Talk:Souliotes/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

A useless title of section

The title "19th- and 20th-century accounts" has no point, and is wrong english, I believe. "Accounts" means writtings by people who witnessed their subject. Souliotes, as a peculiar community, ceased to exist after 1830's when the Greek state was formed and they settled to various villages. So, "accounts" cannot be older than 1860's, approximately. The rest, especially 20th c., are secondary texts, based mostly on imagination, political theories etc. Either we have to discard the title, or we separate the sources to 19th and 20th, as it was few days ago. Btw, I would request an explanation from the user who erased Koutsonikas as source, probably the only Souliote who wrote about his community. --Skylax30 (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Due to the general mess created in the recent days it was agreed to restore a previous version. I would agree to add info that's part of the modern scholarship. For example professor D. Skiotes mentions Koutsonikas' descriptions. On the other hand the opinion of 19th century travelers, politicians, poets etc. needs to go unless it's mentioned in modern scholarship. If modern scholarship ignores these old accounts then wikipedia has a good reason to do the same.Alexikoua (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Reasonable. I am not aware of any serious modern paper on Souliotes not citing Koutsonikas and Peraivos, the eye-witnesses of the subject. On the other hand, WP is not excluding primary sources, although memoirs are not exactly PS. Anyway, if some do not like this line on Koutsonikas, I will create an article on him, and I will expand there. Finally, the dogma of WP is improvement of articles, not stability--Skylax30 (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC).

As the past few days has been draining for all editors involved with this, the community decided to leave things as they were from earlier in the year for a while as the consensus version. Editors are welcome to leave constructive comments for additions, problems and other improvements they wish to make to the article in the talkpage to have a path going forward. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice to know that you are welcomed in an article, by users who feel at home.

P.S.: As Anargyros Fagridas (Φαγκρίδας) said to me, there were authors who met Souliotes face-to-face, and others who saw them through binoculars.--Skylax30 (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As stated above information based entirely from 19th century claims without confirmation by modern scholarship should go.There is plenty of stuff from 20-21th century bibliography anyway. As such: Holland, Rizos, Beauford, Tizer, Chirol have to go (to name a few).Alexikoua (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I could commend on Psimouli's reliability on ethno-political issues, but this is not a forum. Karabelias did it.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Karabelias Giorgos is not a reliable scholar. (Sjöberg, Erik (2016). The Making of the Greek Genocide. Contested Memories of the Ottoman Greek Catastrophe. New York: Berghann, p. 90-1. "the left wing nationalist publisher Giorgos Karabelias" Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is not opposition for the removal of 19th c. traveler/politician accounts as stayed above Ill procceed to their removal.Alexikoua (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Not all of them. In a chapter by Potts pp.107-110 [1] he cites a host of 19th century accounts on Souliotes. It meets the parameters that you where saying about them being cited via wp:secondary. Holland can stay with the ref being substituted by Potts. The ones that can go (unless someone knows of their being cited also in wp:secondary so the refs can be substituted) in whole are:

• the Lord Byron sentence (based on wp:primary)
• Pouqueville (first sentence is based on wp:primary), second sentence which is repetition refers to his view on the Souli toponym, and is already mentioned in the Etymology section, via Pappas, so it can go too.
• Best(based on wp:primary)
• Beaufort(based on wp:primary)
• Tozer(based on wp:primary)
• Chirol(based on wp:primary)
• The Rizos-Nerulos sentence as well (first source is wp:primary, second source which attributes quote in Jelavich to him turns out not to be the case and it also comes from p.141 [2], as the ref in the article does not state this). However that bit about alliances and language is important and ought to go in the relevant section on Identity, ethnicity and language section (in the second paragraph) -this time with proper page reference following on either from the After the rise or On the other hand sentences.
• One other thing that relates to this issue is the NY Times article. Its in the Historiography section and should be moved to the 19th/20th century accounts section as it falls within that scope. The NY Times current article ref is based on wp:primary and should be replaced with Potts. Anyway hope that assists for now. Still lets wait a few days for comment before making any hasty moves of removal and then additions as well so editors are on the same page this time. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Davenport is also 19th c. and falls into the same "primary" category as the rest.Alexikoua (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep agreed. With Davenport (apart from the one big clunky sentence in the Historiography subsection) as its wp:primary, there are 5 additional sentences in the subsection 17th century of the section Souliotes in the 17th and 18th centuries that would also need to be removed as well.Resnjari (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure that's a good reason to get rid of all citations. I'll add information based on academic scholarship about 17-18th century events.Alexikoua (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah sure sound good. On my thing as i gave the link to Potts here, there is relevant content by the scholar to this page and i want to add to the article on the accounts subsection (where he cites travelers), and a very few to Historiography subsection (the one or two academics not already covered in the article). I also want to do some ref formatting for Raca, Kahl, Potts (the refs have the necessary info) but can be better as per wiki referencing standards.Resnjari (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: just so you know, i will be adding some additional sentences (as said in my previous comments) based on Potts to the 19th/20th century accounts section later today or tomorrow as there was no objections raised. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The text as it is now its a selection of specific primary accounts mentioned by Potts, some claim X and other claim Y. I don't know if additional primary accounts that recycle the same and the same are helpful in this case. On the other hand Potts offers some useful info that can be added about the "accounts": for example the terms Albania and Albanians had a geographic meaning there.Alexikoua (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua:, the section got shrunk considerably due to removal of wp:primary. Potts cites those and is wp:secondary -makes up the shortfall. There are no other sources out there has an overview of those accounts. It wont be that many sentences anyway. I can add the stuff on Albania and Albanians too as long as its inclusive of that other data for the accounts section.Resnjari (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I can count Hobbhouse, Byron, Flauriel, Lear, Foss. Most of them repeat various already stated theories. A brief mention on what each one claimed is ok, but I'm against extensive quotefarming.Alexikoua (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: I know what you mean. The bit i have ready is an additional paragraph (of similar length to the 1st paragraph). In whole it will make the section 2 paragraphs long which and similar to other sections. No lengthy quotes in footnotes -source is available anyway.Resnjari (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to add that one other change needs to be done. It was brought up in the previous Assuming good faith thread (see above). The sentence in the article was elaborated upon as per Potts and Raca, but as all edits were undone due to the mess that happened in the wider scheme of things. Nonetheless that bit needs to be redone again. If there is no issue i want to re-add the small clarification [3] that makes it fully precise. If there is no objection, i'll add the paragraph on accounts tomorrow and the clarified sentence as well. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

About the small addition I fail to see why it's an isolated case: Raca doesn't claim that's an exception. I still can't understand what makes Botsaris' wife more Greek (Raca doesn't claim that she is from diferrent ethnicity). Her name is a typical Thesprotian/Epirote surname.Alexikoua (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

ok, we don't have to have the word Greek for his wife. The rest i take is ok?Resnjari (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Hughes account isn't about identity & ethnicity. I'll reorganize the section and divide it in contemporary and non-contemporary accounts.Alexikoua (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Later vs contemporary policies & identities

It appears that some parts from the first two paragraphs have to move in a separate paragraph: in particular "later Greek policy".Alexikoua (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it the later Greek policy + As such, the dominant sentences they can go right at the end of the second paragraph or as a stand alone 3rd mini paragraph (following the 2nd paragraph) in that section, as either way it ties in the whole bit.Resnjari (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Late Ottoman era in pre 1820s

I wonder why the pre-1820 era can be labelled "late Ottoman". Discrepancy is even more obvious since Baltsiotis refers to early 1900s events not to mention that the author clearly mentions that this occurred during "late Ottoman" and not simply "Ottoman" period as it's wrongly written in the article.Alexikoua (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

First sentence in Baltsiotis refers to language situation in general. The second sentence about the late Ottoman bit referring to it being a 'semi-official language and used in documents' of which this part of the article sentence is based on: and it functioned as a second semi-official language that was also used in documents.. That part can go.Resnjari (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need to explain why First sentence in Baltsiotis refers to language situation in general. in fact the specific section in Baltsiotis begins with: During the beginning of the 20th Century, ... and there is nothing about pre-1900 (par. 5-10). Anyway, I've found a source which 'can' support the 1st sentence (Stopel) and refers to Ottoman Epirus in general this time.Alexikoua (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua:, present Stoppel first here so i know what your referring too. Also what about Davenport, remove all sentences based on wp:primary ?Resnjari (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure I'll remove them alltogether (part of Puqueville too).Alexikoua (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua:, on its own merit, that Baltsiotis sentence can go. However in that section the 2nd paragraph needs to go first in chronological order as its about Fotos Tzavellas' diary written during 1792–1793 hence before the Botsaris dictionary. If that's done with a paragraph shift, to remove awkwardness the the current sentence that reads "Another written account on the language they used is the diary of Fotos Tzavellas, written during his captivity by Ali Pasha (1792–1793)." ought to be reworded something like as "A written account on the language Souliotes used is the diary of Fotos Tzavellas, composed during his captivity by Ali Pasha (1792–1793)."Resnjari (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep sounds reasonable. It might be also useful to add a small part based on Pappas about the official Souliote correspondence in this section.Alexikoua (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Which Pappas source is it (as he has written much as a scholar) ?Resnjari (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The one of 1982.Alexikoua (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's make something clear

There is a section about 19th century sources, and it's fine. There is no reason or rule that prohibits this. Any 19th c. source that looks serious (e.g. foreign diplomats, army officers and "spies") should be OK for the section. There is no point in deleting sources that spoil the soup of "Albanian origin", or the article becomes POVed.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses know better

Recently [4], Ktrimi991 deleted this info, written by a british officer who was sent there to do exactly this: To see "how is things", in 1800.

Around 1730 Souli had not more than 200 men bearing arms. Inhabitants of the neighboring countryside would retire to the mountains to avoid Ottoman oppression and thus the Souliote population increased. Before the final war with Ali Pasha, the families of Souli were: Leake W. Travels in Northern Greece, London, 1835, vol. 1, p. 502.

• Zervaioi, from Zerva, a village near Arta.
• Botzaraioi, originally from Dragani, today Ampelia, south of Paramythia.
• Drakaioi, from Martane, a village of the valley of Lamari, today in Thesprotia prefecture.
• Buzbataioi, from the Vlachochoria (Vlach Villages) of Mt. Pindus.
• Dagliaioi, from Fanari, near Preveza.
• Zavellaioi and Pasataioi, of unknown origin.

Obviously, it demolishes the speculative narrative that Souliotes "came from Albania".--Skylax30 (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history): historical articles on Wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible. To weight different views and structure an article so as to avoid original research and synthesis the common views of scholars should be consulted.To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

• Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
• "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
• Conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.

The use of primary sources should be considered in terms of the policy regarding the use of images. There should not be too many, and they are not required. Skylax30, obviously you are wrong claiming eyewitnesses know better. Jingiby (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. That's why we have separate section for 19th c. sources. Let the reader decide who knows better. --Skylax30 (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) is an essay composed by a user, and it is much debated [5]. WP does not exclude sources on the basis of their date.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Then check Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. There is the same story: "Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available... Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited...Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Please, stick to Wikipedia rules on dealing with sources, where possible. Jingiby (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am old enough to know the rules. "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". And this is not even "primary" source.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It is simply: unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I.e. your claim above that"eyewitnesses know better" is wrong. Full stop. Jingiby (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Skylax: There is plenty of modern stuff with Perevos comments, folksongs, clan evolution, clan origins etc etc. I can give you links to an entire library, just ping me. No need to rely on primary archaelogy (which I find very interesting too)Alexikoua (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. I know all those, and I don't "rely" on Perraivos. This is my contribution for the benefit of readers who want to check the original sources. Reasonably, many readers do not trust secondary sources because as you see, everybody can be an "author". As far as I know, there are not any other primary sources on pre-1820 Souli. When you have an author who says "I talked to old Souliotes", all the rest are a waste of reading. --Skylax30 (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a further reading section. You can add those primary sources to that instead. Like this a reader can investigate themselves without it being in the body of the article, which should be based on wp:secondary.Resnjari (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

In the body of the article I see a section about 19th century sources, and there I will put the 19th c. sources. If are surpassed, this can also be included in the article. Btw, this part of Perraivos will be in the wikisources. --Skylax30 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The specific sub section is part of the identity-ethnicity language section. Your addition doesn't offer information about the specific topics. Alexikoua (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Skylax30: Lately I have been occupied with other things and have not had sufficient time for Wikipedia stuff. You have been told by editors to not add content sourced to 19th century books. Such stuff will be removed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:I am not here to "be told" what to do, for as long as I edit within the rules of WP. There are many 19th c. sources in the article, and can be more. I can very well create a new article 19th century sources on Souliotes.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are we even having these debate? It is more than obvious that primary sources can't be used in such a delicate matter. To identify the origins of a group of people is not simple work, and adding primary material could be highly misleading. Oh but let me see, we were having the same line of argumentation as we had in the article of Turkish Cypriots with the same user who insisted in using primary inconclusive work by an academic of the 50's just for the same reason. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Perraivos appears to be an eyewitness and his work is of great value. What needs to be addressed is if secondary sources confirm this approach.Alexikoua (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I added Leake who, as a Brit agent, accepted Perraivos' info. The problem is that some of us feel uncomfortable with the fact that Souliotic clans were from neighbouring villages and not from "deep Albania".--Skylax30 (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Perraivos is not an eyewitness. He should have lived for over a hundred years and observe the timeline of Souliotes. Perraivos came in contact with elders and wrote down their opinion. That doesn't make him an eyewitness. He did know, and couldn't possibly know the historical methods which are now in use and produce much more accurate results. Seems fair and makes sense, that if secondary sources confirm his conclusions, we should use the secondary sources. If no secondary sources are found, we cannot validate and hence not use Perraivos work. (or the work of any other 19th-century writer) Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. He came in "optical" (and verbal) contact with elders, therefore he is an eyewitness of Souliotes. At least more than Psimouli is.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. He is an eyewitness of some elder Souliotes but he is not an eyewitness of the origin of Souliotes.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you found any that he is?--Skylax30 (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot! "Modern scholarship".--Skylax30 (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Written accounts of Souliotic

I wonder why the D. Botsaris knowledge of the Albanian language is part of this section. I assume a move to aftermath and legacy (i.e. before Napoleon Zervas) is reasonable.Alexikoua (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

A completely unencyclopedic info. Thousands of Greeks knew the Albanian language, as well as the Turkish, the Arabic, the Romanian, the Vlach, the Italian etc, while thousands of "Turkalbanians" (including Ali Pasha) were communicating in Greek.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It is better there than when you are proposing it to be. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Simply "better there" isn't supposed to be an argument. Historical info have their place in history section & if a person is fluent in a language that's not a "written account".Alexikoua (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not a mere "historical info", as it is an elaboration on a person's language regarding the language of all members of his community. Anyways, make what additions you want to make to the article. After you have finished them, I and other fresh eyes can give another evaluation of this issue. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

In addition, you added This fact combined with the national sentiment they expressed led Greek scholar Emmanouel Protopsaltis to assert that the basic ethnic and linguistic component of Souli was Greek rather than Albanian. The quote from the source does not make any mention of Protopsaltis. Have you forgotten to give the whole quote? Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

How not to bully users with claims about "primary sources".

A user who has never been involved in this article before (apart from deleting), and he is just hounting me, is thinking that he can scare me with a supposed "burden on my soulders" [6]. This is almost a threat.

Now, back to the policy about "primary sources": [7]

• Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
• Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

This is exactly what we are doing here. We display some 19th c. sources, primary or not, for the information of the reader. We don't interpret and we dont base the article on them. Since there are already several 19th sources in the article, let's discuss how these will be selected. If there is no consencus on that, why should I not add more similar sources?--Skylax30 (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You should respect WP:Consensus. The agreement is not to have 19th century sources on this article. You are the only editor who does not want to respect it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no 19th century source on the article. Those 19th century travellers mentioned on the article are sourced to books published in 1900s and 2000s. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

There are few. Paparigopoulos is 19th c., no matter if reprinted in the 20th c. Also Boppe Auguste. Davenport and Pouqueville are suggested as further reading. Any way, the question is why there shouldn't be any 19th century sources.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: The source says The issue of the origin and ethnicity of the Souliots is very much a live and controversial issue in Greece today. Foreign writers have been equally divided. To avoid misrepresentations the quote needs to be copy pasted on the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on displaying 19th century sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In this article, a limited number (about half a dozen) of users are contributing recently, plus one who is only deleting.

The point of argument is the origin or national identity of Souliotes. Some users want to emphasize on sources which claim Albanian origin or identity (language etc), and others want to emphasize the local origin and Greek identity.

The subject (Souliotes) has a peculiarity: Their traditional community and way of living disappeared around 1830's, and there are very few sources who had a real contact with them. The rest (especially sources of the 20th c.) are interpretations of the previous, and some are heavily biased by the late 20th c. ethnic conflicts in the Balkans.

There is a section covering the 19th century sources in the article. Some (but not all) are already there, but there are more that qualify for this section. These old sources are just mentioned, with no comments. Two or three users are strongly opposing to a couple of these sources. Latest unwanted source, the Austrian Military Gazette of 1830. Another one is not even primary: William Leake Leake W. "Travels in Northern Greece", London, 1835, vol. 1, p. 502. The "problem" with those sources, as I understand it, is that they refer to Souliotes as Greeks and of local (rather than Albanian) origin.

My argument is this: a) WP does not exclude the older sources from the articles, and gives certain guidelines on how to use them. b) There are already some early 19th century sources in the article. Therefore, if we are to exclude some, we must agree on the process of exclusion.

Thank you.--Skylax30 (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

PS. Users and administrators who have been activly involved in the past in articles related to Albania, (e.g. protecting Skanderbeg) please do not comment here. I am many years in WP and I can recall history of articles as old as 10 years.--Skylax30 (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Undeleted and stricken out to retain page history and make further comments understandable. --T*U (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This RfC is malformed and almost impossible to give an opinion about. If you read the description of how to start a RfC, it says in #3: Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. We need something to comment on, something to say "Yes" or "No" or "Agree" or "Disagree" to. The current text is just a long statement about the proposer's opinion. Also, I would recommend Skylax30 to strike out their PS. Trying to decide who are allowed to take part in a discussion goes completely against the whole idea of Wikipedia. --T*U (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  Absolutely, not only is it neither neutral nor brief, it is indeed exclusionist. An RfC is an open invitation for anybody to drop by and comment, notwithstanding any active topic bans. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I thought that the opinions of the involved users are already stated in the talk page. Of course, if we have to add something new, I am not the one who can exclude anybody.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The question: Can we add limited material (few lines) from early 19th century sources? The text will not be commented or interpreted. Alternatively, if those sources are not accepted here, in which Wiki can they be included? Can I create an article Early sources on Souliotes? Thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

This is still not workable as a RfC. My suggestion is that you withdraw and close this RfC, then study carefully how RfCs are usually initiated, before you start a new and well-formed RfC. Just a suggestion, but it could make things easier to discuss. --T*U (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It is getting too bureaucratic, then.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"(We) The Greek Nation ..." (signed by Souliotes, 1821)

Before we leave various 20th century anglosaxons etc judge what was the ethnicity of Souliotes, let them speak. In the First National Assembly at Epidaurus, Souli was represented by Fotos Boboris from Himara (today in Albania), and Zois Panou from Paramythia. They signed the first national declaration, starting with "The Greek Nation, [...] declares today through our legal representatives, ... our political existence and independence ..." January 1st, 1822. The same assembly appointed Notis Botsaris as Minister of War.

If WP presents any Albanian national symbol in relation to the article, I assume the case will be of international diplomatic interest.--Skylax30 (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It is quite interesting that the pronoun "we" is in brackets.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

False claims by users, and SYNTH in the LEAD

Let's look now on the phrase "they talked Albanian ... because of their Albanian origin". The footnote contains 12 (twelve) sources who supposedly support the phrase. Some of them have a quotation, others don't. It is almost sure that here we have a SYNTH. i.e., certain users assume that if they came from "Albania" (in the geographical meaning) they have to speak albanian language, or the opposite. But there were many languages spoken in geographical Albania, including Greek, Serbian and Gypsy. Users who support the use of these sources, are requested to quote the exact phrase of every single source. By the way, Yohalas and Protopsaltes are/were academics of a very high status, certainly much more informed on Souli than Hobsbawm. Deleting them from the LEAD is a blatant pushing of POV.--Skylax30 (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

"I am almost sure" does not really provide evidence supporting your claim. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

To facilitate discussion, I copy here the quotes of those 12 sources.

Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopecek: “The Souliotes were Albanian by origin and Orthodox by faith”.

• Giannēs Koliopoulos, John S. Koliopoulos, Thanos Veremēs: (no quotation)
• Eric Hobsbawm: (no quotation)
• NGL Hammond: (no quotation)
• Richard Clogg: “The Souliotes were a warlike Albanian Christian community, which resisted Ali Pasha in Epirus in the years immediately preceding the outbreak the Greek War of Independence in 1821.”
• Miranda Vickers: “The Suliots, then numbering around 12,000, were Christian Albanians inhabiting a small independent community somewhat akin to tat of the Catholic Mirdite trive to the north”.
• Nicholas Pappas: (no quotation)
• Katherine Elizabeth Fleming: “The history of the Orthodox Albanian peoples of the mountain stronghold of Souli provides an example of such an overlap.”
• André Gerolymatos: “The Suliot dance of death is an integral image of the Greek revolution and it has been seared into the consciousness of Greek schoolchildren for generations. Many youngsters pay homage to the memory of these Orthodox Albanians each year by recreating the event in their elementary school pageants.”
• Henry Clifford Darby: “… who belong 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 …”
• Arthur Foss (1978).“The Souliots were a tribe or clan of Christian Albanians who settled among these spectacular but inhospitable mountains during the fourteenth or fifteenth century…. The Souliots, like other Albanians, were great dandies. They wore red skull caps, fleecy capotes thrown carelessly over their shoulders, embroidered jackets, scarlet buskins, slippers with pointed toes and white kilts.”
• Nina Athanassoglou-Kallmyer (1983), “The Albanians were a mountain population from the region of Epirus, in the north-west part of the Ottoman Empire. They were predominantly Muslim. The Suliots were a Christian Albanian tribe, which in the eighteenth century settled in a mountainous area close to the town of Jannina. They struggled to remain independent and fiercely resisted Ali Pasha, the tyrannic ruler of Epirus. They were defeated in 1822 and, banished from their homeland, took refuge in the Ionian Islands. It was there that Lord Byron recruited a number of them to form his private guard, prior to his arrival in Missolonghi in 1824. Arnauts was the name given by the Turks to the Albanians”.

I don't see anything like "speaking albanian because ...". Do you, Tzeronymo?--Skylax30 (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I 'd suggest that we hold our horses until other users contribute and clarify what other sources are claiming. After all,we all should assume Good Faith. Plus it is not an extraordinary claim. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems that "The three-revert rule" has broken... Skylax30 has removed sourced text far too many times. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed unsourced text, mate, while keeping the sources in their proper phrase and meaning. And I think I can do it as many times as it takes.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I see, btw, that you have nothing to offer on this particular piece of discussion, and your edits in the article are a mere disruption.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you removed well-sourced text because of lack of quotation. Well, it is not mandatory to have quotation. Plus you added a source from the fringe sit ardin-rixi.gr owned by the fridge politician Karambelias who has strong nationalistic tendencies and above all, you describe him as leftish! Ok, let other users contribute to our disqusion. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Tzeronymo, I advice you not to transfer here the tactics that you use in the greek WP. The present discussion is not about Psimouli and Karabelias, which is another topic and other paragraph. What is relevant here is that the quotations do not support the claim "they spoke albanian because they came from Albania". So, I rephrased that part, while keeping the sources and quotations. If you can provide a source on the above claim, please do. Be sure that you have red the source, and therefore you have the quotation.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, civility requires that after expressing your opinion, you leave the initiative to other users who have been active in this article for years. As far as I see, you came here recently, only to delete and revert others, after you found (or heared) that I am around.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an ad hominem attack bySkylax30. It is nothing new though, he got a three-month ban from el.WP for continual personal attacks. Everybody has the same right to contribute, new or old users. Contribution is either adding text or removing false claims. You are not to tell who should or should be involved in the article. Regards. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Slylax30 The current lede is due to consensus. A new consensus would need to adress many things, including why only "Greeks" infobox is on the article. I think the agreement is that the Souliotes were of Albanian origin, Greek identity and bilingual. Hence, the lede and "Greeks" infobox. You need a new consensus, and I doubt there would be anyone to support your proposal, as it would be against the main opinion of scholarship: the Souliotes were of Albanian origin and Greek identity. I am not much interested in this article, and recent warring of yours brought me here. Wait till more experienced editors in this topic give their two cents. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

ΟΚ then. In that case, WP introduces to "Albanian origin and Greek identity" a meaning other than the originally intented by certain users. Cheers.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident: Be aware that at least one admin has placed this article on thei watchlist after some late conflicts regarding the Souliotes. You need to discuss your edits. The agreement seems to be that the Souliotes has Albanian origin and Greek identity (so I understand it). If you wish to make changes, the infobox Albanians should be added next to infobox Greeks, or both be kept outside this article due to many scholars saying that the Souliotes were an Albanian tribe. Either leave the article as it is or we all discuss and make a new version of the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:, yes, many scholars indeed acknowledge the Souliotes are having an Albanian origin, however this is not the only view among the academic community on this. As per Wikipedia's core policies, all differing scholarly views on the matter should be presented, as long as verifiable and reliable sources are provided to support this view. In this context, the info which is backed by reliable sources, has been restored. Have a good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 11:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the scholarship has different views on the Souliotes. The consensus version is not mine, other editors decided on it. Either keep your content and the infobox Albanians on the lede, or remove both of them. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but the presence of infoboxes on an article cannot be a condition for bringing the article in line with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV rules. I am sorry but the content I have restored has nothing to do with whether there shall be infoboxes or not on the lead. NPOV rules and infobox rules are completely different. If the problem for you is an infobox, then I recommend you sit with the fellow editors and seek a compromise with them. I am not part of the infobox dispute, nor I am willing to be. Infoboxes have left me a bitter taste in the past, so leave me out of this. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Every change must reflect community consensus. Be aware that two admins have intervened on this talk page in the few last weeks, and one editor was lately blocked two times for breaching consensus. After they added the content your say you restored, they were blocked and warned with topic ban. Be careful to avoid confusion and unpredicted worries. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:, I am sorry but as per WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

This policy cannot be overriden by editor consensus. I could like admin opinion on this because first time I hear that consnesus can override this core policy. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ask admin opinion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The content I added, is the reason I haven't tagged the article with NPOV tag. Can you ping an admin? I want confirmation that this policy can be overriden. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The lead should change per wp:LEAD, as Resnjari added new content in the correspondent section (Identity/historiography) this should be reflected accordingly: "Greek and foreign historiography appears divided about the origin of the Souliotes: whether Albanian, Albanian-speaking Greeks or mixture of Greeks-Hellenized Albanians." (Potts, p. 14: "Greek academics have not been able to agree whether the Souliots were Albanian, Albanian-speaking Greeks, or a mixture of Greeks and Hellenized Christian Albanians who had settled in northern Greece. The issue of the origin and ethnicity of the Souliots is very much a live and controversial issue in Greece today. Foreign writers have been equally divided."). There "is" enough evidence to support a possible non-Albanian origin per historiography (see also Pappas).Alexikoua (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Be aware that yesterday an admin placed a link to this article and talk page on their talk page to monitor the situation easily. Everything needs consensus and to be balanced. The current situation does not allow for changes to the lede. Let see what happens later. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I assume there is no objection to incorporate Potts' conclusion: historians are not in agreement for a purely Albanian origin.Alexikoua (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: No, you can add nothing to the lede. Otherwise, you will need to add infobox "Albanians" as well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of the academics in the historiography section support an Albaian identity. Hence, either let the lede as it is or add Potts and infobox "Albanians". Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope most foreign and Greek author are equally divided between a number of theories. A pure Albanian origin is a typical POV approach and needs to be corrected. You are not against the reference Resnjari provided in the correspondent section so far. Thus I take you are out of arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I was clear. The lede accepts what you, Resnjari and other concluded is the most accepted view. If you with the lede to support more views, you should add infobox "Albanians" as well. One editor was blocked twice for adding the content you want to add, and yesterday SilentResident had an ARBMAC template on their talk page for doing the same thing. You will be reported if you do the same thing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(ignore NPA breach). Thanks to Resnjari and in light of new reference he provided it's clear that there is not one single opinion among historians. I suggest you concentrate your effort in the article instead of threatening about blocks and bans. Potts is RS, Pappas the same. Not to mention Yochalas, Protopsaltes. Alexikoua (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi: I assume you need to explain why a -Albanians- template is needed, you never disputed their self identification so far as Greeks.Alexikoua (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have already explained. Since the origin and ethnicity of the Souliotes is disputed, both infoboxes need to be on the article. The stable version/lede shows that they had Albanian origin and Greek ethnicity, with your changes with no consensus, the article saya that the Souliotes' ethnicity is disputed. The new version in other words says that the identity of the Souliotes (whether they felt Greek or Albanian) is disputed. In English, "identity" is part of "ethnicity". Hence, now the Souliotes are not Greeks anymore on this article Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume it was Resnjari who provided new evidence that disputed the issue of a purely Albanian origin-ethnicity, thus a new stable version is needed. Origin-ethnicity is not self identification/nationality/social classification. See for example the Arvanites (Albanian origin-Greek identity) By the way, per wp:AGF I still accept that an Albanian origin is the most possible version (though Potts doesn't claim exactly that).Alexikoua (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity is self-identity in English. The Arvanites have Greek ethnicity, the Souliotes have a murky one. Hence, only one infobox is POV pushing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that one infobox shouldn't be in lead. In fact there should be no infobox there. However, a Greeks infobox can stay in after Independence section.Alexikoua (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope, because many sources listed at the Historiography section say that the Souliotes were an Albanian tribe, without saying that after Independence they became Greeks. The article after your change shows that that the Souliotes gained a Greek ethnicity is just a theory. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't thing so, if Pappas is among those supposed sources you mean he presents also alternative theories. Resnjari provided also a detailed work which states that authors are divided among different origin-ethnicity theories. Unfortunately historians are not in agreement.Alexikoua (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, historians are not in agreement, hence infobox "Greeks" alone is POV pushing. If the infobox stuff is not corrected, your edit will be reverted again. You have a few days to make up your mind. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see a past concensus about infoboxes. I would prefer no infobox of that type by the way.Alexikoua (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You can insist as you wish. You do not have consensus for your edits today. I have left you some days to make up your mind. If you do not do one of these:

1. Remove infobox "Greeks" or add infobox "Albanians"

2. Revert those edits you make today

You will be reverted to the stable version. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You said earlier you are ok if the infobox -Greeks- is removed, then you claim that you want both infobox removed and all the previous edits reverted. I don't thing so. There is admin looking at this article so I would suggest you concentrate your effort to present at least a single decent argument against the evidence presented by Resnjari (i.e. foreign authors are equaly divided among various origin & ethnicity theories).Alexikoua (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Do not put words on my mouth. If infobox "Greeks" is removed, your recent changes can stay. If infobox "Greeks" is not removed, your recent changes can not stay. Simple. I do not have reason to continue here, your have now to decide which option you want. If in a few days you do not remove infobox "Greeks" or revert your recent changes, you just will be reverted. Ktrimi991 (talk)

That's an easy task, I always hated infoboxes.Alexikoua (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If everyone is fine with the removal of the infobox, then remove it. Still, the NPOV improvements on the article are a MUST and can not be conditioned on the presence of infoboxes, no matter what Ktrimi thinks about it. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The "Greeks" in infobox may be understood as "Greek citizens", which all Souliotes became, after the establishment of the Greek state. Fortunatelly, citizinship cannot be altered by late 20th century propaganda.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Is everyone ok with the current prose in the lead?Alexikoua (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The bit you added yesterday and which will stay only if I and other editors agree, is not in line with what its sources say. They do not say "ethnic origin" but "ethnicity". You have to decide which option you back. Beware that if you back removing infobox "Greeks", Souliotes must be removed from that infobox as well. Otherwise, if you do not clearly say which option you back, I and other editors who have been inactive on this talk page lately will of course disagree with one POV changes and the article will be reverted back to its stable version. I will stay off for some days, when I return to this topic I need a patent response. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me summarize: is everyone ok with this lead [[8]] (the pre-Jingiby version) but without Greeks template?Alexikoua (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Reading the whole Potts stuff on the identity of the Souliotes, he writes As these varying opinions suggest, Greek academics have not been able to agree whether the Souliots were Albanian, Albanian-speaking Greeks, or a mixture of Greeks and Hellenized Christian Albanians who had settled in northern Greece. The issue of the origin and ethnicity of the Souliots is very much a live and controversial issue in Greece today. The next paragraph starts with Foreign writers have been equally divided, though he does not specify what do foreign writers dispute. Then he lists some non-Greek historians who all say the Souliotes were of Albanian origin. In the end Potts gives his own conclusion The most diplomatic solution is probably to accept that the Souliots were indeed a Graeco-Albanian people, or “a mixture of Greeks and Albanian Christians". So a solution is to change the bit you added with However some scholars give a diplomatic solution that they were a Greaco-Albanian people. This refers to both origin and ethnicity, since a Graeco-Albanian group is of mixed origin and ethnicity. This could satisfy all views, IMO. Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This part reads: "The issue of the origin and ethnicity of the Souliots is very much a live and controversial issue in Greece today. Foreign writers have been equally divided." This refers to origin and ethnicity. Also let me remind you that Byron and Hobhouse don't claim that they are Albanian and their opinion is not due to diplomatic reasons.Alexikoua (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Foreign writers have been equally divided.l is in a separate paragraph where Byron and Hobhouse (old outdated travellers) are not mentioned. Later Potts presents what he consideres "recent" sources and all of them give an Albanian origin and ethnicity for the Souliotes. Anyways, do not bother. We can not find consensus at all. WP:Undue applies here, Potts and Pappas can not be equalled to more than 15 academics. If you wish However some scholars give a diplomatic solution that they were a Greaco-Albanian people. Alternatively, seek some third opinion on WP:Undue. I am not going to extend this discussion on a small disappered tribe beyond logic. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Now that I am reading your comment again, make sure you understand what "diplomatic solution" is. It is not an opinion that those who assert do not believe in. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Among the "recent" ones (three in total) Karamoutsos questions seriously the Albanian hypothesis concluding that they are a special group of Greek-Albanians.Alexikoua (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to check those 15 sources one by one. If there is really only Potts statement +Pappas then we are going to remove this. Koliopoulos so far is in favor of Albanian speech vs Greek identity (the last concensus).Alexikoua (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"Greeks means Orthodox Christians. Albanians means Albanians"

This trick is used in the article to push the pro-Albanian POV. For the moment, section "Identity, ethnicity and language" has this clumsy SYNTH paragraph about "classification" of ottoman subjects:

In Ottoman-ruled Epirus, national identity did not play a role to the social classification of the local society; while religion was the key factor of classification of the local communities. The Orthodox congregation was included in a specific ethno-religious community under Graeco-Byzantine domination called Rum millet. Its name was derived from the Byzantine (Roman) subjects of the Ottoman Empire, but all Orthodox Christians were considered part of the same millet in spite of their differences in ethnicity and language. According to this, the Muslim communities in Epirus were classified as Turks, while the Orthodox (Rum), like the Souliotes, were classified as Greeks. Moreover, national consciousness and affiliations were absent in Ottoman Epirus during this era.

The above is not generally accepted. There many sources supporting that the Greeks had a national identity since 13th century, and must be included. Also, other parts of the article contradict the above claim. For example, " Claude Fauriel described the Souliotes in 1814 as a mixture of Greeks and Albanian Christians". Of course, there were also Serbians, Bulgarians etc who were not called "Greeks". Id est, Christians were divided in ethnicities.

On the other hand, the ethnonyme "Albanian" is used in the article without explanation or definition. Fore example: "nucleus of the Suliote population consisted of Albanians" (Davenport), or "mountains of Suli were occupied by Albanians in the early medieval period" ( British passer-by Edward Lear). So, who was "Albanian" in early medieval period? If there is an explanation about "Rum" and "Greek", there should be one for "Albanian". We have albanologist Oliver Schimtt who explains that "Albanian" in medieval periond (around 15th - 16th c) meaned one of these:

• Someone who comes from the area of Albanian, independently of language, ethnicity or religion.
• Someone who speaks Albanian, independently of place of origin, ethnicity or religion
• A rural person, living in forests and mountains

(my free translation by memory).

Opinions please.--Skylax30 (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please check: Victor Roudometof, "From Rum Millet to Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Secularization, and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society, 1453-1821", Journal of Modern Greek Studies 16(1):11-48, May 1998, "In the pre-1820s Ottoman Balkans, most of the urban strata, mercantile groups, and religious and secular elites were either ethnic Greeks or acculturated into the Greek ethnie. Both the peasantry and the literate and urban Greek-Orthodox groups were "Greek" in the sense of being Orthodox.... After 1750, the influence of the Western Enlightenment led to secularization, liberalism, and an undermining of the religious world view of the Eastern Church. With the French Revolution (1799), this trend intensified. Greek-Orthodox intellectuals reconceptualized the Orthodox Rum millet. They argued for a new, secular "Hellenic" national identity. Still, their visions of a future state included all Balkan Orthodox Christians. Jingiby (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Super. Now look in the bibliography for the meaning of "Albanian" the same period, and add it in the article.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please check: Lomonosov, Matvey, "On Albanian identity in the Late Ottoman Empire", Porta Balkanica. 2013, vol. 5, issue 1, pp. [8]-16. "Despite the findings of the academic researches on ethnicity and nationalism many scholars of Albanian history presume the existence of a solidary Albanian ethnic group and the presence of a naturally formed sense of Albanian ethnic identity among Albanian-speakers in the Balkans at least starting from the 18th century... The scholarship on Albanian anthropology and national(ist) movement maintains that the Albanian-speakers at the end of the 19th and in the beginning of the 20th centuries clearly identified, categorized and understood themselves as the members of a particular ethno-cultural group (the Albanians – shqiptarët). Closer assessment reveals that the ethnic identity of externally categorized "Albanians" hardly appeared in the given historical period. Often Albanian-speakers considered their belonging to the religious community or the Ottoman state as far more important than any sort of affiliation with a cultural group. In other circumstances "Albanians" could be much more attached to their clan or region, without paying attention to how the latter were composed in terms of language and even religion. When certain cultural or linguistic identity, appeared, as in the case of “Albanian” elites striving to be "true Albanians" or Albanian-speakers distinguishing their linguistic fellows, it was rather situational and got overburdened by crosscutting social, territorial, tribal, religious and other meanings.". Jingiby (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is not a typical "Rum milet" case. Apart from religion there were additional features that identified this community as part of the Greek nation. Did the above papers say something precisely about Souli/Souliotes?Alexikoua (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Since it is clear that Souliotes were Christians, references to "Rum millet" in the article, are rather irrelevant and misleading, a blatant attempt to say that "Greek means christian". I propose that either it is deleted, or we add definition of "Albanian". This is the source for the meaning of "Albanian" in post-medieval texts: Schmitt Jens Oliver (2009), Skanderbeg: Der neue Alexander auf dem Balkan, pp. 353, 354. --Skylax30 (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The edits of the last few days shows my point. Mr Ktrimi991 wants lengthy theories about who was "Greek" in Ottoman Empire, but not the symmetric info on who was "Albanian". SYNTH about Christians>Rums>Greeks>Souliotes will be reverted, if not counterbalanced by sources supporting that Greeks had a national identity before the ottoman occupation.--Skylax30 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

In the nineteenth century, the ethnic and geographical terms Albanian and Albania were used often to incorporate the people of the area and southern Epirus, now part of Greece. The article gives what info is relevant to usages of "Greek" and "Albanian" in that time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Why so much fuss and such an edit war for the ethnically Tosk Albanians of Orthodox faith who contributed to the Greek Independence? Why so much pick-fighting?? For what? As a new user I am shocked to see how much both of the sides wants one version to prevail over the other and shame on both for the pickfighting. Shame on everyone who is disrupting an article which gives the main idea to the reader: that the Soulis were orthodox Albanians who self identified as greeks and contributed to their independence. As for the part: "thousands of greeks spoke albanian", well, how probable is it that an ethnicity which, under the ottoman empire, was allowed to speak and write its language, as well as practice its faith( the ancestors of modern Greeks) to learn a language of,as they often refered to albanians "Turkalbanians" or "Savages"? Albanians at the time, nor had an empire, kingdom, or even dominance or political leverage towards the local populations. Sure that, some of the greeks who happened to live in places which were almost exclusively inhabited by albanians at the time, had to speak albanian as a second language. However, given the facts stated above and that ALbanians were up to the 19-20th century regarded and factually illiterate people, with no dominance in the region, i highly doubt that there were thousands of greeks learning albanian as a second language. Hence, indeed language plays a crucial factor in determining the ethnicity of the souliotes and not only, which for the sake of the good faith and the western accounts and academic works, appear to be fully albanian by origin, language and customs, who later on, because of the political streams and the greek cultural and chrictian affiliation preferred to assimilate into the christian greek nation and self identify with that, which is ok and perfectly correct historical fact. The page provided this idea even before the viscious war on edits to gaim some microcopical advantages as regards the opinion of the reader whether the Souliotes were Greek or Albanian. This is simply unacceptable and such a meaningless war should not be repeated again in my opinion as it is everything but constructive and surely it does not serve the reader's best interest. I urge everyone to calm down and not show any signs of being biast here. I say this because I know how this would have gone if many people who signed the Albanian Declaration of Independence would have been originally Greek from let's say Thessaly, whose mother tongue was greek, customs were greek and they would adhere to the Albanian cause. I highly think the tables would have turned in a much worse fashion! Just providing food for thought!

Lastly, what is the problem of citing and referring to first hand sources of people who were there and met these people, spoke to them and eventually wrote about them in the 19th century?? What does this mean it is an old source? What does it mean it is outdated? Does it mean that these people around 200 years ago who actually met the souliotes were WRONG and the modern scholars who have read and referenced works in order to create an opinion about them have a better and more reliable view than them? I guess this might start to look like the page: "Himara" all over again, where everything from the 15th century ownwards, such as Venetian, Ottoman and Russian documents portraying the Himariotes as orthodox Albanians until the Greek uprisings is ommitted and obviously, not just accidentally! Or like in the Dhërmi page, where it is ommitted the fact that those churches are acually called UNITARY churches and were a typical mean of Albanians to seek from help from the powerful, catholic West, without having to change their religion in the 16th century! If this seems dubious, just search Arbëreshe or Albanian Unitary church. Moreover, the same thing happens in the Epirus page, where the reigns of Gjin Bua Shpata, Petër Losha and Gjin Zenebishi are not given due importance and in the end not even mentioned in the " list of names" of the rulers of Epirus which is shameful, given that there is plenty of literature that shows that in their time, cities such as Gjirokastra and Arta were flowrishing! And to close the discussion, the fact that they came from the villages near Paramythia not from "Albania" and ehnce they were not originally Albanian has a clear nationalistic tone to it! Sorry to burst your bubble, but whoever wrote that, I bet that he/she knows very well that the bulk of the coastal Epirus and many villages deep in the mainland (yes those villages with albanian names which the greek government changed the names of, surprise surprise!) were inhabited by Cham Albanians. If whoever wrote that needs proof, I can offer you the survay I have done for the past four months which I am going to publish soon, as to the fact that right now, at least from Parga until the Albanian border and many villages inside the Epirus region(the full list of which I am going to publish soon) around 82% of the elders of these villages at least understand Cham Albanian and around 43% are able to speak the Cham dialect to its fullest. Also many toponyms remained, one of the most obvious ones being the largest beach near vola, which is one of the main tourist attractions there, the name of which is "prapa mali"( meaning behind the mounain in Albanian, word by word) Just as in the Dropull region in Albania there are entire ethnic Greek villages in the region, also the Chams who converted to orthodox and decided to stay were much more than the ones who left, thus it is not only a handful of Chams left, but to my surprise, that region originally is almost totally mixed, although in the greek part the remaning Chams do not have the lux to be called Albanians, whereas the minorities in the Dropull region can and this is due to reason which greek editors here know very well.

I apologise for writing such a long message here, I just wanted to make the editors aware of the fact that nationalism and propaganda by catching upon useless phrases and passages from various sources as well as the shameful edit war that just happened here is not in the best interest of any reader and let alone the ones who are really concerned about these issues. Please next time, both sides refrain from putting your point of view and showing as to why it has supremacy. Rather edit and discuss instead of attacking the previous editor by shoving your points of view on each other's throats. Like this, not only the articles will be way more constructive, but also the 2 peoples will soften the tensions and start getting together, since whether both of the parties like it or not, the past and the future connects us, with or without definitions and cherry-pickings!

I once more apologise for the long message, I am simply trying to contribute to the best interest of the readers! Cheers, 84.26.41.112 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Gjergj Zogaj84.26.41.112 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the general feeling of the message of Gjergj Zogaj. Nationalism is not constructive in any way, it is clear that minimizes the chances of co-operation among people (that is just my pov though). Anywayz, I have to say, I strongly disagree with the use of primary sources. Primary sources are misleading as we, as wikipedians, cannot assess their validity, their POV nor their importance- if we proceed with primary sources, we will end up with original research. This is a task of academics or other scholars, to provide us with reliable knowledge. More @ Wikipedia:Core content policies. Cheers. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I am glad that we find a common point. As regards to the 19 century source, well, if we go with this logic wouldn't it mean that every single thing we read out there will have to have a dubious validity or a dubious POV? Aren't all the articles in the wikipedia academic research by us, the Wikipedian editors in this sense, since we cite here academic sources who researched before us? It is a reference that gives impetus to our claims isn't it? I mean there are so many Greek authors cited there. Who assures me that they are impartial and not showing their pov? There are also Albanian authors cited. Who assures me that the validity and the POV of these authors, who are nationals of either one or the other side do not have an interest and at their smallest chance of discretion they will use it to give primacy to one party over the other, especially given modern politics? Let's be honest with each other, none of the sides is pure in what they claim and it is our job to even try to make something close to pure(Purity can never be reached).

In my humble opinion, let alone that simply STATING a source (hence letting the reader be the judge, obviously they are not sheeps and we presume they can have thinking capacities like normal people) does not make me do original research, but it would be more correct a primary source from the 1800's, where the political bias of the time did not come even close to that of nowadays. Ading to that, the parties making the observation were neither Greek or Albanian, which makes me think, with so many factors, and given that you are not committing original research for the reasons stated above, I want a reasoned opinion as to why publishing an account of the time, a PRIMARY source, would be misleading? After all, in all the prestigious faculties in the world regarding any subject, be this law, economics, history, etc. the tutors teach the students that primary sources are much needed and neccessary to rise the credibility of what you are saying. Again, please tell me where do you base this misleadingness. Does wikipedia have way different rules than the rest of the world's rules?

I strongly disagree that a source of people who WERE there, MET these people and subsequently reached a conclusion about certain things, based on their first hand observation shows more POV and is more misleading than the modern day academics, who, themselves refer to such documents. EVEN IF, they show the slightest sign of POV (which they don't, but that's just my pov again!) that is all account of the time that we have at our disposal, and for what reason on earth we should deprive the reader from knowing that such documents of the time exist? Mind you, had such a document stated that they were greeks, would you have the same opinion on it? please let's talk without gloves here. I have seen in countless pages about greece, greek history or cities, such documents are cited THERE and if you will ask me I will give you examples. Why are double standarts used with or without intention here?? I am urging you to avoid the game of words and be serious here. I am not insulting yours, or anyone's intelligence or capacities and you should not either by playing with words like this! 

Lastly, please, if you really abide and are led by the principle of non nationalism and seeking for the best of the reader as I am, explain the points I just mentioned by reasoning them. If you will agree with me in the end, it would be great to reach a consensus. We, the people of the 2 countries here on wikipedia, have the chance to do and behave like our politicians do not. We truly love our countries and are not blinded by bigger interests as they are. Why not reach impartial, single standardised consensuses and treat the pages regarding both of the nations in the same way, without trying to make one POV prevail over the other?

Once more sorry for the long message, I am just here to(try) to resolve certain issues that arise because of the stubornness of both of the peoples and hence makes us enter in a big balkan pot, where we fight, and the reader remains misinformed. I urge you to reasonably explain me what I asked above once more and hopefully we will reach an agreement as to how vital first hand sources are! Thank you, Kind Regards 84.26.41.112 (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Gjergj Zogaj84.26.41.112 (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thats a huge paragraf, cant read it. Can you please break it down and erase this post as well?Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Just broke it down. hope its better now

Albanians infobox

Soulites are of Albanian origin and not of Greek; stop inserting ridiculous pro-Greek origin material! As long as it is disputed which origin they "belong", we are not allowed to insert for example the "Greeks" template! --Lorik17 (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need to avoid sarcastic & aggressive comments and provide solid argument instead.Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Lorik17 is right though that an infobox should be placed somewhere in the article. We should address this problem by adding the {{Albanians}} somewhere in the article, preferably next to the greek infobox, so as infoboxes would reflect the text (Albanian origin/greek identity) Cinadon36 (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This was previously discussed and consensus was against inclusion. An Albanian origin doesn't necessary mean Albanian identity and this community did not identify as part of the Albanian nation.Alexikoua (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Alexikoua for your respond.Can you please share a link with the discussion? I can not find it. Unless you are talking about the July-August 2018 discussion in a section titled "False claims by users, and SYNTH in the LEAD". Are you talking about that discussion?Cinadon36 (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, to be more precise there was a discussion during July 30-31 and an agreement was reached about infoboxes (I'd initially proposed full removal of both templates).Alexikoua (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, alright but the problem is that a formal discussion should address the problem we are dealing with. That discussion was not under the correct title not everybody interested on the topic joined the conversation. I think a proper discussion should be initiated and I think I 'll support your initial proposal.Cinadon36 (talk)

Indeed, being of Albanian origin does not imply being part of the Albanian nation. Neither does being included on an infobox titled "Albanians", who are an ethnic group inhabiting many localities on every continent in the world except Antarctica with various citizenships and senses of national identity. Meanwhile, last I checked, the "Greeks" infobox has Griko people, whose "membership in the Greek nation" could be questioned by many people (for starters most are Catholic, whereas the traditional definition that still can be heard from many Greeks would hold that you need to be Orthodox...). --Calthinus (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Not true. The Catholic Greeks of the Cyclades are not Orthodox, but considered Greeks by practically everyone. And if you're going to go by "many Greeks would hold", the Griko people are also widely considered "Greeks" (similar to the way Arbereshe are considered Albanians?). On the other hand, I do agree with you that the template (it's a template, not an infobox) does include some suprefluous entries, like "Cycladites", and "Cretans", and others, which just link to geography article. I suppose these could be removed. Not the Souliotes though. They fought for the Greek cause, were Orthodox, spoke Greek (as well as Albanian), served in the Greek government, and eventually assimilated. Khirurg (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Heh, personally in theory I actually like having these sorts of ethnographic subdivisions in infoboxes (Macedonians, Cretans, Pontic Greeks, Maniots...), they are informative and appreciated by readers I think, and imo Grikos do actually belong there-- I was not trying to say they don't, but rather that we should not be relying on exclusivist forms of identity where you can only belong to one nation based on what some old guy said in 1890. Obviously, mainstream Greek opinion recognizes Catholic Greeks as Greeks, and also atheist Greeks or Buddhist Greeks or whatever et cetera... but yes there are those who disagree. Refs on Golden Dawn's stance on Catholics having a non-Greek religion should not be hard to find, and they and similar groups in the past have commmanded the votes of a significant minority of the Greek electorate. Here we go, thanks google [[9]]. Shouldn't be surprising, as this is the logical endpoint of the process that starts with "Orthodoxy is the national religion of Greeks, Greek-speaking Muslims aren't Greek...". Did many Greek Catholics have cordial relations with Italian rulers in the past? Well, thankfully we don't have to decide their Hellenism based on that, though there are some that would. Thankfully, we don't rely on this sort of stuff.--Calthinus (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted Calthinus but as far as I know, Wikipedia does not focus on today's state of affairs. Souliotes had been part of the Albanian nation in the past, that means the Albanian template has a place in the article (given that we place templates or infoboxes in the article based on ethnicity or other reasons).Cinadon36 (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that they were not part of the Albanian nation in the past, in fact per 18th century socio-religious terminology they were "Greeks fighting Albanians". Origin and language doesn't necessary make you part of a nation.Alexikoua (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The article state that they were of Albanian origin. Origin means that ancestors were part of that nation.Cinadon36 (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This fact doesn't necessary mean that those ancestors who identified as Albanians lived at a time when a Souliote community was formed. Generally speaking all human communities (this one included) have their origins in Africa but this doesn't mean that such a correspondent template is needed.Alexikoua (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The article does not trace the origins of Souliotes from Africa, so an African-template is not necessary. On the contrary, it does mention the albanian origins. I believe we should wait for others editors to contribute their comments. Cheers. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You realise that the Albanian nation formally didn't not exist until late 1912 right (see Albanian Declaration of Independence)? By that time all Souliotes have been identifying as Greeks since they fought for the Greek cause and not the Albanian plus, in the Battle of Karpenisi the Ottoman Albanians of Mustafa Pasha Bushatli "Iskondrali" killed Markos Botsaris. In any case, there are no references stating that Souliotes have been identifying as Albanians nor that they offered anything to the Albanian nation or state. Best Othon I (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that those ancestors who identified as Albanians lived at a time when a Souliote community was formed. No identification with the Albanian nation means that the template shouldn't be there.Alexikoua (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Othon I but nations usually exist before their declaration of independence. Alexikoua, being of Albanian origin, means that at "the time of the origin", they identify as Albanians. Maybe we could place the infobox/template on the anthropology or History section.Cinadon36 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

When did "identification" become the criterion here? In any case it's a particularly bad one, here especially -- how on earth do we know how they "identified"? They don't exist as a group today, whatever research exists on the matter is pretty insufficient. On top of that, we're talking about a period when the modern ideas of what it means to be Albanian or Greek had not fully formed yet (they existed, but were not realized or performed in the same way), so asking them to identify with modern day nation states that didn't exist in their lifetimes makes the entire paradigm Othon and Alexi are using here anachronistic. Instead there is a case that they belong on both infoboxes -- nationally as Greeks especially as they began to be assimilated, ethnolinguistically as Albanians.--Calthinus (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The anachronistic criterion is actually an argument to remove both infoboxes not to include them. By the way they did self identified as Greeks per 18th century terminology. Moreover, I've just recalled that there is enough evidence that challenges the so-called Albanian purity of their origin. Thus I disagree that this is a clear Albanian origin & Greek identity case.Alexikoua (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus how on earth do we know how they "identified". That's easy: They fought and died for the Greek cause. They wanted to be Greek. And they did identify with a modern nation state: the Kingdom of Greece, in whose armed forces they served and achieved high office. They fought against Albanians. Markos Botsaris was killed by an Albanian. I imagine he and the other Souliotes would be quite horrified to be considered Albanians nowadays. It would be the height of absurdity to add these people to the Albanians template. By this logic, we would also have to add the Arvanites, another group that self-identifies as Greek and not Albanian. Khirurg (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Khirurg, something also useful to this description is that they were considered Greeks by their Albanian enemies. Of course 18th century identification with modern terms is anachronistic but this is not an argument to add additional templates.Alexikoua (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You're making a lot of assumptions:

Assumption 1: Fighting and dying for the Greek cause means you are Greek. I find this one quite reasonable, but many others wouldn't (and I might note, when it is Albanians, this criterion has been argued against extensively in the past on wiki).

Assumption 2: Being Greek is incompatible with being Albanian. Now we start to diverge. Even if we accept that one cannot have multiple national identities (I don't accept this third assumption), these infoboxes are not only about national groups, but also ethnolinguistic groups which can be identified by customs, language, etc. This circumvents any need for assumption 3, because identification of such ethnolinguistic groups does not deterministically depend on, though is unfortunately sometimes influenced by, the sticky issue of identity (some Greeks identify as "world citizens" after all and refuse ethnicity, others identified as Ottomans in the past... need I go on?).

Assumption 3/4: The struggle of the Souliotes pitted Greeks (including Souliotes) against "Albanians". People who could be called "Albanian" fought on both sides, and the opposing side was not "Albanian", it was Ottoman (literally no one would say this was a "Greece-versus-Albania" conflict, indeed in modern Albania I would wager on average, sympathies lie with Greece and the Souliotes on this one...), which makes the fact that they happened to kill and be killed by a group that was disproportionately Muslim and Albanian merely incidental.

Also, neither of you have addressed my countercase, which to be clear, is that:

(a) yes, while even if we can't verify a Greek identity for an overwhelmingly illiterate group of clannish and warlike tribes in quite remote mountains with likely no inkling of what we consider Greek history, that they ended up dying for a cause they called Hellenism suffices to call them Greek and in any case they were clearly assimilated to and played a disproportionate role in Greek culture and language in the later stages of their existence.

.. but (b) that has no relation to whether they are Albanian or not unless you see nationality as being about hostile opposition

.. and (c) that they had Albanian linguistic and ethnic traits originally suffices to also apply the name "Albanian" on ethnic and linguistic grounds.

Lastly, I'd be fine with removing it from both. Not a high quality page, and a frequent victim of nationalist POV warring anyways. Re Arvanites, if we're talking about the ones in Attica etc not Epirus/Thrace/Macedonia, well a good chunk of Western scholarship explicitly calls them "Albanians" so I will not argue against this, lol, but I also don't care to get into a fight over that one, there is a bit more of a case to make here for "no"--Calthinus (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Khirurg said:That's easy: They fought and died for the Greek cause. They wanted to be Greek. And they did identify with a modern nation state: the Kingdom of Greece, in whose armed forces they served and achieved high office ---> Apart from easy, it is Original Research as well. I agree with Calthinus and Alexikoua's initial proposal to remove both templates/infoboxes Cinadon36 (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus. Regarding what goes into a template, these templates are navigational aids for readers, nothing more. There are no firm rules for what goes in or stays out, it's decided by local consensus. There is no such guideline that these infoboxes are not only about national groups, but also ethnolinguistic groups which can be identified by customs, language, etc.. @CinadonApart from easy, it is Original Research as well. I have nothing to say to that. I suggest you do some reading. Markos Botsaris was not just some rebel in the mountains, he was a General in the Greek Army. Ditto Kitsos Botsaris. These were Greek government officials. So were their descendants. Botsaris' grave was desecrated by Ottoman Albanians when Missolonghi fell to the Turks.Khirurg (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree with Khirurg. Self-identification is an important consideration for the classification of any sociopoliticoethnocultural group. These people made the conscious decision to identify, live, fight, and die, as Greeks. This is a sufficient reason to use the Greek infobox for them. To identify them as Albanians due to their ancestral origins through the WP:WEASEL use of an infobox, and against their chosen self-identification, is to confuse and diffuse their chosen identity and is POV. Dr. K. 15:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

What is POV is to confuse an editor's POV with the content of an article. Some sources on the article describe Souliotes as Greeks, others describe them as an Albanian tribe (check the proper section). Everyone interested should be sure to avoid inserting unhelpful comments. Lots of love. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Lol, I don't think anyone needs this kind of backstabbing comments disguised with a wrapper of love. I will not reciprocate with any barbed comments, since I think everyone is entitled to their POV, and that includes you. Dr. K. 16:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I was not referring only to you, otherwise I would not end my comment with "lots of love". I do not consider you to be part of that group of editors I would always try to feel comfortable in a discussion. I am sure you are able to understand what you read. Anyways, we should not redirect the discussion, right? Doing so would be trolling.lol Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Lol. This is not a gulag. We can clarify a few ideas without worrying that the taskmaster, whoever he is, will put us in our little corner. Noone is trying to redirect anything, thanks for the barb. As far as your group of editors you feel comfortable with, that's your choice. I feel comfortable talking to anyone at any time. But then again, I always strive to be open-minded. Dr. K. 16:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope, do not put words on my mouth. Neither I said that I feel comfortable only with some editors, nor that you are trying to redirect the discussion. I only reminded that we all should be careful. Do not use "lol" when referring to me again, if you did not understand from my previous comment that that has no place here. Repeated "lol" is trolling at best. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Your last line was: Anyways, we should not redirect the discussion, right? Doing so would be trolling.lol You used lol in your reply to me, then you take me to task for replying in the same manner. I don't think you understand what you are saying. Also, what you wrote was clear, and my response addressed your points clearly. Saying that I don't understand your response means you didn't understand what I wrote in my response. Dr. K. 17:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Saying that I don't understand your response means you didn't understand what I wrote in my response. Now it is me who is not understanding the other editor's comment. But lets move on and have anyone interested in the content dispute respond to the important question:If some sources do consider Souliotes Greeks and some consider them an Albanian tribe, why should Souliotes be on only one template? Why should it not be excluded from all templates and put an end to the same dispute that emerges every few months? Alexikoua and I actually almost found a solution to it but in the end the thought that the dispute would not be repeated prevailed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This spat is dumb and a waste of time for all of us, not to mention energy. Earlier Alexikoua proposed removing it from both infoboxes. I'd be ok with that. It's a low quality page we shouldn't be showcasing. I'd support that if others do too.--Calthinus (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be some kind of misunderstanding here. This template is solely intended to be a navigational aid for readers (in this case readers interested about Greeks and their various subgroups), so that they can move from article to article quickly and easily. It should thus be displayed in all articles that are included in the template. Thus, if Souliotes are to be included among Greeks (and I don't think anyone really disputes that except maybe Iaof2017), then this template should be included in the article. Otherwise what's the point of even having it at all? I cannot support removing it. However this template is not a badge of membership to a club (in this case the "Greeks" club) or a territorial marker, which seems to be what's bothering Iaof2017. Unfortunately there is little that can be done about that. Khirurg (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Re Khirurg: I mean, on that point we're in total agreement, tho I personally think that readers can interpret the infobox as being either national or ethnic (or even geographic). Idk. I've said to Lorik many times, he should focus on non-controversial stuff like Albanian tourism and nature, and leave stuff that requires wikidiplomacy to older editors like Resnjari, Ktrimi991, myself, Pasztilla, etc. Some things you can disagree with but realize it's not worth it. Souliotes are important to Greeks just like Albanians, and maybe one day Greek editors won't be put off by seeing Souliotes (also) described as Albanians, but for now that's just a fact of editing the topic area, meaning that warring about it gets you nowhere in the long run -- does it really matter to readers? No. So is it a good way to spend your limited time in life? No not really. --Calthinus (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems there is a consenus on removing both templates/infoboxes. I tottaly agree with Calthinus. A point made about WP:WEASEL is not valid as it is not obvious there are no weasel words in the infobox. Another point about how Botsaris fought the Turks, is not a valid point either (Greek identiry of Souliotes during and after the War, is not disputed) Cinadon36 (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No, there is absolutely no consensus on removing the Greeks template. Khirurg (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, Alexikoua proposed to remove the template two or so months ago and I did not agree in the end. It is a small detail which is not enough to reason mass changes to the article. However, in the last few days three editors showed concerns about the template. A solution to the concerns has to be worked out. Consensus is based on sources, not on one POV. After all, many sources describe Souliotes as an Albanian tribe, and this should be adressed. If you wish to keep Souliotes on the Greeks template without showing that template on this article, I agree to that. I (and maybe all here) do not care to know what happens to other similar articles. The concenrn is only this one. If you can not bring a solution, we must remove Souliotes from the template entirely. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Just remove both infobxes from the article, as @Alexikoua proposed some time back.Resnjari (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep I've proposed that some time ago. Also Ktrimi proposed that this change should be done as soon as the text in lede changes in order to include the alternative origin theory i.e. non Albanian origin. After all academics both in Greece and elsewhere are equally divided about the origin and ethnicity. This should be reflected in lede too.Alexikoua (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Other issues

@Alexikoua:, I would have to see what any proposed additional sentence on historiography would look like. Also missing from this article is viewpoints from Albanian academia on origins which does exist. I take it you would not oppose additions of the sort outlining their position before any lede sentence on historiography can take shape?Resnjari (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Similarly Greek academia is misrepresented with only a minor fraction of it covering large parts of the article. Vakalopoulos for example though a major expert on the subject is completely absent. On the other hand there is too much from Baltsiotis who is limited in 20th century socio politics.Alexikoua (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Well then it would be premature to talk about adding a sentence to the lede of that sort unless its covered in the article because it would be subject to constant change and edits being made would bring up endless edit wars over one sentence. On Baltsiotis he is only referenced to 3 sentences in the article, there are other sources which are linked to more sentences, i fail to see how Baltisotis falls into the too much category. He actually covers the 19th century (two sentences in the article relate to that time period).Resnjari (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It was not me who proposed changing the lede. Anyhow, if the lede is to be changed, it should be done in the proper way. Souliotes should be exluded from both templates (not only remove the Greeks template from this article and keep Souliotes on that template as I proposed earlier in this discussion). The ethnicity and origin should be treated in line with scholarship. The previous agreement was to keep Souliotes as having Albanian origin and Greek identity. Since editors here want changes to the lede in full accordance with scholarship, yeah, I agree. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No, we're not going to remove the Souliotes from the Greeks template, nor are we going to remove the template from the article. There are numerous sources that cover the fact they identified as Greek, and we've been over this already. Khirurg (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The majority agrees that keeping only one template is POV. There are many sources that describe Souliotes as an Albanian tribe. A third opinion/RfC could be of help though. Nobody, be admin or experienced editor, would give you right. If you wish to solve the dispute here, great. Otherwise there are othr ways that can be used to solve this simple situation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

A third opinion then might be needed then.Resnjari (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The non-Albanian purity of Souliote origin was raised thanks to additional material presented by Resnjari. Since the main text already presents this version this should be reflected in the introductory part per wp:LEDE.Alexikoua (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: hold on a sec, as i said more needs to be added (and so did you) before a final sentence and or additional sentence to the one already in the lede can be discussed in the talk on how it would look via consensus. As already noted Albanian academia is absent and needs to be added as they have written on the issue as well and addition to a few more academics based in Western Europe and the USA.Resnjari (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari and Alexikoua: Do you want to make those changes to the Identity section (Albanian academia etc) before or after the RfC/third opinion? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

OK. Add the new content and after that ping me to proceed with the RfC/third opinion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic Origin VS Political Identity

It looks that this article have a problem with the greek nationalsm? Which hardly deny the ethnicity even there are lot of source which proof her ethnicity. Suliots was nothing else as albanian orthodox from the south highlands, also knowed as "Çamë", also the albanian-greek translate-book used by Marko Boqari shows clear that they spoke albanian and didn't use greek as second languages (bilingual). And also stop making a mess with identity and ethnicity, we clearly know which ethnicity they had, and its albanian. Every modern source proof`s this fact,and there are a lot of source, just me can tell two:

Schmitt, Oliver Jens - The Albanians

Albertz, Anuschka - Exemplary heroism. The Reception History of the Battle of Thermopylae from Antiquity to the Present.

--31.10.130.45 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Raca page (link is here)

@Alexikoua:, Raca p.202. [10]. I 'll be removing the verifiablity tag you placed.Resnjari (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Albanian infobox, recontinued

I read through the infobox discussion from 3 years ago and find the conclusion made to not include the Albanian infobox quite strange. It seems bizarre to me that the only factor at play here is self identification. Ethnic origin, country of origin, genetic origin, language spoken, culture, and tradition are not considered. The Souliotes did come to identify as Greek due to their faith. The Souliotes are essentially an Albanian diaspora in Greece, much like the Arvantines, who were assimilated, yet they are not included in the Albanian people template. When the population numbers are given of an ethnic group, often those who do not identify with the ethnic group are still considered (e.g. Italians in France or Albanians in Turkey). The French people, Italian diaspora, Germans templates include diaspora communities that may or may not consider themselves as French/Italian/German due to assimilation.

• The French people template includes French Jews, who are of mixed ethnicity and may not even consider themselves ethnically French. It includes Afrikaaners, who are primarly Dutch. It includes the Hugenots, who almost entirely self identify as British (in the UK). It includes assimilated groups from Acadia, Quebec, Louisiana.
• The German template includes assimlated groups as well, such as Alsatians, who largely self identify as French.
• The Spanish template includes Gypsies and Sephardi, who often do not self identify as Spanish.

I see no reason why Albanians abroad, such as the Souliotes, should not be considered in the template. The argument is that they did not identify as Albanian, but they certainly did when they first arrived from Albania, if they considered themselves anything at all. And like I said, there are already examples of sub-groups not identifying with a nation yet are included in the Template. I'm fine with the Greek template being included. They are a Greekified group. There is still a substantial amount of evidence for the Souliotes being of full or partial Albanian origin though. (and as a side note, there are indeed modern Albanians in Southern Albania of full or partial Souliote origin which would certainly object to the claim "other Souliotes would be quite horrified to be considered Albanians nowadays". Quite a hilarious claim that should have no impact on a serious discussion. I guess "Ali's appeal based on shared Albanian origin" must have induced panic attacks at the time.) I'm curious to know when/where a decision was made on Wikipedia, site-wide, that self-identification was the sole factor of consideration for inclusion of a subgroup in a template? Seems oddly specific, and hasn't been followed by other templates. Djks1 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

One last thing I forgot to mention - the Souliotes were placed by the French into the Albanian Regiment (France) along with other Greco-Albanian groups, such as the Himariotes. So, I don't think they'd protest their placement in the Albanian template too strongly. Djks1 (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Djks1, the assumption that Souliotes (and especially those who died at the hands of Ottoman Muslim Albanians, like Markos Botsaris) would protest their placement in the Albanian template is reasonable if you consider the fact that Markos Botsaris grave was desecrated by those same Albanian soldiers. This makes sense once you consider that tribal identity (as opposed to a unified Albanian identity) took precedence for Albanian speakers at that time and before their independence. BayesianRot (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Greek template

I find it extremely misleading to add a template about ethnic Greeks in this article. The Souliotes were not ethnic Greeks. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Great point. They are ethnically Albanian, so perhaps this should be reflected in the template instead? Although it must be taken into account how important they were to the development of the Greek state, they were ultimately of Albanian origin. Botushali (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Some sources in the article describe the Souliotes as Albanians and some as Greeks. As a sign of good faith, I am ok with just saying "they are known for participating at the Greek war of independence" without mentioning the Albanian identity view in the lede. But the template is another thing. IMO it is better to not have templates at all instead of having both Greeks and Albanians templates. Otherwise if the Greeks template stays, then the Albanians template should be added. There are simply zillions of RS in the article calling them Albanians. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Having not one of the two ethnic templates in the article is fine with me. Ahmet Q. (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ashmedai 119: do you have any opinion on this? Should this article contain a Greeks template, an Albanians template, both of them or none on them at all? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. I should say that this is just my arbitrary opinion as one of the encyclopedia's readers and occasional editors. I deem this type of sidebar templates disturbing, in the sense that they have the effect of a forced rearrangement of all visual material that accompanies the text of the article and destroys any relevance of the images used with the adjacent text. At least, this is my experience when using a desktop. Were this not the case, I would not be against using the sidebar template on the Greeks. I do not see why this would pose a problem, given that the Souliots were indeed incorporated in the nascent Greek nation. If sidebar templates were to be used, I would suggest to also use the one about the Albanian tribes. I am not very well educated in matters digital and have to ask: would it be possible to turn the Greeks sidebar template into a collapsible one? I guess this would have to be done generaly for all similar templates. That would be the best solution, in my view. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know the sidebar templates can be made collapsible by modifying the code of their own page. If so, do you suggest having in the article the Greeks and Albanian tribes templates (not the Albanians template)? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A community that struggled against Albanian-Ottoman rule and defined as of Greek identity should be portrayed as such from the introduction. Simply saying that they were of Albanian origin just from first line confuses the reader. They are primarily notable for their struggle against the local Ottoman rulers which happened to be mainly Albanian.Alexikoua (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The lede is not the topic of this talk page section. I already gave you an answer where you raised your concern. And please stop editing as we are still discussing the best wording. Çerçok (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Given that they participated in the Greek War of Independence and assimilated into the Greek nation, which no one disputes, the Greeks template should stay. Khirurg (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I am OK with both templates staying, I am not against it. I was only replying to Alexikoua because she edited the first sentence while were are still discussing it in the talk page section she opened. Çerçok (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, I have personally come to have adopted an agnostic stance as far as the desirability of sidebar templates in encyclopedia articles is concerned. I fail to see why they were created in the first place, but I trust the community of the encyclopedia's editors must have had a reason for introducing their usage. If they are to be used in this article, I would suggest that they are collapsible and that the one of the Albanian tribes (not the Albanians, since this seems to imply their belonging in the Albanian nation, which as the course of history evolved, was not the case for the Souliots) is placed next to the paragraph that describes the Souliots's organization in clans and the one on the Greeks is placed in a section that clearly discusses their integration in the Greek nation (i.e. the one on the War of Independence, the "Aftermath and legacy" or the relevant passage from "Historiography"). Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

They are meanly meant as a navigational aid, i.e. if users want to learn all about the different Greek subgroups, let's say, they can easily navigate from one group to another. Unfortunately, like categories and other templates, they tend to be interpreted as "flags" for the various nationalities, resulting in a lot grief. Personally, I think having the Greeks template is helpful to readers, so I will re-add it. If others want to add another template, that's fine by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khirurg (talk • contribs)

@Ashmedai 119: like you, as I said above I would prefer no templates at all. They just take space, especially on the phone, and tend to cause conflicts between editors. Anyways, since others want templates, I support your idea to have Albanian tribes in the tribal organization paragraph, and Greeks in the Greek War of Independence part. @Khirurg, if you do not interpret templates as "flags" and do not have "grief", why do you have a long record of edit warring on various templates? In any case, do not forget to sign your comments. I just singed the one above for you. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Nikolopoulou (2013)

I have removed a sentence by Nikolopoulou (2013) from the lead paragraph. The sentence is Because of their identification with Greece, they were referred to as "Greeks" by their Ottoman and Muslim Albanian opponents. This sentence contradicts the rest of the article. It is correctly discussed as the view one of source in the main body, but it can't remain in the lead paragraph as it contradicts parts such as at the beginning of the Greek War of Independence the Christian Albanian Souliotes were still unfamiliar with ideas of nationalism and they did not see themselves as leading "Greek armies", even declaring in a letter to the Russian Tsar that they do not have anything in common with the other Greeks, feeling closer to fellow Albanian Muslims instead. More broadly, a problem which is not discussed in the article is that the Souliots like all other communities acted based on their economic and political interests. As a result, not all Souliots fought against Ali Pasha and not all Souliots were Christians. I think that we should all be a bit more moderate in how we discuss the subjects and maintain the good communication environment of the past year. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

No contradiction whatsoever. Nikolopoulou does not discuss how they viewed themselves, but how they were viewed by their opponents. Khirurg (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there is no contradiction at all. Nikopoloupou is a top graded author and a specialist on the issue. Her work provides a detailed analysis on the Souliotes.Alexikoua (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That much is true, Nikopoloupou does not discuss how they viewed themselves, so uphold your own statement stop trying to put it in the self-identification sub-section. Çerçok (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree Maleschreiber, better to avoid using Nikolopoudou in this context. Ahmet Q. (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

According to the article According to Nikolopoulou, due to their identification with Greece, they were seen as Greeks by their Muslim Albanian adversaries as well.[3] Ali Pasha, on the other hand, established an alliance with the Souliotes in 1820 by appealing to the shared ethnic Albanian origin of the Souliotes and his Muslim Albanian forces. We are not going to have a situation where have just one part in the opening. Maleschreiber described it pretty well already.Alltan (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You can add the second sentence from Nikolopoulou. But the first sentence is not "contradicted" by anything, so that's not a valid reason for removal.

We can't have this sentence in the lead. It reflects a POV which is not supported by the majority of sources in the article. The article doesn't say that the Souliotes were considered to have been Greek or that they were identified with Greece. It says that the dominant ideology in Greece considered as Greek leading figures of the Greek state and obscured the links of some Orthodox people such as Souliotes had to Albanian. How about instead of writing a long-winded section entirely designed to just refute this opinion (which would be just one sentence) along 10 sentences which say the opposite, we simply don't use it in the lead to begin with? Why exactly is that a big issue?Alltan (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly there were seen as Greeks inside the Ottoman society and they also self declared as Greeks. Nothing wrong in that, they are primarily known for their participation against Turks and the local Ottoman Albanian rulers.Alexikoua (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't see how Alexikoua's claims can be shown to be part of what the articles says. The article isn't in favor of an argument about Souliotes being seen Greeks. In fact, throughout the entirety of it says the opposite. Alltan (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Who exactly saw them as Greeks? From the perspective of academic history they were not seen as Greeks and they were not identified with Greece. The article does not claim that the Souliotes were "seen as Greeks". This is a comment by the non-specialist Nikolopoulou and it does not find corroboration in the other sources from the article. Durraz0 (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

As Nikolopoulou states in her work, their Muslim Albanian and Ottoman adversaries saw them as "Greeks" and identified them with Greece. Nikolopoulou is a top notch academic source on the subject, and no one has shown anything contradicting her. Khirurg (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Multiple editors have concerns with the source of Nikolopolou. Do not add it back by edit-warring and try to first find a compromise here. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"Multiple editors" is not an argument. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We just saw this at a recent AfD, where final decision went against the more numerous "Keep" Votes [11]. So far I haven't hear one convincing argument against Nikolopoulou, nor any contradicting sources. Khirurg (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)