Jump to content

Talk:Thesprotia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chameria

[edit]

I have removed the statement that Thesprotia prefecture was known as Chameria. It is my understanding that Chameria extends far beyond the borders of the prefecture. Moreover, Thesprotia is strictly a modern prefecture, while Chameria is a folk-ethnic region with vaguely defined boundaries. The two are not coterminous and never have been. Nor have they ever been synonymous. Athenean (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regions have names whatsoever, and in this case the name of the region was Chameria until 1936, when it was renamed.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was never the name of an administrative region. What do you mean it was 'renamed'? Kretsi doesn't speak about the prefecture. Also keep in mind that Konispol, part of Tsamouria today, is still part of Albania. The speacific part could be relevant with Chameria, but with Thesprotia prefecture this is completely irrelevant and misleading.Alexikoua (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Making the equation Thesprotia=Chameria is complete nonsense of course, as is "Regions have name whatsoever" (?). This article is not about a "region", it is about a well defined administrative subdivision. The only thing that needs to be mentioned is that it was created out of the Ioannina prefecture in 1936. It wasn't "renamed", it was created. Athenean (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one responded, I have reinstated my edit. It is completely erroneous to equate the modern Prefecture of Thesprotia, the article's subject, with a far larger, and vaguely defined folk-historical region. It's like equating the Prefecture of Ioannina with Epirus (region) or the Prefecture of Thessaloniki with Macedonia. The prefecture is merely an administrative subdivision created in 1937 to shrink the oversize prefecture of Ioannina. That it lies in what used to be Chameria does not mean it is Chameria. Athenean (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chania Prefecture which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 15:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article

[edit]

Thesprotians are not an "ancient greek tribe" but "ancient illyrian tribe. The name itself means nothing in greek language.Ness Unno (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC) (moved from the article by tetraedycal 19:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Legitimising an Ethnic Cleansing

[edit]

@Khirurg, good to see you following my edits as per usual. I find it sickening that you try to justify the expulsion of tens of thousands of people, the murder of several thousands, the rape of hundreds of women and the killing of women, children, the elderly and innocent men over fractions of their community being involved in Axis collaboration. There are more motives to the inhumane ethnic cleansing carried out on the Chams and you know it, there's a reason why a lot more of the Orthodox Chams were able to stay. You actually have to be ill to try and rationalise genocidal behaviours; what I suggest you do is write about Cham collaboration with Axis forces in the Thesprotia region particularly in the following lines and refrain from obstructing the sourced line I inserted. Botushali (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this nonsense. No one is trying to "rationalise genocidal behaviours". Make that accusation again and you will be defending yourself at ANI. Now, the expulsion of the Chams did not occur in a vacuum. Trying to hide their collaboration with the Axis and present their expulsion out of context is the definition of POV-pushing. Not gonna happen. The sources are very strong on this. Khirurg (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then how else do you want to explain your behaviours? Report me to ANI, go ahead, I'd love the opportunity for admins to scrutinise both of our behaviours. As far as I'm concerned, if I warrant a block, so will you, and I am willing to have both of us temp banned or banned indefinitely to stop this behaviour. You can talk about the Cham collaboration with Axis forces in the Thesprotia regional unit specifically (since that would be relevant to the article), that is fine, but the source I used is talking about recorded populations in Thesprotia. There are also sources I can use to discuss the specific crimes against humanity carried out by Greeks on Cham civilians, but that doesn't belong in the same line either. They can have their own lines. Botushali (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every time expulsion is mentioned, collaboration will be mentioned, ok? That's the deal. I'm not going to have a situation where the expulsion is mentioned out of context as if it occurred in a vacuum. If you mention "crimes against humanity by Greeks", guess what? Cham crimes will be mentioned (there's a LOT of that by the way). No double standards. Khirurg (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deal according to whom? To you? I never agreed to such a deal. I do not mind collaboration being mentioned, but it can be in the following line and specifically related to the Thesprotia region. It does not need to be in the same line and obstruct the flow. Also, no worries, write about crimes Cham Albanians committed against Greeks in Thesprotia, that would be relevant information, no need to hide information on either side of the fence. I mentioned it, so do it, stop making threats because I don't care. Botushali (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The deal" is called WP:NPOV and is non-negotiable, that's the deal. No double standards, no unbalanced POV. Khirurg (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I split the overly long sentence into three separate sentences. I think it reads better now. Do you agree? If not we can try something else. Khirurg (talk) Khirurg (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, a link to the Expulsion of Cham Albanians is not provided, but that is a minor issue that is easily solved. Rather, we need to consider that if we are going to provide the reasons for their expulsion, then according to NPOV, we need to provide ALL reasons. These include Cham Albanians - particularly the Muslims - being an "undesirable" population, difficult to assimilate (especially if they were Muslim, hence why many Orthodox Chams remained and were subsequently assimilated), and past cultural/religious/historical grievances between Albanians and Greeks in general. I have noticed that these points are lacking in representation across a variety of Cham articles, and will work on adding them into said articles when time permits in order to fully satisfy the conditions of WP:NPOV. Botushali (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason they were expelled is because they collaborated. If they hadn't, they wouldn't have been expelled. The Orthodox Chams did not collaborate, so they weren't expelled. Khirurg (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of sources that state other ulterior motives, too, especially including the "undesirable population" part. Orthodox Chams collaborated as well, but according to sources I've read recently were much easier assimilated into Greek society. This was obviously going to occur considering Greece's Hellenization and assimilation policies, the collaboration was just an excuse to carry it out. Either way, in order to satisfy NPOV, all of the reasons for their expulsion must be taken into account. Maybe that's too long, so the reasons for their expulsion are ultimately unnecessary to include on this article. Botushali (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. By far the main reason they were expelled was collaboration. The claim that collaboration was just an excuse is in WP:CONSPIRACY territory. And if this is some kind of trick to try and hide the fact that they massively collaborated, it's not going to work. Khirurg (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, not nonsense. Cham-Axis collaboration occurred and sure was a major reason why they were expelled, but so is the fact that the Cham Albanians - particularly the Muslims - were considered undesirable. So, if you want to follow your own advice and go in-line with WP:NPOV, then you should present all reasons for the Cham ethnic cleansing, and not just one. Botushali (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because they are not equivalent. WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:FALSEBALANCE. Khirurg (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be violating WP:NPOV, so if you want to refuse in cooperating with me, then there will be no consensus for your addition. Until you choose to cooperate, I am not interested in this conversation. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain this quote it's in the context of the specific reference that claims a pre-WWII Albanian majority in Thesprotia: "northern epirus" is the "Chameria" district in Southern Albania with the city of Ionia, that is partially located in Greece as its center". Which is the city of Ionia that is partially located in Greece? and how northern Epirus is the Albanian part of Chameria? ideas?Alexikoua (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Botushali, please familiarize yourself with WP:NORACISTS, WP:ADVOCACY. That is to cease promoting a propagandistic narrative about a group being victim. The WP:ONUS for inclusion befalls you since it is your new additions that are being discussed here, and since WP:NEUTRAL requires that all new content additions are presented in a balanced way that includes all viewpoints, then the Expulsion and the reason it happened, will have both to be mentioned as to avoid suggesting that the one side is portrayed as victims of an expulsion that happened out of the fly, or avoid suggesting that the other side is being evil for expelling just like that. Attempts to promote any false POV pushing narratives which either victimize the one side or demonize the other side, are severely violating Wikipedia's rules and you can not expect that your new content about a historical event is added without balancing adjustments and have everybody else stay quiet about it in the name of any personal campaign to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Without any necessary corrections for the much-needed neutrality for such a politically sensitive topic like this, your new additions will be removed. WP:NPOV is a non-negotiable policy I am afraid. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 05:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's even worse than that: so if you want to refuse in cooperating with me, then there will be no consensus for your addition. Until you choose to cooperate, I am not interested in this conversation. By "cooperation" he means giving in to all his demands. He's basically saying, "my way or the highway". Literal blackmail. The collaboration of the Chams with the Axis is very well-documented. There is absolutely no way it's going to be excluded. Others have tried in the past, unsuccessfully. Khirurg (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just that the one event is well documented. It is also that Wikipedia has to reflect on the international academic consensus on such important events, and the consensus has long concluded that the one event is the outcome of the other event just predating it. From the moment the unfortunate expulsion being the outcome of an unfortunate collaboration, no editors may promote a one-sided narrative victimizing one group they support and demonizing other groups. Just this is not what Wikipedia is for. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 05:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think people here have thoroughly misunderstood what is going on and what points I am trying to get across, so I will just reclarify:

  1. When the Cham expulsion is mentioned in passing, the reasons for it do not necessarily need to be mentioned; same thing would apply with the Holocaust or Rwandan genocide, when crimes against humanity occur, justification for it is not always needed when it is in passing;
  2. IN THIS CASE, Cham-Axis collaboration did indeed occur in the Thesprotia region, so it actually should be mentioned on its own with its own line as well as any notable events that occurred in Thesprotia as part of this collaboration - HOWEVER, they must be relevant to Thesprotia so as to fall in line with the article;
  3. Khirurg has tried to come at me from an angle of WP:NPOV, which is fair enough, but I would like it to be known that if we are truly aiming for WP:NPOV, then ALL main reasons for the Cham expulsion should be stated, including the fact that the Chams - particularly the Muslims - were considered to be "undesirables" and difficult to assimilate. Now, perhaps if all main reasons are used it may be too long, in which case it must be decided whether reasoning is actually relevant, but if we manage to do this in a succinct way, then it doesn't matter;
  4. With that being said, I am not saying that you guys need to go specifically find the sources to maintain neutrality here, and having Cham-Axis collaboration is fine as a start, but it would be better if it was specifically about Thesprotia;
  5. SR, the fact that you accuse me of "victimising" one side considering it is the side where tens of thousands of people were evicted, thousands killed (including women and children as well as the elderly), hundreds raped (and those are only reported cases), homes burnt and looted etc etc is actually rather inconsiderate and actually quite offensive. The Chams are indeed the victims of an ethnic cleansing, whether you like it or not, regardless of the events that led up to it. There is no justification for ethnic cleansings; contributing factors, sure, but they should never be used as justifications. Anyways, my new additions are not non-neutral in any way, either, so I am not sure if you have actually read what is occurring here or not. My additions will stay, it is Khirurg's addition in particular we are discussing;
  6. I have stated above (if you people cared to read it thoroughly) that I do not take issue with Khirurg adding information on Cham-Axis collaboration in Thesprotia - that's all very relevant. What I take issue with is the manner in which it is added - inserting it into the line where it was inserted before not only is obstructively imprecise to the source (which doesn't describe it as the sole reason, see the page beforehand which serves as context to the statement about the Cham population figures), but it also comes across as an attempt to immediately rationalise something that is mentioned in passing. In that line, it is unneeded and simply unnecessary. It should have it's own line, because the source I used is merely discussing the Cham population figures in 1920 compared to post-WWII. Nothing else. It's really that simple.
  7. Khirurg, if you think I am blackmailing you (which is an absurdly incorrect accusation), feel free to report me. I noticed your witch-hunt tag-teaming report was archived with no action taken in favour of your false accusations, so there seems to be a recorded trend of you making completely inaccurate accusations and threats. From here on out, please refrain from making these same bogus accusations. Also, by "cooperation" I do not mean "my way or the highway" (that's not what that word means), I meant that I am happy to agree on a middle ground - like I said, I take no issue with including information on Cham-Axis cooperation in Thesprotia, but that is simply not the line to do it. That is cooperation. As I stated previously, it's really that simple.

Botushali (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Botushali, I hate repeating myself so listen carefully: Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Your response here shows that again you are trying to communicate one-sided views about the occupying Axis powers and I strongly suggest that you refrain from repeating that in the future. Wikipedia is not a place to seek vindication for the suffering of people which is the exact reason you won't for example hear me counter-arguing to you about the civilian losses of Greece (7% to 11% of its total population - a tremendous figure in the country's painful history) dying as result of the joint occupation of Greece in WWII by the Axis Powers and their collaborators. There is a reason such arguments are avoided in discussions related to WWII events because simply Wikipedia is NOT the place for seeking vindication about one side or the other in an war. Wikipedia's role is just to provide all facts to the readers about what happened and why, by reflecting on academic consensus and by taking in account any editorial concerns on neutrality.
Now, I will kindly ask that you refrain from making such section titles like: "Legitimising an Ethnic Cleansing" which not only constitutes an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but also violates Wikipedia's WP:TALKHEADPOV which states that editors have to Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it. you can not expect that the others welcome your comments as WP:GOODFAITH from the moment it promotes your POV and only that. To demonstrate that you are in the talk page in good faith, please rename the Talk Page section to be more neutrally worded.
Last, I understand absolutely what you are saying about collaboration not having to be mentioned on the same passing as expulsion. I find your point, here, about having collaboration mentioned in a separate sentence to be a rather reasonable and logical one. Editors can reach a compromise that out and find a solution that can work for both. For example the two events may be mentioned separately as part of the same topic or the sentences reworded in an way that it mentions WWII events in a passing. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you said "I hate repeating myself so listen carefully..." I stopped listening. I don't know who you think you are to talk to your fellow editors with such an ego. Botushali (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident: Chams were a minority in the prefecture and there are several sources that points to this. Simply grabbing a dubious source that assumes that Northern Epirus coincides with Chameria constitutes clearly wp:DISRUPTION. By the way this is a good argument to add the "Northern Epirus" issue on the counties of Albania's south I assume.Alexikoua (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not the case, Alex. Thesprotia had a Cham Albanian majority (both Muslim and Orthodox), stop dragging Wiki policies through the dirt when they don't even apply. Botushali (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in the 20th century, Cham applies to Muslim only (Hart, 1999). I support my statements with sources by top-graded authors. I advice you to do the same. Alexikoua (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the Cham Albanians article. Nowhere does it say they are only Muslim. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV changes about WWII

[edit]

@Botushali: Firstly, you have no consensus for presenting the WWII from a preferred viewpoint like how you did today and your edits have been reverted [1]. These additions are violating Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines which states that All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Secondly, the main article Expulsion of Cham Albanians which is dedicated to that topic (the expulsion), already covers all the viewpoints about the circumstances of the expulsion and the readers may simply access that article for more details of what exactly happened in these WWII events. Using a geographic article such as the present one, even though there is already a historic article about that subject, is unhelpful, since the present article's focus is about the geographic region of Thesprotia and not about the World War II and its politics. Historic politics of the WWII era are left for these historical WWII articles to tackle. Last, using the present geographic article, not to cover the historic WWII events in a balanced and summarized way, but to add more one-sided details to promote your preferred POV about what these WWII events, is extremely disruptive and contradicts the balanced conclusions the readers may draw by accessing the main article about these events, which means turning Thesprotia into a WP:POVFORK to Expulsion of Cham Albanians. This cannot be tolerated. I understand that to your eyes, your edits seem neutral but that doesn't make them neutral. If you want to make additions about sensitive WWII events, then, you ought, as an editor, to consider other editor's concerns instead of brute-forcing your preferred POV to Wikipedia.Please try to use the talk page instead of edit-warring. This is disruptive and unhelpful. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what you should do rather than write walls of texts ranting? You should follow your own advice. I opposed including reasoning for the Cham expulsion in the first place because it's just not relevant to Thesprotia in the way it was included, and also, I stated that if we truly want to follow WP:NPOV which you people have blasted all over this TP, then all reasons for the Cham expulsion need to be included and not just the POV that blames it entirely (and wrongfully so according to multiple sources) on Cham-Axis collaboration. That's NPOV, where all viewpoints are inserted. If you feel it's not relevant to the article then neither should the line Khirurg inserted be used because it is not neutral. You can request page protection as much as you like, but when you refuse to follow NPOV because it doesn't convey your preferred narrative, that's wrong. The Cham expulsion is much deeper than Cham-Axis collaboration, and I am sure none of us here are that naïve to truly believe it's the only reason for their expulsion. Take a look at the history of the Chams and how they were treated since their inclusion into Greece, and tell me their expulsion was not related to these same policies. Botushali (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The population of Thesprotia was 65k (Tsoutsoumbis), while the max. estimation of Cham Albanians is 25k (Manta). I wonder how can this be considered majority. Alexikoua (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's Muslim Albanians alone. During the Italian occupation, estimations of the population of Chameria (which is mainly today's Thesprotia) were around 54,000 Albanians and 20,000 Greeks (Ktistakis). What's your point? Botushali (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the new additions by Botushali to Thesprotia are also new additions (again by him) to the main article Expulsion of Cham Albanians ([3]), I was wondering why I wouldn't remember that information being present on the main article and especially an information as ambiguous as that. I made to it some much-needed balancing adjustments for clarity: [4]. This information may now be re-added to Thesprotia, provided that Ktrimi's changes for clarity and mine are included as well. Is everybody OK about it? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SilentResident, thing is that anti-Cham policy occurred even prior to the Metaxas regime. Please see this here for what I mean, so blaming it all on the Metaxas regime would be inaccurate in a sense that they were not the ones who initiated the anti-Cham policies in the first place, you get what I am trying to say? Botushali (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This falls clearly into wp:UNUE, the article deals with the administrative unit and this issues are not dealt in terms of administration. Nevertheless I won't object to offers lists of the victims of Axis atrocities if an expansion is needed.Alexikoua (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Botushali, that is why the sources say The collaboration, which was also the outcome, not The collaboration, which was the outcome. The sources point to the well known fact that the WWII collaborations were also the outcome of policies embedded in the prevailing interwar nationalism, whose leading figure was Metaxas. Everybody knows the role Metaxas played to the unprecedented suffering of the minority to the point of it collaborating with invading forces when the next war broke out.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this dive into such a specialist topic? If yes expulsion should have the same amount of info as collaboration. There are two sides of the same coin. Thesprotia suffered greatly from Axis atrocities and this should be underlined. The main settlements of the region were raised to the ground. Alexikoua (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident:: Ktrimi & Botusali are desperately in favor of this part Cham Albanians formed the majority in the region up until World War II, supposed to be in "Gizem Bilgin, Aytaç (2020). Conflict areas in the Balkans. Lanham: Lexington Books. p. 112. ". However, what I could only found is this: "Chameria Albanians on the other hand were the majority in Southern Epirus until World War II" (and in p. 111 it's even more precise: "Muslim Chameria Albanians on the other hand where the majority in Southern Epirus until World War II"). As for the supposed majority in southern Epirus this falls directly into wp:fringe. But fact is that this definitely does not belong to Thesprotia.Alexikoua (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua: If the source uses Southern Epirus, then it ought to go to the relevant article, not here. Also keep in mind that majority in Southern Epirus is a rather WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim which will require strong and substantial sources, not just this. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that Chams were a majority in "southern Epirus" (presumably the part of Epirus in Greece) as a whole is clearly incorrect and WP:FRINGE. In Cham_Albanians#Historical_demographics there is a table that lists every single census pre-WW2, and even the maximalist Italian census of 1941 only gives a figure of 54,000, nowhere near a majority in southern Epirus. Khirurg (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chams made c. 5% in pre-WWII Epirus and c.28% in Thepsrotia. Kalivretakis was removed as "outdated" while the work that's supposed to mention something about "majorities in Thesprotia" was restored back. Friendly advice to everyone: read the source before restoring a non-existent claim from that one.Alexikoua (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alexikoua: you often refer to other editors' actions with "desperately", as you did above. The only "desperate" thing is making frivolous comments on other editors. @Botushali: I thought that the source referred to Thesprotia specifically. If not, it is not useful for this article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Thesprotia not part of Southern Epirus? Also, Alex keeps making ridiculous claims like Chams being only 5% in pre-war Epirus. According to estimations by Italian occupational forces during World War II (1941), the region of Chameria had 54,000 Albanians, of whom were 26,000 Orthodox, 28,000 Muslim and 20,000 Greeks. Also, he claims they were 28% of pre-war Thesprotia; if Thesprotia, which in the present day has a little over 43,500 people, had 20,319 Muslim Albanians in 1920, how could they only form 28%? Stop spreading false information Alex, you spout lies and treat it as facts. Now, let's leave the discussion on Cham demographics because it does not work in your favour. Rather, lets discuss whether Thesprotia and Southern Epirus being linked... Botushali (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chams being 28% in Thesprotia at the time is very dubious. Maybe the author counts Orthodox Chams as Greeks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both Gizem Bilgin (who says that Cham Albanians were the "majority" in southern Epirus) and Manta (who says that Greeks were a "vast majority" in Thesprotia, apparently counting Orthodox Chams as Greeks) are not useful for this article. Gizem Bilgin is wrong especially in using the term "southern Epirus" instead of Chameria/Thesprotia, while Manta is misleading POV not suitable for this article. Both should be removed from this article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, both seem to not be valuable in discussing the academic regard. Both can be removed. Botushali (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 20th century "Chams" refers to Muslims exclusively (cited be Hart) and at very rarely instances "Chams" is related to Christians (cited by Kretsi). As such you are deep into wp:POV&OR again not to mention severe wp:SYNTH confusing Thesprotia to 'southern Epirus'. Also Thesprotia is a small part of Greek Epirus (18%), as such the claim about "Chams being a majority in Southern Epirus" falls directly into wp:FRINGE. On the other hand Manta with multiple publications is a top graded scholar and her paper is published in a well known journal. By the way who is Gizem Bilgin? He is definitely a non-specialist on Epirus. If we believe Botushali that this author confused Thesprotia to Epirus then definitely this error reveals the problematic use of the specific work. Alexikoua (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One POV is that Orthodox Chams were Greeks at the time, the other POV is that they still were ....Chams. We will not have only one POV in this article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you give a full quote of Manta? I can't find in page number 7 where the author says Greeks were a "vast majority" in Thesprotia. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is related to Thesprotia because it refers to a possible annexation of Thesprotia prefecture to Albania.Alexikoua (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the article you attributed the "vast majority" to Thesprotia, not to Epirus. You wrote sth other than what the source says, and added a misleading half quote of the source in the reference template. Do not do such a thing again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Camlik Sanjack

[edit]

The Camlik s. included also Konispol so it would be non-historical to say that this sanjack was annexed by Greece. By the way the article is about Thesprotia not Camlik.Alexikoua (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thesprotia&oldid=1205683455"