Talk:Markos Botsaris

His ethnic identity is being ignored

There is an issue here with people failing to understand the difference between ethnicities and nationalities. Ethnically, Marko Boçari was an Arvanite, Christian albanophone Albanian. This was well documented by many authors of the time as well as today's historians. Ethnicities existed way before nations. The modern Greek nation consists of more than one ethnicity. One of those ethnicities is clearly Albanian-Arvanite to which Marko Boçari belonged to. He even created an Albanian-Greek dictionary due to lack of knowledge of Greek by Arvanites in the region at the time. It is true Marko Bocari fought against the Ottoman Empire for Greek independence for the newly established Greek state, however he was an Albanophone. Hiding this would be doing a great disservice to the truth and I don't believe wikipedia articles should be affected by Balkan politics. It is not all black and white. Please see contemporary "Tribes of Albania" by Robert Elsie p.225 where Marko Bocari's ethnic identity is clearly noted. JoeTBA (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The dictionary is already mentioned. No one is trying to hide anything. However your claim that he identified as "Albanian" will not be included, because he did not identify as such. Khirurg (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

But he also did not identify as Greek.--Lorik17 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that he did identified as Greek.Alexikoua (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

We dont know as Marko Boqari claim herself politically, but we all know he were Albanian, had Albanian Costume, lived in a albanian socio-cultural clans, had the albanian kanun, wear Albanian national Costumes and spoke Albanien what the dictionary clearly prove, like all new history books.--178.197.225.244 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Who gives a shit about his ethnic identity. Please stop. People like Botsaris did not want to identify as Albanians, just like the rest of the Souliotes and Arvanites. They made thier choice. No need to rant about garbage like that. Devote your time to something better. Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Please show us what term they used back then to refer to what today you call "Albanians", if you can answer truthfully you will find out the ethnicity he self identified as! Also the term Greek back then used to have a similar meaning to Christian not to ethnic Hellen ;) Aleks1912 (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

JoeTBA On the one hand I can sympathize with your viewpoint to a degree -- yes, whether dead people personally identified as X or Y is not verifiable, and yes, how you feel does not determine what you are. Sure Botsaris/Bocari/whatever had Albanian descent, he and other Souliotes also fought alongside Greek-speaking Greeks for what became Greece, he's not around to be interviewed, one can legitimately call him either/both Greek or/and Albanian and not be totally wrong. But while it's fine to talk about Napoleon's Corsican/Italian heritage (we do), the same does not apply in Balkan topics. It's a slippery slope from "Markos Botsaris" to the resumption of fights over whether Skanderbeg should be renamed to Ivan/Ioannis/Cthulhu Kastriotic/Kastriotis/2020, plus other similar disputes (Dushan, Ataturk, Obilic, literally anyone from N-Macedonia 1800-1945, how could I forget Tesla, etc).

I'd recommend you move on to content creation (with reliable sources of course) on something that interests you, it'll be much more pleasant. --Calthinus (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you are trying to make a point on an irrelevant topic, have you found any letter where Castriotis signs as anything other than Ioannes or Jiovanni? Thanks for the answers. Oh, I almost forgot the point: Souliotes declared they are Greeks in the official documents regarded as the first Greek Constitution, 1/1/1822. Greek text available in wikisource. Here is a translation of the first lines:

" In the Name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity. The Greek Nation, under the horrible ottoman rule, unable to carry the heaviest ... yoke ...". Co-signed by the Souli representatives Fotos Bomporis and Zois Panou (Ζώης Πάνου) [1]. Have a nice day.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• The man identified himself as a Greek. What seems to be the problem here? Make it clear, please. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  HE WAS GREEK GeorgiaApollonia (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The dictionary again.

It seems that somebody doesn't like this part, or, why is it deleted?

The Greek–Albanian dictionary

The original manuscript of the dictionary is at the National Library in Paris (Supplément Grec 251). Botsaris titled his dictionary “Lexicon of the simple Romaic and Arbanitic language” (Λεξικόν της Ρωμαϊκοις και Αρβανητηκής Απλής (sic)). The Greek terms are in columns on the left of the pages, not in alphabetical order, and the Albanian words on the right, written in Greek letters. Apart from single words, the dictionary includes complexes of words or short phrases. The Greek entries are in total 1701 and the Albanian 1494.

On the first page there is a hand-written notice by Pouqueville: “Ce lexique est écrit de la main de Marc Botzari à Corfou 1809 devant moi.” This manuscript, which includes also a kind of Greek–Albanian self-teaching method with dialogues written by Ioannes Vilaras and a French-Albanian glossary by Pouqueville, was donated by the latter to the Library in 1819. The dictionary was dictated to the young M. Botsaris by his father Kitsos (1754–1813), his uncle Notis (1759–1841) and his father-in-law Christakis Kalogerou from Preveza. Titos Yochalas, a Greek historian who studied and edited the manuscript, noticing that some Greek words are translated into Albanian in more than one way, believes that M. Botsaris was writing the Greek words and the elders were translating into Albanian. As many of the entries seem unlikely to be useful either for the Suliots or the Albanians of that time and circumstances, Yochalas believes that the dictionary was composed after Pouqueville's initiative, possibly as a source for a future French-Albanian dictionary. He also observes that the Albanian phrases are syntaxed as if were Greek, concluding that either the mother tongue of the authors was the Greek or the Greek language had a very strong influence on the Albanian, if the latter was possibly spoken in Souli (Yochalas, p. 53). The Albanian idiom of the dictionary belongs to the Tosk dialect of south Albanian and retains many archaic elements, found also in the dialect spoken by the Greco-Albanian communities of South Italy and Sicily. In the Albanian entries there are many loans from Greek (approx. 510), as well as from Turkish (approx. 190) and Italian (21). Yochalas Titos (editor, 1980) The Greek-Albanian Dictionary of Markos Botsaris. Academy of Greece, Athens 1980 (in Greek), Γιοχάλας Π. Τίτος, Το ελληνο-αλβανικόν λεξικόν του Μάρκου Μπότσαρη (φιλολογική έκδοσις εκ του αυτογράφου), Ακαδημία Αθηνών, 1980.]

Reverted changes

@Deji Olajide1999: What I am "trying to do" is rewrite a poorly worded sentence. You also reverted my edit on Drachma because you didn't bother to check the changes made properly. No quote exists for the ridiculous claim that the Balkans had no ethnic groups in 1809, and even if it did it would be the opinion of a single author. Djks1 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

No you aren't doing (only) that. You are removing sourced content along with "re-wording" sentences + you added Botsaris' Albanian name in the lead without consensus. Nevertheless, I will proceed to add the quote right now. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do you quote rewording haha. Yes I did reword it as it comes across as quite biased. I indeed was adding his name in Albanian (ie what his family would've called him, it's his language after all). Anyway, thanks for adding the quote, I still say such a statement should not be included as it makes a highly contentious claim that ethnicites did not exist in 1809. Regardless, I understand that this article along with other articles regarding Souliotes & Arvantines are Greek playspaces, nothing must go against the deluded narrative, so I won't bother you further, good day. Djks1 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Souliots

@Khirurg: The article on Souliotes literally describes them as Albanian by origin - Souliot is not an ethnicity, it is a regional identity of a peoples who spoke Albanian and were Albanian by blood due to their origins. The literal article which you refer to describes them as Albanian, there is nothing wrong with keeping that consistency here. I will post this on the TP's of Kitzos Tzavelas and Markos Botsaris where you have reverted me because I do not want to engage in an edit war, and you will explain exactly why this article cannot say the Souliots are Albanian by origin. I do not think placing the ethnicity of the Souliots is necessary in the lede because of obvious reasons, especially on characters such as Marko and Kitsos, but having it in the article is not harmful.

Your argument for inclusion boils down to "why not", which is not a reason to include something. The onus is on you to show why the addition is necessary. So far, I am not convinced why this is necessary. "Albanian Souliotes" is not poor form because it is largely redundant. Where there non-Albanian Souliotes? No, so then it's basically repetition. For example, for someone who is Sarakatsani, we just say "he is a Sarakatsani", not "he is a Greek Sarakatsani", because it's well known that Sarakatsani are of Greek origin, so "Greek Sarakatsani" is redundant. Also, many readers might associate them with the Albanian state, which they had no association with. In fact, after independence, they were associated with the Greek state, and even held high offices. The question of their origin is complicated, and is not as simple as you present it. Thus it is appropriate to be discussed at Souliotes, and not in the articles of individual commanders. Khirurg (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

For those who are not familiar with the topic, they will have no idea on what exactly the Souliots are (as I'm sure there are many who have not heard of the unique community before) - a short descriptor, such as "Botsaris was born into one of the leading clans of the Souliotes, an Orthodox Albanian community in Greece, in the region of Souli, Epirus." or "Botsaris was born into one of the leading clans of the Souliotes, an Eastern Orthodox community of Albanian origin, in the region of Souli, Epirus." would suffice enough to provide a basic understanding of what the Souliots were. You can add "who now identify as Greeks" or something like that, but there is nothing wrong with a short descriptor. "Albanian Souliots" alone is indeed rather questionable. Botushali (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Souliotes were also classified as Greeks in Ottoman society as their article describes, so I wonder why this information should be hidden here while on the other hand their Albanian side should be emphasized in all related articles. That's the definition of POV.Alexikoua (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Because they are 'Albanian' by origin, and for the last two centuries or so 'Greek' by self-noted identity. They are described as "Greek" by Ottomans for religious reasons, which I am sure you know. Like I said, feel free to add "who have assimilated into a Greek identity" etc., but the point of them being Albanians by origin still stands and is still relevant in actually defining the community. That way, their assimilated Greek identity and their Albanian roots can both be emphasised evenly, because that's what they are - point is, a short descriptor on the population would improve the article. Botushali (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

They are described as "Greek" by Ottomans for religious reasons?, no they were described as Greeks because of multiple social reasons, even Ali Pasha's secretary described them as "Greeks fighting the Albanians". You need to become familiarized with wp:NPOV.Alexikoua (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• This discussion is irrelevant for this article. You should go to Talk:Souliotes and discuss the best way to describe that subject. This article should adhere to WP:reliable sources. If relevant sources describe the subject as Greek, then we should do the same. We should not perform WP:synthesis of sources to make a conclusion which is not found in the sources. @Botushali: You should adhere to WP:BRD which is the standard of behavior in Wikipedia. When your edit is reverted, you should engage in discussion with the other editor, not revert them. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Lede

I am going to leave this here prior to making my edit because I highly doubt it will be without contention. Calling Boçari a Greek is misleading, and those who want to keep it there are insisting that being a Greek is more of an idea than an ethnic reality. Marko was a Souliote, which means that ethnically, he was of Albanian origin. I am tempted to add "of Albanian origin" too but it's all one step at a time, and the first thing that needs to be done is have "Greek" removed from the lede because that is not what he is. After the whole debacle at the Souliotes article, this is a necessary and warranting change - the lede there states "The Souliotes were an Orthodox Christian Albanian tribal community in the area of Souli in Epirus from the 16th century to the beginning of the 19th century, who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation.", and since Marko was a Souliote, his lede should follow along these lines. Botushali (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, ethnicity doesn't go in the lede per WP:MOSETHNICITY because it is not directly related to the subject's notability. Botsaris (what is "Bocari"?) is notable for many things, but his ethnicity, whether Greek or Albanian is not one of them. However national affiliation does go into the lede, and Botsaris fought on the Greek side and that should be mentioned. It's very easy to find sources for this. There is literally a world of sources describing Botsaris as a "Greek captain" or something similar - because he fought on the Greek side. I can live with removal of link to the Greeks article, but if "Albanian origin" is added it will be swiftly removed per WP:MOSETHNICITY. The ethnic origin of the Souliotes is discussed at Souliotes, and this article is not the place to get into that, especially the lede. Khirurg (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m happy with the new change - by the way, Boçari is his last name, Botsaris is the “Grekofied” version, but that doesn’t matter. End of the day, he simply cannot have “Greek” in the lede because he just wasn’t Greek. Botushali (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Grekofied"? Seriously? "Botsaris" is how he is referred to by all the sources, and that's how it is. If you disagree, you can always file a move request. Btw he was a Greek General [2], and that will be added Khirurg (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "Grekofied", Albanians do not traditionally have "os" on their last names. And yes, most sources used Botsaris, hence why the article is titled "Botsaris". No idea what you are complaining about this time. Being a general of Western Greece is fine, but calling him a "Greek" general is misleading. Anyways, it is sorted now. Botushali (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

A 'general of the Greek army' is a 'Greek army general', that's the correct way to describe the subject here per wp:MOS.Alexikoua (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Also describing him first as a chieftain and then as a general is clearly in violation of wp:MOSINTRO: commanding generals are primarily known as such and this should be stated at the very beginning. It would be ridiculous to believe that he is primarily known as a chieftain before the revolution.Alexikoua (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The order in which his most important contributions is not so concerning - what does matter is that he was not a Greek, and to call him such is misleading. Call him a Hellenic Army general, or something along those lines, but Greek is misleading. Botushali (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly what makes most notable a military figure such as him as that he became a commanding general. If he sometime previously was a chieftain that's obviously less notable.Alexikoua (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think "Greek army general of Souliote origin" would be an acceptable compromise, without the link to Greeks. The Hellenic Army was founded in 1828, so "Hellenic Army" won't work here, and "army" and "general" should therefore not be capitalized. Khirurg (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

See for example David Petraeus, his origin stays in the relevant section. I believe "Greek army general and Souliote captain" (or captain of the Souliotes) describes him fine.Alexikoua (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The sources are clear that he was not Greek, despite fighting in the Greek War of Independence. Please read the talk page of the Souliotes article, where his family history features prominently. Please do not dispute well-established knowledge. The lead can state that he was a Souliote chieftain and hero of the war for Greece. Ethnicity can be further discussed below. Çerçok (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

See the lead for King Otto: [3]. If you want to include "general of the Greek army" that is OK. Çerçok (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The sources are clear he was a Greek army general and this is the most important fact that makes him notable. This is quite typical for military figures as I've clearly explained. On the other hand origins have their part in the relevant section. Read the Souliotes talkpage? Souliotes is not an article about a military figure (a Greek army general), it appears you are confused.Alexikoua (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

No, he was a prominent chieftain coming form a prominent family even before the revolution. You cannot force untrue statements into articles. If you want to include "general of the Greek army" that is OK. Çerçok (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yet again POV & OR: At least 90% of the related bibliography refers to him as being part of the Greek army (in works of art his pre-Greek army era depictions are zero). Also 'Greek Army general' means 'general of the Greek army'. Mazower also presents him as a "Greek leader".Alexikoua (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Describing him as a Greek is misleading, he was born before the period in which Greece was formed and was not an ethnic Greek. I would also prefer "General of the Greek Army". Botushali (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

"part of the Greek army" and "general of the Greek army" are fine too. Çerçok (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

"Also 'Greek Army general' means 'general of the Greek army'"

If the meaning is the same then you should accept the wording we proposed. Çerçok (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

He was at the Greek side, was a commanding general, you should accept the wording that he was a Greek army general.Alexikoua (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

"He was at the Greek" side doesn't in any way imply that he was Greek. Your wording is not neutral. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

(unindent) Regarding the name, a search on Google Scholar for the Albanian variant returns 13 hits [4] for English language sources between 2000 and 2022. When the results are inspected closer, one of the hits is actually Albanian language [5] (only the abstract is in English), one is Italian one is German [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fbaf/124d45800209d3e74899c132029c52252b20.pdf, and one is some kind of wiki [6]. So the grand total of English language publications between 2000 and 2022 that just mention "Marko Bocari" is...9. In other words, totally undue for the lede. Khirurg (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be really nice if you could stop edit-warring and using brute force to remove reliable sources like you are again doing. Markos Botsaris was an ethnic Albanian and thus his native name should obviously be included in the lead like for countless other political figures. Also, his native name returns 33 hits [7] which is quite considerable and not undue at all when we now that his common name in English has 117 hits [8]. I would recommend to you look for actual arguments before reverting again. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

As part of your learning process on how to conduct a proper Google search, you should restrict results to English language sources, since this is the English wikipedia. In this case, even with your parameters, we only get 16 results, several of which are non-English but are included because the abstract is in English. So, still less than 10 results, so forget it. Khirurg (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

16 English results are significant in comparison to the only 91 results for Markos Botsaris. Çerçok (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

16 English result are virtually "zero" based on the huge bibliography on the subject (only 91 works? please get serious): ngram is quite clear: [[9]]. No wonder an Albanian translation in English bibliography is useless for the reader.Alexikoua (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It is very easy to find English RS using Marko Bocari, including [10][11][12]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, how many English RS use "Μάρκος Μπότσαρης"? Why did not you remove that as well for the same rationale? Anyways, it is a waste of time discussing that since the name are where they belong to be. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The Greek transliteration is widely used as the most accepted name form [[13]] 200+, contrary to Marko Bocari ...4 [[14]]Alexikoua (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi: Even the one out of those three "examples" you used use the Botzaris form [[15]] (the other two are 1950s books). Definitely not a strong argument for inclusion. Alexikoua (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Again with the same issues? Alex, there is literal RS from relatively recent times that say his native name was Marko Boçari and that this is how his community referred to him, and it is not even taken from Albanian authors so you cannot claim bias there. We have been over this already, there is no need to circle back to it now. Additionally, there are no policies which indicate that ‘Marko Boçari’ should not be present in the info box. Botushali (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmmm, who are the "several" RS [[16]]? Googlescholar returns 3 to 4 hits. I suggest you get serious. His native language wasn't written in modern Albanian, but in Greek letters. Ahistorical connections should be removed per wp:POV & OR, that's the policy here. If you want to add names that have been used by the person in question begin with Stylianos Mavromatis: [[17]] Alexikoua (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You should stay on topic and discuss other figures at the relevant TP (which you already have, unsuccessfully). In the words of Schuberth (2021):

Doch bis dahin dominierte das albanische Element, und ihre Führer horchten eher auf die Namen Marko Boçari und Kiço Xhavella als auf Markos Botsaris und Kitsos Tzavelas, obwohl sie durchaus Griechisch sprachen.

This is the source I’m referring to. This is also the source I used to add this info on the article. You keep coming back to the same topics over and over again, please stop poking the horse carcass. Botushali (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

As @Alexikoua said, however, at that time there wasn't a standardised verion of the Albanian script. His signature was literally in greek letters, as Μάρκο Μπότσαρη(ς) (Marko Mpotsari(s)), not Marko Boçari. The native name (the Albanian version), but in greek letters. That's what editors mean when they say the modern Albanian script is ahistorical. There is not question about the fact that he spoke Albanian. Piccco (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There are not two versions (one "Albanian" and one "Greek") of his native name. His native name is what you call the "Albanian version", since his mother tongue was Albanian. The infobox guideline does not say that the native name should be in this or that script. Reliable sources mentioning his native name use the Latin script, not the Greek one. However, if you want you can add "Marko Boçari" in Greek script next to "Marko Boçari" in Latin script (though the point of it is questionable). His signature is not his native name. They are two different things. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok I maybe wasn't very clear. When I said "Albanian version" basically I meant "Albanian sounding version", aka the name without the final 's' (which is characteristic of the greek version of his name). His signature seems to reflect the Albanian-sounding name (Μάρκο, without final 's'), but its written with greek letters. That's what I questioned. Is there actually proof that he used the latin script for Albanian, and specifically the modern Albanian spelling? His Graeco-Albanian lexicon, for example, was written with greek letters. Piccco (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• He didn't just speak Albanian. He was an ethnic Albanian who spoke Albanian as a native speaker and wrote a dictionary about Albanian. There is no policy which prohibits the use of the name in Albanian.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me correct you he wrote a Greek-Albanian dictionary script while his local idiom was heavily influenceδ by Greek and the only national movement he participated was the Greek one (being a commanding general of the revolutionary army). As in the case of Ottoman personalities the Ottoman script is preferred instead of the modern Turkish script (same with ancient and medieval Greek that Albanian editors struggling to replace in Greek toponyms). Albanian shouldn't be an exception. And yes there is a policy against OR and POV: don't use ahistorical name forms. This is a rule for all languages.Alexikoua (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I gave you a source above, take it up with the authors. You are not a respected academic, therefore your own opinion does not dictate what occurs on the article. RS bibliography, however, does. Botushali (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

He was an ethnic Albanian and there precisely is the problem. While he did have Albanian ancestry, he certainly did not conceive of himself as an "ethnic Albanian". The Souliotes identified as simply "Souliotes", not "ethnic Albanians". And judging by his actions, he wanted to be Greek, i.e. Greek by choice. Khirurg (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which document that they identified as Albanians - including a claim by the grandfather of Marko who called him commissioner of the Albanians. And we know that the participation of the Souliotes in the 1821-1830 events was a mercenary affair. I don't think that the Tzavellas clan burnt down the Greek-speaking area of Agrafa because of some national desire. They were just paid to plunder them. They would have done the same to any Albanian-speaking area if someone hired them IMO. The point is that there can't be any discussion about nationhood in an era when nationhood didn't exist and ethnicity was just one of many identities people carried. When I assert that he was an ethnic Albanian, I refer to one in many identities. The name is added based on the fact that he spoke Albanian as a native speaker and even wrote in Albanian and this is not related to a discussion about which script is historically correct because no script is correct--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The post 1960s wp:RS provide zero results about this so-called native name. The only modern work presented by Ktrimi as using Bocari in fact uses "Botzaris" [[18]]. Botsaris was a general of the revolutionary army, signed his name always in Greek (as shown in infobox) and wrote exclusively Greek in all official papers. He was among the main representatives of the Greek national movement (indeed an Albanian nation feeling was non-existent on him).Alexikoua (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

So are we just going to ignore the quote from Schuberth (2021)? Again:

Doch bis dahin dominierte das albanische Element, und ihre Führer horchten eher auf die Namen Marko Boçari und Kiço Xhavella als auf Markos Botsaris und Kitsos Tzavelas, obwohl sie durchaus Griechisch sprachen.

Regardless of the opinions of involved editors, RS bibliography states that they were known as Marko Boçari and Kiço Xhavella in their community. That's their native name. Botushali (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

(obviously you didn't activate the English language filter but that's ok, German scholarship also uses the prodeminant Botsaris form by 30v1). Even if we agree that its a native name that's not excuse to make it a common name (provided the ahistorical context by using anachornistic scripts), that's why there is a 'native name' field in infobox. Khirurg provided solid evidence about that.Alexikoua (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not about numbers, it's about RS bibliography clearly stating that this is his native name. There is no policy that discusses numbers being a qualification for info box inclusion. It would be best if you could actually use policies to support it's removal. Botushali (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You name it: apart from arguing for the native name there is no reason to for you to edit war for the common name. Nevertheless, for a weird reason it seems the native name addition wasn't enough for you [[19]]. I consider you want the native name addition.Alexikoua (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You’re the one who wants to remove, so the onus is on you to present a policy that supports its removal. Stop beating the dead horse. Botushali (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm you are the one the wants to add (that's an addition, don't pretent this to be a stable version). So you need to explain why this is a common name per wp:BRD. No wonder bibliography doesn't prefer this ahistorical name form and you still don't care to provide a decent argument.Alexikoua (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have given sources above that 'Marko Boçari' is indeed Marko's name in his community, but you're still beating the dead horse... Botushali (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If I remember correctly there seemed to be forming some type of consensus in Talk:Notis Botsaris that the Albanian name would be mentioned in the body (early life section -as it already is) and in the "native name" section of the infobox, instead of the top of the infobox. Piccco (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn’t the article about Notis. What is agreed on that TP does not necessarily mean that this article will also conform to said agreements. Botushali (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The same standard should apply to all the articles about Souliotes, at least those born before 1821. Khirurg (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of 'Botsaraioi'

The clan of the subject was written as Botsaraioi (and Μποτσαραίοι ιin the native script) in both primary and secondary sources. Objections for that?Alexikoua (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be taken into consideration that "Botsaraioi" was not the name by which the clan was most often called at the time. I quote from Ψιμούλη, Βάσω (2010). Βασίλης Παναγιωτόπουλος} (ed.). Μάρκος Μπότσαρης. Ιστορική Βιβλιοθήκη - Οι Ιδρυτές της Νεότερης Ελλάδας. Athens: Τα Νέα. p. 11.: "Ο Μάρκος Μπότσαρης ήταν μέλος της σουλιώτικης φάρας, γνωστής, έως το τέλος ακόμη της Επανάστασης, με το όνομα Μποτσαράτες." (English translation: "Markos Botsaris was a member of the Souliotic fara that was known even until the end of the [Greek] Revolution by the name Botsarates".) The same author lists the fara as "Μποτσαράτες (και: Μποτζαράτες, Μποζιαραίοι)" in the index of her monograph on Souli, p. 554, while using variants of the clan's name throughout the book. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Boçarët/Boçaret with an ‘es’ added on the end. The clan’s name, being an Albanian speaking group with an Albanian origin, was Boçari. “Boçaret” is how you would refer to the clan members as a group in plural form, it’s a grammar convention of the Albanian language, not the actual name. Botushali (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Ashmedai based on literary evidence (ignore the rest as never been part of contemporary literature).Alexikoua (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

[[user:Nishjan]Nishjan]], could you please cite the full quote from the Albanian translation of Psimouli's book that you refer to? I thank you in advance, as that would be of great help in locating the passage in the original form of the book in Greek.

user:Botushali, I thought that "refer[ring] to the clan members as a group in plural form" is the clan's "actual name", as it conforms with Psimouli's statement and frequent practice and with Perraivos's list of the names of the Souliot clans. I also thought that Botsarates/Botzarates derives from the suffix -at, as happens in the case of Lazarat, Bularat, Filiates and so on. Could you please refer to a secondary source verifying your view on the clan's "actual name"? Thanks, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

According to Albanian grammar, the members of Marko's fara are referred to as Boçarajt. Boçari is used as a surname. The other forms are all hellenized variants adding the endings -s or -oi. As for the Boçari clan name, which today is also used in English secondary reliable sources, it is documented in latin script in contemporary primary sources as well, one example is this [20] dating back to 1822. – Βατο (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Βατο, thank you for your response. The name of Botsaris himself in Albanian seems to be stated unambiguously in a number of reliable secondary sources (though there are other forms to be found -- I see Yannis Kotsonis including the variants Bozzari and Botzari, but not Boçari) and Maleschreiber was IMHO not in the wrong in adding it in the first sentence of the article's introduction, as I regrettably forgot to do. No such unanimity seems to exist with regards to his fara's name. With my admittedly very limited knowledge of Albanian, I thought that the Albanian version of the fara's name would be Botsarat. Botushali, surely more of a connoisseur of the language than myself, stated it was Boçaret. You added the form "Boçarajt" to the article along with the form "Boçari". For the first version, you referred the article's readers with the same edit to a book entitled "Arvanitët dhe shqiptarët në luftën çlirimtare të popullit grek" by Dhimiter Grillo. Could you please explain what is the statement included in the book, along with its accompanying textual evidence and the book's reliability? You write "Indiana University" as its publisher. Would that be Indiana University Press? I searched for the book on Google books and I found the same title published in 1985 from 8 Nëntori Publishing House and stating: "Original from:the University of Wisconsin - Madison" (which I assume refers to the digitized item's location). Is this a different book? Thank you in advance. You also referred to the Albanian translation of Psimouli's book, for which I would like to ask you for the full quote as I did earlier, responding to Nishjan. Thanks once more. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ashmedai 119:@Βατο:@Nishjan: I think that a problem with modern sources is the way their authors unintentionally utilize variants of names which are closer to standard varieties and they have limited knowledge of name formation in specific dialects. This is such a case. Ashmedai is correct that Botsarates is the "original" variant which appeared in Greek and Botsaraioi is most definitely a later, literary, derivation. Botsarates derives either from "Boçarat" which refers to the territorial cluster where the clan lived or - in my opinion - more likely from the phrase "dera e Boçarate" (house of Boçari). In Albanian, the correct plural form is neither Boçarajt, nor Boçarët. These are perfectly acceptable variants for other dialects, but not for Cham Albanian which forms most plural forms in -enj/enjtë. Avec 425 familles et 20 lignées : les Boçarenj , les Zervenj , les Dangëllinj , les Ducenj , les , Seanj , les Kallrenj , les Nikanj , les Zerbanj , les Karabinejt , les Velianj , les Thanasenj , les Kaskarenj , les Torenj--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

References

@Ashmedai, I copied the citation's wikitext of Grillo's book from other articles. You are right in asking the proper citation, the book is this one: [21], published by Toena in 2003. I accessed it through Google snippet view. The author uses the plural form for the members of the fara: Boçarajt, the quotes are, p. 84: "Pushtetin në bashkësi e kishte në dorë këshilli i Sulit që përbëhej nga të 47 krerët e farefiseve më të dëgjuara të vendit. Të tilla farefise ishin: Xhavellajt , Boçarajt , Dhrakajt , Dangëllinjtë , Beqajt , Nikajt , Pantazinjtë , Fotomarrajt , Shehajt , Bushbejtë , Kaskarejtë , Karamanët , Zarbajt , Velajt , Tutajt , Matajt , Shetajt , etj ." translation: The power in the community was in the hands of the council of Suli, which consisted of the 47 heads of the most renowned clans of the country. Such clans were: Xhavellajt , Boçarajt , Dhrakajt , Dangëllinjtë , Beqajt , Nikajt , Pantazinjtë , Fotomarrajt , Shehajt , Bushbejtë , Kaskarejtë , Karamanët , Zarbajt , Velajt , Tutajt , Matajt , Shetajt , etc.; p. 165: "Ata u larguan në ujdhesat e Jonit e që këtej u shpërndanë në grupe nëpër Greqi , me udhëheqës Boçarajt ( shumica ) , Xhavellajt , Makrinjtë , Fotomarrën , Kuconikën , Bejkon e të tjerë." translation: They left towards the Ionian valleys and from here they were dispersed in groups throughout Greece, led by the Boçarajt (the majority), Xhavellajt , Makrinjtë , Fotomarrën , Kuconikën , Bejkon and others. I don't know whether it is also found in the Cham Albanian dialect, perhaps Maleschreiber, who seems to be more informed about that, is right. Nevertheless, the form Boçarajt is the most used in Albanian academic sources referring to this Souliot fara. For instance, Boçarajt is used for the entry of this fara in the Fjalor enciklopedik shqiptar (Albanian Ecyclopaedic Dictionary) of 1985 and 2008. As for the quote provided by Maleschreiber from Ulqini (Ethnographie Albanaise 15), he also refers to the clan with the form Boçaraj, p. 211: "Le lignage était présidé par l'ancien , dont la fonction d'après certains exemple , devrait être héréditaire dans une famille déterminée , comme on voit pour certaines générations dans la maison des Boçaraj et des Xhavallaj." translation: The lineage was presided over by the elder, whose function, according to certain examples, should be hereditary in a specific family, as we see for certain generations in the house of Boçaraj and Xhavallaj. – Βατο (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Is that an argument to remove the Greek name of the clan? Off course not.Alexikoua (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

For the nth time, refrain from edit-warring and behave yourself. There is no reason to keep his name in the Greek alphabet in the infobox when his native name isn't even mentioned in it. Nishjan (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

There isn't any WP rule saying that we can vote to violate the basic rules of historiography. So, inviting the usual group to support each-other is non-productive, and so is claims for "consensus". The name of the person and the family appears in greek, english and other languages in early 19th century. If Albanians and others transliterated it in their languages, is fine, but it has to come second, third and so on. (Unproven) claims of "Albanian" origin are irrelevant here, unless you find the name in Albanian before was written in Greek.--Skylax30 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The first book in Lithuanian was published in 1547. This doesn't stop us from using Lithuanian spellings for relevant figures. I'm not sure what you mean with the term "unproven".--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I thank Maleschreiber and Βατο for their replies to my last comment. In my message I had asked, inter alia, for the reliability of Dhimiter Grillo's book, which is used as a source for the Albanian version of name of the fara of the Bozzaris as "Boçarajt", to be explained. In response, Βατο wrote that he "copied the citation's wikitext of Grillo's book from other articles". I do not think that the fact that the book has recently been used in other articles of this encyclopedia gives sufficient reason to consider it a reliable source of information when it comes how to state in Albanian the collective name of the fara of the Botzaris. I also note that Ulqini, that both Maleschreiber and Βατο referred to in their messages, provides three different ways to refer to the clan in Albanian, as "Boçarenj" (in p. 210, n. 46, cited by Maleschreiber), as "Boçaraj" (in p. 211, cited by Βατο) but also using the singular form "Boçari" (in p. 210, n. 49, "selon les données que nous a envoyées le camarade Fatos Mero Rrapas".), none of which is identical with the form used by Grillo. I also note (1) that, while the published of Grillo's book had been falsely stated to be the Indiana University, the original 1985 version of the book was the official publishing house of the Albanian ruling party, (2) that the "Boçarajt" does not seem to be accompanied by any sort of justification, i.e. it is arbitrary, and (3) that there seems to be little if any indication of the author enjoying a scholarly reputable status that would allow this encyclopedia's editors to treat him as a trusted authority in this or similar matters. Given that there does not seem to be a scholarly consensus on the Albanian collective name of the fara, I would suggest to remove both references to Grillo's unreliable book and his arbitrary rendering, which, per Maleschreiber, belongs to a group of "authors [who] unintentionally utilize variants of names which are closer to standard varieties and they have limited knowledge of name formation in specific dialects". I think that it would be advisable to only state in Albanian the singular name "Boçari", which is found in a number of non-Albanian sources. It should also be clearly stated that the form "Botsarates" is a Greek form of the fara's name while other versions of the name (Greek and Albanian) that are later and/or do not have secure scholarly grounding should not be included in the sentence. If agreed upon, this would mean that the relevant sentence would be written as such: "[Markos] was born into the most powerful Souliot fara, the Botsaris clan (Albanian: fara Boçari, Greek: γένος Μπότσαρη)", which up until the end of the Greek Revolution was known in Greek as "Botsarates" (Greek: Μποτσαράτες)." In order for the article's reader not to form an erroneous idea about the language(s) used by the Souliots another sentence could be included that describes the linguistic status of the Souliots at the time (=late eighteenty century), as per the first sentence of Souliots#Language, e.g. "The Souliots were Albanian-speakers by origin, who during the eighteenty century learnt to also use Greek via communication with their mostly Greek-speaking surroundings. (reference to: Ψιμούλη 2006, p. 214)".

I don't understand why Markos's name in its modern Albanian form and in Greek should be written in the field "name" of the infobox and not just in the field "native name" and why the Albanian rendering should be removed from the article's first introduction. Ashmedai 119 (talk)07:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

In case some of us did not realize they are doing original research, let me explain: Some (but not all) authors claim that the origin of Souliotes was South Albania, and therefore they were speaking Tosk Albanian some time in the past. This is only an assumption, as an albanian text written by Souliotes has never been found, nobody claimed that had discussed with them in Albanian, and their names have never been written in Albanian script before late 19th century. So, some users are trying here to create an unattested form of albanian name, even before that language had a standard alphabet. If any author did this kind of research, let it be in the article as "an assumed spelling of the name in 16th century" for example. For the sake of encyclopedic knowledge, I just remind the "Botsari(s)" comes from "botsa", which comes from the italian boccia [22]. Botsa (greek ΜΠΟΤΣΑ) is widely used in Greek and the Balkans meaning a kind of vessel for water, wine etc. Who said that the name is "Albanian", and why should be in modern Alb. script? In that view, should we include the italian real origin?

The other point is that we are in the enlish WP, and thus english form of the names have priority. In this case, the english name is attested in early 19th century (newspapers 1821, Leake) and then repeated by many in italian, french etc. Of course it is a transliteration from Greek, as the greek form is attested before 1821. Probably photos of some Bots(i)aris or Botsias signature of late 18th c. can be found in Psimouli's book (I will check that).--Skylax30 (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Describing the Souliots's Albanian origins as "only an assumption" is not qualitately very different from holding that evolution is "only a theory". And the course of thought regarding the Souliots has actually been the opposite of the one Skylax30 presents: it is because the Souliots have been attested to speak Albanian (by Greeks and foreigners alike) and were considered Al/rvanites during the late 18th/early 19th century, positions on their Albanian origins have been formulated. The interpretation of the name Botsaris as coming from Italian is put forward by Skylax30 without any reference to scholarly sources -- otoh, the Albanian roots of the name "Botzaris" are already mentioned in the article with a reference to a scholarly source (Ψιμούλη), who in turn cites Constantine Sathas. Markos naturally signed as "μάρκο μπότζαρις", as he only wrote in Greek, as happenned with other Albanian-speakers of the region -- BTW a photographic reproduction of his signature is also already to be found in this article (in its infobox). I see, however, the point that Skylax30 makes about using the modern Albanian script to write down an Albanian version of Marko's name as being in a sense problematic, yet this is what contemporary scholarly sources adopt. I think though that a (foot)note similar to the one Skylax30 is proposing (e.g. one stating that the Souliots only wrote in Greek at the time) wouldn't cause any (encyclopedic) harm, on the contrary it would add value to the article by providing its readers with a more exact understanding of the matter. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I got news for you: Markos Botsaris' son Dimitrios, 12yo in Corfu (1826), is happy to announce to his mother (in perfect Greek) that in Corfu he has a teacher and is perfecting his knowledge of "the dialect of our ancestors" (3rd and 4th line). He doesn't specify the "dialect", so you can let your imagination free. (can someone downsize the picture, please).

@Ashmedai 119: I think that Grillo is RS and I've used the same source in several cases, but reliable sources may not be entirely accurate for minor details. I think that Ulqini (1985) reflects the correct pronunciation. In Albanian, there is a singular and plural way to refer to names. Boçari is undisputed in all sources for the singular form. In fact, there are several Muslim Boçari - as there are Muslim Xhavella - from the same families in Albania. The plural form in Cham is Boçarenj/Boçarenjtë (definite) and Boçaraj is a more "literary" form. In Albanian, there are two forms in the same way that two forms exist in Greek: one reflects a spelling closer to how the locals pronounced it and the other (Botsaraioi) reflects a more literary variant. I would agree to the statement "[Markos] was born into the most powerful Souliot fara, the Botsaris clan (Albanian: fara Boçari, Greek: γένος Μπότσαρη)", which up until the end of the Greek Revolution was known in Greek as "Botsarates" (Greek: Μποτσαράτες, Albanian: Boçarenjtë) I was very apprehensive about the edit-warring phase about which name should be first or second, hence for me a mention of the name in plural in Albanian is good enough as a piece which informs readers about this variant.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Skylax30, I would be grateful if you could please explain how the imaginary connection a 12-year old son of a Greek mother forms, three years after his father's death and while undergoing a process of learning the katharevousa, with his "forefathers" who employed a similar form of Greek (i.e. the ancient Greeks) is indicative of the languages spoken and the self-understanding of his dead father.

Maleschreiber, I must beg to question Dhimiter Grillo's general reliabity as a historical author. Was he an academic historian? Is his work generally discussed as such? Was he impervious to aligning his writings with the ideology of the authoritarian regime in which he was living? Until these issues have been discussed and answered, I don't think the article's readers should be referred to his work, which I've removed from the article. However, I've now added in the article the sentence about the linguistic status of the Souliots along with the sentence about the name of the Botzaris clan in the form you suggested, although I remain hesitant about the necessity or exactitude of adding the definite form "Boçarenjtë", after the transcription of the Greek variant, instead of the form "Boçarat[e]", that you had mentioned earlier and seems to correspond naturally to the clan's name as attested in Greek. I would also like to register once more my puzzlement about the purpose that is served with having Marko's name in its Greek and Albanian form twice in the infobox. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Poor boy! Having around him a mother, uncles, elders and other relatives, he couldn't wait another 200 years to learn from Psimouli and other WP "R.S." who his ancestors are and their language! Btw, for your info, M.B.'s lexicon includes many "katharevousa" words, because are not much different from the vernacular, and are easily understood even by the non-educated. Indeed, M.B. writes many words both in katharevousa and demotike, e.g. ελαία - ελιά, εωσφόρος - διάβολος etc. (Yohalas T., p. 64).--Skylax30 (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ashmedai 119: I will be replying with some delay to your comments. Dhimitër Grillo was an academic historian from Himara and the translator of many works from Greek to Albanian. There was no particular "ideological POV" during this period about Arvanites and most works produced have nothing to do with narratives which were put forward in the 1990s. It should be noted that during this period there were quite a few Arvanite cultural associations which visited Albania. There is a misconception that various fringe views which became popular in the 1990s, originated in the previous period but this is far from the truth as these narratives are sui generis products of the 1990s. I wouldn't use [dera e] Boçarat[e] because it has a different meaning in Albanian compared to English. If it was used, wouldn't the corresponding Greek phrase have to be changed as well? It is not a name per se, but the phrase "house of Boçari". Raça, Shkëlzen (2012). "Disa Aspekte Studimore Mbi Sulin Dhe Suljotët [Some research aspects regarding Souli and the Souliotes]". Studime Historike. 1 (2): 215. uses the variant Boçarenjtë. I think that the consensus ended up being that both names will be added at the head and the |native_name parameter of the infobox. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Many months after Maleschreiber's comment, I have only now come to notice that Psimouli's monograph contains evidence on the original Albanian form of the Souliot fara names. In p. 163 of the monograph's 4th ed. (Athens, 2006), the chapter on the "Type of clans - Processes of transformation of Souliotic clans" closes with a satirical quote about the fara of the Anastasates which is quoted as related in Greek writing by Yannis Vlachoyannis: "Σε φλιέν Αναστασάτ; Φλιεν μπίθ με μπίθ." The question, which I take to be transcribed in modern standard Albanian as "si flenë Anastasat?", is translated as "How do the Anastasates sleep?" and seems to me to suggest that the original fara names in the form of Albanian spoken by the Souliots were (idiosyncratically?) using the -at ending. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"native name"

This section in the info box is pure ethnic propaganda based on unreliable writers (who is that RICHARD SCHUBERT [23], who "studied cultural anthropology, philosophy, psychology and history in Vienna. [and] He wrote novels, comedies, essays, aphorisms, poetry, songs, screenplays and non-fiction." In how many years did he "study" all those subjects? Any CV or history bibliography of him? This is not a poetry project). "Native name" is not included in the standard template of info box. Can we have samples of other articles? Above all, is there anybody who actually heard M.Botsaris "answering" to a particular form of name? He signed as "Marko-Botsaris". For those who don't know greek, the omission of final "s" from the first name is not an indication of "foreign language" but a very greek phenomenon that occures when you combine two names in one. For example, Mitsotakis, from Mitsos+Takis. It couldn't be "Mitsostakis". Other example: Vardis Vardinogiannis from Vardis+Giannis (here a "no" has replaced the "s". So, you had short Greek lesson.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Souliote origin, language and communication

Thread retitled from "The Souliots were Albanian-speakers by origin, who during the eighteenth century learnt to also use Greek via communication with their mostly Greek-speaking surroundings.".

@Ashmedai 119: "The Souliots were Albanian-speaking by origin" might imply that their "ethnic" origin was not Albanian i.e. they were non-Albanians who became Albanian speakers. Yeah it might sound weird but due to complex Balkan identity issues and controversial nationalist ideas, "X-speaker" is often used to imply that X-speakers speak X language but stem from another, say Y, population. In other words, Souliotes were Albanian in origin both "ethnically" and "linguistically", not only "linguistically". The article already says that Botsaris' mother language was the Souliote dialect of Albanian and as such he was called "Marko Boçari". Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your edit's description, Ktrimi991, which I suppose is also what Nishjan had in mind when repeating in his that the sentence in question is "misleading". What Nishjan means by "UNDUE" I cannot understand: the relevant policy dictates that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Are there sources as or perhaps more reliable than Psimouli's monograph on the Souliots that paint a different image of the status of linguistic competence of the Souliots in the eighteenth century? If yes, Nishjan should refer to them and a more balanced presentation could be achieved. If not, this seems to be misapplied.

I honestly don't see how describing the Souliots as "Albanian-speakers by origin" can be (mis)read as "they were non-Albanians who became Albanian speakers". At the same time I agree with what Alexikoua stated, that including this sentence "has me[r]it per context"; it explains to the reader why Albanian and Greek are both used in the sentence immediately following in a manner that integrates Marko in his cultural and linguistic environment. I would thus be disinclined to remove the sentence in question and would like to ask you and Nishjan whether it would be possible to come up with a different way to formulate it that does not run the risk of the misinterpretation that you are anxious about. Would "The Souliots spoke Albanian originally, but during [etc]" be a satisfactory way of rewriting the sentence? If not, could you make a proposal of yours? Thanks, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, yeah, it can reworded to sth like "The Souliots spoke Albanian originally, but during [etc]". Can you do it? Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

If we are going to add information about the Souliotes in this article, it should be complete and not misleading. And yes, the actual text is misleading and the fact that you are "failing to see why" says enough about your own (intentional or not) POV. The Souliotes were ethnic Albanians and that's why they spoke Albanian originally, it should be mentioned. Furthermore, the current text tries to imply that his Greek name was his native name, this was not the case. The sources clearly say that he answered by his Albanian native name rather than the newly fabricated Greek one. Also Ashmedai, I should have told you this a lot earlier but please refrain from writing walls of text when you have little to say, it is obstructing the discussion, see WP:TEXTWALL. Nishjan (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You're removing the Greek name now? This is getting deep into WP:TEND territory. You are edit-warring against consensus, stop. Khirurg (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I dont think it should be removed from the lede, but the Greek version is not the native one. Alltan (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why one of the names should appear twice in infobox, and the other only once. Mentioning either name twice is superfluous. Both names should be mentioned once, and that's it. Khirurg (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Your argument is based on frequencies and how many times a certain name appears in the infobox. That's not a policy-based argument. Sources indicate that 'Marko Boçari' was his native name, hence it is the only one that belongs in the native name section. As such, it can also appear at the top of the infobox. Petty edit-warring over how many times someone says 'Marko Boçari' does not benefit the article in any way. Botushali (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

How can we add a transcript of the signature? It cannot be read by someone who doesn't know Greek and we are in the english WP. Thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

His native language was Albanian, in Albanian he was known as Marko Boçari, hence making it his native name. Alltan (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, here’s another source that clearly indicates what Boçari’s native name was:

Schuberth, Richard (2021). Lord Byrons letzte Fahrt Eine Geschichte des Griechischen Unabhängigkeitskrieges. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag. p. 94. ISBN 9783835345959. Doch bis dahin dominierte das albanische Element, und ihre Führer horchten eher auf die Namen Marko Boçari und Kiço Xhavella als auf Markos Botsaris und Kitsos Tzavelas, obwohl sie durchaus Griechisch sprachen. [Until then, however, the Albanian element was dominant and their leaders answered to the names Marko Boçari Kiço Xhavella rather than Markos Botsaris and Kitsos Tzavelas, although they did speak Greek. Botushali (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

He signed as Markos Botsaris in all the personal and official documents. Please avoid ridiculous claims since never could have used non existent script: Marko Boçari is an ahistorical form.Alexikoua (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what script he used to write his name for the native name section of the infobox, what matters is how his native community referred to him. As is indicated by RS sources, it is 'Marko Boçari'. That's the written version of how he was known to his community. If you have an issue with the source, take the matter to DSN. Botushali (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"Native" in what sense? Every "author" can publish pseudo-history, especially if he/she is paid well. Does any of them cite a source which proves the "native" language? On the other hand, even if the native language was Albanian, still it was not written, therefore the use of the modern Albanian (latin) script that was accepted in early 20th century, is OR. Other albanian texts of 19th c. are written in greek letters, including Botsaris' lexicon. Why not write his "native" name in Greek characters, translitterated in english, i.e. exactly the title of the article?--Skylax30 (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read the earlier TP discussions. Alltan (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you stop edit warring and read the previous discussions? Alltan (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you just apply the basic rule that every claim has to be sourced? Using other accounts for assistance shows also bad faith. The source used for the "native name" clearly gives the same name in two scripts with the same pronunciation. The one is english and the other is not and at the same time is irrelevant to the period in question.--Skylax30 (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The source gives the common name, which is Markos Botsaris, and then gives the native name, which is Marko Boçari. Really quite simple to be honest. Alltan (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The Greek version of Marko's name has been repeatedly removed from the field "Native name" of the infobox. The infobox template states that this field should state "the person's name in their own language". Botushali wrote describing and justifying one such edit of the article: "How can his native name be Greek if he is not a native Greek speaker? Illogical for this to be here." I don't think that it is entirely correct to state that Botsaris was not a native speaker of both Albanian and Greek. In p. 53 of his study of Botsaris's Greek-Albanian dictionary, Jochalas takes note of the use of Greek syntax in Albanian phrases and proposes as one of the two possible explanations for this phenomenon that "Greek was the mother tongue of Botsaris and his associates" (Greek: "μητρική γλώσσα του Μπότσαρη και των συνεργατών του ήτο η Ελληνική"). I also note that Marko had learnt Greek already before the age of 13, when he made a note about Souli (in Greek) per Psimouli's monograph on him. Even if one disagrees with Jochalas's intepretation that Marko and his family members had Greek as their mother tongue, the fact that (1) he had learnt Greek before adolescence (2) to such an extent that influenced the way he structured Albanian and (3) that continued to use it later in life seems to me sufficient to consider Greek as his "own language" and include the Greek version of his name in the "native name" field of the infobox. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ashmedai, usually you write well-informed opinion pieces, and although they can be excessively long, they bring up solid points. However, in this case, it seems that a better source can be used to resolve this debate and fix the edit warring over the infobox:

Schuberth, Richard (2021). Lord Byrons letzte Fahrt Eine Geschichte des Griechischen Unabhängigkeitskrieges. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag. p. 94. ISBN 9783835345959.

Doch bis dahin dominierte das albanische Element, und ihre Führer horchten eher auf die Namen Marko Boçari und Kiço Xhavella als auf Markos Botsaris und Kitsos Tzavelas, obwohl sie durchaus Griechisch sprachen. [Until then, however, the Albanian element was dominant and their leaders answered to the names Marko Boçari Kiço Xhavella rather than Markos Botsaris and Kitsos Tzavelas, although they did speak Greek.]

As the source stated above, Marko was known as Marko Boçari in the community that he was born and raised in, and although there was a Greek influence, his native language, as well as the native language of all Souliotes, was Albanian. That’s a well-established fact. Botushali (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't provide a valid argument for being a common name in literature and scholarship. Actually as already presented the form 'Marko Boçari' meets almost zero hits in scholarship (apart from Skendi's 1950s book which is the only one as Ktrimi presented in this tp). Unknown name forms (per googlescholar) can't be common names. Also Botsaris always wrote his name as 'Μαρκος Μποτσαρης' (see picture of his signature) he couldn't have invented future scripts as Botushali claims.Alexikoua (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of modern sources which use this variant including the 2021 publication cited by Botushali. Albanian variants of names in articles about Souliotes who lived in this era have been added per the relevant agreement about the scope of inclusion. @Ashmedai 119: I don't necessarily disagree with using the Greek variant in the native parameter as well - just in chronological order or the "native" parameter can be removed entirely and language can be mentioned above. It's a really minor thing to have a slow edit-war and dispute about. Most readers probably haven't even noticed the change from one version to the other which means that this is just a petty dispute among a few editors about who will have the final word.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to both Botushali and Maleschreiber for repsonses to my message. Generally speaking and pace Botushali, I do not think Schuberth's work is to be considered and treated as authoritative. In his review of the book, Oliver Schmitt writes of Schuberth's "nonchalante Unkenntnis der umfangreichen Forschung in griechischer Sprache" (English: "nonchalang ignorance of extensive research in the Greek language"), such as Psimouli and Jochalas -if I may note-, and in his concluding sentence characterizes it as "ein durch Fußnoten und Bibliographie als wissenschaftliches Werk camoufliertes Geschichtenbuch" (English: "a storybook camouflaged as a scientific work through footnotes and bibliography"), with even the footnote, if not mistaken, missing in this point. In order not to be misunderstood, I do not [and did not with my previous comment] mean to say that the Albanian variant should be removed from the "native name" field of the infobox; I had myself added a reference as a means of verifying its use in contemporary non-Albanian/English-speaking scholarship, a reference to a book by Schmitt nonetheless. I think that the "native name" field should include the Ablanian and the Greek name in the manner and script used to write them down nowadays (both being actually slight departures from how Botzaris signed his name, "Μάρκο Μπότζιαρις") and in the order proposed by Maleschreiber, taking into account the sequential character of Souliot bilingualism, when examined as a group, but I still can't see why, once this has been done, they should both or either of them be repeated in the field "name", where the article title would suffice. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I‘m sorry Ashmedai, but I still don’t see how a native name can be two differing forms of a name in two different languages. A native name from my understanding refers to the name you are known by within the community that you were born and raised in. I don’t see how the Greek name applies in this case; you have given evidence of Marko having some sort of knowledge in Greek literacy (and most probably spoken Greek as well) since his youth, but Albanian was still the native tongue of his community, hence why the Albanian version of the native name makes sense.

In the end, I do not think it is worth having a slow and unending edit war over, hence why I replaced the reference. I would, however, like a link to the comments made by Schmitt so I can place them in reference to what aspects of Schubert’s work he is discussing. His opinion on the book, however, should not be considered an official evaluation of Schubert’s work, although it is nonetheless something to take into account. At the end of the day, it is not only Schubert who writes about the Albanian cultural and linguistic heritage of the Souliotes, which means his statement about Albanian being more dominant in their society is corroborated by other scholarly work. Botushali (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what Ashmedai and I were talking about, Alex. We were discussing the native name, not common names. Please stay on topic when discussing certain matters as it tends to confuse the situation. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Botushali, thank you for your response. I thought I had included a link to Schmitt's review but apparently I forgot to do so. It can be read here not as an "official evaluation", but one to be taken into account in combination with other similar reviews of the book.

You write that "Albanian was still the native tongue of [Marko']s community, hence why the Albanian version of the native name makes sense". I agree that including the Albanian version of the native name in the relative field of the infobox makes sense, but it happens that at the time of Marko's birth and onwards the Souliots were not monolingual, but had already been using Greek in their communication with the neighbouring populations they had subjected to their power (I refer you to Psimouli's assessment which is the source for the first stament for the "Language" section of the article on the Souliots and remind you that per Noel Malcolm many of them had been bilingual since the early 17th century -- see his Rebels, Believers, Survivors: Studies in the History of the Albanians (Oxford: OUP, 2020), p. 99: "Historic local place-names suggest that the Souliots were originally Albanian-speaking; in this period many were probably bilingual in Albanian and Greek"). In other words, this is not the case of an individual who just happenned to learn a second language unrelated to his community, such as a contemporary Albanian or Greek student learning Enlish. Diglossia was a feature of the community of the Souliots already for some time when Botzaris lived. [NB that a state of diglossia does not mean that the two languages (in this case Albanian and Greek) were used in the same manner or were treated as equally valid choices of linguistic expression in any situation, but that there were functional differences in their use depending on the circumstances of communication.] In other words, I think that "a native name can be two differing forms of a name in two different languages" when the person in question and/or the speech community of which s/he is a member is not monolingual -- as was the case with Marko and the Souliots. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

“the Souliots were not monolingual, but had already been using Greek in their communication with the neighbouring populations they had subjected to their power is the point I am trying to make. They used Greek with their neighbours, but the community in and of itself used Albanian with each other. The Souliotes became bilingual, that is true, but only to communicate with Greek communities; in their own society, Albanian was the dominant language, hence why Albanian is described by sources as the original and native language of the community. As such, Marko, who was born and raised in this community, had Albanian as a mother tongue. This is why it doesn’t make sense to me as to how the Greek name qualifies as native - the whole point of the Souliotes speaking Greek was to communicate with surrounding populations, not to create a way of communicating amongst themselves, although the heavy assimilation of Souliote families after the Greek Independence certainly changed that. Botushali (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Botushali, while Albanian was the original language of the Souliots, I am not sure about what you mean that it was "the dominant language". In the classification schemes that I know from my very limited contact with historical sociolinguistics, it seems to me that for the Souliots Albanian was the "low" language, while Greek was awarded greater prestige and functioned as the "high" language. In any case, it is just not true that "the whole point of the Souliotes speaking Greek was to communicate with surrounding populations, not to create a way of communicating amongst themselves". This, according to Psimouli, was the cause that the use of Greek was spread among Souliots by the 18th century, but, as Psimouli also states, the Souliots used Greek in other situations. Even before becoming involved in the Greek Revolution, they only communicated *among themselves* with letters written in Greek (Skylax30 has added one such letter by Marko himself to Souliot recipients) and, again as Psimouli states, they only used Greek to write down the contracts they made. Young Marko, in particular, also used Greek for his own personal use, to write down notes of events that he would like not to be forgotten -- see the information I recently added to the article. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

A unified Albanian alphabet had not been created at this time. It is not unheard of for Albanians to write in foreign languages (Greek, Italian, Turkish etc) during this period. In fact, it was rather common. This is not evidence that Souliotes used Greek as the common language for their day-to-day activities. Aside from religious, literary or diplomatic purposes, Greek was not used in their day-to-day lives to the extent that Albanian was. If they did not use Albanian extensively, how would it even survive as late as it did?

If you are suggesting that the native tongue of the Souliotes was Greek prior to the Greek Independence, I’d suggest taking it to the Souliotes article instead and discussing such a change. It seems that the scope of this debate is starting to become bigger than just Marko Boçari’s native name. Botushali (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but I have actually never argued that the Souliots "did not use Albanian extensively" and I am not writing to advocate changes to the article on the Souliots (my references to it were to information that is already included in the article, most obviously in the "language" field of its infobox, or already discussed in the talk page), but that the field "native name" of the infobox for Marko Botzaris (which is is described as presenting "the person's name in their own language") should include his name's Greek variant alongisde its Albanian form. I hope you won't mind me suggesting in turn that, if you think that there is an Albanian-speaking individual from this period who is not a Souliot, but who was member of a community in which "many were probably bilingual" in a language other than Albanian for more than a century before this individual was born [as Noel Malcolm states for the Souliots] and which only used this other language for writing even among themselves [as Vasso Psimouli states for the Souliots], while this individual knew this other language and used it in such a way as to influence his use of Albanian so extensively that reliable sources interpret this by proposing that this other language was his mother tongue (as Titos Jochalas does for Marko and the contributors in the composition of his dictionary), perhaps this other individual should also be considered as having΄had this other language as "their own language" -- as Botzaris should. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Many scholars still characterise the Souliotes as Albanian speakers even at the onset of the Greek War of Independence. It is indeed true that they were influenced by the Greek language, but educated Souliotes writing to each other in Greek in a time where the Albanian language had no unified alphabet and was not particularly used as a literary language should come as no surprise. The idea that Boçari’s mother tongue was not Albanian is quite improbable considering the community he hailed from (in fact, many Souliotes learnt Greek extensively during their exile in Kerkyra). He was born prior to the Greek War of Independence, and as I mentioned previously, the Souliotes were still described as Albanian speakers during the war of independence.

Nobody is arguing that Marko did not use Greek from his childhood, but as you have pointed out, the native name section of the infobox is reserved for the person’s name in their native language. The Souliotes are known to have been an Albanian speaking community prior to, during and after Marko’s birth whilst using Greek for literary, religious and diplomatic purposes, and the idea that the Boçari clan (which was amongst the most powerful and influential Souliote clans) did not share the native tongue of their community is quite the extravagant claim. Botushali (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Ashmedai 119's opinion contrasts with the academic assertion by Katsikas 2021, p. 52: "Indeed, many supporters of the Greek War of Independence, including a number of major figures, such as Capt. Markos Botsaris, Capt. Kitsos Tzavelas, and the female naval commander Laskarina Bouboulina, were Arvanites whose native languages were dialects of Albanian, not Greek." – Βατο (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Βατο, you are writing that Katsikas's assertion (as you correctly characterize it taking into account that it is presented without any accompanying evidence) is contrasted with my "opinion" and in your edit's description, adding Katsikas's assertion to the article, you wrote that its goes against "ahistorical original research". The encyclopedia's policy on "original research" is designed to avoid "new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". The conclusion that Greek may have been not merely one of the two languages he considered proper to his person, but the mother tongue of Marko Bozzaris (and of the other contributors in the composition of his Greek-Albanian dictionary) is not an "opinion" of mine, but is "clearly stated" by a source that discusses the Greek-Albanian dictionary, his -please do correct me if I am wrong- only extant text in Albanian, that is by Titos Jochalas's study, as you must have seen in a previous comment in the preceding discussion. How do you propose to take this into account in shaping the article? I think that Jochalas's interpretation should be mentioned alongside Katsikas's assertion and the Greek version of the name should be included in the infobox's field designed to state Bozzaris's name in his "own language".

I also want to add that I have a difficulty finding the exact quote that Βατο added. I am checking the article's current version, clicking on the link inserted in the footnote (n. 8) and directed to another footnote (n. 7), and, when checking the book, I do not find the quote in p. 42, but another quote in p. 40 (to which n. 7 refers) stating that "A number of major figures in the 1821 Greek uprising, for example Captain Markos Botsaris, Captain Kitsos Tzavelas, and female naval commander Laskarina Bouboulina, were Arvanites whose mother tongues were dialects of Albanian, not Greek."

In reply to what Botushali wrote above, I feel the need to clarify that I do not doubt that the Souliots were "Albanian speakers even at the onset of the Greek War of Independence", or even much, much later, if i may add -- see this addition I had made to the article on the Souliots. However, I want to draw again attention to the fact that, as I have written above, "The infobox template states that this field should state "the person's name in their own language"" -- not their "mother tongue". This makes sense as there are bilingual individuals: the relative infobox in Joseph Stalin's article, e.g., does state two forms of his name in Georgian and Russian in the "native name" field of the infobox, despite the fact that, per the article, "[e]thnically Georgian, Stalin grew up speaking the Georgian language, and did not begin learning Russian until the age of eight or nine". Even if Jochalas's interpretation of Bozzaris's structuring Albanian following Greek syntax as due to Bozzaris having Greek as his mother tongue were to be entirely discarded, the situation with Bozzaris's bilingualism is such as to warrant the inclusion of the Greek version of his name in the infobox's field stating his name in his "own language". Ashmedai 119 (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

PS. I am sorry to see that the practice of introducing to the article claims that pass the bare minimum of being "sourced", i.e. attributed to a scholarly source, without any other consideration. To be specific, a claim has been inserted by Maleschreiber timing the Greek variants of the Souliots's names "when they moved south and joined the Greek ranks". The claim is produced without any evidence to support it in a book co-authored by two political scientists (not historians) and, as Maleschreiber himself surely knowns, having used Psimouli's book in the past, is belied by documents of the Souliots presented by Psimouli in her book on the Souliots (I can provide reference and quotes upon demand). What I find particularly ironic is that the authors state that Psimouli's book (whose documented evidence they contradict without providing any reason to do so) is "the best monograph to date" on the Souliots... This is added to Schuberth's quasi-scientific "story book" (per the concluding judgement of Oliver Schmitt that I referred to above), that does not seem to have been taken into account in shaping the article. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't remove this high quality new publication by Heraclides & Kromidha (2023): Greek-Albanian Entanglements since the Nineteenth Century: A History] while inserting old speculations that are rejected in current scholarship, please. In the article several recent academic publications have been added expressly stating that Marko's native name was Marko Boçari and not Markos Botsaris. – Βατο (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any "rejection" of Jochalas by anyone. Khirurg (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, Yochalas is over 40 years old, and the fact that multiple recent sources reject its conclusion make it outdated. If Psimuli says sth on his language, full quotes here could be helpful. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Jochalas' is a landmark study, and cannot simply be suppressed with something like "it's over 40 years old". Not a single source has been presented that explicitly rejects Jochalas. This was already explained to you here: age does not by itself negate a study's "usefulness" (see WP:AGE MATTERS) -- Johalas's analysis has not been proved false, it is ignored by sources that are either tangentially related to the subject at hand (Katsikas's book is on Islam & Greek nationalism, not the dictionary) or pseudo-scientific "storybooks" (as is Schuberth according to Albanologist Oliver Schmitt. I also don't see any of you objecting to using Jochalas in other articles. Khirurg (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think research has come far enough since the time of Yochalas that certain topics can be readdressed and rethought in more scientifically faithful ways. 40 years ago we had a lot of other theories and hypothesis regarding uncountable other subjects and topics. Question is, are these views still found in modern bibliography? Probably not, at least not most of them anyways. Alltan (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, Alltan. Yochalas (translated in English on a ref citation on Souliotes) says:This presence of Greek syntactic phenomena in the Albanian of the dictionary can be explained in two ways:a) The mother tongue of Botsaris and his coworkers was the Greek ...b) It is also possible that the influence of the Greek was so heavy on the Albanian possibly spoken in the area of Souli, ..." This is fringe, because Greek was certainly not the only languge spoken in Souli. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think that we need to read more and revert each other less.
  • To be specific, a claim has been by Maleschreiber timing the Greek variants of the Souliots's names "when they moved south and joined the Greek ranks". The claim is produced without any evidence to support it in a book co-authored by two political scientists (not historians) and, as Maleschreiber himself surely knowns, having used Psimouli's book in the past, is belied by documents of the Souliots presented by Psimouli in her book on the Souliots The quote by Heraclides & Kromidha (2023) is The addition of the ' s ' at the end of their names ( Botzaris , Tzavelas ) , common to most Greek names , appeared when they moved south and joined the Greek ranks. How does this statement contradict Psimouli in essence? The 1803 note does postdate the time the Bocari clan left from Souli and lived between the Arta region and the Ionian islands and the diary. According to Psimouli Titos Jochalas notes that the Greek part of the dictionary lacks knowledge of grammatical structure of Greek, inexperience in writing and a generally limited formal education both from Marko and his relatives who assisted him. (...) Marko's education must have been based mainly in studying religious texts (...) A lack of knowledge of Greek (grammar and structure) as well as orthography is evident in the very few documents written by Souliots. and Psimouli also notes that even in 1823 he relied on sending letters in Greek to a secretary (Goudas). My point is that I don't see the contradiction with the source I added because the key point of the authors is that Souliots didn't use such surnames among each other, but they only came to be used in a Greek-speaking environment.
  • I don't disagree with using Jochalas in the article. It doesn't matter that his study was published 40 years ago, it still remains the only published, full study of the dictionary. I disagree with some of his interpretations as there are multiple other ones which he could explore - and other authors do so - but this doesn't make his work less reliable. I do think that the way he is being quoted should be more reserved because this part of the study ends with the statement Unfortunately, Botsaris did not provide us with an extensive prose text in Greek with a corresponding rendering in Albanian, so that we could more easily check syntactic phenomena of a similar nature while in pp.63-64 Jochalas notes that the Greek part of the dictionary is influenced both by the Greek spoken in Epirus and by that of Corfu which Botsaris learnt in Corfu and the Ionian Islands where the lived for many years. I think that the summary of pp.63-64 is reflected in the quote by Psimouli.
  • I will try to incorporate some parts of my comment in an edit as we can continue the discussion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Side comment: @Ashmedai 119: My disagreement with Jochalas in the quote you added is that while he's quick to draw conclusions based on specific cases, he doesn't show the same accuracy for all other cases which aren't an example of what he noted in the few he selected and he didn't note that there are even opposite cases of this syntactic phenomenon in the dictionary where Albanian has influenced the corresponding Greek translation. This is why I disagree with his statement and I would also expect a more critical analysis of the fact that many Greek loanwords in the Albanian part of the dictionary are just religious Orthodox terminology which definitely wouldn't exist in Albanian.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

      Of course these words wouldn't exist in Albanian because the todays standard Albanian language has a nucleus of few hundred local words and the rest is corrupted latin, greek etc. We are not capable of judging Yohalas, but we can easily see that there is no evidence of Souliotes speaking Albanian as "native language". Even Psimouli cannot provide any such evidence, and her work is only a Ph.D. thesis. Btw, yes, they were Albanians, in the sense that in many old european maps Epirus was named "Albania" or "Lower Albania" (Basse Albanie etc). Here is one: [24]

      But from maps to ethnicity there is a long distance. The Vlachs, the Greeks and the Gypsies of Epirus were "Albanians" too for the European armchair ethnographers. Nobody called himself "Albanian" before 1870. Skylax30 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Match ado about an "s"

An ignorant "political scientist" of Panteion University (the headquarters of the greek extreme Left) decided that the form "Marko Botsaris" is different from "Markos Botsaris" and the former is "Albanian". For those who care, here as a catalogue of surnames from Crete, showing some composite names similar to Markos+Botsaris, where the mid "s" is dropped, as it happens all over Greece: [25]

Markos+Giannakis => Markogiannakis (-akis is the usual suffix of Cretan surnames) Markos+Dimitrakis => Markodimitrakis. Markos+Michelakis (Michalis) => Markomichelakis. Similarly Markantonakis, Markomanolakis, and of course Mitsotakis who is from Crete. The same if the first part is Antonis: Antonogiannakis, Antonogiorgakis etc. The first part can be other than a name, e.g. a profession. The same: Daskalomarkakis (Teacher Markos/Markakis), Daskalantonakis etc. The wise professor (Heraklides) doesn't comment about the final "s" of "Botsaris". He seems to accept that this is "native albanian" too. In a word, ignoring simple Greek does not prevent you from teaching "political science", at least in Panteion. Skylax30 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Spurious information and citation to source of dubious reliability

On August 28th Maleschreiber added in the infobox's "native name" field a second reference so support stating the Albanian version of Bozzari's name written in the modern Albanian alphabet. This was a reference to the book Greek-Albanian Entanglements since the Nineteenth Century: A History by Alexis Heraclides and Ylli Kromidha and the relevant quote that Maleschreiber added states that "The addition of the ' s ' at the end of their names ( Botzaris , Tzavelas ) , common to most Greek names , appeared when they moved south and joined the Greek ranks".

This is an assertion that is outright false and refuted by statements and primary sources cited in Vasso Psimouli's book on "Souli and Souliots" (Σούλι και Σουλιώτες [Athens: Hestia, 2006]). There are a few instances in the chapter on the Souliotic fara ("Τύπος γενών" in the Greek original), where Psimouli states that these names are documented with the final -s. She writes, e.g., in p. 159 that we have the first mention of the name "Tzavelos in an unpublished document of 1780 (or 1786)." "Πρώτη μνεία του ονόματος "Τζαβέλος" έχουμε σε ανέκδοτο έγγραφο του 1780 (ή 1786)". In the book's appendixes one can find primary documents that contradict what Heraclides and Krommidha assert (without any evidentiary support). For example, Psimouli cites in p. 504 of her book a document of "1801 φλεβαρίου -26" (=26th of February 1801) that states "φοτο τζαβέλας γράφι" [Foto Tzavelas] (added emphasis). In the case of Marko, in her biography (Μάρκος Μπότσαρης, 2010) Psimouli cites a note that Marko wrote in 1803 which he signs using his full name as "μάρκο μπότζιαρις" (again, the emphasis is mine). Reference to the note and the relevant quote from Psimouli's biography is already contained in the article having been added by myself on August 18th. What seems rather odd is that the authors (Heraclides and Kromidha) refer to this very same book, stating in the note immediately preceding the one about the final -s [!] that "the best monograph to date [on the Souliots] is by Vaso Psimouli, Souli kai Souliotes [...], but she does not cover the years of the Greek Revolution." They did not seem to bother to explain why the differentiate themselves from what they consider to be the "best monograph to date" on the Souliots. I wrote all this in summary form in the description of my edit removing this reference from the article.

Maleschreiber has since asked, however, "How does this statement [by Heraclides and Kromidha] contradict Psimouli in essence? The 1803 note does postdate the time the Bocari clan left from Souli and lived between the Arta region and the Ionian islands and the diary." I should like to draw the attention of Maleschreiber and other readers of this discussion to the fact that Heraclides and Krommidha postdate the appearance of the final -s in Souliotic surnames with reference to the Souliots "mov[ing] south *and* join[ing] the Greek ranks". The Souliots moved south and joined the Greek ranks during the Greek Revolution, after they abandoned Souli in 1822. They definitely hadn't joined "the Greek ranks" in 1803 when Marko was writing his note. In fact, the Botzaris clan had not joined the Greek ranks, but Ali's serves and they hadn't even moved south at the time: they were installed in Voulgareli, which -after checking a map- everyone can certify is located not southwards but eastwards of Souli. Moreover, even if this was not the case, as I stated in the preceding paragraph, but as was also mentioned in the edit description with which I had removed the inclusion of this false reference to the article and to which Maleschreiber was replying, Marko's 1803 note is not the only document with a final -s cited by Psimouli, but there are other, older documents [once again, please see above], also antedating by lengthier periods of time the fall of Souli, its clans heading southwards and their "join[ing] the Greek ranks", which only happened during the Revolution.

I also want to remark that neither Alexis Heraclides nor Ylli Kromidha are historians. They are both political scientists, Kromidha having recently received his PhD with Heraclides as his supervisor and a dissertation on "The role of preventive diplomacy in the maintenance of FYROM'S [sic] Unity: the dispute between Athens and Skopje and the conflict between Albanians and Slavomacedonians" (Greek title: "Ο ρόλος της προληπτικής διπλωματίας στην διατήρηση της ενότητας της ΠΓΔΜ: η διένεξη Αθήνας–Σκοπίων (1990-1995) και η εθνοτική σύγκρουση Αλβανών-Σλαβομακεδόνων (1991-2001)"), in other words his field is contemporary international relations.

Given that (a) the authors do not accompany their assertion with any evidence, (b) they are not established authorities on this aspect of 18th/19th century history, and that (c) the author they suggest as the most reliable authority on the matter contradicts their uncorroborated claim and cites primary sources that refute them, I think that this reference should be removed from the encyclopedia.

To avoid any possible misunderstanding of my intentions, I want to stress that I am not writing in order to have the form of Marko's name transcribed in modern Albanian removed from the infobox's native name -- in fact I had inserted a reference to a reliable source that has now been (IMHO wrongly) removed. I do, however, think that we should not include references to dubious scholarly works with uncorroborated assertions that contradict primary evidence and truly reliable secondary sources by specialists, as is the case with the book by Heraclides and Kromidha. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with @Ashmedai 119. Citing non-historian scholars is a typical example of fallacious "appeal to false authority arguments". Cinadon36 12:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Mistakes

It is said in this wikipedia page that his name was Markos Botsaris. I am putting this up, because wikipedia is about the truth, and that is not true. Albanians say the last name as "Boçari", and Greeks as "Botsaris". Before we make any assumptions without evidence, we need to find out the meaning of this surname. The surname "Boçari" in Albanian is a common surname that can originate from the words "boçkë" or "boç". "Boçkë" means a small morsel, while "boç" can be used to describe a small cattle or a small animal. Hence the name 'Boçari' may be related to the word for small or diminutive animal. In Greek, "Boçari/Botsaris" may be related to the word "βόσκαρης" (vóskaris), which refers to a person who takes care of cattle in the mountains or forests. This word originates from the word "βόσκω" (vósko), which means "to herd" or "to tend cattle". Therefore, in this context, "Botsaris" can refer to a person who deals with animals in the countryside or in nature. Now, the surname can be said that it has meaning from both languages, but the surname Boçari/Botsaris is now usually only the surname of Chams, and Arvanites, and this surname is also common in some Albanian villages or small cities, including Mallakastër, but not by Greeks.

In the page of Markos Botsaris it specifically says in the first sentences that he was a Suliote, and not a Greek. In the first sentence of the page of Suliotes, it reads "The Souliotes were an Orthodox Christian Albanian tribal community in the area of Souli in Epirus from the 16th century to the beginning of the 19th century, who via their participation in the Greek War of Independence came to identify with the Greek nation." so if they identified as Greek due to their participation in the Greek war, they identified after Greece was independent and the wars stopped, but Marko Bocari was killed in a battle, well before he could identify as a Greek. Andi Atdhetari (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a particularly strong view. It's not a specialist subject area of mine. I am just replying to draw attention to the fact that this discussion has been had several times. In fact this Talk Page is basically having this discussion ad nauseam. To change the consensus, @Andi Atdhetari, I think it would be best if you addressed the issues and arguments that others have (fairly recently) discussed. Consensus can change, but we should not be having the same discussion over and over again. Perhaps a Request for Comment would be a good idea? Jtrrs0 (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Andi Atdhetari (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC on name and ethnic identity

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No open dispute at the moment. Jtrrs0 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

---

As this talk page shows, there has been an intractable debate on whether the subject should be described as Greek (or Albanian etc) and what spelling his name should have and connected questions. This RfC hopes to solve this issue. The issues are as follows:

• How should the subject of the article be named?

• Is the Albanian-language version of his name necessary or appropriate?
• What prominence should be given to the Albanian-language version of his name?

• Is it appropriate to describe him in the lead as Greek?

Jtrrs0 (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: at the moment the lead does not describe him as Greek. Also, we are supposed to follow the sources. What do the RSs say? Is he described as Greek in them? Similarly re the earlier queries, our opinions count for nothing; only our opinions of what the RSs say. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• He lived his entire life as a subject of the Ottoman Empire. This would be the primary way to identify him, but the country he was a subject or national of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that a closer is likely to pretty much ignore that unless you can cite sources backing your OR. (I am not saying that I disagree, just that neither your nor my OR counts for anything.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@John Pack Lambert: You write that Marko "lived his entire life as a subject of the Ottoman Empire." This is factually not true. He also lived as a subject of the Septinsular Republic, a subject of French rule and towards the end of his life he chose to become a citizen of the newly-founded Provisional Administration of Greece and died defending it, having been awarded the rank of a general in the revolutionary armies. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Provisional, unrecognized governments that seek to overthrow existing ones that have not successfully been removed do not negate the fact that people under such movements are usually seen as subjects of the power that be. On the issue of the Septimsular Republic, was he actually a subject/national of it, or was he a subject of the Ottoman Empire who happened to reside in that area, or is his exact status there clear?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Digging deeper, per our article the Septinsular Republic was a Republic that existed from 1800-1807 under nominal Ottoman and Russian soveignty. It replaced the two years of rule in that area by the French Republic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I think Jtrrs0 was a little fast to open an Rfc here, which is understandable considering that they are not familiar with these articles and their history. As someone who has a little background knowledge, I can say that there was essentially no open dispute at the moment, and the questions largely recycle previous and tedious discussions. The edit warring by a new editor with less than 50 edits is extremely common in articles like this; that alone does not warrant an Rfc. The editor was unaware of any previous discussions or consensus and was merely edit warring. The name in the lead reflects the standard version of the individual's name in historiography and the one that is historically attested (it has nothing to do with assumed original research etymologies, which are discussed above). Also, the person's notability is based entirely on his participation in the Greek war of independence. In any case, yesterday's incident was merely a typical edit-war that occurs every now and then in these articles. Based on that alone, an rfc was far from needed rn. Piccco (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies if the RfC was hasty! To me it appeared the dispute was a live one but in retrospect I can see you’re probably right. As you say, this isn’t really my area. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I understand that you acted in good faith. I personally didn't pay much attention to those edits, besides reverting them, since the lead name couldn't change anyway, per wp:commonname, among others. That's why I wasn't sure what could come out of this. The subject is generally particularly niche, as Ashmedai mentioned below. Piccco (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Close with no action, as there was no open dispute at the moment. As the editor admitted, this was not really their area, so the rfc short of opened by misunderstanding. Per comment, the current version is the result of long discussions made by people who actually have some knowledge on the region's history. The rfc raises previously non existent issues, like the use of the erroneous appellation "Ottoman", which is used exclusively for Turkish individuals, and does not apply to other subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

  Piccco (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jtrrs0: Somebody who has deep knowledge of the sources, in particular of Psimouli is @Maleschreiber: who worked extensively with other Wikipedia editors when writing up the Souliots page.Resnjari (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I am happy for this to close with no action. Personally, I am now quite convinced there is no dispute here. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jtrrs0:, its been a few years since i engaged with the Souliots topic area -as i've only done seldom edits here and there on English wiki in that time. After your ping, i had some time now and read through some of these articles, a lot of improvement has been made. It has the Albanian name for the said individual which to be frank is a shock for me as last decade any attempt was met with derision and so on. Some brave editing must have taken to get it to even that point. Up to you if you want to close this RFC, im ok with the present situation in the article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I am truly content to see persons who have not been previously involved in discussions about the Souliots and Marko Botsaris take an interest in this article, but I am afraid that the variety of issues upon which discussions hitherto conducted in this talk page have touched obliges an editor who has previously engaged with them and is -for whatever reason- still eager to provide his/her opinion in response to the questions cited above by Jtrrs0 to point out that the first two questions have received different answers by the same editors depending on the intended range of their answer's application. This means that more precise questions would be conducive to an orderly and successful process. However, I am honestly not entirely sure that sufficient reasons presently exist to open up this whole range of questions, as Picco notes. It seems to me that any proposed specific change to the lead or infobox (with neither of which I am perfectly in agreement for reasons that I would be happy to indicate, if required) would be best dealt with if, as Jtrrs0 suggested, the editor proposing it "addressed the issues and arguments that others have (fairly recently) discussed". Regardless, I would like to ask all participants in this discussion who are perhaps not acquainted with secondary bibliography on the Souliots and Marko Botsaris to please devote the time necessary to familiarize themselves with it, reading the books cited in the article or at least a two-part introductory article intended for a general audience written in Greek by Vasso Psimouli, an expert on the Souliots, concerning the Souliots and their involvement in the Greek revolution. Regards, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Just to say that if you think other questions/statements would be more helpful to channel discussion I am 100% happy to see them change. I don’t really have a view one way or the other; this isn’t a subject I really know anything about. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Jtrrs0, as indicated by the title of the current section, there are two areas of concern that caused the creation of this RfC. The first (that of "ethnic identity" [sic]) is dealth with in MOS:NATIONALITY, which states that "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was such when they became notable." Pace John Pack Lambert and as Piccco states, the usefulness of identifying Botzaris in the first sentence of the article's introduction as an "Ottoman" instead of a Souliot is highly doubtful and not corresponding to what is customary in secondary literature -- I would be happy to be proved wrong by someone with a more firm grasp of the bigliography than me.

  As far as the name is concerned, I think that there are three specific areas that could be discussed, if this RfC proceeds, all three relating to the inclusion of the modern Greek and modern Albanian versions of his name. Namely, should the modern Greek or / and Albanian version of the person's name be stated (a) in the parenthesis following the rendering of his name in English in the first sentence of the article's introduction, (b) in the field "name" and (c) the field "native name" of the infobox? It is currently displayed in Greek in (a) and (b) and in Albanian in (b) and (c). I have previously expressed my opinion on these specific matters in this very talk page, so I just note that with regards to (a) I had written at the time of the inclusion of Botzaris's name in modern Albanian that "The name of Botsaris himself in Albanian seems to be stated unambiguously in a number of reliable secondary sources (though there are other forms to be found -- I see Yannis Kotsonis including the variants Bozzari and Botzari, but not Boçari) and Maleschreiber was IMHO not in the wrong in adding it in the first sentence of the article's introduction". This is the reason that it should also be included in (c), Albanian being Botzaris's mother tongue, but alongside his name in Greek. As I've reminded participants in this discussion before "The infobox template states that this field should state "the person's name in their own language". [add.: not "in their mother tongue"] and given that "Marko had learnt Greek already before the age of 13, when he made a note about Souli (in Greek) per Psimouli's monograph on him. Even if one disagrees with Jochalas's intepretation that Marko and his family members had Greek as their mother tongue, the fact that (1) he had learnt Greek before adolescence (2) to such an extent that influenced the way he structured Albanian and (3) that continued to use it later in life seems to me sufficient to consider Greek as his "own language" and include the Greek version of his name in the "native name" field of the infobox.". I iterated the point later on pointing out that "This makes sense as there are bilingual individuals: the relative infobox in Joseph Stalin's article, e.g., does state two forms of his name in Georgian and Russian in the "native name" field of the infobox, despite the fact that, per the article, "[e]thnically Georgian, Stalin grew up speaking the Georgian language, and did not begin learning Russian until the age of eight or nine"." Having said that about (c), that is the "native name" field of the infobox, I must insist that, with regards to (b), as I have written in the past, "I don't understand why Markos's name in its modern Albanian form and in Greek should be written in the field "name" of the infobox and not just in the field "native name". Regards, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• When we classify people based on nationality we go based on countries with stable recognized status that have international recognition. That is the Ottoman Empire. Short bursts of occupation during a war, republics that existed for less than 10 years, or Provisional revolutionary governments may be used as ways to cliassify someone based on the exact nature of their connection with such things, but they are not normally used to determine a person's nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is why I highly questioned the necessity of an Rfc like this at a moment when no dispute existed; it attracts the attention of editors who comment in good faith, but may not have sufficient understanding of that region's history. Eventhoug it is, in fact, generally true that we follow countries when we label someone's nationality, that doesn't apply for multi-national empires, I think it's mostly for modern nation-states. Anyway, Non-Turkish subjects of the Ottoman Empire are never labelled as "Ottoman" in wikipedia, neither in bibliography. Evidently, this Rfc can open new, previously non-existent, disputes. Piccco (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  • I have added Botsaris to the People from the Ottoman Empire category. this clearly applies. He may well fit in a more specific category, but it is not fully clear to me what exactly that category would be. I have no opinion on the Greek/Albanian dispute per se, other than to say this illustrates why it is important to primarily categorize people based on nation they were a subject of. Their own ethnic identify can often be very hard to determine and often leads to protracted disputes. The issue with using the term "Ottoman" is exactly why we do not have in general categories that designate people as "Ottoman". We have categories that identify people as "from the Ottoman Empire".John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    • We have 14 sub-categories of people from the Ottoman Empire by ethnicity. These include "Albanian people from the Ottoman Empire" and "Greek people from the Ottoman Empire" (also Arab, Kurdish and 10 others). One should keep in mind that per ERGS rules a person placed in one of these 14 categories needs to also be placed in a non-ethnicity specific category under the People from the Ottoman Empire tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment, yes his Albanian name should be added under lang template just like Greek, and as mentioned above his nationality should be listed as Ottoman and not Greek/Albanian per MOS:ETHNICITY.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The Albanian language name be placed at the top of each Wikipedia article about a Souliot individual, especially if they are born in the 19th century and before, as the Albanian language was a core component of the Souliot community. Apart from scholar Vaso Psimouli, i bring to attention the study of Greek historian Lambros Baltsiotis. He did extensive fieldwork and research during the 2000s on the Albanian speaking population still present in Thesprotia and the wider area from where the Souliots originated from. Writing about the speech of the region, Baltsiotis states in direct relation to the Souliots that p.43 [26]: "Παρόλο που οι παραπάνω επισημάνσεις σε μεγάλο βαθμό απηχούν πολιτικές θέσεις των συντακτών, η γλωσσική μετατόπιση προς τα ελληνικά σε χριστιανικούς αλλά ακόμη και μουσουλμανικούς πληθυσμούς, ισχύει όπως είδαμε τόσο στην περιφέρεια της αλβανόφωνης περιοχής όσο και σε μερικές κωμοπόλεις και πόλεις. Αντίθετα, το μεγαλύτερο τμήμα του αλβανόφωνου πληθυσμού, χριστιανικού και μουσουλμανικού, μιλούσε και κατανοούσε μόνο αλβανικά σε όλη τη διάρκεια του 19ου αιώνα. Η πραγματικότητα αυτή, που άλλωστε επιβεβαιώνεται από προσεκτικούς περιηγητές, συσκοτίζεται με αφορμή την υποτιθέμενη διγλωσσία των Σουλιωτών. Έτσι, παρά το γεγονός ότι η Ψιμούλη αναφέρεται εξαντλητικά στην αλβανοφωνία των Σουλιωτών, υπερτονίζει τη γνώση της ελληνικής από τους Σουλιώτες βασισμένη στα συμπεράσματα του Τίτου Γιοχάλα σε σχέση με το «δίγλωσσο λεξικό» του Μάρκου Μπότσαρη. Όπως έχει όμως αποδειχθεί, τα συμπεράσματα αυτά εδράζονται σε εντελώς λανθασμένη βάση." In essence Baltsiotis writes that throughout the 19th century most of the Muslim and Christian Albanian speaking population of the area spoke and understood only Albanian, a reality confirmed carefully by travellers of the day. Baltsiotis says that Psimouli has exhaustively referred to the Albanian language of the Souliots, and that the Souliots knowledge of Greek has been overemphasised by Psimouli who cites Tito Yochalas conclusion on Marko Botsaris' bilingual dictionary. Within the wider context, in sum Baltsiotis writes that such conclusions about Greek speech and the Souliots are based on a completely wrong basis. Hope it helps. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I might be worth noting that Baltsiotis has made some rather extreme claims regarding aspects of Greek history, some of which were seen with skepticism by other historians, and even diverged from the historiographic consensus. Nevertheless, I'm not at all interested in discussing these topics right now. I only wanted to point out that all of the questions that are brought up now in this rfc have already been discussed in detail and there has been a somewhat long period when things were generally quite in this article. This is why I preferred not to answer the questions and instead supported closure (as you may have seen above) because important changes would certainly be met with reactions and would re-open those large disputes. Seeing that prior to the rfc none of the major editors who specialize in the region's history showed interest in editing this article, closure appeared the best solution to me now. Best Piccco (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Baltsiotis has extensively done archival research and field work regarding the topic of Albanian speaking people in what is now modern Greece for more than 2 decades. He has worked with other Greek scholars on the topic and has been cited in various academic works, both Greek and in Western academia. He also teaches at Panteion University as an assistant professor. His scholarly works fit the parameters of WP:RELIABLE. Its best to avoid what could be interpreted as insinuations, unless there is backing via reliable sources that question Baltisotis' scholarship. Thanks.Resnjari (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It is true that Baltsiotis enjoys the bonam fidem of someone who has conducted his scholarly work in a manner that is not tainted with unprofessional methods, and this includes his yet unpublished doctoral dissertation to which Rensjari refers us. Of course, the same stands for Psimouli and her writings. I am wondering if Resnjari has read the work to which Baltsiotis refers his dissertation's readers concerning the "entirely erroneous basis" of Jochalas's conclusions. The reason I am asking is that the main finding of the piece that Baltsiotis refers his readers is that the Romaic/Greek entries in Botzaris's Romaic[Greek]-Arvanitic[Albanian] dictionary were not produced by himself at will, but match [and derive from] the entries of another dictionary in Italian. Unfortunately, Baltsiotis does not refer to the speficic claims that (in his view) Psimouli erroneously extracts from Jochalas's ignorance of this piece of information concerning the origin of the entries of Botzaris's dictionary. Could someone please explain how s/he understands it? Moreover, even though I do not have Psimouli's works at my side right now, I cannot remember her basing her remarks on the bilingualism of the Souliots from the 18th century onwards on Jochalas's edition of Botzaris's dictionary -- or at least not exclusively on it, as I am quite sure in my recollection that in the relevant section of her book (about the language of the Souliots) she also discusses William Martin Leake's remarks on the Souliots knowing Greek, private contracts made by/for the use of Souliots in Greek and Foto Tzavellas's personal diary, written in Greek, while in Marko Botzaris's biography she presents his personal remembrance note he made about the siege of Souli in Greek in 1803 (already cited in this article). Those with the book(s) at hand can check the veracity of what I write themselves. I would also like to remind that the existence of Albanian-Greek bilingualism among the Souliots is not supported only by Psimouli but also by other scholars, among whom Noel Malcolm, who -- as, I suppose, Resnjari and other editors who have edited articles about Albania-related subjects already know -- has been notoriously accused of displaying a pro-Albanian bias in his historical writings and postulates that this state of linguistic affairs existed back in the early 17th century (see his Rebels, Believers, Survivors: Studies in the History of the Albanians, p. 99: "Historic local place-names suggest that the Souliots were originally Albanian-speaking; in this period many were probably bilingual in Albanian and Greek", written relating to Angela, the "last Albanian to appear in the Sicilian [Inquisition] records" in 1611). Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I bring up Baltsiotis because of nearly everyone in the field, he has done the most extensive research in (and on) the region, not only of the archives, and of other scholars works (whether they be Albanian or Greek) to see if their content stacks up, but also fieldwork about Albanian speaking people in Thesprotia and the surrounding area. His conclusions are based upon that. Neither Yochalas, Psimouli, nor Malcolm has come close (mainly doing only archival, focusing on certain aspects) to doing both ends (archival and fieldwork). What is not in dispute is that the Albanian language was core to the Souliot community until their forced departure from Souli in the early 1800s. The area of contention is only when Greek began being used by them and what circumstances caused it or how wide its range was among the community at various points in time. As for calling a academic "pro" this group or that, i can only go by what reputable academics have said through examinations/critiques of their fellow colleagues and their works. If they have come to those conclusions and used such terms (and explained why), i would only use it if there was need within the discussion like this and cite the source. Otherwise its off topic and again veering into insinuation territory.Resnjari (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not mean to insinuate anything other than what I clearly stated in my previous message, i.e. that Souliot bilingualism is not a position only held by Vaso Psimouli, but by other scholars, including Noel Malcolm, who cannot be accused as harboring a bias disfavouring Albanian national historiography -- on the accusations I mentioned it would suffice to check the article about him in this very encyclopedia. Moreover, while there is indeed no dispute about the Souliots being Albanian-speakers, it is not true that, when it comes to the Souliots, Baltsiotis "has done the most extensive research", because, as one can confirm by checking his doctoral dissertation on the Muslim Cham Albanians, which contains scant references to the Souliots (13 in total), he has not researched any 18th century archives that Psimouli has (naturally) used in her work, most importantly, the (at the time still unpublished) Ali Pasha paper, lying at the Gennadius, for which Baltsiotis refers to Psimouli's monograph. Besides, fieldwork (in the anthropological sense) in Thesprotia is relatively unimportant with regards to the Souliots, given that they left the area in 1822 never to return again (and I can see no point where Baltsiotis refers to fieldwork as proof of any of the scant references about the Souliots). In any case, I remind that, as I have written above, Psimouli's book has been described "the best monograph to date" on the Souliots and I repeat that Psimouli's statement about the use of Greek by the Souliots from the late eighteenth century onward is not relying only on the Botzaris dictionary, but also on "relative reports" (including the one by William Martin Leake) and "extensive written Souliot texts, such as the diary of Foto Tzavellas" (Σούλι και Σουλιώτες (Αθήνα: Εστία, 2006), p. 216) and in the case of Marko Bozzaris, may I add, once again, his continued use of Greek as evidenced in his autographs written in Greek from when he was 13 years old until the last years of his life. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Among those scholars there no denial that the Souliots had bilingualism. What Baltsiotis notes is that Psimouli refers to the Souliots using the Albanian language extensively, and that their use of Greek is mainly reliant on what Yochalas concludes. He said that Psimoulis overemphasised the part about Souliots knowledge of Greek, in lieu of his research on the Orthodox Albanian speaking element in Thesprotia and surrounding region and their use of Greek which was minimal to near absent until becoming part of Greece (apart from those that underwent language shift in the Tsarkovitsa zone – and that was due in part to the departure of the Souliots and repopulation of Souli with Greek speakers which geographically wedged Albanian speakers). Baltsiotis spends over 70 pages discussing the language and geography and late Ottoman era situation before the rest of the PHD discusses the interwar period. Hence why i cited Baltsiotis for the basis of my position. I still stand by Baltsiotis without discounting Psimoulis (which I never did). My point for this discussion is that there is a case that can be made for the Albanian name to have equal standing with the Greek form at the top of the article for Souliot individuals. If it becomes a proper RFC that would be my stance. On Malcolm, those critiques are to do with Kosovo (which is not part of this discussion). In general, if you think there are concerns/problems with a particular scholar i wouldn't invoke them as a source for this discussion.Resnjari (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2024 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

2A02:1388:414F:5860:8DA5:1CCA:4D5F:447 (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes Markos Bocaris was a Greek Hero fought against Ottomans . And you say no vandalism ? You have already vandalized it 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

MARKOS BOCARIS WAS AND STILL IS A GREEK HERO . STOP GeorgiaApollonia (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Change Markos Bocaris ethnic group

Markos bocaris was Greek not Albanian 79.103.211.106 (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)