and the term Graecochams is OR and completely pseudoscientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.227.126 (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. Is this the final form of the article? No more to add? I feel things should settle first because I see almost everyday additions (A no. 5 criterion of nomination -stability[[8]] ). Alexikoua (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the NPOV wikitemplate till disputes are resolved--85.74.252.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC).

Which disputes?Balkanian`s word (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

the above disputes. For example The implementation of Markos Botsaris as a Cham when this is based on what comes from an uninformed source of the British Intelligence during World War 2.--85.74.252.76 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

To User:Balkanian's Word you are obviously not willing to cooperate to solve the disputes that doesn't mean they don't exist. Removing the NPOV tag is a disruptive edit.--85.74.198.36 (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputes of content review

Does M. Vickers use one sided only information, as it was reported by Alexikoua?
Was there any usage of the "Cham" term, before the 20th or 19th Century?
Was the cham eviction specifically ordered by British liaison to EDES, Col. Chris Woodhouse?
Where is the citation of Τρίτου, Μιχαήλ. Τσάμηδες: Επίμαχο Πρόβλημα Ελλάδος και Ορθόδοξου Εκκλησίας Αλβανίας. Εκδοτικός Οίκος Κυρομάνος: Θεσσαλονίκη, 2003. In which he reports that the Muslim Chams of Thesprotia come from native Christian Greeks of which for different reasons and at different times converted to Islam.
Why is Kollias an unreliable source whereas Vickers isn't one?
Are the refs used to create the Map of Chameria WP:RS? And why are they self-contradicting?
Is a definition and Synonyms of the Word Cham in Babiniotis dictionary enough to use as the definitive source of these statement:

The name "Cham", together with that of the region, "Chameria", is of uncertain origin. It may derive from the local Greek hydronym Thyamis (Θύαμις in Greek, Çam in Albanian) or from the ancient Thraco-Illyrian tribe of Sameis

Why isn't this included in the article:

Albanian Cham units also played an active part in the Holocaust in Greece. Mazower, Mark. Inside Hitler's Greece: The Experience of Occupation, 1941-44. Yale University Press, 1993, ISBN 0300089236.

Are Arvanites Chams?

No per:

1. The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-. William Miller. Souliotes, 'an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenized Albanians (aka Arvanites)'

2. The Eve of the Greek Revival. Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis. Souliotes 'Christian Albanians who had intermixed with Greeks...the most obvious examples of gradual intergration of Albanians into the national conciousness of Greeks are they Ydraioi and the Souliots' (this means they are Arvanites, or are the Ydraioi Chams?)

3. Capodistria: the Founder of Greek Independence: The Founder of Greek Independence. Christopher Montague Woodhouse7 Souliotes, a tribe of Greeks from Epirus...' (in another book of the same author says of Albanian origin, so Arvanites)

4. The Eve of the Greek Revival. Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis. 'Of Albanian origin' (aka Arvanites)

5. The Muslim Bonaparte. Katherine Elizabeth Flemin. 'of albanian origin' (aka Arvanites)

6. Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy. Victor Roudometof, Roland Robertson. 'the Greek Albanian clans of the Souliotes'

7. Two Diaries.Frank McEachran. 'of Albanian origin' (again Arvanites)

8. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. IngentaConnect 'of Albanian origin' (Arv.)

There you go just some of the disputes of the content of the article which Have Not been solved.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding a list is not enaugh to create e dispute. For these reasons.

Does M. Vickers use one sided only information, as it was reported by Alexikoua?

No she doesn`t, there are references from Greek authors too. Its a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And by the way, just give Greek stances, in reliable sources.

Was there any usage of the "Cham" term, before the 20th or 19th Century?

There has been a discussion about this, and Chams are in Finlays group, Kolokotronis memoirs, etc. It means that the term Cham was used at least as 18th century. On the other hand, there is nothing mentioned here about the use of the term, and I cannot see why this is a dispute.

Was the cham eviction specifically ordered by British liaison to EDES, Col. Chris Woodhouse?

I dont know, find sources and add them. This cannot be a dispute, this is a question.

Where is the citation of Τρίτου, Μιχαήλ. Τσάμηδες: Επίμαχο Πρόβλημα Ελλάδος και Ορθόδοξου Εκκλησίας Αλβανίας. Εκδοτικός Οίκος Κυρομάνος: Θεσσαλονίκη, 2003. In which he reports that the Muslim Chams of Thesprotia come from native Christian Greeks of which for different reasons and at different times converted to Islam.

Tritou Michail is not a historian, his book has no bibliography, and he is cited only by Ellinikes Grammes. So, there was a consensus that it is not a RS.

Why is Kollias an unreliable source whereas Vickers is one?

Because there is a discussion and a consensus that Kollias is not RS, in Talk:Arvanites.

Are the refs used to create the Map of Chameria WP:RS? And why are they self-contradicting?

The majority of the map is quite clear. The only problem is eastern borders, more exactly if it compromised Lakka of Souli and the eastern extremity of Dodona municipality, or not.

Is a definition and Synonyms of the Word Cham in Babiniotis dictionary enough to use as the definitive source of these statement...

Yes, because Babiniotis is a RS, and a good linguist. No question about it.

Why isn't this included in the article: Albanian Cham units also played an active part in the Holocaust in Greece. Mazower, Mark. Inside Hitler's Greece: The Experience of Occupation, 1941-44. Yale University Press, 1993, ISBN 0300089236.

Because it was a false citation by User:Athenean. User:Cplakidas who has the book, informed that there is no such a citation in that book.

Are Arvanites Chams?

You just copy-pasted Alexikouas materials. There is a discussion and a current consensus on Souliotes about this. So there could not be a dispute when a consensus exists. If you want to challenge the current dispute, go on that page, not here. And by the wya "of Albanian origin", means "of Albanian origin", and not "Arvanites", who are just a ethno-linguistical group of Southern Greece.

You are just making noise as always. Your 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 questions are resolved per consensus. Your fifth and 9th had to do with other pages.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The only one who forms this so called concensus is you. And there has been no actual talk on the issues I present.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And BTW 18th Century means 1700-1799--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

All what you said are said before, and you have just collected them. Read the consensuses reached for each one of them, and stop disturbing this page with nonsense. If you have a specific dispute. Than come and discuss it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Epirotic tribes"

It is my impression that the general international scholarly consensus on this matter is that the ancient Epirot tribes were Greek (minus of course, Albanian historians and their international supporters, e.g. Malcolm, Vickers) and not Illyrian. Therefore, I see no need to mention them here. The connection between Albanians and Illyrians is itself disputed, so to go out on a limb to say "Albanians are Illyrians, and Chams are Albanians, therefore Chams are descended from the Illyrians who were the original inhabitants of this area" is revanchism and proto-chronism at its worst. The article is extremely long as it is, and could use brevity, not irrelevant ramblings about ancient history. --Athenean (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to put all point of views in a few sentences. The general consensus is that Epirots were Greek-speaking, maybe Hellenized Illyrians (cambridge history of antiquity), but there is another point of view that the northern Epirotes were Illyrian speaking and the southerns Greek speaking (as per references I have brought). The same per Albanians Illyrians connection. The general consensus is that Albanians are the descendents of Illyrians (except slavic scholars and Wilkes), but there are some other point of views that they are not (per references I added). Thats why there is written that "The majority of historians traditionally conclude that Illyrians were the ancestors of Albanians" and that "The majority of historians conclude that Epirotic tribes were Greek-speaking". On your way of thinking there should not be any page Origin of Albanians (which by the way lacks of references), because the "general international scholarly consensus on this matter is that the" Illyrians were Albanians. There are different opinions between scholars, and that is what I try to present with few sentences here.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if the ancient Epirots were, for the sake of argument, 100% Illyrian, this section still would not belong here, because including it automatically implies that Albanians=Illyrians. There is no proof of that. The origin of the Albanians is discussed in a separate article, and for good reason. To mention the Illyrians in this article is automatic acceptance of the Illyrian theory of Albanian descent. Until such a day thay it is proven that Albanians are descendants of the Illyrians, Illyrians should not be mentioned in this article at all. This is not the article to discuss theories of the descent of Albanians or what the ancient Epirots were. There are separate articles for that, and for a reason. --Athenean (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No because there are both POVs on Illyrian-Albanian theory and both POVs in Epirotes ethnicity theory. That is called NPOV. The majority of historians say that Illyrians were the anescetors of Albanians (except of Wilkes). The same that say that Epirotes are Greeks (hammond, borza, et.al.) say that Albanians are the descendats of Illyrians. Or are they POV? We are talking about the presence of the Albanian population in the region and of course it should be in there.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is, there is no evidence of the presence of Albanians in the region before the Middle Ages. Even if Albanians are partially descended from Illyrians, Albanians and Illyrians are still separate and distinct people, not the same people. Therefore the Illyrians are completely irrelevant to this article. As for the Epirots, who are Greeks, to include them here is simply provocative. This is not the article for discussions on the ethnicity of the ancient Epirots. --Athenean (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Whats the meaning of being separate and distinct people? How do you define that Albanians are not Illyrians` ancestors or not? "As for the Epirots, who are Greeks"... These are your problems: You are totally sure that Albanians are not Illyrians and you are totally sure that Epirots are Greeks. But the majority of authors claim that Albanians are Illyrians and that Epirots are Greeks, and a minority claim that Albanians are not Illyrians and Epirots are not Greek. Thats what I am saying, and this is NPOV (Albanian POV is that Albanians and Epirots are Illyrians).Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, that the descent of the Albanians, and the true nature of the ancient Epirots are still the subjects of research and not 100% decided. I think we can both agree on that. This article is about a subgroup of the Albanians, the Chams. Thus, it is not a question of whether what you have written is NPOV (which it may well be), but that such discussions, on the ethnogenesis of the Albanians and the nature of the ancient Epirots do not belong here. The place for discussing the various theories of the descent of the Albanians can be discussed in Origin of the Albanians, Albania, History of Albania, etc...Similarly, numerous articles exist where the nature of the ancient Epirots and the various theories can be discussed there. An article on an Albanian subgroup such as the Chams, is not the place for such discussions, especially when it is already super-long and cluttered. The Chams are not an ancient people no matter how you look at it, most of their history is recent, and to try to reach back all the way to antiquity for such a relatively recent group stretches the imagination. I mean, what's next, digging up the Pelasgians and the Paleolithic? --Athenean (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see we conclude on two things (correct me if I am wrong): (1) That the way that it is written is NPOV and (2) the ethnogenesis of Albanians and the ethnicity of Epirotes is disputed. If yes, than lets make our debate more clear: Is it relevant or not?

Chams are a dialectological group of Albanian, as such, (1) their anescetors (the Albanians that first got on that region) are relevant to this page and (2) we dont know how did they came in that region (not our fault, Dark Ages). As such, I think that all theories (from "descendats of ancient Epirotes", to "migratory population") should be included, indicating that which one (of course the second) is the most common on secondary RS. I think that till now we agree, don`t we?

So my remaining question is: Should we have two paragraphs (some 2000 bytes) for a summary on what disputes exist on the ethnogenesis of Albanians and the ethnicity of Epirots (indicating what the majority of scholars think) in order to make clear why two different theories exist for the population that lives there, or should we say just that there are two theories, making it unclear to a reader, why this theories exist? My opinion is that a summary of these two debates are needed, because otherwise it is quite unclear why two different theories exist. Yours? (and plese tell me if you agree with my two paragraphs?)Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we do not agree at all. I think you don't see the importance of the fact that this is the article on Chams, not Albanians as a whole. Thus the only thing that would be appropriate, would be if you had a source that mentioned that the Chams were descended from local Illyrian tribes. So far as I can see, the only source to that effect is Vickers, which is not a WP:RS for ancient history. You forget that the Chams inhabit southern Epirus, which everyone agrees was inhabited by Greek speaking tribes, not Illyrians. Therefore, to mention that the tribes of northern Epirus may have been Illyrian is outside the scope of this article. As far as what the sources tell us, the first documented presence of Albanians and specifically Chams in the region of Chameria is in the Middle Ages, through migration from the north. Nothing else. Only Vickers supports the "Descent from the ancient inhabitants" scenario. Every other source supports the "migration through the middle ages" scenario. --Athenean (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets ask a mediation from a non-Greek, non-Albanian editor. What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. --Athenean (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, The Cambridge ancient history. Volume 3, part 3. [[9]] is totally ignored in this paragraph. The distinction between northern and southern Epirot tribes is not a specific one, so we have to mention what we mean (which tribes?) an 'rs' has to mention exactly the names of at least some tribes. Don't forget according to Strabo the northern boundaries of Epirus are in Skumbin. Tribes like Taulantians, Encheleis and Parthinoi were usually bilingual, and were hellenized but they were never mentioned as Epirot. Inline citations are also needed.Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I added inlines, and I compressed the whole part, in order to emphasise on what we need, the Albanian population of the region. What do you think about the new version?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha! The Cambridge ancient history. Volume 3, part 3. [[10]] says the following that is of interest: "Illyris is the area described by the ancient Greeks as corresponding to the northern and central areas of present-day Albania. Illyrian tribes inhabited the north, and Epirot tribes the south". In other words, Illyrians were confined to the areas of central and northern Albania, i.e. not Epirus, which was inhabited by Epirot tribes. It says nothing about Illyrians inhabiting the areas corresponding to the region of Chameria. It is thus obvious that the "theory" of Chams being descended from autochthonous Illyrians is a fringe nationalist theory proposed only by nationalist Albanian historians and the likes of Vickers, and thus needs to go on the grounds of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. --Athenean (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the version I wrote? Because, there is nothing like this in it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I think that you have not read the section, I am bringig it here:

Chams are a dialectological group formed in the region of Chameria.[26] The first Albanian presence in the region is unknown as the Albanian ethnogenesis too. Authors conclude that Albanians are descendants of one of the proto-Balkanian people,[27] most commonly Illyrians,[27][19] while a minority links them with Thracians,[28][29] or Dacians.[30][27] The first undisputed mention of Albanians in Byzantine sources is in the second half of the 11th century as inhabitants of the Arbanon, in modern Albania,[27] a period when they are thought to have lived in Epirus too.[31] Albanian scholars, who agree only with the Illyrian theory of ethnogenesis, argue that Epirote tribes were Illyrians, and thus Cham Albanians are direct descendants of them.[28] But this view is regarded as incorrect by the international academic community,[28] who conclude that Epirotic tribes were a distinct group[32] of Greek-speaking,[33] possibly Hellenized Illyrians[34][35] or Illyrian-speaking in the north and Greek-speaking in the south.[34][36][37]

Thus, the most common viewpoint on Cham Albanians origin is that of migratory process during the Dark Ages,[31] as their presence is recorded before the 12th century,[31] when Slavs and Greeks were reported to live in the fields of the Epirus region, with Albanians and Vlachs as mountaineers.[38] The number of Albanians increased over the next centuries, especially due to the extension of the Despotate of Epirus over all of Albania.[39] Their first documented migration of Albanians to Epirus is in the 14th century,[39] when Albanian tribesmen supported the successful Serbian campaign against the Byzantine possessions in Thessaly and Epirus.[40] Although prior presence of Albanians is recorded, at least when the Despotate of Epiros was established,[40] the massive presence of Albanians in the region is seen as a result of the large migration during the rule of this despotate,[40] a part of whom would resettle in Attica and Peloponnese, being the descendants of modern Arvanites.[40]

Which is the concrete dispute in here now?Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the theory that the Chams are descended from indigenous Illyrians is supported only by nationalist Albanian historians and that this view is regarded as incorrect by the international academic community, it is simply a question of WP:UNDUE: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority". The "Chams as indigenous Illyrians" theory is a tiny--minority view.--Athenean (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is not a case of WP:UNDUE, since the article does not give just a minority view, but a minority view that is preserved by the community itself. If earthians would massivly support that the Earth is flat, that it would surely be in Wikipedia. As it seems that it is a myth, it is clearly stated that they say that they are descendents of Epirotes, but this is not correct, because epirotes were not Illyrians. Whats the problem?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a clear cut case of WP:UNDUE, aince has you have written yourself, "this view is refuted by the international academic community". What place, then, does a view that has been refused by the wider academic community have in wikipedia? Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the international academic consensus, and it's pretty clear what that is. The "Chams as descendents of indigenous Illyrians" scenario is supported only by nationalist Albanian historians and as such is a fringe view. As for the fact that most Chams subscribe to this view, well, what can I say, that says more about the Chams themselves than it does about the theory. It's STILL the view of a tiny minority (400,000 Chams out of 6.6 billion humans) and WP:UNDUE still applies.--Athenean (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just omit everything from this page that isn't specific to this one sub-group of Albanians? The whole early history and ancestry stuff is basically about the Albanian nation as a whole, so it belongs to Albanian people (or its sub-pages) and not here. Let's not turn this page into a POV fork of the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

The interpretation of some sources is a bit far fetched, here is a part of "Selected papers: studies in Greek and Roman history and historiography. Frank William Walbank. 1985. ISBN 052130752X.

"Yet no one has questioned the Greekness of Epirus (whatever the racial origin of its people, which may well have contained Illyrian element"

So, does this mean "they were possibly hellenized Illyrians"?. Suppose the book is more rs than the article.Alexikoua (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on once again. He continiues saying (whatever the ultimate racial origins of its people, which may well have contained Illyrian elements). And even if he had not said that, there is the other book, which says it clearly. Don`t make noise for nothing.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

See also Some problems of Greek history By Arnold Joseph Toynbee " It must have been because the Hellenization of Epirus, of which we can" History of Rome By Michael Grant Epirus: the geography, the ancient remains, the history and topography of Epirus and adjacent areas By Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond and all the rest who talk about a possibility of hellenization of Epirus, as the cambridge history of antiquity states clearly too.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

All 3 are impossible to verify. --Athenean (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary; all three are printed sources; in general, preferable to websites. N. G. L. Hammond is an expert on Epirus; a better source than the eclectic popularizer Michael Grant, and certainly than Toynbee, who is severely dated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that the way they are linked, it is not possible to verify that they say what balkanian claims without access to the print edition. Hammond for one, is one of the main sources on the Hellenicity of Epirus, so I find balkanian's claims somewhat hard to believe. --Athenean (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So go look it up. Toynbee was widely published, and the other two should still be in print. That's what interlibrary loan is for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The information added was irrelevant and/or misinterpreted and/or written in an undue and pov fashion (when one can't even cite the author of a work properly, there is a problem). Frankly, pmanderson, I'd expect someone who decries "nationalism", directly or indirectly like at Talk:Greece to take a decent look at the situation here. At least the main author of this article is up to his old habits after a long period of assumed neutrality. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Walbank, for example, (who can be shown to state simply "Epirote, that is to say Greek", just as a sidenote) was quoted as believing the Epirotes to be "Hellenized Illyrians" on a page that presents a list of "Greek words". Very nice. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo re 3rd. I think I'm too nice sometimes. Welcome back BTW. --Athenean (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

Read references:

Some problems of Greek history By Arnold Joseph Toynbee. "If the Epirots' ancestral language was Illyrian, as it seems to have been, why do Pliny and Pseudo-Scylax distinguish the Epirotes from the Illyrians? It must have been because the Hellenization of Epirus, of which we can discern the beginnings even in Thucydides' narrative of the events of 429 BC."

Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization By M. V. Sakellariou "...the inaccessible Epirote hinter-land was supposedly Hellenized, at an early date."

Hellenistic civilization By François Chamoux, Michel Roussel "...one nation, Greek or thoroughly Hellenized, like Macedon or Epirus."

So this is the actual dispute isn`t it:

possibly Hellenized Illyrians^[1] or Illyrian-speaking in the north and Greek-speaking in the south.^[1]^[2]^[3]

I do not get what you dispute now that walbank is removed?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hellenistic civilization By François Chamoux, Michel Roussel" is just a general work. We could cite hundreds like that, every single one with different conclusions. The Sakellariou-edited volume (M. B. Hatzopoulos is the author of the chapter) is misquoted entirely: "supposedly" should have hinted at that (I happen to have the volume here in Greek). Cabanes is certainly a reliable source on Epirus and it'd be nice to find out the rough linguistic boundaries as opposed to the simple "south-north" mention of Malkin (another RS, certainly). More importantly, a section on Illyrians and Epirotes (and the way it's written uggh) is out of place in an article on Chams anyhow. The way you cited Walbank is indicative of your general attitude here. At least, your current rewording is a tad better. 3rdAlcove (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok then lets start one by one: firstly with possibly Hellenized Illyrians. Is Arnold Joseph Toynbee a secondary RS?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why the whole Illyrian business is even necessary here. Even if (and that's a big if) the original Epirotes were hellenized Illyrians, that bears no connection with the Albanians who came (or "appeared") into the region 2000 years later, even when we leave aside the whole "Illyrian descent of Albanians" issue. Firstly, we cannot simply assume continuity through 2000 years just because they lived in the same region, and secondly, these are two totally different and mutually unrelated ethnic identities. BTW, the reference given, "Wilkes, John (1996). The Illyrians (2 ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 384" is clearly incorrect, as the linked book doesn't even have 384 pages... Regards, Constantine ✍ 21:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Constantine here, as this is pretty much what I've been saying all along. The presence of Cham Albanians (the people this article is supposed to be about) in the area of Thesprotia and Preveza is not documented till the Middle Ages. I've not seen a single RS to the opposite effect, namely the scenario that Chams are descended from indigenous Illyrians. Only nationalist Albanian historians, so this is a tiny-fringe view and needs to go per WP:UNDUE. A theory that is "refuted by the international academic community", as the article says, has no place in wikipedia. As for the descent of Albanians from Illyrians, that's really a completely different topic and best discussed in other, more appropriate articles. --Athenean (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, what Cp stated is the crux of the matter, though I do hope that the article is cited more accurately (is "more" even necessary?) than that section was. Of course, if the Chams themselves believe in their "Epirote" ("who are Illyrians, anyway") descent (since the Illyrian-Epirote theories are prevalent in Albanian nationalism, irrespectively of the "historical truth" of such claims which isn't important right now, and since figures such as pyrrhus and Gentius might feature in Alb. "folklore"), it can/should be mentioned in the article but a bit more properly. 3rdAlcove (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me make myself clear. For me:

1. It is obvious that the vast majority of authors conclude that Albanians are descandets of Illyrians.

2. It is obvious that the vast majority of authors conclude that Epirotes were Greeks.

3. It is obvious that the vast majority of authors conclude that Chams are descendats of a migrant population.

But

1. Some authors claim that Albanians are not descendats of Illyrians.

2. Some authors claim that Epirotes are Hellenized Illyrians or Hellenes and Illyrians.

3. Some unreliable authors claim that Chams are descendants of Epirotes.

I want to make clear in this article that:

1. Per WP:Summary. Albanians are mentioned in the 12th century, but are descendants of a paleo-balkan people. The majority of authors conclude that they are descendants of Illyrians, but a minority claim Dacian or Thracian.

2. Per WP:Summary. The majority of authors conclude that Epirotes were Greeks, but a minority claim Hellenized Illyrians or Hellenes in the south and Illyrians in the north.

3. That Chams are not descandants of Epirotes, but Albanian POV makes a connection between ancient Epirotes and Chams, through the theory that Epirotes were Illyrians.

The problem is that every edit I make in here is considered POV, so could somebody make a lean small summary of the above, since whatever I will write will be considered as POV?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If we write down every pov claim about origins and stuff we should create a separate book, like the origin of Atlantis. The unreliabilities and impossibilities have no place here considered that the historic community has "obvious" results to show.

What would be the next step? The Pelasgian link? (According to Herodotus they were the first people of Epirus).

About the Sakellariou book, it says nothing about Ilyrian origin of Epirote tribes, but of a Doric (in north Epirus) and Myceanean (in south) link (both tribes are considered Greek). Saying hellenization means nothing, all the nations were created sometime in the past. Doesnt mean that they were Illyrians before or that the Illyrians were the oldest people of the western world (a believe adopted by Albanian scholars).Alexikoua (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not every POV, but the POV of the ethnic group in question. It is quite normal to add their own POV, writting on its side that this POV it is not wright, because the academic community does not support it. Its the same as everywhere else (e.g. Macedonians_(ethnic_group)#Origins). Whats the problem in here?

I would agree only if its in a seperate section, with a clear title mentionig that its POV. Off course the Greek POV approach is needed too for the balance (that they were of Greek origin, Islamized by the Ottomans etc.)Alexikoua (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A few quick notes: I wish to state for the record that I am very glad that Balkanian is active in editing such otherwise neglected topics (we have too few Albanian editors here), and I assume that he does so in good faith... Whenever I find something dubious, however, I will say so. In the current issue: a) practically all Balkan peoples are interrelated, and descendants of other palaeo-Balkan peoples (and many extra-Balkan peoples besides), so that claims of "origin" should be made only when verifiable and clearly necessary to the article; b) a patently ahistorical or unscientific POV view should only included when it is significant to the subject, and then clearly noted as such. In other words: if a large part of the Chams consider themselves as descendants of the ancient Epirotes, and if there are sources that verify this, then of course this is important to their self-perception and should be noted. Otherwise, it is a fringe view and possibly OR. Either way, and since you yourself say that the connection with the ancient Epirotes is mostly a matter of POV and folk tradition, it should IMO not be included in the "history" section, but in the "traditions" section. As a side note, Balkanian, please be careful to provide the citations correctly. If one tries to verify them and they do not check out, it undermines your arguments tremendously and raises all sorts of suspicions, something you can ill afford given the amount of opposition to some of your contributions (and remember, the burden of proof is always on the shoulders of whomever makes a claim).

On a separate point, I am not sure the "timetable" is useful. The history section is not that dense that it needs summarizing in bullet-point style. Also, a timetable should only include the major events (wars, rebellions, major treaties or changes of status); in other words, e.g. the events for 1823, 1928, 1939, 1942, 1943 etc could well be omitted. If you insist on keeping it, I suggest you purge it of the less important events and convert it to something like Template:Roman–Persian Wars timeline infobox. I can do this if you like. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 18:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks CP, but I want to state it more clear. Sources we have suggest that Albanians are descendants of a proto-balkanian people, propably Illyrians, not interrelated. As such, if we want to add that Albanians first mention is in 12th century, we should stress that they are the descandants of Illyrians as Shqiptars are descendants of Albanoi(hammond, fine, etc., except of wilkes). On the relations with ancient Epirotes, this is not just the POV of Chams but a general POV of ALbanian history,(history of the Albanian People, by the Academy of Sciences of Albania) and as such it should be mentioned in the history section, not just in the tradition section. On timetable I`ll try to make it better. Thanks for the suggestion.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First Albanian presence in Epirus

It seems to unclear to claim that we just don't know when Albanians first appear there, its unsourced too. Even if we agree with the Illyrian link, there was never Illyrian presence in that specific region in order to raise such question.

According to Imagining Frontiers, Contesting Identities: contesting identities. G Ellis, Lud'a Klusáková. 2007. ISBN 8884924669, it is clearly stated that Albanian there is no evidence of presence till the 1250s. (There is no evidence that Albanians came southwards to Epirus in this period p. 134)Alexikoua (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a reference (Arnakis) about this, but the above reference is quite intresting, let me try to find new references about the first presence, and reword that sentence.Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an Arnakis' inlines. How he defines Epirus? Considered that Arbanon (and Skoumpin) lies in (the Roman province) of Epirus Nova.Alexikoua (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There is inline. He does not speak about "Epirus" but about "Northwestern Greece", thus its clear about the current Epirus we know.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds that Arnakis has some arguements about that claim (prior to the 12th century about northern Greece) that are not obvious on that spot. Klusakova on the contrary says that before 1250 there are is no recorded Albanian presence in Epirus.Alexikoua (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have access to the Arnakis paper or is this yet another out-of-context quote? ;) I'm genuinely interested in the 10th-11th-12th view, since the few sources I've ever read on the matter usually make use of a 13th-14th date. Any more information would be welcome. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that they make a use of 13th and 14th century, except of the above brought by Alexikoua. All others say about a massive immigration in the 14th century, but ommit a earlier minor presence. I will bring you the wole page of Arnakis tomorrow.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, I have not enaugh time to writte the whole page. But, I will summarize it: This is review of the book of Balkanopoulos, by Arnakis. On this page he writes that Slavs came in the region in 7-8th century, later he speaks the above about albanians, and ongoing about Vlachs. If you want something specific let me know.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, I understand now; the mention of "History of Modern Hellenism" should have tipped me off. It's probably a review of Vakalopoulos' (not "Balkanopoulos"!) History of Modern Hellenism ("The Beginnings and its Changes" subtitle makes it even more obvious). Here's the (translated) relevant passage on Albanians from the first volume (B&C): "As for the time of their presence and settlement in Greek lands there have been various opinions. Some -very improbable- consider ("speak of") a "descent" in the 8th century already and others -more probable- in later times, up to the 14th century. We should admit that, relatively early, before the 12th century, the Albanians had started peacefully entering the northern Greek lands, descending sporadically, even as settlers after official agreements". Vakalopoulos then goes on to mention a late-13th century date for their recorded presence in Byzantine sources (or "a historically recorded presence", at least; he mentions no earlier sources though as you see above he does speak of "official agreements"). It'd be interesting to find out what he exactly means with "northern Greek lands" (it's been a great while...) as well, I'll try and look into it. Please, try to cite your sources a bit more properly, though! 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My conclution about Arnakis about the "prior to 12th cent." claim is that he didn't agree with other sources:

Ca. 1250 first presence in Epirus and
Ca. 1350 massive migration from north and east.

would be interesting to know why he claims that (suppose something that more recent books didnt know)Alexikoua (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

40,000 out of a population of...

This is pure WP:SYNTH. The source says, "an estimated 40,000 Albanian speakers are though to live in Epirus. Yet what User:Balkanian`s word has added the population of Thesprotia, Preveza prefecture, and some villages on the Albanian side, lumped them together and called it Chameria and presto, the story is that 40,000 out of Chameria's 275,000 are Albanian speakers. I'm sorry, but this is WP:SYNTH and I cannot accept it. First, Chameria is a vaguely defined ethno/cultural region without clear boundaries, unlike the prefectures mentioned above. To take the area within some existing prefectural boundaries and call it "Chameria" is pure OR. Second, the source does not say where these "40,000" Albanian-speakers live. Balkanian assumes they all live in Thesprotia and Preveza, which is again OR. Third, he is synthesizing what the first source says with results from the Greek census. The only thing the source tells us is "40,000 Albanian speakers in Epirus", nothing more. Anything beyond that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and cannot be accepted. --Athenean (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The number 275,000 includes Ioannina Prefecture. The region of Chameria is on Preveza, Thesprotia and some villages in Ioannina, so the number is not 275,000 but lower. Where on hell is SYNTH here. Do you want me to lower the number or what? Cause of course its not more than 150,000.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Your source says "40,000 in Epirus", nothing more. Everything else after that is SYNTH and OR. It's that simple. And spare me the macho threats. --Athenean (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And so what? The population of the region isnt 275,000? Whats this OR and SYNTH bullshits?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

--Athenean (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I think I have to agree with Athenean here. Vickers says merely that the descendants of those Orthodox Chams who were allowed to remain in Greece now number around 40,000. There is no reference to either Chameria or Epirus as such, and given the trends of urbanisation in Greece after WW2, I'd be very careful with generalisations about numbers of formerly rural populations without explicit sources. A simple reference that rephrases Vickers should suffice, like "In 2007, the descendants of the Orthodox Chams who were allowed to remain in Greece numbered an estimated 40,000". Constantine ✍ 19:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not follow Athenean on his misreading on sources. Vickers states "An estimated 40,000 Christian Orthodox Albanians still live in the Threspotia region." So, she does not speak about general uses on Greece, or Epirus. Athenean always misscites sources #Mazower.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, the Vickers you have cited in the "Current demographics" section says (p. 6) nothing about Thesprotia. Unless you mean a different publication of hers, I have to accept Athenean's position. As I said, generalisations on a period of over 60 years during which Greek society and settlement patterns have been transformed beyond recognition should not be undertaken without solid evidence. Constantine ✍ 20:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry its Vickers 2002, not 2007, I fixed it. Its p. 11, 3rd paragraph:[11] "An estimated 40,000 Christian Orthodox Albanians still live in the Threspotia region."Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that Vickers 2002 mentions 40,000 Orthodox Albanian speakers, but says nothing about Chams. She then further says that some of those 40,000 are recent immigrants. So who is misusing sources now? --Athenean (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, Vickers estimates the number of Orthodox Albanians in Thesprotia at ca. 40,000 as of 2002, including recent emigrants. Evidently, the 40,000 number used in the 2007 publication must refer to this, as well. So "In 2002, in the Thesprotia prefecture, the Orthodox Albanian population was estimated at 40,000, the majority of them being descendants of the Orthodox Chams who were allowed to remain in Greece, but also including a sizeable minority of recent, post-1991 immigrants." How is that? Constantine ✍ 13:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

She actually says "Thesprotia region" instead of "prefecture". I'm not sure what she means by that, but it would seem to me it includes more than the prefecture, since the population of the prefecture is only 46,000. --Athenean (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Propably Chameria region, which extaneds Thesprotia prefecture.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. I'd be fine with changing it to "Chameria region" or something like that, and leave it at that. --Athenean (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Already done it. Take a look on Metaxas` section, cause I have addes some stuff. Is it ok?Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The 2002 paper about the number of Chams in Greece (source - The Cham Issue: Albanian National and Property Claims in Greece) says: "An estimated 40,000 Christian Orthodox Albanians still live in the Thesprotia region."

That's it. No references are given. No source for the statistics, although there are more than 50 references for other claims. Given that the current population of Thesprotia is around 45,000 and the greek identity of the region is evident, the author could very well live in a parallel universe or in the past.

This claim should be deleted. - Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.33.148 (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Malkin, Irad (1998). The returns of Odysseus: colonization and ethnicity. University of California Press. p. 331. ISBN 0520211855. Pierre Cabanes has shown that, linguistically, Greek was spoken in southern Epirus and Illyrian in the north and there must also have been an area of bilingualism {{cite book}}: External link in |Url= (help); Unknown parameter |Url= ignored (|url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |ean= ignored (help)
^ Cabanes, Pierre (1979). Frontiere et recontres de civilisations dans la Grece du Nord- Ouest (4 ed.). Ktema. p. 99. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
^ Katičić, Radoslav; Križman, Mate (1976). Ancient Languages of the Balkans (5 ed.). Mouton.

[Malkin-1] Malkin, Irad (1998). The returns of Odysseus: colonization and ethnicity. University of California Press. p. 331. ISBN 0520211855. Pierre Cabanes has shown that, linguistically, Greek was spoken in southern Epirus and Illyrian in the north and there must also have been an area of bilingualism {{cite book}}: External link in |Url= (help); Unknown parameter |Url= ignored (|url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |ean= ignored (help)

[2] Cabanes, Pierre (1979). Frontiere et recontres de civilisations dans la Grece du Nord- Ouest (4 ed.). Ktema. p. 99. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

[3] Katičić, Radoslav; Križman, Mate (1976). Ancient Languages of the Balkans (5 ed.). Mouton.

[1]

[2]

[3]