Talk:Expulsion of Cham Albanians/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You also need to follow

wp:RS. You don't believe that declarations of Cham organizations and representatives count as reliable metarial right?Alexikoua (talk

) 16:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess you mean the version of 2014 and not 2010 as you wrongly cite above (and in the article as well). What makes you believe that a paper without a single inline falls into

wp:RS? [[16]]. Such mistakes are unacceptable even for undergraduate students.Alexikoua (talk

) 22:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From The New Albanian Migration:

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

According to Mark Mowzer:

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

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

Yes, it is just you. Just like it is just you using POV language like "terrorized", just like it is just you that seeks to justify and downplay the atrocities committed by the Chams, just like it is just you who makes up fictitious invasions of Greece by Italy in 1917.

talk

) 18:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

to be more precise per Roudometof:

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

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

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

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

While Eleftheria Manta (2009) writes that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did so, because it was so, especially as Manta's state outright. Some parts of the lede need to be transferred to the body as this article is not about the collaboration of Chams, but their expulsion. Otherwise i will extensively expand the lede.Resnjari (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"February 20 — Konitza, near the Albanian border in western Greece, is occupied by two Italian battalions, since the Greek authorities move southward to Janina." The Literary Digest, Volume 54, page 590. [19]

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

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

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

REMINDER TO ALL EDITORS: I remind all editors in here to adhere to

wp:civil and that what could be interpreted as veiled threats and intimidation are not on. Also that pronouncements about matters becoming: "Otherwise things will get real ugly real quick" are to be refrained from and good faith maintained. If sources are the issue for being discussed, then those sources need to be discussed in the talk page in a orderly and respectful manner. Thank you.Resnjari (talk

) 19:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Elsie can be removed. The matter is a small trifle in the article. There is Lambros Baltsiotis work "The Muslim Chams of Northwestern Greece: The grounds for the expulsion of a "non-existent" minority community".(2011). European Journal of Turkish Studies. [20] which more than makes up for not having Elsie in here. Anyway i have placed Baltsiotis as a further reading source in this article for editors to read and use about issues of persecution etc. As a Greeks scholar he has been the first to examine the Greek government archive and build on Cham scholarship in a way that no other scholar has and his work has come after Roudementof. For those wanting to make additions, please read the very detailed article that is

wp:secondary before getting into complications.Resnjari (talk

) 10:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, Eleftheria Manta did not raise any concerns about the parts you mention, which to me implies that she does not disagree with Elsie on said issues. It's hard to believe that she'd describe the introduction as "rather balanced" if she disagreed with such a central point. I believe you'd need more to refute this. Baltsiotis, who is a greek scholar writes the following[21]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong. Read it again.

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

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

More?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b) it's taken out of context

c) materia does not exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

talk

) 18:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background expansion

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

Apart from

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

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

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

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

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

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

My area of expertise and interest is the persecution of Muslims by non non-Muslims in the Balkans. If you are willing to go the mile, i am willing to go 10 miles. If this goes to arbitration, so be it. This sounds like an attempt at intimidation and an intent to

talk

) 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The same goes to all editors in here who when presented with

WP:BATTLE. Like i said, if this article goes to arbitration, i know the sources very well and will outline the issues involved here and make the case. I am no novice.Resnjari (talk

) 20:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

No attack. If

wp:secondary sources are neglected as has been done somewhat, then Wikipedia has the appropriate forums where other editors who are not involved can also take a look at the matter and give constructive input.Resnjari (talk

) 10:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

talk

) 23:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Do you mean that Baltsiotis claims were refuted in 1997? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

I don't disagree that the methods adopted by the P.R. of Albania at a period very close to the expulsion were (not only) ideologicaly close to the ones of

Kim Jong-un

. Some of the following information need to become part of the aftermatch section:

The regime of Enver Hoxha was increasingly conspicuous towards the Cham community. It believed that they were of questionable loyalty and could easily become agents of a foreign power. This view was probably based because they were Greek citizens and their elites were traditionally rich landlords, while collaboration with the Axis and anti-communism were also significant factors that contributed to this.^[1] At the end of 1945, numerous Cham Albanians were imprisoned by the authorities of the People's Republic of Albania, while they were branded as "war criminals", "collaborators of the occupation forces" and "murderers of the Greeks". Although the representatives of the community protested against these developments, this resulted in further arrests and exiles of Cham Albanians.^[2] Thus, the communist regime in Albania took a very distrustful view of the Cham community. Many of them were transferred further north, away from the southern border region.^[3][2] In 1949, during the Greek Civil War (1946–1949), the leadership of the People's Republic of Albania tried to mobilize the Cham community in order to fight with the communistin.^[4] After their negative response they were labelled "reactionaries" and suffered a certain degree of persecution within Albania. Moreover, the Cham issue was neglected by the local regime.^[5] In 1947 the regime revealed a conspiracy in which 85 Chams were allegedly part in the creation of an armed nationalist group named "Balli Kombetar".^[6] In 1960 another anti-communist conspiracy was uncovered under Teme Sejko, a Cham admiral of the Albanian navy from Konispol. The alleged perpetrators, among them also 29 Chams, were accused as agents of "American, Yugoslav and Greek separatists". As a result, Sejko was executed and several of his relatives persecuted, while other members of the Cham community were imprisoned.^[7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no issue with Baltsiotis and no one has brought up anything to call into question his scholarship. He, unlike other scholars also for the first time has delved into the Greek archive and has done extensive fieldwork and he has also published extensively in Western publications and his work cited as such. That work which is referred to is published in a international Western publication. Albanian scholarship can also go into the article as long as it is of reputable scholars. I see no need for them though (others may disagree and that is fine, this is the talk page after all), as Baltsiotis and Manda basically cover the terrain they do (and offer much new infromation especially from the previously unseen Greek government archive and local fieldwork in the Thesprotia area) and their work is accessible online unlike the Albanian ones which means that additional translations etc would need to be provided if added in the article. If some Albanian want to do that, fine with them, but i have other things to do with my time than constantly do translations and its a real pain in he a** (excuse the expression). I will also note that omitting Greek or Albanian sources if from reputable sources for international ones is problematic (especially if they are of quality and meet wikipedia standards) because i have heard similar arguments made for omitting Armenian scholarship by Turkish editors so as to limit information regarding certain events and concentrating on "other" sources. As long as the scholar meets

wp:reliable without other issues regarding them being raised or shown to be the case then thier inclusion suffices. Best.Resnjari (talk

) 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Some words need to be said on the scholarship. I am not sure what you mean by Albanian sources as you have not cited any here regarding contradictions with the Greek. I am aware of Albanian scholarship on the Cham matter and have most of the literature published here at home. Reputable scholars like historians Pëllumb Xhufi have written about the war period and gone into reasons for active collaboration. The elderly Hajredin Isufi whose works extensively deal with the issue of Muslim Cham co-operation between them and their Orthodox Albanian speaking neighbours during the war, labelled Greeks in other sources (the late Georgina Kretsi went to Hajredinaj for extensive assistance when she did her fieldwork in Albania over a decade ago on the Chams). Ibrahim Hoxha (in his 90s now and still active in publishing and of good quality !) has touched on WW2, though most of his works concentrate on the 19th century Ottoman period and the Balkan Wars. Kaliopi Naska has compiled a volume of Albanian government documents that relate to the Chams. A newbie academic Blerina Sadiku has also written on the Chams. Albanian scholarship is inhibited in a few ways. One they are underfunded so are limited in the scope of studies they can do. Two, some have involved getting oral histories, while others have literally mined the Albanian archive to the point that most of what is out there has been published. They also have had NO access to the Greek archive. What Baltsiotis' work (and he has gone over the Albanian scholarship as statted in his article) does (as he and Manda too states in the epilogue of the article) is fill a large gap by going into the Greek government archive. Manda fills a gap by looking at the diplomatic side of the issue and delves into the Greek archive also. They have added and have been a serious corrective to certain aspects of scholarship (Albanian, but mainly the Greek) on this issue. Nearly all of what they have come across however does not contradict Albanian sources (except on small things like numbers, which again Albanian scholarship has not been privy to other archives). Unless you have anything to the contrary, Baltsiotis and Manda whose available works were published in Western peer reviewed publications and are respected scholars (they are not seen as nationalist by any stretch of the word, unless someone has some credible source stating this), will form as credible sources for this article as they meet

wp:secondary. When i use sources i take into account that editors from the other side may distrust certain sources. Its why i have refrained from using Albanian sources here (also because i would need to translate a lot of passage, no need for headaches). When you are ready to write, i am willing to work with anyone (i got the sources for the main Cham page, so when your ready we can go through it as you noted certain deficiencies in areas late last year). Sources though should only be dismissed if serious problems are shown to exist, not on the heritage of the author. If such a principle of excluding works due to the heritage of the author is applied then works on the Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide etc would be very small indeed. Heritage does not come into play, but the standing of a scholar and their research. The intro has been brought to a reasonable size and i appreciate your assistance. We'll see what others say though on the intro before that tag can be removed. Best.Resnjari (talk

) 05:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

However the following sentences need to go into the body because the article is about the expulsions specially (there already is a collaboration article for this stuff to be in the lede over there) and is

WP:undue

. Otherwise if this remain in the lede then the rationale for a few more sentences during the interwar period might be needed to balance it out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he then goes on to conclude:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You agreed with replacing:

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

with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing "problematic" about the sentence. The best source on the subject, Meyer, uses "large parts". I understand it may be hard to accept, but that's just how it is. Everything else, including elaborate, convoluted explications, is

talk

) 02:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50) as separate article exists for that. That is a much more complicated article and yet is done in a neutral way. A good template and precedent to observe for here.Resnjari (talk

) 10:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Guys have a look at other articles which deal with these types of issues from World War Two on Wikipedia whose neutrality is not question. In particular see:

Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50), before this continues.Resnjari (talk

) 11:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best to have two articles like with other ethnic minorities of the WW2 period (one of expulsions, another on collaboration -allows for scope to expand and gives focus on the subject matter). The scholarship on the Cham community during this time is growing. Untangling a lot of the sentences will sometimes tricky. Which days of the week/weekend are good for you and other editors when we do this ((as we all have lives outside Wikipedia) ? Its a big task. I say from experience doing it solo when i moved content (which i had written anyway) from the

The Expulsion of Albanians 1877-1878 while condensing a section in the former (looked easy, but was not). Also as we do it, sometimes we nominate sentences in the talk about how to split it or condense or it remaining in this article etc after it has been moved into the collaboration article. Best.Resnjari (talk

) 13:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will also cite Baltsiotis again on page 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also described here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover, per Baltsiotis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With regards to the numbers, it's not OR since the number of murdered is mentioned immediately following the description of atrocities committed by EDES, but sure, there is some ambiguity. Although it's quite unreasonable to assume that 900 of the 1,200 were murdered by ELAS and local Christians, no? The former, per Mazower, did not agree with the "collective ethnic justice" by EDES. We can discuss this in a separate section, or even ask for advice by other editors on how to interpret Baltsiotis on the issue.^[8] In the meantime, this can easily be resolved by excluding "EDES forces" and simply stating that "more than 1,200 Muslim Chams were murdered in total". As for Baltsiotis being obsolete, that's a first. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Lead because this is not what the article's main body says either. Your insistence to write the lead in an way that it portrays the Greek state as having adopted oppresive policies against Chams on fly and for no apparent reason, is not what the article says, and not what the sources confirm... -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk

) 13:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

A couple of things. Your latest addition includes:

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

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

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

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

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

I will also restore some of the stuff you removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wp:secondary scholarship. Brioni has used these to make his points.Resnjari (talk

) 13:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

with:

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

Compare: Before and after.

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

As Pettifer explains it:

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

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

Dear Resnjari read again my comment:

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

And this is it:

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

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

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

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

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