Citation on the template[edit]

I saw that there were made a number of changes on this template, on reasons that are not common to wikipedia policy and common logics. 1. Assembly of Preveza, as the article says it was held in Preveza (Chameria region) and was composed mainly from 200 Cham and Lab Albanian leaders, which means that is part of Cham Albanians history. 2. Tsamiko and Dance of Zalogo are dances of Chams (and of other people) but for sure they are dance from Chams (and originate from them) so I see no reason for putting them out. 3. Preveza · Ioannina · Fanari · Louros · Thesprotiko, are all of them sourced on Chameria and Cham Albanians pages. 4. Himara, as a place where Chams went after they were expelled is sourced by Vickers, in her 2002 book. 5. Aristidh Ruci and Kristo Meksi were both Chams, from Ioannina. Being from Ioannina does not make them not Chams, as the Albanian population of Ioannina was both Labs and Chams. 6. Kitsos Tzavelas · Kitsos Botsaris · Kristo Meksi · Markos Botsaris · Moscho Tzavela were all Souliotes and they are part of Chams history, as they at least spoke the Cham Albanian dialect.

If there is any reason for removing them, please provide sources. Thank you, Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of the edits are irrelevant with this community like: Zalongo Dance, Tsamiko, at least there is not a single source that claims this so far. As for the individuals Meksi, Ruci, were from Ioannina an are which is not inside Chameria or least not considered Chams by any source. The Souliotes are not classified as Chams or Cham Albanians or even Albanians since their ethnicity wasn't that clear (see also Souliotes, linguistics should not be confused with ethnicity). Also Boua wasn't born there or at least considered as such (Cham) by any source.

As for the Assembly of Preveza I agree that is must be part of the template, same with Himara.Alexikoua (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, then, we need sources about the rest. So, I am putting back Tsamiko per this source that states that tsamiko is named after Cham Albanians ans searching for sources about the rest. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid that the name itself does not necessarily imply origin or some kind of cultural connection. See Talk:Tsamiko.Alexikoua (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although you're correct in that obvious etymological connections do not necessarily imply historical causation, I must point out sourced statements such as "Cham Albanians have made rich contributions to Greek culture, including the Tsamiko dance", for instance, and "Tsamiko, the classical and athletic dance, has its origin from the Albanians". That's good enough for me, and it's good enough for you. Understand? DS (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per these two new sources, no question about it: Tsamiko is back! Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no preview in those links. In any case, there's no dispute over whom the dance is named after. We need sources that it's part of Cham culture, all sources I've seen speak of tsamiko as a Greek dance.--Ptolion (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What kind of childish game is this? There is a preview about Tsamiko stating something completely different These quotes are not confirmed inside: [[1]][[2]]. Actually the one source says: [[3]] Tsamiko the classical and athletic dance has its origins from the ancient Greeks (not Albanians). Lolol.Alexikoua (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol, your propably right, I took them as granted and didnt check them, sorry.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd also like to point out that the article tsamiko discusses the Greek dance, not a whatever it is they are dancing in Albania, and Dance of Osman Taka is included in the template.--Ptolion (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, this is not the case Ptolion. I am not speaking about the Dance of Osman Taka, but about another cham dance called "the cham dance" (vallja çame) or çamçe, which is Tsamiko, I have to find a source though.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's kinda personal but since I was on several festivals in Albania, I know that what's known 'Tsamiko' isn't danced by Albanian groups (not even by Greeks living in Albania). Cham Albanians have their dances, but they don't dance what's known 'Tsamiko'. Can you give me some example on youtube on what you mean vallja came?Alexikoua (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. I remember B.W. provided several links to Youtube videos last year demonstrating what he considered an authentic "Vallja çame". None of them was like the Greek Tsamiko. The general character and stance of the dance figures is similar, but the rhythm, music and basic steps are entirely different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's weird - that's not what I remember the book URLs linking to last time. DS (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the main settlements section, I see that the city of Ioannina is included in this list. Since the related article (Chameria), does not include Ioannina as part of the region, something that's also obvious on the lead map, it isn't considered part of this region.Alexikoua (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed some of the latest unexplained additions by Balkanian [[4]]: Addition of Souliote personalities in the Cham individuals to support the usual pov. Since there is not a single (20th century) wp:rs that makes them identified as Chams, placing them again here (as Balk. did twice before) isn't a good idea. I've removed some red links of deleted or non-existent articles, as well as the Dance of Zalongo: apart from an offline source [[5]] we can't verify that this is part of the Cham tradition, editor has been informed about the possible removal.Alexikoua (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately I was blindly reverted, always for the usual reasons.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's pov is you labeling as unexplained additions BW's edits(and you were reverted because you make edits without verifying your claims). You're claiming that there are no 20th century sources but this is a 20th century and reliable source[6]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to get involved in your dispute but don't you think that before making any changes you should at least check for sources? There's no deadline so take your time and try reaching a consensus.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The typical disruption: As I see you still have to explain why you restored the Dance of Zalongo, ignoring the diffs about the past discussion with Balkanian. Moreover, you still need to give at least one source that labels these persons as Chams (i.e. Markos Botsaris a Cham). Giving in general one of many theories that links the Souliotes with Albanian ethnicity means nothing (is this footnote that lacks inline the only you could find against a mountain of bibliography about Souliotes?).

Moreover I suggest you use non-pro Albanian authors to support your arguments. My edits are in agreement with the mainstream bibliography. As I've see even Albanian authors of the 18th-19th century clearly distinguish Souliotes from Tsamides, so I don't see a real problem to distinguish them here.Alexikoua (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Souliotes now have their own template. There is no need to include them here, especially when the only source that explicitly includes them amongst the Chams is from the 19th century. Athenean (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict)That's Pettifer and Nazarko, they have co-written the book and Nazarko is a distinguished professor and analyst, so were I you I wouldn't raise any reliability issues. Nonetheless if that causes such a large dispute and if the rest agree we could just link from this template an entry (titled Souliotes or something similar) to the Souliotes template--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The specific section is written by Petiffer and neutrality issues are not raised by me [[7]]. If a specific author is the only one that adopts a view not accepted by mainstream bibliography it's better to treat him with caution. This is not about how we like it, but how mainstream bibliography treats these issues.Alexikoua (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is all irrelevant, we are talking about a template here. The mere fact that this template is already quite bloated, and that the Souliotes have their own template is all that matters. Athenean (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you are done, Athenean, I'll propose to merge them to the Arvanites template, unless the Suliotes template is pretty large of course. --Sulmues Let's talk 05:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good luck with that. Athenean (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ioannina[edit]

I don't understand what do you mean when you are writing Although not part of Chameria region, Ioannina used to be a cultural center of Cham Albanians and a place where a considerable number of them lived.

Wholeheartedly agree. The template needs a general cleanup, as it is bloated with several irrelevant entries. Athenean (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed: a) articles about medieval events or personalities that have nothing to do with the Chams, b) individuals not closely associated with the Chams (e.g. Katerina Botsari) that are moreover part of Template:Souliotes, c) Ioannian and Parga, settlements not associated with Chams and whose articles make no mention of the whatsoever. Not sure if we need Chicago, Izmir, Boston et al., as they also make no mention whatsoever of the Chams, however, I will leave them for now. Athenean (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

id too be interested to see the connection between chams and parga..i thought that it actually was a greekspeaking town (unlike eg Gogozotos birthplace rapeza a bit to the north which was albanianspeaking..) amidst the albanianspeaking territory..87.202.19.161 (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

im also not sure about mentioning preveza (the town i mean) and even louros-thesprotiko since the chams lived a bit northeast of that area..87.202.19.161 (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that some Cham Albanians lived in Preveza, pe Dino family,but i don't know the specific number. 79.107.170.146 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Pavlos1988 (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed Louros and Thesprotiko since we all agree on that, and I also removed Fanari and Preveza, since I've never heard of any Chams living there in significant numbers. Athenean (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wasn't able to find anything about Chams there in the literature, so I removed them, though I left Preveza for now. Seems like someone had re-added them without any discussion whatsoever. Also removed Gjin Bua Shpata, I have never seen *any* source refer to him as a "Cham" (and doubt I ever will). Athenean (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should have searched for Lulov-a/o/e/ë regarding Thesprotiko, Lur-ë/a/o regarding Louros as for Fanari/Frari on google books there are many references. Btw I'm readding Ioannina because it had a substantial Albanian population, it was one of the two centres of the League of Prizren in the southernmost part of the League's claimed territory, historically it has been related to Cham Albanians(among other people that lived in the town) and there was no consensus to remove it.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You didn't answer about Ioannina;many Albanians lived in Ioannina,most of them because of studies or job(I mentioned some of them before) but as I know,no one of them was Cham (Ali pasha,Frasheris,Essad pasha,Gjata,Ali Aslani,Kristoforidhi). Pavlos1988 (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruption by Zjarri[edit]

The specific revert has a completely wrong edit summary [[8]] (as per Fut. Perfect? lol very funny) and is the definition of 'blind revert'. The specific towns that Zjarri re-added were inhabited by Orthodox population and as per sources (Hart, Kretsi) were were rarely or never identified as Chams. Of course something that's 'very rarely' doesn't deserve to be mentioned on a template.

What's really childish on this issue is that Balkanian has apologized in the past about insisting on this[[9]].Alexikoua (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted you per this edit of FutureP I found in the Cham Albanians history page [10]. The summary of that revert is my reply to your only-Muslims definition.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexi, could you please leave asside these npa violations childish??? We've been around for a long time to keep insulting each other. If BW doesn't know something, that doesn't mean someone else can't enter it in wikipedia. --Sulmues Let's talk 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Sulmues I would appreciate if you avoid npa vios this time) Since something that's 'very rarely' isn't the rule, in case it should stay we have to create a footnote and inform that they were 'very rarely' mentioned as such. I'll make the appropriate addition the following minutes.Alexikoua (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexi, I pointed to the fact that you called someone's actions childish, so please don't turn the accusation around. --Sulmues Let's talk 20:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

someone needs to source thesprotiko and louros since ive always seen them as being non cham...one source in teh cham albanians page was used erroneously so i removed it (it said '# Prévéza: dans la partie du département de Prévéza limitrophe de la Thesprotie (Prévézaniko) et dans quelques villages au nord de Thesprotiko' how 'au nord de Thesprotiko' became 'including Thesprotiko' i dont know)..can someone tell us what xhufi says?87.202.37.26 (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not surprised. The reason the sourcing is confusing is because the editor responsible for Cham Albanians is a master falsifier of sources. He searches google by keyword search, finds anything that will fit his preconceived notions, and then writes ό,τι του κατέβει. He also makes sure to use offline sources as much as possible, for obvious reasons. Given this situation, anything that cannot be verified can be safely removed. Athenean (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sulmues: If someone apologize and then continues to edit like nothing happened then this is childish.Alexikoua (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the typical fashion of disruption we have another revert performed [[11]], as already stated the towns of Louros, Fanari, Thesprotiko were inhabited by Orthodox communities [[12]]. Mysteriously the same editor that performed the revert was previously aware that these settlements were inhabited by such communiteis [[13]].Alexikoua (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You removed Kastriot too in that edit so I used FutureP's edit summary. Xhufi states that there were also Orthodox Cham Albanian villages in Preveza. You don't have any sources that verify that Lurë and the other villages except for Kastriot were Orthodox while I do have sources about their religion. Btw the president of the Albanian club of Lura(Bashkimi) was named Riza Murteza, while the other members of the its central committee were named Abdullah Imami, Fuat Frasheri, Husejn Zuhdiu, Izet Musliu and Ramiz Efendiu. I have whole lists with members of these organizations in all these villages so Alexikoua don't try to refute my arguments with speculations and sources you don't have.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ioannina was *never* part of "Chameria" and you know this full well (and of course no sources ever include it as part of "Chemeria"). Placing it in the template is simply misinformation and OR. Athenean (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This template is "Cham Albanians" so it doesn't have to be Chameria to be included in the template. As for the relevance of its placement: the first non-Turkish newspaper of the town was Zgjim i Shqiperise so the verdict is on that fact.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your OR interests no one, and me least of all. Athenean (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Athenean please be more careful. I reverted you, because Cham Albanians lived in Ioannina. As a matter of fact you have within "Northern Epirotes" template settlements that are NOT part of Northern Epirus. Why would you want to use a double standard? --Sulmues (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing more than orguments to create disruption. Of course, noone cares about ulranationalists organization lists someone possess.Alexikoua (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They were as ultranationalist as all the other national organizations anywhere have been and btw that was made to give you a hint regarding the religious affiliation of Lura.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the very minimum, Ioannina should be moved from "Chameria" to "Other", since Chams lived there but it was never part of "Chameria". Athenean (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I moved it from "Chameria" to "Other", seeing how no one objected. Athenean (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

we need a specific comment by xhufi...the french source balkanians word added to the cham albanians article mentions NORTH of thesprotiko which agrees with what ive seen also preveza even if some cham albanians lived there wasnt a part of 'chameria' so i moved it to other87.202.23.90 (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preveza is part of Chameria while Ioannina isn't.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 06:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ioannina of course isnt but please show me a source that considers the town of preveza as belonging to chameria...?87.202.4.223 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[14] Btw Fischer includes Ioannina too in Chameria. Lelova(Thesprotiko) and Lura(Louros):[15] the results of the last Ottoman consensus, it states that the town of Lura was exclusively inhabited by Albanian and the kaza of Lura had a small minority of Jews and Vlachs without property, while the 7 villages of Lelova were also exlucisvely inhabited by Albanians. I'll add the sources in the articles and then make the changes in the template.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record: the Ottoman cencus was exclusively based on religion. This conclusion (where does it say that it is an Ottoman census?) is just unhistorical.Alexikoua (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that I made the mistake of interpreting the terms kaza as part of the Ottoman census. The source is very reliable though.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A source based on a non-existent Ottoman ethnic census... I don't thing so.Alexikoua (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was my mistake interpretation that I admitted while the source doesn't state that, so since it's RS I'll proceed according the policy.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to answer where these numbers are based, there is no primary at all?Alexikoua (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naska's numbers are based on the Central Archives of Albania. --Sulmues (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not able to know that but Naska is rs and cited by many other scholars like Kretsi [16]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I see Kretsi doesn't confirm this number, and in fact I doubt if there is a mainstream source that confirms this (by the way if Kretsi took some specific data from her this doesn't mean that every word of her should be believed).15:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Kretsi doesn't have to write a book similar to Naska's and Naska is rs.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noticed that (according to the same 'really weird' argument) she also finds rs the AYE archives during the Metaxas regime (1936-1940). Since Kretsi doesn't present Naska's number we have no reason to assume that she believes it.Alexikoua (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(unindent)Alexikoua when someone cites another person's work they don't copy/paste the entire content of that book so your OR deduction is a WP:LAWYER argument. Naska is also cited by [17] Südost-Institut München, one of the top research institutions of Europe regarding the Balkans.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then we should believe the entirety of the AYE archives during 1936-1940 too, since she cites them together with the source you like.Alexikoua (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it says 'districts' do you actually think that 'chameria' included the WHOLE DISTRICTS of ioannina and preveza so in the end it included ALL greek epirus outside arta??? no it included only parts of the DISTRICTS of ioannina and preveza hence NOT THE TOWNS (per every other source i see) so its worthless to your argument87.202.4.223 (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fischer is very reliable source and your OR deduction is at least a logical fallacy(of course districts include towns).--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ugh...you didnt answer my question do you think 'chameria' included the WHOLE DISTRICTS of Ioannina and Preveza?? so i know what i have to deal with here...in the end no both towns of preveza and ioannina were out of 'chameria' until you find a source stating otherwise...im happy to be corrected and consider the sources ive seen only one point of view...fischer doesnt do so87.202.4.223 (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

87. whether Fischer is RS is an issue of WP:RS not of subjective deduction.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i note your inability to answer my points and instead answering with something irrelevant..87.202.4.223 (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zjarri: let me remind you that [18] Südost-Institut München, cites also the 'Balkan Studies' journal. Let me remind you that you were completely against this journal launching an endless campaign of sarcasm and irony against it.Alexikoua (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A publication by the Macedonian Studies team didn't meet RS not the Balkan Studies in general. Alexikoua probably doesn't know that the Balkans Studies hasn't been always published by the Macedonian Studies team(which was replaced recently I think).--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should read what wp:rs means, at least credible professors [[19]][[20]] [[21]] are considered rs for sure, something that works based on non-existent primaries are not (for example pretending that there was an Ottoman census based on ethnicity). This kind of nationalist advocating is really disruptive.

About the so-called Macedonian Studies, seems you are completely wrong [[22]], since 1974 the 'Institute for Balkan Studies' is a completely independent institution under the supervision of the Greek ministry of Culture.Alexikoua (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Ruci Cham???[edit]

Since when someone who was born in Argyrokastro/Gjirokastër region is considered as Cham? Pavlos1988 (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prevez[edit]

Preveza is part of Chameria. The southern part. Dino family, perhaps the most prominent of the Chams, was from Preveza. Ali Dino, member of the Greek Parliament.[23]

Also, a good explanation of Preveza, Sanjak of Preveza, etc. in the context of Chameria and Cham Albanians.[24]
....This is a kasaba in the southern Albanin to the west of Arta. It is situate in the Vilayet of Janina and is a sandjak of the same name and centre of Chameria. - Kamus al-a'lam - Ottoman Turkish Dictionary of 1889. - Published by Robert Elsie.

Also, simply "Stillborn Republic: Social Coalitions and Party Strategies in Greece, 1922-1936" - By George Th Mavrogordatos. [25]
quoting: Party of Chamouria received 1539 votes in the districts of Ioannina and Preveza....

Both sources deal either with the kaza or the regional unit. Indeed the Albanian pocket of Chameria included some villages of this region. As for the Dino clan they originated from Filiates and came as settlers after the destruction of the city by Ali Pasha in late 18th century. Thus, as per long established consensus the city of Preveza should stay in the 'other' section of settlements. Alexikoua (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source does not deal with the kazaa or the regional unit. The Ottoman dictionary mentions it as part of Chameria region. Take few minutes to read it first.
Mondiad (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure it's a well known text by ta representative of the Albanian national movement S. Frasheri, & that time an Ottoman official. In fact it's the main text about the Albanian thesis for Epirus. It's hard to believe that this makes something close to neutrality, even the title falls into the definition of POV ("The martyrdom of a people").Alexikoua (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an Ottoman Encyclopedia and has nothing to do with the Albanian thesis. Kamus al-a'lam was a voluminous work, and Frasheri was not the only contributor. The fact that Elsie is citing it straight from the original means something. Or you going to accuse Elsie too? Mondiad (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And "The martyrdom of a people" is the title of the chapter chosen by the editors, not from Kamus al-a'lam. Anyway, it is more NPV than "Epirus, 4000 years of Greek History" of Sakellaris. Mondiad (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I admit that's a weird approach "The martyrdom of a people" more pov than "Epirus, 4000 years of Greek History". Indeed Greek history in Epirus stretches from the Neolithic, but "the martyrdom of Albanians" is too childish for this encyclopedia.Alexikoua (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For "Greek history in Epirus" read the geography of Strabo, not Sakellari. But I am sure you have already read Strabo. Mondiad (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The authors can name the chapter as they want, this doesn't reflect the primary source. Keep in mind, we are not defining the borders here. We are just naming towns where the population known as Cham used or still lives.Mondiad (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Secondary and mainstream bibliography may support your arguments. The idea to limit your reference to a 19th century Ottoman dictionary isn't the most powerfull kind of sources.Alexikoua (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parga[edit]

The nahiye of Parga includes the central part of the plain of Chameria....The people here are Muslim Albanians with some Christian Albanians and Greeks.[26]. Kamus al-a'lam - Ottoman Turkish Dictionary of 1889. - Published by Robert Elsie. Mondiad (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I've said this is the definition of wp:POV, what about you finally accept wp:HISTRS after years of contribution here?Alexikoua (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even Sakellari mentions Parga, and even more: "the Chams -Muslim Albanians who lived in Greek Thesprotia, mostly in Philiates, Hegoumenit- sa, Paramythia, Margariti, and Parga...". 15:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed you have proved per wp:histrs that the region of Parga housed members of this community. By the way the specific chapter of this collective work is written by B. Kondis.Alexikoua (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template placing and settlements of post 1945 presence or no presence at all[edit]

I guess Iaof needs to explain why this templatate should be added in Ioannina, Tirana and other places which are not among the pre 1945 settlements of Cham presence (or even Boston, NYC).Alexikoua (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilentResident, Maleschreiber, and Iaof2017: You should come and discuss the issue here, and not on various user talk pages (1, 2, 3). WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is a guideline that should be followed until there is an explicit consensus not to follow it. Whether certain items should be included in the template or not is on you do discuss and agree. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL should be followed and we can have a discussion with @Alexikoua: about Himara, I can agree that it shouldn't be included as it wasn't an area of refugees after 1945. But the articles from which SilentResident has removed the template are all "pre-1945" settlements.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vanjagenije: why the Ping??? They already added again the template [27][28][29][30][31] without trying to discuss it first and without trying to work on reaching a wp:consensus! Templates are NOT supposed to be added by force, through edit warring, threats, and by ignoring the necessity for a consensus! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't group editors based on their ethnicity. These articles already mention extensively Cham Albanians and Albanian presence in those settlements up to the first half of the 20th century. Any discussion presupposes that there is a dispute based on two different, but somewhat equally plausible interpretations of the same guidelines. What you're asking is for everyone to ignore the fact that Filiates and many other articles discuss Cham Albanians extensively and then get into a debate with you. A debate involves competing sources, not opinions vs. sources. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There hasn't been a Cham presence in any of these settlements for over 75 years. I am willing to make an exception for places like Filiates and Parapotamos, which had large Cham presence and whose respective articles mentions Chams, but for places like Parga and Igoumenitsa, which were never primarily Cham settlements it is out of the question. Khirurg (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template doesn't imply a contemporary presence but a historical connection. There haven't been Greeks for almost a century in almost all of Anatolia, but the Greek names are on the lead. It's not wrong in my opinion because there is a historical presence which strongly existed until the very recent past - and bibliography documents it. We can take it one article at a time for those which are disputed, but for Parga which I'm checking now, there are plenty of sources that verify a historical, substantial and significant presence. That presence doesn't imply that other groups had no significant presence as well in their respective communities. There's no mutually exclusive implication. Side comment: Most of the sources which I've found are from the 2010s by Greek authors or collaborations by Greek and Albanian authors who examined their subject in a very nuanced way. It shows a high level of academic maturity and movement beyond nationalist narratives. I think that a citizen science environment can achieve the same level of academic maturity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These articles already mention extensively Cham Albanians and Albanian presence in those settlements up to the first half of the 20th century. So why are you trying to add the template "Cham Albanians" to cities where Cham Albanians do not live today? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template doesn't have that function or implication - just like many other templates about historical communities with a significant and documented presence.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if they dont have, still I am very reluctant to go down this path and start using ethnic templates in articles of cities where these groups have absolutely no whatsoever presence anymore. The point remains: Iaof and Maleschreiber are trying to add an ethnic template to cities where no Cham Albanians live at all and their last recorded presence was prior to their expulsion to Albania 66 years ago. If we go with this flawed logic Maleschreiber has used, then perhaps we should also start adding Ottoman navigation templates on every Albanian and Greek city that had Ottoman presence 100 years ago as well. Why not? Or the Greek template to Turkish articles such as Istanbul and Izmir too. Or the Serbian template to every Kosovarian city article because Serbians used to live there not in the very distant past unlike Cham Albanians. Or even Vlach, Aromanian and Roma templates to every Balkan city article. And why not, Northern Epirus template on every Southern Albanian town (even in Albanian cities where no Northern Epirotes do live anymore). Or the Dutch template to New York City and Spanish Template to Los Angeles and San Francisco. Just this is not how Templates are meant to be used in Wikipedia. Such approaches, dont get me wrong, but are nationalist. And I vehemently oppose nationalist approaches to Wikipedia's articles. They are disturbing if not disgusting. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Khirurg offered a compromise to let this template be used for a handful of towns such as Filiates and Parapotamos where the Cham Presence was very strong. Still what guarantees us that future editors may not use this as an argument and start inserting the template on EVERY city, even Preveza, Parga, Paramythia and Igoumenitsa? It is not the first time someone has tried. It happened already. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its really really hard to come to an appropriate solution and further lead a discussion, especially when it comes to discussions between users, who continuously contribute to articles of different topics, and users, who set oneself to revert everything and always try to interrupt improvements. Its also noticeable because such "actions" comes only from user who try to hide something. In any case, a kind reminder to the same users who feel involved, numerous proposals has been made in the past for improvements related to the Northern Epirus article, which also has a large number of POV issues. Nothing has changed yet. I totally agree with Maleschreiber, "the template doesn't imply a contemporary presence but a historical connection". Grettings--Lorik17 (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Map published by H Kiepert showing Parga to be inhabited solely by Greeks.

(unindent) Regarding Parga, it is highly debatable. Although the surrounding villages may have had an Albanian presence, the town of Parga itself was entirely Greek, as shown in Kiepert's map on the right. As for a nuanced discussion, the first step is to stop shouting in ALLCAPS [32]. Khirurg (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't mind letting the template stay for Parapotamos and Filiates which everyone seems to agree for being historically well-known for their strong presence of Cham Albanians. Under the condition that the template's use is limited to just this handful number of towns and is solely used for historical purposes instead of *marking* every town and village for having Chams living in them at some point in the past. if Iaof and Maleschreiber really mean it when they state that "the template doesn't imply a contemporary presence but a historical connection", then they should not insist on adding it anywhere, even cities and towns such as Igoumenitsa, Parga and Preveza. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In term of historical connection the template is justified in Konispol, Filiates, Parakalamos and maybe even Paramythia. Iaof's view about Tirana, Ioannina or other post WWII areas of settlement, Himara, or even NYC can't be reasonable.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bibliography is one thing, Maleschreiber. However, if we start usin the template anywhere, even to articles with the slightest recorded presence of a group, then it isn't about "historic connection" but about marking "presence" (past or contemporary, doesnt matter) and that's why I am opposing it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Former minorties such as Chams and Greeks in Turkey should have such templates, as their identity is important in the respective national consciousness Nope. Wikipedia is a project with a large number of articles and uses navigational templates for navigational purposes groupping links used in multiple related articles to facilitate easier navigation between them because they relate to a single, coherent subject. Besides referring to a signle coherent subject, the articles should also refer to each other reasonably. This ain't true in the case of the Cham template for contemporary Greek cities, nor in the case of a supposed Greek template for Turkish cities. Also, the use of the Greek template to connect ("connect" may be subjective; to some editors, especially from the contentious Balkan topic area it may unavoidingly be seen as "advocating" or "promoting") ethnic groups of the past, denote past presence, highlight politics of the past, and reasons relating to national consciousness, etc, is not recommended for Turkish cities and hence you aren't seeing anyone using a Greek template in the articles of the contemporary Turkish cities of Istanbul, Izmir, Antakya, Sinop and Trabzon, all of which served as centers of the Greek civilization, Greeks were documented to have once lived in them, and some are, to this day, important Patriarchal Sees of the Greek Orthodox Church. That is because navigational templates created for historical purposes, are meant to be used mainly on historical articles, not contemporary Turkish city articles which otherwise would unintentedly give them nationalist/flag bearing characteristics, which is what we should avoid in Wikipedia. So, if you want to avoid double standards here, the same rationale should be followed in the case of the Cham Template and articles dedicated to the contemporary Greek cities. If you really want these cities such as Paramythia and Parga, or even Igoumenitsa, Preveza and Ioannina to be mentioned due to their past importance to the Chams and their significance to the Cham identity and respective national consciousness, this can be done by mentioning these cities in a historical context, in historical articles whose the coherent subject are the Chams who used to live historically in them. I vehemently oppose, for these (and many other) reasons, to the use of navigational templates like how it was done these days, by placing them anywhere and on almost every city article, even ones (such as Ioannina) which are not listed in the template's "settlement" section. This just isn't the way to go. Edit warring to have them stay, and pointing to Northern Epirus as an argument, not only worsens things but also gives wrong impressions to the other editors. If you really do care about following Wikipedia's best practices, then you should emphasize on expanding historical articles whose the Cham Albanians are the single coherent subject instead of adding a Cham template on every Greek city article they do not live at anymore. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 05:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From all the comments so far, I see an emerging consensus that can work for all. The template can be added in settlement articles about the historical community (like Filiates and Paramythia), but not in articles which were not pivotally related to the community (Ioannina) or which their presence is post-1945/minor (Himara). I'm sure that we will have plenty of time in the following months to discuss about disputed cases.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I shall bear to everyone's attention that templates arent... toys to come and go from articles. Nor can the edit wars, pointing to certain rules, using whatever arguments, or pointing to the availability of sourced info, or former presence of minority, stand as valid reasons for adding a template somewhere if there is not ultimately a wp:consensus for it. This is clear, I hope. It is ultimately the consensus among the editors which determines if a template may be used or not somewhere. But given the nature of the Balkan topic area, a debated template cannot be adequately resolved just by reaching a minimal consensus. For an everlasting solution to this, a clear and solid consensus is a must. Only this can eliminate possible risks for future debates, edit warring, IPs disruption, etc, and help us avoid exhausing and endless discussions like how it happened in many other Balkan topic areas. Greece's articles usually managed to escape this kind of Balkan disruption and toxic environment thus far, and I hope everyone here will do their best so that doesn't change for the worse. I saw it happening before in Balkan topic areas, where articles previously not the center of heavy debates, were turned into battlegrounds and that's why I am very cautious here. And yes, I wish we avoided alltogether the use of ethnic templates for contemporary Greek town articles, but it seems that there is a solid consensus for some of them among you, and I have no option but to respect it. But I won't hide my frustration about that. If I am not mistaken, so far:
A solid consensus was achieved for Filiates, Parapotamos and Paramythia and thus, the template can be used in these articles,
No solid consensus was achieved for Igoumenitsa, Ioannina and Preveza and thus, the template cannot be used in those articles,
About the rest of the settlements, editors may clarify their positions and/or discusss it. While the discussion is ongoing but no solid consensus has been reached, the template cannot be used in them.
Personally, I would like for the editors to make up their minds (it is not too late!) and reverse their new consensus for Filiates, Parapotamos, Paramythia, to avoid double standards. Editors are ought to see how it was done elsewhere (i.e Turkish cities) and limit the template's use (if it has really to be used) to just the historical articles. Anything else is just bound to cause problems. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 05:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modern Sagiada was built after WWII because the earlier settlement was burnt to the ground by Nazi Germans and their collaborations (members of the specific community). That's not a reason for addition.Alexikoua (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is about Sagiada regardless of present location. Most of the articles in which you have added the NE tag never existed before 1913 too. I've added Sagiada to the template, also Igoumenitsa is a central part of the region.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's more complicated than that. And we can't have behavior like this [33]. If Igoumenitsa is "central", Korce is even more so. And it has been part of that template for years. These discussions are not isolated. We can't have unilateral additions to templates, but at the same time removals of templates from articles that have been in the template for years. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Khirurg, thanks for the revert. If Maleschreiber attempts again edits without consensus, I will inform the admins. The editor should be banned from editing any articles in the Epirus topic area. His breaches of wp:consensus are numerous. Also, I urgently call for your reconsideration of your position to consent to the template being used for any Greek settlements at all. The attempted additions to Ioannina and Sagiada, both of which are outside of the template's purpoted scope, confirm that the template's role (at least the way Maleschreiber and Iaof are using it) is to mark the minority's past presence instead of actually using the template in a historical context. In simple words: a nationalist flagbearer instead of a navbox. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Katavothra is a village (contrary to the rest to the articles that are about towns/municipalities). By the way I can't see a similar policy in Asia Minor Greeks.Alexikoua (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sagiada is also a village, it is within the region of Chameria and much of the article has to do with Cham Albanians. On what grounds do you justify that it should not be part of the template? --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only a tiny proportion of the article mentions something about Cham Albanians and this is questionable (it refers to the region of Sagiada which might be irrelevant to the town). Kretsi is clear when declaring that this was a Greek town during the time of its WWII destruction. Alexikoua (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much of the article is about Cham Albanians and the only thing required for the template is a significant, historical and geographical Cham Albanian presence. Kretsi says "Greek town" which you translated as "inhabited primarily by Greeks". The closest thing to what you claim that I've found is that it had an Orthodox majority, but that changes nothing about the context of this template. We can debate articles like Parga, but we can't have a debate about every Orthodox village within the Cham region. The readers have a lot to learn by the inclusion of the article because it actively discusses the Cham Albanian community.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is virtually nothing about Cham Albanians instead of one sentence (In the late 18th era, Sagiada (in Albanian, Sajadha) was a small port in the northern parts of the territories of the Cham Albanians that's all).Alexikoua (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the article mentions Albanian presence in this village. It can't be argued that because the source about 15?? doesn't specifically mention the term "Cham Albanian" but just "Albanian", the template shouldn't be used. You're relying on technicalities. First you argued that "it's not the same village", now you argue that the template can't include this settlement unless every source that mentions "Albanians" in Sagiada also mentions "Cham Albanians" in Sagiada, a term which simply refers to the same community within a specific context. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I refuted your claim that "most of the article discusses Cham Albanian presence". It definitely doesn't. If you mean a 10 years long occupation in 14th century then I have to say that this is not a strong presence. Pardon me but that's all I see.Alexikoua (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In 1566, Sagiada is described as small village with 30 households inhabited by Albanians (habitato puro de albanesi). The more this gets dragged on, the more sources will be added and more unreasonable its non-inclusion becomes. This small settlement has its own importance in the history of this community. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When behavior like this [35] goes on, it is very hard to assume good faith. In particular, I am very skeptical that any concessions here will be reciprocated at other articles. So, no consensus. Khirurg (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no analogy and both you and I know that. Alexikoua asking for a template on Korçë is the same as someone else asking the Cham template to be added south of Preveza. Korçë isn't even in historical Epirus. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good faith means a common baseline. If the goal post is moved past even beyond what modern Greek scholars consider a mainstream definition of the CA settlement area, then where's the common baseline? If I have to argue about Sagiada (a settlement of Filiates) that Modern Greek scholars tend to differentiate between different groups of Cams, so that the Epirus coast stretching from the Albanian border north of the old Ottoman port of Sagiada down to Preveza is acknowledged as Cam and the replies include "Ok, but the present-day village is a few hundred m closer to the coast", what sort of common baseline are we discussing about? Where's the baseline when CA has went through a cleanup, but the NE template claims that there's a Greek community in Shkodër and Tepelenë? Nobody wants to have a prolonged discussion about templates which few people read and even fewer of those who read them believe what doesn't confirm their personal bias. But a middle ground has to mean an actual middle ground.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I can't see a description of Northern Epirus with Korce being excluded. Gjirokaster-Korce are the two main centers just like Paramythia-Filiates in the case of Chameria.Alexikoua (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kokkolakis whom you cited just a few minutes ago[36] doesn't even mention Korçë, neither as Greek, nor as Greek-speaking! --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same page (p.52): A few Greek families in Gjirokastër and Vlorë. Maybe we should remove Gjirokastër altogether from the NE template.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears you are a bit confused: Kokolakis' work is limited to the Vilayet of Iaonnina. See for example King, Russell; Mai, Nicola (2008). Out of Albania: From Crisis Migration to Social Inclusion in Italy. Berghahn Books. p. 32. ISBN 9781845455446. "Greek troops entered southern Albania, capturing Korce and Gjirokaster, centres of the Greek-speaking minority in Albania." Alexikoua (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He mentions Korçë many times - never in the context of it being a settlement with even a sizeable Greek community. Also, don't search for google quotes at random just so you can find some support about your opinion against what specialists in the field of historical demography have to say. I can do the same exact thing, but it's bad methodology: Korce has never been a centre of the ethnic Greek minority in Albania[37] --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a form of intellectual dishonesty known as WP:CHERRY. You are carefully cherry picking sources that confirm your POV, all the while ignoring those that don't. There is a world of sources linking Korce to Northern Epirus. It was part of the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus. It was even part of Greece for a few years. To deny that, is to deny reality. On the other hand, you were shown a source that showed that Sagiada was predominantly Greek. The only connection to Cham Albanians as far as I can tell is that they burned it to the ground (as they did to many towns in "Chameria"). Why would they do that to their own town? Because it wasn't. Khirurg (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:CHERRY means that Alexikoua can't use Kokkolakis on Sagiada and then ignore him on Korçë. WP:CHERRY also means that because you found one source that says Greek-speaking, it doesn't change the fact that Modern Greek scholars tend to differentiate between different groups of Cams, so that the Epirus coast stretching from the Albanian border north of the old Ottoman port of Sagiada down to Preveza is acknowledged as Cam or every source that historically mentions it as a village inhabited by Albanians. It was a Cham Orthodox region and part of the village was burnt by the German army because it was a resistance hotspot. Greek collaborators also burnt Greek towns throughout Greece, Serb Chetniks burnt Serb towns, the Ustasha massacred Croat partisans. Communities are more divided in class terms than in terms of ethnicity. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except the Chams were collaborators, not partisans. And there are other Greek towns and villages that they burned. Don't worry, that will be added to the encyclopedia in due time. You haven't found a single source that labels Sagiada as Cham, you rely on sources that speak vaguely of the whole region, and take that to imply that entire coast of Epirus was 100% Cham. That's a very essentialist view. Not "nuanced" at all. And you are trying to downplay a high quality academic source (Kretsi) that clearly describes Sagiada as Greek (not "Greek speaking" as you falsely claim - and by the way the Chams were Albanian speaking, not Greek speaking, so there's that too). Khirurg (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And there were also Cham partisans. Most massacres against Greeks in Greece in the Balkans were committed by other Greeks for political reasons. It's not different from what happened within other communities including the Chams. I'm accepting every source but I'm also giving it due weight - do an overview of the bibliography. From Malcolm (2020) about the history of the village to the newer quotes. The village wasn't inhabited by Albanians until 1912 and then overnight became Greek. A part of the population gradually moved to another identity for many different reasons. It wasn't replaced by another population. That's nuance. But if within the context of that nuance you can't accept the template for that village, then where's the middle ground? --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maleschreiber, the middle ground is to use Cham Albanian template only for locations that are still inhabited by Cham Albanians, like how the Northern Epirus template is used in articles where the Northern Epirotes still live. Not the other way around. Either you use the template in a historical context, either you limit its use for settlements still inhabited by them, such as Konispol. To use a template about a community on Sagiada, Preveza, etc, while there is no whatsoever Cham community remaining, only serves to frame and highlight a particular ethnic group that at one point may/confirmed to have lived there, is just a gross nationalist flag bearing attempt. Nothing less. Which, mind you, this is NOT how we got things done for the other Greek city articles where Bulgarians, or Aromanians, or Macedonians, or Turks lived. Or even city articles of other countries, such as Turkish, Bulgarian or Macedonian cities where Greeks may have lived at some point or still live. If you look around, you will notice that we have avoided using templates this way you are trying now to do so with the Cham Template. If you really are here to improve Wikipedia and cooperate with us, then follow the same practices we follow too. I am not participant in the Albanian city articles, as my Wikipedia area of geopolitical interest is more eastwards, not towards Albania and Italy, but towards North Macedonia and Turkey, however I can't help but ask everyone to stop this template madness and that is, not only on Greek city articles, but also on the Albanian city articles, since everyone is pointing to them. You ought to follow the same practices as elsewhere. Double standards are not helpful! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maleschreiber: Nah, you got nothing. Did the Chams burn Filiates and Margariti too? No, they didn't. Because those were Cham settlements. I'm pretty sure you've ransacked the internet by now, but still not a single source stating that it was a Cham settlement. Only some snippets about 500 years ago. On the other hand, several sources show you that it was a predominantly Greek settlement. Khirurg (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general I fail to see a similar case in wikipedia: a template of a specific community being added in several settlements where the community once formed a minority.Alexikoua (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears I'm fully correct no similar template exists i.e. about former community that once existed in specific settlement. I can't see a valid arguments for addition here.Alexikoua (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories