Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians

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

Start of mediation (I hope)[edit]

  • @Robert McClenon, SilentResident, DevilWearsBrioni, Athenean, Resnjari, Alexikoua, and TransporterMan:
    • In page Expulsion of Cham Albanians currently the last edit is at 07:17, 12 October 2016‎ by John of Reading. Please no more edits there while we try to settle this.
    • In Talk:Expulsion of Cham Albanians the dispute seems to become serious on 31 January 2016.
    • In User talk:SilentResident the discussion seems to start at 02:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC) by Robert McClenon.[reply]
    • Please each relevant member, list here compactly the text in page Expulsion of Cham Albanians that you want to change, or that you want to keep as it is despite other people wanting to change it, and the reason why.
    • Often in that sort of hostility-ridden war situation, the same men are called "terrorists" or "bandits" by one side and "freedom fighters" by the other side, and similar. Please accept this and do not let discussion here become heated or wordy. Wikipedia is not the place to try to re-fight old wars. I have known a dispute over Wikipedia editing to produce a megabyte of repetitive arguing.
    • What this page's title should be, can be discussed separately.
Thank you, User:Anthony Appleyard. I don't expect to be participating in the mediation. My original role had been to try to facilitate dispute resolution, and I see that a more experienced mediator will be facilitating dispute resolution. I am available to assist the mediator, but I don't think that will be necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by observer[edit]

A word to the participants. It looks as though the discussion here consists mostly of two editors going back-and-forth. I will point out that just going back-and-forth and disagreeing hasn't worked in the past. The two of you might consider taking a pause from your back-and-forth to let the mediator control the discussion. I thought that I wouldn't take part in the mediation, and I don't think that I am taking part in it, but I would suggest that the editors try letting the mediator control the direction rather than just going back-and-forth. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: You will find me agreeing with you completely on this. Only today, I have repeated already multiple times to the other editor the necessity for the discussion to stick on topic and not change the subject unless the mediator asks. -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will also advise the participants to pay attention to the instructions of the mediator for at least two reasons. First, the mediation policy specifies that a mediator has a certain amount of authority. Second, disruptive editing with regard to the Balkans is subject to discretionary sanctions, and I think that the area of the dispute is in the Balkans. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OR issue #1[edit]

The text in the page Expulsion of Cham Albanians that I argue is synthesis:

Muslim Chams were not keen to fight on the side of the Ottoman army, but already from autumn 1912 formed armed bands and raided the entire area as far north as Pogoni. As a result hundreds of Greek villagers were forced to escape to nearby Corfu and Arta. Thus, the members of the Muslim community were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek state.

The blue/red is to highlight and differentiate between the two sources used to substantiate the section in question. If you don't believe that the text above is synth, then I'd like to know why it's any different than the following sentence:

The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

There are other points I'd like to make, but I'll leave it at this for now. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @DevilWearsBrioni: For the blue text and for the red text, the article (in the start of section Expulsion of Cham Albanians#Balkan Wars (1912-1913)) seems to give as reference "Tsoutsoumpis, 2015, p. 122", where "Tsoutsoumpis" is defined lower down as "Tsoutsoumpis, Spyros (December 2015). "Violence, resistance and collaboration in a Greek borderland: the case of the Muslim Chams of Epirus «Qualestoria» n. 2, dicembre 2015". Qualestoria: 119–138. Retrieved 14 June 2016.".
    An older edit in a long <ref> quotes this from Baltsiotis's book/periodical: "The Muslim Chams of Northwestern Greece. 2011. "Although Muslim Chams were not eager to fight on the side of the Ottoman army during the Balkan Wars, they were nevertheless treated by the Greek army as de facto enemies, while local Christians were enlisted in the Greek forces. For example, a few days after the occupation of the area of Chamouria by the Greek Army, 72 or 78 Muslim notables were executed by a Greek irregular military unit in the religiously mixed town of Paramythia, evidently accused of being traitors."". (Baltsiotis, Lambros (2011). "The Muslim Chams of Northwestern Greece: The grounds for the expulsion of a "non-existent" minority community". European Journal of Turkish Studies. Retrieved 7 May 2015.) This matter awaits someone with access to Baltsiotis's and Tsoutsoumpis's books/periodicals. If the blue text comes from one source and the red text comes from another source, please what are those 2 sources? Your link from your words "the two sources" leads merely to a commentless Imgur image.
    In your opinion: How much does merely putting two texts adjacent become synthesis of them? Should the "but" be replaced by a fullstop? Should other unrelated text be put between them? Did Tsoutsoumpis or Baltsiotis or whoever put those two texts adjacent in his book/periodical? Or what?
    Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: Athony, thank you for agreeing to mediate. (rest of my message is now removed, as the broken IMGUR link is finally working for me - my apologies for repeating the text from the image into my message. My aim was just to point out that these two phrases do not constitute OR as DevilWearsBrini claims, because the sources merely confirm that the Muslim Chams were enemies to the Christian Greeks) -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the image isn't working. Either way, yes, the blue text comes from Baltsiotis whereas the red text comes from Tsotsoumpis.
Baltsiotis states: "Although Muslim Chams were not eager to fight on the side of the Ottoman army during the Balkan Wars, they were nevertheless treated by the Greek army as de facto enemies, while local Christians were enlisted in the Greek forces. For example, a few days after the occupation of the area of Chamouria by the Greek Army, 72 or 78 Muslim notables were executed by a Greek irregular military unit in the religiously mixed town of Paramythia, evidently accused of being traitors"
Tsoustoumpis states: "The tensions that had been building in the area finally exploded during the Balkan War of 1912-1913. The war took the form of brutal guerrilla fighting, waged primarily by local civilians who were armed by the Greek and Ottoman governments. In the autumn of 1912, Muslim bands raided villages as far north as the area of Pogoni in Ioannina; resulting in hundreds of Greek peasants abandoning their homes and seeking shelter in Corfu and Arta. Atrocities were widespread and no prisoners were taken from either side. Greek irregulars responded in kind from January 1913 onwards."
The red part should either come before or after the sentence from Baltsiotis, not in between. Right now material from both sources are synthesized to essentially state: "Muslim Chams were treated as enemies by the Greek army because before/during the Balkan wars, Muslim bands raided villages." Apart from being synth, it offers a reductionist view of the subject that entirely ignores the fact that during the first balkan war, "the primary objective of the Balkan combatants had been to eliminate potentially hostile populations through ethnic cleansing", and that "Muslim civilians of different nationality were the primary victims of this concerted campaign". DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To make my point clear, would SilentResident be against the following wording: "Muslim Chams were reluctant to side with the Ottomans, but already a few days after Chamouria was occupied by the Greek army, 72 or 78 Muslim notables were executed by a Greek irregular military unit. Thus, Muslim Chams sided with the Ottomans." DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry DevilWearsBrioni, but your arguments are invalid, because you're confusing the chronological order at which the events unfolded. According to Tsoutsoumpis, the formation of the irregular bands and the raids to Christian Greek villages by Muslim Chams predates the Greek response to them...
The chronological order, is very clearly mentioned by Tsoutsoumpis: 1) The Muslim Chams formed their irregular bands and raided Christian Greek villages ALREADY by Autumn 1912 (when the war broke out). 2) The Christian Greek response to these hostile Muslim Cham actions came later - around January 1913 (first month of next year).
Please don't confuse the chronology of the events to illustrate a false OR point. -- SILENTRESIDENT 12:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, "The Greek response to these hostile Muslim Cham actions". This is exactly what I mean by reductionist view. Apart from the false premise that Muslim bands = Muslim Chams (you've previously stated that Muslim Chams numbered +100k, do you still stand by this?) I suppose Greece invading the region was a peaceful gesture? I suppose the common objective of the Balkan league to drive out Muslims from the region is irrelevant? The Greek army clearly acted in self-defense, right? Tsoutsoumpis does not mention the actions of the Greek army, whereas Baltsiotis does. Here's an alternative chronology for you:
Although Muslim Chams were not eager to fight on the side of the Ottoman army during the Balkan Wars, they were nevertheless treated by the Greek army as de facto enemies, while local Christians were enlisted in the Greek forces. For example, a few days after the occupation of the area of Chamouria by the Greek Army, 72 or 78 Muslim notables were executed by a Greek irregular military unit in the religiously mixed town of Paramythia, evidently accused of being traitors. During the Balkan War, in late 1912, when Muslim Chams were fighting on the side of the Ottoman Army, and Christian Chams on that of the Greek Army, several local conflicts emerged. While there is no Greek source describing the behavior of the Greek army against the Muslim population after they seized the area, there are several relevant descriptions in Albanian sources. There are only indirect (but clear) references to atrocities committed by the Greek army.
Notice that Baltsiotis makes no mention of why Muslim Chams were treated as enemies by the Greek army, although if one reads the rest of his paper it's clearly implied, and it certainly has nothing to do with village burnings that occurred during a bloody war which Greece initiated. Hint: "The existence of a region (Chamouria) whose population was roughly half Muslim and almost entirely Albanian speaking was considered a serious problem for the Greek state, which had to be confronted both practically and discursively."
Did Muslim Chams side with the Ottomans? Check
Did Muslim Chams burn villages during the war? Check
Did the Greek army treat Muslim Chams as an enemy because of village burnings that occurred during the war (or raids by Muslim bands in Autumn)? Synth DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tsoustoumpis's words "Greek irregulars responded in kind from January 1913 onwards" seem to show that Tsoustoumpis had already decided that the Greek anti-Cham action was in retaliation for the Cham anti-Greek action. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, dear Anthony Appleyard. Furthermore, we shall not forget that Tsoutsoumpis's fieldwork on the Epirus theatre of the Balkan Wars is a more recent academic study than that of Baltsiotis, and Tsoutsoumpis has provided more detailed information about what happened in that war. While Baltsiotis does not has documented facts about why the Chams were treated as enemies by the Greeks, Tsoutsoumpis has been able to provide more precise information on what the Cham actions against the Greeks were, how the Greeks responded, and when these hostilities unfolded. Having a chronological order about the hostilities between different religious groups is vital to understanding the war and this by no means can be ignored just because DevilWearsBrioni wants to. However this is not the case here - the question in our case is if the sentence does constitute OR, which unfortunately does not.
For some reason that escapes me, DevilWearsBrioni will not accept any reasoning in regards to his OR claims. In fact, you are not the first Mediator to fail to see any validity in DevilWearsBrioni's OR claims. For the record, we have already discussed the exact same sentence on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, about 3 months ago, where our previous mediator, Iazyges, too has tried to explain to DevilWearsBrioni that his OR claims are invalid, but to no avail, as DevilWearsBrioni is still insisting about OR. (I don't know if this helps, but here is our discussion with Mediator Iazyges on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, just in case: [1] where he told DevilWearsBrioni that his claims do not constitute OR. - Note: if posting such a link here about previous mediations goes against any Mediation rules or disrupts the current resolution procedures, then please have my sincere apologies and feel free to ignore and/or remove it from my comment) -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: Do you think that Muslim bands can be equated with Muslim Chams? The region was home to many other Muslims. Also, Tsoutsoumpis does not mention why the Greek army treated Muslim Chams as enemies, he's referring to Greek irregular activity in response to Muslim bands. For the record, all Muslims were in a sense considered enemies by the Greek state. Baltsiotis states that Muslim Chams were "not eager to fight on the side of the Ottomans, but were nonetheless treated as enemies". Is it OK to combine a sentence from Baltsiotis which concludes one thing, with another sentence from another scholar where the opposite is implied, to essentially nullify one scholar, i.e. Baltsiotis? With regards to the Greek army:
"During the Balkan War, in late 1912, when Muslim Chams were fighting on the side of the Ottoman Army, and Christian Chams on that of the Greek Army, several local conflicts emerged. While there is no Greek source describing the behavior of the Greek army against the Muslim population after they seized the area, there are several relevant descriptions in Albanian sources. There are only indirect (but clear) references to atrocities committed by the Greek army". Is this a response to the activity of Muslim bands?
"While Baltsiotis does not has documented facts about why the Chams were treated as enemies by the Greeks". He certainly does, do read the about situation prior to annexation. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see little point in seeing detailed fine implications in use of the word "bands"; the cause of using that word may have been merely that common nuisance: elegant variation. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard:, I do not understand why DevilWearsBrioni is trying now to deviate from his original OR claims and now find other excuses to maintain this OR case alive for as longer as possible, but I feel obliged to intervene now and note that his new argument that "the Muslim bands shouldn't be equated with Muslim Chams" is once again invalid, because the population figures for that time period by academic Erickson, Edward J. are very clear and indisputable. According to scholar Erickson, Edward J., during the Balkan War of 1912-1913, the Muslim Chams in fact constituted more than 95% of the total muslims in the region. Source: Erickson, Edward J. (2003). Defeat in detail: the Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912–1913. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-275-97888-4. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to matter how much I debunk this lie. Muslim Chams didn't number more than 25-30k, while the Janina Villayet was home to more than 200k Muslims. Why don't you post the specific part from the source so we can take a look at it?
Anthony: It may have, it may have not. I personally don't see why we should assume one over the other. Why not simply state that "Greek irregulars responded to anti-Greek raids by Muslim bands"? Moreover, does "Greek irregulars responded in kind" include the Greek army? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DevilWearsBrioni: Your opinion is contradicted by the sources. Scholars such as Erickson, Edward J, and M. V. Sakkelariou, and Zafer Golen, all confirm that the Muslim Cham Albanians constituted the two-third of the region's total population (incl. Christians and Muslims) and more than 90% of the region's muslim population. Furthermore all scholars agree that the Muslim Cham Albanians were around 200.000 while the Muslim Ottoman Turks were around 10.000 or barely 20.000 people. I fail to see how the Cham Albanians constituted a minority when they were the majority of the muslim community of the Ioannina region. I am sorry dear DevilWearsBrioni but personal opinions are just that: personal opinions. Please can we stick to the facts and to the OR case and leave aside any distractions? :) -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite them. Go ahead, show us where it says that Muslim Chams numbered +200k. It shouldn't be that hard for you since you seem to have access to the sources. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you are distracting the mediator from the OR case. Deviating our focus from the current case isn't going to help. I will cite the population sources if the Mediator asks for them, not because you want to derail discussion even further away from your original claim that the sentences, above in the first post, constitute SYNTH/OR. -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First 1) you messed the chronological order, then 2) questioned Greek framing of Chams as enemies, now 3) you deviated to if bands are not formed by Muslim Chams, 4) and now into population figures being Cham-majority or some other but unknown ethnicity. Please stick to the discussion's subject. -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up sources because you wanted to clarify, but when asked to cite the specific part "I'm deviating". Since I know for a fact that you are lying (I have access to one of the sources as well), I know that the source does not state that Muslim Chams numbered +200k. One of the sources which you've repeatedly cited before states: "Thesprotia is located in north-western Greece, and before its incorporation in the Greek state it was a part of the vilayet of Ioannina. During the early 20th century the population was a little over 65,000 one-third of whom were Muslims." DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
<Facepalm>. What more I will hear now? Thesprotia is a sub-region of the Ioannina Vilayet, not an independent region. The Ioannina Villayet consisted of the following sub-regions; Preveza and Arta sub-regions to the south, Thesprotia sub-region to the west, and Ioannina sub-region (including Pogoni which is mentioned in the sentence on the first post of this talk) to the north. The population figures I gave here are about the Ioannina Villayet, not about Thesprotia only. The Ioannina Vilayet is the Epirote theatre of Balkan Wars, where the Chams fought the Greeks and their irregular bands raided and burned Greek villages.
Please, stick to the facts and do not manipulate the information. Manipulating the information by the academic scholars about an entire Villayet to illustrate a point about a sub-region of that Villayet, which does not even include the Pogoni and Ioannina areas, like how you did now, is not going to help you, only weakens even further your OR claims... -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Muslim Cham Albanians included populations outside of Chamouria/Thesprotia? According to you, there were +200k Muslim Cham Albanians in Janina, which means that you equate every Muslim Albanian (Labs, etc) with Muslim Chams? How can you be this uninformed after having edited the article for several months? DevilWearsBrioni (talk)

@Anthony Appleyard:, the user DevilWearsBrioni insists in derailing the discussion completely from the original case of SYNTH of two phrases into discussions about regions and populations, despite my pleas for sticking to the subject. Your intervention is much needed. -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics of Chameria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chameria#Demographics. They constituted about 10 % of the Muslim population in Janina, not 95 %. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The demograpics you cited are about THESPROTIA, not about CHAMERIA as WHOLE or even IOANNINA. How hard is this for you to understand?? Could you please stop this nonsense and tell us why the two sentences constitute SYNTH? I am not here to discuss anything else, I am very kindly warning you for a last time to stick to the OR/SYNTH case! -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think numbers in an article about Chameria cites numbers about Thesprotia? Because Chameria ≈ Thesprotia. You never answered my question though, did Muslim Cham Albanians include populations outside of Chamouria/Thesprotia? It's a very simple question. And do you still believe that 95 % of Muslim population in Janina constituted of Muslim Chams? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the same article: "According to the 1913 Greek census, 25,000 Muslims were living at the time in the Chameria region." Where are the remaining +175k Muslim Chams? Outside Chameria?!? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the late reply. I have been very busy of late to contribute. Regarding this first matter, a simple resolution would be to add a full stop just before the word "but". That sentence relates to the Cham view prior to the outbreak of hostilities and should be seperate. Removal of the "but". Sentence should start from the word "From". The problem arises from combining in that sentence. In postgraduate work i have been told by academics, anything with a "but" already is either a symptom of bad grammar or a sentence which has issues. I said some time back on the talk that the two sentences should be split. Also the sentence that would start with a "From" should note the outbreak of hostilities between the Ottomans and Greek army that occurred from October 18, 1912 (see Hall, p. 63: [2] onward in the sentence that refers to raids by the Chams during the Autumn). The sentence should have something like "From October 18, 1912 hostilities in Epirus broke out between Greece and the Ottomans which from autumn 1912 Muslim Chams formed armed bands and raided the entire area as far north as Pogoni (Hall + Tsoutsoupis). Thoughts on this ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OR issue #1 part 2[edit]

With regards to "he is Greek and should surely know his own people's history well", although I find this argument very odd, would you please show me where Tsoutsoumpis states that the Greek army treated Muslim Chams as enemies a consequence of village burnings by Muslim bands? Does "Greek irregulars" include the Greek army? I mean, Tsoutsoumpis states that Greek irregulars responded in kind in January 1913, but Baltsiotis discusses other events, referencing the atrocities of the Greek army in late 1912.
Doesn't it offer a reductionist view of the events to state that "Muslim Chams were treated as enemies because of raids by Muslim bands"? Should the Greek state's perception of Muslim Chams prior to the war not be accounted for? By making the statement that "Thus, the Greek state treated Muslim Chams as enemies" following the part about raids, it directly correlates these two events and entirely ignores the rest. No? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning "in a time of war, Chams attacked Greeks; later, Greeks attacked Chams and drove them away". That's not the case though. Greece invaded the territory, not the other way around. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Curious to also understand what the difference, in principle, between:
"Muslim Chams were not keen to fight on the side of the Ottoman army, but already from autumn 1912 formed armed bands and raided the entire area as far north as Pogoni."
and:
"The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world."
Am I misinterpreting OR policy if I don't see any difference between the two? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if I understood well, DevilWearsBrioni is implying that the Greeks were racists or nazis and that they targeted the Albanians, not because of anti-Greek actions but just because the Greeks hated them, or killed them for fun? Seriously? DevilWearsBrioni's implication that that the Greek response to the Chams was planned from the start and unrelated to the hostile Cham actions against Greeks, dangerously cross the POV lines and I can not tolerate this. This is Wikipedia, not democracy where personal opinions of editors are allowed. In Wikipedia, the people need to stick to the facts and what the scholars and sources say. Nothing more, nothing less!
@Anthony Appleyard:, I am sorry, but I have a bad feeling that DevilWearsBrioni is directing the discussion away from OR and into an effort to re-write the history of the war that happened 100 years ago and for which the in-war hostilities between Albanians and Greeks are indisputable and recorded by all the academics and scholars. I am not going to encourage any re-writing of the history of World War I and the Balkan Wars, just because it does not suit DevilWearsBrioni's POV! No way. I agreed to a mediation on DevilWearsBrioni's OR claims, not agreed to any re-write of world history. -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Now, if I understood well, DevilWearsBrioni is implying that the Greeks were racists or nazis and that they targeted the Albanians, not because of anti-Greek actions but because the Greeks love blood and for fun perhaps?" Quite the hyperbole. Also, did the Chams attack Greeks because they "loved blood and for fun perhaps"? For the record, Greece did target Muslims during the first Balkan wars. I can provide sources if needed (I already have to an extent). DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that Greece's opponents in these wars were two Muslim groups: Albanians and Turks. Everyone knows this. And so? What are you trying to prove with this? It is true that it was an war in which religion played a role. However, contrary to you, I am not victimizing the one size nor I am demonizing the other side just for its religion. Unlike you, I do not believe that any party is good or evil in an war. All sides have done bad deeds in the war. All parties are guilty, more or less. In fact, everyone here knows the atrocities the Muslims committed in the region, both in World War I and the Balkan Wars, against the Greeks and other Christian groups, but I do not hear you speaking about that, do I?
I am sorry, but your desperate effort to victimize the Cham Albanians and portray the Christians Greeks as evil, sinister or nazis, is a blatant case of POV. No way I am going to tolerate this, so please keep your opinions for yourself, and once more, I am calling you to stick to the facts and what the sources say. -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opponents is a diplomatic term. A civilian is not an "opponent". Imagine if opponents was used to describe sides in wars were Christians have been ethnically cleansed. I'm absolutely certain that Muslims committed their fare share of atrocities during the Balkan wars, however, that doesn't negate the fact that they were the primary targets. In general, it was Muslims that acted in self-defense during the first Balkan Wars. You claim I'm "demonizing one side", whereas I'm of the opinion that you're actually justifying the treatment of Muslim Chams by the Greek side. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you did it - you are implying that Greece's opponents in the war were Albanian civilians and Ottoman civilians and not the irregular bands and other hostile units. Right? So I guess, I can imagine where this is heading: for you, the Greeks committed genocides and or ethnic cleansings in 1912 against civilians? I am speechless. I have nothing to comment, I am really baffled by your perceptions.
Dear @Anthony Appleyard:, I think it is time for you to decide if this discussion is worth continuing, because I do not even know what we are talking about anymore. I thought we were talking about OR and SYNTH, but instead, now we are talking about how evil the Greeks and how innocent the Albanians were in that war... Basically the subject of discussion deviated from the content's OR and SYNTH, into an editor's POV... Basically DevilWearsBrioni failed to prove any OR and SYNTH cases and now he has replaced it with a non-existent a POV case perhaps? Unless you feel there is still something worth to be discussed, I do not think I can be of any help - or if the off-topic discussion is helpful anymore? -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely baffled. You initiated a discussion based on my reply to Anthony, and now you're asking for him to intervene? I'm just reiterating what scholarship on the issue says, and you seem offended by the fact that Greece engaged in ethnic cleansing of Muslims? Page 59 in The Dark Side of Nation-States: Ethnic Cleansing in Modern Europe, reads "Muslims were the main target of pillage, rape, massacre, and other crimes". In The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence Since 1878, page 10, "Although nineteenth-century Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria were relatively homogenous societies--at least until the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913--the nationalist discourse gave way to the codification of discriminatory practices and nationalizing policies that targeted most minorities. Local Muslims were the first group to be targeted in this respect, as they were almost universally regarded by Balkan nationalist elites as an internalized enemy--regardless of their ethnicity they were seen as 'Turks'--who were also associated with painful legacies of imperial subjugation." DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The abovementioned "civilians" and "irregular bands" were often the same people :: very many of the country civilians had guns (or daggers and axes etc) and could use them. And see again the start of section #OR issue #1 part 2 hereinabove. The matter is simple: (a) Chams attacked Greeks; later (b) Greeks attacked Chams and drove them out; both are referenced; we want to put them together and say "(a) therefore (b)"; is that forbidden by Wikipedia as WP:OR, or has Tsoutsoumpis already made that synthesis between them?
    About the text "That's not the case though. Greece invaded the territory, not the other way around."; Greece the nation is one item; Greek-speaking local population under the rule of various nations is another item. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DevilWearsBrioni: you may say that Greece "invaded" Ottoman-held Epirus in 1912, but actually, Epirus was a native Greek region since the Ancient times, as evidenced by the archeological findings in the region, and the Greek presence in Epirus is continuous for 4.000 years, and was not interrupted by the colonization of Epirus by Albanian migrants from Albania during the Medieval period. And furthermore, in case you do not know, Epirus was a Greek-controlled region before the Ottomans invaded and conquered it in the 15th century. Given these facts, no wonder why the Greeks regard the 1912 events as "Liberation of Epirus", not "Invasion of Epirus". But of course, the Albanians may have a different opinion than the Greeks about it constituting a liberation or invasion, for their own political reasons.
@Anthony Appleyard: Regarding what you said about Greeks driving the Albanians out: The Albanian community was not driven out of Epirus during the Balkan Wars in 1912, and it still maintained a presence in the region even after the infamous Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey (Turkey to accept all Muslims living in Greece into its territory, and send all Christians within Turkish territory to Greece), mostly thanks to Fascist Italy and Mussolini's objection to their inclusion to that Population Exchange. However, what ended the Albanian presence in Epirus was the second betrayal of the Albanians against Greeks, in 1939, when they sided with Hitler's Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Fascist Italy against Greece, with the promise of a Greater Albanian dream (Mussolini's Fascist Italy in fact promised to the Albanians a re-drawing of Greek-Albanian borders in favor of Albania; that the Greek region of Epirus will be taken from Greece and be incorporated into the Albanian state). The second betrayal however has damaged the co-existence between Greeks and Cham Albanians beyond repair and they fled with their families and possessions to Albania where they stayed ever since after Nazi Germany's and Fascist Italy's defeats. So, what drove the Albanians out of Epirus, were the events of World War II in 1940s, not the Balkan Wars in 1910s. -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OR issue #1 part 3[edit]

  • That seems to make these expulsions of ethnic Albanians into part of the massive list of expulsions of Germans and (from the USSR) Poles etc, and way out of the range of what this WP:OR-related discussion was about. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: I agree absolutely about the expulsions of ethnic Albanians being part of the massive list of expulsions of Germans. I am very glad you have noticed that. But I shall note that not only this discussion is out of range, but also invalid and groundless by itself as it is based on personal perceptions. Not only we have unproven WP:OR and WP:SYNTH claims here, but we have these claims and accusations by certain editors targeting a very specific article because of that editor's POV, and that article happens to be the politically-sensitive article Expulsion of Cham Albanians.
The Wikipedia editors are supposed to be more objective and careful when they are raising OR and SYNTH claims and insist on their positions despite warnings from us the rest of the editors. An editor constantly raising OR and SYNTH claims just because he may not like a certain text/phrase, is very counterproductive, and is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Everyone here is obliged to understand what OR and SYNTH really are, and not resort to their own false perception of what OR and SYNTH are. Because similar situations in the future should be avoided. We can't run to Mediators every time a certain editor finds imaginary OR cases. This is why our previous Mediator, Iazyges, from the Dispute Resolution Notice Board, has suggested [3] that the editor DevilWearsBrioni shall be banned from certain articles such as the Expulsion of Cham Albanians, for refusing (or pretending to not) understand what OR and SYNTH really are, and stubbornly sticking with his own personal perception of OR/SYNTH. -- SILENTRESIDENT 08:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As regards allowing WP:Original research because of obviousness, one saying that I have seen is "Do I need a reference to prove that the sky is blue?". Another form of allowed WP:OR is simple arithmetic. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard:This about Blue Sky is very correct too. I agree absolutely. However, because politically-sensitive articles about WWII such as the Expulsion of Cham Albanians tend to attract disruptive editors with high political bias in their opinions and also bias in their editorial conducts, this often forces us the rest of the editors to... CITE that the sky is blue if we do not want facts and obvious information to be removed by these editors. How unfortunate. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard:An example of Blue Sky case here, where the obvious is being dismissed in favor of fringe theories, is DevilWearsBrioni's claims about the ethnicity of local Muslim Bandits in Epirus. Given that Epirus was a region where the local Muslim population constituted more than 95% of Albanians, and given that the Muslim bands were formed by the locals, it is really unfortunate to see the editor DevilWearsBrioni coming and suggesting that the Muslim Bands were not manned by Albanians, but... by some other unknown ethnicities, which DevilWearsBrioni couldn't clarify and prove.
I still remember him suggesting, a while ago on the No Original Research Noticeboard, that these Muslims Bandits in Epirus may be other Albanian Muslims or other ethnicities, or even Greek Muslims(!) and suggested that they were possibly transfered into Epirus(!) from other parts of the world(!), claims which he couldn't prove, and which are a blatant case of WP:OR and possibly WP:FRINGE theories.
While it's more than obvious that the term 'Muslims' refers to Muslim Albanians, the people of Epirus, some editors due to their personal bias, prefer their own personal fringe theories than accepting the obvious when this does not suit their POVs. I guess, this is when we the rest of the editors get into such unfortunate situations like this where we have to cite that the Sky is Blue. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd love to respond to this, I'll probably just be told to "stick to the point".DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: Following the raids by Muslim bands, Greek irregulars also started raiding villages. That's perfectly clear. But, whether the Greek army treated Muslim Chams as enemies before, independent of those raids, is not taken into account by that kind of ”simple arithmetic”. As I’ve previously explained, ”Thus, they were treated as enemies” offers a reductionist view of the events, especially if one considers that, ”Local Muslims were the first group to be targeted in this respect, as they were almost universally regarded by Balkan nationalist elites as an internalized enemy--regardless of their ethnicity they were seen as 'Turks'--who were also associated with painful legacies of imperial subjugation.”
Moreover, consider the following as well: ”In the course of the First Balkan War, the armies of the Greeks, the Bulgarian and the Serbs burned, plundered and killed in what was a deliberate strategy of ’ethnic cleansing’ (the term did not exist at the time, but the policy was well understood) aimed against the Muslims."
Does ”simple arithmetic” apply here? Were the Muslim Chams treated as enemies independent of the raids? Clearly so, right?
Also, I hate to repeat myself, but what’s the difference, in principle, between the two following sentences:
Muslim Chams were not keen to fight on the side of the Ottoman army, but already from autumn 1912 formed armed bands and raided the entire area as far north as Pogoni.
The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
Help me understand. Thanks! DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard:, I am very disappointed with the editor DevilWearsBrioni. I will not respond to him anymore, because all what he says about Greece having planned from the start to ethnically cleanse or kill the Albanians in Epirus ('deliberate strategy' of ’ethnic cleansing’ against Albanians or whatever) is only bias and anti-Greek propaganda and not befitting a reliable and honest editor of Wikipedia.
Dear Anthony, according to the academic scholars, documents and sources, the Greek Government, right as soon as the Balkan War broke out, initiated diplomatic efforts to establish an Alliance between the local Muslim Albanian populations and the Greek state in its goal to drive out the Ottoman forces from the territory of Epirus in exchange for rewards. Athens had send diplomats with the knowledge of the Albanian language to Epirus to convince them to join the Greek cause. Greece offered protection for their property rights and certain tax excemptions in agriculture and other rewards to the Albanian beys of Epirus, in exchange for their support to Greek forces against the Ottomans. However the diplomatic efforts were not as fruitful as the Greek government hoped to be; the results are nowadays known: the majority of the Albanian beys had strong anti-Greek sentiments, sided with the Ottomans, formed irregular bands, raided and terrorized the Greek villages in Epirus and chose to betray the Greek people of Christian faith with whom they co-existed for centuries and forced them to evacuate and flee their homes.
If you are interested, the source is here for you: Pitouli-Kitsou, p. 212: "most of the Albanian beys of Epirus, had strong anti-Greek sentiments, and had already formed irregular bands and fought against the Greek Army and Greek guards, burned villages in the regions of Paramythia and Fanari. Some Beys, particularly those of Delbino, Argyrokastro, Himara and Margariti seemed ready to accept Greek sovereignty on Epirus to rid themselves from the anarchy that characterized the shadowy Ottoman rule. As early as October 17, Athens had designated the Greek diplomat Spyromilios to confer with the beys to declare allegiance to Greece as soon as possible, assuring them that the Greek authorities will respect the lives and properties of Muslims and that the Greek Government would care and compensate them for their moral satisfaction, depending on the services to be offered", p. 360
Dear Anthony, honestly, I fail to see how the Greek Government can be accused for ill intentions by DevilWearsBrioni ('deliberate strategy' of ’ethnic cleansing’ against Albanians of Epirus already as soon as the war broke, as he claimed) when the sources and the scholars confirmed and noted the opposite: the Greek Government's focus on the Ottomans and its efforts to establish an Alliance with the Albanians against them. Everyone knows how the Greek Government had no hostile intentions against the local populations and rather 1) made contacts with them, 2) sought their help and support and 3) established Greek rule in Epirus but it did not drove/kicked the Albanian populaces (even those who supported the Ottomans) out of the region after the Balkan Wars.
DevilWearsBrioni's nonsense implications about Greeks being Nazis or committing ethnic cleansing or genocides during Balkan Wars only serve disturbing purposes and must end right now.
Honestly, reading DevilWearsBrioni's statements, one can not help but wonder about his insistence on biased perceptions of historical events. I have read the Wikipedia and Mediation rules again and again, and nowhere they state that the Wikipedia is a place where editorial bias is welcomed and tolerated. Scholarly bias and bias in sources is welcomed under the condition they are peer-viewed and reliable and its text is worded and attributed with a neutral tone and point of view, yes, but Wikipedia clearly discourages and prohibits editorial bias on articles and urges the editors to maintain a neutral and objective editorial conduct and constructive participation in the collective efforts of improving articles, (collective efforts I mean Mediations or Talk Pages). While one may cite biased sources, no one may resort to personal editorial bias and propaganda. The editor DevilWearsBrioni must understand that editorial bias and arrogant behavior can not be tolerated. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give this a try even though you said you won't respond to me anymore. Is there anything wrong with the source I cited? The author is Alexis Heraclides, and the book is The Greek-Turkish Conflict in the Aegean: Imagined Enemies. I have not used the word genocide, nor have I implied that Greece was a "Nazi state". The source states that there was a "deliberate strategy of ethnic cleansing", I didn't make that up. You clearly have a problem with the source, but you have given no reason for why you think it's biased. With regards to the situation prior to the war, I have no issues providing sources which contradict the revisionist and naive picture you've presented (Chams "betraying", the Greek perception of Muslim Albanians, etc). DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking a scholar's opinion or suggestions (note: opinions and suggestions are VERY different thing from proven and established facts, please bear this in mind well).
1) Scholars may believe anything. Absolutely anything. And they may be biased as well. 2) Scholars may suggest and claim anything, based on their bias and opinions. 3) A scholar, however, does not need to have facts in his hands to make an assumption or develop his opinion. 4) Scholarly opinions and suggestions need to be accompanied by indisputable facts and informations, or with simple word, strong evidence, for these opinions to become facts.
Now, let me remind you that you are not in a blogspot or in a forum where you can say "Because this scholar said the Greeks did ethnic cleansing against Albanians (without providing detailed and accurate information to support this claim), lets adopt it as a fact because I like it and it fits my POV!"
You are in Wikipedia, not in blogspots. And in Wikipedia, while biased sources by Scholars may be cited, their unproven opinions can not be adopted as indisputable facts, unless proven. And the text from biased sources must be attributed in a neutral tone, and from a neutral point of view, without picking sides and without presenting unproven opinions as being facts.
You cited Baltsiotis and now Heraclides, about Greeks committing Ethnic Cleansing against Albanians but none of them confirms it, and none of them provides reliable data supporting their claims. Both scholars made mere suggestions but they have no information about there being really any ethnic cleansing. Both Baltsiotis and Heraclides are just expressing their opinions and suggestions that the events in both wars (Baltsiotis in WWII and Heraclides in BWI if I am not mistaken) may constitute Ethnic Cleansing, but none of them was able to prove anything.
However, what offends me here is not Scholarly bias. Is your Editorial bias. You are talking about Baltsiotis and Heraclides's suggestions about Greeks committing ethnic cleansings against Albanians, but, frankly, you are very silent when it comes to scholars suggesting that the Albanians committed Ethnic Cleansing against the Greeks. Not a single word from you on this.
Here we go: Athanasios Gotovos p6: "The de facto power of Cham Albanians (in Epirus) included political, military and police presence and it was manifested under the veil of the occupying (Nazi German) power. Was directed directly against the Greeks, by not recognizing Greek authority and by harming Greek institutions, the Albanian bearers of this violence sought the de-jure replacement of any Greek structures (in the region), both official or revolutionary ones, by an Albanian administration. This violence was used mainly directed against the Christian element of the region, the presence and behavior of which constituted an obstacle to the implementation of the Albanian irredentist programme, i.e. append the region of Thesprotia to the Greater Albania. The Albanian civil administration in the region was formally attached to the Greek Government (which was under Nazi regime control). The terror that begun to occur and spread in the region of Thesprotia, dissolved the administrative structures, disrupted and unsettled the lives of the Christian population in the region already from the early months of the Nazi occupation of Greece, and lasted until the Spring of 1944 and led to a dramatic decrease of the Christian population, an early ethnic cleansing in Thesprotia."
You see? There are scholars who are accusing the Albanians for ethnic cleansings against the Greeks and Christians of Epirus! But I hear no word from you about that. While clearly there is bias in both the Albanian and Greek sides about the wars, all what I hear from you is only your anti-Greek bias and nothing else! Enough this POV. I am not here to hear your POVs.
@Anthony Appleyard: Dear Anthony, you have my full respect and I am very grateful you agreed into this mediation, but, honestly, it seems there is nothing really the OR or SYNTH to discuss here, except dealing everyday with Editorial bias which does not prove anything besides serving as a distraction from the scope of the Mediation which is to solve OR and SYNTH accusations raised by a problematic editor who has a very problematic perception of what Wikipedia exactly is. I do not plan sticking around forever dealing endlessly with POV matters. BOTH sides have bias about the wars of the past, and we should be very careful to not adopt any of them and rather stick to the current neutral point of view. This means DevilWearsBrioni is not a suitable and accountable editor for editing and improving ARBMAC-protected articles such as Balkans and Expulsion of Cham Albanians, because he does not care about the article's neutrality. Nor he cares about OR or SYNTH at all as evidenced by all this talk, so far. He is only using OR and SYNTH as a trojan horse to impose certain POV. And he has resorted thousands of times into disruptive edits (See his 3RR breaches, and warnings on his talk page) and tactics to achieve this goal. No wonder why the previous mediator suggested that he be banned from ARBMAC articles for the sake of Wikipedia. I am fully aware of your authority as a Mediator and Administrator. And I am fully aware that a Mediation may take weeks, or months, or even years to complete. But our talks with DevilWearsBrioni have not contributed anything, for weeks, besides proving the invalid of his OR claims. For this very reason, honestly, I do not believe that spending more time here will really help resolve anything or even convince this editor to chance his approach to certain articles and perception of certain rules (WP:OR). A ban should really be in consideration, because this editor insists always on his faulty positions and arguments already since our days in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and before that, in the No Original Research Noticeboard, and before that, in the Incidents Noticeboard, and before that, in the Cham Expulsion's Talk Page, or even my own Talk Page... A very long dragging of feet for nothing besides listening to DevilWearsBrioni's POV everyday... -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OR issue #1 part 4[edit]

Mediation closed[edit]

While it is ordinarily within the discretion of a mediator assigned to a case to determine whether or not there is any point in continuing the mediation, and to close it if there is not, the mediator assigned in this case has indicated that such is the case. (Moreover, one participant, SilentResident, has indicated that they wish to withdraw from participation as well.) In light of that, the mediation is closed. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians&oldid=1084182122"