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)

No, Athenean. Your removal of information vital in this article is unwarranted. Its only YOU who wants to downplay actions of the Greek state that deeply impacted on the Cham Albanian community and the massive discrimination they experienced during the interwar period. I will be resorting all edits and adding Baltsiotis to as citations with inlines backing it. Continue to call it POV and i am more than happy to indulge you at arbitration. As you are not familiar with Baltsiotis work, i suggest you read it in full (footnotes) as he documetns in detial the actions of the Greek state, as based in the Greek archive. I know my sources. Time for you acquaint yourself with them. Greek ones too. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@DWB: Actually I wonder why you can't see inline reference no.#1 Meyer "a large part had collaborated"

Die albanische Minderheit der Tsamides kollaborierte zu grossen Teilen mit den Italienern und den Deutschen. [The Albanian minority of the Chams collaborated in large parts with the Italians and the Germans

to be more precise per Roudometof:

[[17]] During World War II, the majority of Chams sided with the Axis forces and terrorized the local Greek population. This fueled resentment by the Greeks, and in the aftermath of World War II.

Thus a more precise wording would be to replace "large parts" with "majority". Also, verbs such as "terrorized", "butchered" etc are in general POV for an encyclopedia and need to be replaced with more precise wording.Alexikoua (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The removal of wording of such content is fine. As for the "large part" bit there are a few issues. Gerasimos Konidaris (2005). "Examining policy responses to immigration in the light of interstate relations and foreign policy objectives: Greece and Albania". In King, Russell, & Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers (eds). The new Albanian migration. Sussex Academic. p. 67 states that:

The violent clash that followed and the extensive reprisals exercised by the Greek guerrillas resulted in the migration to Albania of almost the entire Cham population, many of whom would not have been active collaborators of the axis.

While Eleftheria Manta (2009) writes that:

"The Cams of Albania and the Greek State (1923 - 1945)". Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. 4. (29): 530-531. "Today we must admit that certainly not all of the Albanian population of Thesprotia was involved in the criminal activities perpetrated throughout the occupation of Epirus. These activities were assumed by those recruited by the Italian and the German military corps and the armed irregulars. It is also certain that amongst the Albanian Çams there were also moderate elements who did not agree with these actions. They opposed violence and arbitrary high-handedness, and did not harbor a “smoldering hatred” for their Greek compatriots. Indeed, there is much information on cooperation with the Greek inhabitants for the protection of their villages from the criminal elements or for the granting of asylum to persecuted Christians. On the other hand, though, it has been admitted by all sides that the Albanian population as a whole, even though it did not actively collaborate with the occupiers, they accepted them with hope and expectation for the materialization of the promises which had been cultivated for decades; they benefited from their presence in the region and provided them with indirect support with guides, connections, informants etc. A German officer was to admit later that the Albanians were favorably disposed towards them while the Greeks fought against them."

So i replaced "large parts" with "majority". I also included details from Manta about support levels of indirect and active collaboration. Important for neutrality purposes. Also those that where involved in violent crimes and criminality where the ones sentenced in absentia and where a smaller number from the overall population (around the 2100 mark).Resnjari (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoia: In my post I addressed Meyer. "Large part" is not necessarily the same as "to a large extent/part". Also, the sentence was worded as "a large part collaborated and committed atrocities", but this is not supported by the sources. Especially considering one of the sources which you used to support this also states:

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.

However, this seems to have been settled now. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Resnjari provided a more detailed description on the issue, "large part" doesn't necessary mean "majority", but the since the latter is more precise and in agreement with available bibliograpgy (Manta, Roudometof) it's better to make use of it. As added "collaboration" took many forms (active/passive).Alexikoua (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I did so, because it was so, especially as Manta's state outright. Some parts of the lede need to be transferred to the body as this article is not about the collaboration of Chams, but their expulsion. Otherwise i will extensively expand the lede.Resnjari (talk) 14:43, 5 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 [18] 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. [19]

"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. [20] 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[21]:

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)

I don't believe that's the definition of "direct state persecution". I will need to ask neutral editors for their opinions on this. But apart from Baltsiotis, there's also "The Oxford Handbook of European Islam" in which you'll find:

Local tensions, reinforced by the settlement of Asia Minor refugees in the area and open state repression in the 1920s and 1930s

This is quite explicit, no? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The lead has turned into a mess. Maybe we should rename the article to "Cham collaboration with axis powers"? I mean, in what way are atrocities committed in Albania relevant in the lead of an article about the expulsion of Cham Albanians from Greece? The fact that they collaborated has already been introduced, and Paramythia massacre is mentioned twice. Me adding in the "open state repression" obviously provoked the inclination to add more weight to the part about collaboration to shift the balance of the lead. Ironically, the lead now contains more information about Cham collaboration than the actual section in the article named "Collaboration". This article is obviously in dire need of neutral editors. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's funny, you were the one who wanted to add more "background". Well, the collaboration of the Chams is background, as that is the immediate reason for their expulsion. And it's much more relevant than any "oppression" that may have taken place in the 1920s and 1930s (which seems mostly to be an attempt to justify their collboration). Careful what you wish for. Athenean (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, i want more background. The background section is there so reads can understand who the Muslim Chams are and the events of the interwar period and thereafter that led to collaboration and expulsion. As for placing oppression in quotations marks, (seems that you are not familiar with the peer reviewed sources of Baltsiotis and Manta, Greek scholars i might add who have done extensive work based on the Greek state archive) is your personal POV not borne out by the scholarly literature. There was extensive repression such as land confiscation and intimidation tactics used to make Muslim Chams leave and the Metaxas era was the most repressive. I'll just quote your words there Athenean "Careful what you wish for."Resnjari (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Roudometof published in 2002 and has no access to any of the archives. Manta in 2009 and Baltsiotis in 2011, both make Roudometof comment's obsolete that there was no persecution, because these Greek scholars cite state persecution and importantly they have done extensive research of the Greek government archive that cites it. Manta especially by the Metaxas regime (which was DIRECT) and Baltsiotis of the Interwar period (DIRECT and INDIRECT). Those continuing to insist on Roudometof which regarding that aspect is made obsolete by the two Greek academics i cite, why the insistence of Roudometof then ? Is Manta and Baltisotis wrong ? Is the Greek government wrong ? Please, elaborate ?Resnjari (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's about internal consistency. Alexikoua tried to disqualify Elsie by quoting Roudometof on the RS/noticeboard. Now I believe he has to maintain that Roudometof does not in fact contradict Manta, Baltsiotis, and the The Oxford Handbook of European Islam. If they do contradict Roudometof, then by his own reasoning Roudometof should be disqualified as a good source. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Its mainly Manta and Baltsiotis here that are key as their research is based on Greek government documentation and other sources and both are experts in the field of Cham studies.Resnjari (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't declare credible authors on the subject as obselete so easy. Considering the high quality work of Roudometof's bibliography on the social aspects in interethnic Balkan societies he stays in agreement with both Manta and Baltsiotis. By the way I can't see Baltsiotis' & Manta's claim about arbitrary Cham arrests from Greek police. If one should be dismissed that's Elsie who for an unknown reason "hides" his reference.Alexikoua (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Once again, Roudometof wrote in 2002 and Manta and Baltisoits wrote in 2009 and 2011. They have come after not before. Also you cite and say that Elsie has not given citations for his information, the bit on page 157 in Roudometof that says there is no "evidence of direct state persecution", there is no footnote for that. I also looked at the footnotes section in pages 182-185 and there is nothing about the claim of "indirect persecution, or nor state persecution". So is Roudometof making it up, what's he basing it on? I see Manta and especially Baltsiotis who base themselves on sold sources, especially the Greek archive and point to Greek state persecution, oppression etc. What is Roudementof basing his facts on? All i see is that the next few sentences that discuss refugees that a citation is made and its Michalopoulos (who published in 1987). This is what Baltsiotis in paragraph 3 states outright: In what follows we will attempt to present evidence of the growing hostility between the two religious communities (Orthodox and Muslim) of this part of Western Epirus which occurred independently of their linguistic affinities. 'This growing hostility was tolerated if not stirred by the Greek state itself. The Government and the state bureaucracy utilized an instigative approach to increase hatred between the communities in order to successfully attain the aforementioned aims.

He also states in paragraph 78 that" Krapsitis’ 1986 book and Michalopoulos’ book, are easily found in bookstores accessible to the wider public. These are the two books which have shaped public ideas on the Cham issue.

Manta also state in regards to her research, in the preface to her article that The Cams are a little known Albanian Muslim group that lived in northwestern Greece until 1944—and so is their history: their trajectory during the first half of the twentieth century remains to this day one of the least known subjects of relatively recent Greek history. It is an issue which for quite a few decades remained under a

shroud of silence and virtually ignored by Greek historiography. The filling in of this gap and the need for an approach as objective as possible to this theme is what the present work aspires to accomplish.

Both Manta and Baltsioits in their works state outright (if you read them in whole) that they are presenting and advancing the study on the Chams) based on the research they have gathered and with both of them uncovered in the Greek state archive. The passage you cite in Roudometof is obsolete and those source of Manta and Baltsiotis were not available to him, nor was the Greek state archive. You can insist on Roudementof, but usually in scholarship, if scholarly works build on previous research based on solid evidcne sometimes certain things become obsolete. Unless you can prove that Manta's works (you were quick to use Manta's book review to cite issue with Elsie) and Baltsiotis are wrong (you need credible academic/s to say so) or that the Greek state archive does not exist, then i fail to see this pushing of Roudementof here. We can test this our at sources arbitration board, i will say similar things and cite it so and you more than likely will get similar answers from others. Just saying.Resnjari (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Athenean: How nice of you to misinterpret my intentions. I was in favor of adding more background in order to present the full picture. The collaboration part was already mentioned twice:

The EDES and the Joint Allied Military Mission, in the Axis-occupied Greece, accused the Chams for collaborating with the German Nazis and Italian Fascists during the war. A large part of the Cham population had collaborated with the Axis troops[1][2][3] and committed atrocities against the local Greek populaces, such as the massacres in Paramythia,

This was around 36% of the lead before my involvement. Not a single mention of the persecution leading up to the collaboration, which in itself is interesting since this is the core argument by, not an Albanian scholar, but a Greek one.[22] This single piece of information, i.e. that the Chams were oppressed caused Alexikoua to add in more information about the collaboration, to the extent that the lead now contains more information about Cham collaboration than the section called "Collaboration". By the way, the fact that you write "oppression" in light of the evidence presented by peer reviewed scholars, as well as the fact that you accuse me of fabricating the event of the Italian invasion of Greece (supported by several sources which were presented to you) should disqualify you from even participating in these matters. DevilWearsBrioni (talk)

Background expansion

As I've already noted the "Expulsion" occurred in 1944-1945, while the background section is already expanded and includes details from early Interwar period reaching ca. 20-22 years before the core events. It seems that this wasn't enough and we have detailed description of "selective" events that occurred further back to 1912, in order to victimize one side.

Apart from wp:UNDUE issues of such additions the selection of specific events that present one side as victims and the other as criminals raises serious POV. Thus, "if" we would agree on an endless expansion of the background section I assume there would be no problem to add some info about the Cham-Ottoman led persecution of 1910, Ottoman-sponsored Albanian settlement policy of early 20th century, and to go even further back: Cham participation in the Massacre of Preveza (1797) & the activity of Cham representatives in Morea (1779). There are lots of academic works that confirm the events, but are these additions related to this article that's supposed to describe a 1940s situation?Alexikoua (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes there are issues of wp:UNDUE. For instance in a article discussing the expulsion of Muslim Albanians, i fail to see why there are multiple sentences about Muslim Chams and their actions regarding the Orthodox Albanian speaking area of Fanari. In the body yes, but in the lede? Why there ? Is the article about collaboration or expulsion? I thought there was already a article about Cham collaboration. This article is supposed to be one about their events that lead to the community's expulsion and the motivations of those who did the expulsion and the issues and motivations of the community who underwent that experience and their reactions during the war and after. For example, Manta does cite that the heavy handed Metexas era was a big reason why Chams went after their Orthodox Albanian speaking neighbours in the Fanari as a act of revenge. Yet none of that is presented. And its was the overall interwar experience which made Chams in general be alienated from both he state and their Orthodox Albanian speaking neighbours. In the background section, the Metexas era bit will be restored. Manta did NOT make claims, but has based it on archival and other peer reviewed material and so has Baltsiotis. The interwar period, especially the Metexas era was largely responsible for alienating Chams and being the motivation for collaboration. That needs to be cited in the body. Its those events that set the context for what happened in World War Two.

As for "Ottoman-sponsored Albanian settlement policy of early 20th century". We can have that and all the other stuff too that you cited and also how Greece supported multiple irregular bands during the Ottoman era (to challenge and some might even say violate Ottoman sovereignty through local terror or terror tactics) to attack local Muslim Albanian villages and commit atrocities there. And also how it was at the instigation of the Orthodox church and local priests too. I have those sources too Alexikoua. My area of expertise and interest is the persecution of Muslims by non non-Muslims in the Balkans. If you are willing to go the mile, i am willing to go 10 miles. If this goes to arbitration, so be it. The background in the end is mainly top give the reader the context of who the Chams are (by citing the medieval presence and the conversion) and mainly the interwar period that lede to the alienation and events of collaboration and expulsion.Resnjari (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a scholarly precedent regarding the discussion of this topic as to what should be the starting point. Manta says it best in her preface.

p. 523. "The chronological point of departure for this work is the year 1923, a year in which, due to the important issue of the population exchange, the Greek state had “discovered” the Albanian Çams in Epirus and was obliged for the first time to draw out a specific and systematic policy towards them.

As this involves issues relating or leading up to the expulsion, this article would need to contain on p. 523. "The terms by which they were incorporated into the Greek state, their living conditions, the problems that emerged during the inter-war period and, indeed, the dramatic escalation of the issue which took place simultaneous to the Greek–Italian War, occupy the central part of the present work."

These events lead to communal tensions between Muslim Albanian Chams and local Orthodox Albanian speakers. To bypass this and present the Chams as "fascist" outright who just out of nowhere decided to collaborate is POV. Might be the common view on the street in Greece, but Greek academics of high standing such as Manta and Baltsiotis have stated very strongly that the Greek state played its part in creating the conditions for Chams going down that road.Resnjari (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Almost everything you removed was supported by Baltsiotis' paper The Muslim Chams of Northwestern Greece: The grounds for the expulsion of a “non-existent” minority community. This article is named the expulsion of Chams, thus, everything on that paper is highly relevant. Keep that in mind next time you decide to revert properly cited and pertinent information. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My area of expertise and interest is the persecution of Muslims by non non-Muslims in the Balkans. If you are willing to go the mile, i am willing to go 10 miles. If this goes to arbitration, so be it. This sounds like an attempt at intimidation and an intent to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as well as WP:BATTLE mentality. Editors are kindly reminded to remain civil and not engage in threats about going "10 miles" and "arbitration". Athenean (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The same goes to all editors in here who when presented with wp:reliable and wp:secondary who still sideline the massacres as "claims" or that "And it's much more relevant than any "oppression" that may have taken place in the 1920s and 1930s (which seems mostly to be an attempt to justify their collboration)." and also "It seeks to portray the Chams exlusively as victims, downplaying the atrocities committed by them during the war.". One wonders, is it a case of wp:idontlikeit considering that Manta and Baltsiotis specifically point to Greek state persecution of the Muslim Cham minority, which also created local tensions with the Orthodox Albanian speakers who supported the state, as being the prime movers of later collaboration. Note there is also a article about collaboration. Like i said, i have more than enough access to sources and can add much to the article, since others in here have even suggested going back to the 1770s about citing the mention of some Cham mercenaries involved in the Ottoman army (i.e: "Thus, "if" we would agree on an endless expansion of the background section I assume there would be no problem to add some info about the Cham-Ottoman led persecution of 1910, Ottoman-sponsored Albanian settlement policy of early 20th century, and to go even further back: Cham participation in the Massacre of Preveza (1797) & the activity of Cham representatives in Morea (1779). There are lots of academic works that confirm the events, but are these additions related to this article that's supposed to describe a 1940s situation?". How that relates to this article, one wonders part from it being POV, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and it consisting WP:BATTLE. Like i said, if this article goes to arbitration, i know the sources very well and will outline the issues involved here and make the case. I am no novice.Resnjari (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@DWB, the idea to attack co-editors pretending that there is a hot issue at ani isn't convincing. As Resnjari properly suggested, I've done some trimming in lede.Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No attack. If wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources are neglected as has been done somewhat, then Wikipedia has the appropriate forums where other editors who are not involved can also take a look at the matter and give constructive input.Resnjari (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Unlike some editors, I don't threaten people with "arbitration". Some editors keep mentioning "arbitration" in every one of their posts. I've lost count of how many times already. This can be read as an attempt to intimidate other editors and is not conducive to a productive discussion. It needs to stop. Thank you. Athenean (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

One merely goes by the precedents that certain other editors have set in the past with attempted sanctions and "arbitration" in past discussions. Sometimes, a reminder of sorts needs to occur so such editors return to the position of conducting a "productive discussion" as they refer to it. There are more than enough credible sources on this topic and they should be adhered to. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Precise translation

I wonder what's the meaning of this accusation [[23]]. For future reference "concrete evidence" is exactly what Pitouli describes as "συγκεκριμένα στοιχεία" in Greek [[24]], that's the precise translation and not a "source falsification." as wrongly claimed.Alexikoua (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Because Pitouli wrote in 1997, and Baltsiotis wrote in 2011. Baltsiotis clearly gives an example of were Cham notables were killed by Greek forces during the era, even of the "irregular kind". Either the "concrete evidence" bit can be restored in the article to that particular sentence, but if it is, then the Paramythia executions of the notables sentence bit will go after it as it was a real event.Resnjari (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if Pitouli wrote before Baltsiotis, that's not a reason for accusations about 'mistranslation'. Pitouli is more detailed about the events and states that acts of revenge due to pro-Ottoman Cham activity occurred by volunteer groups, nevertheless Albanian claims have been refuted with 'concrete evidence', for allegged events about the period that refers to full control by Greek authorities.Alexikoua (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean that Baltsiotis claims were refuted in 1997? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:38, 9 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.

The lead (introduction) of the article is too long. Needs shortening

The leading paragraph (aka the article's introduction section) has become too long especially after all these recent edits and additions to it. The lead article needs a cleanup and some material should be shortened or and moved from the lead into the body of the article. For help and more info on how to improve the lead, please check: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I have added a Long Lead Tag on the main article for until the problem has been solved. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed this issue at the time when a disruptive editor (fortunatelly he is perma-blocked now) insisted to push his pov througout the article. I assume it will be an easy task to trim the lead now.Alexikoua (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Who are you referring to? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Alexikoua, the lead now looks much better and compact. Thank you. Unless someone disagrees, I think the Long Lead Tag can be removed from the article. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Alexikoua removed well supported material which made the lead look terribly unbalanced. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Haven't been back to this article in a while due to a personal health issue that has kept me from engaging on Wikipedia. A few complicated changes have been here done without further consultation. Not sure also what is meant by the comment "I've noticed this issue at the time when a disruptive editor (fortunatelly he is perma-blocked now) insisted to push his pov througout the article. I assume it will be an easy task to trim the lead now." Considering that it was mainly myself and to a lesser extent Brioni who have done those changes, i was kind of wondering (and very curious) was that comment in reference to us (or me in particular) as one i looked into the matter (on Wiki) and none of us are blocked and two, what's this about being disruptive as the changes were based on peer reviewed literature ? Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I am having trouble shortening the lead alone, if I cut some phrases, it may be unbalancing for the one or the other side, and or, worsen/deteriorate the overall scope of the lead paragraph which is supposed to be a micrography of the article. Still the lead needs to be shortened. And more importantly, what I believe is of critical priority, is that the first paragraph in the lead has to be broken into 2 or 3 smaller paragraphs (not meaning that their content/phrases have to be re-written or something, just break the very big paragraph into smaller ones, at the right points, without changing the meaning of its contents). -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The article is about the expulsion of the Chams yet in the lede there is a sentence about operation Augsutus in the Fanari and some Chams collaborating with the Germans in Konispol Albania. Fine for the Collaboration Cham article for it to be in the lede, but there already is more than enough in the lede about Chams and collaboration in this article. Those sentences can be transferred in the body and if others want also added to the collaboration article. This article is specifically composed to provide information about mainly the events pertaining to expulsion . For me those sentences ought to go into the body as collaboration is already covered in a overall way in the lede. Other thoughts on the matter? Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I won't object a trimming of the specific part. I have also to note that Mandas' conclusion about collaboration needs to be corrected: the author is quite clear that the Albanian population as a whole, even though it did not actively collaborate with the occupiers, they accepted them with hope and expectation for the materialization of the promises which had been cultivated for decades; they benefited from their presence in the region and provided them with indirect support with guides, connections, informants.Alexikoua (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest SilentResident reads the very first paragraph in The Muslim Chams of Northwestern Greece by Baltsiotis, and then decide whether 1/3 of the lead should contain information about Cham collaboration. There's a certain narrative being pushed here, and it's not surprising. Everything between "...against the local Greek populace" and "A limited number of Muslim Chams enlisted..." is just an attempt to lend undue weight to certain events and should be removed from the lead.

DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I will not accept your suggestion, as (personally) I prefer the German and Italian documents and sources over Greek or Albanian ones on this matter. Isn't Baltsiotis a Greek author? As much as I praise dedicated and detailed works, I still could pick up international sources over local ones, and especially Italian and German ones, even if they are more limited than the Greek and Albanian sources which, without doubt, are plentiful. Now, if you may have your opinion or perception of what actually happened, and you have every right to do so. But of course, it is not necessary to remind you that it is not the personal opinions of the users what matters in Wikipedia, but the neutral and documented approach to these events. So I can't help even if I wanted. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

And it's not necessary to remind you that the works of Baltsiotis are not my personal opinion. Maybe it's your personal preference to use German and Italian sources, but the way Wikipedia works is that unless you can show that Baltsiotis is not a valid source, we should certainly be free to use him as an authority on the subject. And as such, I still suggest you read the first paragraph and then let me know if we should put so much emphasis on Cham collaboration in the lead.DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no issue with Baltsiotis and no one has brought up anything to call into question his scholarship. He, unlike other scholars also for the first time has delved into the Greek archive and has done extensive fieldwork and he has also published extensively in Western publications and his work cited as such. That work which is referred to is published in a international Western publication. Albanian scholarship can also go into the article as long as it is of reputable scholars. I see no need for them though (others may disagree and that is fine, this is the talk page after all), as Baltsiotis and Manda basically cover the terrain they do (and offer much new infromation especially from the previously unseen Greek government archive and local fieldwork in the Thesprotia area) and their work is accessible online unlike the Albanian ones which means that additional translations etc would need to be provided if added in the article. If some Albanian want to do that, fine with them, but i have other things to do with my time than constantly do translations and its a real pain in he a** (excuse the expression). I will also note that omitting Greek or Albanian sources if from reputable sources for international ones is problematic (especially if they are of quality and meet wikipedia standards) because i have heard similar arguments made for omitting Armenian scholarship by Turkish editors so as to limit information regarding certain events and concentrating on "other" sources. As long as the scholar meets wp:secondary and wp:reliable without other issues regarding them being raised or shown to be the case then thier inclusion suffices. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase my point here in case it was misunderstood: I never said that there is any issue with Baltsiotis. I am saying that I can't contribute to this page by just focusing only on local Greek and Albanian sources alone or just because someone has told me to do so. Because, in a personal level, this is not how I work. I have stumbled upon some contradictions from both sides while studying about the Cham issue, which led me to the conclusion that the Albanian and Greek sources are only the 80% of the total picture of what really happened in this region. As you may understand, it is natural that in such cases you may want to be more careful, and suspicious about the information, and look for more sources abroad to learn about the background of this (tragically fascinating) Cham Issue which still poisons the relations between Greek people and Albanian people. I am very aware that this subject is vulnerable to nationalist and patriotic resentments from both sides, Albania and Greece. For this very reason I am not done with my sources yet, and I haven't contributed to this page with any sources, as I am not ready for that yet. As you can see in the page's edit history, my contributions are mostly limited to the technical aspects and not on POV violations or sourced content. If I have to contribute in my own way to Wikipedia, I will do so in an way so that none can dispute my edits. When I have sources ready or when I feel the time is right for that, I will help as best as I can with both the lead and the body of the article. I hope I have made this clear. :) -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Some words need to be said on the scholarship. I am not sure what you mean by Albanian sources as you have not cited any here regarding contradictions with the Greek. I am aware of Albanian scholarship on the Cham matter and have most of the literature published here at home. Reputable scholars like historians Pëllumb Xhufi have written about the war period and gone into reasons for active collaboration. The elderly Hajredin Isufi whose works extensively deal with the issue of Muslim Cham co-operation between them and their Orthodox Albanian speaking neighbours during the war, labelled Greeks in other sources (the late Georgina Kretsi went to Hajredinaj for extensive assistance when she did her fieldwork in Albania over a decade ago on the Chams). Ibrahim Hoxha (in his 90s now and still active in publishing and of good quality !) has touched on WW2, though most of his works concentrate on the 19th century Ottoman period and the Balkan Wars. Kaliopi Naska has compiled a volume of Albanian government documents that relate to the Chams. A newbie academic Blerina Sadiku has also written on the Chams. Albanian scholarship is inhibited in a few ways. One they are underfunded so are limited in the scope of studies they can do. Two, some have involved getting oral histories, while others have literally mined the Albanian archive to the point that most of what is out there has been published. They also have had NO access to the Greek archive. What Baltsiotis' work (and he has gone over the Albanian scholarship as statted in his article) does (as he and Manda too states in the epilogue of the article) is fill a large gap by going into the Greek government archive. Manda fills a gap by looking at the diplomatic side of the issue and delves into the Greek archive also. They have added and have been a serious corrective to certain aspects of scholarship (Albanian, but mainly the Greek) on this issue. Nearly all of what they have come across however does not contradict Albanian sources (except on small things like numbers, which again Albanian scholarship has not been privy to other archives). Unless you have anything to the contrary, Baltsiotis and Manda whose available works were published in Western peer reviewed publications and are respected scholars (they are not seen as nationalist by any stretch of the word, unless someone has some credible source stating this), will form as credible sources for this article as they meet wp:reliable and wp:secondary. When i use sources i take into account that editors from the other side may distrust certain sources. Its why i have refrained from using Albanian sources here (also because i would need to translate a lot of passage, no need for headaches). When you are ready to write, i am willing to work with anyone (i got the sources for the main Cham page, so when your ready we can go through it as you noted certain deficiencies in areas late last year). Sources though should only be dismissed if serious problems are shown to exist, not on the heritage of the author. If such a principle of excluding works due to the heritage of the author is applied then works on the Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide etc would be very small indeed. Heritage does not come into play, but the standing of a scholar and their research. The intro has been brought to a reasonable size and i appreciate your assistance. We'll see what others say though on the intro before that tag can be removed. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And I shall note that the prologue and epilogue of the Cham Albanian expulsion are still as important as the main event itself - you can't talk about the Expulsion itself but not mention the circumstances that triggered it. An event like that does not happen on fly, as there are no coincidences but reactions and consequences. There can be not a complete image of what happened, if there is no mention of what triggered the events and under which circumstances/conditions they occurred, and what the aftermath (of the Expulsion) is. They all relate to each other. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I never suggested removing everything about Cham collaboration, I simply noted that it's absurd to put so much weight on it, to the extent that it made up 1/3 of the lead. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The circumstances that triggered it are already covered in the lede extensively. Having specific events like that when some Muslim Albanian Chams went in along with the Germans into the Fanari, inhabited by Orthodox Albanian speakers or events in Albania, Konispol, or that relating to the Paramythia executions over bloat the lede and instead begin a process when the article turns from being mainly about expulsion into the collaboration one (which already exists). One should also note that in the lede there is no sentence that mention the Filiates massacre and the Paramithia massacre of 1944 and those two events relate specifically to expulsion. Like said, there already is a collaboration article and the lede covers both pre-war reasons (Greek administration and later Metaxas) for Cham collaboration and overall what they did during the war. Specific examples of collaboration of this article should be in the body.Resnjari (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Any mention about Konispol, Fanari, Augustus has been removed from lead, thus I assume you need to be aware of the current version. The battles of Paramythia and Konispol against the retreating Nazi-Chams (historiography mentions them primarily as battles) is more closely connected to the war developments during the end of the Occupation. However, I have to admit that Silent's point is quite reasonable, trimming of the non-WWII events of the 20s-30s events is justified in this case per wp:lead.Alexikoua (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It still needs trimming. There are already two sentences which specifically condense both the interwar period and the actions of the Chams in the lede:

>The attempted settlement of Greek refugees from Asia Minor within the area and bouts of open state repression in the 1920s and 1930s, in particular by the authoritarian Metaxas dictatorship,[2] led to tensions between the Chams and the Greek state which set the impetus for eventual collaboration with Axis forces.[3][4][1] As such with the onset of World War Two, a majority of the Muslim Cham population collaborated with the Axis troops[5][6][7] by providing them with indirect support as guides, local connections, informants and so on, while smaller numbers actively collaborated and committed atrocities against the local Greek populace.

However the following sentences need to go into the body because the article is about the expulsions specially (there already is a collaboration article for this stuff to be in the lede over there) and is WP:undue. Otherwise if this remain in the lede then the rationale for a few more sentences during the interwar period might be needed to balance it out:

All this needs to go into the body of this article.

>In July-August 1943, armed Cham collaborator units actively participated in Nazi operations that resulted in the murder of 600 Greek villagers,[11] similar activity in September 1943 resulted in the murder of additional 600 Greek villagers, including the extermination of the Greek notables of Paramythia.[12] Cham collaboration on the Albanian side of the border resulted in the murder of 600 people in January 1944.[13]Though the entire Muslim Cham population was sympathetic to the Axis forces during the war and benefited from the Axis occupation, many were not active collaborators apart from those mainly recruited as Axis troops and armed irregulars, but still provided them indirect support.

This needs to be condensed into one sentence for the lede:

>There were also moderate elements within the Muslim Cham community who opposed hatred of their Greek neighbours and violent actions by cooperating with them to either give refuge to persecuted local Christians or to protect villages from criminal elements.[9] A limited number of Muslim Chams enlisted in the resistance forces of Albanian Liberation Front (LANÇ) and the communist-controlled Greek People's Liberation Army (ELAS) at the last stages of World War II.Resnjari (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I trimmed a bit the sentence in the second paragraph of the lead, by removing focus from specific locations of the massacres (such as Paramythia massacres), as these details can better fit in the main body of the article than on lead which is supposed to be focusing on the Expulsion itself. If you think that it was wrong of my part to remove details of places, then feel free to restore the reference to Paramythia's events on the lead. Since the lead is supposed to be just a micrography of the Expulsion article, I also have the 600 plus 600 deaths of Greek villagers merged into 1,200 deaths, in a bid to reduce a bit further the clutter in this sentence. I tried doing that as the second paragraph needs to be trimmed without changing its meaning. Still I am not very satisfied as the lead is still abit long, but I can see that a good process has been made so far - by comparing the current lead's size with the one it had some time ago, you can see a noticeable reduction in size. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I further trimmed two sentences in relation to indirect support as they where repetitious and removed 16 words in total. The edits you did were good. Regarding Paramythia's events about the executions being in the lede, it is sufficient for it to be in the body. This article is about the expulsions anyway. The lede as such would focus on that. If other editors feel that collaboration is the focus, there is a article in its own right to cater for that in depth. As it stands now [25], i am ok with it, though others may express a different view. Anyway Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There’s a discrepancy between what the lead is conveying and what scholars like Baltsiotis are saying. The narrative being pushed here is the Greek nationalist one, i.e. that the Chams were expelled as a direct consequence of their collaboration with the invading axis forces. However, Baltsiotis is clear on this matter:

"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.”

And he then goes on to conclude:

"The intention of the State was quite clear: the expulsion of Muslim Chams through their inclusion in the Greco-Turkish population exchange. Although not realized through this exchange, state policies directed at the reduction of the population of Muslim Chams were a prelude to the expulsion that would take place later. The exact time and means of this expulsion were under a constant process of negotiation. We argue that the intention of the state found, at the time, nomination in the actions of the Armed Forces which were acting as forces of national resistance. These forces, in the presence of an absent or later weak state and with its blessing, were acting on behalf of the “nation” and the state. As the state gained back its strength, the actions of the guerilla forces were accepted as the state’s own operational policy. When we look at other war-related cases in the postwar Greek state, despite its staunch anti-communism and partial staffing by members of armed groups responsible for atrocities, there still were cases where individuals responsible for atrocities were sentenced and were far from being rewarded. The absolute “non punishment” and the “reward” of those individuals related to the expulsion of Chams, are strong indicators that these policies were both accepted and formed part of state policy.”

As I write this, 1/3 of the lead is about Cham’s collaborating with axis forces, which obviously puts emphasis on these events, even though arguably the most comprehensive research about their expulsion paints a very different picture.

I don’t really feel like repeating myself over and over again. Alexikoua has known about Baltsiotis for a while now, but this hasn't stopped him from pushing a certain narrative in the lead (and elsewhere). SilentResident acknowledges the works of Baltsiotis, but believes that we should refrain from using Greek and Albanian sources. It’s almost as if both of them are willfully ignoring the central theme in Baltsiotis’ work because it doesn’t correspond to their perception of history. And that's OK to a degree, I believe all of us do this to a certain extent.

The nature of this topic is contentious, and that’s why I’ve always argued for the involvement of unbiased editors. I have enough material to justify my reasoning— mind you Baltsiotis is not the only Greek scholar, there's also Margaritis, and there's a handful of Albanian scholars as well -- and I don’t have any problems taking this to platforms beyond this talk page because as it stands right now I feel we have diametrically opposing views of what the lead should contain.DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"SilentResident acknowledges the works of Baltsiotis, but believes that we should refrain from using Greek and Albanian sources. It’s almost as if both of them are willfully ignoring the central theme in Baltsiotis’ work because it doesn’t correspond to their perception of history."

Excuse me, DevilWearsBrioni, what are you talking about? When did I ever said a such thing to you? When did I ever say "I believe that you must refrain from Baltsiotis' work and do this and that instead"? I never believed or suggested such a thing like refraining from Baltsioti's work. When did I have expressed such a thing? Please straight your facts! Accusing others for things they haven't done or said, is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules of polite behavior and honest attitude and I won't tolerate such violations against me. If you are referring to what I wrote in my previous comments, then you have misunderstood me once again. In the comments above, I was just explaining my personal opinion of how shall I (note "I", not "You") contribute to sensitive articles such as this one:

• "I am saying that I can't contribute to this page by just focusing only on local Greek and Albanian sources alone" which, if you didn't understand, means that if any sources are to be cited here, better be a collective citation of sources for the best possible coverage of different information between scholars. This means that this article already cites Greek scholars, so I will focus on sources which, in my notice, have not been cited yet. It is very fair and contributing to an article's overall quality to have more but different sources cited, isn't it?
• "Honestly, I will not accept your suggestion, as (personally) I prefer the German and Italian documents and sources over Greek or Albanian ones on this matter. Isn't Baltsiotis a Greek author? As much as I praise dedicated and detailed works, I still could pick up international sources over local ones, and especially Italian and German ones, even if they are more limited than the Greek and Albanian sources which, without doubt, are plentiful." This is NOT a suggestion by me for you to not use Baltsiotis or any other Greek scholars in your citations. I was just saying that while you may be free to do so with Greek ones, I too am free to do the same with the Italian and German sources. The Greek sources already have been cited in the article anyways, and that rather I will contribute with sources this article lacks to an extend: Italian and German sources, which I believe are important and should not be ignored, because it were Fascist Italy's and Nazi Germany's authorities the ones who occupied Greece and know first-hand the events that occurred in the occupied Epirus region, during and in the aftermath. The use of multiple sources is just my PERSONAL opinion which I believe for myself, not a demand that I expressed to you. With simple words, I have never suggested to you that you refrain from using Baltsiotis's work ever. I never suggested such things to you, DevilWearsBrioni, and I will never do so in the future. Please straight your facts, because any false accusations or assumptions against me can amount nearly to insults which goes against Wikipedia's principles. Please be honest. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Silent: You're right, my bad. I don't think you believe we should refrain from using Albanian and Greek sources. Poorly phrased by me. I do however believe that you're dismissing Baltsiotis on very dubious grounds.

You agreed with replacing:

"The attempted settlement of Greek refugees from Asia Minor within the area and bouts of open state repression in the 1920s and 1930s, in particular by the authoritarian Metaxas dictatorship,[2] led to tensions between the Chams and the Greek state which set the impetus for eventual collaboration with Axis forces."

with:

"Tensions between the Chams and the Greek state as part of the Greek-Albanian relations occurred during the Interwar period."

It doesn't take a Nobel laureate in literature to realize that the difference between the revisions is more than just technicalities. Imagine if we could brush off state oppression as merely "tensions between the state and x population". I'm naturally suspicious of someone who pops out of nowhere and agrees with such changes, especially considering that the most comprehensive material about their expulsion paints a very different picture than what a certain editor has been pushing. Moreover, you're avoiding to deal with the available material on the basis of Baltsiotis' nationality. You'd obviously have a case if Baltsiotis were a charlatan, but I don't see others than Greek nationalists taking issue with his work. There's nothing wrong with introducing German and Italian scholars, but we should deal with the material that is available to us. And as such, If I'm allowed to quote myself, there’s a discrepancy between what the lead is conveying and what scholars like Baltsiotis are saying. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Guys take a breather. Italian and German documents refer to the archives of their country and that is what Meyer has focused on. Baltsiotis brings more information to the table that in no way contradicts. Also considering that inline are provided for contentious information placed in here, it is important that inlines are placed from Meyer so that all editors can see to what the information is refer to as a courtesy to prevent POV this and POV that. The reasons why some editors are uneasy with the lede is because Meyer may not be accessible to all in the way Baltsiotis and Manda is. As for Italian sources all i see Meyer used who is German. Anyway take some days for all to reflect and come back to this with a more cool, calm a collected manner. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Another issue here is that the lead doesn't even offer the slightest piece of info about the persecution the community in question faced just the time it arrived in the new homeland, i.e. persecutions by the P.R. of Albania: arrests, forced movements, executions (by the way the last wasn't Metaxas' regime practice per available bibliography).Alexikoua (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, i agree too. It is also missing the ammount of people registered with UN officials in 1945-1946 (around 18,000 and something) in Albania and were they where resettled in Albania. Apart from Saranda town, most were mainly settled in Myzeqe and central Albania, far away from the Greek border. However, I am not touching this until i finish fixing village articles in Albanian Wiki relating to R. of Mac. by placing the new infobox formats. For others if you have the info and time, your call. Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear people, I removed the Long Lead Tag, since the lead can't be trimmed any further, but at least it is not that long anymore. But feel free to do any further improvements if you want. On my part, I did some last minute changes that include addition of a collaboration sentence from the cited source, change the "Chams" to "Cham minority", changed link from Albania (the modern state) to Communist Albania, added link to post-war Kingdom of Greece (not the modern state), changed the "Metaxas dictatorship" to "Metaxas regime", added link to Axis-occupied Greece since it was then when the events took place, changed "World War Two" to "Second World War", and some more subtle changes. I hope they are good. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This article requires some little tinkering that i said i was going to do. Currently engaged on the Fustanella thing and that has taken out some time to do so. I will change the word large to significant which has similar connotations. Most of the population was passive in its collaboration from uninvolved support to minimal support. Significant is more apt here.Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, "large parts" or "majority" refers to the collaboration (any kind of it as described by Manta in detail). Some sections of the main text need to be checked, for example reactions/aftermatch needs to include about the policy of P.R. Albania and the treatment towards the community (already part of lead). The relation towards the Greek EAM should also be explained in few words.Alexikoua (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, however those sources also refer to two different types of collaboration. A small number participated proper in the killings and violent attacks on their mainly Orthodox neighbors (overall Albanian speaking, though Greek identifying like in the Fanari area) and the sizable rest were passive from just supporting a change of regime to indirectly giving assistance to the Axis forces on the ground (guides, reconnaissance/intelligence etc). The collaboration matter cannot be lumped into one, that's why if the sentance is condensed like that, then the word significant is suitable. If there is more explanation, then large parts can be used. However that would also mean repetition, which calls into question about adding a additional sentence in the first place and the lede goes into such details anyway in following paragraphs and sentences. Manta and Baltsiotis both distinguish that their were two forms of collaboration. Without outlining that there, it would be problematic in general. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing "problematic" about the sentence. The best source on the subject, Meyer, uses "large parts". I understand it may be hard to accept, but that's just how it is. Everything else, including elaborate, convoluted explications, is WP:OR. Athenean (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Gain consensus. To keep things simple Manta and Baltsiotis (newer scholarship) have used different terminology and explained different forms of collaboration regarding Chams. Using the words "large part" outright as the source uses is also plagiarism. Sentence needs to be based on sources, not plagiarizing it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not again... DevilWearsBrioni has once again done disruptive edits. The user removed restored sourced material from the first paragraph, in a biased effort to highlight only the one side's (Greek) actions against the other (Chams) but remove/hide the other side's (Cham) actions, even if the cited source clearly mentions about them. This constitutes one-sided POV and I have reverted his edits. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Now he even reverted my reverts! He insists on his POV representation of the source... What is wrong with him? -_- -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Your rephrasing of sourced material is biased because it does not take into account what the source says about the cause of collaboration. Not only that, it has been explained to you that the view you try to present has been challenged by Baltsiotis, so at the very least you should know that it's contentious, notwithstanding the fact that the way you're rephrasing it is not supported by the source. If I'm being disruptive (again), please take it to the appropriate noticeboard. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

DevilWearsBrioni, I am not rephrasing anything. The phrase which you are trying to remove, is from the source! The source specifically mentions about the expulsion and what caused this expulsion. if you have a problem with the source, then bring the matter to the talk page. You can't just have a selective picking of what the source says, and only highlight the one side's actions and hide the other side's actions. Hiding the one or the other side's actions constitutes POV. Please leave things like how they are since Resnjari's latest edit and avoid any further disruptive edits. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Silent, that extra sentence that was added by you, Brioni is basically saying that is it a condensation that is needed or is it a repetition as the lede covers both forms of collaboration as new and the latest scholarship by Manta and Baltsiotis states. Condensing may be good in certian situations of the lede, but in this instance may be problematic. Moreover this article is about the expulsions of the Cham community, not overall the collaboration events of which another article exists in Wikipedia if anyone wishes to expand on such matters. The focus here is on the expulsions, not collaboration. Otherwise this article will start to sound like a Justin McCarthy lecture where because some number of the Armenians collaborated with the Russians, the whole community somehow "deserved" what they got [26] from Ottoman Turkish and Kurdish forces. Issues relating to collaboration of the Cham community can be detailed in the appropriate article which exists. This article is overall about the expulsions and what happened to these communities in that process.Resnjari (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless you are copying exactly what the source says, you are rephrasing it. I have no problem with the source, I was the one who added it. The "selective picking" is done by you to further a certain narrative (your dismissal of Baltsiotis proves my point). Have you noticed that the source mentions open state repression and settlement of refugees from Asia minor in connection with their collaboratoon? Why is this not included in the first paragraph? Again, the first paragraph explains what happened. The second paragraph tries to explain why it happened. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

What the source says is that both the Chams and the Greeks have responsibility for the events of that time. However what you have done in the first paragraph is to refer to the tragety of the expulsion of the Cham Albanians ONLY and ONLY that, while at same time silencing and leaving aside the tragedy of the Greeks from the Axis occupation which is the trigger finger that led to the eventual expulsion. I am asking you now: Is that fair? Is that balanced? Or is that POV? Does this abide by Wikipedia's rules? The sources speaks of BOTH side's suffering and actions, but you have insisted on displaying the ONE side's suffering (but no actions), and the OTHER side's actions (but no sufferings). If that isn't a POV, then what it is? Please stop with that. The latest version by Resnjari was just fine before you mess things again. Selective picking of what sources says about BOTH sides, is POV and this is not going to be tolerated. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Guys one at a time. Otherwise this will become unpleasant. No need for that. The main question is, is that sentence a repetition of content in the lede already, or is it something new ?Resnjari (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Resnjari, honestly I doubt that this person's concern is the repetitiveness of the sentence added by me yesterday. In fact, if you check the article, you will see that the actions of the Albanians against Greeks are mentioned only ONCE, while the actions of the Greeks against the Albanians are mentioned TWICE. How this is not repetitive, if the sentence which I have added, is? I don't understand this mentality. Either we will have to keep paragraphs as balanced and in accordance with sources as possible, either we have a case of POV. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Silent, this article is about the expulsions of people who identified as Chams and had affiliated with national Albanian identity. Their conflicts with the local Orthodox population was with Orthodox Albanian speakers such as in Fanari (see Baltsiotis) who had developed a Greek national consciousness. This matter is cited in the lede, however there is a whole article about collaboration. Treating the expulsions matter with the collaboration matter equally is problematic. Otherwise then Turkish editors could do the same on the Armenian and Greek genocide pages as parts of their populations had aligned with Russia which spurred (as a excuse) the Ottoman Turks and Kurds to do what they did. Thats why made the comments about the McCarthy lecture. The lede will start to read like that. I think the way we had the lede before without this sentence provides ample explanation about the forms of collaboration without condensing it as with that sentence which has created this issue. No one doubts that a small predominant minority engaged in actions of murder, pillage etc. While the larger community had passive collaboration from indirect support (of just wanting regime change from the Metaxas government) to somewhat more involved participation: i.e guides etc. Not even articles on say the Germans and their expulsion go into the minority's collaboration or actions in the lede (see: Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50) as separate article exists for that. That is a much more complicated article and yet is done in a neutral way. A good template and precedent to observe for here.Resnjari (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You can sit here and appeal to emotion all you want, I won't fall for that. In the first paragraph, there is no mention of open state repression or the settlement of Asia refugees which was a tool used to pressure the chams to leave (Baltsiotis). You still haven't explained why this part shouldn't be included in the first paragraph, after all, it's what the source says. I'm still waiting for you to explain. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me correct you: the first paragraph does not mention of the attempted refugee settlement in Epirus, where the Cham Albanians lived, indeed, but you are forgetting something: the first paragraph also does not mention of the fact that the Cham Minority of Greece wasn't a formally recognized minority (only the Minority of Thrace fell under the auspices of the Treaty of Laussane signed between Turkey and Greece, in which the Muslims of Thrace are granted the full exercise of their religious rights) and also the Cham Minority didn't had any special autonomy status granted, and therefore, it didn't had the authority to object to its share of burden in accepting refugees like the rest of Greece. It astonishes me how the refugees were welcomed and settled in Southern Greece (See Peloponnesus), in Central Greece (primarily in Athens), in Northern Greece (See Greek region of Macedonia), and even in Eastern Greece (See Western Thrace, where Muslim minority welcomed without any objections the Greek Refugees...) and Western Greece (here is where Epirus region falls...). I am, however, wondering if this really matters here. I am afraid this little matters, at all, as the case here is really not about state and minorities, is your obsession to promote the "righteousness" of the one side and reduce anything about the other side. I am speechless now. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Guys have a look at other articles which deal with these types of issues from World War Two on Wikipedia whose neutrality is not question. In particular see: Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50), before this continues.Resnjari (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Silent: So you are essentially saying that this part "Local tensions, reinforced by the settlement of Asia Minor refugees in the area and open state repression in the 1920s and 1930s, led many Chams to collaborate with occupation forces in the Second World War" should be ignored because you disagree with it? Is that what you're saying? What happened to "this is what the source says"? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope, in fact the contrary: you can add it because the cited source says so. What my point here is that the first paragraph, after my and Resnjari's edits, summarized just (summary, not details) the Greek actions and I am trying to keep a summary (not details) of the other side's actions as well for BALANCE so to eliminate any possible POV issues. How is that wrong for you? The details about how the whole story triggered, and the state discrimination against Cham Albanians is what the beginning of the second paragraph focuses on, and with details for the people to understand the past. And this is perfect. What my whole point here is that while the second paragraph is balanced and includes both sides, the first paragraph is MISSING THE ONE SIDE, is BIASED, and this is not justified by the source cited, which mentions of both sides. How more clear can I be on this? Do I need to repeat myself? Solution: Keep first paragraph balanced by keeping mention to BOTH sides (and not to ONE side), or remove it entirely and have the article start straight from second paragraph straight. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I love you, Resnjari! The page of the German Expulsion which you linked... in fact this is what I could recommend for this article too! Why not. Because, the way the Cham Expulsion is written right now, is not helping things, as evidenced. But I am worried, with this disruptive attitude that some users around here are having, even a such German Expulsion-style of neutral re-writing may very well be bound to failure -_- And I dunno why, but I am not in mood to spend that much more time in a single article only, so don't count on me for that. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Anytime Silent. We have the sources (good ones too, i.e Meyer, Manta, Baltsiotis etc) and there are two articles on Chams and World War Two in Wikipedia. One is one the expulsions matter and should overall contain/focus on content regarding that. The other is the collaboration article and it should overall contain/focus on that. By the way all should have listen to that Mc Carthy lecture link i posted so as to have that in mind about how that type going about things is problematic. Have a cool off guys. This article can be done well.Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not just good sources, but reliable sources. Any work on sensitive articles is done with consensus and by using multiple sources that cover the issue from all the aspects. We have had enough of POV issues until recently. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Good, reliable, secondary: Meyer, Manta, Baltsiotis etc fit the bill. The Cham matter is getting the attention it deserves in scholarship and at least with Manta and Baltsiotis the sources are the latest and available to everyone. This article is about the expulsions and the content should reflect that matter. The collaboration article contentshould reflect that regarding those issues. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In this case, it is better that we remove most information regarding Axis collaboration from the Expulsion article, and move it to the Collaboration article and especially in sections that may be lacking on details. And vise verse - remove most info about Expulsion from Collaboration article and move it here. How does that sound? An alternate solution is to merge the two articles into a single one, and have every event sorted in chronological order, starting from beginning (Chams and Greek refugees, Metaxas, etc) to end (Expulsion, etc). -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Best to have two articles like with other ethnic minorities of the WW2 period (one of expulsions, another on collaboration -allows for scope to expand and gives focus on the subject matter). The scholarship on the Cham community during this time is growing. Untangling a lot of the sentences will sometimes tricky. Which days of the week/weekend are good for you and other editors when we do this ((as we all have lives outside Wikipedia) ? Its a big task. I say from experience doing it solo when i moved content (which i had written anyway) from the Persecution of Ottoman Muslims to the The Expulsion of Albanians 1877-1878 while condensing a section in the former (looked easy, but was not). Also as we do it, sometimes we nominate sentences in the talk about how to split it or condense or it remaining in this article etc after it has been moved into the collaboration article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Silent: Your argument seems to be that it’s POV to write that the Cham Albanians were expulsed by the EDES and post-war Greek government without immediately after including the chain of events that caused their expulsion. However, the only events that seem to matter to you was the part about collaboration. The other stuff leading up to the collaboration you conveniently brush off as ”details” in order for you to argue that you simply ”summarized” it (you essentially summarized a summary by cherrypicking and rephrasing to push a nationalist narrative).

This:

The expulsion of Cham Albanians from Greece was the forced migration of thousands of Cham Albanians […] by the Resistance National Republican Greek League (EDES) forces and the post-war Greek government due to the collaborationist and criminal activities that a significant part of the minority committed during the Axis occupation of Greece.

Is not a fair summary of:

Local tensions, reinforced by the settlement of Asia Minor refugees in the area and open state repression in the 1920s and 1930s, led many Chams to collaborate with occupation forces in the Second World War, leading to conflict with nationalist guerrilla forces (EDES) in 1944 and mass expulsions by the post-war Greek government.

Not only this, but you constantly keep ignoring the other scholarship on the issue:

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.

The intention of the State was quite clear: the expulsion of Muslim Chams through their inclusion in the Greco-Turkish population exchange. Although not realized through this exchange, state policies directed at the reduction of the population of Muslim Chams were a prelude to the expulsion that would take place later. The exact time and means of this expulsion were under a constant process of negotiation. We argue that the intention of the state found, at the time, nomination in the actions of the Armed Forces which were acting as forces of national resistance. These forces, in the presence of an absent or later weak state and with its blessing, were acting on behalf of the “nation” and the state. As the state gained back its strength, the actions of the guerilla forces were accepted as the state’s own operational policy.

Also, the second paragraph is far from balanced, but I guess it could seem like it if one’s selective about sources. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

About the 2nd paragraph I suggest trimming this: a majority of the Muslim Cham population collaborated with the Axis troops[5][6][7] by providing them with indirect support as guides, local connections, informants and so on.[8][9][10] Smaller numbers recruited as Axis troops and armed irregulars actively collaborated and committed atrocities against the local Greek populace. into: the majority of the Muslim Cham population collaborated with the Axis troops[5][6][7], either pasivelly or activelly, while attrocities were committed against the local Greek populace. Info removed from lead can go to the main part.Alexikoua (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion implies that a majority committed atrocities against the Greek populace. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It implies that collaboration resulted to criminal activity, but not necessary all (passive) collaborators were criminals. By the way the current version implies that providing indirect support to the Nazis as guides, local connections, informants were not criminals. I don't think so, even in democratic governments this kind of activity can be considered criminal in general. Alexikoua (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Does it not imply that a majority of the Chams committed atrocities? Also, Manta distinguishes between active collaborators (criminal activity) and those who weren't actively collaborating.

Today we must admit that certainly not all of the Albanian population of Thesprotia was involved in the criminal activities perpetrated throughout the occupation of Epirus. These activities were assumed by those recruited by the Italian and the German military corps and the armed irregulars.

Maybe you could add monsters, killers, psychopaths, etc as well to make your point clear? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Guys like i said in earlier posts, two articles exist on Chams during WW2. One on collaboration and this one on expulsions. Each of those articles should overall focus on contents mainly relating to those subjects/topics in their own right, with partial mention/overlap in both. We should also take as a template other similar articles on Wikipedia (like the one on Germans - and they have much more stuff on collaboration on other articles, yet their expulsion article in the lede at least does not feature the collaboration part) who have gone through complicated discussions and now their versions are stable. Some content from this article needs to be transferred to the collaboration on. Though i wouldn't have used a few of those words, I understand Brioni's point. Its why i placed a link to Mc Carthy lecture. Articles should not resemble a inference of they deserved it, even though parts of the community collaborated (most passive, small number outright, as Manta has outlined). Anyway i am off to bed. Deal with this tomorrow sometime.Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that for an unknown reason Manta has been misnderstood in this case and acts of passive collaboration have been interpreted as a non-criminal act. I disagree that the main problem with this article is the description of the collaboration events. For example the 'ressistance' section lacks decent citation, inlines don't mention pages, can't be verified etc.

Rensjari got a point here, and any mention about the collaboration of the Cham Albanians with the occupying forces,needs to be only mentioned where it is necessary, and not be part of the article's focus. This article is NOT about the collaboration but about the Expulsion. I think anything regarding the collaboration should be removed, albeit keep links that lead the readers from the one page to the other, because Expulsion and collaboration are directly related to each other and the whole context cannot be understood unless both articles are linked. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

And I have removed the sentence "due to the collaboration.../...Axis occupation of Greece" from the very first paragraph of the lead, which I have had added recently. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point SR.. What I've realised is that the 2nd lead paragraph became too big after a couple of edits, for example: [[27]] in order to offer an explanation that collaboration isn't necessary a crime and that there was also a moderate element among the population. I won't object the removal of this part. Actually the definition of active and passive collaboration (or that a tiny part didn't collaborated at all) isn't necessary for this lead. Especially the claim that passive collaboration isn't a criminal activity by definition 'is' a weird conclusion and needs to be removed. Alexikoua (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Alexikoua regarding collaboration as you put it: "passive collaboration isn't a criminal activity by definition 'is' a weird conclusion and needs to be removed", this part is were the main area of disagreement lies from both the Albanian/Greek sides. In Thepsrotia apart from the Chams collaborating, the forces that expelled them i.e EDES had for a small period of time in 1944 also collaborated with the Germans so as to go after the communist ELAS (as noted by Hondros on pg. 291 citing the existence of the Zervas-German agreement [28], and other scholarly publications have made reference too that collaboration [29], [30], [31]. Though this occurred, Zervas is not referred to as a criminal in Greece. I will also note a encounter (which gives an idea of the diverging views win Greece over Chams and war time collaboration) from Sarah Green's (2005). Notes from the Balkans: Locating Marginality and Ambiguity on the Greek-Albanian border. Princeton University Press. pp. 74-75. "Over time, and with some difficulty, I began to understand that the particular part of Thesprotia being referred to was the borderland area, and that the ‘terrible people’ were not all the peoples associated with Thesprotia but more specifically peoples known as the Tsamides –though they were rarely explicitly named as such in the Pogoni area. One of the few people who did explicitly refer to them was Spiros, the man from Despotiko on the southern Kasidiaris (next to the Thesprotia border) who had willingly fought with the communists during the civil war. He blamed widespread negative attitudes toward the Tsamides on two things: first, that in the past they were perceived to be ‘Turks’ in the same way as Albanian speaking Muslims had been perceived to be ‘Turks’; and second, there had been particularly intense propaganda against them during the two wars –propaganda that had led to large numbers of Tsamides’ being summarily killed by EDES forces under General Zervas. Zervas believed they had helped the Italian and later German forces when they invaded Greece, and thus ordered a campaign against them in retribution." Those Chams who actively collaborated with the Germans (the roughly 2000 sentenced in absentia) count in the category of criminality outright. Passive collaboration, from wanting regime change (but not doing anything about it, to not joining any resistance organisation, or even benefiting from a change of regime is problematic to lump entirely into the category of criminal. Just saying, one needs to be mindful of this that the matter was much more complicated during the war years in Thesprotia.Resnjari (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Alexikoua, this section of the paragraph which you are pointing out to, is unnecessarily big. Shouldn't that be trimmed abit? This article is not about Collaboration as Resnjari rightfully reminded me, but about Expulsion. So that many details about the Collaboration seems to get the lead off-topic and is unnecessary. It should either be trimmed, moved to lower portions of the article, or moved to the Collaborations article, because if you compare this sentence with the main body of the article, you can see that it is extraordinary large text for being just summarizing on the Lead what the article is about. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, I've pointed out which edit made this paragraph too big [[32]] (addition of 2k of text only in this lead paragraph). That's also a good part to be moved to collaboration article.Alexikoua (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There is also the issue of Manta, who has been falsified in this part. Manta states that:

On the other hand, though, it has been admitted by all sides that the Albanian population as a whole, even though it did not actively collaborate with the occupiers, they accepted them with hope and expectation for the materialization of the promises which had been cultivated for decades; they benefited from their presence in the region and provided them with indirect support with guides, connections, informants etc.

Thus for an unexplained reasond "as a whole" becomes in this article "majority". I assume the two parts: about the "passive collaboration of the majority [sic]" and the "overall participation of the community, should be merged in order to trim this paragraph further.Alexikoua (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Alexikoua, hat sounds perfect to me. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I made my comments above in more detail. Nonetheless "hope and expectation for the materialization of the promises which had been cultivated for decades;" counts for many situations that is no indicative of active collaboration. Lumping 'aspirations' as active collaboration is tricky and subject to interpretations. Moreover Manta does not quantify to what extent parts of the population served as guides/informants etc. She lumps aspirations/thoughts with other forms of collaboration. Even the passive part when written needs to be taken with care. Citing a similar example as many of you would be well aware of the Turkish position regarding the Armenians and Greeks in Eastern Anatolia in WW1. And issues relating to assistance/collaboration with Russian troops from direct/passive support all the way to providing guides informants etc. Turkish scholarship is full of that premise that casts passive and active collaboration as one and also has inferred that in some way they got what they got due to that. I am just saying we we need to be mindful of such issues when going about this article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume there is no reason to falsify Manta, so I remind you again:

On the other hand, though, it has been admitted by all sides that the Albanian population as a whole, even though it did not actively collaborate with the occupiers, they accepted them with hope and expectation for the materialization of the promises which had been cultivated for decades; they benefited from their presence in the region and provided them with indirect support with guides, connections, informants etc.

I'm afraid the example of the Turkish government is completely irrelevant with this case: we have here a community of c. 20-22k geographically limited in Thesprotia (a tiny part -18%- of Greek Epirus) not a state and a nation of some million inhabitants as the entire Ottoman Empire. But if you have academic reference which claims that, fell free to contribute to the correspondent article about the Greek genocide (and our cases here are not a genocide). Resnjari you need to explain why you object Manta on what the 'community did as a whole' ...indirect support with guides, connections, informants etc.., i.e. not simply as a majority.Alexikoua (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Taking all above aspects into account I'm looking forward for your new proposal about a trimmed 2nd lead paragraph in order to have a concrete basis for discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I referred to the Turkish example that in Turkish scholarship (and Western and Armenian sources acknlwoedge this), they cite that elements of the Greek and Armenian communities collaborated with the incoming Russian forces.. However as McCarthy often discusses the Turkish view it is in a way that also infers that what those populations got (massacres etc) "deserved" it because some number of thier populations had collaboration with the Russians while others where sympathetic to them. However these issues are not cited at the lede of the Greek and Armenian genocide articles, nor even of the German expulsion article regarding those types of issues relating to the Nazi's. Yet here for this article about expulsions, its is seen as vital considering there is a separate article that deals with collaboration of this community. Also where the issue of collaboration differs between the Albanian and Greek side is that the Greeks interpret passive support for the Axis as collaboration. I also will say, it does not matter what the numbers were or that the Turkish government had recognised Armenians and Greeks as minorities in its state. Albanians existed and the Ottomans were aware of this (if you want to have that discussion also), however Islamic unity matter to the Ottomans more. Its probably no accident that Baltsiotis probably named the title of his article as the expulsion of a "non-existent" minority. And yet there they were. I would like to refer you to Baltsiotis again. In a dialogue seminar held by Columbia University last year in the USA, two authorities on the Cham matter, the other being Dr. Pellumb Xhufi (representing the Albanian side) where invited to present two papers. Baltsiotis writes on Cham collaboration on page 3 state the following [33]:

"Of course “collaboration” was not a Cham peculiarity. The alliances of the forces in the area may be conceptualized as a part of the wider phenomenon of WWII, when many nations, ethnic groups and minorities from all over Europe collaborated with Axis, including areas from Bretagne to Ukraine. If there is a distinction to be made is that most of the individuals that took part in these political and military alliances originated from the impoverished southern lands which had none or limited connection with Albanian nationalism. On the contrary, individuals and communities who were connected with Albanian nationalism during the Interwar period were turned to the left wing EAM organization and its military branch ELAS."

Those who collaborated did so mainly outside the bounds of Albanian nationalism. That part is very important. Also as now multiple scholarly sources cite, Napoleon Zervas who was a Western ally in 1944, was a temporary Axis German ally some time before that so as to go after the Communist partisans. That bit defiantly will need to be added to the article about him in future (as those scholars have cited the same German archive that Meyer uses). He is though treated a resistance hero in Greece and that Axis issue is overlooked. National POV at work there ? Who knows ?

I will also cite Baltsiotis again on page 5

Many Albanian writers, with or without an academic back ground on the subject, are trying to minimize the significance of the collaboration of the rather big majority of the Muslim population, which of course was not uniform and was expressed in many different ways, by magnifying their participation in the left wing army of ELAS. This is also true for a part of the left wing discourse in Greece in regards to what actually happened there. The rational of this story is based on the existence of the 4th battalion of the 15th regiment of ELAS, which was named “Turco-Albanian partisans.” In fact many of the soldiers of this “mixed” as it was called battalion were Christians and some Muslims were not originating from Greece but from the Muslim Cham villages of Albania and other areas. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that this battalion was active for a very limited period and undertook part only in a couple of skirmishes. These tactics are aiming to weaken the “collaboration stigma.”

This too needs to be fixed in the article. Collaboration occurred but was not the same everywhere and it was done in different ways. The bit on ELAS participation may need to be moved and/or elaborated on.Resnjari (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's quite telling that you choose to focus on that part, and not the absurd inclusion of details concerning their collaboration:

Between July and September 1943, armed Cham collaborator units actively participated in Nazi operations that resulted in the murder of over 1,200 Greek villagers, and, January 1944, in the murder of 600 people on the Albanian side of the border.

This is nothing more than an attempt to lend undue weight to certain events to justify their expulsion by Zervas/EDES forces, who for the record, also collaborated with the Germans (the Wikipedia article on Zervas is particularly interesting). Curiously, Mazower writes that:

The Greeks of Epiros were staunch nationalists, and the region was the stronghold of EDES, a resistance organization with irredentist and royalist inclinations. Events in 1944-1945, still passed over in silence in Greece today, show how EDES put into practice its conception (which undoubtedly closely mirrored that of the local Greek peasantry) of collective ethnic justice. [...] EDES, as I have discussed elsewhere, was not weighed down by the ideological projects for postwar Greece beyond the nationalist goal of an ethnically homogenous state extending as far as possible into the irredenta.

Now, how does one justify the collective ethnic justice by a group which aimed to create a ethnically homogenous state? Simple, by emphasizing on Cham collaboration and arguing that background events aren't important, including atrocities by Cham collaborators in the lead (meanwhile EDES atrocities aren't) and arguing that "the community as a whole" and not simply "the majority" collaborated and engaged in "criminal activity". If the community as a whole [passively] collaborated, they [all of them] surely deserved their demise, right?

Moreover, the second paragraph should include details regarding state policy:

The intention of the State was quite clear: the expulsion of Muslim Chams through their inclusion in the Greco-Turkish population exchange. Although not realized through this exchange, state policies directed at the reduction of the population of Muslim Chams were a prelude to the expulsion that would take place later.

Also described here:

We argue that following the earlier Greek-Turkish and Greek-Bulgarian exchanges of populations, the expulsion of Muslim Chams was part of a policy of the Greek state to exercise its alleged right to oust “non-Greeks” from its territory. Within the parameters of this ideological framework, legislatively and practically as well as domestically and internationally, the visibility of the Muslim Chams had to be lessened. The target was the minimization of their physical presence through the reduction of their numbers and the reduction of their distinctiveness as a separate religious and linguistic group.

In what follows we will attempt to present evidence of the growing hostility between the two religious communities (Orthodox and Muslim) of this part of Western Epirus which occurred independently of their linguistic affinities. This growing hostility was tolerated if not stirred by the Greek state itself. The Government and the state bureaucracy utilized an instigative approach to increase hatred between the communities in order to successfully attain the aforementioned aims.

I'd finally like to make a point about the argument that the community as a whole engaged in criminal activity. When Manta uses the term "criminal activity", it's used with regards to the active collaborators. If one is to use it to describe the actions of the Chams who passively collaborated, I'd be curious to know what stops us from describing their actions as e.g. treason? When does it become a value judgement? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality issues in lead section of the article

After the latest edits by DevilWearsBrioni, I had to intervene and restore the brief to its last stable version, and add to it the missing sentence from the main body of the article, which is the prologue of the souring relations between the Cham minority and the Greek state. If DevilWearsBrioni believes that this does not belong to the lead, he can please explain in the Talk page the reasons for that.

This article has already enough issues with its neutrality, we do not need to worsen things more. How many times do I have to remind the editors (like I have done above, on the section of Long Article) here that any neutrality issues cannot be solved by resorting to more POV-pushing edits? If the selective picking of historical events for the brief, in an attempt to victimize the one side and portray the other side as evil, does not constitutes breach of neutrality, then what is it? This has to be stopped now. if we have to give the reader and visitor to this article the full picture of the events that led to the discrimination and the eventual expulsion of the Cham minority from Greece, all the historical events predating the Expulsion (this means to include the actions of the Cham Albanian minority, instead of just mentioning only the actions of the Greek state against the Chams) should be mentioned on the sections where needed. With simple words, if the brief has to mention the Greek state's actions against Chams, then we can't exclude the Cham Albanian actions against the Greek state. This is not how the neutrality of the article is maintained. Over weighting the one side's actions and responsibilities, while leaving the other side out of the frame, is not a balanced approach and constitutes POV. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Resnjari and Alexikoua for your edits, now the second paragraph is even more balanced than it was with my own edits, and the lead is now even better and balanced than before. Thank you both. I hold the faith that the lead is as complete as possible now that it covers the entire period of the Cham minority prior to the Expulsion. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

What needs to stop are your mindless POV accusations that have no basis. Ironically, amidst these accusations, blinded by a certain narrative, you fail to see the POV nature of your own edits.

They formed irregular armed units and burned Orthodox inhabited settlements and towns, with only few Albanian beys willing to accept Greek rule in the region.[3] This led the Greek state to adopt policies that aimed to drive out Muslim Chams from their territory.

There's not a single source presented that makes the conclusion that Greek stated policy was adopted as a consequence of Muslim Albanians burning villages in connection with their war against the Greek army. Baltsiotis certainly doesn't make the connection. Quite the contrary, Baltsiotis makes the argument that they weren't willing to fight on the Ottoman side, but were nevertheless treated as enemies by the Greek state. So, not only are you OR:ing, you're also pushing a questionable narrative.

Neutrality is maintained by conveying what scholars are saying on the issue, not cherry picking details from different topics that are somewhat related and then concluding that these events were the main reason for Greek state policy. If those events aren't highlighted in the scholarship that deals with the expulsion of the Chams, then why should you? And I haven't even mentioned the problematic nature of relying on some of the older Greek scholarship (as discussed by Baltsiotis). DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If they were not willing or willing, little matters here. We are not here to talk about their desires or feelings on this matter, but about what they have actually done. The fact here is that they eventually fought alongside the Ottomans against the forces of the Greeks, and the source clearly states how this marked the problematic relations between the Greek state and gave rise to the Anti-Albanian sentiments among the Greeks and the Anti-Greek sentiments among the Albanians, which affected the souring relations between the two sides. The events and the sources speak of themselves. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, and in addition to above, I feel obliged to remind you the following sentences from the main body of the article (also sourced): "The region's geographical proximity to Albania proper and the fact that it was inhabited by an almost entirely Albanian speaking population of which roughly half was Muslim, became a serious concern for the Greek state", and also, the following: "Within the parameters of this ideological framework, legislatively and practically as well as domestically and internationally, the visibility of the Muslim Chams had to be lessened." which leaves no doubt about the mistrust and negative sentiments of the Christian Greek side against the Muslim Chams which led to the oppressive and discriminative policies the Greek state against the said minority during the time period between the First Balkan War and the Second World War. Note: Resnjari was very right to restore Muslim and Christian as per source, it was a mistake of my part to ignore this element, as this played important role in the events and politics of that time. You can check the sources for yourself. It relates very very much. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact all available material begin their detailed naratives from the late Ottoman period, thus it would be against wp:lead to avoid any mention of the transition from Ottoman rule to the first years of Greek administration.Alexikoua (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't say it any better! Well said, dear Alexikoua. It is oxymoron and possible bias to speak of how the relations developed into the Expulsion but ignore why the relations had that bad turn in the first place. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It matters since you are claiming that Greek state policy was a consequence of the burning of Christian villages, which is not supported by any of the sources. That’s why I remind you again, stop OR:ing.

Baltsiotis is quite clear on the issue: eventhough Muslim Chams weren’t eager to fight on the side of the Ottomans, they were treated as an enemy of the state. Local conflicts emerged when Muslim Chams eventually sided with the Ottomans, while local Christians were enlisted in the Greek army.

Moreover, per Baltsiotis:

During the Balkan War, in late 1912, when Muslim Chams were fighting on the side of the Ottoman Army, and Christian Chams on that of the Greek Army, several local conflicts emerged. While there is no Greek source describing the behavior of the Greek army against the Muslim population after they seized the area, there are several relevant descriptions in Albanian sources. There are only indirect (but clear) references to atrocities committed by the Greek army. It should be noted that in the spirit of the times, offensive acts such as defilement of mosques and, obviously, looting, would most certainly have taken place…. The behavior of the Greek Army, in conjunction with the legislation implemented at the time, deeply affected the Muslims and confirmed the first serious fissure between the Christian communities and the Greek State on one side, and the Muslim communities on the other. Tensions between Muslims and Christians in the area began in the late 19th century when the Christian element gradually improved its financial and social status.39 Soon after 1912-1913 it had a major ally to fulfill its ambition: the Greek state.

Also, with regards to the burning of villages, I suggest you read the following two excerpts from Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe and The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence Since 1878:

The primary objective of the Balkan combatants had been to eliminate potentially hostile populations through ethnic cleansing. This was to be achieved by various means, including murder, intimidation, and expulsion. The actions of all the Balkan combatants were additionally driven by trepidation that Great Power intervention would dictate a settlement at variance with their own plans, as had occurred in the past; expelling Muslims and others from their occupation zones served to buttress their diplomatic claims. The result was the wholesale destruction of villages and the murder or expulsion of many of their inhabitants. The Carnegie Commission took the burning of villages, the forced exodus of defeated populations, and the war on their cultures—ethnic cleansing—as ‘a normal and traditional incident of all Balkan wars and insurrections’. It saw a seemingly unbreakable cycle of revenge being played out: ‘What they have suffered themselves, they inflict in turn upon others.‘ While Muslim civilians of different nationality were the primary victims of this concerted campaign, the Carnegie Commission found the belligerents’ treatment of enemy combatants to be equally harsh and a violation of the laws and customs of war, in particular the Hague Convention (1907).

Assaults by Balkan armies, irregulars, and local residents prompted Muslims to flee. The entire war zone was a region in flux. Villages and houses went up in smoke, and everywhere civilian refugees were on the move. The outpouring was apparent in areas conquered by the Greeks and Serbs, but the Bulgarian advances in Macedonia and Thrace probably propelled the greatest torrent of refugees. Noel Buxton, a British Member of Parliament and one of the foreign observers most sympathetic to the Bulgarian cause admitted that “a universal exodus took place from Turkish villages." DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear DevilWearsBrioni, your stance is very unfortunate. You have just passed from my personal Talk Page today and have threatened me of Edit Blocking for my account (!) in an attempt to discourage me from objecting to your edits (and perhaps, discourage me from meddling into your affairs)? And furthermore, you have accused me of doing the disruptive edits on this article, when it is clear that you are the one whose the edits are being reverted by other users. And it is saddening that, after resorting to threats of Edit Bans against me, you have came here and repeated your disruptive edits on this politically sensitive article, by completely removing any references to certain time period, the transition of the region of Epirus from Ottoman to Greek hands during the first Balkan War, which, like all the other periods, played a pivotal role to the souring relations of the Cham minority and the Greek state and their eventual outcome, the Expulsion. Weird, given that this is the article about the Expulsion. At least the other users here, such as my friends Alexikoua and Resnjari, have acknowledged the article's problematic Neutrality enough for their edits to have been careful to not exclude or remove anything. That is why their contribution was the most positive, because it includes all views from both sides, for the sake of the reader and visitor to this article, without excluding anything... -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You were OR:ing which is why I warned you. This has been explained to you on multiple occasions and you still don't seem to understand. You are adding your own personal analysis to the events that occurred by describing Greek state policy as a consequence of village burnings. These burnings were common during the Balkan Wars, and Muslims were the primary target, especially in areas occupied by Greece and Serbia (do consider this before lending UNDUE weight to the actions committed by one of the involved parties). Unless a RS explicitly makes the connection between village burnings committed by Muslim Albanians and Greek state policy in the following years, you are not allowed to do it by writing "This [village burnings] lead the Greek state to adopt policies...". It's very simple, so please stop doing it. Furthermore, in my most recent edit I included details on the transition period, per Baltsiotis, who is an expert on the topic. Also, consider the following:

The behavior of the Greek Army, in conjunction with the legislation implemented at the time, deeply affected the Muslims and confirmed the first serious fissure between the Christian communities and the Greek State on one side, and the Muslim communities on the other.

So again, why the emphasis on burning of villages and not the above? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I have strong objection on this edit which appears to be a product of wp:OR [[34]]. It implies that all the killings were done by EDES forces which isn't confirmed (we have cases of individual citizens, cases of ELAS fighters that executed Cham notables in Parga, Mazover states that the local population was eager to take revenge, and we have cases that 'local Christian Albanian speakers' were not innocent as well). As Resnjari stated, more recent research on the issue sheds additional light on the historical events. As per Roudometof who is obsolete about the Interwar persecutions, I'm afraid that more recent academic works based on extensive research of the Greek government and other archives has already rendered Baltsiotis (on the Balkan Wars situation for example) obsolete. By the way Baltsiotis admits that he couldn't find enough evidence about this period.Alexikoua (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

With regards to the numbers, it's not OR since the number of murdered is mentioned immediately following the description of atrocities committed by EDES, but sure, there is some ambiguity. Although it's quite unreasonable to assume that 900 of the 1,200 were murdered by ELAS and local Christians, no? The former, per Mazower, did not agree with the "collective ethnic justice" by EDES. We can discuss this in a separate section, or even ask for advice by other editors on how to interpret Baltsiotis on the issue. In the meantime, this can easily be resolved by excluding "EDES forces" and simply stating that "more than 1,200 Muslim Chams were murdered in total". As for Baltsiotis being obsolete, that's a first. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why you removed the c.200-300 claim completely now [[35]]. In general it's difficult to disagree that your edits don't constitute disruption. For example you placed another OR that the expulsion was the product of attrocities by EDES, while the EDES activity resulted only in c. 200-300 victims compared to the total of 1,200.Alexikoua (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the 200-300 are included in the 1,200. As for OR:

The atrocities committed by the troops of EDES forced 22–25,000 Chams to leave their villages and seek refuge in Albania

Surely you know what OR is? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

What's also striking is the Baltsiotis agrees that EDES activity resulted in c. 300 victims. Thus I feel this part should be part of the lead. Also take in mind that the general number includes activity of the Muslim Cham collaborators who also targeted their co-religionists too.Alexikoua (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Baltsiotis makes the claim that 1,200 were murdered in total, in connection with describing the massacres by EDES in certain villages.

This was mainly the case for the Karvounari, Parga, Trikoryfo (ex-Spatari), Filiati and most of all Paramythia towns where approximately 300 persons were murdered. In total more than 1,200 persons were murdered.

Moreover, how could you possibly know what the number 1,200 includes? In the footnote, Baltsiotis writes:

According to a “name and place of origin list”, more than 1,200 were murdered. This number does not include armed men killed during fights or skirmishes with the Greek guerilla forces.

Which means your argument now essentially boils down to: 300 were murdered by EDES, and 900 by ELAS and civilians. Is that reasonable? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear DevilWearsBrioni, actually this is the point which you are missing all the time here. The details on how the negative sentiments in the two communities against each other begun, played pivotal role, and that's why it should not be removed, and rather, be mentioned. Unfortunately you have reverted it and Alexikoua had to restore back. If we didn't include note of it, and went with your own POV edits, the second paragraph could just imply in a generic tone that the Greek state perceived the Chams as a hostile people, without a more precise description on this. Without any mentions or notes on why the Greek state took these measures against the Chams. This gives the reader the false impression that the Greek state is a Nazi-like regime that oppressed the Chams for no apparent reason! And you have no sources saying that the Greek policies against Chams were adopted without reason! Absolutely no sources to back your claim. This clearly constitutes POV and goes against Wikipedia's rules, because the sources in regards to the late Ottoman period, have recorded the presence of animosity between the two sides BEFORE the Greek state adopts anti-Cham policies. Do you understand now or am I talking into a wall? You can't just do such edits, this is not a personal Blogspot to tell the readers the history the way you like best. Such kind of edits can not be tolerated in Wikipedia as they amount to one-sided bias and defamation of the other sides in these events, and like how Alexikoua explained above, it goes against Wikipedia:Lead because this is not what the article's main body says either. Your insistence to write the lead in an way that it portrays the Greek state as having adopted oppresive policies against Chams on fly and for no apparent reason, is not what the article says, and not what the sources confirm... -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again, DevilWearsBrioni has refused to understand and take into account the concerns of the other Wikipedians regarding the neutrality of the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians, and he has once again made further changes to the article without a consensus. He is insisting on his edits even when none in this Talk Page has agreed with his changes. Such behavior clearly goes against Wikipedia's rules, and I have no option than to send him a warning on his Talk Page, and I am considering to call the attention of the Administrators. We have had it enough! -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe the current lead version is the best possible "middle" solution (the 3rd paragraph became also bigger and the lead overall more balanced). In light of recent research on the subject several aspects of the Cham past can be highlighted. The way that Baltsiotis admitted that he can't have a clear picture, especially on the Balkan Wars events, appears to be solved by Tsitsimpis whose fieldwork is invaluable and published by a western academic journal.Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A couple of things. Your latest addition includes:

They formed irregular armed units and burned Christian Orthodox inhabited settlements, with only few Albanian beys willing to accept Greek rule in the region. As a response to this acticity Greek guerilla units were organized in the region.

The bolded part constitutes as synthesis. Per Tsoutsoumpis, Muslim bands raided villages, and Greek irregulars responded in January 1913. Pitouli-Kitsou deals with Chams burning villages during the war against the Greek army.

Also, immediately before the part that reads "As such with the onset of the Second World War, a majority of the Muslim Cham population collaborated with the Axis troops", you (sneakily) inserted:

Meanwhile, Fascist Italian propaganda initiated in 1939 an aggressive campaign for the creation of a Greater Albanian state

While I don't disagree with including details pertaining to Italian/German propaganda, the placement is highly questionable as it essentially negates the correlation between state persecution and Cham collaboration, as stated by one of the sources in particular.

I will also restore some of the stuff you removed.

Finally, could you point me to where "Baltsiotis admitted that he can't have a clear picture, especially on the Balkan Wars events"? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Alexikoua, that is even better than before and more precise! Well done! I hope DevilWearsBrioni will not, and should not, try again and revert it, otherwise he will be reported to the Administrators. His version of the lead, had uncanny similarity to some of the extreme positions expressed by the nationalist Party for Justice, Integration and Unity (PDIU), an Albanian nationalist political party. Let me remind the users what some of these PDIU positions are, summarized:

1) The Greeks committed Genocide of 100.000 Cham Albanians. Greece is obliged to recognize the Cham Albanian Genocide.

2) Chameria pre-existed of Epirus, chronologically and historicaly, and therefore, the Epirotes were settlers while the Chams were native people.

3) The discrimination of the Cham Albanians by the Greek state was unprovoked, unreasonable and unconcealed, and was unrelated to prior actions of the Cham community and their regional allies (Ottomans).

4) Greece must compensate the Republic of Albania with 1 to 10 billion Euros, and the Thesprotan capital Igoumenitsa must be gifted to Albania, along with the rest of the region of Thesprotia, as a compensation to Cham Albanians for moral damages.

5) The collaboration of the Cham Albanians with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy against Greece during the Second World War, was a right and justifiable action, and was done for the protection of the Cham minority.

6) The Expulsion of the Cham Albanians is temporary and they should be allowed to return to their properties, which can be done by the abolition of the War Law. Athens has to recognize the Albanian language as the second formal language of the Greek state, after the Greek language but before the English language. And the Vice-President of the Hellenic Parliament must be Cham Albanian, as a sign of cultural diversity of Greece and peaceful co-existence of Cham Albanians and Greeks.

Now, given this, you can't help but note how one of the positions of the nationalist PDIU, and more precisely the 3rd phrase, bears an uncanny resemblance with the DevilWearBrioni's recurring edits to this article which are written in an way that give the readers the impression the Greek state adopted these policies on fly and without a note of pre-existing animosity and mistrust between the two sides.

This clearly constitutes nationalist POV and should not be tolerated in Wikipedia by no means. The positions of far-right political parties such as Greece's Golden Dawn and Albania's PDIU do not belong in a sensitive article that is about the tragic events of the past. I hope I have made my worries as crystal-clear as possible to all the editors here, because the neutrality of the article had worsened lately and all these POV edits do not help the situation get any better. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Silent suggesting that a editor's views are those of a political party is one stretch too far. There is no foundation here. I have read those comments very thoroughly and Brioni has not said anything about a genocide. Nothing about Chameria preexisting before historic ancient Epirus. Not sure what you mean about native people as the area is still inhabited by Orthodox Albanian speakers (though they identify as Greeks). Whats this about regional allies. The area was sovereign Ottoman territory and the Chams were Muslims and Albanians. Not all people in the Balkans felt that the Balkan wars were a liberation. Some near two million Muslim people were collectively ethnically cleansed in those wars by Balkan states in their aim to create a Muslim free state. Same as why Middle Eastern Muslims fought for the Ottomans during WW1. The British and French may (still) tell the world they liberated the region from the Ottomans, but that's not what local Muslims felt or definitely feel today about that era. Muslims fought for the Ottomans because they were part of that state and felt they were it citizens and did not want to live under a Christian state and defended its sovereignty. From Palestine all the way to Albania. Greece came in and Orthodox people identified with a state that shared its religion. Just because locals spoke the same language and even used self appellations like shqip for language and shqiptare for their communities was no indicator of unity within the context of new emerging loyalties. The reaction for the Greek state to Muslim populations was similar to the one that emerging Muslim states like Turkey adopted for their Christian one: expel them as societal cohesiveness cannot be built. Also another point which you attribute to Brioni is that he apparently justifies the collaboration for Muslim Cham Albanians with Axis forces. No he did not. Napoleon Zervas, the person whose forces expelled the Muslim Chams was for some time prior a collaborator with the Germans himself. Today he is a war hero of the resistance in Greece. One should be mindful of this double standard. Brioni also did not state anything regarding a return of properties and so on or that the area should be given to Greece, unlike similar articles like those on Northern Epirus which infer some things as some long lost land without including much on the (Muslim) Albanian presence there which forms half of the population (and a substantial population for the past 200-300 years). Not sure what you also mean about Albanians being in the Greek parliament and so on or Albanian becoming a official language of the area. Brioni said nothing about this too. Silent you cannot allege these things regarding someone and then say you will take them to the admins. The PDIU's polices are their polices and the admins don't give a stuff about them. What they give a stuff that the article is based on proper wp:reliable and wp:secondary scholarship. Brioni has used these to make his points.Resnjari (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The absurd lengths you go to sway the opinions of editors reading this (preferably admins, right?) about my character is eerily demagogic. If my edits are akin to that of a Albanian far-right nationalist, then surely Baltsiotis can be ascribed these sentiments too? In what way do my edits differ from the material presented in the scholarly work of an expert like Baltsiotis?

Moreover, a small but important point I'd like to make. A couple of months ago, Alexikoua made a controversial edit to the lede. He replaced:

The EDES and the Joint Allied Military Mission, in the Axis-occupied Greece, accused the Chams for collaborating with the German Nazis and Italian Fascists during thewar. The attempted settlement of Greek refugees from Asia Minor within the area and bouts of open state repression in the 1920s and 1930s, in particular by the authoritarian Metaxas dictatorship,[2] led to tensions between the Chams and the Greek state which set the impetus for eventual collaboration with Axis forces.

with:

Tensions between the Chams and the Greek state as part of the Greek-Albanian relations occurred during the Interwar period.

Compare: Before and after.

Notice the changes which were made: Open state repression which led Chams to collaborate were brushed off as, I'm paraphrasing, "tension between Greece and Cham Muslims", even though one of the sources clearly correlated Cham collaboration with their treatment in the interwar period. More than half of the lead was about Cham collaboration. Where was the outrage on your end? Where were these lengthy posts about providing context? There were none! You approved of these changes, and stated "Dear Alexikoua, the lead now looks much better and compact." Lede trimming is not an excuse to remove pertinent details, especailly when these details are important for the balance of the lede.

As Pettifer explains it:

The impetus of all recent Greek scholarship on Civil War Epirus has been to maintain a monolithic view of all Chams as all Muslims and all active Axis collaborators, although even an outdated and limited work such as O’Ballance’s Cold War period book admits they were ‘stirred up’ by outside forces.

Finally, I welcome admin intervention. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Resnjari read again my comment:

"you can't help but note how one of the positions of the nationalist PDIU, and more precisely the 3rd phrase, bears an uncanny resemblance with the DevilWearBrioni's recurring edits"

And this is it:

3) The discrimination of the Cham Albanians by the Greek state was unprovoked, unreasonable and unconcealed, and was unrelated to prior actions of the Cham community and their regional allies (Ottomans).

How more clear can it be? -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

You wrote "His version of the lead, had uncanny similarity to some of the extreme positions expressed by the nationalist Party for Justice, Integration and Unity (PDIU), an Albanian nationalist political party." and then you proceeded to list PDIU positions on the Cham issue. Please, do tell us how that should be interpreted. I assume you were the one who wrote it? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I did. Point 3) is what you wrote and you say they resemble a uncanny resemblance to Brioni's posts. Avoid that unless you can outright cite where he has said that. It makes editing more complicated. So far Brioni has used the sources and though at times being a bit too passionate in his comments has based himself on the sources. The PDIU's position are the PDIU's. Unless someone actually cites the PDIU's website in the overall discussion as a source then yes it becomes a problematic issue. Until then, best avoid that, otherwise some may interpret that as smear. In World War Two, the issue of collaboration is a complex one. No one comes off clean, not even Zervas. The discussion which started off about the lede has spiraled out of hand. Anyway, i have restarted this now in a new section and have time to engage in it.Resnjari (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I started a new section on the lede. This whole one has gone astray. We all agreed that the lede was overbloated. The resulting discussion and edits have made the lede grow and become untidy. I have cited other article about similar peoples in similar situations. If people working of the German expulsions article can get through it, and we cannot here, there is something just f**ked up here on all our parts (excuse the language).Resnjari (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

New Lede discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or even better, this:

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

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

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

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

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

Having "extremist elements of the EDES" (that poses questions of: who were they ? were there people in EDES who opposed this course of action ? and then the lede becomes bloated and a mess again) or "Allies and their collaborators" (same thing). As for "Because 50% of the Article is full of pre-Expulsion content..." Some of that content should be in the collaboration article. For the lede anyway the second option is best after all this wrangling. For your proposal, allies is too subject to interpretation. The previous sentence has by elements of the Resistance National Republican Greek League (EDES) forces and the post-war Greek government. I would say to remove post-war Greek government. That government (in exile and its shaky return in 1945 in Athens) was not involved in the actions of expulsion when a government of exile existed. Zervas though affiliating with the government in exile was his own operative. Though the government was not fond of the Chams, they did not give the directive for the expulsions to occur and only accepted the outcome of what happened, which is different altogether. Zervas also went ahead with full scale expulsions due in part to local British intelligence operatives giving him the go ahead about removing populations that may cause problems for the allies (see: James Pettifer for this: [36]. I would say that the sentence ought to have by elements of the Resistance National Republican Greek League (EDES) forces and with the acquiescence of local British intelligence operatives. Beyond that, the slimmed down version is fine.Resnjari (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

New Lede (final wording after discussion). Vote:

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

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

Any future edits by you on the lead, may break the new consensus and thus leave us with no other options than to revert back to this stable version [37] and report you to the Administrator's noticeboard. At least do not say that I haven't warned you. The consensus on the second option has to be respected from the moment it is agreed. Any changes to the lead will be done only with a wide consensus and not like how you did before, where you have ignored the concerns of other users and proceed alone in implementing the changes to the lead. So, my friend, I feel obliged to warn you specifically this: if you resort again in edit revert wars with other users, or if you attempt any biased or unconstructive edits on the new lead without seeking a consensus on talk page first, or if you seek to manipulate sources once again, and or if your edits have resulted in break of the hard-reached neutrality of the new lead, and or turn the second option into another failure like how you have done with the first option, then, your edits will be reverted and you will be reported to the administrator's noticeboard. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the peer reviewed journal article, not booklet of Baltsiotis, on paragraph 61 and 68 he refers to the massacre in Paramythia in 1944 and also refers to it as the Paramithia massacre. On paragraph 59 he referred to events in Paramythia in past tensed and use the word murdered and again in footnote 100 as murders. Mazower also refers to a massacre by Zotos' paramilitary forces in Filiates -p.26 [38]. The words are used in scholarship regarding what happened. You and others have online access to the sources so you can go direct to them, by all references i have provided. Best.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Balkan Wars - OR / POV

Source #1 reads:

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

Source #2 reads:

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

Wikipedia entry reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obliviously that needs to be cited and also that Greek bands did their own share of atrocities against the Muslim Cham population and i have Blerina Sadiku for it during that time. The issue as Alexi brought it up was that Chams were not willing to fight for the Ottomans, should be removed from the article. There is nothing to suggest that what Baltsiotis states is wrong. It was the sentiment of the Muslim Cham Albanian population on the eve of the Balkan wars. Muslim Albanians themselves had risen against the Ottomans in 1910 and especially 1912 (for in depth overall situation see: Gawrych pp. 197-200. [39]) as the long process of divorce had begun from the Ottomans, however they did not want to be in a Greek or Serb state. While the Muslim Albanian Chams Albanian speaking Orthodox counterparts saw themselves as Greeks and supported the Greek movement, incoming Greek army and wanted to be part of Greece. I do agree that Tsoutsoumbis is very interesting indeed. He builds on Baltisois in that his research shows outright it was conflicts between two religious groups of Albanian speakers and was sectarian in nature. It goes beyond the Chams as being Axis allies as Zervas himself was a Axis collaborator in 1943-early 1944. Much, much to do here. There will need to be some adjustments of the lede two. Not enough on the British role, actually in particular Woodhouse and only Woodhouse (Kretsi even cites him in his own words in a journal article for Balkanica). It was he outright who encouraged Zervas to go through with the expulsions with no go ahead from London headquarters or the from the other Allies. It was a on the ground decision made. Tsoutsoumbis cites that the EDES leadership was reluctant and that it was the (Albanian-speaking) Orthodox population of the region (who formed a sizable number of EDES forces) who wanted the Muslim Albanian Chams out from reasons ranging from communal and sectarian tensions all the way to personal and property gains. I have to get my hands on one more book before i suggest proposals to the lede to clarify it. Brioni also has a point about the expulsion being two phased and that needs to be addressed as EDES was not involved in the second, while elements from it as a paramilitary force under Zotos were, but not under the official EDES banner.Resnjari (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Iazyges: What's the difference between:

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

and:

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

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

Translation of Greek source (Pitouli-Kitsou)

The section which reads:

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

is a distortion of the source which reads:

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

Stating that, I'm paraphrasing, "Chams had already formed irregular units when Athens attempted to approach local Cham representatives" is a distortion of the source. Source clearly states that village burnings occurred during the war, and not when Athens approached local Cham representatives. It's also disingenuous to accuse me of POV pushing against consensus.[40] What consensus? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The text doesn't claim that this happened before the war but during the very first days: the war started at Oct. 8 and the Greek government approached the Muslim beys at Oct. 17, when Muslim Albanian groups were already committing atrocities. Nevertheless a minor clarification is fine, as I've already did, instead of wide scale disruptive removals such as this one [[41]], which still need a decent explanation.Alexikoua (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Now, according to your interpretation of Pitouli-Kitsou, on 17 October Muslim Chams had already fought against the Greek army, even though, according to Richard C Hall, Greece didn't enter Epirus/Ottoman territory until 19 October. How is this possible? Furthermore, your addition of "when the war started"[42] is problematic because

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

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

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

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

The inline states:

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

And this is the "minor clarification" you recently made[43]

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

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

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

Synthesis yet again

Alexikoua's synthesizing yet again. [44] For the record, Baltsiotis states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Expulsion section

To start with:

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

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

Widely accepted as a case of Ethnic Cleansing or not?

‎SilentResident you have deleted peer reviewed material [45]. Your reason for the deletion used was: "Since the Cham Albanians weren't expelled on fly, but as result of their traitorous actions, there is no solid consensus among scholars. And therefore if it has to be mentioned, it has to be precise (name scholar who thinks so)". You have mentioned the words "tratorous actions". I would like to remind you of the policy on wp:POV. Deleting peer reviewed content based on personal POV of a population is not sufficient. An similar example is the Turks view of the part of the Armenians and Pontian Greek populations support of the Russian army in WW1 as "traitorous" if one was to use a example. However no one denies what happened was genocide and ethnic cleansing in the scholarship. Moreover Baltsiotis has been provided, is recent and peer reviewed. He is the one that states it is ethnic cleansing. Can you provide sources referring to the "international community" and also to these other scholars which you refer too. Absent this the bit will be restored.Resnjari (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not just delete a peer viewed material. I removed what, which although is the opinion of a mere scholar, was used in an ambiguous way that could give the false impression of being an established fact, or the opinion the international community. And therefore, the sentence was UNACCEPTABLE in this form unless further clarification are made to it. This was a case of misrepresenting a single scholar's opinions for being the opinion of the majority and I felt necessary to clarify this. And therefore, with this edit of mine, here, things could be more clear: [46]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's disruptive is that you do not mention the reason of this obsession, contrary to the decision of several noticeboars, for example ton the last mediators proposed restrictions to DWB and reverted him instantly [[47]][[48]]. I'm afraid that DWB isn't the only disruptive editor in this tp in an attempt to ignore a series of decisions & most important the last DRN result which clearly refuted all of DWB's arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If something can be termed OR and POV this is the recent addition by DWB. A part of this specific newly created section [[49]] should be merged with the Aftermath section, but most of it simply repeats information already stated. Not to forget that Tsoutsoumbis states that post-WWII Greek governments (as well as EDES leadership) were completely unrelated with the expulsion. Zervas for example repeatedly asked the Cham notables to break their pro-Nazi war efforts, but in vain.Alexikoua (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@SilentResident:From the lede:

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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