Talk:Souliotes

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Suliots?

Suliots ? what is this , it should have been a redirect to this.Megistias (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Souliotes and Al Capone: their hidden link

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• "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)
  • 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)

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)

• 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.

• I have still not seen a single source that contradicts the view, however, that they originally spoke a dialect of Albanian and then wound up bilingual. Moreschi (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

As you know, in the field of History, applies the rule: The older, the better! -- Guildenrich (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

1857

"ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΣΟΥΛΛΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΓΑΣ" is dated 1857.Megistias (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

<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)

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)

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)

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)

What you propose to do with the those 8 refs saying being Albanians, Greek and mixed? --Factuarius (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

<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)

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)

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)

@ 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)

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)

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

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)

Hmmm, yes, I like your wording better too. --Athenean (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Athenean, why are you reverting me if you say above that you like the wording?sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

"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)

 Done. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Athenean reverted through his usual edit warring without first writing in the talk page.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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:
   

• Suliotes: 905 hits
  
• Souliotes: 636 hits
  
  

1. Google scholar:
   

• Suliotes: 432 hits
  
• Souliotes: 62 hits
  
  

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)

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)

Support move per evidence provided--Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support "Nationalist nonsense" is but one man's opinion. Nominator seems to know what he's talking about. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• Support as per Ten Pound Hammer Aigest (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • The mere fact that the nominator says one of the names is "wrong" speaks volumes about his motivation. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

There is also this [[9]] additional canvassing attempt.Alexikoua (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

Please see further arguments provided in the lead of this section. Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Brief comment:

• Since the Greek Orthodox Church was created after 1840 --obviously-- they didn't belong to it prior to that date so BW couldn't possibly add that.
• I'll make some syntax/grammar edits to improve the text.
• The national identity part seems to have been agreed by both Alexikoua and BW. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 06:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Duh, I'm not talking about the Church of Greece, I'm talking about Greek Orthodoxy as a cultural concept, which is quite pertinent here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • He has added the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople so I don't think he's ommiting a detail but if you think it can be improved make a proposal.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

[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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Finaly is a historian and has wrotten historic books, not verses like Haxhi Sekreti ;).Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

And which is that aproach? To leave sources out?Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OOPS! Citing wikipedia as a source! OOPS! Athenean (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea about Orthodoxy, do you?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

????????? 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)

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)

...I didn't make any edits to the lead, I simplified the identity section.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Who is ORing here? And sorry to disappoint you, no 1RR violation. Athenean (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Snippet abuse...

It seems that this source: 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..."

Is just a product of snippet abuse. It seems that the term 'Chams' is about the Moslem inhabitants of the region:

"The inhabitants of this valley are mainly Chamurian Moslems who belong to the Cham branch of the south Albanian Tosks" [[20]]

If someone doesn't give the entire context, we can't be sure about something. Actually it talks here about the people of the Thyamis valley (irrelevant with the mountains of Souli) who were Moslems indeed (Souliotes were Orthodox). I've removed this source (it's also third grade stuff, unburried lately contrary to Moreshi's proposal).Alexikoua (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually this part "belonging to the Cham branch[17] of Tosk." is wp:or. Since no 20th century stuff makes this conclusion, and the use of terminology of 19th century authors could be misleading (Finlay), I suggest we prefer 20th cent. works.Alexikoua (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just read all this library of books and books.... Where does it say about the Chamides? Until now nowhere (only museum nineteenth century books). Better to follow contemporary bibliography.CrazyMartini (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded this sentence, since after Balkanian's latest come back it remained a mess: used the precise wording of the vast majority of the bibliography, clarified the linguistic side and performed some minor c-e. Hope we will not face again arguments like: 'consensus changes over time'.Alexikoua (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also I would appreciate if we avoid blind reverts, like this: [[21]], what's hilarious is that the recent move of 'Catastrophe of Zalongo' to 'Souliote War (1803)' was also ignored (typical blind&full revert).Alexikoua (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the mass revert, I did not see it. As for the question on "identity" section, it is quite clear that you try to avoid the ethnical part. That section deals not with language but with identity as such it has included: nationality (doubious, nonexistent in that period), religious identification (classification based on millets), religion itself (Church of Constantinople, and so it needs to be adressed also the ethnical part, which as per sources we have is quite clear: cham branch of Tosk albanians (Hart, Vickers, et.al.).Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The term 'identity' deals with a series of issues (religion, language, nationality, origin). Since the majority of the sources say 'of Albanian origin' (the rest say mixed) this sould be stated verbally. Also, you continue to misuse Hart, in fact you are based on a 19th century source (Finlay) which is quite weird since you ignore the majority of 20th century bibliography. Hart just says they initially spoke Albanian (this is stated too). Actually the meaning remains the same with the difference that the we clarify how the dialect they initially spoke was classified.Alexikoua (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

A claim not supported by the source used

Made this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Souliotes&action=historysubmit&diff=381565537&oldid=381548348, on the grounds that the claim made is not supported by the source used. The Souliotes are famous in Greece for fighting Ali Pasha and for participating in the Greek War of Independence. The source used only states that they had a reputation among Albanians for being particularly fierce warriors. It doesn't state that they are famous across Albania for fighting Ali Pasha and the Ottomans, which is of course impossible, since Ali Pasha was himself Albanian and Muslim Albanians fought with the Ottomans. The material in the source could be included in the article, but in its current form it is nothing more than a case of a misused source. Athenean (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Gordon - Souliotes an Albanian tribe

General Thomas Gordon, The Liberator of Greece in his "History of the Greek Revolution" consider Souliotes as the most valiant tribe of Christian Albanians. See "History of Greek Revolution" Volume 1 page 38 http://books.google.ca/books?id=DA1CAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA454&dq=thomas+gordon+souliotes&hl=en&ei=RjmETI6bL4SglAeRsbku&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by GjinBuaSpata (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Greek struggle for independence, 1821-1833 By Douglas Dakin- Souliots -Christian Albanians

See page 92 http://books.google.ca/books?id=Rk1iVvOr6RUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Capodistria%3A%20the%20founder%20of%20Greek%20independence&source=gbs_slider_thumb#v=snippet&q=Souliots&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by GjinBuaSpata (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Greek war of independence" Hutchinson's University Library, 1952 Christopher Montague Woodhouse page 38 - Souliotes were not Greek by race

According to this author Souliotes were not Greek by race. http://books.google.ca/books?id=MO8ZAAAAIAAJ&dq=inauthor%3A%22Christopher+Montague+Woodhouse%22&q=souliotes#search_anchor —Preceding unsigned comment added by GjinBuaSpata (talk • contribs) 02:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is also by Woodhouse [[22]].Alexikoua, the article doesn't say they are Greeks by race. (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Slow removal of sources and text

@ Sthenel: Look 15 sources which were before which were reduced to one up to the existent status 0 while Albanian name disappearing altogether. First remove references then modify text tactic. Clear POV pushing. Aigest (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sthenel I'm going to have to revert you: Please discuss in the talk page rather than via edit summary when you make these controversial edits. We've been on this with Alexikoua a thousand times. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so I've restored the lead back to the previous status, after the weird initiative by Zjthoues.Alexikoua (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree too with the consensus and I made a minor edit about the name of their dialect. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbereshe, Arvanites & Souliotes

I think that the fanatic interest on placing the Arbereshe, the Arvanites and the Souliotes within the modern Albanian nation or ethne (Shqiptars) with a supposed pure Thraco-Illyrian past is a complete mistake:

1.- The Arbereshe and the Arvanites always beared an "Albanian" conception about themselves in a geographical sence but not in terms of ethnicity. Arbereshe who immigrated to Italy, identified themselves as refugees from the Byzantine Empire. The same way the Arvanites in Greece.Periptero (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

- Wrong. The Arberesh community consider themselves as war refugees that escaped from Ottoman repression. They came mostly from Himare and Morea, as well as from other part of Albania. The Arberesh had a great role in Albanian National Awakening especially during 19-th century. The Arvanites established their communities throughout the whole actual modern Greece during 13 and 14 century. Part of this migration was organized by Latin rulers of Attica and Morea. Byzantine Empire during that period had no control of these territories" (Unsigned Answer)

- REPLY: Byzantine Empire had not the effective control of most territories but Arvanites (and Arbereshe) were former Byzantine population, both culturally and in terms of religion, although some Arbereshe were Latin-rite catholics. The "Albanian" conception was as alien to them as the "Hellenic" conception was irrelevant to Byzantine Greeks at that time. Even though in the western world the Byzantines were regarded wrongly as Greeks, this is the reason why Arbereshe were labelled as "Greeks" (Greci) when they installed in Southern Italy. This categorization was kept up to the late 20's when Mussolini's expantionist visions towards both Albania and Greece, made Arbereshe to be "Albanians", even changing the medieval names for villages and churches. Piana dei Albanesi has been in fact Piana dei Greci for more than 400 years. Arbershe villages were forcibly added the term "Albanese": Shen Kostadini was made San Costantino Albanese, Shen Pali was made San Paolo Albanese, Fullkunara turned to Falconara Albanese, Shen Kola to San Nicola Albanese and many others.Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

- Again Wrong: "Albanian" is an English word. Every one should understand that Arberesh call themselves Arberesh and not Albanian. Arvanites call themselves Arvanite and not Albanian. Shqiptaret call themselves Shqiptar and not Albanian. They all speak the same language. Of course they don't have the same citizenship, but they all know their origin. The "Albanian" conception was not alien, especially for them in Greece. While in Italy they are labeled as Greci, in Greece still today they call themselves Arvanites, not Ellines,not Roumeliotes, not Vllahos,.... Their identity is still alive. Two hundred years of forced Hellenization has done a lot of damage, but still the fire is warm. Ask them!--GjinBuaSpata (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

- I think I made myself clear that when I use the word "Albanian" I am refering to Shqiptars. Their Byzantine identity and their Balcanic origin is still alive in both Arbereshe in Italy (including keeping their language) as well as Arvanites in Greece. This identity does not include any sort of ethnic identification with Ottomanized shqiptar lackies or present-day Albania. People living in Central Greece, Thessaly and some parts of Northwestern Peloponesse were described by Byzantines as Ελλαδίτες (Helladites) and their theme was named Hellas (θέμα Ἑλλάδος). This way those who immigrated to Italy from Grecia were the Greci. The term Arvanites is how Arvanite speakers (and their descendants) are called in Greece of course, just the same way Greek people from different regions are called Maniates, Sfakianoi and Makedones in a regional (homeland) way. Nothing to do with the Alvanoi (Αλβανοί), meaning Shqiptars. I do not need to ask anyone: I served in the Greek army with Arvanite-blooded mates and my own grandmother was an Arberesh immigrant from Italy to Argentina. Fire is still warm, but has nothing to do with Hoxha's artificial one.Periptero (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

- Considering Albanians as ottomanized shqiptar "lackies" sound to me as kiosk propaganda worth to stay silent and smile instead only. HOWEVER for others who have had the chance to read about Ottoman Empire I would like to mention that the majority of Ottoman administration and most important position in the Ottoman hierarchy like Dragomans, Vallachian Vojvodes, Orthodox Mitropolites, City Primates, Region Archondes, Armatolies (kept by ottomans to preserve Byzanthine police structures), marine sailors, financial and tax administration.............. were not Albanians. These "lackies" positions were held by the Roms or Rums, the ones who in the past 150 years start calling themselves as Greek. Regarding Hoxha's history theme, Hoxha as a servant of Russian-Serb Orthodox Communists has completely deformed and kept in dark the whole Albanian history. During 50 years of communism there was not a single publication of any foreign author, and a complete lack of information. In his History books was never mention or shown for example that Napoleon Zerva was a souliot, or demographic description of the actual Greece by authors like Finlay were completely prohibited. Finally regarding what Arvanites feel today towards Shqiptars, can easily be compare with what Italo-Argentines feel today when they apply to get back their Italian identity and passport. By the way have you apply to get the Italian citizenship?--GjinBuaSpata (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

2.- The Souliotes, although most likely originally a branch of the Tsamides by being Orthodox Christians were the torch bearers of Byzantine Christianity, since other fellow Tsamides had fallen into Islamization.Periptero (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

- Wrong. Souliotes were formed as community much later than the fall of Byzantine Empire (1204 or 1453). Suli till 1767 was under the influence of the Archbishopric of Ohrid (at the urging of the Greek church in Istanbul by Ottoman authorities). That is why some of their family names had slavic influences.(Unsigned Answer)

- REPLY: Although in this article it is stated that the Souliotes were originally a branch of the Tsamides, which is the main point that Albanians focus; in the Illiad (Ιλιάδα Η-234), a people called Sellous (Σελλούς) from Epirus are described among the first northwestern hellenic tribes. Tucydides later refers to their city state as Solion (Σόλιον). This conception was present among Byzantine Empire scholars. That before 1700 when the first "four villages" confederation was established the community was under the Archbishopric of Ohrid (therefore the slavic patronimics) is uncertain. Tradition was very important among Souliotic communities and their tales and songs refer both to continuity with antiquity and two main external population migration to their lands: the first being a contingent of Skendebey's army after his death and the second a migration from Pavle Orlovic's fiefdom in Novo Brdo, after the fall of the Nemanjic empire.Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

- Again Wrong: Are you sure that Homer in Iliad has mention this Sellous from Epirus? Homer use words as the Achaeans (Ἀχαιοί) — aka the Hellenes (Greeks), or Danaans (Δαναοί), and Argives (Ἀργεĩοι). While Greeks should work hard to define their position in this poem, Epirus was a term used by Corinthians colonists in Corfu to identify mainland. Homer died long time before this tale. Considering Suli as Sellous from Epirus it sound to me not correct, and will take years of light to prove it. Also among Orthodox Christians, antiquity was an alien concept. It was consider heretic. The worse enemy of antiquity tradition was the christian faith. For your information Cosmas of Aetolia was predicting greek language and prohibiting albanian language not because of Aristotel. He had a different agenda. --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

- Regarding the Iliad subject, it is pretty much clear to me, but of course it may be subject to an academic discussion in a broader sence than the one we are having here. We have evident different views. Anyway, the terms Achaeans (Ἀχαιοί) or Danaans (Δαναοί) and Argives (Ἀργεĩοι) are general patronimics used by Homer to identify the Greeks. The term Sellous (Σελλούς) is a specific one (< θ. σελ- = φωτίζω), for northwestern hellenic tribes which for many scholars is the origin of the latter term "Hellene" (Έλλην). Regarding Christianity and Hellenism, I agree that they were opossites for ages. Being "Hellenic" meant being pagan. But Greek language had become the language for Eastern Christian religion. This way, Saint Kosmas asked all Orthodox Christians to establish schools and learn (Koine) Greek so that they might understand the scriptures better and generally educate themselves. He is still highly regarded even by Orthodox Albanians for the message that he gave. But we are entering matters of faith and it is not the scope of the discussion.Periptero (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

3.- Tosk Albanians and Epirote Greeks according to genetic evidence have very few differences. How is it posible ? The fact is that southern Albania has been inhabited by Epirotes who were considered semi-Hellenic. But the most certain fact is that Tosk Albanins and Epirote Greeks share both an older Pelasgian origin. Here is the connection between true Albanians and Greeks.Periptero (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

- Close. To put your thoughts on right track you should separated Epirote term from Greek. Greek was a term used by the westerners for religious purposes only. Greek as a nation was created 180 years ago when Roumeliotes and Arvanites together with Moreotes ( under the control of England, Russia and France) decided to create a new state and to call no more their language Romaika. Also regarding “genetic evidence” there is no such thing unless you are referring to color of skin or assumptions.(Unsigned Answer)

- REPLY: Modern Greece is a newly formed nation, true (and made up of different subgroups: Sarakatsans, Aromanians, Arvanites, Slavophones etc). But Hellenic people are among the oldest nations in the world, and as such is the Greek language. I cannot separate the term "Epirote" with "Greek" since historically Epirotes were members of the Doric Hellenic tribes. Modern Epirotes are Greeks in national terms since they belong to the Epirus province in Greece and bear Greek citizenship. The strong Greek minority in Norther Epirus, present day Albania may not be part of Greece, but still belong to the Hellenic nation. But what I was trying to express is something else. According to genetic studies there is much genetical link between Arbershe and Tosks (southern "albanians") with Epirote Greeks, than between Arbereshe and Tosks with Ghegs and Kosovars (northern "albanians"), implying that southern "albanians" are indigenous or ancestral Balkanic populations whereas northern "albanians" are foreigner and relatively modern inhabitants of the region. This is what is called the "Pelasgian connection". Here is where I find fully mistaken to have Arbereshe, Arvanites and Souliotes categorized as "albanians", as a whole same nation. I suggest you read an article "Y-STR variation in Albanian populations..." by Gianmarco Ferri et al in the International Journal of Legal Medicine. Also try the "Albania" label on Dienekes Pontikos genetics blog.Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

- ... to continue

4.- The Arberesh consider themselves as the genuine Albanians and do not like to be confused with the modern Albanians (Shqiptars), since they deem these to be the result of foreign ammalgamation (mostly Turkish and Slavic). At this point the same happens with the Arvanites who regard themselves as Greeks but with Pelasgian roots and do not consider themselves as part of the "Albanian nation".Periptero (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

-Term "Shqiptar" was used only by residents of Albanian and was used strictly between Albanians, as an internal code to differentiate the foreigner element. “Shkip flas” which mean “speak clearly” was used in the same fashion as the Slavic nations use term “Nasha jezik”, “Nashka” or “Nashka”. The Arberesh still today consider themselves as Albanian. (Unsigned Answer)

- REPLY: Arbereshe consider themselves Arbereshe, not Albanians (Albanesi in Italy). My grandmother's family has been living in Southern Italy since medieval times. Two of my cousins are majors in two Arbereshe villages and I can assure you that Arbereshe feel no connection to modern Albanians at all, besides the geographic link. Arbereshe see themselves as the descendants of Ancient Pelasgians and do not even share the Thraco-Illyrian official Albanian hypothesis of their supposed ethnogenesis. In fact, many Arbereshe were among the most vehement against Albanian immigration in the early 90's and so on. Modern Albanians are considered by Arbereshe as the result of the ammalgamation with Turks, Gypsies and Slavs.Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

-Ridiculously wrong. There are hundreds of authors describing Albanian as uncivilized,.... BUT never none of them called them Gypsy or with dark skin. Your description sound perfect for South of Italy or Greek Islands, BUT not for Albanians. ALSO just for your information De Rada and other arberesh of Italy were founders of "Albanian Rinascimento" and were proud to be Albanian.(Unsigned Answer)

-REPLY: Arbereshe were always proud of being the original Albanians, and I agree that they are the ones who kept true "albanianess" alive. The fact that the "Rilindas" took many of these thoughts in the early 20th. century so as to give birth to the modern Shqip identity, does not mean that there is continuity between both movements. Canti di Milosao, which is the literary symbol, refers to the fifteenth-century !!! There relies Arberesh pride, not in being the succesors of Turkish vassals. The Albanian awakening sponsored by the Arbereshe is based upon the belief that we Arbereshe are the true Albanians and followers of Skenderbey's spirit; therefore the necessity of not falling into assimilation so as not to dissapear or follow the fate of most Shqips who lost their Christian faith , since they mostly fell into Islamization and Turkification (or Ottomanization if you prefer), a fact that Arbereshe reject and repulse. Arebershe are proud to be pure Albanians, and Christians. There is no link on to the establishment of modern Albania as a sovereign nation, based upon prior Muslim pashaliks in the Arbereshe awakening. There is no link neither with Hoxha's official Albanian story. I do not mean to offend anywone, but just understand this feeling: Arbereshe are true Albanians, Shqips are something else (and skin colour has nothing to do with this belief).Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

- ... to continue

5.- The Souliotes and the Arvanites bravely fought for Greece independence because it meant fighting for Christendom and Byzantium against the Muslim enemies. They never considered the "Turkalbanians" as their brothers. Since modern Albania represent the installment of a recognized "Turkalbanian" state, as the figures depicting a broad majority of Muslim population show, therefore there is no proper sence about labelling the Souliotes within a "modern" albanian context. It would be a mistake such as labelling Bosnian Serbs within a Muslim Bosnian context.Periptero (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

- Turkalbanian is only a fiction created to occupy Albanian territories after the fall of Ottoman Empire. Regarding Souliotes or Arvanites inspiration about old Greece and Byzantine Empire, you better consider Russian Empire instead. Souliotes or Arvanites knew about Greek civilization as much as the Apaches knew about Maya civilization.(Unsigned Answer)

- REPLY: Lambros Koutsonikas, one of the main Souliotic leaders refered to the Souliotes in his collected memoirs, as the descendants of Hellenic Epirotes who gathered in the mountains to flee from Roman army attacks. Athanase Psalidas, who was Ali Pasha's clerk stated in his writings that the Souliotes were "Greek fighters" (Γραίκους πολεμιστές) remnants of Ancient Hellenic tribes. Meli Pasha, Ali pasha's son refered to the Souliotes not as Romans (Ρωμαίους) or Rums (Ρωμιούς) which would imply simply Christians, but as Romegans (Ρωμέγους) which means local Hellenes. I appreciate the irony within Apache and Mayas, but it seems that there was a little knowledge about Hellenic and Byzantine civilization at the time. Never forget that tradition was the main way of communication in highlander societies. Periptero (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't thing that the above answers are of Zjarrit (check history log).Alexikoua (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a series of a 5-point statements which were refuted and discussed in this Talk Page. So as to allow other people to follow correctly the subjectes dealt in this discussion I edited the "talks" as follows (Statement-Refuting Answer (unsigned) - Reply (by myeslf). It would be interesting that the person which performed the refuting POVs would sign his opinion.Periptero (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing my comments. Each time that I reply to your "FIVE POINTS" I didn't have time to log as GjinBuaSpata. However I would like to continue this discussion in the near future, as I see that you have deleted some of it and deformed some other.--GjinBuaSpata (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither deleted nor deformed.- The whole contents of your positions are there. I just re-scheduled the "personal" discussion we were having in a "forum-style" into a much more neat development of arguments for other users to be able to get involved and share their opinion in this matter as well.Periptero (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Miller

Appart the fact that is very outdated (published first in 1927) it tells nothing for the origin (eg "their origin.....") but only for their situation in 19 century. So no WP:RS on their origin (which is explained by other authors) and WP:OR of the contributor. Aigest (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Suliotes belonged to the Albanian nation. "A nation is a group of people who share culture, ethnicity and language, often possessing or seeking its own independent government" —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

They fought for Greek independence, not Albanian. That should tell you something. Anyway, if you read the talkpage history, there is a longstanding consensus to not include ethnicity in the lede, for a variety of reasons. Athenean (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cherry picking specific references and ignoring a mountain of bibliography can become very disrupting as in the recent case. Also Anna please low down your edit-warring nature, wikipedia isn't the right place for nationalistic fights.Alexikoua (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Greek fighters fight for USA these days. Are they American? Also X please low down your edit-warring nature, wikipedia isn't the right place for nationalistic fights would suit you more. You seem to be very interested in Albanians. You edit everything related to Albanians! Maybe that is a nationalistic fight! Suliotes were Albanians there is NO doubt about that. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

They had Albanian "blood", therefore they were Albanians? This isn't the 19th century. Greek fighters fight for USA these days??? What on earth does that even mean (not that I'm interested or anything). And a strong warning to stop using insulting edit summaries like these [23]. One more such instance and I am taking you to WP:AE. Enough. Athenean (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh please do report me. I think chances are I am going to do the same thing for you. And I never said they have Albanian blood. Please do not try to confuse me. I said they have spoken Albanian language, they belonged to an Albanian clan. Saying they are not Albanian is similar to other Anti-albanian claims: Albanians do not exist as a nation, or that Albanians came from Caucasus. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Anna claiming ethnic purity about everything in wikipedia is something we should avoid. Also please respect Dbachmann's very precise instructions.Alexikoua (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Alexikoua when did Anna claim ethnic purity?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No one is claiming ethnic purity. You are putting words in my mouth. But removing they are Albanian whatsoever is also not realistic. You can say they were Albanian, fought for the Greek War of Independence and assimilated. It is this simple. Or, if there is anything confusing about their nationality, we can say. There is a dispute about Suliotes nationality: some sources say they were Greek, some Albanian. But then we would have to agree that most sources claim them as Albanian. Also we will have to put Byron into consideration, he has much material about them. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We've been over this 100 times, we're not going to go over it again. Read the talkpage history, where a consensus was reached to keep ethnicity out of the lede. This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. Athenean (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have never seen a consensus on this. You may not use WP:Lede, because Greece did not exist when the Souliotes were doing their wars. And besides consensus may change according to arguments presented. --Sulmuesi (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to read the talkpage a bit more. And 2 editors (you and Anna) are not "consensus may change." Athenean (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, for that matter consensus might change only because 1 editor only brings better arguments than 100 others who are not as enlightened. --Sulmuesi (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually we have not a single argumement apart from trolling. Please be more precise in general instead of saying that Greece didn't existed so they should be termed Albanians (?).Alexikoua (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity & Identity

Modern Albania as a state had to build its own history and so they try to paint everything Albanian oriented to build a concience among their people. This way they place Alexander the Great, Pyrros of Epirus, Skanderbeg, Karaiskakis, Ali Pasha, Markos Botsaris, Ibrahim Pasha, Muhammad Ali, Kemal Atatürk, Fan Noli, Sulejman Demollari, George Tenet, Hakan Sükur, Eliza Dushku and many others as members of the same "Albanian" nation.

But very few modern-day Albanians can claim they descend from the Souliotes, instead a considerable portion of modern Greeks can, as Souliotes are listed among the subgroups of the modern Hellenic nation (based mainly upon a geographical and cultural position).

Unfortunately modern Greek historians also need to make everything sound Hellenic to prove a racial purity and continuity from Antiquity to Byzantine Greece unto now-a-days. This way they tend to forgett that the Byzantine Empire was a multiethnic state, with Hellenism as the cultural cohesive pattern, which not necessarily reflects being Greek.

As a matter of fact, universal consensus in Greece, tend to label the Maniots and Sphakians as "the purest branch of the Greeks", which should mean that other branches are not that pure. In simple words, admixture from every other ethnes certainly occured.

Since neighbour states have always been Greece's foes, the Greeks tried to hide and get rid of every sort of alien compound that may be found in Greek history, this way they denny the existance of "minorities" inside their borders.

I think this article should not try to reflect modern nationalist point of views, because it will otherwise be biased either it leans towards Albania or towards Greece. Certainly a Byzantine context or even an Ottoman context are the suitable, pointing out these people's local identities and that the remnants of the Souliotes and Arvanites are today integrated in the populations of Greece, the same way the Arbereshe are in present Italy.Periptero (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said. However, I am afraid this Albanian nationalism in WP is a reflection of a distinctive Albanophobia. Suliotes and Arvanites are very much similar with Arbereshe in Italy, that is for sure. But it seems there are no Italian editors with inferiority complexes editing around! —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that staunch nationalist POV's totally attempt against WP spirit, no matter where they come from. When chauvinistic fanatism is induced in articles they distort the scope of this project. Personally I do not seek any sort of "albanophobia", but a necessity about setting things right and true. Placing Arbereshe, Arvanites and Souliotes within a whole and same "modern" Albanian nation is not only nonsence but deliverately against these people's feelings and beliefs. I also consider that trying to understand ancestral behaviours with a XXI Century view (what is mostly happening throughout this Talk page) is a complete distortion. And regarding inferiority complexes, there is no way possible (in terms of history, culture, civilization) in which Greeks can feel themselves inferior to Albanians, as a matter of fact it is just the opposite-which by the way is not a good attitude-. As per Albanians, although they are the Greeks' poor and under-developped neighbour they shouldn't feel inferior neither, because they have also many glorious aspects in their own history where to rely their pride on. I come from a very mixed background (watch my user page) so I really believe in the understanding of peoples, and much more when they are neighbours and share very much in common.Periptero (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Suliotes and Arvanites are very much similar with Arbereshe in Italy" it probably helps that the souliotes and arvanites got to know what it means to be a tourkalbanos first hand and stayed far away.. "I am afraid this Albanian nationalism in WP is a reflection of a distinctive Albanophobia" no its just the fact that your country hasnt gotten over hoxhaist propaganda where you are living illyrians, the arvanites are your "brothers", you are always helping out the poor greeks in some way etc...85.75.248.252 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"to prove a racial purity" periptero...you are wrong, the greek 'national historian' PAR EXCELLENCE..Paparrigopoulos completely disregarded any racial theories (he wrote that all modern day peoples are a mix so claiming purity in any case is wrong) and that was the path even the most chauvinist greek historians followed with few exceptions (as Mackridge writes no Greek really thought in racial terms when talking of ethnos and genos in the 18th - early 19th century..it was Fallmerayers excesses that brought that kind of discourse into Greece)..btw what you wrote about the 'pure' sphakiots and maniots belongs to a certain stream of outdated greek anthropology that tended to find ancient 'remnants'so its a bit odd that you bring it up in a discussion supposedly trying to AVOID 'racial' implications..anyone who wants to know what the souliotes 'were' and how they changed throughout their history should read Vaso Psimouli's 'Souli kai Souliotes' where the subject is treated seriously without albanian and greek nationalist interference (why is Karaiskakis in the pantheon...? do albanians claim the Sarakatsani as albanian too now..?)85.75.248.252 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Chap, if you happen to read the whole story then you would find that it all started when I was changing words with some Albanian writers explaing why in my humble view placing Arbereshe, Arvanites and Souliotes inside the same "Albanian" context was wrong. But in the other hand, I must be honest and accept that staunch Greek nationalists fall into the same sin that the Albos. Regarding what you wrote I can answer that:

a) Paparigopoulos is the modern Greek historian para excellence, I agree. But the fact that he has been excellent does not necesarily mean that this was the only offical story told in Greece. Just take school history books (Istoria tis Byzantinis Autokratorias tou Zervou or Istoria ton Neoteron Chronon tou Kafentzi both of the OEDB) and try to find if minorities other than Greeks are mentioned. It's all Greek to them ! (Pun intended). Fallmerayer's assertion that "not a single drop of pure Ancient Hellenic blood runs through the veins of modern Greeks" is in fact the counterpart about the previously stated and I agree that it was the spark that light the fire. What I want to point out is that fanatism always distorts the truth.

b)The tale about the Maniots being called "i katharotati fili ton ellinon" is not that outdated. I was constantly congratulated by my mates and superiors in my military in Greece some 15 years ago just for the simple fact of having a Maniot grandfather. Anyhow I quote myslef: As a matter of fact, universal consensus in Greece, tend to label the Maniots and Sphakians as "the purest branch of the Greeks", which should mean that other branches are not that pure. In simple words, admixture from every other ethnes certainly occured.. I am nothing more than trying to show that the whole above discussion in this talk page (if they were either from Albanian or Greek origin) is irrelevant and the important thing -according to me - should be the fact that Souliotes and Arvanites identify with Greece the same way Arbereshe do with Italy.

c) Anyway, I personally believe that racial continuity or discontinuity within nations is a matter which is becoming irrelevant in the XXI Century. Plus, with the development of Genetics many barriers that used to divide people will be falling. Try reading some very interst stuff in Dienekes' Pontikos Genetics blog.

d) I think it would be really useful for this article and WP in general that you quote and cite important statements from the Psimouli's book. Periptero (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

we agree on most serious matters (my comment about Paparrigopoulos being a defining historian of the greek national narrative was only about racialism never amounting to much other than fringe writers IMO..i cant say i really remember my, relatively recent, schoolbooks though lol but in my place we had plenty of non greek speaking greeks too so..) though of course i still dont agree about any such 'ancient' group like the sphakiots, maniots etc..its an overall outdated mode of thinking that was abandoned by serious scholars..if it lingers in the minds of some people like you said it doesnt mean anything as many such stereotypes do obviously...indeed its the same with the shqiptars-arvanites-arbereshe where i also agree with you and im sure if slightly more reasonable albanian (and greek..) users joined in things would be much easier for all of wiki..take care87.202.140.189 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)