Talk:Souliotes

Greek or Albanian

Keep in mind that Orthodox Albanians were called 'Greeks,' Muslims 'Turks' and Catholics 'Latins.' Also, a Greek 'Patriotic' book calling them Greeks means nothing. They spoke Albanian and most 1800's sources saw them as Albanian, long before the Balkans nations started to steal each other's heroes. To the Greek wikipedians: if they are Albanians, just admit it. No need to hellenise everything.

I also added a statement suggesting that there is controversy given their role in the Greek Revolution jus to warn users that some might be too happy to make theirs.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added more scholarly sources that CLEARLY state that they were Albanian. Please do not revert by adding a Greek nationalist book that is upset. There is a LOT of impartial evidence that they were Albanian bandits that fought with whomever. Also, this had nothing to do with faith, but power. Ali cracked down on Muslims right after that and Ali had Christians and Muslims fighting for him.

Keep it Fake (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Athanasios Psallidas, a secretary of Ali Pasha, stated that Souli (also known as Kakosouli) contained Greek fighters who fought against the Albanians for many years.[9] An author of unknown origin stated that the Souliotes, under tyranny in Epirus, have proven that Greece still gives rise to individuals like Leonidas at Thermopylae.[10] Aside from contemporary accounts, the Souliotes were known as Greeks even by their enemies. Beli Pasha, son of Ali Pasha, sent letters to his father from April to December 1803 calling the Souliotes "Romans" (Ρωμέους), "Romioi" (Ρωμιούς) and "Romegans" (Ρωμέγους), that is, ethnic Greeks. Ahmed Moufit, great-grandson of Ali Pasha's sister (Siachnisa), attempted to convert the Souliotes into Orthodox Albanians in his chronicles. He wrote angrily about how the Souliotes invited Ali Pasha's attack in 1789 because they called themselves Christian Greeks who became tools of Russia.[11]"

This is too biased. You clearly ignore that "Greeks" might have meant religion but iclude what some unkown author and a greek nationalist said. Unless it's rewritten, I will write my sources and have it checked for accuracy. I posted scholarly articles, you posted junk

Keep it Fake (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Keep it Fake (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:V issues

I think this article needs some work to bring it up to proper standards. Just a few problems that I'd like to address:

• I too thought that the Souliotes in the 18th/19th century were indeed Albanian-speaking. How you interpret that in ethnic terms (as "Arvanites", "Chams", "Albanians", whatever) is a separate issue, but it needs to be dealt with somehow. And we don't need repeated assertions and counter-assertions, we need references. Let's ask Matia for sources, he seems to know about these things. Let's keep clear that ethnicity is not automatically the same thing as language, but let's also not hide the facts here.
• I'm extremely skeptical about the alleged continuity, both of the group itself and of its name, between the ancient "Selloi" and the modern "Souliotes". As for the name, the Babiniotis dictionary derives it from an Albanian word suli = 'mountain summit'. Nothing to do with "Selloi". The link sounds very much like a 19th-century romantic folk etymology, invented for obvious reasons. What the article currently says about alleged proofs is a blatant non sequitur. This should be treated as an unsourced speculation as long as it's not substantiated further.
• As for the ethnic continuity, if it's true that they were Albanophone, that would prima facie speak against such a tradition. Here, too, what we need is just sources, sources, sources.

Comments? I hope I find some time to work on this later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Could the word "suli" (mountain summit) be a loan from the Greek language? Strangely, it doesn't exist in the Albanian dictionary I checked. --Shadow 00:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know, I know next to nothing about Albanian. But what would it have been loaned from, except the placename? You don't normally get geographical common nouns loaned from foreign geographical proper names that easily, do you? It could still be some older, obsolete or dialect word in Albanian and fail to appear in the dictionary for that reason. In any case, if Babiniotis has it, I'd guess we can rely on it - given the overall ideological stance of his dictionary on such matters, he would not leave out an opportunity to cast doubt on such a foreign etymology if it was in any way questionable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Selloi"

I'm removing the bit about "Selloi" and the alleged claims by Pantazis again. First, it's basically unsourced, as we don't have a reference for Pantazis. The information is from an unreliable website. Second, the argument (if Pantazis is in fact making it), is a double non sequitur. First, even if Selloi lived in Thesprotia in 800 BCE, that doesn't entail that people who lived in Thesprotia in 1300 CE were Selloi. There were such things as migrations in between, remember (e.g. some rather well-known migrations of Albanians south into Epirus.) And second, even if 14th-century Thesprotians were descendants of ancient Selloi, that would still tell us nothing about the etymology of the name, which is the only thing this section is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this passage yet again and will continue to do so as long as these concerns aren't answered:

"In support of the poet's belief, a Greek historian named Constantine Pantazis proved that the area that is currently Epirus in northwestern Greece was populated by one of the first ancient Hellenic tribes, the Selloi since 800 BC. The area was called Thesprotia by the Selloi."

Once more, what's wrong with it?

1. Unsourced
2. "proved" is non-neutral
3. that the Selloi were Greeks in the proper sense is hardly uncontroversial
4. that it was the Selloi who named Thesprotia is unsourced, dubious, not even said like this in Deuc.'s immediate source, and in addition it is also utterly irrelevant.
5. Plus, the double non-sequitur as pointed out above.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing the mentioning of the "Selloi" yet again: At the moment, we don't have any serious reference that they were a "tribe" at all. The only ancient attestations to the name are to a religious office: "Selloi" were priests of Zeus at Dodona. I wouldn't exclude the possibility that there also was a tribe of that name, but we have nothing to base that on right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm also adding another {fact} tag there: At the moment, we don't know if anybody (i.e. any serious scholar) has ever seriously entertained the hypothesis of an etymological link between "Selloi" and "Souli". The only thing we have is Kalvos, which may well be a once-off act of pure poetic license and need not imply belief in an actual linguistic link even on his own part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How to call the language

I've removed the link to Arvanitic. Arvanitic in the linguistic sense refers only to the dialects spoken in the south of Greek. Those in Epirus, especially in Thesprotia, are linguistically different, they're Cham Albanian. And Biris even argues that the first wave of settlers to Souli may have been Gheg speakers, an entirely different dialect, later mixed with Chams. But apparently not much is known about the nature of the specific dialect of Souli, as obviously it didn't survive as such after 1821. As long as we don't have concrete information about what form of Albanian they spoke, "Albanian" is the only thing we can say about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dionysius the Philosopher's uprising

Deucalionite, you've again removed the {fact} tag from the passage about the uprising of Dionysius the Philosopher. The source you quoted does not, as far as I can see, say anthing about a link between these events and the settlement of Souli. Can you please clarify where you get this idea from, or is it just your speculation? I'm not doubting that the uprising occurred, or that people were forced to move afterwards, I'm asking if there is anything in the literature that specifically links these particular movements with the settlement of Souli. Not that it would be implausible, to be sure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Future Perfect, the source is based on pure "speculation". Read the paragraph below nice and slow lest you "miss" something. You can clearly see for yourself that when the Turks arrived in Thesprotia, Greeks were either killed, forced to convert, or forced to leave their homes and migrate to other regions (and not just to the Ionian islands). Now, let us put two and two together lest we assume that everything so far is still based on "speculation." If the Souliotes migrated in around 1600, wouldn't that migration (to a major extent) be influenced by the arrival of foreign military forces? In other words, had the Turks not caused massive amounts of chaos and destruction in Thesprotia, then I doubt the Souliotes would have had any real significant incentive to want to move from the plains to the mountains. Not only that but the Souliot migration is an obvious repeat of history since Epirotian Greeks migrated to the mountains when the Roman army arrived.

Here is the paragraph.

Τα αντίποινα των Τούρκων υπήρξαν σκληρά τόσο για την εθνική υπόσταση των χριστιανών, που υποχρεώθηκαν σε μεγάλο βαθμό να εξισλαμισθούν, όσο και για την πληθυσμιακή αλλοίωση στη Θεσπρωτία και στα Ιωάννινα. Συμπαγείς ομάδες άφησαν τις πεδινές εκτάσεις ή μετανάστευσαν στα Ιόνια νησιά, ενώ τουρκοποιήθηκε το κάστρο των Ιωαννίνων, που έχασε σχεδόν όλους τους χριστιανούς και μεγάλο μέρος των εκκλησιών και μικρομονάστηρων. Τότε άρχισε και το παιδομάζωμα, από το οποίο είχε εξαιρεθεί η πόλη. Γενικώς, στα Ιωάννινα πρέπει να φονεύθησαν τουλάχιστον 300 άτομα και στην ύπαιθρο να κάηκαν και να δηώθηκαν δεκάδες χωριά, κυρίως στη Θεσπρωτία, και το κλίμα της αστάθειας και του φόβου να κυριάρχησε για μια πενταετία (έως το 1616, οπότε μαρτυρείται και νέος διωγμός των χριστιανών στο κάστρο).

Now, if you have a better source that explicitly states that the Souliotes migrated to the mountains as a result of whatever events occurred, then provide it. However, this is the best thing that can logically verify why the Souliotes would even remotely consider moving from their comfortable homes in the plains to the mountains. If the Souliotes wanted to go to the mountains willingly, then they would have done so without any pressures from a foreign military force. Deucalionite 18:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that this is Original research. So, it will go. I'm not going to comment on how plausible I find your speculation; the policy is clear enough on this: we are not supposed to be doing such things. We are under no obligation to state in the article why Thesprotians would have settled in Souli; if the literature doesn't discuss such reasons, then we won't either. Period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I much prefer commas. Original research? You have got to be kidding me. Read again: Τα αντίποινα των Τούρκων υπήρξαν σκληρά τόσο για την εθνική υπόσταση των χριστιανών, που υποχρεώθηκαν σε μεγάλο βαθμό να εξισλαμισθούν, όσο και για την πληθυσμιακή αλλοίωση στη Θεσπρωτία και στα Ιωάννινα. If you know your Greek, then you will understand that the terms "populational change" is found in the sentence. What does a populational change encompass? Gee, I don't know. Exile perhaps? Sure. Συμπαγείς ομάδες άφησαν τις πεδινές εκτάσεις ή μετανάστευσαν στα Ιόνια νησιά. You will find in the sentence about how "compact groups left the plains or went to the Ionian islands". Please focus on the emphasis on the conjunction "or". If it was just "compact groups left the plains and went to the Ionian islands", then you would have a case in stating that the source does not at all remotely discuss the Souliotes being involved in a specific migration to the Ionian islands being that they went up into the mountains of Mourgas. Could the Souliotes have been one of those "compact groups" who left the plains? Of course they could. This is not original research my friend. I did not write the source. Yes, I am providing an analysis of the source, but the analysis is based on what is written in the source already. Over and out. Deucalionite 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know where I can find (online) that book by Biris (with ISBN# 9602040319)? — Sshadow 22:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fangridas and the rest

The book by Fangridas that Deucalionite has been quoting is hardly what we'd call a "reliable source". It's one of those three-a-penny cheap pamphlets of popular patriotic literature for the Greek mass market. An entirely non-notable work (only reference on the web is a one-line book anouncement in To Vima) by an entirely non-notable author (no hints as to academic credentials, peer-reviewed publications, nothing). I must admit that in the absence of anything better right now, we'll be condemned to using it. (Biris, while notably different in emphasis, is not much better in terms of academic qualities.) There's undoubtedly a good deal of factual information there that we can use. - But: This doesn't mean that the article should be highjacked by Fangridas' personal POV. In the matter of the Albanian element in the Souli population, even Fangridas admits that the mainstream of Greek and foreign historiography takes a strong Albanian element for granted. Okay, he then goes on to downplay that (in an argumentation that I personally find bizarre, but never mind that). - We can mention this POV of his, but the least we must do is to acknowledge in the article that the other view exists and is a majority view in scholarship.

As for the rest: The versions you guys are reverting to don't make any sense even in terms of text structure. Do you read what you are reverting to at all? That sentence about "origins further north" is just hanging there in mid-air totally out of context, the way you have it. And the bit about Dionysius the Philosopher is still original research. By the way, did you not see that Fangridas himself dates the main wave of settlement of Souli several decades after those insurrections? -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Judge Fangridas based on the content of his work. If you had read the book (or any of the relevant sections) instead of automatically shooting him down, then maybe you would have actually learned something. Fangridas provides a comparative analysis of the theories that mainstream academics (both Greeks and non-Greeks) have developed pertaining to the origins of the Souliotes. That, automatically, deserves any reader's full attention. If Fangridas' work was only a "three-a-penny cheap pamphlet for the Greek mass market", then it would not have been objective enough to have included different theories about the Souliotes (especially theories where he cites authors who believe that Souliotes were Albanians). With that kind of commentary coming from you, it is no wonder why I don't consider you a "philhellene." As I have said before, judge Fangridas based on the content of his work. Keep your personal commentary about Fangridas to yourself until you have actually understood the author's work both literally and contextually.

Another thing. Fangridas cites from different reliable authors and has provided very concrete evidence pertaining to the Souliotes being Greeks. Now, mainstream academia will no doubt adamantly call Souliotes "Albanians" only because they find anyone who speaks Arvanitika to be of Albanian origin. Unfortunately, too many scholars base cultural/ethnic origins on language and that is a significant academic miscalculation no matter who you are or how many diplomas you have. Language does not define ethnicity and I don't care what Babiniotis states about the Albanian etymological roots of the term "Souli" since etymology does not, by default, mean that the Souliotes were Albanians.

As for the Souliote migration into the mountains of Mourgas. I have already explained logically how that migration could have been influenced as a result of the failed insurrections of Dionysius the Philosopher. Now, did the Souliotes have to wait until Dionysius was defeated to leave the plains? Not really. The Souliotes left the plains of Thesprotia in around 1600 AD. It is a social fact that Thesprotia was experiencing major upheaval. So, if you want, I could clarify that the Souliote migration occurred during major upheavals in Thesprotia (with the failed insurrection of 1585 and the insurrections made by Dionysius the Philosopher).

For you to find Fangridas' arguments as "bizarre" indicates that you are not "pro-Greek". For Fangridas to provide evidence for his arguments should have already acquired your attention and, to some extent, your respect. Your arguments pertaining to Fangridas' lack of credentials also indicates that you are narrow-minded in not at least giving Fangridas his credit for providing a decent comparative analysis on a topic. To focus only on credentials blindly makes even good people want to state, "Credentials be damned." I can understand where such people come from because I have personally met academics with credentials who have lied to my face about historical/social events. Enough said. Deucalionite 17:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

For me to find Fangridas' arguments "bizarre" indicates, first of all, that I have read Fangridas. Got it? I did read him and I do base my judgment on this reading. Another thing I find bizarre is that you should evaluate other editors on criteria of being "pro-Greek" or not. Ever heard of NPOV? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't get it. For you to have read Fangridas and provide an interpretation that does not give credit where credit is due is ludicrous in my book. You are correct to call Fangridas an author who has not shown how notable he is. However, to consider his work a "three-a-penny pamphlet" as if he was a propagandist from Goebbel's department shows that you are narrow-minded. I have seen pamphlets numerous times and I at least have the decency to separate the one's that are contributive and the ones that are based on utter nonsense. So, keep your unrealistic comments to yourself. Got it? Oh, by the way, I know what NPOV stands for, but its meaning is outmoded.

You want to know my criteria for evaluating editors Mr. "Philhellene"? Here are some of the criteria I follow by when I judge editors: Does the editor have a flexible mentality? Does he/she understand the possibility of mainstream academia to be wrong in light of evidence? Does the editor uphold a sense of honesty? Does the editor uphold a certain agenda? Does the editor honestly explain his/her agenda? Does the editor uphold a specific ideology? Is that ideology purely ideological or is it based on social reality? (this is just the tip of the iceberg).

I do not evaluate editors based on whether they are pro-Greek or anti-Greek. Though I am flattered that you would assume that. Simply put, I respect those who are honest enough to uphold what it really means to be a philhellene. Also, I do feel compelled to help my Greek brethren whenever I can and if they want my help. However, when there is someone who is deemed a "philhellene" and conducts actions that are not necessarily "philhellenic", then the name is just a fancy title. Got it? Have a nice day. Deucalionite 19:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Last warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So a question, is this guy a Wikipedia:Reliable source? - FrancisTyers · 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-, in my view. Okay for quarrying some factual information and summaries of a few of the views expressed in the older literature. Not all, because his coverage is far from complete. Not a good source at all where it comes to his own evaluation of the sources, which is highly idiosyncratic and hardly representative of modern scholarship, in all likelyhood. Trouble is just, we don't have anything much better to go by right now. As I said, I'm just opposed to taking the POV he expresses and presenting it as The Truth. I can send you scans of the relevant pages if you like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I forgot - you don't read Greek, do you? -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope :( I can get along with French or Romanian, but no Greek :[ - FrancisTyers · 21:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Arvanitic?

Arvanitic? Really? --Tēlex 22:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, K.E. Fleming in The Muslim Bonaparte calls them "of Albanian origin", but states they identified as Souliotes, not as Albanians or Greeks. Also Clogg calls them in Minorities in Greece "a warlike Albanian Christian community".--Aldux 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, i wouldn't think of a group of people that they are not Greek, if the last song they sang before dieing was in greek... --Hectorian 23:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Dance of Zalongo, the song known today under that name is certainly not what the Souliot woman were singing in the actual event, is it? If they were singing anything at all. The poem can't have been created before the event, because it refers to it. Or did they invent the song right there on the spot? But who then survived to tell the tale anyway? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What i know is that this song was a song sang by the Souliotes before the event, but the women of Souli decided to sing this one, as the most appropriate, in the edge of the cliff. now, do not think of that terrain as an Everest:). it was high enough, but people on the ground could listen to what 2 dozens of people were singing... when the souliot troops were defeated, some of the men survived (as wounded or captured). in addition, the enemies of them, would also have heard the song. a legend or not, i can't be sure 100%... but i have read many books refearing to it and watched many programmes describing it, that i tend to believe that it actually happened this way (honestly, i do not have reasons to believe the opposite). --Hectorian 13:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, you recently reverted

They were Orthodox Christians who spoke Greek and Albanian, and thus were part of the millet-i Rum (Rum millet) and as such only wrote in Greek.

to

They were Orthodox Christian bilingual Greeks who spoke Greek and Albanian, and thus were part of the millet-i Rum (Rum millet) and as such only wrote in Greek.

The first version sticks to agreed, documented facts. It is disputed (see this whole Talk page) whether they were 'Greeks' or 'Albanians'. And in fact the term 'Greek' in this context probably is simply a synonym for Orthodox Christian, and implies nothing about their ethnic identity. For this reason, it seems to me clearer to document that they were Orthodox Christians, spoke Greek and Albanian, and wrote Greek. Beyond that, it seems to be POV. --Macrakis 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

According to what u say they belonged in no ethnic group, right? The fact that they spoke greek, wrote in greek, fought in the Greek War of Independance does not leave much to dispute. the fact that they were bilingual in albanian is not enough to call them non-Greeks. --Hectorian 21:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is anachronistic to use modern ethnic labels for that period. But even beyond that, your argument fails. Are there not modern Greek Jews who speak Greek, write in Greek, hold Greek citizenship, join the Greek armed forces, etc. but who consider themselves to be "ethnically" to be Jews? And many aren't even bilingual in Ladino or Hebrew.... --Macrakis 21:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The example of the Jews is not relevant. Most Greek Jews (those who were not killed by the nazis) migratted to Israel, and i am sure they see Israel as their ancestral homeland. However, the Souliotes remained in Greece, and were/are Greeks in everything, apart from their 2nd mother tangue. 'anachronistic modern ethnic labels' may be just your POV. perhaps u could say that Maniotes were not Greeks as well, cause "it is anachronistic to use modern ethnic labels for that period". sorry, but if u have anything more to support a non-Hellenic ethnic identity for the Souliotes, just say so... --Hectorian 21:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There are still Jews in Greece, though not many. Your argument would claim that they are 'ethnically Greek'. As you can see from the first comment in this Talk page, some Souliots even today consider themselves Albanian. And the article is primarily about the 18th century. Standard historical methodology tries hard to avoid projecting today's categories into other times and places. It is not POV to be careful about sticking to the evidence. --Macrakis 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Boring dispute. I'd tend to agree with Macrakis, only we currently have no decent sources either way. The only actual book on Souliotes we've seen in a year is that booklet cited by Deucalionite, which was low quality. Hasn't anybody got access to actual literature on those guys? Nobody doubts that they politically/ideologically identified with whatever the term "Greek" meant at the time ("έλληνες" yes, "ρωμιοί" yes, "γραικοί" probably not). But still, there's good enough reasons to believe that the Albanian element in their self-identification was strong enough that a characterisation as "Greek-Albanians" or something of the sort would be justified (see the Arvanites article; we have a Botsaris as late as 1899 explicitly calling himself an Αρβανίτης in a context where that term definitely still comprises all Albanians.) But that would be "original research" on my part, as is Hectorian's argument above. Wait till we get to see some real sources, I'll rewrite the article some time. For the moment, I'd much prefer Macrakis' neutral version, but I haven't yet made up my mind if I want to celebrate the end of the Greek summer vacations with a round of revert-warring. The rest of the same sentence is still so bad it might be not worth fighting over its beginning. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, now that I look at it again, I forgot that Aldux had in fact cited a few interesting things from the serious literature, supporting the "Albanian" view. Will try to do a new version of that sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Some relevant quotes:

• The Souliotes, a Greek-speaking Orthodox tribe of Albanian origin... p. 99, K.E. Fleming, The Muslim Bonaparte: Diplomacy and Orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece, Princeton University Press, 1999. ISBN 0691001944.
• The Souliotes, who are of Albanian origin but usually are grouped separately.... The Souliotes...provide an excellent example of the way in which group identity in Ali's regions was linked to land. The Souliotes's sense of communal identity inhere in the land on which they lived... the account of Souliot women throwing themselves and their children into the mountain gorge rather than surrender to Ali's forces stood as testimony not just to their pride but also to their allegiance to the land. p. 62f (note allegiance to the land), Fleming.
• ...the Orthodox Souliotes, an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenised Albanians..., p. 23, William Miller, The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927, Frank Cass, 1966. ISBN 0714619744.

Again, it is clear that they were at least partly Greek-speaking, that they were of Albanian origin, and that they were Orthodox. Beyond that, national consciousness doesn't seem to apply.... --Macrakis 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. Sometime we'll have to do some further rewriting further down in the article, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

As stated above, this article needs much better sources. It appears to be based mostly on romantic-nationalist propaganda, not serious scholarship. It uses terms in English, like "Souliot Confederacy" and "Souliot Regiment", which I have not seen elsewhere. The article is very poor and needs work. --Macrakis 14:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

U should provide sources contradicting the current ones, before asking for better... The English terms used are the exact translation of the Greek terms. The Greek word "αυτονομία" (autonomy) could also be used, as this is used extensively in historiography. as for the "romantic-nationalist propaganda" thing u said, i think it is better to leave it without a comment , for, as a counter-balance, i would had used words of similar strength and magnitude (e.g. anarcho-communist new order pseudo-history). Hectorian 00:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, this is no justification for blanket reverts removing uncontroversial copyedit corrections as you just did. And Macrakis' content changes were also improvements and had nothing to do with "anarcho-communist new order pseudo-history". Apart from that, Macrakis is also right about "romantic-nationalist" literature having been used here. Try "reputable modern academic historiography" as a proper alternative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A New York Times article about the Souliotes. Published on February 8, 1880.

I will provide the link blow but first i want to quote the whole article.

"Brave Women.- The extraordinary courage of the Albanian women has been displayed over and over again in the history of the country: but one of the most celebrated instances was that recorded of a branch of the Albanian people represented by the Suliotes. When they were besieged by Ali Pasha in 1792, the Suliotes formed a semi-independent confederacy, comprising of 66 villages, in the districts of Margariti, Paramythia, and Janina. Up to the time of Ali Pasha they prided themselves on the regularity of the payments of their dues to the Porte. But the intrigues of the cunning old Veli, who wanted to get the whole of the spahilik of Suli into his greedy hands. Soon roused the people into rebellion, and they commenced their glorious and lengthened war against the far greater resources of the renowned Pasha. The latter, by means of the duplicity of which he was such a consumate master, had entrapped Tzavella, one of the Suliote heads of houses into his power, and then laid siege to the town of Suli. He endeavored by bribes to induce Tzavella to turn a traitor. Cunning here met his match; the crafty Suliote pretended compliance, and even left his own son, Foto, in Ali Pasha´s hands as a hostage. He returned to Suli under pretense of betraying the town. But no sooner had he arrived than he sent a letter of defiance to the pasha. Ali then assaulted te town and it was here that the heroism of the Albanian women became so conspicious. Mosko, the wife of Tzavella, and mother of Doto, showed prodigies of valor during the siege. She broke open some cartridge-boxes with a hatchet, and then loaded them on the other women, and rushing into the trenches, distributed them among the Suliotes. Ali threatened to roast alive her son Foto; but she replied she was young, and could have other children, and that she would eat a bit of the roasted flesh of her son rather than betraying her country.--Blackwood´s Magazine.

Published:February 8 1880 Copyright: The new york times."

(My english is good, but thats how they wrote in 1880)

The original article can be found in this link: [1]

View the full article to read what i have quoted.

This is a better source than most of the other sources on wikipedia. And it is more then enough to draw the conclusions of this debate.

Vandalism is not tolerated. If you do not agree with this source then you have to discuss it´s reliability.--Durim Durimi (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting source. Just make sure it adheres to WP:RS. Deucalionite (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats from 1880 and not a modern historical work.A mention in a 1880 newspaper is not a source.Megistias (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is much better, than today when everyone wants to adopt heroes.

70.20.216.107 (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) It can not be used as a historical source. There were probably newspapers that potrated the Turks/Albanians as monsters and the Souliotes/Greeks as angels. We cant use those as historical sources. But it can be used if we can find more articles from newspapers and put a seperate section. But I dont now if it has a use. Seleukosa (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrible page

This is the most terrible page I have seen till now. Full of shit!
1.Ανάργυρος Φανγκρίδας is not a WP:RS. RS is a good article, a reliable author and a reliable publisher. Ανάργυρος Φανγκρίδας is known only by his family, so he for sure does not fulfill WP:RS.
2."Clogg, Richard. Minorities in Greece: Aspect of a Plural Society. Oxford: Hurst, 2002." was terribly misscourced. He says that Souliotes were Albanians.
3.The article is terribly written.
4."Psallidas, Athanasios. Γεωγραφία Ηπείρου και Αλβανίας." has not ISBN, page number, year of publishing and etc.
5. If somebody does not fulfill this gaps, I am going to rewrite the article from the beginning.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with your assessment; as far as I'm concerned the page is yours to rewrite. When you do, please be so kind as to not fall into the converse trap, of turning the whole page into a rant arguing how they were Albanians, Albanians, Albanians (and, by the way, Albanians). By the way, you might also consider if it would be worth merging the page with Souli. I've never understood what these doublets of location pages and inhabitants pages are supposed to be good for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good work, the page became more terrible than it was and we are glad to learn a new version of the history, that the bilingual and of Greek consciousness Souliotes were Cham Albanians!!!!! - Sthenel (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you are surprised. Live and learn. Actually, the world out there does view some things differently from the "version of history" you guys grow up with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources that say: Souliotes are not of Albanian conciousness

google books search leads to the results (however there must be many other):

1. The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-. William Miller. Souliotes, 'an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenized Albanians (Arvanites)'
2. The Eve of the Greek Revival. Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis. Souliotes 'Christian Albanians who had intermixed with Greeks...the most obvious examples of gradual intergration of Albanians into the national conciousness of Greeks are they Ydraioi and the Souliots' (this means they are Arvanites, or are the Ydraioi Chams?)
3. Capodistria: the Founder of Greek Independence: The Founder of Greek Independence. Christopher Montague Woodhouse[[2]] Souliotes, a tribe of Greeks from Epirus...' (in another book of the same author says of Albanian origin, so Arvanites)
4. The Eve of the Greek Revival. Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis. 'Of Albanian origin' (aka Arvanites)
5. The Muslim Bonaparte. Katherine Elizabeth Flemin. 'of albanian origin' (Arvanites)
6. Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy. Victor Roudometof, Roland Robertson. 'the Greek Albanian clans of the Souliotes'
7. Two Diaries.Frank McEachran. 'of Albanian origin' (again Arvanites)
8. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. IngentaConnect 'of Albanian origin' (Arv.)

So they were of Albanian origin the time of the Revolution. In the Souli area there were some families with the name 'Zervas' too. Suppose we have two Cham civil wars...Alexikoua (talk)

So the definition of Chams is that they are of Albanian conciousnes.... very nice, we got an answer.23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorporated discussion about ethnicity from Cham Albanians

The page, however, is becoming biased because of easy assumptions. What I mean is that, the following false assumption was made: Arvanites have Orthodox Albanian origin and some Chams are orthodox, so orthodox chams are Arvanites of Epirus and vice versa, so Souliotes that also had an earlier Albanian origin and are Orthodox, are Arvanites of Epirus, so they are Chams, and so Chams played a large role in the Greek War of Independence. Now, haven't Souliotes been self-identifying as Greeks and not Chams for the last few centuries? So how does that make Chams active in the Greek Revolution? You see what I mean?--Michael X the White (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no! On Souliotes there are references that say that they are Orthodox Albanians of the cham Brench.

• Richard Clogg, Minorities in Greece: Aspects of a Plural Society, 2002 ISBN 1850657068, 9781850657064 "The Souliotes were a warlike Albanian Christian community, which resisted Ali Pasha in Epirus in the years immediately preceding the outbreak the Greek War of Independence"
• Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby, Greece, University Press, 1944. "...who belongs to the Cham branch of south Albanian tosks (see volume I, pp.363-5).In the mid-eighteenth century these people (the Souliotes)were a semi-autonomous community..."
• Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, I.B.Tauris, 1999, ISBN 1860645410, 9781860645419 "The Suliots, then numbering around 12,000, were Christian Albanians inhabiting a small independent community somewhat akin to tat of the Catholic Mirdite trive to the north
• Nicholas Charles Pappas, Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1991
• Katherine Elizabeth Fleming, The Muslim Bonaparte: Diplomacy and Orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 0691001944, ISBN 9780691001944 "The history of the orthodox albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such an overlap"
• Gerolymatos, p. 141. "The Suliot dance of death is an integral image of the Greek revolution and it has been seared into the consciousness of Greek schoolchildren for generations. Many youngsters pay homage to the memory of these Orthodox Albanians each year by recreating the event in their elementary school pageants."

And a lot of others. There is no assumption in this page, at least made by me. There are clear references about every single sentence.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Still the term 'Arvanites of Epirus' is product of original reasearch (i mean these Arvanites that feel realy Albanians). There are sill Arvanites of Epirus that dont feel that belong in that category, so it's misleading too.

As for the Souliotes, sources often confuse the terms Albanians and Arvanites. A english book said that politician Th. Pangalos said that he is Albanian (actually he said Arvanite). Another english statement that made me lauph: 'Albanians are the Scots of Greece', suppose the author meant the Arvanites too.

About the 1821 Revolution, the section is very one sided. I will add the role of the Muslim Chams in that period and the fierce 'Cham civil war' (waw maybe creat a new article with this title) that occured these period (Botsaris hated his Cham compatriots very much I suppose).

Find a citation of these above, and feel free to create the "Cham civil war". I can help you, on the case of Souliotes war with Ali Pasha, it is "Edward Augustus Freeman" on the book "The Ottoman Power in Europe", stating that "This was a conquest of Christians by Mahometans ; but it was not a conquest of Christians by Turks. It was in truth a conquest of Albanians by Albanians" But, you will have to find a place that clearly cits "Cham Civil war" in a RS.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On Botsaris do not forget, that he was in the Albanian regiment of the French Army, his mother tangue was cham albanian dialect, per Titos Jochalas, etc. etc. etc.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Souliotes may be seen as having earlier Orthodox Albanian origin, but that does not make them Chams. I can see one source speaking of a cham branch, but that still would be cham origin, without making them Cham Albanians. From what is written in the article, Cham Albanians self-identify as Albanians, when Souliotes do not.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We cannot say that Souliotes self-identify as Greeks, as Souliotes today has just an origin sense. We are talking for the 18th and 19th century, when Souliotes was an actual ethnonym. Per sources, thay were Cham Albanians, and at that time they spoke Cham Albanian dialect, See Titos Jochalas.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael, we must be careful to not project our 20th/21st-century ethnic categories back into the 18th century. In the time of the Souliots, this dichotomy between "Greek-identifying" and "Albanian-identifying" that you are thinking of simply did not yet exist in this form. Yes, Souliots identified politically with the Greek national cause, and were later prepared to merge into Greek society. That didn't stop them from being (Cham) Albanian at the time, and not just having "Albanian origins". The differentiation into (Greek-identifying) "Arvanites" and (non-Greek-identifying) "Albanians", just like the association of the name "Cham" with only on sides of that, is a product of the 20th century, perhaps even the second half of the 20th century. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean and I do not disagree, but I think in the case of Souliotes, they had already been self-identifying as Greeks before the Revolution. The differentiation may be a product of the past century, but if they had been saying "we're Greeks" since before 1800, then it is correct to say they're a Greek ethnic group with Orthodox Albanian origin. They're Greeks for themselves, and "scientists" and "intellectuals" decided they had Albanian origin. You see what I mean? I see your point with the "Cham" part being added later on, and that is why I think it is exaggerated to use a 20th century "ethnonym" for people of around 1800 (that actually have an ethnonym, Souliotes). We could say something like "they were Orthodox Albanians that sided with the Greek ethnic cause" or even better "they were Greeks with earlier Orthodox Albanian origin", but I definately think that "they were Cham Albanians" is over-exaggerated.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You still seem to be thinking in terms of "Greek" and "Albanian" as two mutually exclusive categories. They were not. – But all in all, I'll say we should definitely de-focus this issue. Whether or in what sense these people were Greeks and/or Albanians is an issue of debate between nationally minded Wikipedians. It is not an issue of debate between serious authors in the real world. Of course they were Cham Albanians. That is such a self-evident statement, and at the same time so boring to everybody but a few nationalists, that the article should waste as few words as possible on even making it. We should definitely not waste article space and time buttressing it up, refuting it, discussing it or arguing for or against it. The article should simply take it for granted. What we might write about (with one or two sentences) is that among present-day Greeks this identification is often avoided, because of the contrast between the negative political association of the term Cham and the positive historical connotations of the term Souliote (e.g. by taking recourse to the modern construct of Arvanite rather than Albanian.) But that's a statement about modern mainstream Greek ideology, it isn't a statement about the Souliots or the Chams themselves, so it's only of marginal relevance in any case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Granted? Self-evident? Since when? Can you explain us how? How can we say that two groups with Greek consciousness but (probably) Albanian origin of the early 19th century mainly can be identified with a population group of mainly the 20th century with full Albanian consciousness? How can terms used much earlier can be mixed with a late 20th century term?? It makes no sense at all.--Michael X the White (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it makes sense! It makes sense in a wider scope of mixture and dispute: the Souliots and the Arvanites are Albanians... the Ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, the Ancient Epirotes were Illyrians, even the Greek origin of the Spartans has been in "dispute" (supposendly descending for the Jewish tribe of Dan...). Anything possible to disconnect the Greeks from their history and to make them not feel proud of their ancestors (this attitude reminds me of someone...).

If we were about to break the above comment in order to see its meaning we could: Whether or in what sense these people were Greeks and/or Albanians is an issue of debate between nationally minded Wikipedians: for those not "nationally minded", multi-multi-thinking Wikipedians, followers of acculturation (in the pretext of multi-culturalism), whirshippers of the American melting pot, the Souliotes were "everything" or nothing... But further down we read: Of course they were Cham Albanians: is a nationally minded Wikipedian talking now? {...} The article should simply take it for granted: for a gazillion-th time, language cannot be used as ethnic self-identification. If so, everyone in the US, Australia and Britain is English. among present-day Greeks this identification is often avoided and negative political association of the term Cham: the thing is that this identification was never used among the Greeks, past and present, it is not just "avoided" today, because for the Greeks this was never an identifying option. It largely becomes an identification option (surely not self-) for those who turned the Balkans into this, after the Cold War. The Souliotes not only viewed themselves as Greeks, but they were viwed as such by the rest of the Greeks, the Ottoman rulers, as well as their contemporary Westerners. taking recourse to the modern construct of Arvanite rather than Albanian: is the term "Arvanite" a modern construct? Not really... Quite the contrary, it has been in use for many centuries, long before the creation of the Albanian state and the process of the Albanian nation-building. Hectorian (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone needs proof that the tendency to directly correlate language with ethnic identity is ludicrous, please refer to the following secondary source:

Arnakis, George C. "The Role of Religion in the Development of Balkan Nationalism", pp. 118-119 (Jelavich, Barbara and Jelavich, Charles. The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics since the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963). "Similarly, on some islands of the Aegean, and even in the neighborhood of Athens, we may come across Albanian-speaking Greeks, whose ancestors fought for Greece in the 1820's, while other Albanian-speaking Orthodox Christians from Karystos on the Euboea emigrated to Asia Minor and adopted Turkish as their vernacular. (...) From these examples it will appear that language is no criterion of nationality: it sits lightly on the cultural equipment of our Balkan peoples and it may accommodate itself to any new environment. Language usually carries with it what Finlay calls "literature"-not merely the written records, which were scanty in an age of nonliteracy, but, more significantly, the oral tradition (poems, fables, proverbs, songs) that form part of a people's modes of expression."

Ultimately, I tend to agree with Hectorian in that Future's arguments contain serious caveats. Deucalionite (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationality and ethnicity are not the same. Secondly, please bring references that they were not Albanians.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The author makes no explicit distinction between nationality and ethnicity (both terms mean the same thing to him). Second, the reference you are looking for is right here:

Arnakis, George C. "The Role of Religion in the Development of Balkan Nationalism", p. 141 (Jelavich, Barbara and Jelavich, Charles. The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics since the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963). [Footnote] "On the basis of language, Albanian nationalists claimed as their own a good number of Greece's national heroes. (...) Nonetheless, a common language was not sufficient to cement an alliance between Muslim Albanians and Albanian-speaking Greeks, such as the Souliotes, during the Greek Revolution."

Mortal Kombat! Just kidding. :) Anything else my friend? (By the way, I'm currently looking over the Cham Albanians article with fresh eyes.) Deucalionite (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Found another reference Balkanian:

Batalden, Stephen K. Catherine II's Greek prelate: Eugenios Voulgaris in Russia, 1771-1806. East European Monographs, 1982, ISBN 0880330066, p. 142. "The Greek letter...indicated that 25,000 men were ready to join in battle against the Turks, more if there were to be Russian presence. But the petitioners from the city of Kastoria noted that their fellow Greeks, the Souliotes in the mountains of Albania, did not receive the support of Russian officials in their battle against the local Turkish authorities."

The Souliotes as "fellow Greeks"? Blasphemy! :) Deucalionite (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The most common view on the ethnicity of the Souliotes was that they were a mix of Greek and Albanian people living in the area, bilingual in Greek and Albanian, who had possibly Greek consciousness but beyond it they were strongly identified with their region and their "Souliote identity". But it is clear that they never considered themselves Albanians and part of the Albanian nation. Such designations like "Cham Albanians" are irrelevant. The article makes the readers feel that it refers to a clearly Albanian population, and Souliotes were not either in terms of origin or in terms of culture. - Sthenel (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Stressing that they were "not part of the Albanian nation" or "not of Albanian consciousness" presupposes that there was such a thing as an Albanian nation or Albanian (political) consciousness to begin with. Which there wasn't. So this denial is in itself nonsensical. Up to the League of Prizren and the foundation of the modern Albanian nation state, "Albanian" stood for an ethnolinguistic group, a language community, not more and not less. As such, the term (pre-1900) was of exactly the same status as a term like "Vlach" (until today). It did not have any connotations of political/cultural orientation. Just like everybody is a Vlach who speaks Vlach, everybody was an Albanian who spoke Albanian. This was the only meaning of the term that existed. And that is precisely the only sensible meaning the term can be used – and is in fact used in modern scholarship – when refering to those periods today. In this sense, it is not mutually exclusive with being Greek (in the sense of a political/cultural orientation, of Romoios). An Albanian could have any number of different political-cultural ways of self-identification, including that of identifying as Greek, without ceasing to be an Albanian, just as a Vlach can call himself a Greek without ceasing to be a Vlach. We can call Markos Botsaris an Albanian just as we can call George Averoff a Vlach. It's the same thing. The need to distinguish between (merely) Albanian-speaking people and "Albanians proper" is an issue only after 1900, and it would be quite anachronistic to project it back into earlier times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

But it would not be anachronistic to call the Souliotes Cham Albanians because of their bilingualism? "Albanian" stood for an ethnolinguistic group, but the Souliotes were not only Albanian-speakers; you said that everybody was an Albanian who spoke Albanian, in this way the Souliotes were Greeks and not Cham Albanians as they spoke Greek too. And the most important is that this region of Epirus was inhabited by Greek and Albanian people, so people of mixed cultural and linguistic heritage were the most possible "product" of this match. What I can't get is why the article stresses their "Albanian part", calls them definitely Albanians and ignores "anything Greek" in them. - Sthenel (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

...so they were "Greeks and not Cham Albanians"? You are still stuck with the either-or. Sigh. I see the suggestion that two terms may not have been mutually exclusive is still causing cognitive overload. Yes, I'm sure the word "both" is a very difficult concept to grasp. As for why the article is currently ignoring "anything Greek in them", well, obviously it shouldn't, and it doesn't. Except for one sentence in the lead, which was recently inserted like that by Balkanian`s word. See my warning somewhere further above, when I asked him "please be so kind as to not fall into the converse trap, of turning the whole page into a rant arguing how they were Albanians". The temptation must have been great. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion of my point is that a mixed population should not be called Greeks or Albanians, but this article does so and seems really nationalistic. That's what I want to point out. - Sthenel (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be not much evidence they were particularly "mixed" (in any non-trivial sense, i.e. apart from the trivial fact that no population on earth is ever mathematically "pure".) For all I can see, they were as "purely" Albanian as it gets, i.e. no more and no less "mixed" than other populations that we have no qualms describing with a single epithet either. They were ethnolinguistically Albanians, with a Greek cultural/political orientation. Sure, they were also bilingual in Greek - but so was everybody, including the Muslims. That's not a sign of mixture, it's just a sign they had a regional lingua franca. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The notion that they were ethnolinguistically Albanians comes up from where exactly? Ethnically? Has their ethnicity been proven in the sources? I don't think so. Did they have Albanian consciousness (the most important for someone in order to be characterized ethnically)? Of course not! On the contrary, the subjacent to the Ottoman rule Albanian troops were in fact the immediate enemies of the Souliotes, with the latter neither considering them as the brothers who had gone astray. They referred to the Albanian enemies as foreigners to them. Linguistically? They were not only Albanian-speakers, so they were not ethnic Albanians by language. So, the only people that can call them definitely Albanians are these who dispute the Greek presence in Epirus, consider it a pure Albanian territory, and support that the Greek language was spoken there only as a lingua francaof the time and not because Epirus had Greek population as well. - Sthenel (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sthenel, for the umpteenth time: your criterion of "consciousness" is an anachronism. There was no Albanian "consciousness" your criterion could possibly be tested against. On the other hand, language is a defining criterion of ethnicity. Of nationality, no, but of ethnicity, yes. Those are two different concepts in English, which Greek people tend to confuse. Speech communities are commonly regarded as ethnic units. Is it so difficult to understand that 19th-century bilingual Greek/Albanian speakers (whose primary, native home language and ancestry was Albanian) were Albanian, and can be called thus with no special disclaimers attached, just like bilingual Greek/Vlach speakers are Vlachs (and not "mixed Vlachs", "people of Vlach origins who no longer are Vlachs" or the like)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not understand why the lead was reworded as such. They fact that wiki editors tend to find compromise by faking realities is the most disturbing and unencyclopedic of all. It is clear that they were Albanians (of the cham branch), who were hellenized when nationalism flowerished in the region. As such, the lead should be reworded again per this argument.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sthenel, you just confused me. Let me take them one by one. The notion that they were ethnolinguistically Albanians comes up from sources. Did they have Albanian consciousness? The surely had a souliot consciousness as per sources, but this does not mean that they were not part of an ethnic group. "the subjacent to the Ottoman rule Albanian troops were in fact the immediate enemies of the Souliotes", yeah right. All Albanians were fighting alongside the turks and all the greeks were fighting against them. Put this generalizations out. They have no place. A number of Cham Albanians, as a number of Muslim Greeks were part of the "muslim-based-army" of the Ottoman Empire, the rest, christians, but even Muslim Albanians were anti-ottoman forces (even Ali Pasha fought against Ottomans, and then against Souliotes, and then alongside Souliotes against Ottomans). "They were not only Albanian-speakers, so they were not ethnic Albanians by language.". We are speaking about mother-tongues in here. I am not billingual because I can speak Greek and Albanian, and I am not four?lingual because I can speak Albanian-Greek-English and Italian, I just know foreign languages. They ofcourse spoke Greek too, as Ismail Qemali, Naim Frashëri, and all Southern Albanians did, because they just had it as a lingua franca. Do not forget that the regiments of the French army in the region, were based on languages, and Souliotes, including Markos Botsaris, became part of the Albanian Regiment of the French Army when they were forced to leave Souli.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If they had a particular consciousness, that was Greek and not Albanian. And finally, I'll say one more time that it seems nationalistic to say that Greek was only spoken in Epirus as a lingua franca and not as a native language. I don't have anything else to say. Thanks for the discussion! - Sthenel (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody says that Greek was spoken in Epirus only as a lingua franca. Ofcourse there were Greeks in Epirus, even in Kosovo, as far as I know. Ofcourse Greeks in Epirus were a substantial community, maybe a majority. But, we are not speaking about this. We are discussing about a certain (12 thousand at most) community, which was not mother-tongue-Greek-speakers, but who were lingua-franca-Greek-speakers.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Anachronism is not only to adjust "ethnicity" to 18th-19th centrury people groups, but also to categorise them according to their mother tongue, in an era (just like today) that the mother tongues do not define nations. FT, maybe the Greek language lacks a clear distinction between "ethnicity" and "nationality", but be sure that in the early 19th century there was no such thing as "Greek nationality", for simply there was not an independent Greek state. But there was for sure a Greek ethnos, ethnicity, Genos (as contemporary Greeks used to say), and the Souliotes were part of it, as has been proven by their acts and history. Maybe the English language (perhaps other Germanic languages as well, I don't know) has two words that the Greek lacks, but the confussion these two words create is enormous in Wikipedia. For example: who is a German-American? An American citizen of German ancestry? A citizen of Germany (thus excluding Austria, Switzerland, etc) in the US? A German speaker (inclyding the previously mentioned countries) in the US? And what about the German Jews? Are they ethnically Jewish or German (sonething that could be seen as oxymoron)? What about the 3+ millions of Germans of Polish exctraction and their many more descendants? And the Sorbs, etc? One may put anything he/she wants in this basket... simply cause it is free and creates the "much wanted" confussion! Long example, yet proves that Wikipedia is inclussionist by preference: when a certain group of editors (or one alone), believes that the status of Ancient Macedonian language as Greek is disputed, the minor sources are presented as works of brilliant minds, but when a certain (or the same) group of editors believes that the Souliotes were/are not Greek, their monolithic view is presented in the article as an undisputable fact, regardless of the significance of other sources.

Gosh! And in the discussion that follows here, we are talking about the ancestry and origin of the Souliotes! (They do not know the origin of the Albanians, of course, yet they link them undisputably with all the Balkans, just cause this is the current trend in Trans-Atlantic politics... afterall, the origin of the Greeks (as a whole or as subgroups) is their main aim to present as multi-bastardized foreigners...). Or whether the Albanians (Muslims) were their enemies or brethens! Or whether Greek was the dominant or just the lingua franca in Epirus! No one dares to read some history? The Souliotes sacrificed their lives for the Greek cause... not for a supposed Albanian one. Ali Pasha Tepelenli uprooted them... is this a sign of a brethens' bond? Greek has continual native presence in Epirus (including North) for more than three millenia... which "lingua franca" ever achived this?

Having spoken, I will rest my case. As time passes, I understand more clear that Wikipedia is not only an English-language online Wikipedia, but also an Anglo-American political φερέφωνο. Thankfully, readers have become more suspicious lately and they do not take every crap they read here as granted... Hectorian (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

FP, with all due respect, your line of argumentation is not very convincing. "Albanian" may have been synonymous with "Albanophone" then, but not today. And our readers live in the here and now. Similarly, we no longer treat Turk and Muslim as synonymous. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, all ethnic names in the area have shifted their meanings to some extent since the disintegration of Ottoman order, including that of the Greeks. As I was telling B.'s w. yesterday, if we went by the logic that terms can only be used in their precise present-day meanings, we could never use any of them. But our sources do. Sources do use both "Albanian" and "Greek" to describe these people. Sometimes with extra disclaimers and explanations, often without. The term "Albanian" is certainly not more anachronistic than the term "Greek" in this context. My position is we should do as the sum of our available sources does: use both, leave the reader exposed to a natural small amount of ambiguity, and only go into further explanations if we decide to do an actual in-depth discussion of ethnicity (for which we don't yet have suitable material at this point.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Including that of the Greeks, precisely. Which is why we no longer refer to Orthodox Albanians as Greeks, even when discussing their history. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding your quip about the Greeks' "taking recourse to the modern construct of Arvanite rather than Albanian", are the "Chams" not a modern construct? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In the modern Greek sense, where the term is restricted to the Muslims, yes, of course. In the dialectological / ethnographic sense, hardly. But I admit I'd like to see a bit more material about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Suliot salad

The salad called Souliotes contains Greek and Albanian ingredients. Please clarify which are these ingredients, because we are confusing the nationality of the 20th century, with the ethnicity of 18th century, when Souliotes existed as such, i.e. as the inhabitants of Souli. It maybe written that they were an Albanian community, which was finally hellenized, after their incorporation in the Greek mainstream culture (of course, when it became mainstream national culture, i.e. in the mid 19th century, when they had long time left Souli).Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong about "Greek-Albanian"? We have reliable sources for this characterisation, it's a sensible compromise, and it's essentially correct. Because they truly were both. For a first sentence, it's just as precise and as vague as it needs to be. If you insist on further elaboration, that can be done further down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That`s what I do not like on wikipedia, to have a compromise, only because we do not like one reality or another (like the one, I have tried two years ago in Chaonians if you remember). This case is clear, secondary sources talk about at-least Hellenized Albanians, i.e. Albanians who became Hellenized. As the hellenization could not have started before the Greek War of Independence, because there did not exist a national culture, rather then a elite orthodox culture, we cannot say that they were Greek-Albanians when they lived in Souli.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, Future's arguments (this time around) seem to make a lot of sense. Calling the Souliots "Greco-Albanians" allows us to more accurately describe their sense of "Souliotness" (a typical sense of localism that Greeks in general tend to exhibit) by acknowledging their "Greekness" (from an ethno-cultural and ethno-religious standpoint), and their "Albanianness" (from a holistically linguistic standpoint) simultaneously. Their "Hellenization" would mostly entail their adoption of modern Greek developed by the modern Greek state (the Maniots and Tzacones, if I recall correctly, also exhibited strong levels of localism and underwent the same type of "state integration"). Of course, we can explain all of these dynamics in the introduction or in a separate section. Deucalionite (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"holistically linguistic standpoint" LOL.

"because there did not exist a national culture" yes because the albanians had a "national culture" before the early 20th century when the souliots were already greeks in every meaningful sense...

you are arguing post-national matters in pre-national times. the souliots were albanian-speaking greek orthodox people of albanian and greek-speaking (yes actually) origin 85.74.215.73 (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Albanophone Greek Orthodox", as suggested here? It is not only factually more precise but avoids loaded ethnonyms altogether, referring only to the objective reality of their language and religious affiliation. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Everybody is happy to have unambiguous 100% ethnic attributions in the lead, as long as it's their own ethnic group. Once it becomes clear that the "other side" might have an equally good claim to have "their" ethnic group mentioned, people suddenly realise that naming ethnic groups might generally not be such a good idea after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Σε μένα μιλάς; ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A single ethno-cultural group adopting and consistently utilizing a foreign tongue (a common phenomenon in the Ottoman Empire) leaves little to the imagination in terms of conflicting "100% ethnic attributions". The term "Greek" (and even "Albanian") is only a "loaded ethnonym" if one views it in tandem with Greek state-building processes. But that hardly proves that "Greekness" was a byproduct of 19th century nationalism when such a paradigm already contained a series of extant and very durable pre-modern ethno-cultural dynamics. Calling the Souliotes a "Greek-Albanian community" objectively reveals their actual membership in different collectives. Simultaneously, they were members of an Albanian linguistic community, members of an Orthodox religious community, and members of an ethno-cultural Greek community. This is the "triumvirate" defining their particular sense of "Soulioteness" prior to their avid participation in the Greek Revolution and in modern Greek state-building processes. I personally would prefer to call them "Albanophone Greeks of Orthodox persuasion", but "Greek-Albanian" (or "Greco-Albanian") is a more concise term. Deucalionite (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor correction: We have contradicting sources about their "ethno-cultural community".Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The only reason there are "contradicting sources" is because plenty of scholars still view language as an ethnic identifier. The fluidity of language usage in the Ottoman Empire is proof enough that correlations between language and ethnic identity are not always direct. Granted, Greek-speakers had a greater tendency to self-identify as "Romioi" or "Graikoi" (irrespective of Ottoman millet-based appellations), but that hardly stopped non-Greek populations from adopting Greek or speaking Greek if they learned enough to get by. Language adoption is a very common phenomenon throughout the Ottoman period (the Albanian language is no exception). Deucalionite (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The Souliotes happen to speak a variant of the Albanian language, which is seen by Albanians as an evident sign of their "Albanian-ness". However, the Souliotes never used Albanian ethnonyms for purposes of self-identification nor did they see their common language with other Albanian groups as proof of kinship. Deucalionite (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsuitable references

The Arnakis ref [3] will of course be removed again. It is quite obviously not suitable to support that point in the text. Apparently it was chosen deliberately as a polemical commentary against the very point made in the text, replacing an attempt at formulating a neutral middle ground with a polemical partisan statement. Unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. The Arnakis essay happens to be edited by Barbara and Charles Jelavich, superb experts on issues regarding Balkan history. Moreover, the reference in question was used as a friendly response to a friendly request by Balkanian in providing references that bluntly regard the Souliotes as anything other than a band of Albanians. The best thing about Arnakis is that he doesn't engage in "ethno-linguistic holisticalities" (Greek vs. Albanian), but rather indicates a more nuanced understanding of Balkan ethnic and social dynamics. He calls the Souliotes "Albanian-speaking Greeks", which really isn't all that different from the term "Greek-Albanian" since the introduction already mentions the fact that the Souliotes were Albanian-speakers. Deucalionite (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Talking on sources

I think, we have forgot that the first think we have to do is to give sources. Lets put the sources about Souliotes down and see who is right, and who is wrong, without analyzing them. I will add some sources which , please add more:

Are Albanians:

• Richard Clogg, Minorities in Greece: Aspects of a Plural Society, 2002 ISBN 1850657068, 9781850657064 "The Souliotes were a warlike Albanian Christian community, which resisted Ali Pasha in Epirus in the years immediately preceding the outbreak the Greek War of Independence"
• Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby, Greece, University Press, 1944. "...who belongs to the Cham branch of south Albanian tosks (see volume I, pp.363-5).In the mid-eighteenth century these people (the Souliotes)were a semi-autonomous community..."
• Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, I.B.Tauris, 1999, ISBN 1860645410, 9781860645419 "The Suliots, then numbering around 12,000, were Christian Albanians inhabiting a small independent community somewhat akin to tat of the Catholic Mirdite trive to the north
• Nicholas Charles Pappas, Greeks in Russian Military Service in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1991
• Katherine Elizabeth Fleming, The Muslim Bonaparte: Diplomacy and Orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 0691001944, ISBN 9780691001944 "The history of the orthodox albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such an overlap"
• Gerolymatos, p. 141. "The Suliot dance of death is an integral image of the Greek revolution and it has been seared into the consciousness of Greek schoolchildren for generations. Many youngsters pay homage to the memory of these Orthodox Albanians each year by recreating the event in their elementary school pageants."
• Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopecek. Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and Southeast Europe (1770-1945): The Formation of National Movements, Published by Central European University Press, 2006, ISBN 963732660X, 9789637326608 p. 173 "The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith"
• Giannēs Koliopoulos, John S. Koliopoulos, Thanos Veremēs. Greece: The Modern Sequel : from 1831 to the Present Edition: 2 Published by C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2004 ISBN 185065462X, 9781850654629 p. 184 describes Souliotes as "Orthodox and partly hellenized Albanian tribes".
• Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality Edition: 2, Published by Cambridge University Press, 1992 ISBN 0521439612, 9780521439619 p. 65
• NGL Hammond, Epirus: the Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas, Published by Clarendon P., 1967, p. 31 "The Liaps held the area from Valona to Delvine and inland to Tepelene; the tsams from Delvine to Souli and inland to Ioannina and Pogoniani"

Are Hellenized Albanians:

• Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis, The Eve of the Greek Revival: British Travellers' Perceptions of Early Nineteenth-century Greece, Published by Taylor & Francis, 1990, ISBN 0415034825, 9780415034821
• William Miller, The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927, Published by Routledge, 1966, ISBN 0714619744, 9780714619743

Are Greeks or Albanian-speaking Greeks:

• Arnakis, George C. "The Role of Religion in the Development of Balkan Nationalism", pp. 118-119, 141 (Jelavich, Barbara and Jelavich, Charles. The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics since the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963).
• Batalden, Stephen K. Catherine II's Greek prelate: Eugenios Voulgaris in Russia, 1771-1806. East European Monographs, 1982, ISBN 0880330066, p. 142.

I think that only arguing about nothing is making this page as Greek-Albanian. If there are no more sources that claim Greekness than it would be reworded (without pulling out their Greekness, but ofcourse emphasising their Albanianness), because not just the majority, but also great historians, like Hobsbown (one of the best in 20th century) agree on that point. Waiting for discussion, not on issues, but on sources (do not forget: reliable, and most of all on this field.)Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality versus quantity. Of course, you forgot to include Arnakis on the list. Deucalionite (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats exactly the opposite of what I say: quality and not quantity. Hobsbawn alone could smash 500 Arnakis:-). I did not add him, because as I saw, there was a dispute of his reliability.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hobsbawn may be a great historian, but his expertise in Balkan history pales in comparison to Arnakis' work (edited by renowned Balkan experts, Barbara and Charles Jelavich). I already explained Arnakis' reliability and the fact that he avoids forms of "maximalist rhetoric". That's why assuming that the Souliotes were "ethnic Albanians" simply because they spoke Albanian only panders to Albanian state-building ideologies. As far as I can tell, most of the sources listed are already incorporated into the article. So, no one needs to really engage in a round of Street Fighter IV with you to see who's the bigger Blanka. Deucalionite (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Anybody got access to the following, to check? Gounaris, Vassilis (2006): "Σύνοικοι, θυρωροί και φιλοξενούμενοι: διερεύνοντας τη 'μεθώριο' του ελληνικού και του αλβανικού έθνους κατά τον 19ο αιώνα." ["Compatriots, doorguards and guests: investigating the 'periphery' of the Greek and the Albanian nation during the 19th century"] In: P. Voutouris and G. Georgis (eds.), Ο ελληνισμός στον 19ο αιώνα: ιδεολογίες και αισθητικές αναζητήσεις. Athens: Kastanioti. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no access at all. What do you think about my listing sources, for finding a solution?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: Got a copy of the Gounaris article from our good old friend G. Tzimas. Very interesting stuff indeed. The article is concerned only with the ideologies expressed in the internal Greek discourse of the 19th century, not with the Souliote history as such, so the author doesn't bother to give an explicit judgment of what these people actually "were" in his opinion. But there's some very interesting passages showing that contemporary (up to c.1900) discourse in Greece itself was taking their Albanianness pretty much for granted. In fact, the role of Albanians like Botsaris in post-independence Greece was systematically used as an argument directed towards the remaining Albanians (both Christian and Muslims) outside Greece, calling them to join the Greek national idea and create a joint Greek-Albanian state. An argument along the lines of: See how well we are treating your fellow Albanians here in Greece, so come and join us. The consensus in most 19th-century Greek discourse was that Albanians were a phylē seperate from the Greek (and the Souliotes and southern Greek Arvanites were clearly included in that), but that they had no potential of ever constituting an ethnos, so the issue was to integrate them into the Greek one before some other power would do the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I proposed above. Albanians, who later were integrated into the Greek nation. As far as I see there is only Arnakis that talks about Albanian-speaking Greeks, because all the rest, either speak about Albanians (in 18th and 19th century) and a minority about Hellenized Albanians. Whatsoever, in my personal, non-wiki-argument idea, the fact that Hammond and especially Hobsbawn speak about Albanians, its too easy to conclude on this point.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. As for the list, I just hope the "ethnic maximalists" don't end up bludgeoning each other again. (I'll bring the popcorn.) :) Deucalionite (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok I added Arnakis, if he is reliable there`s no problem. I`m not trying to maximalise anything. But, just seeing the list, the most prominent and the majority in the same time of historians, say clearly about their origin. If this is the final result, than it would be NPOV to say "Albanians, whose ethnicity is disputed by historians as Greeks", if the result turns upround than "Greeks, whose ethnicity is disputed...". As for Hobsbawn, it would be a blasphemy to say that his not the one, as he is considered the best historian of the century.:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Do the majority of historians, as you say, have specific reasons for stating that the Souliotes were "holistically Albanian"? If they don't, then all they're really doing is "assuming" about their origins. The reason I'm asking is because Arnakis at least provides an entire nuanced explanation as to why there is so much "controversy" over the identity of the Souliotes. He doesn't just state that the Souliotes were "Albanian-speaking Greeks" and leaves the rest to the imagination of the reader. As for Hobsbawn, I don't deny his status as "historian of the century". However, every prominent historian is given that particular title especially post-humously. So, I think we should stick to sources providing nuanced explanations of Balkan groups instead of mere "historical declaratives" (just to be safe). Deucalionite (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I am no expert on the history and ethnic composition of the Sulliotes, I have to say that there is much bibliography available on Google books.. you can add the following sources up. Anyways, I always believed that the Sulliotes were a mix of Albanians and Greeks, as their names suggest (many Albanian, many Greek). Most sources below favor pure Greekness, the last ones advocating possible mixed origins. I saw enough pointing at pure Albanian origin above (although I did not check them myself) and I thought I'd pour in some controversy...

• Hobhouse, 1817 [4]
• Edmund Burke, Annual Register, 1824 [5]
• Cobbet's Political Register, 1804 [6]
• The Anti Jacobin Review and Magazine, 1809 [7]
• James Hingston Tuckey, 1815 [8]
• W.R.Wright, Horae Ionicae, 1809 [9]
• Henry A. S. Dearborn, A Memoir on the Commerce and Navigation of the Black Sea and the Trade and Maritime Geography of Egypt and Turkey, p176 "The Sulliotes are Greek Christians..."
• The New American Cyclopaedia: A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge‎ by George Ripley, Charles Anderson Dana, 1862, p.167 "SULIOTES, a people of mixed Arnaout and Greek descent, who formerly dwelt in ..."

GK1973 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, 1842 [10] (summary : they speak Albanian, write Greek, they dress like Albanians but their customs are Greek...)

Proposal for the lead

As far as we can see:

• Only one author speaks about Albanian-speaking Greeks.
• Only 2 authors speak about Hellenized Albanians
• All the rest (including NGL Hammond and Eric Hobsbawm) say that they were Albanians.
• Only one author has a full NPOV study about their ethnicity (Gounaris)

All of them integrated conclude on this points:

• Souliotes were just Souliotes (they had regional identity)
• Souliotes were ethnic Albanians
• Souliotes were integrated into the Greek nation after(all exept Arnakis) the Greek War of Independence.

So the only encyclopedic solution instead of Greek-Albanians which says nothing is: Souliotes were ethnic Albanians, with a regional identity, which later became integrated into the Greek nation.

Greek Albanian cannot stay inthere because it is not explained how such a thing can exist.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I must correct you, Gounaris, as I said, is not a study specifically about the ethnicity of the Souliotes. It is a study of political-ideological attitudes towards Albanians in 19th-century Greece. It just incidentally shows in a few passages that it takes for granted that Souliotes are part of that story. Indeed, so far it seems we have no detailed study of them at all. All the papers I've seen give them only a brief mention in passing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case we do not have anything that makes them Greek except Arnakis study. But whatsoever, even if it is not a study, which I took as granted, the rest, speak about their ethnicity, regional identity and nation. My exact proposal is:

The Souliotes (Template:Lang-sq, Template:Lang-el), also known as Souliots or Suliots were a warlike ethnicaly Albanian community, with a regional identity, which later was integrated into the Greek nation. They were named after the village of Souli, a mountain settlement in Thesprotia, Greece, where they established an autonomous association of villages resisting Ottoman rule in the 17th and 18th centuries. Τhey belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church and spoke the Cham dialect of Albanian.

Thats all.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Too much focus on the ethnicity issue, in my view. The intelligent thing is to de-focus the whole topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I am sure, that if we leave the "Greek-Albanian" part, there should be at least four paragraphs to explain what do we mean. These single sentence, is enaugh to explain their Albanianess (ethnicity), Greekness (nationality) and Souliotiness (regional identity). One sentence, for two words and four paragraphs. Good trade isn`t it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If we really want to take the focus away from ethnicity, why not get rid of it altogether? It's not essential. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats a possible solution. We may add the sentence i proposed after their religion and language.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think your sentence works at all. You're still projecting the modern ethnic Albanian identity onto them. Let the facts speak for themselves: they spoke Albanian, were Greek Orthodox, and fought for Greece's independence. Enough said. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No my friend I do not project any "ethnic identity" because no source give us any ethnic identity. Ethnicity is something else, like nationality. Their identity was strictly Suliot, their ethnicity was Albanian (per sources) and they were later integrated into the Greek Nation. So, I am not projecting anything in here. Its quite obvious that I do not know what to say anymore, because fucking sources support this solution.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing is certain, the Souliots identified with the Greek liberation cause for which they fought as 'Greeks' against the 'Turks' (including against the Albanian Muslims).Politis (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources say something else, please read the above section speaking on sources not on what we like and what we do not. Sources are clear, and Wiki works on sources.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you disputing their self-identification as Greeks? Not even your infallible sources do that. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did you read that? The majority of sources speak about self-identification as Souliotes, and as nothing else. Thats why I am insisting on Souliot identity.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My infallible sources? Yes they are, because all of them conclude on the same thing, and we are talking about NGL Hammond and Eric Hobsbawm, not just historians, but the best ones.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah. It feels so great being right in the middle equidistant to both sides in a dispute, for once. It makes me sooo feel I must be right and my solution is the best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cutesy doesn't suit you at all. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with ΚΕΚΡΩΨ:-). But you are right, the problem is that Greek-Albanian, is foolish wording, as it cannot exist as a term, because it implies about nationality and ethnicity, which implies self-identification (Greek Britons e.g.). In this case they did not self-identify as "Greek-Albanians", but just as Suliots, they had not ethnicity and nationality at the same time, because their nationality was absorbed later on (as per sources), and thus "Greek-Albanian" cannot stand. So, I do not understand why a sentence like the one that I proposed, is so bad. Its just NPOV.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Balkanian's word, your purpose is to stress their ethnicity which was not clear. They were a Greek-Albanian community and this phrase gives to the reader a general view of what these people were. We are talking for several days about the same thing... - Sthenel (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but who says that? From 13 RS that we have, only SINGLE ONE states that they are Albanian-speaking Greeks, and the rest that they are Albanians or Hellenized Albanians and it is not enough for that. Can somebody give another source exept Arnakis, becouse I will just use my wiki-weapons (sources) to make it clear in the text.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

First we have to determine the levels of kinship the Souliotes had with Greek and Albanian populations before we decide to remove the term "Greek-Albanian". The secondary sources you provided so far just don't seem to explain the underlying forces defining the Souliotes' "ethnic Albanianness". They only provide historical declaratives of their "ethnic Albanianness" based mostly on their capacity to speak Albanian. We already know that the Souliotes shared a linguistic relationship with other Albanians, but they did not view this as proof of kinship. They self-identified as Orthodox Greeks, fought avidly with other Greeks, and willingly contributed to Greek state-building processes. How can we say that the Souliotes had "Albanian origins" or that they were "ethnic Albanians" when their decisions clearly indicate that they were conscious of their kinship ties with Greeks?

If the term "Greek-Albanian" is not a viable phrase, then a more plausible solution is to regard the Souliotes primarily as "Orthodox Albanophone Greeks" while stating that other authors view them as Cham Albanians. Deucalionite (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Come one Deuc, we`ve come over that 100 years ago. Souliotes did not "self-identified as Orthodox Greeks", but they had a regional identity, per sources we have. Where did you found this Greek self-identification? We are speaking about a regional identity, a Souliotes self-identification. That`s why we`re arguing? On the other hand, we are spaking about ethnicity and nationality, which are two different concepts. Arnakis speaks about Nationality, not about Ethnicity, all the rest, that speak about ethnicity, say that they were Albanians. Thats why, I proposed, that we should writte: Souliotes were ethnically Albanians, with a regional identity, who became integrated into the Greek nation. THIS IS TOTALLY BASED ON SOURCES.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I already explained that the regional identity of the Souliotes has three components that most of your sources fail to mention. They were members of a Greek ethno-cultural community, an Albanian linguistic community, and an Orthodox religious community. I also explained to you that Arnakis does not distinguish nationality and ethnicity, to him they are the same thing or at least mean the same thing. You're sources provide zero nuanced explanations defining the "Albanianness" of the Souliotes let alone on their origins. They assume that they had to have been Albanians, because they happen to speak Albanian. Like Arnakis says, language adoption in the Ottoman Empire was a common pheonomenon. As long as that is the case, there is really no basis for directly correlating language with ethnic identity. If anything, the Jelaviches would laugh at the overall notion. Deucalionite (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You already explained? Based on what? OR? Who says that they were members of a Greek ethno-cultural community? Who says that Arnakis does not distinguish nationality and ethnicity? If he doesn`t, that he is not writing in english, because in english there`s a clear distinction between these terms. Arnakis says only a single sentence about this, stating that "Albanian-speaking Greeks, the Souliotes, is such an example". Why cannot we see Gounaris. According to Fut, who has this book, Gounaris says that "up to c.1900 discourse in Greece itself was taking their Albanianness pretty much for granted. In fact, the role of Albanians like Botsaris in post-independence Greece was systematically used as an argument directed towards the remaining Albanians (both Christian and Muslims) outside Greece, calling them to join the Greek national idea and create a joint Greek-Albanian state". If even Greeks took as granted their Albanianess, how could others try to explain it. This is bsh, at least OR. If no solution is going to be mered, I am going to add all the stuff I have listed.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: what you put in quotes here was not a quote from Gounaris, it was my summary of him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If I may borrow a line from Kekrops: "Don't be ridiculous." Calling the expertise of the Jelaviches to compile superb works from a wide array of disciplines and standpoints OR is plain asinine. As for Gounaris, he only proves one thing, politics is politics and that they are always subject to change according to shifting circumstances. Big whoop. What does evolutionary political discourse have to do with the Souliotes self-identifying as Greeks even before the Greek Revolution? Deucalionite (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What is Greek ethno-cultural community? As far as I have seen the Souliotes costumes and folk was identic with the Chams and Albanian tosks. They were speaking like Chams, singing and dancing like Chams, dressed like Chams and whatever you may find on their usances customs and costumes the were identically like Chams, the only difference was their religion. Chams were moslems and Souliotes were of Orthodox religion. In that time all the orthodox Albanians in all the Balkan area and also in Southern Italy practised their liturgy in Greek language (the autonomy of the Albanian Orthodox Curch was declared in XX century). he Souliotees history looks just like the Mirdita highlanders in North Albania which were an indipendent catholic Albanian population and used to rob and put ransoms on the neighboring moslem willages around Mirdita. If you were to ask them at that time they classified themselves as Catholic, Latins or Mirditors. The Mirditors identified themselves Mirditors just like Souliotes identified themselves as Souliotes. Just as it's mentioned abouve there were not a strong ethnicity feeling through Albanians on that time. But if you have to speak about the Souliotes ethnicity (language, folklore, costumes, customs) it is more apropriate to say they were Albanians. Also I might add that it is not sufficent to base the ethnicity on the religion otherwise I might suggest that the Orthodox Greeks are not related to Classic Greeks because they have different religion or better, I might declare myself of a Buddist and what...does this mean I must be Indian or Chinese? Aigest (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. You make it seem as though Greek culture in Epirus just suddenly vanished. Religion, according to Arnakis, is a preserver of nationality (or ethnicity). Your "suggestions" need serious tweaking. Deucalionite (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

nationality is not ethnicity, clear these senses Deuc. Who says that Souliotes self-identify as Greeks? Souliotes self-identified as Souliotes, thats far too obvious. And I do not call their work as an OR, I am calling OR your assumptions, "the regional identity of the Souliotes has three components that most of your sources fail to mention. They were members of a Greek ethno-cultural community, an Albanian linguistic community, and an Orthodox religious community" Thats nowhere on Arnakis, its you that explained me.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone today knows the difference between nationality and ethnicity. To Arnakis, however, ethnicity and nationality are the same thing. Religion during the Ottoman era is a powerful force, because it preserves the former and grants it the means to metastasize into the latter. As for the Souliotes, they self-identified as Souliotes much like Maniots self-identified as Maniots. Both groups share one thing in common: a strong adherence to Byzantine rituals and customs that were tweaked to serve their respective local needs. Localism, overall, is a typical trait that all Greeks tend to exhibit. Deucalionite (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Deucalionite "Religion, according to Arnakis, is a preserver of nationality (or ethnicity)" hmmm it looks like we have to stop calling Greek an Orthodox Greek :) cmon are you serious about this guy, can you understand its affirmations??Aigest (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Jelaviches chose him and they're serious experts on Balkan history. :) Deucalionite (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, don't you see? It's a waste of electrons trying to discuss with Deucalionite. Not worth it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You`re not helping Fut., cause you have no answer, as far as I can see for this issue.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. You perceive everything you don't like as a waste Future. Meh. By the way Balkanian, no hard feelings. I rather enjoy this debate and appreciate the academic stimulation (I'm an addict and need my fix). ;) Deucalionite (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Balkanian`s word the arguments against Balkanian`s word work are ridiculous at least (although thinking...I might use the above Arnakis affirmation later against Deucalionite:)) Aigest (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that you're going to use Arnakis to prove that the Souliotes were "Albanians" since other sources claim they were "Albanian Orthodox Christians". Trust me my friend, you're in for a rude awakening if think you can use the "Arnakis affirmation" against me. Cheers. ;) Deucalionite (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see no reason at all, after all this discussion, nobody managed to give a single reference that they were ethnically Greeks, so I am going to add in the page, their Albanian ethnic belonging, and their Greek national belongig, keeping ofcourse their Souliot different identity.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Now what is the position of Deucalionite? That the supposed original greek Souliotes high in the mountains surrounded by Cham Albanian population in the fields changed everything I mean everything except their religion?? What for in the first place? So when they tried to rob the villages underneath them to make their point clear:)? Or their costumes were some kind of kamuflage ...not to be identified during their raids:)? Or they didn't have the ability to remember their songs and had Chams MTV :)? And I can continue like this for every custom that they had :) I don't want to enter into discussions about Epirus status etc, but I want to stress the known fact of Albanian population migrations into Greece (XII to XVII century) and Southern Italy (XV to XVII). Now we can see the Arberesh villages in Calabria even after 500 years of migration still speaking Albanian dialect in their villages. What happened to the Southern Italian populations of that area in the time of their arrival. Were they vanished?! No, simply they were not inhabiting those areas. The same happened with the Arvanites in Epirus. There were great inhabitated areas in Greece during that time. In the begining they were all Orthodox practicing in Greek liturgy, but when the Turks came, the peoples on the fields changed their religion. It happened everywhere in the Balkans. Albanians were the most prone to change however, but there were also other albanians in the mountains which maintained their religion, Mirdita catholics for example. As for the Arnaki's words on religion, I might say that the conservation of the language is a more strong factor in the preservation of the ethnicity. Just ask the visigots they live somewhere in Spain I think:)) Aigest (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Of course, you tend to ignore the Albanization processes that occurred within Epirus and the emergence of Albanian-speaking Greeks during the late and post-Byzantine eras. Go tell the jelims to make me some tarator. Ha! Deucalionite (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Albanian-speaking Greeks albanized Greeks, in a totally cultural dominance of the Greek one? Who can even say that?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Albanian-speaking Greeks? The horror! The horror! Cultural dominance or not, Greeks have a knack for adapting to different situations. Sure enough, they learned to speak Slavic, Turkish, Albanian, and maybe some Italian. Typical linguistic diversity. Deucalionite (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The point Deucalionite is that you have to prove that it had happened to Souliotes (not your original work please :)). Until then the Balkanian`s word references remain in power. It is this way that Wikipedia works. I think I was clear. Aigest (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Remain in power? It's like "rue the day" only funnier. :) Deucalionite (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand whats going on. My proposal (based on sources) does not fit to you, futs proposal (based on sources) does not fit to you. Your proposal (based on assumptions on one source) cannot be added my friend. Whatever that will be written will have at least this fact Albanian ethnicity (per all sources) Greek nationallity (per all sources) and souliot identity (per all sources), because thats just what fucking sources say.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Temper temper. :) Deucalionite (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

After reading all this debate on a 1963 paperwork of Barbara Jelavich it looks like even she has changed her opinion in 1983 ... here [11] Aigest (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that source, which is indeed pertinent. Actually, there isn't any serious claim of a "change of opinion" anyway. The earlier paper wasn't by Jelavich in the first place. It was a contribution to a volume of conference proceedings, which happened to be edited by Jelavich. D.'s insistence that this implied some kind of endorsement of its contents by the editor only exposes his abysmal ignorance of academic life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead again

Respecting sources. I am waiting for proposals, for the lead. For sure "Greek-Albanian" cannot stand, because it is inacquarate. Sources are clear, "ethnically albanians", "natioanlly greeks" and "souliot identity". I insist in my proposal, cause it is the NPOV-ist. But I am waiting for new ones too.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You have made a huge bust up about the lead of this article. When will you stop editing it according to your will, which you call NPOV-ist? - Sthenel (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made an according-to-sources-lead. If you have a new according-to-sources-proposal, than you are welcomed.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You use the part of bibliography and sources that serve your purpose, but there is a lot of staff that contradicts your view and refer to them as Greek-Albanians or even Greeks. And your friend, Future, told you with sympathy in your talk page that a Greek nationalist will use these sources as a makewight to your nationalistic effort to stress their Albanian origin, ignoring all the other side of the river. - Sthenel (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not using a small number of sources, but the majority. Some sources, are not reliable, thats why are not used, others, have not been presented. The lead that I proposed, it is not nationalistic, since it stresses that they were integrated into the Greek nation, i.e. that nationally they were Greeks, but ethnically Albanians, and with a totally different regional identity, the Souliotic one. This means that the current lead, says exactly that they were Greek-Albanians, but just explains what it means, since a Greek-Albanian (as a modern term) could not have existed in a period, when nations were in the process of being formed and where their identity was neither Greek, nor Albanian.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there are sources that refer to them as Albanians, Greeks or Greek-Albanians, you are not the expert nor the exclusive author of the article to decide which part of them is Greek and which Albanian against other editors. You should leave it as Greek-Albanian and elaborate the most common theories about their origin in the main part of the article. This is NPOV in highly disputed articles. On the contrary, you edit the lead as you want as if there is kinda fight to decide who is the most tolerant and nationalist, and you know that you'll be the winner in this fight. But the lead won't have the content that only you insist so much on. - Sthenel (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not me that decide their natioanllity and ethnicity, sources do, read them once, and the discuss. NPOV does not mean having a consensus of what you like or not, it means to use whatever reliable sources say. And thats exactly what they say.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

B.`s w., you were just blocked for edit-warring over exactly this issue, and it's not a particularly good idea returning immediately afterwards to bring back precisely your version. Just because the other guy was blocked for longer than you doesn't mean you "won" this. In this instance, I'm with Sthenel: the sources are less unanimous than you want to see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What do sources say? It is pretty clear, see #Talking on sources. What is not unclear in there?Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, as for instance the K. E. Fleming reference shows, it's pretty much not clear. (I saw another serious ref on the web that described it as an unsolved question to what extent they were still Albanian-speaking in everyday life or were already linguistically Hellenised at the time in question. Can't unfortunately find it again right now.) You are currently behaving no better than Deucalionite, simply insisting on ignoring all those sources that don't fit your preconceived views. Not good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did I write that in the lead? The lead is that "they became integrated into the Greek nation", without "later", I just added nothing for when did they integrate into the Greek nation. Which is the source, that I did not have, except of the last in the listing, which is totally unreliable, since it has only 10 references for 500 pages?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

and by the way, it is quite impossible, because otherwise Botsaris et al would not have been included in the Albanian Regiment of the French Army, but in the Greek one, since "mother-language", was an indicator for this division.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OR. – In any case, your current version is very clumsy, poorly worded, and draws too much focus on conceptual distinctions that aren't really well covered in the sources. You want to explain that they were Albanians in precisely this sense, and Greek in precisely that sense, all the time implying that this sense is the only real sense. Trouble is, most of our sources don't even go to that level of detail. Reserving the term "ethnically" exclusively and explicitly for their Albanian side is not really something the sources provide for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The second part was not a wiki-argument, but a just-per-talk-argument, so no need for OR, i know it:-). What do sources provide? I read them again, and I saw that they say they were (1) Albanians, who (2) were Hellenized (without a date of this proccess). Isn`t this right? If yes I don`t get your question, if not, what do they say?Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

New sources?

After a quick research I found these:

Bibliography

• William Miller, The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927, 1966, p.23: "In Epirus, the Orthodox Souliotes, an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenised Albanians, who won the admiration of Byron, formed a sort of military commonwealth...".
• Christopher Montague Woodhouse, Capodistria: the Founder of Greek Independence, 1973, p.33: "The refugees consisted mainly of Souliotes, a tribe of Greeks from Epirus who had live an almost independent existence in their mountainous country for two centuries.".
• Francis Lieber, Encyclopædia Americana: "Suliots; a mixed people of Arnaout and Greek descent, speaking the Arnaout and the Romaic dialects. They derive their origin from Arnaout and Grecian shepherds..."
• George Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution, 1861, p.53: "The armed Suliots were the guards of a small Christian district over which they exercised the authority of feudal superiors... The soil in the richest portion of their territory was cultivated by peasants, who were of the Greek race. The name of Souliots was reserved for the Albanian warriors, who ruled and protected the agricultural population like the ancient Spartans."
• Robert Carlton Delk, Reforms in Asia Minor in the Nineteenth Century, 1953, p.24: "The Suliots were a people of Albanian and Greek origin who inhabited the mountainous region of Parga, south of Albania."
• Ebenezer Cobham Brewer, The Historic Note-book: With an Appendix of Battles‎, 1891, p.858: "Suliots. A number of families who fled from their Turkish oppressors to the mountains of Suli in the 17th century. They were partly Hellenic and partly Albanian in origin. Their descendants mostly live..."
• David Richard Morier, A Tale of Old Yanina, 1951, p.1: "...the story concerns an episode in the wars carried on by Ali Pasha against the Suliots, a community of independent Greek mountaineers who for many years..."
• Thomas Wilhelm, A military dictionary and gazetteer, 1881, p.560: "Suliots. ... are a mixed race, being partly of Hellenic and partly of Albanian origin."

External link

• Suli - History of a forgotten place: "So Suli became a shelter also for Greeks who got into conflict with the Turkish authorities. ... The price the Suliots paid for their uncomprimising stand, was high. The Greek-Albanian community who did so much for the independence of Greece, has been lost in history."

-Sthenel (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, just seeing them, is not enough.

• William Miller, The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927 contains no bibliography, thus does not fulfill WP:RS.
• Christopher Montague Woodhouse, Capodistria: the Founder of Greek Independence, 1973, p.33: "The refugees consisted mainly of Souliotes, a tribe of Greeks from Epirus who had live an almost independent existence in their mountainous country for two centuries.". Christopher Montague Woodhouse is not a historian and thus does not fulfill WP:RS.
• Francis Lieber, Encyclopædia Americana is not an historian, is a tertiary source, is pre-19th century, for sure does not fulfill WP:RS.
• George Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution, a book of 1861, of course does not fulfill WP:RS. Even if he did, you misscourced him, cause he says "Souliotes, the most admirable Albanian tribe".
• Ebenezer Cobham Brewer, The Historic Note-book: With an Appendix of Battles‎, not historian, a book of 1881, ofcourse does not fulfill WP:RS.
• Robert Carlton Delk, Reforms in Asia Minor in the Nineteenth Century, just see the link, no comment. But, its intresting, I will use it in Parga page, the town in Southern Albania, you know.
• David Richard Morier, A Tale of Old Yanina, 1951, p.1: "...the story concerns an episode in the wars carried on by Ali Pasha against the Suliots, a community of independent Greek mountaineers who for many years..." we are getting serious now, with story tales. Good
• Thomas Wilhelm, A military dictionary and gazetteer, 1881, p.560: "Suliots. ... are a mixed race, being partly of Hellenic and partly of Albanian origin." and the last one, very nice, not historian, a book of 1881, and a tertiary source
  • Suli - History of a forgotten place: "So Suli became a shelter also for Greeks who got into conflict with the Turkish authorities. ... The price the Suliots paid for their uncomprimising stand, was high. The Greek-Albanian community who did so much for the independence of Greece, has been lost in history." this is the best source

As a conclusion just go and read WP:RS, and then post new sources.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It was obvious that you would reject all of them. This is how an encyclopedia and a dictionary refer to Souliotes, and how some funny books of funny authors treat the origin of them. There is an opposite side and you can not deny it using slender allegations. Your leading paragraph does not represent the general beliefs. You are uncompromising but it's not your right to do so against anybody else in here, since there is a conciliative solution that is closer to the truth than your POV thesis. - Sthenel (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on! You consider Vickers an RS, who is actually based at Pollo and Puto!--Michael X the White (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

1. It is not about "general belief", it is about "reliable sources". And for sure, these above are not, not for me, but for WP:RS. "Slender allegations?" You presented books, with no bibliography, written by non-historians, and primary sources. Please, just read WP:RS. On Michael, Vickers is a RS, whatsoever, even if you dont like her there is Eric Hobsbawm and NGL Hammond, who are not just RS, but the best historians of XX century, just read their pages, or google them. Wikipedia is not "what we like" or what "we think", but what WP:RS authors thinks. If you cannot provide RS authors, then it just means that my proposal is right.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Finlay I would actually consider a decent enough source. Sure, it's not modern, but he was a serious outside historian, and it's the most detailed of all the sources we have so far. His treatment of the Souliots is squarely part of his treatment of "Christian Albanians", and actually he also provides for an explicit identification of the Souliots as Chams (p.51: "The Souliots were a branch of the Tchamides, one of the three great divisions of the Tosks") Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

LMAOF. this article suck. sulliots are greek and NOT ALVANIANS. i find stuff: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] 71.172.195.65 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[17] [18] [19] more stuffs for read. no prapoganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.116.150 (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I added some sources according to my comments above. I also add (according to the sources) that they were integrated the time of the Revolution (seems also logical, who fights his compatriotsand? only if they were some kind of machochists, or else they did that for money, or they were too stubid and didn't know what they really were).Alexikoua (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on what? Christopher Montague Woodhouse, Capodistria: the Founder of Greek Independence, 1973, p.33: "The refugees consisted mainly of Souliotes, a tribe of Greeks from Epirus who had live an almost independent existence in their mountainous country for two centuries.". Christopher Montague Woodhouse is not a historian and thus does not fulfill WP:RS.

The lead is quite clear, states that they became integrated in the Greek Nation, no POVness.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Victor Roudometof?Alexikoua (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC) The Muslim Bonaparte: diplomacy and orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece. Katherine Elizabeth Fleming. The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927. William Miller. Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis. Taylor & Francis, 1990. ISBN 0415034825. "The most obvious examples of gradual integration of Albanians into the national consciousness of the Greeks are the Ydraioi and the","Their Albanian origin was soon forgotten even by themselves".

It seems that they were assimilated that time (1821), but how knows what that have in mind. Alexikoua (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats why the lead is that way. Nobody says that they were not ethnically albanians and nobody says that they were not assimilated/hellenized. So thats why the lead states "Ethnically albanian, which became integrated into the Greek nation", without stating when this process occured. As for the Cham thing, Fleming does not state that they were not Chams, but that they were grouped (i.e. by others) as a different branch. This does not mean that they are not chams, there are plenty of sources about this.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are confusing the terms, being ethnically something does not equal being of that origin. You are ignoring a number of sources I add:

• Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis. Taylor & Francis, 1990. ISBN 0415034825. "The Souliotes, Christian Albanians who had intermixed with Greeks"

• Victor Roudometof. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001. ISBN 0313319499 "The Greco-Albanian clans of the Souliotes in Epirus

• The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927. William Miller. Routledge, 1966 ISBN 0714619744 "In Epirus, the Orthodox Souliotes, an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenised Albanians

Most sources say they were of Albanian origin. It is you that need to find out sources that oppose this.Alexikoua (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The books you added:

Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopecek. Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and Southeast Europe (1770-1945): The Formation of National Movements, Published by Central European University Press, 2006, ISBN 963732660X, 9789637326608 p. 173 "The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith". Where on hell is Greekness here?

• Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy: The Social Origins of Ethnic Conflict in the Balkans. Victor Roudometof. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001. ISBN 0313319499 "The Greco-Albanian clans of the Souliotes in Epirus" What does this mean? He speaks about Hellenized Albanians, i.e. Albanians who became Greek.

• Christopher Montague Woodhouse. Oxford University Press, 1973."Souliotes a tribe of Greeks from Epirus...". Of course this book is not for here, Christopher Montague Woodhouse is not a historian, no bibliography, etc. etc. he does not fulfill WP:RS

• The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927. William Miller. Routledge, 1966 ISBN 0714619744 "In Epirus, the Orthodox Souliotes, an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenised Albanians" contains no bibliography. How can this be reliable? WP:RS, WP:RS, WP:RS.

• The eve of the Greek revival: British travellers' perceptions of early nineteenth-century Greece.] Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis. Taylor & Francis, 1990. ISBN 0415034825. "The Souliotes, Christian Albanians who had intermixed with Greeks". What does this mean? He speaks about Hellenized Albanians, i.e. Albanians who became Greek.

I really cannot understand your problem. No source speak about Greeks, they speak either for Albanians or Hellenized Albanians. I wrote the lead based on the second (Hellenized Albanians). Should I write it based on the first.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way The eve of the Greek revival: British travellers' perceptions of early nineteenth-century Greece clearly states about their ethnicity :"The most examples of gradual integration of Albanians into the national consciousness of the Greeks are the Ydraoi and the Souliotes. The diffusion of the Greek language among the Albanians was a further important factor in their cultural assimilation with the Greeks." Albanians, Albanians, Albanians. So I am adding it on Albanians.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It also says that "however the process of integration and acceptance of this ethnic group as part of the greek nation was not uniform in all parts of greece." Even after the war of independence they were not accepted as Greeks. What on hell are you trying to prove. 100 refere4nces are clear. Albanians which became hellenized.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

They were already hellenized in the War of Independence. Don't know why you make things so complicated, if you combine a number of sources and explain them wrong you can also prove with a complicated sequence that their were from azerbajain.

Let's see: Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopecek. Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and Southeast Europe (1770-1945): The Formation of National Movements, Published by Central European University Press, 2006, ISBN 963732660X, 9789637326608 p. 173 "The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith". Where on hell is Greekness here?

• Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy: The Social Origins of Ethnic Conflict in the Balkans. Victor Roudometof. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001. ISBN 0313319499 "The Greco-Albanian clans of the Souliotes in Epirus"

'Balkanian's:'What does this mean? He speaks about Hellenized Albanians, i.e. Albanians who became Greek. Alexikou's: No he says Greek-Albanians, no Albanians that became Greek...

• Christopher Montague Woodhouse. Oxford University Press, 1973."Souliotes a tribe of Greeks from Epirus...". Of course this book is not for here, Christopher Montague Woodhouse

Balkanian's:is not a historian, no bibliography, etc. etc. he does not fulfill WP:RS Alexikoua's: Woodhouse has written a number off historical books about Epirus. Did he write on the preface: hey, this is just bullshit, fairytailes...

• The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927. William Miller. Routledge, 1966 ISBN 0714619744 "In Epirus, the Orthodox Souliotes, an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenised Albanians"

Balkanian's:contains no bibliography. How can this be reliable? WP:RS, WP:RS, WP:RS. Alexikoua's: what about deleting every book that didn't cite the sentence about the Souliot ethnicity? (Beginning with Vickers maybe?), because hardly any books has inline citation about the source he has used on how the Souliots came from.

• The eve of the Greek revival: British travellers' perceptions of early nineteenth-century Greece.] Helen Angelomatis-Tsougarakis. Taylor & Francis, 1990. ISBN 0415034825.

Balkanian's:"The Souliotes, Christian Albanians who had intermixed with Greeks". What does this mean? He speaks about Hellenized Albanians, i.e. Albanians who became Greek. Alexikoua's:intermixed means: an Albanian marries a Greek (i mean from different gender), their child is 'Greek-Albanian', right? (or hellenized-Albanian? why not albanized-Greek?)

I really cannot understand your problem. No source speak about Greeks, they speak either for Albanians or Hellenized Albanians. I wrote the lead based on the second (Hellenized Albanians). Should I write it based on the first.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

However in: The eve of the Greek revival: British travellers' perceptions of early nineteenth-century Greece clearly states about their ethnicity :"The most examples of gradual integration of Albanians into the national consciousness of the Greeks are the Ydraoi and the Souliotes. The diffusion of the Greek language among the Albanians was a further important factor in their cultural assimilation with the Greeks." So they were Albanians? She says that but they were already assimilated that period (early 19th century, in the Greek Revolution) This is an argument to claim that they were already ethnic Greeks that period.

I suggest to write in the lead that they were masochist, killed their compatriots for unexplained reason while allying with a foreign nation, in which they got assimilated after. Sounds more simple and clear.Alexikoua (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are trying with your 21st century nationalistic mind to speak about the 19th century Souliotes. What Can I say? For sure Woodhouse is not an historiahn and contains no bibliography. WP:RS states that "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field". He is not an historian so this is not his relevang field. Where on hell did you read that on The eve of the Greek revival: British travellers' perceptions of early nineteenth-century Greece that they were already integrated? It clearly states the opposite, in the next page, when states that they were not considered as Greeks by others after the war. Even if they were this does not mean that they were not Albanians, but just means that they were Albanians who became integrated inot the Greek nation. She states fucking clear "albanians", "albanians", "albanians", "integrated", "integrated", "integrated". You have your agenda. But please do not make it so clear.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What does the terms 'Greek-Albanian' and 'intermix of Greek-Albanians' mean for you? You seem really comfused on how to define ethnicity. Ethnicity isn't the same whith language, it's a combination of several factors (language, religion, tradition, heritage, common memories, ancestral links...maybe figting on a side could be a indicator?). And off course beeing of Albanian origin doesnt equal to being ethnically Albanian.

In order to support your opinion you need to find sources that estamblish a clear link between Souliotes and Albanian clans that came to the region in 14th cent. Because sources are unclear about what was happening in that era (Zenebishti, Sphatha clans and other tribes moved out from Epirus at 15th-16th century) naming them 100% Albanians (that period) is simple a pov approach. I agree with F.P. to adopt the Greek-Albanian approach in the lead.

I dont know why you adopt the 'pure' Albanian approach without checking a number of sources and stating that they were not integrated in the early 19th century.Alexikoua (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As per Robert Gordon Latham a well known ethnologist & filolog you can see here [20] or for a later opinion Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopeček here [21] and for the Greek ethnos by Roger Just here [22].

The term Albanian-Greeks is unacceptable unless you have both parents with different ethnos, or you have a different ethnos form your ancestors but you live in a different country (Italo-Americans for example) you can not be called like that. Everybody who has dealed seriously with them has called Souliotes as Orthodox Albanians. There are peoples who clearly mix religion with ethnos and voila.. Eastern Orthodox = Greek. If you use this kind of approach then every Orthodox Albanian up to 1919 (Albanian Orthodox Church declared its autonomy) is to be called Albano-Greek or Greek-Albanian?? What about the Orthodox Slavs until they declared their own Orthodox Churches? Were they Greek Slavs or Slavonian Greeks? What about the Arberesh in Italy? They belong to Eastern Orthodox liturgy...should they be called Greek-Albanians or viceversa? Why don't you ask them, you would be surprised I guess. Remember guys we are talking for peoples of 1800. Nationalism as ideology was not even born then. They had their regional identity as Souliotes, but they were not different form the other Chams except for their religion, and remember that even the Moslem Chams were Orthodox before the Turks arrived in mid XV century. The Souliotes maintaned their religion while other Chams changed theirs, but Souliotes were not the only ones who maintained their religion. There were also Albanians in Korca, Berat, Lushnje, Fier, Elbasan, Durres, Tirana which remained Orthodox and also Mirdita, Puka and the highlands of Shkodra who remained Catholics. Now how should we call them?? Only because they maintained their religion should they be called Latins or what? Also I might add that as per the numbers of Albanians in Greece and the Greek identity during XIX century better refresh your sources. Aigest (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the orthodox of southern Albania were considered total aliens to the muslim Albanians before 1912, its written on several sources (whether primary or secondary), different traditions, customs, habits, social organization and culture. This is obvious to the many wars and armed conflicts they fought against each other. A term Greek Albanian or Albanian Greek means a combination of ethnic features both Albanian and Greek (ancestry is only one, and I dont mean just mother and father but the generation tree). There isn't a clear link between Albanian clans that descented and Souliotes. Moreover, you are relaying to much on the language criterion as for ethnicity. See Ethnicity.Alexikoua (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua, you are deep into the worst of OR territory here with your speculation about what is or isn't ethnicity. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason I proposed "Albanian-Greek" in the intro was as a convenient – and deliberately vague – shortcut for the complexity of the situation, because there are in fact a few sources that call them the one and a few that call them the other. What we shouldn't do (and unfortunately both of you are currently doing it) is try to find our own OR rationalisation for these contradictions, by developing our own theories of what ethnicity means. So please spare us those naive speculations about how they could never have waged war against other Albanians if they had been Albanians themselves and all that; LOL, that doesn't get any less ridiculous after the millionth repetition. The longer I listen to you the more I tend towards the view that we should indeed let Balkanian's word have his way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If I may cite from Wiki (but even in other dictionaris is the same ) "Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits, real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups". Now under this "cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits" can you tell me the difference between Chams and Souliotes? In all the description made for them the only difference was the religion (and you should remeber that 100 years before that even majority of Chams [23] were orthodox), all the other aspects were identic. So being an Eastern Orthodox = Greek ethnos? Look at note 3 here please [24]? What about the other Chams who were initially Orthodox but under pressure from Turks or personal choice became Moslems? Did they became Albanians at that precise moment?! As for Souliotes self identification they were self-defined as Souliotes see above BW's, but if you were to identify them on ethnicity in 1800 they were not different from other Orthodox Albanians. Aigest (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Balkanian`s word is, obviously, a sockpuppet of another user. Ask for an admin (an uninvolved one, not one with a long history of administrative authority abuse like Fut.Per.) to check it out.

anyone home? alvanian pov is wrong. soulli and sulliots greek.

Nations and states: an enquiry into the origins of nations and the politics of nationalism By Hugh Seton-Watson Published by Taylor & Francis, 1977

page 110, autor say that soulli was "ruled by greek chiefs" [25]

The crescent and the eagle: Ottoman rule, Islam and the Albanians, 1874-1913 By George Walter Gawrych Edition: illustrated Published by I.B.Tauris, 2006

page 103, autor say sulliots was "greek-speaking orthodoxoi christianoi" [26]

i show more stuffs and nobodi respond. 96.225.113.171 (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when novels [27] are RS ????? And BTW learn some English first.Aigest (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm not shqip dummy. your english is worse, but i dont care. sources are RS. read them first, then judge. 96.225.105.150 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No comment on Alexikoua, you are just putting OR-ish theories here, in order to make noise, cause you have no argument. On Fut. you continiue being wrong, because nobody said that Souliotes were just "Albanians". THe phrase I added was that they "were an ethnically Albanian community, which became integrated into the Greek nation". And that is too clear and too obvious. This is just a minor correction to your "Greek-Albanian", because strictly speaking it is the same, but essentially differs. Aigest said, and I agree, that being a Greek Albanian, means either that they had double anescetery (and the did not, the had Albanian one), or that they were ethnically Albanian and nationally Greeks, or vice-versa. Since we are not talking about a present population, like Arvanites e.g., but for a community of the 16-19 century, we do not know when did they became integreted into the greek nation, we just now, that they did. So having a sentence "were an ethnically Albanian community, which became integrated into the Greek nation", is strictly correct, essentially not wrong, and does not imply the "time" factor", cause says nothing on when did they integrate.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

more alvanian pov. perraivos live and fight with sulliots and he says theyre greek in all ways. did commie <<historikoi>> and albanophils do the same? no. sulliots fight for greece not alvania. ali pasha write to sulliots in greek, not alvanian. catherine of russia declare greeks fight and sulliots respond. get your facts together cause article shouldnt have alvanian propagnda. 96.225.105.150 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

who`s this guy?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

guy with oikogenia from souli. who are u? aigest call me <<idiot sipar>> and you delet me. weak. 96.225.105.150 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Balk. make some lead examples, I believe the problem is more about playing with words. We may find something good.Alexikoua (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then. I belive than the best one is "Souliotes were a warlike ethnically Albanian community, which became integrated into the Greek nation" per reasons I gave above. I do not know, how can we have a more precise and accquarate sentence than that for the lead. But, maybe "an ethnically Albanian community which assimilated into the Greek national identity", or "culture". I cant get a more precisse sentence. What do you propose. I still insist that "Greek-Albanian" is non-correct academically.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree with the equation ethnically Albanians=of Albanian origin? Some books say that, that way. It's how they understand the assimilation proccess (definitelly a long-term proccess).Alexikoua (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Look whats the problem: Souliotes are not a current population, like Arvanites, for which we can say "of Albanian origin", since we now that on 19-20 century occured the total assimilation into the Greek culture. Souliotes lived in 16-19 century, and thus the time of their assimilation its not clear at all. So if we say "Greeks of Albanian origin", it would imply that during i.e. the wars with Ali Pasha, they had become Greeks, something that is opposed by all sources. Looking at the sources it seems that their integration into the Greek nation (i.e. Greek self-identification), occured after the Greek War of Independence, as e.g. Botsaris et.al. were conscripted in the Albanian regiment of the French Army in the begining of the 19th century, and Jochalas speaks about their language (the cham dielact) based on Botsaris dictionary, i.e. at the same time. So saying that they are Greeks is imposible because they are not any more. Saying that they were Greeks of Albanian origin is still under dispute, since the time of their assimilation is totally unclear. For these, I still propose "ethnically Albanian community, which became integrated into the Greek nation", because it seems that is the only sentence that does not imply the time when the hellenization process occured, which is unknown.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"were an ethnically Albanian community, that became integrated into the Greek nation. They estamblished .... during the 18th-19th cent.". As for the integration proccess and details about the ethnicity a seperate section can be created. What do u think?Alexikoua (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So is this our final consensus:

• Souliotes (Template:Lang-sq, Template:Lang-el, also spelled Souliots or Suliots) were a warlike ethnically Albanian community, that became integrated into the Greek nation. They established an autonomous association of villages resisting Ottoman rule in 18th and 19th-century in Souli, Epirus. They belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and spoke the Cham Albanian dialect. The community became famous across Albania and Greece for the successful resistance against the local Pasha of Yanina, Ali Pasha. After their defeat in 1803, Souliotes were forced to move to other parts of Greece, and many of them later became active in the Greek War of Independence starting in 1821, under leaders such as Markos Botsaris and Kitsos Tzavelas.

and after this a section about the integration can be created. Do we agree?20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we have it. Alexikoua (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

yea right. course everyone ignoring sources i show that say theyre greeks. pov consensus. 1700s-1800s: alvanians hate and kill sulliotes; 1900s-2000s: alvanians love sulliotes. irony. 96.225.105.150 (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

read this source showing letters that prove sulliots are greek and how alvanian propaganda distorts history.

"Ali Pasha, I am glad that I have deceived a treacherous man like you. I am here to lead my country-men against a thief. My son may perish. But I will avenge his death with desperation. Some Turks, like you, will say that I am a pitiless father in that I am sacrificing my only son to save myself. I answer, that if you seize these mountains, you will murder my son, my family and all my people. And I shall not live to avenge their deaths. But if we win, I shall have other sons. My wife is young. If my son, young as he is, is not satisfied to die for his country, he is not worthy to live, and to be known as my son. Proceed, then, treacherous Albanian. I am impatient to take vengeance. I, your sworn enemy, Capitan Lambros Tjavella."

this was said before the greek revolution. sulliots are greek. nuff said. 96.225.105.150 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right, "Proceed, then, treacherous Albanian".Balkanian`s word (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I will not respond to 96.225.105.150 . His interpretation of the above letter brought by himself as a prove, shows his competence in this matter (not including his novels, fictions and other stuff:)). Aigest (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

you guys choose to ignore stuff. but even ali pasha say:

"My brave soldiers, you know very well how many evils the infidel Greeks have brought upon us; how many towns and villages they have taken away from us; how many lands they have snatched away from our possession. If today we leave them alive, they will gradually dare to seize our homes, and capture our wives and children. I, with your valor, have subdued all the other Greeks; I have put to flight all my enemies, and now it is a shame that a handful of robber infidels should make us bolt our doors for fear of them. Remember how much blood has been shed by our brethren the Ottomans for the conquests of these lands? Now it is time for us to avenge their death, and to exterminate these troublesome Greeks. Our forces are many and brave. Today we need not much ammunition. With swords in hands we will slaughter them. Those of you who are valorous, and faithful Mohammedans, will show it today. I promise to all those who enter Souli victorious five hundred piastres each."

again, you kill greeks of souli and now claim their historia. nuff said. take your alvanian propaganda elsewhere. 96.225.107.179 (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Greek Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy

Greek Orthodoxy is an ill-defined notion. Some authors ([28]) say that it is the same as Eastern Orthodoxy, some others (WIKI) that it is about the churches that use Greek language. In every case, the religion is Eastern Orthodoxy and not Greek Orthodoxy. If we keep here Greek Orthodoxy here, than Greeks in Albania would be Albanian Orthodoxs, since they are under the Albanian Orthodox Church.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't ill-defined at all. In fact, it is your preferred wording that is ill-defined. The Souliotes were Greek Orthodox, not generically Eastern Orthodox. Eastern Orthodoxy is an abstract dogma, not a specific denomination. And if Greek Orthodoxy is the same as Eastern Orthodoxy, then there is no problem using the term, is there? Either way, the Souliotes fit the definition. By the way, the religion is Christianity, not Eastern Orthodoxy which is merely a tradition thereof. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So, Northern Epirots are Albanian Orthodox, aren`t they?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? It's not them we're discussing here. But for what it's worth, they belong to the Orthodox Church of Albania, don't they? And that is often classified as part of the Greek Orthodox Church. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Source?

Can anyone trace a source for this presumed letter written on 1 May 1801 to Ali Pasha from Zerba the Souliot? It was supposedly a negative answer to Ali who was offering money to Zerva for his surrender. Of course, this letter should not be used or quoted unless a source can be provided.Politis (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Σούλι τέσσαρες του Μαγιού, χίλια οκτακόσια ένα.

Αλη Πασά. Το μήνυμα πούστειλες ψες σε μένα,

τόλαβα και το διάβασα κι αμέσως απαντώ.

Που με κτιμάς Αλη Πασά, πολύ σ΄ ευχαριστώ.

Μα τα λεφτά σου κράτα τα, φύλαχτα στα πουγκιά σου,

για σένα και την φάρα σου την άπιστη γενιά σου.

Να τα μετρήσω δεν μπορώ. Μ΄ ακόμα κι αν μπορούσα

λιθάρι της πατρίδας μου, γι΄ αυτά δεν θα πουλούσα.

Όχι που γράφεις ν΄ αρνηθώ άρματα και πατρίδα.

Γελάστηκες Αλη Πασά για μένα όπως είδα.

Για μένα δόξα και τιμή και πλούτη τ΄ άρματα μου.

Μ΄ αυτά έχω Σούλι λεύτερο κι άσφαχτα τα παιδιά μου.

Μ΄ αυτά ανασαίνω τ΄ όμορφο της λευτεριάς τ΄ αγέρι.

Μ΄ αυτά φυλάω τις εκκλησιές απ΄ το δικό σου χέρι.

Τούτα σου γράφω Αλη Πασά και μην ξεχάσεις ότι

Τα ΄γραψε χέρι ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟ, του ΖΕΡΒΑ, του ΣΟΥΛΙΩΤΗ.

I somehow doubt they would have done their diplomatic correspondence in political verse. Not even on 25 March. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Is this written by Cavafy Zervas?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cavafy's dekapentasyllabo was slightly more elegant. I had actually considered throwing my own bit in and responding to Politis in verse, but I decided I can only pull that off in English with Shakespearean pentameter. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Cavafy? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My foult, its resolved, it was Zervas.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, seriously. Why Cavafy? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I was joking.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we all know what you were doing. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its called blantal nationalistic vandalism.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, more like jingoistic innuendo. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I like Cavafys so once more you`re wrong.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, up in the mountains people did challenge eachother in verse (a bit like rapper/hip-hop challenges in New York, only with more violent outcomes) but also in writing? BIG doubts all around. If it was Cavafy's work it doesn't count unless he was a Souliot :-) Politis (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I`d like to be there! Imagine Zervas getting ready to die when he was trapped by Ali Pasha, or when Markos Botsaris, was fighting with Gogo. But whatsoever, i`d propose to change the roots of Rap page, and make Tzavellas the first rapper of the world:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's just "Cavafy" because he doesn't know any other Greek poet. So don't be so evil with him."Και τώρα πια τι θ απογίνουμε χωρίς βαρβάρους? Οι άνθρωποι αυτοί ήσαν μιά κάποια λύσις".--Michael X the White (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you are too smart.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

what about the Sources?

What about the books, scientific works etc. that state that the Souliotes were Greek? shouldn't this be added to the article per WP:NPOV--85.74.252.76 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of them are in the article, others may be added. And the lead is too clear, they were ethnically Albanian and became integrated into the Greek nation.Balkanian`s word (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

emphasis on 'some' since 'pro-greek sources' have been deliberately ignored or downplayed in favor of 'pro-albanian sources' especially ones that call the souliotes 'chams'. so much for 'neutrality'. 96.225.105.246 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no downplayment, There are 15 sources, all WP:RS, and every source that fulfills WP:RS will be included in that page. Bring a WP:RS source and put it in. But, this does not change the facts.Balkanian`s word (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

what facts? 1) clogg is not an expert on the souliotes; he's looking for minorities in greece and is not impartial 2) GB naval intelligence division is from 1944; not exactly a state-of-the-art modern source with professional know-how on the souliotes 3) vickers supports albanians no matter what; not impartial 4) pappas talks about greeks in the russian military, not about the history of the souliotes 5) fleming focuses on ali pasha and not on the 200 year history of the souliotes; not impartial 6) gerolymatos mentions 'orthodox albanians' in reference to a single souliot dance; not impartial 7) balázs and kopecek is a sight for sore eyes though they are not experts on souliotes 8) koliopoulos and veremēs talk about the souliotes from 1831 onward; nothing from before 9) eric hobsbawm has a marxist bias and doesn't speak for the 200 year history of souliotes 10) hammond is another sight for sore eyes, but does he refer to 'tsams' ethnically or linguistically? 11) angelomatis-tsougarakis talks about nineteenth century greece, but nothing about the souliotes of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 12) miller talks about souliotes from 1801 to 1927, nothing before 13) arnakis talks only about religion and not about the history of souliotes 14) batalden is another sight for sore eyes, but only goes back as far as the 1770s 15) giochalas is studying a greek-albanian dictionary, which does not say much about the ethnic and cultural history of the souliotes since the 1600s. sources need to be reviewed properly. 96.225.105.246 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen up, if Souliotes were still Albanians in 19th century, as Hammond, Hbsbown (who by the way, is not a marxist bias, cause is considered the best historian of the century), et. al., you say that they were Greeks in 16th century, who in 19th century became Albanians, and than became Greeks again? come on. They were hellenized, and thats too clear. If they were not hellenized in 19th century, it means that they were hellenized later, they could not have been hellenized prior and then became Albanians in order to rebecome Greeks. Dah, too obvious.Balkanian`s word (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You realise you're arguing with an IP Address, right?Amenifus (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

nonsense. these 'great historians' you mention fail to provide a complete historical treatment of the souliotes. like it or not, hobsbawm is a marxist historiographer with a marxist bias no matter what people think of him. using the 'hellenization' card as an excuse to claim the souliotes as albanians is pov. unless you find some sources that specifically talk about the history of the souliotes, this article will never be 'neutral'. 96.225.105.246 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that there are sources that refer to the Souliotes as ethnic Greeks but this is not represented in the article--85.74.252.76 (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

i agree. so far, the 'owners' of this article talk up a storm when it comes to npov and wprs but hardly put this article to either test. if a source is 'pro-albanian', then it's cool. if a source is 'pro-greek', then its 'nationalistic' and 'pov'. if people support 'pro-albanian' bias, then they are objective. if people support 'pro-greek' bias, then they are souvla-spinning hot-headed meanies. lol. 96.225.108.4 (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead again

As I wrote in the Markos Botsaris talk page all this is childish. The main problem is here the "manipulation" of sources. For instance, I read in the lead that they spoke the Cham Albanian dialect. Yes, but at least two sources I found (one of them from a third party) insist that they were Greek-speaking! Is this version of the story represented in the lead (which by the way is awful, like the one in the Botsaris article)?

Now, if you follow your rationale and your insistance on mentioning ethnicity in the way you want in both articles, let's see how we'll end:

• If we take what Miller says, it is inaccurate what you say that the Souliotes were "ethnically Albanian". No! They were a mix of Hellenized Albanians and Greeks. Therefore, according to this source: During the Ottoman Empire'r rule, a part of the Souliotes had already been hellenized, and the rest of them were of Greek origin! A bit inconsistent with what you argue until now, and I read in the lead.
• According to Katherine Elizabeth Fleming, the Souliotes are of Albanian origin (Be careful! She does not say they were ethnic Albanians!), but "usually are grouped separately". Meaning? Obviously that they are not grouped with the rest of Albanians! And she also says, page 99, note 18, that the Souliotes were a "Greek-speaking" Orthodox tribe of "Albanian origin" (again not "Ethnic Albanians"). Do you say in the lead that they were Greek-speaking? No! You say they were Cham speaking (?!!) So, again the lead is inaccurate. Change it accordingly!
• According to Tsoungarakis, page 113–114 the Souliotes were already hellenized by 1821, and he agrees with Miller that they were not just Albanians, but "christian Albanians who had intermixed with Greeks". Tsoungarakis is probably Greek, but he provides a thorough analysis, don't you think?--Yannismarou (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, continuing this nonsentic discussion, I have to stress that the current phrasing of the lead is inconsistent with all the above sources. I remind you that the current lead is as follows:

"Souliotes (Albanian: Suliotët, Greek: Σουλιώτες, also spelled Souliots or Suliots) were a warlike ethnically Albanian community, that became assimilated into the Greek nation. They established an autonomous association of villages resisting Ottoman rule in 18th and 19th-century in Souli, Epirus. They belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church and to the Cham branch of Albanians, whose dialect they spoke."

Unfortunately for you, the three above sources give us three different wording all of them inconsistent with the current one (and of course with the previous one of yours, which did not even mention the hellenization). More specifically:

Option 1 per source 1

Following Miller, the lead should be phrased as follows:

"Souliotes (Albanian: Suliotët, Greek: Σουλιώτες, also spelled Souliots or Suliots) were a warlike community, ethnically a mix of Hellenized Albanians and Greeks, that became assimilated into the Greek nation. They established an autonomous association of villages resisting Ottoman rule in 18th and 19th-century in Souli, Epirus. They belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church and to the Cham branch of Albanians, whose dialect they spoke."

Option 2 per source 2

Following Fleming, the lead should be phrased as follows:

"Souliotes (Albanian: Suliotët, Greek: Σουλιώτες, also spelled Souliots or Suliots) were a warlike ethnically of Albanian origin, that became assimilated into the Greek nation. They established an autonomous association of villages resisting Ottoman rule in 18th and 19th-century in Souli, Epirus. They belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church and to the Cham branch of Albanians, but they were Greek-speaking."

Option 3 per source 3

Following Tsoungarakis, the lead should be phrased as follows:

"Souliotes (Albanian: Suliotët, Greek: Σουλιώτες, also spelled Souliots or Suliots) were a warlike, ethnically christian Albanians who had intermixed with Greeks, that became assimilated into the Greek nation. They established an autonomous association of villages resisting Ottoman rule in 18th and 19th-century in Souli, Epirus. They belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church and to the Cham branch of Albanians, but they were Greek-speaking."

Do you want me to continue?!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• And by the way I can find no source verifying that the Souliotes belonged to the Cham branch. Can you please specify?--Yannismarou (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Which one of the above sources, says that they were not Albanians in 17th century e.g.? As all of them conclude that they were of Albanian origin, i.e. Albanians in 16th or 17th century, it means that they were Albanians (16th, 17th, other sources say 18th and 19th century) who became integrated into the Greek nation(maybe since the 18th century, others say on 19th century). So whats the problem in here. There is an extensive discussion on *this* wording, in order to make it NPOV.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Balkan, it is your conclusion that they were Albanians on the 17th century! The sources I provided do not say that! Two of them say that they were a mix of hellenized Albanians and Greeks. They do not say that they were all Albanians in the 16th or 17th century. Now, can you please provide me further data (isbn, publisher, some url link, how did you find it so that I can search for it etc.) for your source 15, about Souliotes speaking the Cham dialect. I want to order this source (book? article?) what is it exactly?), which, as I can see by the way you cite it, it is Greek (?). I really wonder how the Academy of Athens could assert something like that. Thanks in advance.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it mine? First of all Miller is out of question, if we start using in this page books without bibliography and references and published in 1933, than this page is going to blow up. Lets rely in secondary recent published as is guided by WP:RS.

Unfortunately for you, Katherine Elizabeth Fleming is quite clear. On one page she states that they are of Albanian origin, but grouped separetely, and in another page she states clearly that :Katherine Elizabeth Fleming"The history of the orthodox Albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such an overlap". Somebody can be Albanian and of Albanian origin. So you are misusing sources my friend, not me.

On Tsoungarakis, (putting asside that he is Greek), can you provide his reference that the *Souliotes were Hellenized*, because as of what I have read he states only that some of this communities, etc, etc. In every case, Eric Hobsbawm and NGL Hammond (of course, the greatst hestorians of the century do not conclude on your viewpoint) and a bunch of others, say that they were not hellenized at they time. So still "ethnically Albanian, which became assimilated" is the NPOV-est wording.

On your questions. We have these sources that say that they were Albanians

• Richard Clogg, Minorities in Greece: Aspects of a Plural Society, 2002 ISBN 1850657068, 9781850657064 "The Souliotes were a warlike Albanian Christian community, which resisted Ali Pasha in Epirus in the years immediately preceding the outbreak the Greek War of Independence"
• Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, I.B.Tauris, 1999, ISBN 1860645410, 9781860645419 "The Suliots, then numbering around 12,000, were Christian Albanians inhabiting a small independent community somewhat akin to tat of the Catholic Mirdite tribe to the north"
• Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopecek. Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and Southeast Europe (1770-1945): The Formation of National Movements, Published by Central European University Press, 2006, ISBN 963732660X, 9789637326608 p. 173 "The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith"
• Giannēs Koliopoulos, John S. Koliopoulos, Thanos Veremēs. Greece: The Modern Sequel : from 1831 to the Present Edition: 2 Published by C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2004 ISBN 185065462X, 9781850654629 p. 184 describes Souliotes as "Orthodox and partly hellenized Albanian tribes".
• Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality Edition: 2, Published by Cambridge University Press, 1992 ISBN 0521439612, 9780521439619 p. 65
• NGL Hammond, Epirus: the Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas, Published by Clarendon P., 1967, p. 31 "The Liaps held the area from Valona to Delvine and inland to Tepelene; the tsams from Delvine to Souli and inland to Ioannina and Pogoniani"
• Batalden, Stephen K. Catherine II's Greek prelate: Eugenios Voulgaris in Russia, 1771-1806. East European Monographs, 1982, ISBN 0880330066, p. 142.</ref>
• Katherine Elizabeth Fleming"The history of the orthodox Albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such an overlap"

And one source of their Greekness and Albanian origin.

• Arnakis, George C. "The Role of Religion in the Development of Balkan Nationalism", pp. 118-119, 141 (Jelavich, Barbara and Jelavich, Charles. The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics since the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963).

Unfortunately no single source on when they became hellenized. Of course you could have read the whole talk page, where every reference is brought and there has been a consensus for every source and the wording itself.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I asked for just one thing: can you please provide me with further data for this particular source in citation 15, because I want to find it? That simple, and thank you in advance! As you can see, I changed nothing of your wording in the lead, so don't shout! I just added the supported by specific sources assertion that they were Greek-speaking. On the other hand, I am really interested in reading the sources you cite, arguing that the Souliotes were Cham-speaking, something which is not consistent with what most sources from a simple Google-booking say. Personally, I could find no source supporting the claim that they were Cham-speaking. The source you cite seems to come from the Academy of Athens. I am thus very very interested (not only for the article, but for my personal education as well) in finding it and reading it. Can you help me?--Yannismarou (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oh! Just a related additional question: is this "Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division" source of 1944 about their belonging to the Cham branch also extensively discussed in your previous relevant threads and found in accord with WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES? Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Titos P. Jochalas: To ellino-alvanikon leksikon tou Markou Mpotsari: Filologiki ekdosis ek to aftografou. Publishing office of Acandey of Athens. Athens, 1980. pp.424.
  I do not have isbn in this book. On "Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division" go check it and dispute it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I removed Flemnig source as it was misunderstood. It is clear that she was refereing to Perevaios as in another page, she speaks about Albanian speaking Suliotes, so there is an inner dispute in it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a nonsense debate. How come the great majority of well known sources identifies them like albanians and you still want a prove that they speak Albanian?!?!?! What is that?!?! Why (just two examples of mid XIX century where they were chams [29] and they were tosk albanians by a philologu like Latham [30] ) do you think the scholars have made this classification ?!?!?! Because of their dress?! In that case even the evzonoi should be called Albanians [31] stop nonsense debate please. Aigest (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is not nonsentic. The fact that they were of Albanian origin does not mean that, in the meantime, they had not adopted the Greek language. Greeks of Cappadocia were mainly Turkish speakers, and the Turks of Crete were mainly Greek speakers. So, I do not understand your furstration, and I suggest you change your tone. This source of 2006 (Gawrych page 103 also says that the Souliotes were speaking Greeks. Are you also going to discredit this source because you don't like it. And in Fleming book, where does she speak about Albanian-speaking Suliotes? I cannot find the page. In the meantime, I restore of course my sources. Your reverting of sourced material constitutes vandalism. As you can see, I reverted none of your sources.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You Yannismarou forget or ignore the fact that the above mentioned author (George Finlay) was talking about Greek Revolution (he did even participated along with Byron in Greek Revolution) and his mentions of Souliotes makes quite obvious that Souliotes were still speaking Albanian on that time and the other one (Robert Gordon Latham) ethnologist and philologist was talking about the same time and was still supporting that idea (apart form all the other sources mentioned by BW). Why don't you read those books before making comments? They are freely alvaiable from serious authors and there were not influenced by Albanian propaganda :)) Aigest (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not fight your sources! But, let's point out two things:

• They are both 19th century sources. Don't you have anything more modern secondary sources to cite?
• Were do this sources say that they were speaking the Cham dialect? Yes, they say that they were of Albanian origin. We agree on that! But where is it mentioned that they belonged to the Cham branch, and that they were speaking the Cham dialect in particular?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to enter into dispute here since there is an ongoing consensus but they were mentioned as belonging to Chams subdivision of Tosks in the last paragraph of page 51 at Finlay and at Latham Tchamid division of Albanian Tosks (page 7) Orthodox chamids (page 8) shows the division of Albanian tosks. They include them in Albanians section of tehir books etc. I know they are primary and not to be used it was just for showing that there were plenty of primary, secondary and tertiary sources who claim the souliotes were classified as albanians. But to return to the language If somebody is expressed that the Spartans belonged to the doric subdivision of the greeks that means that they were speaking the Dorian dialect of Greek it is self-explanatory. Remember also that the great division of Albanians in Ghegh and Tosk is based mainly on the language (albanian dialect) so for a group classified as group that belong to Albanian Tosk branch than it is understood that they speak Tosk dialect of Albanian language. Aigest (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fleming

I removed Flemnig source as it was misunderstood. When she states about "Greek-Speaking" she cites inline Perevaios, who is not a RS. In another page, she speaks about Albanian speaking Suliotes, so there is an inner dispute in it. She is off the language thing, as she states nothing herself, just gives inlines about language.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you pretend that you do not read my edit summaries or can't you properly read my citation? I also added another source. Why did you erase them all?!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

[Tsougnarakis] (keeping aside that is Greek) is quite clear that the "diffusion of the Greek language was widely spoken by Albanians" (i.e. that Albanian was still mother-tangue) and most of all says nothing about Souliotes, whethear they were Albanian speaking, Greek speaking, or Albanian speaking who knew foreign languages:-). It is removable, and I am going to remove it.

OK! Remove it! My God!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What about this. For sure the Albanian language is the original language of Souliotes (per common logic and sources). Greek was introduced later, as a lingua franca in Epirus (per fleming and Tsoungarakis, although the last does not speak about Souliotes in particular). As such I propose:

"The community originally spoke the Souliote subbranch of Cham Albanian dialect and eventually became bilingual in Albanian and Greek. After their assimilation in the Greek nation, occurred a language shift to Greek, while Souliotic became a extinct dialect."Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it, but is it supported by sources? You go into many linguistic details, needing an expert to check them. As far as the wording is ok with me. As far as the scientific accuracy of the assertion, this is not my field.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, lets ask User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, who`s an expert on the field.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fut? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds of course plausible, but we can't really extrapolate this much of the linguistic development unless we had sources that described it in such detail. Of course, it's a reasonably accurate model of what must have happened, only we don't know at what pace. Also, I suspect it has nothing much to do with the issue that drives people here so much, namely what the "nation" (if any) identification was at any given point in time. For what it's worth, I seem to remember that the leading members of the Tzavelas and Botsaris clans even in the late 19th century, two generations after the war and the dispersion into Greece, continued to describe themselves as Arvanites/Albanians (the terms were still interchangeable at that time). I remember once reading an interesting document (but can't right now find a ref for it): a public manifesto calling Albanians inside and outside Greece to unite with the Greeks. It describes the stance of the Albanians within Greece as a model for those outside to follow, it is full of "we Albanians" (or "we Arvanites"; as I say, they evidently weren't making a difference), and it was signed prominently by two members of those old Souliote clans. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK! Then, you provide us with two sources, which you cannot actually provide ... Mmmmm ... Anyway, as I said I have no objection for the wording Balkanian's word proposes, but I'll also ask 3rdAlcove and Giorgos Tzimas to have a look in case they are interested, just for further feedback. I can't think of anybody else with an expertise to linguistic issues. If you do, please ... Giorgos epsecially, in a coffee we had, he had impressed me with his linguistic education (as we say in Greek, he made the Varieties of Modern Greek article and some edits of mine "φύλλο και φτερό"). He is Greek (possibly 3rdAlcove as well, but I do not know), but they always attempt to remain cool, and keep a distance from POV activities.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read that too, and I think that I have seen a secondary RS in google books, about it, but I am not quite sure. I will try to find it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found it in French here [32] . Part of the text is there but I can not give a very accurate translation (I can understand french though). In the reference 206 you can see the details of the publishing. Aigest (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Giorgos gave me an excellent analysis here (just read it, in order to understand what real scientist and real linguist means, who bases his remarks on sources, and not on what "he seems to remember"). It is in Greek, but I think most of the involved users here have a quite good knowledge of the Greek language. If you have any problems in understanding, just ask me to translate. Facing the danger to misquote or misinterpretate Giogos' remarks, I'll attempt a short summary of what he wrote:

1. Souliotes were Albanians, Greek-Orthodox and basically bilingual.
2. Although the notion of "national identity" did not exist at the time, they were conscious of their origins.
3. They were also conscious of their differentiation from both the Greek populations and the real Chams, Albanians who had adopted the Islam.
4. Their real integration into the new "Greek nation" takes place gradually during the Greek War of Independence.
5. About their language in particular, Τίτος Π. Γιοχάλας in his "Greek-Albanian Lexikon of Botsaris" only mentions that the Albanian idiom (ιδίωμα) of the Lexikon belongs to the Tosk dialect of South Albania, with some archaic elements also found today in the Greek-Albanian communities of South Italy (see Βάσω Ψιμούλη, Σούλι και Σουλιώτες, Αθήνα 2005², pp213–214).

I hope that this feedback helps the editors of this article, and those involved in the debate here. Personally, and after Giorgos' remarks, I think I've completed my role here, and I am out of the article. I hope that common sence and strictly scientific critera will prevail from now. on. Good luck to all of you!

Finally, just to say that Giorgos also wrote some very interesting things about the way Arnakis is quoted or misquoted, but this belongs most to the Cham Albanians article.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that all of that is written in this article, except their Albanian "ethnic identity" and social "regional identity", if I understood it correctly. What do you think? As about Jochalas, he says about the Cham dialect, not only Tosk dialect (remember that Cham dialect is a subbranch of Tosk dialect) and he speaks about the simmilarities between Souliotic and Southern Cham subbranches too.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I saw from Tzimas analysys (except of my falling:-)), he is quite interesting, except of one point. There is a confusion on that analysis and maybe in the book itself, of what "being a Cham means". I have tried to include in "Cham Albanians" the definition of Chams, but it was considered as unneded by other editors, although it seems that I have to use it too much.

Being a Cham means, (1) speaker or descendant of speakres of Cham dialect (2) residing of descendant from Chameria (3) Cham lifestyle (costumes, music, dances), etc. There is a big problem, not only in Greek historography, but generally in Greek society that being a Cham is connected with being Muslim, which is not true.

Is like saying that being a Cretan you have to be Orthodox (Turkokritiki?), or something like that. But being a Cretan means just speaking the Cretan dialect, originating from Crete and having their traditions. This kind of missconseption is found widely in this case. Although its unnesescery, cause secondary RS conclude on this point.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have Jochalas in order to verify what you say. Do you have any scanned version? As far as the ethnological analysis about the Chams, I listen with great interest to your remarks, but I still don't have the background to comment. As far as the language in particular, I agree with the "bilingual" part, but I am not sure about the "Cham" part. In any case, I do not intend to revert or change the wording. As I said, I offered what I had to offer in the article (if I offered anything at all!), and I'll watch from now on all your comments with great interest, but avoiding to further intervene, unless I have something concrete to offer.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Chams?

This is wrong, they spoke Albanian but there are insufficient sources to label them as Chams. In fact the sources cited as supporting this don't in fact do so, only 1,2 say anything about Chams, the others all speak of Orthodox Albanians.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the talk page from Talk:Souliotes#Incorporated_discussion_about_ethnicity_from_Cham_Albanians at the end and you will see it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I read it and there is no consensus evident, if anything what emerges is you against everybody elses opinion, including the instimable Future Perfect. I have also read your sources and most speak about Albanian speakers or Albanians and use these terms synonymously. Only two speak of Chams and one of these is very old. I would go with Vickers et. al on this one and call them of Albanian descent or Albanian speakers. It is hardly likely that they considered themselves as Albnaians since NOONE did at the time.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read this page Three sources:

• Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby, Greece, University Press, 1944. "...who belongs to the Cham branch of south Albanian tosks (see volume I, pp.363-5).In the mid-eighteenth century these people (the Souliotes)were a semi-autonomous community..."
• Finlay:p.51: "The Souliots were a branch of the Tchamides, one of the three great divisions of the Tosks"
• Titos P. Jochalas: To ellino-alvanikon leksikon tou Markou Mpotsari: Filologiki ekdosis ek to aftografou. Publishing office of Acandey of Athens. Athens, 1980. pp.424

The fact that sources say that Souliotes were Albanians does not mean that they say that they were not Cham Albanians. Because Chams are Albanians. Please read this page19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. What does the Jochals ref say? Full citation please.

2. The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927‎ των William Miller - 1966 -

In Epirus, the Orthodox Souliotes, an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenised Albanians, who won the admiration of Byron, formed a sort of military .

.

This is another old source, should we take this at face value.

3. The last argument is a sophistry. If they meant to say Chams they would have said so.--Xenovatis (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is fully-protected until you reach a consensus. If after the elapse of 12 July, no consensus is achieved and edit-warring erupts again, I'll fully-protect the article once again in the version that I'll find it.

What happened yesterday is totally unacceptable: almost 20 reverts in a row from both sides within 2 hours, during which, when one user reverted for the third time, he/she was succeeded by another one. This is the worst form of edit-warring and gaming of the system (to avoid the 3RR violation) at the same time.

Please, all of you compose yourselves and try to discuss. As I understand, two are the main main issues here: a)If the Souliotes are of Cham origin. b)If some material should be in the lead or later in the article.

I also advise all the involved parties here to read ARBMAC 1 and get knowledge of the possibilities the latter offers to sysops (revert restrictions inter allia). I have not the intention to make use of such means, but if this pattern of behavior continues I'm sure that me or some other adms will be definitely tempted to do so.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources do NOT say they were of Cham origin, just that they were Albanian/spoke Albanian.--Xenovatis (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin section

I believe that a section about the origin and the early presence of Souliotes is needed, because many books don't give a details except saying, for example: the Albanian orthodox Souliotes, or of Albanian origin, or hellenized Albanians, or mixed Albanians-Greeks etc. (no more than that) I have noticed two books that say something more about:

1. Albanian Historical Folksongs. P.J. Ruches, 1967 (the work is not a musicological research as I explained in Talk:Cham Albanians, but a volume focused on Albanian-Greek issues from ca. 1700 to 1960) p. 20:"Souli was inhabited by folk speaking both Albanian and Greek who had gathered from many parts of Epirus to this natural stronghold. Some had fled from as far north as the villages of Laberia when the area swung over to Islam. Other had come from other nearby Thesprotian villages, fleeing the harsh rule of the beys and aghas of Filates and Margariti."
2. Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization. p.248 "Most researches, whether Greeks or not, accept that the establishment of Shepard groups in the region of Souli begun from middle 16th century. The first people came from (modern) southern Albania and the plains of Thesprotia. According to Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos, Souliotes where 'a mix of Greeks and hellenized Albanians' ..." (own translation from Greek, the work is written on both Greek and English and published by Ekdotike Athinon).Alexikoua (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Aleksi, let me tell it in your words: OK WE HAVE IT. You were part on this discussion, and you have agreed on this exact wording. Whats up now? Did Xenovatis came, and brought any new source that make you change your mind, or are you trying to disturb the page, recycling same old stories? WP:DEADHORSE.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I'm quite clear. We reached an agreement on the leading sentence. Does this forbit us to create a separate section about origin and early presence?Alexikoua (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, because we have discuss it and because we reached a consensus on this issue. If you have no new argument or sources, please stop it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I've presented above. Thank you for your cooperating and agreeing.Alexikoua (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A section on origins seems appropriate only if we can find solid, third-party sources. The sources presented so far are not third-party, and in fact have very strong partisan positions. Paparrigopoulos is not only very very out of date, but also very very nationalistic. As for Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization, even the title makes it clear what the point of view it takes is.... --macrakis (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Macrakis, the work itself is awarded by Athens Academy, (Ekdotike Athinwn publishing).Suppose what you say its just due to ignorance. Balk. has a wierd taste about sources, not to mention that he just tried to add, Albanian sources of the 60's (why dont you add Hohxa statements about Illyrian-Pelasgian ancestry?) to prove Illyrian-Albanian continueity in Illyrians article.Alexikoua (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are 15 sources on that single sentence, if we remove those 2 it changes nothing.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was referring only to the sources mentioned above by Alexikoua. --macrakis (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What's worth noting is of all these 15 sources, only the first two refer to the Souliotes as Chams. The rest should therefore be diregarded. Of the two, one is from 1939, and the other is a publication of the Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division from 1944, hardly a reliable source on such a contentious matter. The claim that Souliotes are Chams is thus on very thin ground. --Athenean (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

15 sources does not constitute on "very thin ground." (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)).

Did you even read my above post? What does it say? --Athenean (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think he means, because it quite obvious if you remove your galanoleyka glasses. Two say that they were Chams, the rest that they were Albanians. Being an Albanian does not make you not to be Cham, because Chams are Albanians, a subbranch of them.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said, well said, Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

@Balk: Chams are a subset of Albanians, so it is entirely possible for the Souliotes to be Albanian but not Chams. Your argument that "Being an Albanian does not make you not to be Cham, because Chams are Albanians" is therefore complete nonsense. According to your logic all Albanians are Chams. Now, if you removed your red-and-black Illyrian glasses, you would realize the what you are doing it WP:SYNTH. Only two sources say they are Cham, and the rest say only Albanian, yet you insist that you have 15 sources that say they are Chams. This is ridiculous. The two sources that say they are Cham are very outdated and need to go. Alexikoua has brought two new, non-outdated sources, and the article should be changed to reflect what they say. I therefore propose that the Finley and Brit. Naval intellignece sources be replaced with the two sources Alexi brought, and the article changed accordingly. --Athenean (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the Souliotes were "Kosovan". (Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)).

At Athenean. Does this mean that Gheg Albanians are Chams? lol. Stop telling things that you know are idiotic.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Now you are just trolling and playing dumb. Your sources that claim the Souliotes are Chams are outdated and will be removed. Alexi has brought new sources and these will be included. Simple as that. Your above post is pure trolling because you have run of out of arguments. Case closed. --Athenean (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the existing sources are perfectly viable, and those brought forward by Alexikoua say nothing to contradict them. That said, the issue needs to be de-focused. This article has been edited for months by people literally obsessing over the word Cham. Sorry for being blunt, but on the one side we have an editor whose sole purpose on this project is to fill the encyclopedia with pages over pages of how glorious the Chams are, and on the other side we have a group of editors who have been fed the equation "Souliotes=good, Chams=bad" with the milk of their early patriotic indoctrination, and now suffer from unbearable cognitive dissonance on seeing "Souliotes=Chams". Knock it off already. An article that has a row of fifteen(!) footnotes behind a single word is a sign of sickness, and that sickness comes from both sides here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Athanasios Psallidas, a secretary of Ali Pasha, stated that Souli (also known as Kakosouli) contained Greek fighters who fought against the Albanians for many years.[9] An author of unknown origin stated that the Souliotes, under tyranny in Epirus, have proven that Greece still gives rise to individuals like Leonidas at Thermopylae.[10] Aside from contemporary accounts, the Souliotes were known as Greeks even by their enemies. Beli Pasha, son of Ali Pasha, sent letters to his father from April to December 1803 calling the Souliotes "Romans" (Ρωμέους), "Romioi" (Ρωμιούς) and "Romegans" (Ρωμέγους), that is, ethnic Greeks. Ahmed Moufit, great-grandson of Ali Pasha's sister (Siachnisa), attempted to convert the Souliotes into Orthodox Albanians in his chronicles. He wrote angrily about how the Souliotes invited Ali Pasha's attack in 1789 because they called themselves Christian Greeks who became tools of Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrison4ever (talk • contribs) 07:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Suli according to George Finlay

A History of Greece: The Greek revolution, pt. 1, A.D. 1821-1827

By George Finlay

Part 1, Book I, Chapter II page 43 (text removed-see googlebook)Alexikoua (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.192.44 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this user's edit of this copy/paste from the article's mainspace. I will only make this edit once as I am not a regular editor of this article and have very little stake in the content. I feel that a copy and paste does not do the article (or the project) justice, but I am restricting myself to a 1RR on this article. Regards Tiderolls 23:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tendencious Greek nacionalism

There is a group of nationalist Greek Wikipedians who are "owning" some pages that interest them and are not letting any change be made. This is a really serious matter for Wikipedia and must be reviewed by a number of administrators. You cannot use references as you please and adopt them in context. This i fallacious and un-encyclopedic. Visar Arifaj (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)