Talk:Expulsion of Cham Albanians

Mehmet Shehu

This guy was a committed Communist, and in internment in France until 1942. There is no way he led two Italian-sponsored battalions in 1940. Constantine ✍ 18:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here we go

I think you are moving with great zeal into creating 'persecution' articles. Things were obviously going too smoothly. Presumably someone will start a Expulsion of South Albania Greeks article? Politis (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The expulsion of Cham Albanians is a fact my friend, so it for sure needs an article.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Some article seem superfluous. This article can be accomodated in the Chams article. If anyone disagrees that Chams were expelled from Greece or Greeks from southern Albania, then you and I will correct them. Politis (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Its too much for that page. Cham Albanians has reached till now 90,000 bytes and it can hardly be opened, adding another 20,000 bytes makes it too big.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you. So we need to make it leaner. Turn it into an article and not a book so it can accomodate an objective section on the 'expulsions'. Politis (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs as much info as its intresting. So we need to make it leaner aplies when it is information provided is irrelevant. But, till now, all info provided is relevant.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. On the one hand, we have to make the article as lean as possible. At the same time, however, the article should not obfuscate information if and only if it is actually relevant. All we need is to better filter what exactly goes into the article. Deucalionite (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead

There's a lot of weight put on the fact that Cham Albanians collaborated with the fascists/nazis in the lead. There's no mention as to why Cham Albanians did this in the lead, and thus the lead only paints a small part of the picture. We shouldn't cherry-pick what to include. The facts leading up to this are equally important, and the lead totally ignores this part. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That's really weird given the fact that the only problematic section is the 'ressistance' whith a number of old cn tags. The case of collaboration isn't mentioned at all in the background, thus I wonder what really makes you believe that this makes the article unbalanced.Alexikoua (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a section under "Collaboration" that deals with this. It's unbalanced because there's no information provided in the lead with regards to why Cham's collaborated with the axis powers. Ignoring all the events that lead up to 1940 is POV. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You also need to follow wp:RS. You don't believe that declarations of Cham organizations and representatives count as reliable metarial right?Alexikoua (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Is Ethnologia Balkanica not WP:RS? Or Minority Politics within the Europe of Regions? Or is it Robert Elsie that bothers you? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please explain yourself: "This volume of essays and studies includes the presentation of the international scientific conference organised between 17-19 June 2010 by the European Studies and International Relations Department of the Faculty of Sciences and Arts of the Sapienta Hungarian University of Transylvania and the Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities. The authors of this volume investigate issues related to the status of European national minorities and European regionalism and federalism. The central elements of the conference were such topics as language rights and cultural policies, ethno-regionalism and autonomy, the political representation of minorities, the past and present of ethnically or religiously divided societies, ethnopolitics, and minority protection in Romania."DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethnologia Balkanica: "The journal is published jointly by the International Association for Southeast European Anthropology (InASEA), the Institut für Volkskunde/European Ethnology at Munich University, and the Ethnographic Institute with Museum of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia."DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Disregard Ethnologia Balkanica for now. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Each decent citation needs isbn, publisher and url, which you neglect to add in your sources. Nevertheless, what's really disruptive here is that you still pretend there's absolutely nothing wrong with nationalist declarations that are in fact the epitomy of wp:POV. [[1]]

• The so-called "neutral text" you insist to add as reference in Elsie's tertiary work is a text under the "neutral" title: The Epirus Question - the Martyrdom of a People, and the author is one of the leaders of Albanian nationalism Mid’hat bey Frashëri. In simple words this kind is the worst kind of sources that can be used for an article in wikipedia. If you find it difficult to understand what makes "nationalist declararions" non-rs you can visit the correspodent noticeboard again.Alexikoua (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I added pages, and the name of the books. I'll gladly add ISBN etc. There's no need to remove since you can easily look up the sources with the information provided. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way Ethnologica Balkanica (that's Kretsi's work)) is rs.Alexikoua (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

By double checking Elsie tertiary work in pages 34-35 M. Frasheri, doesn't even claim what's recently added by DWB. Taking into account the disruptive nature of the editor this makes me conclude that he intentionally didn't provide full citation info.Alexikoua (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please explain what parts you have a problem with? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe I understand now. Look at page XXXIV, under the section "Introduction". This should clarify it for you. Repeatedly accusing me of disruptive behavior because misunderstandings on your end is another reason for me to not AGF in my interactions with you. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

misunderstandings on my end? I don't think so you, since you clearly point to p. 34-35 [[2]] in two poorly provided inlines that lack isbn/url/publisher & with a wrong page as you admit now. In general authors have a serious reason to use latin letters in specific pages in their works. Would you be so kind to provide full citations and/or make correction where necessary instead of edit-warring in something you wrongly cited?Alexikoua (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

1. No reason for you to remove my entire entry (Elsie is not the only source). 2. No reason for you to accuse me of being disruptive. 3. No reason for you not to ask about that specific part on the talk page. Everything else you claim is just background noise. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up the lead a bit. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet another disruptive removal [[3]]. I wonder what makes you know remove the full tag from "Minority Politics within the Europe of Regions", you don't even provided the title of this paper, not to mention it lacks all essential information. Thus pretending to be a victim is just your last excuse. So far not a single reference you provide supports what you've added in the text. Needless to say that it will be removed as soon as possible.Alexikoua (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I removed the tag since all the necessary information is provided. What's missing? The title is there, the pages are there, and the publisher as well. Also, are you saying that pages XXXIV-XXXV from Elsie's book don't support what's written? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that this removal [[4]] is one of the recent unexplained edits too.Alexikoua (talk)

Actually, I explained it in my OP under this section.DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Care to provide a decent explanation now? I assume this isn't enough to remove content [[5]]. In fact the "Cham collaboration" is supported by 2 sources (Meyer-Kretsi), in case you took time to read them.Alexikoua (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The explanation is in my OP: "There's a lot of weight put on the fact that Cham Albanians collaborated with the fascists/nazis in the lead. There's no mention as to why Cham Albanians did this in the lead, and thus the lead only paints a small part of the picture. We shouldn't cherry-pick what to include. The facts leading up to this are equally important, and the lead totally ignores this part." The edit summary was with regards to this part: "Various sources put the death toll at between 200 and 300". Moreover, the sentence is ambiguous. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a reason to remove this fact about collaboration. However, if you believe that the pre-WWII situation should be mentioned then that's a different issue, but this [[6]] adds nothing to this period.Alexikoua (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This citation needs title, author, issn/doi/isbn, [[7]]:

• Minority Politics within the Europe of Regions. Cluj-Napoca: Scienta Publishing House. 2011. pp. 64–65..

Nevertheless you simply removed the full tag for an unknown reason [[8]]. I assume it's not a tough job to provide the necessary data.Alexikoua (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And I assume it's not a tough job for you to provide necessary data: "Russell King, Nicola Mai, Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers, The New Albanian Migration, p.67, and 87". ISBN, publisher and year, please. Look, I provided you with the link: [9]. All the information you need is there. You can sit there and pretend that the fact that I didn't provide ISBN or authors somehow made it difficult for you to find the book, but honestly, you're not fooling me. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

2.Two parts have been added based on the introduction of a collection of primary documents from this collective work [[10]]. This clearly fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. Moreover the text doesn't even offer inline citations, thus there isn't any doubt about being non-rs. Per policy:

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

.Alexikoua (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume you claim that this work [11] in page 64-65, claims this [[12]]:

In 1908, with the backing of the Young Turks and to the dismay of the Greek Church and Greek nationalists, Cham Albanians started opening patriotic clubs and schools in their native language. Prior to this, Greek officials and priests systematically attempted to indoctrinate Albanian speaking Christians in Chameria by inciting religious, racial, and ethnical hatred towards Albanians and non-Greeks. In an attempt to silence Albanian activism by means of propaganda, the Greek administration reacted by sending church leaders to Christian Cham villages urging the population to protest against the newly established Albanian schools. Between 1909-1912 Greek metropolitans along with Greek gangs successfully subdued the Albanian activists.

?

I'm asking because I have the feeling that's at least the wrong page again.Alexikoua (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

With regards to Elsie, I disagree. If you believe Elsie does not have a reputation for fact-checking, then this would be a major problem for wikipedia considering he's widely cited on various articles. You should post your concerns here: [13].

Those are the pages, yes. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It's the first time this specific documentary collection is presented as wp:RS. Off course a tertiary collection of biased documents isn't wp:RS. As I remember another Albanian user was eager to remove Elsie & he was right here Talk:Ali_Pasha#Tertiary_source.Alexikoua (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You "confirmed" that this [14] in p. 64-65 describes the supposed Cham persecution. Then I guess this is wrong' [[15]], at least about p. 64-65, right?Alexikoua (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you just search for "Minority Politics within the Europe of Regions + cham" on Google books? I can take screen shots if necessary. By the way, why did you claim that the source was by "cham representatives and cham organisations" when you haven't even read the source? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess you mean the version of 2014 and not 2010 as you wrongly cite above (and in the article as well). What makes you believe that a paper without a single inline falls into wp:RS? [[16]]. Such mistakes are unacceptable even for undergraduate students.Alexikoua (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually this will be a good addition for un-encyclopedia: "Among the ethnic Albanian minority of Chams, some famous personalities emerged as strategists: Pyrrhus of Epirus"Alexikoua (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm first to admit it: that is silly indeed. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In the lead it reads "Various sources put the death toll at between 200 and 300" but only points to one source. Moizes, claims the death toll was close to 3000 ("The Greeks attacked the region of Chameria on June 27, 1944, killing 2,877 people"). Also, the sentence is ambiguous, because it follows after the part about "committed atrocities against the local Greek populaces". DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

With regards to "a large part of the Cham population", which I assume is based on the following:

The Albanian minority of the Chams collaborated in large parts with the Italians and the Germans

The quote is quite ambiguous. "Collaboration to a large extent/part" is not necessarily the same as "a large part of the Cham population". Let's look at what the supporting sources say: Kretsi:

The military and armed units of the Chams were not independent, but were under the command of the occupation forces. The is no information on its size nor is there any detailed research on its activities. It cannot be doubted, however, that a series of criminal acts with clearly ethnic motivations were carried out in collaboration with the occupying forces.

From The New Albanian Migration:

During the subsequent occupation of Greece by the Axis powers, Albanian-speaking Muslims living in the Greek territory of Epirus (the Chams) collaborated with the invaders.

According to Mark Mowzer:

Not surprisingly, when the Italians finally took control of mainland Greece in 1941, they found Cham activists willing to call for unification of the region with Albania. Several hundred were conscripted into the anti-communist Bal Komitare to act as local gendarmes. From the autumn of 1943, these armed bands took part alongside the Wehrmacht in burning Greek villages.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how we should conclude that "a large part" collaborated. I suggest a request for comments. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is just you. Just like it is just you using POV language like "terrorized", just like it is just you that seeks to justify and downplay the atrocities committed by the Chams, just like it is just you who makes up fictitious invasions of Greece by Italy in 1917. Athenean (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Elsie: Documentary report

What makes Elsie tertiary? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I was commenting on Elsie & I was right, since in this case there we have just an intoduction of primary documents and complete lack of inlines. Tertiary source is a collection of various primary or secondary documents. This work leaves no doubt that it is a tertiary from its very title, i.e. "A documentary report".Alexikoua (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You were commenting on Elsie but you reverted everything. The introduction is not tertiary material. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In simple words if a undergraduate student tries to present a paper without inlines his work is dismissed. wp:RS is similar to this: without fact-checking there is no guaranteed reliability.Alexikoua (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this a policy of wikipedia? Because the link you provided earlier did not say anything about the requirement of inlines in secondary sources.DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

A decent RS needs to provide Fact-checking, i.e. where the claimed facts were taken from. The only bibliography provided in this documentary report are POV reports.Alexikoua (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Post it on the noticeboard. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I simply follow the mentioned policy & this isn't the first time a tertiary work of Elsie doesn't fall into wp:RS.Alexikoua (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, the introduction is not tertiary material. I will post on the RS noticeboard. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I made a post here. I think this will bring some clarity, at least to me. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's avoid the use of partisan sources

The introductory essay to this collection of historical documents [17] is among the most partisan I have ever seen. It uses inflamatory language ("terrorized", "slaughtered"). It seeks to portray the Chams exlusively as victims, downplaying the atrocities committed by them during the war. It is also riddled with inaccuracies and errors, such as the "Albanian administration of Chameria" in 1917 following the Italian takeover. There was never any Italian takeover of Greek territory in 1917, and no Albanian administration in these areas. There was an Italian takeover on the Albanian side of the border in Northern Epirus, but no such thing happened in Greek Epirus. And it concludes with what is essentially a call to arms ("The Chams must be given their land back bla bla bla). This is not a scholarly work, it's advocacy. In order to keep things neutral we should avoid such sources, as much as they may be pleasing to some people. Otherwise things will get real ugly real quick. Athenean (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Athenean. I agree with your general sentiment about partisan sources. However, in a source already cited prior to my involvement, the Greek Civil war, by David H. Close, it reads on page 161: "On the Greek side of the frontier, government forces in March-May 1945 inflamed tensions by savage persecution of the Albanian-speaking Muslims" Would you consider this inflammatory language as well?

There was never any Italian takeover of Greek territory in 1917.(...) There was an Italian takeover on the Albanian side of the border in Northern Epirus, but no such thing happened in Greek Epirus

"in January 1917 the Italians crossed the Florence line and occupied Delvinaki and Kakavia; in February they occupied Konitsa" Greece at the Paris Peace Conference (1919), Petsalīs-Diomidis, page 49

"February 20 — Konitza, near the Albanian border in western Greece, is occupied by two Italian battalions, since the Greek authorities move southward to Janina." The Literary Digest, Volume 54, page 590. [18]

"THEODORAKEAS, Theodoros: President of the Control Council. Born 1890 at Selinitsa Lakonikis (Mani). Fathers name, Panoyotis. Unmarried. Studies: Law at the University of Athens. appointed, following examinations, clerk at Pyrgos lleias (1911). Cashier at Konitsa (1915 to 2.1917) until Konitsa was taken by the Italians and the public services expelled." Whos who in Greece, Athens News., 1958

Almost everything seems to check out. Is there a chance you could be wrong about this, or am I misunderstanding the sources/you? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Checking both sources there is nothing to compare top-graded academics and research on the subject such as Close to a collection of nationalist declarations like that of POVish collected papers.Alexikoua (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

REMINDER TO ALL EDITORS: I remind all editors in here to adhere to wp:civil and that what could be interpreted as veiled threats and intimidation are not on. Also that pronouncements about matters becoming: "Otherwise things will get real ugly real quick" are to be refrained from and good faith maintained. If sources are the issue for being discussed, then those sources need to be discussed in the talk page in a orderly and respectful manner. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua:, Elsie is a "POVish" author? You may be the first ever to say that here in Wikipedia.--Mondiad (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I actually stated that a collection of nationalist declarations is a "collection of nationalist declarations". Let me remind you that a numbers of Abanian users were eager to remove Elsie due to the TERTIARY nature of the works, such as in this case Talk:Ali_Pasha#Tertiary_source, where a blocked Albanian editor opposes the Turkic origin (per Elsie) of Ali Pasha. As I see you didn't object that decision. Alexikoua (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Elsie can be removed. The matter is a small trifle in the article. There is Lambros Baltsiotis work "The Muslim Chams of Northwestern Greece: The grounds for the expulsion of a "non-existent" minority community".(2011). European Journal of Turkish Studies. [19] which more than makes up for not having Elsie in here. Anyway i have placed Baltsiotis as a further reading source in this article for editors to read and use about issues of persecution etc. As a Greeks scholar he has been the first to examine the Greek government archive and build on Cham scholarship in a way that no other scholar has and his work has come after Roudementof. For those wanting to make additions, please read the very detailed article that is wp:reliable and wp:secondary before getting into complications.Resnjari (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Can you confirm that the material I wasn't able to find in Roudometof through Google Books actually exists in the book as stated by yourself, and that the pages are correct?

Also, Eleftheria Manta did not raise any concerns about the parts you mention, which to me implies that she does not disagree with Elsie on said issues. It's hard to believe that she'd describe the introduction as "rather balanced" if she disagreed with such a central point. I believe you'd need more to refute this. Baltsiotis, who is a greek scholar writes the following[20]:

This paper focuses on the hypothesis that the expulsion of Muslim Chams from Western Epirus during the later part of 1944 and beginning of 1945 by the guerrilla forces of EDES, resisting the Italo-German occupation occurred, contrary to conventional wisdom, not only as a result of the Chams’ collaboration with the forces of occupation, but rather as an outcome of state policy, a policy which was embedded in the prevailing nationalistic ideology of the Interwar period.

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

The presence of a population considered hostile to national interests near the frontier caused anxiety to Greek officials which was exacerbated by a militaristic perception of security and territory.57 The central Greek state was eager to push the “hostile” population to migrate to Turkey. To that end it utilized harassment tactics which were carried out by local paramilitary groups. This was a practice that was well known and had been adopted as early as the period of the Balkan Wars.58 In other cases it just forced people to leave the country, after handing down ultimatums.

A concrete description of the lives of the Muslims is clearly referred to in a special report drawn by K. Stylianopoulos, the “Inspector” in charge of Minority issues, who was directly appointed by the Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos and was accountable to him. The report relates to us in graphic terms that “[…] persecutions and heavier confiscations, even led to the decision of classifying as chiftlik the town of Paramythia […] and in that way small properties and gardens had been expropriated against the Constitution and the Agrarian law; not a single stremma was left to them for cultivation and for sustaining their families, nor were the rents of their properties paid to them regularly (some of them being even lower than a stamp duty). They were not permitted to sell or buy land, and were forced to evaluate their fields at ridiculously low prices (as low as 3 drahmi per stremma), […], only to be imprisoned for taxes not paid for land already confiscated or expropriated”.71"

DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

To continue with Elsie's brief introduction I have to agree with Resnjari & the best way is to ignore him as more in-depth analysis is available. About your Baltsios' proposals, the article is named "Expulsion of Cham Albanians" an event that occurred in WWII, during the Nazi withdrawal +some months latter (1944-1945). Thus events of the 1920s and 30s are obviously not part of the article's core subject.

I disagree with both points. If Elsie is to be dismissed, then the possibly outdated works of Roudementof clearly should be dismissed as well (and I'm not saying that Elsie should be dismissed). As for leaving out the statement about Greek state repression, that's an important part because the alternative would make the lead very unbalanced. You have to remember that the large majority of Chams who where forced to leave weren't collaborators, thus focusing too much on the collaboration paints a faulty picture of history.

As I remember the above quotes have been already discussed with Resnjari in the past and a part of them was agreed to be added in "Cham Albanians" article, an appropriate addition for this article.Alexikoua (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

See, this is confusing to me. You were apparently already aware of Baltsiotis' work, but until very recently you tried to dismiss Elsie with regards to his statements about Greek state oppression. Let me remind you of what Baltsiotis says:

The central Greek state was eager to push the “hostile” population to migrate to Turkey. To that end it utilized harassment tactics which were carried out by local paramilitary groups. This was a practice that was well known and had been adopted as early as the period of the Balkan Wars.58 In other cases it just forced people to leave the country, after handing down ultimatums.

Off course I'm aware of Baltsiotis' work, his work isn't a brief summary without inlines & bibliography or a just a collection of primary documents. What makes you believe that 1920s state policy is a core subject in the expulsion of Cham Albanians 1944-1945?

There is also a difference between "paramilitary groups" (Baltsiotis) and "police forces" that regularly perform arbitrary arrests (Elsie), which are clearly a form of direct persecution (rejected by Roudometof).Alexikoua (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. Read it again.

The central Greek state was eager to push the “hostile” population to migrate to Turkey. To that end it utilized harassment tactics which were carried out by local paramilitary groups

The Greek state utilized harassment tactics which were carried out by local paramilitary groups. This is without a doubt a form of direct persecution.

More?

A concrete description of the lives of the Muslims is clearly referred to in a special report drawn by K. Stylianopoulos, the “Inspector” in charge of Minority issues, who was directly appointed by the Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos and was accountable to him. The report relates to us in graphic terms that “[…] persecutions and heavier confiscations, even led to the decision of classifying as chiftlik the town of Paramythia […] and in that way small properties and gardens had been expropriated against the Constitution and the Agrarian law; not a single stremma was left to them for cultivation and for sustaining their families, nor were the rents of their properties paid to them regularly (some of them being even lower than a stamp duty). They were not permitted to sell or buy land, and were forced to evaluate their fields at ridiculously low prices (as low as 3 drahmi per stremma), […], only to be imprisoned for taxes not paid for land already confiscated or expropriated”.

And now, the conclusion (I will only post a part of it):

It could be argued that it was not officially the state that committed ethnic cleansing, an argument put forth worldwide by various states and for a variety of similar cases. In the Cham case, however, the state herself was both undisturbed by this ethnic cleansing and received its results favorably. Napoleon Zervas, the leader of EDES, was considered a hero by the state and had a subsequent career as a prominent member of the political system. Furthermore, the state backed up the ensuing absolute obliteration of Chams. Their expulsion was far from being perceived as an “historical mistake”: it was seen as an act of salvation for the area and for Greece at large

Also, just because Baltsiotis doesn't specifically mention anything about these arrests does not mean that they didn't occur. Elsie is an expert, and should be treated as such. If there's a direct conflict, we deal with it accordingly.

It's a core subject because it's connected to their collaboration, as described by reliable secondary sources. Christ, it's in the first paragraph in Baltsiotis' work:

This paper focuses on the hypothesis that the expulsion of Muslim Chams from Western Epirus during the later part of 1944 and beginning of 1945 by the guerrilla forces of EDES, resisting the Italo-German occupation occurred, contrary to conventional wisdom, not only as a result of the Chams’ collaboration with the forces of occupation, but rather as an outcome of state policy, a policy which was embedded in the prevailing nationalistic ideology of the Interwar period.

Now, in conclusion: with regards to Roudometof, he's either

a) wrong on the issue, and thus should be disqualified, no?

b) it's taken out of context

c) materia does not exist.

Which one is it? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean material does not exist? If you don't believe me ask Resnjari if Roudometof's work exist. As Baltsiotis notes the Interwar period events are good for a summary in the background section of this article. As I see there is already a brief mention in the policies of that period.

I know the book by him exists, I'm asking about the part I couldn't find through Google Books. I will go ahead and ask Resnjari about that part. Now, assuming it exists, either Roudometof is wrong (per Baltsiotis, Elsie, Evergeti, Hatziprokopiou, Prevelakis) or it's taken out of context. Right? You tried to disqualify Elsie by citing Roudometof, but the former's statements about state persecution is backed by other Greek scholars.

It's not about the interwar period per se, but about important historical events that are important to mention when discussing Cham collaboration with axis powers. It's the central theme in Baltsiotis' work (see first paragraph). Excluding it would make the article unbalanced. I'm willing to discuss the issue on an appropriate noticeboard.

You're welcome to expand the aftermath section, but it's not really relevant to our current discussion, so I created a separate section for it. Just remember to keep it balanced, I will add my input eventually. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Roudometof states that there was no evidence of "direct" state persecution, a typical example of direct state persecution is when state authorities (for example police) breaks into the homes of a specific group and makes arbitrary arrests. Indirect forms are a number of examples described by Baltsiotis.Alexikoua (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath

By the way, the events of the collaboration & expulsion are also closely connected with the latter persecution of the Cham community under the P.R. of Albania in a more recent period: imprisonment, forced relocations, excecutions (Teme_Sejko movement etc.). That's a fine summary for the aftermatch section.Alexikoua (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the methods adopted by the P.R. of Albania at a period very close to the expulsion were (not only) ideologicaly close to the ones of Kim Jong-un. Some of the following information need to become part of the aftermatch section:

The regime of Enver Hoxha was increasingly conspicuous towards the Cham community. It believed that they were of questionable loyalty and could easily become agents of a foreign power. This view was probably based because they were Greek citizens and their elites were traditionally rich landlords, while collaboration with the Axis and anti-communism were also significant factors that contributed to this. At the end of 1945, numerous Cham Albanians were imprisoned by the authorities of the People's Republic of Albania, while they were branded as "war criminals", "collaborators of the occupation forces" and "murderers of the Greeks". Although the representatives of the community protested against these developments, this resulted in further arrests and exiles of Cham Albanians. Thus, the communist regime in Albania took a very distrustful view of the Cham community. Many of them were transferred further north, away from the southern border region. In 1949, during the Greek Civil War (1946–1949), the leadership of the People's Republic of Albania tried to mobilize the Cham community in order to fight with the communistin. After their negative response they were labelled "reactionaries" and suffered a certain degree of persecution within Albania. Moreover, the Cham issue was neglected by the local regime. In 1947 the regime revealed a conspiracy in which 85 Chams were allegedly part in the creation of an armed nationalist group named "Balli Kombetar". In 1960 another anti-communist conspiracy was uncovered under Teme Sejko, a Cham admiral of the Albanian navy from Konispol. The alleged perpetrators, among them also 29 Chams, were accused as agents of "American, Yugoslav and Greek separatists". As a result, Sejko was executed and several of his relatives persecuted, while other members of the Cham community were imprisoned.