![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The map shows that except Thesprotia, Preveza perfecture is also included in the teritory called cameria/tsiamouria. Except that the names of the towns in Greece are all in albanian (suppose the source is albanian), former map of the region were limited to Thesprotia, or parts of Thesprotia. It seems that the 'larger version' of the so region is a more recent fabrication. Here [ [1]] is a map that shows that during wwii, Balli Competar considered cameria/tsiamouria only Thesprotia. This agrees with many other historical ethnological maps. It seems that chams/tsamides may had fields (of their property) in Preveza region, but there are no clues that they lived in towns and villages in this region (except maybe Parga which is on the northest edge of Preveza perf.). The linked map above, I believe shows clearly the limits of the article's region. Nazi-friendly organizations had a more limited view about the region-- Alexikoua ( talk) 21:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a "hand made" map, not based on any source. I propose it for deletion. Or, can I draw my own map and post in the article? -- Euzen ( talk) 13:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Albanau, if you object to this form of the article, please discuss it here. It is not acceptable, among other things, to refer to provinces of independent countries as though they rightfully belonged to another independent country. Chronographos 15:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
It wasen't me I allways use my account. However Chronographos what you wrote is clearly not NPOV.
Çamëria (or Chameria) is the name sometimes used by Albanians to refer to the Greek province of Epirus. The area probably was home to an ethnic group of Albanian origin and Muslim faith, the Chams. The Chams are believed to have fled to Albania during, and immediately following, World War II, probably because they had been persecuted by Greek Resistance guerilla groups fighting against the Nazi occupation army, on the belief that Chams had cooperated with the Albanian-launched invasion of Greece by the Mussolini fascist regime in 1940, and had continued cooperation with the Nazi occupiers. Greek censuses mention no Muslim presence in Epirus since 1951; they do not include linguistic data.
Albanau 14:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Corrected reference to "under Greek influence" in 4th century. Removed refernce to "Cham Christians". Acerimusdux 17:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Do not know where I must write about it. So, I will write it in comments.
The current article says that Chamides were expelled by Greeks. But as far as I know they left the country not expelled by the government decision (although after they left the Greek court without their presence decided their guiltiness as of collaborators of Germans and confiscated their property - we are talking about 1920 men - not millions, not billins; and they WERE guilty, as Italian and German collaborants, according to the court). They was "afraid of Greek revenge", that is left their homes and got to Albania in the first place. And after that they did not came back (formally they say because of the Greek court decision).
Also, English knew about what Tsamides and Greeks did during the war, and let Napoleon Zerva's forces do whatever:
Αποκαλυπτικό γι’ αυτή τη στόχευση είναι ένα μεταγενέστερο υπηρεσιακό «σημείωμα περί Τσάμηδων» του Κρις Γουντχάουζ (16/10/1945):
«Ο Ζέρβας, με ενθάρρυνση της Συμμαχικής Αποστολής που τελούσε υπό τις διαταγές μου, τους έδιωξε από τα σπίτια τους το 1944 προκειμένου να διευκολυνθούν οι επιχειρήσεις κατά του εχθρού. [...] Οι Τσάμηδες άξιζαν ό,τι έπαθαν, οι μέθοδοι όμως του Ζέρβα ήταν κομματάκι άσχημες ή οι υφιστάμενοί του βγήκαν εκτός ελέγχου. Το πρακτικό αποτέλεσμα ήταν μια πληθυσμιακή μεταβολή, με την απομάκρυνση μιας ανεπιθύμητης μειονότητας από το ελληνικό έδαφος. Ισως θα ήταν καλύτερα ν’ αφεθούν τα πράγματα έτσι» (Μαντά 2004, σ.312).
http://www.efsyn.gr/arthro/mia-anepithymiti-meionotita
Colonel Chris Woodhouse, head of the Allied Military Mission in Greece during the Axis occupation, who was present in the area at the time, in his "Note on the Chams" official military report of 16 October 1945, clearly accepting the full responsibility for the expulsion of the Chams
/info/en/?search=Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians
Mr Woodhouse accepts that English knew everything and let Greeks do it.
Andy4675 ( talk) 22:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Chameria is not (always) the same as Epirus in the 20th-21st century context. Chameria is also not the same as Cham Albanians. I resored a stub minus the Greek-Albanian polemics (which can remain at Epirus and Cham Albanians if preferred). LuiKhuntek 19:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Should those links to ultranationalist Albanian sites be here??? Helladios 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I reconfigured the article. We talk about a region, which in itself has no reason to exist, if it has no information about the Cahmeria issue and Cham Albanians. So I added summary of this articles in the main article. What do you think? balkanian ( talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I reconfigured the article. We talk about a region, which in itself has no reason to exist, if it has no information about the Chameria issue and Cham Albanians. So I added summary of this articles in the main article. What do you think? balkanian ( talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a better map is used.The current one seems like a piece of clothing splashed with blue and red paint(no offence to whoever made it) and doesn't clarify the geographic location of the region. Amenifus ( talk) 10:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree, what do you think about this balkanian ( talk) 11:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I object to this map on several grounds: It doesn't provide sources, and thus appears to be OR. Second, the area it shows as Chameria is way too large. Chams all the way down to Preveza? I don't think so. And lastly, it shows all the toponyms of epirus in Albanian, which is a non-starter. I am thus removing it until a better one appears. -- Tsourkpk ( talk) 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You are right about the names, but not about the geography. According to Vickers, Chameria does lay down to Preveza, (see it in Cham Albanians it is sourced), so there is no problem about that. I am entering english names in this map, so it would be NPOV balkanian ( talk) 17:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It also extends way too far inland. This just seems like a bunch of OR. -- Tsourkpk ( talk) 18:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, see the definiton of Vickers, and then lets discuss the points, where the map is inacquarite. balkanian ( talk) 18:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Look, mr Balkanian, Miranda Vickers is a PRO-ALBANIAN author. Even the Wikipedia article you mentioned is writing about it:
"pro-Albanian[240][241] author Miranda Vickers"
/info/en/?search=Cham_Albanians
Is it rigth to widely use sources which are not objective and not accepted by BOTH sides?
Andy4675 ( talk) 22:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I propose to move this page into Thesprotia (region). As far as we can see in this map, but also according to sources [1], Preveza was part of ancient Thesprotia region. Also, in medavial ages, Vagenetia, (the name of Thesprotia) included the prefecture of Preveza [2], but went as far north as Delvina [3]. In todays history, Chameria goes from Konispol to Preveza, [4] including few villages from Ioannina [5] and according to sources [6] [7] [8] [9] Thesprotia region in Greece includes Preveza Prefecture.
But, as an administrative division (i.e. nomos, not region), it is separate. So, I propose the establishment of a Thesprotia (region) page, because the geographical region of Thesprotia, and the geographical region of Chameria is essentially the same, with minor fixes, which may be presented in there. This way we can avoid nationalistic terms such as Chameria, by using it only as a second name in Thesprotia`s page and the article itself may contain the common history of Greeks and Chams in the region, without being exclusive to one group, as the current page is. Also, I propose the renaming of the page Thesprotia to Thesprotia prefecture as are all prefectures in Greece. What do you think? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 15:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe we can then 3 seperate articles: thesprotia (like chaonia-chaones), vagenetia and chameria/tsiamouria. Then we can see if a merging is affordable. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why we'd want an article on ancient Thesprotia. The ancient geographical coverage (which, by the nature of the topic, can only be approximate anyway) can just as well be covered in the modern Thesprotia article – it only requires a sentence or two. All the remaining historical information goes into the Thesprotians article. – Vagenetia certainly can, and should, have an article, since (apparently? correct me if I'm wrong) it was a political entity that's not covered anywhere else. I have no strong opinion on whether Chameria should remain distinct, or be merged with Cham Albanians. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Vagenetia can exist separately, to the extent that it was a political entity, not just a geographical name. Apart from that, all we need is a single short piece in the existing Thesprotia article, of the type: "The geographical name Thesprotia was revived in the 20th century, when the area was annexed to Greece. It was introduced to cover approximately the area that had been popularly been known as Chameria, Tsamouria or Ciamura in the 19th century, after the Albanian name of the river Çam ( Thyamis) and the tribe of the Cham Albanians. In antiquity, the term referred to the lands inhabited by the Epirote tribe of the Thesprotians, which covered roughly ...".
Why do we need separate articles for that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a different historical and cultural backround of the 3 names Thesprotia-Vagenetia-Chameria. Like Constanobple-Instambul, Tenochitlan-Mexico. Why not try to create them first and then put them together if possible? However there are geographical inequalities, Chameria incorporates regions of ancient Mollosis, and Chaonia. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
"Thesprotia" as a region would be too vague for a merge of all this. I see and I think that the merge proposal is well thought but I do not agree on the merge. It is better to keep Thesprotia as it is, and Chameria as it is too. The second term is way too recent to merge it with the first one in one article. And still, ancient Thesprotia does not equal the area that is called Chameria. On the other hand, Thesprotia (the prefecture) pretty miuch equals Chameria, but the one appelation is official and the other is not, and they have had different uses in different contexts, so they must stay seperate. So, I oppose. -- Michael X the White ( talk) 21:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The article about Thesprotia prefecture speaks only about the administrative division as Preveza prefecture or Ioannina prefecture do. There is nothing about the region. I am not speaking about boundaries, but about history, geography and other stuff of a region as e.g. Epirus (region) or Macedonia (Greece) do. I.e. about the region itself. My question is why should we have a page called Chameria, and no page about the region of Thesprotia? For sure Chameria is just an alternative name about the region of Thesprotia, as Vagenetia is too. "Is there anything we actually want to write about this region, in whatever boundaries, other than that it exists and has been called like this or that?" The history, the geography the economy, and a lot of stuff, which cannot are treated in different pages for the same region. See Chameria (speaks about the Principality of Gjirokaster), while Thesprotia (about the Despotate of Epirus). Its like saying the Greeks which use Thesprotia ever lived in the Principality of Gjirokaster and Albanians which use Chameria ever lived in the Despotate of Epirus. I cannot understand, why should we have different articles for the same region. "I'm talking about seperate cultural backrounds, there was no Vagenetia or Chameria in antiquity, nor Vagenetia today." I totally agree with you, because Ancient Thesprotia became Vagenetia in the Medevieal ages, and it became Chameria in Ottoman rule, and became again Thesprotia in modern times. A page called Thesprotia (which is the most used today) should cover Vagenetia and Chameria, because its just the same region, with different names. Vagenetia and Chameria would be used only in two sentences, cause they are significant only in certain historical context, about the same region. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 10:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Look, you can't compare Thesprotia as a region to Epirus and Macedonia, because Thesprotia is a part of Epirus. I still disagree that Thesprotia=Chameria because they are terms of different historical periods for parts of Epirus that partially cover one another. Chameria is also connected to the Albanian political claims of the region.Chameria rather is how the Albanians call the terriotory they once used to live in W.Epirus, while Thesprotia is not that same territory. Also, the territorial subdivisions of ancient Epirus have never been totally clear to safely say Thesprotia=Chameria. And anyway today Thesprotia=Prefecture of Thesprotia. I also cannot see what would be the encyclopedic profit for doing such a risky merge. The answer to your question simply is: We have Chameria because of the "political issue" Albania can see in it, and becuase it was an area that used to be inhabited by people who self-identified as Albanians, and we do not have "Thesprotia (region)" because it is a part of Epirus, there is not alot of notable information on it, and it is covered pretty accurately by the article about the prefecture. Again Thesprotia= Prefecture of Thesprotia, at least for a long time now.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the Ottomans recognised a Cham area in the empire or a Cham region. There is not a simgle historical map representing a Cham area. - let alone an administrative region. Any proof to the contrary welcome. (By the way, there are many peoples across the world living in areas that held no official recognition whatsoever and no cartographic representation- including Greeks in parts of the Balkans and Anatolia, so any offense taken by the above comment is probably politically motivated). Politis ( talk)
Chameria was never a political entity or province, merely a folkloric region. It never had administrative subdivisions of any kind. Only Epirus (periphery) has administrative subdivisions. Attempts to include an "administrative subdivisions" subsection are POV-pushing by insinuation. Semi-clever attempts to rename the section "Administrative incorporations" and "Local government are ridiculous attempts at euphemism and are not acceptable either. -- Athenean ( talk) 19:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I see both this and the attempt for a Thesprotia (region) article as irredentist attempts to base that "this purely Albanian region is divided". Chameria only was a "historical", if you like, region and never had an official status, or any well-defined border. Saying that it is a region somewhere between Greece and Albania is more than fine and clear.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 16:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose the merger of this article into Cham Albanians. This article does not contain any information not found in Cham Albanians and is essentially a content fork of that article. The extent and boundaries of the Cham homeland are adequately discussed in Cham Albanians. This article's history section is a duplicate of that of Cham Albanians and the demographics section is a cut-and-paste job. In short, there is no reason to have this article when all its contents are to be found in Cham Albanians. -- Athenean ( talk) 20:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. This article focuses on the area and not on the people as
Cham Albanians. It offers information not found in
Cham Albanians such as the Geography and Climate passage or the History passage. The only passage in common with Cham Albanians as stated in the article itself is the Demographics section. This article has information not found in Cham Albanians, which info extends in certain cases in
Thesprotians and
Epirus(region). Furthermore this is an article about a minority not a majority. We don't need articles on Texas and Texans, but we need articles on both people and area(when we can) for minorities such as
Cham Albanians and
Northern Epirotes. If we were to make a comparison, then
Cham Albanians-
Chameria issue is the same as
Northern Epirotes-
Northern Epirus, which is also a minority. --
Sarandioti (
talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
:I disagree. Ditto.
Guildenrich (
talk)
18:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Call it 'nonsense' or anything else you want, but it is a section that has to do with
Chameria, that is the AREA. So I don't see why a section called Climate is 'nonsense' in an article which is about the AREA. The geography & climate is one difference. Another major difference is the Boundaries section of Chameria. Reading Cham Albanians you dont have a clear view of Chameria, just a general position. And we can continue analysing this again and again. But still that is not the issue. As I said Northern Epirus - Northern Epirotes is a parallel case to Chameria - Cham Albanians. They are both minorities, and for minorities(whenever possible) there are articles on both the people and the area. So... I disagree as you already know with your proposal. --
Sarandioti (
talk)
21:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree as well. The geographical area needs to be clearly defined and elaborated on, seperately from the people. Further more a great deal of the Cham Albanian population, presently does not live within Chameria.-- I Pakapshem ( talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Disagree too. Taking the logic of the last user, but also taking into consideration that the Cham Albanians article is already huge, this would not be a wise move. We'd be forced to either make that article even bigger, or omit large parts of this one. Interestedinfairness ( talk) 01:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. It's quite obvious when an article like this has no more info to add to be merged with a more general one. Chameria is a copy-paste job on specific sections from Cham Albanian. The info about Thesprotians is irrelevant, and historically misleading (like adding info about the Qin Dynasty on the History_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China, or Lenape on the History of New York City). The term Chameria was used some millenia after the Thesprotians.
Moreover I agree with User:Sarandioti, we can make a comparison with Northern Epirus-Northern Epirotes, but wiki has no article named 'Northern Epirotes' (just a redirection). In case the merging proposal is rejected I agree with Sara's comparison Northern Epirus-Northern Epirotes vs Chameria-Cham Albanians, renaming the article Greeks in Albania to Northern Epirotes. Alexikoua ( talk) 15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood me partially. The Chameria-Cham Albanians is the same as Nothern Epirotes-Northern Epirus. I said nothing about renaming. Greek minority of Albania is the official term used by most countries. Among greeks the "northern epirotes" term may be prevalent, but not in the international community. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 15:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You seem to adopt a weird one-sided apporach: talking about official names one the one side (Greek minority -not to mention N. Epirus as a term etc), and a free 'academic' approach on the other (Did I have to say that Chameria and all that terminology has not official status at all?). Classic pov approach: just proves that the 'N. Epirus vs Chameria' comparison argument is too weak. One the other hand the merging Chameria with Cham Albanians is more that clear. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Again you misinterprete my words. The merge may seem clear to *you*, but guess what? You need a consensus for merge of articles, which you clearly do NOT have. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 19:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I suspect this is a pro-Greek lobby trying desperately to portray them selves as the most ancient settlers of Epirus. The ammount of ridiculous sources used here have no place in the Cham Albanians page. There is no consensus for the proposal, and no clear and rational argument to support it. Interestedinfairness ( talk) 01:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Very nice, Sara diasagrees because of nothing at all, and Intersted' insists on historical fairytales. Alexikoua ( talk) 04:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree The discussion of the region is central to the article on Cham. Both are riddled with Greek POV and falsification of history, and both need to be sorted out at the same time. Xenos2008 ( talk) 03:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Disagree::There is enough material to keep the articles seperate. Megistias ( talk) 09:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree Nor is "Chameria" an independent region to be referred to seperately, not are the "Chams" a seperate population group. They are interconnected so much that need not be 2 articles.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 18:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Disagree How are Cam Albanians the same as Cameria? sulmues ( talk)--Sulmues 20:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If you cannot provide sources for your false history (and I dont accept student papers), then the claims will be deleted by me. The region was not renamed in 1914 and you have no sources to suggest that it was. This is a Greek propaganda page, not a serious encyclopedia page. Xenos2008 ( talk) 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? Who told you that I am called Martin? This is just the usual Greek trick of trying to personalise and intimidate people you disagree with. If you read the book you will see that it has very little to say about the region of Chameria. The book is not well regarded internationally anyway, but that is a moot point. Xenos2008 ( talk) 12:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
There are claims made here, such as the date of renaming of Chameria, which are unreferenced and wrong. I have deleted all such things. Xenos2008 ( talk) 12:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? I do not have to provide proof that something did not happen. I have texts from the League of Nations as late as 1928 using the name, and another source (Greek) which states that the rename was in 1936. Just cut the Greek propaganda, will you? Xenos2008 ( talk) 13:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Xenos you have to calm down. The term 'Chameria' was never official in history, nor by Greek neither by the Ottoman administration (they called it Risadye). Your behavior is still unprovoked, what kind of tottalitorian philosophy did you learned? Suppose this academic and social science stuff you told in Cham-reassessment were just your initiative fairytales. Alexikoua ( talk) 13:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you do have an obligation to provide proof on a claim that most people here consider to be false. The name "Chameria" may well have been used by contemporaries, but I have never in seen it used in any official capacity by the Greek state, as you claim, and it does not get much more official than the name of the prefecture. Now, the prefecture was established after 1913, so you have to prove that "officially", it was not called Thesprotia until 1936. And if you have these much-vaunted source, by all means, let's see them. So far your mentality, the method and tone of your edits are just as bad as the worst of the Greek POV-pushers, and the last thing they contribute to is to present a fair and balanced viewpoint in the article. PS, we are still awaiting the specific points of why the Cham Albanians article fails POV. Constantine ✍ 13:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you don't know how to write history. The fact that most uneducated Greeks (educated through the propagandistic history schoolbook) think something happened is not relevant. I did not say it was used in an official capacity: I said it was not renamed until 1936. You Greeks claim something completely different, and see no need to prove that something happened. FINE. Your shitty style of research is what characterises most Greek research, is POV, and unacceptable. Just carry on, i dont give a fuck. Xenos2008 ( talk) 14:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
My dear fellow, this and this are your edits. There is a pretty big "official name" there, where the "official" was your addition. If the region was established as a prefecture called Thesprotia in 1913, is that not "renaming"? What exactly do you mean by "renamed in 1936"? That Metaxas passed a law renaming again the region into a name that was used in official capacity already for over 20 years? As for Greek "shitty research", yes, much of our national education system, and particularly the way history is taught, is a disgrace, but judging from your contributions (combative language, gross incivility, no sources at all), you are not exactly in a position to criticize it. Constantine ✍ 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You are such arrogant assholes. I am going to continue to correct this page using all my ISP logins until you accept that what is written is propaganda and lies. And yes, I have published many articles and books on these topics, and some are even referenced on WP. There are basic rules of how to think, and you understand fuck all. You know how to manipulate WP so that you can get somone banned. Go and get a fucking job as a manipulator... oh wait, i forgot that lying and corruption are real pluses in Greece....
Great idea! What I really meant, is: Are you fu*cking making inside jokes, or what? Why don't we merge the North American continent with the North American People, too? Just kidding. Against, irrelevant Guildenrich ( talk) 15:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not called Voriopir. It has a name that all know, so, greek patriots are pleased to stay away from trolling. Chameria, like all can see, was (I'm saying was!!!) a albanian majority land. Albania, and South Albania too, is 95% maded by albanians, and you call it Vorioepirus?? I'm against too.-- Albopedian ( talk) 16:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
In the last days User:Stupidus Maximus added three times a list of ca. 50 villages of the region [ [2]][ [3]][ [4]]. Although the specific user was several times informed to explain his various edits he preferred to remove immediately my messages in an hostile way from his talkpage [ [5]][ [6]]]], not to mention serious accusations he launched against me in talk:Fustanella [ [7]].
The specific list is against wp:nc, and especially without any reference to the official names of the settlements. I've explained in my edit summaries that a similar list alreadt exists here List_of_settlements_in_the_Thesprotia_prefecture. Moreover, I see that some villages aren't part of Thesprotia prefecture. Another fact that makes this overwhelming list unnecessary is that the template 'Cham Albanians' already mentions the most important settlment in Tsamouria. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Put the settlements in five columns, and it won't look that ugly anymore. However I agree with FPS that the list might be shortened into a smaller one, we don't need to mention 100 settlements, I guess the main 30 ones should be fine. -- Sulmues Let's talk 21:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Sulmues Let's talk 22:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Sulmues Let's talk 22:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
As far I see from history there was a similar discussion ca. a year ago: Talk:Chameria#.22administrative_subdivisions.22. The result was to remove the table. Alexikoua ( talk) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Since BW presented this, can you Athenean & Alexikoua let me know upfront if it would be ok with you to have it, or is it going to AfD as soon as started? -- Sulmues Let's talk 23:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There are no mysteries actually. Here's an example Liqenas_Municipality. -- Sulmues Let's talk 12:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
That's cheap stuff according to Balkanian's Chameria villages. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I restored the old lead, because there were a number of problems with the recent edits. Saying "Chameria" was the name of the region until 1936 is both false and misleading. It is misleading because it strongly implies that Chameria was an official name, which it never was, and it is false because Chameria is still very much in use, especially among Albanians. Athenean ( talk) 05:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Since no one responded, I have reverted to the original version, which I feel is more correct. The term "Chameria" is still used today by Albanians, and it certainly didn't cease to be used after 1936. Athenean ( talk) 05:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Reverted this bit [10] of inflammatory (and incorrect - the Chams were not expelled by the Greek armed forces) POV-pushing by one of the many IPs that plague this area. Athenean ( talk) 16:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
During the Axis occupation of Greece (1941–1944), large parts of the Muslim Cham community collaborated with the Italian and German forces committing a number of war crimes. [1] At the end of World War II, nearly all Muslim Chams in Greece were expelled to Albania, because of that activity. [2]
The first reference comes from a Greek biased book and there is no mention of war crimes anyway. The second source needs to be sourced correctly i.e. page number etc. since none of it is accessible to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.225.211 ( talk) 20:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
References
The author of the first source is H.F. Meyer (German) and off course not biased. The second one is properly cited (page, etc). Alexikoua ( talk)
Firstly, the phrase "suffix -eria, which in Albanian language denotes "land of the Chams" is wrong and needs correction. Suffix -(e)ria denotes what it denotes not particularly in Alb. language but in all western european languages and Greek (e.g. Illyria, Bulgaria, Hyngaria, Iberia etc). It is the precursor of the english -ry and the french -rie. The origin is Greco-Latin
There is an alternative etymology: The population of Chameria, formerly Christians, started getting islamized after the Ottoman occupation. This started with the big landlords who wanted to keep their lands and social position, and soon the farmers and other lower classes followed (or forced to follow). The tradition says that the first to be islamized was someone with the muslim name "Isam", probably the leader of a clan. From Isam all the rest were called "Isams" and from that "'sams" and "Chams". This is a tradition reported by some Greek authors. Instead of citing those authors (obscure for the english reader) we can possibly add this etymological case as "oral tradition". --
Euzen (
talk)
19:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This map is of the province of Chameria, this is the real map
[11] --
Vinie007
19:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no "province" of Chameria and if this is a "map", I am an astronaut.--
Euzen (
talk)
10:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the 1908 numbers on the table do not represent exactly the population of the modern Thesprotia prefecture. To sum up the three Ottoman kazas (Filiates, Paramythia and Margariti) may be ca. 75-80% the modern prefecture, but important towns of the Filiates kaza are in the Albanian side of the border, like Konispol and Markat, as well as a number of surrounding villages (per [ [12]] Kokolakis, p. 270: Dishat, Vërvë, Shalës, Ninat, Janjar). Although including this data on the table with the rest might be not a good idea, I believe it's no problem no include them in the text with the essential context. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I have tagged the following sentance:
As the Greek toponyms Epirus and Thesprotia have been established for the region since antiquity, and given the negative sentiments towards Albanian irredentism,the term is not used by the locals.
There are absolutely no sources provided alongside that sentence for the information it is supposedly making. Must be sourced. It makes assertions such as "negative sentiments towards Albanian irredentism". Who has these views. What is meant by locals. Baltsiotis has refereed to the demographic make of Thesprotia as consisting of Muslim and Orthodox Albanian speakers pre 1945. Greeks and Vlachs filled the void of Muslim Chams after their exit. So who and or which of these locals don't use the term etc? Also its says that "Greek toponyms Epirus and Thesprotia have been established for the region since antiquity". They were used in antiquity. Question is did the Albanian speakers who where present from the mediavil era onwards use those names for the region? Was it known to them ? If not then those terms where not "well established" in clear succession onwards, but there was a break, with its revival occurring in the twentieth century. Like i said, needs to be cited as peer Wikieida polices with reliable peer reviewed sources. Otherwise how can the reader rely on what is accurate about what that sentence is stating. Resnjari ( talk) 18:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"Tag bombing". Athenean, its not disruption if a sentence is making a contentious claim that has no source for it. Agian you need to provide sources that state "Epirus" and "Thesprotia" were terms well established well beyond the ancient era. Many places have had different names. Due to migrations, demographic shifts, different countries, those terms have been disrupted and sometimes continue. My concern with that sentence is have those terms been preserved by the local populace because there this term Chameria. In an similar example, in the book Maps and Politics by Wilkinson, H.R, even the Ottomans where not aware of the the term Macedonia, until it was revived by 19th century classicists and Philihellenes. Just because something is a given to Greeks in this instance, may not have been a given to other non-Greek speaking populations in the area. Again reliable sources are needed and no personal opinion. Resnjari ( talk) 19:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The lede claims are too obvious and a number of reference are also present in the main body of the article. I can name for example Kretsi: [ [13]] in an area which today is called Thesprotia in Greek and Chameria in Albanian ...the regional denomination "Chameria" is primarily in use by Albanians with obvious irredentist undertones... which refer to an ethnic Albanian territory which today remains inside Greek territory. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This is to clarify the different positions of terminology use on both sides of the border.
Resnjari (
talk)
20:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
In Albanian, Cameria is used in a ethnographic and geographic sense. And in recent times amongst certain circles it has gained irredenist connotations. As for tagging the Chameria map, the Northern Epirus map (in a article which states that the concept is clearly and wholly irredendist) in that article has no tag or citation for it and likewise that will be for here too. Resnjari ( talk) 00:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I added in the Baltsiotis footnote to map.
The N.E. map is well sourced and historically accurate (guess you need to check again in commons). On the other hand this Chameria map is nothing more than an wp:OR product, the pocket of Chameria includes a much more limited region. Alexikoua ( talk) 13:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, it needs more sources I got many that can be added alongside Baltsiotis. Elsie and a whole series of Albanian academics who give rough descriptions of the confines of what the region roughly constitutes at that map outlines. The map at the Northern Epirus article has sources based on Greeks maps (irredendist ones too) and so on. Over the next few days i will supply them for the map. Map stays. Resnjari ( talk) 13:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Lake Butrint is part of it because villages near its southern and south-western shores are Albanian speaking. See Kallivretakis and compare village list with a map. Places like Xarra, Sopik, Vrina, Pandejlemon (Muslim village), Mursi etc form part of the Cham dialect speaking area along with the Konispol and Markat districts. Resnjari ( talk) 14:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Elias G Skoulidas (22 shkurt 2011). Identities, Locality and Otherness in Epirus during the Late Ottoman period.(dok). European Society of Modern Greek studies. p. 7.
"Nikolaos Konemenos takes a different approach, by not denying his Albanian identity, although he participated in Greek public life. He accepts this identity and embodies it, without excluding the other identity: κι εγώ είμαι φυσικός Αρβανίτης, επειδή κατάγομαι από τα' χωριά της Λάκκας (Τσαμουριά) και είμαι απόγονος ενός καπετάν Γιώργη Κονεμένου ’λ που εμίλειε τα’ αρβανίτικα κι όπου ταις αρχαίς του προπερασμένου αιώνος... είχε καταιβεί κι είχε αποκατασταθεί στην Πρέβεζα...[I too am a natural Albanian, because I originate from the villages of Lakka (Tsamouria) and I’m a descendant of a kapetan Giorgis Konemenos, who spoke Albanian and who at the beginning of the last century... had come down and had settled in Preveza]. The spelling mistakes in this passage are a good indicator of what is happening."
Tsamouria or Chameria has mainly been a geographical and ethnographic term. It never was a political one until the onset of World War Two onward. It never was conceived of as a state and other countries that dominated the area employed it in their documentation like the Greek state and locals used it too until World War Two. All had different definitions of Chameria constituted. If one was to use just dialect as a border line than it includes Fanari, Lakka and so on. If one just limits it to Muslims than it is a smaller area etc.
If the ref. Miranda Vickers (1999) is correct (which i can't check online), she puts the southern border of Chameria to Acheron river, which is much northern than the Gulf of AmbraKia, the south border of the bogus map. In some later articles of this overtly pro-Albanian writer, she streches the southern boundary of Chameria to the gulf Ambrakia. Of course, the philo-albanian site of Elsie cites this latter work. I added in the article the account of Perraivos, who should know better than any modern Briton the place and the people, and who in early 19th c. did not have any reason to argue about Chameria's location. If don't agree on a map, I will make mine based on Perraivos and others-- Euzen ( talk) 21:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC).
I am going by what Baltsiotis and Elsie have used. Moreover you need to find me a resource which states that Elsie is a "philo-albanian". Yes he is an Albanologist, all that means is he has great expertise in Albanian studies as a scholar. Find me some academic who states that his work is off. Definitions of Chameria vary. If you get to add in Perivaious, i will add British diplomat Valentine Chirol's description and definition of the region during the nineteenth century. The British are neutral observers. If Chirol get removed then so will Perivious who i have sources (Greek ones that outline his work was at times politically motivated -as i did in Chams Albanians talk page). Resnjari ( talk) 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Euzen, i was checking the Kalivretakis source. it states:
Η χάραξη της οριστικής ελληνοαλβανικής μεθορίου, το Νοέμβριο του 1921, διαιρώντας την Ήπειρο στα δύο, διαίρεσε και την Τσαμουριά μεταξύ Αλβανίας (Νομός Δελβίνου & Αγίων Σαράντα) και Ελλάδας (σημερινός Νομός Θεσπρωτίας). Έκτοτε ανεφύη το ζήτημα των Τσάμηδων, όρος που στη βιβλιογραφία ταυτίζεται πλέον μόνο με τους Αλβανούς Μουσουλμάνους κατοίκους της Τσαμουριάς και ειδικότερα, από πλευράς διεθνούς διπλωματίας, με εκείνους οι οποίοι παρέμειναν στο τμήμα που υπήχθη στην ελληνική επικράτεια. [The development of permanent Greek-Albanian border, in November 1921, dividing the continent into two, divided and Tsamouria between Albania (Delvina & Saranda Counties) and Greece (current Thesprotia). Since then arose the question of Chams, a term in the literature identified only most Albanians Muslim residents Tsamouria especially in terms of international diplomacy, with those who remained in the section came under the Greek territory.
Kallivretakis talks about the word Cham/s not Chmaeria or Tsamouria being used only in reference to Muslim Albanians during that time. That has been outlined in the Cham Albanians page. This article is about the toponym Chameria, not the ethnonym Chams. Resnjari ( talk) 06:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I confused Chams' place with Chameria. At least we agree that not all Chameria was a Cham's place.
About the boundaries: The older encyclopedia "Great Greek Encyclopedia" (Μεγάλη Ελληνική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια) or "Encyclopedia of Drandakis" (c. 1926- 1930's) has a sizeable article "Tsamouria". There it says: "Tsamouria extends on the sea-shore from the mouth of river Acheron [south] till Vouthroton [Butrint], and on the land till the western slopes of mount Olytsikas or Tomaros". The article's title is followed by the indication "(Geogr.)", probably meaning that the term is only geographic. As far as I know there was never an administrative term, at least in the Greek state.
It seems that sources disagree on the southern margin of the area. Therefore, we can have two different maps, or one with two different borders and the corresponding references. --
Euzen (
talk)
12:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not as optimistic as to prove conclusively that Elsie is philo-albanian. This is my opinion expressed in the Talk section, and it is up to anyone interested to check it. For example, here
[16] he translated from albanian the account of a certain Cham describing how the evil Greeks massacred some Chams in 1944. And here
[17] there is an appeal of an "Anti-Faschist Chams Committee" to UN describing their "persecution by the Greeks". However, I cannot find in Elsie any account on Greeks massacred by Chams earlier on.--
Euzen (
talk)
12:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Seeing that the current map is in disagreement with the vast majority of sholariship, I'm working on a new version based on Manta, Baltsiotis, Michalopoulos, Kallivretakis etc. Psalidas version can also present in the same image as a historical one (considered the Delvine region as Chameria entirely, while the Greek part is the same with modern scholarship). Alexikoua ( talk) 14:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Well its good that we both know the region well. So this should be simple then. When Baltsiotis published his works it was in 2011 right after the Kallivretis 2010 administrative reforms changed the way Greek administrative units were defined by the state. In 2015, Baltsiotis writing about Fanari includes it with Preveza district. Now i ask what does it mean when he says district some years later, though uses the word prefecture some years before. Is he referring to the wider Preveza regional unit or Preveza municipality which is located within the wider Preveza regional unit and is south of Fanari? Resnjari ( talk) 19:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Athenean Chameria is noted as a region even in Greek sources (both non-government and government). In Albania the bit that extends there is still known as Chameria and is considered a region (not in some irredtist way). Some Albanians call the Greek side of the border with irredtist connotations. Only on the Greek side has the term been disused post WW2 as stated in scholarship due to the toponym gaining irredentist overtones. Please do not delete sections like that. Chameria is more complicated. Resnjari ( talk) 06:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Chameria is a geographic/ethnographic region and was recognised as such until WW2 by all who used the term or toponym which wasimportantly used by the Greek government in its official documents. Thereafter things change as per the sources and events relating to the war. Since you brought this up, what part is repetitious before i make edits to incorporate and condense the section ? Resnjari ( talk) 06:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Some stuff on the roads needs to be reincorporated and yes sourced. I find some stuff. The boundary section needs to be named Geography and boundaries, as the section does contain a lot of geography as well. Resnjari ( talk) 07:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The link you placed giving the location of Lakka [23], [24], is to a village that was formally known as Salitsa prior to 1929 [25]. That Lakka does not correspond to the Lakka Konemenos wrote in the 19th century in which he was referring to a region. Academic Mihalis Kokolakis identifies Lakka as being the region to the east of Souli. See page 373 and map (hartes) 1 for more (Mihalis Kokolakis (2003). Το ύστερο Γιαννιώτικο Πασαλίκι: χώρος, διοίκηση και πληθυσμός στην τουρκοκρατούμενη Ηπειρο (1820-1913). EIE-ΚΝΕ.). Also the Austro-Hungarian Empire when they prepared their military maps of the region in the early twentieth century also identify Lakka in the same area as Kokolakis though also distinguishing its three sub-regions all with the word Lakka. See map: http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/digkonyv/topo/200e/38-39.jpg For whole map collection see: http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/digkonyv/topo/3felmeres.htm The area is also known as Lakka Souli. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 10:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chameria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Replacement of the existing map should be discussed here Needless to say that a new map needs neutral & academic sources at least. Alexikoua ( talk) 15:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Yet another attempt to place a POV map [ [26]]. What's really weird here is that the correspondent source includes several maps of this era (19th-early20th c.) and region, nevertheless Hoxha chose the specific one that inflates that Albanian areas to the max. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Talking about outdated crap we can find maps of whatever pov we like. However, presenting it as "ethnic composition" is disruptive.
Alexikoua ( talk) 18:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
How about changing the lede, with focus on the "ethnographic" nature of the term? There are four Albanian ethnographic regions, Gegëria, Toskëria, Labëria and Çamëria. Edion Petriti ( talk) 19:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Edion Petriti: A couple of points:
I suggest you simply close this Rfc (you can do that by removing the line that reads {{
rfc|hist|rfcid=4ED839B}}
), and add material to the body of the article concerning the four regions, taking care to follow Wikipedia policies of
WP:Verifiability, which means including
citations to
reliable sources. Once you have done that, you may consider whether this newly added content is sufficiently important in the article, that it ought to be added to the lead. But it is definitely premature to add it to the Lead now. Good luck,
Mathglot (
talk)
08:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Why does the lead of the article mention Sarandë District as if it still exists? That administrative unit was dissolved in 2000. Dimadick ( talk) 12:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It's reasonable to have similar terminologies in the see also section, as such Northern Epirus and Chameria are part of the same terms in the Balkans. On the other hand the argument that the one term is historical while the other nationalistic falls deep into deep ethnic POV itself. Alexikoua ( talk) 18:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The map shows that except Thesprotia, Preveza perfecture is also included in the teritory called cameria/tsiamouria. Except that the names of the towns in Greece are all in albanian (suppose the source is albanian), former map of the region were limited to Thesprotia, or parts of Thesprotia. It seems that the 'larger version' of the so region is a more recent fabrication. Here [ [1]] is a map that shows that during wwii, Balli Competar considered cameria/tsiamouria only Thesprotia. This agrees with many other historical ethnological maps. It seems that chams/tsamides may had fields (of their property) in Preveza region, but there are no clues that they lived in towns and villages in this region (except maybe Parga which is on the northest edge of Preveza perf.). The linked map above, I believe shows clearly the limits of the article's region. Nazi-friendly organizations had a more limited view about the region-- Alexikoua ( talk) 21:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a "hand made" map, not based on any source. I propose it for deletion. Or, can I draw my own map and post in the article? -- Euzen ( talk) 13:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Albanau, if you object to this form of the article, please discuss it here. It is not acceptable, among other things, to refer to provinces of independent countries as though they rightfully belonged to another independent country. Chronographos 15:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
It wasen't me I allways use my account. However Chronographos what you wrote is clearly not NPOV.
Çamëria (or Chameria) is the name sometimes used by Albanians to refer to the Greek province of Epirus. The area probably was home to an ethnic group of Albanian origin and Muslim faith, the Chams. The Chams are believed to have fled to Albania during, and immediately following, World War II, probably because they had been persecuted by Greek Resistance guerilla groups fighting against the Nazi occupation army, on the belief that Chams had cooperated with the Albanian-launched invasion of Greece by the Mussolini fascist regime in 1940, and had continued cooperation with the Nazi occupiers. Greek censuses mention no Muslim presence in Epirus since 1951; they do not include linguistic data.
Albanau 14:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Corrected reference to "under Greek influence" in 4th century. Removed refernce to "Cham Christians". Acerimusdux 17:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Do not know where I must write about it. So, I will write it in comments.
The current article says that Chamides were expelled by Greeks. But as far as I know they left the country not expelled by the government decision (although after they left the Greek court without their presence decided their guiltiness as of collaborators of Germans and confiscated their property - we are talking about 1920 men - not millions, not billins; and they WERE guilty, as Italian and German collaborants, according to the court). They was "afraid of Greek revenge", that is left their homes and got to Albania in the first place. And after that they did not came back (formally they say because of the Greek court decision).
Also, English knew about what Tsamides and Greeks did during the war, and let Napoleon Zerva's forces do whatever:
Αποκαλυπτικό γι’ αυτή τη στόχευση είναι ένα μεταγενέστερο υπηρεσιακό «σημείωμα περί Τσάμηδων» του Κρις Γουντχάουζ (16/10/1945):
«Ο Ζέρβας, με ενθάρρυνση της Συμμαχικής Αποστολής που τελούσε υπό τις διαταγές μου, τους έδιωξε από τα σπίτια τους το 1944 προκειμένου να διευκολυνθούν οι επιχειρήσεις κατά του εχθρού. [...] Οι Τσάμηδες άξιζαν ό,τι έπαθαν, οι μέθοδοι όμως του Ζέρβα ήταν κομματάκι άσχημες ή οι υφιστάμενοί του βγήκαν εκτός ελέγχου. Το πρακτικό αποτέλεσμα ήταν μια πληθυσμιακή μεταβολή, με την απομάκρυνση μιας ανεπιθύμητης μειονότητας από το ελληνικό έδαφος. Ισως θα ήταν καλύτερα ν’ αφεθούν τα πράγματα έτσι» (Μαντά 2004, σ.312).
http://www.efsyn.gr/arthro/mia-anepithymiti-meionotita
Colonel Chris Woodhouse, head of the Allied Military Mission in Greece during the Axis occupation, who was present in the area at the time, in his "Note on the Chams" official military report of 16 October 1945, clearly accepting the full responsibility for the expulsion of the Chams
/info/en/?search=Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians
Mr Woodhouse accepts that English knew everything and let Greeks do it.
Andy4675 ( talk) 22:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Chameria is not (always) the same as Epirus in the 20th-21st century context. Chameria is also not the same as Cham Albanians. I resored a stub minus the Greek-Albanian polemics (which can remain at Epirus and Cham Albanians if preferred). LuiKhuntek 19:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Should those links to ultranationalist Albanian sites be here??? Helladios 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I reconfigured the article. We talk about a region, which in itself has no reason to exist, if it has no information about the Cahmeria issue and Cham Albanians. So I added summary of this articles in the main article. What do you think? balkanian ( talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I reconfigured the article. We talk about a region, which in itself has no reason to exist, if it has no information about the Chameria issue and Cham Albanians. So I added summary of this articles in the main article. What do you think? balkanian ( talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a better map is used.The current one seems like a piece of clothing splashed with blue and red paint(no offence to whoever made it) and doesn't clarify the geographic location of the region. Amenifus ( talk) 10:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree, what do you think about this balkanian ( talk) 11:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I object to this map on several grounds: It doesn't provide sources, and thus appears to be OR. Second, the area it shows as Chameria is way too large. Chams all the way down to Preveza? I don't think so. And lastly, it shows all the toponyms of epirus in Albanian, which is a non-starter. I am thus removing it until a better one appears. -- Tsourkpk ( talk) 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You are right about the names, but not about the geography. According to Vickers, Chameria does lay down to Preveza, (see it in Cham Albanians it is sourced), so there is no problem about that. I am entering english names in this map, so it would be NPOV balkanian ( talk) 17:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It also extends way too far inland. This just seems like a bunch of OR. -- Tsourkpk ( talk) 18:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, see the definiton of Vickers, and then lets discuss the points, where the map is inacquarite. balkanian ( talk) 18:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Look, mr Balkanian, Miranda Vickers is a PRO-ALBANIAN author. Even the Wikipedia article you mentioned is writing about it:
"pro-Albanian[240][241] author Miranda Vickers"
/info/en/?search=Cham_Albanians
Is it rigth to widely use sources which are not objective and not accepted by BOTH sides?
Andy4675 ( talk) 22:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I propose to move this page into Thesprotia (region). As far as we can see in this map, but also according to sources [1], Preveza was part of ancient Thesprotia region. Also, in medavial ages, Vagenetia, (the name of Thesprotia) included the prefecture of Preveza [2], but went as far north as Delvina [3]. In todays history, Chameria goes from Konispol to Preveza, [4] including few villages from Ioannina [5] and according to sources [6] [7] [8] [9] Thesprotia region in Greece includes Preveza Prefecture.
But, as an administrative division (i.e. nomos, not region), it is separate. So, I propose the establishment of a Thesprotia (region) page, because the geographical region of Thesprotia, and the geographical region of Chameria is essentially the same, with minor fixes, which may be presented in there. This way we can avoid nationalistic terms such as Chameria, by using it only as a second name in Thesprotia`s page and the article itself may contain the common history of Greeks and Chams in the region, without being exclusive to one group, as the current page is. Also, I propose the renaming of the page Thesprotia to Thesprotia prefecture as are all prefectures in Greece. What do you think? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 15:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe we can then 3 seperate articles: thesprotia (like chaonia-chaones), vagenetia and chameria/tsiamouria. Then we can see if a merging is affordable. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why we'd want an article on ancient Thesprotia. The ancient geographical coverage (which, by the nature of the topic, can only be approximate anyway) can just as well be covered in the modern Thesprotia article – it only requires a sentence or two. All the remaining historical information goes into the Thesprotians article. – Vagenetia certainly can, and should, have an article, since (apparently? correct me if I'm wrong) it was a political entity that's not covered anywhere else. I have no strong opinion on whether Chameria should remain distinct, or be merged with Cham Albanians. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Vagenetia can exist separately, to the extent that it was a political entity, not just a geographical name. Apart from that, all we need is a single short piece in the existing Thesprotia article, of the type: "The geographical name Thesprotia was revived in the 20th century, when the area was annexed to Greece. It was introduced to cover approximately the area that had been popularly been known as Chameria, Tsamouria or Ciamura in the 19th century, after the Albanian name of the river Çam ( Thyamis) and the tribe of the Cham Albanians. In antiquity, the term referred to the lands inhabited by the Epirote tribe of the Thesprotians, which covered roughly ...".
Why do we need separate articles for that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a different historical and cultural backround of the 3 names Thesprotia-Vagenetia-Chameria. Like Constanobple-Instambul, Tenochitlan-Mexico. Why not try to create them first and then put them together if possible? However there are geographical inequalities, Chameria incorporates regions of ancient Mollosis, and Chaonia. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
"Thesprotia" as a region would be too vague for a merge of all this. I see and I think that the merge proposal is well thought but I do not agree on the merge. It is better to keep Thesprotia as it is, and Chameria as it is too. The second term is way too recent to merge it with the first one in one article. And still, ancient Thesprotia does not equal the area that is called Chameria. On the other hand, Thesprotia (the prefecture) pretty miuch equals Chameria, but the one appelation is official and the other is not, and they have had different uses in different contexts, so they must stay seperate. So, I oppose. -- Michael X the White ( talk) 21:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The article about Thesprotia prefecture speaks only about the administrative division as Preveza prefecture or Ioannina prefecture do. There is nothing about the region. I am not speaking about boundaries, but about history, geography and other stuff of a region as e.g. Epirus (region) or Macedonia (Greece) do. I.e. about the region itself. My question is why should we have a page called Chameria, and no page about the region of Thesprotia? For sure Chameria is just an alternative name about the region of Thesprotia, as Vagenetia is too. "Is there anything we actually want to write about this region, in whatever boundaries, other than that it exists and has been called like this or that?" The history, the geography the economy, and a lot of stuff, which cannot are treated in different pages for the same region. See Chameria (speaks about the Principality of Gjirokaster), while Thesprotia (about the Despotate of Epirus). Its like saying the Greeks which use Thesprotia ever lived in the Principality of Gjirokaster and Albanians which use Chameria ever lived in the Despotate of Epirus. I cannot understand, why should we have different articles for the same region. "I'm talking about seperate cultural backrounds, there was no Vagenetia or Chameria in antiquity, nor Vagenetia today." I totally agree with you, because Ancient Thesprotia became Vagenetia in the Medevieal ages, and it became Chameria in Ottoman rule, and became again Thesprotia in modern times. A page called Thesprotia (which is the most used today) should cover Vagenetia and Chameria, because its just the same region, with different names. Vagenetia and Chameria would be used only in two sentences, cause they are significant only in certain historical context, about the same region. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 10:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Look, you can't compare Thesprotia as a region to Epirus and Macedonia, because Thesprotia is a part of Epirus. I still disagree that Thesprotia=Chameria because they are terms of different historical periods for parts of Epirus that partially cover one another. Chameria is also connected to the Albanian political claims of the region.Chameria rather is how the Albanians call the terriotory they once used to live in W.Epirus, while Thesprotia is not that same territory. Also, the territorial subdivisions of ancient Epirus have never been totally clear to safely say Thesprotia=Chameria. And anyway today Thesprotia=Prefecture of Thesprotia. I also cannot see what would be the encyclopedic profit for doing such a risky merge. The answer to your question simply is: We have Chameria because of the "political issue" Albania can see in it, and becuase it was an area that used to be inhabited by people who self-identified as Albanians, and we do not have "Thesprotia (region)" because it is a part of Epirus, there is not alot of notable information on it, and it is covered pretty accurately by the article about the prefecture. Again Thesprotia= Prefecture of Thesprotia, at least for a long time now.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the Ottomans recognised a Cham area in the empire or a Cham region. There is not a simgle historical map representing a Cham area. - let alone an administrative region. Any proof to the contrary welcome. (By the way, there are many peoples across the world living in areas that held no official recognition whatsoever and no cartographic representation- including Greeks in parts of the Balkans and Anatolia, so any offense taken by the above comment is probably politically motivated). Politis ( talk)
Chameria was never a political entity or province, merely a folkloric region. It never had administrative subdivisions of any kind. Only Epirus (periphery) has administrative subdivisions. Attempts to include an "administrative subdivisions" subsection are POV-pushing by insinuation. Semi-clever attempts to rename the section "Administrative incorporations" and "Local government are ridiculous attempts at euphemism and are not acceptable either. -- Athenean ( talk) 19:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I see both this and the attempt for a Thesprotia (region) article as irredentist attempts to base that "this purely Albanian region is divided". Chameria only was a "historical", if you like, region and never had an official status, or any well-defined border. Saying that it is a region somewhere between Greece and Albania is more than fine and clear.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 16:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose the merger of this article into Cham Albanians. This article does not contain any information not found in Cham Albanians and is essentially a content fork of that article. The extent and boundaries of the Cham homeland are adequately discussed in Cham Albanians. This article's history section is a duplicate of that of Cham Albanians and the demographics section is a cut-and-paste job. In short, there is no reason to have this article when all its contents are to be found in Cham Albanians. -- Athenean ( talk) 20:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. This article focuses on the area and not on the people as
Cham Albanians. It offers information not found in
Cham Albanians such as the Geography and Climate passage or the History passage. The only passage in common with Cham Albanians as stated in the article itself is the Demographics section. This article has information not found in Cham Albanians, which info extends in certain cases in
Thesprotians and
Epirus(region). Furthermore this is an article about a minority not a majority. We don't need articles on Texas and Texans, but we need articles on both people and area(when we can) for minorities such as
Cham Albanians and
Northern Epirotes. If we were to make a comparison, then
Cham Albanians-
Chameria issue is the same as
Northern Epirotes-
Northern Epirus, which is also a minority. --
Sarandioti (
talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
:I disagree. Ditto.
Guildenrich (
talk)
18:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Call it 'nonsense' or anything else you want, but it is a section that has to do with
Chameria, that is the AREA. So I don't see why a section called Climate is 'nonsense' in an article which is about the AREA. The geography & climate is one difference. Another major difference is the Boundaries section of Chameria. Reading Cham Albanians you dont have a clear view of Chameria, just a general position. And we can continue analysing this again and again. But still that is not the issue. As I said Northern Epirus - Northern Epirotes is a parallel case to Chameria - Cham Albanians. They are both minorities, and for minorities(whenever possible) there are articles on both the people and the area. So... I disagree as you already know with your proposal. --
Sarandioti (
talk)
21:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree as well. The geographical area needs to be clearly defined and elaborated on, seperately from the people. Further more a great deal of the Cham Albanian population, presently does not live within Chameria.-- I Pakapshem ( talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Disagree too. Taking the logic of the last user, but also taking into consideration that the Cham Albanians article is already huge, this would not be a wise move. We'd be forced to either make that article even bigger, or omit large parts of this one. Interestedinfairness ( talk) 01:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. It's quite obvious when an article like this has no more info to add to be merged with a more general one. Chameria is a copy-paste job on specific sections from Cham Albanian. The info about Thesprotians is irrelevant, and historically misleading (like adding info about the Qin Dynasty on the History_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China, or Lenape on the History of New York City). The term Chameria was used some millenia after the Thesprotians.
Moreover I agree with User:Sarandioti, we can make a comparison with Northern Epirus-Northern Epirotes, but wiki has no article named 'Northern Epirotes' (just a redirection). In case the merging proposal is rejected I agree with Sara's comparison Northern Epirus-Northern Epirotes vs Chameria-Cham Albanians, renaming the article Greeks in Albania to Northern Epirotes. Alexikoua ( talk) 15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood me partially. The Chameria-Cham Albanians is the same as Nothern Epirotes-Northern Epirus. I said nothing about renaming. Greek minority of Albania is the official term used by most countries. Among greeks the "northern epirotes" term may be prevalent, but not in the international community. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 15:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You seem to adopt a weird one-sided apporach: talking about official names one the one side (Greek minority -not to mention N. Epirus as a term etc), and a free 'academic' approach on the other (Did I have to say that Chameria and all that terminology has not official status at all?). Classic pov approach: just proves that the 'N. Epirus vs Chameria' comparison argument is too weak. One the other hand the merging Chameria with Cham Albanians is more that clear. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Again you misinterprete my words. The merge may seem clear to *you*, but guess what? You need a consensus for merge of articles, which you clearly do NOT have. -- Sarandioti ( talk) 19:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I suspect this is a pro-Greek lobby trying desperately to portray them selves as the most ancient settlers of Epirus. The ammount of ridiculous sources used here have no place in the Cham Albanians page. There is no consensus for the proposal, and no clear and rational argument to support it. Interestedinfairness ( talk) 01:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Very nice, Sara diasagrees because of nothing at all, and Intersted' insists on historical fairytales. Alexikoua ( talk) 04:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree The discussion of the region is central to the article on Cham. Both are riddled with Greek POV and falsification of history, and both need to be sorted out at the same time. Xenos2008 ( talk) 03:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Disagree::There is enough material to keep the articles seperate. Megistias ( talk) 09:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree Nor is "Chameria" an independent region to be referred to seperately, not are the "Chams" a seperate population group. They are interconnected so much that need not be 2 articles.-- Michael X the White ( talk) 18:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Disagree How are Cam Albanians the same as Cameria? sulmues ( talk)--Sulmues 20:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If you cannot provide sources for your false history (and I dont accept student papers), then the claims will be deleted by me. The region was not renamed in 1914 and you have no sources to suggest that it was. This is a Greek propaganda page, not a serious encyclopedia page. Xenos2008 ( talk) 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? Who told you that I am called Martin? This is just the usual Greek trick of trying to personalise and intimidate people you disagree with. If you read the book you will see that it has very little to say about the region of Chameria. The book is not well regarded internationally anyway, but that is a moot point. Xenos2008 ( talk) 12:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
There are claims made here, such as the date of renaming of Chameria, which are unreferenced and wrong. I have deleted all such things. Xenos2008 ( talk) 12:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? I do not have to provide proof that something did not happen. I have texts from the League of Nations as late as 1928 using the name, and another source (Greek) which states that the rename was in 1936. Just cut the Greek propaganda, will you? Xenos2008 ( talk) 13:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Xenos you have to calm down. The term 'Chameria' was never official in history, nor by Greek neither by the Ottoman administration (they called it Risadye). Your behavior is still unprovoked, what kind of tottalitorian philosophy did you learned? Suppose this academic and social science stuff you told in Cham-reassessment were just your initiative fairytales. Alexikoua ( talk) 13:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you do have an obligation to provide proof on a claim that most people here consider to be false. The name "Chameria" may well have been used by contemporaries, but I have never in seen it used in any official capacity by the Greek state, as you claim, and it does not get much more official than the name of the prefecture. Now, the prefecture was established after 1913, so you have to prove that "officially", it was not called Thesprotia until 1936. And if you have these much-vaunted source, by all means, let's see them. So far your mentality, the method and tone of your edits are just as bad as the worst of the Greek POV-pushers, and the last thing they contribute to is to present a fair and balanced viewpoint in the article. PS, we are still awaiting the specific points of why the Cham Albanians article fails POV. Constantine ✍ 13:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you don't know how to write history. The fact that most uneducated Greeks (educated through the propagandistic history schoolbook) think something happened is not relevant. I did not say it was used in an official capacity: I said it was not renamed until 1936. You Greeks claim something completely different, and see no need to prove that something happened. FINE. Your shitty style of research is what characterises most Greek research, is POV, and unacceptable. Just carry on, i dont give a fuck. Xenos2008 ( talk) 14:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
My dear fellow, this and this are your edits. There is a pretty big "official name" there, where the "official" was your addition. If the region was established as a prefecture called Thesprotia in 1913, is that not "renaming"? What exactly do you mean by "renamed in 1936"? That Metaxas passed a law renaming again the region into a name that was used in official capacity already for over 20 years? As for Greek "shitty research", yes, much of our national education system, and particularly the way history is taught, is a disgrace, but judging from your contributions (combative language, gross incivility, no sources at all), you are not exactly in a position to criticize it. Constantine ✍ 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You are such arrogant assholes. I am going to continue to correct this page using all my ISP logins until you accept that what is written is propaganda and lies. And yes, I have published many articles and books on these topics, and some are even referenced on WP. There are basic rules of how to think, and you understand fuck all. You know how to manipulate WP so that you can get somone banned. Go and get a fucking job as a manipulator... oh wait, i forgot that lying and corruption are real pluses in Greece....
Great idea! What I really meant, is: Are you fu*cking making inside jokes, or what? Why don't we merge the North American continent with the North American People, too? Just kidding. Against, irrelevant Guildenrich ( talk) 15:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not called Voriopir. It has a name that all know, so, greek patriots are pleased to stay away from trolling. Chameria, like all can see, was (I'm saying was!!!) a albanian majority land. Albania, and South Albania too, is 95% maded by albanians, and you call it Vorioepirus?? I'm against too.-- Albopedian ( talk) 16:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
In the last days User:Stupidus Maximus added three times a list of ca. 50 villages of the region [ [2]][ [3]][ [4]]. Although the specific user was several times informed to explain his various edits he preferred to remove immediately my messages in an hostile way from his talkpage [ [5]][ [6]]]], not to mention serious accusations he launched against me in talk:Fustanella [ [7]].
The specific list is against wp:nc, and especially without any reference to the official names of the settlements. I've explained in my edit summaries that a similar list alreadt exists here List_of_settlements_in_the_Thesprotia_prefecture. Moreover, I see that some villages aren't part of Thesprotia prefecture. Another fact that makes this overwhelming list unnecessary is that the template 'Cham Albanians' already mentions the most important settlment in Tsamouria. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Put the settlements in five columns, and it won't look that ugly anymore. However I agree with FPS that the list might be shortened into a smaller one, we don't need to mention 100 settlements, I guess the main 30 ones should be fine. -- Sulmues Let's talk 21:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Sulmues Let's talk 22:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Sulmues Let's talk 22:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
As far I see from history there was a similar discussion ca. a year ago: Talk:Chameria#.22administrative_subdivisions.22. The result was to remove the table. Alexikoua ( talk) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Since BW presented this, can you Athenean & Alexikoua let me know upfront if it would be ok with you to have it, or is it going to AfD as soon as started? -- Sulmues Let's talk 23:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There are no mysteries actually. Here's an example Liqenas_Municipality. -- Sulmues Let's talk 12:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
That's cheap stuff according to Balkanian's Chameria villages. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I restored the old lead, because there were a number of problems with the recent edits. Saying "Chameria" was the name of the region until 1936 is both false and misleading. It is misleading because it strongly implies that Chameria was an official name, which it never was, and it is false because Chameria is still very much in use, especially among Albanians. Athenean ( talk) 05:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Since no one responded, I have reverted to the original version, which I feel is more correct. The term "Chameria" is still used today by Albanians, and it certainly didn't cease to be used after 1936. Athenean ( talk) 05:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Reverted this bit [10] of inflammatory (and incorrect - the Chams were not expelled by the Greek armed forces) POV-pushing by one of the many IPs that plague this area. Athenean ( talk) 16:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
During the Axis occupation of Greece (1941–1944), large parts of the Muslim Cham community collaborated with the Italian and German forces committing a number of war crimes. [1] At the end of World War II, nearly all Muslim Chams in Greece were expelled to Albania, because of that activity. [2]
The first reference comes from a Greek biased book and there is no mention of war crimes anyway. The second source needs to be sourced correctly i.e. page number etc. since none of it is accessible to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.225.211 ( talk) 20:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
References
The author of the first source is H.F. Meyer (German) and off course not biased. The second one is properly cited (page, etc). Alexikoua ( talk)
Firstly, the phrase "suffix -eria, which in Albanian language denotes "land of the Chams" is wrong and needs correction. Suffix -(e)ria denotes what it denotes not particularly in Alb. language but in all western european languages and Greek (e.g. Illyria, Bulgaria, Hyngaria, Iberia etc). It is the precursor of the english -ry and the french -rie. The origin is Greco-Latin
There is an alternative etymology: The population of Chameria, formerly Christians, started getting islamized after the Ottoman occupation. This started with the big landlords who wanted to keep their lands and social position, and soon the farmers and other lower classes followed (or forced to follow). The tradition says that the first to be islamized was someone with the muslim name "Isam", probably the leader of a clan. From Isam all the rest were called "Isams" and from that "'sams" and "Chams". This is a tradition reported by some Greek authors. Instead of citing those authors (obscure for the english reader) we can possibly add this etymological case as "oral tradition". --
Euzen (
talk)
19:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This map is of the province of Chameria, this is the real map
[11] --
Vinie007
19:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no "province" of Chameria and if this is a "map", I am an astronaut.--
Euzen (
talk)
10:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the 1908 numbers on the table do not represent exactly the population of the modern Thesprotia prefecture. To sum up the three Ottoman kazas (Filiates, Paramythia and Margariti) may be ca. 75-80% the modern prefecture, but important towns of the Filiates kaza are in the Albanian side of the border, like Konispol and Markat, as well as a number of surrounding villages (per [ [12]] Kokolakis, p. 270: Dishat, Vërvë, Shalës, Ninat, Janjar). Although including this data on the table with the rest might be not a good idea, I believe it's no problem no include them in the text with the essential context. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I have tagged the following sentance:
As the Greek toponyms Epirus and Thesprotia have been established for the region since antiquity, and given the negative sentiments towards Albanian irredentism,the term is not used by the locals.
There are absolutely no sources provided alongside that sentence for the information it is supposedly making. Must be sourced. It makes assertions such as "negative sentiments towards Albanian irredentism". Who has these views. What is meant by locals. Baltsiotis has refereed to the demographic make of Thesprotia as consisting of Muslim and Orthodox Albanian speakers pre 1945. Greeks and Vlachs filled the void of Muslim Chams after their exit. So who and or which of these locals don't use the term etc? Also its says that "Greek toponyms Epirus and Thesprotia have been established for the region since antiquity". They were used in antiquity. Question is did the Albanian speakers who where present from the mediavil era onwards use those names for the region? Was it known to them ? If not then those terms where not "well established" in clear succession onwards, but there was a break, with its revival occurring in the twentieth century. Like i said, needs to be cited as peer Wikieida polices with reliable peer reviewed sources. Otherwise how can the reader rely on what is accurate about what that sentence is stating. Resnjari ( talk) 18:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"Tag bombing". Athenean, its not disruption if a sentence is making a contentious claim that has no source for it. Agian you need to provide sources that state "Epirus" and "Thesprotia" were terms well established well beyond the ancient era. Many places have had different names. Due to migrations, demographic shifts, different countries, those terms have been disrupted and sometimes continue. My concern with that sentence is have those terms been preserved by the local populace because there this term Chameria. In an similar example, in the book Maps and Politics by Wilkinson, H.R, even the Ottomans where not aware of the the term Macedonia, until it was revived by 19th century classicists and Philihellenes. Just because something is a given to Greeks in this instance, may not have been a given to other non-Greek speaking populations in the area. Again reliable sources are needed and no personal opinion. Resnjari ( talk) 19:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The lede claims are too obvious and a number of reference are also present in the main body of the article. I can name for example Kretsi: [ [13]] in an area which today is called Thesprotia in Greek and Chameria in Albanian ...the regional denomination "Chameria" is primarily in use by Albanians with obvious irredentist undertones... which refer to an ethnic Albanian territory which today remains inside Greek territory. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This is to clarify the different positions of terminology use on both sides of the border.
Resnjari (
talk)
20:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
In Albanian, Cameria is used in a ethnographic and geographic sense. And in recent times amongst certain circles it has gained irredenist connotations. As for tagging the Chameria map, the Northern Epirus map (in a article which states that the concept is clearly and wholly irredendist) in that article has no tag or citation for it and likewise that will be for here too. Resnjari ( talk) 00:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I added in the Baltsiotis footnote to map.
The N.E. map is well sourced and historically accurate (guess you need to check again in commons). On the other hand this Chameria map is nothing more than an wp:OR product, the pocket of Chameria includes a much more limited region. Alexikoua ( talk) 13:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, it needs more sources I got many that can be added alongside Baltsiotis. Elsie and a whole series of Albanian academics who give rough descriptions of the confines of what the region roughly constitutes at that map outlines. The map at the Northern Epirus article has sources based on Greeks maps (irredendist ones too) and so on. Over the next few days i will supply them for the map. Map stays. Resnjari ( talk) 13:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Lake Butrint is part of it because villages near its southern and south-western shores are Albanian speaking. See Kallivretakis and compare village list with a map. Places like Xarra, Sopik, Vrina, Pandejlemon (Muslim village), Mursi etc form part of the Cham dialect speaking area along with the Konispol and Markat districts. Resnjari ( talk) 14:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Elias G Skoulidas (22 shkurt 2011). Identities, Locality and Otherness in Epirus during the Late Ottoman period.(dok). European Society of Modern Greek studies. p. 7.
"Nikolaos Konemenos takes a different approach, by not denying his Albanian identity, although he participated in Greek public life. He accepts this identity and embodies it, without excluding the other identity: κι εγώ είμαι φυσικός Αρβανίτης, επειδή κατάγομαι από τα' χωριά της Λάκκας (Τσαμουριά) και είμαι απόγονος ενός καπετάν Γιώργη Κονεμένου ’λ που εμίλειε τα’ αρβανίτικα κι όπου ταις αρχαίς του προπερασμένου αιώνος... είχε καταιβεί κι είχε αποκατασταθεί στην Πρέβεζα...[I too am a natural Albanian, because I originate from the villages of Lakka (Tsamouria) and I’m a descendant of a kapetan Giorgis Konemenos, who spoke Albanian and who at the beginning of the last century... had come down and had settled in Preveza]. The spelling mistakes in this passage are a good indicator of what is happening."
Tsamouria or Chameria has mainly been a geographical and ethnographic term. It never was a political one until the onset of World War Two onward. It never was conceived of as a state and other countries that dominated the area employed it in their documentation like the Greek state and locals used it too until World War Two. All had different definitions of Chameria constituted. If one was to use just dialect as a border line than it includes Fanari, Lakka and so on. If one just limits it to Muslims than it is a smaller area etc.
If the ref. Miranda Vickers (1999) is correct (which i can't check online), she puts the southern border of Chameria to Acheron river, which is much northern than the Gulf of AmbraKia, the south border of the bogus map. In some later articles of this overtly pro-Albanian writer, she streches the southern boundary of Chameria to the gulf Ambrakia. Of course, the philo-albanian site of Elsie cites this latter work. I added in the article the account of Perraivos, who should know better than any modern Briton the place and the people, and who in early 19th c. did not have any reason to argue about Chameria's location. If don't agree on a map, I will make mine based on Perraivos and others-- Euzen ( talk) 21:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC).
I am going by what Baltsiotis and Elsie have used. Moreover you need to find me a resource which states that Elsie is a "philo-albanian". Yes he is an Albanologist, all that means is he has great expertise in Albanian studies as a scholar. Find me some academic who states that his work is off. Definitions of Chameria vary. If you get to add in Perivaious, i will add British diplomat Valentine Chirol's description and definition of the region during the nineteenth century. The British are neutral observers. If Chirol get removed then so will Perivious who i have sources (Greek ones that outline his work was at times politically motivated -as i did in Chams Albanians talk page). Resnjari ( talk) 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Euzen, i was checking the Kalivretakis source. it states:
Η χάραξη της οριστικής ελληνοαλβανικής μεθορίου, το Νοέμβριο του 1921, διαιρώντας την Ήπειρο στα δύο, διαίρεσε και την Τσαμουριά μεταξύ Αλβανίας (Νομός Δελβίνου & Αγίων Σαράντα) και Ελλάδας (σημερινός Νομός Θεσπρωτίας). Έκτοτε ανεφύη το ζήτημα των Τσάμηδων, όρος που στη βιβλιογραφία ταυτίζεται πλέον μόνο με τους Αλβανούς Μουσουλμάνους κατοίκους της Τσαμουριάς και ειδικότερα, από πλευράς διεθνούς διπλωματίας, με εκείνους οι οποίοι παρέμειναν στο τμήμα που υπήχθη στην ελληνική επικράτεια. [The development of permanent Greek-Albanian border, in November 1921, dividing the continent into two, divided and Tsamouria between Albania (Delvina & Saranda Counties) and Greece (current Thesprotia). Since then arose the question of Chams, a term in the literature identified only most Albanians Muslim residents Tsamouria especially in terms of international diplomacy, with those who remained in the section came under the Greek territory.
Kallivretakis talks about the word Cham/s not Chmaeria or Tsamouria being used only in reference to Muslim Albanians during that time. That has been outlined in the Cham Albanians page. This article is about the toponym Chameria, not the ethnonym Chams. Resnjari ( talk) 06:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I confused Chams' place with Chameria. At least we agree that not all Chameria was a Cham's place.
About the boundaries: The older encyclopedia "Great Greek Encyclopedia" (Μεγάλη Ελληνική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια) or "Encyclopedia of Drandakis" (c. 1926- 1930's) has a sizeable article "Tsamouria". There it says: "Tsamouria extends on the sea-shore from the mouth of river Acheron [south] till Vouthroton [Butrint], and on the land till the western slopes of mount Olytsikas or Tomaros". The article's title is followed by the indication "(Geogr.)", probably meaning that the term is only geographic. As far as I know there was never an administrative term, at least in the Greek state.
It seems that sources disagree on the southern margin of the area. Therefore, we can have two different maps, or one with two different borders and the corresponding references. --
Euzen (
talk)
12:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not as optimistic as to prove conclusively that Elsie is philo-albanian. This is my opinion expressed in the Talk section, and it is up to anyone interested to check it. For example, here
[16] he translated from albanian the account of a certain Cham describing how the evil Greeks massacred some Chams in 1944. And here
[17] there is an appeal of an "Anti-Faschist Chams Committee" to UN describing their "persecution by the Greeks". However, I cannot find in Elsie any account on Greeks massacred by Chams earlier on.--
Euzen (
talk)
12:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Seeing that the current map is in disagreement with the vast majority of sholariship, I'm working on a new version based on Manta, Baltsiotis, Michalopoulos, Kallivretakis etc. Psalidas version can also present in the same image as a historical one (considered the Delvine region as Chameria entirely, while the Greek part is the same with modern scholarship). Alexikoua ( talk) 14:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Well its good that we both know the region well. So this should be simple then. When Baltsiotis published his works it was in 2011 right after the Kallivretis 2010 administrative reforms changed the way Greek administrative units were defined by the state. In 2015, Baltsiotis writing about Fanari includes it with Preveza district. Now i ask what does it mean when he says district some years later, though uses the word prefecture some years before. Is he referring to the wider Preveza regional unit or Preveza municipality which is located within the wider Preveza regional unit and is south of Fanari? Resnjari ( talk) 19:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Athenean Chameria is noted as a region even in Greek sources (both non-government and government). In Albania the bit that extends there is still known as Chameria and is considered a region (not in some irredtist way). Some Albanians call the Greek side of the border with irredtist connotations. Only on the Greek side has the term been disused post WW2 as stated in scholarship due to the toponym gaining irredentist overtones. Please do not delete sections like that. Chameria is more complicated. Resnjari ( talk) 06:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Chameria is a geographic/ethnographic region and was recognised as such until WW2 by all who used the term or toponym which wasimportantly used by the Greek government in its official documents. Thereafter things change as per the sources and events relating to the war. Since you brought this up, what part is repetitious before i make edits to incorporate and condense the section ? Resnjari ( talk) 06:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Some stuff on the roads needs to be reincorporated and yes sourced. I find some stuff. The boundary section needs to be named Geography and boundaries, as the section does contain a lot of geography as well. Resnjari ( talk) 07:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The link you placed giving the location of Lakka [23], [24], is to a village that was formally known as Salitsa prior to 1929 [25]. That Lakka does not correspond to the Lakka Konemenos wrote in the 19th century in which he was referring to a region. Academic Mihalis Kokolakis identifies Lakka as being the region to the east of Souli. See page 373 and map (hartes) 1 for more (Mihalis Kokolakis (2003). Το ύστερο Γιαννιώτικο Πασαλίκι: χώρος, διοίκηση και πληθυσμός στην τουρκοκρατούμενη Ηπειρο (1820-1913). EIE-ΚΝΕ.). Also the Austro-Hungarian Empire when they prepared their military maps of the region in the early twentieth century also identify Lakka in the same area as Kokolakis though also distinguishing its three sub-regions all with the word Lakka. See map: http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/digkonyv/topo/200e/38-39.jpg For whole map collection see: http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/digkonyv/topo/3felmeres.htm The area is also known as Lakka Souli. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 10:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chameria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Replacement of the existing map should be discussed here Needless to say that a new map needs neutral & academic sources at least. Alexikoua ( talk) 15:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Yet another attempt to place a POV map [ [26]]. What's really weird here is that the correspondent source includes several maps of this era (19th-early20th c.) and region, nevertheless Hoxha chose the specific one that inflates that Albanian areas to the max. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Talking about outdated crap we can find maps of whatever pov we like. However, presenting it as "ethnic composition" is disruptive.
Alexikoua ( talk) 18:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
How about changing the lede, with focus on the "ethnographic" nature of the term? There are four Albanian ethnographic regions, Gegëria, Toskëria, Labëria and Çamëria. Edion Petriti ( talk) 19:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Edion Petriti: A couple of points:
I suggest you simply close this Rfc (you can do that by removing the line that reads {{
rfc|hist|rfcid=4ED839B}}
), and add material to the body of the article concerning the four regions, taking care to follow Wikipedia policies of
WP:Verifiability, which means including
citations to
reliable sources. Once you have done that, you may consider whether this newly added content is sufficiently important in the article, that it ought to be added to the lead. But it is definitely premature to add it to the Lead now. Good luck,
Mathglot (
talk)
08:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Why does the lead of the article mention Sarandë District as if it still exists? That administrative unit was dissolved in 2000. Dimadick ( talk) 12:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It's reasonable to have similar terminologies in the see also section, as such Northern Epirus and Chameria are part of the same terms in the Balkans. On the other hand the argument that the one term is historical while the other nationalistic falls deep into deep ethnic POV itself. Alexikoua ( talk) 18:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)