![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
1. Kollias has not been used as a reliable source in
Arvanites so it should not be treated as such here.
2. Noone says that they selfidentify as greeks.
3. Greek is an ethnicity, orthodox is a religion. Cham are Albanians by definition.
Until you find sources, leave it this way.
Balkanian`s word (
talk)
11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above, but I can't see how Orthodox Chams=Arvanites of Epirus. Except that greek helsinki states that Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia feel Albanians (the sentence does not mention the term Chams about the entire region). There is also a geographical confusion, Chamera/Tsiamouria is a part of Epirus periphery (less than 30%, and Thesprotia alone consist of 12%-14% of Epirus area) not the same area with different name. In that way Orthodox Chams are the Arvanites of Chameria/Tsiamouria, seems logical. The Arvanites of the rest of Epirus according to helsinki feel Albanian but beeing Cham isn't geographically appropriate (there are no sources linking to that, imagine Napoleon Zervas beeing counted as Cham, because he was from Arta and of possible Arvanite origin).
I see that even Vickers is confused about the geographical definition of Chameria/Tsiamoura, in one time mentions that it is Thesprotia (she mentions also something about the ... Illyrian tribe of Thesprotians) but after some pages the term incorporates Epirus periphery. Alexikoua ( talk) 22:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
About what Vickers believes what's Chameria, on pg. 1 the 2002 paper states:
The Chams are the ethnic Albanian, and predominantly Muslim, population from the area of north western Greece known to Greeks as Threspotia and to Albanians as Chameria. The region, which is centred around the Tsamis river, extends from Butrint and the mouth of the Acheron River to Lake Prespa in the north, eastward to the Pindus mountains and south as far as Preveza and the Gulf of Arta.
Lake Prespa, is in fact out of Epirus. It's sure that there is a geographical confusion, so we have Thesprotia=Chameria=from Ionian coast to Prespa. On page 2 there is a map with the label 'Chameria' n, nw of Ioannina (on the Ioannina-Kakavia road, so in Ioannina prefecture).
With such confusions there is enough room for original research. If there are 40.000 orthodox albanians on thesprotia ('live in the Threspotia region.' pg. 11) there are 40.000 out of a population of 44.000, if we count as Thesprotia what Vickers defines as Thesprotia (=Chameria) the total population has to include Ioannina, Kastoria and Florina (to lake Prepsa). Alexikoua ( talk) 12:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Added! You`re right! Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
1. Kollias has not been used as a reliable source in
Arvanites so it should not be treated as such here.
2. Noone says that they selfidentify as greeks.
3. Greek is an ethnicity, orthodox is a religion. Cham are Albanians by definition.
Until you find sources, leave it this way.
Balkanian`s word (
talk)
11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The map of Chameria [ [1]] in this article extends too far south. Also, I am not aware of any official, historic, or other maps showing Chameria as a region - the only mentions in old maps of the region are as Epirus or Albania or Romelia or Illyria (I am not denying that Chameria occupies/ed a geographic region). So please provide more reliable sources to keep this map in the article. Politis ( talk) 16:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Just out of curiosity, are there any older maps that mention Chameria? Politis ( talk) 10:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems obvious that under the Byzantines and Ottomans these names and their geographical location were almost aribtrary (I am not denying the individuality of the Chams). Probably because the important thing was the administrative district. It is only in the later part of the 19th century that names and regions became increasingly imprtant. For instance, the region of Macedonia only started being 'imposed' as a clearly defined region after the fall of Yugoslavia. In this respect, Wikipedia has promoted the identity of a regional Macedonia even though historically this perception was restricted as a concept within the, then, Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Macedonia. Of course, there is no geographic unity defining regional Macedonia but in the heads of those who support a greater Macedonia. Politis ( talk) 11:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The area was called 'Risadie' or something like that on Ottoman times Greek: Ρισαδιέ. The name Vagenetia was first mentioned at 650 A.D., and was the name of the local bishopry, after the Slavic invasion (the name might derive from the Slavic tribe of Vainouitai).
There is a map mentioning the Albanian administration (or semi-administration) of Chameria/Tsiamouria (about WWII period) [ [2]].
Should be Romanian Alexikoua ( talk) 11:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Balkanian requested that I assess this article and its overall expansion.
1) The Euromosaic Study that is associated with the phrase "Arvanites of Epirus" is decent. However, the source itself lacks reliable references. So far, my reading of the French excerpt doesn't show that the Chams specifically self-identify as "Arvanites of Epirus". If anything, the Euromosaic Study merely states that "Arvanites" inhabited the region known as Chameria. Of course, an accurate translation of the excerpt would be very helpful since many readers, including myself, are not gifted with the ability to read perfect French.
2) The organization of the history section seems fine. However, I would remove the following: "But, according to historians, earlier Albanian settlements were in the region before this migration." This sentence sounds a bit OR-ish given the fact that there is neither a page number nor an excerpt from John Fine's book that substantiates it. It would be best to provide more sources in order to verify that Albanian migrations actually occurred before the 12th century.
3) Reference citations are needed in the sections entitled "Medieval Albanian states" and "Ottoman rule and Pashalik of Janina".
4) Reference citations that derive their information from the International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations should be removed. Unfortunately, the source entitled "Urgent Anthropology" contains no bibliography, no reliable citations, and no discussion of scientific/academic methodologies. If anything, IMIR is an explicitly ideological organization that does not coincide with Wikipedia policies let alone with serious academic standards.
5) Reference citations that derive their information from the Albanian American Civic League should be removed. The article entitled "The Albanian National Question (Chameria)" by Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi lacks reliable citations and has no bibliography necessary for fact-checking. As far as WP:RS is concerned, this article is problematic.
6) The section entitled "Arvanites of Epirus" must either be changed or removed given the fact that the Vickers excerpt does not explicitly associate the phrase with the Chams. There are "Orthodox Chams", but nowhere do I find Chams declaring themselves as "Arvanites of Epirus".
This review may be deemed crude and blunt to some users. However, if there is any hope for this article to achieve GA status, then it must undergo multiple tempering processes. By far, the article seems to be progressing well even though it still needs a lot of work. If there any other problems I find, I'll be more than happy to discuss them here. Deucalionite ( talk) 19:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Answers. Some of your twiks are right, some are wrong. Let take them one by one:
1. Euromosaic, clearly states "Arvanites of Chameria in EPirus", and than states "the dialect of the orthodox chams", so there is no reason for not using it. I think that euromosaic project, financed by EU, is a RS, because it is financed and used, and agreed by EU.
2. Ok remove it, I`ll cite the whole part, in order to rewrite it.
3.They are cited with "History of Albanian People. Albanian Academy of Science.
ISBN
9992716231".
4.Ok, I did not add it, and I do not agree with they way it is writen "our estimate", without sayig how this estimate was made.
5.This article, is only citing the fact, that Cham Albanians have created organisations in US, but if we do not agree on this citation, there are the online pages of these cham organisations, that we can add as reference, in order to show, that they exist.
6. and 7. This paragraph is a result of "euromosaic study", also GHM, citing Banfi, says that they self-identify as "shqiptar" and that "they form part of the modern albanian nation. If, GHM is not RS, then we should find what Banfi says exactly, and cite him directly.
8. My foult, trying to find it. I just copied text and references from the main pages of that sections
9.You`re right, I`ll try to cite Elsie directly.
10.The articles from Chameria Institute are essays prepeared from Albanian academics, in a symposium. They are not published, but they are added in the internet pages of the institute. This academics, are well-known scientists, so they are RS. You can try to find about their names in google books, and google scholar. So, they should not be removed. Also, we are speaking about the language, music, and culture in general, so there is not any case of POV, or any case of non RS.
11. Tole is an well-known ethnologist and has published the "dicitionary of albanian folk music", which is considered as the main work, for albanian folk tradition. This dictionary is full of references, and thus, it is a RS. I will try to find its ISBN, I added the online version of the dictionary, which is found in Tole`s website, in order to be searchable and easiear to find.
12.Tole cites Stockman, in another book of him.
Balkanian`s word (
talk)
08:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute about a reference: International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations.
User:Deucalionite opposes saying that: "Reference citations that derive their information from the International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations should be removed. Unfortunately, the source entitled "Urgent Anthropology" contains no bibliography, no reliable citations, and no discussion of scientific/academic methodologies. If anything, IMIR is an explicitly ideological organization that does not coincide with Wikipedia policies let alone with serious academic standards."
I oppose saying that: "I do not agree with they way it is writen "our estimate", without sayig how this estimate was made."
User:Alexikoua agrees saying that:"I believe that it is a reliable source, worth the try to mention".
Let`s find a solution is it a RS or not... Balkanian`s word ( talk) 10:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I mean, we have already a source from Vickers. But Vickers don't give a citation about the number (suppose it's taken from Cham organizations). On the other hand Vickers disagrees clearly at least with 5 historical views according to wiki articles (mentioned above). So, why imir should be less trustworthy than Vickers on that?
Imir gives on the first pages the full schedule on how the research was conducted and in what basis.
Moreover, imagine, about Northern Epirus, taking into account only the numbers that N. Epirote organizations give. Alexikoua ( talk) 15:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you about the map. Actually I have created them, after the references I managed to get about the extent of the despotates and the principalities. If you have any other reference, then feel free to change the map, according to them. I am putting the map again in the page, saying that it is the extent, at 1390. Do you agree? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
ok, 1390. However there where major fluctuations on borders that period, I' ll provide some sources and make adjustments. The sentence that the D. of Epirus was limitied on east Epirus is right about the 1358-1367 period, before Thomas Prelub. became despot. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The sources i've got are from these books:
and up to this we have (about political control):
Some sources are contradicting its other, but the picture seems to be the above. What's most important is that Albanian chieftains never had control of the Epirotic coast, because the trade between Ioannina with the Italian was always undisturbed. The Italian despots of Ioannina had a special relation with their Venezian compatriots, even if there was some kind of migration in Vagenetia political control kept the ports to Italian hands. Alexikoua ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Two proposals for people intrested in this page.
1. As far as the Cham Issue, of the WWII, and the adjuctant periods (1935-1950) are dobious, and not clear, Greek and Albanian government and authors may contain about this period a certain national POV. Thus, I propose a consnesus on the following issue:
I think that this is the only solution in order to mantian the Cham Albanians page and other pages containing the Cham Issue balanced, reliable and NPOV.
2. Things to be done:
And than our work is over. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Something very interesting and essential that is nowhere mentioned is about
Ottoman rule section should contain Pashalik of Janina, they should not be seperate. I do not see why having a section about Chams and the Greek Revolution, since they had no notable contribution in it. Careful about the external links, sites like "give Chameria back were it belongs" should be avoided. We can see about the rest.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 08:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the third and first, but the second point varies and is always confusing on weather something could be rs or not. A good approach should be to count first the no Albanian-Greeks, provided that they dont give repeatetly wrong proven data (according to wiki articles), like Vickers in her 2002, 2007 papers (as per disc. page in Cham Albanians).
Considered that not only some Albanian and Greek are no-rs, there are many Turks (and maybe other) that have a non-rs approach on the topics (this is logical according the Turks).
There is still unexplained why IMIR is excluded as a sources (the organization states clear about the scientific methods that are used) Alexikoua ( talk) 06:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
What else does Babiniotis say? I see no reason why the article should not elaborate if there is more information. For example the sound-changes involved are interesting. I know that Doric Greek and North-West Greek (?) had a theta/s sound variation: salassa instead of thalassa, etc. which makes me think of a possible Sameis/Thameis variation. In Romanian there is cimbru (pronounced cheembroo), which in ancient Greek is thymbra ( summer savory). What information do we have about:
-- A from L.A. ( talk) 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but be carefull, because it could be seen as a OR, if you don`t find explict info about that. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
We have this sentence: Albanian Cham units also played an active part in the Holocaust in Greece, including the round-up and expulsion to Auschwitz and Birkenau of the 2,000 strong Romaniotes Greek-Jewish community of Ioannina in April 1944., referenced with Mazower, Mark. Inside Hitler's Greece: The Experience of Occupation, 1941-44. Yale University Press, 1993, ISBN 0300089236.
Actually, Balli Kombetar did not discriminate any jew in Albania. This reference was not checked during ouer #Citations review So, I really doubt that Mazower is well-cited. Whoever has acces in this book, should provide the exact citation from Mazower. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 17:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Talking about nothing. Challenge me! Give me the inline citation, and I will give you every inline citations you`ll need. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
About Mazover and the Holocaust participation of some Chams. It is really ridiculous to ask about exact citation provided that we trust with blind eyes Vickers, who makes a number of clear anti-wiki approaches (see above). Mazover didn't support that Thesprotians were Illyrians or that the Greek Government is acting like Mafia (Vicker's thoughts). As for the holocaust, one primary source are the documents of the 'ss commander' in the region. There is also a letter from him to M. Dino telling him how thankful he is, about the help provided.
What's Vicker's sources about the number of Chams?
As wiki says 'calm down' first, everything can find a solution. Go outdoors and enjoy yourselves its Sat. night.(Vicker's says something about Greek-Albanian underground meetings in taverns ;))-- Alexikoua ( talk) 21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that we`re not in the same town:-). The second problem is that on this book Mazower says nothing about such thing. If Chams played a role in holocaust, I suppose that he would use it. The third problem is that Balli Kombetar was not anti-semit, on the other hand they protected jews (a number of references about that). All these make me suspect that Mazower has not written it. I am not saying that Mazower has written something wrong, I am suspecting that he has not said it. If he has written that "chams have massacred jews" ofccourse it has a place in the article, much more than one sentence. If not, it should be deleted. Am I asking too much? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 21:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Balkanian strenuously maintains that "only a few hundred Chams" collaborated with the Axis forces, yet one of his own sources completely gives the lie to that: [3]. Section 1.2, paragraph B, sentence 5. For those of you that don't speak French, it says "a majority of them having collaborated with the occupation forces". Ouch! This raises serious doubts about how this user uses sources. Not only does he cherry-pick, but even those sources he uses are completely twisted and falsified. Incredible. This article needs major fact-checking. -- Athenean ( talk) 21:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how a fact can be totally reversed. I don't know If the cited source has a sense of reality, but it lacks citations for sure. IMIR says that this plan was made up by Zog's Government. There is a specific record in the Greek Government in 1930 that refuses such kind of action, because the numbers are not equal.
There is a comfusion on what is rs or not. I see a very one sided approach.
According to a Turkish author, all Turks from Epirus that transfered to Turkey are Chams. Nice try, maybe we have to choose a bit more carefully our sources Alexikoua ( talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Until these original documents are cited, there is not that kind of idiotic arguement (and it is if you claim that you want to exchange a minority of greater number in another country with another that's ca. 20.000 according to Mazover).
I ask for third time, where is Vicker's source of the 440.000 number? I'm sure you know balk. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I know about the 20.000. I speak about now. From whom Vickers knows that they are 440 worldwide? that's my clear answer. because there r no citations on the 02 07 papers. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
registration of Chams by the Chameria Political Association. Place Persons Shkoder 1,150 Kruje-Lac-Fushekruje 720 Lezhe 35 Tirana (District) 29,700 Durres-Shijak-Sukth 35,000 Kavaje-Golem-Gose-Rrogozhine 10,500 Peqin 1,400 Elbasan-Cerrik 12,650 Lushnje-Zhame-Dushk 8,300 Berat-Kucove 6,900 Fier-Patos-Rreth 39,800 Vlore (District) 42,300 Sarande (District) 12,100 Delvine (District) 2,900 Total 204,255"
Between Greece and Turkey', Balkan Studies, Vol 27, No 2, 1986, pp305-6."
Here is the link of IMIR [ [4]] lets read:
Two years later (in 1930) the Albanian king Ahmed Zogu offered the Greek government to make a population transfer by sending the Зams to Albania in the place of the Greek ethnic minority there. The king pursued a policy of clearing the Greeks out of Albania. His proposal was not accepted by the Greek side because of the lack of reciprocity - 10 to 20 thousand Зams in exchange for 100 thousand Greeks.
As per talk I'll delete the contradicting claim until there are primary sources about Greek records in hand to prove that the above is wrong.
As for the number of today's Chams, it's just an claim by Cham organizations, but imagine as for Greeks in Albania taking into account only claims of N. Epirote organizations. That's why Imir says that these figures are inflated (on both sides). Alexikoua ( talk) 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No, wait, thats really intresting, because we talk about 2 different offers. The greek one was in 1924, when there was Fan Noli prime minister of Albania, who did not accept it. THis could be another offer, from Ahmet Zogu. But, it should have another reference, because IMIR, is not reliable. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Source's link is dead, these means no primary sources available for now. The Greek 'offer' was in 1924? Very wierd because in 1924 the Greek-Albanian border wasn't excactly delinated yet (regions like Liqenas were in Greek hands that year). How could there be such offer without knowing the excact region of the potenial exchanged population? Alexikoua ( talk) 22:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Liqenas has nothing to do with Greece, to far away. There were 14 villages only, which were under discussion, thus a very limited number of Greeks and Albanians. As far as I saw, IMIR did not have even a bibliography, nor a single citation, it clearly does not fulfill WP:RS, so you can not use it as an argument. If IMIR`s author was wikipedian, he would have been blocked indefinetetly. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
What about Vickers? Too many historical errors, contrary to wiki approach. As for the 1923 exchange the author says about 'a community' not the entire minority.
I'll make the adjustment about the numbers, stating that this is what Cham organizations give.-- Alexikoua ( talk) 09:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I have added on the majority of the sources their online variants, in order to be easier to be read. For the others, I am waiting in the talk page, to be asked for any reference that any user is not sure, that is writly sourced, in order to give the in-line citation. I am also waiting for Mazowers- Inside Hitlers Greece, citation. Do not bullshit this page by removing whole paragraphs when you find new sources, just add them and do not bullshit this page by sourcing sentences about history, with studies that have no connection with history. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Still no inline citation for those "several hundred" Chams joining the Axis. Unless I see one soon, you know I'm going to do. -- Athenean ( talk) 21:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the part about a court case for WWII crimes and death penalty in absentia? I cannot quite remember the details but they seemed to be sourced. Politis ( talk) 12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
How can anyone suffer from assimilation? Here in Britain we have Poles, Russians, Greeks, Italians, etc who have assimilated. Greeks have assimilated in Russia, Bulgarians in Ukraine, Laz in Turkey, Albanians in Italy... The prime example is the US. The term 'suffer' seems superflous, emotional and POV - even if/especially if used by Vickers. Politis ( talk) 13:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
So you are basing it on personal experience. I respect that and am sorry for your discomfort, but such reasons for keeping edits are POV. Albanians speak freely their language all over Greece, including Igumenitsa. Albanian newspaper are sold where ever there is a demand. Including Igumenitsa. Politis ( talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
How can an 'rs' make several historical faults? Vickers has to read about wiki rules. Wiki, articles like Thesprotias, Illyrians, Byzantine Empire are disagreeing with Vickers, in the way the 2002, 2007 papers are a sure ban according the wiki rules (making errors that are accidentally always pro-Albanian).
As for EDES, the British mission says clearly that the operation was undertaken by the British commander in order to secure the Epirote coast for upcoming reinforcements: Talk:Cham issue
P.R.O. (Public Record Office), F.O. 371/48094/18138. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The page, however, is becoming biased because of easy assumptions. What I mean is that, the following false assumption was made: Arvanites have Orthodox Albanian origin and some Chams are orthodox, so orthodox chams are Arvanites of Epirus and vice versa, so Souliotes that also had an earlier Albanian origin and are Orthodox, are Arvanites of Epirus, so they are Chams, and so Chams played a large role in the Greek War of Independence. Now, haven't Souliotes been self-identifying as Greeks and not Chams for the last few centuries? So how does that make Chams active in the Greek Revolution? You see what I mean?-- Michael X the White ( talk) 21:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
No, no! On Souliotes there are references that say that they are Orthodox Albanians of the cham Brench.
And a lot of others. There is no assumption in this page, at least made by me. There are clear references about every single sentence. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
As for the Souliotes, sources often confuse the terms Albanians and Arvanites. A english book said that politician Th. Pangalos said that he is Albanian (actually he said Arvanite). Another english statement that made me lauph: 'Albanians are the Scots of Greece', suppose the author meant the Arvanites too.
About the 1821 Revolution, the section is very one sided. I will add the role of the Muslim Chams in that period and the fierce 'Cham civil war' (waw maybe creat a new article with this title) that occured these period (Botsaris hated his Cham compatriots very much I suppose).
Find a citation of these above, and feel free to create the "Cham civil war". I can help you, on the case of Souliotes war with Ali Pasha, it is "Edward Augustus Freeman" on the book "The Ottoman Power in Europe", stating that "This was a conquest of Christians by Mahometans ; but it was not a conquest of Christians by Turks. It was in truth a conquest of Albanians by Albanians" But, you will have to find a place that clearly cits "Cham Civil war" in a RS. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
On Botsaris do not forget, that he was in the Albanian regiment of the French Army, his mother tangue was cham albanian dialect, per Titos Jochalas, etc. etc. etc. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 22:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not doubt that Souliotes may be seen as having earlier Orthodox Albanian origin, but that does not make them Chams. I can see one source speaking of a cham branch, but that still would be cham origin, without making them Cham Albanians. From what is written in the article, Cham Albanians self-identify as Albanians, when Souliotes do not.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
google books search leads to the results (however there must be many other):
So they were of Albanian origin the time of the Revolution. In the Souli area there were some families with the name 'Zervas' too. Suppose we have two Cham civil wars... Alexikoua ( talk)
So the definition of Chams is that they are of Albanian conciousnes.... very nice, we got an answer.23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
But they were counted themselves as 'Romioi' for sure. Actually the definitions of Arvanites, means excactly that their ancestry was Albanian, but they were integrated into another society, so intermariages were plenty with the local people. In that way the nationality is not clear. But it's sure that they didn't feel compatriots with their 'muslim counterparts' (I mean Cham muslims) in Paramythia. They actually were hated enemy with the beys there. I know that these terms were synonyms but today the term Arvanites describes people that are intergrated in the Greek society (part of the Greek nation, thats what the Souliotes were, fought together because they felt connected to the Greek nation, not because they were mercenaries, or just sympathized the revolution...). Alexikoua ( talk) 00:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
In that way, Souliotes are in that scale Albanians that are any other that self-indentifies as Arvanitis, Hydraioi etc.. On the other hand the term 'Cham' is an eterochronism about this period. Not to mention that the equation orthodox Chams=Arvanites of Epirus, is clear original research and not acceptable by wiki. Alexikoua ( talk) 10:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
After 1944, many important democratic Greeks and Albanians were angry at those amongst the Chams who had joined the Axis. But this was a local issue, it was not a conflict of Greece against Albania. In fact, a democratic Greek would oppose a Cham collaborator as much as he would oppose a Greek collaborator.
Lt.-Col. J.M.Stevens wrote, “It is perfectly safe to move about alone and unarmed in practically all of Free Greece, except in north-west Macedonia where Comitajis wander about at night shooting up Antartes, and in Western Epirus where the Chams indulge in the same sport. If there are any Axis troops in the neighbourhood, one is immediately informed. This is not the case in areas where the villages are not organised as in the zone of Bulgar villages in the Edessa-Kastoria-Florina triangle.”
Of course, Wallace was on the spot, co-ordinating and in combat situations. The expression Turko Albanians originates from the 19th century; for the Greek Orthodox Albanian and Greek population, it identified specifically those Mulim Albanians who were fighting or pillaging in the name of the Turkish authorities. In the 1940s, there are also the cases of Albanian refugees (around 500) and of ethnic Greek refugees (around 5,000) from southern Albania to Greece. So do we start an article Expulsion of Greeks from Albania? Albanian refugees from Albania? Greek Albanian refugees? Politis ( talk) 12:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
"At the end of World War II, nearly all Muslim Chams in Greece were expelled to Albania by the national Greek resistance group EDES, as a collective punishment for the collaboration of some Cham Albanians with the occupation forces of the Axis as part of the Albanian nationalist Balli Kombetar.:
1. Mazower says that they were attacked, because they did not agree to fight against ELAS. So "as a collective punishment for the collaboration" is just a POV. 2. More then half of that sentence is "that f... chams that collaborated with germans", whilst our previoues sentence, was totally NPOV, made after consensus, which stated that some of them collaborated, other were part of the resistence and the rest were civilians.
Get that lead back. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 12:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Questions: Why shouldn`t we use "a minority of Cham Albanians collaborated", since it is clear in our sources? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 12:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. At WP:OR it says that, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic." So the sources I provided are fine for this article. Thanks, I will include them. Politis ( talk) 13:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Since these are quotes from books written by analysts, historians, etc. and NOT documents found in archives, I will include them. Thanks for confirming. Politis ( talk) 13:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
As you say, Wallace is an author and one of the experts. Some would argue that Vickers is an interested party. Working for the British Foreign Office and inconsistent in her presentation of facts. Wallace also worked for the British government and became an author. Always appreciative of your encouragement. Politis ( talk) 14:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This is childish but what can I say. Vickers was not even born at that time, and thus she makes studies on history, she is not a eye-witness and thus she is a secondary source. Wallace is a primary source. Wikipedia works on secondary sources not on primary sources, and thus Vickers is totally not OR, while Wallace is OR. I am not going to explain my motives, but just see that I have created
Këshilla page, which is totally against albanian POV, so my motives are clear.
Balkanian`s word (
talk)
16:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The etymology section currently states that "The Cham Albanians' name derives from the region's name, Chameria". That doesn't sound very plausible linguistically. The derivational morphology strongly suggests that the region is named after the people, not the other way round. Doesn't "Cham-eria" mean "land of the Chams"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The concept is old, but I see wiki is the only source in the net that adopts that term. Off course none of the 4 sources mentioned in the article states anywhere that excact term 'Arvanites of Epirus', which is misleading and geographically wrong if they are considered the same as' Orthodox Chams.
Well, usual results in google giving that term:
The point is that original research is something that wiki opposes, so no rs stating that. Orthodox chams are better described with that term. Alexikoua ( talk) 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The main point is that the term 'Arvanites of Epirus' isn't the same with 'Cham Orthodox' or 'Albanians of Epirus', something that balkanian agrees with. The concept is that not all Arvanites of Epirus are 'Orthodox Chams' because some of them are assimilated into Greek society and didn't belong to the definition that 'Vickers' and others give about 'Orthodox Chams'. A nice example is Napoleon Zervas, an Arvanite of Epirus (Arta), but not Cham Orthodox.
So, how can we claim that every Arvanite of Epirus is Albanian in ethnicity?
There were some Albanian clans before 500 or 600 years that descented south from Albania and settled in Greek inhabited areas (like that of Boua Shpata). Today their descendants (there are people with that surnames living in Epirus that dont know a single Albanian word) are called Arvanites and are assimilated into Greek society (sounds logical we r talking about several generations).
The term 'Arvanites of Epirus' and that Arvanites= Albanians is adopted only in Albanian nationalistic sites, some similar approach adopted Adolf Hitler about the supperiority of the unity of the Germanic tribes (that all Germanic tribes that migrated in the dark ages are one nation etc).
Moreover, and the most important, no sources claim that apporach (except unitedalbania.com) Alexikoua ( talk) 13:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Inline citations Banfi says "Arvanites of Northwestern Greece, living in Epirus periphery and Florina, are part of the modern Albanian nation..."
This means that those are Albanians and not hellenized Albanians (i.e. Arvanites). Euromosaic says that expet of two villages north of Konitsa, other are Cham Albanians. What is not clear on this? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Just per talk Arbereshe for sure are a subbranch of Albanians, and no source distincts them. They are just hellenized, self-describe as Greeks, and thats all. Arbereshe of Greece (Arvanites) live in Morea, Attica, Eubea, and other islands (hydra, etc), thus being distinct from other subbranch of Albanians. What in Greece are called Arvanites and live in Epirus, may only be either Chams or Labs, because this subbranches of ALbanians (i.e. dialect, folk tradition, etc.) live in that region. Too obvious. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually they live in 'Epirus and Western Macedonia', what Vickers defines 'Chameria' (says to lake Prespa), why dont define seperate the Cham and Lab cumminities? Saying, 'orthodox Chams' 'orthodox Labs' part of the Arvanites in Epirus and Western Macedonia, Thats what sources say about these communities. As we said, not all Arvanites of Epirus belong to these Cham and Lab communities.
Zervas family was one of the known Souliote families, according to your claims he is Orthodox Cham, every biography of N. Zervas says about his family roots, sources are plenty to provide (provided that souliotes are Chams as you claim) . Alexikoua ( talk) 14:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually about Zervas geneology it is you that you already have provide sources. See this: Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early. Well some of the famous Souliotes: Nasos Zervas Tousias Zervas, Dimos Zervas, [6] Diamandis Zervas. So they are all Chams according to your arguments. Morevover Diamantis' second grand son is Napoleon Zervas.
The surname Zervas is of uncertain root, according to a Greek site : [7] one of Zervas very far ancestors fought together with Senderbeu. So, why the Botsareoi and the Tzaveleoi are Chams and the Zerveoi aren't? Alexikoua ( talk) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Didn't say that they aren't 100%, some are, some are not. If we adopt the term 'Arvanites of Epirus' for these communities only (Chams, Labs), it practically incorporates all the Arvanites (whether assimilated or not).
So about Souliotes, what about adding the Albanian name to the Zervas fammily members too? I mean, M. Botsaris, K. Tsavelas, u add them as Chams, what's the diferrence with the Zervas Souliot clan? Alexikoua ( talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
"Chams account for the greatest part of the erstwhile substantial Albanian minority in Greek Epirus; today, the population of only two villages north of Konitsa belong to a different Albanian subgroup, that of the Labs."
Isn`t this too big and irrelevant for the lead? I have added this info (because it shoul be) in [note a], but i think that this is irrelevant for the lead as too big and with no clear signification for this article. What do you think? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a technicality: Why do we have two sets of footnotes, one regular and the other home-built? As we are now seeing, the second type requires a lot of unnecessary fiddling. Why not just integrate them in the regular "ref" technique? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
We have discussed this and no one came up with any credible evidence. There is no doubt that the Chams are an entity that lived across a region spread across today's Epirus and southern Albania. The problem is maps and the references. They are hardly ever mentioned in historic sources. 'Their' region was clearly 'multi-ethnic', if not 'multi-ethnoreligious'. Various peoples living in that area had been referred to as Illyrinans, Epirots, Albanians, Greeks, Turks, etc. The term Cham seems to emerge strongly only after Albanian independence (of course there were no Chams before). So when we see a geographic definition of precise boundaries, it seem curious. Also, that precise geographic area has been given a specific Cham history. All this looks like another great act of wiki-nation-building. Another point is an emphasis on the bad Greeks and the pleasant Chams. In fact, history shows numerous occasions where Albanian (especially southern Tosks) and Greeks are either interchangable ethnicities or fighting for the same national cause, especially if they were Greek Orthodox. But the way the article is heading, we might see the emergence of a pure-blooded Cham nation-state! :-) Politis ( talk) 17:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Should we consider the establishin of a History of Cham Albanians page, and leave in this one only a summary, in order to make it leaner? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've reinstated one of the {{ huh}} tags in the "dialects" section. The statement that the dialect has been conservative because it was in contact with Greek makes little sense at first sight. It is not a common assumption in contact linguistics that language contact promotes conservatism, and it is by no means straightforward to see how and why it should do so. In fact, quite the opposite is much more commonly assumed: Language contact promotes change. Is the writer you are quoting there a reliable source on linguistic matters? Does he offer an explanation for this surprising statement? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
In a very general way, we mention in this article that Chams were the Albanians of Epirus. We know, however, that the Greeks with much earlier "Orthodox Albanian origin" (or whatever) are the Arvanites. Babiniotis (whom we cite) mentions that "Chams" were the Muslim Albanians (Turkalbanians Τουρκαλβανοί). So were "Chams" all Albanians or just the Muslims (who, as Muslims had not integrated in the Greek society) ??-- Michael X the White ( talk) 12:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If we actually cite Babiniotis to tell us what "Chams" are, then we cannot just pick a part of what he gives us and use it as it fits our interests. And neither can we say that "all albanians in Epirus were the Cham Albanians" (a term, let me remind you, that has been used mostly the last century and is confusing and wrong to associate with terms of the early 19th cantury). That would just be an assumption like the other ones.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 12:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
There's also another mistake (proving, though that I am correct). Turkalbanian or Turkocham are not "derogatory misnames". The addition of "Turk-" in front of an ethnonym signifies Muslim religion (for example Τουρκόγυφτοι). Babiniotis actually mentions that, too.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 17:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not know it how some find this, but still, Turk- means muslim.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 10:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
In this case, it is used to define religion, so it means "Muslim Albanian". What is "derogatory" about that? Babiniotis, that is a linguist, also supports that "Turkalbanian" means Muslim Albanian. What does this here have to do with history? -- Michael X the White ( talk) 15:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There are to disputes templates in the article, and no serious deisccussion about those disputes. Can somebody list the disputed parts in the talk page, or we have to remove the templates. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 14:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
1)the above discussion 2) the discussion at Souliotes. Sorry for highlighting your POV. -- Michael X the White ( talk) 14:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The article makes its scope perfectly clear: "In its original ethnographic and dialectological sense, the term Cham comprises the entire Albanian-speaking population of the Thesprotia and Preveza prefectures of Greek Epirus, including both the Muslim and Christian populations. [...] Today, the remaining Christian Albanian speakers are reported to avoid the appellation [...]. In the Greek context, the use of the term has thus become largely concentrated on the earlier Muslim minority." That's the basis the article is written on. I can see nothing in the above discuussion to challenge this very simple statement. The whole hullabaloo seems to be not more than a complaint that we are not giving exclusive preference to the popular modern Greek perception of the term and its denotation. That's not a serious POV dispute. It's just a few people who seem unable to process the cognitive complexity of having a term with more than one meaning. I'm therefore going to remove those tags again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
the user who has written the article has a clear pov dont get into edit wars with him but keep that in mind 85.74.200.72 ( talk) 18:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
(And thus is article-ownership proven.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
on graekochams, inline citation "The appellation “Graecochams” is also used by the. Greeks of the region, though more often Albanians continue to use the Ottoman Turkish term “kaur” (the “non-believers”)"
on elas, inline citation "in may 1944 a mixed battalion of the Cham minority was formed within ELAS-fighting units under the commando of the 15th regiment in the village of Kastanjë and was called Ali Demi" Balkanian`s word ( talk) 11:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Indicating that Chams and Arvanites are the same thing is POV. claiming that Chams and Arvanites are the same people is OR. Not only that but there are two articles for the Chams in wikipedia and this one is definitely biased so it should be in WP:AFD
and the term Graecochams is OR and completely pseudoscientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.227.126 ( talk) 03:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. Is this the final form of the article? No more to add? I feel things should settle first because I see almost everyday additions (A no. 5 criterion of nomination -stability[
[8]] ).
Alexikoua (
talk)
12:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll add the NPOV wikitemplate till disputes are resolved-- 85.74.252.76 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC).
There you go just some of the disputes of the content of the article which Have Not been solved.--
Sadbuttrue92 (
talk)
18:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Adding a list is not enaugh to create e dispute. For these reasons.
You are just making noise as always. Your 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 questions are resolved per consensus. Your fifth and 9th had to do with other pages. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The only one who forms this so called concensus is you. And there has been no actual talk on the issues I present.-- Sadbuttrue92 ( talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
And BTW 18th Century means 1700-1799-- Sadbuttrue92 ( talk) 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It is my impression that the general international scholarly consensus on this matter is that the ancient Epirot tribes were Greek (minus of course, Albanian historians and their international supporters, e.g. Malcolm, Vickers) and not Illyrian. Therefore, I see no need to mention them here. The connection between Albanians and Illyrians is itself disputed, so to go out on a limb to say "Albanians are Illyrians, and Chams are Albanians, therefore Chams are descended from the Illyrians who were the original inhabitants of this area" is revanchism and proto-chronism at its worst. The article is extremely long as it is, and could use brevity, not irrelevant ramblings about ancient history. -- Athenean ( talk) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Even if the ancient Epirots were, for the sake of argument, 100% Illyrian, this section still would not belong here, because including it automatically implies that Albanians=Illyrians. There is no proof of that. The origin of the Albanians is discussed in a separate article, and for good reason. To mention the Illyrians in this article is automatic acceptance of the Illyrian theory of Albanian descent. Until such a day thay it is proven that Albanians are descendants of the Illyrians, Illyrians should not be mentioned in this article at all. This is not the article to discuss theories of the descent of Albanians or what the ancient Epirots were. There are separate articles for that, and for a reason. -- Athenean ( talk) 17:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Lets ask a mediation from a non-Greek, non-Albanian editor. What do you think? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, The Cambridge ancient history. Volume 3, part 3. [ [9]] is totally ignored in this paragraph. The distinction between northern and southern Epirot tribes is not a specific one, so we have to mention what we mean (which tribes?) an 'rs' has to mention exactly the names of at least some tribes. Don't forget according to Strabo the northern boundaries of Epirus are in Skumbin. Tribes like Taulantians, Encheleis and Parthinoi were usually bilingual, and were hellenized but they were never mentioned as Epirot. Inline citations are also needed. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Because I think that you have not read the section, I am bringig it here:
Chams are a dialectological group formed in the region of Chameria.[26] The first Albanian presence in the region is unknown as the Albanian ethnogenesis too. Authors conclude that Albanians are descendants of one of the proto-Balkanian people,[27] most commonly Illyrians,[27][19] while a minority links them with Thracians,[28][29] or Dacians.[30][27] The first undisputed mention of Albanians in Byzantine sources is in the second half of the 11th century as inhabitants of the Arbanon, in modern Albania,[27] a period when they are thought to have lived in Epirus too.[31] Albanian scholars, who agree only with the Illyrian theory of ethnogenesis, argue that Epirote tribes were Illyrians, and thus Cham Albanians are direct descendants of them.[28] But this view is regarded as incorrect by the international academic community,[28] who conclude that Epirotic tribes were a distinct group[32] of Greek-speaking,[33] possibly Hellenized Illyrians[34][35] or Illyrian-speaking in the north and Greek-speaking in the south.[34][36][37]
Thus, the most common viewpoint on Cham Albanians origin is that of migratory process during the Dark Ages,[31] as their presence is recorded before the 12th century,[31] when Slavs and Greeks were reported to live in the fields of the Epirus region, with Albanians and Vlachs as mountaineers.[38] The number of Albanians increased over the next centuries, especially due to the extension of the Despotate of Epirus over all of Albania.[39] Their first documented migration of Albanians to Epirus is in the 14th century,[39] when Albanian tribesmen supported the successful Serbian campaign against the Byzantine possessions in Thessaly and Epirus.[40] Although prior presence of Albanians is recorded, at least when the Despotate of Epiros was established,[40] the massive presence of Albanians in the region is seen as a result of the large migration during the rule of this despotate,[40] a part of whom would resettle in Attica and Peloponnese, being the descendants of modern Arvanites.[40]
Which is the concrete dispute in here now? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 21:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The interpretation of some sources is a bit far fetched, here is a part of "Selected papers: studies in Greek and Roman history and historiography. Frank William Walbank. 1985. ISBN 052130752X.
"Yet no one has questioned the Greekness of Epirus (whatever the racial origin of its people, which may well have contained Illyrian element"
So, does this mean "they were possibly hellenized Illyrians"?. Suppose the book is more rs than the article. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The information added was irrelevant and/or misinterpreted and/or written in an undue and pov fashion (when one can't even cite the author of a work properly, there is a problem). Frankly, pmanderson, I'd expect someone who decries "nationalism", directly or indirectly like at Talk:Greece to take a decent look at the situation here. At least the main author of this article is up to his old habits after a long period of assumed neutrality. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 23:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Walbank, for example, (who can be shown to state simply "Epirote, that is to say Greek", just as a sidenote) was quoted as believing the Epirotes to be "Hellenized Illyrians" on a page that presents a list of "Greek words". Very nice. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Read references:
So this is the actual dispute isn`t it:
I do not get what you dispute now that walbank is removed? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 14:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"Hellenistic civilization By François Chamoux, Michel Roussel" is just a general work. We could cite hundreds like that, every single one with different conclusions. The Sakellariou-edited volume (M. B. Hatzopoulos is the author of the chapter) is misquoted entirely: "supposedly" should have hinted at that (I happen to have the volume here in Greek). Cabanes is certainly a reliable source on Epirus and it'd be nice to find out the rough linguistic boundaries as opposed to the simple "south-north" mention of Malkin (another RS, certainly). More importantly, a section on Illyrians and Epirotes (and the way it's written uggh) is out of place in an article on Chams anyhow. The way you cited Walbank is indicative of your general attitude here. At least, your current rewording is a tad better. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, what Cp stated is the crux of the matter, though I do hope that the article is cited more accurately (is "more" even necessary?) than that section was. Of course, if the Chams themselves believe in their "Epirote" ("who are Illyrians, anyway") descent (since the Illyrian-Epirote theories are prevalent in Albanian nationalism, irrespectively of the "historical truth" of such claims which isn't important right now, and since figures such as pyrrhus and Gentius might feature in Alb. "folklore"), it can/should be mentioned in the article but a bit more properly. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 14:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
If we write down every pov claim about origins and stuff we should create a separate book, like the origin of Atlantis. The unreliabilities and impossibilities have no place here considered that the historic community has "obvious" results to show.
What would be the next step? The Pelasgian link? (According to Herodotus they were the first people of Epirus).
About the Sakellariou book, it says nothing about Ilyrian origin of Epirote tribes, but of a Doric (in north Epirus) and Myceanean (in south) link (both tribes are considered Greek). Saying hellenization means nothing, all the nations were created sometime in the past. Doesnt mean that they were Illyrians before or that the Illyrians were the oldest people of the western world (a believe adopted by Albanian scholars). Alexikoua ( talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I would agree only if its in a seperate section, with a clear title mentionig that its POV. Off course the Greek POV approach is needed too for the balance (that they were of Greek origin, Islamized by the Ottomans etc.) Alexikoua ( talk) 18:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems to unclear to claim that we just don't know when Albanians first appear there, its unsourced too. Even if we agree with the Illyrian link, there was never Illyrian presence in that specific region in order to raise such question.
According to Imagining Frontiers, Contesting Identities: contesting identities. G Ellis, Lud'a Klusáková. 2007. ISBN 8884924669, it is clearly stated that Albanian there is no evidence of presence till the 1250s. (There is no evidence that Albanians came southwards to Epirus in this period p. 134) Alexikoua ( talk) 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you give an Arnakis' inlines. How he defines Epirus? Considered that Arbanon (and Skoumpin) lies in (the Roman province) of Epirus Nova. Alexikoua ( talk) 11:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds that Arnakis has some arguements about that claim (prior to the 12th century about northern Greece) that are not obvious on that spot. Klusakova on the contrary says that before 1250 there are is no recorded Albanian presence in Epirus. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have access to the Arnakis paper or is this yet another out-of-context quote? ;) I'm genuinely interested in the 10th-11th-12th view, since the few sources I've ever read on the matter usually make use of a 13th-14th date. Any more information would be welcome. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 17:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
My conclution about Arnakis about the "prior to 12th cent." claim is that he didn't agree with other sources:
would be interesting to know why he claims that (suppose something that more recent books didnt know) Alexikoua ( talk) 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This is pure WP:SYNTH. The source says, "an estimated 40,000 Albanian speakers are though to live in Epirus. Yet what User:Balkanian`s word has added the population of Thesprotia, Preveza prefecture, and some villages on the Albanian side, lumped them together and called it Chameria and presto, the story is that 40,000 out of Chameria's 275,000 are Albanian speakers. I'm sorry, but this is WP:SYNTH and I cannot accept it. First, Chameria is a vaguely defined ethno/cultural region without clear boundaries, unlike the prefectures mentioned above. To take the area within some existing prefectural boundaries and call it "Chameria" is pure OR. Second, the source does not say where these "40,000" Albanian-speakers live. Balkanian assumes they all live in Thesprotia and Preveza, which is again OR. Third, he is synthesizing what the first source says with results from the Greek census. The only thing the source tells us is "40,000 Albanian speakers in Epirus", nothing more. Anything beyond that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and cannot be accepted. -- Athenean ( talk) 22:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Athenean ( talk) 06:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I think I have to agree with Athenean here. Vickers says merely that the descendants of those Orthodox Chams who were allowed to remain in Greece now number around 40,000. There is no reference to either Chameria or Epirus as such, and given the trends of urbanisation in Greece after WW2, I'd be very careful with generalisations about numbers of formerly rural populations without explicit sources. A simple reference that rephrases Vickers should suffice, like "In 2007, the descendants of the Orthodox Chams who were allowed to remain in Greece numbered an estimated 40,000". Constantine ✍ 19:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The 2002 paper about the number of Chams in Greece ( source - The Cham Issue: Albanian National and Property Claims in Greece) says: "An estimated 40,000 Christian Orthodox Albanians still live in the Thesprotia region."
That's it. No references are given. No source for the statistics, although there are more than 50 references for other claims. Given that the current population of Thesprotia is around 45,000 and the greek identity of the region is evident, the author could very well live in a parallel universe or in the past.
This claim should be deleted. - Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.33.148 ( talk) 00:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Pierre Cabanes has shown that, linguistically, Greek was spoken in southern Epirus and Illyrian in the north and there must also have been an area of bilingualism
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |Url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Url=
ignored (|url=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |ean=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
1. Kollias has not been used as a reliable source in
Arvanites so it should not be treated as such here.
2. Noone says that they selfidentify as greeks.
3. Greek is an ethnicity, orthodox is a religion. Cham are Albanians by definition.
Until you find sources, leave it this way.
Balkanian`s word (
talk)
11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above, but I can't see how Orthodox Chams=Arvanites of Epirus. Except that greek helsinki states that Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia feel Albanians (the sentence does not mention the term Chams about the entire region). There is also a geographical confusion, Chamera/Tsiamouria is a part of Epirus periphery (less than 30%, and Thesprotia alone consist of 12%-14% of Epirus area) not the same area with different name. In that way Orthodox Chams are the Arvanites of Chameria/Tsiamouria, seems logical. The Arvanites of the rest of Epirus according to helsinki feel Albanian but beeing Cham isn't geographically appropriate (there are no sources linking to that, imagine Napoleon Zervas beeing counted as Cham, because he was from Arta and of possible Arvanite origin).
I see that even Vickers is confused about the geographical definition of Chameria/Tsiamoura, in one time mentions that it is Thesprotia (she mentions also something about the ... Illyrian tribe of Thesprotians) but after some pages the term incorporates Epirus periphery. Alexikoua ( talk) 22:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
About what Vickers believes what's Chameria, on pg. 1 the 2002 paper states:
The Chams are the ethnic Albanian, and predominantly Muslim, population from the area of north western Greece known to Greeks as Threspotia and to Albanians as Chameria. The region, which is centred around the Tsamis river, extends from Butrint and the mouth of the Acheron River to Lake Prespa in the north, eastward to the Pindus mountains and south as far as Preveza and the Gulf of Arta.
Lake Prespa, is in fact out of Epirus. It's sure that there is a geographical confusion, so we have Thesprotia=Chameria=from Ionian coast to Prespa. On page 2 there is a map with the label 'Chameria' n, nw of Ioannina (on the Ioannina-Kakavia road, so in Ioannina prefecture).
With such confusions there is enough room for original research. If there are 40.000 orthodox albanians on thesprotia ('live in the Threspotia region.' pg. 11) there are 40.000 out of a population of 44.000, if we count as Thesprotia what Vickers defines as Thesprotia (=Chameria) the total population has to include Ioannina, Kastoria and Florina (to lake Prepsa). Alexikoua ( talk) 12:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Added! You`re right! Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
1. Kollias has not been used as a reliable source in
Arvanites so it should not be treated as such here.
2. Noone says that they selfidentify as greeks.
3. Greek is an ethnicity, orthodox is a religion. Cham are Albanians by definition.
Until you find sources, leave it this way.
Balkanian`s word (
talk)
11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The map of Chameria [ [1]] in this article extends too far south. Also, I am not aware of any official, historic, or other maps showing Chameria as a region - the only mentions in old maps of the region are as Epirus or Albania or Romelia or Illyria (I am not denying that Chameria occupies/ed a geographic region). So please provide more reliable sources to keep this map in the article. Politis ( talk) 16:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Just out of curiosity, are there any older maps that mention Chameria? Politis ( talk) 10:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems obvious that under the Byzantines and Ottomans these names and their geographical location were almost aribtrary (I am not denying the individuality of the Chams). Probably because the important thing was the administrative district. It is only in the later part of the 19th century that names and regions became increasingly imprtant. For instance, the region of Macedonia only started being 'imposed' as a clearly defined region after the fall of Yugoslavia. In this respect, Wikipedia has promoted the identity of a regional Macedonia even though historically this perception was restricted as a concept within the, then, Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Macedonia. Of course, there is no geographic unity defining regional Macedonia but in the heads of those who support a greater Macedonia. Politis ( talk) 11:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The area was called 'Risadie' or something like that on Ottoman times Greek: Ρισαδιέ. The name Vagenetia was first mentioned at 650 A.D., and was the name of the local bishopry, after the Slavic invasion (the name might derive from the Slavic tribe of Vainouitai).
There is a map mentioning the Albanian administration (or semi-administration) of Chameria/Tsiamouria (about WWII period) [ [2]].
Should be Romanian Alexikoua ( talk) 11:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Balkanian requested that I assess this article and its overall expansion.
1) The Euromosaic Study that is associated with the phrase "Arvanites of Epirus" is decent. However, the source itself lacks reliable references. So far, my reading of the French excerpt doesn't show that the Chams specifically self-identify as "Arvanites of Epirus". If anything, the Euromosaic Study merely states that "Arvanites" inhabited the region known as Chameria. Of course, an accurate translation of the excerpt would be very helpful since many readers, including myself, are not gifted with the ability to read perfect French.
2) The organization of the history section seems fine. However, I would remove the following: "But, according to historians, earlier Albanian settlements were in the region before this migration." This sentence sounds a bit OR-ish given the fact that there is neither a page number nor an excerpt from John Fine's book that substantiates it. It would be best to provide more sources in order to verify that Albanian migrations actually occurred before the 12th century.
3) Reference citations are needed in the sections entitled "Medieval Albanian states" and "Ottoman rule and Pashalik of Janina".
4) Reference citations that derive their information from the International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations should be removed. Unfortunately, the source entitled "Urgent Anthropology" contains no bibliography, no reliable citations, and no discussion of scientific/academic methodologies. If anything, IMIR is an explicitly ideological organization that does not coincide with Wikipedia policies let alone with serious academic standards.
5) Reference citations that derive their information from the Albanian American Civic League should be removed. The article entitled "The Albanian National Question (Chameria)" by Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi lacks reliable citations and has no bibliography necessary for fact-checking. As far as WP:RS is concerned, this article is problematic.
6) The section entitled "Arvanites of Epirus" must either be changed or removed given the fact that the Vickers excerpt does not explicitly associate the phrase with the Chams. There are "Orthodox Chams", but nowhere do I find Chams declaring themselves as "Arvanites of Epirus".
This review may be deemed crude and blunt to some users. However, if there is any hope for this article to achieve GA status, then it must undergo multiple tempering processes. By far, the article seems to be progressing well even though it still needs a lot of work. If there any other problems I find, I'll be more than happy to discuss them here. Deucalionite ( talk) 19:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Answers. Some of your twiks are right, some are wrong. Let take them one by one:
1. Euromosaic, clearly states "Arvanites of Chameria in EPirus", and than states "the dialect of the orthodox chams", so there is no reason for not using it. I think that euromosaic project, financed by EU, is a RS, because it is financed and used, and agreed by EU.
2. Ok remove it, I`ll cite the whole part, in order to rewrite it.
3.They are cited with "History of Albanian People. Albanian Academy of Science.
ISBN
9992716231".
4.Ok, I did not add it, and I do not agree with they way it is writen "our estimate", without sayig how this estimate was made.
5.This article, is only citing the fact, that Cham Albanians have created organisations in US, but if we do not agree on this citation, there are the online pages of these cham organisations, that we can add as reference, in order to show, that they exist.
6. and 7. This paragraph is a result of "euromosaic study", also GHM, citing Banfi, says that they self-identify as "shqiptar" and that "they form part of the modern albanian nation. If, GHM is not RS, then we should find what Banfi says exactly, and cite him directly.
8. My foult, trying to find it. I just copied text and references from the main pages of that sections
9.You`re right, I`ll try to cite Elsie directly.
10.The articles from Chameria Institute are essays prepeared from Albanian academics, in a symposium. They are not published, but they are added in the internet pages of the institute. This academics, are well-known scientists, so they are RS. You can try to find about their names in google books, and google scholar. So, they should not be removed. Also, we are speaking about the language, music, and culture in general, so there is not any case of POV, or any case of non RS.
11. Tole is an well-known ethnologist and has published the "dicitionary of albanian folk music", which is considered as the main work, for albanian folk tradition. This dictionary is full of references, and thus, it is a RS. I will try to find its ISBN, I added the online version of the dictionary, which is found in Tole`s website, in order to be searchable and easiear to find.
12.Tole cites Stockman, in another book of him.
Balkanian`s word (
talk)
08:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute about a reference: International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations.
User:Deucalionite opposes saying that: "Reference citations that derive their information from the International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations should be removed. Unfortunately, the source entitled "Urgent Anthropology" contains no bibliography, no reliable citations, and no discussion of scientific/academic methodologies. If anything, IMIR is an explicitly ideological organization that does not coincide with Wikipedia policies let alone with serious academic standards."
I oppose saying that: "I do not agree with they way it is writen "our estimate", without sayig how this estimate was made."
User:Alexikoua agrees saying that:"I believe that it is a reliable source, worth the try to mention".
Let`s find a solution is it a RS or not... Balkanian`s word ( talk) 10:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I mean, we have already a source from Vickers. But Vickers don't give a citation about the number (suppose it's taken from Cham organizations). On the other hand Vickers disagrees clearly at least with 5 historical views according to wiki articles (mentioned above). So, why imir should be less trustworthy than Vickers on that?
Imir gives on the first pages the full schedule on how the research was conducted and in what basis.
Moreover, imagine, about Northern Epirus, taking into account only the numbers that N. Epirote organizations give. Alexikoua ( talk) 15:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you about the map. Actually I have created them, after the references I managed to get about the extent of the despotates and the principalities. If you have any other reference, then feel free to change the map, according to them. I am putting the map again in the page, saying that it is the extent, at 1390. Do you agree? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
ok, 1390. However there where major fluctuations on borders that period, I' ll provide some sources and make adjustments. The sentence that the D. of Epirus was limitied on east Epirus is right about the 1358-1367 period, before Thomas Prelub. became despot. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The sources i've got are from these books:
and up to this we have (about political control):
Some sources are contradicting its other, but the picture seems to be the above. What's most important is that Albanian chieftains never had control of the Epirotic coast, because the trade between Ioannina with the Italian was always undisturbed. The Italian despots of Ioannina had a special relation with their Venezian compatriots, even if there was some kind of migration in Vagenetia political control kept the ports to Italian hands. Alexikoua ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Two proposals for people intrested in this page.
1. As far as the Cham Issue, of the WWII, and the adjuctant periods (1935-1950) are dobious, and not clear, Greek and Albanian government and authors may contain about this period a certain national POV. Thus, I propose a consnesus on the following issue:
I think that this is the only solution in order to mantian the Cham Albanians page and other pages containing the Cham Issue balanced, reliable and NPOV.
2. Things to be done:
And than our work is over. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Something very interesting and essential that is nowhere mentioned is about
Ottoman rule section should contain Pashalik of Janina, they should not be seperate. I do not see why having a section about Chams and the Greek Revolution, since they had no notable contribution in it. Careful about the external links, sites like "give Chameria back were it belongs" should be avoided. We can see about the rest.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 08:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the third and first, but the second point varies and is always confusing on weather something could be rs or not. A good approach should be to count first the no Albanian-Greeks, provided that they dont give repeatetly wrong proven data (according to wiki articles), like Vickers in her 2002, 2007 papers (as per disc. page in Cham Albanians).
Considered that not only some Albanian and Greek are no-rs, there are many Turks (and maybe other) that have a non-rs approach on the topics (this is logical according the Turks).
There is still unexplained why IMIR is excluded as a sources (the organization states clear about the scientific methods that are used) Alexikoua ( talk) 06:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
What else does Babiniotis say? I see no reason why the article should not elaborate if there is more information. For example the sound-changes involved are interesting. I know that Doric Greek and North-West Greek (?) had a theta/s sound variation: salassa instead of thalassa, etc. which makes me think of a possible Sameis/Thameis variation. In Romanian there is cimbru (pronounced cheembroo), which in ancient Greek is thymbra ( summer savory). What information do we have about:
-- A from L.A. ( talk) 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but be carefull, because it could be seen as a OR, if you don`t find explict info about that. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
We have this sentence: Albanian Cham units also played an active part in the Holocaust in Greece, including the round-up and expulsion to Auschwitz and Birkenau of the 2,000 strong Romaniotes Greek-Jewish community of Ioannina in April 1944., referenced with Mazower, Mark. Inside Hitler's Greece: The Experience of Occupation, 1941-44. Yale University Press, 1993, ISBN 0300089236.
Actually, Balli Kombetar did not discriminate any jew in Albania. This reference was not checked during ouer #Citations review So, I really doubt that Mazower is well-cited. Whoever has acces in this book, should provide the exact citation from Mazower. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 17:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Talking about nothing. Challenge me! Give me the inline citation, and I will give you every inline citations you`ll need. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
About Mazover and the Holocaust participation of some Chams. It is really ridiculous to ask about exact citation provided that we trust with blind eyes Vickers, who makes a number of clear anti-wiki approaches (see above). Mazover didn't support that Thesprotians were Illyrians or that the Greek Government is acting like Mafia (Vicker's thoughts). As for the holocaust, one primary source are the documents of the 'ss commander' in the region. There is also a letter from him to M. Dino telling him how thankful he is, about the help provided.
What's Vicker's sources about the number of Chams?
As wiki says 'calm down' first, everything can find a solution. Go outdoors and enjoy yourselves its Sat. night.(Vicker's says something about Greek-Albanian underground meetings in taverns ;))-- Alexikoua ( talk) 21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that we`re not in the same town:-). The second problem is that on this book Mazower says nothing about such thing. If Chams played a role in holocaust, I suppose that he would use it. The third problem is that Balli Kombetar was not anti-semit, on the other hand they protected jews (a number of references about that). All these make me suspect that Mazower has not written it. I am not saying that Mazower has written something wrong, I am suspecting that he has not said it. If he has written that "chams have massacred jews" ofccourse it has a place in the article, much more than one sentence. If not, it should be deleted. Am I asking too much? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 21:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Balkanian strenuously maintains that "only a few hundred Chams" collaborated with the Axis forces, yet one of his own sources completely gives the lie to that: [3]. Section 1.2, paragraph B, sentence 5. For those of you that don't speak French, it says "a majority of them having collaborated with the occupation forces". Ouch! This raises serious doubts about how this user uses sources. Not only does he cherry-pick, but even those sources he uses are completely twisted and falsified. Incredible. This article needs major fact-checking. -- Athenean ( talk) 21:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how a fact can be totally reversed. I don't know If the cited source has a sense of reality, but it lacks citations for sure. IMIR says that this plan was made up by Zog's Government. There is a specific record in the Greek Government in 1930 that refuses such kind of action, because the numbers are not equal.
There is a comfusion on what is rs or not. I see a very one sided approach.
According to a Turkish author, all Turks from Epirus that transfered to Turkey are Chams. Nice try, maybe we have to choose a bit more carefully our sources Alexikoua ( talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Until these original documents are cited, there is not that kind of idiotic arguement (and it is if you claim that you want to exchange a minority of greater number in another country with another that's ca. 20.000 according to Mazover).
I ask for third time, where is Vicker's source of the 440.000 number? I'm sure you know balk. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I know about the 20.000. I speak about now. From whom Vickers knows that they are 440 worldwide? that's my clear answer. because there r no citations on the 02 07 papers. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
registration of Chams by the Chameria Political Association. Place Persons Shkoder 1,150 Kruje-Lac-Fushekruje 720 Lezhe 35 Tirana (District) 29,700 Durres-Shijak-Sukth 35,000 Kavaje-Golem-Gose-Rrogozhine 10,500 Peqin 1,400 Elbasan-Cerrik 12,650 Lushnje-Zhame-Dushk 8,300 Berat-Kucove 6,900 Fier-Patos-Rreth 39,800 Vlore (District) 42,300 Sarande (District) 12,100 Delvine (District) 2,900 Total 204,255"
Between Greece and Turkey', Balkan Studies, Vol 27, No 2, 1986, pp305-6."
Here is the link of IMIR [ [4]] lets read:
Two years later (in 1930) the Albanian king Ahmed Zogu offered the Greek government to make a population transfer by sending the Зams to Albania in the place of the Greek ethnic minority there. The king pursued a policy of clearing the Greeks out of Albania. His proposal was not accepted by the Greek side because of the lack of reciprocity - 10 to 20 thousand Зams in exchange for 100 thousand Greeks.
As per talk I'll delete the contradicting claim until there are primary sources about Greek records in hand to prove that the above is wrong.
As for the number of today's Chams, it's just an claim by Cham organizations, but imagine as for Greeks in Albania taking into account only claims of N. Epirote organizations. That's why Imir says that these figures are inflated (on both sides). Alexikoua ( talk) 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No, wait, thats really intresting, because we talk about 2 different offers. The greek one was in 1924, when there was Fan Noli prime minister of Albania, who did not accept it. THis could be another offer, from Ahmet Zogu. But, it should have another reference, because IMIR, is not reliable. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Source's link is dead, these means no primary sources available for now. The Greek 'offer' was in 1924? Very wierd because in 1924 the Greek-Albanian border wasn't excactly delinated yet (regions like Liqenas were in Greek hands that year). How could there be such offer without knowing the excact region of the potenial exchanged population? Alexikoua ( talk) 22:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Liqenas has nothing to do with Greece, to far away. There were 14 villages only, which were under discussion, thus a very limited number of Greeks and Albanians. As far as I saw, IMIR did not have even a bibliography, nor a single citation, it clearly does not fulfill WP:RS, so you can not use it as an argument. If IMIR`s author was wikipedian, he would have been blocked indefinetetly. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
What about Vickers? Too many historical errors, contrary to wiki approach. As for the 1923 exchange the author says about 'a community' not the entire minority.
I'll make the adjustment about the numbers, stating that this is what Cham organizations give.-- Alexikoua ( talk) 09:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I have added on the majority of the sources their online variants, in order to be easier to be read. For the others, I am waiting in the talk page, to be asked for any reference that any user is not sure, that is writly sourced, in order to give the in-line citation. I am also waiting for Mazowers- Inside Hitlers Greece, citation. Do not bullshit this page by removing whole paragraphs when you find new sources, just add them and do not bullshit this page by sourcing sentences about history, with studies that have no connection with history. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Still no inline citation for those "several hundred" Chams joining the Axis. Unless I see one soon, you know I'm going to do. -- Athenean ( talk) 21:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the part about a court case for WWII crimes and death penalty in absentia? I cannot quite remember the details but they seemed to be sourced. Politis ( talk) 12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
How can anyone suffer from assimilation? Here in Britain we have Poles, Russians, Greeks, Italians, etc who have assimilated. Greeks have assimilated in Russia, Bulgarians in Ukraine, Laz in Turkey, Albanians in Italy... The prime example is the US. The term 'suffer' seems superflous, emotional and POV - even if/especially if used by Vickers. Politis ( talk) 13:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
So you are basing it on personal experience. I respect that and am sorry for your discomfort, but such reasons for keeping edits are POV. Albanians speak freely their language all over Greece, including Igumenitsa. Albanian newspaper are sold where ever there is a demand. Including Igumenitsa. Politis ( talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
How can an 'rs' make several historical faults? Vickers has to read about wiki rules. Wiki, articles like Thesprotias, Illyrians, Byzantine Empire are disagreeing with Vickers, in the way the 2002, 2007 papers are a sure ban according the wiki rules (making errors that are accidentally always pro-Albanian).
As for EDES, the British mission says clearly that the operation was undertaken by the British commander in order to secure the Epirote coast for upcoming reinforcements: Talk:Cham issue
P.R.O. (Public Record Office), F.O. 371/48094/18138. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The page, however, is becoming biased because of easy assumptions. What I mean is that, the following false assumption was made: Arvanites have Orthodox Albanian origin and some Chams are orthodox, so orthodox chams are Arvanites of Epirus and vice versa, so Souliotes that also had an earlier Albanian origin and are Orthodox, are Arvanites of Epirus, so they are Chams, and so Chams played a large role in the Greek War of Independence. Now, haven't Souliotes been self-identifying as Greeks and not Chams for the last few centuries? So how does that make Chams active in the Greek Revolution? You see what I mean?-- Michael X the White ( talk) 21:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
No, no! On Souliotes there are references that say that they are Orthodox Albanians of the cham Brench.
And a lot of others. There is no assumption in this page, at least made by me. There are clear references about every single sentence. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
As for the Souliotes, sources often confuse the terms Albanians and Arvanites. A english book said that politician Th. Pangalos said that he is Albanian (actually he said Arvanite). Another english statement that made me lauph: 'Albanians are the Scots of Greece', suppose the author meant the Arvanites too.
About the 1821 Revolution, the section is very one sided. I will add the role of the Muslim Chams in that period and the fierce 'Cham civil war' (waw maybe creat a new article with this title) that occured these period (Botsaris hated his Cham compatriots very much I suppose).
Find a citation of these above, and feel free to create the "Cham civil war". I can help you, on the case of Souliotes war with Ali Pasha, it is "Edward Augustus Freeman" on the book "The Ottoman Power in Europe", stating that "This was a conquest of Christians by Mahometans ; but it was not a conquest of Christians by Turks. It was in truth a conquest of Albanians by Albanians" But, you will have to find a place that clearly cits "Cham Civil war" in a RS. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
On Botsaris do not forget, that he was in the Albanian regiment of the French Army, his mother tangue was cham albanian dialect, per Titos Jochalas, etc. etc. etc. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 22:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not doubt that Souliotes may be seen as having earlier Orthodox Albanian origin, but that does not make them Chams. I can see one source speaking of a cham branch, but that still would be cham origin, without making them Cham Albanians. From what is written in the article, Cham Albanians self-identify as Albanians, when Souliotes do not.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
google books search leads to the results (however there must be many other):
So they were of Albanian origin the time of the Revolution. In the Souli area there were some families with the name 'Zervas' too. Suppose we have two Cham civil wars... Alexikoua ( talk)
So the definition of Chams is that they are of Albanian conciousnes.... very nice, we got an answer.23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
But they were counted themselves as 'Romioi' for sure. Actually the definitions of Arvanites, means excactly that their ancestry was Albanian, but they were integrated into another society, so intermariages were plenty with the local people. In that way the nationality is not clear. But it's sure that they didn't feel compatriots with their 'muslim counterparts' (I mean Cham muslims) in Paramythia. They actually were hated enemy with the beys there. I know that these terms were synonyms but today the term Arvanites describes people that are intergrated in the Greek society (part of the Greek nation, thats what the Souliotes were, fought together because they felt connected to the Greek nation, not because they were mercenaries, or just sympathized the revolution...). Alexikoua ( talk) 00:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
In that way, Souliotes are in that scale Albanians that are any other that self-indentifies as Arvanitis, Hydraioi etc.. On the other hand the term 'Cham' is an eterochronism about this period. Not to mention that the equation orthodox Chams=Arvanites of Epirus, is clear original research and not acceptable by wiki. Alexikoua ( talk) 10:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
After 1944, many important democratic Greeks and Albanians were angry at those amongst the Chams who had joined the Axis. But this was a local issue, it was not a conflict of Greece against Albania. In fact, a democratic Greek would oppose a Cham collaborator as much as he would oppose a Greek collaborator.
Lt.-Col. J.M.Stevens wrote, “It is perfectly safe to move about alone and unarmed in practically all of Free Greece, except in north-west Macedonia where Comitajis wander about at night shooting up Antartes, and in Western Epirus where the Chams indulge in the same sport. If there are any Axis troops in the neighbourhood, one is immediately informed. This is not the case in areas where the villages are not organised as in the zone of Bulgar villages in the Edessa-Kastoria-Florina triangle.”
Of course, Wallace was on the spot, co-ordinating and in combat situations. The expression Turko Albanians originates from the 19th century; for the Greek Orthodox Albanian and Greek population, it identified specifically those Mulim Albanians who were fighting or pillaging in the name of the Turkish authorities. In the 1940s, there are also the cases of Albanian refugees (around 500) and of ethnic Greek refugees (around 5,000) from southern Albania to Greece. So do we start an article Expulsion of Greeks from Albania? Albanian refugees from Albania? Greek Albanian refugees? Politis ( talk) 12:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
"At the end of World War II, nearly all Muslim Chams in Greece were expelled to Albania by the national Greek resistance group EDES, as a collective punishment for the collaboration of some Cham Albanians with the occupation forces of the Axis as part of the Albanian nationalist Balli Kombetar.:
1. Mazower says that they were attacked, because they did not agree to fight against ELAS. So "as a collective punishment for the collaboration" is just a POV. 2. More then half of that sentence is "that f... chams that collaborated with germans", whilst our previoues sentence, was totally NPOV, made after consensus, which stated that some of them collaborated, other were part of the resistence and the rest were civilians.
Get that lead back. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 12:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Questions: Why shouldn`t we use "a minority of Cham Albanians collaborated", since it is clear in our sources? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 12:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. At WP:OR it says that, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic." So the sources I provided are fine for this article. Thanks, I will include them. Politis ( talk) 13:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Since these are quotes from books written by analysts, historians, etc. and NOT documents found in archives, I will include them. Thanks for confirming. Politis ( talk) 13:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
As you say, Wallace is an author and one of the experts. Some would argue that Vickers is an interested party. Working for the British Foreign Office and inconsistent in her presentation of facts. Wallace also worked for the British government and became an author. Always appreciative of your encouragement. Politis ( talk) 14:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This is childish but what can I say. Vickers was not even born at that time, and thus she makes studies on history, she is not a eye-witness and thus she is a secondary source. Wallace is a primary source. Wikipedia works on secondary sources not on primary sources, and thus Vickers is totally not OR, while Wallace is OR. I am not going to explain my motives, but just see that I have created
Këshilla page, which is totally against albanian POV, so my motives are clear.
Balkanian`s word (
talk)
16:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The etymology section currently states that "The Cham Albanians' name derives from the region's name, Chameria". That doesn't sound very plausible linguistically. The derivational morphology strongly suggests that the region is named after the people, not the other way round. Doesn't "Cham-eria" mean "land of the Chams"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The concept is old, but I see wiki is the only source in the net that adopts that term. Off course none of the 4 sources mentioned in the article states anywhere that excact term 'Arvanites of Epirus', which is misleading and geographically wrong if they are considered the same as' Orthodox Chams.
Well, usual results in google giving that term:
The point is that original research is something that wiki opposes, so no rs stating that. Orthodox chams are better described with that term. Alexikoua ( talk) 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The main point is that the term 'Arvanites of Epirus' isn't the same with 'Cham Orthodox' or 'Albanians of Epirus', something that balkanian agrees with. The concept is that not all Arvanites of Epirus are 'Orthodox Chams' because some of them are assimilated into Greek society and didn't belong to the definition that 'Vickers' and others give about 'Orthodox Chams'. A nice example is Napoleon Zervas, an Arvanite of Epirus (Arta), but not Cham Orthodox.
So, how can we claim that every Arvanite of Epirus is Albanian in ethnicity?
There were some Albanian clans before 500 or 600 years that descented south from Albania and settled in Greek inhabited areas (like that of Boua Shpata). Today their descendants (there are people with that surnames living in Epirus that dont know a single Albanian word) are called Arvanites and are assimilated into Greek society (sounds logical we r talking about several generations).
The term 'Arvanites of Epirus' and that Arvanites= Albanians is adopted only in Albanian nationalistic sites, some similar approach adopted Adolf Hitler about the supperiority of the unity of the Germanic tribes (that all Germanic tribes that migrated in the dark ages are one nation etc).
Moreover, and the most important, no sources claim that apporach (except unitedalbania.com) Alexikoua ( talk) 13:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Inline citations Banfi says "Arvanites of Northwestern Greece, living in Epirus periphery and Florina, are part of the modern Albanian nation..."
This means that those are Albanians and not hellenized Albanians (i.e. Arvanites). Euromosaic says that expet of two villages north of Konitsa, other are Cham Albanians. What is not clear on this? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Just per talk Arbereshe for sure are a subbranch of Albanians, and no source distincts them. They are just hellenized, self-describe as Greeks, and thats all. Arbereshe of Greece (Arvanites) live in Morea, Attica, Eubea, and other islands (hydra, etc), thus being distinct from other subbranch of Albanians. What in Greece are called Arvanites and live in Epirus, may only be either Chams or Labs, because this subbranches of ALbanians (i.e. dialect, folk tradition, etc.) live in that region. Too obvious. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually they live in 'Epirus and Western Macedonia', what Vickers defines 'Chameria' (says to lake Prespa), why dont define seperate the Cham and Lab cumminities? Saying, 'orthodox Chams' 'orthodox Labs' part of the Arvanites in Epirus and Western Macedonia, Thats what sources say about these communities. As we said, not all Arvanites of Epirus belong to these Cham and Lab communities.
Zervas family was one of the known Souliote families, according to your claims he is Orthodox Cham, every biography of N. Zervas says about his family roots, sources are plenty to provide (provided that souliotes are Chams as you claim) . Alexikoua ( talk) 14:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually about Zervas geneology it is you that you already have provide sources. See this: Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early. Well some of the famous Souliotes: Nasos Zervas Tousias Zervas, Dimos Zervas, [6] Diamandis Zervas. So they are all Chams according to your arguments. Morevover Diamantis' second grand son is Napoleon Zervas.
The surname Zervas is of uncertain root, according to a Greek site : [7] one of Zervas very far ancestors fought together with Senderbeu. So, why the Botsareoi and the Tzaveleoi are Chams and the Zerveoi aren't? Alexikoua ( talk) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Didn't say that they aren't 100%, some are, some are not. If we adopt the term 'Arvanites of Epirus' for these communities only (Chams, Labs), it practically incorporates all the Arvanites (whether assimilated or not).
So about Souliotes, what about adding the Albanian name to the Zervas fammily members too? I mean, M. Botsaris, K. Tsavelas, u add them as Chams, what's the diferrence with the Zervas Souliot clan? Alexikoua ( talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
"Chams account for the greatest part of the erstwhile substantial Albanian minority in Greek Epirus; today, the population of only two villages north of Konitsa belong to a different Albanian subgroup, that of the Labs."
Isn`t this too big and irrelevant for the lead? I have added this info (because it shoul be) in [note a], but i think that this is irrelevant for the lead as too big and with no clear signification for this article. What do you think? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a technicality: Why do we have two sets of footnotes, one regular and the other home-built? As we are now seeing, the second type requires a lot of unnecessary fiddling. Why not just integrate them in the regular "ref" technique? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
We have discussed this and no one came up with any credible evidence. There is no doubt that the Chams are an entity that lived across a region spread across today's Epirus and southern Albania. The problem is maps and the references. They are hardly ever mentioned in historic sources. 'Their' region was clearly 'multi-ethnic', if not 'multi-ethnoreligious'. Various peoples living in that area had been referred to as Illyrinans, Epirots, Albanians, Greeks, Turks, etc. The term Cham seems to emerge strongly only after Albanian independence (of course there were no Chams before). So when we see a geographic definition of precise boundaries, it seem curious. Also, that precise geographic area has been given a specific Cham history. All this looks like another great act of wiki-nation-building. Another point is an emphasis on the bad Greeks and the pleasant Chams. In fact, history shows numerous occasions where Albanian (especially southern Tosks) and Greeks are either interchangable ethnicities or fighting for the same national cause, especially if they were Greek Orthodox. But the way the article is heading, we might see the emergence of a pure-blooded Cham nation-state! :-) Politis ( talk) 17:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Should we consider the establishin of a History of Cham Albanians page, and leave in this one only a summary, in order to make it leaner? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've reinstated one of the {{ huh}} tags in the "dialects" section. The statement that the dialect has been conservative because it was in contact with Greek makes little sense at first sight. It is not a common assumption in contact linguistics that language contact promotes conservatism, and it is by no means straightforward to see how and why it should do so. In fact, quite the opposite is much more commonly assumed: Language contact promotes change. Is the writer you are quoting there a reliable source on linguistic matters? Does he offer an explanation for this surprising statement? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
In a very general way, we mention in this article that Chams were the Albanians of Epirus. We know, however, that the Greeks with much earlier "Orthodox Albanian origin" (or whatever) are the Arvanites. Babiniotis (whom we cite) mentions that "Chams" were the Muslim Albanians (Turkalbanians Τουρκαλβανοί). So were "Chams" all Albanians or just the Muslims (who, as Muslims had not integrated in the Greek society) ??-- Michael X the White ( talk) 12:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If we actually cite Babiniotis to tell us what "Chams" are, then we cannot just pick a part of what he gives us and use it as it fits our interests. And neither can we say that "all albanians in Epirus were the Cham Albanians" (a term, let me remind you, that has been used mostly the last century and is confusing and wrong to associate with terms of the early 19th cantury). That would just be an assumption like the other ones.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 12:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
There's also another mistake (proving, though that I am correct). Turkalbanian or Turkocham are not "derogatory misnames". The addition of "Turk-" in front of an ethnonym signifies Muslim religion (for example Τουρκόγυφτοι). Babiniotis actually mentions that, too.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 17:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not know it how some find this, but still, Turk- means muslim.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 10:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
In this case, it is used to define religion, so it means "Muslim Albanian". What is "derogatory" about that? Babiniotis, that is a linguist, also supports that "Turkalbanian" means Muslim Albanian. What does this here have to do with history? -- Michael X the White ( talk) 15:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There are to disputes templates in the article, and no serious deisccussion about those disputes. Can somebody list the disputed parts in the talk page, or we have to remove the templates. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 14:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
1)the above discussion 2) the discussion at Souliotes. Sorry for highlighting your POV. -- Michael X the White ( talk) 14:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The article makes its scope perfectly clear: "In its original ethnographic and dialectological sense, the term Cham comprises the entire Albanian-speaking population of the Thesprotia and Preveza prefectures of Greek Epirus, including both the Muslim and Christian populations. [...] Today, the remaining Christian Albanian speakers are reported to avoid the appellation [...]. In the Greek context, the use of the term has thus become largely concentrated on the earlier Muslim minority." That's the basis the article is written on. I can see nothing in the above discuussion to challenge this very simple statement. The whole hullabaloo seems to be not more than a complaint that we are not giving exclusive preference to the popular modern Greek perception of the term and its denotation. That's not a serious POV dispute. It's just a few people who seem unable to process the cognitive complexity of having a term with more than one meaning. I'm therefore going to remove those tags again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
the user who has written the article has a clear pov dont get into edit wars with him but keep that in mind 85.74.200.72 ( talk) 18:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
(And thus is article-ownership proven.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
on graekochams, inline citation "The appellation “Graecochams” is also used by the. Greeks of the region, though more often Albanians continue to use the Ottoman Turkish term “kaur” (the “non-believers”)"
on elas, inline citation "in may 1944 a mixed battalion of the Cham minority was formed within ELAS-fighting units under the commando of the 15th regiment in the village of Kastanjë and was called Ali Demi" Balkanian`s word ( talk) 11:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Indicating that Chams and Arvanites are the same thing is POV. claiming that Chams and Arvanites are the same people is OR. Not only that but there are two articles for the Chams in wikipedia and this one is definitely biased so it should be in WP:AFD
and the term Graecochams is OR and completely pseudoscientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.227.126 ( talk) 03:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. Is this the final form of the article? No more to add? I feel things should settle first because I see almost everyday additions (A no. 5 criterion of nomination -stability[
[8]] ).
Alexikoua (
talk)
12:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll add the NPOV wikitemplate till disputes are resolved-- 85.74.252.76 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC).
There you go just some of the disputes of the content of the article which Have Not been solved.--
Sadbuttrue92 (
talk)
18:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Adding a list is not enaugh to create e dispute. For these reasons.
You are just making noise as always. Your 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 questions are resolved per consensus. Your fifth and 9th had to do with other pages. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The only one who forms this so called concensus is you. And there has been no actual talk on the issues I present.-- Sadbuttrue92 ( talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
And BTW 18th Century means 1700-1799-- Sadbuttrue92 ( talk) 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It is my impression that the general international scholarly consensus on this matter is that the ancient Epirot tribes were Greek (minus of course, Albanian historians and their international supporters, e.g. Malcolm, Vickers) and not Illyrian. Therefore, I see no need to mention them here. The connection between Albanians and Illyrians is itself disputed, so to go out on a limb to say "Albanians are Illyrians, and Chams are Albanians, therefore Chams are descended from the Illyrians who were the original inhabitants of this area" is revanchism and proto-chronism at its worst. The article is extremely long as it is, and could use brevity, not irrelevant ramblings about ancient history. -- Athenean ( talk) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Even if the ancient Epirots were, for the sake of argument, 100% Illyrian, this section still would not belong here, because including it automatically implies that Albanians=Illyrians. There is no proof of that. The origin of the Albanians is discussed in a separate article, and for good reason. To mention the Illyrians in this article is automatic acceptance of the Illyrian theory of Albanian descent. Until such a day thay it is proven that Albanians are descendants of the Illyrians, Illyrians should not be mentioned in this article at all. This is not the article to discuss theories of the descent of Albanians or what the ancient Epirots were. There are separate articles for that, and for a reason. -- Athenean ( talk) 17:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Lets ask a mediation from a non-Greek, non-Albanian editor. What do you think? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, The Cambridge ancient history. Volume 3, part 3. [ [9]] is totally ignored in this paragraph. The distinction between northern and southern Epirot tribes is not a specific one, so we have to mention what we mean (which tribes?) an 'rs' has to mention exactly the names of at least some tribes. Don't forget according to Strabo the northern boundaries of Epirus are in Skumbin. Tribes like Taulantians, Encheleis and Parthinoi were usually bilingual, and were hellenized but they were never mentioned as Epirot. Inline citations are also needed. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Because I think that you have not read the section, I am bringig it here:
Chams are a dialectological group formed in the region of Chameria.[26] The first Albanian presence in the region is unknown as the Albanian ethnogenesis too. Authors conclude that Albanians are descendants of one of the proto-Balkanian people,[27] most commonly Illyrians,[27][19] while a minority links them with Thracians,[28][29] or Dacians.[30][27] The first undisputed mention of Albanians in Byzantine sources is in the second half of the 11th century as inhabitants of the Arbanon, in modern Albania,[27] a period when they are thought to have lived in Epirus too.[31] Albanian scholars, who agree only with the Illyrian theory of ethnogenesis, argue that Epirote tribes were Illyrians, and thus Cham Albanians are direct descendants of them.[28] But this view is regarded as incorrect by the international academic community,[28] who conclude that Epirotic tribes were a distinct group[32] of Greek-speaking,[33] possibly Hellenized Illyrians[34][35] or Illyrian-speaking in the north and Greek-speaking in the south.[34][36][37]
Thus, the most common viewpoint on Cham Albanians origin is that of migratory process during the Dark Ages,[31] as their presence is recorded before the 12th century,[31] when Slavs and Greeks were reported to live in the fields of the Epirus region, with Albanians and Vlachs as mountaineers.[38] The number of Albanians increased over the next centuries, especially due to the extension of the Despotate of Epirus over all of Albania.[39] Their first documented migration of Albanians to Epirus is in the 14th century,[39] when Albanian tribesmen supported the successful Serbian campaign against the Byzantine possessions in Thessaly and Epirus.[40] Although prior presence of Albanians is recorded, at least when the Despotate of Epiros was established,[40] the massive presence of Albanians in the region is seen as a result of the large migration during the rule of this despotate,[40] a part of whom would resettle in Attica and Peloponnese, being the descendants of modern Arvanites.[40]
Which is the concrete dispute in here now? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 21:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The interpretation of some sources is a bit far fetched, here is a part of "Selected papers: studies in Greek and Roman history and historiography. Frank William Walbank. 1985. ISBN 052130752X.
"Yet no one has questioned the Greekness of Epirus (whatever the racial origin of its people, which may well have contained Illyrian element"
So, does this mean "they were possibly hellenized Illyrians"?. Suppose the book is more rs than the article. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The information added was irrelevant and/or misinterpreted and/or written in an undue and pov fashion (when one can't even cite the author of a work properly, there is a problem). Frankly, pmanderson, I'd expect someone who decries "nationalism", directly or indirectly like at Talk:Greece to take a decent look at the situation here. At least the main author of this article is up to his old habits after a long period of assumed neutrality. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 23:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Walbank, for example, (who can be shown to state simply "Epirote, that is to say Greek", just as a sidenote) was quoted as believing the Epirotes to be "Hellenized Illyrians" on a page that presents a list of "Greek words". Very nice. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Read references:
So this is the actual dispute isn`t it:
I do not get what you dispute now that walbank is removed? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 14:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"Hellenistic civilization By François Chamoux, Michel Roussel" is just a general work. We could cite hundreds like that, every single one with different conclusions. The Sakellariou-edited volume (M. B. Hatzopoulos is the author of the chapter) is misquoted entirely: "supposedly" should have hinted at that (I happen to have the volume here in Greek). Cabanes is certainly a reliable source on Epirus and it'd be nice to find out the rough linguistic boundaries as opposed to the simple "south-north" mention of Malkin (another RS, certainly). More importantly, a section on Illyrians and Epirotes (and the way it's written uggh) is out of place in an article on Chams anyhow. The way you cited Walbank is indicative of your general attitude here. At least, your current rewording is a tad better. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, what Cp stated is the crux of the matter, though I do hope that the article is cited more accurately (is "more" even necessary?) than that section was. Of course, if the Chams themselves believe in their "Epirote" ("who are Illyrians, anyway") descent (since the Illyrian-Epirote theories are prevalent in Albanian nationalism, irrespectively of the "historical truth" of such claims which isn't important right now, and since figures such as pyrrhus and Gentius might feature in Alb. "folklore"), it can/should be mentioned in the article but a bit more properly. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 14:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
If we write down every pov claim about origins and stuff we should create a separate book, like the origin of Atlantis. The unreliabilities and impossibilities have no place here considered that the historic community has "obvious" results to show.
What would be the next step? The Pelasgian link? (According to Herodotus they were the first people of Epirus).
About the Sakellariou book, it says nothing about Ilyrian origin of Epirote tribes, but of a Doric (in north Epirus) and Myceanean (in south) link (both tribes are considered Greek). Saying hellenization means nothing, all the nations were created sometime in the past. Doesnt mean that they were Illyrians before or that the Illyrians were the oldest people of the western world (a believe adopted by Albanian scholars). Alexikoua ( talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I would agree only if its in a seperate section, with a clear title mentionig that its POV. Off course the Greek POV approach is needed too for the balance (that they were of Greek origin, Islamized by the Ottomans etc.) Alexikoua ( talk) 18:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems to unclear to claim that we just don't know when Albanians first appear there, its unsourced too. Even if we agree with the Illyrian link, there was never Illyrian presence in that specific region in order to raise such question.
According to Imagining Frontiers, Contesting Identities: contesting identities. G Ellis, Lud'a Klusáková. 2007. ISBN 8884924669, it is clearly stated that Albanian there is no evidence of presence till the 1250s. (There is no evidence that Albanians came southwards to Epirus in this period p. 134) Alexikoua ( talk) 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you give an Arnakis' inlines. How he defines Epirus? Considered that Arbanon (and Skoumpin) lies in (the Roman province) of Epirus Nova. Alexikoua ( talk) 11:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds that Arnakis has some arguements about that claim (prior to the 12th century about northern Greece) that are not obvious on that spot. Klusakova on the contrary says that before 1250 there are is no recorded Albanian presence in Epirus. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have access to the Arnakis paper or is this yet another out-of-context quote? ;) I'm genuinely interested in the 10th-11th-12th view, since the few sources I've ever read on the matter usually make use of a 13th-14th date. Any more information would be welcome. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 17:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
My conclution about Arnakis about the "prior to 12th cent." claim is that he didn't agree with other sources:
would be interesting to know why he claims that (suppose something that more recent books didnt know) Alexikoua ( talk) 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This is pure WP:SYNTH. The source says, "an estimated 40,000 Albanian speakers are though to live in Epirus. Yet what User:Balkanian`s word has added the population of Thesprotia, Preveza prefecture, and some villages on the Albanian side, lumped them together and called it Chameria and presto, the story is that 40,000 out of Chameria's 275,000 are Albanian speakers. I'm sorry, but this is WP:SYNTH and I cannot accept it. First, Chameria is a vaguely defined ethno/cultural region without clear boundaries, unlike the prefectures mentioned above. To take the area within some existing prefectural boundaries and call it "Chameria" is pure OR. Second, the source does not say where these "40,000" Albanian-speakers live. Balkanian assumes they all live in Thesprotia and Preveza, which is again OR. Third, he is synthesizing what the first source says with results from the Greek census. The only thing the source tells us is "40,000 Albanian speakers in Epirus", nothing more. Anything beyond that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and cannot be accepted. -- Athenean ( talk) 22:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Athenean ( talk) 06:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I think I have to agree with Athenean here. Vickers says merely that the descendants of those Orthodox Chams who were allowed to remain in Greece now number around 40,000. There is no reference to either Chameria or Epirus as such, and given the trends of urbanisation in Greece after WW2, I'd be very careful with generalisations about numbers of formerly rural populations without explicit sources. A simple reference that rephrases Vickers should suffice, like "In 2007, the descendants of the Orthodox Chams who were allowed to remain in Greece numbered an estimated 40,000". Constantine ✍ 19:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The 2002 paper about the number of Chams in Greece ( source - The Cham Issue: Albanian National and Property Claims in Greece) says: "An estimated 40,000 Christian Orthodox Albanians still live in the Thesprotia region."
That's it. No references are given. No source for the statistics, although there are more than 50 references for other claims. Given that the current population of Thesprotia is around 45,000 and the greek identity of the region is evident, the author could very well live in a parallel universe or in the past.
This claim should be deleted. - Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.33.148 ( talk) 00:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Pierre Cabanes has shown that, linguistically, Greek was spoken in southern Epirus and Illyrian in the north and there must also have been an area of bilingualism
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |Url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Url=
ignored (|url=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |ean=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)