Jump to content

Talk:Souliotes

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KengaJone (talk | contribs) at 18:15, 23 May 2010 (→‎Church). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

History Of The Greek Revolution by George Finlay. Volume I. 1861

George Finlay’s History of the Greek Revolution. Vol. I. 1861. [[1]]

. In two volumes. Volume I. William Blackwood and Sons; Edinburgh and London; 1861.

Chapter II. The Albanians

The Suliots the most remarkable tribe of orthodox Albanians (p. 51); Their rise and social condition (p. 53); Repeatedly attacked by Ali Pasha, etc. (p. 55).

N. B. Bolds are mine. Guildenrich 02:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please this copy-paste job from Finlay has no sense. A link is enough.Alexikoua (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoya, this is the last time you touch my stuff. If you do it again, I'm going to report you! Guildenrich (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capodistria: the founder of Greek independence‎- page 33

  • Christopher Montague Woodhouse, Oxford University Press, 1973

"Souliotes, a tribe of Greeks from Epirus who had lived an almost independent existence in their mountainous country for two centuries.."

--Factuarius (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please don't make a copy-paste job too, a link is jusy enough.Alexikoua (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this tugowar doesnt help...different authors highlighted different aspects of the suliots..they were clearly of albanian origin and christian they were the local mafia irrespective of religion and language later threw their lot with hellenism..etc the sooner everyone accepts the different aspects of their career the sooner a decent intro can be put in place...i dont see whats wrong with accepting that the suliots were of albanian origin anyway87.202.33.38 (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suliots?

Suliots ? what is this , it should have been a redirect to this.Megistias (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is just Guildenrich's today's new article. Failing to push his POV here decided to write his own article. Now nobody will dare to touch it. Nice. --Factuarius (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is not helping 87.202.33.38 is your contribution in the discussion. Until now nobody had called Souliotes "local mafia". Such a "decent intro" would just ruin the article. As for their "clearly albanian origin" well, since you are so sure why not write a book about it? Maybe Oxford University Press would be interested in correcting the Christopher Woodhouse's errors, so to regain its academic reliability. --Factuarius (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you are all being disruptive

And I mean it. The lot of you just managed to mess up a perfectly good lede again to fight over something that nobody other than yourselves actually cares about, using lousy 19th-century primary and secondary sources to "prove" what are essentially unverifiable conclusions. Stop squabbling over petty shit. Do you think anyone who reads this article will care? Try to look at this from the perspective of someone who is not a juvenile nationalist by persuasion. Any more and I will start handing out bans. Moreschi (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for anyone who creates any more WP:POVFORKs. There is actually a policy against that, and per WP:ARBMAC I can and will enforce it. Moreschi (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you just rv the last version can you be more specific on what you mean sane and where the previous version was insane to your opinion? --Factuarius (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just didn't make sense. Bilingual stock? That's a linguistic reference in a sentence that is, however stupidly, trying to discuss their racial origin. Plus, in the first sentence the article asserts their origin, and then lower down points out that it is "disputed". And "clearly Greek"? WTF did that from? Yes, clearly this is up for debate, but all the modern (not 19th century) sources we have seen point to a community of Albanian-speakers (and they were originally Albanian-speaking, this can't be ducked) who become Hellenized over the years. What their precise racial origin was we'll never know, insofar as such terms have any relevance or meaning - very little. Moreschi (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "clearly Greek. WTF did that from?" I putted the ref in the txt and I mention it also here: is from the C.M. Woodhouse's book of Oxford University Press, ISBN 0192111965 p.33. And there are more saying exactly the same.
  • "Lousy 19th-century sources" No as for this particular book is of 1973.
  • "linguistic reference in relate to racial origin" Since it's impossible to make genetic studies to be sure about their origin and the sources are conflicted about, the only way to approach their origin is by their language. Most of the sources agreed they were bilingual so the most possible origin was mixed Greek-Albanian. This is Balkans nearly all are mixed.
  • To me the only neutral way to end permanently the issue is to mention both three sourced opinions about their origin, Albanian, Greek and mixed, together with their sources and get over with it.
  • You are admin and you can enforce your opinion about, but to my opinion that will end the issue only temporarily, not to mention that is not elegant to omit neutral sources even if they are conflicted with others. --Factuarius (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I thoroughly agree that genetics is irrelevant here, your point about language unfortunately doesn't work: by your line of argument, all our sources agree that they originally spoke a sub-dialect of Albanian, ergo they must have been Albanian in origin. That they later became bilingual is of course undisputed. Note that I am not arguing that they must have been of Albanian origin simply because they originally spoke Albanian, but that is what follows from your line of argument.
    • What, exactly, does Woodhouse say? And what time is he referring to? If he is talking about a relatively late period in their history his referring to them as Greek means nothing more than the cultural and linguistic shift to Greece was completed by that stage. If he was talking about a point in time when our other available sources still attribute to the Soulioties Albanian language and culture - at least in part - then we have something worth discussing. Moreschi (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi this is exactly the point: The sources doesn't agree on what they spoke and what their origin was. C.M. Woodhouse in p.33 says about them that "the refugees consisted mainly of Souliotes, a tribe of Greeks from Epirus who had lived an almost independent existence in their mountainous country for two centuries". William Miller in his 1966 book The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927‎- Σελίδα 23 says "In Epirus, the Orthodox Souliotes, an admirable blend of Greeks and Hellenised Albanians.." and other sources says that they were of Albanian origin. That's the issue and that's why the only solution is to mention both three opinions. How we can omit the other two? --Factuarius (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, fine, now we are getting somewhere. In which case we can do a rewrite in accord with WP:UNDUE, along the lines of their precise racial origin is unknown, but was very likely at least partially Albanian. Woodhouse should get a mention but it should also be mentioned that his opinion is very much in the minority.

If they were Greek for a two centuries, back in 1821 how they could spoke Albanian? As for Woodhouse's opinion being a minority I can bring more sources about their Greek origin, many Greek and some non-Greek. Woodhouse's book is just the more prestigious due to his titles and his editor. Also there are many documents of their numerous letters to Ali pasha, all of them are in Greeks although they supposedly being Albanians or bilingual spoken to an Albanian-Turk ruler. Even the Ali's letters to them were all in Greeks. Both could use at least Turk language since both knew it also and that was the official language in the Ottoman Empire. --Factuarius (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes, changes, changes

I’m going to change the names of the villages to Kiafa, Navariko and Samoniva, as Christoforos Perraivos wrote them in his book, published in Athens (1857). Αιγοβοσκοί τινες εκ των πέριξ χωρίων ανέβαινον βόσκοντες τα κτήνη των εις τα βουνά, όπου σήμερον υπάρχουσι το Σούλλιον, η Κιάφα, ο Ναβαρίκος, και η Σαμωνίβα... (ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΣΟΥΛΛΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΓΑΣ, συγγ. παρά ΧΡΙΣΤΟΦΟΡΟΥ ΠΕΡΡΑΙΒΟΥ. 1857. p. 2) Guildenrich 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK. Stop spamming the talkpage with random quotations from old literature. Moreschi (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, in the field of History, applies the rule: The older, the better! -- Guildenrich (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The older, the better"

As for Guildenrich's motto and since "in the field of History, applies the rule: The older, the better": "The Souliots, the other Greek fugitives of the continent, together with the Chimariots..." Guillaume De Vaudoncourt, Memoirs. 1816 p.417. Since that's the older ref until now, and according to your motto, do we have a deal about their origin "Guildenrich"? --Factuarius (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can go on and on with this discussion. I think it's better to outline in a paragraph their disputed origin as:
1. Cham Albanians;
2. Greeks; and
3. Hellenized; giving respective sources.
"I was here first" or the Right of the First Occupant, in Balkan Nationalism is more of a disease, than a political statement.--Guildenrich (talk)17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean

Albanians
Greeks
And mixed Albanian-Greek

Since these are the three known positions according to the presenting in the article and the talk pages refs. The Albanian and Hellenized Albanian is the same and there are at least two refs about their mixed origin that we cannot omit. If so I am making the changing in the article giving both three views about their origin with their related refs.

As for the disease of the "Right of the First Occupant", I believe your comment is irrelevant with the current discussion because what we discuss here is about the possible significance of the old sources not who was the older occupant. You are who claiming that Souliotes were at first of Albanian origin, not Greeks. Also you are who told that "in history the older source the better source". Now that I gave an older source about their origin you are answering the irrelevant: "I was here first" or the Right of the First Occupant, in Balkan Nationalism is more of a disease" What I only trying here is to follow you and respond to your standards in order to have a good discussion and end the matter.--Factuarius (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The older the better" is a ridiculous criterion for evaluating sources. By that criterion, we should throw out all modern scholarship and rely on the Vedas, the Hebrew Bible, and Herodotus in preference to modern historians. All sources, old or new, primary or secondary, must be evaluated critically and read intelligently in the context of their times. --macrakis (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per wp:rs, secondaries are preferred.Alexikoua (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you. I prefer a modern study from Oxford University Press like Woodhouse's; but serious and neutral eye witnesses like Guillaume De Vaudoncourt who lived for years in the area has a value. Also the Albanian literature of the 19th Century, (thus well before the emerge of the Albanian nationalism) is by default NPOV, is reflecting the Albanian people's position about Souliotes' origin and thus, also worth a look. --Factuarius (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1857

"ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΣΟΥΛΛΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΓΑΣ" is dated 1857.Megistias (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stating the obvious! Cool! --Guildenrich 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

About the refs in being of Albanian origin presenting in the article

  • 1. The crescent and the eagle: Ottoman rule, Islam and the Albanians, 1874-1913 By George Walter Gawrych as a ref: Although an article's ref. about Souliotes being of Albanian origin, in fact the ref's text says exactly the opposite mentioning an Albanian novel written in the 19th century by the Ahmed Midhat (an Albanian) about “the love between a Muslim Albanian man (Rustem Bey) and a Greek woman (Eftimi)” from Souli. The source is in fact a remarkable finding about a 19th century's Albanian source openly admitting Souliotes Greek-ness, falsely presented saying the opposite about Souliotes's origin.
  • 2. Albanian literature: a short history by Robert Elsie as a ref: The page mentioning (17 or 171) is not present in the Google Books (in fact unlike what is mentioning in the ref the book has no preview at all) and the GoogleBook word search tool on that book doesn't giving any paragraph in where the word “Souliotes” or “Souliots” is present.
  • To my opinion more (than one) and more reliable refs in being of Albanian origin are needed in the article in order to present the Albanian origin view of Souliotes more convincing. --Factuarius (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have to make my objections. The "Eftimi" chick... are you f*ucking kidding me? The source says only that Eftimi (Euthymia?) was a Greek woman from Suli. Nowhere it says that the Souliotes were Greeks. I think you should consider revising the whole papargaph, on their Greek, Greek and Hellenized-Albanians, and the mix of Greeks and Greek Albanians. Better luck next time. Guildenrich 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Cannot understand what you say, since Eftimi was a Greek woman from Souli according to the text, then that's a 19th century's Albanian source about Souliotes being Greek not Albanian, as was falsely presented before. How you can use such a story as a ref for Souliotes being of Albanian origin? The very point of the story, the heart of the novel, its essential element was exactly the oddity of a love between an Albanian outside Souli and a Greek from Souli. Can you clear your thoughts and upgrade your civility? The current paragraph isn't about "Greek, Greek and Hellenized-Albanians, and mix of Greeks and Greek Albanians", is about 1)Greek, 2)mixed Greek and Hellenized Albanian and 3)Albanian (I changed the IP's edit). Which is what the currently presented references say for their origin, have you any objections about? --Factuarius (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Factuarius, it is clear you are scraping the bottom of the barrel here if you are trying to infer from a "Greek woman from Souli" (which is reliable how anyway?) that "all the Souliotes were Greek". That's just ridiculous. Moreschi (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't noticed that post before. This was not mine ref, it was here before, but as a ref indicating Souliotes being of Albanian origin, so its not me who scraping the bottom of the barrel. I only pointed out that if this old Albanian ref suggest something, that's the opponent of what was originally used to (see above). I do believe that if it is ridiculous as a ref of Souliotes being of Greek origin it was double ridiculous as a ref of being of Albanian since the text said clearly that the Souliot girl was Greek not Albanian, that's all. --Factuarius (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, we don't ave a consensus lede here. Guildenrich 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

Because? --Factuarius (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't have a consensus, at least one (Me) doesn't agree. You should better revert the article to "09:55, 8 October 2009". Or else I will.Guildenrich 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

Origin section is for sure needed since things are complicated on the topic. It's better to improve this section than to make massive reverts to a past, less detailed version.Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Guildenrich can you start talk? I asked you twice why you don't agree and you answered nothing ("no consensus", "no consensus" without stating why). My opinion is that since their origin cannot be given in a few words due to the conflicting refs, it cannot be in the lede. Must have a section for that, wherein all three views with their related refs will be mentioned and logically we cannot split it in two (a part in the lede and a part in the origin section). Be a little more constructive by reasoning your position about and improve the origin section instead of just reverting. --Factuarius (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also you putted back the Robert Elsie's ref in were the Souliotes are not mentioned at all and George Walter's ref in which the author says exactly the opposite. --Factuarius (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<bashes head against a brick wall>

guys, this is just not acceptable. We had consensus previously to mention that they originally spoke an albanian dialect and later became hellenized, and leave it at that. Now we have an enormously tendentious and argumentative "origins" section that flagrantly ignores the language fact (which no one has seriously disputed). Come on. This may be petty but it matters. You don't just get to cherry-pick like this, and rely on archaic sources. Moreschi (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basic point is that we DO NOT NEED this ridiculous section. The precise ethnic origin of the Souliotes is unlikely ever to be definitively settled, but the basic point is that NOBODY EFFING CARES apart from you bunch of nationalist flamers. This is not a matter for NOTABLE controversy outside whatever google groups you guys hang out in. Hence we don't need an entire argumentative section on it, synthesized out of a bunch of crap.
Seriously, children, please grow up. This is an encyclopedia devoted to encyclopedicity. Have a long, careful think about what that means. Sorry for shouting, but FFS, stop pissing around over this irrelevant shit. Moreschi (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you told the last time "Ok, fine, now we are getting somewhere. In which case we can do a rewrite in accord with WP:UNDUE, along the lines of their precise racial origin is unknown, but was very likely at least partially Albanian. Woodhouse should get a mention but it should also be mentioned that his opinion is very much in the minority." --Factuarius (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you took that and completely and utterly distorted it, proving in the process you are completely unfit to be editing such a topic under any pretence of neutrality. Back to the last sane version until you manage to come up with something vaguely in accordance with policy. For that matter, I'm still unclear as to how you are going to manage to source the notability of this controversy. Is this controversial among academics? No, just among nationalist blogs. Wikipedia is supposed to be at the academic level, not the blog level. Moreschi (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you propose to do with the those 8 refs saying being Albanians, Greek and mixed? --Factuarius (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discard most of them as archaic junk that you have scraped out of the bottom of some barrel somewhere. Point out that, as far as substantial references are concerned, no one seems to have researched this closely or be particularly certain, so we'd be better off sticking to facts (originally Albanophone, later Greek-speaking). You people badly need to get out of the mentality that dictates accuracy by number of references. Good faith, not pseudo-scholarlyness, is the key. Quality of references matters more than quantity. Moreschi (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(several edit conflicts) I agree with Moreschi. If you want to write about a dispute, you need proof that the dispute exists. I see no indication of this. I am not even sure that there are contradictions in the obsolete (19th century) sources: It wouldn't be a contradiction to say that the Souliotes were Albanian by origin but are among the most authentic ethnic Greeks now. It's all a matter of self-identification and how they are seen by their neighbours, which may well have shifted. Hans Adler 00:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank the lord. Another voice of sanity. On a page like this, they don't arrive very often. Moreschi (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other pages like this aren't related to the most beautiful spot in the world (the Acherontas valley). ;-) I have been watching this article for ages because of that connection. Hans Adler 09:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand your point, but one of the ref you putted back says nothing at all about Souliotes, another says the opposite and I cannot see why Vickers's is academic but Woodhouse is not. The language you are mentioning is in reality an indication of their origin, so either with your view, what we are really talking is about their origin. Why we must omit refs (even modern) speaking directly about their origin? --Factuarius (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think that the language a group speaks is a necessary indicator of their ethnic origin then there's something badly wrong. When we speak of language we are not necessarily speaking of ethnicity: the two are related but not mutually inclusive, and history provides plenty of examples a people speaking a language alien to their background. Moreschi (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus: well, yes, it's obvious that up to a point it's perfectly valid to call them "Greek": they doubtless self-identified as Hellenes and were identified as such by their neighbours after a certain time. Unfortunately for you boys, some kind of Albanian origin seems very hard to deny and this origin remained part of their culture for quite a while as well. Thus this makes applying a precise label to their ethnicity a very knotty problem, so we had best skip over it and stick with linguistic fact, give that there is absolutely no notable controversy here at all. Moreschi (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is right and sound but not the rule, believe me I am not totally ignorant in Balkans history and must trust me: for the period we discuss it was totally impossible to start as a Greek population but who spoke Albanian. The mixed origin is a good argument that is a good explanation, that's why must include it, but together with the other two. To me that's the only NPOV presentation of the issue and let the reader decide (if he gives a penny as you told). --Factuarius (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users editing

Just to note here that 96.225.107.10 and related IPs are evidently banned user Deucalionite (talk · contribs) again. Any edits from that source will be immediately reverted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you semi-protect (again) the article to end with the IP edits since they are not participating in the discussion, and since what we are trying is to achieve a final consensus in the issue? --Factuarius (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind semi-protection, but I can't do that myself right now, as I'm currently not supposed to be taking admin actions on Greece-related articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<bashes wall against a brick head>

Consensus, anyone? Somebody please check one or two stocking-puppets involved in the discussion. Don't want to mention any names. Guildenrich 20:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

Agree, it seems that too many new usernames created at the end of august decided that their only interest was to edit the Epirus-related articles. And too many old (in)famous accounts carrying multiple blocks in their backs are mysteriously still missing; some of those "new" accounts are already banned as stocking, some not. As for me I don't have A SINGLE edit without sigh it by my user name IN MY ENTIRE WP life, which is THE ONLY USER NAME I EVER HAD. I say: not even one edit. Hard to believe? why "Guildenrich"?. Now go and ask for a check. Do it now, else you are accusing people without believing your own words just to discredit them. --Factuarius (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About consensus: Let me explain what is happening here to give you the answer. In this article you are free to give as much refs you want saying that Souliotes spoke Albanian but you are not free to give any ref about their actual origin. You can include a ref about a 19th century's Albanian novel as a confirmation of their Albanian origin and the ref will stay here for months, but when is found that the ref says actually the opposite the ref have to be deleted as old. You cannot give any modern ref about Souliotes' origin (i.e.from Oxford University Press), because the object of the books are not Souliotes' origin. You can say that the rulers of the area were Albanians but you cannot say that they wrote poems saying that Souliotes were not. And you can then ask if we now have a consensus. Got it? Accordingly, the current situation in the article is the following: All six refs about their non-Albanian origin are by now deleted (two old and four modern) and the article has the only ref saying they spoke Albanian, supported by another possibly saying not a word about Souliotes. So about the consensus, the answer is sure, why not, as I understand it everyone here has to pick his decision: either he agrees that the Souliotes spoke Albanian, or he is out. Who am I to continue bashing the wall when less brick-headed Greek nationalists than me like Miller, Woodhouse, Hatzidimitriou, Lydekker, Vaudoncourt, Fauriel (and who knows how many others) failed so evidently to recognize their mistake? --Factuarius (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, is this Wikipedia, The FREE encyclopedia, or Wikipedia, the Factuarius encyclopedia? I think I'm going to report you somewhere, for ungentlemanly behaviour. Guildenrich (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Moreschi

Will you please have a look at the history page? Someone is doctoring it. Thanks in advance. Guildenrich (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warlike community or Albanian community?

The article starts with saying that the Souliotes are a "warlike community". Now what is exactly a "warlike community"? A community that likes wars? I never heard of such communities. Perhaps someone wants to explain a little better or open a new article to explain what the warlike communities are?

Can we mention what nation this community belonged to? Or is it too controversial to say that they were Albanian? A community that fights back against the aggressor might be warlike but that doesn't mean we should say that they were a "warlike community".

I suggest that we remove "warlike community" and substitute with "Arvanite community".user:sulmues--Sulmues 15:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one could answer me in two weeks, I made the change. user:sulmues--Sulmues 15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have made a big mistake by making this edit, you are all to familiar with the objections to that wording. Concerning the proposal "Arvanite community", I'm not sure. They were Arvanite only according to certain definitions, the name "Arvanite" is often taken to refer only to the Arvanites of central and southern Greece and these definitions exclude the Suliotes.

I don't like the word "community" either. I propose something along the lines of "the Suliotes were a group of clans from the village of Souli and the surrounding area who became famous...".--Ptolion (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, yes, I like your wording better too. --Athenean (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds better to me too. Bring the battle to Suli now, :-). sulmues
Made the change as suggested by Ptolion, and agreed by Athenean.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean, why are you reverting me if you say above that you like the wording?sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Pasha a brigand?

On the top, we're saying: "Ali Pasha, an Albanian brigand". If the English user gets curious about this character and he makes the mistake to click on Ali Pasha he is going to find that not only was he not a brigand, but he was the ruler of the Pashalik of Janina (its pasha). As a result the word needs to be removed. Either we say nothing about him, because the reader can go ahead and see who he was or we say that he was the ruler of the vilayet which included Souli. Even Adolf Hitler is referred to as a politician and leader of a parti, why should a Pasha be brigand? I need the community comments in order to make the change. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Brigand" is obviously in reference to his relations with the central government, I'm not sure it's the most appropriate word though. I agree with you, change it.--Ptolion (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean reverted through his usual edit warring without first writing in the talk page.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you clicked on the two sources given, they both say "brigand". We go by what the sources say, not what you like. Athenean (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he was famous as such, the massacres of Hormovo, Lekli, Himara, Souli, Preveza, Moscopole was the work of a brigand leader. The 'ruler' or 'Pasha' term is too generic. Imagine for example calling A. Hitler simply 'ruler' or 'Fuehrer' of Germany, instead of 'dictator', 'tottalitarian ruler' or 'war criminal'.Alexikoua (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the word "brigand" on its own means very little. Even the two sources cited don't use that word on its own to refer to him but merely use it to qualify the word leader or warlord. It also needs to be considered whether it is relevant to his relations with the Souliotes. Did the Souliotes oppose him out of loyalty to the sultan for example?--Ptolion (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they didn't recognize his authority at all. So you suggest 'brigand leader' suits better, since 'brigand' means very little?Alexikoua (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change. A pasha doesn't need to be a brigand. He was a pasha, which would be equivalent of a Duke in the Western world. He may even have started his early career as a brigand, but he was made Pasha for military reasons and given a nobelty title. From that point he was an Albanian lord, not an Albanian brigand. Pushing the POV that he was a brigand while being a Pasha is against Wiki rules.--sulmues (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

clever, isn`t it?

As, I saw, the consensus that was long ago (before I leave) is changed to a new one, putting out anything that has to do with ethnicity. Thus, no mention about it, thus putting out the sources in general and the Albanian ones in paticular (which were the majority), clever isn`t it?
Nevertheless, I propose two things:
1. To put out from the lead the ethnicity of Ali Pasha, and his soldiers (isn`t this part of defocusing from ethnicity? otherwise, we should put Souliotes` ethnicity first of all, the article is about them.
2. To create a section about their ethnicity. Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soulites' ethnicity is debate and a section is a good idea. I would prefer the title 'identity' instead of ethnicity.Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No Concensus, Page not Moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Souliotes → Suliotes — Suliotes is the name that is most used by sources, as such it should be the name of the article. Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I request the move of this page from Souliotes to Suliotes. Valuing the various sources used in this page about the Suliotes, the name used by the majority of historians is Suliotes and not Souliotes.

Update Per WP:NC the proper name for the article, should be that the most RS use, and in WP:NC is stated that the names that are used in the articles references is a good example. As such, the references are divided as follows:

  • Uses only Suliotes
  1. Laurie Kain Hart. Culture, Civilization, and Demarcation at the Northwest Borders of Greece. American Ethnologist, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 196-220. Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
  1. Elsie, Robert (1986), Dictionary of Albanian Literature, London, United Kingdom: Greenwood Press, p. 17, ISBN 0-313-25186-X, retrieved 2009-03-31
  1. Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, I.B.Tauris, 1999, ISBN 1860645410, 9781860645419
  • Uses only Souliotes:
  1. Victor Roudometof, Roland Robertson (2001), Nationalism, globalization, and orthodoxy: the social origins of ethnic conflict in the Balkans, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, p. 25, ISBN 9780313319495
  • Uses both variants:
  1. Katherine Elizabeth Fleming. The Muslim Bonaparte: diplomacy and orientalism in Ali Pasha's Greece. Princeton University Press, 1999. ISBN 9780691001944, p. 99

As it is clear, the majority of these sources use Suliotes, and not Souliotes.

Secondly, after doing a google test, in scholar and google books (not in google.com, because of the patronym Souliotes, which is popular in Greece), the result was:

  1. Google books:
  1. Google scholar:

For this three reasons, as per WP:NC, Suli and Suliotes ought to be the actual name of this article. Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update While I did the google test, I was actually wrong. I reendered the data from the google test, using only those pages that are in English per WP:ENG. The difference is quite clear now! Secondly, I removed the references about Souli and Suli, because as is said below, they are not representing the geographical location of Souli. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support move per evidence provided--Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support move per Balkanian`s word's reasoning. An Albanian settlement has to go with its Albanian name. --sulmues (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as nationalist nonsense. I note that virtually all the results for "Suli" and "Souli" have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual Souli. As for "Souliotes" vs. "Suliotes", the difference in the number of hits is not sufficiently significant to establish which one is common usage, but I note that "Souliotes" has been the stable article name for years (since the beginning in fact). Athenean (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1. Please be polite. 2. That it has been in a wrong name since the begining is not an argument.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My comment is not impolite and I stand by it. It is nationalism, because only a nationalist would call "Souliotes" the wrong name. You just want to replace "Souliotes" with "Suliotes" because "Suliotes" is the more "Albanian" spelling. So this is just a frivolous nationalist crusade to "right" a historical "wrong". It also is nonsense because virtually all the 20000+ hits for "Souli" and "Suli" have nothing to do with the actual Souli as anyone who clicks on the link can tell. So either you do not know what you are doing or else are trying to deceive the community (which is it?). I also note that virtually all the hits for "Suliotes" refer to a particular poem by Lord Byron. He uses "Suliotes" in his poem, so it is natural to expect the sources discussing the poem to use "Suliotes". However, this is hardly representative of common usage. Athenean (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it is quite obvious, the wrong name in what I said is "wrong" as per wiki-policies, not "wrong" as per good or bad. You first said that this is nationalism, and than I said that this is the "wrong" name, so you even knew what would I answer to you, thats why you wrote about a nationalistic view, isnt it right? Nevertheles, about the real argument, as it seems both Souli and Suli are irrelevant in the search, but clearly Suliotes and Souliotes are relevant. Lord Byron`s Suliotes poem is not 1000 times in google books, is just ones, as such one down, from the 923 hits, still is more used. Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the hits for "Suliotes" concern the poem by Lord Byron. As for the rest of your ungrammatical unintelligible post, I'm sure you think it makes sense to you but it doesn't to anyone else. Athenean (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you see that virtually all the 20000+ hits for "Suli" and "Souli" have nothing to do the actual Souli? Evidently the nominator doesn't know what he's talking about (or else he knows *exactly* what he's doing). Athenean (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Athenean --Factuarius (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the evidence isn't strong enough for this move. Actually: google search: Souliotes 103,000 hits [[2]], Suliotes 34,000 [[3]].

Comment This is not the case, as most of them are Demetres Souliotes, George Souliotes, Janis Souliotes, and whoever-greek-uses-this-name Souliotes. We are talking about a population group, not about persons.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulmues: I already told you to avoid trolling comments, since you are still under civility supervision. This has nothing to do with racial purity.Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: its pretty clear Megistias (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a vote poll, this is argumentation based on wikipolicy, so please be more clear than "pretty clear".Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When you type Suliotes in Googlescholar it shows the msg 'Did you mean Souliotes?' [4]. Moreover the vast majority (if not all) of the hits in Suliotes are either irrelevant or 19th century works.Alexikoua (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not the case again, per my first and main argument that most of the sources that used to and are in this page do mention Suliotes and not Souliotes.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. The dubious Google results aren't good enough from this one, especially when the population concerned are named after a settlement in Greece with a clear official spelling. Yet another case of Albanian irredentism.--Ptolion (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still wait to see a clear argument for this move. The google books hits actually is a counter-argument for this move since the results are completely irrelevant.Alexikoua (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, a comment: what exactly is the fuss about? Both "Suliotes" and "Souliotes" are essentially the same, English transliterations of Σουλιώτες, hinging on the different ways used for transliterating the Greek ου into English. I really find it odd that we have to be divided along national lines in a vote which does not have any implications whatsoever. There is no "correct" form per se; per WP:ENG we could also follow the English form, which is "Suliots", but which does not meet the most common in use criterion. As Balkanian said, a search in Google Scholar (IMO the best indicator for the more recent trends & scholarly usage) comes up with 482 hits for "Suliotes" and 239 hits for "Souliotes", with many of the latter being transliterations from Greek or from French articles. Per common use, Support for "Suliotes". Constantine ✍ 12:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced the move is a good idea. There are redirects in place for the alternative spellings, so I don't see any compelling reason to move; the alternatives are equally balanced at gbooks or gscholar on alternating sides. What's to gain? Even if it were a clear win (which I don't see it is), readers using the "right" names will get redirected to the "wrong" names and the matching article. Josh Parris 12:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is actually a good question. There is nothing to be gained, indeed. As I said, there is no "right" or "wrong" version of the name, it is merely a matter of semantics. This move proposal is in itself rather redundant, but it is in place and per the guidelines for naming things, it has a sound footing. Other than that, IMO the proposal is of no consequence. Constantine ✍ 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not speak on my behalf, I can do it myself. In this case with "wrong" I clearly ment, wrong as per wikipolicies, not wrong per good or evil. Thank you for being so nice.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The nominator has been assiduously canvassing every Albanian user he knows: [5] [6] [7] [8]. Athenean (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: This is not a vote poll, this is an wiki-policy debate, as such no votes may be counted, just arguments. And a note to Athenean, I have asked the opinions even of other users: like this one, but as I said this is not voting ;). Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this [[9]] additional canvassing attempt.Alexikoua (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be canvassing if it was a vote poll, but this is not a vote poll, this is a move request and as such the closing admin will not take into account the votes but WP:ENG and WP:NC.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the definition of canvassing since you addressed the message only to the Albanian users and about your argument in not being a vote, the expression "I need your opinion" adding to the fact that you called only Albanians, makes it more of a trumpet calling for a campaign for arguments than an innocent informative message. But I am sure that you will not repeat that unnecessary move in the future. To me (and I believe to everyone older than 7 months in the Balkan-related articles) your reappearance in WP will soon transform the articles again into a large battleground through canvassing, edit warring, and tagteaming. I may be wrong but I am afraid it's only a matter of time. But time will tell. --Factuarius (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Balkanian's word's friendly notice to ONE PERSON is nothing as compared to user:Athenean's wp:canvassing to the ENTIRE Greece TF ([10]). --sulmues (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sulmues, I do not know how familiar you are with WP rules and procedures, but notifying a related WP project (any related WP project!) about an open move discussion within its scope is no canvassing. I've done repeatedly with various similar discussions, and I'll keep doing it, because it is not only acceptable but sometimes very useful as well.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I note that since Balkanian's fellow SPAs have failed to make any intelligent arguments and just cast !votes, I guess by his own words their !votes should be ignored. On the other hand, since this article falls within the scope of WP:GREECE, it is appropriate that I post a notice there. Athenean (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose, mainly for consistency with Souli, which should remain where it is according to transliteration rules (ISO 843 and WP:GREEK). For Souliotes, English evidently uses both spellings, preponderance of the simple -u- spelling, if any, isn't strong enough to force our compliance, and if in doubt it will be preferable to stick with that version that also happens to be our preferred transliteration for the original Greek. (BTW, out of linguistic curiosity, when we use "S(o)uliot-es" here, is that a transliterated but original Greek word, containing the Greek plural suffix -ες ([es]), or an assimilated English loan word, containing the English plural suffix -s ([s])?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There is no clear prevailence for "Suliotes" in any specialized google search. In any case, I was always reluctant to accept Google results as the basic criterion for page moves. Transliteration rules seem to favor mostly the "Souliotes" version, which is indeed consistent (FPS argument) with the Souli article. In any case, I cannot understand all this "heat" here, and I do not see any strong reason for the move. The arguments of the nominator are not compelling enough to justify the move; to make me say "ok, it is indeed wrong where we have the article, let's move it". But, at the same, time, if the move finally takes place, I don't see why this is problem and why there is so much fuss and useless divisions on nationalistic lines (I agree with Constantine on that). Finally, allow me to point out that this is not a fight for more votes, and, consequently: a) tension is useless, and b) calls, instructions (e.g. which votes to ignore and which not to ignore) and notes to the closing administrators are also useless. Closing administrators know their job better that you think, and they will close this discussion properly assessing the situation.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me finally point out that one can also make google book and scholar searches with the terms "Suliots" and "Souliots" as well, where the results are also inconclusive (Google web: Souliots 19600 hits, Suliots 22.300 hits; Google book: around 590 hits for each terms; Google scholar: Suliots 110, Souliots 56 – I confess I did not further processed or analyzed these hits as BW or Athenean did, it is up to you to assess them). I thus insist in my initial argument: we have four names all of them used in English; none clearly prevails; none is regarded as "wrong". So, provided there are the proper redirects and provided all these terms are included in the lead, I don't see why we should move the article, unless somebody can convince me that the current (consistent with Souli) title is either inaccurate or uncyclopedic or unscientific.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see further arguments provided in the lead of this section. Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Latest edits

According to the latest edits made by Balkanian's Word, (although not explained in discussion page) I see that specific parts of the lead were changed or removed without a reason, like that Ali Pasha was 'Muslim Albanian', which is essential to the context. Another fact that's also unexplained is that the bombardment of sources (17), which was removed as per a past consensus explained also by User:Moreshi in this page, was mysteriously restored. As I see only one source is needed in this sentence, this of 'Laurie Kain Hart'.Alexikoua (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus changes over time so I think that before making again such mass removals you should at least discuss the issue. Also try not to plagiarize by directly copy/pasting text from books.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have told before, if the ethnicity of Ali Pasha is relevant than for sure the ethnicity of Souliotes is relevant in the pages of Souliotes. The agreement was defocusing and that is what I did.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have nothing against a brief "ethnicity" paragraph, in principle, but the recent version by Balkanian`s et al is unacceptable for several reasons:

  • Bad English throughout.
  • It's problematic to first assert that national identity is "difficult" to ascertain, but then to state the "ethnically" Albanian claim without any hedging and as a hard fact.
  • It's problematic to sanitize the description of the religious identity to such an extent that the word "Greek" doesn't even occur in it (but instead to overload it with irrelevant detail about "spiritual leadership")
  • It is problematic to date their assimilation in the Greek nation to "after the War of Independence". That dating is unsourced, and questionable.
  • The source bombardment is completely unacceptable. Only the lowest of the low among our POV-warriors ever use more than three footnotes in a row. This is just extremely bad style.

A word to B.W. personally: welcome back, but I can only warn you in the strongest possible terms against resuming any edit wars over this. We've recently seen just about everybody else sanctioned, and we may soon be back at WP:AE. And in your case, given your status as an obvious single-purpose advocacy/agenda account, and your prior history of permanent revert-warring over just these topics, I predict not just a revert limitation but a full topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment:
A source is needed that clearly states that the assimilation process begun 'after' the War of Independence. Revert summaries like

[[11]] 'consensus changes over time', aren't enough to make this sentence stay without a single source. Also, the source should clearly mention this fact, otherwise some rewording is needed here.Alexikoua (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZjarriRrethues:I'm sorry I've never agreed on what you say about Balkanian.Alexikoua (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[12] your edit, which is more or less the same as BW's edit about national identity. If you think that they had a clear national identity they you shouldn't add that they didn't have a clear national identity.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol:

I say: "the question of a national identity, whether Greek or Albanian can hardly be applied here." [[13]], while Balkanian: "Ethnically they were Albanians" [[14]]. He used a wrong edit summary that's allAlexikoua (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The national identity of Souliotes is hard to be provided, in a period where the national consciousness was not eminent in the region where they lived.

was added by BW which is the same as your edit. For the record ethnicity and national identity are two completely different concepts.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, even Venizellos himself tells us, that at least when the Dance of Zalongo was inspired, those women`s mother tangue was ALBANIAN. Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "ethnicity" section added by Balkanian is simply terrible. I completely agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise's comments. Atrocious English, weasel-wording (using phrases like "Church of Constantinople" in an obvious attempt to avoid having to use the word Greek), not to mention the extreme POV-pushing using 15 sources. The way it is written now, it is completely irredeemable. It should be removed and re-written from scratch, preferrably as an "Identity" section (and at the bottom of the article), by someone who is obviously less emotionally involved in the topic. Athenean (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put out "ref" overload, added Greek as you liked, English has been improved since Fut commented on that. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me with this? You just moved them to the end of the article. Not nearly good enough, the section goes. Athenean (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Finlay, although a 19th century historian (although he is considered a notable historian), seems to be the only one who gives us a description of the Hellenization of the Souliotes. Although, he does not give a clear cut view, on when we can say that this process was finally over, he tells us thet they gradually lost their Albanian characteristics after they were expelled from Suli, i.e. after 1803. I think that as this is the only source which precisely tells something about this story, and because Finlay is considered a great historian, we may put it in the article.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, I propose:

Ethnicity

The national identity of Souliotes is hard to be provided, in a period where the national consciousness was not eminent in the region where they lived.<ref> As sources claim, Souliotes had a rather strong local identity.<ref> Ethnically they were Albanians, belonging to the Cham branch of Tosks.<ref> Religiously, they belonged to the Church of Constantinople, part of the larger Eastern (or Greek) Orthodox Church.<ref> After they were driven out from Souli, in 1803, the Albanian characteristics of those tribes gradually were vanished and on the course of time they became part of the Greek nation.<ref>Finlay</ref>
What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally pov-pushing. Where is there anything on Souliotes on that book. Also, why did you remove the ethnical part, which was sourced? Please explain, otherwise it is a clear pov-pushing case.Balkanian`s word (talk)
Finlay is the only one that says that they were branch of the Tsamides. But unfortunately no 20th century detailed research confirms this. Very interesting is the Albanian point of view of that time, written by Hadji Seckreti in his Alipashiad (where he clearly seperates Souliotes from Tsamides). But both sources can't meet wp:rs here. I've made some re-adjustment in the section and renamed it: ethnicity->identity.

The sources say 'of Albanian origin', see Flemming, one of the most credible ones.Alexikoua (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finaly is a historian and has wrotten historic books, not verses like Haxhi Sekreti ;).Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which book? Stoppel? It deals with all the communities of Epirus, Souliotes was one of them (p. 7).Alexikoua (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the book that you added as a source mention anything on Souliotes, or Sulioten better? I did not find anything. If you do not provide something clear from that book, about Souliotes, than please do remove it. No synth please.Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Souliotes lived in Ottoman Epirus and this journal doesn't make any exception to the Souliotes, if you mean this, they were an Orthodox community living in Ottoman Epirus. I can't understand what's the meaning of this weird edit, which sounds more than a blind revert [[15]]:
  1. multiple sources are back (contrary to multiple consensuses),
  2. the last unsourced sentence is restored (After the Greek War of Independence they were assimilated into the Greek nation[citation needed])
  3. 'Ethnically Albanian' instead of the 'of Albanian origin' that's verbally taken from several sources like Flemming.
  4. mixed origin scenario is removed, while it is sourced by Miller (mysteriously the source remains but what the source claims has gone).

Actually this last revert is more like a wp:idontlikeit move creating a wp:synth, contrary to any discussion and reference.Alexikoua (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

multiple sources is not a bad thing, it was just non-esthetic. Please, can you provide the full citation of that book? Your wording was totally POV-pushing. 1. It is not self-identification, it was how the state used to divide muslim and orthodox population. 2. You wrotte that despite (the Ottoman law? the way that the ottoman empire used to divide people? despite what?) some (you ment the majority of sources didn`t you) considered them as Albanians (99% of the sources?) or mixed Greek-Albanians (1 source?). You also have a problem in distinguishing national identity with ethnicity and in this case just to put the word Greek (Rum would be the right word) you mess up in this also the millet system of the ottoman empire...., especially when talking about 19th century. As for the last sentence you may remove it. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About this reference bombardment that creates this wp:synth conclution see comments of Moreschi and Fut. (The source bombardment is completely unacceptable. Only the lowest of the low among our POV-warriors ever use more than three footnotes in a row. This is just extremely bad style.) Moreover, 1&2 points are completely synth, the source I provided doesn't talk about the 'Millet system', but about social classification in general (it's verbally taken from German).Alexikoua (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Balk.: As I see you quickly reworded this sentence even though you can't understand the German source, in which this part is based on.[[16]].Alexikoua (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I do not understand German, does not mean that I cannot understand the difference between "ethnicity" and "social groups", (the first the one you added and the second the one used in the ref). As for the source bombardment, you can keep only one of them if you want, but which one?Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you adopt Fut's and Moreschi's approach instead of insisting on a complete synth&or theories against a series of past concensuses.Alexikoua (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And which is that aproach? To leave sources out?Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, I changed "belonged to Church of Constantinople" to "Greek Orthodox Church". The previous wording seemed like an exercise in hedging and trying to avoid certain words. Athenean (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Greek Orthodox Church. Whats your problem with the Church of Constantinople?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the unsourced bit about them assimilating after the War of Independence. Nothing controversial there I hope. Athenean (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion about what Finlay says? It is in the beggining of this section. Do you think we may use him as a source?Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Balk. I can't understand your obsession with a 19th century source, in an attempt to create disruption in the article. +Hart doesn't adopt Finlay's description.Alexikoua (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with the "Church of Constantinople" (the "choc" as you call it) is that the way it is written now, it seems like the "choc" is a subset of the Greek Orthodox Church, when in fact it is the other way around. Athenean (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I`m sorry. I cannot follow. Isn`t the Church of Constantinople (choc per idiolect :P) part of the Greek Orthodox Church (either this term meaning the whole Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Eastern Orthodox Churches of Greek liturgical tradition)? Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex. I am not obsessed with Finlay, but he`s the only one that gives some light, on when the process of Hellenization started. Nobody else, does that AFAIK.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot follow, maybe you should read more and write less. The Greek Orthodox Church is a subset of the Church of Constantinople, as are a number of other Orthodox Churches. To suggest that the Church of Constantinople is a subset of the Greek Orthodox Church is simply wrong. The Church of Constantinople is the umbrella organization under which all the various orthodox churches are included. Hope that makes sense. Athenean (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about Finlay but we need to rely on wp:rs stuff. Actually this "...belonging to the Cham branch of Tosks" is Finlay and needs to go.19:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Being some years ago an Orthodox, it does not make sense at all. There is only one Holly Catholic and Apostocil Church, and that is not the Church of Constantinople, which has just jurisdiction over some parts of the World. The One, Holly Catholic and Apostolic Church does not have a name, because it is just the Church, but commonly it is refered either as the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church (per tradition). The Church of Constantinople is primus inter pares between various jurisdictions of the One, Holly Catholic and Apostolic Church, as well as one of the four ancient sees. How does this make sense.
It is not Finlay but Hart, who praises Finlay that says that, as well as Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby, Greece, University Press, 1944..Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's check Hart:

"Finlay's late 19th-century description of the Suliotes gives some impression of the complexity of social categories in this area. To begin with, the Suliotes (celebrated by Byron and in Greek national history for their role in the liberation of Greece) were a "branch of the Tchamides, one of the three great divisions of the Tosks" (Finlay 1939:42)-in other words they initially spoke Albanian. The Tchamides (Tsamides, Cham in Albanian) were both Christian and Muslim by the late 18th century (in the 20th century, Cham applies to Muslims only)."

The bold text is Hart, the text inside "" is what Finlay believed about Souliotes (not adobted by Hart, just mentions Finlay's description).Alexikoua (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenean, please change that about the Church of Constantinople, as you say maybe you should read more and write less.
@Alex, Yeah, and why is she speaking about Chams, when she is speaking of Souliotes? She is citing Finlay, so what is the problem about that. Also, do not forget reat Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby, Greece, University Press, 1944, which states it inline.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but you post about the "Holly and Apostocil" something something makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Possibly something got lost in translation. Athenean (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that history is repeating, consensus is again forgotten, and we talk about the same stuff, same material: Dozens of sources that adopt a diferrent approach, that's why Flemming one of the most credible works in the subject was preffered.

Another source is Woodhouse: [[17]].

If you are interested in the Albanian point of view there is the Hadji Sekhreti [[18]].Alexikoua (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the verses of Haxhi Sekreti, but we are not speaking about verses, but history. As for the Church, I have been only 1 year attending the religion that you say you are part of, but for sure I have learned more than you do. Please get clear on what is the Greek Orthodox Church vs. the jurisdiction called Church of Constantinople. As for Woodhouse, he is not a RS, Christopher Montague Woodhouse was an autodidact historian, not cited by other prestigious authors, so does not fulfill WP:RS.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS! The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (Greek: Οἰκουμενικὸν Πατριαρχεῖον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Oikoumenikòn Patriarcheîon Kōnstantinoupóleōs; Turkish: Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi,[1][2] "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate"), part of the wider Greek Orthodox Church, is one of the fourteen autocephalous churches within the communion of Orthodox Christianity.. OOPS!Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woodhouse wrote several books on the subject, especially about the Greek War of Independence, by the way he was a professor. It would be exagerrated to claim that he didn't meet wp:rs.Alexikoua (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make him an historian. You call WP:RS when we speak about one of the most well-known historians (Finlay), because he lived in the 19th century, why do not you call WP:RS, once more for non-historians whose hobby is to writte history?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS! Citing wikipedia as a source! OOPS! Athenean (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea about Orthodoxy, do you?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant intervention: Balkanian is quite right on the Greek Orthodox Church, which is not the same as the Orthodox Church of Greece. The former includes Constantinople, but also the ancient patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, as well as a number of other autocephalous or Ecumenical Patriarchate-supervised archdioceses or exarchates, while the latter doesn't even cover the entirety of the Greek state itself. Anyhow, this issue is tangential, and please, all of you, calm down. Constantine ✍ 20:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stop beating around the bush, shall we? It is quite clear what's going on here: Balkanian is playing word games so as to avoid the appearance of the word "Greek" in the section in question, which is anathema to him in connection to the Souliotes. My fault for stooping down to this level. Athenean (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
????????? It was: The belonged to the Church of Constantinople, which was part of the larger Greek Orthodox Church. You made it: They belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church, under the spiritual leadership of the Partriarch of Constantinople. By the way, in that section the word Greek is 3 times, the word Albanian is once. Who is obssessed? Me, or you?Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see ANY reason why the Church of Constantinople needs to be mentioned in the first place. Constnatinople is very far away from Souli. Also, I see Zarri violated the longstanding consensus to keep ethnicity out of the lead, which will be removed. Athenean (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...I didn't make any edits to the lead, I simplified the identity section.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The region was (and still is) under the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople (though after 1920 this jurisdiction is exercised by the Church of Greece.Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it some more, that's not a reason to include the Church of Constantinople. All of Greece was under the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople at the time. So what? To say they were part of the of the Greek Orthodox Church is more than sufficient. Simpler, better. The rest is just an attempt to confuse the waters, for the usual reasons. Athenean (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute tag

If someone disputes the fact that they were Cham Albanians, instead of Albanians not part of a particular branch then the obvious solution is to simplify the sentence and not add a dubious tag.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain me what's this blind revert again? [[19]] @Zjarri. perhaps you should reconsider this blind revert strategy. And yes not a single wp:rs claims what you say (I mean the Tsam stuff which is absent from the entire bibliography, you don't believe some 19th century stuff to be rs?) that's why we have the dispute tags you are so eager to remove.Alexikoua (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua I didn't blindly revert you and if you think that you should recheck my edit as my edit wasn't even content removal or a restoration of a previous version. You added dubious tag because you dispute that they were Cham Albanians and I removed that they were Cham Albanians and simplified it as Albanians which you didn't dispute. Therefore the dubious tag was unnecessary because the reason of its addition was removed.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alex is probably right, we need to ref seperatly the Cham origin of them. So, I did put the two references who undoubtly say about their belongig after Cham branch and then the rest of the sources after the sentence. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the obsession to keep a useless bibliography, what's really wp:idontlike style here, is the systematic misuse of sources. Hart, doesn't adopt Finlay's 19th century description (he just says that they initially spoke Albanian). By the way this 'Henry Clifford Darby' has a link or something or is it just an off-line source?Alexikoua (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church

Note to Athenean, if you have no idea about the Orthodox Church, read about it before reverting. They belonged to the Church of Constantinople. The Church is part of the larger Greek Orthodox Church, which itself is part of the larger Eastern Orthodox Church, which itself is part of the Christian religion. the Church of Constantinople had jurisdiction over Souli, and was the one who excercised this authority until 1920. The Greek Orthodox Church (or tradition to be fair) is not an institution at all.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tradition or institution, whatever. Greek Orthodox Church is the most known term, it is accurate, and it is sufficient. The rest are just the usual journalist's tricks to muddy the waters and sow confusion. Athenean (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop ORing please. The Greek Orthodox Church was there, but the fact is that they were and are under the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople. Its just the way it is. Your behaviour, except of being a violation of your 1RR, is also incredibly WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is ORing here? And sorry to disappoint you, no 1RR violation. Athenean (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeap, sorry about 1rr. You`re ORing about GOCH and CHOC. It is quitte clear where they belonged. You just do not like it. Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's there not to like? Just trying to keep things as simple as possible, that's all. Athenean (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suliots

Why is the Greek rebellion mentioned that much when it's just a small part of their history?--KëngaJonë 18:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek Orthodox Church isn't an institution therefore to state that someone belonged to it without mentioning the institution leads to a deductive error.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Souliotes&oldid=363770272"