Talk:Cham Albanians/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I will be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

Lead
At first blush with out having read through the entire article here are my reactions to the lead:
 * Per WP:Lead the lead is supposed to be an introduction to the article and summarize all of the topics within the article. An article of this length can have up to four paragraphs.  Considering this, the lead is deficient and needs to be expanded.  I note that very little is mentioned about Cham history, language and traditions and nothing about organizations, demographics, and notable individuals.
 * The second sentence in the lead is a stub (one sentence) and should be expanded.
 * There is some copy editing to be done in the lead as well but since it needs to undergo a significant expansion I'll leave that until the above work is done. H1nkles (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added hard dashes to the info box in the lead. See WP:DASH regarding the usage of  hard dashes (–).  I haven't gone through the rest of the article to see if it is an issue throughout.  This is just a heads up.  H1nkles (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

 * Can the terms: "Thesprotia" and "Preveza" be wikilinked? I'm a big opponent of over linking but in situations where there is obscure geographical locations, it may help the reader to link to an article about these places.
 * Remove terms like "As such", they aren't really necessary and overburden the article with wordiness.
 * I don't think you need to link misnames, doesn't add much since it just links to a definition, which seem obvious. You may want to use the noun, misnomer instead, but that would require a rewrite of the sentence.
 * Per MOS:BOLD you should use italics rather than bold text for the various appellations. H1nkles (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Distribution

 * No need to wikilink to homeland, I removed the link.
 * You link to Ioannina here but not above, consider moving the link up to the first mention of it in the article and not linking it here.
 * "some sources" in the diaspora section is a little too vague and borders on weasel wording, it's best to specify the source or reword the sentence. H1nkles (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also the photo in this section has a clean up tag on the description. Please correct.  H1nkles (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

History

 * "Meanwhile Ottoman incursions increased, as they were occasionally called in support by despot Esau de' Buondelmonti of Ioannina." Called in support of what?  For what reason?
 * You have another hard dash issue here (1358–1434, 1367–1403).
 * "Cham Albanians played an important role in both the Greek War of Independence and in the National Renaissance of Albania.[2]" Is this explained in more detail later?  Otherwise this claim should be further explained here.  It seems to be coming out of no where since the context of the paragraph it is in is about the rule of the Ottomans.
 * Is there a reason "sanjaks" is not capitalized?
 * What are, "second order administrative divisions"? A little explanation here would be good.
 * This is awkward wording, "schools in Chameria, as elsewhere where Albanians lived" consider rewording to, "schools in Chameria, as in other Albanian provinces..."
 * This sentence, "In 1870, the despot of Paramythia, Grygorios, translated the New Testament into Albanian, as his followers could not understand well the Greek language,[36] and in 1879, the first Albanian school of the region was created in Sagiada by father Stathi Melani, when the region was under the short-lived rule of the League of Prizren.[32]" is a run-on. Consider breaking it up into two, possibly three, sentences.  H1nkles (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your map in this section has a Description clean up tag, please address this.
 * Is "Islamization" a word? Consider changing to "Effects of Islam" or "Conversion to Islam" or something along those lines.  I see that you wikilink to an article on the word so I won't dig in my heels on this.
 * " Islamization was widespread amongst Albanians, the majority of whom became Muslims." This is repetitive, consider removing, "the majority of whom became Muslims."
 * You talk about Pashas and Beys but don't explain what they are or link them. Please do so for the novice reader.  This will help keep out jargon.
 * Watch out for terms like "celebrated" found here, "celebrated Köprülü family". This can border on Peacock wording and really doesn't add much to the paragraph.
 * "seized to exist" I think you mean "ceased" to exist? H1nkles (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Pashalik of Janina subsection you refer to "the sultan", who was the sultan? You also refer to him in lower case in the first paragraph and upper case on the third.  Please specify lower or upper.
 * "In 1792 Ali declared war against them, mainly because of their persistence in refusing to acknowledge his authority, rather than economical reasons" Why include, "rather than economic reasons" the context gives no mention of economic issues so it's confusing that this is here.
 * I also delinked confederacy as it doesn't really give much information. Unless there is an article on the military confederacy the Souliotes were a part of then it shouldn't be linked to a generic page.
 * The caption in the Ali Pasha photo is confusing. The link is to Louis Dupré who was a French Ballet master.  Also it doesn't make sense, "Ali Pasha after Louis Dupré (1821)".  Please reword the caption for clarity.
 * Per WP:ACCESS you cannot have left-aligned photos under third level captions. I know that sounds dumb but I think it has to do with glitches that can occur in the coding.  So please move the Markos Botsaris photo to the right-hand side.
 * The first paragraph in the Greek Independence sub section is a stub and should be expanded. You also have four references for one sentence, that seems a bit odd.  Since it is a fairly significant claim can you expand on it using the various reference you cite.
 * Your Abedin Dino photo also has a clean up tag, this is the third such photo in this article. Please make sure these are all addressed as proper use of images is one of the GA criteria.
 * "disestablished", consider using a word like "disbanded". It's a little more mainstream English terminology.
 * I linked the three heroes of the National Renaissance. It created a red link for Thoma Çami.  You can remove this wikilink if you wish.  I also delinked Osman Taka later in the next paragraph since he should be linked in the first mention of his name not the second.  H1nkles (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all I'll be able to do presently. I'll continue to review the article in the coming days. Since it is a long article it will take me a little while to get through it. In the cases of long articles I sometimes pause part way through the review to allow the editor(s) to address previous concerns and discuss the review to that point. I will likely do that on this article at some point. H1nkles (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Greek state section you wikilink beys but not in a previous section. Consider linking the first mention of beys.  See recommendation above.
 * The quote by Kaklamanos, "'the compulsory exchange shall not be applicable to the Moslem subjects of Albanian origin'" uses the term "Moslem", since it is spelled "Muslim" throughout the article you should put a (sic) after it. See WP:QUOTE for insight on this.
 * "According to the Greek political historian[56] of that time Athanasios Pallis, only 1,700 were exempted under Venizellos government decision[57] and the League of Nations estimated that 2,993 Muslim Chams were forced to leave to Turkey, even after their compulsory exchange was prohibited,[58] by declaring themselves as Turks rather than Albanians.[52]" Usually cites should go at the end of the sentence, it is distracting to have them sprinkled throughout the sentence.
 * The photo in the Pangalos Regime section falls into the same issue about not having left-aligned photos under third sub-headings. Please move the photo of Theodoros Pangalos to the right side.
 * "rosen" isn't a word, perhaps "raised"?
 * there are some prose issues in this section, for example, "but they were not given any minority rights and continued discriminations against them". Who continued the discriminations?  From the context I gather it's the Greeks, but it should be spelled out because the sentence structure would point to the "they" (or the Chams).  H1nkles (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording here, "Since the 1927 Greece held a state policy depriving Muslim Chams and other minorities from Greek citizenship" is wrong, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say or I would fix it myself.
 * Wording in this sentence is also awkward, "By using the term "allogenis", which in Greek means "other-race", the Greek law on citizenship made deprivation on the right of the minorities including Chams, to retain or regain their citizenship". Especially "made deprivation on the right of the minorities."  I'm trying to think of a way to correct it but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
 * Does cite 65 address both the sentences preceding it? The reason I ask is because the sentence before starts with, "Such a practice is seen by scholars as..." and this should be referenced otherwise it is bordering on weasel wording.  H1nkles (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Paralelized"? Not sure that's a word, consider "correlate".
 * There are more prose issues that I've found in the history section. Example: "However, this proposal was rejected by the Greek side, which was feared that Albania would force Greeks to flee from the country, making the exchange non-voluntary."  "...which was feared...", the Greeks is the subject so in would be better to say, "who feared", making it more personal.
 * "...was imposed to all minorities..." should be "on" not "to".
 * "...Albanian-speaking minorities were prohibited on using..." should be "from" not "on".
 * "The once who used Albanian words..." should be "those who spoke Albanian..."
 * "...local population about prior confiscations..." should be "for" not "about".
 * These are examples of wording issues that make me feel that the History section needs a thorough prose review to pass GA standards. H1nkles (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Muslim Chams would be restored in their land only after the fascist Italy got control of the region." They are restored "to" their land and you can drop the "the" before fascist.
 * "Despite the assistance of a British expeditionary force, the country was occupied and divided it into German, Italian and Bulgarian occupation zones." Who occupied it and who divided it?  I would recommend removing the "it" in this sentence.
 * General comment about the history section: It does tend to stray into too much detail at times. For example there is a paragraph in the "Occupied Greece" sub-sub section that discusses the Chameria battalion, which is linked.  Then it goes into the names of each group within the batallion, how many were in each group, and how many members weren't Chams along with where they were from.  This isn't really necessary information, especially since you wikilink to the main article, which has all this information.  This is one example that I found of too much detail.  I usually tread lightly when it comes to this topic because it is a judgment call and editors usually hold pretty tightly to their content, wanting only suggestions on how to polish and improve rather than cutting.  Given that, this article is very long and could do with some significant trimming (in my opinion).  We can certainly discuss this if you'd like.  H1nkles (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch weasel wording here, "according to sources, Zervas, was himself of Cham origin, being a descendant of Souliotes, a community that became assimilated into the Greek nation more than a century ago". What sources?  The in-line citation appears to be a Greek journal, which doesn't help the English-speaking reader.
 * "...as a result of the atrocities that occurred..." What atrocities? This isn't clear from the context.
 * "Two attacks took place in July and August with the participation of EDES 10th Division and by those local Greek peasants whose villages have been burned down by the Cham Albanians active collaborators, in order to gain revenge: many of the Cham villages were burned and the remaining inhabitants – some 18.000 to 35,000 – fled across the border into Albania." Run-on sentence, this should be broken down.  I would recommend removing the dashes and put in parentheses.
 * Photo in the "Expulsion" section has a clean up tag that needs to be addressed.
 * Who is Mark Mazower? You wikilink to him, which is fine, but I would also recommend adding a nominal description like, British historian...
 * Consider rewording this sentence, "Led by Zervas' former officer, Col. Zotos, a loose paramilitary grouping of former guerrillas and local men went on a rampage." Rampage is a strong word, you also should specify why they attacked.  H1nkles (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to combine the last two small paras in the "Expulsion" section because they seem to be similar and since they're so small it would make one larger paragraph.
 * Two issues with this quote, "...and gave 1.2 million US dollars via the UNRRA, specifically for refugees from northern Greece." Per MOS:CURRENCY the dollar amount should be formatted: US$1.2 million.  Also spell out UNRRA and then put (UNRRA) in parentheses after the full name.  You should probably do that with your reference to the "UN Assembly" as well.  That should wrap up my review of the History section.  H1nkles (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Current situation

 * "In 1991, was formed in Tirana, the Chameria Political Association," Reorder this portion of the sentence, "The Chameria Political Association was formed in Tirana in 1991."
 * Also this opening paragraph is a stub paragraph and should be expanded or combined. It also has issues of tense, switching from past to present tense: was formed in Tirana/which is attempting...
 * IMO the first two paragraphs of the "Chams in Albania" sub section should belong in the History section. Your final sub section on post war events covers through 1990 but really there's nothing after 1953.  That should be addressed from a comprehensive stand point.  This information picks up in 1991 but certainly relates directly to the historical situation resulting from WWII.
 * "Albanian president`s office stated that President Moisiu expressed deep sorrow at this unexplainable decision," The word "unexplainable" is a value judgment, is this part of a quote by the President's office?  It border's on a minor POV statement, nothing I would get worked up about but still something to consider.
 * Photo in this section also has a clean up tag.
 * "which could lead to social and economic tensions developing", this is speculative and should be avoided. H1nkles (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The language is spoken even by young people, because when the local population migrates to Athens, or abroad, the children are left with their grandparents, thus creating a continuity of speakers". "local population" implies everyone migrates to Athens, yet from the context I gather that you intend to mean the adults, though why would they "migrate" (which implies permanent movement from one place to another) without their children?  The statement is confusing.
 * This sentence, "The Greek government tried to alter the demographic structure of northwestern Greece by the introduction of settlers from other parts of the country. Vlachs in particular were encouraged to settle in abandoned Cham villages without a legal right of ownership." is a direct repeat of a sentence in the second to last para of the Postwar situation sub-sub section. Please remove as it is redundant information.
 * I'm sorry but this sentence also confuses me, "Today, the majority of these Orthodox Chams are called Arvanites by others, but self-identify as Shqiptar, which means Albanians. In contrast with Arvanites, they have retained, not only a distinct ethnic identity, but also the Albanian national identity." Outsiders call them Arvanites, but they call themselves Shqiptar.  Ok got it thus far.  But then you say, "...in costrast with Arvanites..." (but I thought they were Arvanites, they just chose to call themselves Shqiptars).  Obviously Arvanites and Shqiptars are not synonymous but I don't know what the difference is.  This information is a stripped down repetition of the third paragraph in the "Ethnic apellations" section.  When I read this though it caused me to pause because the first part of the sentence makes it sound like Arvanite and Shqiptar are just two different words for the same meaning, but obviously that isn't the case.

(Outdent) I'd like to ask about the tag after this sentence, "Albania has not raised the Cham issue as much as it should." It is the second such value judgment that I have encountered and does concern me from a POV stand point. I'm obviously completely neutral on this subject and I may be stepping into a vipers pit but I feel like I need to understand the reasoning behind the sentence as it is written and I need justification that it isn't a violation of WP:POV standards. I'm open minded to this and want to dialogue about it. I note an edit war on April 12, but I don't know if it revolved around this issue. I haven't been able to find the specific discussion on this issue on the talk page so I am raising it here.
 * I see that the tag was removed but I don't see any comment regarding this concern.  I will raise POV concerns below because, after having read through some of the threads in the article's discussion page, I feel this needs to be discussed before GA passage. H1nkles (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok at this point I am going to pause me review and allow for comment and fixes. I'll give the article a week and then return to determine how things are going. I will watch this page and engage in discussions here as they occur and time permits. Thank you for the chance to review this article and for your anticipated work. H1nkles (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After discussion with the primary editor I have agreed to extend the hold on the article another week. H1nkles (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I just finished fixing some of the passages that you point out on the page. The majority of them are fixed as you have proposed, but not all of them. So, lets start one by one:


 * On the lead, I think, that we should firstly finish reviewing the article, and then re-writte the lead, so I left it for the end.
 * On the name and distribution sections I agree with you, and fixed what you asked.

History section
 * I reworded "Meanwhile Ottoman incursions increased, as they were occasionally called in support by despot Esau de' Buondelmonti of Ioannina" to "Meanwhile despot Esau de' Buondelmonti of Ioannina called in support of his war against the Albanian nobles, the Ottoman forces leading to increasing incursions of the Ottomans in the region". I think now it is clear.
 * "Cham Albanians played an important role in both the Greek War of Independence and in the National Renaissance of Albania.[2]" is just a summary sentence of what is explained in detail in 2 sub-sub sections namely: Chams in Greek War of Independence, and Chams in National Renaissance of Albania. I think it can stay in there, but I have no problem to remove it, if you feel it is unneeded.
 * Sanjaks are the second order administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire. I don`t understand what should be clarified in this passage.
 * "This is awkward wording, "schools in Chameria, as elsewhere where Albanians lived" consider rewording to, "schools in Chameria, as in other Albanian provinces..."" We cannot say Albanian provinces, as in that region (as everywhere in the Balkans) lived Albanians, Greeks, Vlachs etc. so it would be incorrect to define that region ethnically.
 * "Rampage is a strong word, you also should specify why they attacked." Actually, this is an inline quoting of Mazower, so I think it is ok. Also, the results, which are explained in there, shows that it was a rampage.
 * "IMO the first two paragraphs of the "Chams in Albania" sub section should belong in the History section. Your final sub section on post war events covers through 1990 but really there's nothing after 1953. That should be addressed from a comprehensive stand point. This information picks up in 1991 but certainly relates directly to the historical situation resulting from WWII." The problem is that in "current situation" section I have tried to put the ongoing situation on Chams, wherevere they live. So, since 1990, when the Cham issue, got on the table and the ongoing dispute should be treated in one section, which should be different from the historical one, of pre-1990, when such an issue was not raised by the Albanian government.
 * Fair enough, I understand from an organizational standpoint keeping the subjects separate, but the problem remains that there is a large gap between 1953 and 1990, what happened in the interim? H1nkles (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It seams that nothing notable happened. In albanian history subsection it is explained that they were discriminated during the communist regime and that the Cham issue was not rosen. So, it is not notable to add anything new in this passage. If, we find anything notable and sourced, than we will add it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed the other questions you raised. What do you think, are they ok now?

Thanks once again, Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am back after an absence for which I am apologetic. Real life demanded of me more time than I had so unfortunately Wikipedia had to take a back seat.  This review is my #1 priority.  I will continue the review where I left off at the "Organizations" section.  Once I have finished the full article I will return and comment on previous edits.

Organizations

 * This quote is confusing, "Chams have created a number of organizations, in order to fulfill their requirements." What requirements were they needing to fulfill?
 * The Chameria association in Albania should be one paragraph instead of two very short paragraphs.
 * This sentence, "Every year, in 27th of June, is organized in Konispol the Cham March, remembering the expulsions of Chams" is poorly structured. As a suggestion you may want to say, "Annually on June 27th, the Cham March is organized in Konispol.  This march is held to remember the expulsion of the Chams."
 * I've moved two photos from left alignment to right alignment per WP:ACCESS, you can't have left aligned photos under tertiary sub headings, something to do with the coding. Not a big deal unless you really disagree in having them on the right.  I notice this move makes the photos much larger.
 * Is this sentence, "to make researches in the history and culture fields of the cham community as an inherent and important part of the Albanian nation." a direct quote? If so it should have quote marks and you'll need to put a (sic) after "make researches" as that is incorrect wording.  If it isn't a direct quote then you'll need to reword it.
 * "...and the rest in USA and Turkey". This has been mentioned several times in the article and is getting repetitive, consider removing some references to this fact.
 * "250.000 in 2007,[2] while in Turkey they are 80,000 to 100,000" sometimes its periods (.) and other times in comma between numbers as in this quote.  Please be consistent.
 * There's no reference for the "Chams in Albania by town" box. This should be referenced.
 * The "Religion" sub-section is amazingly small. I think this is dealt with elsewhere, can the information either be assimilated elsewhere or removed?  If not then it should be expanded here as it doesn't really fit to have a two sentence sub-section.  H1nkles (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Language

 * In the literature section you have two, "He is considered" comments, see WP:Weasel about weasel words. There needs to be a reference to someone who considers the subject to be what ever it is claimed to be.
 * Considering the subject of the section, "Language" seems to not be the best name, or at least it is incomplete as Literature and Media have little to do with dialects. Perhaps there's a better place for the last two sub-sections?
 * "...but he managed to give in Albanian literature a important impact" Bad prose here, please reword.
 * "He is considered the best Cham Albanian writer and poet" See above, who considers him the best?

Traditions

 * I'm still uncomfortable with the prose and grammer. I've been making minor fixes as I go along but that is slowing down the review.  I'm going to skip editing the article and bring up some examples of grammatical and prose issues.  These are not exhaustive but represent a cross section of the problems.
 * "Cham Albanian dances are well-known in Albania and Greece and are considered today as traditional dances in both countries. The most known of those is Tsamiko, the Dance of Zalongo and the Dance of Osman Taka." The best known would be better and "those" is both refering to the plural "dances" but also the singular "Tsamiko".  The best known dance is... would be better.
 * Duplication is a prose problem with this article, "The Tsamiko dance is the traditional dance of the Chams, and one of the best-known folk dances in Albania and Greece." This was just said in the previous sentence.

(outdent) Sorry I have to leave for now, I'll try to do more later tonight or tomorrow. H1nkles (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Continue with examples of prose problems.
 * "...pay tribute to medieval ages lords and the wars with and against Ali Pasha." "Middle Ages" is not an adjective, the sentence should be reworded to put lords and wars first followed by "Middle Ages".  "Pay tribute to the lords and wars fought with an against Ali Pasha during the Middle Ages."
 * "Cham Albanian folk tales, have been collected in 1889 by the Danish wthnographer, Holgert Pedersen..." "were collected" not have been collected.  Also is wthnographer spelled correctly?  I've never heard of this word before so I can't be sure.
 * What is a "benefaction"?

Lifestyle

 * The kilt of high society men was made of many..." Of many what?

Overall Comments and end of review
First off I again apologize for the length of time this review has taken. I'd like to summarize here what I've said above and focus on the issues that keep me from passing the article.
 * The lead is underdeveloped. This has been discussed and agreed to wait until the rest of the article is finished and then the lead would be expanded.  I can't pass the article with the lead as it currently stands so this will have to be done prior to passing.
 * Prose is still an issue. I commend the editors on tackling such a broad topic but I've listed some examples of prose problems above.  I think a thorough prose review is in order, at least from the point where my review ended previously.
 * I have no problem with it being comprehensive, perhaps a bit too comprehensive. I've discussed this above, I would also cite the discussion of the various dances and how they are performed as being a bit too much detail.  The editors should be looking for ways to shorten this article.  It is a bit long for the subject (in my opinion).
 * There are a few examples where information is duplicated, this is one way to tighten up the article and make it a little easier to read in one sitting.

Overall the article is actually pretty close to GA. The two biggest hurdles are the prose and the lead. Please address the issues I've brought up and let me know what you think. I'm going to update the hold. Thanks for all your hard work. H1nkles (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done a cursory look at the article and put it up against my review. You have incorporated most of my suggestions.  Now I'd like to address the issues raised on the article's talk page.  Usually I don't read talk pages while doing a review as I want to remain objective, but after a recent GA review that I did on a similarly controversial subject went horribly awry I decided to gain some perspective on the various issues with the article.  Please bear in mind that I am not Albanian, I am not Greek, and I am definitely not a mediator.  But I do want to understand the POV allegations that are levied in the talk page as well as the reliability of sources issues that are present on the talk page.  I will raise the over-arching talk page issues that I see, not specific details but more of the big themes:
 * I note that you rely heavily on Vickers. I see the first two cites are two PDF docs that are cited 68 times between the two of them.  You have cited her in a couple of other spots as well.  I note that Balkanian has fought many battles over this on the talk page and I respect that.  Would you please supply me with information on Vickers?  A background on where she's coming from, I note that she is working with the UK Ministry of defense.  Is this the department that published her papers?  I note a discussion about WP:OR in the talk page, I would agree that Vickers is a secondary source and not OR, though I'm uncomfortable with her reliance on her own work for some of the papers.  This appears to be minor though.  It appears that much work has gone into making sure the sources are credible and reliable.  I do not have the time or energy to read every source and so I take this on good faith.
 * Regarding POV, I am well aware of the long-running disputes between Albanian/Macedonian and Greek editors here in WP. I have read heated arguments in which both sides accuse the other of nationalism and blatant POV.  I do wish cooler heads would prevail but alas they usually do not.  I note that this article has not been above the fray.  As an outside observer I have noticed some POV edits, which cause me concern given the fact that I am totally unfamiliar with the subject matter.  One such concern is the  tag that was placed in the "History" section.  I raised this concern in the review and the only fix that I can see is that the tag was removed, hardly a fix in my opinion.  Please address this concern.
 * From what I have read in the Talk page, the comments of User:Fut.Perf. are cogent and well-reasoned. This editor is credible albeit a bit controversial at times.  Nonetheless I would take this editor's opinions to heart.  Especially as it relates to the length of the article.  I won't hold up passage to GA over article length as this isn't clearly defined in the GA Criteria, nonetheless, the article is unwieldy and should be trimmed.

(outdent) I would not be surprised if there are editors watching this review intent on making comments or even overturning a "GA pass" based on either POV or source reliability issues. I invite those editors to participate in the review at this point by giving their opinions. Ultimately I will decide the merits of the article and do as diligent a job as possible to make sure that this article is in line with the GA Criteria.
 * In closing I would like these issues addressed and the Lead expanded to encompass a summary of the entire article. When I am satisfied then I will pass the article.  H1nkles (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, on Vickers, I can replace the majority of her sources with others (except of numbers and Current Situation in Albania). Miranda Vickers is a doctor on Modern History and her works are published by UK Ministry of Defence. But, nonetheless, although she is for sure a secondary RS, as I said I can replace the majority of her sources, if any editor disputes her during GA process. on I cannot rember what was it about. Can you remind me? As for the lead, I am confident that it is the easiest part, and as such we should be clear if the article has GA standards, in order to rewritte it. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I saw what POV assertion was about. It was changed to "Chams complain that Albania has not raised the Cham issue as much as it should." from "Albania has not raised the Cham issue as much as it should." in order to avoid POV.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you for your quick response, no need to change out the source, GAs have passed with far less credible sources. The POV change is acceptable. Please commence with the Lead editing and we'll wrap this baby up. My invitation for other editors to participate in the POV/reliability of sources discussion is still open. H1nkles (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

the lead
Now, we have to rewritte the lead. I have a proposal, which I think it would be better to discuss it here before editing the article. I think the best lead is:


 * Cham Albanians, or Chams (Çamë, Τσάμηδες Tsámidhes), are a dialectical and regional group of ethnic Albanians who originally resided in the coastal region of Epirus, an area known as Chameria among Albanians. Their first presence in the region is dated before the 12th century, as a result of migratory process during the Slavic migration to the Balkans.


 * Chams have played an important role in the wars of independence of both Albania and Greece and have influenced the cultures of the two countries, by popular dances, songs and folk traditions that originate from them. One of this dances, Tsamiko is considered a national dance in both Greece and Albania. Chams speak their own dialect of the Albanian language, which is considered one of the two most conservative dialects, the other being Arvanitika. Their language was supressed during the Ottoman Empire and the Greek state, when Albanian-language schools and even speaking in that language was forbiden.


 * In 1913, the majority of Chams were included under the Greek state, but they were never given any minority right, while their land was constantly confiscated by the Greek government. In 1923, a number of Chams were forcibly sent to Turkey, during the Population exchange between the two countries, although the League of Nations asked Greece not to deport any Albanian subject. In the eve of World War II, the muslim part of the population was sent to concetration camp, or to islands in exile, while during the war they were freed by the Italian occupator.


 * Some Cham Albanians collaborated with Italian and German forces, while approximately the same number formed two resistence battalions in the liberation movement of Albania and Greece; the rest, which formed the majority were civilians uninvolved in the war. But, at the end of World War II the whole muslim population was forced to leave the region, in an ethnic cleansing operated by anti-communist EDES forces of Greece. More than 2 thousand Muslim Chams were killed or died in the process. Today, the Muslim majority lives in Albania, United States and Turkey, as a result of their expulsion, while the Orthodox minority, which remained in Greece, has suffered from public suppression of their Albanian heritage and language. Since the fall of Communism in Albania, Muslim Chams have asked for the right to return to their homeland and restoration of their properties which were confiscated by the state, an issue that does not exist for Greece.


 * During the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans, the majority of Chams were islamized, while a minority of them, especially in highlands retained their Orthodox faith. Today, the exact portion of the religious affilation is unknown. In Greece, all Chams are (at least nominally) Christian Orthodox, while in Turkey they adhere Islam. In Albania and the United States their religious affilation is unknown, due to large amount of religious conversion that has happened in those two countries especially in the last decades.

Is there anything from the article that we did not sum up, or is there anything we should rephrase? If not, lets edit it... Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, there are a few problems with it: the history and culture sections are mixed with no apparent reason, and normally, no citations are needed in the lead, since it summarises statements that are (or should) be cited in the main text. Also, the summary part is a bit defective since it gives wight to particular events while ignoring a broader perspective. If I may propose an alternative (and slightly toned down) version:


 * Cham Albanians, or Chams (Çamë, Τσάμηδες Tsámidhes), are a dialectical and regional group of ethnic Albanians who originally resided in the coastal region of Epirus, an area known after them as Chameria among Albanians. The Chams have their own peculiar cultural identity, which is a mixture of Greek and Albanian influences as well as many specifically Cham elements. In return, the Chams have influenced the popular cultures of both Albania and Greece: one of the Cham dances, the Tsamiko, is considered a national dance in both countries, and Chams played an important role in starting the renaissance of the Albanian language in the 19th century. The Chams speak their own dialect of the Albanian language, which is considered one of the two most conservative dialects, the other being Arvanitika.


 * The Chams have played an important role in the history of the region. The first presence of Albanian tribes, the Chams' ancestors, in Epirus, is dated before the 12th century, as a result of migratory process during the Slavic migration to the Balkans. Several Albanian principalities existed in Epirus during the Middle Ages, before the region came under Ottoman control. During the last centuries of Ottoman rule, the majority of the Chams converted to Islam, while a minority retained their original Orthodox faith. In the 19th century, the Chams played an important role in the struggles for independence of both Albania and Greece. Following the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913, the majority of Chameria came under Greek rule. For the next few decades, the Chams were marginalized and discriminated against by the Greek state, who viewed them with distrust. Their properties were confiscated, several thousand were expelled to Turkey, and their cultural identity was suppressed. Throughout the period, the Chams, supported by Albania, campaigned for recognition of minority rights, especially the right to be educated in Albanian. Although some Greek governments reined in the discriminatory practices and guaranteed these rights, others revoked them.


 * During World War II, some Chams collaborated with the Axis powers occupying Greece, while others joined the resistance in both Greece and Albania. Nevertheless, in 1944, the entire Muslim Cham population was expelled from Greece under the charge of collaboration. Most of them crossed the border into Albania, while others formed émigré communities in Turkey and the United States. Today, the Muslim majority of the Cham population live in these countries, while the Orthodox minority that remained in Greece has suffered from decades of suppression of their heritage and language. Since the fall of Communism in Albania, Muslim Chams have campaigned for the right of return to their homeland and restoration of their properties which were confiscated. Greece does not recognize the existence of the "Cham issue".

How does it look? Constantine  ✍  07:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine, but I think it needs two corrections:

1. In the intro word, it should be noted that Epirus is in Northwest Greece, cause not everybody that reads the article, knows where Epirus is.

2. The last paragraph, I think that should be reworded as follows:
 * In the eve of World War II, the muslim part of the population was sent to concetration camp, or to islands in exile, while during the war they were freed by the Italian occupator. Some Cham Albanians collaborated with Italian and German forces, while approximately the same number formed two resistence battalions in the liberation movement of Albania and Greece; the rest, which formed the majority were civilians uninvolved in the war. BNevertheless, in 1944, the entire Muslim Cham population was expelled from Greece under the charge of collaboration. Most of them crossed the border into Albania, while others formed émigré communities in Turkey and the United States. Today, the Muslim majority of the Cham population live in these countries, although in ALbania and the United States their religious affilation has changed sinifically. On the other hand, the Orthodox minority that remained in Greece has suffered from decades of suppression of their heritage and language. Since the fall of Communism in Albania, Chams have campaigned for the right of return to their homeland and restoration of their properties which were confiscated. Greece does not recognize the existence of the "Cham issue".

What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, are we sure that they were expelled "under the charge of collaboration." As I have explained, Mazower gives too many reasons for their expulsion and concludes that this charge was an excuse created in the aftermath of the war. Should we periphrase it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see: "...are a dialectical and regional group of ethnic Albanians who originally resided in the coastal parts of the region of Epirus in northwestern Greece, an area known after them as Chameria among Albanians." is good by me. I disagree on point 2, because "all Muslim Chams" does not in fact include the majority of the population, only the males of military age, and that because Greece was facing a threat from Italian-controlled Albania. With the Italians playing the Cham card as much as they did in their propaganda, Greece did not have much of a choice. Therefore, including that statement in the lead without further explanation is highly misleading. The discrimination against the Chams is amply mentioned, there is no need to make Greece look the equivalent of Nazi Germany. The details of the expulsion are also best left to the main article; the reason publicly put forward was collaboration (still the mainstream version in Greece), so "under the charge" covers that, without actually implying that it was necessarily true. The fact that the Chams were not exactly welcome anyway is also covered earlier ("viewed them with distrust"), and anyone can add up one and one and get the true reason of their expulsion. The changes in religious affiliation can be covered as follows: "Today, the descendants of the Muslim majority of the Cham population live in these countries, although their religious affiliation has changed considerably in the past decades. At the same time, the Orthodox minority that remained in Greece has suffered from decades of suppression of their heritage and language." Constantine  ✍  11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but with a minor problem. " the reason publicly put forward was collaboration (still the mainstream version in Greece)" The problem is that this was a reason that may have been put forword after the war. So, "under the charge" may apply to the reason why they were not allowed to turn back, not about the reason of their expulsion. Just a logical deduction. Also about their concentration camps before the war, we may periphrase it, but for sure it should be in the lead as far as the situation during WWII is a major importance on Chams history. You know, you say "Greece did not have much of a choice", but on the other hand, Chams had not much of a choice after they were liberated (dont get me wrong) by Italians. On the other hand, someone may argue why is it so important to put in the lead that some of them collaborated, when everywhere people collaborated. Do you get my point? I mean this part of history should be covered up totally in the lead, in order to let the reader know about the circuisantces. Can you propose something else? I am ok about the rest.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, on the expulsion, we can change the wording to "under the pretext of collaboration". I really think we shouldn't go into more detail here, this is the lead section, after all, and the implication is quite clear. For the concentration camps, if we add info on them, then we also would have to mention that the Italian propaganda used the Chams as a vehicle for Albanian irredentism, and which, in conjunction with the fact that the expected battlefield actually ran across Chameria, provided the reason for the increased distrust towards the Chams. If you insist, we could add "following the Italian occupation of Albania in 1939, the Chams became a prominent propaganda theme for the Italians, who hoped thus to rally Albanian sympathies. As a result, on the eve of the Greco-Italian War, the adult male Cham population was deported by the Greek authorities to concentration camps." But again, by adding two sentences to the lead for an episode like this, I think we give it too much undue weight. The Chams' expulsion was not determined by that, but by their (alleged) subsequent collaboration (which, as stated, is still the official justification for the expulsion, thus directly pertinent). Neither was the Chams' attitude towards the Italians as "liberators" cogent on that episode alone, but on two decades' worth of discrimination from the Greek state against them.
 * Also, come to think of it, there is a problem with "dialectical": it refers to dialectics, not dialects... We could rephrase the intro to something like "are a group of ethnic Albanians...". Since both their regional identity and their peculiar dialect are mentioned, we don't lose in accuracy. Constantine  ✍  12:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what about:


 * Following the Italian occupation of Albania in 1939, the Chams became a prominent propaganda theme for the Italians. As a result, on the eve of the Greco-Italian War, the adult male Cham population was deported by the Greek authorities to concentration camps. After the occupation of Greece, some Cham Albanians collaborated with Italian and German forces, while approximately the same number formed two resistence battalions in the liberation movement of Albania and Greece; the rest, which formed the majority were civilians uninvolved in the war. Nevertheless, in 1944, the entire Muslim Cham population was expelled from Greece under the pretext of collaboration. Most of them crossed the border into Albania, while others formed émigré communities in Turkey and the United States. Today, the descendants of the Muslim majority of the Cham population live in these countries, although their religious affiliation has changed considerably in the past decades. At the same time, the Orthodox minority that remained in Greece has suffered from decades of suppression of their heritage and language. Since the fall of Communism in Albania, Chams have campaigned for the right of return to their homeland and restoration of their properties which were confiscated. Greece does not recognize the existence of the "Cham issue".

It is a bit long, but for sure this is the hot spot of their modern history.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Largely OK, with a few tweaks: "some Cham Albanians collaborated with Italian and German forces, while approximately the same number participated in the resistance movements in Albania and Greece; the majority however remained uninvolved in the war." And what of the "dialectical" issue? You OK with it? Constantine  ✍  12:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The lead is excellent, I did unlink the country names, per WP:Overlink it is not necessary to wikilink country names unless the link is to a specific time frame w/in the country's history (for example your linking of Germany to Nazi Germany is appropriate). After all this I will pass the article and wish you well in your further endeavors. Thank you for your timely and courteous responses to my concerns. Perhaps we can collaborate again on future articles. H1nkles (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)