![]() | 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 | → | Archive 7 |
Ive noticed this sentence: "During this period, a number of villages were renamed in the region. More than 100 village names were changed from Albanian to Greek in Thesprotia, Preveza and Ioannina." And its sourced by this: [ [1]]. Which are the 100 placenames that were changed from Albanian to Greek? Ajdonat to Paramythia is not excactly a change from Albanian to Greek, the same happens to Yanya>Ioannina. The source mentions toponyms of Turkish, Aromanian, Slavic, Albanian root, not only Albanian. I can't make the Albanian to Greek changes of names 100 altogether ... Alexikoua ( talk) 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thats the issue, there is no " More than 100 village names were changed from Albanian to Greek" in that document [ [2]], although the 266 renamings (not only from Albanian to Greek) are clear mentioned. In the catalog there are no more than 20 renamings from Albanian to Greek. Cheers. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I will be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles ( talk) 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
At first blush with out having read through the entire article here are my reactions to the lead:
This is all I'll be able to do presently. I'll continue to review the article in the coming days. Since it is a long article it will take me a little while to get through it. In the cases of long articles I sometimes pause part way through the review to allow the editor(s) to address previous concerns and discuss the review to that point. I will likely do that on this article at some point. H1nkles ( talk) 22:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I'd like to ask about the neutrality is disputed tag after this sentence, "Albania has not raised the Cham issue as much as it should." It is the second such value judgment that I have encountered and does concern me from a POV stand point. I'm obviously completely neutral on this subject and I may be stepping into a vipers pit but I feel like I need to understand the reasoning behind the sentence as it is written and I need justification that it isn't a violation of WP:POV standards. I'm open minded to this and want to dialogue about it. I note an edit war on April 12, but I don't know if it revolved around this issue. I haven't been able to find the specific discussion on this issue on the talk page so I am raising it here.
Ok at this point I am going to pause me review and allow for comment and fixes. I'll give the article a week and then return to determine how things are going. I will watch this page and engage in discussions here as they occur and time permits. Thank you for the chance to review this article and for your anticipated work.
H1nkles (
talk)
00:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I just finished fixing some of the passages that you point out on the page. The majority of them are fixed as you have proposed, but not all of them. So, lets start one by one:
History section
Thanks once again, Balkanian`s word ( talk) 19:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Sorry I have to leave for now, I'll try to do more later tonight or tomorrow. H1nkles ( talk) 22:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Continue with examples of prose problems.
First off I again apologize for the length of time this review has taken. I'd like to summarize here what I've said above and focus on the issues that keep me from passing the article.
Overall the article is actually pretty close to GA. The two biggest hurdles are the prose and the lead. Please address the issues I've brought up and let me know what you think. I'm going to update the hold. Thanks for all your hard work. H1nkles ( talk) 16:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I would not be surprised if there are editors watching this review intent on making comments or even overturning a "GA pass" based on either POV or source reliability issues. I invite those editors to participate in the review at this point by giving their opinions. Ultimately I will decide the merits of the article and do as diligent a job as possible to make sure that this article is in line with the GA Criteria.
(outdent) Thank you for your quick response, no need to change out the source, GAs have passed with far less credible sources. The POV change is acceptable. Please commence with the Lead editing and we'll wrap this baby up. My invitation for other editors to participate in the POV/reliability of sources discussion is still open. H1nkles ( talk) 15:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Now, we have to rewritte the lead. I have a proposal, which I think it would be better to discuss it here before editing the article. I think the best lead is:
Is there anything from the article that we did not sum up, or is there anything we should rephrase? If not, lets edit it... Thanks, Balkanian`s word ( talk) 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
How does it look? Constantine ✍ 07:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks fine, but I think it needs two corrections:
1. In the intro word, it should be noted that Epirus is in Northwest Greece, cause not everybody that reads the article, knows where Epirus is.
2. The last paragraph, I think that should be reworded as follows:
What do you think? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 11:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, are we sure that they were expelled "under the charge of collaboration." As I have explained, Mazower gives too many reasons for their expulsion and concludes that this charge was an excuse created in the aftermath of the war. Should we periphrase it? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 11:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but with a minor problem. " the reason publicly put forward was collaboration (still the mainstream version in Greece)" The problem is that this was a reason that may have been put forword after the war. So, "under the charge" may apply to the reason why they were not allowed to turn back, not about the reason of their expulsion. Just a logical deduction. Also about their concentration camps before the war, we may periphrase it, but for sure it should be in the lead as far as the situation during WWII is a major importance on Chams history. You know, you say "Greece did not have much of a choice", but on the other hand, Chams had not much of a choice after they were liberated (dont get me wrong) by Italians. On the other hand, someone may argue why is it so important to put in the lead that some of them collaborated, when everywhere people collaborated. Do you get my point? I mean this part of history should be covered up totally in the lead, in order to let the reader know about the circuisantces. Can you propose something else? I am ok about the rest. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, what about:
It is a bit long, but for sure this is the hot spot of their modern history. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 12:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The lead is excellent, I did unlink the country names, per WP:Overlink it is not necessary to wikilink country names unless the link is to a specific time frame w/in the country's history (for example your linking of Germany to Nazi Germany is appropriate). After all this I will pass the article and wish you well in your further endeavors. Thank you for your timely and courteous responses to my concerns. Perhaps we can collaborate again on future articles. H1nkles ( talk) 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You say : "On June 1940 the notorious Albanian bandit, wanted for theft and murders Daut Hoxha killed from two Albanian shepherds inside Albania after a quarrel over some sheep"
Where on hell is this on 18th page of Pearson??????? Stop misciting.
You say: "an army equivalent to a full division of 9 battalions (4 blackshirt battalions -Tirana, Korçë, Vlorë, Shkodër-, 2 infantry battalions -Gramos and Dajti-, 2 volunteer battalions -Tomori and Barabosi-, one battery corps -Drin". Who on hell says that?????????????????? There were Gramshi and Tomorri the only two who took place on the war.
Stop adding povish theories. I am removing this part to Expulsion of Cham Albanians, since it is too much for a summary that we are trying in this page. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
1. "On June 1940 the notorious Albanian bandit, wanted for theft and murders Daut Hoxha killed from two Albanian shepherds inside Albania after a quarrel over some sheep" is on Owens Pearson book page 18 find out
2. All units are in Manta's book page 117-- Factuarius ( talk) 12:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
3. I included no theories of mine in the paragraph, there is only facts transfered almost word-by-word from three books already mentioned in the article before my editing. Who is to decide what parts of a given book we can mention and what is not allowed? -- Factuarius ( talk) 12:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
4. The attidute of some members of Chams before and during the war is part of the story of that population, why to rmv it to the expalsion article? With that logic we have to remove also their attidute during Ottoman's occupation, during Axis occupation etc. What you really want to mention about their history? tell us to understand what you really have in mind. -- Factuarius ( talk) 12:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not the summary of the "Expulsion of Cham Albanians" section of the article as you always say, it is the "Occupied Greece (1940–1944)" section of the article. The Expulsion of Cham Albanians section is after that. Please check it also.
Firstly you insisted that my references are incorect, then to take my paragraph to the expalsion article then that are all from greek POV authors and now you insisting to shorten the paragraph. This is not a serious attidute. I believe that what you really wanted from the start is to get rid of the paragraph. No, I believe that Chams history during the 2nd war & the occupation is a key issue to their history and cannot explained enough with just three phrases. I cannot understand your four differend positions other that you don't want to say much about these key events.
The Italian intervention in the Chamuria issue is also a major issue we cannot omitt since it was one of the very reasons of the Greco-Italian war (according to them), leading to the occupation and the subsequent events. It is impossible to say that Italy invaded Greece without saying why, especially when one of the main reason of the war was the Chames issue. How shorter we can explain all these in less of a paragraph? -- Factuarius ( talk) 15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you think that I am totaly stupid? Is this "minor reconfiguration"? Who you believe that can fool about? Everyone can see your minor "minor reconfigurations". You left only one phrase of mine and imediately your old friend Sarantiotis delete it. Do you guys believing yourself very clever and all the others just idiots.-- Factuarius ( talk) 17:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Article needs to be npoved. Issues;
1. It conflates Chams and Albanian speakers living within the state or what later became the state of Greece. In essence it confuses Chams with Arvanites and assumes all Albanian speakers to be Chams. This is clearly wrong and unacceptable.
2. Tone and style are obviously partisan. This needs to change fast.-- Xenovatis ( talk) 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Read Talk:Cham_Albanians#Arvanites of Epirus/ wiki creation or not?, Talk:Souliotes. Read them and then start arguing. There are WP:SOURCES, quite clear on this point. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course this article is POV. As it stands, the article in effect wishes to indicate that Epirus is and has been Albanian territory, that the Arvanites are pure Albanian and are misguided into thinking they are Greeks, and ergo much of Greece is, in effect, Albanian. LOL and re-LOL. And the article even has a picture of Markos Botsaris... how about including Pangalos? Naughty-naughty, and how crafty... this article needs serious re-re-editing before the POV label is removed. Politis ( talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
What's so funny there greek buddy? Do you recognize this qoute? "Who are the Greeks? At least five-sixths of them, if not more, are Christian Albanians of the Orthodox faith, Albanians in sentiment and in language, who because they acknowledge the Patriarch of Constantinople are declared to be Greek in point of ´national consciousness´." James Knowles, "The Nineteenth century and After", Volume 86, July-December 1919, p. 645. --
I Pakapshem (
talk)
20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is like a property of Balkans & Sarantioti every time someone is trying to edit something, has to do with an editing war by both of them. The way is the following: First they deleting everything and then saying you to go to the talk page to say your "παράπονό σου". If you insisting they rmv it again and are going to the admin saying "please help we have someone that denying to talk", when you are going to talk are posting nothing and keep removing your text until your 3rd choice, thus winning, since they are two and you are alone. That's gentlemen the story here. Can anyone help? -- Factuarius ( talk) 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? when I mention Botsari? What this has to do with me? I am not the guy to answer about Vickers, you are the guys to answer why you rmv both Owen Pearson, E. Manta and Bernd J. Fischer to put Vickers although there was an open discussion about that paragraph YOU HAD ASKED FOR without saying a word about you intended to edit. -- Factuarius ( talk) 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Please make me a favour, read: Talk:Cham Albanians and then speak. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are not using clones why Saradioti was out a week now? Do you want the evidence if you are using cloning tactics or not? I pity you for believing that by lies or suppressing truth you are doing good job for your country. How many weeks or months can you do that work over here before everybody understand what is happening? -- Factuarius ( talk) 19:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Athenean, what comes next? EL battles? The article is completely neutral, so lets stop this here. Factuarious, I was blocked for 3 days, and I'm not a clone of Balkanian. And now please stop this nonsense, before you are reported AGAIN and get blocked AGAIN. We show good faith, so I suggest you do that too. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC) -- Sarandioti
There is procedure to deal with suspect clones; I think, I am not sure, it does not include discussing it extensively on a talk page. Meanwhile, I respect Sarandioti's notion of neutrallity but this article has won the POV tag with full honours :-) No need to worry about it, it happens all the time in wikipedia. Politis ( talk) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Sarandioti the post: You have been blocked for 1 month for violating Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy by using XXxLRKistxXx to continue an edit war across multiple pages. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC) is it or not in your page?
it is why? and if you see below you'll see that it was reduced to 3 days, because we were just writing from the same net cafe. And politis excuse if im wrong, but I think that you were recruited to join here. And certainly your opinion cannot be considered NPOV.-- Sarandioti ( talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course of course. It is naturally the net cafe. -- Michael X the White ( talk) 20:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Recruited? You think wrong, but before making lazy assumptions there is one way to find out, follow my editorials on the Cham related articles. They go back a some time. And I certainly dont remember you Sarandioti... ;-) Politis ( talk) 20:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
michael "white" are you questioning the admin? he checked me. So are you saying that the admin was wrong ? hmm.... -- Sarandioti ( talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The greek team here claims that this article is not neutral. Well, you still havent told us why. Explain, because you claim but have no proof for anything. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 21:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I arrived at this article by request of another user involved in this dispute, and I'd just like to point out a few things:
Please, everyone, try to stay cool and talk things through. Who's going to go first..? haz ( talk) 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Haz, if I may give my view here, from my perspective of experience with admininistrating these kinds of disputes, I'm pretty convinced this will, sadly, only work out if the constructive editors are decisively separated from the non-constructive ones. Balkanian`s word, Athenean and Alexikoua are fundamentally capable of collaborating; Sarandioti, I Papakshem and Factuarius appear to be fundamentally unwilling or unable to do so. You have WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions in your hands; I recommend using them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Future perfect me or Pakapshem never added anything wihtout source. And I was the one who actually asked for mediation. So please refrain from your previous comments. They were offensive. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 08:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the second about no personal attacks or anything other focused on editors? I made my case clear, and offended no one, so why you, who are admin, break those rules in the discussion? Let us return to the issue now, and please stay to the issue. I asked you before to intervene futperf and you didn't. So now dont intervene by changing our subject. Post only if what you have to say is related to the issue(which until now only I have done) -- Sarandioti ( talk) 08:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever someone can say about it is impossible to anyone to edit that article. I tried for three days now to put a paragraph with almost every word of it from three already mentioning sources in the article believing that no one can decide what part of a given book is to be used and what part is not allowed, but in vane. Firstly they insisted that my references were falsified, after, that are all from greek POV authors (the two were not even greek) then to take my paragraph to the Chams expulsion article (although had nothing to do with expulsion) then to shorten the paragraph and yesterday they deleted it entirely (half of it the Balkan's word and the rest Sarandiotis). If you believe that my absence will make any difference over here I am willing to go out by myself to see the difference for any period Fut. believing necessary. Fut. just give me a number I will do it whatever haz will decide. Also from my short experience with Sarandiotis etc. it will be fruitless to ban them since they extensively using multiple user names, direct IP editing and friends. What they are doing is simple: You have 3 rv we have 6,9,12..you will never edit that article. --
Factuarius (
talk)
11:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
About Sarandioti's sockpuppetry policies [3], for his edit-warring tactics [4] -- Factuarius ( talk) 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
About Balkan's policies [5] and [6] and after that ("blocked for a period of one week for edit warring on multiple articles directly after the release of your block"18:42, 4 June 2009) -- Factuarius ( talk) 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
About Pakapshem's please see [7] or [8] in just 10 days of his existence in Wikipedia.
Sorry for giving that in the inapropiate page of Chams article but to my oppinion their ways of acting is the real problem over this and many other articles. (I am also new in wikipedia -maybe 6 months old- but I have only a 24h off)-- Factuarius ( talk) 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to go back to an unproductive and meaningful discussion of what really happened here during the last three days. I only want to explain to you 2 points about what you had analyzed. 1. that the apology of the Balkanian that two times you are mentioning had nothing to do with his falls accusations over me as you understand it, but it was an answer for my message to the Fut where among others I had expressed my disappointment for the Balkanians' lack of participation in the discussion he had asked for the Chams article. See by yourself :
[9] my post 13:51 and
[10] his sorry post at 14:06. And 2. a last word about the transferring of the paragraph to the Expulsion article: The paragraph had nothing to do with expulsion and because of that it was not even in the expulsion section of the Chams article, it was in a section labeled “Occupied Greece”. So I couldn't understand why to transfer it to the Expulsion article, if not to get rid of it.
Νοw, I would like to explain in detail what by rewriting this paragraph wanted:
So to tell the truth I am a little disappointed about your opinion for my “version being very narrow in its scope”, but maybe I must be disappointed in not succeeded to give what I wanted in an encyclopedic way. Anyway unless Fut. or you have a different opinion I will wait until both three Albanian users being unblocked to begin from the start the discussion but only under supervising. Regards-- Factuarius ( talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Below I am listing some specific concerns with the article. Because of its enormous size, this will take a bit of time. I would appreciate it if people discussed in a separate section so as to not clutter this section to the point of making it unreadable-- Athenean ( talk) 05:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
In the remaining section, much of what is passed off Cham folklore is essentially generic to the region or Albanians in generals. Examples of this are the polyphonic music, the story of the bridge of Arta, the compilation of fairy tales (the source says Albanian, not Cham fairy tales), and the cuisine section. These are less important than the other concerns, but there is some conflation of Epirotic and/or Albanian culture with Cham culture. The cuisine section is a good example, where there is little that is uniquely Cham and not shared with Gree/Turkish/Albanian cuisine.
I hope the above concerns can be the basis of a productive discussion on how to improve the article and make it more neutral. My ability to edit will be limited in the next few days but I look forward to see how the discussion has progressed when I return. -- Athenean ( talk) 07:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
A general comment: On 1 June 2009 this article became GA: it was reviewed by H1nkles (a very skilful editor); and during the review collaborative work was done between Constantine (mainly on the lead, if I am not mistaken), and Balkanian. Especially, as far as the lead is concerned, I see that it was the outcome of a discussion and collaboration between Constantine and Balkanian.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Respecting Athenean's request I place some specific comments here, although I do not know if this system works!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 17:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
La majorité d'entre eux ayant collaboré avec les forces d'occupation, le reste de la population a été conduit à exercer des représailles et les Tchams ont été expulsés par la Résistance grecque.
1)I agree with Yanissmarou for the "some Cham collaborated issue". "Some" is the exact word to be used 2)Most of Athenean's comments contained "Miranda Vickers is dubious and that is why we should change the article"
MIRANDA VICKERS, Britain's leading historian of the Albanian people. Vickers is an analyst for South Europe in BBC and has worked(or still works i am not sure about that) for the foreign office department of the UK. So, can we call such a source dubious? Of course not.
His justification: "Turkish sources, particularly those with any sort of government affiliation, need to be treated with extreme caution, as the Cham issue has been extensively exploited by Turkey for propaganda purposes against Greece." Well that looks(and is) a POV statement, and OR. Again lets not forget that this is a GA article which was corrected by a totally NPOV admin as I saw. And still we have no sourced or even semi-sourced or even self-evident observations that would make the article NOT neutral. I will make also one general irrelevant comment. As I saw futperf lost his admin rights. I believe that it was for being favourable to the greek editors and not being neutral in the greece-macedonia dispute arbcom, although I cannot be sure if this was the exact reason as I cant find the link. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 11:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
As I saw all Athenean's questions have been answered many times in Talk: Cham Albanians End of story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarandioti ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually the above concerns and questions by Athenean are very well positioned and off course most of them are not answered. We must be very cautious about Albanian and Turkish sources, because the topic is a favorite theme on the local propaganda. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Off course the information about f.p. is irrelevant here and I fully disagree with the conclusion. About Vickers' C.V., sorry this is not an argument about not being pro-Albanian. She has been accused of being pro-Albanian in a number of works, like [
[13]], [
[14]], [
[15]]., but she is still an expert on his field (not to mention the irredentist statements she makes in Albanian newspapers).
Alexikoua (
talk)
12:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
So now we are at the "this is propaganda phase"?. No comment at all by me, admin already knows what do. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 13:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If we are all back here, lets give a try and establish a real discussion. I still depend my cooperation in the discussion to Fut's will, although I do agree with Sarandioti about Fut. “Abusing users using admins tools and with incivility, resistance to listening, declaring an intent to edit war and getting users banned”, is not a solution as it is not a solution to put everyone you disagree with, out of the discussion as was Fut's first word for good morning here. This is not a restoration of the discussion, is the substitution of the discussion. I understand Athenean is a very hot admirer of Fut's way of working having writing hymns for him, but by just now starting to understand what WP really is, and having seen what Fut. had left behind him, my hopes for common accepted solutions here goes to haz's ways of dealing, not Futs. My proposition: lets forget everything ugly and make a fresh start here and now. Regards to all, -- Factuarius ( talk) 16:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
As always it is becoming again: making noise, just in order to keep this article disrupted. Lets start with them one by one, althouhg I know that some users (like Athenean) will use WP:IDONTHEREIT as an argument. First of all the reason of this mess is the paragraph added by Factuarius. I am adding the email I had sent to Haz, which is my opinion on this dispute:
The cham issue is a controversial one: Greeks say that all Cham Albanians collaborated in the WWII war, Albanians say that none collaborated, while reliable historians like Mark Mazower, Georgia Kretsi and Miranda Vickers say that a minority collaborated, aproximately the same number took part in the Greek resistance; while the majority remained uninvolved in the war. The main problem is that the historiography of both countries is so problematic that every editor that comes in that page (Albanian or Greek) disputes the whole article, which is built by consensus among others with User:Deucalionite, User:Cplakidas, et al.
The current dispute (which for me is not a dispute) is that User:Factuarius wanted to add in the WWII section page references by Eleytheria Manta; which is a Greek author, and contains a certain POV. For the reason I stated above (the extremity of POVs in Albania and Greece) I had proposed an agreement (see: Talk:Cham_Albanians#Proposals) that no Greek, no Albanian author shall be used on WWII issues, with some minor exeptions. This proposal was agreed by other users, till Factuarius came, putting Manta on WWII issues (no Albanian historian is sourcing that section).
This user wanted to add a strongly POVish issue on that section. There was written (by User:Cplakidas) that Chams were used as a tool, etc, but Factuarius thought that there was a need for more space on that issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cham_Albanians&diff=296740972&oldid=296739264
The problem is that the way it was written was totally POV and unnacaptable for a GA article. So I modified to this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cham_Albanians&diff=296778130&oldid=296740972
Above all the main problem, for which I insist that the first version (written by Cplakidas) is the best is that this page is way too long, and that that paragraph is undue, towards the section of WWII issues. There is a page that is concentrated to the WWII issues:Expulsion of Cham ALbanians, where I added the word-to-word paragraph that was put by Factuarius: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians&diff=296738924&oldid=296521340, although it was totally POV. Under these circuimtances per WP:UNDUE and per WP:NPOV, I propose that in this article be added the version of Cplakidas (the first one), and the third one, be added on Expulsion of Cham Albanians, which is the article related to WWII issues (even the pre-war conditions that involved the war). Balkanian`s word ( talk) 12:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
After we finish with those two disputes (which are current issues), we may treat Atheneans concerns (although they are treated on >>>>>this talk page<<<<<). Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
About the book of Ruches, it fits all the rs criteria in wiki (inlines, bibliography etc). Adding a number of related historical folksongs in a book doesnt mean that the historical events didn't happen (actually a small part in the book, ca. 10%, is devoted on folksong lyrics). The specific additions i've made are off course not part of a song's lyrics, but sourced events, so I don't understand the necessity to remove them. This book deals with Greek-Albanian issues from 1700 to 1960 so it is 100% related with the Cham article. Moreover, the specific author focuses always on historical issues in his works (actually most works of Ruches mention some related folksongs on historical events, this doesn't mean that the works aren't historical). Alexikoua ( talk) 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The book is not concerned about musicology or related stuff. I can see a deep analysis on specific historical facts. Maybe the title of the book is a little misleading, but in the preface it states clear: "The present volume is the outcome of an intensive, self-imposed study involved in sifting the background of the long-standing Greco-Albanian border dispute."
Since there was a talk about him, I just want to notice something I see on P.J. Ruches. Albania's Captives, 1965: on p. 146 there is a detailed criminal record 1919-1925: (it covers ca. 1 page) He committed a number of crimes together with muslims and christians against muslims and christians. All his crimes have to do with banditry and theft, notably he murdered more muslims (his compatriots) than christians. No to mention that he was one of the responsible for the Corfu Incident, murdering the Italian diplomats in 1923. I'll give an inline:
His ingrained 'faith' permitted him to slit the throat or shoot a Christian Greek and an Moslem Albanian with equal facility... Accordingly, Daut Hoxha, made an excellent steward of an Albanian bey's chiflik at Saronia, Vourkon (Delvino). There he aquired a new reputation for brutality toward the sheperds and Greek tenant-farmers. It was therefore to nobody's surprise that his headless corpse was discovered...This then was the cause celebre Musolini choose to trumpet around the world to justify the move he was soon to make
Vickers on the other hand just says that he was leader of the organized Cham resistance (no source mentioned), suppose she is relying too much on the Italian Fascist perspective. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"if nobody has a real argument"? As we all had readed, at least me Politis and Xenovatis have "a real argument". Speaking for myself I do insisting that it is essential to mention to the war section of the article:
How we can omit such significant events from the story of Chams in such a long article, and why? -- Factuarius ( talk) 21:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I just mentioned a contradicting statement by an Albanian author (Kretsi Georgia), who is supposed not to 'participate' in that section:
Beyond the expulsion, as a result of the atrocities that occurred more then 2,000 of them were killed and others died during their exodus to Albania. (inline is missing)
I notice also another source that has a somewhat different claim on the number:
EDES gangs massacred 200-300 of the Cham population, who during the occupation totaled about 19,000 and forced all the rest to flee to Albania.-The Origins of the Greek Civil War. David H. Close. [ [16]].
Alexikoua ( talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I see Kresti Georgia is mentioned several times on the wwi sections, should I write, 'according to albanian authors'? Alexikoua ( talk) 22:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually she is, [ Albanian]. Alexikoua ( talk) 11:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting, suppose it means that she's twice not acceptable on that section. Alexikoua ( talk) 13:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have e better proposal, why don't we say according to greek authors and then cite her?:) Aigest ( talk) 13:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No I suggest, to take into account only the 11 experts, suppose the other 10 (except Kretsi) are non-Albanians too (non of the them says Albania). Alexikoua ( talk) 13:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
DEMIRAJ Shaban Tirana ALBANIA) The majority of the rest it is pretty clear that are not Albanians: Altimari, Fringer, et.al. But, as it seems Kretsi is a Greek historian Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Why I see that she is
Albanian Albanian?
What do u suggest? Removing all Greek-Albanians or the supposed Greeks (that might be Albanian) should stay?
Alexikoua (
talk)
13:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
She's not Greek again Alexikoua ( talk) 13:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Alex you are making a nonsense debate here. To be an Albanologist doesn't mean you are Albanian:) This website tells nothing if she is Albanian or not (from the name it appears Greek though and in another document more clear she is identified as a greek) Now serious guys what is the problem here, this article was GA before and you both have agreed on consensus here?! What is the meaning of this dispute? Trying to destroy every article possible "including" or "excluding" nationalities? First Alex says that Kretsi must be excluded because she was supposedly Albanian and now it turns out she is greek:) and what a lucky shot it was now she must be excluded because she is Greek. What if she was born in Germany by Greek parents? Or by Arvanites or Chams (possible Greek nationality) WHAT IF SHE HAS GERMAN NATIONALITY? Will you end this nonsense dispute? Aigest ( talk) 13:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Does a GA article mean 'don't touch it'? Of course not. I was just wondering about her, and its reasonable, because Kretsi gives a total different number (ten times bigger) than Close. Suppose I can carefully rely on some authors that were born in a third country, no matter if there is an ancestral link with Greece or Albania. Alexikoua ( talk) 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Balkanian`s word please understand that
I also cannot understand why you are still saying that “this is just a summary of Expulsion of Cham Albanians” I told you two times before that you are wrong: this is not the summary of Expulsion of Cham Albanians, this is the summary of the war and occupation situation, the summary of the expulsion is in the next chapter (please check it again) and this is natural since the expulsion took part after the war, after the Axis occupation and after the liberation. -- Factuarius ( talk) 05:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Expulsion of Cham Albanians? We are talking about 1940, its just an background note according the Expulsion. Alexikoua ( talk) 06:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe we can use a middle way, making it 151904 bytes. Some sentences 'are' needed in the article. Thanks for the test, Fact. Alexikoua ( talk) 06:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Alexikoua, to be correct against the facts I put also a note about the male's Chams internmention so to include Balkans point over the paragraph and deleted the Albanian units as to stay short. This is the text now:
I'll make another test just for seeing the size (since Balkan thinks that so important). But in any case it is better to wait Balkans (and everyone else) opinion about. -- Factuarius ( talk) 07:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Given his significant role played in supplying the excuse for the invasion, but also due to his involvement in reasoning the Italian occupation of Corfu 17 years before (1923), an article about Daut Hoxha or "Daut Hoxha incident" must be created asap. My wiki knowledge is not enough to start it but I am ready to participate in it. ---- Factuarius ( talk) 08:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Factuarius ( talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Because simply that's not all. "Cplakidas' version" says almost nothing, half of it is about Albanian volunteers poor performance. Is that a significant event? I said it also, but with three words in my version. Is that "version" the Chams history during the war? Also this is not a summary of
Expulsion of Cham Albanians because the expalsion took place after the invasion, after the occupation and after the liberation, a full five years later. And the chapter is indeed the Occupied Greece chapter, not the Expalsion one as you keep saying. In the article about the history of the Albanian Chams:
You want to say less about the more critical period of the Chams history than about their cuisine. It is your choice. My opinion is that this has nothing to do with the "size" of the paragraph since this paragraph has the same size with the present (yours) paragraph in the article. Why the size was not a problem when you wrote the present paragraph but it is now with a same size paragraph saying five facts more? Just tell me that. -- Factuarius ( talk) 20:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually balky friend I say it again: the expulsion took place in 1944-45. The Daut incident in 1940. I believe your approach for a 'long-term' expulsion it's clear povish. Off course 1940 is not an event of the expulsion, which happened 4 years later, (can only used as a background note). Alexikoua ( talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
No the current paragraph is not a "consensus paragraph" is 100% your paragraph Balk, nobody of the participants agreed with it.
Sorry to tell but I found your policy in insisting firstly for a “consensus” (16/6) then for “shortening the paragraph”(21/6) and then for POV sources (now), a pretext policy. Also your call for collaboration, since you are are not collaborating by finding every time a new reason in leaving the paragraph unchanged. As it is now, or as it was before. As for the rest I agree with Alexikoua. -- Factuarius ( talk) 22:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, balk. even Fisher isn't sure if he was a resistance leader [ [18]] (Italian agend...) Alexikoua ( talk) 13:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
YOU ARE CLEARLY LYING AGAIN. Mazower's text you are noted said the opposite “In October 1940 (the month of the invasion-28/10/40) the Greek authorities disarmed 1,800 Chams conscripts and put them to work on local roads; the following month (November-thus AFTER the invasion) they sized all Albanian males not called up and deported them to camps or to island exile.” About Ficher: the page you footnoted is as you know totally empty "read it".. About Owen Pierson: Since you agree with Alexikoua that the quality of his work is evident by his inaccuracy of its dates I am going to ask to remove every Vickers' reference in this article since she is not even able to give a right date for the war believing that was broken a full year before (in 1939). About the discussion: No, you have to stay and discuss. You asked for it and you will discuss it, using lies in an obstructive attempt to kill the issue as you did with the Igoumenitsa discussion [19] will not help you again. The paragraph is in the occupation chapter, the expulsion chapter is next of it. Also I want to inform you that I started checking every single reference you had input in that article and you will have to give answers for any possible inaccuracy as that on the Mazower. Do you want to delete some of them by yourself in order to avoid future problems? Or all of them are perfectly accurate Balk? Regards, -- Factuarius ( talk) 16:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What do u mean Balky? deleting Piercon? I also suggested to delete anyone that is considered (partly) Greek/Albanian, to secure a more neutral approach. Suppose u dont like Piercon too. Fisher says also that he was a possible Italian agent... Whats you problem now? the 2 diferrent views are presented here.
Moreover I'm fed up with your povish nationalistic game you play here, you intentionally misuse every single source: [ [20]], a typical Mazower misuse: according to you+the majority of the population was uninvolved. Man, you have great fantasy... Mazower nowhere says that.
As for your 'expulsion' arguement, u know it's clear pov approach. Collaboration -Expulsion are two different events (related but diferrent). What can I say? You insist that collaboration is a subsection in your 'overextended Expulsion theory'? (expulsion is the main point and collaboration the minor- depends on the pov side you believe) The expulsion article is written by you so dont present it as argument. You have to relax, dont need to adopt a fighting spirit. We are with you balk. Take a big breath and we'll solve everything Alexikoua ( talk) 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What do u mean Balky? deleting Piercon? I also suggested to delete anyone that is considered (partly) Greek/Albanian, to secure a more neutral approach. Suppose u dont like Piercon too, for a reason o dont say. Fisher says also that he was a possible Italian agent... Whats the problem now? the 2 diferrent views are presented now (however the pre-war Cham resistance hadn't caused a single incident all that years, suppose it was the most peaceful resistance of all times, like M. Gandi's).
Moreover I'm fed up with your povish nationalistic game you play here, you intentionally misuse every single source: [ [21]], a typical Mazower misuse I noticed yeasterday: according to you+the majority of the population was uninvolved (about the Nazi colaboration). Man, you have great fantasy... Mazower nowhere says that.
As for the 'expulsion' argument, u know it's clear pov approach. Collaboration -Expulsion are two different events (related but different, the one caused the other). What can I say? You insist that collaboration is a subsection in your 'overextended Expulsion theory'? (expulsion is the main point and collaboration the minor- depends on the pov side you believe) The expulsion article is written by you so dont present it as argument. (Typical pov approach to overfocus on one of the 2) You have to relax, dont need to adopt a fighting spirit. We are with you balk. Take a big breath and we'll solve everything Alexikoua ( talk) 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What you are talking now. I told you that the Albanian males internment happened after the war broken and not before as your paragraph currently in the article says, you said me that I was “lying” because “Mazower said it pretty clear: in October 1940 (not prior October, but in October) thus prior the Italian intervention” giving me a page reference. I check the page and I found that you consciously LIED: That Mazower said exactly the opposite “In October 1940 (the month of the invasion-28/10/40) the Greek authorities disarmed 1,800 Chams conscripts and put them to work on local roads; the following month they sized all Albanian males not called up and deported them to camps or to island exile” and now you calling that “a minor change”. Since you are who found and gave that reference, it is perfectly sure that you also read it, and you preferred to mislead all of us by saying that Mazower said exactly the opposite of what he said. I call that a lie, you calling it “just a minor change”. What to say? Just that if I was in your position I would be at shame. But that's my problem. -- Factuarius ( talk) 18:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Just added the dubious discuss sign on the sentence: "But the local beys, the muftis and the majority of the population did not support such actions." Vickers 2002 says: "Although many Beys and their older sons were liquidated when they went up to join the nationalist organisation Balli Kombetar in 1942-1943".
They were part of the Balli Komb. but not supported actions by the Balli Komb.? Sources are contradicting eachother. Alexikoua ( talk) 10:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually Ballists except from being nationalists, collaborated with the Occupation forces [ [22]] (+there are more than 50 books saying it clear). Alexikoua ( talk) 10:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, on Daut Hoxha, the NPOV-est source we have (Bernd Ficher) actually says that he was a leader of the Chams. p.74. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 12:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
We can use a secondary set. on the beys. Hoxha a leader of the Chams? Does he write something more specific except that? (some backround or record?) Alexikoua ( talk) 13:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing dubious about it and no harm done with it being there. There is plenty of time for that. Politis ( talk) 16:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how a man could be leader of a non-existent resistance (the pre-1940 Cham resistance). Suppose the ones (except Musolini and Fascist Italy) know something more than to labeling a person 'leader'.
. I've reworded the sentence about the beys, according to Mazover and added a secondary set. from Vickers.
Alexikoua (
talk)
16:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Very nice we agreed on a sentence today. Suppose Balli Kombetar Cam was something different than Keshila. What was she? paramilitary? Alexikoua ( talk) 16:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
E telika eisai poly ... Factuarius. What on hell are you talking about: OPEN YOUR EYES: p79 it is not a new source, it is the source given by Cplakidas and it is pretty clear. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The sentence "The pages 56-114 are not part of this book preview" makes any sence to you? OPEN YOUR EYES and stop making references to not existence pages! -- Factuarius ( talk) 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
In both cases without having their pages it is impossible to positively know what their oppinions are Take their books and tell me. -- Factuarius ( talk) 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Three cases of falsification of sources. I did no personal attack I just told him that
To falsify three sources in a single paragraph by itself characterize the person. If you still have reservations about him I will provide ten more falsifications just to ensure you that all these are not "mistakes" but a consistent try to mislead all of us and especially the readers. Finally, personal attack is to write to someone "E telika eisai poly ..." that in Greeks means "So finally you are very..." which is at the start of that chapter signed by him. In which I was avoided to answer. Regards, -- Factuarius ( talk) 00:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Falsification of source nr.4.
Some imagination indeed, I like the details "except the primary homes and the small farms inside the villages". "Farms inside the villages"???? An answer Balk? Or its better to wait because I have more "minor deferencies" between the article and its sources to ask you about. -- Factuarius ( talk) 02:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Falsification of source nr.5.
Falsification of source nr.6.
Nice way to mention a source. An answer Balk?
There are too many more. I am going to report the situation. This article had been the target of a consistent falsification and misquoting.--
Factuarius (
talk)
04:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
One by one: what are your problems with this version? And then I will answer to your problems one by one: do not remove sources, put them a doubious template and discuss them. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 08:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
All the inlines are faked see by yourself And I have more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-- Factuarius ( talk) 09:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC) The problem with the version are the falsification of the sources. You put everything back as to read nothing and you asking what are my problems? My problems are the 6 faking references as I analyticaly had explained.-- Factuarius ( talk) 09:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to write again all these. Read them all six. -- Factuarius ( talk) 09:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Which one?-- Factuarius ( talk) 09:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop mention again and again Vickers about. Vickers mention just what Italians said about. Which is already in the paragraph, no need to say it again. We know it: The Italians said that Greeks killed him.-- Factuarius ( talk) 09:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you reading anything I posting you? I told you why, why you ask me again, read again -- Factuarius ( talk) 09:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Calm down. Firstly you are not rv only this paragraph, you rv everything I had made as you know. And I made it because I find out that all of these sentences had faked references. Thats why I answered you that you had them fake them all. Secondly you always do the same first you rv and then ask to discuss. Wrong, those who want to rv first says why and then rv Third the paragraph you asked about is αρτζι πουρτζι και λουλάς. Πράγματα ατάκτος εριμένα. In your effort to say first what you like leaving for the end what you don't like you are going timely back and forward and again. I also told that Fischer himself is not sure about who killed them read what I told you about some hours before.-- Factuarius ( talk) 10:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
"Secondly you always do the same first you rv and then ask to discuss. Wrong, those who want to rv first says why and then rv" Who started this? It was you that made that paragraph look like that, without discussing.
"Third the paragraph you asked about is αρτζι πουρτζι και λουλάς. Πράγματα ατάκτος εριμένα. In your effort to say first what you like leaving for the end what you don't like you are going timely back and forward and again."
What is going back and forth in that paragraph? My question is clear, why did you remove e.g. this sentence "According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Ficher, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years, leading to him branded as a bandit by Greece.[13][75]". Why did you remove everything that you did not like? And for the record, when you dispute a sentence or a reference you may put a {{doubious}} template in there, and discuss it; not reverting it as you always does. My question is f......... clear; what is the problem with this paragraph? The sentence, the word, the comma you do not like? What is it? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 10:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Also what problem has the vickers sentence "Rome's propaganda machine hurled fabricated accusations at Athens conserning the “oppression” of Albanian nationals in the Greek Epirus" Vickers is your favorite authors you put 1,000,000 references from her books. End this sentence is very iluminating for the situation.-- Factuarius ( talk) 10:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Also most of your paragraph is not deleted as you say is right back in the prewar section with Metaxas Regime. Check it and stop making noises like "Whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttttttttttttt????????????????????"
For Factuarius edits
For Aigest
Regards, -- Factuarius ( talk) 10:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
For Factuarius
No, not the sentence; the whole paragraph should be back; cause it is totally NPOV, per all sources, not taking the sources you like and living the one you do not like. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 11:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
For Aiges:
For Factuarius
I don't now what Ruche says. Ask Alexikoua. I do know what Manta says in page 21, because I took the book (so..I have all the pages). BTW if you read it you will find it very useful for your positions and not at all "POV" but you are totaly uncompromised towards NPOV sources sometimes even with Albanian-POV books in some details you don't like. But that's your problem. -- Factuarius ( talk) 13:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
"Even the italian version of Wiki says 3,500 Albanian troops here [24] " Yeas thats it: Albanians, NOT CHAMS. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop treating me as an idiot. What I am mentioning about Manta (for the time being) is only about the prewar period, not during the war or after. About Ruches I told you to discuss it with Alexiqoua, it is his reference, I am refering to MANTA whatever you keep saying and I insist. -- Factuarius ( talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What you seem to not understand Factuarius is the simple demographic process of conscription. I wasn't referring to the availability of arms, but to that of the persons . Doing simple math the numbers are there: 1800(greek conscription)+3500(volunteers)=5300 total cham soldiers
Yep germany could have arrived at 1:7 in 1944 (including Volkssturm invalids) but chams seems to have come to 1:4 at greek census scenario while 1:6.6 to BW scenario?! I really doubt that Aigest ( talk) 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Read the discussion about from the start.-- Factuarius ( talk) 15:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
NO Factuarius don't try to avoid the simple fact, by making assumptions In the paragraph there are 1800 Cham conscripts in Greek army + 3500 volunteers = 5300 cham fighters WITH REFERENCES ADDED and THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE (see comment on German example above)!!!! surely THE REFERENCES ARE WRONG OR MISCITED Aigest ( talk) 14:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
References are totally wrong Ruches says 3500 exactly so there are no 2000 (where did you get it?). So (leaving asside the fact disputed by BW they were chams or not) in the article of Ruches that you use as a reference to this than you have exact number 3500 (chams?!) which should be added further 1800. I seems that chams were better organized for war than the whole the state apparatus of Nazi Germany?! Lol aparently Ruches is miscited or unbelievable as source. Secondly I saw the book and confirmed that Fisher refers to Daut Hoxha as a leader of Chams. While we have this dispute between Pearson, Ruches-Vickers, Fisher I found the variant of BW is more NPOV than one sided variant existing now. I am going to bring the NPOV version again. You guys have to talk first before making POV edits and remember this article was built on consensus and was GA, before these nonsense POV disputes. Regards to all Aigest ( talk) 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You are unable to communicate I have been answer that two hours before. You are reading nothing and every hour you are coming here to say what already had been told again and again and again and again and again. I told you that for the time being I am using her only for the prewar period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aν είναι δυνατόν ποιά! -- Factuarius ( talk) 16:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
So?-- Factuarius ( talk) 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I will use her even in the occupation section if I have to mention something that happen in the prewar period as it is the prewar making of the Albanian units. Cannot understand it?-- Factuarius ( talk) 17:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Also I have to remind you that nobody accepted that "consensus" other that the partly agreed Alexikoua. Nobody else! -- Factuarius ( talk) 17:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Ιs this article in good standards? Give me a break. You again have read nothing from the morning. What about the references? Is this what you mean “good standard”? We have months ahead us to start speaking for “good standards” and hard work. Give me Cplakidas, Deucalionite and Athenean's acceptance. -- Factuarius ( talk) 17:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I already told. Half of it is already in the previous chapter all the other is in the current version plus the section you insisted to incorporate about Hoxha being leader etc. After we input the sentence you asked the next minute you started to ask for a full deletion of the paragraph in order to put your full paragraph instead. It is imposible to achive a consensus with you. You are always asking for consensus but what you realy mean is let me put my sentence I am accepting nothing more. Give me Cplakidas Deucalionite and Atheneans acceptance. -- Factuarius ( talk) 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
We have discuss all these from the morning again and again.
-- Factuarius ( talk) 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
E re trelokomio pou giname. Wiki works on sources; if a source says that they are "possibly killed by Greek police"; we should writte there that "possibly killed by Greek police", nothing more nothing less. Are you familiar with wiki policies? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 20:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Between a "possible" source and a certain source we prefer the certain not the possible. Are you familiar with logic? -- Factuarius ( talk) 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
OK Ι respect your oppinion but I believe the logic is a universal tool making the human reason-able and more human. Although I understand that my oppinion is not the only one, but I prefer that from the others. -- Factuarius ( talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
1. None is expressed for sure most of them say none knows they were never found here an eg [25]
2. Pearson here [26] is favoring Albanians, by saying A) Greeks didn't want a cooperation on inquiry of the murder offered by Albanians. b) Delimitation Commission was deliberately favoring Albanians as accused by Greek newspapers (so no need for Albanians to kill him sic.) c) Albanian government ordered the publication of a Red Book containing two documents which proved that the assassination had been organized and perpetrated by the Greeks.
3. The International commission who made the inquiry on Tellini's murder clearly implies Greece's guilt here [27]
4. Greece accepted to pay reparation (legally accepting the guilt)
I don't want to make any further comment on Tellini murder since sources speak for themselves. What I wanted to point out is that:
I see that Ruches, in the wiki article of Corfu incident and in Chams article of Greek-Italian war if not miscited again is biased as Anti-Albanian author (at least in these two cases, I had to check his other citations while I strongly doubt in his book he is a NPOV author au contrair) two cases because his cited position is - (Tellini murder-albanians did it(?! see above?!), Chams male population-were more organized than nazi germany?!) that's why I don't see him as a reliable source. Hope you understand my point regards Aigest ( talk) 08:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop it men, do not remove Fischer source and stop poving it. It is quite NPOV as it is. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you Factuarius didn't get my point.
For the above reasons I reverted the section to that of what I saw as NPOV version (and for sure is not aesthetic to began the section with the dubious fact (see above) that some sheeps were stolen) Aigest ( talk) 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I see again Ruches used as a reference in
Northern Epirus Liberation Front article. Again (if not miscited) he is wrong. The Borova massacre happened in 6th July 1943 after Albanian partisans attacked a German column see Owen Pearson p. 258 here the link
[28] or Bernd Fischer p. 190 here the link
[29] (or see here
[30]) while he put it in October 1943?!?!?!
Again he is wrong for the winter offensive which was against Albanian partisans see here Fischer p 195 [31] and Pearson p 319 [32] and none mentions MAVI battles or even skirmishes in both those books, while the article with Ruches as a reference mentions many battles. Please take a look at Pearson and Fischer books to see for yourselves this huge discrepancy.
How about deleting every non pro-Albanian author in wiki? Man, plz be serious, your arguments are not good anyway:
I try on that too, didn't say that I'm perfect on judging what;s good or not. Everyone that needs info about Ruches, Meyer just ask Alexikoua ( talk) 16:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
In line with the discretionary sanctions at WP:ARBMAC, User:Factuarius has received a three month topic ban from this and related articles. Page protection will now be lowered to semi protection, but all editors are reminded to edit within the parameters of decorum as described in WP:ARBMAC. Hiberniantears ( talk) 15:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The disputed sentence is:
Factuarius version is:
The sources used are:
Another dispute, is about the size of the Chams that took place in the war:
My version is:
Factuarius version is:
Sources used are: Ruches says " Albanian volunteers", not Cham Albanian volunteers, (Chams are a subbranch of Albanians, living at that time in Greece, but at that time, Albania was occupied by Italy, so the Italian Army could have easily volunteers from Albania).
Eleytheria Manta: no inline.
My objection: Manda, Eleytheria is a Greek author. In this page, we have reached a consensus firstly proposed by me, not to use Albanian and Greek authors on the period between 1935-1950. The reasoning of this consensus has been that the cham issue is a controversial one: Greeks say that all Cham Albanians collaborated in the WWII war, Albanians say that none collaborated, while reliable historians like Mark Mazower, Georgia Kretsi and Miranda Vickers say that a minority collaborated, aproximately the same number took part in the Greek resistance; while the majority remained uninvolved in the war. The main problem is that the historiography of both countries is so problematic that every editor that comes in that page (Albanian or Greek) disputes the whole article, which is built by consensus among others with User:Deucalionite, User:Cplakidas, et al.
The current dispute (which for me is not a dispute) is that User:Factuarius wanted to add in the WWII section page references by Eleytheria Manta; which is a Greek author, and contains a certain POV. For the reason I stated above (the extremity of POVs in Albania and Greece) I had proposed an agreement (see: Talk:Cham_Albanians#Proposals) that no Greek, no Albanian author shall be used on WWII issues, with some minor exeptions. This proposal was agreed by other users, till Factuarius came, putting Manta on WWII issues (no Albanian historian is sourcing that section).
My version is:
Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[75]
Factuarius has removed this sentence.
Sources used:
Fischer says [36] that Albanians "desearted or defected" and the rest may be seen in p. 79-80 of that book. (I have not enaugh time to writte all those pages in here).
My version is:
Factuarius version is:
Sources used:
I have put him as inline, Factuarius has written "sent them to camps and islands", propably forget to add "for holidays".:)
My version is:
On June 1940 Daut Hoxha a Cham Albanian was found headless in the village of Vrina in Southern Albania. According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Ficher, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years, leading to him branded as a bandit by Greece.[13][75] According to another British historian, Owen Pearson, Hoxha was a notorious bandit killed in fight by two sheperds.[76] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse from fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] As the possibility of an Italian attack on Greece drew nearer, Jacomoni began arming Albanian irregular bands to use against Greece.[78] At the same time, on the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and put them to work on local roads.[19] The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The invasion force included native Albanians, estimated 2,000-3,500 (including some Chams),[79] in blackshirt battalions attached to the Italian army, united later under “Chameria Army Corps”.[citation needed] Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[78]
In November, as the Greek counter-offensive managed to regain Thesprotia, the Greek authorities seized all Albanian males not called up and deported them to concentration camps or to island exile.[19][80] Until the invasion of Greece by the German army, the Muslim Cham population of the region of Chameria was composed of women, child and the elderly. The Muslim Chams would be restored to their land only after fascist Italy got control of the region. In 1941, Greece was occupied by German, Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.
Factuarius version is:
On June 1940 Daut Hoxha was killed in a fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep. He was in fact a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before[76]. Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] Rome's propaganda machine hurled fabricated accusations at Athens conserning the “oppression” of Albanian nationals in the Greek Epirus ([4]p.143). According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Fischer, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years. The Italians urgently started organizing several thousands local Albanians volunteers to participate on the "liberation of Chamuria" creating an army equivalent to a full division of 9 battalions.[78]Many Chams, estimated 2,000-3,500, had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups.[79] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse from fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The Albanian and Chams battalions took part to the invasion attached to the Italian army, united under the “Chameria Army Corps”.[80] On the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and replaced their active service by labour service on the local roads. On the following month, they seized all Albanian males who had not been mobilized and sent them to camps and islands.[19][81] The initial Greco-Italian conflict continued into 1941, when the forces of Nazi Germany invaded Greece. The country was occupied by German Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.
I think that it is pretty clear which is POV and which is NPOV. But, if any body has still not get it, than he may discuss in here :). Balkanian`s word ( talk) 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Your version is WP:SYNTH. You are synthesizng Vickers ("a leader of Cham resistance") with Fischer ("possibly killed by Greek agents"). Vickers says nothing about Greek agents, she only says that what the Italians claimed, while Fischer says nothing about a leader of Cham resistance.
According to this
[37] Miranda Vickers expressively states "In 1941 the Cham leader Daut Hoxha was murdered, allegedly by Greek police, and his head was displayed in various border villages" p. 207 Albania: From Anarchy to a Balkan Identity By Miranda Vickers, James Pettifer 320 pages, Publisher: C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd (April 22, 1997) ISBN-10: 1850652902 ISBN-13: 978-1850652908 hope it helps with the article.
Aigest (
talk)
09:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Athenean on this matter, actually the source says that Hoxha was a leader of Cham and this was the topic (thief or leader) while murderers were never found and that is what I said on this matter (see my comment at Ruches section) Aigest ( talk) 06:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Your version carefully omits to say that the Albanian blackshirt divisions were volunteers. The distinction between volunteers and conscripts is militarily significant and should be mentioned. The use of "including some Chams" is also weasel-wording to try and minimize the collaboration, as is done throughout this article. A better version would be "The invasion force included native Albanian Cham volunteers and is estimated at 2,000-3,500". But Factuarius' version is fully sourced and has better flow. What does the putting of work of Cham conscripts on local roads have to do with the Italian invasion? It seems completely disjointed.
The way this section is worded, I also feel it is an attempt to minimize the collaboration. The statement "Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected." appears totally unsourced.
Your version is totally unsourced. Also since only the adult male Chams already not called up were deported, the sentence "The Muslim Chams would be restored to their land only after fascist Italy got control of the region." is highly problematic. It implies that all Chams were deported and appears designed to portray them exclusively as victims.
For these reasons, I propose the following version:
"On June 1940 a Cham Albanian by the name of Daut Hoxha was found headless in the village of Vrina in Southern Albania. According to historian Owen Pearson, Hoxha was a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before[76] and was killed in a fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep. According to historian Miranda Vickers, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years. The Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered by Greek spies inside Albania, and declared the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse by fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. Prior to the outbreak of fighting, many Chams, estimated at 2,000-3,500[79], had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups. The Italians organized these groups in the "liberation of Chamuria", consisting of 9 battalions.[78] The Albanian and Chams battalions took part in the invasion attached to the Italian army, united under the “Chameria Army Corps”.[80] For this reason, on the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and replaced their active service by labour service on the local roads. On the following month, they seized all adult Albanian males who had not been mobilized and sent them to camps and islands.[19][81] The initial Greco-Italian conflict continued into 1941, when the forces of Nazi Germany invaded Greece. The country was occupied by German Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones."
This section is an exercise in POV-pushing. I notice only one or two sentences on the collaboration of the Chams with the Axis, and even those are hedged in all sorts of ways "Being under such pressure from the Greek state...", "But it seems the local mufits and beys bla bla bla". On the other hand the "Expulsion" section is lavished with three full paragraphs and is replete with gory detail, including numbers killed, etc...-- Athenean ( talk) 06:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure balk. can find 10 times more stuff about expulsion than about collaboration (how ironic). Contrary to that, H.F. Meyer describes collaboration in 35 pages and in expulsion within 10 lines (i thing less) Alexikoua ( talk) 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It is more NPOV to have an article with that title. Than two separate articles for chams fighting for Axis and chams fighting against Axis, can be included in it along with what happened to the civil population in the mean time. Aigest ( talk) 06:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
That is POV because as I said there were chams on both sides (look the section yourself) so it's more NPOV to say occupied Greece as the main article and then include in it the collaboration and the resistance. So far the title is POV and misleading (what happened to the chams fighting against Axis? should we call them collaborators?!) Aigest ( talk) 07:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you guys interested in talk page? Or you have your own agenda? Aigest ( talk) 07:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The first Chams enrolled in ELAS in May 1944, just one month (or less) before the Axis retreat, I suggest to move them in the expulsion section. In May 1944 the Axis retreat was more than obvious, so participation in ELAS, as anti-Axis action- had not significant value. Alexikoua ( talk) 07:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Athenean you are wrong again (as usual:)). I am not reverting anything from Alex edits, just changing the article title. My opinion and proposal for that section is expressed above. If you have smth to say about it you can do it here. Aigest ( talk) 09:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
May be the section occupied Greece can have three subsections
1. Occupation of the territory and cham collaboration with Axis 2. Cham resistance to Axis 3. Cham population during this period (reprisals executed by both sides, internment etc)
What do others think? Aigest ( talk) 09:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The titles seem very genitive, fogue and milseading. e.g. occupation of territory? what territory?, 'Axis resistance?' which resistance left or right (balli cambetar) wing? Cham population? every section deals with with parts of the Cham population. I believe the sections are clear enouqh:occupation and colaboration-reft wing resistance-expulsion Alexikoua ( talk) 09:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
My proposal is simple because it includes what happened to cham population (in the end this article is for cham population and not the territory) so it is better described if we keep this subtopics
1 chams who collaborated
2 chams who resisted
3 chams who neither collaborated nor resisted (the majority of the population which was between two fires)
with that we include all the history of cham people during that period and keep the article simple and NPOV. Aigest ( talk) 10:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought its a matter of titles, not positions. 1st section is on collaboration 2nd on resistance, 3rd on expulsion (so we agree). What;s the diferrence?
-the majority- who says that? (Balky misused Mazower, he says nowhere something like that) actually there was for sure a part uninvolved but we dont know excact numbers (lets say-a part-)
Alexikoua (
talk)
10:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You surely don't think that women, children, old men etc so the category not capable of fighting, wasn't a majority part of cham population?!(not including those capable but not involved just like it is mentioned in the article). What happened to them during Greece occupation 1941-1944 where they were being executed, deported, raped, burned the house, robbed etc (by both parts) is a very important topic and it makes sense to have these three categories as I proposed "bad guys" "good guys" "uninvolved innocent". The expulsion of them happened after the occupation during 1944-1945 and that is a separate topic (moreover regarding its importance)
Aigest (
talk)
12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
As for the number included in the article we should be very careful, otherwise as I told to Factuarius above for the numbers of chams involved in the fighting (see above demographic analyze) we should going to make some ridiculous affirmations (like that of 5300 cham fighters:)) Aigest ( talk) 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually we talked about section' titles, which are clear and reasonable. About the numbers, I thought we took into account only the ones the could carry arms, off course women, children, elderly are not included in these numbers (there is a degree on potential passive collaboration on them). Alexikoua ( talk) 13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Women and children passive collaboration?! Man that's nazi theory for putting people in front of a fire squad!!! Aigest ( talk) 13:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the title "Left Guerilla Activity". It sounds as if these people were terrorists! My opinion is that if collaboration is called collaboration, then participation in a resistance group should also be called resistance; and I do not care about ELAS' ideological affiliations. Labelling any ELAS member as "left guerilla" is inaccurate, and sometimes offensive, because at the time (a time of idealism before civil war) ELAS gathered people from all ideological affiliations, who believed that it was first of all a resistance group.
"On the other hand, several hundred Muslim Chams became part of the Greek People's Liberation Army (ELAS)". The source here is Kretsi. Does she give any date, year? Do we have any other sources about that?-- Yannismarou ( talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually Balkanian can give a hand. However, its a bit hard to prove [ [38]] that (only one German work has a limited preview). Also noticed in article: IV_"Ali_Demi"_battalion (written by Balkanian) that:
In may 1944, a group of local Cham Albanians, created the battalion named after Ali Demi, in the village Milea (Albanian: Kastanjë), which was included in the 15th regiment of Greek People's Liberation Army.
May 1944, this means a month (or less) before the Axis retreat.
I've sourced on Kretsi's German book (Verfolgung und Gedächtnis in Albanien) on "Ali Demi", but the results were zero [ [39]]. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Vickers
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Grove
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
citation}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |ean=
ignored (
help)
Vickers, Miranda 2002
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 | → | Archive 7 |
Ive noticed this sentence: "During this period, a number of villages were renamed in the region. More than 100 village names were changed from Albanian to Greek in Thesprotia, Preveza and Ioannina." And its sourced by this: [ [1]]. Which are the 100 placenames that were changed from Albanian to Greek? Ajdonat to Paramythia is not excactly a change from Albanian to Greek, the same happens to Yanya>Ioannina. The source mentions toponyms of Turkish, Aromanian, Slavic, Albanian root, not only Albanian. I can't make the Albanian to Greek changes of names 100 altogether ... Alexikoua ( talk) 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thats the issue, there is no " More than 100 village names were changed from Albanian to Greek" in that document [ [2]], although the 266 renamings (not only from Albanian to Greek) are clear mentioned. In the catalog there are no more than 20 renamings from Albanian to Greek. Cheers. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I will be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles ( talk) 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
At first blush with out having read through the entire article here are my reactions to the lead:
This is all I'll be able to do presently. I'll continue to review the article in the coming days. Since it is a long article it will take me a little while to get through it. In the cases of long articles I sometimes pause part way through the review to allow the editor(s) to address previous concerns and discuss the review to that point. I will likely do that on this article at some point. H1nkles ( talk) 22:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I'd like to ask about the neutrality is disputed tag after this sentence, "Albania has not raised the Cham issue as much as it should." It is the second such value judgment that I have encountered and does concern me from a POV stand point. I'm obviously completely neutral on this subject and I may be stepping into a vipers pit but I feel like I need to understand the reasoning behind the sentence as it is written and I need justification that it isn't a violation of WP:POV standards. I'm open minded to this and want to dialogue about it. I note an edit war on April 12, but I don't know if it revolved around this issue. I haven't been able to find the specific discussion on this issue on the talk page so I am raising it here.
Ok at this point I am going to pause me review and allow for comment and fixes. I'll give the article a week and then return to determine how things are going. I will watch this page and engage in discussions here as they occur and time permits. Thank you for the chance to review this article and for your anticipated work.
H1nkles (
talk)
00:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I just finished fixing some of the passages that you point out on the page. The majority of them are fixed as you have proposed, but not all of them. So, lets start one by one:
History section
Thanks once again, Balkanian`s word ( talk) 19:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Sorry I have to leave for now, I'll try to do more later tonight or tomorrow. H1nkles ( talk) 22:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Continue with examples of prose problems.
First off I again apologize for the length of time this review has taken. I'd like to summarize here what I've said above and focus on the issues that keep me from passing the article.
Overall the article is actually pretty close to GA. The two biggest hurdles are the prose and the lead. Please address the issues I've brought up and let me know what you think. I'm going to update the hold. Thanks for all your hard work. H1nkles ( talk) 16:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I would not be surprised if there are editors watching this review intent on making comments or even overturning a "GA pass" based on either POV or source reliability issues. I invite those editors to participate in the review at this point by giving their opinions. Ultimately I will decide the merits of the article and do as diligent a job as possible to make sure that this article is in line with the GA Criteria.
(outdent) Thank you for your quick response, no need to change out the source, GAs have passed with far less credible sources. The POV change is acceptable. Please commence with the Lead editing and we'll wrap this baby up. My invitation for other editors to participate in the POV/reliability of sources discussion is still open. H1nkles ( talk) 15:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Now, we have to rewritte the lead. I have a proposal, which I think it would be better to discuss it here before editing the article. I think the best lead is:
Is there anything from the article that we did not sum up, or is there anything we should rephrase? If not, lets edit it... Thanks, Balkanian`s word ( talk) 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
How does it look? Constantine ✍ 07:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks fine, but I think it needs two corrections:
1. In the intro word, it should be noted that Epirus is in Northwest Greece, cause not everybody that reads the article, knows where Epirus is.
2. The last paragraph, I think that should be reworded as follows:
What do you think? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 11:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, are we sure that they were expelled "under the charge of collaboration." As I have explained, Mazower gives too many reasons for their expulsion and concludes that this charge was an excuse created in the aftermath of the war. Should we periphrase it? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 11:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but with a minor problem. " the reason publicly put forward was collaboration (still the mainstream version in Greece)" The problem is that this was a reason that may have been put forword after the war. So, "under the charge" may apply to the reason why they were not allowed to turn back, not about the reason of their expulsion. Just a logical deduction. Also about their concentration camps before the war, we may periphrase it, but for sure it should be in the lead as far as the situation during WWII is a major importance on Chams history. You know, you say "Greece did not have much of a choice", but on the other hand, Chams had not much of a choice after they were liberated (dont get me wrong) by Italians. On the other hand, someone may argue why is it so important to put in the lead that some of them collaborated, when everywhere people collaborated. Do you get my point? I mean this part of history should be covered up totally in the lead, in order to let the reader know about the circuisantces. Can you propose something else? I am ok about the rest. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, what about:
It is a bit long, but for sure this is the hot spot of their modern history. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 12:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The lead is excellent, I did unlink the country names, per WP:Overlink it is not necessary to wikilink country names unless the link is to a specific time frame w/in the country's history (for example your linking of Germany to Nazi Germany is appropriate). After all this I will pass the article and wish you well in your further endeavors. Thank you for your timely and courteous responses to my concerns. Perhaps we can collaborate again on future articles. H1nkles ( talk) 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You say : "On June 1940 the notorious Albanian bandit, wanted for theft and murders Daut Hoxha killed from two Albanian shepherds inside Albania after a quarrel over some sheep"
Where on hell is this on 18th page of Pearson??????? Stop misciting.
You say: "an army equivalent to a full division of 9 battalions (4 blackshirt battalions -Tirana, Korçë, Vlorë, Shkodër-, 2 infantry battalions -Gramos and Dajti-, 2 volunteer battalions -Tomori and Barabosi-, one battery corps -Drin". Who on hell says that?????????????????? There were Gramshi and Tomorri the only two who took place on the war.
Stop adding povish theories. I am removing this part to Expulsion of Cham Albanians, since it is too much for a summary that we are trying in this page. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
1. "On June 1940 the notorious Albanian bandit, wanted for theft and murders Daut Hoxha killed from two Albanian shepherds inside Albania after a quarrel over some sheep" is on Owens Pearson book page 18 find out
2. All units are in Manta's book page 117-- Factuarius ( talk) 12:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
3. I included no theories of mine in the paragraph, there is only facts transfered almost word-by-word from three books already mentioned in the article before my editing. Who is to decide what parts of a given book we can mention and what is not allowed? -- Factuarius ( talk) 12:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
4. The attidute of some members of Chams before and during the war is part of the story of that population, why to rmv it to the expalsion article? With that logic we have to remove also their attidute during Ottoman's occupation, during Axis occupation etc. What you really want to mention about their history? tell us to understand what you really have in mind. -- Factuarius ( talk) 12:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not the summary of the "Expulsion of Cham Albanians" section of the article as you always say, it is the "Occupied Greece (1940–1944)" section of the article. The Expulsion of Cham Albanians section is after that. Please check it also.
Firstly you insisted that my references are incorect, then to take my paragraph to the expalsion article then that are all from greek POV authors and now you insisting to shorten the paragraph. This is not a serious attidute. I believe that what you really wanted from the start is to get rid of the paragraph. No, I believe that Chams history during the 2nd war & the occupation is a key issue to their history and cannot explained enough with just three phrases. I cannot understand your four differend positions other that you don't want to say much about these key events.
The Italian intervention in the Chamuria issue is also a major issue we cannot omitt since it was one of the very reasons of the Greco-Italian war (according to them), leading to the occupation and the subsequent events. It is impossible to say that Italy invaded Greece without saying why, especially when one of the main reason of the war was the Chames issue. How shorter we can explain all these in less of a paragraph? -- Factuarius ( talk) 15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you think that I am totaly stupid? Is this "minor reconfiguration"? Who you believe that can fool about? Everyone can see your minor "minor reconfigurations". You left only one phrase of mine and imediately your old friend Sarantiotis delete it. Do you guys believing yourself very clever and all the others just idiots.-- Factuarius ( talk) 17:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Article needs to be npoved. Issues;
1. It conflates Chams and Albanian speakers living within the state or what later became the state of Greece. In essence it confuses Chams with Arvanites and assumes all Albanian speakers to be Chams. This is clearly wrong and unacceptable.
2. Tone and style are obviously partisan. This needs to change fast.-- Xenovatis ( talk) 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Read Talk:Cham_Albanians#Arvanites of Epirus/ wiki creation or not?, Talk:Souliotes. Read them and then start arguing. There are WP:SOURCES, quite clear on this point. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course this article is POV. As it stands, the article in effect wishes to indicate that Epirus is and has been Albanian territory, that the Arvanites are pure Albanian and are misguided into thinking they are Greeks, and ergo much of Greece is, in effect, Albanian. LOL and re-LOL. And the article even has a picture of Markos Botsaris... how about including Pangalos? Naughty-naughty, and how crafty... this article needs serious re-re-editing before the POV label is removed. Politis ( talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
What's so funny there greek buddy? Do you recognize this qoute? "Who are the Greeks? At least five-sixths of them, if not more, are Christian Albanians of the Orthodox faith, Albanians in sentiment and in language, who because they acknowledge the Patriarch of Constantinople are declared to be Greek in point of ´national consciousness´." James Knowles, "The Nineteenth century and After", Volume 86, July-December 1919, p. 645. --
I Pakapshem (
talk)
20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is like a property of Balkans & Sarantioti every time someone is trying to edit something, has to do with an editing war by both of them. The way is the following: First they deleting everything and then saying you to go to the talk page to say your "παράπονό σου". If you insisting they rmv it again and are going to the admin saying "please help we have someone that denying to talk", when you are going to talk are posting nothing and keep removing your text until your 3rd choice, thus winning, since they are two and you are alone. That's gentlemen the story here. Can anyone help? -- Factuarius ( talk) 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? when I mention Botsari? What this has to do with me? I am not the guy to answer about Vickers, you are the guys to answer why you rmv both Owen Pearson, E. Manta and Bernd J. Fischer to put Vickers although there was an open discussion about that paragraph YOU HAD ASKED FOR without saying a word about you intended to edit. -- Factuarius ( talk) 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Please make me a favour, read: Talk:Cham Albanians and then speak. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are not using clones why Saradioti was out a week now? Do you want the evidence if you are using cloning tactics or not? I pity you for believing that by lies or suppressing truth you are doing good job for your country. How many weeks or months can you do that work over here before everybody understand what is happening? -- Factuarius ( talk) 19:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Athenean, what comes next? EL battles? The article is completely neutral, so lets stop this here. Factuarious, I was blocked for 3 days, and I'm not a clone of Balkanian. And now please stop this nonsense, before you are reported AGAIN and get blocked AGAIN. We show good faith, so I suggest you do that too. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC) -- Sarandioti
There is procedure to deal with suspect clones; I think, I am not sure, it does not include discussing it extensively on a talk page. Meanwhile, I respect Sarandioti's notion of neutrallity but this article has won the POV tag with full honours :-) No need to worry about it, it happens all the time in wikipedia. Politis ( talk) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Sarandioti the post: You have been blocked for 1 month for violating Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy by using XXxLRKistxXx to continue an edit war across multiple pages. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC) is it or not in your page?
it is why? and if you see below you'll see that it was reduced to 3 days, because we were just writing from the same net cafe. And politis excuse if im wrong, but I think that you were recruited to join here. And certainly your opinion cannot be considered NPOV.-- Sarandioti ( talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course of course. It is naturally the net cafe. -- Michael X the White ( talk) 20:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Recruited? You think wrong, but before making lazy assumptions there is one way to find out, follow my editorials on the Cham related articles. They go back a some time. And I certainly dont remember you Sarandioti... ;-) Politis ( talk) 20:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
michael "white" are you questioning the admin? he checked me. So are you saying that the admin was wrong ? hmm.... -- Sarandioti ( talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The greek team here claims that this article is not neutral. Well, you still havent told us why. Explain, because you claim but have no proof for anything. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 21:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I arrived at this article by request of another user involved in this dispute, and I'd just like to point out a few things:
Please, everyone, try to stay cool and talk things through. Who's going to go first..? haz ( talk) 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Haz, if I may give my view here, from my perspective of experience with admininistrating these kinds of disputes, I'm pretty convinced this will, sadly, only work out if the constructive editors are decisively separated from the non-constructive ones. Balkanian`s word, Athenean and Alexikoua are fundamentally capable of collaborating; Sarandioti, I Papakshem and Factuarius appear to be fundamentally unwilling or unable to do so. You have WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions in your hands; I recommend using them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Future perfect me or Pakapshem never added anything wihtout source. And I was the one who actually asked for mediation. So please refrain from your previous comments. They were offensive. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 08:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the second about no personal attacks or anything other focused on editors? I made my case clear, and offended no one, so why you, who are admin, break those rules in the discussion? Let us return to the issue now, and please stay to the issue. I asked you before to intervene futperf and you didn't. So now dont intervene by changing our subject. Post only if what you have to say is related to the issue(which until now only I have done) -- Sarandioti ( talk) 08:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever someone can say about it is impossible to anyone to edit that article. I tried for three days now to put a paragraph with almost every word of it from three already mentioning sources in the article believing that no one can decide what part of a given book is to be used and what part is not allowed, but in vane. Firstly they insisted that my references were falsified, after, that are all from greek POV authors (the two were not even greek) then to take my paragraph to the Chams expulsion article (although had nothing to do with expulsion) then to shorten the paragraph and yesterday they deleted it entirely (half of it the Balkan's word and the rest Sarandiotis). If you believe that my absence will make any difference over here I am willing to go out by myself to see the difference for any period Fut. believing necessary. Fut. just give me a number I will do it whatever haz will decide. Also from my short experience with Sarandiotis etc. it will be fruitless to ban them since they extensively using multiple user names, direct IP editing and friends. What they are doing is simple: You have 3 rv we have 6,9,12..you will never edit that article. --
Factuarius (
talk)
11:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
About Sarandioti's sockpuppetry policies [3], for his edit-warring tactics [4] -- Factuarius ( talk) 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
About Balkan's policies [5] and [6] and after that ("blocked for a period of one week for edit warring on multiple articles directly after the release of your block"18:42, 4 June 2009) -- Factuarius ( talk) 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
About Pakapshem's please see [7] or [8] in just 10 days of his existence in Wikipedia.
Sorry for giving that in the inapropiate page of Chams article but to my oppinion their ways of acting is the real problem over this and many other articles. (I am also new in wikipedia -maybe 6 months old- but I have only a 24h off)-- Factuarius ( talk) 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to go back to an unproductive and meaningful discussion of what really happened here during the last three days. I only want to explain to you 2 points about what you had analyzed. 1. that the apology of the Balkanian that two times you are mentioning had nothing to do with his falls accusations over me as you understand it, but it was an answer for my message to the Fut where among others I had expressed my disappointment for the Balkanians' lack of participation in the discussion he had asked for the Chams article. See by yourself :
[9] my post 13:51 and
[10] his sorry post at 14:06. And 2. a last word about the transferring of the paragraph to the Expulsion article: The paragraph had nothing to do with expulsion and because of that it was not even in the expulsion section of the Chams article, it was in a section labeled “Occupied Greece”. So I couldn't understand why to transfer it to the Expulsion article, if not to get rid of it.
Νοw, I would like to explain in detail what by rewriting this paragraph wanted:
So to tell the truth I am a little disappointed about your opinion for my “version being very narrow in its scope”, but maybe I must be disappointed in not succeeded to give what I wanted in an encyclopedic way. Anyway unless Fut. or you have a different opinion I will wait until both three Albanian users being unblocked to begin from the start the discussion but only under supervising. Regards-- Factuarius ( talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Below I am listing some specific concerns with the article. Because of its enormous size, this will take a bit of time. I would appreciate it if people discussed in a separate section so as to not clutter this section to the point of making it unreadable-- Athenean ( talk) 05:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
In the remaining section, much of what is passed off Cham folklore is essentially generic to the region or Albanians in generals. Examples of this are the polyphonic music, the story of the bridge of Arta, the compilation of fairy tales (the source says Albanian, not Cham fairy tales), and the cuisine section. These are less important than the other concerns, but there is some conflation of Epirotic and/or Albanian culture with Cham culture. The cuisine section is a good example, where there is little that is uniquely Cham and not shared with Gree/Turkish/Albanian cuisine.
I hope the above concerns can be the basis of a productive discussion on how to improve the article and make it more neutral. My ability to edit will be limited in the next few days but I look forward to see how the discussion has progressed when I return. -- Athenean ( talk) 07:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
A general comment: On 1 June 2009 this article became GA: it was reviewed by H1nkles (a very skilful editor); and during the review collaborative work was done between Constantine (mainly on the lead, if I am not mistaken), and Balkanian. Especially, as far as the lead is concerned, I see that it was the outcome of a discussion and collaboration between Constantine and Balkanian.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Respecting Athenean's request I place some specific comments here, although I do not know if this system works!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 17:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
La majorité d'entre eux ayant collaboré avec les forces d'occupation, le reste de la population a été conduit à exercer des représailles et les Tchams ont été expulsés par la Résistance grecque.
1)I agree with Yanissmarou for the "some Cham collaborated issue". "Some" is the exact word to be used 2)Most of Athenean's comments contained "Miranda Vickers is dubious and that is why we should change the article"
MIRANDA VICKERS, Britain's leading historian of the Albanian people. Vickers is an analyst for South Europe in BBC and has worked(or still works i am not sure about that) for the foreign office department of the UK. So, can we call such a source dubious? Of course not.
His justification: "Turkish sources, particularly those with any sort of government affiliation, need to be treated with extreme caution, as the Cham issue has been extensively exploited by Turkey for propaganda purposes against Greece." Well that looks(and is) a POV statement, and OR. Again lets not forget that this is a GA article which was corrected by a totally NPOV admin as I saw. And still we have no sourced or even semi-sourced or even self-evident observations that would make the article NOT neutral. I will make also one general irrelevant comment. As I saw futperf lost his admin rights. I believe that it was for being favourable to the greek editors and not being neutral in the greece-macedonia dispute arbcom, although I cannot be sure if this was the exact reason as I cant find the link. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 11:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
As I saw all Athenean's questions have been answered many times in Talk: Cham Albanians End of story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarandioti ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually the above concerns and questions by Athenean are very well positioned and off course most of them are not answered. We must be very cautious about Albanian and Turkish sources, because the topic is a favorite theme on the local propaganda. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Off course the information about f.p. is irrelevant here and I fully disagree with the conclusion. About Vickers' C.V., sorry this is not an argument about not being pro-Albanian. She has been accused of being pro-Albanian in a number of works, like [
[13]], [
[14]], [
[15]]., but she is still an expert on his field (not to mention the irredentist statements she makes in Albanian newspapers).
Alexikoua (
talk)
12:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
So now we are at the "this is propaganda phase"?. No comment at all by me, admin already knows what do. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 13:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If we are all back here, lets give a try and establish a real discussion. I still depend my cooperation in the discussion to Fut's will, although I do agree with Sarandioti about Fut. “Abusing users using admins tools and with incivility, resistance to listening, declaring an intent to edit war and getting users banned”, is not a solution as it is not a solution to put everyone you disagree with, out of the discussion as was Fut's first word for good morning here. This is not a restoration of the discussion, is the substitution of the discussion. I understand Athenean is a very hot admirer of Fut's way of working having writing hymns for him, but by just now starting to understand what WP really is, and having seen what Fut. had left behind him, my hopes for common accepted solutions here goes to haz's ways of dealing, not Futs. My proposition: lets forget everything ugly and make a fresh start here and now. Regards to all, -- Factuarius ( talk) 16:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
As always it is becoming again: making noise, just in order to keep this article disrupted. Lets start with them one by one, althouhg I know that some users (like Athenean) will use WP:IDONTHEREIT as an argument. First of all the reason of this mess is the paragraph added by Factuarius. I am adding the email I had sent to Haz, which is my opinion on this dispute:
The cham issue is a controversial one: Greeks say that all Cham Albanians collaborated in the WWII war, Albanians say that none collaborated, while reliable historians like Mark Mazower, Georgia Kretsi and Miranda Vickers say that a minority collaborated, aproximately the same number took part in the Greek resistance; while the majority remained uninvolved in the war. The main problem is that the historiography of both countries is so problematic that every editor that comes in that page (Albanian or Greek) disputes the whole article, which is built by consensus among others with User:Deucalionite, User:Cplakidas, et al.
The current dispute (which for me is not a dispute) is that User:Factuarius wanted to add in the WWII section page references by Eleytheria Manta; which is a Greek author, and contains a certain POV. For the reason I stated above (the extremity of POVs in Albania and Greece) I had proposed an agreement (see: Talk:Cham_Albanians#Proposals) that no Greek, no Albanian author shall be used on WWII issues, with some minor exeptions. This proposal was agreed by other users, till Factuarius came, putting Manta on WWII issues (no Albanian historian is sourcing that section).
This user wanted to add a strongly POVish issue on that section. There was written (by User:Cplakidas) that Chams were used as a tool, etc, but Factuarius thought that there was a need for more space on that issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cham_Albanians&diff=296740972&oldid=296739264
The problem is that the way it was written was totally POV and unnacaptable for a GA article. So I modified to this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cham_Albanians&diff=296778130&oldid=296740972
Above all the main problem, for which I insist that the first version (written by Cplakidas) is the best is that this page is way too long, and that that paragraph is undue, towards the section of WWII issues. There is a page that is concentrated to the WWII issues:Expulsion of Cham ALbanians, where I added the word-to-word paragraph that was put by Factuarius: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians&diff=296738924&oldid=296521340, although it was totally POV. Under these circuimtances per WP:UNDUE and per WP:NPOV, I propose that in this article be added the version of Cplakidas (the first one), and the third one, be added on Expulsion of Cham Albanians, which is the article related to WWII issues (even the pre-war conditions that involved the war). Balkanian`s word ( talk) 12:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
After we finish with those two disputes (which are current issues), we may treat Atheneans concerns (although they are treated on >>>>>this talk page<<<<<). Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
About the book of Ruches, it fits all the rs criteria in wiki (inlines, bibliography etc). Adding a number of related historical folksongs in a book doesnt mean that the historical events didn't happen (actually a small part in the book, ca. 10%, is devoted on folksong lyrics). The specific additions i've made are off course not part of a song's lyrics, but sourced events, so I don't understand the necessity to remove them. This book deals with Greek-Albanian issues from 1700 to 1960 so it is 100% related with the Cham article. Moreover, the specific author focuses always on historical issues in his works (actually most works of Ruches mention some related folksongs on historical events, this doesn't mean that the works aren't historical). Alexikoua ( talk) 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The book is not concerned about musicology or related stuff. I can see a deep analysis on specific historical facts. Maybe the title of the book is a little misleading, but in the preface it states clear: "The present volume is the outcome of an intensive, self-imposed study involved in sifting the background of the long-standing Greco-Albanian border dispute."
Since there was a talk about him, I just want to notice something I see on P.J. Ruches. Albania's Captives, 1965: on p. 146 there is a detailed criminal record 1919-1925: (it covers ca. 1 page) He committed a number of crimes together with muslims and christians against muslims and christians. All his crimes have to do with banditry and theft, notably he murdered more muslims (his compatriots) than christians. No to mention that he was one of the responsible for the Corfu Incident, murdering the Italian diplomats in 1923. I'll give an inline:
His ingrained 'faith' permitted him to slit the throat or shoot a Christian Greek and an Moslem Albanian with equal facility... Accordingly, Daut Hoxha, made an excellent steward of an Albanian bey's chiflik at Saronia, Vourkon (Delvino). There he aquired a new reputation for brutality toward the sheperds and Greek tenant-farmers. It was therefore to nobody's surprise that his headless corpse was discovered...This then was the cause celebre Musolini choose to trumpet around the world to justify the move he was soon to make
Vickers on the other hand just says that he was leader of the organized Cham resistance (no source mentioned), suppose she is relying too much on the Italian Fascist perspective. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"if nobody has a real argument"? As we all had readed, at least me Politis and Xenovatis have "a real argument". Speaking for myself I do insisting that it is essential to mention to the war section of the article:
How we can omit such significant events from the story of Chams in such a long article, and why? -- Factuarius ( talk) 21:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I just mentioned a contradicting statement by an Albanian author (Kretsi Georgia), who is supposed not to 'participate' in that section:
Beyond the expulsion, as a result of the atrocities that occurred more then 2,000 of them were killed and others died during their exodus to Albania. (inline is missing)
I notice also another source that has a somewhat different claim on the number:
EDES gangs massacred 200-300 of the Cham population, who during the occupation totaled about 19,000 and forced all the rest to flee to Albania.-The Origins of the Greek Civil War. David H. Close. [ [16]].
Alexikoua ( talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I see Kresti Georgia is mentioned several times on the wwi sections, should I write, 'according to albanian authors'? Alexikoua ( talk) 22:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually she is, [ Albanian]. Alexikoua ( talk) 11:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting, suppose it means that she's twice not acceptable on that section. Alexikoua ( talk) 13:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have e better proposal, why don't we say according to greek authors and then cite her?:) Aigest ( talk) 13:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No I suggest, to take into account only the 11 experts, suppose the other 10 (except Kretsi) are non-Albanians too (non of the them says Albania). Alexikoua ( talk) 13:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
DEMIRAJ Shaban Tirana ALBANIA) The majority of the rest it is pretty clear that are not Albanians: Altimari, Fringer, et.al. But, as it seems Kretsi is a Greek historian Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Why I see that she is
Albanian Albanian?
What do u suggest? Removing all Greek-Albanians or the supposed Greeks (that might be Albanian) should stay?
Alexikoua (
talk)
13:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
She's not Greek again Alexikoua ( talk) 13:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Alex you are making a nonsense debate here. To be an Albanologist doesn't mean you are Albanian:) This website tells nothing if she is Albanian or not (from the name it appears Greek though and in another document more clear she is identified as a greek) Now serious guys what is the problem here, this article was GA before and you both have agreed on consensus here?! What is the meaning of this dispute? Trying to destroy every article possible "including" or "excluding" nationalities? First Alex says that Kretsi must be excluded because she was supposedly Albanian and now it turns out she is greek:) and what a lucky shot it was now she must be excluded because she is Greek. What if she was born in Germany by Greek parents? Or by Arvanites or Chams (possible Greek nationality) WHAT IF SHE HAS GERMAN NATIONALITY? Will you end this nonsense dispute? Aigest ( talk) 13:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Does a GA article mean 'don't touch it'? Of course not. I was just wondering about her, and its reasonable, because Kretsi gives a total different number (ten times bigger) than Close. Suppose I can carefully rely on some authors that were born in a third country, no matter if there is an ancestral link with Greece or Albania. Alexikoua ( talk) 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Balkanian`s word please understand that
I also cannot understand why you are still saying that “this is just a summary of Expulsion of Cham Albanians” I told you two times before that you are wrong: this is not the summary of Expulsion of Cham Albanians, this is the summary of the war and occupation situation, the summary of the expulsion is in the next chapter (please check it again) and this is natural since the expulsion took part after the war, after the Axis occupation and after the liberation. -- Factuarius ( talk) 05:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Expulsion of Cham Albanians? We are talking about 1940, its just an background note according the Expulsion. Alexikoua ( talk) 06:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe we can use a middle way, making it 151904 bytes. Some sentences 'are' needed in the article. Thanks for the test, Fact. Alexikoua ( talk) 06:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Alexikoua, to be correct against the facts I put also a note about the male's Chams internmention so to include Balkans point over the paragraph and deleted the Albanian units as to stay short. This is the text now:
I'll make another test just for seeing the size (since Balkan thinks that so important). But in any case it is better to wait Balkans (and everyone else) opinion about. -- Factuarius ( talk) 07:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Given his significant role played in supplying the excuse for the invasion, but also due to his involvement in reasoning the Italian occupation of Corfu 17 years before (1923), an article about Daut Hoxha or "Daut Hoxha incident" must be created asap. My wiki knowledge is not enough to start it but I am ready to participate in it. ---- Factuarius ( talk) 08:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Factuarius ( talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Because simply that's not all. "Cplakidas' version" says almost nothing, half of it is about Albanian volunteers poor performance. Is that a significant event? I said it also, but with three words in my version. Is that "version" the Chams history during the war? Also this is not a summary of
Expulsion of Cham Albanians because the expalsion took place after the invasion, after the occupation and after the liberation, a full five years later. And the chapter is indeed the Occupied Greece chapter, not the Expalsion one as you keep saying. In the article about the history of the Albanian Chams:
You want to say less about the more critical period of the Chams history than about their cuisine. It is your choice. My opinion is that this has nothing to do with the "size" of the paragraph since this paragraph has the same size with the present (yours) paragraph in the article. Why the size was not a problem when you wrote the present paragraph but it is now with a same size paragraph saying five facts more? Just tell me that. -- Factuarius ( talk) 20:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually balky friend I say it again: the expulsion took place in 1944-45. The Daut incident in 1940. I believe your approach for a 'long-term' expulsion it's clear povish. Off course 1940 is not an event of the expulsion, which happened 4 years later, (can only used as a background note). Alexikoua ( talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
No the current paragraph is not a "consensus paragraph" is 100% your paragraph Balk, nobody of the participants agreed with it.
Sorry to tell but I found your policy in insisting firstly for a “consensus” (16/6) then for “shortening the paragraph”(21/6) and then for POV sources (now), a pretext policy. Also your call for collaboration, since you are are not collaborating by finding every time a new reason in leaving the paragraph unchanged. As it is now, or as it was before. As for the rest I agree with Alexikoua. -- Factuarius ( talk) 22:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, balk. even Fisher isn't sure if he was a resistance leader [ [18]] (Italian agend...) Alexikoua ( talk) 13:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
YOU ARE CLEARLY LYING AGAIN. Mazower's text you are noted said the opposite “In October 1940 (the month of the invasion-28/10/40) the Greek authorities disarmed 1,800 Chams conscripts and put them to work on local roads; the following month (November-thus AFTER the invasion) they sized all Albanian males not called up and deported them to camps or to island exile.” About Ficher: the page you footnoted is as you know totally empty "read it".. About Owen Pierson: Since you agree with Alexikoua that the quality of his work is evident by his inaccuracy of its dates I am going to ask to remove every Vickers' reference in this article since she is not even able to give a right date for the war believing that was broken a full year before (in 1939). About the discussion: No, you have to stay and discuss. You asked for it and you will discuss it, using lies in an obstructive attempt to kill the issue as you did with the Igoumenitsa discussion [19] will not help you again. The paragraph is in the occupation chapter, the expulsion chapter is next of it. Also I want to inform you that I started checking every single reference you had input in that article and you will have to give answers for any possible inaccuracy as that on the Mazower. Do you want to delete some of them by yourself in order to avoid future problems? Or all of them are perfectly accurate Balk? Regards, -- Factuarius ( talk) 16:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What do u mean Balky? deleting Piercon? I also suggested to delete anyone that is considered (partly) Greek/Albanian, to secure a more neutral approach. Suppose u dont like Piercon too. Fisher says also that he was a possible Italian agent... Whats you problem now? the 2 diferrent views are presented here.
Moreover I'm fed up with your povish nationalistic game you play here, you intentionally misuse every single source: [ [20]], a typical Mazower misuse: according to you+the majority of the population was uninvolved. Man, you have great fantasy... Mazower nowhere says that.
As for your 'expulsion' arguement, u know it's clear pov approach. Collaboration -Expulsion are two different events (related but diferrent). What can I say? You insist that collaboration is a subsection in your 'overextended Expulsion theory'? (expulsion is the main point and collaboration the minor- depends on the pov side you believe) The expulsion article is written by you so dont present it as argument. You have to relax, dont need to adopt a fighting spirit. We are with you balk. Take a big breath and we'll solve everything Alexikoua ( talk) 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What do u mean Balky? deleting Piercon? I also suggested to delete anyone that is considered (partly) Greek/Albanian, to secure a more neutral approach. Suppose u dont like Piercon too, for a reason o dont say. Fisher says also that he was a possible Italian agent... Whats the problem now? the 2 diferrent views are presented now (however the pre-war Cham resistance hadn't caused a single incident all that years, suppose it was the most peaceful resistance of all times, like M. Gandi's).
Moreover I'm fed up with your povish nationalistic game you play here, you intentionally misuse every single source: [ [21]], a typical Mazower misuse I noticed yeasterday: according to you+the majority of the population was uninvolved (about the Nazi colaboration). Man, you have great fantasy... Mazower nowhere says that.
As for the 'expulsion' argument, u know it's clear pov approach. Collaboration -Expulsion are two different events (related but different, the one caused the other). What can I say? You insist that collaboration is a subsection in your 'overextended Expulsion theory'? (expulsion is the main point and collaboration the minor- depends on the pov side you believe) The expulsion article is written by you so dont present it as argument. (Typical pov approach to overfocus on one of the 2) You have to relax, dont need to adopt a fighting spirit. We are with you balk. Take a big breath and we'll solve everything Alexikoua ( talk) 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What you are talking now. I told you that the Albanian males internment happened after the war broken and not before as your paragraph currently in the article says, you said me that I was “lying” because “Mazower said it pretty clear: in October 1940 (not prior October, but in October) thus prior the Italian intervention” giving me a page reference. I check the page and I found that you consciously LIED: That Mazower said exactly the opposite “In October 1940 (the month of the invasion-28/10/40) the Greek authorities disarmed 1,800 Chams conscripts and put them to work on local roads; the following month they sized all Albanian males not called up and deported them to camps or to island exile” and now you calling that “a minor change”. Since you are who found and gave that reference, it is perfectly sure that you also read it, and you preferred to mislead all of us by saying that Mazower said exactly the opposite of what he said. I call that a lie, you calling it “just a minor change”. What to say? Just that if I was in your position I would be at shame. But that's my problem. -- Factuarius ( talk) 18:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Just added the dubious discuss sign on the sentence: "But the local beys, the muftis and the majority of the population did not support such actions." Vickers 2002 says: "Although many Beys and their older sons were liquidated when they went up to join the nationalist organisation Balli Kombetar in 1942-1943".
They were part of the Balli Komb. but not supported actions by the Balli Komb.? Sources are contradicting eachother. Alexikoua ( talk) 10:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually Ballists except from being nationalists, collaborated with the Occupation forces [ [22]] (+there are more than 50 books saying it clear). Alexikoua ( talk) 10:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, on Daut Hoxha, the NPOV-est source we have (Bernd Ficher) actually says that he was a leader of the Chams. p.74. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 12:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
We can use a secondary set. on the beys. Hoxha a leader of the Chams? Does he write something more specific except that? (some backround or record?) Alexikoua ( talk) 13:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing dubious about it and no harm done with it being there. There is plenty of time for that. Politis ( talk) 16:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how a man could be leader of a non-existent resistance (the pre-1940 Cham resistance). Suppose the ones (except Musolini and Fascist Italy) know something more than to labeling a person 'leader'.
. I've reworded the sentence about the beys, according to Mazover and added a secondary set. from Vickers.
Alexikoua (
talk)
16:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Very nice we agreed on a sentence today. Suppose Balli Kombetar Cam was something different than Keshila. What was she? paramilitary? Alexikoua ( talk) 16:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
E telika eisai poly ... Factuarius. What on hell are you talking about: OPEN YOUR EYES: p79 it is not a new source, it is the source given by Cplakidas and it is pretty clear. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The sentence "The pages 56-114 are not part of this book preview" makes any sence to you? OPEN YOUR EYES and stop making references to not existence pages! -- Factuarius ( talk) 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
In both cases without having their pages it is impossible to positively know what their oppinions are Take their books and tell me. -- Factuarius ( talk) 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Three cases of falsification of sources. I did no personal attack I just told him that
To falsify three sources in a single paragraph by itself characterize the person. If you still have reservations about him I will provide ten more falsifications just to ensure you that all these are not "mistakes" but a consistent try to mislead all of us and especially the readers. Finally, personal attack is to write to someone "E telika eisai poly ..." that in Greeks means "So finally you are very..." which is at the start of that chapter signed by him. In which I was avoided to answer. Regards, -- Factuarius ( talk) 00:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Falsification of source nr.4.
Some imagination indeed, I like the details "except the primary homes and the small farms inside the villages". "Farms inside the villages"???? An answer Balk? Or its better to wait because I have more "minor deferencies" between the article and its sources to ask you about. -- Factuarius ( talk) 02:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Falsification of source nr.5.
Falsification of source nr.6.
Nice way to mention a source. An answer Balk?
There are too many more. I am going to report the situation. This article had been the target of a consistent falsification and misquoting.--
Factuarius (
talk)
04:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
One by one: what are your problems with this version? And then I will answer to your problems one by one: do not remove sources, put them a doubious template and discuss them. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 08:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
All the inlines are faked see by yourself And I have more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-- Factuarius ( talk) 09:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC) The problem with the version are the falsification of the sources. You put everything back as to read nothing and you asking what are my problems? My problems are the 6 faking references as I analyticaly had explained.-- Factuarius ( talk) 09:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to write again all these. Read them all six. -- Factuarius ( talk) 09:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Which one?-- Factuarius ( talk) 09:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop mention again and again Vickers about. Vickers mention just what Italians said about. Which is already in the paragraph, no need to say it again. We know it: The Italians said that Greeks killed him.-- Factuarius ( talk) 09:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you reading anything I posting you? I told you why, why you ask me again, read again -- Factuarius ( talk) 09:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Calm down. Firstly you are not rv only this paragraph, you rv everything I had made as you know. And I made it because I find out that all of these sentences had faked references. Thats why I answered you that you had them fake them all. Secondly you always do the same first you rv and then ask to discuss. Wrong, those who want to rv first says why and then rv Third the paragraph you asked about is αρτζι πουρτζι και λουλάς. Πράγματα ατάκτος εριμένα. In your effort to say first what you like leaving for the end what you don't like you are going timely back and forward and again. I also told that Fischer himself is not sure about who killed them read what I told you about some hours before.-- Factuarius ( talk) 10:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
"Secondly you always do the same first you rv and then ask to discuss. Wrong, those who want to rv first says why and then rv" Who started this? It was you that made that paragraph look like that, without discussing.
"Third the paragraph you asked about is αρτζι πουρτζι και λουλάς. Πράγματα ατάκτος εριμένα. In your effort to say first what you like leaving for the end what you don't like you are going timely back and forward and again."
What is going back and forth in that paragraph? My question is clear, why did you remove e.g. this sentence "According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Ficher, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years, leading to him branded as a bandit by Greece.[13][75]". Why did you remove everything that you did not like? And for the record, when you dispute a sentence or a reference you may put a {{doubious}} template in there, and discuss it; not reverting it as you always does. My question is f......... clear; what is the problem with this paragraph? The sentence, the word, the comma you do not like? What is it? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 10:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Also what problem has the vickers sentence "Rome's propaganda machine hurled fabricated accusations at Athens conserning the “oppression” of Albanian nationals in the Greek Epirus" Vickers is your favorite authors you put 1,000,000 references from her books. End this sentence is very iluminating for the situation.-- Factuarius ( talk) 10:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Also most of your paragraph is not deleted as you say is right back in the prewar section with Metaxas Regime. Check it and stop making noises like "Whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttttttttttttt????????????????????"
For Factuarius edits
For Aigest
Regards, -- Factuarius ( talk) 10:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
For Factuarius
No, not the sentence; the whole paragraph should be back; cause it is totally NPOV, per all sources, not taking the sources you like and living the one you do not like. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 11:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
For Aiges:
For Factuarius
I don't now what Ruche says. Ask Alexikoua. I do know what Manta says in page 21, because I took the book (so..I have all the pages). BTW if you read it you will find it very useful for your positions and not at all "POV" but you are totaly uncompromised towards NPOV sources sometimes even with Albanian-POV books in some details you don't like. But that's your problem. -- Factuarius ( talk) 13:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
"Even the italian version of Wiki says 3,500 Albanian troops here [24] " Yeas thats it: Albanians, NOT CHAMS. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 13:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop treating me as an idiot. What I am mentioning about Manta (for the time being) is only about the prewar period, not during the war or after. About Ruches I told you to discuss it with Alexiqoua, it is his reference, I am refering to MANTA whatever you keep saying and I insist. -- Factuarius ( talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What you seem to not understand Factuarius is the simple demographic process of conscription. I wasn't referring to the availability of arms, but to that of the persons . Doing simple math the numbers are there: 1800(greek conscription)+3500(volunteers)=5300 total cham soldiers
Yep germany could have arrived at 1:7 in 1944 (including Volkssturm invalids) but chams seems to have come to 1:4 at greek census scenario while 1:6.6 to BW scenario?! I really doubt that Aigest ( talk) 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Read the discussion about from the start.-- Factuarius ( talk) 15:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
NO Factuarius don't try to avoid the simple fact, by making assumptions In the paragraph there are 1800 Cham conscripts in Greek army + 3500 volunteers = 5300 cham fighters WITH REFERENCES ADDED and THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE (see comment on German example above)!!!! surely THE REFERENCES ARE WRONG OR MISCITED Aigest ( talk) 14:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
References are totally wrong Ruches says 3500 exactly so there are no 2000 (where did you get it?). So (leaving asside the fact disputed by BW they were chams or not) in the article of Ruches that you use as a reference to this than you have exact number 3500 (chams?!) which should be added further 1800. I seems that chams were better organized for war than the whole the state apparatus of Nazi Germany?! Lol aparently Ruches is miscited or unbelievable as source. Secondly I saw the book and confirmed that Fisher refers to Daut Hoxha as a leader of Chams. While we have this dispute between Pearson, Ruches-Vickers, Fisher I found the variant of BW is more NPOV than one sided variant existing now. I am going to bring the NPOV version again. You guys have to talk first before making POV edits and remember this article was built on consensus and was GA, before these nonsense POV disputes. Regards to all Aigest ( talk) 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You are unable to communicate I have been answer that two hours before. You are reading nothing and every hour you are coming here to say what already had been told again and again and again and again and again. I told you that for the time being I am using her only for the prewar period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aν είναι δυνατόν ποιά! -- Factuarius ( talk) 16:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
So?-- Factuarius ( talk) 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I will use her even in the occupation section if I have to mention something that happen in the prewar period as it is the prewar making of the Albanian units. Cannot understand it?-- Factuarius ( talk) 17:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Also I have to remind you that nobody accepted that "consensus" other that the partly agreed Alexikoua. Nobody else! -- Factuarius ( talk) 17:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Ιs this article in good standards? Give me a break. You again have read nothing from the morning. What about the references? Is this what you mean “good standard”? We have months ahead us to start speaking for “good standards” and hard work. Give me Cplakidas, Deucalionite and Athenean's acceptance. -- Factuarius ( talk) 17:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I already told. Half of it is already in the previous chapter all the other is in the current version plus the section you insisted to incorporate about Hoxha being leader etc. After we input the sentence you asked the next minute you started to ask for a full deletion of the paragraph in order to put your full paragraph instead. It is imposible to achive a consensus with you. You are always asking for consensus but what you realy mean is let me put my sentence I am accepting nothing more. Give me Cplakidas Deucalionite and Atheneans acceptance. -- Factuarius ( talk) 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
We have discuss all these from the morning again and again.
-- Factuarius ( talk) 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
E re trelokomio pou giname. Wiki works on sources; if a source says that they are "possibly killed by Greek police"; we should writte there that "possibly killed by Greek police", nothing more nothing less. Are you familiar with wiki policies? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 20:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Between a "possible" source and a certain source we prefer the certain not the possible. Are you familiar with logic? -- Factuarius ( talk) 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
OK Ι respect your oppinion but I believe the logic is a universal tool making the human reason-able and more human. Although I understand that my oppinion is not the only one, but I prefer that from the others. -- Factuarius ( talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
1. None is expressed for sure most of them say none knows they were never found here an eg [25]
2. Pearson here [26] is favoring Albanians, by saying A) Greeks didn't want a cooperation on inquiry of the murder offered by Albanians. b) Delimitation Commission was deliberately favoring Albanians as accused by Greek newspapers (so no need for Albanians to kill him sic.) c) Albanian government ordered the publication of a Red Book containing two documents which proved that the assassination had been organized and perpetrated by the Greeks.
3. The International commission who made the inquiry on Tellini's murder clearly implies Greece's guilt here [27]
4. Greece accepted to pay reparation (legally accepting the guilt)
I don't want to make any further comment on Tellini murder since sources speak for themselves. What I wanted to point out is that:
I see that Ruches, in the wiki article of Corfu incident and in Chams article of Greek-Italian war if not miscited again is biased as Anti-Albanian author (at least in these two cases, I had to check his other citations while I strongly doubt in his book he is a NPOV author au contrair) two cases because his cited position is - (Tellini murder-albanians did it(?! see above?!), Chams male population-were more organized than nazi germany?!) that's why I don't see him as a reliable source. Hope you understand my point regards Aigest ( talk) 08:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop it men, do not remove Fischer source and stop poving it. It is quite NPOV as it is. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you Factuarius didn't get my point.
For the above reasons I reverted the section to that of what I saw as NPOV version (and for sure is not aesthetic to began the section with the dubious fact (see above) that some sheeps were stolen) Aigest ( talk) 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I see again Ruches used as a reference in
Northern Epirus Liberation Front article. Again (if not miscited) he is wrong. The Borova massacre happened in 6th July 1943 after Albanian partisans attacked a German column see Owen Pearson p. 258 here the link
[28] or Bernd Fischer p. 190 here the link
[29] (or see here
[30]) while he put it in October 1943?!?!?!
Again he is wrong for the winter offensive which was against Albanian partisans see here Fischer p 195 [31] and Pearson p 319 [32] and none mentions MAVI battles or even skirmishes in both those books, while the article with Ruches as a reference mentions many battles. Please take a look at Pearson and Fischer books to see for yourselves this huge discrepancy.
How about deleting every non pro-Albanian author in wiki? Man, plz be serious, your arguments are not good anyway:
I try on that too, didn't say that I'm perfect on judging what;s good or not. Everyone that needs info about Ruches, Meyer just ask Alexikoua ( talk) 16:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
In line with the discretionary sanctions at WP:ARBMAC, User:Factuarius has received a three month topic ban from this and related articles. Page protection will now be lowered to semi protection, but all editors are reminded to edit within the parameters of decorum as described in WP:ARBMAC. Hiberniantears ( talk) 15:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The disputed sentence is:
Factuarius version is:
The sources used are:
Another dispute, is about the size of the Chams that took place in the war:
My version is:
Factuarius version is:
Sources used are: Ruches says " Albanian volunteers", not Cham Albanian volunteers, (Chams are a subbranch of Albanians, living at that time in Greece, but at that time, Albania was occupied by Italy, so the Italian Army could have easily volunteers from Albania).
Eleytheria Manta: no inline.
My objection: Manda, Eleytheria is a Greek author. In this page, we have reached a consensus firstly proposed by me, not to use Albanian and Greek authors on the period between 1935-1950. The reasoning of this consensus has been that the cham issue is a controversial one: Greeks say that all Cham Albanians collaborated in the WWII war, Albanians say that none collaborated, while reliable historians like Mark Mazower, Georgia Kretsi and Miranda Vickers say that a minority collaborated, aproximately the same number took part in the Greek resistance; while the majority remained uninvolved in the war. The main problem is that the historiography of both countries is so problematic that every editor that comes in that page (Albanian or Greek) disputes the whole article, which is built by consensus among others with User:Deucalionite, User:Cplakidas, et al.
The current dispute (which for me is not a dispute) is that User:Factuarius wanted to add in the WWII section page references by Eleytheria Manta; which is a Greek author, and contains a certain POV. For the reason I stated above (the extremity of POVs in Albania and Greece) I had proposed an agreement (see: Talk:Cham_Albanians#Proposals) that no Greek, no Albanian author shall be used on WWII issues, with some minor exeptions. This proposal was agreed by other users, till Factuarius came, putting Manta on WWII issues (no Albanian historian is sourcing that section).
My version is:
Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[75]
Factuarius has removed this sentence.
Sources used:
Fischer says [36] that Albanians "desearted or defected" and the rest may be seen in p. 79-80 of that book. (I have not enaugh time to writte all those pages in here).
My version is:
Factuarius version is:
Sources used:
I have put him as inline, Factuarius has written "sent them to camps and islands", propably forget to add "for holidays".:)
My version is:
On June 1940 Daut Hoxha a Cham Albanian was found headless in the village of Vrina in Southern Albania. According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Ficher, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years, leading to him branded as a bandit by Greece.[13][75] According to another British historian, Owen Pearson, Hoxha was a notorious bandit killed in fight by two sheperds.[76] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse from fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] As the possibility of an Italian attack on Greece drew nearer, Jacomoni began arming Albanian irregular bands to use against Greece.[78] At the same time, on the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and put them to work on local roads.[19] The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The invasion force included native Albanians, estimated 2,000-3,500 (including some Chams),[79] in blackshirt battalions attached to the Italian army, united later under “Chameria Army Corps”.[citation needed] Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[78]
In November, as the Greek counter-offensive managed to regain Thesprotia, the Greek authorities seized all Albanian males not called up and deported them to concentration camps or to island exile.[19][80] Until the invasion of Greece by the German army, the Muslim Cham population of the region of Chameria was composed of women, child and the elderly. The Muslim Chams would be restored to their land only after fascist Italy got control of the region. In 1941, Greece was occupied by German, Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.
Factuarius version is:
On June 1940 Daut Hoxha was killed in a fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep. He was in fact a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before[76]. Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] Rome's propaganda machine hurled fabricated accusations at Athens conserning the “oppression” of Albanian nationals in the Greek Epirus ([4]p.143). According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Fischer, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years. The Italians urgently started organizing several thousands local Albanians volunteers to participate on the "liberation of Chamuria" creating an army equivalent to a full division of 9 battalions.[78]Many Chams, estimated 2,000-3,500, had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups.[79] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse from fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The Albanian and Chams battalions took part to the invasion attached to the Italian army, united under the “Chameria Army Corps”.[80] On the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and replaced their active service by labour service on the local roads. On the following month, they seized all Albanian males who had not been mobilized and sent them to camps and islands.[19][81] The initial Greco-Italian conflict continued into 1941, when the forces of Nazi Germany invaded Greece. The country was occupied by German Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.
I think that it is pretty clear which is POV and which is NPOV. But, if any body has still not get it, than he may discuss in here :). Balkanian`s word ( talk) 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Your version is WP:SYNTH. You are synthesizng Vickers ("a leader of Cham resistance") with Fischer ("possibly killed by Greek agents"). Vickers says nothing about Greek agents, she only says that what the Italians claimed, while Fischer says nothing about a leader of Cham resistance.
According to this
[37] Miranda Vickers expressively states "In 1941 the Cham leader Daut Hoxha was murdered, allegedly by Greek police, and his head was displayed in various border villages" p. 207 Albania: From Anarchy to a Balkan Identity By Miranda Vickers, James Pettifer 320 pages, Publisher: C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd (April 22, 1997) ISBN-10: 1850652902 ISBN-13: 978-1850652908 hope it helps with the article.
Aigest (
talk)
09:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Athenean on this matter, actually the source says that Hoxha was a leader of Cham and this was the topic (thief or leader) while murderers were never found and that is what I said on this matter (see my comment at Ruches section) Aigest ( talk) 06:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Your version carefully omits to say that the Albanian blackshirt divisions were volunteers. The distinction between volunteers and conscripts is militarily significant and should be mentioned. The use of "including some Chams" is also weasel-wording to try and minimize the collaboration, as is done throughout this article. A better version would be "The invasion force included native Albanian Cham volunteers and is estimated at 2,000-3,500". But Factuarius' version is fully sourced and has better flow. What does the putting of work of Cham conscripts on local roads have to do with the Italian invasion? It seems completely disjointed.
The way this section is worded, I also feel it is an attempt to minimize the collaboration. The statement "Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected." appears totally unsourced.
Your version is totally unsourced. Also since only the adult male Chams already not called up were deported, the sentence "The Muslim Chams would be restored to their land only after fascist Italy got control of the region." is highly problematic. It implies that all Chams were deported and appears designed to portray them exclusively as victims.
For these reasons, I propose the following version:
"On June 1940 a Cham Albanian by the name of Daut Hoxha was found headless in the village of Vrina in Southern Albania. According to historian Owen Pearson, Hoxha was a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before[76] and was killed in a fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep. According to historian Miranda Vickers, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years. The Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered by Greek spies inside Albania, and declared the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse by fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. Prior to the outbreak of fighting, many Chams, estimated at 2,000-3,500[79], had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups. The Italians organized these groups in the "liberation of Chamuria", consisting of 9 battalions.[78] The Albanian and Chams battalions took part in the invasion attached to the Italian army, united under the “Chameria Army Corps”.[80] For this reason, on the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and replaced their active service by labour service on the local roads. On the following month, they seized all adult Albanian males who had not been mobilized and sent them to camps and islands.[19][81] The initial Greco-Italian conflict continued into 1941, when the forces of Nazi Germany invaded Greece. The country was occupied by German Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones."
This section is an exercise in POV-pushing. I notice only one or two sentences on the collaboration of the Chams with the Axis, and even those are hedged in all sorts of ways "Being under such pressure from the Greek state...", "But it seems the local mufits and beys bla bla bla". On the other hand the "Expulsion" section is lavished with three full paragraphs and is replete with gory detail, including numbers killed, etc...-- Athenean ( talk) 06:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure balk. can find 10 times more stuff about expulsion than about collaboration (how ironic). Contrary to that, H.F. Meyer describes collaboration in 35 pages and in expulsion within 10 lines (i thing less) Alexikoua ( talk) 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It is more NPOV to have an article with that title. Than two separate articles for chams fighting for Axis and chams fighting against Axis, can be included in it along with what happened to the civil population in the mean time. Aigest ( talk) 06:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
That is POV because as I said there were chams on both sides (look the section yourself) so it's more NPOV to say occupied Greece as the main article and then include in it the collaboration and the resistance. So far the title is POV and misleading (what happened to the chams fighting against Axis? should we call them collaborators?!) Aigest ( talk) 07:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you guys interested in talk page? Or you have your own agenda? Aigest ( talk) 07:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The first Chams enrolled in ELAS in May 1944, just one month (or less) before the Axis retreat, I suggest to move them in the expulsion section. In May 1944 the Axis retreat was more than obvious, so participation in ELAS, as anti-Axis action- had not significant value. Alexikoua ( talk) 07:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Athenean you are wrong again (as usual:)). I am not reverting anything from Alex edits, just changing the article title. My opinion and proposal for that section is expressed above. If you have smth to say about it you can do it here. Aigest ( talk) 09:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
May be the section occupied Greece can have three subsections
1. Occupation of the territory and cham collaboration with Axis 2. Cham resistance to Axis 3. Cham population during this period (reprisals executed by both sides, internment etc)
What do others think? Aigest ( talk) 09:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The titles seem very genitive, fogue and milseading. e.g. occupation of territory? what territory?, 'Axis resistance?' which resistance left or right (balli cambetar) wing? Cham population? every section deals with with parts of the Cham population. I believe the sections are clear enouqh:occupation and colaboration-reft wing resistance-expulsion Alexikoua ( talk) 09:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
My proposal is simple because it includes what happened to cham population (in the end this article is for cham population and not the territory) so it is better described if we keep this subtopics
1 chams who collaborated
2 chams who resisted
3 chams who neither collaborated nor resisted (the majority of the population which was between two fires)
with that we include all the history of cham people during that period and keep the article simple and NPOV. Aigest ( talk) 10:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought its a matter of titles, not positions. 1st section is on collaboration 2nd on resistance, 3rd on expulsion (so we agree). What;s the diferrence?
-the majority- who says that? (Balky misused Mazower, he says nowhere something like that) actually there was for sure a part uninvolved but we dont know excact numbers (lets say-a part-)
Alexikoua (
talk)
10:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You surely don't think that women, children, old men etc so the category not capable of fighting, wasn't a majority part of cham population?!(not including those capable but not involved just like it is mentioned in the article). What happened to them during Greece occupation 1941-1944 where they were being executed, deported, raped, burned the house, robbed etc (by both parts) is a very important topic and it makes sense to have these three categories as I proposed "bad guys" "good guys" "uninvolved innocent". The expulsion of them happened after the occupation during 1944-1945 and that is a separate topic (moreover regarding its importance)
Aigest (
talk)
12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
As for the number included in the article we should be very careful, otherwise as I told to Factuarius above for the numbers of chams involved in the fighting (see above demographic analyze) we should going to make some ridiculous affirmations (like that of 5300 cham fighters:)) Aigest ( talk) 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually we talked about section' titles, which are clear and reasonable. About the numbers, I thought we took into account only the ones the could carry arms, off course women, children, elderly are not included in these numbers (there is a degree on potential passive collaboration on them). Alexikoua ( talk) 13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Women and children passive collaboration?! Man that's nazi theory for putting people in front of a fire squad!!! Aigest ( talk) 13:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the title "Left Guerilla Activity". It sounds as if these people were terrorists! My opinion is that if collaboration is called collaboration, then participation in a resistance group should also be called resistance; and I do not care about ELAS' ideological affiliations. Labelling any ELAS member as "left guerilla" is inaccurate, and sometimes offensive, because at the time (a time of idealism before civil war) ELAS gathered people from all ideological affiliations, who believed that it was first of all a resistance group.
"On the other hand, several hundred Muslim Chams became part of the Greek People's Liberation Army (ELAS)". The source here is Kretsi. Does she give any date, year? Do we have any other sources about that?-- Yannismarou ( talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually Balkanian can give a hand. However, its a bit hard to prove [ [38]] that (only one German work has a limited preview). Also noticed in article: IV_"Ali_Demi"_battalion (written by Balkanian) that:
In may 1944, a group of local Cham Albanians, created the battalion named after Ali Demi, in the village Milea (Albanian: Kastanjë), which was included in the 15th regiment of Greek People's Liberation Army.
May 1944, this means a month (or less) before the Axis retreat.
I've sourced on Kretsi's German book (Verfolgung und Gedächtnis in Albanien) on "Ali Demi", but the results were zero [ [39]]. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Vickers
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Grove
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
citation}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |ean=
ignored (
help)
Vickers, Miranda 2002
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).