Jump to content

Talk:Cham Albanians/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Edits

It is quite clear that 4 days of RL issues, makes this page the beloved of Athenean (of course not adding anything, but just removing). As I saw, ALexikoua added Meyer, for whom I agree, although I have to check her. The rest of edits constitutes at least "vandalism", removing sources and then adding {{fact}}, like in Fleming, Kretsi, etc. Like "Epirus at the time had a mixed population, with Slavs and Greeks living and cultivating the fertile lowlands, while the mountains were inhabited by Albanian and Vlach pastoralists.", where the source was removed, just to add a {{fact}} template, or on Flemings statement. If you want to vandalise this page, you may just request it, and I am willing to vandalise it with you my friend Athenean.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that certain editors took undue advantage of you absence to insert non-consensual edits (e.g. I see no consenus for the replacing of "some" in the lead with "large parts", but, by the way, I also have to raise some reservations about the rest of the current [?] sentence: if we say vaguely "some", how are we then sure about "the equal number" of those in resistance? Isn't is inconsistent?), but, at the same time, I would give you the friendly advice to be more careful when you articulate accusations of vandalism, because such accusations often raise the heat, and make no good. In any case, I would like to ask (in vain?) all sides here to demonstrate finally some self-restraint.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Balkanian seems to think that he owns this page, that no one should edit it in his absence. If one looks at what Balkanian mass-reverted, everything is sourced or consists of corrections to falsified sources. Yet Balkanian screams "vandalism" and starts the mass-reverts. As for the "large parts", it is taken verbatim from an (unfalsified) source, and it says "large parts of the Muslim Cham population", not the Chams in general. Balkanian, if there are specific changes you object to, please tell us what those are and we can discuss them here. Mass reverting and screaming "vandalism" will get you nowhere. As a sign of good faith, I have removed the controversial, if sourced, "large parts" for now. However, Yannismarou's point is a good one and needs to be addressed. --Athenean (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as the Occupation period is concerned I think it is interesting to have some more information about Cham participation in resistance groups. This would also clarify the "some" "large" issue (there could be also "large part" of the Cham population in the resistance groups), and the sequence of the events (was there Cham participation in the Resistance before 1944, or did it start just a few months before German withdrawal from the country as Alexikoua argues?).--Yannismarou (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be very interesting to see what Kretsi says about that. According to the 'a few months (ca. 1 month) before German withdrawal' Cham resistance participation, I was relying on the IV_"Ali_Demi"_battalion, article. However, according to Manda (a Greek author) Chams joined the Greek resistance just after the German withdrawal (I'll check that). I'm curious what Kretsi really says about.Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

About the large parts, it's exactly what Meyer says , in page 702. Meyer did one of the more detailed and careful researches on 'wwii issues in Greece', especially on war crimes [[1]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Balkanian's reaction

It's more than obvious that several sources were misused. Every change on the article was accompanied with the appropriate explanations. It's not an argument to say 'why you changed things during my absence? so this is kind of vandalism... I will revert almost all of that, no matter what u did and why u did'

It seems that Balkanian made a systematic revert [[2]], in hot blood today. To sum up:

  1. Flemming (where does it day that Botsaris allied with Ali due to his common ethnicity?)
  2. about the slavic migration, the argument is based on a book of 1916? the slavic migration happened several centuries before (ca. 6th), see slavic migrations.
  3. Rudometov says the Chams today are 170,000. (deleted that)
  4. Rudometov (p. 157) also says: 'apart of the accusations of the Albanian side, there was little evidence of direct state persecution.', according to the interwar period. (also deleted)
  5. 'This expulsion intended to create a pure ethnic border and to facilitate the anti-communist movement in the aftermath of the war.' Completely unsourced, it's original research.
  6. On the lead: 'After the war Greece accused the whole population for collaborating with occupation armies, using this as the argument not to recognize the existence of the Cham issue.' Controversial issue,Greece's position is somewhat different, explained in the appropriate section.
  7. On the 'timeline', the link to 'Axis-Cham Albanian collaboration' was deleted.
  8. Deleted Kretsi's comments about the Cham raids during the Greek-Italian War (October-November 1940).
  9. Deleted image in the collaboration in wwii section (the image has all the necessary information).

What can I say?Alexikoua (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on Alexikoua! You are not exemplary either in this article! Indeed, it seems that the way Balkanian used some sources is questionable, but are you really that better?! Did you seek consensus, before making some of the edits I mentioned above?! And didn't you take indeed advantage (Athenean as well) of the fact that Balkanian and the other Albanian users were either away or blocked, in order to pass your POV? So, if you do not want to be massively reverted, do not insert such massive edits, before seeking consensus!

Για όνομα του Θεού ρε παιδιά! You are quarreling like children for issues, for which the modern Albanian and Greek societies do not give a shit! Alexikoua, what is the purpose of creating hate articles like the Cham-Axis Collaboration with the Nazis? No word there about the (belated maybe) participation of the Chams in ELAS! No word there for the killings committed by the army of EDES! Would you now like the pro-Albanian faction to create an article titled "Cham ethnic cleansing by Greek armies" or something like that! Because you cannot deny that the πρωτοπαλλίκαρα of EDES committed horrible crimes during this expulsion, crimes not justified by the equally horrible crimes Cham militia had committed during the German occupation.

Επιτέλους, try to be a bit open-minded. Some years ago I also thought that the Chams were some beasts and the Greeks the angels, but then I watched a Papachelas documentary about the Chams (Φάκελλοι), and I almost cried listening to the following story:

There was an interview with a Cham now in Albania, who felt nostalgic for his time as a kid in Greece. When the EDES offensive took place, the father of this child had his store in Paramythia. He was a peaceful person, and he had never any participation in the pro-Nazi Cham militia. However, when hate dominated in Epirus, a Greek Orthodox neighbor of this Cham killed him and occupied his store and property. This man was innocent like many others who were obliged to quit Greece! They loved their city, they loved their Orthodox neighbors, and they loved Greece! But their properties were brutally stolen, and they were obliged to flee. Years later, this Cham Albanian traveled to Paramythia. Some Greek friends of his father hugged him and hosted him with pleasure. One day, while walking in the street, the Cham saw an old guy in a pathetic situation sitting at a corner. They told him that he was the killer of his father. He had lost his children, and he was dying alone.

Whenever all of you try to demonstrate that you hold the absolute truth, and that the altera pars are pathetic animals and war crimes, please have in mind this story.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to apologize, I was one sided in my approach, without mentioning the Elas participation. Although I added a section about the 'ethnic cleansing' (on Axis-Cham Albanian collaboration), the article needs a paragraph on the resistance.

My intentions are to blame both sides, we have no good side-bad ones, both sides are to be blamed. The article and the section I've added information about points to give a balance or else to give the whole picture on the Cham cycle template:Cham Albanians, we had the Expulsion on the one side and we had the collaboration on the other. In my point of view there are two equal disastrous events. I'm really sorry if being one sided on my thoughts.Alexikoua (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A few questions for Yanni: 1) Tell me honestly, do you think this article as it was prior to Balkanian's absence was neutral, particularly the lead? To me, it seems written to portray the Chams as victims as much as possible. For example, prior to Alexikoua's recent edits, fully three paragraphs were devoted to the expulsion, in full gory detail, yet only one sentence on the collaboration, and even that one sentence was hedged as much as possible. Does that seems balanced to you? 2) Several users have by now pointed out almost countless examples of Balkanian falsifiying sources. I can understand the occasional error, but we are seeing a deliberate, systematic pattern of deception here. I notice your complaint is very general. But which edits do you specifically object to? Every edit is explained. If anyone objects, that's what the talkpage is for. 3) It almost sounds like you are justifying Balkanian's rash mass revert. I don't see why it is OK for any editor to revert in such fashion, particularly with such edit summaries. It seems to me that Balkanian has a sense of ownership of this article, that no edit can be done without his approval. It doesn't work like that. If he returns from his absence, he is welcome to post any objections on the talk page, like I did a while back (and was totally ignored by him). Lastly, I have zero intention to portray the Chams as devils and the Greeks as victims. Moreover, my interest in this subject is peripheral. On the other hand, we have here an editor who is essentially a Cham advocacy SPA (look at his contribs log for god's sake). So if I appear one-sded, it is because I have become incensed over how one-sided this article is and Balkanian's deception, POV-pushing, and arrogance. --Athenean (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Interwar period

Just noticed that Rudometof is totally ignored in the Interwar period. Instead of him 'Yildiri, Onur' is much more preferred. Rudometof's (p. 157) comments seem quite interesting about that period, suppose they need to be added in the appropriate sections:

The resulting impasse led to a new round of Albanian complaints in 1928. The complaints raised two issues: the land question and the treatment of the Chams. With regards to the Chams, the Albanian government complained that the Greek government was persecuting the minority. There was little evidence of direct state persecutions... The reports of the League of Nations committee and the reply by the Greek government reveal that part of the bone of contention concerned the change in the status of the local Albanian landlords. In Ottoman times, the overlords received revenues from the neighboring villages. But the peasants refused to pay tribute after their land was occupied by the Greek state and in this case they 'expropriated' what the Albanian overlords to be their property. In June 1928 League of Nations turned down the Albanian petition against Greece. The compensation for land properties had not been paid until 1933, and when it was paid it feld short of Albanian expectations.

Also noticed that the article says: 'The real problems between the Greek state and the Cham citizens came only after the Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1922.' the source here is Rudometof. Unfortunately, Rudometof doesnt say that (it says only that ca. 2,900 of them preferred to declare themselves Turks rather than Albanians). Suppose this is one of the article's several wrong-sourced sentences.Alexikoua (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Mincheva

Also noticed this article in a journal: [[3]], it's a secondary, verifiable, sourced, peer-reviewed journal, all the 'rs' criteria seem to be ok (edited by.Alexikoua (talk)

Sure, looks good to me. I see you've already added some things from that source. We could also add this, I feel it is very relevant: "After 1911, the Cams acquired vast tracts of land, without the accompanying title-deeds. Under the Treaty of Lausanne some of this land was appropriated, on financial terms agreed to with the owners, to meet the needs of the landless refugees from Anatolia and Thrace who were to settle in Epirus. This measure was applied across the board and there were no exceptions: as well as the Cams, native Greek landowners and monasteries were also required to give up some of their property. The Cams, however, sought compensation not as Greek citizens, but under the terms providing compensation for certain West European nationals whose property had been appropriated. Both Greece and the League of Nations rejected the demand.", page 4. --Athenean (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyedits

I made a series of copyedits and other minor edits to improve grammar and flow. I hope no one objects. I've also placed some clarification tags in places where I feel the article, where i feel the article is confusing. In the "Expulsion" section:

  • "During the summer of 1944, when the German withdrawal was imminent.." The germans had already withdrawn by then, this is incorrect.
  • "Beyond the expulsion, as a result of the atrocities that accompanied it, more than 2,000 of them were killed, while others died during their exodus to Albania.[8] According to other sources however, the death toll due to EDES actions was ca. 200-300" Does Kresti actually state that 2000 were "killed"? I can't access that source so can someone inform me? Also, it says again later on " Overall, some 300 Muslim Chams were murdered". Overall when? This is confusing.

In the Postwar section:

  • "Meanwhile, in 1945-1946, a Greek Special Court on Collaborators found 2,109 Chams guilty of treason in absentia and sentenced them them to death." Were all 2109 sentenced to death or some to death and others to prison?
  • We also need to address the issue in the lead that Yannismarou raised: It says "some" Cham Albanians collaborated, but then "approximately the same number enlisted in the resistance". "some" is vague, but the "same number" is specific. This doesn't make sense and needs to be addressed. --Athenean (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What Kretsi says noone knows and exept from his German book the rest can't be proved online. There is the 2,000 death toll, as well as the claims about Cham participation in the resistance (both Greek and Albanian). We need sources with exact pages and quotes in the resistance section.
  • According to Ktistakis two courts on collaborators sentenced 2,109 to death (other sources say many of them were to death)
  • About the lead, 'some' is ok, or 'a part', or 'a large part' depends what the sources say. I disagree on 'approximately the same amount', because we don't know exact or even approximate numbers to make that conclusion. I disagree also with: 'the majority was uninvolved' because sources are contradicting on that (for sure if we count elderly and children every community was by majority uninvolved in every war from ancient times).Alexikoua (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Rudometof, Robertson [[4]]: 'During WWii, the majority of Chams sided with the Axis forces and terrorized the local Greek population. These fueled resentment by the Greeks, and aftermatch of WWii, the Cham had to flee to Albania.' Seems that this is not the only source that saying that. However, I believe that Meyer's (detailed resaerch on wwii) 'large parts' is better.Alexikoua (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I am finally back. I saw the rewording of this page, which for sure is totally POV, by removing sources and adding unsourced statements. I am adding below my concerns, except for Meyer sourced material (I cannot understand German) and the lead, which was a consensus agreed lead, so the current one is totally unacceptable, since there is no consensus for it.

1. About the population number there was added: "170,000<ref name="Victor"/>". There are two problems with it:

  • Roudentorf states "according to local Greeks [bla bla bla]", which means that (1) this is not his estimate and he does not endorse it and (2) this is an estimation from locals, which cannot estimate something like this.
  • This number is about the Chams in Albania, not about the Chams worldwide.
    • By the way Roudentorf citation is not put in. As always the care of Athenean and co, is not to maintain a good article, but to make it look as a fooly article.

2. In "first presence" subsection of history section there is removed a reference and replaced with a {{fact}} template, making it look like this:

  • "This southward migratory process of Albanian tribes, which began during the late 10th and 11th centuries[citation needed], would continue: Epirus at the time had a mixed population, with Slavs and Greeks living and cultivating the fertile lowlands, while the mountains were inhabited by Albanian and Vlach pastoralists.[citation needed]"
  • The reference that was removed said "But even in this region and in Epirus at the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century the valleys and plains were inhabited by the Greeks and Slavs, while the Albanians and the Arumani occupied only the mountains." A quite clear POV aproach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cham_Albanians&action=edit&section=124 3. On Pashalik of Janina subsection, there is removed the source of Fleming, replaced again by a {{fact}} template. The inline of Fleming, is on page 59 of her book "When, however, Ali in the last years of life found himself opposed by the sultan`s troops, he managed to bring to life an anti-Ottoman coalition, gaining the Souliotes` support in part through an appeal to shared Albanian origins." Again a POV aproach.


4. On the Greek state subsection there is added "The Albanian government complained that Muslim Chams were discriminated by Greek authorities, and they did not have the right to vote, despite being Greek citizens.<ref name = Victor>", removing <ref name = Diplomacy> source. The last source states that Chams did not have the right to vote and not that Albania complainted, while on Roudentorf I found no such thing.

5. On Greco-Turkish war subsection there was removed this sentence: "The real problems between the Greek state and the Cham citizens came only after the Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1922.<ref name = Victor/>", living the section as an idiot one, since it starts "At the conclusion of the war,bla bla bla", without any war mentioning lol. As always the care of Athenean and co, is not to maintain a good article, but to make it look as a fooly article.

About the rest, i.e. WWII issues, I will comment after we clear this issue. The lead needs a new consensus and it can be reached only if there is a NPOV article firstly. So the lead should be restored to the consensus one.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

About my positions on these issues:

Rudomentof 170,000

He says: [[5]] The Cham refugees set up associations and clubs. These have been revitalized after the collapse of the communist regime in Albania. According to the local officials they claim that the original Chams were 30,000 to 35,000 and that today their descendants number close to 170,000.

  1. Suppose it's clear that the local officials are the Albanian ones (and 'they' means the Cham clubs and associations), also the number of 30,000-35,000 is adopted Cham associations (off course not by Greek officials).
  2. The number is about the descendants of the 30,000-35,000 Chams (Muslim Chams), not only the descendants living now in Albania. Quite clear, its about all the muslim Chams today.
  3. I've tried at least 3 times to fix that source in the box. Could be some 'disturbing bot', I'll fix the source again.

10th-11th cent. migration

The source is a book of 1918 and it claims Albanian presence in the 10th century. It's opposing some fundamentals about Albanian origins (see Origin of the Albanians). The first clear Albanian presence is in ca. 1040, before that we can't be sure about Albanian presence somewhere. We have lots of recent books describing the origins of Albanians (opposing that view), and the early presence in Epirus (like this [[6]]) why should we rely on a book of 1918 that belongs to museum?

Pashalik-Flemming

This part needs a careful rewording, 'through an appeal' doesn't mean 'most probably'.

Interwar period

Rudometof again gives some details about the revenues, the overlords (I have already mentioned some part), the League of nations that turned down the Albanian demands (piece of information that needs to be added). I also see that (p. 157):

The Albanian government complained that the Greek government was persecuting the Albanian minority. There was little evidence of direct sate persecution...

So, why should it be POV, the sentence states the situation quite simply. Also, the revenues and the overlods can be mentioned both in interwar and ottoman period.

Pop. exchange lead

Agree to add something in the lead, a general comment, but not to source it with a wrong book. (Rudomentof states a number of problems before the exchange, so the sentence was virtually wrong-sourced).

Other proposals

  1. About the Interwar period there is an interesting source [[7]], just noticed the following points:
  • most people (Chams) had no idea of their origin or preferences beyond their local religious affiliations (also in Rudomentof p. 182:'did not appear to have a clear-cut understanding on their national affiliation....considered themselves Muslims')
  • Chams were in fact divided amongst themselves as to where their loyalties lay
  • Italian and Albanian delegates at the Lausanne Conference made a strong case that the Chams primarily self-identified as Albanian nationals (a dubious claim)-the article 'avoids' to mention that type claim.
  • According again to Rudomentof, Robertson [[8]], p. 200:

Initially the Chams were to be part of the greek-turkish exchange, but the Albanian state asked for exemption...

the article states:

Although they were not officially part of the exchange,...

Exactly the opposite.

  1. WWii
  • The sequence is ok: collaboration-resistance-expulsion. We need some sources and inlines about Cham resistance (when did it started? what does Kretsi say and where exactly?)
  1. Present

About the present Cham issue, except from the Cham demonstrations, we need to mention how this issue is politically used by both governments? According to King [[9]] the Cham Issue is considered a 'counter issue' for Albanian government in diplomatic relations with Greece. Moreover there is a growing interest after the Kosovo issue is kinda 'solved'.Alexikoua (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also want to mention that F.M. Meyer's work is translated in 6 languages (also Albanian, Greek and off course English), unfortunately only the original (German) version is on google books.Alexikoua (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Chams-Winnifrith

Winnifrith's research about Albanian communities in Epirus was once included in the article, I believe it should be re-included (don't remember if this was deleted due to consensus. obviously not)Alexikoua (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My response:

Rudomentof 170,000

Rudomentof does not endorse this number, which is Kallivertakis one, a Greek author. Also, if this number was true, than it just does not include Chams in Greece and Turkey, who are not descendants of the refugees. For both those reasons, it has no place in there.

10th-11th cent. migration

You are propably right, we have to find something new on that.

Pashalik-Flemming

It is not just "through an apeal", because Fleming state that Souliotes supported Ali (partly) because of his appeal. So it needs a new rewording.

Interwar period

This is quite simple. The question is: Where they deprived from the right to vote, or was this just a complain from Albania? <ref name = diplomacy states that they did not have the right to vote. Does Roudentorf says something else? I couldnt find it. If no, than this is not a complain from Albania, but just a fact.

Pop. exchange lead

It is just a sentence; the real problems of course came after that: the pop. exchange, the properties, the collaboration, the expulsion, et.al. Is the Moon Green?

Other proposals

I agree that we may add it. About Mayer I will find a way to read it.

Orthodox Chams-Winnifrith

Winnfrith just states that he could not find any Albanian-speaking in the towns he visited. Of course this is not an estimation, nor a study.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sum up again:

Rudomentof 170,000

  • The sentence is quite clear 'they' means Cham organizations, 'local officials' means Albanian officials. Kallivretakis? suppose u r kidding me, there is a source more: Biberaj? Even if it was Kalivretakis alone, it is not a good argument to remove that (it's also adopted by Rud anyway). So please let it stay, a secondary source is much more reliable than the 440,000 argument taken directly by some Cham organizations.
  • He also says that 'the original Chams were 30,000-35,000' did I need to add something more? the 'original' means the ones the lived there before gone away (before going everywhere, U.S., Turkey too). So the argument isn;t enough, Rudomentof doesn't say 'some originals that remained till WWii', but all originals, obviously before the first wave of 'migration' (ca. 1923). (About the expulsion of 1945 number Rud. explains that in the next lines)

Pashalik-Flemming

Proposal: However, when Ali Pasha's rowing power came under attack from the Sultan's army, he forged an alliance with the Souliotes most probably due to his appeal based on shared ethnic origins.(or something similar)

Pop. exchange lead

Proposal: (something general and brief like:) The pop.ex. affected the Cham pop. besides worsing Greek-Albanian relation that period. (doesn't need specific source, details on the rest of the section)

Interwar period

  • The Chams didn't had the right to vote: is a specific statement
  • There was no prove of direct state persecution: is a general statement, concerns a number of issues according the Cham community. Actually it's the conclusion of all the Cham related interwar issues.
  • Both are welcomed.

Orthodox Chams-Winnifrith

Actually it's a research (and a recent one): 'I tried unsuccessfully in 1994 to find Albanian speakers in Filiates, Paramithia and Margariti. The coastal villages near Igoumenitsa have been turned into tourist resorts. There may be Albanian speakers in villages inland'. Are there Albanians that dont speak Albanian there? Moreover the (up to) 40,000 number is based on linguistic criteria. The ethnicity criterion is mainly based on the linguistic one (unless some book says that although the don't speak a single Albanian word they feel still for some reason Albanians)

The rest is ok, I'm happy we agree on specific points.Alexikoua (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets see

On Roudentorf, Kallivertakis is sourcing the number, Biberaj is sourcing a statement. It is not based on Chams organization, cause there is at least a census of Chams, which puts them 205,000 in 1991, only in Albania. So, an estimation could not be under 205.000 only in Albania, if it was really based on Albanian organization. The real problem is that Roudentorf does not endorse it but just cites it. So it cannot be there.

About Fleming, I propose: "However, Souliotes formed an allience with Ali Pasha, after he came under attack from the Sultan's army, partly due to their shared ethnic origins."

On Pop. exchange, I think the prior version, was brief and accuarate. We may leave it without a reference. It is quite obvious.

On the right to vote, I agree with you, but that section is not about "general comments", but about specific ones. So, if there is no one who says something opposite, diplomacy`s ref should go back.

Winnfrith says "There may be Albanian speakers in villages inland", also he says "I tried unsucsfully...", which puts out that this is not a study, but a field research, which gave no results. We do not know how much Winnfrith tried, and he is not willing to say that, most propably because this is not a study. In every case he makes its clear that "There may be Albanian speakers in villages inland", which gives us no clear picture again. Thus, we should rely on certain figures we have, from studies on this topic.

Also, the lead should go back to its consensus status, until a new is found in the talk page.

Do you agree?Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • On Rudomentof, he says they claim... (obviously not Kalivretakis). It's not our job to judge if they or he is wrong (Where do u find that it's sayd by Kalivretakis and not Biberaj? Rud. says nothing specificaly). He says 'they', obviously Rud. believes that 'they' said that (of course he is not in a position to count them one by one as every author, moreover he does not question that number).
  • Fleming: he obviously says something about Ali's 'appeal' based on a common ethnicity hypothesis and needs to be mentioned (why not adding excactly what flemming says?).
  • Interwar: why not general statements? a section's lead needs always such statements.
  • Winnifrith: He is quiet carefull in his research methodology, especially about minorities. If he says that, I dont see a reason not to believe him (it's not our job here). He doesn't say something about field or trivial research. He says exactly that: may be Albanian speakers in villages inland', 'I tried unsuccessfully'. Actually its not our job to judge him or any other, if he 'really tried hard', that's other people's job. If he is ok with wp:rs (he is), he is good to be added.Alexikoua (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've checked also this [[10]], its says something about involvement in GDA (Greek Democratic Army) in 1947-8.


Come on, Rudomentof, says "locals claim" citing "Kalivertakis". You can find it because after that sentence there is a "(Kalivertakis:1994)". This is gaming the system. Rud says that according to locals (cited by Kalivertakis) bla bla bla, while locals (if they are Albanians) claim totally something different. So at least they are nto Albanians. Come on, its quite clear.
Ok, lets add Fleming inline.
We are not speaking about a general statement, but about a specific one: did they have the right to vote? Diplomacy says no, Rudentof says nothing about the right to vote.
Winnfrith says that "there may be Albanians inland", and I say that they may be 500,000. Whats the prob with it. Winnfrith says nothing about an estimation. The only estimation we have is Vickers.
About Mincheva, it is facticly Kentriotis, so he should not be used in WWII section, ok?
About Atheneans concerns, I am removing his clarify tags, cause they have inlines in there, so i dont understand whats the problem. Also, I am reinserting the prior version of the lead which was a consensus one.
Also, I need a inline from Winfrith statement that Chams in ALbania were given homes in Greek villages. I tried to find it on snippet view, unsucesfully.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
About the lead, I don't know if you noticed, but the article has changed considerably in the last few days. The lead should be a summary of the article, and since the article has changed, so should the lead. Thus the old lead will simply not do anymore. --Athenean (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Rudometof (p. 182) let's see what he exactly says: The Cham refugees set up associations and clubs. These have been revitalized after the collapse of the communist regime in Albania. According to the local officials they claim that the original Chams were 30,000 to 35,000 and today that the descendants number close to 170,000.

Local officials: Alexikoua: says this means Albanian officials (where the Cham refugees set up their assoc. and clubs in Albania). Balkanian's word: Greek officials (where the Chams original resided).

They: Alexikoua: says this means Cham associations and clubs. Balkanian's word: Kallivretakis, or some other Greek authors.

Also want to add that the 30,000-35,000 number was never adopted or claimed by Greek authors.

  • Interwar period: Rudometof states both (p. 157):
  1. little evidence of direct state persecution
  2. and about the elections: 'overtime the list of complains was extended to the Cham's effective denial of their of their right to get elected in local elections'.

Daut

Seems that the entire bibliography disagrees with Vickers about that (she's used on that, especially considering ancient history...). Expect from Fisher, who doesn't make an detailed description of the events, at least 8 author agree that the pre-war 'Cham resistance' leader argument was just Italian Fascist propaganda.Alexikoua (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Those sources you added are actuallly based on the official greek statement for Daut Hoxha. So really its just like reposting the same greek source in 8 different books--Sarandioti (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the entire bibliography on that topic, on googlebooks. Off course it's not the 'official Greek statement', you have to read the books before making comments.Alexikoua (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Suppose it's ok to make the changes then. --Athenean (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Vicker's source about Daut

Ever thought where Vickers did found that 'Daut' is a Cham Albanian resistance leader (?). It's obvious, according to her book [[12]], p. 207. The source is the famous novel: Captain Correli's mandoline. The novel, really writes it, [[13]], actually it says that cpt Correli, didn't believe that Fascist propaganda (on the other hand Vickers believed that). Typical misuse of primaries by Vickers.

The other inline about Petiffer's 'Blue guide to Albania', doesn't mention a word about D. Hohxa...Alexikoua (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Medieval states"

I just noticed something which had escaped me until now. The article makes much of the medieval Albanian Principalities of Arta and Argyrokastro, but does not connect them with the Chams in any way. In fact as far as I can tell, these principalities have nothing to do with the Chams and in fact predate the Chams. By reading the article it is not clear to me what these principalities have to do with Chams. Were they ruled by Chams? Inhabited by Chams? Gave rise to the Chams? Furthermore, while the article mentions the first presence of Albanians in Epirus, it says nothing about the first mention of the Chams as a dialectological group. When are the Chams mentioned for the first time? When did the Cham dialect emerge as a distinct dialect? I would imagine a reader on the Chams would be interested in such things, and that an article on the Chams (especially one that tries to be GA) would be able to answer these questions. However, it seems to me the main purpose of this section is to equate Albanians in Epirus with Chams. Not only that, but the entire Medieval States section is largely unsourced. Unless new sources are brought to tie in the medieval principalities with the Chams, the Medieval section needs to be removed or at least re-written. --Athenean (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for the Ottoman rule and the next two sections. Hardly any mention of the Chams at all. All sorts of irrelevant details are mentioned, like Gjergj Kastrioti's resistance to Ottoman rule, yet hardly anything about the Chams themselves. It's almost like these parts of the history section are a general history of the Albanian presence in Epirus. They shouldn't be. This article is about the Chams, a specific dialectological subgroup. Except a short background on the Albanian presence in Epirus, the history section should really just focus on the Chams. --Athenean (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've opened that kind of conversation before. It seems that the way this sections is written is misleading, no wonder it was a copy-paste job from other articles. To sum up:

  • This medieval states where not centered in Chameria/Tsamouria, moreover they controlled a very small proportion of it and only for a brief time period. Paramythia was under Buas' some 15 years& the so called principality of Gjirokaster (which is a misname) controlled only Filiates for some 5-10 years. Actually the Tsamouria was under the control of the Italians, whether venetians or the rulers of Ioannina or some other Italian states.
  • What's the significant of mentioning every member of the Boua dynasty? Boua Spata and Zenebishi are enough. I believe we should be focused on migration: it says nowhere that the tribe of zenevezaioi settled in Thesprotia or that the tribe of Bouas left Epirus after that period or what was the relation of the albanians with the local population?
  • Same with the Pashalik of Ioannina, the article concerns chams and chameria/tsiamouria. Why we have to describe Ali's politics and character? Instead we should focus on the region. What did the muslim beys in that region (Even Vickers says something about), relations of the beys with Ali or with the christians etc.Alexikoua (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Noticed that this sentence, in medieval section, is kinda weird:

This migration wave formed the basis of the Albanian populations in Greece: in Epirus, the evolution of a distinct dialect would eventually differentiate the Chams from their northern cousins

What does it mean? Who were their cousins? It seems that the quality that part is below wiki standards, some rewording would be necessary.Alexikoua (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous Greek POV in this article

Sorry folks, but this is just terrible. The whole article is written from a Greek POV, to the extent that I cannot even begin to identify specific issues to address. It is just completely unacceptable to serious historians of the region, since its bias is obvious and irremediable. I suggest you scrap it and start again, because as it stands it is nothing more than Greek propaganda. Xenos2008 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Odd, since most of it was written by an Albanian, and has been attacked repeatedly for being the exact opposite of what you claim. Unless you are engaging in some sort of weird sarcasm, I guess there's no way to satisfy everyone's POV... Now, if you have any specific and above all constructive criticism to make, you're welcome to do so. Otherwise, nice of you to drop by. Constantine ✍ 23:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Odd indeed, but I do not judge the quality of work by its authors. You would not insist that a piece of machinery was well made, simply because its constructors were Japanese... for example. This article is just amateurish: it is overloaded with historical details without proper context, value-laden from a Greek POV, and lacks any sort of pretence of objectivity. If you guys cannot see that, then you have no business writing on WP. Xenos2008 (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, most of these articles are begun by someone with an interest in the matter, regardless of qualifications, and then worked upon by others. No one claimed any "professional" standards here, just a willingness to contribute. Remember, WP is a tertiary source open to all, suitable as a first reference but not as a scholarly treatment on any subject. And, above all, it is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", so if you know better, prove it and rewrite the article. I am for instance in agreement with the "overloaded" point, but just criticizing without doing anything won't improve it. As for the article's POV, comparing an article on such a controversial subject with machinery is missing the point. When you write on a historical subject, your biases tend to become evident. Having participated in this particular one for quite some time, I have a good knowledge of the POVs of its various contributors. Personally I think it is balanced, with all views, and especially that of the Chams, presented. Constantine ✍ 10:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
As Constantine said, this article is mainly written by an Albanian, and presents the Cham perspective in its entirety. There may be POV issues by both sides, but labeling the whole article as a Greek propaganda is definitely unjust. If you have specific concerns, objections and proposals please raise them. But generalizations and calls to distinguished FA editors to leave the project because you do not like what they tell you do not constitute the definition of a constructive attitude.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that uneducated Greek nationalists think that their view of history is all that counts. We all know the crap that greeks are full of: it is such a pity that you get away with in on WP. The rest of the world laughs at your backward mentality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.207.157 (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just sign with your regular WP account???--Michael X the White (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sameis

Hi Alex, I am sorry but I cannot see a consensus about the Sameis hypothesis, and more than that, I do not understand what a consensus could be, when it is inline sourced by Babiniotis. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

On another note, the sentence you removed is taken verbatim from Meyer, who also says "large parts of the Muslim Cham pop....". Note he says the Muslim Chams, not Chams as a whole. --Athenean (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[[14]] about Sameis. This tribe was just hypothetical in order to support a linguistic connection. Since there isn't such tribe this version remains hypothetical (non-historical). Off course if some historical source talks about 'Sameis' (have checked but no results) we can re-add it.Alexikoua (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dances

The Dance of Zalongo and the Tsamiko are not Cham dances. They should be removed from the article. Only the dance of Osman Taka is Cham. Also, those medieval Albanian lords pre-date the formation of the Cham dialect, as such they cannot really be considered Chams. They should be removed as well. --Athenean (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Albanians (Chams)

After checking this source, given by User:Balkanian in Souliotes article

I've found these points of potential interest:

  • Speaking Albanian, for example, is not a predictor with respect to other matters of identity.
  • There are also long standing Christian Albanian (or Arvanitika speaking) communities both in Epirus and the Florina district of Macedonia with unquestioned identification with the Greek nation.
  • The Muslim Albanian landowning beys and farmers who were a distinct feature of the local order...
  • The Tschamides were both Christians and Muslims by the late 18th century (in the 20th century, Cham applies to Muslim only).

This source is in accordance with the majority of the present bibliography (imri, Rudometof etc).Alexikoua (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Tschamides (Chams) were both Christian and Muslim. Stop. Guildenrich (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Suppose you have to convince Dr Hart on that.Alexikoua (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

May 2009 Good Article review

Orphaned references in Cham Albanians

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cham Albanians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Document":

  • From Expulsion of Cham Albanians: Cham Anti-Fascist Committee (1946). "Document of the Committee of Chams in exile, on Greek persecution of the Chams, submitted to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations in 1946" (in Albanian and English). Tirana, Albania: Cham Anti-Fascist Committee. Retrieved 2009-03-31.
  • From Anti-Fascist Committee of Cham Immigrants: "Document of the Committee of Cham Albanians in exile, on Greek persecution of the Chams, submitted to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations in 1946". Online version

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

On numbers

There are two points on number that I want to figure out and that I think that we should close in here.

1. Antonina Zhelyazkova. Urgent anthropology. Vol. 3. Problems of Multiethnicity in the Western Balkans. International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations. Sofia 2004. ISBN 954-8872-53-6, p. 67. is put again in this page as a reference. There was an extensive discussion in this talk page Talk:Cham_Albanians/Archive_2 where the result of it was not to put in the page a source that is not a secondary source, no references are given in there. As such it does not fulfill the criterias established in WP:RS. Unless somebody proves that it fulfills WP:RS, I will remove this source.

2. Roudometof, Victor (2002), Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian question, Westport, Connecticut, United States of America: Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 182, ISBN 0-275-97648-3, http://books.google.com/books?id=Xoww453NVQMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=, retrieved 2009-03-31 says The Cham refugees set up associations and clubs. These have been revitalized after the collapse of the communist regime in Albania. According to the local officials they claim that the original Chams were 30,000 to 35,000 and that today their descendants number close to 170,000. This means that cannot be used as a source in the total number of the Chams, but only in the number living in Albania.

Unless somebody provides proofs about these two problems, I will remove the first and will reorder the second. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#No_bibliography.2C_secondary_source whethear a source without bibliography and references can be a secondary source in wiki. Please do not make it a ground-battle based on ethnic lines. I have also put again Vickers number as an upper number on Chams in Greece, we cannot just avoid it because Harts says something else. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually about #1 it was you that insisted not to add this as a refercence. It was not a 'result' but your personal opinion

About #2, that your personal claim. The author says total number and doesn't limit this number in Albania.

Moreover the fact that the Albanian (Arvanitie) speaking groups in northwestern Greece are identified as part of the Greek nation is cited [[15]]. It also says that the term Chams reffers only to muslims in 20th century:

"Speaking Albanian, for example, is not a predictor with respect to other matters of identity.", "There are also long standing Christian Albanian (or Arvanitika speaking) communities both in Epirus and the Florina district of Macedonia with unquestioned identification with the Greek nation. ", "The Tschamides were both Christians and Muslims by the late 18th century (in the 20th century, Cham applies to Muslim only)."

And please avoid this massive 'correction' of content as per wp:own, [[16]]. Alexikoua (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also according to this [[17]], there were 85 Chams in Greece (1991).Alexikoua (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

About the first one, it was not me, it was you and Deucalionite. Nevertheless, we need an opinion on whethear sources with no reference and bibliography at all may be used as secondary in wiki.
2. About Roudometof, he for sure does not list in there, those Chams that were deported to Turkey in the pop exchange and neither those in Greece. So, please propose a solution.
3. You are providing only a source in there, do you forget Vickers, Banfi, Euromosaic, Kretsi, et.al.? You are selecting the sources man, one source can not be used solely when there are others contradicting them. So, you have put out all those four sources, because you do like another source????Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


About Roudometof I'm sorry but he doesn't limit his number geographically. Anyway it's the minimum number mentioned in the box.

On #3 actually it's only Vickers that declares that ethnic (orthodox) Albanians exist now in NW Greece. Banfi, Euromosaic, Kretsi describe linguistic groups (billingual or monolingual) they did not mention ethnic minorities. On the other hand: # Laurie Kain Hart # American Ethnologist, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 196-220, describes both the linguistic and ethnic background of these communities.

Also according to these: [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], it is clear that Vickers adopts a clear pro-Albanian bias. Since this fact is not confirmed by something else, I see no reason why we should create a non-existend ethnic minority according to the rest of the bibliography.

On #1 Deucalionite is indef banned, so we will never learn why he supported this claim.Alexikoua (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a clear tag team between Athenean and you, who keep reverting sourced material with different argumentation, just to put me in edit war. I will not do it. But per the sources: I have asked opinion about the source. Lets see the responses. About Rud. he for sure did not project Chams of Turkey, as he is sourcing to the local officials about the local population. Does it seem to you local population in Turkey???????? About Vickers, it is not only Vickers. Banfi states clearly "The Arvanites of Northwestern Greece are part of the modern Albanian nation". Vickers is a Reliable Source, and just because some call her pro-albanian, does not make her unusable in here. Nevertheless, is there any argument against the upper number of Chams in Greece?Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you give me the exact quote in french of Banfi's? I tried to find out but no results.

As per Rud. I repeat that the quote is: "According to the local officials they claim that the original Chams were 30,000 to 35,000 and that today their descendants number close to 170,000." So 170,000, according to him (and them) are the descentants of the 30,000-35,000, -also according to them -, Chams before any major migration-expulsion.

I can't confirm your claim on that, this number does not exclude specific countries.Alexikoua (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Banfi meets wp:verify the upper number in Greece should stay, else it needs to go.Alexikoua (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


the numbers are WAY exaggerated (250,000 chams in Albania from the 20-25 thousand expelled + the few that were already in Albania? and theres always the matter of intermarriage, someone might be "1/8 cham", does he count?) and i believe the same to be true of the numbers in the "Greeks in Albania" (95,000-200,000(!) especially today?) article. itd be nice to discuss BOTH sometime87.202.12.122 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Kretsi

I really don't understand what's the meaning of this change [[21]]. The author (Kretsi) states it clear, they were 'very rarely' (p. 175) called that way and very rarely is something diferrent than 'sometimes'. @Balkanian, please you need to explain what you do, else it can be considered highly tendentious. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, you`re right. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Great source

I found a great source for Chams by a Greek author. [22]. I have no time now, but if any one can cite him it would be great. Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What about creating a subsection on the electoral behaviour of Chams in the third section of History, based on the above book. It would be quite intresting.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Per the source I have (Sako, Zihni. "Mbledhës të hershëm të folklorit Shqiptar (1635-1912)", Tirana, 1962) the Dance of Zalongo is a dance commemorated by Cham Albanians, per Souliotes page, they had a Cham origin, or were Chams. So, I will add the Dance of Zalongo in the article, whatsoever, as it is commermorated by them, is a song about it, etc. etc.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you a link or something to verify this stuff?Alexikoua (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not think it is online, at least in google books. The book contains the verse that is on the page, as well as that it is a Cham song.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we need to find out some online stuff. By the way, it appears that this Bua Thopia you created, based on off line material, ruled over a completely fictious principality (during 1418-1434 this region was under Ottoman control). I've also informed wp:albanian that in a couple of days we will have an afd situation, unless something real about him is found.Alexikoua (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I see you already added the 'Dance of Zallogo' in some Cham related stuff. Just inform you that in case this can't meet wp:verify it will be removed.Alexikoua (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I will scan tomorrow the page, if I have free time. Nevertheless, it cannot be outed, because as Eleutherios Venizelos says: "One of the finest pages in the history of Greece records " the dance of Zalongo, where the women of Souli, whose mother tongue was Albanian", and we know what Albanian was it, ;).Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You know that this was part of the assimilation propaganda towards the Chams (see Banfi, about assimilation during Venizelos period).Alexikoua (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
See the source below, its better than Banfi and says that point. However, Venizelos was just a pro-Greek source, there are plenty of NPOV sources on that. Also, there is a point of mine on Xhavella. I created also the page Party of the Chameria. Can you take a look? Thnx, Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Xhavella? what's this?Alexikoua (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the Albanian (as well as phonetic) equivalent of Tzavelas. Actually, I wrotte it that way because I was in a hurry, but is there any problem with that?Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it's ok, I thought that it was something completely irrelevant with wikipedia.Alexikoua (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pashalik of Janin section

This section is only tangential to the article (Ali Pasha was not a Cham), and the article is already insanely long. I have removed it, and the flow of the article is basically unaffected, as it was mostly a digression. Athenean (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Added source

I entered another source of Vickers in the bibliography. [23]. Might be used for Northern Epirus too. Time to bring this article back to GA. --Sulmues (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two dead links in note 2 and 3. These two articles by Vickers are, however, linked correctly in the Bibliography section (Post war politics . . . ) I do not know how to correct this, but I am sure someone else can do it in zero time. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.40.10 (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes the "Nazi occupational forces" in the first line of the "First explusion" part with "left-wing ELAS", since the sourse given states that they were asked to join in fithing the Left-Wing ELAS and not the nazi accoupational forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.101.247 (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

POV POV and more POV

I have some four years that I have written nothing on this page, which I used to be a main contributor. I read it now again, and I realized that this is a page in which Greek POV and Albanian POV are fighting each other and at the end, nothing can be understood. Both POV should be altered. And, that is why, I intend to rewritte it. I would appriciate if we could form a group of a number of editors, to discuss any change that is needed; and there are plenty of them. Just for a flavor, more than half of the lead has nothing to do with Cham Albanians and speaks about greek muslims.

Ottoman-era Greek converts to Islam further east, namely Greek Macedonia and Thrace, usually assimilated into the Turkish-speaking Ottoman Muslim population, because a sine qua non of Greek identity is and always has been membership of the Greek Orthodox church.[8] An exception were the Greek Muslimconverts of 17th and 18th century western Greek Macedonia usually referred to as Vallahades, who like the Chams retained their native language and cultural identity.[9] However, in contrast to Greek Muslims in Ottoman Macedonia the mainly Albanian Chams did not face any dilemma over their identity or relations with other Albanian tribes, because as in the case of Ottoman Bosnians, the vast majority of Albanians adopted Islam in the Ottoman period, while most Greeks remained Greek Orthodox, even in Ottoman Macedonia and Epirus.[8]

So, I would be delighted, if I find out that others are intrested on this topic too.Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:TALKNEW "Keep headings neutral: ....Don't be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cham_Albanians/Archive_4&oldid=1073757502"