Jump to content

Talk:Expulsion of Cham Albanians/Archive 3

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

Copy-pasted material and endless repetition

Simply copy pasting lines from source (Baltsiotis in this case) to the article isn't a constructive way of contribution and raises serious copy-vio issues especially if the same piece of information is repeated throughout a single section.Alexikoua (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have been trying to explain this but they don't listen. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Alexikoua: Please clarify what you consider endless repetition. Also, the bolded part makes no sense in its current form (your edit), it's an orphan sentence.
The atrocities that took place do not appear to have been sanctioned by Greek government officials or the EDES leadership, and there is strong evidence that, EDES leadership at least in private, disproved of the atrocities. Officials were both indifferent towards it and received its results favorably <-- What?
Compare it with how it was before you edited it:
While one could conclude that the state didn't officially orchestrate the expulsion, officials were both indifferent towards it and received its results favorably
Moreover, there's absolutely no reason to remove the above. It's directly related to the topic at hand and it hardly constitutes as "endless repetition". DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@SilentResident: You mean the one time you tried to explain how "expulsion" should be preferred over "ethnic cleansing" since the latter would be considered "close paraphrasing"? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Alexikoua: Why did you remove: "While one could conclude that the state didn't officially orchestrate the expulsion, it remained unruffled by what had occurred and considered the expulsion an act of salvation for Greece rather than an unfortunate turn of events"? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Re: Apart from the paraphrasing issue, the meaning of this part is the same with the very next sentence: "Officials were both indifferent towards it and received its results favorably." i.e. the state/state officials of the Greek state saw this as a salvation (or "favourably", which is more npov compared to salvation).Alexikoua (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
There are no paraphrasing issues with that sentence. You are removing perfectly valid material. I could point to at least several other sentences that are more of an "issue" with regards to paraphrasing. Moreover, "Officials were both indifferent towards it and received its results favorably" is an orphan sentence. It does not belong after the sentence which states that the government didn't sanction the atrocities, because it clearly does not make sense.
Your addition of Roudometof, which you've previously described as "obsolete" was duly noted (so was your re-placement of tags). If that's not WP:POINT, then I don't know what is. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
A perfectly valid source per wp:ACADEMIC and wp:SECONDARY can't be considered obselete because it doesn't fit your personal taste. Under the same rationale we can remove Baltsiotis too since more in-depth and up to date research exist (not to mention that Baltsiotis' work isn't publish by western publisher and more important this journal is published by a non-democratic government).Alexikoua (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
On Baltsiotis, very wrong. The article he published [1] is in a peer reviewed Western journal published in France [2][3] on issues relating to Turkish and Muslim issues etc [4]. Just because the journal has in its title the word Turkish does not warrant its removal from here. You have to find a deficiency with the scholar etc for that to happen. Moreover on Roudementof, his work on the persecution is obsolete as Baltsiotis cites the Greek government archive which notes things of that nature . However in that same work other things he refers to are not obsolete and therefore can be used. His reference to regarding how the Greek government viewed things is applicable. The Greek government though not ordering what happened, did not express opposition to what occurred in the aftermath. No use of the word “salivation” please.Resnjari (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
About his work on the persecution is obselete is just nothing more than a personal opinion in order to fit someone's national taste. Roudometof is a highly credible scholar. Off course the "argument" that he ignored Greek state archives is unfounded (I see plenty of references from the state archive in this book). "Salvation" should be avoided, as I've already stated.Alexikoua (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
When Roudometof compiled his scholarship he used Michalopoulos to write that part. I have the book right beside me also and we can go through this sentence by sentence. Roudometof used the archive for parts where access was available and that when he used them. Its like the Turkish archive some things are open while others are closed or have sort of become opened. Things have moved on in that area in relation to Roudometof and Baltsiotis cites the Greek government archive. He also states that he is citing that material material that has not been used in Cham scholarship before. It not personal opinion or taste. Its how scholarship is done. The Greek government archive is becoming available and some scholars are using it.Resnjari (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Its like the Turkish archive some things are open while others are closed or have sort of become opened.? I simply wonder where you base this kind of arguments. As for the "scholarship argument" that's a good argument to remove Baltsiotis, who per Tsoutsoumpis is one of the past authors who According to these scholars, the Greek state had methodically stirred up hostility between the two communities and utilised «an instiga­tive approach to increase hatred between the communities in order to successfully attain the aforementioned aims» . Thus, allow me to remove in the same fashion parts based on Baltiotis that are in disagreement with up to date research with Tsoutsoumpis (by the was Tsoutsoumpis describes in detail the problematic nature of cases that state that the expulsion was the result of some kind of state policy).Alexikoua (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're having a discussion about Roudementof (well, I kind of do), especially when Alexikoua previously conceded that he is obsolete with regards to state persecution. Understandably so considering the abundance of sources that actually corroborate Baltsiotis. Also, Tsoutsoumpis doesn't have nearly the same credentials as Baltsiotis, and if you think that one obscure scholar such as Tsoutsoumpis suddenly makes Baltsiotis obsolete then clearly Wikipedia is in big trouble. I can't even imagine the amount of articles that need to be updated because some obscure scholar recently published a disagreeing piece in an obscure journal. You need to show that scholarship has changed, and this is done by citing several reputable sources. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for some serious arguments apart from hypothetical positions (removals of SECONDARY and ACADEMIC). By the way, I assume you don't object to add the League of Nations decision, i.e. that the accusations about this so-called persecution were dismissed and the LoN agreed with Greek positions.Alexikoua (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The positions of international and Intergovernmental organisations should be noted. -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Quotations in citations

I have removed the quotations from the citations in this article. The material comprised 40 percent of the article, extremely excessive and necessary. Including this material violates our non-free content policy. The material remains visible in the page history in case anybody needs to refer back. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Region Chameria vs region Northern Epirus used in infobox

It's really weird that the same editors who struggle to remove Northern Epirus from anything related to the Greek minority in Albania push the Chameria agenda in cases where the term Chameria wasn't used in local administration. The incidents described in this article occurred at a period where 'Chameria' was not the name of the local administrative unit: From 1937 we have Thesprotia prefecture. According to the same rationale we should also add Northern Epirus in Greek minority related infoboxes, lets name this one: [[5]]Alexikoua (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Not only that, but the same user is trying to remove any mention of the collaboration between Chams and the Axis (even at high visibility articles, such as this [6]), always using the same excuse, that it's "not NPOV", even though it is incredibly strongly sourced. I've reported him to WP:AN3 for a 3RR violation. Khirurg (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Tsoutsoumpis (2015):

The ethnic infighting that took place in Thesprotia between the Greek and Albanian communities during the Axis occupation has been described as a forgotten conflict. Indeed, until recently, the only existing studies were those of local «organic» intellectuals; schoolteachers, senior civil servants, local politicians and retired military officers. According to these authors, the Albanian Muslim minority collaborated collectively first with the Italian and then with the German occupiers in the hope that an Axis victory would lead to the eventual creation of a Greater Albanian state. The foremost purpose of these studies was to justify the violence perpetrated against the minority, and to back Greek irredentist claims made towards Albania. Unsurprisingly, such accounts adopted a rabidly nationalist and anti-Albanian stance. The Albanians were presented as «brutes» who were driven to violence and collaboration by «their savage instincts» and their natural propensity towards violence and loot. Subsequently, the violence instigated by Greek guerrillas and civilians during the liberation was downplayed, while the involvement of the minority in collaboration and acts of violence against the Greek population was considerably exaggerated. T. Papamanolis argued characteristically that «immediately after the German attack the entire minority, men, women and children started to persecute Christian fellow countrymen»4 More recently, a new generation of scholars has begun to re-examine the events of the period. These studies, which cast a critical eye over the existing historiography, do not dispute the collaboration between the minority and the Axis military, rather, they argue that its extent and involvement was grossly overstated. Accordingly, the studies claim that the violent expulsion of the minority was not merely a result of its collaboration with the forces of occupation, but rather «an outcome of state policy…which was embedded in the prevailing nationalistic ideology of the Interwar period» and has as its aim the eradication of the minority. According to these scholars, the Greek state had methodically stirred up hostility between the two communities and utilised «an instigative approach to increase hatred between the communities in order to successfully attain the aforementioned aims». Although these studies have offered important insights on the role of the Greek state and the relations between the Axis military and the minority, they largely disregarded the complexity of state policies vis-à-vis the minority, and also overlooked the role of non-state actors and the local dynamics of the conflict.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Thesprotia Prefecture"

I disagree with this term. Instead, I find it would be better to use "Historical Thesprotia" or "Northwestern Epirus" instead. Chameria, including Camlik (Turkish) has been used prior to the Second World War. I do find it funny that nobody has started a talk yet. @Alexikoua @Khirurg @Botushali AlexBachmann (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The events were geographically located in the prefecture of Thesprotia, which is also a well defined administrative region (from 1937 until 2000s). Why do you disagree? Camlik/Resadie were older (1910-1913) administrative terms & irrelevant with the time period described in this article. Alexikoua (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The prefecture had the same territory as the present regional unit, excluding involved territories including Parga. It is misleading. AlexBachmann (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Historical Thesprotia doesn't make much sense, nor does north-western Epirus cover it effectively. The most appropriate term is Chameria. The Cham expulsion occurred wherever Cham Albanians could be found. However, to reach a consensus, we can put 'Chameria, modern northwest Epirus' or something along those lines? Botushali (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The problem is, Chameria does not exist, whereas the prefecture of Thesprotia exists, and also existed back when the expulsion took place. There is absolutely no reason to use the loaded ethno-nationalist irredentist term "Chameria", when "Thesprotia" will do just fine. Khirurg (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Chameria is an historical reality; it is an ethnographic region. Sure, maybe now that the Cham community was wiped out by Greece, the ethnographic identity of Chameria may be all but gone, but back when the expulsion occurred it was very real. Botushali (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to reach consensus through the most objective way, because I know that "Chameria" probably won't go through. That's why I set up those two possible terms. I'd be fine with all of them. AlexBachmann (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Do you agree using "Northwestern Epirus" or "Historical Thesprotia"? AlexBachmann (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Thesprotia was (and is) the official name of the region that time. As such it makes perfectly sense. Chameria is anachronistic, refers to a previous (and very shor) era not to mention irredentism and POV. We should avoid such POV terms and prefer official ones. Take for example Northern Epirus, whould you like Northern Epirus to be added in various infoboxes about the Greek minority? I don't think so.Alexikoua (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Why "historical Thesprotia"? There was a prefecture with that name and expulsion took place in this prefecture.Alexikoua (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay what about "Northwestern Epirus"? I've already explained why Thesprotia alone is insufficient. AlexBachmann (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Even if it is accepted as an argument that during WWII, the pre-WWII prefectures didn't exist - although historiography would strongly disagree with such an assessment - at the time when the expulsion took place, all areas were de facto and de jure under Greek control. Hence it is important for readers to know that these events took place in specific, existing administrative units, not just in an area known as Chameria which doesn't cover the full extent of the events. @AlexBachmann: I don't know but Ioannina isn't part of Chameria, so this suffices to say that the term wouldn't be accurate even as a geographical designation. @Botushali: For readers, it is important to know exactly where specific events took place. --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Parga passed to Thesprotia prefecture in 1937 and remained in Thesprotia pref. during 1944-45 (here the administrative reforms in detail about the municipal unit of Parga: [[8]]). As such all related events to the expulsion happened inside Thesprotia prefecture. Alexikoua (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Alexikoua, the reader does not know that Parga was part of the prefecture nor have not we known until now. It is completely necessary to include Parga or just write "Northwestern Epirus" AlexBachmann (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem with "Northwestern Epirus" is that it lies in Albania, not where the expulsion took place. Khirurg (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
@AlexBachman: Was there any settlement affected outside the Thesprotia prefecture? No. It's also clear that you also agree that the events were limited to this prefecture (Parga was part of it). Please stop stretching the affected area outside Thesprotia prefecture. Either answer which settlement outside the Thesprotia prefecture where affected or avoid wp:IDHT.Alexikoua (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
the reader does not know that Parga was part of the prefecture: we can fix this by making the necessary addition in the text, but adding abstract terms such as 'historical Thesprotia' or 'nw Epirus' is a cheap alternative as we already know the specific region in administrative terms.Alexikoua (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
'Chameria' as a region was also recently added in the lead as a supposedly official term. Everyone understands that this kind of POV should be treated with high precaution.Alexikoua (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Chronological order "is the order in which the events occured, from first to last". I don't know if you are saying the contrary on purpose or you really believe that. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Lede

As already explained at another article, the publication by Gizem Bilgin aytac contains errors [9] (clearly incorrect about Albanians being a majority in southern Epirus). Furthermore, the lede it already way too long and new additions are the last thing needed. For this reason, I have removed this recent addition from there lede [10]. Khirurg (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, Gizem can go, but the attributions to Baltsiotis will remain for now. I will re-add them. I am also placing the reasons in chronological order. Furthermore, I'd argue that everything past the first paragraph of the lede can be practically redistributed amongst the subsequent body paragraphs (implying that they are not already in there), and so the whole issue regarding the length of the lede can be solved. Botushali (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Even if we accept your "chronological order" argument (for the sake of argument), the most recent cause should go first, that's how chronological order works. Btw, edit-warring right after a block is a really bad idea. Khirurg (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Chronological order is the ordering of events from first to last, and the anti-Cham policies outdated the Cham-Axis collaboration, so if there are no further rational concerns, then the order should be changed to follow this. Also, I am not edit warring, I am simply preventing low-quality edits from being pushed through. Are there any concerns on the removal of every paragraph following the first paragraph of the lead to shorten it? Botushali (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The order will not be changed, because the order that makes sense it to have the most recent and most important cause first. And yes you are edit-warring, and on top of that you are passive-aggressively insulting other editors by referring to their edits as "low quality". Maybe you think that's clever, but that will get you nowhere except maybe another block. And no, you will absolutely not remove "every paragraph following the first paragraph". Out of the question. Khirurg (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
For starters, it would be appreciated if you weren't so hostile. Second of all, who are you to evaluate what is the most important cause? As you can read in the article, the major reasoning behind their expulsion is debated by scholars, and so this should be reflected rather than your POV. Chronological means from first to last, and the anti-Cham policies came first. Furthermore, I am trying to solve the issue of the long lede by saying we can redistribute everything after the first paragraph into the subsequent subsections, why that offends you and why you get so emotional over that proposal I have no idea; rather than refusing to try and work out a solution, would you like to explain your reasoning or propose another solution? Botushali (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Chronological order means "most recent first", anything else simply doesn't make sense and is a non-starter. You referred to certain concerns as not being "rational", and certain edits as "low-quality". Can you give some examples of these "low quality" edits and "irrational" concerns? Let's hear it. Btw, the lede was not considered too long until you added a whole bunch of stuff without consensus. So if your recent additions are removed, the lede will be fine. Khirurg (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my initial edit, I added the causes in an order which reflects first what modern historiography discusses and last what older sources, mostly from a Greek post-war (national-ist) perspective discuss. I did so based on what Tsoutsoumpis (2015), a modern Greek historian writes: The ethnic infighting that took place in Thesprotia between the Greek and Albanian communities during the Axis occupation has been described as a forgotten conflict. Indeed, until recently, the only existing studies were those of local «organic» intellectuals; schoolteachers, senior civil servants, local politicians and retired military officers. According to these authors, the Albanian Muslim minority collaborated collectively first with the Italian and then with the German occupiers in the hope that an Axis victory would lead to the eventual creation of a Greater Albanian state. The foremost purpose of these studies was to justify the violence perpetrated against the minority, and to back Greek irredentist claims made towards Albania. Unsurprisingly, such accounts adopted a rabidly nationalist and anti-Albanian stance. The Albanians were presented as «brutes» who were driven to violence and collaboration by «their savage instincts» and their natural propensity towards violence and loot. Subsequently, the violence instigated by Greek guerrillas and civilians during the liberation was downplayed, while the involvement of the minority in collaboration and acts of violence against the Greek population was considerably exaggerated. I found the same description in other works as a confirmation of a paradigm. The point is that in modern historiography, these events are not considered to have happened because of WWII events as Cham Albanian collaborators weren't qualitatively or quantitatively more active than Greek collaborators, many of which in the final stages of war rebranded themselves as "resistance fighters" and were later utilized as the anti-Communist "national army". This is a recap of what I understand about what modern Greek historians discuss and consider significant. Based on just Tsoutsoumpis, I could even argue that the collaboration should be removed from the lead since it's not just contested, but considered discredited as a main cause of the events, but I left it on the lead with the condition that the lead mentions which position it reflects. This is the summary of what Greek historians have to say, so for a complete review we have to read what modern Albanian historians have to say on the subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Except that Tsoutsoumpis 2015 is just a single source, and not "Greek historians". This is a clear case of WP:CHERRY. The Cham collaborationists committed numerous atrocities during their brief reign of terror, all of which are sourced and documented, and this directly led to their expulsion. Btw it would be best if you ceased focusing on the ethnicity of authors. Khirurg (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I never mention the ethnicity of authors as something which determines their reliability. As Tsoutsoumpis does, I'm referring to state schools of historiography (Greek, Albanian) which developed and are still developing around the subject. I spent several days in trying to form an opinion about what modern Greek historiography (as a school) discusses or doesn't discuss, so I think that your opinion doesn't reflect it, but the point is to compare and contrast academic sources, so if other publications of equal academic weight offer other viewpoints, they definitely should be cited. --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Except that you did mention the ethnicity of authors in your post above, and quite a bit, too, anyone can see that. And I don't see any references about "state schools of historiography" in there either (fortunately these things don't exist anymore, we're not in the early 20th century anymore), it seems all you got is Tsoutsoumpis 2015. The collaboration of the Chams with the Axis is well-known, and there is a vast body of literature on it (Mayer, Roudometof to name just a few). Tsoutsoumpis is a minor author with only a dozen publications, not all of them peer-reviewed. What's going on here is a clear case of WP:CHERRY, having found a relatively minor author to rewrite and whitewash an "inconvenient" aspect of national history. Khirurg (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
"National history" is a political construction led by state initiatives, so it doesn't really concern me. Compare & contrast academic sources, follow a correct methodology of investigation - and the rest will follow.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Since this discussion is about the lede, I want to raise an issue here. The sentence in the lede, "collaborated in large parts" [11] is supposedly supported by all the sources cited. I had the impression that this is at least the case here. However, editor Ktrimi991 claims in that diff that this is not the case. In their edit summary, the editor claimed that: "Only a source or two in the article say a "majority"." Can those who added the citations in the first place, or Ktrimi991 themselves (since they seem -judging from their edit summary- to have already checked these sources, thus have access to them), provide the missing quotes from all sources that are currently missing from these citations, so we can verify for ourselves what really is the case here? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    The quotes from Meyer 2008 (The Albanian minority of the Chams collaborated in large parts with the Italians and the Germans.) and Roudometof (During World War II, the majority of Chams sided with the Axis forces) are both in the article. Both of these are top notch sources, and Meyer in particular is the most detailed source on the topic of the collaboration, having written an entire book on it. Khirurg (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
@SR: Those sources you can't access:
Mazower: Several hundred were conscripted into the anticommunist Bal Komitare to act as local gendarmes . From the autumn of 1943 , these armed bands took part alongside the Wehrmacht in burning Greek villages. Such actions, it seems, were not suppported by many of the local beys, nor by the Mufti "Several hundread" is far from "a majority" or "large parts" since tbe Chams were a community of 14k-30k people.
Konidaris: Albanian - speaking Muslims living in the Greek territory of Epirus ( the Chams ) collaborated with the invaders . ... of almost the entire Cham population , many of whom would not have been active collaborators of the axis. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Three sources in the article (Mazower, Channer, Thomopoulos) do not say "majority" or "large parts", so that wording is POV. All sources agree that a part of the community collaborated, with the degree being a matter of dispute. Hence a neutral wording could be "A part of the Chams collaborated, with the degree being a matter of academic dispute". Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
By the way, the article Cham Albanian collaboration with the Axis still says "large parts". I've themed this topic some weeks ago, Khirurg reverted full of haste my edit and ignored my arguments that other sources say otherwise. [1] I guess that is normal. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Ktrimi, thank you for your response. In light of this, and if there are no more sources indicating that "large parts" is a mainstream view, then the sentence you proposed can be used to balance among the different views and inform the readers that there is an academic debate about it. I highly recommend that the word "dispute" in your proposed sentence is replaced with the word "debate" for obvious reasons since it is not proven that the one view is more mainstream than the other for it to be "disputed", nor the disagreements among academics are of legal nature but of academic: "A part of the Chams collaborated, with the degree being a matter of academic debate." --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
It is nor correct to claim that "several hundred" does not represent "large parts". Taking into account that only able-bodied men of military age would have joined the battalions (~10-15% of the 20k community, so 2000-3000 men), "several hundred" is in fact a significant portion. Of course women, children and the elderly would not have joined the battalions. Meyer 2008 is the most in-depth source on the subject and should not just be ignored. Khirurg (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep in mind that there are different views how many Chams lived in Epirus (Some sources go up to 30.000--35.000). 20k is ridiculously dragged down to heighten the percentage of Chams that fought along the Axis side. AlexBachmann (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
The Chams were a community of 20k-30k, the men able to fight alone could be around 5000-7500 (~25% of the population). "Several hundread" could be anywhere from 5% to 20% of those men. Not a "majority" or "large parts at all". In any case, various sources disagree with each other, so the neutral wording will be implemented. @SR, I agree with your proposal to use "debate" instead of "dispute". Indeed, it seems a better word to use. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Able-bodied men are typically much less than 25% of a population, due to age and various disabilities. Muslim Chams were no more than 20k (Orthodox Chams did not collaborate), so 2-3k able-bodied men of military age makes the most sense. "Several hundred" is vague, but it could be a large portion of the 2-3k. Khirurg (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
"Several hundred" is vague, but it could be a large portion of the 2-3k. Whatever the number, it is not clear in scholarship what percentage collaborated. They could be 1%, they could be 70%. We do not know, hence the neutral wording. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I also agree with Ktrimi and SR's balanced proposal. I have been stressing for a while now that all viewpoints must be taken into account for all matters regarding the Cham Expulsion. I would also like to caution people against making their own interpretations of various sources and statistics, as it comes under WP:SYNTH. Botushali (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Khirurg has made a strong point here: there is a strong consensus in scholarship, while "large parts" is the most pro-Albanian version, bibliography uses "majority" and "entirety" in cases of both active and passive collaboration. Ktrimi tents to limit collaboration only to those that had taken arms, nevertheless this does not include cases of Cham informants and other sympathizers that were also enthusiastically and closely collaborating with the Axis occupation. Collaboration refers to all forms of collaboration, and the Cham community were Axis-sympathizers (collaborators) as in-depth bibliography definitely agrees. I believe that "large-parts" can stay otherwise we need to be more precise with scholarship and change it to "majority" and "entirety" to include both passive and active forms collaboration.Alexikoua (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Ktrimi previously highlighted the fact that multiple sources do not use "large parts", "majority" or anything along those lines. You are saying that there is a strong consensus in scholarship, but the reality of the situation is quite obviously the contrary; all sources agree that a part of the community cooperated, but the degree is a matter of debate, which is why we are even having this discussion in the first place. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources discuss, and not the interpretations of Alexikoua. The current wording proposed by SR and Ktrimi is sufficient. Botushali (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Also what's the point of accusing Greek historiography from the lead? This can stay only if we include criticism to both Albanian and Greek historiography. There is enough evidence to present about Albanian historiography that downgrades collaboration (and inflates expulsion). Thus, in order to secure neutrality in lead we should include both sides of POV side-by-side.Alexikoua (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Ktrimi previously highlighted the fact that multiple sources do not use "large parts", "majority" or anything along those lines. Actually no. Which are those sources? (certainly not Kretsi, Manta, Roudometof, Meyer, Featherstone, Robertson and a mountain of specialist bibliography) Ktrimi simply mentioned about violent incidents of active collaboration: i.e the ones that were responsible for killing and were sentenced by post-war courts for crimes against humanity. Nevertheless collaboration also involves passive forms. Those forms of collaboration were not mentioned and indeed all specialist bibliography points to that. As such no wonder most sources don't even bother to describe the decree of collaboration they simply state that "the Cham Albanian collaborated" and collaboration took a massive form that specialist bibliography does not hesitate to mention that it was "massive", "enthusiastic" and in "large parts".Alexikoua (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with the SR/Ktrimi compromise version. Alexikoua should read Manta (2009) because she doesn't write that "large parts" collaborated with the German army: The guarantee of Italian tolerance and support allowed in most cases full rein to the C¸ ams to resolve the squabbles of the past in their own way and to vindicate the injustices they had suffered themselves in the past.23 In most cases the differences were resolved “by rifle” or with false accusations to the Italian authorities who resorted to arbitrary arrests and imprisonments.24 Despite the fact that the vast majority of the Albanian population did not participate in these acts, nevertheless, suspicion, division, mutual plotting and hatred had spread their roots in the soils of Thesprotia. Thus, the chasm, which had begun to develop between the two communities, constantly widened.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Manta states it quite clear that the community in general were Axis sympathizers (involved in incidents of either active or passive collaboration): it been admitted by all sides that the Albanian population as a whole, even though it did not actively collaborate with the occupiers, they accepted them with hope and expectation for the materialization of the promises which had been cultivated for decades; they benefited from their presence in the region and provided them with indirect support with guides, connections, informants etc. A German officer was to admit later that the Albanians were favorably disposed towards them while the Greeks fought against them.. All those forms (providing indirect support with guides, connections, informants to the Nazis etc) fall into collaboration. As Manta notes this is agreed by all sides, and even official Albanian policy (pre-1991) labelled the entire community as such (see Kretsi). To sum up Manta clarifies that Chams "as a whole" were involved in various forms of collaboration and that's not objected by any side.Alexikoua (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Manta doesn't write that they were involved in various forms of collaboration.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Those are forms of collaboration though not active, and Manta does not limit collaboration to "active collaboration". See Collaboration_with_the_Axis_powers on various forms of collaboration. Providing indirect support to the Nazis with guides, connections, informants constitutes collaboration.Alexikoua (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Albanian & Greek historiography on lead

Albanian & Greek historiographies should be treated equally for the sake of neutrality. There is enough material based on wp:RS to have a neutral sentence on lead that point to their weaknesses. As such hiding one state's historiography weakness is not the most productive way. Alexikoua (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead should reflect what modern historiography discusses. Tsoutsoumpis (2015): The ethnic infighting that took place in Thesprotia between the Greek and Albanian communities during the Axis occupation has been described as a forgotten conflict. Indeed, until recently, the only existing studies were those of local «organic» intellectuals; schoolteachers, senior civil servants, local politicians and retired military officers. According to these authors, the Albanian Muslim minority collaborated collectively first with the Italian and then with the German occupiers in the hope that an Axis victory would lead to the eventual creation of a Greater Albanian state. The foremost purpose of these studies was to justify the violence perpetrated against the minority, and to back Greek irredentist claims made towards Albania. Unsurprisingly, such accounts adopted a rabidly nationalist and anti-Albanian stance. The Albanians were presented as «brutes» who were driven to violence and collaboration by «their savage instincts» and their natural propensity towards violence and loot. Subsequently, the violence instigated by Greek guerrillas and civilians during the liberation was downplayed, while the involvement of the minority in collaboration and acts of violence against the Greek population was considerably exaggerated. Recent historiography doesn't even support that the events occurred because of collaboration, so either it'll be mentioned as the last cause of the expulsion or it'll be removed entirely from the lead because the sources in the main body explicitly argue that this narrative exists simply to justify the violence perpetrated against the minority, and to back Greek irredentist claims made towards Albania. For the sake of neutrality and to be more inclusive, I didn't outright remove it in my initial edit. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Maleschreiber: I can't understand why you insist to present only the weaknesses of Greek historiography and at the same time remove the ones of the Albanian historiography on the main topic (expulsion): [[12]], both Manta and Kretsi point that:
In socialist Albanian historiography (1945-1991) the event of the expulsion received no special attention and was downplayed, while after 1991 it was upgraded and became part of the national narrative for obvious political and financial reasons.. The reader needs to understand why this sudden change in official Albanian historiography occurred.Alexikoua (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The weaknesses of Greek historiography aren't mentioned in the introductory lead section. The sentence Cham collaboration with the Axis forces is specifically invoked in post-war Greek historiography doesn't even discuss the history of Greek historiography. There is no discussion about the shifts in Greek historiography, hence you're asking for the lead to discuss about Albanian historiography something which it doesn't do for Greek historiography. I'm not necessarily opposed to doing such a thing for both schools but I think that it would make the lead unnecessarily lengthier.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Also Tsoutsoumbis is clear that the expulsion was a result of WWII violence:

Violence was present from early on in the occupation; however, until 1942, most violence was related to personal grudges and local differences while only a small number of the population was involved in direct violence. However, the increased involvement of outside actors from mid 1943 the Wehrmacht, ELAS, EDES and the British Military Mission - led to an increase in violence and the «rapid ethniication» of the conlict. As the conflict heightened; «violence...endogenously generated additional waves of violence and further polarization, through the mechanism of revenge; this process consolidated, magniied, and hardened ethnic identities». Violence during Axis collaboration 1941-1944 generated violence during liberation from the Axis. In fact this is the conclusion of Tsoutsoumbis' paper. It's not only in Tsoutsoumbis but Manta and Kretsai also provide this strong connection.Alexikoua (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't conclude such a thing based on this excerpt.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

The removed reference [[13]] reads in the context of the Chameria issue that: Die Çamëria wurde fest auf der geistigen Landkarte des albanischen Nationalismus verankert. as such its relevant for the specific section.Alexikoua (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"Fest auf der geistigen Landkarte". He speaks about the geographical term, not about the historical nor Albanian part of the region. Already stated, yet ignored by everyone. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
None objects the geographic term Chameria which is fest auf der geistigen Landkarte des albanischen Nationalismus verankert. It's simply to understand that this information is an essential part of how Albanian nationalism considers Chameria today. Schmitt is one of the top analysts of modern Albanian historiography by the way.Alexikoua (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
That is exactly the point. The geographical term nowadays is nationalism but not the historical one. The characterization indicates that the historical term is "nationalist". AlexBachmann (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead's bloated size is in serious need for trimming.

The unfortunate policy-noncompliant changes made during the late months of 2022 to the article's lead, have nearly doubled its size. This resulted in the bloated lead effectively becoming another article body by itself, and that's not what leads are for. Leads are supposed to summarize the body's most important information.

I am opening this talk page discussion as to bring this problem to the attention of any editors who are genuinely interested in restoring the lead back to a more acceptable size prior to the 2022 edits and help maintain a more appropriately-sized lead for an important article such as this. Any progress in trimming the lead will have to be in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph concerns background information exclusively: it's entirely pre-WWII (Ottoman era, Balkan wars etc.). This is clearly not part of a balanced lead and needs to go.Alexikoua (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@SilentResident: Are there any specific suggestions which you might have?--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

My proposed trimming, whereas:

  • Normal text: unchanged.
  • Bolded text: added.
  • Striken text: removed.

"The expulsion of Cham Albanians from Greece was the forced migration and ethnic cleansing of thousands of Cham Albanians from settlements of Chameria in Thesprotia, Greece - after the Second World War to Albania, at the hands of elements of the Greek Resistance: the National Republican Greek League (EDES) (1944) and EDES veteran resistance fighters (1945); the expulsion was encouraged by the Allied mission under Colonel C.M. Woodhouse. The causes of the expulsion were multifaceted and remain a matter of debate among historians. Modern historiographical narratives argue that the causes involved the pre-existing Greek policies which targeted the minority and sought its elimination and local property disputes which were instrumentalized after WWII while Cham collaboration with the Axis forces is specifically invoked in post-war Greek historiography. In socialist Albanian historiography (1945-1991) the events of the expulsion received no special attention and were dowplayed, while after 1991 it was upgraded and became part of the national narrative for obvious political and financial reasons. The estimated number of Cham Albanians expelled from Epirus to Albania and Turkey varies: figures include from 14,000, 19,000, 20,000, 25,000 up to and 30,000. According to Cham reports this number should be raised Cham reports raise this to c. 35,000.

In the late Ottoman period, tensions between the Muslim Chams and the local Greek Orthodox Christian population emerged through communal conflicts. in the region known as Chameria/Tsamouria that time. These tensions continued during the Balkan Wars, when part of the historic region of Epirus, then under Ottoman rule, became part of Greece. During the First Balkan War, a majority of Cham Albanians, though at first reluctant, sided with the Ottoman forces against the Greek forces and formed irregular armed units and burned Christian Orthodox-inhabited settlements, with only few Albanian beys willing to accept Greek rule in the region. As a response to this activity Greek guerilla units were organized in the region. After the Balkan wars andBefore and during the interwar period, the Muslim Chams were not integrated into the Greek state, which adopted policies that aimed to drive them out of their territory, partly through their inclusion in the Greek-Turkish population exchange, although this was not realized because of objections by Italy's fascist regime. Furthermore, the attempted settlement of Greek refugees from Asia Minor within the area and bouts of open state repression in the 1920s and 1930s, in particular by the authoritarian Metaxas regime, led to tensions between the Cham minority and the Greek state. Unlike the Christian Albanians of Greece, the Muslim Cham Albanians were seen by Greek nationalists as an immediate threat to the state. Meanwhile, fascist Italian propaganda initiated in 1939 an aggressive pro-Albanian campaign for the annexation of the Greek region and the creation of a Greater Albanian state.

At the beginning of World War II, when Greece announced its full mobilisation prior to the Italian invasion, Cham Albanians requested to be included in said mobilisation; in response, Greece included them in the mobilisation but had them work in construction rather than give them arms, which were alienated further by the Greek state the Albanians. At that time Albania had become an Italian protectorate. Muslim Chams, being unofficially considered Albanians, eventually and were treated as a hostile population and atrocities were committed against them, and their community leaders were exiled. Cham Albanian community leaders were arrested and forced into exile by Greek authorities on the same day that Italy invaded Greece, which gave the community indubitable proof that the Greek state held a negative perception towards the Chams; it left their community without leadership, which probably influenced their behaviour towards the Greeks in the following months. When the Chams fought on the side of the Italian Army that was invading Greece, they turned against the local Christians. However, when the Greek army reoccupied the area during the early stages of the Italian invasion, they exiled nearly the entire Cham Albanian male population. Greek forces turned a blind eye to the resulting atrocities committed against Cham Albanians by locals.

With the onset of the Second World War, a part of the Muslim Cham population collaborated with the Axis troops, with the degree being a matter of academic debate. They did so either by providing indirect support (guides, local connections, informants etc.) or by being recruited as Axis troops and armed irregulars. The latter cases were responsible for atrocities against the local Greek populace. Overall, the Muslim Chams were sympathetic to Axis forces during the war and benefited from the Axis occupation of Greece. These Cham collaborators displayed extreme cruelty toward the Greek population and indulged in massacres and lootings. Armed Cham collaborator units actively participated in Nazi operations that resulted in the murder of more than 1,200 Greek villagers between July and September 1943,[38][39] and, in January 1944, in the murder of 600 people on the Albanian side of the border. There were also moderate elements within the Muslim Cham community who opposed hatred of their Greek neighbors, including Albanian beys and religious leaders. A limited number of Muslim Chams enlisted in Albanian and Greek resistance units in the last stages of World War II.

Collaboration with the Axis fueled resentment by the Greek side and in the aftermath of World War II, despite the assurances of the EDES guerillas, and in particular the position of Napoleon Zervas who guaranteed that life, personal worth and wealth would be honored, most of the Muslim Cham community fled, or were forced to flee, to Albania. The collaboration, which was also the outcome of the Greek totalitarian regime's policy embedded in the prevailing nationalistic ideology of the interwar period, served as a justification for their expulsion. In the process between 200 and 300 Chams were massacred by EDES forces in various settlements, while 1,200 were murdered in total. Some Albanian sources increase this number to c. 2,000. However, atrocities were not encouraged by the EDES leadership and the British mission, but both were unable to prevent them. Generally, violent incidents against Muslim Cham civilians were severely limited because the EDES leadership managed to impose discipline on its subordinate members. In 1945–1946, a special collaborator's court in Greece condemned a total of 2,109 Cham Albanians in absentia for collaboration with the Axis powers and war crimes. Several local Greek notables promised safe passage and offered to host all those Chams who would abandon the Nazi side. As such, a few hundred Muslim Chams stayed in Greece.

Moreover, according to Albanian sources an additional 2,500 Muslim Cham refugees lost their lives through starvation and epidemics on their way to Albania. After the members of the community settled settling in Albania, the People's Republic of Albania, and the ruling Party of Labour of Albania under Enver Hoxha did not treat them as victims, but took a very distrustful view towards them and proceeded with arrests and exiles . The Cham Albanians were labelled as "reactionaries", "murderers of the Greeks" and "collaborators of the occupation forces", and suffered a certain degree of persecution within Albania, because their elites were traditionally rich landlords, they had collaborated with the Axis forces and they had been involved in anti-communist activities." --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks pretty good overall. In the first paragraph, I don't think the sentence The causes of the expulsion were multifaceted... adds anything, since we no longer go into the causes. I am also not sure the Cham claimed figure of 35,000 warrants inclusion in the lede. In the third paragraph, I would not describe what happened in the interwar period as "atrocities". The Chams experienced discrimination and oppression during this time, but it does not rise to the level of "atrocities", which is a very strong word. Maybe replace it with "experienced oppression" or "experienced discrimination". I would also add a sentence at the end at the end about the revival of the Cham issue in post-1991 Albania so as to make the article up to date. Other than that it looks good. Khirurg (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
You got some valid points, except the following: "I am also not sure the Cham claimed figure of 35,000 warrants inclusion in the lede.." To present both side's views is a common practice in Wikipedia and complies with WP:NPOV. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Sounds ok. Some serious objections here:


1. The part with the degree being a matter of academic debate adds also nothing since the topic is presented with some info already from lead.Alexikoua (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Your addition about the beginning of World War II is wp:OR: ... atrocities were committed against them. Why you propose such an addition? the current text mentions alienation, exiles, arrests due to Albania being an Italian ally not atrocities at that time. Atrocities begun when the Italian army invaded Thesprotia in Oct 28, 1940, but by combined Italian-Cham units against the local Greek population (executions in Igoumenitsa, bunrning of Filiates, Paramythia etc.) Please be careful such changes are not supported by bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Why you propose a removal of according to Albanian sources an additional 2,500 Muslim Cha Albanians were killed. Kretsi is clear that this figure is an claim by Albanian sources not a universally accepted estimate. Either the 2,5 claim stays per reference or else it needs to be removed to avoid OR.Alexikoua (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for bringing it to my attention. My "atrocities were committed against them" was supposed to summarize the fact that among others, atrocities happened to them per "Greek forces turned a blind eye to the resulting atrocities committed against Cham Albanians by locals." but the way I worded it, implies falsely that they were not made by locals but by others, and I am sorry for this. Somehow, when I was writing it, I felt it was sufficient, but it wasn't. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure, in general you do a good job by trimming this.Alexikoua (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The new proposed version reflecting on the points by editors so far:

  • Normal text: unchanged.
  • Bolded text: added.
  • Striken text: removed.

"The expulsion of Cham Albanians from Greece was the forced migration and ethnic cleansing of thousands of Cham Albanians from settlements of Chameria in Thesprotia, Greece - after the Second World War to Albania, at the hands of elements of the Greek Resistance: the National Republican Greek League (EDES) (1944) and EDES veteran resistance fighters (1945); the expulsion was encouraged by the Allied mission under Colonel C.M. Woodhouse. The causes of the expulsion were multifaceted and remain a matter of debate among historians. The estimated number of Cham Albanians expelled from Epirus to Albania and Turkey varies from 14,000, up to and 30,000. Cham reports raise this to c. 35,000.

In the late Ottoman period, tensions between the Muslim Chams and the local Greek Orthodox Christian population emerged through communal conflicts. These tensions continued during the Balkan Wars, when the region, then under Ottoman rule, became part of Greece. During the First Balkan War, a majority of Cham Albanians, though at first reluctant, sided with the Ottoman forces against the Greek forces and formed irregular armed units and burned Christian Orthodox-inhabited settlements, with only few Albanian beys willing to accept Greek rule in the region. As a response to this activity Greek guerilla units were organized in the region. Before and during the interwar period, the Muslim Chams were not integrated into the Greek state, which adopted policies that aimed to drive them out of their territory, led to tensions between the Cham minority and the Greek state. Unlike the Christian Albanians of Greece, the Muslim Cham Albanians were seen by Greek nationalists as an immediate threat to the state. Meanwhile, fascist Italian propaganda initiated in 1939 an aggressive pro-Albanian campaign for the annexation of the Greek region and the creation of a Greater Albanian state.

At the beginning of World War II, when Greece announced its full mobilisation prior to the Italian invasion, Cham Albanians were alienated further by the Greek state, and were treated as a hostile population and experienced discrimination and oppression, while their community leaders were exiled.

With the onset of the Second World War, a part of the Muslim Cham population collaborated with the Axis troops, with the degree being a matter of academic debate. They did so either by providing indirect support (guides, local connections, informants etc.) or by being recruited as Axis troops and armed irregulars. The latter cases were responsible for atrocities against the local Greek populace. Overall, the Muslim Chams were sympathetic to Axis forces during the war and benefited from the Axis occupation of Greece. These Cham collaborators displayed extreme cruelty toward the Greek population and indulged in massacres and lootings. Armed Cham collaborator units actively participated in Nazi operations that resulted in the murder of more than 1,200 Greek villagers between July and September 1943,[38][39] and, in January 1944, in the murder of 600 people on the Albanian side of the border. There were also moderate elements within the Muslim Cham community who opposed hatred of their Greek neighbors, including Albanian beys and religious leaders. A limited number of Muslim Chams enlisted in Albanian and Greek resistance units in the last stages of World War II.

Collaboration with the Axis fueled resentment by the Greek side and in the aftermath of World War II, despite the assurances of the EDES guerillas, most of the Muslim Cham community fled, or were forced to flee, to Albania. The collaboration, which was also the outcome of the Greek totalitarian regime's policy embedded in the prevailing nationalistic ideology of the interwar period, served as a justification for their expulsion. In the process between 200 and 300 Chams were massacred by EDES forces in various settlements, while 1,200 were murdered in total. Some Albanian sources increase this number to c. 2,000. However, atrocities were not encouraged by the EDES leadership and the British mission, but both were unable to prevent them. Generally, violent incidents against Muslim Cham civilians were severely limited because the EDES leadership managed to impose discipline on its subordinate members. In 1945–1946, a special collaborator's court in Greece condemned a total of 2,109 Cham Albanians in absentia for collaboration with the Axis powers and war crimes. Several local Greek notables promised safe passage and offered to host all those Chams who would abandon the Nazi side. As such, a few hundred Muslim Chams stayed in Greece.

Moreover, according to Albanian sources an additional 2,500 Muslim Cham refugees lost their lives through starvation and epidemics on their way to Albania. After settling in the People's Republic of Albania, the ruling Party of Labour of Albania under Enver Hoxha did not treat them as victims, but took a very distrustful view towards them and proceeded with arrests and exiles and suffered a certain degree of persecution within Albania, because their elites were traditionally rich landlords, they had collaborated with the Axis forces and they had been involved in anti-communist activities." --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if I missed something, so please let me know. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@SilentResident: I'll be able to post a full reply tomorrow, but I think that it'll be possible to agree on most issues. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Note: the degree being a matter of academic debate. does not offer any information since the decree of collaboration is described in the following sentences (and in more detail inside the main articles). It can go.Alexikoua (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Regardingwhich was also the outcome of the Greek totalitarian regime's policy, there was no "Greek totalitarian regime" in 1944. In fact there wasn't even a functioning Greek state between 1941 and 1944. This is a misuse of the term "totalitarian". That whole clause doesn't add anything and can be dropped. The only other thing, which I mentioned earlier, is a sentence at the end about how the Cham issue has been revived in Albania for political and financial reasons. Khirurg (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: There is no deadline for participating or replying in the discussion, and the changes to the lead won't be applied before I have made certain that there are no POV issues missed or NPOV concerns neglected in the talk page. Furthermore, the trimming of the lead won't be applied on the article right away, but only after a reasonable amount of time, i.e. a couple of weeks have passed, to give room for everybody's input on the matter. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The expulsion of Cham Albanians from Greece was the forced migration and ethnic cleansing of thousands of Cham Albanians from settlements of Chameria in Thesprotia, Greece - after the Second World War to Albania, at the hands of elements of the Greek Resistance: the National Republican Greek League (EDES) (1944) and EDES veteran resistance fighters (1945); the expulsion was encouraged by the Allied mission under Colonel C.M. Woodhouse. The causes of the expulsion remain a matter of debate among historians. The estimated number of Cham Albanians expelled from Epirus mostly to Albania and Turkey varies from 14,000, up to and 30,000. Cham reports raise this to c. 35,000.
Argument: The involvement of Woodhouse is disputed in historiography - including main sources in the article. Most Chams fled to Albania, hence I replaced "and Turkey" with "mostly to Albania.
In the late Ottoman period, tensions between the Muslim Chams and the local Greek Orthodox Christian population emerged through communal conflicts. These tensions continued during the Balkan Wars, when the region, then under Ottoman rule, became part of Greece. During the First Balkan War, a majority of Cham Albanians, though at first reluctant, sided with the Ottoman forces against the Greek forces and formed irregular armed units and burned Christian Orthodox-inhabited settlements, with only few Albanian beys willing to accept Greek rule in the region. As a response to this activity Greek guerilla units were organized in the region. Before and during the interwar period, the Muslim Chams were not integrated into the Greek state, which adopted policies that aimed to drive them out of their territory, led to tensions between the Cham minority and the Greek state. Unlike the Christian Albanians of Greece, the Muslim Cham Albanians were seen by Greek nationalists as an immediate threat to the state. Meanwhile, fascist Italian propaganda initiated in 1939 an aggressive pro-Albanian campaign for the annexation of the Greek region and the creation of a Greater Albanian state.
Argument: In terms of WP:NPOV, we either have to mention that Muslim Albanian villages were burnt by the Greek army in the Balkan Wars or set the issue aside. The formation irregular units was largely a response to these events. We can avoid this debate as part of the lead by focusing on the immediate period before the 1940s.
Collaboration with the Axis fueled resentment by the Greek side and in the aftermath of World War II, despite the assurances of the EDES guerillas, most of the Muslim Cham community fled, or were forced to flee, to Albania. The collaboration, which was also the outcome of the Greek totalitarian regime's policy embedded in the prevailing nationalistic ideology of the interwar period, served as a justification for their expulsion. In the process between 200 and 300 Chams were massacred by EDES forces in various settlements, while 1,200 were murdered in total. Some Albanian sources increase this number to c. 2,000. However, atrocities were not encouraged by the EDES leadership and the British mission, but both were unable to prevent them. Generally, violent incidents against Muslim Cham civilians were severely limited because the EDES leadership managed to impose discipline on its subordinate members. In 1945–1946, a special collaborator's court in Greece condemned a total of 2,109 Cham Albanians in absentia for collaboration with the Axis powers and war crimes. Several local Greek notables promised safe passage and offered to host all those Chams who would abandon the Nazi side. As such, a few hundred Muslim Chams stayed in Greece. This section probably needs a rewrite because it is part of the historiographical dispute about the causes of the expulsion and in this format it doesn't reflect what contemporary Greek historiography writes about the subject. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • 1) About the first suggestion, yes, consider it done!
  • 2) About the second one: I would appreciate more feedback on the matter here, as I got a bit confused. Was the NPOV issue you are pointing to about the Cham villages, the result of my efforts in trimming the lead? If not, then, was the issue predating my trimming efforts?
  • 3) About your third suggestion: I am afraid this will have to be discussed separately because your issue here is clearly about rewriting it, not trimming it. Rewriting a whole paragraph to reflect a proposed NPOV is an entirely different process to trimming it while retaining the consensus NPOV. It is better to discuss this in a separate talk thread and propose the changes you would like to make to it. Any outcomes, as long as the new paragraph size doesn't unreasonably exceed the the current paragraph's size, will most certainly make me happy as it would contribute to the efforts of achieving/maintaining a more reasonable article lead size. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • 2)It is not related to your trimming as it predates your edits. I'm pointing that if we're trimming some subsections to avoid some larger debates, it's better to remove this sentence since for the sake of NPOV then we would have to add what prompted this reaction.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
If you oppose to the specific paragraph's trimming due to NPOV concerns, a solution would be either to leave this sentence out of the trimming progress, at least until a solution is found, and proceed with the rest of the lead's trimming, or else, propose straight away here the changes that can be made about Cham villages that would balance it. Note that since you joined this discussion which is about trimming the lead, any additions you seek to make to the paragraph, obviously can't end up with the paragraph being as big as before, or even bigger, which goes contrary to the purpose of trimming.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 05:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
We can leave this section outside the trimming process until a rewording is found. I don't think that it would be difficult to find a middle ground here, but someone has to find the time to write it down.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Ok, it seems none else raised their points. So to conclude, based on Maleschreiber's final points:

The expulsion of Cham Albanians from Greece was the forced migration and ethnic cleansing of thousands of Cham Albanians from settlements of Chameria in Thesprotia, Greece - after the Second World War to Albania, at the hands of elements of the Greek Resistance: the National Republican Greek League (EDES) (1944) and EDES veteran resistance fighters (1945). The causes of the expulsion remain a matter of debate among historians. The estimated number of Cham Albanians expelled from Epirus mostly to Albania varies from 14,000, up to and 30,000. Cham reports raise this to c. 35,000.

In the late Ottoman period, tensions between the Muslim Chams and the local Greek Orthodox Christian population emerged through communal conflicts. These tensions continued during the Balkan Wars, when the region, then under Ottoman rule, became part of Greece. Before and during the interwar period, the Muslim Chams were not integrated into the Greek state, which adopted policies that aimed to drive them out of their territory, led to tensions between the Cham minority and the Greek state. Unlike the Christian Albanians of Greece, the Muslim Cham Albanians were seen by Greek nationalists as an immediate threat to the state. Meanwhile, fascist Italian propaganda initiated in 1939 an aggressive pro-Albanian campaign for the annexation of the Greek region and the creation of a Greater Albanian state.

At the beginning of World War II, when Greece announced its full mobilisation prior to the Italian invasion, Cham Albanians were alienated further by the Greek state, and were treated as a hostile population and experienced discrimination and oppression, while their community leaders were exiled.

With the onset of the Second World War, a part of the Muslim Cham population collaborated with the Axis troops, with the degree being a matter of academic debate. They did so either by providing indirect support (guides, local connections, informants etc.) or by being recruited as Axis troops and armed irregulars. The latter cases were responsible for atrocities against the local Greek populace. Overall, the Muslim Chams were sympathetic to Axis forces during the war and benefited from the Axis occupation of Greece. These Cham collaborators displayed extreme cruelty toward the Greek population and indulged in massacres and lootings. Armed Cham collaborator units actively participated in Nazi operations that resulted in the murder of more than 1,200 Greek villagers between July and September 1943,[38][39] and, in January 1944, in the murder of 600 people on the Albanian side of the border. There were also moderate elements within the Muslim Cham community who opposed hatred of their Greek neighbors, including Albanian beys and religious leaders. A limited number of Muslim Chams enlisted in Albanian and Greek resistance units in the last stages of World War II.

Collaboration with the Axis fueled resentment by the Greek side and in the aftermath of World War II, despite the assurances of the EDES guerillas, most of the Muslim Cham community fled, or were forced to flee, to Albania. The collaboration, which was also the outcome of the Greek totalitarian regime's policy embedded in the prevailing nationalistic ideology of the interwar period, served as a justification for their expulsion. In the process between 200 and 300 Chams were massacred by EDES forces in various settlements, while 1,200 were murdered in total. Some Albanian sources increase this number to c. 2,000. However, atrocities were not encouraged by the EDES leadership and the British mission, but both were unable to prevent them. Generally, violent incidents against Muslim Cham civilians were severely limited because the EDES leadership managed to impose discipline on its subordinate members. In 1945–1946, a special collaborator's court in Greece condemned a total of 2,109 Cham Albanians in absentia for collaboration with the Axis powers and war crimes. Several local Greek notables promised safe passage and offered to host all those Chams who would abandon the Nazi side. As such, a few hundred Muslim Chams stayed in Greece.

Moreover, according to Albanian sources an additional 2,500 Muslim Cham refugees lost their lives through starvation and epidemics on their way to Albania. After settling in the People's Republic of Albania, the ruling Party of Labour of Albania under Enver Hoxha did not treat them as victims, but took a very distrustful view towards them and proceeded with arrests and exiles and suffered a certain degree of persecution within Albania, because their elites were traditionally rich landlords, they had collaborated with the Axis forces and they had been involved in anti-communist activities.

Are we good with it, or did I forget something? Please let me know. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @SilentResident:. Good job for mustering the strength through the whole thing. I will read it & reply during the weekend.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, take your time. By the way some attention at the 5th paragraph will be appreciated, to ensure that it is indeed left out of the trimming progress. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
All good with the first three sections and the last section.
Some rephrasing in section 5:
  • In the aftermath of World War II, the Cham community was forcefully expelled to Albania. The collaboration, which was also the outcome of the Greek totalitarian regime's policy embedded in the prevailing nationalistic ideology of the interwar period, served partially as a justification for their expulsion and partially fueled it. In the process . ca. 1,200 Cham Albanians were murdered. Some Albanian sources increase this number to c. 2,000. In 1945–1946, a special collaborator's court in Greece condemned a total of 2,109 Cham Albanians in absentia for collaboration with the Axis powers and war crimes. Several local Greek notables promised safe passage and offered to host all those Chams who would abandon the Nazi side. As such, a few hundred Muslim Chams stayed in Greece. I removed the sentences owever, atrocities were not encouraged by the EDES leadership and the British mission, but both were unable to prevent them. Generally, violent incidents against Muslim Cham civilians were severely limited because the EDES leadership managed to impose discipline on its subordinate members. because there doesn't seem to be a consensus about it in historiography. There wasn't a single EDES command, conflicting directives were issued, different local politics dictated the stance of EDES groups and on top of that there's the Cham-EDES proposed meeting by EDES in Parga. These issues make it very complicated to explain the issue in 2-3 sentences, hence I propose to remove it since it doesn't really affect the overall structure of the paragraph.
I think that the 4th paragraph can be reduced to reflect more clearly what is commonly accepted and what is a matter of debate. I think that a more pronounced mention of Cham Partisans is required for some balance in this paragraph, but I need some time (until Wednesday) to think it through. Thanks again for going through the section :) --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm firmly against removal of well sourced information that is essential to understand the subject: this part atrocities were not encouraged by the EDES leadership and the British mission, but both were unable to prevent them. Generally, violent incidents against Muslim Cham civilians were severely limited because the EDES leadership managed to impose discipline on its subordinate members is the primary conclusion drawn by in depth-research and Tsoumsoumpis' (main source on this) is in accordance with Gotovos, Manta, Kretsi and Meyer. It summarizes in a neutral way the relation of the EDES members and leadership towards the events and should definitely stay in lead since in -depth bibliography does not object this description. What I also suggest instead is to include information that non-EDES sympathizers, i.e ELAS and various civilians also participated in atrocities (in Parga for example where part of the Cham civilians were finally saved by EDES guerillas).Alexikoua (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Ι agree with Alexikoua above, and would only like to add that in the late Ottoman period, the Cham landlords owned most of the land, which was the source of the "communal conflicts". This was the main source of the conflicts, they did not materialize out of thin air. It may also be useful to readers to add a sentence at the end about how the Cham issue has been revived by the Chams in Albania for political and financial reasons, which can be easily sourced. Khirurg (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Zaugg, F., & Chandrinos, J. (November 2022). Civil Wars in the Shadow of World War II: The Cases of Chameria/Çameria and Kosovo. Journal of Modern European History, 20(4), 483–497. 10.1177/16118944221130226: In July, EDES combined anti-German activities with mass anti-Albanian violence. About 130 Chams were killed or summarily executed in Parga and 340 more in Filiates/Filat, thousands had to evacuate their villages and flee to Albania. According to Albanian sources communicated by UNRRA officials in the following year, a total of 2,300 Chams had been killed or murdered between June and August 1944, while the actual destruction of property amounted to 37 villages alongside 4,000 houses burnt and 1,300 damaged.91 By the end of 1944, the whole minority was essentially expelled. Lambros Baltsiotis argues that the mass expulsion of the Chams was not a retaliatory action following their collaboration with the Axis, but rather the violent manifestation of Greek nationalistic tendencies against ‘non-Greek’ subjects building up from the interwar period.93 The civil strife in Greece rearticulated existing anti-Albanian sentiments. EDES accused the Chams collectively of negotiating with EAM-ELAS and the Albanian Çeta to further pursue their irredentism after 1945.94 The Greek right-wing post-war authorities legitimized the expulsion of the minority as the result of their alleged choice to collaborate with all enemies of the Greek state, that is, the Axis, the communists and the Albanian nationalists. The article has to reflect what bibliography discusses and in this case I'm just listing what Greek historiography discusses.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Zaugg, F., & Chandrinos, J. (November 2022) is not in disagreement to Manta, Tsoutsoumbis, Kretsi. I don't understand were is the issue in this case. The lack of discipline by both the EDES and the British mission should be reflected as stated in current text.Alexikoua (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
    • The lead cannot assert that atrocities were not encouraged by the EDES leadership and the British mission, but both were unable to prevent them. Generally, violent incidents against Muslim Cham civilians were severely limited because the EDES leadership managed to impose discipline on its subordinate members because such a statement directly contradicts bibliography: --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The specific part is in full agreement with bibliography and supported by Tsoutsoumpis, Meyer, Kretsi, Manta, Gotovos, all of them provide in depth analysis on this topic. On the other hand the quote you presented does not contradict the statement: for example there is no detail presented about how EDES leadership approached the issue, how EDES hierarchy reacted in contrast to low ranked guerillas and independent guerillas and civilians. Pardon me but I can't see discrepancy towards this statement. Simply saying that every single EDES member was fully responsible and ELAS was on the "innocent" side is an oversimplification not to mentions an inappropriate conclusion. Indeed there was violence against the local Albanian element and we need to avoid generic statements. Alexikoua (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I am sorry for my slow responses. OK I have read the new comments here but I feel they deviate from the scope of the trimming process. Like I have said, and I will repeat again: This talk page thread is not about changing article POV but about a neutral trimming of the lead which is extremely bloated. That is, to trim it without changing its current consensus POV.

The trimming process is not and should not be seen as endorsement of content or the current POV. 1) If the editors cannot contribute positively to the lead's trimming process, 2) If the trimming process is stalled by unrelated debates such as POV debates, and 3) If the editors do not agree to discuss separately their POV disagreements, and that is, on a more appropriate thread which is about these POV issues specifically, then I am inclined to proceed with the version presented above and ignore any further requests by editors which seem to lack consensus.

Because the only other solution that would work to trim the article's lead is to make a full revert that goes back whole months and restore past versions of the Lead from right before the edits responsible for its bloating. I am certain everybody here agrees that the article cannot have such a bloated lead, and no editors here would want a full revert of all changes made to it either. The best solution we can have right now is to let the trimming process finish without touching/changing any POV for which there is no agreement yet. For the POV disputes, a new separate talk thread should be opened instead. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I have thought that perhaps it is a good idea to wait and give this some time, even though the POV issues raised here are unrelated to trimming procedures. More than a month has passed ever since. but I haven't noticed any proper Talk Page threads being created specifically about the POV concerns the editors had raised. I take that as a nod that these issues may/would be tackled at a later time? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Which parts of the lede do you want to remove? The walls of text in the discussion above are tl;dr. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it is long, but perhaps you should read it, as I can't summarize everything that was discussed here. The lead section is obnoxiously large. It requires alot of trimming to reduce its size to a more bearable one. The last proposal version, one that didnt take in account disagreements - these will have to be left for the editors to resolve by themselves - is:

The expulsion of Cham Albanians from Greece was the forced migration and ethnic cleansing of thousands of Cham Albanians from settlements of Chameria in Thesprotia, Greece - after the Second World War to Albania, at the hands of elements of the Greek Resistance: the National Republican Greek League (EDES) (1944) and EDES veteran resistance fighters (1945). The causes of the expulsion remain a matter of debate among historians. The estimated number of Cham Albanians expelled from Epirus mostly to Albania varies from 14,000, up to and 30,000. Cham reports raise this to c. 35,000.

In the late Ottoman period, tensions between the Muslim Chams and the local Greek Orthodox Christian population emerged through communal conflicts. These tensions continued during the Balkan Wars, when the region, then under Ottoman rule, became part of Greece. Before and during the interwar period, the Muslim Chams were not integrated into the Greek state, which adopted policies that aimed to drive them out of their territory, led to tensions between the Cham minority and the Greek state. Unlike the Christian Albanians of Greece, the Muslim Cham Albanians were seen by Greek nationalists as an immediate threat to the state. Meanwhile, fascist Italian propaganda initiated in 1939 an aggressive pro-Albanian campaign for the annexation of the Greek region and the creation of a Greater Albanian state.

At the beginning of World War II, when Greece announced its full mobilisation prior to the Italian invasion, Cham Albanians were alienated further by the Greek state, and were treated as a hostile population and experienced discrimination and oppression, while their community leaders were exiled.

With the onset of the Second World War, a part of the Muslim Cham population collaborated with the Axis troops, with the degree being a matter of academic debate. They did so either by providing indirect support (guides, local connections, informants etc.) or by being recruited as Axis troops and armed irregulars. The latter cases were responsible for atrocities against the local Greek populace. Overall, the Muslim Chams were sympathetic to Axis forces during the war and benefited from the Axis occupation of Greece. These Cham collaborators displayed extreme cruelty toward the Greek population and indulged in massacres and lootings. Armed Cham collaborator units actively participated in Nazi operations that resulted in the murder of more than 1,200 Greek villagers between July and September 1943, and, in January 1944, in the murder of 600 people on the Albanian side of the border. There were also moderate elements within the Muslim Cham community who opposed hatred of their Greek neighbors, including Albanian beys and religious leaders. A limited number of Muslim Chams enlisted in Albanian and Greek resistance units in the last stages of World War II.

Collaboration with the Axis fueled resentment by the Greek side and in the aftermath of World War II, despite the assurances of the EDES guerillas, most of the Muslim Cham community fled, or were forced to flee, to Albania. The collaboration, which was also the outcome of the Greek totalitarian regime's policy embedded in the prevailing nationalistic ideology of the interwar period, served as a justification for their expulsion. In the process between 200 and 300 Chams were massacred by EDES forces in various settlements, while 1,200 were murdered in total. Some Albanian sources increase this number to c. 2,000. However, atrocities were not encouraged by the EDES leadership and the British mission, but both were unable to prevent them. Generally, violent incidents against Muslim Cham civilians were severely limited because the EDES leadership managed to impose discipline on its subordinate members. In 1945–1946, a special collaborator's court in Greece condemned a total of 2,109 Cham Albanians in absentia for collaboration with the Axis powers and war crimes. Several local Greek notables promised safe passage and offered to host all those Chams who would abandon the Nazi side. As such, a few hundred Muslim Chams stayed in Greece.

Moreover, according to Albanian sources an additional 2,500 Muslim Cham refugees lost their lives through starvation and epidemics on their way to Albania. After settling in the People's Republic of Albania, the ruling Party of Labour of Albania under Enver Hoxha did not treat them as victims, but took a very distrustful view towards them and proceeded with arrests and exiles and suffered a certain degree of persecution within Albania, because their elites were traditionally rich landlords, they had collaborated with the Axis forces and they had been involved in anti-communist activities. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  • The article's lead section has been updated. The trimmed version of the lead [14] is the same one as the green-colored text just above in the present thread: [15]. If I have forgotten something, please let me know; I am afraid the lead still remains somewhat bloated, any trimming ideas will be appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Close, David H. (1995). "The Origins of the Greek Civil War" in wp:IDONTLIKEIT fashion

Edits such as this one [[16]] constitute disruption and manipulation of sourced content. Any further attempt of manipulating sourced data will be reported. Based on the specific author who is a specialist historian on WWII history of Greece the lowest estimate is 200. Not 1,200. As such there is no excuse to change the specific lowest number to a higher number in clear wp:IDONTLIKEIT fashion. Alexikoua (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This is stated in the lead. EDES gangs were not the only perpetrators; also, according to Miranda Vickers, 5,000 Chams were killed, but due to a likely overlap between total murdered and total died through starvation/disease, I did not insist upon adding it back. This is not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but a case of WP:SCOPE, killing from non-EDES members are included in the article, the infobox should account for this. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The quote reads: ""EDES gangs massacred 200–300 of the Cham population, who during the occupation totalled about 19,000 and forced all the rest to flee to Albania"", according to this summary: EDES gangs were not the only perpetrators nevertheless this is not an excuse to consider that non-EDES guerrilla also killed Chams. According to Close the only ones that killed Chams were EDES gangs and those killed totalled 200-300. For future reference a perpetrator of a forced migration isn't necessary someone who also killed.

Removing Close's estimates under this rationale can be considered at least childish editing.Alexikoua (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. I was reflecting the infobox information the way it is described in the lead, which is why I removed it. Does Close explicitly say that it was only EDES that killed Albanians without any involvement from ELAS or individual peasants? If not, then making this number the lower bound is still misleading. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Close does not state that only EDES gangs killed Albanians, making his number misleading to keep as the lower bound for total killed during this period. Yung Doohickey (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Alexikoua, unless you have a source which explicitly states that EDES members were the only ones that killed Chams (which is already refuted by other sources it seems), that constitutes WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. It is not WP:GOODFAITH to accuse someone of manipulating figures and then describing their behaviour as “childish” (a favourite catchword for you), when it is actually you who is in fact doing so. To top it off, you threatened the user by saying you’ll report them when they clearly have not done anything wrong, nor have they done anything in bad faith. Be civil. Botushali (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Once again attempting to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on those claiming EDES gangs were not the only perpetrators Which sources state this explicitly? If none are provided I will remove it. Khirurg (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Tsoutsoumpis, Spyros (December 2015) page 137: "The final outbreak of violence occurred in the town of Filiates in late September, when approximately 100 Chams were murdered by guerrillas and civilians", "when former guerrillas and locals attacked the few Muslim families who had returned to the town of Filiates murdering at least sixty persons", and "On the night of 28 August 1944, a group of ELAS guerrillas led by Thanasis Giohalas arrested 40 Muslims in the town of Parga and executed them in the town’s Venetian castle".[here] This source is cited in the article. Yung Doohickey (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
100+40+60 is 200, not 1200. And except for the 40 killed by ELAS, it's not clear that "guerillas" and "former guerillas" does not refer to EDES (in fact it most likely does). But even if we add these figures to the 200-300 killed by EDES, that's still far less than 1200. Khirurg (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Two of these citations involves civilians/locals, and the third one involves ELAS. My point is that "EDES gangs" are not the only perpetrators of killings, which is what you asked of me. Yung Doohickey (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing to suggest that 1200 is the lower bound. That is what we are talking about. I don't see anything anywhere that claims 1200 is the lower bound. You will need a high quality source that explicitly states that 1200 is the lower bound. Khirurg (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Baltsiotis, Lambros (13 November 2011): "In total more than 1,200 persons were murdered."[here] This is cited in the article. Yung Doohickey (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes I know, but what you are not getting is he doesn't state that is a lower bound. Can you understand that? You need a source that claims 1200 is the lower bound. As far as I can tell the lowest estimate I've seen so far is 200-300. Khirurg (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
It clearly states that more than 1,200 were killed, which clearly means it's the minimum number killed (i.e. the lower bound). What exactly am I not getting? The 200-300 estimate isn't accurate to all perpetrators, and shouldn't be used when there's another source that does include other perpetrators. I've provided a source stating that killings were committed by perpetrators outside of EDES elements and a source citing the minimum total estimate at 1,200. Yung Doohickey (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Don't fabricate stuff. Baltsiotis in no way states that is lower bound. You are literally making that up. "More than 1200" could easily just be a figure of speech to round the number, instead of saying "1210 were killed". It's common practice to round such figures with figures of speech such as "more than" or "over". Even if we add the 40 killed by ELAS (the only substantiated piece of evidence that it wasn't just EDES), that's still nowhere close to 1200. Again, find a better a source or forget it. Khirurg (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Regardless, the source is still putting the total number killed anywhere above 1,200 and below 2,000. The 40 killed by ELAS was only in one massacre, that isn't an indicator that it was the only one; additionally, individual peasants/locals/citizens were involved in the killings as well. Yung Doohickey (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
And Close put it at 200-300. If he felt there were others, he would have put them too (e.g. "200-300 were killed by EDES and X were killed by Y). So that's the lower bound for now. Khirurg (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but Close did not put the total at 200-300. He put the number killed by EDES gangs at 200-300 for March to May 1945, making it WP:OR to have it count for 1944-1945. On the Greek side of the frontier, government forces in March-May 1945 inflamed tensions by savage persecution of the Albanian-speaking Muslims, the Chams, in Epirus, and of the slavophones in western Macedonia. EDES gangs massacred 200-300 of the Cham population, who during the occupation totalled about 19,000, and forced all the rest to flee to Albania. I didn't realize this before, but I think this gives an even bigger reason why it shouldn't be used. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, since the additional 2,500 due to starvation/illness is not universally agreed upon (correct me if I'm wrong), the deaths should just be on a range from 1,200 to 5,000 (citing Miranda Vickers for the 5,000 figure) and the section mentioning the additional 2,500 should be removed. This will make the infobox less bloated as well. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Its crystal clear that Close provides a full picture of the event of Cham expulsion, He doesn't make exceptions.Alexikoua (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Close is giving his figures from March to May 1945, please read my 24 December comment. This make his estimate WP:OR to apply for the entirety of 1944-45. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians/Archive_3&oldid=1212138148"