Talk:Cham Albanian collaboration with the Axis

A couple of points
First, I'd propose that this article be renamed to "Collaboration of the Cham Albanians with the Axis occupation", in line with Expulsion of the Cham Albanians. Second, in the Background section, in the sentence "Prior to the outbreak of World War II, 28 villages in the region were inhabited exclusively by Muslim Chams, and an additional 20 villages had mixed populations", it is not clear if the mixed pop. is Greek and Albanian or Muslim Cham and Orthodox Cham. --Athenean (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Axis-Cham Albanian collaboration
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Axis-Cham Albanian collaboration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kresti": From IV "Ali Demi" battalion: Kresti, Georgia. Verfolgung und Gedächtnis in Albanien: Eine Analyse postsozialistischer Erinnerungsstrategien, ISBN 3447055448. From Cham Albanians:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Axis-Cham Albanian collaboration
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Axis-Cham Albanian collaboration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kretsi": From Këshilla: Kretsi, Georgia.The Secret Past of the Greek-Albanian Borderlands. Cham Muslim Albanians: Perspectives on a Conflict "Albanian political administration called ‘Këshilla’ was founded in 1942, and after 1943 it was completed with its own armed forces as well as a gendarmerie" From Cham Albanians: Kretsi, Georgia.Verfolgung und Gedächtnis in Albanien. Harrassowitz, 2007. ISBN 9783447055444, p. 283. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Reason why Robert Elsie needs to be in there
Alexikoua, you deletion is problematic. Wikipedia policy regarding primary sources states the following:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, 'primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.'[4] '''Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.''' Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

I have taken that into account.One i did not use Robert Elsie within the article content itself, hence i have not attempted to "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material" and so on. I placed the book in the Further Reading section. I fail to see how that is violating the terms or spirit of the above policy. The Robert Elsie book is of importance for the reader if they so wish to read and consult more about these matters for themselves. Other Wikipedia articles have similar things by placing links to such material. Two fine examples on wikipedia are the articles on The Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. Regarding the first, its further reading section is titled over there as External links while the other has much material in the Bibliography section (in particular the Survivors' testimonies and memory section and External links too. It contains links to archives to a multitude of primary source material (and there are many more examples on Wikipedia). I don't see how that is violating the terms of the policy. Otherwise they too would have too remove it as it is primary sources. Robert Elsie's book is a compilation of documents that contain material relating to the era and to this subject matter. As the Wikipedia policy states, as long as primary source material is not used outright within the content of the article, or that diligence is taken into account within the content of the article when used, it can be there. But i did not use it within the content of the article, it was outside its scope. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this per the policy? Resnjari (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This collection of primary papers was not deleted but moved to the appropriate section, since it's not used in the present version as inlince reference. Needless to say again that there should be made use of it with great precaution per wp:primary.Alexikoua (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Outbreak of civil conflict
Though I'm not against an inclusion of this part however the specific addition is full of close paraphrasing issues (Tsoutsoumpis). There are also serious issues with the chronological sequence since the previous section ends up with the Italian occupation, then we go back from 1943 to 1940. I'm going to check this line by line and make the necessary correction but the way it was written needs urgent action.Alexikoua (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be watching your "corrections". We'll see what result emerges.Resnjari (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the section in question about the Oct-Nov 1940 occupation needs to be incorporated to 'Italian occupation'.Alexikoua (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought I had pinged you two and SR and Ktrimi, and proposed making this a separate topic/page. Well it seems I didn't. Maybe I'm an early senile who knows. --Calthinus (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Separate treatment (section or page) because unified coverage is necessary to present the breakdown of society that occurred from 1940 to 1943 -- and if you dismember it, this is emphatically lost. Issues with Tsoutsoumpis reliance are valid -- I actually expected to cite bomb with Baltsiotis. --Calthinus (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not at the moment. Working on something else relating to further north in the Balkans. On this I was waiting to see what you would say . They were after all your additions. Its tricky this one. Unified coverage is warranted to give the reader the perspective of communal breakdown that occurred between Orthodox Albanian speakers (or Greeks, as they were by then after 1912) and Muslim Albanians in the area. There is also the angle of having that info split into two mini sections within both the Italian and German sections and titled as such about the communal and interfaith relations.Resnjari (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I notice that Tsoutsoumpis refers to this issue in the context of both expulsion and collaboration. Calthinus' proposal for a separate section of that kind should be extended in the expulsion article too.Alexikoua (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Separate subsections appears a possible scenario.Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Its tricky this, as various events intercede into one another at certain points. Not sure at the moment which way would make the article be structurally navigable. I'll wait to see what suggests.Resnjari (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well... Tsoutsoumpis doesn't deal with the social breakdown in a unified way but puts it in the wider historical WWII-era context in strict chronological order. Perhaps OR (i.e. we have no source dealing with this separately) is another fact that makes this tricky.Alexikoua (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't add this and seems to have a vision of how to structure this complex piece of info. I'll comment after there is a reply from @Calthinus.Resnjari (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well his entire piece is essentially on how society in Thesprotia broke down into people killing each other in ways influenced by religion and other factors, and how that led ultimately to the expulsion of most Muslims. It's really less about the collabbing itself -- hence why I thought it might be a separate topic. --Calthinus (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * -- awaiting your thoughts on keeping this all unified, in a separate section. Separate from Italian occupation or any other section on page. Or, just another page, but that's a thing I'm cautious about proposing.--Calthinus (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with such additions as long as they are presented in the appropriate sections. I assume that Tsoutsoumpis also avoids to take a unified approach too due to obvious structural issues this can create. Perhaps a paragraph in aftermatch may offer some general info on the social-ethnic etc. conflic, but should be written per wp:DUE.Alexikoua (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll present it to you guys on the tp here and then other sources I lack access to can be presented and incorporated?--Calthinus (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * sounds good.Resnjari (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on a questionable source
The book Meyer 2008 is cited heavily but it's not clear what makes this a reliable source given that the author is not a professional historian, nor is it published by an academic publisher. One also wonders why the article repeats "Muslim Chams" over and over when the common name for this ethnic group is Cham Albanians. Perhaps a better move for this topic would be to merge it into a broader article on Axis collaboration in Greece or something like that, so as to avoid the questionable focus on one ethnic group when in fact, plenty of ethnic Greeks also collaborated with the Axis. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * On the supposed fourth occupation: if this is really true, do Greek history textbooks mention three occupations or four of them? Should the Greek Wikipedia article on el:Κατοχή της Ελλάδας 1941-1944 be expanded to mention four occupations theory (currently only mentions three of them)? Frei's expertise is in German history, not Greek history, so why is his book an appropriate source for what Greek people supposedly think? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Meyer has written many books on the topic of the Axis occupation of Greece and the publisher also appears to be reputable. If it's still "not clear what makes it a reliable source", you are welcome to ask for an advisory opinion at WP:RSN. The topic is also very notable, with whole books have written on it. This particular collaboration has its own peculiarities and is notable in its own right. Nevertheless, if you feel it should be merged into another article, you are welcome to try your luck at AfD. Good luck! As for the "fourth occupation", I just want to know if you consider Greek history textbooks reliable sources from here on. A simple yer or no will suffice. Khirurg (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Meyer has published a mountain of works on the subject (WWII occupation in Greece). He is one of the best researchers on the field. Needless to say he is a top expert.Alexikoua (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They are reliable sources for the question of whether they call it four or three occupations, not necessarily for other information. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
 * You state, Meyer has published a mountain of works on the subject (WWII occupation in Greece). He is one of the best researchers on the field. Just publishing a work is not sufficient to make it reliable. If indeed he is one of the best researchers in the field, you surely must be able to point out favorable evaluations from other sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, I suggest that you refrain from making nonconstructive changes to sensitive topic areas such as these ones here where you have attempted to whitewash the collaboration with Nazis . The article has been subject to disputes in the past, and the current version is the result of consensus achieved with careful compromises, with the help of Administrators and Mediators. POV-pushing changes and whitewashing attempts such as this which go against the Consensus are disruptive and will be reverted and you will be reported to the Admins. If you seek to make changes, or have any problems with the content in the article, avoid further edits that may be seen as disruptive and use the talk page to discuss them instead and seek consensus for these changes you are trying to make. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 06:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe: It's up to you to explain why a top graded author on the field such as Meyer is not good enough. I'm sorry but so far this falls into wp:IDONTLIKEIT. By the way he has been accused as pro-Albanian & pro-leftist by a minority of scholars. Manta for example states that ALL Chams participated in collaboration activities (active-passive etc.). Alexikoua (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)