Talk:Chameria

Maps Again

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

Comments

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

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

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

Albanau 14:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stub article restored

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

External links

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

reconfiguration

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

reconfiguration

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

Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proof

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"administrative subdivisions"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge with Cham Albanians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fake modern Greek history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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